 Here you go. Supervisor Leopold. Here. Friend. Supervisor Friend. Coonerty. Let's check and make sure we have audio. Do we have audio of the team's participants? Try again. Supervisor Friend. Here. Supervisor Coonerty. Here. Supervisor McPherson. Chairman Caput. There's Bruce, I see Bruce. Supervisor McPherson. I see you. Thank you. Caput, thank you. Thank you. Okay. And we'll go to the woman of silence. Does anybody have anything to say other than, okay. Chair, I would like to say just two things. One is this past week we lost Taken Spicer who worked for the Regional Transportation Commission as well as the Santa Cruz Transportation Management Agency and was Executive Director of Temple Bethel was a great community member, cared a lot about the community, her friends and family. And it's a great loss that we lost her last Friday. Also down in Salinas, the Mayor Joe Gunter passed away unexpectedly. And I think we should remember both of them as we do our moment of silence. Okay. Okay. So we'll have a moment of silence and prayer and followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. And if we have any revisions, Mr. Palacios, are there any late changes or additions to the agenda? Yes, Chair Caput. There are a number of revisions on the regular agenda. Item eight, there's additional materials of revised attachment A, packet pages 253 and 256. Also a revised attachment D, packet page 264. On item number nine, there's a correction. The item should read public hearing to consider and adopt ordinance to extend the moratorium on the issuance of a new vacation rental permits as outlined in the memorandum of County Council. There's also a revised memo, packet page 272. On item number 10, there's additional materials, revised attachment A, packet page 288. There's also revised attachment B, packet pages 300 and 301. On item number 11, staff request this item be deleted, which is packet page 342. There's an agenda on the regular agenda. Item 11.1, consider final reappointments to specified at-large positions on the workforce development board. Nominations accepted through June 16th, 2020, the board memo print out. That concludes the additions and corrections to the agenda. Okay. Do any board members wish to pull consent items from the regular agenda? I do not. Okay. And public comment, next is the opportunity for members of the public to address the board on topics that are on today's agenda, consent items, closed session agenda, and topics that are not on the agenda, but are within the jurisdiction of the board. If you cannot stay later to speak on the regular agenda items, you may address those items at this time. You have three minutes and that'll be fine. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Carol Bjorn. Thank you for the chance to speak. So on June 18th, the California Department of Health issued this face covering guidance. This guidance is very straightforward and it's three pages, very simple. And this is from the California Department of Health. This was on June 18th. Six days later, our local health officer reissued her face covering order for our county. It's very detailed, there's a lot of words, it's five pages. My question is, why does our local health officer, why did we reissue guidelines when the state had literally six days earlier given us very easy to follow guidelines? Why is the necessity to be so detail oriented for our county? Further, if you look at paragraph two of this order from our local health officer, in the middle of paragraph two, it says, when worn properly, face coverings have the potential to slow the spread of the virus. Okay, it says potential. So this order is based on potential. When you look up the word potential in a dictionary, it says existing impossibility. So this order is based on something that may exist in possibility. Now compare and contrast that to the Ventura County Public Health. They did a very detailed report going through pros and cons of face coverings. This is a multiple page report. They concluded that there was no incontrovertible, compelling, or even a preponderance of evidence to support an order to wear a face cloth mask in the community, okay? Further, and this is an email I sent you yesterday. I sent this to you yesterday. Okay, lastly, if you look at people, doctors, neurosurgeons, Dr. Russell Blalock, I sent this to you yesterday. Everybody can find us online. It's an article that says, face masks pose serious risk to the healthy. You guys need to read this, okay? It says, Dr. Blalock warns that not only do face masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick, but they create serious health risks to the wearer, okay? And then he goes on further in his article. He says, as for scientific support for the use of a face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed concluded that none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask, respirator use, and protection against influenza. Okay, so compare that, a review of the literature to this, which the whole order is around a potential, a possibility. Why? Why? This is ridiculous. I wanna ask the board, please, put this on the agenda today. Vote on it today. Eliminate the local order. Good morning, board. I wanna introduce myself. I'm the union representative for the bus drivers, paracours drivers and lift line. And we're here today because of your obligation to the community. So as of tomorrow, Metro proposed to increase the bus ridership capacities to an unsafe level where social distancing like this is gonna be impossible. Right now we have a limit of eight people per bus, which allows six feet in between each person and increase in the ridership to double, we'll put a seat in between each person like this. And we're asking for you to step up because Metro's relying on statistics that are unreliable. They're using statistics that were before June 15th when we had free fares, when we had a lot of joy riders getting on our buses. They're also using statistics when only half of the operators were working and not as much backup service was being provided. As of June 25th, all of the bus operators have came back. So there's so much hidden backup service that's out there in the community. And even though it's reported on paper that we have a pass up, they're getting picked up from the backup almost immediately or if not, we dispatch them right away. And we've advocated for a regular weekday schedule. So there's more consistency with the schedule or the schedule is actually there for you to see. And they did propose to put barriers between each seat to make it safe, to increase the ridership level, to have people sit in the front and back of each other. But they did admit those are not gonna be put up for a couple or more months. And we are entertaining that barrier, but we want them to wait until then. But they wanna impose this hazard as conditioned on us as of tomorrow. And they also went on record saying if any driver refuses to pick up more than eight people we could be terminated for insubordination. So that's the situation we're in place today. We care about the public. Those are our riders. We built relationships with them. Our family rides the bus. And our ridership ranges from 16 year olds that just got their first job to elderly that don't have other means for transportation. So they will be forced in these hazardous conditions. They don't have an option to step off the bus. And I wanna remind you, our former driver at Metro got the coronavirus. He was the second death in this county while working as a bus driver at UCSC. And all of our neighboring transit agencies, VTA, MST, Sacramento, San Francisco, Oakland, all of them are keeping the safe capacity limits. And their explanation is because they want to follow the state guidance for social distancing, as you see here today. And so we have the resources to provide the necessary service. There's no need to increase the ridership levels until we get those barriers to make it a little safer. There's no rush. You know, the beaches are opening up. Cases are going up. We're only gonna get more people outside of our community coming in. So the argument of our county doing so well is irrelevant because now more people are gonna be coming in and we gotta be ready for that. And unless we wanna start taking a step backwards and be like the MTA drivers out in New York where they didn't put any capacity limits, we will be done. So we're asking for you to step up and reach out to the CEO and to the Metro board and have them stop this in time. Thanks a lot. Good morning, Santa Cruz supervisors and the public at large. My name is James Ewing Whitman. I got to sleep until 430 this morning and I started doing some research on my favorite researcher and that's actually myself. So I'm not quite sure what to say. I looked on this. I thought I wanted to comment on number 40 but that's not the one I wanted to comment on. So my name is James Ewing Whitman and I am my favorite researcher. If you type in my full name, space, colon and whatever title you want, you'll come up with probably 2,500 at least articles. So I'm just gonna read something that I published on June 23rd, 2020. Santa Cruz County Local Agenda 21, final draft, June 3rd, 1997. March of 1993, the Board of Supervisors endorsed a 10 to 21 proposal. And in January 1994, officially approved the process and agreed to seriously consider the document as a policy guide. This is from your guys' published information. This is public information. Addressing the needs, comment to all. Quote, our future really is in our hands. Gene Norwood, coordinator and editor. So S-E-E-D, social environmental economic development. How does this relate to what's going on right now? It relates to what's going on right now in a really nasty, devious way. I have spoken before about what happens to any mammal. When you reduce the oxygen, you increase that mammal's, you decrease the acidic level of the mammal's blood, which creates all kinds of illness. So what are these masks doing? They're a way to control us. And it's just, it's really unfortunate that this stuff is going on. And since I've probably stood in front of these councils in the past year at least 50 times, and I've at least spoken 80 times, all those things are recorded. I think there's few individuals in this county can say that they've engaged with law enforcement more than that in the last year. Let me tell you about my engagement with law enforcement on Saturday night at Twin Lakes. That gentleman came up and I decided, I'm like, hey, I'll talk to him. Somebody wanted to video that. I'm like, I don't need to be videotaped doing that stuff. I've engaged with law enforcement more than a hundred times in the past year. And the only people videotaping me are the law enforcement. Words out of that gentleman's mouth where we're all tired of the masks. Well, I think these men and women, the law enforcement and Santa Cruz, they really need to be thanked for all the good things that they are doing. And we as individual citizens have a lot more rights than they do because they didn't make the laws that they're enforcing. So I guess I'm gonna release the rest of my time. I could say any of a bunch of things, but I'm just not. I'm just glad to still be able to stand before you because I don't think there's many other places where individual citizens can stand in front of their electorate leadership. So thank you very much. You're welcome. Good morning, Chair Caput and members of the board. I'm Nicole Coburn, Assistant CAO. And I would like to provide just a very brief update on the 2020 census. As you know, results from the 2020 census will guide annual spending on schools, hospitals, emergency services, roads, and much more. By filling out the census, we are shaping the future of our community. Santa Cruz County is currently at a response rate of 65.9%, which exceeds the state and national response rates. While this is a great accomplishment, we know with your help, we can do better. To aid in this effort, we are launching an awareness campaign to help grow our response rate by 10% in 30 days. To kick off this effort, Santa Cruz County hosted a state and nationally recognized chalk party where local residents and 12 artists participated in creating chalk art, highlighting the census during the month of June. We encourage you to take a look at the Chalk Party Photo Gallery online at www.SantaCruiseCountyCounts.us. During the month of July in partnership with the Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter, we are promoting the census through pets for people. This campaign will highlight and engage community members and their positively awesome pets to remind everyone that there's still time to take the census. Share a photo or video of your pet reminding humans to fill out the census. We also wanna let you know that the census is hiring. The US Census Bureau currently has enumerator positions available in Santa Cruz County and anyone who's interested can apply for a census job at 2020census.gov forward slash jobs. Finally, we want to recognize Joseph Hawkins at the Community Action Board. He's an outgoing assistant director of the 2020 Census Project. Joseph has been with the project from the beginning and has been full of enthusiasm and ideas for achieving a complete count. We sincerely thank him for his contributions and wish him well as he embarks on a new adventure. Thank you for this opportunity to provide an update and please follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter for the latest news and information. Good morning supervisors. Mr. Kaput, I suppose how to say that and Mr. Leopold, it's good to see you. I wish that Bruce McPherson, Ryan Coonerty and Zach Friend were also here. My name is Elise Kasby. I work to be a community organizer in the community, especially for people of low income. And I'm here today to speak about the move, supposedly ordered by Alex Clifford and management at the Metro and I think also the Metro Board to increase the ridership capacity on the buses. My understanding is it's gonna go from eight to 15. James Sandoval, the leader of the drivers union already spoke here this morning. What I wanna talk about today is the inconsistency of that order with the county sheltering in place policy. Now I have my own personal issues with the sheltering in place policy. I definitely believe in the virility of the COVID-19 virus. However, I am concerned about abuse of power in times of national emergency. Now I wanna point out that Alex Clifford had a very, very motley history. And that's putting it extremely nicely in terms of what he did to a public transportation company in Illinois. So I continue to question why you brought this person and for my own self, the answer that I continually come to is that he is a robber baron type of CEO. He wants to eliminate drivers, attack the union. He does not care about poor people, et cetera, et cetera. I feel the same way about Cynthia Matthews. Many people don't know her actual history and how she votes because we don't have independent news journalism in Santa Cruz. We have the good times and the Sentinel who try to look objective but they are on the side of the wealthy and the elites and those in favor of gentrification. So to go back to the inconsistency, this increased ridership on the buses while keeping the weekend schedule, it absolutely is I believe an attempt to put the drivers in a position that's uncomfortable and it looks like they are not doing their jobs. I've seen misinformation already that Alex gave about a letter from a county health official. I wish I knew her name. James in his letter to you contradicted Alex and said that he misrepresented what this health official said. That's a problem. His data on pass-ups are a problem that drivers are doing everything. We can keep the eight person limit on the bus, increase the buses through the backup system. James Sandoval has won an award that recognizes his creative problem solving to keep drivers in their jobs. So I just want to say please, if nothing else, obey your own edicts, obey your own laws and be consistent and show your support for the public south and the drivers jobs. Thank you very much. Hello, hi, my name is Dr. Gabriel Russo and I want to speak about the masks, the imposition of the masks, where are constitutional rights in this matter? Governor Newsom declared recently, science shows that face coverings and mask work, they're critical to keeping those who are around you safe, keeping businesses open and restarting our economy. This is a lie. There's no science to back this up and the WHO and the CDC both admitted on their websites that WHO says the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and their potential benefits and harms to consider. The use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection. The CDC on the website says no significant reduction in transmission with use of face masks. There is no evidence and they're saying the same thing, masks don't protect us. So what is this really about? California has no law mandating in masks. Governor Newsom doesn't have the authority to mandate masks nor does the mayor. Please wear your mask, please. Now, there's no California law. What about the constitution of California that you have committed to preserving our constitutional rights? That's not happening here. Well, the public order was issued a while ago but this is all a charade. You know why I call it a charade? It's a scam because- Wear your mask. I can't talk with the mask. The reason why it's a charade is that this, where is it? This was all planned out long ago. In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation wrote a paper called The Lock Step. And that outlines just what's happening now, including wearing masks, conditioning us, making us comply, leading to forced vaccinations, digital cash, doing away with cash, on and on and on. Event 201 that Bill Gates hosted at the John Hopkins University, same thing, they play out this whole scenario. They've planned this a long time ago. This didn't just happen. My partner's daughter, she's scared for her life. She's afraid of the virus. She doesn't understand the kids are this miniscule. The death rate is so low compared to what started the whole thing that made us lockdown. Nowhere near the projections, but why are we still doing that was two weeks we were gonna lockdown to just flatten the curve? What is it now? People's businesses are being lost. People's livelihoods are being taken away. What the effects of the lockdown is much worse than any of the viruses would be. We get the flu every year that people die from. It's a part of life. There's risk in life. What about our constitutional rights and being able to live a life? Are we, is that being taken away from us? Do you know about this agenda? That's what's happening here. Thank you. Thank you. Hello everybody, my name is Johnny. I'm a bus operator for Santa Cruz Metro and I'm here to address a few things, topics. Excuse me if I'm jumping all over the place here, but I wanna address the current working situation with the eight passenger load. I wanna tell the public that the situation your drivers were in during the current pandemic. I wanna also address the three months we were put in that we were put into place for split. Group A being working two weeks and Group B on standby, which reported when called. We currently are in full manpower as of the 25th of this month, just recently. It's been about one week. Things have changed a bit big time. No passengers have been left behind. If you think your numbers only reflect prior to the manpower during the Group A and B split. Currently, all of our resources at this time is at full power. Now you guys know about passengers being left behind, but immediately as James addressed, we immediately send a driver to the stop and pick them up so that doesn't reflect on the numbers of the management. We should be here discussing the plan and keeping drivers and public safe and letting the public know every move as a whole. We need unity and I feel it's not at this time. The current situations with drivers and management imposing 50% increase in passenger load is wrong. You would be upset if you were in my shoes and I speak for all my drivers. If you increase or should I say force the load on us, it becomes an extreme hazard, nothing work, when nothing is worth risking. So with that being said, I would like to say if I'm risking my life, then I should consider the hazard and we should all be commended by hazard pay. So I just wanna address, drivers should have a say on this and us of the, all of us drivers are ready to sit down with the board and discuss and let the public know where we're coming from. And it's important to let the public know how we operate and keep them informed. So I'm upset about it and drivers are upset about it and we don't agree with it at all. So hopefully we can come to an agreement and keeping us all safe from this COVID because it is a life-threatening situation. And yeah, I don't see why this should be a joke at all. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Hi, my name is Catherine. I'm a parent and a citizen here in Santa Cruz and I am here to strongly oppose the mask order. I have a seven-year-old child and what I understand based on the science is that masks are actually not good for our health. I feel anxiety when I wear my mask because it limits the oxygen I get into my blood and it prevents me from excreting the carbon dioxide that I need to stay healthy. Expecting that young children who run around and come into contact with all sorts of germs which ultimately boost their immunity, we're putting them at, it's harmful. Governor Newsom states that science, even though he says limited science but it's science that these masks actually do anything, they don't. These are just to make everybody feel better and it's a joke. It's a joke if you read the science. In fact, even studies suggest that the N95 masks not suggest, they noted that even physicians had dizziness, headaches, and even their decision-making was hampered by the use of N95 masks. Breathing is critical to life and at this point, the CDC estimates that the fatality rate for the coronavirus is 0.26%. Does that warrant these sorts of restrictions? It makes absolutely no sense to me. The other thing is with schools, I can't even believe we're starting to talk about the possibility of sending our children back to school with masks and social distancing. In a recent study, or not recent but more recent, they found 21 facial expressions can be identified by computers. Nonverbal communication is one of the main ways we as a community and society and as a sender and the receiver of messages communicate. Masks mar our communication. And in school, it makes absolutely no sense that we would have children and teachers who are there to learn and to communicate, to wear these restrictive, ridiculous, no science behind cloth masks. I'm totally against it. Please review the science that does exist. There are resources out there. You are in control of making really important decisions and giving guidelines. Base it on science. Thank you. Good morning. So I wanna talk about this order also and I also wanna mention the definition of a bully. The definition of a bully is someone who seeks to intimidate or coerce. So why are we bullying parents and forcing children over the age of three to wear face masks under the threat of fines and imprisonment? Why are we doing this? The Gavin Newsom's directive is only guidance. We've checked this out with an attorney. It is not legally binding. Why are we making this order? Why have you allowed Dr. Newell to make this order which threatens the community? Why is that necessary? So Dr. Newell said in her press conference, this may seem stringent but has proven to be manageable in other countries around the world. We believe we can work with our children. Really? Manageable? Work with our children? Wow, I mean, so here's the thing. What about the lost smiles has just been talked about? Can you see children playing on a playground that can't smile at each other? And the emotional isolation, the confusion that they'll feel about this, the lack of oxygen, suffocation. What about the two boys who died in gym class in China because they were forced to wear face masks while exercising? What about that? So the other day at the farmer's market, I watched a little girl who was wearing a face mask, watching other children who were not playing, having fun. I saw her touch her mask and there was a deep, profound sadness in her eyes which was heartbreaking. I felt that. So I just wanna ask you if you're aware of what you're doing, that you have the power to cancel this order, to go with the state's orders. The state's not the state's order. Guidance, it's only guidance. Allow that. Follow the state's guidance. Don't be a bully. We don't have to do that. Also the state guidance includes many thoughtful exemptions which are not included in our order. Some of these exemptions are for mental health conditions. People with PTSD who feel panic attacks when they wear these. Some of these people work in our businesses. And also for people who are communicating with someone who is at hearing impaired who needs to read lips in order to hear. We don't have that in our order. People, exemption for people working outdoors. Think of the farm workers in fields wearing masks, really? And wearing a face shield is allowed in the state. Guidance for employees as an alternative. So I ask you for your leadership, please. Chair, I'd remind you that you must have your nose and your mouth covered by your mask. So please everyone have your nose and your mouth covered by your mask. If you don't have your nose, you can't speak. So have to cover your nose. Thank you. I am wondering if you all are aware of the lawsuit that's happening in Massachusetts right now. There's currently a lawsuit against the governor of Massachusetts. I really encourage you all to look into this because it will actually come to California. It will go to every single state government who has used their overreaching power of emergency. Of the state of emergency to cause shutdowns. I do wanna remind you too that you can act independently and always have had the right and the will to do so. And there are counties throughout California that have board of supervisors that are acting independently. And I really liked what Satya said because you do have that power to think independently instead of just going with the flow of the governor. And actually even making it worse, as Satya said. So I'm really very concerned about the state of this county and what's occurring under the governor's guidelines as well as the county guidelines. And it's my belief in understanding the state of emergency never existed. And I think if that's what's happening in Massachusetts and I think if you dig deeper, you will find that to be the case. So it has the potential, this lawsuit, I won't go into that anymore. I'm encouraging you now to take light of this and do your own due diligence in this regard and do not take guidance from the governor because you will be complicit in the illegal actions that will befall him. And I do believe that will happen because of unlawfully restricting the citizens from their freedom of choice and their health, business school, churches, and more. And I'm just gonna give you a few examples of counties that have acted independently. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office will not be enforcing the statewide order Governor Gavin Newsom announced Thursday, requiring masks and face coverings in public. In a statement Friday, the Sheriff's Office recommended people should be exercising safe practices during this, including wearing masks, but it said it would be inappropriately, inappropriate to criminally enforce the governor's order due to the minor nature of the offense. So as I sit here being told to pull my mask over my nose, I just want you to hear what I just said there. The Placer County Sheriff's Office will not be enforcing Newsom's order according to spokeswoman Angela Masalem. We do hope people will take the rule to heart, but we have no interest in arresting or penalizing people who aren't wearing masks in any way, she said. This is not a police issue, the Placerville Police Department wrote. The mask order as issued Thursday by Newsom and the State Department of Health does not list or recommend any criminal penalties or enforcement protocols for violators, which is good. I mean, there is no statutory law. Some agencies have indicated they will likely not be enforcing Newsom's new order, such as Roseville Police Department. No law enforcement agency wants to be responsible for shutting down people. So there you go. Thank you very much. Marilyn Garrett, it's really hard to give credibility to health officials who are forcing unhealthy policies in many ways, including vaccines, which are part of this. You've just heard again of the unhealthy consequences of wearing masks and the difference between guidelines and mandates, yet we're told here, you have to wear a mask. One wonders all of the real emergencies that are not being focused upon. And I wanna just bring up one. This is from Arthur Fersenberg on 5gspaceappeal.org speaking about all these satellites that have been launched for SpaceX and by Elon Musk, et cetera. And he says, the threat to live comes from the fact that all of these satellites are located in the ionosphere. The ionosphere is a source of high voltage that controls the global electric circuit, which in turn provides the light, the energy for life. And he describes more in detail in his article, A Planetary Emergency. I suggest you check out 5gspaceappeal.org. All life is being threatened by 5G. Wireless microwaves. And I brought this detector of microwave radiation many times, it's way up to the top. I've also given you articles showing the blood abnormalities, not the blood not carrying oxygen as it should, just from these exposures to the wireless radiation. I'd also like to perfectly address your closed session where I understand the County Administrative Officer is due for a higher salary. I vote no confidence in the County Administrative Officer who orchestrated the censorship of consent agenda items so that the public can no longer address these items. And one wonders, what does the county not brought to the public eye by such censorship? Not good in a democracy. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Joshua Chalice and I am a bus operator for Santa Cruz Metro Transit District. And I'm here to voice my concerns about the increase of passenger loads and the lack of regard for the safety of the operators, their families and this community. By allowing more riders, there is an increased potential for transmission of this virus. As described in the Cal OSHA state guidelines for public transit, we must implement measures to ensure physical distancing of at least six feet between transit operators and passengers, as well as reduce maximum occupancy to support physical distancing. This is impossible with more than eight people on board. The Metro's plan directly violates these clear guidelines. This situation will further push the limits of our quality of life and service. Metro employees, their families and riders hang in the balance of these hasty decisions made from the comfort and safety of their homes. It is time to recognize they are not the ones on the front lines and consider that maybe we have some insight on how our job works. What might seem like a convenient solution will ultimately create an unsafe environment. If you look on the Facebook thread posted by Santa Cruz Metro Transit District about upping the passenger load, you can see the comments against it from many members of this community. I'm here to speak in regard for my loved ones, fellow drivers and most importantly our riders because they are more than just passengers to us. Thank you. Hello. Members of the Board of Supervisors, my name is Talle Lafay Rosalini. I've lived in Santa Cruz County since 1988 and have been working gathering signatures for the initiatives to get on the ballot for almost 20 years now. I am here today to urge you, the members of this body and all the citizens and anyone in Santa Cruz County and beyond to go online on London Real, R-E-A-L, London Real and you just sign in with your email, check a box as terms and conditions and click subscribe, it's free. I've been doing this for more than three months and I've listened to among 600 speakers. There are about 10 that are phenomenal and I begin with Zach Bush, MD. My father was a doctor, MD, a surgeon who saved the life of a woman the last day of his life. My mom was a nurse, RN, who raised us four kids and volunteered the whole time. Same time at the Seattle Children's Hospital. So here we go. Zach Bush is saying on London Real, our COVID-19 assumptions are wrong. Why social distancing and vaccines will make the pandemic worse? He is a triple board certified physician specializing in internal medicine, endocrinology and hospice care. He's internationally recognized educator and his passion for education reaches many across many disciplines including the role of soil and water disciplines in ecosystems, in human genomics, immunity and gut brain health. I'm having trouble speaking because this mask, this mask thing is crazy, it's insanity. He calls for a radical departure from chemical farming and pharmacy. So he says we created a tyranny of fear and paranoia and these deaths are predictable. He in fact predicted the Hubei province disaster two or three years ago. I also urge you to check out Sherry Tenpenny, MD, Judy Mikovits, PhD author of Plague of Corruption about the CDC and Fauci. Dolores Cahill, Rashid Butar, part one and part two. He's beyond an MD, a DO. He did a hundred doctors on his second panel. From around the world, you gotta see this. Rashid Butar, Andrew Kaufman, MD, Bruce Lipton, MD, Bobby Kennedy, Jr. And Andrew Wakefield and David Ike last. Part ones, two, three and four. Thank you. Londonreal.com.tv. Good morning, am I on? Good morning, Ellie Black, lifetime resident of Santa Cruz. So here we are again. And I feel like every time I come back here, things are just getting more and more, twilight zone. So imagine this, I would say most people who are watching this and in this room right now are parents or grandparents or perhaps great grandparents. So can you imagine getting a phone call from your child's school, letting you know that your child had passed out during PE class and could not be resuscitated? And then find out that a week later, this happened to another child because they're wearing a mask while exercising? Just think about that for a second. Imagine getting that phone call. That this is even a possibility. Now granted, so far to my knowledge, autopsies have not been done as to why these two children died. But the fact of the matter was that they were exercising while wearing masks. So if there's even a possibility that we're killing our children, why are we not investigating this with every ounce of our ability to do so? How is this even a question? Are we gonna go down in history as having been the generation that killed our children for stupid reasons that aren't even scientifically valid? This is crazy, people. This really is crazy. Another thing that's crazy, bars being open until midnight. Not 2 a.m. midnight. Why is that? The COVID virus comes out at midnight? Seriously, people? This is not about health. This is about control. This is about saying, oh, you can go to the bars, but only until we say you can go to the bars. This is not about the COVID virus coming out at midnight. Oh my God, think about it. Why would the bars close at midnight instead of 2 o'clock? No reason whatsoever. There's no medical reason at all for that. So these questions are very important. Why is this all being done? The other thing I wanna bring up is as we saw earlier today outside this room, there are many, and inside this room, there are many people who are genuinely very, very fearful for their health right now. This cannot be brushed aside. This cannot be ignored. We need to respect the fact that there are people who are genuinely afraid for their lives at this time. So we need to open the debate. We need to have actual debates between medical professionals, not politicians, medical professionals. And we need to have these public discussions so that the public can be informed as to why some of these people have no fear whatsoever. We're hugging each other. And other people are terrified. Thank you very much. Namaste. I recognize the spirit of God within us all. Thank you for letting me participate, masked as I am. I have lived in Santa Cruz County for over 50 years. And in all those periods of time, I have been on various sides of the fence in terms of the political nature of the situations going on. And right now I find myself in a position of true insanity where the society, as we have known it, in any way, shape, or form is disintegrating before our very eyes. And we, including all of you, who have the ability to make decisions on the political level are witnessing this. Are you aware of what is going on? There is no medical science behind any of this. None. Research. Do your due diligence as others have talked about. You need to wake up. You need to watch the state. And we need to wield our rights. These are constitutional rights. We do not live in a medical tyranny. Whatever the surgeon general, the CDC, or all these people have to say is their opinion. Why do they have so? Why do you let them have so much power over you? Who is providing you with the impetus to do this? It's completely illogical. And so I just want you to know that also that we are witness. God is our witness, ultimately. So please try to use some of your, whatever common sense you have and recognize that this is complete idiocy. We are going down as a lost group of souls. So let's try to maintain some sense of reality. Bruce Tanner, in her recent announcement of the opening of the county beaches, Dr. Gail Newell complained that people are not willing to be governed anymore in regard to the unlawful orders she has issued with authority assumed under color of law with this board's complicity. I will remind you of the Declaration of Independence's assertion that government only derives. It's just powers from the consent of the governed. And again, no one in Santa Cruz who understands what is really going on here consents to the abandonment of our long-observed, lawful public polity by this board and other complicit public officials. Dr. Newell, in the same announcement, urged the public to keep an eye out for contact tracers, calling us on our phones with color IDs from the Sacramento area. This is another unlawful policy this county is now apparently supporting, one which invades the lives of people under a new doctrine that government is responsible for our health and can violate our process and privacy in doing that. I wonder if Dr. Newell, who is not a trained virologist, has any understanding of the real science of the testing that contact tracing is purportedly based on? Very briefly, these tests are either for antibodies or RNA sequences that are supposed to be associated with a virus called SARS-CoV-2. But this virus has not only never been isolated, the sequence used to detect it, only come from assays and fluids taken from COVID patients' lungs. These contain a potpourri of broken segments of RNA. Most of them, quite short, coming in from many sources, including, of course, from the patient's own cells. The code from these segments is put into a computer and then reassembled using software. The multiple sequences supposedly from this epidemic are said to indicate ongoing mutation. But the truth is, the sequence of this virus, if there even is a virus, is unknown. So the PCR tests based on these gendup codes are notoriously unreliable, surprise. As are the antibody tests, which have been shown to detect antibodies already in the blood of people who are called COVID negative. And based on these specious testings, government, with its freshly-mitted mandate to protect, will be destroying people's lives even more than it already has. Children are being removed from their parents now and taken into dangerous state care. Adults will be told they need to self-isolate for two weeks on questionable findings that they may have been exposed. This is madness and must not be allowed to stand. And thank you to all the incredible people who have come and spoken the things that I've spoken so many times, leaving me room to sing from my choir the hope that we can actually stand as one, all of us. Because that's really the goal, and most of us feel that, I know. One word can kill a dream, one word can break a heart that's hiding in the shadows. When a voice is crying out, when a voice is all alone, will we turn away or listen? Really hard to sing with a mask on. Wow, my choir is trying to figure away how to get us back together so we can sing. I shouldn't go on, it's so distracting. It's so scary to not be able to take a full breath. And singing is a key major part of being human that kept a lot of people alive a long time. This has been the golden age of choral singing. More people per capita are singing in choirs were singing in choirs than any other time in recorded history, human history. There are so many collateral losses here, collateral damages. Children dying is not getting the attention, really? Suicides, we've asked for three and a half months. What are the numbers of suicides now? You don't tell us all this time. It obviously is higher than the two people who died with COVID, not of COVID. Why are we turning our back on all the people harmed while pretending that this will help the few over what's called excess deaths that usually die every year anyway? I don't have a cold heart for those people. I have a cold feeling running cold, my blood, fear that the huge, huge percentage, 40% expected to go homeless now? Why are we not seeking ways to help that huge population? Please, people stand together. Oh, thank you to all those wonderful, courageous, informed, empowered speakers. My name is Barbara Bush. I'm from Santa Cruz, California. And I wanna just mention a few excerpts from a medical doctor with a lot of experience in virology and immunology. Mentioned previously by one of the speakers, Dr. Zach Bush, BUSH, no relation. And does anyone know here what a virus is? A virus is a communication network of genomics, the most important building block for life on Earth. We have vilified the very mechanism by which biology has happened on our planet. This is a tragic mistake, a sad day for humanity, science, economics. It causes deep concerns for science itself that we have allowed for this dehumanizing nature. It's a very sad thing. We had the honorable position to be a witness to nature with powerful tools, microscopes, advanced medicine, genomic sequencing. So we've gotten a glimpse of how life has occurred on the planet and the universe. But that life is what we have vilified by trying to convince ourselves that this virus is attacking us. Viruses are not living beings. They are not like bacteria and fungi. Viruses are packages of information that are secreted by living organisms. They are simple arrangements of physical structures such as amino acids, building blocks for proteins. They are a template for life to develop. They can participate in human pathways and biology, but there is not enough genetic information in a single virus to do terrible harm to man. If this was the case, viruses would have killed us long ago. Viruses are integrated into our biology. We decide on a very intelligent way what to turn on and off to create good or bad. So as we've seen with the coronavirus, the vast majority of people have taken this update and have no symptoms. This is a genetic update to our species that is expressing an adaptation to the stress we have induced on the planet. Viruses were proliferating around the planet long before animals existed. They're building the diversity within the genetic code of our planet. For example, retroviruses can't, for example, stem cells can't be a stem cell without the gene from the retrovirus that was inserted a few million years ago in our mammalian code. So we must stop vilifying the very fabric that created our life. If you want more information on this, there is a YouTube video by Dr. Zach Bush and it's still up. It hasn't been censored or taken off yet. Get informed, thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Kat Willis and I am a business owner and of a non-profit tannery will dance and cultural center. I'd like to read a statement, please. On behalf of the NAACP of Santa Cruz chapter, the Black Lives Matter movement currently taking place in the County of Santa Cruz and the collective black community at large. I call on the County Board of Supervisors to create an immediate action committee alongside the black community in Santa Cruz to look over the budget and help us form a task force to address inequities and funding for the black community and people of color in our community and the county. Can you hear me? Okay. Mr. Leopold, I want to thank you for reaching out to Joy Flynn. I know that I have some people let me know that you had tried to reach out to me as well and I thank you for doing that. I also call on the rest of the County Board of Supervisors to engage in an actionable plan and conversation for change in Santa Cruz County. You can reach out to myself, Cat Willis again with the Tanner Will Dance and Cultural Center and also the NAACP Santa Cruz County chapter and other black leaders in the community. But we call on you and ask that you help form a committee with us and a task force with us. We also invite that conversation to include Mayor Cummings, Chief Andy Mills, County, anyone and everyone who we feel should be at the table. We invite all of you to engage with us. Thank you very much. Good morning to everyone that's listening. My name is Bernadette and I'm here as a mother and a grandmother and an advocate for children all over the world. And I want you guys to imagine being young again and not being able to hug and play, right? And smile and dance, right? And play with mother nature and all her elements and all the germs that you've played with, right? All the practice that you've had growing up. And why would you just want to take that away from the kids now? Why would you just do that? I ask you to open your heart and do what's right for the children, right? Do what's right for them. Do what's right for the seniors. That's ridiculous that you have seniors up here shivering and talking and having to cover their mouth. Do what's right for them. Do what's right for you, right? All lives matter. But I stand here before you for the kids because nobody is doing nothing for the kids but putting fear in their souls. What happened to love and gratitude, right? And hope and faith. What happened to all that? And joy and celebrating that we're here today. We're here right now. And what are you doing? You're following orders from criminals. From criminals that are trying to kill our kids. So I'm gonna leave you with that. And I hope that you can find it in your heart to do what's right. Do what's right. Stop following orders and do what your heart tells you to do and stand up for your kids. All of you, these are all mothers and fathers and you have grandkids. Do what's right, guys. Follow your heart. Buddy supervisors. Benjamin Cogan here. And I came to second everything that you've heard today. It's not right. How is it, and I'm saddened to see we don't have three of our supervisors here to hear us all out. And I'm sure they're watching and we'll find out. But how is it that if you have the AIDS virus you're protected under law to keep it confidential but you don't have to share that with your employers that you don't have to disclose that information. But now they're gonna have the protocol with contact tracers and they're gonna have you install apps on your phone and know who you've been around, who you've been with, who you've talked with and then somebody can deem you as contaminated and they can come to your house and take you out of your house and strip you from your kids. The coronavirus is less fatal than heart disease. It's number seven or eight on the death per days. And never in the history of flu-like symptoms have we gone around tracking, tracing, vilifying people for just for things like this. Mr. Kogan, you have to use your mask. I got it. It's been proven the mask lower oxygen levels by two or 3% from a 17.5 to a 20.5, I mean vice versa. So how is it you can make mask mandatory on infants three years old? When at 18 years old, you can vote. At 18 years old, you can go to war. And at 21, unless you change the law, you used to be able to get alcohol. But now you're no longer under the jurisdiction of your parents. You're under the jurisdiction of the government and the criminal organization that's telling you guys what to tell us what to do. And it's not right. And you're gonna force out the vaccine protocol which has a higher death rate than the coronavirus. More people be harmed from that. How many kids are gonna be traumatized by not being touched, by not being held, by social distancing, by not understanding. What if that's catastrophic and creates more deaths than the actual coronavirus, than actually just building up our immune systems? It's not right to mandatory the mask. So I'm taking my mask off. Thank you. The community room. We have no one in the community room. No longer. You got some web comments though? Web comments, yes. The first comment is from Becky Steinbrunner. She actually put in two. So I will set the timer and read them until she runs out of time. Dear Board of Supervisors, how can the County possibly find 1.5 million to give the County Foundation to run the SABE Save Program? And why would the County award a large medical response contract to a non-medical private organization? Community foundations volunteer to assist with coronavirus testing and now the County is going to pay $1.5 million for their voluntary efforts. Why not contract in a transparent manner with a medically based organization if the County is not capable of doing the work in-house? Will there be oversight of this? Citizens cannot file a Public Records Act to request it to determine where and how money is spent because Community Foundation is a private organization and records are not public. Neither are the Board of Directors meetings. Please do not approve this large 1.5 million sum for the Community Foundation that is not transparent at all. Sincerely Becky Steinbrunner. Her second comment, Dear Board of Supervisors, I note that your 10% pay cuts are optional and those of appointed department heads are mandatory. Why do you get the option of not taking any cut at all? Maybe you will take a greater than 10% cut and be good leaders for the masses of people who have lost their jobs and businesses due to shelter and place shutdowns. I hope you will do the right thing since sincerely Becky Steinbrunner. The next comment is from Joy Flynn on behalf of the NAACP Santa Cruz chapter, the BLM movement currently taking place in the County of Santa Cruz and the collective black community at large in Santa Cruz County. We would like to call on the County Board of Supervisors to create an immediate action committee alongside the black community in Santa Cruz to look over the budget and include any equity and inclusion task force to address inequities and funding for the black community and POC in the community. Mr. Leopold has proactively reached out to me and other members of the black community to engage in an actionable plan and conversation for change in Santa Cruz County. We invite you now to do the same. You can reach out to Kat Willis, owner of the tannery or myself by responding to the emails I've sent to you individually. I look forward to working with you. Next comment is from Catherine O'Day. Good morning supervisors. I'm Catherine O'Day, executive director of Save Our Shores. I'd like to speak for a moment about Save Our Shores concern about PPE litter. Fortunately, our County has not yet been inundated with discarded used facial masks, latex gloves, but these items are showing up increasingly in parking lots and neighborhoods along streets that lead to our beaches and on our beaches. As you well know, these are items must be considered to be biohazards and they put people who can't bear to see them littering our community at risk when they pick them up. As Save Our Shores, we developed protocols around picking up disposable, around the pickup and disposable of these items to keep our team and volunteers who've been conducting individual cleanups even during this pandemic save. As we move through the various stages of reopening and now that our beaches have also been opened again, we anticipate significant increase in this type of hazardous waste. We would therefore like to request that you consider passing a new waste management ordinance to place a significant fine, a minimum of $1,000 on anyone who disposes of PPE and that the fine be levied per item. So if someone throws a used face mask on the ground, it's $1,000 fine. If they improperly dispose of a used face mask and a pair of latex gloves, they would receive $3,000 fine. We realize this would be difficult to enforce and require that a person be seen littering these items. But even if it's largely symbolic getting the message out that it could be costly to put other people's health at risk might help to deter some percentage of this type of littering. Thank you. Next comment is from Allison McClure. Why are masks required for young children in preschool and daycares? Last I looked, the governor had not yet required it in schools. The Academy of Pediatricians is advising against masks for children under middle school age. Young children keep touching their mask and don't keep them on defeating the purpose. And the last comment is also from Allison McClure. My daughter is suffering mentally. She asks me every 10 to 15 minutes if something she touched or breath is going to kill her. Yesterday she was forced to wear a mask to preschool. It took me 10 minutes to forcibly remove my screaming kid from the car to get her into school. Is the county or state going to pay for the counseling services for her? And that is the end of public comment. Thank you. Well, that concludes item number five, the public comment number six. Do we have any board members who have comments or additional direction for items on the consent agenda? I would have some comments. Thank you, Chair. This being last meeting of a fiscal year, there's a number of items on here. I just want to comment on one on item number 18. I appreciate the efforts of the County Administrative Officer and our Economic Development Office to seek funding to be able to provide a revolving loan fund for local businesses. I think that this board has tried to find different ways to support local businesses through this crisis. And I think this revolving loan fund will be a welcome resource for our local business community. On item number 21, I'll just say I'm really glad to see the completion of the solar installations on the various County sites. This project will save the County $28 million over the next 20 years, as well as reducing our greenhouse gas footprint in our community. So I appreciate the work of General Services to get that done. It's always good to see on item number 26, the annual living wage program report. And it's sobering to think that a living wage here in Santa Cruz is $17.90 an hour. But I'm glad that through the contracting that we do, that we ensure that there's many people who receive this living wage as part of our economic contribution to the community. On item number 31, I want to thank all the employees of the County and the bargaining units who took a leadership position and are agreeing to the furloughs proposed in this item. The County family has responded incredibly well to the COVID crisis, to have them step up to take furloughs so we can keep services going to the community is incredibly important. I also think it's important for the board to take a leadership role. And that's why we have offered to take a 10% furlough as compared to most other employees which are accepting a 7.5% furlough. To get through these difficult times, we know that we all have to contribute somewhat. And as we will find when we come back in August for our budget, we'll see what the impact is on the County budget. These furloughs will help ensure that as many people as possible can stay working and providing services to the community. On item number 33, I urge my colleagues support for an item that Supervisor Friend and I put on in support of the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Initiative that's gonna be on the November 2020 ballot. This split role tax initiative will ensure that individuals and residences don't carry the burden of taxes here in California that the corporate and large property owners also carry their fair share. In a time when we're seeing reduced budgets due to loss of sales tax and transient occupancy tax, being able to make sure that corporations are paying their fair share is a great idea. Here in Santa Cruz, that can mean over $57 million more for schools and local government. This will really help us out and won't affect the small businesses. On item number 36, I strongly support this effort by Supervisor Coonerty to dedicate an appropriate Memorial at Twin Lakes Beach in memory of Allison Endert. She was a valued member of our community. She was an amazing co-worker and her work in the third district office and all the other things that she did will live on for a long time. It's nice that we'll have some kind of Memorial for her at a project in which she was so instrumental in. On item number 48, I wanna express my gratitude to the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County who has been a great partner to the County of Santa Cruz during this COVID crisis. This one and a half million dollars to help with COVID response efforts is an amazing contribution and we're lucky to have them as a partner with our efforts. Additionally, I'd like to recognize public work for a number of projects, the completion of Stetson Road and on item number 50 and as well as the work to be done on Soquel San Jose Road and Brantza 40 Drive and Glenhaven Road. These are all important projects, some doing with the storm damage but these roads are used by so many people, especially in our rural areas and I appreciate the efforts of our public works staff to get it done. On item number 51, I wanna thank the director of human services for this letter to the congressional delegation about increasing access to the federal supplemental nutrition assistance program or SNAP benefits known as CalFresh in California as we talked about here last week. This program provides a critical support for families and individuals here in Santa Cruz County and the federal government should really step up and ensure that during this time of crisis that we have these resources available for people. And lastly on item number 69, I'm glad to see this cooperative agreement with the regional transportation commission to continue work on rail trail segments 10 and 11, which is through Live Oak, Capitola and Aftos. It's really exciting to see these projects move forward as we will finish the first part of the rail trail this September and we'll continue marching on that progress of building the rail trail throughout the entire community and be done by 2030. I'm really excited about this and I appreciate the work of public works in the RGC to make it happen. That's it. Thank you. You're welcome. Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Chair. I do have a couple of things. First, let me also state on item 69, I do have a conflict and will need to recuse myself on that item. My personal principal residence is within 500 feet of the rail line, so I will not be voting on item 69, but I would like to make some additional comments on some of the other items. I appreciate Supervisor Leopold's comments on the item that we brought jointly together on the ballot measure. I thought that he spoke about it quite well. Supervisor Coonerty and I also have together an item in regards to supporting our federal delegation in particular, Senator Harris who brought forward an item that would create the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, which would designate Juneteenth as a federal holiday. I think we can all agree that that is a long overdue national holiday. It's been introduced in the United States Senate. A companion element has been introduced in the United States House. And so let's hope that we can finally move forward to the day where that is a national holiday. And I'd like to join with Supervisor Coonerty in acknowledging in supporting item 35 for Alison Endert. I think that's an absolutely beautiful way to remember an absolutely beautiful person. And I appreciate not just you, Supervisor Coonerty, Rachel and Andy in the entire office there. I appreciate the work of the Parks Department to find a way to move this forward. It seems like the absolute least we can do to recognize such a remarkable, remarkable person. I'd like to, speaking of Parks as well, would I would like to thank them on item 53, which is in C-Clip or moving forward on completing that first and in some respects, second phase with the restroom. This is something that I know that has been long sought by the community. And I think that it's gonna be wonderful when it's complete and we're able to fully reuse our Parks again and public works. I want to acknowledge them on item 65 and 67, which include a second district storm repair on item 65 and on 67, the application for the adaptive traffic signal systems on Soquel through from Trout Gulch up to State Park Drive, which we know would really help with some of the bottleneck issues that are occurring through there. I just appreciate the creativity and work, continued work to find outside funding means by public works. It really helps during these times of economic downturn to keep the ball mowing moving on these kinds of issues. Thank you, Chair. Again, I'll be recusing myself on item 69. You're welcome. Supervisor Coonerty. Chair, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of items to comment on. First, Supervisor Leopold mentioned, item number 21, the completion of the solar installations. I want to thank General Services and in more normal times, this would be a major accomplishment in an effort to both reduce costs to taxpayers as well as to take a significant step towards reducing our carbon footprint and addressing the climate crisis. And so I want to thank them for that good work. On item number 34, I want to thank Supervisor Friend for inviting me to join him on the request to our federal delegation to make Juneteenth a national holiday. I think it's incredibly important the conversations and then the resulting policies that we will be grappling with both locally at the state and national level to recognize the impact of discrimination and prejudice in our national policies as far and how we can address them going forward. And next, item number 35, thank you for the other supervisors for your kind words. We think this will really be a nice place to remember the contributions of Alison Ender. She was a vital on a day-to-day level in that project for almost a decade at Twin Lakes. It's also a place that she and her family often went to just enjoy Santa Cruz like so many other families. And so hopefully it's a place for remembrance and appreciation for both the community and her girls going forward. And then lastly, on item number 48, the community foundation. Yeah, I don't think we've appreciated enough how lucky we are to have a community foundation who really engaged in this COVID crisis who's provided us resources, support who's pulled together partnerships in order to help us address this issue in a way that has served both the health and the economic wellbeing of this community. And I want to appreciate Susan True and the community foundation and their staff for their support throughout this crisis. And it's going to be a partnership going forward. Thank you very much. Okay, Supervisor McPherson, I can't hear you. Thank you. You can hear me now? Yeah, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to some of the issues on the concern agenda. On item number 17, I want to thank all kinds of county departments and employees for their contributions to the achievements we have seen to date on our operations plan, which was initiated by our CEO, Carlos Palacios. I want to call out a few of those plans that are mentioned in number 17, item number 76 in that plan, complete streets to schools, 89 reducing foods insecurity for seniors, 131 land use regulations to support our housing goals, 174 reducing our carbon footprint through participation on Monterey Bay Community Power. These are all important milestones and we should be proud of them. And I think it's prudent that under the circumstances that we postpone writing new operations plan until we are more clear on the longer-term impacts of COVID-19 and instead focus on the resiliency and recovery as recommended by our staff. I also would like to point out number 21 on solar projects, especially when I thank the General Services Department and particularly Deputy Director Carol Johnson for all the work she has done on these projects, as was mentioned, over 20 years, this is going to save the county $28 million. It's an important investment, not just financially, but more importantly, in an environmental sense. On item 27 regarding the COVID-19 costs, I wanna thank all the employees who have worked on the county's COVID-19 response recovery. Our people and power of our services supplies have cost to this point at least $13 million, but they are priceless in terms of lives saved. I'm particularly impressed by the actions on behalf of people who are experiencing homelessness and our emergency efforts have informed what might be possible with service for this part of our community in the future. I hope we will receive greater state and federal support to offset more of these costs as well as historic losses and revenue in the future. On item number 31, which has been mentioned regarding employee furloughs. Again, I wanna thank the county workers for being part of the solution to our posing budget gap that is just before us. I wanna thank my fellow board members and our county department heads for taking the largest cut in an effort to lead by example. With these sacrifices, we're able to close the gap that we're estimated by about nine to 11 million dollars. And I think that individually and collectively we have shown that we're willing to respond to this crisis rather than just trim public services. As has been mentioned by everyone, I wanna thank Supervisor Coonerty on item number 39 on Allison Center bringing this item forward to honor a tremendous outstanding person, a public servant. I will be working with her and seeing that she would, and what she would have accomplished in the future. She did so much. I think my condolences are with your family as well as Supervisor Coonerty and now Allison's longtime co-worker, Rachel Dan. On item number 47, this is an item that was very important to Allison in terms of our public health outcomes. She was a fierce advocate for improving our syringe services program. I hoped we would have these recommendations by June, but I understand with the enormous toll that COVID-19 does take on everything that we deal with. And so especially for our Health Services Agency. I wanna thank the Health Services Agency for the steps taken to date. And I look forward to the report in October and I hope we don't have any further delays when we get to that time in the fall. Item number 57 was on a CRV at Ben Lohman Transfer Station. I applaud Gray Bears for their successful operation of the CRV program in Ben Lohman and its positive environmental and economic impacts to put it in numbers, 107,000 pounds of CRV materials and a resulting $78,000 boost to the local economy as a major achievement. And I wanna thank the Department of Public Works for partnering with Gray Bears on this project. It's been tremendously successful and very welcome, particularly in the Santa Rosa Valley. As some of the others have mentioned, we have a fiscal crisis, but we have some dedicated funds for road repairs. And I think it's worth mentioning that we're gonna be going out to bid on road repairs, a two-par road, Alba and Hubbard Gulch roads in my district. These are very important roads in the rural section of the county. I wanna thank Public Works for its ongoing effort to work with planning, designing and implementing these repairs, as well as our residents for these patients. We have many more roads to go through, but we're getting to them as quickly as we can. And we're trying to address the most heavily traveled roads in these areas. And it's good that we're able to move on with some committed funds that we have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick comment on 22, the work that has been done in the Veterans Building in Watsonville, California. Currently, there's 37 tents set up in the main gymnasium. There are new showers and bathrooms that have been put in. And that's for homeless people, so that they can sleep indoors at night. And then also, there are seven tents on the second floor for women and children and families. So anyway, they did this very fast and they did a great job. And then number 31, I'm gonna say thank you to the county workers for accepting furloughs. And concessions on their pay and everything like that. And like Supervisor McPherson mentioned, the biggest cuts will be in the department heads and the Board of Supervisors. I'm very proud of our Board of Supervisors for going along. And so that'll start pretty soon. And then lastly, let's see number, this is probably just an error, I don't know. Item number 50, I'm thinking maybe it shouldn't have been, it's in the wrong category under health and human services. Maybe it should have been under land use and community services. Item number 50, that can be corrected later if it needs to. Okay, thank you. And that will now have, we need a motion, the second. I would move the consent agenda. Second. Okay, we have a first and second. Noting the one abstention. The clerk. No, I think Supervisor McPherson had something to say. I wanted to abstain on number 33. I just want to ensure about the impact on small businesses. What number is that? 33. Okay. Okay. I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. It passes unanimously. With two abstentions on two items. Yes. And they're so noted. We have a little time, we'll go to item number seven. Consider urgency ordinances and non-urgency ordinances. Abending the Santa Cruz County Code, chapter 7.128 and 13.10 relating to non-retail commercial cannabis regulations and making findings of exemption from CEQA schedule the non-urgency ordinances for second reading and final adoption on August 4th, 2020 and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. So we can go right into that. How you doing? Good morning, Board Member. Some of this we went over was it last week or two weeks ago correctly? Yes. Thank you. I'll keep it brief. At the January 28th Board of Supervisors meeting, staff reviewed the time consuming nature of the use permit process and complying with the conditions of approval. The process has been taking more time than expected, especially for our existing commercial agricultural operators, therefore jeopardizing the potential success of the program. At the June 2nd and 16th Board meetings, staff presented a variety of code changes to the Board. Those changes were discussed and the Board provided clarity on which of the proposed modifications should be altered moving forward. With regard to the changes, the agricultural use chart modifications include cannabis cultivation and distribution being proposed to be principally permitted in the CA zone district. These changes are based on existing commercial agricultural operations being allowed to cultivate agricultural products and distribute or drive those products off site. With regard to the commercial use chart modifications, they include a level one approval process for cultivation and non-volatile manufacturing operations within the C4 zone district, within the rodeo-gulch zoning overlay. Principally permitted use is proposed for distribution within the C4 zone and also within the C2 zone with the caveat that it must be paired with existing retail operations. This approval level would only be for existing legal structures. Cultivation and manufacturing operations will be brought up to current code because they will require building permits to move forward. Lastly, transport-only distribution is proposed to be principally permitted in the PA, C2, and C4 zone districts. With regard to the industrial use chart modifications, these are similar to the changes discussed for the commercial zone district with a level one approval process for cultivation and non-volatile manufacturing proposed for the M1 zone district within the rodeo-gulch zoning overlay and the restrictions on new structures and outdoor cultivation remain unchanged. For clarity, this is the rodeo-gulch zoning overlay that was referenced in the previous two slides. Within the residential use chart and timber production use chart, the proposed changes do not alter cultivation requirements. Transport-only distribution operation has been added based on home occupation standards and the restrictions placed upon those operations. A residential structure must exist on the parcel and the vehicle used for commercial work must have dedicated off-street parking. The bulk of the remaining changes are within 1310.650, the non-retail commercial cannabis uses and those were discussed at the previous two meetings. With regard to changes in 7.128, changes to section 210 and 230, the enforcement appeals and administrative hearing section are based on our department's experience implementing the program. These sections add clarity to the enforcement program by eliminating various cross references to other parts of code while adding proportionality to the fines and fines for illegal operations are proposed to be based on the number of plants, massive cannabis, massive cannabis concentrates and the number of packaged cannabis products. The proposed changes reflect the board's direction and additional clarity provided by the board's motions. We are bringing this as an urgency ordinance to avoid a threat to public peace, health and safety caused by potential unsafe conditions of unlicensed operations, economic uncertainties and instabilities in an essential marketplace and pending loss of state licenses by local operators. The ordinance needs to go into effect to allow for the continuity of operations of an essential industry as defined by the governor. Thank you. You're welcome. And let's see. Any questions or comments from board members? Okay, anybody from the public here in the council? I mean, the board chambers? It really affected flowers, nurseries. If you notice, there's been no events. There's been nothing on for anything open, no florists. Completely affected all of us. Some of the large growers, a kitty on was that, I can go down the list of how it's affected all these folks. Agriculture should be agriculture. I've always spoken here and saying, it should be in CA land. It should be an ag land. It is a commercial ag product. My biggest concern is I pay property taxes on four parcels. I've lost two tenants due to COVID lately. Mainstream strawberries organic have been pulled off the market due to keeping people out of the stores. And that has left vacant land for me. The urgency in this ordinance allows me to go in and plant cannabis in my zone of 60 acres and utilize the property efficiently. It's an essential business and I'd like to move forward with that. I wanna thank you for looking at this and taking multiple reviews of it at the same time. It's urgency that we need to take care of. We're gonna miss our outdoor cycle, which gives us a veg time, which gives us competition in the market to have actually volume. If we miss that in another 30 days, it'll be a moot point for this whole thing. Cannabis is essential and I wanna support my local community, my local county. I have an operation in Monterey County. I've given them $300,000 last year. I'd love to give that to my county so we can see us prosper also. I support multiple employees, multiple markets. I've sponsored two citizens to raise their families here and I feel this is good for our community. So thank you very much. Have a good day. You're welcome. Hi, I'm Rob Morgan. I'm one of the current operators in Santa Cruz on CA land. So I came in support of the urgency in this measure with most cannabis cultivation by volume. It will occur on the CA land. So it's important to work with us to be able to make that happen more easily. To speak to a couple of issues raised by the board, cannabis is primarily a container crop, meaning it's grown above ground in containers. And so this allows us to utilize areas of CA land that isn't prime soil for other agricultural crops. That's what we've done at our current parcel. We have to do that to avoid certain things like heavy metal testing because we're highly regulated by the state as well. Cannabis cultivation on the CA land creates a lot of jobs and tax revenue for the county. As mentioned above, we're able to farm on land that's not ideal for some other food crops. So we're creating jobs that may not exist otherwise. We buy local from local businesses and we also hire local people. We've been deemed essential by the county and by the state. So we've been able to stay open during this COVID pandemic. So a couple other points are, as most of us are aware, strawberries are the number one crop in Santa Cruz County with an estimated value of 2222 million, approximately 2,500 acres planted. That average gross revenue is about 85,000 per acre. Raspberries are the second crop and that has 168 million on approximately 2,300 acres. Yeah, 2,300 acres with a gross revenue of about 72,000 per acre. Cannabis with a conservative estimate is about 10 times that of strawberries with acre producing about $800,000 per acre. This estimate will only increase as the demand increases and the illegal operations are brought into compliance. So in closing, it's important for us to pass this urgency ordinance so that cultivators are able to plant this season. That's important to be able to bring in more revenue right now as everyone's taking the hit. It also allows us to hire more people this season. So I think that we should pass this emergency ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Chair Caput, Chair Caput, I'm sorry. There's a person that's been waiting down in the community room and she has to leave. We were wondering if she could jump ahead if it would be okay for the next speaker. Okay. Okay, thank you. Can you wait a second? Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I don't want to be here. I apologize, I have a very shrill voice and I'm sorry I have to be here to get my voice heard. I submitted my comments and they have not been posted and this is of such concern to me that I felt I needed to come down here. It's been a terrifying experience for me personally because I do have a heart condition and while waiting outside, there were many people who were not wearing masks and who did not respect the six foot distance. So I don't want to be here, but I'm here to have my voice heard. Your board adopted Appendix B of the International Fire Code and not the California Fire Code on December 10th, 2019 as part of the Santa Cruz County Fire Code. Appendix B of the International Fire Code authorizes the Fire Code official to use the International Wildland Urban Interface Code for determining the required water supply for parcels where there is no water purveyor. The California Fire Code 2019 does not allow for the use of the IWUIC. The IWUIC exempts all agricultural buildings that have a floor area 600 square feet or less from having an approved water supply if I'm reading this correctly. I don't know that I am, I'm no expert. I can find no such exemption in the California Fire Code 2019. Your board also adopted substandard fire apparatus road widths for parcels in the state responsibility area. Specifically required road widths were reduced from 20 feet to 12 feet for driveways serving two or few habitable structures and unlimited non-habitable structures. This is not in agreement with the California Code of Regulations Title 19 Public Safety, nor is it in agreement with the California Fire Code 2019. Additionally, your board adopted the definition of cannabis cultivation to include storage of highly storage, which is highly flammable material. As I stated previously, a few years ago, my neighbor had a large structure with highly combustible material, hatch fire. There was inadequate water to address the fire due to the size of the structure and the combustible material. The structure burned to the ground as the fire response personnel combed the neighborhood for water. Thank you. You're welcome. Anybody else? So yeah, we'll come back up here. Thank you. Company, we have multiple farms located throughout California, Calaveras County, Trinity County, all licensed cannabis farms. We are currently trying to get something going here in Santa Cruz County. We've had a CA property for the last three years that hasn't been able to run due to the stringent policy on the ordinances. We tried to get in through the Lola last year. We weren't able to do it. It's looking like, again, this year, we're not able to run this property. We also have an SU property up the street that we would like to run. Was previously temporary licensed and they changed all the ordinances again. I'm just here in support of getting this thing passed so we could get something going this season, preferably we're going on our third year of not being able to run this CA property and we provide jobs for many people that keep the livelihood for many families. I currently have over 15 employees now. We'd like to employ another about eight families into this. Anything we can do, anything. I'm in support 100%. Just want to make my voice heard. Thank you. I'm Ernie Pasqua. I'm a cultivator in Monterey County. And I want to bring it closer to you. I can get on my tippy toes. Again, I'm one of the larger indoor cultivators in Monterey County. We're located in Moss Landing and I'm here to support Sam's program as well as my fellow cultivators in this month in Santa Cruz County. We currently have 70 to 75 employees, 40 to 45 of them are residents of Santa Cruz County. And it will be more than proud for them to have that opportunity to have the opportunity as we are looking to expand our business. And we'd like to obviously have that opportunity to expand our business in Santa Cruz County. Just as you may know, as county supervisors, the Monterey County Ag Culture Crop Report just came out. And it's very impressive. The Monterey County generated 4.4 billion and I'll just read the top five agricultural crops. Number one was leaf lettuce of 841 million, strawberry, 733 million. Number three was head lettuce, which my family grew for many years, 514 million. Broccoli was number four at 457. And number five proudly is cannabis at 450 million. The number six item just for note is cauliflower at 212, which is the night of my family grew as well. So again, this is an opportunity that we hope the county and the board will certainly utilize as many of my colleagues in the county of Santa Cruz have mentioned, it generates opportunities and tops. And again, thank you for your time. You're welcome. Okay. Any other comments? Anything from the web? Chair, I'd be prepared to make some comments and give direction. First of all, I wanna thank the people who came out today and all the people who participated in the ongoing discussion we have around a cannabis cultivation. As a new industry, this board has worked very hard to make sure that we're listening to constituents, protecting neighborhoods, protecting the environment and creating a legal industry that can provide jobs and resources for the county. We've looked over these regulations time and time again in order to get them just exactly perfect. I feel like we've done that. I appreciate the hard work of Mr. Laforte and the work of the cannabis licensing office and the work that they do ongoing. I think that the testimony today about the importance of urgency so people can get their crops in the ground this year for this growing season makes sense to me. And I would move the recommended actions on this item. Is that right? Okay, any other comments by supervisors? Supervisor McPherson. Supervisor Friend. Anything additional to add to Supervisor Leopold's comments? I appreciate Mr. Laforte's work on the modifications over the last two meetings. And Supervisor Coonerty. No, I have no comments, thank you. Okay, I'll be voting no as I did when this came up before. It, well, I won't reiterate what I already mentioned a week ago for the sake of time, but hopefully this puts the regulations in place and there are some good things that I agree with. But anyway, it requires a four fifth vote, right? Four out of five have to approve it. Yes, for the urgency ordinances, four out of five. Okay, so if there's no further comment, we'll call the roll, we have a first and a second, right? Yes. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. No. Okay. And that takes, you know what, we'll take a little break, right? We'll come back at almost, well we'll take a 10 minute break, come back by 1110. Thank you. Thank you. Item, we'll continue with item number eight, consider ordinance amending the Santa Cruz County Code adding chapter 5.51 regarding a recycling program for plastic contact lenses and making findings of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA. Consider ordinance amending Santa Cruz County Code 5.47 to delay implementation of a charge on single use disposable cups until January 1st, 2020. Schedule the ordinances for final adoption on August 4th, 2020, provide additional direction on a possible ballot measure regarding the use of single use disposable cup charges and consider report on additional measures to address plastic pollution as outlined in the memorandum of the deputy CAO and director of public works. Thank you. Good morning, chair and board members. I'm Kent Edler, assistant director of public works and with me today at the podium is Bo Hoxard from our recycling and solid waste group who will join me in the presentation today. Last fall, public works brought several items before the board regarding single use disposable cups, contact lenses, mylar balloons and plastic microfibers. Previous board direction was to conduct outreach and education with a majority of small businesses in the unincorporated area. So they understand the administrative burden of collecting the single use cup charge to report on how much waste will be eliminated from going to the landfill regarding the single use cups. Return to the board after doing the outreach with what a potential ballot measure we could look like for a November election to potentially redirect for the money from the cup charges go. Return with an ordinance about recycling of daily contact lenses and look at ridding the environment of mylar balloons and finally return with information about a public education campaign around microfiber pollution strategies. Starting with the waste generated from single use cups from the outreach conducted by our program managers approximately 12.6 million single use cups are sold in the county annually that equates to approximately 208 tons. So for every 10% reduction in single use cup use that's 20.8 tons of waste eliminated. And that's approximately for visual sake about two and a half garbage trucks. And that's on an annual basis. So our program coordinators did outreach and with businesses regarding single use cups 433 businesses were identified as sellers of single use cups and 96% of them were contacted and Bo Hawksford will go over the outreach. Hi, good morning. So our program coordinators went out and conducted this business as Kent was telling you. And one of the questions was asked if businesses were aware that this ordinance was passed. And as you can see, a majority of them were well aware. Going further, the questions of whether businesses were known to require were asked to return a portion of the 25 cent charge to the county to support environmental efforts and 68% said no and 32% said yes. When asked whether businesses currently had a capacity to track the 25 cent charge at the register a majority of them did say yes. When asked whether they would these businesses would be supportive of returning up all or a portion of the 25 cent charge is about 50, 50 a little bit more said, said no, but it was pretty, pretty right on and half. Then another question of for the folks that were willing to contribute back to the county were asked what portion they felt was reasonable to return to the county and about half support 50, 50% sharing and other half giving 100% back for these environmental program support. When asked the average of how many cups were generated each week, the average was around 560. When asked what costs would a requirement to return all or a portion of the 25 cent charge have on their individual businesses, there were varying responses and some were saying as much as $400 some really didn't have an idea and we do have a program coordinator here that could answer the question if you have any concerns about that one. When asked whether there were any concerns or other thoughts about the 25 cent charge the majority, some of the answers were loss of customers people being they were concerned that there would be retaliation or being mad at the business and the expensive bookkeeping. And again, Christina would be happy to answer further questions on that. So moving on to the cup charge the 25 cent cup charge is slated to go into effect July 1st. However, due to COVID-19 pandemic and the impracticality of businesses handling reusable cups we're recommending delaying the 25 cent charge on single use plastic cups to January 1st, 2021 and an ordinance delaying the charges attached to this board item. The limited period of time will give us time to gather information and see what the state of the pandemic is if it looks like an extension beyond January 1st is needed we'll return to the board in the fall. The county also has an ordinance which requires businesses to charge 25 cents per single use carry out bag. Cal OSHA has recently issued guidance on reusable bags and how employees should handle them given this guidance will likely be coming back on August 4th to delay that bag charge as well. Another item the board asked Public Works to return with information about is a potential ballot measure to share some or all of the revenue from the single use cup charges and put the revenue towards environmental programs. Public Works is supportive of such a measure and it may take make some sense to include a portion of the single use carry out bag charges as well if the measure does go forward. Based on our outreach data, if 25% of local customers switched to bringing their own cups, the total revenue generated would be approximately 2.3 million. If 10% switched over, it would generate a revenue of about 2.8 million. And if the ballot measure were to split that money between the businesses in the county 5050, about half of those charges would be brought back to the county. Let's see. And again, if we do bring the single use bags charges as well in a ballot measure, these numbers would obviously go up. So our staff worked with the county clerk on what it would take to get a ballot measure on a November ballot and the steps required. Since we're recommending delaying the cup charges past November, it makes sense to push a ballot measure to a subsequent election. The next scheduled election is March 8th, 2022. There are numerous items which are listed in the slide, which need to be completed as far as a ballot measure and public works would be happy to work on those items. So there are two options for a ballot measure. The first is a specific revenue measure where the measure would designate specifically that the funds would go to support environmental programs. Under that option, two thirds voter approval is required. The second option is a general revenue measure where funds generated will go into the county general fund. This revenue requires greater than 50% voter approval. Given the environmental awareness and interest in the community, public works would recommend the specific revenue measure. So Bo is gonna go over the contact lens ordinance. So yes, we're also bringing a contact lens ordinance to your to report today. And we found out recently that a Boston alum does offer a free recycling program to their optometrists. They'll accept all manufacturers, not just Boston alum. This proposed ordinance would require that by January 1, 2021, that all providers of contact lenses in and incorporated County will offer this program. Or one, if they find another one, maybe by another company, they could use that as well. So another item we were asked to report back on was mylar balloons and reading the environment of them. Enforcement on release of balloons would be difficult for us to enforce. We're therefore recommending outreach and education to discourage the use of mylar balloons. And we would use social media, green waste, zero waste, mailer, and potentially the green schools program as part of the outreach. The board may also want to consider a ban on the sale of such products. Handed over to Bo again to talk about plastic microfibers. Similarly with the mylar balloons, we are recommending outreach and education efforts. Again, we have a Facebook account, the County as well has one, and Jason Hoppin has agreed before in the past to be able to put some of this out on the main County's page as well. We also have a quarterly newsletter, zero waste news that goes to all green waste customers that we would advertise to them. We would also, I am working with the green schools program and we would work to educate the schools and the students of these programs as well. And I'll give it back to Kent. So we have some recommendations for the board which are to approve and concept an ordinance to implement a free and convenient recycling program for plastic contact lenses in the unincorporated County to consider a proposed notice of exemption from CEQA, approve and concept an ordinance amending the County code chapter 5.47 to delay implementation of single use disposable cup charges until January 1st, 2021. Schedule the ordinances for final adoption on August 4th, 2020. Provide additional direction on a possible ballot measure regarding the use of single use disposable cup charges and consider report on additional measures to address plastic pollution. And we're available for any questions. Okay. You bet. Is that it? And then we'll, okay. Any supervisors have questions or comments? Chair, I have a couple of questions. Okay. What should we, we'll. Your choice. You're the chair. Let's go with a supervisor, Coonerty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have any questions. I'm supportive of all the recommendations. I would not support a election pact that has charged people with the businesses of Brooklyn, the state ministry for the state of Illinois County. Supervisor Coonerty, could you repeat that last part? Cause you're garbled. Oh, sorry. Hopefully this is better. So I'm supportive of all the recommendations. I do believe that we should not sit with acts of prohibit this time for the schools to copy the administrative of small businesses. Actually, we don't need to be extra administrative burden on either them. And I think it would be also a significant administrative burden on the county. But I do support the fee delayed to when it's, to when it's safe to do so, but not have it be remitted back to the county. Thank you. Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for the good presentation and good research. I'm supportive of all the recommended actions. I am supportive of doing a ballot measure because the timeline that is being discussed is 2022. So I think that the amount of time that could be, that's a long time to help ease any sort of administrative burden and set up a structure that in a cost share would ensure that not only businesses are whole, but they actually would come out ahead financially. But I really think that we need a dedicated stream of environmental programmatic funding. We get asked a lot on the cleanups and even on the syringe services cleanup side. There's clearly a need in public works for this kind of program. People are already paying this fee on the bags anyway and soon we'll be on the cups. And it strikes me that I imagine that most people that pay it assume that the money goes somewhere other than just back to the business. And there's a way to do it so that the business actually is making money above and beyond whatever their administrative costs are and that the county also has a dedicated stream of money to help improve the environment locally. So, I mean, absent of that, I don't see anything in our future that would be providing this kind of funding. We generally like to have levies that discourage behavior such as this kind of pollution. So it makes sense to have these fees, but then we also like to then have that money come back to programs that also clean up or and or improve those kinds of situations which this money would. So I would support public works moving forward with something toward a 2022 measure, which is some time off and specifically having a share with the businesses. I do not support the county taking all the fees or all the funds. I think that the businesses should actually, not just from an administrative side, but just in general should come out more than a whole on this, but I think that we could, it would be unwise for us to pass up an opportunity to have somewhere between one and two million additional dollars coming for environmental programmatic funding for the county that I think is so desperately needed. Thank you, Chair. Supervisor McPherson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the public works department to bring this item forward. As you know, I've been supportive of taking regional actions and approach to reducing plastics and our waste stream. I think there's more momentum behind that county taking individual actions and being very successful at it. We've been terrific at reducing our recycling programs, I should say, in Santa Cruz County. I will be supportive of these actions as long as they have a positive impact on our environment and they're not overly onerous on businesses, as has been mentioned. I do appreciate postponing the single cup ordinance until January or beyond, given the public situation, the public health situation and can be supportive of asking our voters to determine how those funds should be used. That said, I have a couple of questions and presently the ordinance calls for retailers keeping the single cup fee. What are the costs that retailers might be able to offset with that revenue? Have you identified those or have they told you exactly? I know there's been a varying response. You said some say it'll cost them $400. I think that was per year. But where might they be, where might be the offset? And of course this is to be for future considerations. In a Christina Horvat to come up on our program coordinators who worked with some of the businesses. Some of their concerns was basically the cash registers. Some were really small businesses and they may have had to bring in someone to help manage their registers or reprogram them. So that was mainly the costs that they were concerned about and training their staff to, so that was just two of the things that really came up the most. Okay, thank you. Questions and comments. First of all, thank you for the presentation. Glad we got to see Christina up here. I know you were out there doing the work, talking to all these folks, making that contact and dealing with the concerns and support that's out there. And also Tim Gontraff who's been a leader on recycling efforts for many years here in Santa Cruz County. On supportive of pushing off the single use cup fee until January, COVID has really changed a lot of things in the world and people's concern about reusable items has definitely been affected. Some of it has been very legitimate concern and some of them is just fear. You mentioned something about the bags and coming back in August about bags. And it was my understanding that the governor let the order lapse about not using reusable bags. So what is it that you plan on bringing and what would that look like? So there's a statewide ordinance that requires a minimum of 10 cents per bag statewide. And then we have a local ordinance that requires 25 cents. So we would come back just delaying the county's 25 cent charge. They would still have the 10 cent charge from the state. But if we delayed it, then we wouldn't be doing the enforcement locally for our ordinance. I'm just trying to understand why. I mean, if we're allowed to use reusable bags, why wouldn't we keep that? Can I explain that? So there's a Cal OSHA rule in which employers are told to not let their employees touch the reusable bag and to not let the reusable bag touch the counter or the conveyor belt. So the practical effect is that somebody would have to put their own groceries back in their cart and then take them out in the parking lot or outside the store and bag them themselves. It makes it very impractical to be able to bag your own bag. So that's why we thought we would delay the charge because I thought that it would be for the public to be charged the 25 cents. But the only practical alternative is to take their groceries out into the parking lot to bag them themselves. It seems very impractical. If that's accurate, that I agree. When I went into the grocery store this weekend, one of the things they said that you can bring your reusable bags, you just have to bag them yourself. So that's the disconnect for me about what you're saying and what my experience has been. So when I'll do some more research before I see something come back, I do support all these actions. And I'm glad to see we're moving forward on the contact lenses on the mylar balloons and one out of mine. The microfibers? The microfibers. I do think we should move forward with this. And public works has always played an important role in our recycling efforts and our waste reduction efforts. And I think it would make sense to move forward with environmental health as well on it. And these commissions, the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Commission makes a lot of sense to me. The commission on the environment, not as much, but I don't have a strong feeling about that. I like using our different communication organs to be able to share information with people. I do think one of the things that would be useful would be having to identify a source of funds that we could actually get some of these microfiber devices and give them out as part of an educational campaign. I know that Tim was looking to identify a source. The prices of these have varied depending on when I've looked at it, but I think getting some public information about the ease in which these can be applied to someone's system and the cost seems to be coming down, that it seems like there's some value in that. And even if we got a hundred of them and we asked the city of Santa Cruz to get a hundred of them, you could actually do a campaign that would help people see that these devices are easy to install, easy to get, not very expensive. And I think that would help in terms of the uptick of people using these devices in order to prevent the continued microfiber pollution that we have in our environment. So I'd love to see that as part of an outreach campaign. Before COVID, we were planning on at Earth Day being able to educate people about some of the different devices that are out on the market. And it is something we were looking to as just like we have with reusable bags and with cups before, we were planning on getting a small supply of these to have people start sampling them. We've also looked to different research, including UCSC to be able to partner with them to try to sample some of these to see what the actual efficiency of them are. So we are working on it, COVID kind of put a... Understandably, understandably. But it would be great to, you know, once we're past this moment that we're in to pick that up again because the evidence of this pollution is real, in my opinion. And for us to be able to do things to slow the spread of this pollution and stop it and 90% of the cases in people's washing machines makes a lot of sense to me. I look forward to the public testimony. We're gonna go to the public. The educational department is familiar with what actually goes in for these type of things in your office, so you're putting your outreach on. I don't know too many people that actually know exactly what goes in the recycle and what actually goes into the garbage. For example, like a coffee cup, I guess the lid goes in the garbage too, or and the cup goes in the garbage, or can they possibly be put in the recycle? I've never gotten a clear answer on that. So I think of the educational part will be really important so that we can cut back on a lot of plastic that could be recycled going into the garbage. And the other is, I think we need to focus really a lot on companies that manufacture all the plastic products that we now have and make them totally recyclable. So then there's no real confusion. We don't have, and it went past pretty quick. 20.8 tons would be removed out of the landfill. Was that per year? Yeah, for every 10% reduction in single cup use, there would be 20.8 tons approximately removed from the landfill. 20.8 tons, that's two and a half garbage truck loads. Correct. That's per year? Yes. It seems like it would be more, wouldn't it? Well, they're pretty light and small. So overall, if we look on the whole all of the cup use, it's 25 garbage trucks. This is what all the cup use in this county would fill. Remember, they're smashed up and small. But I mean, that number could be a little lighter. I weighed some cups that we have around the office and I took the lower amount so that it could be quite a bit more. Okay, yeah, and now this is for the unincorporated area or the other cities, the four cities in Santa Cruz County, are they showing any sign of extending the timeline to January 1st, 2021? I spoke with the city of Santa Cruz and the city of Watsonville and very differing responses actually. City of Santa Cruz plans on implementing according to their timeline still, September 8th for their cup charge. They won't be enforcing until about six months after that. That six months is gonna be an education campaign. City of Watsonville, I spoke to date this morning and they're kind of putting it on the back burner right now as far as enforcing. They don't plan on rolling it out as of yet until they're kind of on a wait and see approach with what happens with what's going on with COVID right now. Right, because I got a call yesterday actually from a large chain grocery store and they were asking if Watsonville is gonna extend the free bags until January or are they gonna stop it right now? For bags there, because they were kind of all over the place they've finally did tell people to the grocers to stop charging but as of the time that the governor said it's okay for grocers if they want to they've been kind of in a holding pattern still. They haven't issued a public response to what going forward at this point. And that was from, I can't remember her last name but her first name's Hilda and she helps to run the recycling program there in Watsonville. So basically they would stay with their current... But they're just not enforcing currently. Okay, they're not gonna change it right away. Okay, that's about it. So there were six different recommendations. So I don't know, it seems like I'm for one, two, three and four and maybe putting off five and six but I'm not sure if I have the numbers correct. Yeah, so five is providing additional direction. So if your direction is that we wait till the 2022 ballot or if that's one of the directions then that's certainly we're waiting for direction from the board on that one. There's not a specific date recommendation in here. Just beyond, we think it's better to go beyond the November date. So when we vote on this are we, is the ballot measure part of the whole thing or we have to separate it? I think that's at the discretion of the board what you guys wanna do. If you, if there's a motion that we pursue a ballot measure for the 2022 election then we'll follow that direction. Yeah, then I really appreciate what you're doing here. I'm astounded by how much plastic is in, is ending up in the ocean. It's ending up in our washing machines when you wash the clothes. These microfibers are everywhere. So we have to do something. So I'm for all of it, but I don't wanna see the measure fail in November because we're not ready. And also I think businesses they're hurting right now and they don't want any more pressure from the economic standpoint. So it may fail. I don't want that to happen. Okay. That's it. I'll go for a motion of the public comment. I'll open it up for public comment and people here would have three minutes to speak. Anyone in the community room? No one in the community room. Okay. Any web comments? Yes, we have three or two web comments. The first one is from Catherine O'Day. This comment is for agenda item number eight. Good morning. I'm Catherine O'Day, Executive Director of Save Our Shores and I'm speaking on behalf of our thousands of constituents in this County. I have a number of comments I would like to make relative to plastics today. First, I want to inquire now that the science has been published in a number of studies demonstrating that reusables are as safe as disposables. Will the County return to enforcing all of our existing plastic ordinances, including the ban on container single use plastics and non-recyclable or compostable food service ware? Second, I want to urge passage of the contact lens take back ordinance, which will significantly decrease the number of disposable lenses that are flushed down the toilet and out into our waterways and our bay. Third, it is time to take action not just listen to further research and recommendations about this item like balloons and microplastics. Balloons kill an untold number of marine mammals and seabirds annually and have been shown to tangle in electric wires and spark fires. Their sale in our County should be banned. Microplastics are now known to be ambiguous in our drinking water, including bottled water and in food items like fish, honey and sea salt. Washing machine filters have been proven in multiple states to reduce the flow of microplastics into our waterways. It is time to consider an ordinance requiring all new washing machines, commercial or residential be equipped with a microfiber filter. You have shown tremendous leadership taking action to address our ocean plastic pollution crisis. Plastic pollution is no longer just an environmental issue. It is a human health issue. So please continue the leadership. Thank you. And the second comment is from Ashley Drager. Good morning, Chair Caput and supervisors. My name is Ashley Drager and I am the Pacific Policy Communication Manager with Oceana. On behalf of Oceana's more than 150,000 members in California, I comment in support of agenda item number eight to address litter and pollution reduction from plastic contact lenses. Plastics are profoundly flawed by design as it is material made to last forever but designed to be thrown away. Plastic waste generated in the state threatens wildlife, poses risk to public health and places a huge economic burden on communities in the state. A study by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute identified consumer or originated plastic debris more than two miles deep in Monterey Canyon. Once in the marine environment, plastic can starve or choke wildlife when ingested and acts as a conduit for harmful pollutants that make their way into the food chain. The ordinance before you is a free and convenient way for businesses to help their customers and other residents of the county safely dispose of plastic contact lenses to prevent these sources of plastic from entering the Monterey Bay. I'm sorry, to prevent the sources of plastic from entering the Monterey Bay's productive and diverse ocean environment, which is treasured by locals and sought after world destination by visitors. The ordinance before you is another opportunity for Santa Cruz to be a leader and a critical part of the puzzle in addressing the single-use plastic crisis. And that is all. Okay, thank you. And anyway, I'm open for a motion. And if you can figure out all the numbers, that'd be great. Yeah, well, I would recommend, I would make the motion to move forward on the recommended actions, which include delaying the fee. Also give additional direction for public works and environmental health to work together on the public education campaign. And for staff to come back at the appropriate time to talk about a 2022 ballot measure. We have a first and second, I'll go along with that. And anybody else, no other comment will follow the roll. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. Thank you very much. Thank you. And that takes us to number nine, public hearing to consider an adopted ordinance to extend a moratorium on the issuance of new vacation rental permits as outlined in the memorandum of County Council. Good morning, Board. Jason Heath County Council. This item is a public hearing to extend the moratorium on the issuance of new vacation rental permits during the time that your Board is doing the legislative work around adopting new vacation rental guidelines and regulations. The reason why we're asking you to extend it at this time is because the moratorium would elapse before your next Board meeting if you don't extend it at this time. This requires a four-fifths vote. I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Any questions for Board members? No, I look forward to this passage. Okay. I'll now open up for the public hearing. Each person will have three minutes to speak and we'll start with the public here in the chambers. Thank you. Yes, my name is David LaValle. I own a property at 367 Beach Drive in Aptos. I'm not new to the area. I've been coming here since 1977 when my wife and I announced our engagement at my mother and father-in-law's house in Aptos. Starting 20 years ago, we've owned a beach rental property all of those years. And so I would urge you not to extend this moratorium for several reasons, flaws in the ordinance as I see it right now. Proposing a 12% limit in Live Oak is a mistake. You're rewarding the worst area of vacation rentals in the county. To be clear, sir, we're talking about just the moratorium on new vacation rentals. The next item is talking about the particulars about the changes in our vacation rental ordinance. Okay. I think you don't need to extend the moratorium and there's some flaws in it. Part of it is because there are only, I think, seven or eight pending permit approvals right now. Most of the properties, like my property, are not suitable for the regular housing stock. It has never been in the regular housing stock. It doesn't have a front yard or a backyard. It was built and designed 70 years ago, specifically to be a vacation house, a beach rental, like most of the properties on Beach Drive. So what I'm worried about is the properties on Beach Drive, which is a microcosm of the county are being lumped in with other residential neighborhoods and maybe unfairly limited. Right now, the island, I don't own a house on the island. I think you guys know what the island is, the 29 houses on Beach Drive. Those houses, only three of them have a parking stall. So if this ordinance goes through the way you have it written, those houses will slowly be taken out of the vacation rental stock. They won't qualify anymore, unless there's an exemption for that. My property, which I've owned for 20 years, I have a mortgage on it. I've paid over 400,000 in property taxes during the time I've owned it. Always paid my property taxes. I've paid over 100,000 in transient occupancy tax while I've owned it. I've paid multiple thousands of dollars in vacation rental permit fees. And I believe the permits are good. We should have those. But going forward, the value of that property is probably significantly less if there's no assurance that it could maintain being what it is. It's not going to go into the permanent housing stock, I can tell you. I also worry about doing ordinances like this during the COVID crisis. I did try to sit in on the 16th meeting. It's very difficult to participate in these meetings from remote. It's a pseudo public process, but it's not really the public process. So I've urged you to think about this a little bit more. Santa Cruz County is a fragile economic ecosystem. All the money that comes through my property and get spread into the county, most likely comes from other parts of the state. You're going to slowly make it clear, and you've done this now since you started the vacation permit process, then you limited it to five years. And now you want to cap it that this is not a friendly place to invest. It would be much easier for you to work with the planning staff to make it easier to get multifamily housing approved in the county. You could fix the problem of parking and multifamily housing by working through those channels instead of this. Thank you. Randy Maldonado, the broker of Cheshire Real. I'm requesting exemption for beach drive. And for these reasons, I've been at Cheshire for 32 years. And I remember 20 years ago when buyers who bought properties and the subprime declined their value, they started running. Here comes VRBO. When VRBO showed up, we had to lower our prices because all of a sudden the week mandate became a two day rental on the supervised houses with no professional broker mandating that people take care of them. I'm here to do that. I have three owners on beach drive, one that I sold that would like to apply for a permit. And wow, he's surprised that he can't apply for that. I understand that you and your wisdom, the institution of the ordinance was to protect family neighborhoods, from wildness, crazy parties. Beach drive in a mile long, 95% of vacation homes, second homes, we're a quarter mile away from it. We handle the problems when they come up. And so what I see there is that you and your wisdom should let us do our job there. And what does it create? The inability for investors to get a second home, have income and be able to enjoy it and still have an upward spiral of value. So that's all we're requesting is that hopefully beach drive can continue to create the dollars for the county as well as the people that I employ, the vendors that I employ, and as well as the landlords. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the community room? Any web comments? Okay, bring it back to the board. Any motions or questions? Well, we've done a lot of talking about vacation rentals in the years that I've been on the board. We took up in January the idea of making changes to our vacation rentals to deal with the changing circumstances in our community. This board thought that we were gonna get a moratorium in place last February. And when it became clear that that wasn't happening, that's why we took this action to an act one. And so in our next item, we're gonna be talking about placing a cap on the number of vacation rental permits as a total. And so therefore I support the institution of a moratorium on the vacation rental permits that will continue past the date of this first emergency ordinance. So I would move the recommended action. Second. Well, first and second. Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The process is unanimously and that takes us to item number 10. Consider ordinance amending Santa Cruz County Code section 13.10.694 vacation rentals and uses charts within sections 13.10, 0.312, 1310, 0.32. 13.10, 0.352, and 13.10, 0.372 to implement amendments to 13.10, 0.694 proposed amendments in the coastal zone require review and certification by the California Coastal Commission and making findings of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and schedule the ordinance for a second reading and final adoption on August 4th, 2020 as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. There you go. Great, thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Caput and members of the board. I think it is still morning. As you just mentioned, this item, the vacation ordinance package was before your board for consideration on June 16th. And at that meeting, the board recommended staff make a handful of revisions to the ordinance. So as directed, the recommended revisions have been drafted and incorporated into the ordinance and the amended ordinance is now before you for your review. So to recap the board's direction on June 16th, the revisions recommended that staff, recommended by the board that staff make include revising the percentage caps on the number of vacation rental permits allowed in the designated areas to a numerical cap to make minor modifications to the parking section and include a requirement stipulating that owners or rentals located in the designated area subject to parking permits shall obtain a commercial parking pass as opposed to residential parking pass to add language to the permit processing level associated with four or more bedroom vacation rentals stipulating that the permit shall be provisional for one year with the option of four additional years upon compliance review at the one year mark. And to revise and clarify and strengthen the enforcement related provisions in the ordinance. So I'll just quickly go through the changes that were made. So early on in the process of amending the vacation rental ordinance, the board directed staff to include a revision to reduce the overall number of vacation rental permits in the designated areas. And in the initial version of the ordinance, staff had proposed to address this directive by lowering the percentage cap in the designated areas. But at the hearing on the 16th, the board directed staff to include a numerical cap for the vacation rentals in the designated areas as opposed to an across-the-board percentage cap for both vacation and hosted rentals. So as directed and as suggested, I think by a supervisor, Leah polled, the numbers that were included in the revisions are a numerical cap of 259 vacation rental permits in the Lota, 241 vacation rental permits in the state, which is proposed to be renamed to the Salza to include the Selva Beach and three vacation rental rental permits in the DASDA. And I just wanted to note that in the revised ordinance, an overall percentage cap for the designated areas is still proposed to account for the hosted rental permits in the designated areas. And there's a hosted rental ordinance amendment package following this package next month. The proposed percentage caps have been adjusted to reflect the new vacation rental numerical cap as directed by the board combined with the existing number of hosted rental permits that we have in the areas now. Also at its June 16th meeting, the board indicated support for the proposed parking amendments as drafted. However, there were some minor revisions made to the language, which were included. Section was also added that stipulates that vacation rental permit holders with properties located in a designated area subject to a parking permit pass shall obtain a commercial parking pass as opposed to a residential parking pass, such as in areas of the LODA. Another recommended change by the board on the 16th was to add a stipulation that for vacation rental permits for four or more bedroom vacation rentals that these permits be provisional for one year and upon review for compliance with county code and the vacation rental ordinance regulations that the permit may be extended for an additional four years to get them to the five years. So that was added. And finally upon review of the code violation portion of the draft ordinance, the board directed staff to revise the violation section to align the language outlining the grounds for non issuance and non renewal on the vacation rental renewal section with the general violation section which applies to existing rentals and potential rentals. So staff has made this revision. The board also directed staff to revise the violation section of the ordinance to provide greater flexibility and to bolster staff's ability to pull an existing rental permit up for reevaluation and potential revision. So to address the board's direction, staff developed a level four administrative review process. This would allow staff to reevaluate a permit and the conditions of approval associated with that permit following a pattern of complaints. Through this administrative review process, staff would be able to gather information from the complainants and the vacation rental operator to reevaluate the permit to apply new conditions of approval to the permit, et cetera. I wanted to point out that staff had initially included language that spoke to complaints combined with evidence of a violation as providing the basis to pull a project for administrative review. And upon posting the revised ordinance in the packet, it occurred to staff that this section as worded was not entirely clear and did not fully address the board's earlier direction. So this section, section L of the ordinance has been revised once more to address this issue. Then the board should have received a revised section L which is the violation section this morning or late last night. No? Sorry. Okay. Okay. Yes. Sorry. I was seeing that. So as depicted on the revised sheet, staff may now pull a permit up for administrative review upon evidence of a code violation or following a pattern of complaints. And I do have copies of that, of those revisions today. If you would like to see those. I would definitely like to see them. I did not see that should be. I just like to point out in the revised ordinance, the section that I just passed out on the second page on page 301. For some reason you'll see a red box with one of the words marked out. That word is may. In the clean version, the clean strikeout version that was provided in the packet this morning, it shows up. But in this strikeout version, I noticed that the may is blocked out. So do we receive this in our email this morning? I mean, I'm just trying to figure out when I would have. It's been attached to the item and it was on the revision. Okay, we're about ready for questions from the board. Have you finished your report yet? I did. Yes. I just wanted to reiterate one more time that this one revised section, the primary difference between what was provided in the earlier packet and this sheet, is the removal of the sentence, the evidence of county code violations or violations as being a basis for pulling a permit up for administrative review. Now staff has the ability to pull something up for administrative review based on a pattern of complaints or evidence of the code violation or violations to provide greater flexibility for staff to bring something for administrative review based on a pattern of complaints only, which I believe more accurately captures the direction of the board from the June 16th hearing. You're okay. I have a number of questions about the ordinance. Okay, you want to do it now? Yeah, sure. Okay, go ahead. Thank you for the presentation. I'm still trying to assimilate this new section. So I may come back at the end of after other questions with additional remarks. I first wanted to talk about the questions of number of permits and percentages. So I was surprised when we, because we talked about dropping the percentages because my interest was not creating any disagreement about interpretation about percentages and instead have a clear specific number. So it was a surprise to me that both a number was in there and the percentages. I'll probably ask that to be taken out. But the related question was, when I look at the 259 permits in the Loda, is that just homes and does not include hosted rentals? That's correct. That's vacation rental permits. Yeah. So to me, that it sort of gives a false picture of how many there is. Do you know how many hosted permits there are? In the Loda, as I recall, there are 40. And they are the existing number of hosted rentals and we don't have, I think when we were currently drafting a package of hosted rental amendments now, and we felt that maybe a way to deal with capping the hosted rentals was to still maintain an overall cap for the designated area to account for the hosted rentals combined with the vacation permits, the numerical cap. But it is one way we can handle that is to have a numerical cap for hosted rental permits as well in the designated areas. Yeah, I mean, I think this 12% number is a false number, right, the number of places in the number of properties that have guest services is higher than 12%. And that's why having clear numbers to me makes a lot more sense. I'll come back to that at the end. The question of the block map, the idea that we should have less interpretation of what constitutes so many on a block by having a block map makes some sense to me. But two questions I have, one is we're not gonna see the block map until August 4th, which is slightly worrisome. But then there's also language in here about, it's in 1310-2-2, which is the planning director or designee has discretion to adjust the block map upon making the following findings. So I thought that the reason we were having the block map is so we could have a better definition and we wouldn't be leaving it up to interpretation. And I'm a little worried about approving a map or approving the concept of a map that I haven't seen along with discretion to change that map that I haven't seen. I don't know whether that's a good idea or a bad idea, not having seen the map, I'm less inclined to support that kind of interpretation because I think it's just worries me. If we're gonna have a block map, I think we're gonna take out the question of interpretation. I thought that was our goal. Yes, that is true. That is the goal and the black maps have been created. They were going to be part of the August 4th package, a reference to those maps that are on a GIS layer. The reason why we included the ability for someone to request a map adjustment is because we have such incongruous blocks in the designated areas that was very challenging to map them and we wanted to provide a property owner the opportunity to have us take another look at the map on a case by case basis. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how people in the neighborhood have some assurances about what's actually gonna happen or not, right? And so I thought we were trying to reduce that question by having the block map and then this additional provision seems to run counter to that. And so I'm uncomfortable with that language about giving the discretion. The question about complaints, I appreciate the efforts that staff has made to create a system that can actually effectively deal with complaints because I'm not sure that right now we do it as well. And between what you just shared with us, which is section L and section E, which is about local contact person, in section E it has to be verified by County Code of Enforcement, but there's nothing in section L that says anything about verification. So I'm trying to get a sense as to what is, what's verified, what's not verified, what do you have to, if I'm giving, trying to give a direction to a county resident who's trying to figure out how to deal with a problem, this is the part where it's hard for the interpretation here where it says a verified complaint, but then in our section about violation doesn't say anything about verified. So I can imagine when a local contact person, if I call my cell phone at 1130 at night and then at 1230 at night I call again, I could say, look, documentation, that should be good enough. I'm not sure if that's verified, however. Right, so this, the verified section in section E is just one section where we make crystal clear in the code that failure to respond within 60 minutes does constitute a verified code compliance issue and may, and we still have the provision that two verified complaints will compel staff to bring something up for consideration of revocation. But in addition to that, we now have the ability for a neighbor to let us know that, hey, I called, they didn't answer, it doesn't need to be verified. That would go into the pattern of complaints section that we have now where it doesn't need to be verified if neighbors now bring to our attention that someone hasn't been operating in accordance with regulations. We can actually bring them up for administrative review based on a complaint. I like that, I think it's confusing, however, about the question of when we put this language in there. I think if we're gonna have this language, we should have some kind of policy document that's clear about how we're gonna deal with these issues. And that would be nice to review at the board, or at least as an informational item. So we're all clear on what the guidance is for the staff. So we can give clear directions and we can manage expectations for people in the community. I think right now it's slightly confusing. Are we gonna be able to work this out now, or would you like to put it off till August for the first reading? Chair, I'm just trying to ask questions about this. We just got something, at least I got something important. So I'm just going through the elements of the ordinance that are there that's important. Okay, that can be cleared up now. I'm hoping so. Okay. You can call me for an odd give clear direction when the time comes for a motion. But there are a couple other places. There's a number of different section here about signs, local contact person, posting of rules, noise, et cetera. There's nothing in each section that says failure to post signs could result in possible revocation. Do we feel like Section L captures that? I mean, these are the complaints I hear that I couldn't reach somebody when I called that I didn't know who to call because there wasn't a signage up, but maybe the number on the app was incorrect. You know, these are, when you're being woken up at midnight or whatever it is, those are, that's a real problem, right? And I'm wondering whether we have strong enough language in this to know, maybe Council wants to weigh in, because I could see adding a sentence to each of those to make sure that everybody knows that your permit could be revoked if you don't keep the information updated. So Supervisor, I'm looking at the language in L that's been added and the sentences that are important to me for enforcement purposes are the one that says violation of the requirements to obtain a vacation rental permit, may be grounds for denial of a new vacation rental permit application. And the second one says, other violations of the county code may be grounds for administrative review of an existing vacation rental permit for denial of a renewal application and for revocation of an existing vacation rental permit after consideration at a noticed public hearing. That sentence right there, I believe gives us all we need to take action with due process against someone who has engaged in violations of the county code. Yeah, I mean, this is, I'm less concerned about the ones that are property manager, that they seem to be generally well run, but we do have problem houses. And because of our lax enforcement, it's sort of gotten worse. And I just want to make sure that we have the language in there that we're able to deal with the issue effectively. Cause I don't want to come back and say, well, you didn't put that in the ordinance. There may be a way for us to simplify the language supervisor to so that those sentences that I read right there don't get lost in the midst of some of the other language. And maybe planning could work with our office to address that, if that remains a concern for you. Yeah, I just want the last, that may be a good idea because there is the last thing that I would like, I've heard a lot from constituents about this and the concern was just how these are overtaking neighborhoods. And when you look at these numbers, the Salza is obviously a lot bigger area and has the same number of permits, but the Lota is a very compact, dense area. And it was negotiated solution 10 years ago to have this 15%. I would argue we're probably at 15% or close to it with those hosted rentals, which is much greater than any of the other areas. And so what I'd like to do is reduce the number of the total vacation rental permits by 15%. So that number goes from 259 to 220. That we strike the language about percentages because I think that that's a false number. And we wouldn't exclude, people who have permits, we wouldn't go out and find a number of people to take permits away. But when it came time for renewal, if we were at that, if we were above 220, we would not allow renewals until we could get to 220. Okay, that's a change. I think as it's currently drafted in the ordinance, renewals are not affected by the permit cap. Then just new, just new. It's just affects new. And we were at 259 when we were here in January. So we included 259, the 12% again reflects the current, the 259 cap in addition to the current number of hosted rentals that comes to 12% in the LODA. We could look at capping the number of hosted rentals to an numerical cap in the designated areas. We're just looking for a way to reconcile those two. Yeah, I'd like one clear cap. Okay. That's really what it comes down to. Okay. That's good to know since we are, I think we're just finalizing the hosted rental permit amendments. I did want to just, if I may go back quickly to the violation section because I would like to make changes to this section per your direction. But I think the section's one that we've grappled with quite a bit and it would be nice to make sure that on the record we have the second piece of what Jason was just reading in the amended section. If I may, it says a pattern of complaints. So this is some new language, a pattern of complaints such as operating the vacation rental while under emergency orders that prohibit such operation evidence that the rental is being misadvertised and or reports that the local contact person was non responsive on one or more occasion or complaints or evidence, complaints or evidence of violations of any other provisions of the county code may also result in a permit being subject to administrative review, which is a level four permit process, including neighboring neighbor notice, planning staff consideration, additional amended conditions of approval and possible revocation if we find that those complaints were egregious. So you're reading in changes that are different from the changes that you was out this morning and different than what was in the past. This is what we sent out this morning. That is what I just handed out, but I just wanted to make sure since you didn't have a chance to read that, that I brought it to your attention. And just for clarity sake, I didn't actually mean renewals. Renewals have traditionally not been counted towards increasing the caps of new permits. Yeah, it's, I look forward to the conversation with my colleagues about this. I'm trying to figure out this violation section. Okay, thank you. I don't have a clear sense about it yet, but maybe why other talk, I can look at this and get a better sense. I'm done. I can open up the others. Okay, the other supervisors, supervisor friend. Thank you, chair. And I think it was straight for the presentation and also for all of your work on the amendments between last meeting and this meeting. I think that the new violation section language does reflect the board's direction from the last meeting, which was to make it broad in the capability for the county to be able to enforce on issues associated with violations of the county code. And I think that the language that you have proposed meets that need. It's also, I support supervisor Leopold's efforts within his own district to reduce the numbers. As you may remember, this board was divided originally on the hosted rental number component, but I'm glad to see that the board is becoming more united on the fact of a reduction of the overall numbers of both vacation rental and hosted rentals. I think having a clear top number would be very easy for everybody to enforce. And I think that would be important. So I am supportive of what supervisor Leopold's saying. I do think there was maybe one element of confusion based on the back and forth. I wanna be sure is clear. The question was raised about whether this was a change for existing rentals at least within supervisor Leopold's district. The way I was interpreting what he was looking for was that there would be a 15% reduction, meaning that as things are potentially revoked or not renewed, new ones would not be able to come online until that 15% number was met. This is not, this would not impact anybody that has a permit in good standing is my understanding. And that isn't the intention of the board to impact anybody that has a current permit in good standing. But as there is an evolution over time, maybe somebody's not interested in maintaining a permit or maybe they lose the permit for valid reasons that there wouldn't be new ones coming online. So supervisor Leopold, I just wanna make sure that that was your intention. Cause it seemed that maybe it was a little bit confusing to planning staff. Bruce. He's trying to figure out. You gotta turn the mic on. I couldn't hear what you were saying, but I just like to clarify, I'm curious about the criteria to deny standard permit renewal without a history of complaints. And I appreciate supervisor Leopold's questions and as well as supervisor friends because this is where these rentals are concentrated, but I'm just curious about, and maybe that'll be answered in the process about the criteria to deny a standard permit renewal without a history of complaints on that property. As for misstating, when I spoke, we're only talking about new vacation rentals, not renewals. So if someone has had no history of complaints and it comes time to renew, they would be allowed to renew their... Okay. Thank you. Hi, this is Brian Cootkey. So we didn't hear the answer to Zach Friend's question about the overall cap and the question of whether existing rentals count towards that cap or not. You mean existing home rentals and hosted rentals? Yes. You wanna say something? Yes, yes, the percentage cap captures the numerical cap that is in the revised ordinance, the 259, 241 and three. And takes into account the current number of hosted rental permits that we have issued in these designated areas. That's how we get to the 12% cap, the 3.9% cap and the 3.3% cap. So I just took the numerical caps as directed by the board on June 16th, and I looked at how many hosted rentals and I arrived at that percentage. We could easily strike the percentage cap because this is really only dealing with the vacation rental permits and we could keep the 259, 241 and three as directed by the board previously. And then in the hosted rental ordinance that we're working on now, we could include a numerical cap for hosted rentals. So we would have a numerical cap for vacation rentals and a numerical cap for hosted rentals. That's one, I think, very clear way of dealing with this question. Okay. Chair, this is Supervisor Friend. I just had one other point of clarification. There was a community member on Beach Drive that raised an issue in the previous item that really was more relevant for this item regarding the parking components. And nothing that is being proposed on this would impact current permit holders. There's no expectation that his rental or any of the other rentals on Beach Drive magically have parking that they don't currently have. What's being proposed is for new applications would have to meet these new requirements for parking. So I just wanted to make sure that that point was clear to the constituent or the community member that had that question. That's correct. Can we get one clarification on that then? You'll get a chance to, when you come up. All right. Well, we'll open up the public hearing here pretty quick. I guess the only comment I'll make is in District Four, which I represent, I don't think we have any vacation rentals, right? I don't have the numbers on me for District Four, but if you have any, it's very few. I think you have some hosted rentals. Right. So anyway, I've been given a lot of leeway here to, because it's very important to other districts in the county. So if we can work out, open it up for public hearing. Anyone in the chamber, if you want to speak. David LaValle, 367 Beach Drive, just to make a couple of clarifications. I do feel like by setting the numbers this way that live vote gets rewarded, even though it's probably the area of the highest complaints, because it has a higher percentage. And the Beach Drive solves that area, has had a lower number. Happen it at stability. Excuse me. We're capping out at what do we consider a stable level, but that area has had very little evidence of complaints because most of those properties are professionally managed. So it seems like it would be fair to do something like seven and a half or 9% as a cap everywhere, but you guys make the rules. I will say just, in some of the public comments, there's this notion that everybody that owns a house over in that area inherited it, and there are these rich people and all this stuff. I have a mortgage on my property. The rental income I get pays mostly, as I said, 22,000 in property taxes every year, 7,000 in occupancy tax, 8,000 for property management. And by the time I get done, I run about 20,000 negative. So I just want to make that point. I'm not making a killing in the rental business, but it does help me afford the house. The other part is I want to clarify on the parking issue, if a property currently has a vacation rental and it changes hands, a new property owner has it, then that would be a new vacation rental. So basically what you're saying is that people, if you sell your house, the new owner is going to be in a crapshoot situation, whether or not they'll be able to continue it as a residential or vacation rental house. On beach drive, those properties have historically been vacation rentals. And I think you're gonna decimate the value of a lot of those properties. The day after this passes, I'm going to the assessor's office and I'm asking for about a 25% break in my property taxes because the value of that house is partly predicated on my or anyone else's ability to pay the mortgage based on the vacation rental income. I just want to make sure you guys understand that. And also I do think that there are better ways to fix the housing problem in Santa Cruz County. The planning staff is already overburdened with projects. Now we're funneling a bunch of small items through them and increasing the level of jurisdiction that they have to have over those. It's going to create a big burden on the planning staff. You should be trying to roll out the welcome mat and say Santa Cruz County is ready to help you build multi-family housing here. Roll out the welcome mat to multi-family housing developers. That's the way to move the needle on the housing stock. It's not by getting eight houses on the beach to turn into long-term rentals. Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody else? Sorry, this is Supervisor Coonerty. I'd like to make a point that most of my district built as an education rentals. Seabright, lower west side, each flat area. It's now transitioned to a healthy mix of neighborhood and rentals and we haven't seen any property values decrease. And it's been a net overall good thing to our city and our community. It's probably supporting the ordinance. I'll move the recommended actions. We have more, thank you. Good morning, Norman Schutzberger, 59134th. 20% one fifth, one out of every five homes per block. This is truly the heart of the matter. A 20% per block allowance for vacation rentals condemns our residential community neighborhood to that density of party houses on each and every block. Five bedrooms, purpose-built businesses, as is the one on St. Enns and 35th. Eight allowed on a 40-home block. Up to 192 partiers, cars galore cramming our narrow streets. It doesn't matter whether district-wide percentages are four, eight, 12, the avenues from Twin Lakes Pleasure Point through Opal Cliffs is being converted to hospitality fund zones by continuing that 20% block density. Your measles map here tells the story. Each red pustule represents one more vacation rental assault on our community. This map, far better than words can describe, depicts the despoliation caused by retaining that 20% per block and making those existing permits automatically renewable. So what to do? Do the right thing. First, require county enforcement, not the solely and ineffectively one reliant on neighbor complaints. Fairness, bring LIVO district average density down to under 4%, the average of Aptos and Davenport as staff has demonstrated. Most importantly, bring per block density in line with average district density to alleviate that choking concentration evidenced by county's map. Limit vacation rental permits to five years, period, not renewable. Please, I am begging you, act in your constituents' interests. Thank you for your time. Any other comments? My remarks were made before these changes were presented. So they may be a little bit of mix and match. The one thing that I would like to say about the amendment changes that you've made, under violations you use the word may. Everywhere else you use the word shall. I'd like to see shall under violations. Barcelona expects to reduce its license to its apartments to return to the normal rental market by 30% to meet the long-term needs of their city. We talk about with that we have a housing crisis and yet this does not really do anything. The original premise was to help long-term housing. I don't see that these amendments actually do that. I'd like to see the processes and application fees be based on room rates, not just a flat fee, because that would add additional money to TOT where you make cuts in the number of permits, you raise the fees in other ways. I urge you to get creative, think backwards. Look at how much comes in, how you can make it up in other ways. How many of you have vacation rentals next door to you? That's a big question. I don't think any of you do. And the one thing in here is that you have redlined out the number of people allowed. Is it still the same where you have two additional per room aid? That is totally overkill. Do you want 24 people next to you 365 days a year? That's a big issue of how many people are allowed. And it has nothing to do with room rates. There's nothing about the nuisance issues of noise, litter, parking, not even a word that says permit holders shall require vacation renters to be curious, courteous of neighbors and respectful behaviors that are mandated. That could be under postage of rules. I feel that these amendments in many ways are disappointing and I would encourage you to go back to the drawing board. Patty Brady, thank you. Thank you. Any other comments in the boardroom? Anyone down in the community room? None. Web comments. We have one web comment. This is from Ken Davenport, Supervisor Leopold. Thank you for your thoughtful and critical comments. I agree that the language is confusing and too often left up to an administrator who has no clear guidance, our internal policy. Thank you. Chair, can we just get some clarity? Ms. Brady had asked about the question about the number of people in there. I don't think we've made changes. It was moved, it's shown us straight out because it was just moved to a different section but that's unchanged. Okay. And there was a question about connecting fees to rents. Are we allowed to do that council? She had suggested that we connect the fees for the vacation rental permits to the amount of rent that they would charge. Though we're only allowed to charge for the time we spend on it. We're not allowed to charge above that, right? Yeah, this is not a revenue raising permit scheme. Basically we charge the amounts, fixed amounts that relate to the amount of time the staff works on it in order to provide the permit. Thank you. Okay. The only question I got real quick. I think one of the gentlemen mentioned if he sells the property, then the vacation rental permit is not part of the sale, right? That's correct. That does affect the value of the property though. That provisions in the current ordinance now that we're working under and it's proposed to be unchanged. So that's true is that when the property sells the permit goes with the former property owner and the new property owner would be required to get a new permit. Right. So hypothetically, if I was gonna buy a property two years before I retire somewhere and then I see the properties up for sale and I know I'm not gonna move into it for two years, would I be able to rent it out at all? You would be required to. And for the two years until I moved down into the property. You would need a vacation rental permit and under this scheme you would be added to the waiting list because we're gonna cap the LODA or the SATA or the DASDA and then when your name comes up on the list you would be eligible to apply for a permit. That is the way the current package is put together. Or you could have a renter who lives in your house for two years. I could rent it out. Right, yeah, for sure. This is just for vacations. There's still a lot to rent out. You can still rent. You can rent it out, all right. Anything over 30 days is a month to month rental. Right. Like any other rental. And everything we're doing does not affect Pajaro Dunes, right? That's right. Actually, just with regard to the first speaker's comments there are areas in the county that are not subject to the cap limits and beach drive is one of those. And also Pajaro Dunes, we have a list in the ordinance. So it wouldn't affect beach drive anyway. The moratorium affects the beach drive until it lifts but not the numerical vacation rental permit cap. Okay, anyway, do we have a motion with the amendments? Chair, you know, Norman brought up the issues that I think are real. The concern about maintaining our residential neighborhoods has always been the driving force in the vacation rental permit discussion. It's been that way because we saw this slide into these commercial businesses operating in our residential neighborhoods. And 10 years ago we didn't have anything in place and we were watching neighborhoods disappear or blocks disappear. And I drafted an ordinance and those who are here remember it was very controversial. It took a lot of work and we negotiated a agreement to place some caps on. And at the first it was only in the Live Oak area. Over the years as new board members have joined here they've recognized that this problem that has been exacerbated by VRBO, Airbnb, HomeAway, all these places, not all of them were in existence in 2010 and 11 when we adopted this ordinance but the proliferation of these has resulted in increasing pressure on turning homes into businesses instead of residential areas. I think that the time for investor owned houses in our residential neighborhood, we need to put a stop on that. You know, in the Live Oak coastal neighborhoods this has always been a vibrant neighborhood community that we lose when we have people who buy the home so they can live in it a couple of weeks out of the year and then rent it out the rest of it. That changes the nature of the neighborhood. We've seen this in the city of Capitola who has a lot of second homes and just getting people to serve on committees and commissions has been affected by that. That said, I think it is hard to take someone who owns a home who bought it with the basis that they were gonna be able to do some renting out to just say, we're gonna stop allowing you to do that. And that's why we have this program of five year permits and we can start with this, we're taking some action to start putting the cap on and pushing it down and move over time to increasing number of homes. And I appreciate that there are people who want this to happen faster. That can always be difficult. And what I'd like to propose is that we adopt the recommended actions that we change the language on the district caps in the Lota to be 15% less than what they are now. And we don't include the percentages about hosted rentals, I don't wanna take this, I wanna end the interpretation and keep the specific numbers. I would like you to come back on August 4th when you bring the maps, the block map, with some information how a public member can file a complaint or verify a complaint as stated in the ordinance. So we understand what that guidance is. And that once this is approved by the coastal commission that we send out notices to all vacation rental owners so they know what these changes have been. Okay, so we have a motion, okay, let's go ahead. Just to clarify the motion, Supervisor, you first stated that we would adopt the recommended actions but we can't adopt the recommended action if we're gonna make changes to the ordinance. So this would have to come back. That's okay, so that would have to come back on August 4th for our first read. And I just wanna make sure that the clerk got that. Yeah, thank you for the clarification. Okay, so we have a motion, we have a second. All second, I do have one clarification which provides a little bit on the specificity language on the revocation or renewal. I just wanna be sure that it's always been my intention that that language be broad so that it's really any violation of the county code be something that can be interpreted. So I just wanna make sure we're not overly specifying what could lead to revocation or non-renewal. If I could have something in writing that about that broad nature, I'd be very happy about that. My concern, and so I totally support what Supervisor Friend is saying. I want a broad interpretation. We're gonna have to vote on this, go ahead. Yeah. We're responding to what my colleague brought up, so. We can't rewrite it now. So continuing, I don't mean to create a more difficult or a more narrow interpretation, but when we have issues like verified complaints, I just wanna make sure that they were cleared about what that verification process is or we should strike the language. Okay, I think we're on the same page. I was satisfied with the language they provided, at least in section L, and it seems like you're expressing concerns in a different section. And so that'll be something that we can work with Council on to ensure that we're there. But thank you. I'll maintain my second. Call for a vote. Mr. Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Kepit. Aye. Now we go to agenda item 11.1. Consider final reappointments to specific at-large positions on the Workforce Development Board and nominations were accepted on June 16th, 2020. Any questions from the board members? I would move the final appointment of Stephen Gray to the Santa Cruz Monterey Merced Managed Care Commission as an at-large hospital representative. Excuse me, that one has been deleted. Oh, okay. Staff has re-withdrew his application. Well, there you have it. We will not be considering that and I will not make that motion. What is the name on 11.1? There are several names. There are reappointments of the incumbents. Okay, thank you. That's enough. So we added 11.1. You're right. You want me to read it in? I'm happy to do that. So consider final reappointment to a specified at-large positions on the Workforce Development Board nominations accepted June 16th and there's a board memo printout. Okay. Anyone in the chambers would like to speak. Anyone downstairs in the community room? Any, nothing on the web, so we're okay. I move approval of the recommended actions on 11.1. Second. Please call the roll. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. We will now recess the closed session and then we'll reconvene at 1.30 or you want to make it 1.45? It's a scheduled item for 1.30 at this point. All right. We better get out of here if we don't have lunch here. Yeah, we didn't anticipate, I'm sorry, we didn't anticipate, we didn't bring in lunch today. Okay. Yeah, can we do that? We should. Okay. What you could do is take a break, have budget hearings at 1.30 and then continue to have the rest of the board meeting, including closed session at the close of the budget hearings. Okay. Okay. We'll do that. Is we and we have time, 35 minutes is enough for everybody to get lunch. You're okay, we're all okay. Okay. We'll reconvene at 1.30 for budget hearings. Thank you. We'll see if any of these people show up. That's the deal we'll resume, that's the graph this evening. Okay. 1.30, continued budget hearings, last day reports and concluding actions will now resume the continued budget hearing. It is Tuesday, June the 30th, 2020. Will the clerk please call the roll? Supervisor Leopold. Here. Friend. Supervisor Friend. Do we have Supervisor Coonerty? Here. Supervisor McPherson. Not yet. So we switched to a new team meeting. Oh. And Supervisor McPherson and Supervisor Friend might not. No. So maybe their analysts can contact them or somebody from IT can contact them to get them on the right teams meeting. Okay. Supervisor Friend. Supervisor Coonerty. Here. Supervisor McPherson. Chairperson Caput. Here. I'd say we keep on moving forward. Should we go ahead or do you want me to wait another minute? In 20 minutes. There was a challenge with the B-led act in the fraud. You have a quorum. So you can proceed if you'd like. You want to try McPherson one more time and then we'll go ahead. It doesn't look like he's there. Okay. All right. Consideration of late additions to the regular and consent agenda revisions and corrections. Mr. Palacios, are there any late additions or changes? No, there are no late additions or corrections. Okay. Public comment. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the board on topics on this agenda and topics that are not on the agenda but are within the jurisdiction of the board. Each person will have three minutes to speak. Is there any public testimony here on the chambers? And we do have one person. Hi. Hi. Okay. Can I step up? Okay. It's all yours. All right. Good afternoon, members of the County Board of Supervisors. My name is Elise Kasby and I've been an activist resident in Santa Cruz since 2013, summer of 2013. The reason that I'm here today has to do with my involvement as an activist in some of the movements that we've been hearing so much about the Black Lives Matter movement and things like questioning the policing budgets and the budgets for jails and so forth and so on. And so my comment today is pretty general. I was just visiting the offices in the building trying to find out what I could about government budgets and how does somebody even really approach them and who's in charge of them and so forth and so on. And so that is what my comment is somewhat directed to today is that as an activist is really interested in matters of democracy and government who spent the last 25 years being deeply involved in grassroots movements and just sort of finding out what the lay of the land is. Who are the different groups? I tend to be on the left over to the center, to the radical left all the way to the center. And I have even some things and come with people on the right. My general feeling about it is, is that people are feeling extremely alienated from government at this time. And specifically when it comes down to law enforcement, I think there's many questions. I don't pretend that I'm representing anybody here today because I'm not an official spokesman. I'm just strictly speaking to you as a citizen. In particular, I am very concerned about the county jail and the recent death of a young person named Tomario Smith. The excuse that was given is it doesn't really seem to be, do I still have a minute? Okay, it doesn't really seem to be factually based enough. It's he died of some kind of over ingestion of water. So I just wanna say in these times, I think it would be really helpful if government would go what might seem to the status quo and people involved in the status quo as the extra extra mile to bring in the public and questions about especially law enforcement and budget, how the jail is maintained and so forth. I'm sure you're aware of what's going on, but that's the first thing that I just wanted to say. And the second thing that I wanted to say is that I have witnessed the beefing up of policing, especially against the homeless. That's really what I think it amounts to. And I think that what we need are social services and outreach, so thank you for listening to me today. Welcome. Any public testimony in the community room? Okay, anything on the web? We have two web comments. The first web comment is from Ken Davenport. Dear supervisors, I'm disappointed that the budget was mostly approved without more critical discussion but COVID-19, your constituents are out of jobs furloughed and having trouble meeting basic needs for their families. Yet, from the funding perspective, it seems like business as usual in Santa Cruz County government. I sincerely hope you work harder this year to listen and understand the needs of your community. Thank you for your consideration. And the second web comment is from Oscar Paz. Hello, I am upset that you are not allowing public comment on this issue. What are you avoiding? It is difficult to find these silly bubbles and say what I'm thinking. This is not a democracy, not to the point with defunding the police make us safer. Police departments already have enormous budgets. Are we getting what we pay for? Are we allowing public funding to go to waste? Defund the police, defund the police. The thing that almost never gets cut in moments like these is police budgets. What's up with that? People are losing jobs, housing. What are we protecting? Who do you serve? Is this what you want out of your life? The Oakland Police Department receives nearly half of the city's discretionary spending. That is more than human service, parks, recreation and transportation combined. Minneapolis, where George Floyd was killed passed its budget in December and it increased its budget for police by 10 million to a total of 193 million. Here's what they're spending on other things. 31 million for affordable housing, 250 for community organizations, working without rescue, 400,000 for office of crime prevention. Where are we not investing in things that are actually needed in the county? As a Brown and undocumented person working full time in this county, I do not feel safe around cops. I've had bad experiences with them ever since I moved here and since I do not trust them. I will never call the police across the county program service are being cut because of this crisis, a bigger crisis is not utilizing the funds properly. The police protects property. Shame that you are not taking action and joining other cities across America to defend the police. I hope that your next live, you never have to experience property, housing issues, or let alone be a born, a colored person in this world. Challenge the system and see how far you go. Thank you for reading these words. I hope you make the city proud. Okay. Well, thank you. And that concludes public comment and we'll go now to item 56 as the Board of Supervisors of the Redevelopment Successor Agency. Consider and authorize the auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector with the concurrence of the County Administrative Officer to make necessary end, year end adjustments for 2019-2020 due to increases and decreases in available financing and approve the proposed 2020-2021 year redevelopment successor agency budgets as referenced in the outlined budget documents and memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. Do we have any comments? Yes. Yes, Chair. I'd like to invite our budget manager, Christina Mowry, to give the staff report on this and the following items. Yes, thank you, Carlos. And good afternoon, Chair Caput and members of the Board, Christina Mowry, your County Budget Manager. So the item 56 allows the auditor and controller with concurrence of the County Administrative Officer to make any of those necessary year end adjustments due to the changes in available financing that occur at year end. So it's recommended that your Board approve the proposed 2021 redevelopment successor agency budgets as referenced in the outlined documents and memo included in your packet pages four for your comment. And I'm available to answer your questions. All right. Do we have any Board questions? I don't hear any. So, hey, thank you very much for your report and I guess we're ready to go and we'll open it up for public comment, I guess. Okay. Mr. Chair. Yes. This is Supervisor McPherson. I wanted to move. Yeah, I want to once again thank our County Workforce for sharing in the pain of the budget process this year, especially Christina Mallory, who has tried to scare us through an unbelievable budget situation. And especially those kind of employees who've got the front lines of COVID-19. This has been anything but business as was stated by somebody who addressed us. No, I don't know that we can say this County's done it perfectly, but I think we're doing it as well as we can under some really trying circumstances when state orders are changed, if not every other day, every other week, we have a lot to deal with. And as I said earlier today, rather than just slashing services, we are all taking a reduction in pay to help close the gap. And I appreciate once again our Board and our County leadership for setting an example in this regard, everybody has taken a cut on this, the Sheriff included. And as we are proposed, but we're going to finalize this in August, of course. So I think we have done an excellent job as a County Board with allocating our health and human services to the best of our ability and expanding them throughout to numerous agencies who help our people and greatest need in Santa Cruz County. And as far as the development agency was just mentioned and that's a long gone thing, but for one of those things that a board before I was on this County Board of Supervisors, how they used the redevelopment agency money that was available to the best of their ability. And I know that Supervisor Leopold was in the middle of that situation. And how we handled the funding so we could use it for services and capital improvements was incredibly outstanding. People probably have forgotten that because that was brought 10 years ago or so, but we have done some things that are very much correct in our budgeting process in Santa Cruz County. I think we are trying to address issues, whether it be in health and human services or parks facilities or public safety. I think we have really spread it out as well as very well. And I'd like to give credit to everybody in the budgeting process, especially in Santa Cruz County for helping us get through this very trying situation. And I look forward to the revised budget outlook during our hearings in August. And I sincerely hope that greater assistance is on its way from the state and federal agencies. But these are tough times. And you have to come up with the decisions. Everybody in the county has been part of the solution, all of our employees, not only for the services that they have provided in the COVID-19 pandemic, but just in saying that, okay, we're gonna take, we're gonna take a cut ourselves to get us through this, which amounts to, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million. I understand our outlook is a little better since there's been some reopening, which I'm sure some people disagree with, but we'll hear more about that from Christina Maori. But I think that the way we have steered through the course in this unpredictable, unbelievable situation, I am just very proud to be part of what you might call the solution to the best of our abilities and to make sure nobody's hurt too much, but everybody has to take part of the responsibility to get us on track and balancing our budget, which is required by state law. So thank you again to everybody, especially to Christina Maori and the whole administrative team from Santa Cruz County, appreciate it very much. I'm done. Compliment and thank all the county workers. Normally you would hear some complaints somewhere, I haven't heard any, I don't know if the other board members have heard any, but I'm amazed at how everybody is willing to pitch in and reach into their own pocketbooks and take some money out, which is basically what's gonna happen. And I guess there'll be some frozen openings for hiring and there'll probably be some early retirements and things like that that'll be worked out by the county administrative officer, I believe, is that correct? Yes, and this item is just the redevelopment agency, we're getting to the county budget next. So this one is just redevelopment and then we'll talk about all the other things at the next item. Okay, okay, I'll open it up to the public. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, I think so. I know the budget and so I just wanna say that if you have any room for questions, I know this isn't the best questions at all, but you could just tell me what this item means a little bit when you say redevelopment successor agency budgets, or maybe you wanna refer me to somewhere, but I realize it's probably outside the more appropriate procedure. Thank you. Sure. Okay, any other comments from the public, either here at the community room or web? I don't hear, I don't hear any, see any. That'll, we'll close the public hearing. And if we do have a motion and a second. Chair, just for the education of our public member, the county had a redevelopment agency for roughly 25 years. The state legislature and the governor eliminated that in 2011 because they sold bonds to pay for improvements in the community. There's a successor agency which oversees the final allotment of that money. I appreciate Supervisor McPherson recognizing the good work that the county did in the closing of redevelopment. We took an outlier strategy and chose to invest all that money before the closure happened. And we were, I think the only agency in the county that didn't have to return money to the state. So we're still seeing those benefits. And we talked at our last meeting about even the last, here 10 years later, we're still have housing money that we placed over the housing authority as part of that closure. So it's been very successful. I'm prepared to move the recommended actions for the redevelopment successor agencies. Second. Okay, first, second. We'll call the roll. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Poonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Passes unanimously. And that will take us to item 57. Consider the year 2020, 2021, County of Santa Cruz proposed budget concluding actions, authorize the auditor, controller, treasure, tax collector with the concurrence of the county administrative officer to make necessary year end adjustments. And for 2020 and 2021 due to increases and decreases in available financing and a report item and approve the 2020, 2021 County of Santa Cruz proposed budget including concluding report items and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum, the memorandum of the county administrative officer. We'll have a presentation first, okay. Yes, thank you, Chair Caput. This is still Christina, now your county budget manager. So the purpose of this report is to provide your board with the concluding report and lasted budget actions to complete the 2020, 2021 budget pro forma. So the materials are already included in the report. And I wanna just, there'll be three items I'm gonna cover. So the first item is gonna be the financial update, including the status of the general fund contingency. That's attachment one and an exhibit one, which is pages 17 through 26. I'll give you a state budget update since the recording of this report. And I'll also share with you the state budget update the recording of this report. And I'll also walk through and give you a few highlights of the closing actions for a 1920 and 2021 that can be found on pages 12 through 16 in your report. So first, I wanna sort of highlight for you so far where we're at with the general fund contingencies. Page 17 in your report is attachment one. It provides a summary of the changes in the concluding report and reflects the net overall savings in the various charges, which are offset happily by an increase in contingencies of $841,446. The exhibits start on page 18 where there's an exhibit, summarizing all the changes, exhibit one, one A covers all the county overhead realignment, which saves about $335,000. Exhibit one B is the property tax administration fees, which are realigned for 1920 and 2021 for the departments that oversee our property tax administration. There's an increase there for next year of $254,060. Exhibits one C is the realignment of the public safety revenue proposition 172, which realigns all of that revenue. Actually, we're anticipating the decrease as it relates to COVID. So it really realigns those losses to those public safety departments. Exhibit one D is a realignment of the data processing charges. I'm happy to say there's a savings there this year due to reduced costs within the information services department of about $1.1 million. And exhibit one E is the realignment of radio charges. We also have a decrease there in costs due to savings within the radio shop. And one F, of course, is everybody's favorite, the accounting summary of the changes to contingencies. So the net effect of all these changes increases contingencies from $3.4 million to $4.2 million. Before any changes are considered during the August budget hearings to address the financial constraints from the impact of COVID-19 on the economy and the county's revenues. So we'll be covering that in August. The second thing I wanna update you on is to give you an update since the report on the state budget. So last Friday, as you probably know, the legislature passed the 2021 budget act bringing a temporary completion to a budget process that was entirely upended by the onset of COVID-19. The legislature and the governor were able to forge an agreement on a budget. And the budget bill AB 89 was sent to Governor Newsom for his signature. Given the ongoing nature of the pandemic the delay and the delay in knowing how much tax revenue the state will receive due to the extended filing deadline and the continued uncertainty about whether any additional federal funds will be received to the state. It's entirely possible that the governor and the legislature may need to revisit certain aspects of the budget during the upcoming year. So in addition to the main budget bill numerous budget trailer bills were adopted by the legislature and those that contain county priorities. The governor also issued a proclamation of a budget emergency which allows them to utilize funds from the state's rainy day fund. So as you know, the county budget priorities included in the state budget shifted significantly between January and June but ultimately a sustained and coordinated advocacy effort by counties was successful in achieving positive outcomes on several high priority issues. Many directly responsible in response to the pandemic. So there's key funding in the state budget includes $1 billion at the state level as a realignment backfill to help prevent devastating cuts that would occur to safety net programs due to the decline in realignment revenue which comes from sales tax and VLF. So it's gonna take several weeks before the county receives detailed information regarding the realignment backfill amount for the county. But what is known is that of that $1 billion 750 million is guaranteed to counties and whereas 250 million is subject to trigger cuts depending on whether the state receives additional federal stimulus funding. So my preliminary estimate is this could save the county about a third of our combined realignment revenue losses for 1920 and 2021 which is estimated between six and $8 million which will be included in the revised budget proposal in August. In addition, the state allocated CARES Act funding to counties as we've mentioned before assuming the state approved the budget we were due to receive $28 million which is our share of the CARES Act funding from the state passed through from the federal government. And it's anticipated that $2 to $4 million of these funds will help the county with its unreimbursed cost related to the emergency. Those are costs above and beyond any grants we received and any FEMA funding we're expecting. So this will greatly help the 1920 county deficit and the remaining funding will be presented to the board in August with how to best address the costs associated with the emergency through December. Also included in the state's budget is $100 million for the increased costs of the November election and the new requirements in response to the pandemic. It's unknown how much the county will receive to assist with the increased election costs and it's expected that the details will be provided in the August budget hearings. We also the state allocated $900 million for various homelessness efforts allocated to cities, counties and continuums of CARE from both federal funds and the state general fund and the county will be receiving an allocation of those funds and you'll hear more about that in August. So the third area I wanna cover which is always everybody's favorite is those one through 35 itemized actions that allow us to actually put together the in preparation for the adopted budget in September. So this year will be a little different because you're gonna take actions today and you'll take additional actions in August and the combination of these actions and the actions in August will make up the adopted budget that you'll take action on it at the end of September. So most of these actions are fairly routine. They begin on page 12 of your packet and they allow the auditor with concurrence from our office to make necessary adjustments as part of fiscal year in close and preparation for the adopted budget. All of the adjustments will be prepared and brought back to your board for ratification in September with the adopted budget and will include the changes the board approves in August. So items one through 11 address the 2019-20 adjustments and there's a couple new items there. I wanna just call to your attention in case you have any questions. Item number two is related to allowing the county to reimburse ourselves for any of the COVID-19 costs from the CARES Act funding that we're due to receive from the state. And item 10 addresses reimbursement of costs for public works for the Twin Lakes Project closeout costs. Item 11 addresses matching funds from contingencies for the emergency culvert projects that your board approved in January for Capitol Road and February for Sumner Avenue. So this allows for those matching funds from contingencies. And items 12 through 32 are all related to the 2021 budget adjustments. And I need to make a correction to item 31. It should read the application period through August 6th instead of July 31st, so that we can allow enough time for those applications to be received. So, but item 31 is a new item. It authorizes personnel to extend and relaunch the retirement incentive application period through August 6th. And the program elements all remain the same with the exception of the retirement date, which will be on or before December 31st for retirements approved in the second application period. And this we believe will help assist with some additional layoffs. Item 32 is another new item that will authorize the auditor controller with the concurrence of our office to adjust the appropriations to effectuate the furlough savings by department as authorized and agreed by the bargaining units and approved by your board today, which will be effective July 11th. Item 33 sets priorities to address the expected shortfall in the general fund fund balance available and authorizes the use of reserves to offset the expected shortfall for 1920. Now, originally we expected up to $20 million and now it's estimated at approximately $10 million due to the improvements in revenues, some use of some one-time revenue and also the anticipated reimbursement of costs related to the COVID response that we'll receive from the CARES Act. And then we believe that we'll need the remainder of some of that, those reserves to help us balance the 2021 budget. And we will bring that to your board in August for consideration. So I wanna just take a moment to thank the county staff and everyone who worked on the budget, especially the staff within our county administrative office David, Eric, Gatisa, Nancy, Peter, Rita, Sven and Trish. They've worked tirelessly in the new ways to complete the budget and before you today and they're continuing to work with departments on revisions related to the pandemic to present something to you in August. It's times like this that staff shine and we are very fortunate to have an exceptional team willing to go above and beyond and to put together a plan guided by the strategic and operational plan and your board's priorities. This is a challenging time and I'm very grateful to be able to help make a difference and grateful for the support, cooperation and leadership of the county departments and budget staff. A special thanks to our county administrative office leaders that I admire greatly and have relied on for support. Carlos, Nicole, Elisa and Melody, I couldn't do this without you and I thank you. So it's recommended that your board take the recommended actions as outlined in the memo and return in August with modifications to the budget to address the COVID-19 impacts, including any updates related to state and federal funding. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yes. Mr. Chair and Chair. Yes. Yes. Advisor Reiser, I got a little ahead of myself. I wanted to combine all budget things in one package, I guess, but again, I want to thank the county workforce for sharing in the pain of balancing this budget process. Ms. Monterey, what's your best estimate? What will be left on a reserve fund? Will it be down to 7% if all of these things come to pass? We got up to 10% they were thinking maybe we'll have to get down to 7% is that probably correct at this time? Yeah, so we still believe we won't go past the 7% minimum. We won't need quite as much for 1920 to balance the books and we'll use part of that into 2021, but between the two, we won't go beyond the 7% minimum and we may do a little bit better. Good, thank you. Okay. Any other? Supervisor Leopold? Well, I just want to say a couple of things, Chair. First, Ms. Mowry, thanks for your work on the first half of the fraternal twins that we're having this year as our budget process, all the work that you and everybody did for putting together this budget and then having to go through the whole process the second time is a lot more work than you usually have. And I appreciate your dedication and consistency to get it done. And there is some hopeful news that you shared with us today, which is good. At lunchtime, I saw something online that said that Republicans in the Senate are now talking that by the end of July, they'll have something done at the federal level and hopefully that will help us out as well. At the beginning of today's meeting, we heard from people who saying that we weren't making ourselves available, but we're one of the few public agencies that have continued holding in public meetings and we've provided new ways for people to get in contact with us. We are also, I think, showing some wisdom in not making all of our budget decisions now before we know what's gonna happen and instead coming back in August with better information. There are lots of issues and concerns that people have about the budget. And until we actually know what kind of resources we have, it's impossible to say we'll fund this, we won't cut that, we will reduce funding in some area. We want a system that reflects our values and the budget is our best value document. And this budget this year, when it's finally settled in August, will be the reflection of every employee in the county contributing to making it a success because Ms. Mallory and her crew may be the ones who put the budgets together and the financial staff and all the departments helped that, but this year, each employee is contributing towards what we will have in our budget. By accepting the furloughs and helping us save jobs, we'll have more people working here than we would if we didn't have that. I wanna express my appreciation to all the county employees who helped make the success of the county government every day and especially this year when we're asking a lot of you. And to the public, we're gonna work, we have a set of budget principles that is focused on keeping services to the public as much as we can, and we will do that. And I look forward to the discussion in August. There will be some tough decisions that we have to make then, but I'm confident with the groundwork that we've laid in building up our reserves by aggressively seeking funding from outside sources, by being strategic about how we spend money that we will have resources to make good decisions for the people of Santa Cruz County. Thank you for your work. Okay. Any other supervisor? I'll make a comment. I wanna make sure we thank the taxpayers. Everything in this room, all of us included, our salaries, all the furniture, electrical work, the roads and everything else is all paid for by the taxpayers. And as elected officials, we have like a sacred trust to spend public funds wisely, honestly and fairly. And I think we've done that. And one thing that was I think very wise was building up our reserve fund, which at one time was as low as just a little over 10 million. And now it's up, well, it was up to over 55, 56 million dollars. And I guess the other is what I've said before too, when we have good times, we gotta spend the money, the same as we're gonna spend money in bad times, meaning like once we get out of this, we can't get the feeling that it's not gonna happen again. I mean, when I got elected to the city council in Watsonville, everything was going along well and then all of a sudden the Great Recession hit. And we remember that, that wasn't that long ago. Then we got out of that with the county and everything working with people, seven and a half percent furloughs and all that. And then we got hit with this coronavirus. So the point I'm getting at is that when we get out of this and we are, we're gonna all get out of this, that we are mindful of the fact that this could happen again in a different way, in a worse way or not as bad a way. But no matter how we're spending taxpayer money, we have to do it very wisely. It's a very important part of our sacred trust that the voters have given us to overlook all the money that comes in. And we're talking about a lot of taxpayer money. So, and of course, I already thank the city, the county workers and department heads and fellow supervisors for the sacrifices we're gonna make. And so I'll now turn it over to anybody else who wants to comment. We have public comment and it's, you have the floor. Yes, you're one of the taxpayers, right? I'm just being done to help us all. I can't miss my word even. Thank you. I'm an in-person person. So, I just really appreciate everything I'm learning here today about the employees taking on the burden of actually basically letting go of money so that and accepting furloughs and doing what you can to address these really unusual times. Hopefully they are truly unusual as we move into the future. What I just want to kind of really zero in on because it's one area that I am familiar with is I heard Ms. Mallory say that a 900 million is coming from the state that's probably for to address homelessness issues probably within the whole entire state. I'm sure that amount isn't just coming here. But I want to say that I have been extremely involved in observing all kinds of issues pertaining to people being unhoused and what happens to them. And I am incredibly concerned about what I consider just again, I'm coming from the point of view of a grassroots activist. So if I sound critical, it's because I'm coming from that point of view, but I've heard so much today that's encouraging. I really want to emphasize that. But we at one point this past year, $10 million supposedly came from the state into our county. I did as much as I could to try to observe what was going on with that $10 million. I believe there has been, well, I know there's been a grand jury investigation and report that was listed on the county website from 2015 that what we need more than anything is emergency homeless shelters. And I just want to say that I know that the churches are coming together to provide for this, for homeless needs. But I really think that the state is the best, that meaning the government is the best people to provide emergency shelters, not the Salvation Army, not other groups. We need an emergency shelter that's robust enough to really deal with the various clientele and the people that are homeless. So I just want to say I was not pleased with the, I could not get more information. It seemed like a lot of that money went into salaries at the HAP and others. I'm just hoping that we can do better to actually get those services to the people who are homeless. Thank you. Thank you. Any other persons either downstairs or on the computer? I don't hear anything. If I could just make a final comment. So this budget was largely developed prior to the COVID emergency. And for that reason, we recommended in your board has adopted that recommendation to come back in August once we have more information rather than try and adopt a budget with incomplete information. So we are going to come back on August 10th through 13th with recommendations to amend this budget based on more information about how our revenues have been affected. Also, we'll have more information about state and federal aid and our own local revenues as well. And then we will be asking the board to adopt an amended budget on August 18th. The news is somewhat better from what we initially thought. We initially thought we were going to use $20 million of reserves this year. And now we think we're only going to use about 10 million this year. That means we could probably use another, the other 10 million next year to help balance next year's budget. And then we also have the CARES Act fund. We'll be able to help us. We also have some of the realignment backfill that will help us. Our revenues are somewhat better than we thought because the reopening happened much sooner than expected. But nevertheless, it's going to still be a very challenging budget. And so I do really want to thank all of the County employees for the sacrifice. They have made an agreeing to furloughs. I know that's a very difficult thing to do. I know it's a very challenging thing to ask. And I just want to thank all of them for that. I also want to thank our board for agreeing to take furloughs themselves at a higher level. I think that shows great leadership. And I also want to thank Ms. Mowry for her leadership. She's really our leader in the budget. And it's very difficult. We just ran a marathon and we're going to start another one. So it's a difficult proposition for Ms. Mowry and our staff in the CAO's office and all the staff in the departments as well. So I thank them for all their efforts. We're going to get through this and we will be back. We'll be working all July and we will be back in August with the budget amendments once we have more information. Thank you. You're welcome. And you probably remember you were the city manager of Watsonville. I was on the city council and when the recession hit right there, you took a big 10% pay cut and also gave up a raise that you had coming up and all the city workers in Watsonville all gave up 10%. This one that we're voting on, some will give up 5%, some will give up seven and a half. And then the board and department heads will be giving up 10% if I'm not mistaken. So we're trying to share some of the hurt with the public because the public is having such a hard time paying their bills and trying to keep their doors open. And of course, when your doors close to the public, that's the tax money we have coming in. And if we don't have it coming in, we have nothing. We have nothing. So anyway, thank you. Is it ready for a motion? Okay, I'm ready to go. I'm looking forward to it. I'm looking forward to the recommended actions for the county budget for the following, for the coming year. Second. You have a motion and a second. Ready for the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Brand. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Kepit. Aye. And that passes unanimously. And I believe now, let's see where am I, we go into closed session, right? That's right. We're going to go into closed session, nothing reportable. Nothing reportable. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That concludes the meeting and thank you.