 All right. Good morning everybody. Good morning Welcome to the April 23rd 2019 Board of Supervisors Meeting and I'm going to call the meeting to order and ask clerk to call the roll. Good morning Supervisor Leopold here, Brent here Caput MacPherson and chair Coonerty here. Please join me in a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance United States of America and to the Republic of Sands, One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. And I'm going to ask Mr. Palacios whether we have any late additions or deletions to the consent or regular agenda? Yes, we have a number of items to correct on the regular agenda on item seven. There's additional materials there's a letter from the California Coastal Commission on item eight on the regular agenda. Staff requests that this item be deleted There's an addenda to the regular agenda item 14.1 presentation from Cradle to Career Parent Leadership Committee as outlined in the memorandum of Supervisor Leopold. On the consent agenda item 19, there's a correction. Item should read introduce and adopt ordinances one amending Santa Cruz County co-chapters 1310 and 1320 establishing the Seascape Beach Estates combining zone District and amending Santa Cruz County co-chapter 1310 by adding the the SBE district to certain parcels requires Coastal Commission certification after county adoption and adopt the resolution accepting sequel exemption determination making findings of general plan local coastal plan Consistency and proving and approving the minor variation to permit 411 9-U Public hearing held on April 16, 2019 On item 23, there's additional materials ADM dash 29 Kerashoft amendment and On item 26, there's a correction. The item should read award contract to paving construction services in the amount of 47,124 for the Center of Public Safety Repaving project set aside 4,712 for change order requests adopt the resolution accepting unanticipated revenue in the amount of 51,836 and take related actions as recommended by the director of general services On item 27, there's a correction. The item should read award contract to a co-wilson incorporated in the amount of 127,219 for 1020 and aligned server room cooling equipment project set aside 12,722 for change order requests adopt a resolution accepting the Unanticipated revenue in the amount of a hundred and forty thousand dollars and take related actions as recommended by the director of general services There's actually an agenda to the consent agenda 53.1 authorize the chair of the board to sign a letter of support for Senate bill 276 authorized authored by Senator Richard Pan Which would require the State Department of Public Health to develop a statewide standardized medical examination request form Require the state public health officer to approve or deny a medical exemption request Require the department to create and maintain a database of approved medical examination exemption requests and to make the database accessible to local health officers as recommended by a supervisors friend and Coonerty and There's attached bill the text to SB 276 this fact sheet and Vaccination school map attached as well We've also added 53.2 direct the chair of the board to sign a letter to support assembly bill 1162 sponsored by assembly member Carla to ban single-use personal care products and hotel rooms as recommended by supervisor friend There's the board memo printout and a bill text of assembly bill 1162. Thank you Thank you keep keep being busy this morning and just an announcement We're going to be hearing item 14.1, which is the presentation from the cradle to career parent leadership committee As the first item on our regular agenda after the consent agenda So now is an opportunity for members of the board to remove any items from the consent agenda Remove or just comment First is to remove I won't remove. Okay. Thank you Now is an opportunity for public comment This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to us about items that are on our consent agenda on our regular Agenda if you cannot stay and on our closed session agenda or items that are not on today's agenda But are within the purview of the Board of Supervisors I'm going to ask folks to line up if they would like to speak And can I see a show of hands for how many people like to speak today on the consent agenda? All right, let's do two minutes each and please line up if you can and come forward My name is Tony Crane. I'm here representing a neighborhood in Aptos in objection to a Crisis mental health facility that was put in our residential neighborhood The county and encompassing community services took a grant of 1.2 million dollars that had a sole purpose for the Capital acquisition of a property that would increase bed capacity in the county by two meaning from six to eight beds That was a mandate Be on August 21st, we had a meeting with Officials from those two groups. They told us three distinct lies That there was not a mandate to go to eight beds Licensing was not required and that they had a two-year extension to make this work None of none of those are true On August 11th a neighbor emailed Zach and Monica Martinez from encompass asking did they intend to increase bed capacity from six to eight? Monica didn't know the answer so she emailed Eric Riera who was head of the mental health Department Asking for his input on legislation and the answer to that His answer was and I quote. I think we can say the following. I think we can Not at this point the program has been highly success successful operating at six beds And prior to making any changes such as expanding to eight beds We want to demonstrate that we will have no impact on the neighborhood and will be good neighbors The grantor has given us an extension of two years before we need to look at expanding the number of people served in the program Monica took that verbatim except for the I think we can say cut and pasted it and sent it back to the neighbor Nothing in that is true. Not one thing Grant was specifically for it to go to eight beds and they lied to us over and over again. I Read something last week. They said there was no licensing required yet in their internal emails These are internal emails. They were talking about how it was Mandated to get licensing and that they couldn't tell the neighbors. Otherwise, we would find out Put a stop to this, please. This is just ridiculous. You guys have had this information for a year and a half And you've refused to do anything about it. Thank you next speaker Please feel free to line up if you're if you're interested in speaking My name is Suzanne Russ and I'm here to ask you to support SB 276 Which requires oversight for it by the Department of Public Health for all medical exemptions that are provided by doctors for Patients who want a medical exemption for measles mumps rubella vaccines Santa Cruz has an extremely low vaccination rate. We do not have herd immunity We've had some cases of measles and we really need to look at why that's happening here Some of you are too young to remember the polio epidemic of 1953 54 That's because we haven't had polio since the vaccines We haven't had measles. There have been a hundred and nine thousand cases in the last year That's up three hundred percent Globally over the last year we can prevent that measles is a completely preventable disease Please vote for SB 276. Thank you. Thank you next speaker. Thank you I am dr. Lincoln Russen a retired physician Mr. Doctor you can just lift this up lift up the microphone of it's easier. There you go. Thank you. Thank you Thank you for hearing me. I would ask the ask your support for SB 276 this bill will require doctors to apply to the Department of Public Health if a patient wants a medical exemption If there is adequate medical documentation The department will issue the exemption This will stop unscrupulous doctors from issuing bogus medical exemptions And they're doing this for profit and it will help stop the spread of communicable diseases That can be prevented by vaccines Please support SB 276. Thank you Speaker Good morning chair Coonerty and honorable members of the board. My name is Dan terby Phil I'm here to speak in support of scheduled item number 14 So I serve as a consultant and trusted advisor for numerous commercial cannabis farms Throughout California. I have a client who actually owns farm properties here in Santa Cruz and in Minnesino County We began working together last November in that time We've been successful in attaining local authorization from Minnesino County and secured a temporary state license for our Laytonville property Which last week we just submitted our annual actually in the meantime, we've built out and planted a 10,000 square foot grow In that same period of time since November We've met and completed a pre application here in Santa Cruz Which took about six and a half weeks to review before we had our site visit last Wednesday So we've pretty much sat idle here The state already has a robust regulatory framework. It would be wonderful if the county of Santa Cruz could align their policies with that and we are so excited about the potential of increasing the number of licensees here and Decreasing the amount of time it takes to get licensure Again, we're going to be left out this year here in Santa Cruz On a side note It's our intention to be a model farm for Santa Cruz and invite any of you to come visit our farm once It's up and running to really see how a commercial cannabis farm runs Efficiently and and amazingly so thank you so much for your time. Thank you Mr. Chair members of the board. I'm Arnold left County Health Officer I'm here to speak about a couple of items item number one is the meningitis B vaccine a proclamation that your chair and Supervisor Leopold did sign and becomes Effective tomorrow it is critically important that people be aware of meningococcal disease and the fact that there is two kinds and They're both vaccine able to be vaccinated against and we are glad that tomorrow will be Meningitis B vaccine awareness day and we thank you for that proclamation The other thing I would like to comment on is SB 276. You've heard some testimony Today with regard to that it is critically important in Santa Cruz that the state be able to approve medical exemptions for vaccines as Unfortunately, there are some physicians in the community who are giving somewhat fraudulent medical exemptions and we need to Monitor that more directly senator pens bill will do that and I appreciate Any support you can give for that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Good morning chair Coonerty and members of the board My name is Mimi Hall I'm the health services agency director for county of Santa Cruz and I'm here to thank chair Coonerty and Supervisor Leopold for Signing the proclamation declaring tomorrow Meningitis B vaccine awareness day as Dr. Leff mentioned there are two types of vaccines against meningococcal disease But one of them against vaccine B the vaccine B has only been around and approved by the CDC since 2015 so it's likely that many of us including our children are not vaccinated Even with rapid and appropriate treatment all kinds of meningitis can Quickly progress to become fatal for an otherwise healthy person within hours of the first symptoms And this is why prevention is critical meningococcal disease is spread through sneezing sharing drinks sharing food even sharing lip balm and Studies have shown that freshman living in college dorms are the most susceptible population Vaccines are one of public health's greatest achievements in the 20th century, but with declining immunization rates We're seeing a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases and many parents don't know about this vaccine And state law doesn't require that students receive this vaccine. However, education is encouraged So today for those parents who have lost their children to this disease So unexpectedly in the prime of their lives I urge everybody to be aware that this vaccine exists and encourage you to have your Incoming college freshmen and other teens vaccinated. Thank you. Thank you Hi, good morning chairman Coonerty and honorable members of the board and the public behind me This weekend the Santa Cruz Gem and Mineral Society is having its 68th annual Gem and Mineral Show at the Santa Cruz Civic It's an all-volunteer organization and this year is their 70th anniversary They were formed in 1949 and I don't know if how to go about this But I was wondering if there's any way we can get some recognition for them because they have long-issued scholarships to Cabrillo and and UCSC students They've had a long relationship with Cabrillo that you could confirm with dr. David Schwartz there and I just think it's Extraordinary that in Santa Cruz County. We have this all-volunteer organization. That's been maintaining a Lapidary shop teaching classes in jewelry making and leading rock-hounding trips and doing this since 1949 it's pretty cool So that was all I just I'm not sure how to go about the matter just email me And I'll see what I can do. Thank you very much appreciate it and identify yourself for the record. Oh, I'm sorry I'm Michael Cox. I live in Soquel. I'm a member of the club. Sorry Take care Honorable members of the board. Good morning. My name is Caitlyn Parkos And it is a privilege to be speaking in front of you again today I am a cannabis consultant and advisor for industry workers across this beautiful state that we call home And today I'm speaking on item 14 And I am encouraging you all to listen with fierce intention to the suggestions of the cannabis licensing office Their report is in a fantastic outline of the reality of the systematic setbacks of cannabis cultivation in this county And they know what they're talking about That dedicated staff down the hall from us right now have likely been on the receiving end of Every frustrated and angry inquiry and not only do they take every irrational comment and stride they listen to the concerns and have allowed a respectable space for dialogue and Dialogue and discussing solutions again. They know what they're talking about From as many angles as probably possible and they should be recognized and appreciated as the amazing resources to all of us They are to all of us. I happen to think that this report shines brightest and exposing how Complex and unclear the process truly is and I do hope that you recognize that especially in this county This county does fall tragically far behind other counties and even the state regulations that are in place And every item that they suggest affects a multitude of people But I would like to stress the burden that the use permits review process truly is an amendment to certain use permit reviews Would be an immense burden lifted I have worked with cultivators force to put entirely years worth of business on hold just to wait for this review And there is no nobody who is not an advocate for this review process. We understand it We respect it. We want to be in compliance with it And so we definitely agree on the importance of this step But it's still a crop like many others and the cultivation review process should be equitable across all I've applauded your efforts in the past But I humbly ask for you to take this cannabis licensing offices recommendations very seriously They are the best resource that you have to help Santa Cruz County be successful in cannabis. Thank you Good morning Good morning to our community members of the board. I'm Kimberly Peterson division director for employment and benefit services and here Representing the Human Services Department I'm here to thank you for proclaiming the month of May as Cal fresh awareness month Throughout California counties are using this opportunity to highlight the benefits of Cal fresh food assistance in Santa Cruz County over 25,000 people are served by Cal fresh each month With approximately half being children and 10% being seniors Cal fresh is part of a pathway to health and well-being for Santa Cruz County's youngest and most vulnerable adult citizens Hunger negatively impacts the intellectual physical and emotional development of children Which can follow them into the classroom resulting in poor academic performance This year the statewide theme for Cal fresh awareness month is the Cal fresh expansion to seniors and people with disabilities Beginning in June 2019 for the first time in 45 years recipients of supplemental security income or SSI may be eligible for Cal fresh benefits in Santa Cruz County, we expect over 2,000 new households to be Eligible for Cal fresh following this policy change This will allow residents to increase their food budgets Facilitating facilitating access to nutritious food and helping to reduce the risk of illness and chronic disease We're training staff and partnering with IHSS and local community partners to reach out to the newly eligible Population to enroll them into this important benefit As you know with extraordinarily high housing costs Every dollar counts and Cal fresh benefits can enable families and individuals to stretch their food budgets This year approximately 38 million and Cal fresh benefits will be issued to County residents Though there are still individuals not accessing benefits for which they're eligible So the department continues to work toward increasing Cal fresh participation among all eligible households We partner with second harvest food bank and other community board based organizations to raise awareness and educate residents about this important benefit Again, thank you for proclaiming the month of May's Cal fresh awareness month And I want to thank EBSD staff for their commitment and dedication to making a difference. Thank you And I want to encourage anybody who might be listening today who thinks they might be eligible to Go to the website or call. It's a fast and easy process And you may be entitled to several hundred dollars a month in benefits that can help you and your family access healthy fresh food Hi, my name is West Dewhurst and I'm a cultivator in Santa Cruz Well a year ago. I was a cultivator now. I'm an application submitter hoping to be a cultivator again I'd like to thank the board staff and the cannabis licensing office for your hard work on the cannabis issues over the last several years I understand the cannabis licensing manager will present a report on the progress of the licensing process today I'd humbly ask the board to give the licensing manager the opportunity to present possible solutions to problems that have emerged As these solutions are far more interesting to me and many of us in this room than the problems themselves So I'd like to reiterate what this young lady said and to please give him some attention and listen to what he has to say Thank you very much. Thank you Good morning My name is Bruce block. I am a pediatrician currently practicing in our county I'm a Member of the board of directors for Palo Alto Foundation medical group and I am actually one of your first five commissioners Thank you very much supervisor friend I'm here to speak in support of SB 276 and Though I didn't know was tomorrow was meningitis B vaccine day. I'm all about that as well I Thought a little bit about what I wanted to say to you guys this morning and I I Have so many stories that I could tell it's very difficult for me to choose one but I will say this I I see vaccine preventable diseases and unvaccinated people on a regular basis Thankfully, I've only seen one case of measles in our county That was only half my time right and I don't want to see any more cases of measles We're we're very lucky at this exact minute that we don't have measles cases in our county Because we do have an unvaccinated population and a certain number of those people have been exempted Inappropriately there are medical reasons why people should not get vaccinated But many people in our county have exemptions for non-medical reasons I want you to know that if there's somebody with measles in this room right now Anybody who's not vaccinated has a 90 chance of getting that disease Okay, that's way beyond many the other Illnesses that we vaccinate for on a regular basis Can I can I take 30 seconds about beyond this and tell you a quick story a quick one? Okay, real quick story. I started my pediatric practice in Merced, California in 1993 and at that point there was a 60 or 70 year old nurse who was working with me and her name was Jan And it was my very first time being a clinic pediatrician and I remember to this day Jan walking down the halls to vaccinate children Whistling it was the happiest moment in her life when she could give shots to children And I never really understood it until she explained to me that everything that she was vaccinating before for She had seen a child die from and Here we are Six or 27 years later and I still have that memory imprinted and I just want you to share that with you guys Please support sb 276. Thank you, dr. Block Good morning, you know medicare for all jokes, uh, larry digitaldi larry digitaldi is setter ceo Let me start by saying, you know, I've been practicing her since 1984 We've had a string of exemplary public health officers and I just want to take a moment We didn't know that the meningococcal issue was here. This man is beloved and respected and we will miss him terribly. So arnie Godspeed So let me tell you a story in 1968. My mother who was a family doctor running a university hospital clinic in san francisco Came home overjoyed. She came home and said it has arrived The vaccines have arrived I saw two children die in in the 1940s from measles And the measles vaccine was distributed widely through north america europe south america and and asia And unexpectedly something happened that the public health people did not anticipate deaths in children from other infections dropped by half Because measles as an inch in childhood Essentially erases the hard drive of the immune system leaving that child for many years susceptible to other infections So the you know these public health folks that come up with vaccines from polio in the 50s To measles in the 60s or for meningococcal disease in the last 20 years. God bless them Support this bill. Thank you. Thank you Good morning. Becky steinbruner is in the rural aptos hills I'm here as the chairman of the fire safe santa cruz county public education and outreach committee to Let the public and the board know that may fourth is national wildfire preparedness day that is being proclaimed across the nation and Um, I would like to make sure that everyone knows We have a very active fire safe council in santa cruz county as well as individual fire safe councils in bonny dune And up on the skyline the summit area May fourth is that day, but every day can be And should be something that people should be in the rural areas, especially but also in the fringes Because we've seen unusual fire behavior in california recently To do their fire defensible space work You can get a lot of information by going on the cow fire website on fire safe santa cruz dot com website And you can also call your local fire agency for a free Noninvasive inspection, and they'll let you know what you need to do People can sign up for free shipping programs at the resource conservation district and also on the fire safe council website And we just recently got another grant to help with that good work So we all need to be prepared and doing what we can To keep our homes and our communities and our beautiful woodland area fire safe I would like to just jump over to the um the vaccination issue And um, I think that vaccines are great. I think there are many children that should not get them And I went to a count a symposium on autism a few years ago by the nadherny calciano group The nation's specialist in autism divulged privately She did not vaccinate her own children because she saw too many times the pattern the kid was fine. They got their shots they came in with Total inflammation and autism So autism is on the rise and we need to examine this forced vaccination issue very carefully. Thank you Good morning, everybody My name is titian miller and I'm not here for anything I've heard this morning I got a notice and I put it on my board There was a meeting this morning about an item And uh, did I not get a notice that had been cancelled or rescheduled? No So I got in the traffic took me 45 minutes to get here It would be nice if you would let your staff Know when they're going to cancel a meeting it would be nice to let us all know That's why i'm here since you did drag me out of here I'm going to say one other thing over 30 years ago when jam buttes was uh on the transportation committee as board of supervisor I attended a meeting because she asked me to and at that meeting we discussed the traffic And our suggestion was let's put in some meeting lights So we don't have 25 cars coming on at one time I counted this morning when I was on park avenue and here comes 15 cars Everybody wanted to get on it doesn't go one one one everybody all 10 cars cut in But that's why i'm here the most important thing is let people know when you take something off the agenda Thank you for your time Hi, good morning. My name is drew lewis. Um, I wanted to draw our attention to uh subject here as a community That uh the issue that I think affects it's all it's about the 5g Rollout of this microwave technology I'd like to point out that uh, there's really well documented evidence that this is a very harmful technology I have these copies here for you. I'll leave with you one is a newsweek article titled uh Parents concerned as fourth child diagnosed with cancer while attending california school with cell phone tower on the campus Parents in rip on california say a cell phone tower in the local schoolyard Is to blame for the cancer diagnosis of forest students And also two teachers It's uh been well thousands of peer reviewed studies by scientists independent of the industry conclusively prove serious long-term health effects from current exposures to wireless technologies Especially for children these include cancer neurological disorders Including adhd add heart disease sterility including permanent dna damage diabetes headaches and insomnia And I I've heard people in the government say oh our hands are tied. We can't do anything about it I will also leave you a document here titled lawmakers hitting the brakes on 5g. It shows uh, portland, oregon The city officials there have put a stop to it Italy, russia, belgium, germany it goes on and on so there's a lot of examples about how we can address this I encourage you to look at the documentation. I have a another article here That's a public health warning, which we're passing out city-wide to everyone And it's got links on you can go to and when I highly recommend you see is is called It's called 5g apocalypse extinction event. Thank you Good morning. My name is joel campos. I'm the director of community outreach with me today um, andriana finandez Outreach coordinator we both work at second hardware food bank We just want to raise awareness and let you guys know which already did Kimberley already spoke to this may It's cal fresh awareness month and it's a it's a big amount It's a big big month to raise awareness about cal fresh all throughout the county We want to ask for your support and we want to ask for your commitment to really get out there and promote this program Because as kimberley mentioned, there is many many households individuals and kids that are going hungry every day They are and they because of because of that obviously they're struggling to perform good in schools and other places So it's very very important for you guys to get out there find An event and just talk about cal fresh during this month is very very Important so we want to thank the partnership that was second harvest has with hsd Is really really important. We're doing a lot of events one of the highlights So a major event is cal fresh The cal fresh forum that we do it every year and is that we're having it at City plaza in watsonville may 17th From eight to one you guys are more than welcome to come Thanks. Thank you Good morning. My name is myles taylor. I'm speaking on the schedule. I will 14 I'm here as a cannabis cultivator and as a representer of our commercial cannabis Cultivation and distribution operation in south county We're grateful for the staff and the board's work to date on the issue of licensing And today look forward to hearing staff recommendations on the land use process for commercial agricultural growers Such as our operation. Thank you all. Thank you I'm pat boil. I'm a mother and grandmother and I live in so kehl your so kehl village the place Where there's the tire place Where there's going to be two cell towers on top of that tire place Please do not put those cell towers Because the children from the santa cruz high school come down every afternoon And go to all the restaurants and they eat their lunch and those cell towers are right going to be there right in front of them There's the children in the elementary school that are innocent with clean minds And from uh, I have life experience Of radiation because I lost a son of 25 years old in 2004 of numerous brain tumors He was always on his cell phone first. It was the the Kind of what it's called where they put a number in and he had that first to get in touch Because he was a way of being in touch with his family I have another son with pairs noise schizophrenia and the cell phone did not help him at 33 He really lost it now. He's 37 and he's now in jail He he had a very bad experience thinking that people were zapping him with the cell phones And he hurt somebody and now he's in jail And these are things that have happened to my children And I don't want the young children to be exposed to this radiation Thank you Good morning. I'm jay rosella mayers and I've been a resident of santa cruz county on purpose I chose this location because I felt like it was a healthier place to live And I already am suffering from major nose bleeds and stuff From the radiation that we already have in our community And I think it's really important to pay attention to not create more problems health-wise That we don't really understand yet and please please look at the information that's provided to you and carefully carefully evaluate what You need to know to make decisions about the health and welfare of our community members and the future of our children So please for the sake of yourselves and your own health And the future of the health of the people who choose to live here I really thank you for your consideration and please please do take it seriously. Thank you I have a question here. Uh, sure. Yeah 5g. Is that on the consent agenda? What are we it's not? I believe they're speaking to us On public comment about items that are There was originally scheduled a Uh, an appeal that was supposed to be brought to us about a cell tower in Soquel For this date and that got changed. I don't know what the new date is But I don't some people have shown up for that. Okay. That's not today though No today. All right. Okay. Thank you All right. Well, that concludes public comment and I'll bring it back to the board for action on the consent agenda And offer up opportunity for public comment. So Supervisor Caput you bet. Okay, um, let me see where I am Yeah on 53.1 This is uh, I I'm opposed to this and it's for a number of reasons When you listen, uh, we have doctors that disagree. I know some doctors they stand up and they disagree on one thing And maybe the rest of the great majority agree on another thing Whenever we're talking about mandatory the next step is forced and This is almost not only trying to get every parent and child in line like a herd In order to be vaccinated But it's also Aimed at getting doctors in line And making sure that they can't disagree with the the majority of other physicians Um, I heard some comments were the doctors who do the disagree on mandatory vaccinations That they're fraudulent bogus And unscrupulous Uh, when when when you say that about somebody who disagrees with you in your profession That is going to come back and they're going to somebody can say that about you when you disagree with the majority of the other physicians I believe in parental rights and I also believe in Not having every rule and every law Forcing parents and forcing everybody to get in line or to cooperate Okay, so I am voting no on uh, I believe it's 53 53.1. Okay. Thank you Surveys my fearsome. Thank you, mr. Chair. I uh, there's several items. I just wanted to comment briefly on uh, numbers 27 and 28 the contracts awarded for Uh repair of the inline buildings. I'm happy to see that the general services is able to Implement repairs through county facilities. We've had a long list of deferred maintenance items in the county And if we continue with that, uh, it's going to cost us much more in the long run So I'm glad that we're able to get to those items on m wine An item number 34 It's just a grant application But it is for a million dollars to expand the sheriff's recovery center This facility really has been instrumental In reducing the need and cost of using our jail as an emergency and emergency rooms to deal with People who are under the influence. I I think this will be a real tremendous asset for us and I hope we have good luck in receiving that million dollar grant application On number item number 38. I think it's uh, it's regarding general assistance aid payments I think it's important to note the santa cruse county general assistance payments are in the Alignment with other counties in the state with similar demographics and cost of living our I often hear that over the county gives more in general assistance than anybody else has to and That's just not the way it is. We uh, our county's monthly payment of $391 is in the middle of the range of payments to similar counties in california The good news is the number of folks on general assistance in santa cruse county is going down The staff also works hard to transition eligible clients to ssi Rather than general assistance, which is a better better for them To save the general fund of santa cruse county So I I think it needs to be clarified that we don't give more than general assistance By we're just in the median of it And uh, we're not the welfare county of california is what I want to say Some people have an idea that that's the way it is Um, number 46 an update on the boulder creek library project I want to thank the public works department And the capital project staff for continuing to ensure the project continues to make progress We've had well attended community meetings on that the felton library as well under construction now and We will not see the boulder the improvements to boulder creek library started until early 2020 because that's when the felton library Will be up and operational in early 2020 and we didn't want to have both libraries closed at the same time um On items 50 and 52 uh, the fema funded storm damage and sp1 funded road repairs This is just an even an incremental step we take to improve our system of roads And I want to thank again the voters of santa cruz county for voting yes on or for supporting senate bill one twice And by saying no to proposition six That was going to there's a referendum to eliminate that Without this support of this long list of over 200 million dollars of needed road repairs in this county Would not be addressed in the fashion. We're able to do it now We have a long road to go and everybody I understand thinks the road in front of their house or close to them Is the most important one and that's understandable But we really we are really making our very good Effort to approve the roads most highly traveled and our 600 miles of roadway in the unincorporated area And I think that the public works department is to be committed to do as much as they can with what they have And it's really a welcome To have additional revenues from our measure d that county voters approved in november of 2016 and the the sales tax on gasoline that was approved by the state I went with that that's I'll have to say but but thank you very much for your support of Helping us address the much needed improvements that we have to have in santa cruz county for our road system Thank you. Uh, supposedly a poll Thank you, chair and good morning. Uh, just a couple of items On item 16, which is the board minutes From april 16th. I'm going to abstain because I was not at the meeting Um on item number 35 I'm glad to see this uh report for the alcohol nuisance abatement program Appreciate all the hard work that's going into that program the the measures That we're looking at Seem to be good one and they're most of them are moving in the right direction So I appreciate the the hard work that our sheriff's department is putting into that program And I think we're going to see greater benefits over time On item Number 51 I'm glad to see that we're going out for a request for qualifications to look at the long range facility and campus master plans for both this site and our watsonville site Trying to figure out how we can use our land To better meet the needs of the community whether it be through services or housing is a is a great step forward and and very Greatly needed to hear in our community And I'm glad to see this uh Moving forward and I look forward to more information as this process continues On item number 52. I'd just like to add an additional direction This is the item about senate bill one And the projects and the and the dates in which they're going to be done I'd like this to come back to us in october with Any changes this same list? But if there's any changes in dates to to mark those and explain why those dates are being changed I think the community counts on these dates and when they get changed. It's good to have the information About it. Oh, I guess the last thing i'll say is on item number 53.1. I'm glad to support senate bill 276 I appreciate my colleagues for bringing this forward The need for vaccinations is real the information about vaccination is generally false The to tying it to autism is is something that it was discredited many many years ago the doctor that Did that study not only had the study removed, but it lost his license it it doesn't Not only does it not help in terms of Promoting good public health by using that scare as a As a reason for people not to get vaccines, but it's also a great disservice to the autism community that somehow that they are greatly affected and that that's something we should Be worried about rather than looking at the neuro divergent way in which People's brains are wired and so I I strongly support this bill as we did the last one and I look forward to Increasing the immunity rates here in santa Cruz county. Thank you. Thank you supervisor friend Thank you. So let's briefly comment on item 53.1 of 53.2. I understand my colleagues concerns supervisor cap I I respectfully disagree With them in the states and communities across the country that have Made these exemption changes that have been significant declines in the number of preventable diseases I mean in my opinion to claim that there is a scientific debate over the efficacy of vaccines is sort of like Saying that there's a valid scientific debate over the effect over whether climate change is real. I don't really think that any bonafide scientists or physician really actually questions whether or not these things work I mean we can always point to one or two outliers, but if I had a hundred doctors tell me that my Four-year-old son needed a certain treatment and the hundred and first said something different I wouldn't put all of my eggs in that hundred and first doctor. I think that overall We really take a significant risk As a community and as a country when we allow ourselves to google our answers as opposed to trusting science So i'm totally supportive of that item on item 53.2 I just like to thank actually my colleagues on this because this is our item on our local hospitality Ordinance that very quickly has become a statewide bill In fact, they're actually modeling it almost verbatim after our ordinance and and that's a real testament to the work of Tim gontroff and public works save our shores and others But people that took a lead for all of you that were willing to work with With supervisor McPherson of myself on this and we have been in close contact with assemblyman Member cholera and it does look very positive and how things are going across the state So I appreciate your work within just a few months of us passing it. It's now looking that it'll become a statewide policy Thank you. Just a couple brief comments on item number 29. We have the davenport landing bathroom I want to thank our parks director jeff gaffney for bringing this forward Sometimes it's the little things that matter a lot and uh, and I appreciate your effort Yeah Yes, sir supervisor community. Oh, no, I just thank you. Sorry. Oh, thank you so much. Yeah, I also I have a cold. I'm on medication That's a thank you on item number 47 On may 18th the Davenport may festival Just encourage the community to go out and check it out great food great dancing A wonderful community celebration on item number 39. I want to thank The human services department for working to get more cow works money for housing support for Helping working families who are experiencing homelessness find housing And on item number 53.1 I want to thank everyone who came out today and gave testimony When you look at some of the vaccination rates in some of our schools There's a potential public health crisis that's significant And that crisis can impact lives I also think it's uh more and more important for people to step forward and put Focus on truth and try to counter some of the misinformation that spreads so rapidly And seems to hijack our public debates And so Bringing this forward is both the support of this important bill and public health of our community But also hopefully a small pushback Against uh fake news that that has tremendous impacts on our on our world right now So i'll ask for a motion I'll move the consent agenda as amended with supervisor leopold's abstention on item 16 and supervisor cap. It's no vote on item 53.1 Second right so that'll be noted. So when I vote I I'm voting no on 53.1. Okay. Okay, so we got a motion by friend and a second by leopold all those in favor Please say aye. Aye. Aye opposed That passes unanimously with the exception of the no vote On item 53.1 and the abstention by supervisor leopold So moving on we are now going to take item number 14.1 This is a presentation from the cradle to career parent leadership committee as outlined in a memorandum From supervisor leopold Introduce the item. Yes. Uh, thank you chair Uh, you know 10 years ago Uh, there was a delegation led by uh county staff member leslie good friend to go check out the harlem children's zone in new york city Because they were doing something very interesting about using their collective impact to make a difference in a community in harlem new york I wasn't able to go on that trip But they brought back great information and seven years ago We started meeting about trying to figure out how we could Do something like that here in in santa cruz Five years ago. We actually started doing it And we started at live oak elementary And it was a great collaboration of both the human services department and our human services agency The community foundation the santa cruz community health center first five Encompass and the live oak school district Um, all these partners played an incredible role in trying to think about how They could all do a better job about meeting the needs of families in live oak Live oak is this Is an unincorporated community where there's great wealth and great poverty within a few blocks of each other The the the leadership from the school district The leadership from the health center the leadership from the county and the other agencies Um, that was all critical because not only did they have great resources great minds and great commitment But they also were smart enough that they didn't have all the answers Um, and a parent leadership group was formed at live oak elementary Which has been the leader of this effort This is a parent driven initiative to improve the lives of families in live oak and We'll hear more about it in a moment, but I just want to say that Live oak is really the spearhead of the demographic change that we're looking at here in santa cruz county And the success that we have in addressing concerns in live oak will provide a great template for us to address needs in our community countywide And so i'm very excited about this I'm in awe of the parents who've stepped up in leadership position And i'm grateful for the support of so many great organizations and departments who have helped make it happen I look forward to the presentation Good morning Okay, uh, good morning My name is leslie good friend and I want to thank you for welcoming us to speak with you today about our cradle to career initiative I'm a senior health services manager with the human services department And i'm a member of the cradle to career steering committee We're honored to have the opportunity to speak with you today about our live oak cradle to career initiative I'd like to take a moment and ask those of you who are part of the cradle to career initiative to please Stand and be recognized for a moment Thank you As supervisor leo bold says live oak is home to multi million dollar houses Yet there are also pockets of poverty interspersed within just blocks of each other At live oak elementary school 85 percent of the children are on free or reduced school lunch And a quarter of the students are characterized as homeless To address these challenges the live oak cradle to career initiative was formed in 2014 by parents Educators health and social service leaders working together to ensure that all live oak children can reach their full potential Oh, there we go We sought the leadership of parents to guide this initiative from day one We asked parents what their hopes and dreams were for their children and they told us they wanted good health Good character and good education To be successful in engaging all parents. We added our next ingredient Authentic inclusion in all that we do By shifting from a service model to an organizing model our cradle to career initiative sees all parents as partners We don't wait for parents to come to us We meet them where they are at school or in the community The parents are strong advocates for their children and families and and have spoken before your board on several occasions participated in lobbying events Visits to our state legislatures and spoken to the live oak school district trustees in the soak hill water district Live oak school district is proud of recent academic data Which shows that the percentage of live oak third graders Demonstrating proficiency on the state's english language arts test has increased over the past three years Rising from 51 percent in 2015 to 66 percent in 2018 This is greatly surpassing the state average of 48 percent for 2018 You will now be hearing directly from our parent leaders about the impact of cradle to career that it has on your their families Diana and rena from live oak elementary school and devin and yadira from delmar Good morning members of the board. My name is diana valades. I'm a mother and a leader at cradle to careers for the last three years Thank you for listening to us today I will be speaking to you about the health issue I want to share with you a little bit about the um Oh my goodness, sorry achievements That we have had uh little by little I am someone that struggles day to day for my health and my well-being To be strong for my children and for my family I have been suffering for the last year in five months from an illness called Mastitis It's a very difficult situation and the worst thing is that I don't know when this will end And speaking with other mothers and families they started to open up and share heart to heart about their problems and their necessities as well It's possible that they opened up and spoke more openly because we're a tight community of mothers. We're strong and we have great hearts and are And our feelings are quite vulnerable It was then after listening to so many different testimonies that I had the idea to comment to uh to the group of the um from cradle to careers To see if they could help This group of mothers that didn't have health um insurance It's going to say we're a medico y los suficientes medios. Yeah, they didn't have the health insurance or the means for the treatments To cover all those necessary um costs We formed a committee and between meetings and conversations Nowadays, there's many agencies that help Work that are helping us And giving us their support Also, I want to let you know about the program Called Patient patient for our products This was formed This was this was formed uh the the meeting that we had uh The the meeting that we had with our community And then we decided that it was a good idea to have Sumba classes in the program It was it was a great idea that he that they came provided uh provide us uh a nutrition classes And they can help us with the products With the products that they offer to the uh book through the um Book um the food bank. Sorry And I'm glad to share with you all that we're very happy that all this uh with that we are receiving all these benefits for more than one year Uh, so we're uh, so we got uh the summa classes uh the um The nutrition classes and And we all have um and we receive the products the food products And uh About 60 to 70 families are have benefited from this from the last for the last two months And I'm very and I'm very proud that I that to know that everyone listened to me We hope to uh, we hope to continue to grow and develop more activities To be able to help our uh our kids in our community We hope to count with your support For our community. Oh, I'm sorry. So our community can continue to grow and form more More connections between all of us Gracias Thank you I apologize. It was kind of the last minute, but we are trying to do our best to translate. Sorry. Absolutely. Thank you Buenos dias. Mi nombre es reina Y mi nombre reina calvillo Good morning members of the board. My name is reina calvillo My topic is good character I am the mother of four I would like to share my experience with the program Of the program from cradle to careers Ya que formo parte del comité de padres líderes as I am part of the parent leaders group I have benefited plenty from the program The triple p programs And leadership These programs have brought many benefits Personally and as well as with the relationship that I have with my daughters I feel much stronger to be able to help them Deal with all the challenges that they will face day to day Physically emotionally and academically And especially for them to realize their great potential Help them achieve their goals and dreams We know it will not be easy But the program of from cradles to careers Gives us the necessary tools I'm sorry To motivate them and guide them So that they can prepare themselves academically So that in the future we have And in which community and education And especially for our values I want to say thank you in the name of the families that have benefited from this program And have a good day My name is Chedira Good morning. My name is yadira canizal. I appreciate your time this morning. I'm It's No I'm I'm very honored to be here today in representing As a mother as representing the community From del mar elementary I'm here today to talk about the good education Tomando en cuenta que la educación es un proceso educativo de asimilar y aprender Keeping in mind the the education in is the process of a successful Education and learning series Okay Is It's a series of qualities and values that can Change intellectuals emotionally and socially And in person individual And cradles to careers we believe that a good education starts at a very early age Morbo los libros desde la edad preschooler That's how the I'll necessity to that is why there's a necessity to instill in children the love of books at a very early age And the program raise the reader was introduced Que consiste en entregarle una bolsa de color rojo a cada familia una vez por semana Sorry, it consists of giving a family once a cada semana every week a red bag which includes a book For books four books. Thank you. No For each family For cada familia una vez por semana sabiendo que a a esta edad Por lo general los niños no no son capaces de leer Even knowing that um at that age generally children cannot read So because the children aren't unable to read these books it's important that the parents read these books to the children She's going to finish off So then we think that because the parents can be able the kids can be able to read the parents are going to be Involved in that situation and then it's get a connection between father son and education And without knowing the the the family is involved in that situation and and And it's not only the love for the books for the kids, but also the parents getting involved And so we we believe in carol to carada when we have strong children's with good education And the parents involved in the lives of those children's we're going to raise strong kids with A foundation really good foundation and education and it's going to be the key And in the way and it's going to be the path for that for that And in the key for open all doors that is going to be able for them when they have a good education Thank you so much. Thank you. Totally agree Hello My name is Devin mcdine. I have two kids in the live oak school district I am a parent leader at del mar elementary What cradle two career has done for me is just made me realize how many people in the schools and in the community care about our kids and their education and how They're going to turn out we want to we want to raise good kids and we want to start now while they're really young And be involved as early as possible That's what it's done for me made me feel like I have a voice and I've had the opportunity to meet a lot of The administration and staff in the school district and all of our partners that have supported us The cradle two career group It's just really eye-opening to know that so many people actually care Uh, we would like to invite each of you every year. We have um an annual fiesta It's going to be at live oak elementary We would like to invite each of you and your families. It's on thursday may 9th at 5 p.m We will be honored if you could come and just get a glimpse of what we do and what our Group is like when we're all together. It'll be very fun. And we really hope that you can come Thanks so much for your time. Thank you. Thank you So, uh, that concludes the presentation This is really an incredible program and kudos to everyone who's been so involved I was there the other night when you all won an award from the health improvement partnership For the great effort that this Program makes in improving the health of not only the kids in live oak, but in the entire community And thank you for your leadership Chair I would just I also want to say a special thanks to the live oak school district who has embraced this program And has really made it great. Uh, it would be impossible to do without the santa cruz community health center Or the east cliff family health center who's been an amazing addition in a community of 25 to 30 000 people Five years ago. We didn't have one doctor's office. Now. We have over 9 000 patient visits a year in live oak and we're going to grow it with our With a new clinic on on capitol road and the first five program has been providing Programming in live oak for many years and they have Very gracefully Assimilated into this program provided great information and used their triple p and raising a reed at workshops to really help Um, uh address the needs of parents and most particularly, uh, what we see here today is Four mothers who are active parts of the parent leadership council But there are lots of other members of the parent leadership council And it's a very active and involved group Who is not just waiting to be told what to do But is actually leading and and helping us leverage the work that all these agencies are doing To better meet the needs of families in live oak. So I just give a lot of credit To these powerful women who are doing incredible work not only for their family But for live oak and for santa cruz county as a whole There's a lot more going on about this program I encourage people to check out the website and I want to encourage us all to attend the fiesta You'll get a real feel of of just the joyousness and the sense of community If you come to the event on may 9th, so thank you for being here today Thank you We're going to move on to item number seven, which is a public hearing continued from march 26 2019 On proposed amendments to the general plan general plan local coastal program And proposed amendments to the county code chapter 13.10 local coastal program Implementing to create a permanent room housing prh combining zone district with sequa notice of exemption As outlined in the memorandum of the planning director Okay, thank you chair coonerty and supervisors the purpose of today's continued public hearing Is to consider general plan and county code amendments to create a permanent room housing combining zone district When we last presented to you at your regular meeting on march 26 We explained that the vision for the proposed combining zone district is to Legally recognize conversion of former visitor accommodation and care facilities To housing in order to ensure that these housing units, which are affordable by design are preserved and safely maintained We presented two components of the policy initiative first The general plan land use chapter would need to be amended to enable the creation of the district And second the county code would need to be amended to create the district The board was generally supportive of the proposed amendments, but expressed some key concerns regarding the ordinance The board expressed that short-term rentals should not be allowed in prh units That the ordinance should require if legally possible that prh units be rented to local lower moderate income tenants And emphasize retention of existing tenants The board also directed staff to add findings of denial to the ordinance to provide a clear path to allow decision makers to deny property owners With outstanding code violations and other issues Finally the board also directed that the inspection checklist be updated to clarify criteria for passing or failing And that the ordinance require periodic inspections as well as rental reporting Okay, so So regarding the short-term rental use staff has updated the ordinance So that short-term rentals are not allowed on properties in the prh district Regarding residency requirements staff and council have researched this request And it is not legally advised that we require That we require retention of existing tenants or require that tenants be based in Santa Cruz Because this may violate the fair housing act We could require that units be deed restricted affordable housing staff does not recommend this because it is unlikely that many of the current applicants would Continue on with the application process if we were to do that And add that restriction And we are considering the units to be affordable by design As an alternative we have added language to the purpose section of the ordinance to express the intention that the ordinance should serve local Low and moderate income tenants Regarding findings of denial staff has added findings of denial Including active code violation or criminal cases Three or more code violations in the last two years untrue statements in the application failure to meet prh standards and Failure to pay transient occupancy tax for visitor accommodation use The building inspection form has been updated on the cover page to clarify that every item On the list must be completed or marked as not applicable for every prh unit in order for the project to pass inspection And for the use and development permit to be activated We have also added That reinspection is required every five years to keep the use and development permit active Reporting of rents is now required as part of the application materials as well as the five-year inspection process There is no rental limit requirement, but the rental information will help The county to understand who is being served by the units and will also help us to be more accurate in our income Level reporting for these units that we need to do to the office of housing and community development as part of our regional housing needs assessment Okay, so after the last board hearing Staff met with the coastal commission To present the current version of the ordinance. We have been meeting with the coastal commission periodically But at this most recent meeting the commission did express concern about compliance with the coastal act Specifically the requirement that visitor accommodations, especially low-cost visitor accommodations Are prioritized over residential use in the coastal zone And that the rezoning triggers a coastal plan amendment So in response to these comments staff has made additional changes To the proposed general plan amendments and proposed ordinance that i'll explain now First the general plan amendments have been updated to also modify objective 2.16 and policy 2.16.9 As well as making minor text changes to other aspects or other policies that were already being amended The modification to objective 2.16 emphasizes the importance of preserving Low-cost visitor accommodations in the coastal zone Which is the key coastal policy The modification to policy 2.16.9 Clarifies that hotels and motels can be converted to residential use But only if it's demonstrated that the visitor accommodation use is obsolete Finally we did remove the 15 percent affordability requirement that was in this general plan policy Because that requirement Because affordability policies are addressed in the housing element at this time That was more of a cleanup item Okay, and then staff has also updated the ordinance To clarify that properties in the coastal zone that are rezoned into the prh combining zone district Would be subject to local coastal program policies And require coastal approval for rezoning We have also added to the purposes of the district that is it is important to retain low-cost visitor accommodations in the coastal zone And added a finding that former visitor accommodations in the coastal zone must be found to be obsolete As documented by conditions such as low occupancy rates or a residential use existing for at least three years And just to provide an update you may have in your packet as additional materials Yesterday the county did receive a letter from the coastal commission that states that coastal commission staff is Still not supportive with of allowing the permanent room housing zone district at all in the coastal zone Um because converting visitor accommodations to residential use is in conflict with coastal Act policies staff plans to continue to engage in conversation with coastal staff On about this project our research indicates that there are about 70 potential prh Units in the coastal zone that are existing long-term residential Use in former motel buildings. Um, and as drafted the code would provide a pathway For these property owners to imply apply for inclusion in the district In fact, two of the applications that are already in progress with the county are located in the coastal zone Staff believes that they're a more nuanced approach in the coastal zone rather than complete exclusion Of coastal properties from this district would be appropriate In order to provide a pathway per preservation of these housing units The coastal letter states that the central purpose of the prh combining zone district is to convert existing visitor accommodations to housing This is actually not true. The central purpose is to preserve existing housing that was already converted from former visitor accommodations And former and former care facilities Um in some cases the zoning on these properties is residential and does not even allow for legal visitor accommodation use at this time Um So and also there are policies in the local coastal program that in fact support Preservation of affordable housing in the coastal zone. So this is one area where coastal policies are somewhat in conflict With each other So for these reasons staff recommends that the board keep the ordinance as drafted with staff changes in response to coastal concerns And staff will continue to work with coastal staff As the project moves back through the planning commission and comes back to the board So staff recommends that the board open a continued public hearing Consider the general plan local coastal program and county code amendments Along with the sequo notice of exemption provide direction to staff on the content of the amendments and Refer the amendments back to the planning commission for recommendation Before bringing this item back to the board Great. Thank you very much Questions Thank you, uh, chair, thank you for the presentation just had a couple questions around the The coastal zone properties You gave a number of how many you thought might be in there, but it came by quick So I didn't catch it. Sure about 70 70 And and that includes the one that that are already in process correct. Okay And how do we determine what I mean, how will we what would be the process for Showing that they would be functionally obsolete or economically unfeasible. What what will we do? Right, so uh, so in the draft ordinance we do have some Indicators of how we would do that so one one way Would be that the units have been functioning as residential units for more than three years Another way would be through demonstration of low occupancy rates We did we did stop short of requiring specific quantitative requirements Just because all these properties are so different from each other it's tough to to do that That's a place where we may continue to discuss with coastal what what we can agree Is a good demonstration of obsolescence, but we think that one demonstration is the de facto use of it Is as permanent room housing now properties tend to be used at their highest and best use And we think that that's a signal that their highest and best use at this time is for permanent residents And you mentioned that um, there may be some of these properties which aren't even zone For a visitor accommodation. Would you have any sense of that 70? Rooms, uh, how many might be? Zoned in a residential mode or some other Yes, I too About 30 are zoned residential Okay, then so and so that wouldn't be a subject of which the The coastal commission, you know, they're not losing anything there Right, um That's right. Yeah. Well, I'm just you know when you when you look at what the How big how big this issue is if it's 70 and 30 of them are are Should be uncontestable Then you're down to 40 rooms and it's a question of how big a fight you want to get into about 40 rooms, right? I mean everyone's precious and Hopefully they can Work with the county on that Very small group of rooms that might be affected and it might be helpful to notice You know, I know that in the The just a live oak A special district area for vacation rentals. We have 300 Vacation rentals which are, you know, many more rooms And so we've worked to actually figure out a way to increase the number of visitor accommodations So maybe there's some balance there that could be struck Thank you for your work super as your friend. Thank you chair and thank you miss allen misleving I do have some questions mainly specific to 13 point 1 0 4 2 8 c and D i'll start with d because I think that it actually relates More importantly to see which deals with the revocation and denial Language so the title actually talks about revocation denial, but you actually don't Enumerate how something can be revoked. You only talk about if something could be denied So I feel like there should be language that specifies that this also includes similar to what we did in Canada This is where it actually says deny or revoke Um, I have some concerns though What page you want it on the clean copy of the ordinance. It's page seven And it's what what uh 13 point 1 0 0 4 2 8 subsection d Okay, thank you packet page 38 okay So I have some questions though about How denial or revocation would actually occur? So what's it assuming that it was the board's interest? And I think it was that revocation also be possible not just initial denial Is it complaint based? How is something triggered that's also not explained Within the system of how we would bring something up to the plan or to you or to us What triggers it? What happens when somebody sells the property are there any does it automatically even though we theoretically have a five-year? Conditional use permit is this really in perpetuity and you can constantly do it irrespective of who owns it On a side note your staff report actually says three or more citations in the last calendar year the the The ordinance says in the last two calendar years So I think we're going with what the ordinance says and not the staff report, but that should be clear To the community. So I have uh some questions though about that It is pretty well known that that our code compliance tries to cite last Which is to say that a citation is actually pretty high bar and in fact we've received um A number of complaints over the times I've been in office of things that have warranted a citation that haven't actually received a citation because code compliance works Uh, well first off there's a priority of life and safety and then by the time they actually get to something down the list They generally don't cite so I feel like having three actual citations is actually a high bar And considering that the language actually says may and not shall revoke or may or shall deny Versus deny then it should just be Whether the complaints were filed versus the actual citations were actually issued because I I I feel like Citations are rare within Most of these properties and and since it still gives the flexibility on a may versus shall revoke or shall deny I think that that bar Makes more sense But if you could walk me through some of of Some of these questions, which is how would a complaint how would something trigger revocation would be useful? And whether we need to specify that language within the ordinance then Um Yeah, we actually were discussing that Yesterday, I think that that might be something that needs to be bolstered here in the ordinance and further explained um so The five-year inspection requirement that would be a staff level requirement. So um, there wouldn't be uh necessarily a decision-making process that would happen at the planning commission or the board at that five-year inspection As the ordinance is currently drafted so So there is a conflict there and I I apologize that i'm not necessarily seeking there to be a higher level of review What i'm seeking is it enumerated as to what would happen I also think that the inspection and of itself is is really basic I mean for example, what if you had massive neighborhood impacts? What if somebody was starting to violate the code during that five years currently you have a five-year process It's just a health and safety Inspection has nothing to do like we do with vacation rentals if you have a number of complaints It can be called up for revocation in this situation There's no mechanism under your five-year review to do that It just says that at some point within five years there will be an inspection Then it even gives an ability to remedy The flaws within that within 90 days and so to me that's a pretty high bar for revocation when I think that well We're looking for good actors if we're going to give you this ability to actually do the conversion We want to know that you're going to continue to act a certain way I don't think the language is strong enough and are currently constructed to actually do that I think we'd be willing to hear some direction on that also to point out I do think it could be more clear that revocation is also contemplated in the section there is a separate revocation section of the code in 1810 and That has sort of a high bar for starting that process to Begin a revocation process There needs to be a resolution of intention either by the board or the planning commission So we might want to have some more specific revocation. That's just for prh Regarding the The bar and whether it should be citations or complaints You know if directed we could look at the vacation rental ordinance as more of a model where that one is based more on complaints Okay And what would happen if the property did change hands? Entitlements to run with run with the land. Okay All right. I think those are all my my questions for now Are there any other questions? Let's hear from the public. Uh, this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to us about this item Tim will be speaking for affordable housing now We support this Because in addition to trying to create new affordable housing units We'd like to maintain Existing affordable by design Units and this is a great example of that and I can speak to this from a personal point of view because In a different place near mammoth lakes. I and three other people own four different lodges that are similar to these And the reality is that the old lodges Lose their appeal to tourists very quickly no matter what you do to them And if you only have eight to ten units It costs you too much money to upgrade them to the point where you really are going to attract Visitors and you can't sell it as a lodge because the price of the land has gone up And somebody can't buy it and make it viable with that few that small number of units And the final reason is that lodge owners It's a 24 7 job And eventually you get tired and you just you just don't want to run it as a hotel anymore So we had the flexibility with our zoning to be able to transition To long-term rentals and as a result The over 30 of the lowest renting units In the mammoth lakes area are in those four lodges So this makes a lot of sense. We really support it. I think it's a good idea. Thank you. Thank you Next speaker Hi, my name is patty murray and I am here representing the toll house resort And I've been involved in this project with daisy since the beginning and it was presented as an over lying Zoning for the property The toll house is a unique property It has various Small cabins that are rented to long-term Housing individuals families. They are Lower cost housing by design because they are very small Units and we do have some that are also rented in the tourist side of things So I agree with everything that is on the table. I would like you to review the Not allowing the short-term rental On this because that would eliminate this property From being a part of this This project and we do have two Units that do need refurbishing that are currently unavailable for rental at all And our hands are kind of tied on doing that until we can figure out the proper zoning on that property So we'd like to be able to provide The low income housing side of things that we've successfully been able to do over 30 some years But we'd also like to be able to provide the Short-term rentals as well. And I think that maybe it could be more of an individual property Analysis of that ability. So thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you Good morning supervisors. My name is rosemary mcnear and I'm a realtor and a housing advocate, of course And I would like to thank you very much for being creative with this these solutions that we need to find housing for I have represented for a very long time something like almost 30 years some clients that Actually had a motel that was built in 1941 in the aptos area and they have been Always legally and with the county's cooperation. In fact in an agreement They could be kind of the example of how to do it because it's very successful It's very well managed and that's a key too is having a good manager That watches over everything to make sure that it follows all the rules This is a place that people can afford Because by design, they're small You can't charge a whole arm and a leg when something is as small as some of these Motel size units yet. They're comfortable. They're dry They they're clean. They have their Their ability to kind of serve as their home and people really are enjoying the fact that it has been become complimentary to the neighborhood Even though in a long time ago. It was the old-fashioned kind of Motel sort of situation So I thank you very much for the opportunity. I think that they have already been inspected many times over the years Something like 14 or 15 years. They had pre inspections all along So they are your example of how it works and so I thank you so much for Engaging in this process and I certainly hope that it will work a long time ago It was visitor accommodation, but it has been Rezone at the time they made the agreement with the county. So thank you so much. Bye. Bye Hello, honorable board of supervisors and members of the public. My name is Michael Cox. I'm an employee of a company called listener properties Which is a local real estate investment company family owned Doreen listener is 92. She regrets that she can't be here today to address you directly Um, first of all, I support more time to review this. This is a huge issue And the owners really need time to speak with land use experts and get advice On some of these requirements Also, I'd like to invite supervisor friend to come down and meet with the rena the residents of the former arabian motel at one zero one one zero so cal drive Um and and engage with them in terms of how things are going for them I think it's a little bit punitive to say well As a consequence of your coming in for a largely administrative procedure We're going to set you up so that in perpetuity We're gonna have somebody pass judgment on how you're living and get your rental agreements And intrude on your lives that that really is concerning to the residents. These are people They have lives. Um, and I think it's a little discriminatory to assume low income means trouble So let's keep an eye on these folks And that's my comment. Thank you This will be our final speaker Good morning becky steinbrunner Um Resident of aptas. I want to thank you for considering this carefully and for all the good work that planter daisy allen and her Um Staff has put into this. I've been coming along on this with the baby hotel owner Miss christina locks since it was brought up at first So I do want to uh really point out that miss allen said this and acknowledge that this is to Acknowledge the existing uses that we know are there and to support it as an affordable means of housing by design um, it supports Promoting safe housing By bringing that now into legal use And it also gives the owner flexibility as one of the I think it was mr. Willoughby said sometimes owners just get tired of having to do a bed and breakfast With all that that goes on and to be able to um have a steady income source and provide Very needed affordable housing by design is a service not only to the community, but to Maintaining the structural and Integrity of the buildings that that are in part of this this plan I want to take exception that I do not feel having um a complaint based Method of possible revocation is fair to the owners We all know that sometimes communities get in little tiffs They're become Instances where people complain just out of vindictiveness and that does go on we all know that So I think that to keep it in code violations is more fair with a more professional attitude and I want to thank mr. Cox for saying that um Uh low low low cost low affordable housing units do not necessarily mean trouble. Thank you Thank you That closes public comment. I'll bring it back to the board for deliberation and action Yeah, mr. Chair. I'd like to address some things that probably is really pinpointed to my district You know to move the recommended action provide some additional direction That we allow Applicants the ability to offer short term rentals of 30 days or less under the following conditions That the short term rentals were legal and established on the property prior to the application for the zoning district That the property owners are current on their transit occupancy tax or tot to the county And the maximum number of units available for short term rental be limited to 30 percent As recommended previously by the planning commission Okay, so we got a motion Uh, I'll second that and then for the discussion supervisor cap it Supervisor run. So I have some uh additional direction on that. I've got some concerns with the motion that's currently on the floor in that Um and to mr. Cox's comments, I think that those points are fair But I think that you're missing the point This is a this is a conversation regarding the landlord activity not the resident activity And what we want to do is ensure that those that are actually renting to the most vulnerable populations aren't taking advantage of them And I think it's reasonable that the county put in regulations for health and safety and actions so to ensure that those people are protected Which is what we're here to do if we're going to create this new overlay My concern is in part some of this motion actually in some respects supersedes some of the actions that are actually already within the proposal regarding tot for example, we have language on Denial revocation that goes back three years not just whether somebody's current on it whether there's any violation within those three years So That's a more lenient application that's being proposed by supervisor McPherson right now. And so I wouldn't be supportive Of that unless modified. I also would like to see As was mentioned. I think language that specifies revocation within subsection c It just simply needs to say If I pull it back up here Excuse me subsection d that says the currently says the planning commission or board of supervisors may deny an application I think that language should be changed to may deny or revoke An application or permit For any of the following reasons these reasons are enumerated I think that that reason should include Complaints and the reason under subsection five and that the reason I say that is because it's a may and not shall And so it still allows for a discretionary review as to the merits of whether that is But we need to acknowledge that the county does not provide a lot of citations for a lot of things We have made that a policy to try and do that and if we're going to make that as a high bar I just don't think that that's a reasonable Bar in regards to the revocation. I think it should be more than just health and safety What if these units weren't rented for low income anymore? What if we find that they're being rented at $2,500 a month for example, I mean shouldn't that be a point of review or point of consideration of the point of this Is to provide for affordable housing if it moves out of that. I think that that should be something also neighborhood impacts if there are Impacts within the community where people are concerned about the activities that the owners are doing that should be This is similar to what the vacation rental ordinance currently has So Unless some of these are considered friendly amendments and we can have a discussion about what this short-term rental component would mean I wouldn't be supportive of the current Motion that's on the floor which is unfortunate because I'm actually supportive of the prh with these modifications I think as presented and so I'd like to have that discussion with supervisor McPherson about willingness to modify as presented so We'll take that as a It's being proposed as such. Otherwise I can just introduce a substitute motion I'll take the chair's prerogative on that but so I understand you understand and are you okay with those as a friendly amendment or Yeah, yes, okay, so they've been adopted and and as a friendly amendment which Is the clerk clear on what the friendly amendment was friendly. Okay I think at some point where there's going to have to be a recitation of what the motion is because it's It may be slightly confusing to this supervisor. Okay, so, uh, so why don't we go back? And restate your motion and then supervisor friend just be super clear on the what specifically you want amended And that's where I understand. Um, the uh, that the, um, the applicants must, um Shall allow we should allow the applicants to have the ability to Offer short-term rentals for 30 days or less under some criteria that I meant at the three the short-term rentals were legal And established used on the property prior to the application for the zoning district The property owners are current on their tot remittance to the county And the maximum number of units available for short-term rentals should be limited to 30 percent of the property as recommended previously By the planning commission in addition to the recommended actions right before today. So we have the recommended actions In addition to supervisor McPherson's Amendment additions based on Vacation limited vacation rentals then you have supervisor McPherson our supervisor friends Uh, friendly amendments which have to do with revocation And clarification of the language around Uh, tot and clarification of language around tot. So the ordinance as proposed currently has tot language that i'm i'm saying should Remain. Yeah, and not and the revocation language would Direct staff to have on Uh, subsection d number five as opposed to three or more citations would be three or more complaints for violation of the county code It would Um Now i'm losing my own train of thought here And and provide additional information on revocation specific under subsection d the board of supervisors may deny or revoke an application or permit And then under Uh, c which deals with the five-year inspection just that it that the inspection would consider other elements just beyond this health and safety Such as neighborhood impacts that they're still being affordable by design other factors of consideration in in that that would be part of the report Okay, so that is the motion before us supervisor leopold. Um, yeah, uh, I can agree with most of these things But I think we have to this determine whether this is about housing or about short-term rentals and it's one of the other and and, uh, I think of of Trying to split this makes it much harder. We should either say this is about preserving a housing stock for Uh, for affordable by design, uh, housing Or it should be short-term rentals, but to have this the, um bifurcation, um I don't think worked for me. I think we we should choose what it is. What our policy goal is here My policy goal is to uh, to provide, uh more housing Okay, let me just say I supported the motion because I heard That one of the properties in which we're trying to Formalize current housing is saying they won't participate We have we did a lot of work for a relatively few number of properties um, and to lose Several I think one it undermines the the work we've done to formalize this process and two Recognize that each property is going to be different And let's allow some leeway so that we can try to keep more properties in this program. So I share the goal I just don't want to lose what is uh, where where we could have and I don't know if there's additional Potential units where we where we they would stop not participate But I think we want to have as broad a tent as possible to allow participation assuming that they're good characters and Good members of our community providing a resource. So it's yeah, I understand the I mean it seems like Almost every one of these properties unique situations Right, uh, and if we have 30 units if we have 70 units that are in the coastal zone There I guarantee you that's going to be, uh, an individual piece that's going to have to uh, be worked out Uh, I just think it's easier to have us a standard and sit to it rather than try to Uh Try to have this be figured out at all the time For each individual property. I think that's going to be difficult and I think that's why we should get clear Chair, would it be amenable to you that we split this question and cast two different votes? I think there's agreement on the recommended actions, which are very simple I think there's agreement on my modifications to the current coordinates I think that seems universal whether there's disagreement on whether we should allow the short-term conversions If we took those as two separate motions it would allow The board to speak to those two specific things where there could be I think unanimity on most of this And then just a debate on whether we go short term. Sure. So why don't we split the actions? And so the first vote Moving it back to uh to voting now the first vote will be the recommended actions with your additional language around revocation And I said that's that's just that amendment For the purposes I think that's understood. Okay I can vote right Yes on that and I could vote on the other motion as well then too. Yeah Yeah, you you'll have a chance to vote yes on Both or yeah, so all those in favor, please say I I Opposed that passes unanimously the second part the second vote will be on supervisor McPherson's Motion to allow limited vacation rentals Under the conditions you set forth Correct, and then I assume your your amendment around the tot Well, I think that since we just adopted the original language of the tot. I mean it it is what it is But I mean not you know I respect what he's trying to do and I respect the work that's being done by the toll house I'm not just I'm just not supportive of this as a as a policy writ large I'll be voting against the short term rental component understand sure so So all those in favor, please say I I Opposed no, so that passes three to two Great and thank you. Thank you the staff for your work and thank you to everyone who came out to testify today We do have a 10 45 scheduled item However, we're going to take a 10 minute break and come back at five after Uh to to start that item and thank everyone for for waiting today So, uh, let's uh, let's call the session back to order and we'll move to our 10 45 scheduled item Which is item number 14 to consider a report on the cannabis licensing officer operations and providing additional direction to the cannabis licensing Office regarding potential changes to the santa cruz county code chapter 7.128 And 13.10 that could increase the number of licenses in the program and reduce the time it takes to achieve licensure As outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative officer Mr. LaForte Uh, this quarterly report is a summary of the cannabis licensing office activities and licensing operations Over the past 10 months We've determined that it's taking considerably longer to bring cultivation operations through to licensure Than was originally anticipated significant, um Significantly less registrants than initially anticipated are following through with the licensing application process and this combination could ultimately Jeopardize the overall success of the program to begin staff will be presenting a review of first quarter activities Which are summarized on exhibits a and b Um with regard to compliance activity the department is divided into two overlapping spheres the two CLO code compliance investigators and the two deputy sheriffs who are supervised by a chief deputy on temporary assignment to the CLO the CLO code compliance staff concentrates primarily on um compliance of operating cannabis businesses with Local letters of authorizations or in the pre-application process and respond to complaints while the deputy sheriffs Primarily investigate illegal cannabis activities taking a proactive approach and investigating leads generated from a variety of sources CLO code compliance staff have begun a comprehensive quarterly compliance inspection education program for all cannabis operators And staff have completed 28 inspections on the 43 operational sites Which have resulted in 145 corrective actions zero citations and zero no v's The issuance of corrective actions is twofold to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations And they're utilized to educate our operators on the extensive regulatory system They must comply with the goal of the compliance inspection program is to have the best operators in the state And we've received positive feedback from multiple operators who are happy to have a third party reviewing their compliance system Before the state inspects While the deputy sheriffs approach to the illegal market has resulted in 16 search warrants served They've seized 1295 pounds of processed cannabis Over 10 pounds of cannabis extract and the sheriff's office data compares the last quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2019 the details of which show the change in approach. They've made to a focus on the illicit market Moving on to analysis of chapter 7.128 Staff would like to begin by stating the analysis presented does not include any of the most sensitive zones Such as the residential agricultural zone special use zone and timber production zone a very limited analysis of large agricultural Parcels will be presented and this analysis does not include anything with regard to setbacks of any commercial cannabis activity Um moving forward as we've progressed the licensing process and as the state has moved Has continued to refine its rules and regulations a variety of issues have presented themselves Some concern potential conflicts between state and local law while others relate to whether the current ordinance Maybe a restricting marketplace activities in a way the board would wish to address If your board wants to tackle any of these issues, it would be best to do so before july 1st 2019 When the state sequa exemption for cannabis ordinances expires in addition to the extent any changes to chapter 1310 would be contemplated The planning commission would need a chance to review them and your board And provide your board with a recommendation The first area of analysis is the cannabis cultivation definition and nursery licenses The cultivation definition in county code covers all aspects of cultivation While the state definition differentiates between immature and mature plant growth Based on the flowering of the cannabis plants Additionally state allows cultivators to possess a nursery license, which includes all activities associated with cannabis cultivation Other than flowering the definition of immature plant specifically the portion which states Which is not flowering has been a point of contention for the board previously Because it can be viewed in contrast to our current commercial agricultural nurseries Our office doesn't see this as a challenge to ensure Our operators are abiding by the state definition due to the length of time It takes a cannabis plant to reach maturity paired with the state's implementation of the track and trace program A good way to think of a commercial cannabis nursery versus a typical agricultural nursery is as a small plant farm As staff has has dubbed them A nursery inclusion would be most applicable to the commercial agricultural zone district as nursery operations typically occur within greenhouse And differentiation of this license type Could include different operational requirements because immature plants are not odorous The tracking of the plants is not as labor intensive and this appears to be a viable business model for some of our existing commercial nurseries Moving on to do you have recommendations then about this? The staff does have recommendations prepared for the nursery license type And staff fields and nursery license type could be included in all zone districts But a site which which wishes to pursue a nursery license should go under the same level of use permit review in all zone districts Except potentially the ca district due to the lack of odor associated with immature plants and the desire expressed by Current agricultural operators staff feels it would be appropriate that a use permit review level of three For all nursery operations in the ca zone Could be permissible if a nursery operation needed an exception Staff feels it would be appropriate to increase the level of review to a four so that notification is provided to the public Additionally square footage of nursery operations would need to be limited within code Staff feels the best method to do this is to defer to the current canopy limits set in 7.128 for applicants Just seeking a nursery license for applicants seeking a nursery and a cultivation license Staff feels it would be appropriate to increase the overall land dedicated to commercial cannabis activity by 50% in the ca zone only The additional 50% increase of space would be limited to nursery operations only An example of this would be a single licensee in the ca zone on a parcel greater than 20 acres Is currently allowed 22,000 square feet, but would be allowed 33,000 square feet of cultivation space Um Or 11,000 square feet of additional immature plant growth area right this change in the ca zone Reflects an an actual increase of 1.25 percent of the applicable land to cannabis in the ca zone Or an increase from 2.5 percent to 3.75 percent In regards to the cultivation definition it would be necessary to adjust the definition in order to have a nursery license type also That's helpful. Thank you Moving forward and with regard to analysis of the canopy definition The current definition includes all designated areas that will contain cannabis plants at any point in the plant life cycle This differs from the state definition, which includes all areas that will contain mature cannabis plants similar to the topic We just covered this this difference in definition paired with the Defined canopy size has created a competitive disadvantage for our cultivators in our jurisdiction For example local operators are paying for a specific square footage of canopy at a state level But potentially cultivating less cannabis per square foot under the local definition because the local square footage includes the immature plant areas Reconciling the state and local definitions will provide a more level playing field for operators in our jurisdictional area and It just be helpful if there's recommendations And then these categories would just be helpful to get them as we go along Staff has prepared recommendations and will present them moving forward An alignment of the definition would result in two possible paths forward The simplest path would be to allow all immature plant growth areas under the currently defined canopy limits The second option, which is the option that staff would recommend is the same as the first but allow For unlimited immature plant growth areas in true indoor cultivation sites within the c4 and m zones This will be self limiting due to the economics and the limited c4 and m zone properties This option would allow indoor operators in the c4 and m zones the ability to complete all immature plant growth areas They need to provide plants for their flowering operations without limiting their canopy or their overall production This inclusion would not allow c4 and m operators an ability to sell plants per the state's nursery license definition Um the most complex option would be to define immature plant growth areas in all zones Potentially not the ca zone if a nursery license is acceptable to the board Staff feels the second option um paired with a nursery license in the ca zone would be the most appropriate path forward Um moving on to analysis of the eligibility restrictions The current program is limited to operators who were originally registered in 2016 with the exception of existing commercial agricultural operators Initially there were 760 registrants and as the program has progressed and the registrants have dropped out or failed to follow through with requested information There are now 438 registrants 63 Um cultivation registrants who were able to obtain local's letters of authorization and state licenses Staff has obtained data via the compliance Checks enforcement activities and the industry which indicate the eligibility restrictions appear to have driven potential licenses Out of our jurisdictional area or into the illicit market um a second eligibility restriction includes the requirement that a cultivator or cultivation manager reside in a permitted structure on the parcel except for sites in the ca c4 and m zones this restriction has led to the exclusion of Potential sites within the a zone including on parcels larger than 30 acres Staff analyze parcel data and determine there are several parcels zoned a which could accommodate cannabis cultivation Should there be a change to the residents requirements staff also prepared the following map the map shown currently And there are 58 parcels over 30 acres 28 over 40 acres 16 over 50 and 9 over 60 Um staff believes a change in the eligibility restrictions with regard to requiring people to be a registrant is warranted due to the low number of Use permits that have that have currently been applied for Based on brand value associated with cannabis grown in santa Cruz the potential for non registrants to open businesses while providing additional Location space for locals the numerous local cultivators who are operating outside of our jurisdictional area The increased commute miles associated with those business staff see the potential to reduce eligibility requirements Any potential change would not result in immediate impacts as anyone wishing to cultivate in our jurisdictional areas will be required to go through The pre-application process obtain a use permit and fulfill the conditions of approval before being eligible for a cannabis business No commercial cannabis could activity until it could begin until a commercial Business license is issued now with regard to the a zone staff would like direction from the board if they would like Large parcels in the a zone to be viewed differently If so staff believes large a zone parcels should be should have similar canopy limits to the ca zone As these sites will have to meet all security requirements the cl o and sheriff's department have developed Including securing the site limiting access and video recordings of the site egress points available To be viewed from anywhere so sites will likely require power and internet access upgrades associated with those Moving on to the differentiation of canopy limits canopy limits within code are not explicitly differentiated between indoor and outdoor cultivation operations and true in indoor operations Not greenhouses offer the high a high level of security as well as economic benefits associated with redevelopment of existing infrastructure Our office has received inquiries from potential licensees who wish to pursue indoor cultivation operations within existing structures in the ca zone However with canopy limits restricted to 22 000 square feet for a single operator Pursuing indoor cultivation is not commercially feasible for many operators in the ca zone For reference 7.128 does not base canopy limits on parcel size for the class c4 and m licenses Which are preliminarily indoor operations During the drafting of the current chapter ca zone parcels were intended to offer additional cultivation locations for operators Who existed on parcels that would no longer be eligible once the ordinance was passed However, the current discrepancy of canopy limits based on parcel size in the ca zone versus the c4 and m zone Is pushing more operators to consider relocating to indoor commercially zoned spaces thus decreasing the availability of such spaces To other types of industries Differentiation of canopy limits based on indoor versus outdoor cultivation in the ca zone could potentially free up indoor industrial spaces While providing additional avenues for relocation and economic benefits associated with the redevelopment of existing commercial agricultural buildings in Infrastructure canopy limits in the ca in the c4 and m zones Are up to the discretion of the licensing official and the same approach could be taken for indoor cultivation in the ca zone Balancing such an expansion with the need to prevent any additional losses of viable agricultural soil associated with the redevelopment is of critical importance and Through discussions with the planning department staff field. This can be mitigated through use permit conditions In regards to a recommendation To make the differentiation aligned with the county strategic plan goals and the value of agricultural soil Staff believes allowing a different canopy size for indoor operations in the ca zone must be restricted to lands Which are already developed and impacts of soil such as impervious surfaces have already been made Examples being areas which are currently have a concrete foundation or are paved or have buildings on top of them The total redevelopment footprint footprint including parking water tanks, etc Must be limited to those currently developed areas And restrictions must also be placed on the parcel to avoid additional ancillary takes of land Which are currently permissible for other commercial agricultural operations um an example of this Is if a farmer has a barn that they store their equipment in they decide to lease that barn out that barn is redeveloped for commercial canvas activities the The farmer who owns the land would be restricted and not be allowed to have an additional ancillary take of land to develop a new barn To house his equipment That's that's the recommendation that staff has come up with with the planning department to ensure that no additional Takes of land in the ca zone occur associated with this redevelopment Mr. Little 40 if you could just slow down a little bit. There's a lot to digest here Sorry If the board of supervisors has any questions on any one of these i'd be happy to to address them as we move through this Okay um A processor licensing option is The next round of analysis and the state differentiates this activity and has a license mechanism for independent processing Now processing is the act of trimming drying curing grading and pack packaging and labeling of cannabis currently the county does not have this license mechanism and All of our outdoor operators, which are seeking use permits are not proposing to do any Processing on site because of fire Requirements to have sprinklers in any facility that has cannabis stored within it Now The driver behind Now this gap in available license type has led to canoes being transported out of our jurisdictional area Creating inefficiency in the local market increasing vehicle miles traveled throughout the county and reducing the overall tax revenue from our local industry um In terms of recommendations staff recommends incorporating a processor license type applicable only to existing buildings in the ca c4 and m zones and any efficiency improvements to the local market place Are beneficial as they reduce the vehicle miles traveled improve economic comp Competitivity of cannabis cultivated here and provide economic benefits associated with jobs and tax revenue for the county Moving on to the next item is advertising restrictions previously the board Changed the advertising restrictions under 7.130 for retail cannabis operations and staff wanted to bring This to your attention because currently our non-retail cannabis operators are operating on a statewide market And they'd like to be able to advertise similar to our retailers Which is in line with the state restrictions? and we'd like to maintain the prohibition on all aspects of Advertising cannabis businesses and cannabis products from being portrayed on signs visible to the public in line with the changes that were recently made to 7.130 Lastly with regard to the use permit review process Cannabis projects they're subject to commercial their commercial developments and they must undergo The use permit and sequel determination. This process is the most time consuming portion of the licensing process the Use permit process for cannabis is different than other commercial use permits due to the agricultural nature Of cultivation and the best management and operational practices requirements Non-cannabis commercial agricultural operators are concerned about the costs and time associated with commercial cannabis use permits and licensure As experienced growers they see cannabis operations as preliminary Preliminarily swapping out one commercial crop for another while this may be an oversimplification the level five use permit review process Seems particularly burdensome for some cultivation operations Reducing some operations to a lower level of review would not reduce the extent of review or the need for sequel determinations But could greatly reduce the time for projects to complete the licensing process and begin operations In many situations the amount of time saved could be a minimum of three months And this extended process is a barrier To the county from obtaining cannabis tax revenue Additionally staff does not believe it was the board's intention to create barriers to entry for our existing commercial agricultural operators Staff's recommendation on this topic is to reduce the use permit level to three for all All applicants in the ca c4 and m zones And this change should be limited to applicants who are not seeking an exception to setbacks Within the three zones changing the use permit level to three will not reduce the detail through a view But will streamline the process by reducing the need for notification and public hearing Staff recommends this limited change as the implementation of the use permit process under chapter 1310 has resulted in practically all use permits requiring a level five review Examples of this include Any cultivation site in the ca zone which utilizes greater than 20 000 square feet of an existing greenhouse Any cultivation in the m zone Cultivating more than 10 000 square feet or 5 000 square feet in the c4 zone and any new development greater than 2000 square feet in the ca zone If this recommendation can be pursued Paired with pursuing recommendations to allow for a nursery license type in the ca zone The board would eliminate some of the barriers to entry for our existing commercial agricultural operators Lastly if your board is interested in addressing this or any of the issues outlined above Staff could return at your may 14th meeting with recommendations um This would allow sufficient time to take any contemplated changes to chapter 1310 to the planning commission and then return to your board on june 11th For a first reading of an ordinance to modify the program and beat the clock for the state sequa deadline of july 1st 2019 Okay, great. Um, so thank you for that. Uh, I think Um So let me let me try to frame this up because um These are a lot of issues and they're complex issues And so so as we don't get lost. I think what I'd like to do is have board members Ask we're gonna take each issue one at a time and board board members who want to ask questions can ask those questions Uh, and we'll sort of get a sense to where the board is Then we'll have public comment and then I'll entertain Motion or people want to divide up the question Uh on some of these to give you recommendations. I will say just in general I think it would have been better to come forward with a series of recommendations Especially because a number of these things the nurseries and the canopy were recommendation many of us wanted this Uh different definitions in the first place and staff had recommendations that we go in the other direction And now we're reversing course, which is okay because we're learning as we go But it would have been helpful to have the staff Since they drove this process in the first place to get us these definitions To have staff say well these definitions aren't working for x y and z reasons And here's the recommended action. So I In the future, I think just bring us a series of recommended Recommendations would be much more helpful. So let me start by asking if any board members have questions about the nursery Uh changes Okay Basically from what I've read on this We're trying to get more Cultivators I guess to actually comply And get their license fees. Is that correct? Okay, it is to provide More cultivators legal act or market Access to the legal market. So yes in a sense sure and also to speed up the process Yes, okay. What I what I couldn't find was is any of this is some incentive Is it lowering license fees? No How about taxing any taxing whatsoever involved in this staff is not There would be taxation on Nursery operations under the current code Any operations not defined under current code are are taxed. So we could incorporate that later Supervisor Caput, we're going to work through each one of the issues that he talked about today In order. So the first one was do people have questions about the proposed or the About changes to the nursery definition. So Do you have questions about the nursery? Yeah, well, anyway, I what I'm what I'm getting at is the incentive that The incentive is speeding up the process And what and what else we're allowing more to We're being more generous in the number of people we're allowing in We're we would actually be providing a license type that is allowed under state definition um, and The regulatory burden associated with that license type is decreased versus a mature commercial cannabis Cultivation site and the basis for this really was inquiries from existing commercial nurseries within the ca zone hat would like to pursue A cannabis nursery option They feel like it's viable for their business But they see the current process as being overly burdensome because they don't want to be defined as a cannabis cultivator They want to be a cannabis nursery. They want to apply as a state nursery license and they see the opportunity to Cultivate cannabis as a nursery only Um, and they feel it needs to be separate and defined and it would affect the use permit process Because various portions of the best management and operational practices plan would not be applicable to them due to the no odor From immature plant growth So it it affects our it mainly affects our existing commercial agricultural nurseries and staff's proposal is really geared towards the ca zone Okay, and the question of the what i'm getting at is that we're reacting to Some of them not wanting to what comply and if and if they don't comply they're going to do it on their own No, um, we're we're providing The recommendation is to provide a license type that's viable for our commercial agricultural operators In greenhouses that has a lower level of regulatory burden at the state level That's supervisor cap it you trying to uh, we're trying to make it More in line with the state recommendation Yes, alignment with the state with a preference to the ca zone. Yeah, I I just want to clear up one thing in my mind That I read in there the law, you know, uh, sheriffs Are involved public uh, public safety The environment was mentioned in it And to me when when I read that It's if if We don't make this easier Then there is a group a subgroup Is it large or small that's not going to comply and they're going to go ahead and do it on their own anyway? Yes, I believe that is an appropriate assumption That's what we've seen through our enforcement activities that previously registered People have um gone to the illicit market because the barriers to entry they believe are too high And I think we've been liberal on this with people and I I the concern I have is The dog wagging the tail or is the tail tail wagging the dog And that's that's my concern. I uh, when somebody won't comply Uh, how how far are we gonna go in order to get them to comply? I I don't think the inclusion of a nursery license type in any way, um Will bring in people who are willing to go to the illicit market. I think the one thing on the environment I'm big on that. I want to get you know, I want to get people to comply In order to save the environment, but I want to make it clear. Basically, I think I'm correct on this room about this size Cultivating And growing marijuana The electric and heating bill is about $25,000 a month Um, I I don't believe the the nursery license type I don't I don't believe that's applicable to a nursery license type because the economics behind nursery license type point to greenhouses using natural light and shade cloth so nursery license types, um specifically They generally don't pencil out financially as an indoor operation And that's why the staff's recommendation is Is really geared to our existing commercial nurseries allowing them a path forward To be a cannabis nursery Yeah, well when it comes to the environment if somebody's burning up 25,000 dollars a month in electrical or heating And then we're asking everybody in their own households to cut back and you know, save the environment And not use so much energy We're at this point almost saying okay go ahead Go ahead and burn up as much energy as you want I'd like to see restrictions in the future Well on that okay In order to keep this Clear for folks right now. We're talking about nurseries Nurseries are only done in a greenhouse environment So they don't have the energy costs. Do you have any questions about the nursery changes that were that we talked about? Okay, and a lot of it. I just trying to make sure we're consistent and We don't say one thing at the same time. We're saying another So, uh, supervisor, if you have any questions about the nursery component, um, you know, we we really press for local control And now we're kind of shifting our gears here, but uh, I think this would come to the nursery For the canopy zones, um How much difference does that make we're going to follow state standards rather than our own? I mean No, no, we we would defer No change in overall footprint of commercial cannabis activity on any one parcel The staff recommendation to allow an additional 50 for the ca zone for nurseries is the only change that would affect the actual Size of space dedicated to commercial cannabis activity in any zone district How much different I mean generally how many an acreage is how much difference could that make I guess Well for a single operator in the ca zone Their parcel size would need to be a minimum of 20.2 acres to have a 22 000 square foot License and under that license we would add an additional 11 000 square feet Of space dedicated to commercial cannabis activity Specifically for nursery operations Which is less than five percent of the entire parcel. Yeah, it's an addition of 1.25 percent of the entire parcel The whole parcel. Okay. Well, I I like the movement to get a more predictable timetable And just more predictive predictability overall Right now that's that's all the main things I had Okay Um, is that all you have about all the different changes? Well, I don't know. I just can't remember them all. Okay Okay, so let's uh Short-term memory loss. Uh, so Let's um, so I'm gonna assume That instead of going topic by topic We're gonna go supervisor by supervisor and I asked the supervisors to all work through The different proposals so that we can try to See where we are. So any questions about any of seven proposals? Supervisor Leopold, thank you chair. Thank you for your efforts to manage this meeting Well, first I just want to say is that uh, our effort at regulation Was born out of not having a statewide regulatory system And so our efforts to create something was, uh, honest and straightforward and involved a lot of community conversation And now, uh, a year plus into the to The regulatory system Proposed by the state give us an opportunity to sort of take a look at Uh, did we did we turn the screws a little too hard or not enough and and to try to make this better? And so on the nursery definition, you know, kerch Schmidt, uh, had come to us Originally and at the time our staff thought that there wasn't many people who were going to take advantage of it But the practice you're saying, um Um, is that people like this option? Yes, we've had inquiries from, um, 10 of our existing commercial agricultural operators who would prefer to just go down the nursery pathway seven of those, um, operations have submitted pre-applications And have said they will be pursuing a use permit for nursery operations only. Um, the other three are still Step have stepped back because they want to make sure that it can be a nursery only And I just want to be clear when you say traditional agriculture operators Those are the long-term farmers that have been here and what we were trying to do is make sure that People from this area could actually take advantage of it and at least I understand The nursery piece is doesn't have the flowering piece. So it doesn't have the smell And doesn't have the same kind of impacts that, uh, that, uh, a more mature flower would have, right? Yes, that's correct. And what other agricultural processes go through the level three permitting process now? Um, you know, that would be changes of existing agricultural Crops I would actually rather defer to planning but, um, Under 20,000 square feet of changes noticeably happening in this room. No in existing, uh Oh planning staff is here actually to address questions associated with the CA zone, but um changes to greenhouse space Less than 20,000 square feet would would remain in there and this is essentially a change of crop Especially for a nursery operation where there is no odors now The sites would have to maintain compliance with all of the cannabis licensing office and sheriff's department's security requirements So we would maintain public safety through, um, the security plan requirements It well, I I support this change The the question about canopy definition. It was hard in your in your federal express, uh, uh, presentation to, uh To to totally grok What we were trying to do about the canopy definition. I understood that we're looking at it something in the c4 and m zoned areas, so the difference The difference is, um We could define immature plants and mature plants defining canopy as mature plants only and then we could restrict the overall footprint of commercial cannabis cultivation to the existing Approved footprints for canopy per the code and staff's recommendation would be to allow Imature plant growth in any of the zone districts But not allow that to equal an expansion of the overall footprint of the operations The the c4 and m zones We feel it would be appropriate to have unlimited immature plant growth because it would be self limiting Because those operations would be restricted to indoor operations as such You know we're not County is not a cannabis cultivator. We can't say oh, well you only need 25 percent for nursery or 50 percent It'd be best for the industry to self regulate what they need image in terms of immature plant growth and It is financially self limiting for them to have They'll want to have a steady crop going and they could maximize their potential harvest per year By having unlimited immature plant growth and it would Sink them with the state definitions also That seems to also make sense To me and I think it's just sort of our own Awareness of these immature plants and what role that they play We knew something about that before but it seems like now as this industry has More solidified that we are becoming better aware the cultivators probably were very aware for a long time but But as we as policy makers might be becoming better aware The question about eligibility There's it seems to me there's two parts of that one which is Opening it up to people who weren't in our registration program That seems pretty straightforward I think the the concern If you can address is These people have been waiting for a long time. You said there's something like 400 and some odd Who were still in the system? Let's say now I want to get into the to the cannabis business Am I jumping in front of them or how will that work? Um a preference could be put in place for original registrants The recommendation from staff is to Allow outside operators or operators from our area who are just you know actually Seeking commercial cannabis operations and have them developed in other areas to be closer to home right The idea behind it is that those operators Through the benefits of co-location in their use permit would actually Um Provide for additional spaces for our original registrants that aren't being provided for and the driver behind this recommendation is the fact that Only seven people are currently Have submitted use permits under review We have a lot of people who are cleared 41 people to be exact who are cleared to submit use permits at that this time But um as stated only seven have so so we have 400 plus registrants We have 40 plus Who have been cleared through pre application? Yes, only seven who are currently in the that final process. Yes. Um, and so this would open it up to others It doesn't seem like there's a stampede with our existing registrants. No, it does not appear There is the initial concerns associated with the high number of registrants that you know initially totaled over 760 I believe So the flow is not what I believe the board initially perceived it would be Yeah On the question of a zone land and the 30 plus acres this, uh, there could be merit in this This map doesn't provide enough information Please for me Okay, uh, to know about it. I think uh, uh, uh, I think that we'd all probably want to take a little bit closer Look at what that actually means in our district. At least I know I would uh, I won't speak for the rest of them but but uh, There there may be merit to this, you know for only allowing a couple percentage of The land You have to bring services to it is where they are and what? It might make sense. I don't I don't staff staff understands that the a zone is A sensitive area and that's why our analysis only included these larger parcels and staff's not providing any recommendations on this because we feel like It should have been it should be brought to the board's attention and the board should contemplate whether Larger a zone parcels could be viewed differently than the smaller parcels which Are more sensitive in nature generally because they're open space and they're closer to The special use and residential act. Yeah, I'd be interested in getting more information about that. Okay I'm not ready to provide any recommendations the the question about uh, I think we call it canopy limits um Can it be limits in the yeah in the indoor for ca that differentiation? Yeah that the about um That already the impacted soils and and Using structures that may already be there or remodeling. Yes. Um, but not disturbing any additional land and not providing um And placing some restrictions on whether something else could be built to replace that um, that also seems to makes and I think it goes along with With what some of our efforts have been through planning, which is how do we get Old structures to be rehabilitated um, and sometimes trying to find a way to to make that happen through regulatory Changes or changes of use It's something that that we've looked at in a number of different ways For housing and commercial spaces. So that seems to me to make uh, um To make sense and by placing those limits. It doesn't it doesn't open a A big flood door The processing uh license option seems like we should have a processing license option That seems pretty straightforward. The advertising piece also seems fairly straightforward and Changing the use permit review also seems to make a lot of sense to me. I think that um A given the the the number of applications that are coming through There will be plenty of eyes on these still And I can't think of any other industry where we're we're trying to make it harder for someone to get a permit Um, and I think that our policy goal should be to to create an environment where someone could be legal and be in the system And playing by the rules and not creating enough hurdles that someone can't be In the system Um, and then causes them to think about other choices which don't help any any of us out So I would support that Supervisor friend Thank you. I do I do have a number of questions I actually think what's being proposed Will have significant impacts environmental and otherwise Um disproportionately actually in my district and supervisor cap its district And while I I do agree with the fact that the board has has asked for updates and revisions I think that the way this is being presented is actually a pretty major change to sort of coming as an update And so I the process of that i'm not fully on board with but i'll i'll ask some questions Maybe you could help me out with since you know, we've all only had a couple days to digest it, but on the canopy definition Could you speak to how it would affect the overall square footage limits that have been previously set by the board Recognizing by the way, we had multi-year discussions on a number of these items and a lot of these I thought Were settled And so some of these are just sort of coming up as not as settled So how would it affect the overall square footage limits that the board has previously said? It would would not affect the overall square footage limits The limits are for the c4 and m zones where the staff is required to provide the board updates when we We reach 100 000 square feet and we feel that this recommendation would actually alleviate some of the stress on the c4 and m zone Because currently what we're seeing what we're being told from from industry and In discussions is when c4 and m zone parcels are coming up Commercial cannabis companies are trying to obtain those leases very rapidly and it's push It's putting pressure on those zones for other industries and we don't believe it was the board's intention to push Industries out of the c4 and m zone. So opening up the ca for indoor structures and doing the Revitalization or rebuilding Should hopefully alleviate some of the pressure on the c4 and m zone Which staff believes was Part of the board's initial intention in in pursuing the limit of 100 000 square feet for instance Okay, I think that's uh I don't read it the same way as of what the board's intention was specifically in regards to the c4 and m zone I do agree that there had been pretty extensive discussions about that currently disturbed commercial activities within the ca zone Was an ideal location we had underused greenhouse space within those facilities But it was never vis-a-vis other locations throughout the county specific to c4 and m but I think that that's Reading into discussions. I don't recollect over the last four years specifically But in moving to the eligibility restrictions Do you have any idea how many new applicants this would bring in or how many new parcels this would actually open up for cultivation? Um with regard to the eligibility restrictions staff doesn't have Data they feel comfortable that that's you know, we can make assumptions on it Would be just that assumptions um So that I mean Is it I mean it's true that one of the reasons we're trying to beat the july 1st date is because the sequo exemption I mean is there a concern them with staff that some of these would have unavoidable and mitigatable environmental impacts Then if we didn't do it by july 1st some of what's being proposed if you can't say how many new applicants it'll bring in Or how many new parcels wouldn't that potentially have significant environmental impacts in some areas in the county? I I think the um reducing the eligibility restrictions would be most applicable to Honing in actually just on the ca zone as that was Staff's understanding of the board's original intentions is to get people out of the mountains and into the ca zone so I think if we could decrease eligibility restrictions for people who want to pursue commercial cannabis cultivation in the ca zone it'd be an appropriate path forward and staff understands that the Current situation has driven many of our local operators outside of the county and One of the burdens the county faces is vehicle miles traveled I mean it is a huge aspect of living in santa criss county the traffic that people driving over the hill or driving to monoray And specifically driving to monoray to pursue commercial cannabis activities And if we can reduce that burden I think it aligns with The county's strategic plan and the board's goals of pushing people into the ca zone from who want to cultivate cannabis Well, if we're trying to push into the ca zone, why would we even consider large a zones? Which your own map shows the disproportionately in rural and mountainous areas in the county? Why would we even open that up as possibility? Well staff didn't want to provide any recommendation of that because it's very sensitive and But it was brought up. I mean let's be honest. I mean to be fair there might not be a recommendation But it's being presented and that creates an expectation within the community that this is something It's being seriously considered. I mean to me. That's a de facto recommendation The board had a pretty significant discussion about whether a would be considered To be fair a lot before your time sam. I mean, yes So this isn't on you specifically But but I think that the a zone component is a pretty major shift that if we're really We need we should be consistent if the board as you're saying wanted ca then we should get rid of these other elements that Are such as a that are being proposed or being considered so I consider that kind of Incongruent actually I would argue that it's against a zoning in general Which the difference between ca and a is that it doesn't allow commercial activity and by default this is actually commercial zoning So I don't even honestly know why this is before us for consideration There's two elements on on here that it speaks about bringing in new licenses as well as fiscal sustainability If we're going to argue fiscal solvency or sustainability, maybe the cao would have a comment on this Do we have any sense of how many new applications would be necessary for that to actually be the case and would this actually do it? It's stated as a goal specifically in the staff report Melody sereno deputy ceo Um originally when we did the budget projections for this current fiscal year. We anticipated 150 Licenses being licensed to support the operations for this fiscal year so I would say anywhere depending again on how how the program establishes itself at least 150 licenses are necessary To make the program fiscally Solid without any general fund support and we're unsure whether this would do that We are not we aren't not sure that this will do that okay all right, so I'll just move down the list is originally supervisor kundry You actually wanted us to do but on the differentiation of canopy limits We had pretty extensive discussion regarding coastal zone development and no new development. So we just banned it out And while I recognize that this would be conversion of existing structures or on you wouldn't allow To be take ag land of production and so it'd be on disturbed land in theory you could turn An ancillary ag use which is disturbed lands pretty generally and pretty broad actually was defined in our ag code as as ancillary use And build new structures, correct you mean not just rehab a structure But build a new structure say on a parking lot for example One of the things that the industry has said repeatedly is that Because of the regulations on this market They would anticipate that a lot of players will fall out over a sort amount of time as new competition occurs Not just throughout the state, but throughout the country One of the things that we had with nafta and kafta was the collapse of the flower market Therefore we have all these empty greenhouses. I mean I would be concerned about allowing new construction even on outside of the coastal zone at all if What the industry is saying is true Then therefore I should also assume that we'd have a lot of empty buildings that would be associated with this at all so Um, why would we be encouraging? New construction versus just say the remodeling of existing structures, which was something we'd encourage in the coastal zone Well, we would not staff's not recommending These additional this redevelopment recommendation inside the coastal zone are the cz plus one be the ca zone outside of that, right? right and The costs associated with the redevelopment the time the level of professionalism are very significant for instance a small building approximately 5,000 square feet average industry cost to Rehab an existing building for cultivation Is about one million dollars. So if people have the money and are willing to take the risk we feel staff feels it's appropriate to Allow those people to develop on areas where there's no additional takes of land And we don't feel that this will be a large influx, but we have received projections From companies who are looking to redevelop our ca zone lands one of which Is a A registrant who wanted to develop an existing mushroom farm the registrant owns the property it's small less than 10 acres i'll say and the Projections from the registrant were very conservative. They assumed an average market rate of 1200 per pound of indoor cultivated cannabis and their projected tax revenues from that one operation Were 2.5 million dollars To to the fund and those types of economic benefits I believe are within the county strategic plan goals to provide jobs like that and to have those economic benefits I don't see how the It's a goal of the county to dissuade people to not impact soils, but to redevelop existing infrastructure Just to take a step back It was never the county's stated goal on cannabis production as as economics as our primary. It was environment neighborhood Protections and then initially on the medical side is to prefer to provide access now is to provide a bright line in clarity on this so This new fascination on the economic side. I recognize and respect that's the ceo's thing that that was never actually the board's directed goal So Irrespective of the strategic plan is a sort of apparent thing when we're specific to this issue. I think it's important that And I think actually the the electorate would care more about the environment and neighborhood impacts Before they would care about the economic benefits of something individually They've been showing that on every other thing every other industry that we have but I just want to state that I'm a little concerned that it's it sounds like the language is shifting about what the goals The board's primary goals were and I don't I didn't think that that was actually a primary goal But so I've expressed a lot of a lot of concern. I don't have any concerns on the advertising by the way But but I have concerns about these other issues and and and I appreciate the answers It sounds like there's still though that's a lot unknown and so you're asking I mean, you're not asking but you're providing to the board the opportunity to Consider a lot of changes where we don't actually know what the end result will continue to be and I think that that's concerning On a lot of elements for my district In regard to your concerns associated with the redevelopment and neighborhood concerns I believe that those concerns would be mitigated through the use permit process as any of these developments will require A use permit will go through the public process. There'll be over 2000 square feet of development Which will trigger a level five use permit full zoning administrator hearing and provide notification to The people surrounding it. Additionally, you won't have impacts to agricultural vistas or things like that as our planning department will make sure We'll ensure to mitigate those Development associated risks. Thanks. I appreciate it All right, so my turn and then I look forward to hearing public comment. So I guess I'd say Um from a big picture point of view, I expected at this point that we would have moved More than a hundred rows out of the mountains and into the CA zone. So the fact that that hasn't happened is a problem Uh, and I would expect I would I was expecting millions of dollars in tax revenue And as I said time and time again, I'm not interested in having the tax revenue in order to fund Cannabis licensing office or an enforcement program. My interest was in having Revenue to fund early childhood programs and other programs that are desperate parks Other things that are needed in this community. So I'm interested in figuring out how we get back to where we thought We'd be I let me just say for myself. I thought I was fully supportive of a nurse the nursery and canopy Uh and processing elements At the time had they been brought forward, but Staff made a compelling case at the time that it was they'd be too difficult to implement So now I appreciate that we've now had a year experience and We should look at making those changes similarly We've looked at advertising And so that leaves Which I think is fine and then I think so what that leaves is the eligibility piece and the a-zone piece Like others. I need more time to understand the impacts of the a-zone proposal From the eligibility piece. We actually talked about having a second round And my question for you is I I believe in the motion of the time We said in a second round we would have a preference for underrepresented communities Minority and women-owned business and so if we are expanding eligibility with those Would we have a process by which we would have a preference? For minority and women-owned businesses I believe that preference would be achieved through 7.136 the equity program piece which staff has previously committed to bringing back to you on May 14th. We've Deferred on that item because the state is changing what it means to be an equity program So I believe that we could incorporate that Preference within 7.136 Okay, my only concern is that with that We're relying on the state program that may or may not change or may or not be applicable applicable to our county and so if we're having if we're to supervisor leopold's point if we have a queue Maybe in that queue we give preference to to minority and women-owned businesses To have their to have their determined nations made First or early within the purview within the limits of of law, but I think Certainly in federal contracting and other processes There are these preferences and so I'd be interested and since that was a direction of the board for a second round I think that that would be We should look at it and so overall I appreciate what you're trying to do and I think I think many of these We should be moving this direction because we should be farther down the road than we are today And I'm interested in making it simpler for people to comply by rules With that I'm going to ask members of public to speak to us there I noticed there are some members of public who spoke to us during public comment about this item So I ask you not to speak again, but if you're here, uh, anyone like to comment, please come forward Good afternoon And thank you for your service as always Much appreciated and sam I thought His delivery notwithstanding. I think that the report was pretty comprehensive And well thought through I'm jim coffers from ben lomond for the record and As far as the recommend as the The Points that he made that could result in some potential changes to the ordinance Green trade supports all of them We we we believe that anything that the county can do to align more closely with the state Makes it a lot easier for everybody in the in the long run and so Um, most of those recommendations regarding canopy and nursery license in particular have been things that we've Advocated for quite a while There's a few quick things that I'd like to ask about Supervisor friend I'm glad to hear you say that it's never been a stated goal that economic development was a piece of the puzzle And I think that that explains the dilemma that we're in now because we've always looked at this as a Public safety and law enforcement issue and never as an economic driver And as a consequence, we are sitting here A year and a half after state legalization five years after first discussing this and we still have yet to license a single Cultivator or manufacturer in the county? so You know the basic math is three to two And I think that there's been two supporters on this board supervisor leopold and supervisor McPherson Who have understood the economic impact and the importance it is for the community. Thank you Mr. Coffes just as you as a representative of the green trade organization if Is there would there be any Concerned that you would know about this question of registrants and then opening it up to new people And whether there would be perceived that they jumped ahead even though the other people have been waiting Well less than 10 of your original registrants have Even begun the process so You know, I think that more registrants would be That'd be something we support opening it up to everyone particularly given that ca Properties which we assumed were going to be the place where people Would be able to cultivate in the county. There hasn't been much interest there So yeah more written. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it Afternoon supervisors. My name is try McNair. I'm a commercial ag parcel owner and currently have a license In lola as a co-location agreement going on right now I just wanted to say I do support all of the Proposals that were brought today for the most part I think that We need to move forward with some of these changes so that some more people who are working hard to be Models for cannabis cultivation manufacturing and processing in the county can move forward with little less impact and Keep us from you know being pushed into the illicit market so to speak which seems to be the case still so I just wanted to say I hope you do consider them. Thank you Thank you. Thank you Hi pat malo executive director green trade Formed on former member of the c4, etc, etc So I'm going to start by saying when I go to other places People say oh you're from Santa Cruz. It must be going great And I don't burst their bubble because I think that sometime we're going to get there And you know, I think that sam Had to read fast because there's a lot of stuff in there that we honestly should have gotten right the first time And that honestly, you know need to happen right away One issue that I think that is Essential and that we've already touched on is, you know, this question of registrants You know, this room was packed to the brim with Registrants hearing that their registration would no longer be valid unless they did some got the first steps in Application in with cannabis licensing by June 7th So we need to find some solution to this And whether it's going to be offer the same, you know extension that we've offered to, you know, the owners of commercial ag properties That they don't have to have registrations to the owners of any as eligible parcel or extend the current Registrations as well as open it up. But I think the real crisis is we're going to have Hundreds and hundreds of folks whose registrations won't be valid anymore And then this question of who's a registrant and who's not is over So we need to solve that problem You know today and I think that people are looking at their clocks, you know I know there's a lot of appointments coming in But I think that they're looking at their calendar and say we don't have enough time left to do this And so there's a bunch of big structural issues why we've only we've had more warrants than licenses After legalization, um, you know every day I try to be proud But you know a lot of these moments I'm really ashamed of my piece of the part of this puzzle because we've put out of business the biggest industry in town So Thank you Hi Darren story commercial agricultural operator in south county We support most of staff's recommendations in particular streamlining the use permitting process There's already considerable burdens Regulatory at the local and state level that we have to abide by and put considerable investment into And streamlining this process will not only allow us to start meeting these compliance and Regulatory restrictions, but also be able to start co-locating and bringing in other operators So we will see more movement and we'll see more licensing and we'll see people Hopefully coming back from Monterey county and doing it right in Santa Cruz. Thank you Thank you My name is Robert kidyama. We're with kidyama brothers were greenhouse growers in south county And I did want to thank the supervisors because last summer we were told about the co-location Ability for large greenhouses to be able to use to expand past the 22,000 square feet So immediately from I believe last july We started the process of the co-location And we've been greenhouse growers in this county for 50 years and we've never Seen any process that took as much effort as this has I mean I respect our Partners, but I have now a land use consultant. I have cannabis lawyers. I have engineers. I have architects We need odor mitigation I believe the reason why there are only seven applicants is because the hoops and the cost are out of the range of Applicants beyond large customers like ours. We are fortunate We have heard now that and we are we are moving this we are flower goers where every day I spend more time on cannabis than I do on cut flowers And we have now been told that probably the process will take us till September November and I believe we are the ones moving the fastest in the county. So if you if Plus that then we also have to get into the process where we will lease to Good tenants and then their process of trying to get a cultivation license Don't know how long that's going to take them that might take them's three six eight months. So We want to move this industry. We want to be a good corporate citizen We have been I think we've been good land stewards. We will continue to be good land stewards in south county But I just encourage we have a lot of competitors in the flower business who are now growing in Monterey Santa Barbara other counties who were Moving much faster than we are I we lost a good tenant proposal a big dutch company They went to San Mateo, which which kills me Anyway, so thank you. Mr. Kiriyama Mr. Kiriyama Could you just you mentioned that that you're moving as quickly as possible? But you're not you may not get something till september or later than that. What's the reasoning? So There's a lot of work that that goes into this we again, we've had to Do lots of work as far as with the planning departments, you know, we've submitted once they sent us back Issues that we have to address There's issues such as odor mitigation that there really is not a lot of technology out there And so we've had to do a lot of research on that there was a huge issue around fire sprinklers that took quite a while to address that issue And then now we've resubmitted and we hear that this hearing process because it's a level five Might take one two three four five months So that's the one that I believe if we can move to a level three To move this along and there are a lot of eyes on us And we do want to be a good example for The county for the state we welcome anyone to come in at any time to view what we're doing But but if we can move that along that would be that would be a great advantage For us moving forward. Thank you. Thank you Hello supervisors. Hello supervisors. My name is j. R. Richardson. I'm coastal nursery commercial ag owner And I just wanted to express my gratitude to you guys and I wanted to extend my support to sam I think he's really done a good job of uh Explaining a lot of the issues that are going on with us operators that's been pretty burdensome process but again, we are very appreciative to Actually be one of the seven applicants that are moving forward with this process. I think that um Moving it from a five to a three would help um issues that you brought up Ryan that are you know Based at you know addressing bringing those hundreds of people out of the mountains that we've kind of originally We're looking at doing and uh, I think that the burdensome process that we're having is Like drawing that process out Sorry a little nervous public speaking, but thank you. You're going to will Good afternoon. My name is robin bolster grant former county employee um And I also applaud the work that that sam has done And the whole team and coming up with some ideas that will help Move things along. I know From personal experience how challenging that is I I particularly support The efforts to reduce the the level of review for ca. Um, that's certainly a sticking point I also Agree that eliminating the the registration requirement Is is time. I think the registration process served its purpose Of the 400 some odd folks that are still in the system I suspect a very small fraction of those folks will end up actually Coming in and completing the the process The fact that we're nearing the one-year point after adoption of the non retail Licensing program with zero licenses to show for it Indicates that there are some fundamental problems getting folks across the finish line We currently have five paid county staff working on enforcement We have one staff member dedicated to processing Pre-applications we have no dedicated planners in the planning department. I know the budget issues are are Serious, I know that the licensing office Is is underwater But I think that that represents a fundamental disproportion in in an approach and in how we're dealing with this I would respectfully ask that that consideration be given to filling the vacant planner position in the licensing office and Ideally providing a dedicated planner in the planning department. Um, I would also encourage More frequent policy meetings. I know sam and I have talked. I think currently they Sam meets with the planners. I believe once a month or twice a month. I'm sorry I would encourage more collaboration. I think the policy issues that come up are keeping people from moving forward. Thank you so much Thank you Good morning supervisors staff Jonathan Kolodinsky and I just wanted to take a moment and express my gratitude To you and your service to our county And it's with the utmost commitment and respect to environmentalism and Community concerns that I'm here today And I trust in the wisdom and guidance in the domain of your authority and the authority of the cannabis licensing office That's worked really hard to make this program work It's interesting to be having this conversation 10 years later, and I'm excited to still be here with everyone I agree with the coo and super leopold's recommendations to streamline the process and reduce To a level three on the ca zone lands if I heard it correctly. I think that that makes sense Um, and I agree that the coo is working hard to make things happen And as one of the few operators in good standing, I agree with his suggestions Let's have faith in the abilities of the county staff that's been delegated the task at hand to Take on this difficult task And as a south county resident, I'm looking forward to the tax revenue that these businesses will provide On my drive to drop the kids off at school today I lost count of the potholes after I hit 100 and at two points along the way the road is completely washed out Beyond the yellow line in the middle And so it's apparent to me that Our county infrastructure needs attention, especially in the south county where I think As you mentioned, there's somewhat of a disproportionate Shift of the cannabis businesses and i'm looking forward to seeing some more economics Coming out of the south county to support all of the rural infrastructure that's needed For myself and the rest of the south county residents You know the good operators have proven themselves and I believe that our county tax could really use this revenue Thank you for your consideration public service and wisdom. Have a wonderful day. Thank you. Good afternoon Ken Hart. I'm also a former county employee. I'm land use consultant of late I represent four of the seven applicants that are in the process All on ca land totaling about 1.3 million acres of An acre square feet of Of cultivation I do support the reduction of the processing level from a five to a three I think though maybe more importantly is As an end user, I see how the process is working how the comments are being generated I do think that this strongly Cries out for a more coordinated review process For instance having all the the reviewers they're not that many Projects in the in the pipeline right now to have everyone get together in the same place in the same room And go over comments because I've I've seen There are a lot of different interpretive Matters that come up for each and every Department that's reviewing and to have to then chase those down and resolve them individually is a very time consuming process There are also sometimes Requirements from one Department that then generate requirements from another department that would have would not have been required If the the first department hadn't Hadn't had a recommendation or a requirement. So I think a more coordinated processing Model for these types of applications would be probably save more time than the three or so months from I'm eliminating the the public hearing on the on the on the projects Thank you. Thank you All right, so that concludes public comment and I'll bring it back to the board for action Supervisor Leopold, uh, thank you chair. Thank you for the testimony today I uh, I have a lot of respect for the views of my Colleague and I know we have spent hours on on discussing the issue of cannabis Sometimes from a position of Little knowledge sometimes from a position of intense scrutiny Sometimes in a situation where we didn't actually know what the state rules would be I appreciate the work that mr. Laforte is doing because I think he brings A very good perspective About how do we work to protect the environment? And also acknowledge that there's an economic benefit to this and why While at the start of this process many years ago, we didn't talk about that very much at you know, we did do a Draft environmental impact report that showed that this could be a jobs creator We've seen that the kind of jobs that that this business Generates we can be supportive of that without going against anything that we previously talked about And and as my other colleague mentioned, we could be generating taxes That could help out with a lot of critical needs in our community I don't think that these recommended changes Have the same impact that my colleague does Because they're on commercially ag zone land they're with the exception of This canopy limits And using already disturbed soil To build something new most of these things don't actually Increase the size of that impact. They're already in zones that are designed for growing plants We should we should support the growing of plants in those we should make it I do believe that our Our policy goal was to try to make it Easier on places like commercial ag To grow this plant because that would have the least amount of impacts environmentally neighborhood, etc And so as now that we have a year's worth of experience And we have a better understanding of the of the regulatory environment at the state level and our own Challenges about moving things through the system here either through staffing or As the last speaker meant just not talking to each other enough I think it's worthwhile for us to take a look at these changes Mr. Laforte if I understand correctly If we were to ask you to to draft something up about these recommendations that would come back to us on may 14th Um that that after that if we decided we'd like them they would go to the planning commission And then they would come back to us again by june 11th Yes, um 13 10 proposed changes would not be presented to the board They would be presented directly to the planning commission only 7.128 changes would be presented to the board. Okay so, um I I think that gives plenty of time for us to become better aware and for The community become better aware and for the industry to become better aware To know what this looked like when we actually write it down, right? And and instead of just having a rapid fire release of that information So I'd like to to move that we Direct our staff To come up with recommendations to bring back to our may 14th meeting On the issue of the nursery Uh license canopy definition eligibility um Canopy limits processing license advertising and use permit review um, and then, uh We could see then whether we it's something we want to uh push forward with the planning commission So I'll second that um I'd also I'd like to add in their additional direction of I'd like a plan from the CLO and the planning department of how we're at 75 licenses by this time next year So let's let's like And so Um with the idea, um, I mean, I think it's It's just sort of for any small business. It's unacceptable to have more than a year of Permit processing and then Um, and especially when we're talking about CA where we thought it was going to be relatively turnkey Um, so I'd like to plan for whether it's the coordination or resources for how we how we move this forward as part of a front-line I'm comfortable with that. Okay. Supervisor Caput I want to thank you for the time and effort you put in Studying all this and being able to you know answer questions uh, one last question is The fees a license fee depending on size they range from what 2,000 to 4,000 dollars for a license. Am I in the ballpark? Our license fees are currently 2,800 dollars For a cannabis business license the the differentiation of fees Is very large at the state level The state license fees range from 1200 dollars to 77 thousand dollars so the county license fees are are set and We're looking at potentially changing those fees slightly going forward to incorporate some of the compliance costs associated with administering the program, but that that is for a later date Okay, when you say changing them, uh, would that be lowering them or raising them? It would be an increase to cover staff's time associated with the compliance program. Okay. Thank you Okay, any other comments? See you guys are friends. I don't mind Voting to have this come back. I think it's pretty clear. I'm not I find it very unlikely I'll be supporting most of the recommendations that do come back. I think some of them are okay I think some of them are actually larger Uh components would sense what this is today is just moving to have additional information come back I can support that motion, but I I do I do find it unlikely. I'll be supportive of some of these things moving forward All right I'm just not exactly sure what we're voting on here right now. We're voting a supervisor leopold's motion was to basically have the staff develop proposals and Perhaps flush out some of these ideas a little bit more and then return to us Uh, I should go through a planning commission and then return to us with recommendations And that includes all signage and all the other stuff that you mentioned, right? Yeah The the uh, the summit some of the elements may be uh, mr. Laforte or or mr. Heath would say which pieces would come back to us and which wouldn't well Jason Heath for kind of council's office All of the recommendations would come back to you and we would ask for your board's general direction on whether those issues both 7.128 is within your boards Totally within your board's discretion 13 10 changes need to go to the planning commission But before we took them to the planning commission We would want to have an indication of whether your board was interested in having those discussions had at all by the planning commission You don't give them direction on what to what to do But we would know whether it was worthwhile to take them to the planning commission So bottom line is all the recommendations that uh staff has would be brought to you on may 14th If your board gives us direction to take 13 10 recommendations to the planning commission We would do that and then the whole package would come back for your board to review on june 11th And when we get the recommendations, uh back, you'll you'll make that distinction So we know which one's going to the planning commission and which one's staying with us. Yes Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second all those in favor. Please say I I oppose that passes unanimously All right, we're moving on to item number nine Which is to consider uh an ordinance for peeling the santa cruz county code chapter 9.56 Abandoned and wrecked vehicles on private and public property excluding streets and highways And schedule final adoption for the next available agenda is outlined in the memorandum of the deputy cio director of public works Thank you and good afternoon chairman supervisors. Uh, this will be relatively brief So the item before you is consideration to approve and concept a repealing of ordinance 9.56 Chapter 9.56 of the county code allows for the removal of abandoned or wrecked vehicles from public or private property Although the county has an ongoing and successful program for abating abandoned vehicles On public highways and rights of way. There is no current program for doing such On other public or private property And nor is one contemplated and so we bring this recommendation to you and i'm here to answer any questions you may have Any questions Yes, yeah, uh, we're changing uh We're talking about private property then We're we're talking about private and public property that are not part of the public right of way So both private and public property as well. So if it's public, uh, we would not remove it So if it were public what we would do is we would look at the department that's responsible for maintenance of that property And address the concern of that vehicle, whatever that situation is Okay, and now private property Would come under they could be cited if it's a health issue rats and uh leaking oil out of the car Even though it's on private property right or if someone were living in it or something like that Then we would address it in those appropriate ways or if they were stolen It could be a criminal investigation a lot of other opportunities to consider if they're on private property I think we've all had issues where it comes up and a couple in my area were um It came down to whether or not it looks like the car can actually move If it doesn't have wheels on it or the The car is there and then the the hood is up and you can see part of the engine missing Is that a citation or So you're going to get beyond my expertise here really fast But I do know that county code does have revisions for uh vehicles on private property that are not in Use or stationary for too long especially in say and in uh parking lots and things of that nature So a lot of that could fall under code enforcement Okay, I just want I really respect private property, but at the same time If there's a neighbor that's ruining the whole neighborhood We're still able to cite them yeah This this wouldn't change that and this is really very specific to um abandoned and wrecked vehicles And so a lot of what you're talking about would be uh negligence in other ways Not truly just abandoned vehicles. We still have uh recourse. That's correct Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there any public comment? I just had a question sure The this question I understand private property. We we we tend not to do things on private property I've uh, I had to tell constituents to drag the deer to the public right away so they could take it away, but Um, the public piece. Is this happened very often? I mean, do we get do we get calls? It's it's quite rare Uh, I checked in with our staff in public works and we don't have recollection or documentation of any in the past So I think it's fairly rare Yeah Um, it makes sense to me. I don't understand what's driving this but I uh, um, I'll go along with it Yeah, I it's happened in my area probably about four times. Yeah me too All right, so we got a uh, we're cool. Okay. We closed public comment We got a motion by friend second second by mcpherson. All those in favor I oppose that passes unanimously. Thank you. I number 10 is consider final appointment in nannette mickowitz to the santa cruz county Monterey merced managed care commission as an at-large hospital representative for term to expire April 1st 2020 Motion and a second all those in favor. Please say aye. Aye That passes unanimously Moving on to item number Uh, 11 to consider final appointment of nicholas, uh, lorick roach to the hazardous materials advisory commission as an at-large community representative for a term to expire on april First 2021 move approval proof or second either way. All right. We got a motion by cap it a second by leopold All those in favor, please say aye. Aye Opposed passes unanimously consider final appointment of uh, richard schmalley to the housing Authority board of commissioners as an at-large tenant representative Over 62 years of age for a term to expire may 12th 2021 All right, look at that right off the block Supervisor cap it motion second by leopold all those in favor. Please say aye. Aye. Hi Opposed passes unanimously finer Consider final appointment of katlyn brun to the community health centers co-applicant commission as an at-large community representative for a term to expire December 11th 2022 Move approval second got a motion by leopold a second by mcpherson all those in favor. Please say aye. Aye. That passes unanimously Okay, it is 1240 i'm going to ask us to come back at 115 for a closed session agenda A closed session discussion And i'm going to ask the county council. There's anything going to be anything reportable. No, okay. Thank you No, it's uh 115 Oh