 call to order and we have a few. Are you ready? Yeah. Sorry, my supervisor, Leopold. Here. Friend. Here. Poonerty. Here. McPherson. Here. Chair Caput. Here. Before we do a moment of silence and a moment of prayer and then we'll follow with the Pledge of Allegiance but I'll turn the meeting over to Ryan Coonerty at this time if he would like to say something. Sure. Thank you, Chair. This has been a sad couple of weeks for the County of Santa Cruz. We lost Damon Gutswiller tragically a couple of weeks a week and a half ago. He was from all reports, funny and caring and just the kind of office that the world needs and that Santa Cruz County needed. And I wanna extend my condolences to his whole family and his all his fellow officers and everyone in our community has been so impacted. Also yesterday, Allison Inder who serves as my analyst and has been my friend for more than 25 years was hit and struck by a car killed as she crossed the street. She was incredibly talented and had a passion for public service. She showed up every day trying to figure out how to make lives better for especially families in our community and especially families who were struggling. She was a key implementer behind the nurse family partnership program and any number of local efforts as well as a Twin Lakes Beach project. She will figure out something in a future meeting to honor her service and her commitment, but I ask that during the moment of silence people please think about church girls, her husband, Andy, her mom who are trying to deal with this incredible tragedy. Chair Caput. Okay. Yeah, share for it. Yeah, thank you, Chair Rae and Ryan, I really, I share your pain. Allison was a wonderful person. And yeah, no words can express what I'm feeling right now, but I'm really sorry, really sorry about Allison. I do want to talk about Damon and in this day and age when people are concerned about police and how police behave, one of our best deputies was taken from us. He was truly a community deputy and the pain that we all feel behind this violent act is not describable. I've known Damon for 20 years and he was a good man, he was a father, he was a son, he was a husband, he was that good, good guy. And a lot of people are speaking up about others that have been killed by the police and I just, I think we need to speak about the police that are killed by others too. And a man like this, he deserves to be remembered, he deserves to be thought of. And I love this guy, I love all my people, they're all good people, they're truly good police officers. We did our reform many, many years ago, back in 2015, we reformed and we did a lot of new things and we did things that no other police agency in the country did. And so for people locally, I just want them to know that our people, they embraced it, they did it and we don't have the problems locally that some of these other agencies have across the country. And I think we need to remember Damon like that, that he was excited about the reform, he helped with that. And that's probably why we don't have the problems that we have here local, he is because our staff embraced it. And so I care about him, I love him. We're gonna have a memorial tomorrow and Mimi, we're gonna do everything we can, we have a mask station, we have social distancing. The governor allowed us to do this and we're gonna do everything we can to keep people safe. I promise you that and Gail and we're not, we're not gonna be dangerous about this, but this was a good man. And I can't say enough how much I loved him. And then Ryan, for you and Allison too, I just, man, I can't put into words what I'm feeling right now. I just feel like we're just getting beat up and, but she was a very good person though, Ryan. I want you to know that and I will miss her a lot too. Thank you. Add my voice. Absolutely. First to speak about Damon Gutswiller, Damon was someone that you could always count on, he would be there with a smile, he was always willing to help. The community members that interacted with him always felt as though they were being well supported, that they were being listened to, and that he was always there to help people out. He helped folks in the community that I represent on a regular basis, but he was always there to help people in Santa Cruz County. And as someone who grew up here, he knew the people who lived here. He had that insight. He could respond based on who we are here in Santa Cruz. And it is an unbelievable loss to have him struck down in the line of duty, doing what he did, which is responding to help out others. And to think about the loss of our colleague, Allison Ender, who has been working on the fifth floor here for years and been in the public sector for many years. She's always committed, always friendly, always caring, always loyal to those that she worked with. And it's a tremendous loss to her family, to the Galt School family, or the Galt School community, to the third district into Santa Cruz County as a whole to have such a bright light extinguished so early. And so for both of these incredible individuals, Santa Cruz County has suffered a great loss and a great loss of opportunity for the contributions that these two would have made over the course of their lives. It's a sad day. Mr. Chair, this is Zach. I will add a few comments. These losses are so incomprehensible. I think as a community, we can't even begin to process the magnitude of the loss for Bobby and Carter and the family of Damon, who was the absolute perfect husband, perfect father, perfect friend, perfect son and perfect law enforcement officer. I just hope we all commit as a community that when the memorial occurs tomorrow, that is in many respects the end of the beginning for a very long and difficult road for not just the Sheriff's Office, but that family. We will commit that the love that we are sharing right now as a community with the Sheriff's Office and that family shall not be extinguished just because the memorial has occurred. You've spent any time around his beautiful son, whom by the way, you couldn't be near Damon without him pulling out his phone to show you photos of. He was so quick and so proud of his son. I think that as a community, we need to help raise his son and the one that's on the way as she's due any day. The loss is incomprehensible. And it's impossible to not get emotional thinking about Allison and the loss of Allison. One of the most beautiful souls in our community and to Rachel and Ryan and Neil and everybody that had the honor to work with her so closely. She loved you so much and she loved all of us so much. I never heard her speak ill of anybody. She respected everybody in this community equally. She served the community and was so dedicated to public service in the better Minnesota Cruz County. I can't even imagine the loss for her husband and her kids and we're obviously praying for the safety of her daughter as well. Heaven is shining brighter right now with those two in it. It's the only thing that gives me hope right now is the knowledge that Heaven is brighter right now with them in it. This community I hope will also rally around her family right now. She gave and dedicated her life to this community and we should do the same for her. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. Anyone else? Mr. Chair. Yes. This is a surprise. I'd like to reiterate everything that's been said, but to the Santa Cruz County community, on behalf of, sorry, that's why there's nothing else here. We're some, I'm not gonna apologize. We're in some very tense times now. And now more than ever, people exhibit kindness and consideration and understanding to the best of you that you can do. That's the best thing we can do to get us out of a situation like this. Be kind to one another. God bless Alison. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if the Deputy Sheriff's Association, they are here to make some comments. Thank you very much. I'm trying to hold myself together, so I apologize. This community has suffered such a tragic loss just the other evening. You had another tragic loss. Damon was my friend. He was a friend of so many. He was my partner, a husband, a coworker, an incredibly well-respected man in our community. He embodies what we as Sheriff's Deputies, as law enforcement, all strive to be daily. Damon was a good man. And he's been stolen from us, murdered because of a national social narrative that is going on right now. I thought about what I would say and there's a few words that express the pain and the sorrow that each one of us is feeling in so many different capacities. As a brother-in-arms, as a community member, these things are tearing our community apart. We need support and leadership from our leaders more so now than ever. I've cried more over Damon and the loss that we've suffered in the last week than in my entire adult life. I was there when Butch and Liz got killed many years ago. And this is just so much more difficult. Every day, my fellow brothers and sisters in law enforcement, we put on this uniform, this bulletproof vest, this gun, because we are there to protect all of you and the community. I may have never met you, but I love you as another human being. And the men and women that serve in this community all believe the same. We're not the enemy. Damon was not the enemy. And I know that we're hurting and we all understand that, but we truly need to recognize and honor Damon in that capacity. I love Damon. There's been more love and more compassion amongst the group of people that work in this community than there ever has been. And if there's one silver lining, it's that Damon's death will bring us all closer together. And I honor him every single day. I continue to show up for work and be there for him. I respect all of you and the people that are in this room. And I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to talk in front of you. God bless you all. May I say a few words? Good morning. It was an honor and a privilege to work alongside Damon Gutzweiler for the past 14 years. He will forever leave a void in our hearts and his laughter, smiles will remain in our hearts at the sheriff's office and within the Santa Cruz County community forever. I thank him for being an exemplary deputy and sergeant and above all, our friend. Thank you. Thank you all. Jeff, I could say a few words. I just wanted to state on behalf of the county family, how proud we are of Damon and Allison. They are both public servants in the best sense of the word. They both did very different jobs, but they both served the community with their whole lives. And I am incredibly proud of the sheriff's department and what they represent and how they do their job. I'm so sorry for the loss of Damon. And I am also very proud of Allison and how she exemplified the best of county employees. She is who we are and aspire to be as public servants. So I'm very sorry for those closest to Allison. And I'm very proud of her and the life she led and of Damon as well on behalf of the county family. Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak, feel free to. I think, yeah, we're all numb from what's been going on. And the moment of silence would be a little bit longer than normal and also a moment for others if they want to pray. We've had a lot of loss and it hurts, it hurts a lot. So please join us and we'll follow with the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God and invisible with liberty and justice for all. Do we have a consideration of late additions on the agenda and additions and deletions to the consent and regular agenda? Yes, we do. And the regular agenda, item seven, there's a correction. The item should read consider ordinances amending Santa Cruz County Code chapter 7.128 and 13.10 relating to non-retail commercial cannabis regulations and making findings of exemption from CEQA schedule the ordinances for second reading and final adoption on June 30th, 2020 and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum from the County Administrative Officer. There's also additional materials, a revised memo, package pages 19 and 23, replacement attachment A, packet pages 28 and 371, replacement attachment B, packet pages 72 through 116, revised attachment C, packet pages 137, 143, revised attachment D, packet pages 165, revised attachment E, packet pages 192 and 198, and revised attachment F, packet page 220. On item number eight, there's additional materials, replacement page, attachment A. On the consent agenda, item 33, there's additional materials, attachment C and D, insert after packet page 553. On number 76, authorize, this is an addenda to the consent, item number 76, authorize the chairman of the board to write a letter to Senator Connie Leyva and our legislative delegation supporting Senate Bill 915, Mobile Home Parks, Emergency Relief, Coronavirus, as recommended by Supervisor Leopold. There's a board memo, there's a letter of the Manufactured and Mobile Home Commission and the bill text of SB 915. There's also an addenda, item number 77, authorize the chairman of the board to write a letter to Senator Tom Umberg and our legislative delegation supporting California Senate Bill 999, Local Rent Stabilization, Mobile Homes, as recommended by Supervisor Leopold. There's a board memo, printout, letter of the Manufactured and Mobile Home Commission and the text for SB 999. That concludes the corrections additions to the agenda. Let's see. Do we have any announcements by board members of items removed from the consent or to the regular agenda? I don't see any, I don't hear any, so we'll move on to the next. We'll have public comment. Any person may address the board during the public comment period. Speakers must not exceed three minutes in length and limited established by the chair. And individuals may speak only once during public comment. I will say this, sometimes people get personal and they direct something when they make a comment to a department head or to a supervisor. If you make it today, everybody's numb and for the sake of my friends and colleagues on this, if you make it personal and you point out somebody's name, I'm gonna have the microphone cut off. And today I'm just, we're not in the mood for that, for anything personal, okay? So you have free to speak your mind, thank you. Wow, thank you so much. My name is Carol Bjorn. Thank you for your service, for your public service. And I also wanna publicly say thank you to the sheriff's office. And my heart goes out to you and to you for this tremendous loss. And I will send everybody love and light into our community as well. Thank you for this chance to speak. So Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency in California under the California Emergency Services Act on March 4th, 2020. So the first paragraph of that executive order that he issued states, and I'm quoting, whereas on March 4th, 2020, I proclaim a state of emergency to exist in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. Okay, the word that was used is threat. So I looked that up in the dictionary. A threat is an indication of something impending. So on March 4th, 2020, we had an indication of something impending, which was COVID-19. We're in June now, it's been three months. So we've had three months of dealing with COVID-19. It's not a threat because it's not impending. We have dealt with it for three months. So I wanna make that point to everybody. So further, the California Emergency Services Act, it does include epidemics, that's within the purview of the law. It also, and I'm quoting the law here, it says, which by reason of their magnitude are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single county, city and county or city and require the combined forces of mutual aid or regions to combat. And so I think we all agree on March 4th, 2020, that that was the case, right? But again, we're three months beyond March 4th, 2020. Okay, so hasn't our county since that date shown that we are no longer beyond, and again, I'm quoting the law, likely to be beyond the control of services, personnel, equipment, facilities of any single county, city and county or city and require the combined forces of mutual aid, region or regions to combat. Further, that same law in section 8629 states that the state of emergency must end at the earliest possible date the conditions warrant and all local health orders related to that have to end with the end of the state of emergency. Okay, that's extremely important. So this phased approach that the governor's taking and that the counties are taking, it's not within the law. It's not within the law of the state of California. Okay, I wanna keep going. So there is no current threat of pandemic from COVID-19 because we've dealt with it for three months, okay? Even if we did have a spike in cases, we know how to deal with it. We have therapeutics. Luckily in this community, we have a lot of alternative healthcare that's available for people. There's herbs, homeopathy, nutrition. There's so many things to help remedy this. Plus we have hospital space. We have healthcare workers ready, willing and able to care for our sick. Our hospital system was not overwhelmed in this county. We have the remedies. We have everything available to help people in the event that they get ill. So my question to the board is, why are we continuing to act under the state of emergency and what legal authority do you guys have to continue this phase in approach? Thank you for your time. Bruce Tanner, first I'd like to give my condolences to everyone in the county who has experienced these grievous losses in the last week and a half. What the officials of Santa Cruz County are doing now in the name of the pandemic would be ridiculous if it weren't so damaging to their fellow Santa Cruzans. Anyone thinking clearly could come to the conclusion that in particular the mandate to wear what you like to call face coverings is arbitrary, unscientific, and what seems deliberately demeaning. They could also conclude that all of you are most likely fully aware of this and pursue these policies while lying about why you think they're necessary. The evidence of the ineffectiveness of masks and of the harms they cause is widely published as are conflicting edicts about their use even from the official arbiters of the truth in this pandemic, the CDC and who. But so-called health officials don't seem to be able to inform themselves on these matters. The county's own order of the health officer generally requiring face coverings in paragraph 12 says, a face covering is also not required by this order to be worn by a particular individual if the person can show either. One, a medical professional has advised that wearing a face covering may pose a risk to the person wearing the face covering for health related reasons or two, wearing a face covering would create a risk to the person related to their work as determined by local state or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines. A face covering should also not be used by anyone who has trouble breathing. In this room two weeks ago, Becky Steinbruner, whose contributions to the work of organizing County Affairs has been so vital over these last years, demonstrated exactly this troubled breathing nearly fading at the microphone and it was forced by the petty tyrants governing these proceedings to remain masked or be removed from the room. She has important testimony for the item on today's agenda on the seventh day Adventist cell site and made a request to this board to be freed from the face covering requirement and received only a perfunctory authoritarian denial. This is ludicrous. The behavior of what passes for County government toward Becky, who has essential qualities, in particular, honesty, inquisitiveness, and a dedication to the well-being of the people of Santa Cruz that this travesty of a County administration obviously lacks is simply shameful. And if the people of Santa Cruz actually knew of it, they would, I'm sure, find it unacceptable to them. Good morning. My name is Nathan Sigler and my family and I live in Soquel on Edison Way between Mountain School and Blue Ball Park, less than a mile from the seventh day Adventist campground. I'm here today to comment on the County's intended location for the homeless trailer shelter reference in your consent agenda. I also represent a group of about 80 neighbors known as Keep Soquel Safe. Honestly, I'd rather not be here, but don't worry, I won't ask you if you feel the same. Be brief. First, I wanna thank each of you as supervisors for the no doubt taxing work you've put in these last few months with responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. None of us takes that for granted. If we thought that this homelessness camp was truly temporary like the pandemic and limited to 10 trailers, I wouldn't be here. I have three questions I'd like to ask you to think about this morning. But before I get to the three questions, I wanna take a minute to remind us all of the importance of community input regarding what happens in our neighborhoods. I'm grateful for this opportunity today, but I'm hopeful it's not the last on this issue. And you're holding less than a handful of closed meetings by a seven member advisory group is really not how the planning process works. There's a principle in American government that the power to govern comes from the consent of the governed. I think that's pretty pertinent to what's happening in Soquel right now. In spite of a petition of opposition to the Adventist property location signed by 498 residents of tiny Soquel, the County and the SDA have shoved the program through in order to free up the Simkin Swim Center of 17 homeless young people and to operationalize the state RV trailers at a parcel without a permit for it. As an example, I'd like to point out that at a national level, we have a certain public official who is obviously unqualified and very destructive. Why did anyone elect this person to national office? The answer is that the voting public's perception, correct or not, was that the incumbent party candidate was corrupt, was not listening to its citizens and was serving outside interests. My point is that what happens when the citizens perceive this from officials is that the officials get voted out. So as you consider supporting locating your homeless kid encampment at the seventh day advanced property, property with a 50 plus year commitment to non-commercial use and only vacation length trailer camping two miles down a dangerous highway isolated from town and in conflict with its permits, we ask that you consider not only the 498 signatures on that petition by the residents of Little Soquel but also the following questions. Question one, are you listening? Question two, can we trust you? Question three, are you doing your best to serve the people who matter? The permanent residents of your community, regardless of their income or status, one neighborhood at a time, when you listen to what Soquel wants, is this really temporary? And does it really help with COVID? And is this really the best location for young adults who need to grow and become productive? Do the right thing for us. Thank you. Good morning, council. And my name is James Hewlin Whitman. Was very touched by the horrible event that a fellow citizen was murdered almost two weeks ago on a Saturday. My understanding is the rules of engagement with us communicating is you will censor and turn it off if we speak poorly and designate a particular person, right? But if we have positive things to say, you'll probably let us say that. Great. I take a lot of notes. It's like my research is like a full-time job. I'm a contractor. And when I'm working by myself, I'm just listening to stuff and I love it. I mean, I listened to something this morning and a speech from President Trump came up that was 20 minutes long and he's very good at what he does. There's a positive comment. So I want to read some stuff that I've written before and I keep notes until unless I lose it, I have it forever. I thought this one was nice. What about this book I haven't really used in about a year because it's full. So all these are full. And God said, love your enemy. And I obeyed him and loved myself. I thought that was pretty cool. So I met with, I had a phone call conversation with Andy Mills yesterday because I spoke at least four times in the Santa Cruz city council last Tuesday. And although I was given four minutes at the end to comment after I read my first paragraph, which had a lot to do with being in this room two weeks ago, the mayor stopped me and he asked, does this really have to do with what we're talking about? And I said, you know what? It absolutely has to do with what we're talking about. But I already submitted it to the city clerk of Santa Cruz and I'll make my point with Andy Mills. And I spoke with him yesterday. We had a great conversation. Didn't really talk to him about the subject I wanted to bring up with him when I spoke with him on January 24th, but I really appreciate Andy. And I want to say that I've seen a lot of beauty with law enforcement and because I'm out and I guess breaking rules in ways that don't get me arrested, I got a parking ticket. I've had a lot of positive engagement with law enforcement and since I have 42 seconds left, I don't think enough information was really brought up about the contact tracing. And it just so happened that on the 29th, a friend turned me on to a program that a person did that had the two certifications. And there was a tremendous amount of information, enough for me as a geology major to state that the contact tracing is the equivalent of all 104 nuclear power plants melting down at the same time. So fortunately, since I am present, I was present to be at that very beautiful ceremony with 15 other people and about 35% of us weren't wearing masks. So when the contact tracing comes, I would expect 60% of the police, the sheriffs and emergency responders to be quarantined. And I think at that point we can stand together and really work for some changes for all of our benefits. Thank you very much. Good morning, supervisors. Good to see two of you here today. Yes, we all mourn the tragedy that has currently happened. Regarding the mandatory vaccines, we find that the National Institute of Health reports that there's 189 scientists for undisclosed foreign ties, was 93% of them with hidden funding coming from Communist China. That's the National Institute of Health that's been telling us what to do about this Wuhan virus. The organization warned universities across the nation that they've been systematically targeted and diverting their intellectual and obtaining confidential information. It should be of note that Diane Feinstein's so-called driver was with her for 40 years and ran her office and was speaking at this campus just recently. I don't think that's conducive to safety when we see Communist and deep state people puncturing tires. You see coordinated organizations and rioting going on. We also find that six months before the virus pandemic hit the United States, the bill in Melinda Gates had a $100 billion back contract that includes meeting with Bobby Rush in East Africa who wrote a law called Reaching and Contacting Everyone. It's called the TRACE Act. The idea is mandatory vaccination so they can keep track of everybody everywhere. The congressman traveled to Rwanda with his spouse in 2019, months before the pandemic and took part in a week long underwritten event by Bill and Melinda Gates and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Some of the invitation to the violence in this area is our own fault. One, sanctuary cities. Two, allowing prisoners to go out. Three, routinely having espionage agents speak at UCSC. And four, having two members of the Board of Supervisors threaten board members of the Grange and having Sheriff Tim Hart nor any of the sheriffs take a report. That is outrageous. That is setting up violence. And like Bruce McPherson said, we need to be kind to everybody and we need to go through proper procedures. I reject that application. I feel for your sincerity, but you are responsible and I suggest you talk to your county council about laying that out. I understand your feelings, but it is wrong. It's a violation. Hello. First of all, I wanna express my condolences for the loss of the deputy and Allison and it was very moving, your tribute to them. And I support, I just want you to know, I support law enforcement and totally 100%. So thank you very much for that. I wanna speak about the unlawful state of emergency kind of on the coattails of the other woman. I speak as a member of your electorate and I just do wanna remind everyone here that we are your boss. So it is really important to listen to us. And I will speak, part of this has to do with the governor obviously. According to the California Emergency Services Act, the ESA, section 8558B, a state of emergency can only be called if the threat overwhelms the current resources of the state. As far as I know, we're still operating under a state of emergency and that definitely doesn't apply. Furthermore, the state of emergency has to be terminated at the earliest possible date. Section 8558B, quote, state of emergency, unquote, means the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by such conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease. The governor's warning of a California Emergency Services Act for California Governor's Office of Emergency Services earthquake or volcano prediction or an earthquake or other conditions other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy or conditions causing a state of war emergency, which by reason of their magnitude are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single county, city and county or I'll leave the rest out. Thus, a state of emergency related to public health can only be declared if the threat overwhelms the response capabilities of California's healthcare practitioners. And Gail Newell, I'm sure is gonna be listening to this. Thousands of healthcare workers are being furloughed in California. So there's zero evidence of grounds for this state of emergency based on public health. There's no threat that overwhelms the current resources of the state since the COVID related deaths with inflated numbers are fewer than 5,000 compared to 6,000 for the average seasonal flu. Therefore, COVID-19 cannot lawfully be classified as an epidemic under this California emergency. So therefore the basis for the state of emergency is invalid and unlawful. As we have clearly seen here in California with the virus fatalities, they're approximately one third of the early as possible date. Therefore, there are no legal rounds for an additional extension. Your time is up. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. So I wanna make this personal in a good way. I'm wondering how you're doing wearing face masks. How are you feeling? How's it affecting your breathing? Can you breathe fully? And you don't have to answer that. I know you know the answer to that question. No one needs to be a scientist to know that wearing a mask blocks oxygen levels. You know this, you can feel this. Everyone can feel it. It's the thing that's not being talked about. It's also logical that carbon dioxide will be trapped and rebreathed. All of this is so obvious. The masks will become highly contaminated easily. There's also abundant scientific evidence proving these facts as well as the lowering of arterial oxygen levels and the weakening of the immune system. These are not in question, none of these things. And yet the county has required mask wearing anyway. There's no evidence provided to show that the wearing of face masks prevents virus transmission. The CDC does not prevent, does not provide this evidence. The FDA does not provide it. The California Department of Public Health does not provide it. I've been talking with Dr. Newell. I've shared this information with her in person and by email and what she wrote to me is that she considers all information and quote especially appreciated the lack of science about face coverings. Even Dr. Fauci now is saying that face coverings are not a good idea and only useful as a symbol. So what are we doing? What are we doing to everyone? Why this mandate still? What about the employees being forced to wear these masks all day long, eight hours a day? I've talked to a lot of them and they're suffering. They don't wanna do this but they need their jobs. What about the children who are gonna be going back to school soon forced to wear a mask for the whole school day? What about the two boys in China who died wearing face masks? They were forced to wear in gym class. What about that? After this meeting ends, I'd like you to keep your mask on for the entire day and see how you feel. Do some personal research on this. Everyone knows this. We don't need scientists to answer this question of how this is affecting us. You know what the right thing to do is. We need your support and leadership on this to end this mandated face mask wearing. People who feel at risk should certainly wear a mask if they wish to do so. Protect the population. I have a scientist friend in Sweden. This is what they did in Sweden. It worked. They have herd immunity now. Let us be smart. Let us truly save lives and look after the health of our community. Thank you. Apologize for the little timer thing wasn't working right? It's okay. I said everything I needed to say. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Is it working? It's short. Thank you. Good morning and so I'd like to address the situation we're dealing with in our county here that is putting a wedge between the public, the business owners and the employees of the businesses, especially grocery stores and other places where people are commonly shopping. And that is according to the order of the health officer dated April 23rd, 2020. And according to item six, it says all members of the public, except as specifically exempted below, must wear a face covering in the following situations. When they are inside of or in line to enter, when conducting business through a car window, walk up counter with any essential business, et cetera, but not limited to grocery stores, convenience stores, supermarkets, laundromats and restaurants and goes on. So line 12 discusses the exemptions and that exemption is a face covering is also not required by this order to be worn by a particular individual if the person can show either one, a medical professional has advised that wearing a face covering may pose a risk to the person wearing the face covering for health related reasons or two, wearing a face covering would create a risk to the person related to their work. It's determined by local, state or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines. A face covering should also not be used by anyone who has trouble breathing or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the face covering without assistance. So as I'm sure many of you are aware, there has been a lot of contradictory information out there in the public leading to a lot of problems within especially grocery stores. There was an incident at New Leaf that I witnessed last week where there were people who had exemptions, health exemptions specifically outlined in number 12. And they actually showed them to the manager of the store which they are not required to do by HIPAA. So we're having stores violate HIPAA and still not accept or understand this number 12 exemption. I talked to a business owner, one of my favorite businesses in town and they're terrified because they said that they were threatened by the health department to be shut down if they allowed anyone in their store without a mask. Despite the fact that in the order itself, this exemption is clearly laid out. So I ask all of you to step up and clear this once and for all so that we don't have these problems and these horribly embarrassing situations for people with medical exemptions and medical conditions where they are being discriminated against when they go into a business and yelled out by managers of the businesses. It's a horrific situation. So I would ask you to please step up and clear this up once and for all. Thank you. Good morning. This is Rebecca Mills. Thank you. My arthritis is flaring up today. I'm gonna try to stand. I'm wearing my Army RTC hat with my paratrooper wings. I'm speaking today about priorities in funding mental health and public safety expenditures. I think it's important to take an approach emphasizing values. Do we value freedom or control? Do we value health or illness? Do we value truth or lies? Do we value embracing and supporting each individual in community? Or do we value selectively disabling and punishing those already struggling? I would ask you to unbundle policing, including shifting responsibility for the response to most mental health issues to a core of trained peer workers, which is a proven successful model. Also to defund jails and psychiatric inpatient facilities, which are expensive and cause proven harm, including increased suicide rates, permanent disruption of connections to community and deaths from medical neglect. I would ask you to instead provide struggling individuals with support in community versus placing them in systems where abusive authority is the norm, not the exception. And for those who do present a threat of violence, let's focus on providing interventions that lessen instead of increase that risk, which unfortunately is what we're doing right now is increasing risk with the way we handle that. As for me, I will be starting an organization to train and assist people with mental health challenges to cut out the middleman and help each other. I would ask you all how much more could be done with the $1,792,392 that you are today allocating to support coercive and abusive psychiatric inpatient so-called treatment if instead that was devoted to funding non-coercive person-to-person community-based approach. I'll be sending materials to each of you, documenting abuses in the current system and providing constructive suggestions for change that should enhance wellness and safety in our community and move us closer to truly providing liberty and justice for all. I hope to meet with each of you supervisors to discuss ways to implement a more affordable, compassionate, effective approach to mental health care and public safety. Thank you and God bless. I got it, I got it. Thank you very much. Good morning supervisors, Kevin Collins. I wasn't intending to speak at public comment but I'd just like to thank the county for cooperating with the state when it comes to the medical recommendations for preventing the expansion of this epidemic. Anybody that understands infectious disease, even a little bit realizes the point is to stop it from getting loose. The only way to do that is to use interventions like wearing masks. I didn't want the record of this meeting to go down with no one thanking the county for the prescriptions for masks. I appreciate it, thank you very much. We have two web comments unless there's still somebody else. Okay. I'm only five feet tall, so. Hello everyone, I'm Annie Allegretti and I've been in this community about 30 years now and I call it home. Thank you all for having the consideration of our health and I know that is your intent of doing the best for us. I am congruent with the other women and gentlemen had said regarding wearing the mask. I myself, let me just first, there's everything that they said I won't repeat it but in regards there is something that I did want to note that they didn't but if you're familiar with OSHA, the US Department of Labor, oxygen deficient is an atmosphere that contains less than 19.5%. This happens when the oxygen is displaced by inert gas such as carbon dioxide and is the leading cause of fatalities unquote. Myself wearing the mask, I can personally say it does affect me as depriving my own personal oxygen. That's my experience speaking for myself. I tend to get dizzy spells, it creates a lot of anxiety and it's as my brother is a physician and a surgeon, ears, nose and throat when I asked him regarding this and his quote unquote was there is no science behind it. So I ask for the lift of the mandate but do support anyone that wishes to wear it and feels that it would benefit them. They have their freedom and choice and right to do so. Thank you very much. Chair, there's a comment from a staff member. Yeah, Mimi Hall would like to comment. Mimi. Good morning. Thank you everybody. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity for public comment. I just wanted to express our deepest sympathies as well as respect for the Sheriff's office and Sergeant Gutts-Willer as well as Allison Endert. Jim started out this meeting talking about the reform work that his office started years ago and we all benefit as citizens from the investments of that and everything I didn't know Sergeant Gutts-Willer but many of our staff do and worked with him both in the past and the day he passed away and I've heard nothing but that he had simplified the best of not only law enforcement in the Sheriff's office but humanity as well. I think that we're all fortunate in Santa Cruz County to have law enforcement and other leaders who embrace love and kindness and humanity first and foremost in how they lead. And to our county family and the Sheriff's office I would like to express our deepest condolences and let you know that we grieve alongside you and those who love Damon and Allison you all have our deepest love and respect especially the law enforcement community. We are here behind you and we support you and we're so sorry for the pain that you're feeling and I appreciate Jim's Sergeant Sheriff Hart's leadership in navigating this very, very difficult time in continuing to support public health and safety while acknowledging the immense loss of one of their own, thank you. We have a couple of web comments. The first comment comes from Crystal Cadillus. My deepest sympathies for your loss. Thank you for your service to the community in regards to topic 22 and 23 covering vacation rentals I urge you all to allow applications currently in process to be completed. Additionally, allow all applicants who submit it prior to this hearing to be processed as well. The community benefits from tourism vacation rentals are a huge part of tourism in this community. The current percentage caps are assisting in keeping the balance. Please consider leaving the current policy as it is. Remember that it benefits this community to have owners follow policy by applying for permits and paying TOT taxes. With fiercer restrictions or limits in place you could start to see more rentals attempting to rent illegally. Thank you for your time and consideration. We have one more. This one comes from Monica McGuire. Dear Board of Supervisors, Mr. Palacios, Mr. Baton Kroveski and Ms. Hall, please respond fully in voice and in writing to this request that 1.8 million consent agenda item number 52 about mental health plans be cost and cost be pooled and placed on the main Board of Supervisors agenda. Either for this 616 meeting or in the near future. I feel alarmed that this item number 52 today at the Board of Supervisor meeting is listed as a consent item because one, I was present at two County meetings in which cogent and clear public comment were made alerting this County of problems with mental health systems which have not been publicly addressed yet to the 1.8 million dollars size seems exorbitant for this item to be lumped together with 50 other consent items. Three, you received another public comment letter from Becky Steinburner asking many excellent questions about this large expenditure which the public deserves to hear responses to before you vote. Four, the two alarming stories brought to County Board meetings recently on this topic should at least be investigated and reported on publicly. They are Rebecca Mills, a board member of the Mental Health Advisory Board who the public heard at the County of Board of Supervisor meeting June 2nd. Rebecca's poor treatment in the County's mental health system at the end of May, 2020. And it seems to have included the San Jose facility B and another clear and congent complaint was made by Melody McComb to the MHAB in May, 2020 explaining that her similar April through May, 2020, similar to the terrible experiences. Thank you, Monica McGuire. That's all. Okay, any comments from the board? Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of items to comment on. On item number 28, which is the whistleblower hotline activity report for the calendar year. I really appreciate getting this information and I appreciate the followup that takes place with all these actions. And it's a good sign for government to be responsive and use the tools to make sure that we're rooting out problems and fraud wherever possible. On item number 33, I'm glad to see the focus strategy, systems design and implementation efforts continuing. I think that coming back every six months to fill us in makes a lot of sense. And I think that I think we had been planning to do some kind of study session about focus strategies and their work. And I still think that would be good to get on the calendar. On item number 69, I understand the reasons why we are rejecting the bids for these mowing and tree trimming project. I hope that as we move into the budget cycle that we continue to look for ways to get this work done, these streets and roads were identified because of problems that they create now and the fire dangers they represent. Those dangers don't go away. And it's important to find a way to take care of these mowing projects, especially to ensure the safety of our community. On item number 73, I wanna thank the work of the Public Works Department about the efforts to put a parking lot license agreement for the Davenbis parking lot. As you find when you get into these things that there's various issues about who owns what. But I appreciate the drive of the Public Works Department to try to find a solution to help out others and to have an agreement in place so other people could potentially take advantage of this program. Thank you for the work of the department. And lastly on item number 76 and 77 at the request of the Mobile Home Commission, I have these two bills that I'm hoping the board will support to protect the homes of Mobile Home Park residents. One in regard to the COVID pandemic to make sure that they have the same protections as every other homeowner. And second to close a loophole that may prevent some manufactured homeowners getting the benefits of rent stabilization. That's it. Any other board members? And Mr. Chair, this is Supervisor Friend. I have a couple of brief items. Thank you for the opportunity. On item 32, I wanted to thank Public Works. And I also wanted to thank Supervisor or Chair Caput as we partnered together to help fund a new walkway on Green Valley Road that looks outstanding. Thank you for the work of the crew at Public Works and we're working on one on Buena Vista as well. Just goes to show that when we can have some funds that Public Works really can make some great improvements for road and pedestrian in the South County there. I'd like to, on item 60, also acknowledge Public Works for their continued work on the Rio de Mar drainage improvement project, something very important to residents and businesses down in the Rio de Mar flats area. So thank you for your continued work on that. Item 61, which is the ADU item accessory dwelling unit item, I appreciate the staff is recommending the continuation of these loan programs and as we have seen the work that the board has done and that staff has done an outstanding job on has led to a pretty significant increase in the number of applications in the last few years. Now we're about a third more than we had previously which goes to show that we did need to make some improvements to those regulations in this essential housing stock, especially as we have an economic downturn is something we want to continue to encourage. And lastly, on item 64, thanks again to Public Works on the Valencia project. It's a very expensive and very complex project. Special thanks to Steve Wiesner and Matt Machado for your advocacy and Director Machado for your trip to Washington DC with me to help try and see this through and the other board members that worked on this. This is a lifeline project for those that live on the upper Valencia area and we appreciate that this is moving forward. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. Mr. Chair, it's Ryan Coonerty. I want to just speak, offer some additional direction on item number three which is focus strategies. Yesterday we received a letter from the mayor and the vice mayor and a council member for the city of Santa Cruz, thanking the county for undertaking this work and really stepping up to try to help solve the homelessness crisis that our community is facing. They asked that when we move forward in our next six month plan that we work with them to combine the homework bound funding into a regional and comprehensive approach that we create interim standard operating procedures and outcomes for outreach, case management and housing navigation and rapid rehousing. And so I'd add that as additional direction is that our staff work with the city of Santa Cruz to implement those components into what I'm hoping will be a robust and effective approach to address the homelessness. Okay. I'm Chairman Gaffett, Supervisor McPherson. I'd just like to make a couple of comments on some consent items has been addressed. Item number third three on the focus strategies report. I want to thank especially assistant CAO, at least a Benson and staff for making this thorough report. This is a huge amount of information on where we're headed in developing a more cohesive and effective approach to homelessness. And I especially want to thank our staff for putting together this initial financial matrix that outlines the various federal, state and local funding that can be directed toward homelessness. It really helps to have a good full picture of what's available. Right now we're not using every dollar that could be spent on homelessness for that purpose even though our funding is certainly being used for other worthwhile endeavors. However, anticipate the board may want to make some policy adjustments around that down the line. I would like to give some additional direction on this that we return August 4th to detail how our COVID-19 response is informing future plans as well as the board study session in late August or early September updating us on the focus strategies work plan. I also would request that county staff offer the Santa Cruz city council a similar briefing during one of their meetings. And I know that they appreciate what we're doing and leading this effort. So thank you to everyone on that regard. On item number 38, very contentious issue, but I'm glad we see that we have these trailers to serve our transition age youths who are experiencing homelessness. This is a very vulnerable population that needs safe and stable shelter to work on stabilizing their future. I especially want to thank supervisor Leopold for working with the neighbors, communicating them to the best effort he can to ensure a safe and well-flexing program. And I want to thank the Seventh Day Adventists for being willing to host this important service on their site. On item number 61, the accessory dwelling unit loan program. When the board approved this program, I remember a great deal of enthusiasm regarding the potential to get accessory dwelling units built. We've had some requests for interest in it, but lack of participation so far is discouraging. And I'd like to have an update from planning sometime this fall that addresses how to increase participation, including any barriers that might be mitigated to improve the program. And on item number 62, a quick thank you to public works for re-fitting this project on the Boulder Creek Library. We hope the bids come in closer to our budget as determined by our measure S funds. The first round came in very high, so I'm very hopeful that we can have a successful bidding process this time around. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome, you're welcome. Okay, if there's no other comments. I would move the consent agenda as amended. Okay, we have a first and second. Do we have a second? I'll make the second. Mr. Chair, I'd move approval with the added direction. Okay, you can change that. Coonerty second. Coonerty made the second. Okay, we have a second. First by Supervisor Leopold and a second by Supervisor Coonerty. I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Supervisor Friend. Supervisor Coonerty. Can you guys hear us? Supervisor McPherson. Okay, we seem to be having- Can people hear me? Yes, we hear you. How do you vote? Supervisor McPherson, how do you vote? We seem to be having audio difficulties. Mr. Chair. Yes. We have a first and second on the consent agenda. We can hear you, Supervisor McPherson. Got it, okay. It takes a long time to unmute, it seems like. So did we get all the votes? Supervisor Leopold, let's just do this again. I'm sorry, I didn't hear it. Aye. Friend. Coonerty. Supervisor Coonerty. I just got a message that they cannot hear us. Okay. So we have a audio- We will do our best to fix this. I think we're gonna need to take a five minute technology break. Okay, let's do that. So we'll take a five minute break. We fix the technology. And we'll do the roll call vote on item number six, consent agenda. Supervisor Leopold. Still aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Supervisor Coonerty. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. I'll try one more time. What, Supervisor Coonerty? Well, did he make the second? He did. He did. So can we assume he's voting aye? No, we need to hear him vote aye. Supervisor Coonerty, how do you vote? I think the challenge clerk is that you had said we were taking a five minute break. I imagine it provides some people acceptable. Why don't we just go ahead and take a five minute break then? Let's take five minutes. We'll come back. Is that okay, Chair? That's fine. Because the technology is not working. We'll come back at 10.25. We're gonna really have to rush if we're gonna get this done. Okay. Okay, we'll be back at 10.25. We'll continue the vote on the consent agenda. Item number six, we had a motion by Leopold, second by Coonerty, excuse me. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. The person. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Just like the way it's supposed to be. It moves us to public hearing to consider ordinance is amending Santa Cruz County code, chapter 7.128 and 1310 relating to non-retail commercial cannabis regulations and making findings of exemptions from CEQA, schedule the ordinance for second reading and final adoption on June 30th, 2020 and take related actions that's outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. So we'll go ahead if we do have a 10.45. I don't know if we're gonna be able to do this, but we'll try to limit the comments as quickly as we can. Okay, thank you. I'll be very brief, Chair. Good morning, Board members. At the January 28th Board of Supervisors meeting, staff stated that the last 17 months of code implementation have revealed the time consuming nature of the use permit process and complying with conditions of approval. The process is taking much more time than expected, especially for our existing commercial agricultural operators. Can you switch the slides? It's not letting me, sorry. On June 7th, June 2nd, staff presented a variety of code changes to the Board. Those changes were discussed and the Board provided clarity on which of the proposed modifications should be altered. The Board made a motion and staff has attempted to convert that motion into code for the Board's consideration. With regard to the agricultural use chart, cannabis cultivation and distribution are proposed to be principally permitted in the CA zone district. These changes are based on existing commercial agricultural operations being allowed to cultivate agricultural products and distribute or drive those products off-site. Proposed modifications for the commercial use chart include level one approval process for cultivation and non-volatile manufacturing operations within the C4 zone. Principally permitted use is proposed for distribution within the C4 and also within the C2 with the caveat that it must be paired with existing retail operations. Cultivation and manufacturing operations will require building permits, so all structures will be brought up to current code. Additional changes include the transport only distribution, which is proposed as a principally permitted use in the PA C2 and C4 zone districts. Industrial use chart modifications are similar to the commercial use chart. The restrictions on new structures and outdoor cultivation remain unchanged. These changes are meant to be consistent with the commercial zone district changes because the majority of the M1 sites these changes will impact are located in the South Rodeo Gulch industrial area, which has mainly mixed commercial and industrial zones. Within the residential use chart and timber production use chart, the proposed changes do not alter cultivation requirements. The transport only distribution option has been added based on the home occupation standards and restrictions placed upon those operations. The bulk of the remaining changes within 1310.650 were discussed at the last meeting and remain. There's a small change to setbacks as described in the motion. Now additions to 7.128 to the enforcement appeals and administrative hearing were discussed at the last board meeting and remain unchanged. The proposed changes reflect the board's direction and additional clarity provided in the motion. Staff has provided an alternative version to 1310, which has been presented to the board as items 7E and 7F. The difference being that staff is recommending decreasing the area where the CLO has discretion to approve setback exceptions, while increasing that discretion to extend beyond just indoor grows, but also include distribution and non-volatile manufacturing. The area where staff is proposing to allow this is presented in the Rodeo Gulch Zoning Overlay. I hope the board is willing to consider evaluating staff's recommendation prior to voting for your consideration. The zoning overlay is shown here. Thank you. Chair, I just had one question. I just had one question, but you're done. Yes. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the work on this. I know a lot of effort has gone in. At the second time, we'll try to make it quick, whatever we can do, okay? Yeah, of course. All right, go ahead. The exceptions for the Rodeo Gulch area, just to be clear, only for that area, only what's on this map. Yes, only for staffs proposing restricting it to just these areas because there is no, there are C4 zones outside of this area, which do have residential areas adjacent to them. And we're proposing to restrict it to this area to avoid potential conflicts or issues with residential zone districts. Yeah. I've talked to a number of the property owners here who are in favor of this and they're, this is really a very commercial area, research park. It seems like an appropriate use. And when we do the motion, I hope that we will all support, including the, these exceptions in there. Chair, this is a friend. Yes, I do have a brief comment. I'm supportive of the overlay specifically, but not the general, as originally presented, the general use chart change that would apply county-wide. So as long as we specify that, but there is one problematic component that I think was unintended in what's presented. And that is the elimination of the 2013 date, means that now what used to be that you could only do 10 acres on SU if you were in existence in 2013. If we eliminate the date that now means the 20 acres becomes 10 acres across the board. That's not the board's intention. We were saying specifically on the zoning and the rural areas that we wanted to ensure that the higher acreage would be honored. And so I wanted to be sure that that was a clear statement. If that means that this item needs to come back and the 20 acres is applied, then I'll take direction from council on that. The board was pretty clear that we weren't reducing acreage anywhere. And I think this was an unintended consequence with the elimination of the 2013 date. If you'd like to comment, please. Jason Heath, county council. Yeah, thank you, chair. Yes, if you want to make that change, then I believe that it will have to come back for our first read on June 30th. Okay. I would, I think that that was the intent of the board. I think everything else is good as long as we clarify that there's just one overlay on the use chart change. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you're referring to. So that if you could just be, if you could just say a little bit more, so I understand. I think we're in agreement, but it- I think I could assist a little bit. When the 2013 requirement, was taken out across the board, there was an exception in SU with general plan overlay designations of RM, R, A, and A that said that the maximum, our minimum property limitation was 20 acres. Okay, unless you had been growing since 2013. If you had been growing since 2013, the minimum was 10 acres, parcel size was 10 acres. If we get rid of that clause, just strike it out the way it is in the ordinance. My understanding is that there's a concern that we've automatically allowed minimum acres to be 10 acres in these areas as opposed to 20 acres, which is what the board's policy was as set forth originally in the ordinance. So I believe that's what Supervisor Friend is referring to, and he can supplement that. That is correct, Council. And I have no issue with ensuring that those that have been growing since 2013 on the 10 acres are allowed to continue to do so. My goal is to not change or impact those that have been operating legally under our structure. I just didn't want to change longstanding board policy by reducing across the board the acreage requirement when that we've been universal and that this would be 20 acres, but for those operating since 2013. And Supervisor Friend, the use chart, the remark, was that about this 2013 or was this about the C4M1? The use chart was a comment that, and I've, Mr. Laforte, please do correct me on this. I believe in order for Mr. Laforte to be able to enact the Rodeo Gulch section, and he more broadly approved sort of a discretion across the board, and so I was just clarifying that the discretion would only exist on the level of review to that one area. Is that clear, Mr. Laforte? It's clear what Supervisor Friend would like done, and we can make those changes. Maybe do public comments. Next, any other comments? Otherwise, I'll turn it over to the public. Okay, if anybody would like to speak on this item, if we can hold it to two minutes or less, because we have a lot to get in. I don't see anybody lining up, so let's go ahead. Is anybody on? I think there might be a comment here. Oh, come on, go ahead, thank you. Good, how are you? I apologize for already being late. Are you going over the vacation rental moratorium on not allowing any new applications today? Okay, so if I had a public comment in regards to that, do I speak now or do I wait? If you were here at the beginning of the meeting, you could have spoke then, but now you have to wait until we hear the item. Until after 12? It'll probably be after two. After two, so I can come back then. Okay, thank you so much. And you can also submit something via the web that'll be read here as well if you go back to your home or office. Oh, okay. Just go to the county website and look at the agenda, and there's a little dialogue bubble, and you can write something there, and it'll be read here when the item comes up. Okay, but if I want to do it in person, then I can commit too. Thank you. Thank you so much. We have one web comment. We have one web comment. We're gonna guess a call for a vote. No, no, web comment. We have a web comment. Oh, we do. I'm sorry. This is from Paz Padelia. Dear chair and supervisors, the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County urges your support and resolution submission for an application state. You know what? They put this under the wrong one. Okay. I apologize. They put this comment under the wrong item. I will correct it for them. I thought it was unusual at the Community Action Board. You're weighing in on this one, but we've seen a lot in the cannabis discussions. Chair, I would make the motion to direct staff come back for first reading at our June 30th meeting with two, with this item, including the C4M1 exemption and the Rodeo Gulch overlay and the clarity about the 2013-20 acre to not make, to not change that from what the board policy has been. I'll second. Mr. Chair. Yep. Supervisor McPherson. I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to ask the cannabis licensing office to provide a status report in six months, regarding in their opinion, whether these land use changes and other recent modifications have had a positive impact on the number of licenses and anticipated revenue. They do quarterly reports. I'm happy to accept it as an amendment, but I'm sure that's will be included in the quarterly reports that we get. Do you want to include that? Okay, I just want to make sure it's there. Yeah. Okay, all right, that's been included. Probably the second is okay with this. Well, I'll make a quick comment, but do we have a first and second? Yeah, yes, I first and the supervisor friend. I see a lot of good changes that came about since the last meeting when we were talking about it. But for the sake of time, I won't go into each one of them. There are a lot of good things that were addressed and eliminated and also added or whatever. But cannabis marijuana is a drug and I really have a problem with comparing it with an artichoke or a strawberry. And so it is different than something we need to look at. So I'll be voting no, but I won't be labor of the point today since we're under such a time constraint. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, this is a supervisor friend just to make sure that it was totally clear. Council, I wanted to be sure that the motion actually covered the concern that was raised specifically in the use chart issue that I was raising. No, supervisor, the motion doesn't cover that. I think that if you're talking about the footnote that was deleted in the use chart around indoor commercial cultivation, I don't believe that that was covered in the motion. So you may need a little more discussion on that. I mean, so my goal was just to only have the discretion on the use chart applied to the Rodeo Gulcher overlay and any of the other changes where the discretion was applied that that was not the intent. And so I just want to be sure that's covered in the motion. I think that's what our goal, the board's goal is, is to have this allowed Mr. Laforte that discretion within the overlay zone, but no other changes in the use chart associated on discretion. So I'll just ask a question. My understanding is that there was a footnote in the use charts related to indoor commercial cultivation that was deleted in between the last version that the board looked at and this version. And if that's what you're asking about, I want to make sure that Mr. Laforte understands that that's what you're asking about. That's correct. I mean, the board was not looking to change. Well, I hope the board was not looking to change anything other than specific to this Rodeo Gulcher zone on the use chart. It, I am, are you, are you asking for the slash four N to be reinserted on the C four use chart? Cause that that was deleted per the board motion. So I just want to be clear that that, that's what we're looking at. I, that is, that is, I believe what, what supervisor friend is asking about. And if you want to discuss whether or not that was or wasn't the page, that would be great. And if you wanted to have further discussion about that, whether that was or was not deleted as part of the board's motion last week, that might be appropriate. It would be. Okay. And like I said earlier, I just want to make it clear. I, I was tending and leaning towards compromising because a lot of the changes from last two weeks ago. But one thing that I do like is modifying the proposed language on energy, energy conservation from best efforts to specify reduction in energy consumption. I want to thank you for adding that. I'll call for the vote. Well, no, there's, there's just a question just to make sure I understand. Cause I didn't catch this change. Are you saying it's on pay a pack of page 129? 129 and where would be the deletion of four N under cannabis cultivation, indoor cultivation existing legal structure that was removed for the board motion, but we can easily reinsert that and add a footnote saying that the one carrot P would become one carrot P RG to denote that the one is only applicable to the rodeo go actually, I don't, I don't know if that's what the board wants. Is the one only supposed to be applicable to the rodeo Gulch area? And then it should it be four for everywhere else? And so there should be no N, no N, just a four. That's how I had interpreted what we were intending to do at the last meeting when you had asked for the additional ability for flexibility on rodeo Gulch. I didn't realize that we'd be eliminating that level county wide. I don't think that was the board. The boards, I think the board's intention is to give you a lot of flexibility in rodeo Gulch but to maintain the review that we had on the other areas. So it would just be a four, not the N. We'll get rid of the N and just do a four because the N was referring to, it would be a level four if there's an adjacent habitable structure. So it will just be level four for all C fours outside of rodeo Gulch. Is that the board's intention? I don't know where this was a problem. Do we have this problem in other places? Not that I'm aware of. So knocking off this N that doesn't, in the end. Well, cutting off this N would mean that level, everything for C four would be a level four unless the C four parcel was located within the overlay. Well, I thought that we're trying to make this easier to happen within existing structures in commercial ag. So supervisor friend is, I'm just trying to get a sense if we're trying to move to make it easier for businesses to operate in C four, I'm just, help me understand why we wouldn't make it easy for them to grow this plant inside an existing greenhouse. Because specifically this would apply when it's adjacent to residential. So that's unique in the situation you're dealing with rodeo Gulch, or I don't know if it's unique across the county, but we've happened trying to protect level of review if it's adjacent to residential, but I wanted to honor the rodeo Gulch sort of carve out. No, no, I appreciate that. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the scale of those problem is about C four. I don't, so the question is, I don't know if it is a problem, I'm not trying to create a new problem by simply giving a carve out to rodeo Gulch that now looks broader than that if it's adjacent to residential. No, I'm just saying at others C four, do we have a lot of residential adjacent to C four? I'm just, I'm asking the question if this is a problem in other places. There are pockets of C four on the Soquel commercial corridor. No, no, I understand Soquel, but the other C four, you don't, I'm just, I'm just trying to get a sense of what the problem, is this a big problem or a little problem? I don't think I have a problem with this. I'm just, I'm just trying to get a sense of we have something in there. We have a motion and we have a second if we're ready to vote, let's vote on it. Well, it'd be nice if someone answered the question. That's all I'm asking. I'm asking if what this problem is and maybe someone from planning or the CLO's office could answer the question about the proximity of residences next to the C four outside the Rodeo Gulch area, the prevalence of this. There are a few parcels that I'm aware of, including it mainly in your district off of Braumer. I believe there are some other C four parcels. I can't speak for everywhere in the county, but I do know there are Braumer and Soquel areas which may have residences directly adjacent to C four. Maybe in between we can talk about the other places, at least in the first district, I'd like to understand that a little bit better. I don't necessarily have a problem with this change. I'm just, I wasn't aware that it was an issue in other places. So can we move forward then Supervisor Leopold with the change to eliminate that one element? And then other than for the Rodeo Gulch, we determine later on that it needs to be reconsidered. We can do that, but it gives us the opportunity to do the first read on the 30th. Yeah, I guess maybe the question is if there's other areas that we'd want to include in this, could we bring that back on the 30th or would we have to go again? I think it would be appropriate as part of the motion or an amendment to the motion to ask the CLO to look into this issue further and address it given the board's comments and bring something back on the 30th that represents both the specific asks in the motion and addressing this issue with the board's comments. Is that realistic, Mr. Laforte, to come back on the 30th with that? We can do what the board is asking of us. I would just like clarity, are we supposed to put the N back in the use chart or is it just a four? That's all I would really like clarity on with regard to this motion. I think the rest of it's clear. Supervisor Friend, the four or the N? I think that the goal is to have the level four review in all areas other than the Rodeo-Golch area. And could I add, would you be amenable to adding additional directions? You just get a report back on other C4 areas that might be affected by this as well. Absolutely, thank you. All right. So that was a slight addition to it. Is that clear? If you could read exactly what we're voting on. Well, it's the recommended actions plus the Rodeo-Golch area being an exception that there be a report in six months about how this is working in terms of permitting that the use chart be reflective of only the Rodeo-Golch area being given this exception and a report from our CLO about other C4 areas that may fall into this category. Okay. And I'm sorry, I don't want to over complicate it, but in the beginning you said the recommended action and so the recommended action in this case would be to adopt what's in front of you and so you're not making that as part of the motion. Directing them to come back June 30th for our first read. Okay, okay. All right, call the roll. Is that okay with the seconder? Yes, it is, thank you. I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold? Aye. Friend? Aye. Poonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Chair Caput? No. Okay, that takes us to item number eight. I see people that are here, public hearing to consider whether to take jurisdiction of appeal. We have a 10-45. What's that? We have a 10-45 item. Zone five? Zone five. Scheduled item. We have to cut it off to go to zone five. It's now 10-50. All right. We'll do that. Okay. So the zone five Board of Directors meeting. That'll be fine. We'll convene zone five right now. And I'll do the roll call when you're ready. Are you ready? Okay. Director Leopold? Here. Friend? Here. Poonerty? Here. McPherson? Here. Bertrand? Here. Jaffe? Chair Caput? Here. We have a call. I think you're the chair. I think, isn't Coonerty... No, it's you. It's you. You are the chair. Is she the chair? I think you're the chair. Okay, this, okay. Consideration of additions and deletions to the consent and regular agenda. Okay. Oral communications. Any person may address the zone five Board of Directors during your oral communications. If you would like to speak, if you could please for the second time, try to limit the, I don't see anybody. So we'll go on approval of zone five meeting minutes. I move approval. I second. Okay. We have first and second. We'll call roll. Director Leopold? Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? MacPherson? Aye. Bertrand? Aye. Chair Caput? Aye. Okay. It passes unanimously. Action on consent agenda item six through eight. I would move approval. Okay. We have first. Second. Any discussion by the public or anybody? Okay. We'll call for a vote. Director Leopold? Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. MacPherson? Aye. Bertrand? Aye. Chair Caput? Aye. Item number six is the Board of Directors of Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District zone five. Accept and file the third quarter report of the fiscal year 2019-2020 zone five expansion construction revenue. So that's on the consent agenda. So we just approved that. I think you wanted to do item nine. So we're on item number nine, which is the regular agenda. Okay. We already approved the consent. Oh, that's right. You're right. Yeah. Six through eight is approved. As Board of Directors of Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District five. District zone five. Consider the proposed 2021 zone five and zone five expansion construction budgets as outlined in the memorandum of the district engineer. Okay. Sorry. So in front of you, this is Rachel Petui senior civil engineer with the Public Works Department of Stormwater Management. In front of you is the proposed fiscal year 2021 for the zone five and zone five expansion construction. The recommended financing for the 2021 fiscal year for zone five operations and zone five construction expansion includes a total of $1,970 and $83 in revenues. And the recommended appropriations are the same amount, 1,970 and 83 leaving zero in an appropriated fund balance. It's all detailed in there. I'm here to answer any questions you have. Okay. Okay. I have no questions. Go ahead. Director Bertrand. Just want to comment. Thank you for recognizing that payment for our portion in Capitola can be extended to five years depending on our revenues. I appreciate that. Okay. For the contract for the master plan. Okay. I would move approval. For me. We have a motion. We have a second. I'll second. I'll second. Okay. Okay. Roll call vote. Yes. Director Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Bertrand. Aye. Chair Capit. Aye. Passes unanimously. Okay. That's the adjournment of the zone five regular agenda. Thank you. Item number eight, public hearing, right? Consider whether to take jurisdiction of appeal of planning commission's denial of application 181556, a proposal by better place for us to operate a business on property located on Buzzard Lagoon, Buzzard Lagoon Road in the Eureka Canyon area, assessors parcel number 106-291-16, take related action as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. And we have an appeal letter from better place for us dated March 11th, applying to 181556. Good morning. Good morning. Hi. Hi there. You ready? Yeah. Good morning. I'm Elizabeth Cranbillett. I work with the planning department representing the item this morning. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. Okay, great. The purpose of this meeting is for your board to consider whether to take jurisdiction of the appeal of the planning commission's February 26, 2020 denial of the proposed commercial development application 181556. Your board must determine whether to accept jurisdiction, allow the planning commission denial determination to stand or remand the application back to the planning commission without taking jurisdiction. To summarize the administrative record, the zoning administrator approved this application on November 15th, 2019 for commercial development permit to construct a small parking lot and restroom improvements and to operate a business that would allow clients to spread cremated remains at selected trees and to visit by appointment. The subject site is located on the north side of buzzard Lagoon Road, approximately one half mile from the intersection of Eureka Canyon Road, Highland Way and Orm Speed Cutoff. On December 2nd, 2019, this approval was appealed to the January 22nd, 2020 planning commission hearing by David Van Lenop, Forest Manager for Redwood Empire Sawmills on behalf of the owners. At the hearing, an oral staff report was presented by staff and public testimony was heard. And at the request of the applicant, the hearing was continued to the February 26, 2020 hearing. At the February 26 hearing, additional testimony from the applicant, the appellant and public testimony were heard. The planning commission then unanimously took action to deny the application. The planning commission determined that the proposed use did not fit within the quote, organized camp and facilities, unquote use that is allowed in the timber production district. Therefore, deeming the proposed use inconsistent with policies regarding timber resources in the timber production district. On March 11th, 2020, the applicant, better placed force, appealed the planning commission's denial to the board of supervisors. The appeal letter asserts a number of issues they feel warrant grounds for the board to take jurisdiction. They assert the decision was not supported by the findings nor by the evidence presented to the commission. The planning commission incorrectly interpreted the uses allowed in the TP district. The planning commission abused its discretion by regulating the manner and method of timber production and forest management. And finally, the appellant asserts the denial of findings are invalid because written findings were not approved by the planning commission at a subsequent hearing date. The proposed use as a memorial and restoration force has never been considered by the county before. While planning staff and the zoning administrator considered this use to be an organized camp and facility, the planning commission made a different use determination and found the use incompatible with the timber production district. The appellant further asserts the planning commission did not adopt written findings. At the hearing, staff presented recommended findings for approval to the planning commission. When the commission denied the application, they read findings for denial into the record. Verbal findings for denial can be less clear. In the context of potential litigation, it is desirable to have clearly substantiated written findings for denial that are adopted by decision makers. Your board packet includes the appeal letter from Better Place Forest and the administrative records. Pursuant to Santa Cruz County code section 1810340C, your board must evaluate the information provided by the appellant and determine that one or more of the following five grounds for taking jurisdiction specified in the county code exists. One, that there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the planning commission, zoning administrator or other officer. Two, there was a lack of a fair and impartial hearing. Three, the decision appealed from is not supported by the facts presented and considered at the time the decision appealed was made. Four, there's significant new evidence relevant to the decision which could not have been presented at the time the decision appealed was from was made. Five, there's either error, abuse of discretion or some other factor which renders the act done or determination made unjustified or inappropriate to the extent that a further hearing before the board is necessary. In conclusion, the jurisdictional hearing process places the burden of proof on the appellants to convince the board that jurisdiction should be taken with respect to one or more of the jurisdictional criteria identified. Based on the appellants letter and administrative record, staff believes the lack of clarity regarding the use determination as well as procedural and other issues related to the denial findings that are reviewed in the appellants letter can be considered sufficient grounds for the board to take jurisdiction. Staff recommends your board take jurisdiction of the appeal of application 181-556 and schedule a de novo public hearing for August 4th, 2020. This concludes staff's presentation. I have no questions. Take public testimony. Well, okay, open it up to the public. Actually, if there's board member questions first, are there board? Do I hear any board questions? Okay, we'll open it up to the public. Okay, so then on your script, you'll see that you're opening up the public hearing and the appellant will have 10 minutes to present evidence. Now open the public hearing and then the appellant will have 10 minutes to present evidence as to why the board should take jurisdiction of this matter. Will the appellant please step forward? Members of the board, I wanted to start by expressing my condolences for your loss of deputy, Sergeant Goodsweller and Allison Ender. We appreciate the time to talk today in consideration of the board taking jurisdiction over this project. Before I turn our time over to our lawyer, Joey Meldrum, to discuss jurisdiction specifically, I just wanted to talk about our efforts to work within the community and work with you and how we want to work with you in the future. I found a better place for us because I know how important it is to have a place you can visit your family after you've lost them. My father died of a stroke when I was 10 years old and my mother died of cancer 13 months later when I was 11. I spent the rest of my life visiting their grave and wishing it was a beautiful place that I wanted to go and that I wanted to remember them by. We created a better place for us so that every person who chooses can know that their family will have a place like this to visit. Over the past two years, we've worked diligently with the county staff, the community members and stakeholders. We followed the direction of staff by submitting an application for development permit to operate in our use consistent with the requirements for an organized camp for outdoor recreational, educational and spiritual activities. After the zoning administrator approved our permit, it was appealed with support from members of the timber industry. At the time, we did not know the long and challenging history of the timber industry and Santa Cruz and how hard they have had to struggle to create a sustainable commercial harvest industry and in doing so created one of the best examples of that in the country. In response to the industry's concerns, we proposed to create a dedicated section of 50 acres dedicated to sustainable commercial harvest. We hope that would be satisfactory, but we heard loud and clear that the standard the industry believed was fair in Santa Cruz County was to limit any development or activity that might restrict timber harvest to a less than three acre timber zone conversion. Redwood Empire, Big Creek, Cal Forest and the Farm Bureau all proposed and appeals our project that we could conduct memorial forests on the specially used portion of the property and or apply for a less than three acre timberland conversion permit from the state on the timber production portion. I wanna be very clear today that if the board takes jurisdiction, we are willing to propose and accept a condition that would limit any memorial activities solely to the SU area as well as to a less than three acre conversion of timberland. In addition, after reviewing county tax rules related to timber production zone, we were willing to donate tax benefits associated with our use back into the Santa Cruz community. We now understand the concerns of the timber industry and the important sustainable commercial forestry in Santa Cruz and we wanna express that we support this and that we wanna be a part of this community. We're not suggesting a compromise. We are suggesting 100% accepting the proposals that were offered in the appeal to our permit. I believe this proposal is important because by accepting this proposal and taking jurisdiction and potentially approving this project in August, it would mean millions of dollars of investment into for forestry workers and construction workers at a time when the community deeply needs that kind of investment. It addresses 100% of the concerns expressed by the industry around the project itself because all activities would be restricted to that conversion section that is the standard in the timber zone for other projects. And most importantly, I believe it's incredibly important for families to know they have a place to come back to and for people to know that's where they're gonna be. And for my mother, it was very important for her to know that one day she would be together with her children. This is what we're trying to create without affecting the industry and by bringing this to the community. So with that, I'd like to turn this over to Joey Meldrum to speak to the finer points of jurisdiction. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sandy Chair, supervisors. My name is Joey Meldrum. I'm a partner at Mallchamp Meldrum. I'm outside land use council for Better Place Forest. I echo the condolences expressed by Sandy. I will focus my remarks today on why it's appropriate for the board to take jurisdiction as explained well by staff in their staff report and in our appeal letter to you dated March 11th. As you just heard from Sandy, Better Place Forest worked diligently throughout the appeal process to propose alternate project configurations that mimicked other projects that the county has proved, such as the San Vicente Redwoods project, and propose numerous new conditions of approval that would ensure continued commercial logging operations on this property. This was all done in the spirit of cooperation, attempting to find common ground with the timber industry who appealed the project. Without acknowledging Better Place Forest's alternative conditions, the Planning Commission granted the timber industry's appeal and as explained in our letter, their decision was based on no evidence and the findings for the denial provided no rationale at all that explained their decision. Based on your code, the board should take jurisdiction of a Planning Commission decision when it's not supported by the facts presented to the Commission or the Commission committed an error or abuse of discretion. This is a case where these grounds are easily met. First, and this is a procedural issue, the Planning Commission's findings for denial were inadequate. One of the fundamental principles of land use law is that an agency's findings to approve or deny a project must be based on substantial evidence. The key term is that the findings much bridge the analytical gap. Here, the Planning Commission did not bridge that gap. Their conclusory one-page findings prepared by staff seven days after the hearing do not meet these basic standards articulated by the California Supreme Court in the Topanga case. In addition, and as noted by staff, the Planning Commission never saw or approved these denial findings. Second, and this is a substantive issue, the Commission incorrectly interpreted what uses are allowed in the timber production district. Better Place Forest proactively went to the county prior to, excuse me, prior to applying for a permit to figure out if their use would be allowed at this site. County staff advised Better Place Forest two years ago that their use was essentially the same as a facility for outdoor recreational, spiritual, and religious activities, and that the zoning ordinance allowed this use on this site. Your code gives the zoning administrator the responsibility for the interpretation of whether a proposed use is essentially the same as a use allowed in the zone district, and she did exactly that here. And this determination was supported with reasoned analysis based on facts included in the staff reports for both the zoning administrator hearing and both Planning Commission hearings on appeal. In contrast, the Planning Commission gave no coherent explanation as to how or why this project, which allows visitors to walk together through the forest to spread their loved ones ashes around a selected tree could not be described as a site with facilities that provide spiritual, social, or recreational elements. As noted from staff, there was no clarity provided by the Planning Commission. While the Planning Commission implied its decision was based on commercial nature of Better Place Forest's use, there is no requirement in the county code that organized camps and facilities cannot be commercial uses. In fact, the purpose of the organized camps and facilities designation, and this is a quote, is to foster commercial use of scenic and recreational values in the county. The physical improvements and visitors to the site are entirely consistent with an organized camp and the Planning Commission had no issue with this part of Better Place Forest's use. The Planning Commission's error here was to distinguish this project from other organized camps based solely on the fact that the visitors would spread their loved ones ashes around select trees. This does not matter in terms of consistency with the timber production zone because spreading ashes, especially those that are mixed with soil so that they integrate into the natural environment does not prevent future harvest of timber as evidenced by Cal Fire's communications with the county prior to the Planning Commission's February 26th hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission's decision that is contrary to all the findings made by the zoning administrator and staff is an abuse of discretion. Either of those two points as well as the other points in our appeal letter are grounds for you to take jurisdiction of this matter. I'd like to just briefly address some of the comments that have been raised in letters to the board prior to this hearing. First, their arguments are based on the merits of this project and should be heard at a hearing by the board de novo on August 4th as recommended by staff. Essentially, as explained in our appeal letter, spreading ashes on private property is permitted under state and county law and is not incompatible with timber harvest in any way. Furthermore, there's no requirement for commercial timber harvest in its TP zone. Better Place Forest proposes to work cooperatively with the timber industry to actively harvest trees from the property. The Planning Commission ignored these assertions and based its decision on the same speculation the timber industry now urges you to accept. The Better Place Forest is somehow saying one thing, but we'll do another. The county, including staff and the board have the ability to impose conditions on projects. The courts have routinely held that those conditions are enforceable. And if you put a new condition on this project, conditions will be enforced by the county. We urge you to take jurisdiction and hear this matter on August 4th. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So now the opponents will have 10 minutes. Right. Good morning, Chairman Caput. Members of the board, difficult day to stand here and give testimony for all the things that the board has had to deal with in the last several months and in the last several weeks. So I appreciate the effort of the board and staff and county workers and of course the Sheriff's Office could know that they do have a lot of community support and that there's a lot of people that appreciate them and the things that they do. My name is David Van Lennep. I'm a registered professional forester today. I'm representing Birch Family Trust's adjacent landowners to the parcel that a better place for us is proposed for their use. I've been with the Planning Commission process all the way through as the opponent in the original, our original letter to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision. And I'd like to ask the board at this time to refrain from taking jurisdiction of this matter. If what better place for us is just indicated they are willing to do, then they can do that through the planning process starting from with a new permit in hand where it doesn't have to be vetted through the board. It doesn't have to be taken through the board's control, something they can do through the planning process. And they are correct. I made those suggestions to them early on as things that they could do through their, with their property in addition to harvesting timber and maintain the autonomy of timber production zone zoning, which is as they understand now very, very important and very limited in Santa Cruz County. They chose not to take any of those options at that time. And I'm now asking the board to take that permit over so that they can get those put in place. I'm asking you to, as the board, not take jurisdiction of this item. The planning commission had a very thorough review of this item, any characterization that it was somehow done shoddily or without lots of consideration. I would disagree with, I met with planning commission members, I know that planning commission members went to the better place for a site, talked with them to try to get the best understanding they could of the proposed uses and how it would be implemented and how it would conflict or intertwine with timber production, timber harvesting, which is the primary best highest identified use on TP zoning. They made their findings and they found that the speculative land use is not consistent with county code and the things in county code that the county of Santa Cruz is allowed to condition as compatible uses in TP. The county has that authority, the county has used that authority in the past to condition what things are compatible on timber production that's vested to each county through the Timber Productivity Act of 1982, which allows the counties to put in compatible uses in TP. What better place for us is proposing is tandem ounce to a cemetery, although they've been very careful to point out the statutes in state law that allow scattering of ashes that do not create a cemetery, but their proposal that was reviewed in Mendocino County was reviewed and stated as a cemetery. That's how the planning department reviewed their permit. That was the reviewed use. That's how they viewed the use. That was not on timber production zone parcel and it was approved as such. It was approved as a cemetery. A cemetery is not compatible use with timber harvesting. The format that was delivered for the findings of the planning commission was vetted through council. There was a very specific conversation outlined in the transcripts. You can read in the transcripts where commission asked a very specific question about how they could render the findings in this case. Could they render findings without a long written specific finding on each individual item? County responded, county council responded back to them that in fact they could take the findings that were generated by staff and add in we do not find as the commission. We do not find as the commission. And that was a very specific conversation that county council had with the commission before their findings were rendered. So I think that's an important point to understand that that decision was not done out of character with what county council had recommended. And there was no confusion or ambiguity when the commission voted unanimously that this was not a compatible use on timber production zone land. There was no confusion or ambiguity about what the commission deemed appropriate. Applicant is now asking the board to take control of the matter presumably to have the board input some restrictions or some different conditions into their permit. I would assert again that this can also be done through the regular process. This does not have to be done through the board taking jurisdiction. It's my understanding that the applicant could, since they have a lot of this already, a lot of their designs and plans in place that they would not have to start from ground zero. And in conversations with them, they're concerned about time. And I would offer that that might be a quicker process than going through the board. If the board hears this, sends, remands them back to the planning commission or the planning process as part of the board's recommendations, then they still have to go through that planning process. It may be a quicker path for them to go right back to planning. Ultimately, it urged the board not to take jurisdiction on this matter. I think the planning commission acted in conjunction with state law, with county code. And after great consideration, there was two months of meetings and information and volleys of legal documents that went back and forth that the planning commission had to review. So I don't think they were lacking in facts of the law or facts about what they believed consistent. The planning commission also benefited from a great deal of information that the zoning administrator did not on November 15th. We were able to bring a lot of information to the table for the planning commission to consider in their consideration of whether this use was as projected as outlined to staff and whether or not this was actually going to physically work. Is this going to actually work on this property? And that's the job of the commission is to look at things that are brought to them and run those through a filter of county code, state law, and practicality to find out if that's actually going to work. We did generate, we did have some concerns and we do still have concerns that the applicant is not going to harvest commercial timber on that property. Their statements to us and to the department, to the planning department or that they were in fact going to honor timber production. But time and time again, we see their marketing. We see the ads, people who've been contacted by them that say we're never going to harvest these trees. These trees are never going to be harvested. And when you match that up with the sacred place which people deserve, if you're paying the kind of money to have a sacred tree, a sacred place for your family and where you are going to go with your family as a forever place, it doesn't commingle with timber harvesting. And you can't do timber harvesting and commingle with dedicated memorial trees and the scattering of loved ones ashes. So either you are blocking out all this area and keeping timber harvesting away because it is a disturbing land use or you're doing it somewhere else where timber harvesting is not going to be involved. And we don't see that the two mix and neither did the planning commission and we have concerns that if they, there's a financial incentive, a huge financial incentive for them to continue to dedicate our memorial trees and more and more, because that's frankly their primary business model. Timber harvesting is ancillary to their business model and primary to ours on that parcel. I'll conclude and I thank you for your time and I appreciate your efforts and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you. 10 minutes. Now public comment. Now public comment. The public comment. Oh boy, I'll do my best. Do the best you can. Do my best. Chairman Caput, members of the board, Bob Berlage, the Creek Lumber, before I start I hardly have words for the sorrow and condolences to our law enforcement community and to Supervisor Coonerty, Aide Rachel Dan. I didn't know the sergeant. I spent many hours talking to Allison and she was everything wonderful that's been said about her already and so sad. In order to get my two minutes, I concur with everything Mr. Van Linnup said. The issue here isn't whether it's appropriate to memorialize someone and to worship wherever their remains are going to be. The issue is whether this land use is compatible with timber production zone and in our opinion, it's profoundly incompatible. It's, they would make so much money on an acre of land. It would take 1,000 years of repetitive timber harvest on the rest of that parcel to even approach the money they're going to make. This is what the legislature did when they passed the Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 and gave you the authority to determine compatible uses as long as they didn't inhibit the growing and harvesting of timber. If they do this land use, there's gonna be no economic reason and a whole lot of, like Mr. Van Linnup relayed, social reasons why timber harvesting would never occur. This is exactly the sort of land use that the legislature was intended to prevent on what's basically an agricultural zone for the growing and harvesting of timber. And so our recommendation is the same. You don't need to take jurisdiction. They have the right to go back and ask for the things that Mr. Gibson said they would agree with. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions. First of all, before I introduce myself, Monterey, Santa Cruz County Billing Construction Trades Councils gives their condolences to the County of Santa Cruz for the tragic loss that you had in the Sheriff's Department and within the County. We're the chair and we're the supervisors that are here and those that are remotely. My name is Manny Penero, I'm the CEO of Monterey, Santa Cruz County Building Construction Trades Council. This project, Better Place Forests, we feel is a great project. It brings jobs, a community with a good livable wage and also benefits that come with it. They have reached out to us. We're in support of this. We encourage that you also support it and move forward. It'll benefit both sides. And not only that, the young kids and pupils that come out of your schools and high school here in Santa Cruz we're an accredited pre-apprenticeship program that's certified by State of California. That gives opportunities for those who are not gonna go off to college and get a two, four, six or eight year degree to go into the trades. So either trades ask you to consider supporting this and moving it forward. I thank you and have a nice day. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Dennis Webb. I'm a registered professional forester and my family operates Big Creek Lumber Company. We've been harvesting timber in Santa Cruz County for the last 74 years in a way that recognizes the forest's value to our community. Our 200 local employees and the dozens of local workers in the forest products industry. This is our only source of products is from land that is zoned for timber production. State law requires land uses on this zoning designation be compatible with TP zoning. And there is no question as to the incompatibility of Better Place Forest project with timber harvesting. As a registered professional forester, I would never attempt to harvest timber on a property where the trees have been sold as memorials for the spreading of ashes of people's loved ones. At the planning commission recognize this reality in their unanimous decision to deny the permit for Better Places burial ground. The planning commission's decision was the right decision for our community. And it was the right decision given the project's legal incompatibility with TP zoning. Our County has zoning designations because we've decided what we value what is important to our community. That's why we zone land for agriculture, for housing or for timber production. Our community depends on these zoning designations and we depend on the planning commission to correctly decide whether a project like this is appropriate in a given zoning. And the planning commission got it right in this case. So I urge the supervisors to stand by the planning commission's unanimous decision. And I thank you for your time today. Good morning, my name is John Swift. And I would like to point out that this is indeed a jurisdictional hearing. We're not talking about the issues of whether this is right or wrong in terms of the substance of their proposal. This is about the jurisdiction and the findings that were made. Now I was a planner for many, many years worked for the County of Santa Cruz, the city of San Jose and the Santa Monica. I've never seen findings such as this finding cannot be made and that being the complete finding, the extent of the analysis that was involved. I'd like you to think about an approval of a project. Have you ever approved a project by simply saying this project or this finding can be made? You know and I know that the analysis required is far more than that. When we were trying to figure out how to address their issues, it was very difficult to figure out what the planning commission actually rendered. How did they render their decision? So I would encourage you to think that this is really not a reasonable substantive findings that were made. Mr. Van Lettep suggested that we should go back to the planning process, go back to the planning commission or the ZA. This is the same project that was originally proposed with the exception that we're asking or suggesting that a condition be placed that limits the memorial area to exactly what was proposed by the original appellants. To go back through the process would be a lengthy process. It would consume enormous amounts of county resources. There is really no benefit to the county or to anyone else to extend this back through months and months with the possibilities of further appeal. Let's deal with the issue. This is the same project with some minor modifications that are in fact compliant with what these folks are suggesting. These people have made a tremendous, I'll use the word compromise, but they've modified their position to comply with their concerns. So thank you very much for your time and we hope that you do take jurisdiction. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Chair, we have a web comment. This is from Robert Singleton. Please accept staff's recommendation, take jurisdiction and schedule a hearing for the applicant to make a fair case for the unique project. The applicant has made good faith effort to work with local companies to preserve the ability for sustainable timber harvesting onsite. I'm confident that given more time, they can address any concerns that exist timber industry partners may have, while also doing something novel and noteworthy. Dealing with death can be complicated and deeply personal process for many people. Being able to memorialize lost loved ones with the tree over a cemetery plot is something worthwhile and something that would resonate with many Santa Cruzians. Please consider accepting the staff recommendation. Thank you. So you can now close the public hearing. Chair. Public. Bring it back to the board. The agenda item number eight. The public hearing is now closed and I'll bring it back to the board and then we'll get a clarification of exactly what we're voting on. What yes means and no means. Chair, I just have some comments. You know, this is, this application is interesting. It's an unusual business idea. Finding a place for being able to remember those who've gone before is a primary activity in the establishment of any new community. It's actually was one of the first roles that unions played in actually trying to create cemeteries. I served on the board of my temple, my place of worship and all the things that I did on that setting up a cemetery for the community was probably the thing that was the most significant. So this is an interesting idea about a way to recognize those who have gone before. I think that it doesn't fit neatly into categories. And I think the idea of making it seem like a camp, why creative probably has led to some confusion about what we're actually trying to do here. You know, I also know that here in Santa Cruz there has been a great work done about sustainable forestry to find the zoning and legal requirements to allow sustainable timber harvesting to go on and that we have many fine examples of firms that are actually leading the charge in terms of sustainable forestry practices. I think that in some ways the planning decision made the right decision with the information that was in front of them. I think that the idea that this is somehow a camp and therefore should be allowed in TPZ zone land does not seem like a great idea. I think that I'm a little concerned today, later on in today, we are hearing a, we are having a de novo hearing there. And in that case, we also heard that the findings were inadequate. And I would ask staff that there has to be a better process at the planning commission that these issues don't come back to us. We count on our staff and our attorneys to make sure that the findings are accurate. And if they require another meeting in order to get them accurate, that that's something that should be done because it creates a problem as to whether we have done the work necessary and given the fact that the number of hearings that this has gone on to find out that the findings were never approved by the exact written finding were never approved by the planning commission is of concern to me. And we have to do better about that. To me, this is an interesting enough application of land use that I think we should take a look at it. It's obviously not gonna fit into our use chart as currently conceived as principally permitted use because no one's ever thought about doing something like this before. But doing it in TPZ land doesn't make sense to me because it's clearly not that. But there is other parts of this property which are not zone TPZ. And I think to me I'm interested and would like to hear my colleague's opinion about taking jurisdiction to give some clarity about how this new kind of use should actually be categorized and to create policy to make clear that we don't want these quote unquote novel activities to be happening in TPZ. They're more appropriately in things like SU. So I look forward to hearing from my colleagues but I would be prepared to take jurisdiction of this one. Chair, this is Supervisor Friend. And I would like to add on this as we have comments. I'm in agreement with Supervisor Leopold on a lot of these elements that he's bringing up. I think that this warrants the board taking jurisdiction. I think that the board doesn't take jurisdiction. There will be an unsettled question of TPZ compatibility that wouldn't be answered if the applicant simply went through a re-application process for SU because as we can imagine that would be in a loud use as has been agreed upon by staff, the applicant and everybody involved. But there would still be the possibility that this in the future would be discussed as a TPZ compatibility. And I think that it's important for the board to make it a termination to report about the compatibility of TPZ while also making a finding value of the application in regards to SU. I also believe that that would have been impossible for the planning commission to fully process. I agree with the staff's recommendations on taking jurisdiction. And I think that the board has a responsibility to provide clarity on the TPZ use moving forward. Mr. Chair, Supervisor McPherson. I've talked to people on both sides of these issues, this issue who I highly respect and I think they both made good points. I do have a couple of concerns just basically about downgrading, if you will, the TPZ zone. If we allow something like this or something that we helped establish in Santa Cruz County 30 or 40 years ago that's really saved our forest in essence. I'm concerned about a slippery slope of, if you will, to allow this, but, and that we're talking about something, a proposal now that is different from what was before the planning commission. I just wanted to clarify now, does the compromise offered by Better Place Forests to reduce their use to three acres from 10, reduce the conflict with the timber harvest zone regulations? I don't know if the county council could help me on this. In essence, is it correct for us to take jurisdiction on what is a different proposal of sorts? I don't know if county council can give me some insight on that. Thank you, Supervisor. I think if you were interested in taking jurisdiction, the question of how this kind of use comports with the TPZ regulations is, as Supervisor Leopold and Supervisor Friend have mentioned, is a more complete and robust way to take jurisdiction over the matter. Another way to do this is you, if you wanted the PC to review a different project as you could take jurisdiction and your board could send it back down to the PC to review, however, the PC wouldn't have the guidance of your board in that instance of what you want to have done in the TPZ regulations. So does that answer your question? Yes, it does. I mean, there's, I think there's really, do we go back to the planning commission or do we try to set the policy ourselves and get clarity on the way from the planning commission in the future in essence as well. So I'll just listen to other comments by board members before I decide what to do here. But I think that we might get to it more quickly. If we took jurisdiction to figure out exactly what is allowed and not allowed. I do think it's important that we limit the acreage in this as it's been proposed. This is Supervisor Coonerty. I'm supportive of Supervisor Leopold and Supervisor Friend's comments. I'm appreciative that the planning commission put the brakes on this potential use because it is in conflict with the timber harvesting, sustainable timber harvesting that our community has engaged in for so long. But I do think that we should, we could take jurisdiction and I believe we're getting close to a compromise that can work for everybody and fits within the limits of our, or fits appropriately within our current zoning and land uses. So I'd be supportive of taking jurisdiction and then moving forward with continued input from both the timber harvesting community, neighbors and better place for us for how they can work together. Chair, if you're ready for a motion, I'd be prepared to make one. Okay. I would move that we take jurisdiction of this item and that we schedule the hearing on August 4th. So that's the motion. I just, just an additional comment is the issues brought up by the forestry are critically important and we should be sending a clear as message as possible that we value the compromises that have historically been made around timber harvesting to ensure sustainable forestry and that the compromises that has been discussed by Better Place Forest may meet that and we'll have to take a look at that to ensure that it doesn't negatively affect the sustainable harvesting that has always been part of Santa Cruz forestry. Supervisor Leopold, this is Supervisor Fran, just a quick clarification. We have to make findings for taking jurisdiction. Does your motion include the recommended actions for findings? Sorry about that. Yes, it does. I will second the motion. Okay. We have a first and we have a second. Is this in line the first and second with the planning commission five to zero vote? The, so it doesn't negate what the planning commission, what we've, what several of us have said is that given the, what was before them and the planning department's description of this as a camp activity, that action was appropriate. And because this is an unusual use that we should, that taking a de novo hearing provides us the opportunity to set clear policy for staff and the planning commission and the community about how we, how we would work to protect TPC land. Okay. So either way, I mean, if we, if we voted to not take jurisdiction, then we would have the five to zero vote of the planning commission would, if we said we're not taking jurisdiction, we would be agreeing with the planning commission's recommendation. Correct. Okay. So, but you want to clarify it by saying in August fourth that we're going to look at it again. You know, one of the things that was suggested by Supervisor McPherson is, you know, could this go to the planning commission and council pointed out that they're not, they wouldn't be getting the direction and the planning commission isn't the legislative body, right? They're an advisory body. So it would be helpful for us to take the jurisdiction, provide clear directions for this and other proposals in the, if there's other proposals in the future, to have clarity that that doesn't exist right now with these kind of creative uses of land. Okay. So both you and a friend are saying it's really not clear. We could provide clarity if we took the, the DeNovo hearing. I'm ready to settle it right now, but... Well, we're not allowed to do that. Go ahead. I know. All right. We'll call for a vote then, unless any other comments. And there's a motion by Leopold and second by McPherson. The public hearing is now closed, right? Still closed. We have a motion and a second. I'll call the roll. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. Public hearing, if we can go, some of these we can go through pretty quick, right? Okay. Public hearing to consider the proposed five year plan for permanent local housing allocation funds and adopt the resolution to authorize the submittal of an application for funding to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. Hi there. Hi there. Okay. Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. I am Tracy Cunningham and I am the newest addition to the housing division. I mean... You might want to get closer to that, Mike. It's easier to hear. Hello. Thank you. I'm here today to introduce you to a new source of housing funds called the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program or PLHA. After today's public hearing, the County of Santa Cruz will be submitting an application to the State Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD to participate in the state program. This one? On February 27th, 2020, HCD released the first notice of funding availability for the PLHA program, making available $195 million statewide in PLHA funding. The initial estimate for Santa Cruz County over five years is about $3,395,000. The PLHA is the result of many years of advocacy by housing supporters to create a reliable source of local housing dollars. This source comes from recording fees on certain real estate documents. To access these funds, the County must develop a five-year plan showing how it intends to use the PLHA funds over the next five years for eligible activities. We are also required to seek input on the proposed plan from the community. The PLHA is set up to enable communities to target funds to address local needs and are summarized in the slide. Communities are encouraged to address the housing needs of their workforce and are allowed to target some assistance to households whose incomes are up to 150% of the area median income or AMI. Eligible uses of the program focus activities into three general areas, production of new or preservation of existing affordable rental housing, addressing homelessness through creating facilities for emergency, transitional and permanent housing and homeless prevention activities. And finally, home ownership programs for qualifying households, which could include programs such as down payment assistance, ADU development or accessibility improvements. Public input was gathered through an online survey that was conducted from May 12th through May 26th, as well as communications to several stakeholder groups. A summary of the survey results shown in the table were predominantly aligned with the proposed priority uses of funds for housing production and homeless activities. The recommended five-year plan is a result of public input received and a collaborative discussion between staff of the Housing Division and the Homeless Services Coordination Office. The plan designates 51% of the PLHA funds for housing production activities over the five-year period and 44% for homeless activities. Housing production funds will target multifamily residential rental housing for households at or below 60% of the AMI. To participate in the PLHA program, the board of supervisors must approve the five-year plan and adopt the resolution authorizing the county's participation in the program with the application due July 27th of this year. It is recommended that the board of supervisors take the following actions. Hold a public hearing on the permanent local housing allocation five-year plan. Adopt the resolution to authorize and adapt a five-year plan for permanent local housing allocation funds and approve a submittal for funding to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development and the PLH five-year plan. Finally, authorize the planning director to execute the standard agreement and all their documents required by HCD and the county to participate in the PLHA program. Thank you. And I'm available for questions. I don't have any question, but maybe see if any of my colleagues do. Yeah, I do. Supervision in person. Just that we're welcome to the planning staff. It's nice to have you here. I just, there's some questions I have and maybe you won't be able to answer them right now. How do other similar counties, how are they allocating these funds? And just kind of like to get a comparative nature of what others are doing. And will there be a competitive process for both affordable housing, homeless funding pots? And I'm not sure exactly how that'll work. In the first two years, we have nearly even distribution between affordable housing and homeless. But in the out years, it returns to a much deeper investment, it seems on the housing side. Is that because you anticipate projects coming to fruition in a couple of years? Can you answer that? Do you know, do the supply and department, is that what they're anticipating? Is it on? Yeah. Got it. Good morning, Julie Conway, housing program manager. I'm happy to be there with all of you today. And welcome to Tracy. So we do anticipate and we discussed for quite a while, again, talking with the homeless services coordination staff. We would like to have steady funds available for homelessness. That's an ongoing issue and we know that. We also know that we are expected to be producing housing with these funds and to be keeping the funds moving along. So what we were really balancing is meeting the needs of people in our community, our homeless and acknowledging that one of the best steps we can do that is to produce housing. And we're trying to balance that out evenly. What we expect to be doing is once we are active in the program is we will be issuing an annual process inviting participants, both for homelessness and for housing. You'll note that the funds are divided according to percentage. The exact amount is gonna depend on real estate activity, but we will be issuing each year an invitation for projects that meet the requirements of the board. So you can expect to be hearing about it annually. We have had conversations with other jurisdictions. This is a source of funds that housing providers advocated for for 25 years. I know I personally was signing postcards for 25 years ago. So it's very much welcomed, but it's really designed to enable communities to address the needs that they see as most urgent. That was what we considered as we formulated our initial proposal for feedback around the five year plan. We have a lot of housing needs. We balance that against the funds that we do have available. Our goal is to be as strategic as possible in using these funds. Thank you. That answers the question. Because I think there's a strong arguments for a more balanced approach as you've mentioned in each of the five years, especially in light of the fact that a five year allegation of 3.4 million is small enough, it could potentially go much further in addressing and leveraging our homelessness issue and assistance than housing production. The cost of housing is off the map, so to speak. So I'm glad to see that we're going to be taking a balanced approach. That's all, Chair. You need to open the public hearing. Okay, we'll open the public hearing. And take comments. Take comments, okay. Do we have any comments in the room below? Any comments on the web? None. Okay, that'll close the public hearing. And we'll bring it back for a motion and a vote. I want to move the recommended actions. Okay. Second. Okay, we have first and second. Go ahead, call the roll. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Senator T. McPherson. Aye. Chairperson Kepit. Aye. Okay, passes unanimously. That takes us to number 10, public hearing to consider resolution, authorizing submittal of application for state of California Community Development Block Grant CARES Act program funds, consider selection of activities to be included and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. Go ahead. Okay. Oh, we're using the keyboard. Okay. All right. Good morning board members. Priscilla Wilson with the housing staff. Nope. Is it, okay. You aren't the only one. I'm sorry. It's a very uncooperative today. Yeah, yeah. The state community community development block grant CDBG notice the funding availability was released on June 5th, 2020. Six weeks after encouraging state participants to initiate the local process to be ready to submit applications. A virtual information meeting was held on May 15, 2020. The CDBG CV process distributes formula-based funds on an over-the-counter basis. The deadline for a complete application submittal is August 31st. The county's allocation of CDBG CV one funds is $475,347. This is slightly less than the initial estimate, which was given to us by HCD, which was 504,000. The CDBG CV one NOFA provides funding for the following activities. Assistance to businesses impacted by COVID-19, stay at home orders and shutdowns, public services related to COVID-19 support, facility improvements related to COVID-19 healthcare and homeless housing needs, acquisition of real property to be used for the treatment or recovery of infectious diseases in response to COVID-19. Activities must meet one of the national objectives. All county proposals received would address number one, which is benefit to low-mod persons. The county's informational meeting held on May 15th, and today's public hearing meets the required CDBG public participation process. This special CDBG funding is for activities with a direct COVID-19 connection. Six proposals will received in total, five for public services and one for public facility. Staff screen the proposals for eligibility and feasibility. Projects must be completed and all CDBG CV one funds must be spent within 12 months. Three public services activities are recommended for inclusion in the county's application. Families in transition and community action boards proposals will provide subsistence payments to individuals and families who have lost income due to COVID-19. The housing matters proposal includes the expansion of the Paul Lee Loft and Hygiene Bay to provide social distancing in an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19. Once again, the county was allocated $475,347, of which 394,538 is available for activities. The county application can include up to three activities in total. There are two potential funding options and the staff is recommending that your board approve both of them. Option one provides funding for FIT and CAB. Both organizations have experienced using federal funds and providing the proposed services. Option two includes funding for FIT and CAB as well as housing matters, which is located within the city of Santa Cruz. In order for the county to use CDBG CV funds within the city limits, the state requires a proportional share of city of Santa Cruz CDBG funds to be used on the activity. Staff will be working with HCD to ensure that the project meets technical requirements. If this is successful, then the county application would fund three organizations at the level identified in option two. If not, funding for FIT and CAB will be increased to the levels outlined in option one. The resolution has been drafted to provide flexibility in either option. CDBG CV one proposals were reviewed jointly and prioritized by housing staff from the planning department and staff from the homeless services coordination office. The following actions are recommended. You hold a public hearing to consider the proposed county application to the state of California for community development block grant CARES Act, CDBG CV funds, select activities to be included in the county CDBG CV application to include COVID-19 Housing for Community Stability, up to $250,000, COVID-19 Emergency Housing Assistance E-HAP, up to $225,000, COVID-19 Expansion of Polly Loft and Hygiene Bay, up to $120,000. That you adopt the resolution, authorizing the county to apply for CDBG CV funds for the selected proposals and authorized the planning director to execute the standard agreement and other documents required to participate in the CDBG CV program. Staff is available. Should you have any questions? And this concludes my presentation. Quick question, Chair. If Ms. Wilson, for these funds, does at least one member of the household have to be a US resident? You know, that is a question that I have submitted to HCD and I have not gotten a response from yet. They will be holding a webinar next week, which I hope they will be answering a couple of the questions I've had. Yeah, I just think it's super important that we make these funds available to people in need and we shouldn't be looking at their immigration status as much as possible. I understand that these might be a source of federal funds and there might be restrictions on them. But we, as we've seen in our community, this pandemic does not choose immigration status as one of the deciding factors. We need to help out people who live here in Santa Cruz. That is correct. Any other board questions or comments? Mr. Chair, this is Supervisor McPherson. I noticed the Ministry of Carve out is 17%. That seems high to me. Is that because we're dealing here with the federal government or how does, it just seems high. It's usually in the, well, under 10% or something. You are correct. Yes, Supervisor McPherson, you're correct. That is higher than we're used to seeing for to cover administrative costs. We always do bill against any administrative resources that are made available. This is higher than usual. I actually thought it was a typo. I'm looking at you like you're looking back at me. Sorry about that. I actually thought it was a typo when I first saw it. We're used to seeing something more like 7.5%. What I can say is that it's always our intention within the planning department to cover our costs whenever we can, but it is also to use all funding available for the intent of the program as much as we can. As we move through this period where we are landing on exactly which of the two strategies we'll be taking, we'll be taking into account exactly what we believe the appropriate funding level is gonna be. So in other words, if this is done as with only the fit and the CAD proposals, we expect that administrative burden to be less and have more funds available potentially for programming. And we did write the resolution to allow for that possibility. However, we've learned from past experience that anytime we use our CDBG funds within participating jurisdiction like the city, there is a very heavy administrative burden. And we'd love to make that possible if we can, but we also expect the county to be repaid full freight. Okay, I have one other question. On the allocation for the Paul Lee Loft, you anticipate the request from the housing matters would have created new beds for sheltering or just an expansion to help with the social distancing aspects and so forth of existing clients. I mean, what will the 120,000 really allow housing matters to do? Is it gonna be provide new beds or suggest to an expansion to help the social distancing of existing clients? Yeah, I can take that one too. Housing matters as you all know is really our in the North County, it's really the center of homeless services for both unincorporated in the North, the cities in the North. They have been very hard hit and have been working very hard to be light on their toes in response to both keeping people safe and responding full services. In order to operate the Paul Lee Loft, they do have to have an expansion of their shower bay or upgrade of their shower bay. It's also part of the COVID response, which is what the city's CDBG participation is. The county cannot make a CDBG commitment without having a proportional share from the city of Santa Cruz. So what we're anticipating will happen is the city will make its capital cost improvements and the county will be working to support those choices. And what they're doing right now, as I understand it, is working with social distancing through a variety of sources. And I know they're working very hard to not lose beds. If beds can be added, they will be added. But they also, of course, need supportive services in order to make those meaningful. Thank you. Probably time to open the public here. Yep. Any public comment? I think you probably have to announce the public hearing opening. Right, what we're having. We're gonna go ahead and open up the public hearing at this point. Opening the public hearing. Okay, item number 10 here. Okay, would anybody in the public, anywhere in the audience like to speak? Anybody online? Do you have one online comment? One second. Okay, this one is from Paz Padela. Okay. Are you sure? It is associated to the right memo now. Dear chair and supervisors, the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz urges your support for the resolution to authorize submission of an application for state CDBGCV funds. CAB has had a rental assistance program for over 30 years since COVID-19 crisis call for rental assistance have increased by 50%. In particular, form service workers in hospitals and families with children, CDBGCV funds would support home stability and avoid an eviction and homelessness help during the current COVID-19 crisis. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. Sincerely, Paz Padela, director of housing prevention and intervention program. Okay. I don't see any of others ready to comment. So we'll close the public hearing and call for a motion. I would move the recommended actions. Second. Okay. All for the vote. Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. MacPherson. Aye. Jarrah Kappett. Aye. Passes unanimously. Takes us to number 11, I believe. Public hearing to consider resolution confirming proposed fiscal year 2020 to 2021. Assessment service charge reports for County Service Area 12. Wastewater management has outlined in the memorandum of the director of health services, A and B resolution and notice of public hearing. Good morning. John Riker, water resources division director with public good environmental health. We're here to consider the service charge reports for County Service Area number 12 for onsite wastewater management that provides various services to support septic system function in the county. Your board approved the resolutions confirming the reports back on May 19th. We have prepared the service charge reports listing the charges by parcel that have been on file with the clerk and we're now recommending that you adopt those service charges and we'll put those on the tax bill. These cover roughly 23,400 parcels in the county that have onsite sewage disposal systems and there are three different charges for a variety of different services and I'd be happy to give you more information on that if you'd like that. But we do recommend that you open the public hearing, hear support, objections or protests if any to the proposed fiscal year 2020-21 assessment service charge reports for County Service Area 12 wastewater management that you then close the public hearing and adopt a resolution confirming the proposed fiscal year 2020-21 assessment service charge reports for County Service Area 12 wastewater management. Thank you. All right. Any questions from the board? I don't see it or hear any. We'll open up the public hearing and any public comments? I see none. Close the public hearing. I move the recommended actions. Second. We have a first and second. First. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Dinner tea. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Passes unanimously, takes us to item 12. Chair Caput, I'd suggest that we break now for closed session reconvene at 12.30 for closed session and then we'll consider the other items after lunch. Okay, well 12, if we did it now it wouldn't take long. Well, we have a number of them which individually wouldn't take long but since we have a 130 item it would be good to have enough time for us to do closed session and everything. Does that sound reasonable? It's okay with you. Okay, we'll come back later with item number 12. So we'll start closed session at 12.30. Closed session at 12.30. Okay, we'll recess till 12.30 and have closed session. Will there be anything to report out of closed session? No, thank you. Yes. No, thank you. No, no. Okay, thank you. We're going to go right to number 21 and we'll go back later to number 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. So public hearing de novo to consider application 171365, a proposal for a wireless communication facility on property located at 1931 Soquel San Jose Road, Assessor parcel number 102-081-95. Confirm proposal is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. So we'll go ahead and we'll open up the public meeting. No, we're going to have a report first and then we'll open up the public meeting. Okay. Good afternoon, I'm Sheila McDaniel with the Santa Cruz County Planning Department. So let me just get a little settled here. Didn't realize you were starting. Okay. The project was originally considered on November 1st in 2019 by the zoning administrator and was approved. The zoning administrator added conditions of approval to eliminate landscaping recommended along Soquel San Jose Road. Revision to the landscaping around the proposed equipment that were required along the west side only and conditioned to relocate the facility 15 to 20 feet northwest to situate the facility between existing landscaping located to the west and neighbors residing farther west. The project was subsequently appealed by two separate parties to the planning commission. The planning commission voted three, two to deny the project based on a lack of variance to height, unspecified project visual impacts and insufficient alternatives analysis without identifying any alternative that would meet the coverage objective. Planning commission's action was appealed to your board. Your board took jurisdiction on April 28th and the package before your board today includes the administrative record including the zoning administrator staff report, the planning commission staff report, the jurisdiction letter, all the appeal letters and public correspondence. The subject property is located along the west side of Soquel San Jose Road approximately 1.5 miles north of the intersection of Soquel San Jose Road and Soquel Drive. This area is mostly residential agriculture. Timber harvest with limited commercial uses with residential development running alongside Soquel Creek between dense trees and mountains. Most notable sites in this area are the Karajakers mobile home park, Anna Jean Cummings, the Seventh Day Adventist site, which is where the proposed project is proposed, Castellanio store, the mountain school, residential development in neighborhoods along Soquel San Jose Road, including Hilltop to the west and Cherryvale neighborhood to the east. The property is approximately 88 acres in size. It's flat and gently sloping along Soquel San Jose Road so it's upward to the west. The site is developed with the Seventh Day Adventist camp. The elevation along Soquel San Jose Road varies but is approximately 150 to 160 feet along the roadway and approximately 380 feet at the top of the slope. Though the elevation is approximately 460 feet at the upper northwest ridge. I'm making these points so you can follow along when there will be probably a lot of conversation about elevations. The top of the slope is undeveloped where the facility is proposed and is generally flat or gentle in slope. There is an existing access roadway to the top of the slope and the property is surrounded by residential to the northeast west and my commercial ag parcel to the south. The site is not mapped for presence of environmental resources or constraints and environmental planning completed a site visit and did not identify the presence of any sensitive habitat or biotic resources. Property is owned residential agriculture and designated mountain residential and rural residential by the general plan. Pursuant to the wireless regulations residential agriculture is a restricted zone district for wireless facilities which means it isn't allowed use provided that an alternative analysis proves that the proposed facility would eliminate or substantially reduced one or more significant gaps in the applicant carries network. So the original alternative analysis provided in the zone administrator staff report was updated with the original was dated October 28th. It was then updated in January 2nd, 2020 and subsequently updated in January 16th, 2020 to include the Wilson tire facility the coverage propagation map provided in this slide and as well as public testimony at the zoning administrator and planning commission hearing indicated that in building coverage and in vehicle coverage are inadequate. You'll notice this in the slide. The area in green is in building coverage the yellow area is in vehicle and the red is outdoor. So on the existing you can see there's inadequate in building coverage. The proposed coverage would be significantly improved with the proposed facility. This is a result of the demand for additional capacity is as a result of a shift from landlines to wireless facilities as well as an increase in our children video streaming on YouTube, et cetera. So essentially there's a greater demand for data. So as you can see the propagation maps provided by Verizon show that the proposed project would substantially improve it. And as your board should be aware that signal strength is provided by these coverage maps is typically accepted as adequate technical data to determine whether there's a significant gap in coverage and have been regularly used as a basis for decision-making on wireless facilities. So subject to the wireless regulations the first determination is is there a significant gap? I believe that the record shows there is a significant gap in wireless coverage in this area. The second test that the code requires is that the alternative analysis must determine there are no viable technically feasible and environmentally equivalent or superior potential alternatives, sites and or facility types and designs outside the restricted areas that could eliminate or substantially reduce the gap. So the applicant submitted successive alternative analysis throughout the project review process and public hearings updating and refining their narrative content of the analysis including allowed and restricted zone sites. This includes expanded evaluation of all timber zone properties along the ridgelines of Soquel San Jose road within the coverage area as well as agricultural zones. The most updated alternative analysis continues to support the zone administrator determination that there's a significant gap in coverage and that the proposed project site is the only site that meets the wireless objective that is both technically feasible that means capable of being accomplished and viable which means willing landlord. So the two sites included in the alternative analysis that were suggested by the planning commission as alternatives that weren't explored and were the basis for part of the basis for denial actually were either not viable meaning they didn't have a landlord or they were not technically feasible to provide the coverage gap. So the alternative analysis provided by the applicant and this one's dated, this is the most current one dated January 16th, 2020. And if your board is interested that is available for you most readily as an attachment to Paul Albrighton's submitted correspondence on this item representing Verizon. There's a color alternative analysis for each site that was evaluated. So as you can see item sites one through six were all noted by Verizon not be able to fill the coverage gap. Site seven was the applicant the property owner didn't respond to Verizon. So it was considered infeasible because there's no willing landlord. In addition, they made a determination that it couldn't cover the gap. And then going on through that sites eight, nine and 10 and 11 were also non viable sites. Sites 12, which includes a number of agricultural zone parcels essentially are located in the Cherryvale neighborhood on the east side of Soquel San Jose road. There's a couple dozen properties residential neighborhood Verizon made a determination that it would a 90 foot height facility would still provide a lack of in building coverage in the rodeo gulch valley. And that that facility at 90 feet even not meeting that would the coverage gap would still be 46 feet taller than the proposed facility at 44 feet and that it would require an exception or a variance to height and as well it wouldn't meet the residential setbacks of five times the height or 300 feet, whichever is greater. The majority of properties with are about 100 to 150 feet away or with its substantial constraints in that area. And then in addition, this area is a concentrated residential area which would significantly increase the visual impacts to residential properties in that area. I'm gonna go continue on to site 14 and 15. Site 14 was noted that was no owner interest and otherwise a determination by Verizon was made that it couldn't fill the gap based on a 78 foot height facility meeting the zoning height maximum for the district. Again, that would be 34 feet taller than and more visually intrusive. Site 14 is agriculture and it's located right across the street from the subject property. So the subject property was determined to be the only site that would fill the gap. It's located downslope of a ridge top. No height exception is required where 78 feet is allowed. It meets the residential setback requirement and the site's not located within concentrated residential neighborhood. So the facility's proposed to be set back approximately 200 feet or more from the top of the slope and is over 1200 feet west from Soquel San Jose Road. No vegetation is proposed to be removed for construction of the facility with exception of site clearing of existing grass and setbacks to residential or anywhere from 500 to 1,000 feet of property to the west, north and those closest to the facility location. So you can see in the upper left-hand corner and the facility is located downslope of the crust of the hill and there's trees and shrubs along the north side and at various locations along the property line adjacent parcels. So if you're looking at the upper left-hand corner, the appellants that appealed, the Zone Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission live to the west, south and the north. So the lower left-hand corner is the view toward the residential neighborhood and then to the right is the view across Soquel San Jose Road to the ridge on the opposite side. So here's an elevation drawing showing the disturbance is limited to 900 square feet, a 30 by 30 lease area. The project includes associated equipment and a 44-foot monopine tree. At 44 feet, the facility meets the height standards of the code and is not an egregious height. The wireless ordinance requires facilities to meet the Zone District Height Standard and be the shortest possible to minimize visual impacts. The Zone District Height Standard 28 feet is subject to various height exceptions pursuant to 1310 510 D2, including that utility and commercial poles and towers may not be subject to height limits prescribed in the district. And further additionally, height exception regulations allow height of a non-commercial radio, television antenna and similar structures to exceed the height by 25 feet. That's 53 feet in the residential Ag Zone. 44 feet meets the height standards without height exception or a variance. As you can see, the antennas are concealed within faux foliage and branches and covered in antenna socks. And as well, the branches were required to extend above the antennas to create a natural tree form. And here's just a simulation of the facility, canopy, bark, natural-looking green, two different types of foliage colors and what are considered a antenna socks to create foliage, the antennas that look like foliage. And here's the visual simulations for the project. So what isn't readily apparent here is the project's been in process for two and a half years and it started out as a 78 foot high pole monopine. And through significant effort, the project was reduced in height and pushed pole back from the top of slope 200 feet. And so the facility you see today, the proposed site is located 200 feet back at 44 feet. And the applicant updated their visual simulation here to reflect the height and location that's proposed. Because of the limited visibility of the facility, the zoning administrator eliminated the landscaping requirement along SoCal San Jose. As you can see, it's pretty limited view. However, the zoning administrator did acknowledge that the facility would be visible from vantage points of neighboring residents to the West. And so I'm gonna go back up. So looking in the bottom left-hand corner, in recognizing that the impacts to residences are real, the zoning administrator was trying to do whatever they could, she could to minimize visual impacts. And so she recommended a condition of approval to move the facility to the North just a little bit. As you can see in that photo, the slope starts to rise. At that site, it's about 400 feet in height. And at the utmost top, it's about 460 feet. So moving it to the North a little bit would substantially reduce the visual, you'll see it all together. And the zoning administrator also conditioned the project to require landscaping along the West side of the enclosure to screen the bottom part of the facility. So with that, I'm just gonna create to share with you the thinking that we go in, what we do when we go into looking at these facilities. Essentially it's three elements. In a residential ag zone district, the alternative analysis has to make a determination prove that there's a significant gap. I believe that's pretty abundantly clear based on public testimony, based on the maps that Verizon has provided. Secondly, the alternative analysis supports the subject property as the only site that will meet the coverage objective. And if it's determined to be the only site that meets the coverage objective, the design criteria contained in the wireless regulations require design criteria to minimize the impacts to create the least visually intrusive facility feasible. The project includes those elements, including locating it below the ridge line, minimizing disturbance of topography and vegetation, minimizing visual impacts to surrounding residential properties by meeting the setback requirement to residentially zoned properties and employing camouflage design. The administrative record supports the recommendation for project approval as originally approved by the zoning administrator and further elaborated in the zoning administrator staff report, planning commission and jurisdiction letter to your board as well as the administrative record. Staff is recommending your board approve the application as originally approved by the zoning administrator that your board confirm the seco exemption and based on revised conditions, findings and conditions of approval attached. With that, staff is recommending that you open the public hearing to consider the application that you determine the project is exempt from CEQA and then you approve the application. And with that, that concludes my presentation. I do, I will have more to say if you have questions about the alternative analysis or thoughts about various sites. So that's it for this point. What's the process council for how we do these hearings? Sorry, the process right now is to open the public hearing which would include hearing from the applicant for 10 minutes, then hearing from the opposing parties for 10 minutes and then giving the applicant a five minute rebuttal period. After that, we would turn to public comment and the chair can decide whether the public gets two minutes or three minutes for their public comment. Then it would come back to the board. Thank you for reminding me. The board can ask questions. At this moment, the board can ask questions. So, and then we'll open it up to the public and then do any of the board members. I'll have some questions but I want to hear the presentations first. So the first would be the applicant for 10 minutes. You want to open the public hearing. Okay. I'll now open the hearing. First, we'll hear from the applicant who will have a total of 10 minutes to present evidence as to why the board should take jurisdiction on this matter. Next, after that, we'll hear from the parties opposing the application and they will also have a total of 10 minutes. So if we have more than one speaker, your total is still 10 minutes from both sides. I apologize, Mr. Chair. This is a public hearing to Novo. They've already taken jurisdiction. I'm sorry, my notes weren't correct for you on that part. It's a public hearing to Novo, so. So there's 10 minutes for the applicant, 10 minutes for the appellant and then five minutes rebuttal from the applicant. And then we open it up for public testimony. Okay, and then the public will have, how many people are gonna actually speak on this after? Well, you can only, could the applicants speak twice? So the applicant can only speak for 10 minutes? No, what I'm getting at, can the applicant, after having the total of 10 minutes, can one of the applicants also speak as a member of the public, is that correct? The applicant gets 10 minutes, then the appellant gets 10 minutes and then the applicant gets five minute rebuttal and then you open it up to the public hearing for public. And when the public speaks, we can't have either the applicant or the appellant. They've already had their chance to speak. They cannot speak. They've already had their chance to speak. That's correct. So we start with the applicant for 10 minutes. And I do wanna thank the public for your patience and everything with all the stuff that we're going on. We've had a very sad week and a very sad day today with the loss of life of some two wonderful people in the county. So anyway, we'll start now, 10 minutes for the applicant. Is there a button? It sounds like it's on. I'm on. I'll begin again. Good morning, Chair Caput and members of the board. My name is Paul Albritton. I'm outside counsel for Verizon Wireless. I have with me today our RF engineer, Dwayne Bonham and Christine Damali from the SAC Wireless Group who SAC Wireless has been working on this project for two years. Trisha Knight, who you've seen before you several times couldn't make it today. She had to be evacuated last night because of a fire. As you heard, and I really appreciate the very thorough staff report that Sheila provided, Verizon Wireless has been working for years really to try and improve its service here in the southern part of Santa Cruz County. We recently had a site approved, our SoCal SC3 site by you and then we now have this site and we'll have an additional site in order to try and upgrade our network. We realized from, we've heard from the public, we've heard from homeowners and residents, we've heard from the county, our customer that we need to improve service and this is part of that project. It takes years to get a project to this point and we appreciate your hearing our project today. Our nearest site to this facility or serving this area is actually two miles to the southwest at SoCal N41st Street. We've just put in, we're putting in a small cell a mile south and then there's our SoCal west site is a mile and a half to the west. There are no sites to the north or east serving this area and so there's a clear gap in coverage and I think you saw that in our coverage maps. That means no in building coverage in the area that we're providing and this new facility will provide service to an area of about 4.8 square miles including in two and a half miles of SoCal San Jose Road, 0.8 miles that doesn't have any coverage at all right now. It'll also cover Rodeo Gulch and also half a mile of Rodeo Gulch Road and so it's a really well situated site that's providing service to a broad area. Our target area of about a mile. The appellants were concerned that it was designed to cover the conference center. It does cover the conference center but that's only really the northern end of the coverage that's provided by this facility. So the gap is significant. We think we've established that. My office when we get involved with these projects we try and prepare both a gap analysis and an alternative analysis that will serve as evidence in federal court and we do that because the majority of my practice is actually defending counties and defending cities from neighbor lawsuits and so we wanna make sure that these documents will be sufficient should that occur. The site itself you heard was very carefully designed working with staff. We did start out with a 78 foot tall tower. We've reduced it now to 44 feet. The tower itself is actually 39 feet with five feet of foliage on top in order to make it look like a tree. That's roughly the size of a telephone pole. In fact, there are 40 foot telephone poles already on this property. So we've minimized it and brought it to a point where it's 200 feet below the ridge. As you heard, we have a 900 square foot area for our equipment that has a wooden fence and retaining wall in order to conceal the equipment so we've done what we could. The new sims that we provided, we tried to go out to the property edges and photograph from where the residence would be so you could see and particularly from the west how the tree itself is screened amongst other trees. We offered to do photo simulations from the appellant's residences. We sent a letter. We actually, because the zoning administrator had suggested we might move the site slightly to the north to mitigate aesthetics. We thought we could photograph and try and figure out the proper location to do that. The appellants declined to allow us to do photographs from their properties. We're still willing to do that in order to adjust the site in order to modify or improve the visibility. There was a request. We have no expectation of increasing the height of this site going forward. This is the height that we need and so we would be willing to entertain some kind of condition that we retain it at that height. We have also included a very extensive alternatives analysis and Sheila went through part of that. I can't go through all of it now because it's taken years to develop. It includes 12 sites as it's alternatives but if you look carefully, it actually includes 20 sites. It covers all of the areas. When we go to a community, we look first to their code to see what is the least intrusive under their code. And in this case, your code asked us to look to co-locations, the closest co-locations are our own facilities. We then looked for unrestricted zones. So we looked in the TP zones. We looked in the A zones. We looked at all the zones where we would be unrestricted and we were unable to identify a site that would provide the service that we need that where we had a willing landlord that we didn't have, that we were able to, that was feasible and we could provide service. And when we were denied by, when we were approved by the zoning commission, we were denied or appealed. We re-scrubbed that. We asked SAC wireless to go out, send certified letters to those landlords we hadn't heard from before, make phone calls to those landlords before because we want a site that we can defend. We want a site that's going to serve the community. And we think that we've arrived on that site. Sheila went through the alleged deficiencies of the alternatives analysis by opponents. The Webster property was looked at by Verizon Wireless but really for an alternate site. It's about two miles north and it will not be able to serve our coverage area because of a topographic rise in between. Dwayne Bonham can explain those coverage maps in our alternatives analysis for every site that there is an issue of RF signal. We've included a map that shows the area that we're unable to serve from that particular tower. They also referenced the equestrian center about 0.6 miles north. Same issue, we're not able to provide the service that we need and Dwayne can speak to that issue as well. They also mentioned two agricultural properties to the far west. We did look at those. They're mentioned in our alternatives analysis. Again, there's a topographic rise between those properties and Soquel San Jose Road where we're trying to serve. In addition, they're smaller properties and it would make it much more difficult to put a facility in and meet the setback requirements. Now that's particularly true as you heard of our alternative number 12, which is seven A zone properties that we evaluated. Again, you've got a five time height setback for towers. So if we put a 90 foot pole down in one of these seven agricultural sites to the southeast, there isn't one that actually would have that 500 foot setback that we're looking for. In addition, the area is 300 feet lower than our facility. So we look carefully at those seven facilities properties to the southeast, the two agricultural properties to the west, the Webster property, the question in property. We looked at all of them very carefully and they're in our alternatives analysis and we can go through them much more specifically if you wish with Dwayne Bonham and with Christine Denali. The opponents also make a big issue of property values and they explain that the aesthetics of this facility will lead to reductions of property values, unbelievable reductions of $360,000, 20%. And we just feel that there's no evidence or justification for that approach. The site, as I mentioned, is 44 feet tall. The closest appellant home is 1,050 feet. So we're talking about a telephone pole that is three football fields away. The meadow belongs to the conference center. They, of course, have the ability to develop them, develop it themselves. The views that are referenced to the ocean are three miles away from these residences and as it slopes down, the tree is below. We've done everything we can to minimize the visual impact but the theories that are expressed about property values are simply exaggerated is the best I can say. We submitted materials from Silicon Valley Joint Venture where they did a study in 2012 that showed the proximity of cell towers to homes does not have a significant effect on property values. We also submitted information from Root Metrics and Fortune Magazine that showed that one of the top priorities of purchasers of new homes is the ability to have a cell signal. There's a report by the Center for Municipal Services requesting additional RF information for RF evaluation. We don't find anything credible in that report at all that would suggest that our analysis, our RF justification is inaccurate and Dwayne Bonham is here to support that. You heard from the sheriff at the last hearing and we know that this facility is important for public safety. We know that it's important for communications with the residents particularly today and particularly today when telemedicine is tremendously important. I would, I can't tell how much time I have left. 10 seconds, okay. I'll leave it with that and let you know that we have both Dwayne Bonham here of our for RF and Christine Demali to answer your questions about the alternatives analysis. Again, thank you so much for your time. Mr. Chair, thank you as a port of order. Can we have a roll call? I'm not clear which commissioners are here today or participating. All five of us are here. Three of them are on the, here electronically. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and commissioners. My name is Ariel Strauss. I'm counsel for the opponents. I'm an attorney at Green Fire Law and I've been about myself. I formally served as assistant general counsel to several cities, worked at LAX for the city attorney's office, Los Angeles County Council and have a master's urban planning. Thank you for scheduling this de novo hearing today in order to improve and develop the record to provide an adequate and appropriate support for the board's ultimate decision. I do not envy the position that you're in today where you have to turn down an application has been a long time coming. However, the county code is in plain English and provides mandatory standards that prohibit you from approving the application on this record. Let's start with some background. For several years, the SDA conference leased a temporary Verizon antenna each summer for their camp. With this application, they can now be compensated for year round service that they once purchased intermittently. I imagine under those conditions, Verizon's got a good deal for this site. So Verizon created a very unusual search ring. And I quote, a searching was issued for development of a permanent facility with the center of that search ring being the church. Verizon here focused on one property with virtually no residents and most of neighbors going on record to say they don't want the tower. Is a lack of coverage at SDA property a significant gap? No, it is not. And the language from the case site in the county code to define a significant gap says, in a matter, it matters a great deal whether the gap in service merely covers a small residential cul-de-sac or whether it straddles a significant community highway. So we see here that it's all being done backwards from the start. The only reason to send it a search on the SDA property is if you want to favor that property as a location for a tower. But the county code says that SDA property should not be the location for a tower because there are strict location in an RA zone. Furthermore, in Verizon's filing yesterday, we find out that Verizon intends to also develop one of the alternatives for the north. I don't know who knew that before, but I think this is news to many people. So that means essentially the gap to remains to be addressed is smaller that wouldn't have otherwise been expected from Verizon's analysis. And with respect to some of the comments in the region, Commissioner Leopold, the residents up the hill would get much of the coverage that they're seeking along those roadways from those further north sites. Essentially, Verizon admits that the gap in the general area needed to be covered will be addressed by not a single WCF, but will be handled by two. So this small gap to be addressed with may be addressed by repeaters or ROW small cells, which was only addressed with two small paragraphs in the alternative report. And it was not drafted with recognition that the two overlapping sites would affect the gap in this area. Because of her site is zoned RA or strict location, the county may only issue a permit if the applicant can prove both the site addresses significant gap and that there are no technically feasible alternatives with equivalent or superior potential outside of prohibited and restricted areas. Technically feasible is defined as able to be accomplished based on existing technology or compatible with applicants existing network. It does not mean cheap or simple or easy. And this is a crux of the issue. And I quote, for any technically feasible ability claims made, the applicant shall be required to conclusively demonstrate or repeat conclusively demonstrate, including by submitting adequate evidence to that effect, the reasons for a technical infusibility. So putting this all together, Verizon must conclusively demonstrate the sites in the TP and A zones cannot substantially close a significant gap based on existing technology. Nothing Mr. Alburn said or in any statement so far have addressed the conclusively demonstrate requirement. Verizon, as in the staff report, totally ignore this key requirement and substitute alternative standards. Verizon's June 11th letter instead states that its alternative analysis included coverage maps as evidence that facilities at those locations cannot serve as sniffing gap in network coverage. So there are maps, but Webster's dictionary defines conclusively as putting an end to a debate or question, especially by reason of irrefutability. So a map, does it a map, a map conclusively demonstrate that a site cannot be substantially used to fill the claim gap. Unfortunately, these maps do not conclusively demonstrate anything. For many examples, for instance, a McDaniel property, it shows a change in grade from about 400 feet up to 700 feet. And we don't know where on that site was modeled. We don't know what the down tilt was. We don't know what intervening features there were. And so to say that a 44.1 acre site doesn't work without identifying the location of the model tower is not a conclusive demonstration, even if there are maps. And the fact that the tower itself, the proposed tower was reduced from 70 or so feet to 44 feet tells you that with a closer look many new options are possible, but the documents in the record do not demonstrate this closer look. And looking now to Verizon's model coverage, for instance, for let's say alternative one, we know that antennas have tilt to provide coverage downhill or uphill from the site. We can see from the green around the antenna, if you look at that coverage map, that the antenna location provides coverage right in front of that antenna, which if it is on a hill suggests some down tilt. So reducing that down tilt can extend the range outward, which is where Verizon says it wants to close the gap. Well, what would happen if the down tilt was reduced? Could you trade coverage up north for closing more of the gap down south? And if it can, let's talk how much can it be improved? How many people would it benefit? Where would those locations be? Maybe there'd be substantial enough to fill a significant gap such as for in-car coverage along roads, even though it leaves some small low-lying areas or hilltop areas without the best coverage. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, the Telecommunications Act is not guarantee wireless providers coverage free of small dead spots. Not all gaps are significant gaps. Perhaps even more similar, the Ninth Circuit similarly also, Circuit has similarly said in 2014 in American Tower Corp versus San Diego, it explains that accepting an applicant's assertions about what is or is not feasible, quote, would make the applicant, rather than locality, the arbiter of feasibility and intrusiveness, gutting the least intrusive mean standard with predictable, applicant-friendly results, end quote, which is what we are seeing here. As you know, this is all quite technical. So sensibly, the county code requires a technical consultant evaluated, Verizon's analysis and less-deplying director or designate states and writing that this is not necessary. I did not see this in the record. So my client hired an expert. In my letter delivered on June 12th in attachment to an opinion from Bob Ross, a telecommunications expert who has reviewed thousands of wireless facility applications, and Mr. Ross told me to ask Verizon what would hypothetically take to provide coverage for those alternative sites. And presuming they have the data and can model those different scenarios. So we did ask Verizon that question and Verizon declined to provide any new information. In short, Mr. Ross opinion is that, quote, Verizon has not proven that there are no viable, technical, feasible, and environmentally, e.g., visually equivalent or superior potential alternatives. So where does this leave us? Verizon was told by three commissioners that it had not provided adequate analysis of the alternatives. Know what I would have done? I had made your job a lot easier. Assuming I did model different scenarios and could conclusive demonstrate feasibility, I would provide you tons of data. I would have explained the elevations to the locations, intervening trees or other structures, down till. I had provided confidentially the price that was offered to compare it to other offers. I would have given legal analysis of the access to 8955 Glenhaven Road. I would have explained why the code violations on the question property were unsolved, resolvable. I would have shown mockups as required for the a zone properties. But what did Verizon do in this instance? Instead, for this de novo hearing, it submitted a letter on January 11th with virtually the exact same report that the commission said was inadequate and claimed that analysis is adequate. This is a time and place called for this hearing and Verizon has had every opportunity to provide further analysis and decline to do so. We have substantial evidence in the record and now a decision must be made based on that record. While other localities and other cities have accepted maps as adequate evidence, those cities do not have the standard that's in the county code. That standard being one of conclusively demonstrate and maps on their own are not sufficiently to conclusively demonstrate that. To assist you, I provide yesterday a draft finding with fact for denial resolution. Furthermore, turning to Verizon's repeated threat that the county will violate to the communications act if it denies this application. I want to tell you that Verizon's claim is baseless. First, as discussed with respect to Verizon's formulation of search ring, it's centered a gap on a site that is presumed not to be an appropriate site. Last, as explained succinctly and air touch cellular v alcohol, Verizon needs to show not just that this application has been rejected, but that further reasonable efforts are so likely to be fruitless that it's a waste of time to even try. End quote. No such selling showing has been made. The county has been supportive of the application and the cherry, the cherry veil other alternatives or combinational alternatives could fill the gap. Thank you. I wish to respond if so, you have five minutes. A point of order. We would appreciate hearing the public comment. Can we respond after the public comment? And if not, I'll respond now. You can speak for five minutes. Right now. He's asking whether he can wait until after the public comment. Council. It's usually when the bubble occurs. I would say no, because we have a system in place and it wouldn't be fair to other people who participate in the same system. So you would say no. Fair enough. This is a time period for the applicant to rebut anything that was said in the opposition by the opposition parties. If we tried to change it, it would mess the whole thing up. That's right. Okay. No problem. I want to play by your rule. So thank you. Thank you for letting me ask that question. I want to begin by saying, I think you are quite familiar with the telecommunications act of 96 that you can't deny a site based on environmental effects or radio frequency of emissions that you have to have substantial evidence to deny a site and that you can't deny a site in a manner that would constitute a prohibition of service. And with respect to the second issue, substantial evidence, in order to deny the site, you need to have evidence that's based on your code or regulation for the denial of a facility. And I didn't hear anything in the appellant's remarks that provides the kind of evidence that you would need to show that somehow the impacts exists that would or something that would violate your code. We were within the height limits. We're within the setback limits. We're at the lowest possible height. We've minimized aesthetics. We've camouflaged the facility, all of those things. With respect to prohibition of service, we feel quite strongly that we've identified a significant gap. There was substantial testimony even from your public safety regarding the gap. And I think there'll be testimony from the public as well regarding the gap. With respect to the alternatives analysis, we think we have provided an extremely thorough alternatives analysis that has been revised and updated to thoroughly evaluate under your code what would be considered in a preferred facility. The Cherryville area that's described by appellants is exactly the area I was talking to you about. The seven sites that are listed as item number 12 in our alternatives analysis that are 300 feet lower in elevation than our facility would require at least a 90 foot tower. And the size of the properties in that area make it impossible for us to do that and also meet the 500 foot setback requirements in addition to the fact that the maps show that there's no way that we could provide the coverage that we need from those areas. There was comments about requests for down tilt information and elevation information and signal information, all of which goes into the analysis that Dwayne Bonham puts into his review but it's not something that we can do point by point for a multi-square mile area. Dwayne, I don't know if you have any points you wanna make on down tilt or the analysis that you go through. I know we just have a few moments. Yeah, in regards to the down tilt, we're looking at whether a site can potentially cover an area. Down tilts are used for interference control. We down tilt when something covers too far. When we start off and we're doing an analysis to determine whether something's feasible, it's done at zero down tilt. It's also done at 700 megahertz, our lowest frequency. Lowest frequency covers out the furthest distance and it has the widest antenna aperture. What that means is the distance this way that the antenna covers is the widest of all the technologies. So while that sounds great, generally if you're seeing a very short green area in a direction that's due to terrain, the antennas are hitting terrain and are unable to get over that terrain. So Dwayne is here and we're willing to get as technical as you want regarding our alternatives analysis, the maps that were used and how those maps are generated and how he designs his networks. And that's really how Verizon has the reliable network that it has that your public safety professionals can rely upon. And it's true that we have the SoCal SE3 small cell that was built and then this proposal and then one to the north because these facilities work like a sprinkler on a lawn. They have to talk to each other and they cover a specific area. And this is the area that's important for us to cover that I described earlier. That's the end of my rebuttal and thank you. We're happy to answer any questions you have. Hearing for public comment. Applicant, I mean, the appellant can't speak now. True. True. We're done with that portion of the, we're done with that portion of the hearing. So it's right now for the public. Right now we're going to public comment. That's correct. That's just the way it goes. Are there any members of the public who wish to address the board on this? Please keep your comments and questions. Mike's off. Mike is running. Uh-huh. You're Mike. Mike. It's okay, I wasn't speaking into it. Okay. Okay, now are there any members of the public here in the chambers that want to address the board on this item? We'll keep it to about three minutes, huh? Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Brianna Hout and my family lives at 181 Les Robles Road. Our property borders the north side of the Seventh-day Venice campgrounds. The proposed cell tower will be 1,000 feet from our home. I'm here today to urge you to deny Verizon's application. This tower will cause a 15 to 30% drop in our property value the second it goes up. It will be visible from almost every room in our home. Our living room, kitchen, dining room, upstairs bedrooms and our basement and decks all look out onto the ridgeline in Monterey Bay. This cell tower will be the highest focal point along the ridgeline and there will be no masking it from the house. This viewpoint was not shown to you earlier in the slides. There were several other properties that were rejected because of code violations. If that is grounds for rejection, then this property needs to be rejected as well. There are numerous code violations with the Seventh-day Venice property. The most egregious is that they have been operating in their RV spaces without a permit from the Department of Housing and Community Development since March of 2019. They are still operating in spite of the fact that almost half of their fire hydrants fail to meet the minimum requirements for flow or residual pressure. This failure is specifically concerning since current residents are allowed to smoke on the property. We've seen several fires break out during the annual camp visits and those residents did not smoke. If a fire breaks out on this property, our house will be the first one that will burn to the ground. My parents have given so much to this community. My mother taught your children in preschool. My father, a founder of Santa Cruz skateboards. She's shaped over 30,000 surfboards but has also helped to shape this town and they will be the first people to die if a fire starts. The SDA campground is also in violation of their approved conditional use permit, 00420, which limits the property to a maximum of 10 trailers, permit 81544U, which limits use to a maximum of 14 days for any single trailer space and 4191U, which limits use to 13 specific meetings per year. Currently there are 16 trailers on the property, all viewable from the road. Additionally, at least three of the trailers have been there for more than 14 days and soon another 10 will be over the time limit as well. The planning commission was correct in denying this application and I hope you will do the same. Thank you. Hi there, Monica McGuire from Coralitos. It's really hard. I'm glad. Thank you, Mr. Caput for bringing up again this county's incredible sadness right now today over the losses of life, knowing that everyone here feels that more care about health and safety combined is far beyond the full coverage area needed, talked about, pretended is needed since we know that shortwave radio work for all first responders was more than adequate for all the time before Saltara's existed. That just doesn't make any sense exactly how they were caring for that neighborhood before should still be strongly considered now. It makes no sense, no matter how you try to speak that. Additionally, we have the need to investigate the legality of Supervisor Friend for even voting on this because anyone can look up the record and see that he profits from more Saltara's rising anywhere in this county because of his long standing work with yard arm. There is no good reason why that has not been brought out and completely explained to us who have asked so many times that you explain why is he still voting on anything ever to do with Saltara's beyond you acting as a commission in this case. Additionally, of course, we know that the attempt to imitate trees by the Saltara companies and all associated are usually abominations and for anyone to try to pretend that a telephone pole looks the same as one of these abomination looking trees pretending that it's a tree instead of this horrendous Saltara is ridiculous. Please don't fall for that further. And we're really glad that Verizon has admitted the rebuttal that they do not meet the requirements if you turn this down for the reasons that you're being asked to turn it down. We have the perfectly good ongoing multiple times heard testimony that this is not covering the health and safety and unsightly problems that it's causing. And right now with property values plummeting as badly as they are, because of everything going on, it's not fair to harm the rest of the houses in that area that have not been looked at by Verizon and of course, aren't cared about by Verizon. So there's so many things here, but those are the top ones I'd like to bring up and please answer these points for the public to hear. We need to know that we can trust the integrity of the people who vote. Thank you so much. Hi, my name is Michael Magranay and the applicant, both in his initial statement and in his rebuttal mentioned that Sheriff Hart felt that there was a lack of coverage and the cell tower should proceed well. Supervisor Leopold during your Zoom meeting regarding the PEH people, Sheriff Hart said there was not a lack of coverage. So I appreciate the stress that the sheriff has been under lately, but you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. Thank you very much. One person in the community room. Thank you. This is Becky Steinbrenner. I am one of the appellants, but I'm speaking under public comment now in order to give Mr. Strauss full time. This has been a very good point to raise. There was no roll call taken before this meeting began. So we have the public has no guarantee that the other supervisors who are not physically present have been indeed paying attention and listening to this comment. So I want to make a protest about that. And I also want to second that supervisor friend is coming at this from a point of bias, coming from point of law enforcement, coming from his background and financial involvement with yardarm deck and gun gate that relies on cell phone coverage for the gun technology. I want to play for you. The, I'm sorry, I'm having trouble breathing. I want to play for you the testimony that Mr. Immigranee just talked about. And I cannot do a screenshot, but this is from the May 27th. There's going to be a significant issue for this camp. This is Supervisor Leopold. Yeah, another question. This is Sheriff Hart. If they're calling out around the seven day best, can't we, we can, I think the cell coverage is giving up where we're going to get there. There you have it. Then we need the first alarm or whatever security company is used will have radio capabilities to their dispatch center with the command contact our dispatch center. So I don't think communications are going to be a significant issue. That was Sheriff Hart. I want to point out there are a lot of problems here and Mr. Strauss pointed them out very well. There is the lack of data. Even the sheriff is confused. Can we get in there? Can we not? We don't have any data. We have maps that show colors, but no data to support them or any analysis. We have no discussion at all of why Verizon summarily dismissed good areas under public nuisance 3479. There was no analysis or support of that. And yet this is exactly what this site is. Disguised cell towers as a tree should be in a forest, not in a bare clearing visible from miles around with ocean views destroyed. There is no discussion that in 2015 Verizon actually submitted an application for a site at the equestrian center. What were the violations that precluded them from doing that now? I urge you to deny this and to include any disturbance to include Native American observers if you do approve this. We are all here to discuss respect and the Native Americans must receive that respect. Thank you. Yeah, Bruce Tanner. It's essential to look at the fact that after many iterations of Verizon coming before first, the, well, second, the planning commission first was the zoning commission. And being apprised of not providing anything vaguely approaching proof that there was a gap in their coverage and that they needed this facility to fill, they have still come back again without providing any additional data that establishes that. And when they do not provide that, they are not meeting the county code. There's a reason that the planning commission denied this site, this facility. And I would submit that in this county, we have a captured government that is basically completely complicit with the telecommunications industry in general and Verizon in particular and specifically. And that your board taking jurisdiction over this is a sign of that. And this is corrupt influence that's operating here. We had both the staff report and the presentation by the applicant using terms like, I believe the record shows, we think multiple times, we think that this gap exists. We think that this is necessary. That is not something that should be listened to in overturning a decision by the planning commission to deny this application. The telecommunications act should have been overturned. It was supposed to be completely re-researched and overturned, it would have been overturned, all of the major provisions back in the 80s and then later in the 2011 era. And yet nobody has looked at it the levels that this technology exposes people to are harmful, there is ample evidence of this coming both from the military and from civilian scientists. I urge you please don't do the wrong thing here. Deny this application. Thomas Conway, I'm sure you remember me. I hope you've taken the time as representatives to read over FCC, a captured agency, because exactly what he was talking about is true. And also I hope you've taken the heart to things I've said because I really care about our country and our world. And he's exactly right how there's a corporate surveillance takeover of our world right now coming out of America. And I didn't hear anything from Verizon or his RF guy on the health effects of this cell phone tower, but you can go on your phone after this meeting, look up on PubMed. We have epidemiological studies showing living within 0.6 miles of a cell phone tower shows increased risk of cancer, immunological disorders and death, okay? And these houses are like 1,1200 feet away from this tower. So that's being largely ignored by Verizon and we need to consider these things because they're not being considered by the Corrupt Telecommunications Act of 1996. I was watching the other day on June 11th, a really good 5G summit video came out with boards of experts, all right? So these are doctors. They had a guy who worked at Microsoft for like 30 years, just tons of great information. And there is a lawyer on there who actually said that we can stop 5G, that you don't have to keep bowing down to the telecommunications industry and allow them to take over. So I will be reaching out to you, Greg, because when I reach out to Zach, he lies to me and he also isn't ignoring me now. So he doesn't represent me. So I need to work with the county on this because this is the only way we'll be able to stop any of this corruption and collusion. So thank you. I'd like to start by thanking the supervisors for two things. Oh, Larry Lopp, L-O-P-P. I live in the, at the top of Soquel San Jose Road. And what I'd like to thank you for is, first of all, for keeping us elders alive so that I'm able to come down here and tell you how to do your work. The second thing is for taking over this process on the cell tower. I'm gonna spend a little bit of a different approach today. I wanna start by requesting that you approve the Soquel Creek Canyon cell tower at the seven-day Adventist camp as soon as you can. We need it for the last year and a half. Every time I've come down here, we've stated the same thing. There's 31 people who have submitted information to your web or not your website, but to the county site in support of this. Our community needs ongoing 24-7 low-cost, reliable cell phone with excellent connectivity in our community. I'm gonna tell you why. In fact, listening here today, I think we must be living on a different planet. Historically, our community has invested in a system that connects, informs, and provides a high level of community safety. Unfortunately, our current electrical power and communications needs rely on PG&E, which is dangerously obsolete and increasingly failure-prone. Long-term solutions to this PG&E problem are on the horizon for non-industrial rural areas like ours. Okay, one is, one you know about, solar generation and battery storage and microgrids. The other one is our communication needs will shortly be replaced or at least complemented by low latency, high bandwidth, low orbit, space-based communication needs. It's happening now. There's already over 700 satellites in the sky and low orbit, okay? And we feel that cell phone cost and portability will remain advantageous. I would like to point out that there's several billion cell phones operating on the planet Earth and their use has been credited by several world organizations as creating the most significant improvement or decrease in poverty in the history of our planet. Okay, we need that. Need the one at the advent of cell tower. Okay, let me, how long do I have three seconds? Is that it? Okay, I'll submit this. Can I submit this to somebody? If there's no one left here, is there anybody in the community rooms that would like to speak? Yes. Hi, Marilyn. Hi, Gray. Reframing issues as symptoms of corporate rule. What we have here today is evidence of corporate dictatorship by Verizon and other corporations. For over 20 years, and this is on the public record, I have come to board meetings, city council meetings, school board meetings, presenting data literature on the harm of wireless microwave technology, specifically some of what Tom mentioned, the Bioinitiative Report, many scientists on the dangers, surveillance problems, fires, and I'll submit a photo of the cell tower going up in flames, damaged to wildlife and the bees as in the booklet called Birds Bees and Mankind, Destroying Nature by Electrosmog. These are all endangerments and no resident or child or fetus has authorized 24-7 mandatory bodily microwave trespass. We do not consent to violations of our health, privacy, and property rights. And since you have been well-informed and are aware of all the listed harms, it seems to me you have liability issues coming before you in the future. When you know something is damaging and you notice Verizon did not mention microwave radiation document at harm, then you are committing, you're degrading people's lives and their homes. And I wanna leave with a quote by Barry Trauer who worked in the British Secret Service in the 60s and 70s with a specialty in microwave radiation weaponry. He said, these are the same frequencies and power densities that they use in the military to debilitate people they considered the enemy as issues in wifi and other wireless technology. Therefore, this cannot be a safe communications tool. Landlines are a safe communications tool. Thank you. Will the clerk please read any web comments received during this item? We have one web comment from Jim DeAlba. It's on, I'll sit closer. Dear members of the board, we live off Main Street in Soquel and have virtually no cell service at our home. We support approval of this application for the following reasons. One, emergency preparedness and response. During power outages such as last, such as during last year's PG&E blackouts or Comcast-based phone internet system isn't operable. Other than transistor radio, we had no ability to connect to the outside world from our home. In order to check emergency news, make calls, get messages, we would have to drive or walk to where we could get cell service. Additionally, we previously had an emergency where a family member fell 10 feet from an attic, could barely move, no one else around, tried to call emergency response, but had no cell service. They crawled to the landline to call 911. I'm getting emails and it's blocking the text, I apologize. So number two, communication distance learning. We currently rely on our internet provider from work for work and outside communication. When the power is out, we have no service. This coming school year as a teacher likely assigned to distance learning teaching, it is imperative to connect with children on a daily basis throughout the day via the internet. If power is not available and there is no cell service, trying to provide distance teaching would not be possible. Three, expense. Most of our family and friends have long shed their landlines as they have adequate cell service for their phone needs. However, with no cell service, having both landline and cell services are necessary. As one of us is retired with limited income, it would be beneficial if we could drop the added expense of the landline. As we travel around the Bay Area, state and country, we are amazed at how well cell service has expanded as a reliable communication tool. We are equally amazed how poor cell service is in and around our county. We support approval of application 71365, a proposal for wireless communication facilities on a property located at 1931, Soquel San Jose Road. The public hearing is now closed and I will bring it back to the board. Supervisor McPherson, do you have any comments? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I will support this project. I do understand that people have concerns about approximately two facilities as this. But we also need to improve the connectivity especially for law enforcement. In regard to the sheriff's comments, those were I know directed at the campsite itself, not limitations that are in the foothills and the mountains of that valley. So there are people without communications there that I think do need them for public safety reasons. And the staff report notes that while there's no viable alternative site for the project there have been adjustments. Many of them made consideration for neighbors including setbacks that result in the meeting of the various mentioned requirements. And lastly, our utility poles are not subject to height variance. The visual impact seem to be far less than if this were an undisguised tower. So I think this is the only site that does meet the subject, the objectives of the sheriff and for communications in general for that area. And I'll be supporting this project. Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Chair. I would just like to echo Supervisor McPherson's comments. We did receive a letter pretty early on from the Deputy Sheriff's Association asking that we support this project from a public safety perspective. The sheriff has been universally supportive of this and thinks it's an essential lifeline project for his agency from a communication standpoint but also for the community for a public safety standpoint. So I do think that this is an essential project for those purposes. So I'll also be supporting it. Supervisor Coonerty. Sure. I guess I agree with both my colleagues, Supervisor McPherson and Supervisor Friend. We're also fairly limited under the federal laws in terms of what we can look at. And this I believe meets the requirements. I will say the applicants are extremely good people and have been wonderful to my family. And I take their concerns very seriously but we're trying to balance a lot of other needs in terms of access to communications tools and safety for our deputies. The deputies themselves have contacted me and made their case for why this is important. And so for those reasons, I will be supporting the motion. Okay, Supervisor Leopold. I wasn't sure whether Sheriff Hart was on here. There was, when they showed before that he was down there, I'm not sure whether he's actually, Sheriff Hart, are you on this call? He may have been monitoring it. He told me he was gonna be in some funeral services planning today. We did talk that just again this morning, I did receive letters from the Deputy Sheriff's Association and I've talked with the sheriff at least three times about this and about the need for his officers, the need for his officers to have access, cell service in this area. When this issue was appealed to the Planning Commission, one of the things I took it upon myself is to check about the other sites. And I contacted some of the landowners that, that had not responded to try to see if I could get them to respond to me. I was able to talk to one of those folks, they confirmed to me that they were not interested in having a cell tower on their site because they used that space they said for meditation. And I respect that. That's a choice that people get to make about how to use their own property. The other thing which I was at a question about is the question of coverage. And knowing, you know, it wasn't that long ago that this board heard an appeal about a cell facility from Verizon down in Soquel Village. But as far as I could tell, it's not been installed yet. And I'm trying to get a sense of what, you know, are we gonna, we go through a lot of consternation in the public about approving these sites and we're told there's a need, but then we don't see them actually built. To actually ask questions. I'm sorry, can you repeat what you're asking? Supervisor Caput? Is it proper that we could ask questions to the appellant or to the applicant at this point? Yeah, yes, it's okay to ask clarifying questions and when you're doing your deliberations. Yes, that's fine. There's nothing for Soquel Village, but it's not there. And then now you're coming for this and you talked about coming for something else. Complex process in order to build a cell site. One of our, a couple of our frequent holdups are getting power or power. There's not been a problem. However, getting the fiber optics in there has been somewhat problematic and been slow. So that is the holdup with that one as we're trying to get the fiber run fully completed back to the host site where it needs to be in order to get that turned up, but it will be built and it will be turned up. And we will do that as soon as possible. We press weekly to try to make sure we keep these things on track and ask questions of why our vendors are not getting tasks such as that completed. Does that answer your question? Kind of curious as to when it's gonna get done. Cause it seems like that that would tell us some of the questions about. It's projected to be done this year. It's in our report, it says that it's scheduled to be built this year. We're hoping it'll be fall, but the plan is by the end of the year. There's also been some concerns raised about the height. And this was really the subject of the denial at the planning commission. I had a lengthy conversation with my planning commissioner. And as we talked when we took jurisdiction about this, the question at the planning commission was, is this allowable in this zoned area? Cause it's higher than 28 feet. And I feel confident after long discussions with our council and reading the information from our staff that it's allowable. And we've asked for clarity in our code to come back to us. So that being the basis of the denial, there's still concerns about what will happen with this site. It's been asserted that this site could grow by maybe another 20 feet according to law. But in the presentation by the applicant, he talked about that that was not the case. If we were to approve this, I would be interested in putting a condition on it that it could never be more than 44 feet. And I'm looking for the applicant. Paul Alburton, outside council for Verizon Marlis. I mentioned that in my remarks and we would be willing to, for the term of the permit, restrict the height to 44 feet. I did point out to county council that there is a federal law that would allow AT&T or somebody else to come in and try and raise the height. But we believe that they would have to build new shelter. Our shelter doesn't have space for that kind of equipment and that they would not be eligible for that federal extension. But I did want to make that point. Also, I think you may want to say that the tree itself is a concealment element and that will also help protect from that kind of extension by another carrier. The other question I had, you might be able to answer or maybe council or planning staff could answer is it's unfortunate that we were not able to see any visuals from the western portion. The testimony about how much this would block and what they would see, as well as the staff report, which said there was elements trying to move it closer to the hillside to screen it. If this is approved and there could be some visual representation, would they be allowed to move it closer to that hillside or would we have to start this process all over again? Okay. I think that are approved. The facility with the condition requiring it to be relocated 15 to 20 feet. I've evaluated a little further and it would benefit by locating even farther north. Of course that's challenged by compliance with the noise standards for the generator at the property line. I believe that the noise study shows it substantially below the noise threshold. So I believe it would meet that standard. If your board felt appropriate and you made it more open-ended with staff or zoning administrator approval to locate it further north, that would be acceptable and appropriate and it would provide better screening to the neighbors. Well, I don't wanna add any noise piece to this, but I'm thinking if it could hug that hillside to shield the view, there might be value in that. I think there's about a 500 foot setback from the current location. So there's room to move it. I don't know, maybe 50 feet, 100 feet. And would they be allowed to do that if in the course of this that they... You would have to specifically revise the condition of approval to relocate it to allow the relocation. You know, I don't know if the neighbors want greater certainty then. We're going to do our best to provide screening for you by relocation. You could set out a standard of how far you want it moved, up to 50 feet, up to 100 feet north. And then with the, in order to provide visual mitigation up to 50 feet, applicant to coordinate with staff or zoning administrator prior to approval of billing permit. And then we could solicit input from the neighbors in terms of where it is, or even go so far as ask for a new mok tower to figure out, hey, where's the best spot? And they can move it around. I mean, that kind of thing seems appropriate. Well, I would look to Ms. Hout, who's if we're going to approve this, would you like us to include that as a condition to minimize the visual impact? I'd like to point out that there is requirement in the code that the location be the visually least obtrusive location is technically feasible. We're now hearing in this discussion that we just heard that there is location 50 to 100 feet away that is technically feasible apparently and is less visually obtrusive. Would tell us that the board is required to select that location and does not have the discretion to select alternative locations. Testimony that they could increase the sound and so I'm cognizant of that. That's why we could give direction to move this around to make sure it's not a problem. If it's wanted or we can approve it at its current site, I'm trying to make it as less impactful as possible to the neighboring property. And that's why I'm asking the question. We can just keep it the way it is. But again, because of the testimony we heard, I'm trying to figure out a way to thread this needle. Commissioner Leopold, I don't believe we have the information in front of us to determine the decibel levels or that information to make a determination. But if there is this statement that we've heard right here, which we've already heard, that there's at least a less visually obtrusive location that is nearby and that apparently would be technically feasible, then there's no discretion to select an alternative that's less visually obtrusive. Okay, you wanna watch what you wish for. All right. That's, I'm trying to be cognizant of both these issues that I understand your point, Council, that in the visual issue, it may be, it may hide it, but because there's any potential for a generator noise, I also wanna be cognizant of that too. That's why I'm trying to give some flexibility. If you want it, I'll offer it to you. If you don't want it, I won't give it to you. Commissioner, I appreciate what you were trying to do. I'm just saying that I don't understand, given the different locations that we're gonna be talking about that we have the technical information available in front of us to make a meaningful determination about those noise impacts. If you don't want it to be able to, maybe Ms. Hout would like to say something, you should come to the microphone. I, yeah, so it's hard for me to say, it sounds like you're gonna be moving it 50 to 100 feet closer to our property. So I'm concerned about that location and I'm also concerned the way that the sound carries through the canyon, if it is up against rocks, then it's going to reverberate even more and be louder and you can hear a normal conversation from across the canyon. So the, if there is a way to hear the decibel level to hear what the noise is and then to see the visual impact based on the tree line, I prefer to see mock-ups and be able to hear that. Obviously you hadn't let someone come onto your property, which is totally your right. And now, since we're likely to approve it, given what I've heard, I'm trying to figure out a way to give you the greatest amount of protection possible. And so that's why giving some flexibility to try to see if we could find that. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, graphical slide I've included in the presentation in case you needed to see it. It shows the topography of the existing location and then to the north. So you can see what differences apply in terms of the ridge blocking views to the west. It's so forth and so on. So in how much room you have such, if you'd like to see it. Yeah, sure. I mean, what I'm trying to do is trying to be helpful about the visual impacts that were asserted in the testimony. Can you put the presentation back on? Yes. Okay, sorry. So the language could be included to say the zone administrator condition says 15 to 20 feet. Could revise it to take substantial conformance to the 15 or 20 foot relocations without opening it, making it open-ended. And then everyone argues about their new impacts. And then it's, yeah, so any case. So repeat that, repeat that again. So new one would, instead of saying 15 to 20, it would say. The planning director just, essentially our conditions of approval typically include that the project is required to be in substantial conformance with the conditions of approval. So you could amend that to say in substantial conformance with the conditions of approval. And then essentially it's 15 to 20 feet and you're not opening it up to a whole new process. And then the objective is to provide- So in my earlier question was- Excuse me, I'm sorry, they've lost audio on Teams. So we could just, so the other board members are not hearing right now. So we could just pause for a few seconds. Okay. Okay, so- I'll look to supervisor, I can't see him. So let me just show you the, here's the topography of the site. Oops. So there's the topography of the site. So you can see the 410 contour line, follow the 410 contour line. You see the road going up to the top of the site and a road stops. The facility is located essentially to the right of that roadway. The zoning administrator conditioned it to go 15 or 20 feet up just a bit toward the 400 contour, which would block views across the top of the slope to the west, northwest. You can see the 440 contour, the 460 contour. So if you conditioned it to be substantial conformance with the zoning administrator's determination, then it would be consistent and still allow some flexibility with the location unless your board would like to adjust it and move it all the way. As you can see the property lines at about the 290 contour. So at about 44 feet, it's still gonna be, it won't be visible from the other side. It's just impossible. Yeah. It's hard for me to, I've been up there, but I'm not a geologist or mapping professional. So it's hard for me to get a sense about this. I wanted to see if there was any way that there could be some flexibility if there was something that would actually work, if there was the participation of the adjoining property owner who's gonna be most effective and who testified that they'll be able to see it from so many different windows. If there's a way to screen it, I think that would be a win for everyone. I'm just trying to see if there's a way to make that happen. And if the substantial conformance language gives that flexibility, I think so. That's good. And the question is how could the adjoining property owner work with Verizon to ensure that there was actually the best placement of it? So typically when these situations arise, we direct the applicant to work with the adjoining neighbor to come to an agreeable. Solution. And then we have them submit that to the zoning administrator or staff for review and approval prior to application for a permit. And then we would also require whatever updated noise analysis to ensure compliance, of course. You could go even farther and ask for a mockup. I don't know if that's not going to be necessary if it's that modest, but it would allow that interplay to provide the best mitigation feasible. So is that flexibility desired? Or should we just keep the things the way that they are? I think an amendment or... I'm thinking about offering amendment to give the flexibility to create the best project possible. And I wanna know from those who would be most effective, whether they're interested in having that flexibility and working with Verizon. How long do you think it'll take to get your answer? Well, they're standing right here. So that's why I'm with their lawyer. So I'm thinking I have a good chance. I mean, we gotta bring this to a vote. So go ahead and answer. Paul, I appreciate your inclination. It sounds to me in a sense that you are attempting to improve a process as already been going on for some time. I don't believe we have information in front of us to address that, except for having heard that it's not the least obtrusive location. And doing that right here, right now, without whatever the... Give direction based on what Ms. McDaniel told me just now. And you can correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. McDaniel. So yeah, could I add one comment? The zoning administrator's direction to move the facility in the first place was with an eye toward a tree or two on the Western property line. And that she said if it were adjusted 15 or 20 feet, existing landscaping along the property line would screen it. That's what the extent of her determination was. So that's why she said it's subtle adjustments would improve the screening. If you increase it, I mean, I haven't, like he said, I haven't evaluated it, but that was the purpose of it. Yeah, well, and what I'm just saying, if there's a process where Verizon and the house work together and have to come back to the zoning administrator to just say that they've worked together to find the best site. So typically we do that as an administrative practice. We don't require a public hearing before the zoning administrator to consider. That's what the planning director was getting at, but... I'm just trying to figure out a way to give them some ability here. I see the council wants to weigh in. I just want to make a slight correction to the record. I've heard several times that it's not the least obtrusive placement for this cell tower. And I have not heard that evidence being placed into the record. And so I don't want the record to reflect something that hasn't been actually attested to, to the extent that this goes up on appeal or something like that. So if you want to explore that more, that would be helpful for the record. Yeah, I'm just, I'm trying to get to the place to try to find something that addresses at least one of the concerns that have been identified here. If the council for the appellant is not interested, then that's totally well. Not expressed at my client or that I'm not interested. It's simply a question of having appropriate information in front of us and information. I just heard that 50 to 100 feet further away would be less visually intrusive. But the code doesn't require that the facility be blocked from view from the neighbors. The code specifically requires that in order to minimize impacts, visual impacts to neighbors, the facility itself meet a minimum setback criteria. That's one of the design standards. Least intrusive overall is to the community and at large. So I want to make that distinction. The standard has been met in terms of minimizing impacts to neighbors by virtue of the setback standard. I think if, if there's an understanding that this site can be improved in terms of its visual impact to neighbors, then further proceeding with the planning staff would be helpful if that is an issue that's not yet resolved. It meets the least substitutive standard has been met. That we're dealing with one neighbor, the closest neighbor, who has testified that there's visual impact. And that could we make some changes? I look for the, also the applicant to weigh in here as well. Let me make clear. Before you speak again, because I have to switch things around. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I represent several appellants and the record reflects that there are impacts to multiple appellants. And my reference previously to least visually intrusive location is referenced to section 1310.661F. Which is different from the reference cited by the planning staffer. And that reference specifically states that the site shall be cited in the least visually intrusive location is technically feasible. Less such site selection leads to other resource impacts that make such a site, the more environmentally damaging location overall, which I understand commissioner is your attempt to address at this point, balancing the sound impacts, individual impacts. My concern as I said is that the information is not in front of us in this hearing. I'm not gonna belabor the point. I've tried to find something and if we're not interested in doing it, we will move on. So thank you. Further analysis by planning staff would help improve the site. Then I understand that would be necessary and appropriate. There's already language in there about substantial conformance to what is in there that gives some flexibility over moving this around. And to the effect that Verizon can work with neighbors to figure out if small changes can make a big impact on what they see, that would be a great thing. So I'd be prepared to make a motion at this point to prove the recommended action on this de novo hearing with an additional condition that the tower shall not be eligible for a height increase at any time in the future beyond what has been approved in this permit, 44 feet. I tried. So that's my motion. And we haven't had another motion already, have we? No. It was so long ago, I forgot. So anyway, I'm sympathetic. Almost like that. I've allowed that because I am sympathetic to what you're saying. But I also, I'm actually against the project because I think there are reasonable alternatives that really haven't been looked at. And I think I'm thinking also the planning commission looked at this in depth and they voted three to two, I believe, against the cell tower in itself. And I, cell towers, it's not just a cell tower. I believe all of them have a generator at the bottom, 500 gallon propane tank or whatever that goes on every morning automatically. Do you wanna answer that? Have they settled the propane tank? This is an 35 gallon diesel double wall belly tank is built into the generator with a containment underneath the double wall belly diesel tank. The generator runs for about 15 minutes every two weeks. They can set the timer to go at noon on Wednesday every two weeks and that just recycles it and keeps it fresh. And we already had noise studies done that show that the noise at the nearest property is 37 DB, which is well below the 45 DB level required by the city or county, excuse me. Okay. I won't touch the moving the poll issue, unless you want it. And then you have Verizon, you have T-Mobile, you have AT&T, those are the big guns, I guess. And they come out. The whole thing is a profit margin for each one of them. I don't know how they share the tower or whatever. I have, what's that, Metro PCS. So I guess my phone will work, but I'll have to give some money to Verizon. But anyway, I think what I'm getting, we're told we can't question the health consequences of the whole thing with cell towers, but people, that's a big deal for a lot of people. And nobody wants a cell tower in their backyard. It's okay if it's somewhere else. And we're listening to people from the public. They're stepping up. They're like the little guys standing up against the big corporation. And I don't know, I tend to be sympathetic to the little guy. In this case, it happens to be actually Marilyn Garrett. And she's the main one against cell towers. So someday when we're not around, somebody will probably say Marilyn or Greg, you were right, there is health consequences. So anyway, what I'm saying, I believe in Marilyn Garrett right now. So I'll be voting no on the whole project, but I do like your amendment to the project. So I don't know how to do this. Yeah, I made the motion. I think Supervisor McPherson seconded it. You got a second. Okay, you're all right there. Okay, so we're voting on your motion. Correct. Okay, ready for the roll call vote? Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. No, the pass is four to one, right? Can I go back to number 22. 22, number 22. If it would help, I can read it into the record if you want. Oh, okay. Would you like me to do that? We're going back to 12. Item 22. Item 22. Do you want me to read it into the record? 22, all right. Greg, I can read it into the record if you'd like. Okay, go ahead. Item number 22, which is consider and adopt urgency interim ordinance to place a moratorium on the issuance of new vacation rental permits and schedule a public hearing for June 30th, 2020 to consider an extension of the interim ordinance as outlined in the memorandum of county council. There's an urgency item ordinance, vacation rentals and a notice of public hearing moratorium extension. Good afternoon, Jason Heath for county council's office at your last board meeting. You asked us to bring back this urgency interim ordinance to freeze the issuance of vacation rental permits during the time period that your board is going to be considering legislative amendments to the code. I have attached the urgency interim ordinance to this item with the required findings for health and safety. It requires a four fifths vote. It will be in place for 45 days. If your board approves it, your next board meeting is not until August 4th. And therefore I have also requested that in order to keep it in place past August 1st in which time it would normally expire that your board approve a public hearing for June 30th and notice public hearing in order to consider an extension of the interim ordinance for an additional 10 months and 15 days. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Well, I'll now open the hearing. First we'll hear from the applicant who will have a total of 10 minutes to present evidence. No, no, this is. Supervisor, no, this wouldn't be a public hearing. So if your board has questions, then your board could ask me questions. And then after that, you could open it up for public testimony if you'd like. I'm just going on what's here. So it's 20, item 22 is what we're looking for. 22, yeah. Again, I apologize. I'm so sorry that I. That's okay. It was late last night. I'm so sorry. With so much stuff happening, I understand that totally. I think that's true for all of us. Okay. So I'll open it up for the board for comments. I'll wait till after public comment. Any, any comments? No. Okay. I'll bring it. I'll open it up for public comment. You can, you could. I am just sanitize my hand. Jason, do I have to say. Go ahead. For public. No, not on this item. Supervisor, not on the supervisor because it's not a public hearing. It's not a noticed public hearing. So this is, this is just a regular agenda item. Yeah. Thank you. I'm sorry. So has public comment allowed? Yes. Okay. I'm wondering if it's any possibility to give consideration to applicants who have had a vacation rental permit and have had a good status with that vacation rental permit with the county, but let it lapse due to, you know, COVID and just times that we've had recently. In my situation in particular, I have a client who has reapplied for the permit and most likely won't receive it, but has been in good faith with, you know, going forward, you know, in the past as long as they've had their permit. So I'm just wondering if with this moratorium you can give consideration to applicants who have already had the permit, but it allowed it to lapse. That's it. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah. Yes, sir. Thank you. I'm Joe Haw. I live in Live Oak. And I want to thank you for both item 22 and 23. I think the urgency ordinance is well stated right now. And the reason is when vacation rentals started moving into our neighborhood and taking over houses, it was during a period when there was very low mortgage rates, which we have now in very low bank saving rates. So what happened is all the houses became investment targets for people who wanted to make more money than you could get some other place. So I think the moratorium is well done. I hope you extend it. And thank you for allowing me to comment on it. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. Any comments from the community room? Any other comments from the website? I'll bring it back to the board for action. Chair, I think the need for this moratorium is very clear. One thing that we know in the years that we've been dealing with vacation rentals is that the nature of the complaints and the concerns in our community have changed. Whereas years back, there was concerns about quality of life in the neighborhood and the impacts through noise and other things, overcrowding that they became a problem. But now we talk about housing and just the availability of housing. So when I look in the district that I represent, there's far too many vacation rentals. And so this moratorium is well timed. I urge the support and I would move the recommended action. Okay. Second. Okay, we have a first and second. We'll call for a vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you for the work. Okay. Item number 23, public hearing to consider ordinance amending Santa Cruz County code section 13.10.694 vacation rentals use charts within sections 1310312. 1310322, 1310352, 1310372 to implement amendments to 13, to 13.10.694 proposed amendments in the coastal zone require review and certification by the California Coastal Commission and confirm the notice of exception for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. Any questions from the board or we'll go with the report first, right? Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. It's been a long day. Good afternoon Chair Caput and members of the board, Jocelyn Drake with the Planning Department again. You'll recall I was here in January and at that time, the board provided some direction to staff to draft some amendments to the vacation rental ordinance. So those amendments have since been drafted and I brought those to the Planning Commission for their consideration in May. They reviewed the amendments and made minor modifications. So those amendments as modified by the commissioner now back before you for your review to refresh your memory, the primary amendments that staff was directed to draft are a reduction of the existing percentage caps in the designated areas, assignment of parcels on corner blocks and the creation of an official block map, development of a waiting list procedure for designated areas, inclusion of a minimum on-site parking requirement for new vacation rentals, a change to the permit processing level for three or fewer bedroom units and all vacation rental permit renewal applications, a requirement for vacation rental permits to be renewed every five years countywide right now. That requirement only applies to rentals in designated areas. The board also wanted staff to strengthen the enforcement language in the ordinance to explore owner residency feasibility and to clarify various procedural aspects of the regulations. So I'll just move through these one by one quickly. This slide unfortunately is outdated already. So I did prepare a memo which you may not have been able to receive. It came in this morning. So I wanted to read it into the record, the most recent active vacation rental. Probably, I don't think so. That was my fault. I was trying to get something as current as possible. We had some questions come up from I believe your office about the current numbers. And so I had to research that information last night. What happens with the vacation rental permits is they're being processed daily and we've also been receiving applications daily so the numbers change daily. So I wanted to give you the up to date numbers. So right here on this slide, we showed 877 active vacation. This should say vacation and hosted rental permits countywide. This was as of last week. Right now as of this morning, we have 906 total vacation rental and hosted rentals countywide. That includes 656 vacation rentals and 250 hosted rentals. And I wanted to give you a breakdown of those numbers. So in the Lota, the live Oak designated area, right now we have 259 vacation rentals, 18 hosted rentals for a total of 276 permits issued in the Lota. So that brings the current percentage to 12%, which is where we were back in January. And we have five permits in process right now for new vacation rentals. And if you like those numbers again, I can go back over those. So in the SEDA, which we've proposed to rename the Salvda to include the community of La Selva Beach. This is the Sea Cliff, Abtos designated area plus La Selva Beach. We have 226 vacation rental permits, 40 hosted rental permits for a total of 266 permits. The current percentage of parcels is now 3.7%. This is because Supervisor Friend, this is because we added the La Selva Beach parcels to the now Salvda. In addition, we have 19 applications in process currently, which includes four new rentals and 15 renewal permits. That number could be slightly changed as of this moment because we were going to process some of those renewals today. And quickly in the DASDA, which is the Davenport Swanton designated area, we have three vacation rental permits, four hosted rental permits for a total of seven permits at a percentage rate of 3.3%. And we are processing one new vacation rental permit or we were up until the moratorium just a second ago. We have one in the queue. And just really quick, I wanted to also say that to get to that 656, we have 168 vacation rental permits issued outside any of the designated areas. And we have 188 hosted rental permits outside the designated areas for a total of 356 total permits issued outside of the designated areas. And we are currently processing three permits for new vacation rentals in the non-designated areas. Sorry, I had to go through that since my memo didn't make it in time. Okay, back to the script. Oh, I'm sorry, I want to go back really quickly. So the proposal then in the amended ordinance is to reduce the allowed number of permits in the LODA to 12% in the SATA to 5.5% or the SALSDA and 3% in the DASDA. I do on the table. Yeah. You can grab me one. I'll pause. Okay, I'm going to pick back up again. If you have questions about those numbers, I'm happy to go back over them. Another one of the proposed amendments in the vacation ordinance is to create an official block map. Currently there's confusion over corner parcels because they are considered as belonging to either block that they're on. And staff proposed in January and the board supported the proposal to create an official block map, which actually will permanently assign the corner parcels to a block. Staff in the GIS department is currently working on that and we should have it in your package for the June 30th hearing. Another amendment to the vacation rental ordinance is development of a waiting list procedure for the designated areas. This was requested by the board to allow folks in designated areas that are full, that have exceeded or met the percentage cap, whatever that should end up being to be able to put their name on a waiting list. The Planning Commission made one change to this proposed to what my original drafted ordinance, which was I had drafted it to be more of a lottery system and the Planning Commission revised that to be a first come, first serve waiting list. So staff is proposing to implement the waiting list as soon as the ordinance takes effect and we will map those waiting list folks and track them and as issues become available, we will give first right of refusal and a first come, first serve basis based on the list of folks that we get. Another proposed amendment is a new parking requirement for new vacation rentals. Parking impacts associated with vacation rentals, especially those in the Lota and the SEDA have been a longstanding concern of the community. And so to address that, we're looking at creating a parking requirement. So that requirement would be for new one or two bedroom units, one on-site parking space would be required and for new three or more bedroom units, two on-site spaces would be required. We also included a provision that if an applicant cannot meet the on-site parking requirement that they may apply for an exception through a level five public hearing process. And you'll see the language for that in the proposed amendments. Another proposed change is to increase the level of review for new vacation rental permits and renewals. So as proposed, we would be bumping up the level of review for through more bedroom vacation rentals to a level four permit process, which allows us to tailor conditions of approval and additional review and discretion. Also, vacation rental renewal applications would be processed as a level four. And for new vacation rentals that are for more bedrooms, we would still be at a level five public hearing process. Another change that was proposed in January, which was supported by the board was to require all vacation rental permits to be renewed every five years countywide. Right now we have this requirement in place in the designated areas. And the board expressed a desire to have all vacation rentals renewed every five years. So for the vacation rental permits that are issued outside the designated areas, this would go into effect upon adoption of the ordinance. In January, the board also supported strengthening the code enforcement section of the ordinance pertaining to advertisement of a vacation rental without the benefit of a permit. And staff also recommended a change to the ordinance specifying that if the designated emergency contact person does not answer a call or return a call within 60 minutes of receiving a call, the failure to do so could constitute a documented complaint and the owner could be cited, which would then go against the record of the vacation rental and could be grounds for non-renewal or revocation. Another something that else that came up in January from the board was a couple of board members asked staff to explore the possibility of including a eligibility to owners, like a vacation rental permit, eligibility to an owner's primary residence provision. And I did some research, and I believe County Council did as well into communities, coastal communities primarily that have such a provision in place. And I wasn't able to find a community where a residency requirement is in effect successfully. San Diego has been exploring the feasibility of being able to do this and they've had a lot of opposition and I believe that there's a bill working through the legislature right now to address that particular issue. So without any good examples of a community that has successfully done this, staff opted to not include this requirement in the package of ordinance amendments. Instead, we feel that the objective of curtailing the extent of outside investor purchases of homes would be met by lowering the cap and making the homes less available. Let's see. So I just went through the more substantive proposed amendments. We're also proposing some minor amendments. These include acknowledgement of the community of La Selva Beach in the SEDA, which I already touched on and we'd be renaming that the SELSDA. And we also are proposing to revise the application process and required materials to reflect the newly proposed level four permit process. So you'll see that in the package. We also added a sentence that clarifies that income restricted units are not eligible for vacation rental permits. We included the definition of significant rental use, which has already been defined by the board at a prior hearing. We just hadn't included it in the ordinance previously. And we also included criteria against which vacation rental renewal application will be evaluated. So this concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions, of course. At this time, staff is recommending that the board hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Santa Cruz County Code section 1310694, which is the vacation rental ordinance, as well as the use charts that implement the changes to confirm the notice of exemption for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the ordinance and concept and schedule the ordinance for a second reading and final adoption on June 30th. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions if I may. Sure. You're welcome. Thank you for that presentation. I'll both thank you for the new marketing tool for the Solstah. We're enjoying the names that you're giving to these designated districts. I do have a couple of questions. There was a point that was actually unclear to me on the reasons for revocation. When I read through this, I felt that reasons were enumerated for non-renewal. I just wanted to be sure that those applied also for consideration of revocation. What I would not want is somebody getting a renewal of a permit, for example, and then they end up having a number of issues and you have to functionally wait four and a half more years until you can revoke a permit. I think the board is looking for an outlined criteria and flexibility by which something can be brought administratively or otherwise for revocation as well as non-renewal. Does the current proposed ordinance provide that explicitly or do we need to make that more explicit? It absolutely does. Sure, let me see. I'm scanning it now in our normal the violation section. Let's see. Well, while you're on the violation section, that's section L, correct? Or subsection L of section five? Yes. 430. There is some additional language I think should be added in there to make it very clear of what at least my intention was in regards to potential for revocation and that would be possibly actually after the sentence it says verification that appropriate signage has not been maintained in compliance with this section. That's like two thirds of the way down. Just a line that says evidence of county code violation appends as a violation of violations involving the property. So evidence of county code violations involving the property either violation or violations. We want the flexibility if you're violating the county code to be able to specifically either revoke and or non-renewal. And if you feel that this does provide the ability for revocation and I just missed it, that's great. I just felt that the language was really skewed towards non-renewal, not revocation. And I just wanted to make sure that that was explicitly clear that the board's intention is to allow for these things to also be revoked. Yes, I do. Our normal that the standard, the language that's in the code now of two more documented significant violations occur within a 12 month period, a permit may be reviewed for possible amendment or revocation that is in the current code. And it remains in here. I can see though why you're asking the question because it follows the violation requirements to obtain a vocational permit maybe grounds for denial of an application. So I think a break or some clarification between those two sentences would address your question. Okay, actually I think that I'm looking for something broader, which is to say that we outline now a lot of things of which you can do non-renewal. I think those things should just be equate to both non-renewal and or revocation. So as opposed to just specifically two or more substantive violations, the things that we enumerate of any county code violations, we have a list of other things that we're now talking about for non-renewal, I just think should apply to revocation. It shouldn't be that narrow for revocation. I agree. Okay. I'll take a look at that. I understand. I will work with County Council to clarify that and strengthen that language. Thank you. Well, when it comes time for a motion, I imagine other board members will have other input. This is an outstanding product. I appreciate your work on this. I'll have then just some additional language I think to add into that violation section that could help and I will empower you and Mr. Heath to come up with the correct language for revocation. I appreciate it. That's my only questions. Chair, I have questions. That's okay. Thank you for the presentation and thank you for the work on this. There's still some questions I have about a couple of different things. The question of verified complaints is a murky one and I'll give you an example. So we have a local contact person section in here and it said failure to respond within 60 minutes of being contacted as verified by County Code Enforcement staff or County Sheriff shall constitute a significant violation. Now, if my neighbor has a vacation rental and it's 11 o'clock or one o'clock in the morning and I call him that number and 60 minutes later, no one shows up. Not only really peeved, but if I viewed, how am I gonna verify that with anybody? Right? I mean, it becomes a big problem. I don't know whether there's, you ever thought about that, but to me it leaps out as the complaints that I hear is that neighbors have called the planning that filed a complaint, have tried to engage with Sheriff's office and if I was the sheriff and someone called and said, they haven't shown up for 60 minutes, I'd go, there's probably something more important going on at the time. So how do we bridge that gap between the career and clear and credible problem with an imperfect? I mean, that's an excellent, excellent question. And you're right, that is a very challenging thing to verify. I'd say my answer to that would be that we do follow up with the sheriff's department on these calls to find out what the specifics of the call were. And we do hear from sheriffs that they, that there are problematic properties that they have to routinely respond to. So with some follow up with the property manager and property owner, we typically find out that there's some, there's a problematic emergency contact person and usually it's a contact person, an emergency contact person that's a private party and not a management company. We find that properties that are managed by management companies don't tend to have this problem. And so I would say probably 10 or more vacation rentals that I've seen this issue where they've called the sheriff, they've had to go out, we follow up. It's a problem site that we typically work with the property owner to resolve that by just going ahead and hiring a rental management company or switching their emergency contact. We also have our code enforcement staff. So if it's a daytime call that isn't responded to then our code enforcement staff do follow up with that. And we try and address that issue. I find that we can usually tell if there's an issue with the emergency contact and we strive to work with the owners to resolve that issue. But now if our code enforcement officers, if they call and they don't get a response, then it will be, then we will consider that a citation or a violation of our code section and we will be tracking that now, at least during business hours with the sheriff ones. It takes a little more sleuthing, but we're gonna strive to get to the bottom of that issue. Yeah, I mean, it's, I appreciate that this is detail work, but for the original goal, as I mentioned earlier today, was the impact that it has on residential neighborhoods when these houses become party houses or people are really inconsiderate. This is one of the things that we tried to resolve. And by having a permit, it gives us some ability to actually manage this. So it does it negatively impact. And for a lot of years that worked. We got a lot less complaints. As of late, we get a lot more complaints. And I'm trying to figure out what we can do because I appreciate that you're wanting to work with this property owner to find a property manager, but the neighbors have been affected, right? I mean, and if we don't do anything to that person's permit, like put it on provisional status so they can get their act together, just say you've broken the rules, let's, you're now five year permits, it's a six month permit or it's a one year permit, and you're gonna have to get it together. And if you can't get it together, you're gonna lose your permit. I mean, because the people who are living there have a reasonable expectation that we're not permitting a business that's causing them grief. Well, now we'll have the ability to consider that violation under the code and that will count towards one of the two. But there's other areas where the verified complaint is also very difficult, right? I mean, there's, I just pointed out to one. Lots, right. Like parking is another one. What was that? Parking is another example of one that's very challenging to verify. Parking is one, but just the person who makes noise, right? The folks who make noise and, or have too many people over or whatever that is, if we have to depend on the sheriff to do it, we have a, to me, that's a failed system because we were trying to, we have more important things for our sheriff to do. And so we should err on the side of the residents rather than airing on the side of the business in the residential neighborhood. See what I'm saying? You know, in the 11 years that we've had this, we haven't revoked one permit, not one. So the message we're sending is you can get away with a lot. And the impact of the neighborhood will be great. So I'd like us to have a system that helps the people who actually live here, rather than the people who don't live here, but rent out their properties. And so this idea, the word verified seems very loaded to me. Do you want to change this at all or? You want to vote on it or wouldn't, yeah. Yeah, I want to change the language. You want to amend it? Yes. Okay. I'm asking questions here. I know, it's a long one, go ahead. Well, Supervisor Caput, there is 259 of these, 12% of the homes in the coastal neighborhoods that I represent are deeply affected by this. This is a way of life. This is when people go home every night, they have to deal with a different set of folks in the house next to them. We should do everything we can to help those folks. And if it takes a little bit of time to get there, we should take the time. So I appreciate that it's been a long day, but let's get it right. And so it's gonna get done quickly. No, what I'm saying is maybe I'm willing to vote with you, if we could just get to the, to where you're going, yeah. Well, I'm pointing out that the verified issue is very difficult for residents to pass the threshold on. And we shouldn't require verification of things that are difficult to verify. Or at the very least, we should err on the side of the people who live here, rather than the people who have businesses in residential neighborhoods. I would look to County Council or the planning director for direction on this because we've had a number of cases also where we've had a unverified or really very unsubstantiated complaints coming on a particular home where if we just didn't verify and we went with neighbor concerns, that also can be problematic. And somebody could get their permit revoked when it's not deserved. So I don't know what the perfect balance is on this, but maybe somebody has some ideas. I think that, I think the, if I might, I think the point the supervisor is asking about is whether or not we're treating this any different than differently than any other kind of code violation. When we say it's verified in the code, everything has to be verified. So we don't take code enforcement action against somebody without it being verified. And what verification looks like in any specific instance is probably up to the person, the code enforcement officer who's looking into it. What I'm understanding is that you're having a problem, supervisor with holding this instance to a different kind of a standard than we do other code violations and that you're asking for staff to reconsider that when we go back and look into the amendments coming up. Is that correct? Yeah, I would, I pointed out a couple of places where the verification is not impossible, right? And so how do we deal with that? Because the impact is real. The verification is hard, if not impossible. If I use my landline to call about my neighbor's vacation rental, vacation rental, and you know, maybe I could get a, if I call my cell phone, maybe I can do a screenshot of that or something. But if I call my landline, it's a lot harder process. And then I'm being woken up at 11, 12, one o'clock in the morning and I've got to do all the work. Just, it just seems like it's balanced in the wrong way. Kathy Malloy, planning director. I think I would say that, you know, the intent of your board by having this conversation is telling us, you know, that we should administer this more stringently. And, you know, while we can verify complaint, maybe we're, maybe we'll schedule it for review when someone will say you shouldn't have verified that complaint. But if we err on the side of accepting them as verified complaints, and so we are going to be more prone to scheduling you for review. And I think the fact that the permits are now going to all be at level four, so they're not the regulatory permit anymore. We have a little bit more opportunity to impose conditions of approval and case-by-case situations. So I think that we're hearing, you know, we should maybe be a little more accepting. And our standard of verification should be kind of a little less stringent maybe than it has been in the past. And we need to schedule more of these for review. And when we do the level four process, impose conditions of approval. I think Josh's point about when we do have problems with vacation rentals, now we'll have the opportunity to require them to hire a professional property management company because that has tended to really reduce the bad actors. I mean, I just think that we had lots of problems and then we put in together a permit system and that worked because people believe that there were sanctions. And now, 11, 12 years later, that people don't believe that the sanctions are significant. I hear what you're saying. And so I think that your direction. If we don't use them, it's not an effective. Right. So our threshold for when we push go on having that review and put the potential for sanctions that the word needs to get out that we're going to be a lot more prone to scheduling things for review. And I think your point's well taken. That would be great. The, there's some language changes that when it comes time that I'm going to propose to deal with some of the parking issues and I'll discuss it rather than getting into it now. I'll just, that area also about some of the larger vacation rentals having some provisional nature that and then using actual numbers for the number of permits rather than percentages. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions by the board? Any questions? Open up. Did I open it up to the public? You got to do that. Okay. Anybody in the public would like to speak on this. Sure. And it is a public hearing. So you're opening up the public hearing at this time. Yes. Right. Okay. I will now open the public hearing. You'll have two to three minutes. You'll have three minutes to speak. Good afternoon. My name is Patty Brady. I live at Pleasure Point. I appreciate your comments. Supervisor Leopold. Basically we know that the vacation rental situation in the county is dependent on the TOT taxes. And one of the biggest problems that the neighbors have is that we're not protected from vacation rental disturbances. And so basically while the strategic plan talks to collaboration and accountability, that area of this code is greatly lacking. It's in hearing and permit application after permit application neighbors repeat the same problems. We call the sheriff comes, the quiet's down, the next time it comes, we call the sheriff comes. There really isn't accountability for either the management company or the owner being afraid of that permit being suspended or revoked. And maybe you could even put together a generic comment that they have to sign regarding their rental agreement so that the tenants get it because a lot of them become frat houses and litter. I mean, it's interesting the comments that have come up about the remainders of what vacation tenants leave in the neighborhood and they're transient so they don't have any loyalty. So I think, and the parking issue is ridiculous. One bedroom, one parking, you've got four people unlimited number of kids. You have a five bedroom, you can have up to 12 adults there and unlimited number of children. So you're not being accountable or collaborative to the neighborhoods when you're putting these processes together and there. And from the standpoint of again, people shouldn't have to completely, totally repeat what they're trying to ask you to resolve. This has gone on for a long time. And there are a lot of beach neighborhoods that have strong vacation rental processes. And maybe we should look at some other counties as to how they handle the problems because it's not being corrected. And people should not, I mean, have to write books of complaints and then say, oh, go to mediation. A person that lives next door should not have to go to mediation. Did be able to sleep at night. Thank you. Joe Hall, Live Oak. I won't repeat a lot of what Patty said because that's what I was going to say, but I didn't want to add one other comment totally unrelated and forgive me, but I just wanted to recognize Allison Andrew who worked so hard for Live Oak even though Supervisor Coonerty represented her work and that of others led to the East Cliff Walkway. It's one of the jewels of Live Oak. And when I saw the horrific thing that happened to her, I felt really bad because I remember sending her picture after picture after picture of the problem. Everybody stuck together and we did something and the county's better for it. And I'm going to really miss her. So it's nothing to do with this, but I just wanted to bring up a thought about a person who helped Live Oak. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anybody, any comments from the community room? Anybody online? That concludes the public comment on this item. The public hearing is now closed. I'll bring it back to the board for. Mr. Farrah, I'll make a motion. I think we actually can make most of the break the fact back on 30th. I'll look to come forward from the 30th. Do a first read with something I can do. Supervisor Friend, we're having trouble hearing you. Your audio is cutting in and out. Maybe you could repeat that and we'll see if it cleared up. Yeah, so far. I just wanted to see before making a motion if June 30th is an appropriate date to bring this back for a first read if we can do it by then. It would be an appropriate date as long as the, as long as staff can get the work done by June 30th and that would depend on the language in the motion. But I believe yes, I believe yes, it's possible unless staff disagrees. Okay, great. So I'm going to add some items into the motion. I know Supervisor Leopold has things into the motion and based on his comments, I will consider all of them friendly once he makes them. The things that I'd like to move that this come back to us for a first read on June 30th and the items that I would like to see specifically added in would be greater clarity on the revocation process so that it aligns more closely with the non-renewal process. Under section L, the violation section, I'd like to add one word on the sentence regarding county health regulations that currently says non-compliance with order of the county health officer. I would, I believe it should say with any order of the county health officer. And I would like to add one line somewhere in there that just simply says evidence of county code violation or violations, so violation with prens S involving the property. So evidence of county code violation or violations involving the property. As I think the planning director noted, this is the board stating that we're trying to provide as many tools as possible for problematic properties to not have renewal and or to be revoked. So those are the things I would like to add into this and I'll, that's my motion. I know I need a second and then Supervisor Leopold if you could amend the motion. And so I'd like to make, sorry about that, Christine. I'll second them, the motion with three amendments. The first amendment is in, and I have these in writing. I don't think our system works that I can do it, but I'm going to give this to you. Mm-hmm. Oh, thank you. Well, it's, yeah, it's the red that's the change. Yeah. So the first amendment is about, no, well, keep it so you can read the whole page there like that, just move it over a little. And I hope that my colleagues at home can see this. So the first amendment is about large vacation rental homes. With our board had previously taken action that four or more bedrooms that they have to go to a level five hearing. But these are significant new commercial businesses in residential neighborhoods. And the problem is we give out five year permits and we don't know whether they're going to be good actors or bad actors. So this would say that the first year of a five year permit is provisional. And if they pass, if they really aren't a problem in the year one, then they get to have the other four years. I look to council if I need to read it into the record. No, you don't need to read it into the record. We have the language. Okay. So then the second amendment, it has to do with on street and off street parking. The wording that's in the item is sort of unclear. So my staff worked with members of county council's office to clarify the language and add one substantive element. Which is that if there's a vacation rental which needs off-site parking in an existing or future parking district, they should be required to pay for parking at the business rate, since they are operating as a business. They shouldn't qualify for residential rates if they're really a business. And then the third has to do with the questions of percentages or numbers. And I kind of don't like the percentages because this year we might agree that there's 2,290 parcels and someone might come up later and say, well, we didn't count these undeveloped parcels or these parcels that split her. So I like the idea of having hard numbers on this. I don't think these numbers are accurate based on what Jocelyn gave us today. So it seems like the numbers for low-dush would be 259. These are vacation rental homes, not hosted rentals. 259, the Salzda would be 226 and the Dazda would be three. And the Salzda, whatever, the Sada, the Salzda, it keeps on getting bigger, so the percentages look small, but the actual numbers are pretty much the same in these coastal neighborhoods. And I just think it's helpful to have these actual numbers so it's not debatable in the future how many permits we actually have. I have just one quick comment is that we do have 15 or so renewal applications in the pipeline and the Salzda and those are not affected by the moratorium. So I would just maybe make a recommendation that we include those as well in the cap. 241 for the Salzda, right? Is that the right number? I'm adding it now. Anyway, if the maker of the motion is amenable to those three changes, that would be great. And if there's any language that could be put in about, you know, airing on the side of the residents rather than the out-of-town property owners, that would be great too. But I take you at your word that that's what we'll start doing. I support those amendments to the motion. We don't take comments after we close. Sorry. So we have a motion or we have an amendment, which is the same thing. We have a motion with amendments to the. Okay, and that's by Supervisor Leopold and a second by Supervisor Friend. The other way around. Supervisor Friend moved. Oh, that was Ryan. It's Supervisor Friend made the motion and Supervisor Leopold seconded it with amendments. Ready for the vote? I'm ready. Supervisor Leopold? Aye. Friend? Aye. Hoonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Chairman Kepit? Aye. Motion passes, amenable. Thank you for the excellent technology usage. Yes. Thank you. Thanks. So I think we're going back to item number 12 now. Item number 12. Continued public hearing to consider certification of the vote results for County service area. Number 26 Hidden Valley and Muir Drive. Number 37, Roberts Road, Zone D. Number 47, Braymore Drive and adopt resolution authorizing and loving and assessment for road maintenance for CSA 263747 is outlined in the memorandum of the Deputy CAO Director of Public Works. Continued from June 2nd, 2020. Aye. Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman, Supervisors, Matt Machado. The item before you as read is CSA Rates and Certification of Votes for CSAs 2637 and 47. At the close of the public testimony portion of the June 2nd public hearing, the Board then continued the public hearing to today's date and directed public works to return with a tabulation of the election results for the CSAs. For CSA number 26, ballots were mailed out to the 86 affected property owners. Of those ballots returned, nearly 85% were yeses. For CSA number 37, ballots were mailed out to the 39 affected property owners. The ballots returned a little more than 81% were yeses. And for CSA number 47, ballots were mailed out to the 54 affected property owners. Of the ballots returned, nearly 72% were yeses. With that said, we recommend acceptance of the certification of the vote results for CSAs 2637 and 47. And adopt resolutions authorizing and leving and assessment for road maintenance and operations within CSAs 2637, 47 for the 2021 fiscal year and each year following. And staff is available to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Are there any questions from board members either on the phone or in the chambers? I don't hear any, we'll now resume the public hearing each person that would like to speak here in the chambers. Anyone, anyone downstairs? Anyone on the line? There are no comments. Downstairs are on the web. I would move the recommended actions. Okay. Second. We have a first by supervisor Leopold. I think that was supervisor friend. And we'll call for the vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Hoonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Thank you. Thanks Mr. Chair, 13 public hearing to consider 2020, 2021 benefit assessment service charge report for Sanitation County Service Area 7 Boulder Creek and adopt resolution confirming of the 2020, 21 benefit assessment service charge report as outlined in the memorandum of the deputy CAO and director of public works. Are there any questions from board members either here in the chambers or on the phone? I'm sorry, I didn't give you a chance for your presentation. No problem. I was hoping you were just going to speed along there. So good afternoon Kent Edler with the department of public works before the board today is the service charge reports for CSA 7 Boulder Creek, which lists all of the parcels and their associated service charges based upon what was previously approved by the board on May 12th. The service charge reports are required to be adopted by the board and forwarded to the auditor controller treasurer tax collector prior to August 10th of 2020 to be included in the 2021 property tax roll. And it's therefore recommended that the board open the public hearing and hear objections or protest if any to the proposed 2020, 2021 benefit assessment service charge report for the Sanitation County Service Area 7 Boulder Creek, close the public hearing and adopt resolution confirming the 2020, 2021 benefit assessment service charge report for Sanitation County Service Area 7 Boulder Creek. And I'm available for any questions. Well, good. Do we have any questions from board members? I'll now open up the public hearing. Anyone here in the chambers? Anyone downstairs? There's nobody downstairs and there's no web comments. Okay. I'm prepared to move the recommended actions. Okay. All second. We have a first by Supervisor Leopold. Second was, was that MacPherson? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Thanks Bruce. Let's see. I'll now close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for the vote. Supervisor Leopold. Hi. Friend. Coonerty. Hi. MacPherson. Hi. Chairman Caput. Hi. Item number 14, public hearing to consider 2020, 2021, benefit assessment service charge report for Sanitation County Service Area 20, Trussell Beach and adopt resolution confirming the 2020, 2021 benefit assessment service charge report is outlined in the memorandum of the Deputy CAO and Director of Public Works and we'll have the staff presentation. Okay. So similar to the previous item before the board today is the service charge report for CSA 20, Trussell Beach, which lists all of the parcels and their associated service charges based upon what was previously approved by the board on May 12th, 2020. The service charge reports are required to be adopted by the board and forwarded to the auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector prior to August 10th, 2020 in order to be included on the 2021 property tax roll. And therefore recommended that the board open the public hearing and hear objections or protests if any to the proposed 2020, 2021 benefit assessment service charge report for the Sanitation County Service Area 20, Trussell Beach, close the public hearing and adopt resolution confirming the 2020, 2021 benefit assessment service charge report for Sanitation County Service Area 20, Trussell Beach. And I'm billable for any questions. Okay. Are there any questions for board members either in the chambers or on the phone? Now open up the public hearing. Anyone would like to speak either here in the chambers or... There's nobody in the community room and we do not have any web comments. And we'll have, that concludes the public hearing. It's now closed. They'll bring it back to the board for action. I move the recommended actions. Second. Okay. We have a first and second. The advisor Leopold. Aye. Brand. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Item 15, public hearing to consider 2020, 2021 benefit One, benefit assessment service charge reports for Sanitation County Service Area 2, 5, and 10 and adopt resolution confirming the 2020 and 2021 benefit assessment service charge reports as outlined in the memorandum of deputy CAO and director of public works and staff friends. Let's go ahead. All right, you again. So before the board today is the service charge reports for CSA 2, Place de Meir, CSA 5, Sand Dollar and Canyon Del Sol and CSA 10, Rolling Woods. The service charge reports list all the parcels and their associated service charges based upon what was approved by the board on May 12th, 2020. The service charge reports are required to be adopted by the board and ported to the auditor controller, treasurer tax collector before August 10th, 2020 in order to be included on the 2020, 2021 property tax roll. That's therefore recommended that the board open the public hearing and hear objections or protests, if any, to the proposed 2020, 2021 benefit assessment service charge reports for the Sanitation County Service Areas Number 2, Place de Meir, Number 5, Sand Dollar, Canyon Del Sol and Number 10, Rolling Woods. Close the public hearing and adopt resolution confirming the 2020, 2021 benefit assessment service charge reports for the various Sanitation County Service Areas and available for any questions. Okay. Is this in the Rio Del Mar section? Well, so the, they're CSA 2 and 5 are down in La Selva Beach and Rolling Woods is off of Graham Hill. I'm just curious. Anyway, open it up the public hearing. Anybody, does the staff have any questions? Board of Supervisors have any questions? I hear none. Open up the public hearing. The public can speak to this item. Anyone here or downstairs? There's nobody in the community room and we have no web comments. Okay. And the public hearing is now closed. I'll bring it back to the board for action. And maybe we'll get somebody like. Thank you. I'll make very good actions. Second. Okay. So we have a first and second. We're ready to go. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Passes unanimously. We go to number 16. As the board of directors of the Davenport County Sanitation District public hearing to consider 2021 or 2020-21, Davenport County Sanitation District, sewer and water service charge reports and adopt resolution confirming the 2020-21 sewer and water service charge reports as outlined in the memorandum of the district engineer. And then we'll have a staff presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Before the board today is the water and sewer service charge reports for the Davenport County Sanitation District, which lists all of the parcels and their associated service charges based upon what was approved by the board on May 12th, 2020. The service charge reports are required to be adopted by the board and forwarded to the auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector by August 10th, 2020 in order to be included on the 2020-21 tax roll. And therefore recommended that the board open the public hearing and hear objections or protests, if any, to the proposed fiscal year 2020-2021, sewer and water service charge reports for the Davenport County Sanitation District, close the public hearing and adopt the resolution confirming that fiscal year 2020-2021 sewer and water service charge reports for the Davenport County Sanitation District. Okay. Are there any questions from board members either on the phone or in the chamber? I will now open up the public hearing. Anyone wish to speak on this item? There's nobody in the community room and we have no e-web comments. This is probably in Supervisor Coonerty's area if he wants to make a motion. Yes, I'll move approval. Second. Okay. Good. The public hearing is now closed. I'll bring it back to the board. I'll call the roll. Did we just get the motion made? Oh yeah, we did. We got the motion in the second round. We have a motion by Coonerty, second by Leopold. I will call the roll. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Passes unanimously. We're getting there. We're getting there. As the board of directors of the Freedom County Sanitation District public hearing to consider 2020-21 Freedom County Sanitation District sewer service charge reports and adopt resolution confirming the 2020-21 sewer service charge report as outlined in the memorandum of the district engineer. And we have the staff report. Yes. So before the board is the sewer service charge reports for the Freedom County Sanitation District, which lists all of the parcels and their associated service charges based upon what was previously approved by the board on May 12th. The service charge reports are required to be adopted by the board and forwarded to the auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector by August 10th, 2020 in order to be included on the 2020-21 property tax roll. It's therefore recommended that the board open the public hearing and hear objections or protests, if any, to the proposed fiscal year 2020-2021 service charge report, sewer service charge report for the Freedom County Sanitation District, close the public hearing and adopt the resolution confirming the fiscal year 2020-2021 sewer service charge report for the Freedom County Sanitation District. And I'm available for any questions. Are there questions from board members either here or on the phone? I hear none. I'll open it up for the public hearing. Anyone in the public would like to speak on this item. There is no public comment either in person or on the web. Okay. The public hearing is now closed. And freedom is in your district. I'll make the motion. You can make the second. Okay. Okay. I can make a second. I'll make a second on that. Roll call. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Brand. Aye. Poonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. Passes unanimously. I thanks for your report. Number 18, public hearing to consider resolution approving amendments to the unified fee schedule for fiscal year 2020-21 as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. Hello. Welcome. Thank you. Okay. I'm Trish Daniels with the County Administrative Office. Twice each year, the board adopts amendments to the unified fee schedule. On May 12, the board set today as the public hearing for the latest proposed fee changes. A number of departments have proposed changes to the schedule, clerk of the board, clerk elections, health services, human services, parks, planning, and public works. I believe we have representatives from parks and health on teams still. And then we have representatives from public works and other departments here to answer any questions. And so it's recommended that the board open the public hearing, hear protest and objections with any to the proposed fees, close the public hearing, and then adopt the resolutions revising the unified fee schedule for 2021. Okay, thank you. Are there any questions from board members? There was one, and if we can't answer it here, I don't see anybody from planning about the affordable housing fee. It's kind of unclear to me what that was for. My staff thought it might be just for processing paperwork on when we have someone else. I mean, when they have to have an affordable unit, but I wasn't sure. I'm not sure if you know. I do not know. Unfortunately, we had planned to have everyone here, but as you know, the schedule got a little messed up. And so... I'm comfortable that I can find out. Okay. I'll now open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak? We have one web comment. This is from Jessica Peters. I strongly oppose all of these proposed fee and pre-siz. Public record requests help to keep the government transparent. And that is the only comment we have. Okay. Okay, thanks for the comment. No one here to speak. The public hearing will be now closed. And we'll bring it back to the board for action. Anyone would like to make a motion? I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Call the vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Kepit. Aye. And that passes unanimously. Takes us to item number 19. Consider final appointment of Patricia Heath Fulman to the in-home supportive services advisory commission as an at-large representative of providers for a term to expire April 1st, 2023. The nomination was accepted on June 2nd, 2020. I move approval. Okay. Second. We have a first second. There's no questions from the board to bring it for a vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Kepit. Aye. And that passes unanimously. And brings us, I believe, to the last item, no. No, there's a whole nother page. That was the last item. That was the last item. Okay. That's it, right? You have money. I do.