 Chair, I think that we're all set and ready to go here. Okay, ready to roll. Okay. Good morning. It is April 13th, 2021, 9 a.m. and welcome to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors regular meeting. Clerk, would you please call the roll? Yes, before the roll, I'd like to welcome everyone to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors meeting for April 13th, 2021. We're soon to the provisions of the governor's executive order N-29-20. This meeting is being held virtually. The county welcomes the public to participate in today's meeting. Using the Zoom link provided on our website at Santa Cruz County, ca.iqm2.com, click on today's date and then on the agenda to access the Zoom link or you may type it in as you see it on your screen. If you wish to participate by phone, you may do so by calling 1-669-900-6833. The meeting ID is 840-7832-7816. Again, you may call 1-669-900-6833 and enter the meeting ID. If you need further assistance logging into today's meeting, please call the clerk of the board's office at 831-454-2323 and you'll be assisted in logging in. And now for the roll call. Supervisor Koenig, friend, Coonerty, Caput, McPherson, thank you chair, you have a quorum. Senator, then in the Pledge of Allegiance, I would like to mention the passing of a wonderful outstanding person in the Santa Rosa Valley, Ed Hill, a bad moment who passed away recently. Services were last weekend. He was a great outstanding person, got a quietness nature, but really a very carrying and tremendous leader for the Santa Rosa Valley. So I'd like to just have us remember Ed Hill and his family at this time. Is there anybody else that would like to make a special comment? Okay, we'll have a moment of silence. Okay, we will now carry out the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. We will go to item number three, consideration of late additions to the agenda and deletions to the consent and regular genders if necessary. Comments from the board. We have on the revision seat. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Blasters, yes. Yes, we have on the regular gender, item number nine, additional materials, attachment F, public correspondence. And then we have an agenda on the consent agenda, item 82.1. This is to approve appointment of Peter Radden as the fourth district appointee to the redistricting advisory commission as recommended by Supervisor Caput. There's a board member and there's Peter Radden's application. That concludes the revision on Chairman McPherson. Thank you. Any announcements by board members of items to be reviewed from the consent or regular agenda? I guess we'd start with Mr. Koenig, Supervisor Koenig. None, thank you, Chair. You don't, you don't have any, is that correct? Nothing, no. Got no comments? Okay, Supervisor. Chair, this is just to remove items and then we'll have comments on item number six. Okay, it's been two weeks too long. Okay, any announcements by board members of items to be removed from the consent or regular agendas? Pardon me. Okay, we will now move to the item number five, the public comment period. Any person may address the board during the public comment period, not exceeding two minutes. Comments must be directed to items on today's consent or closed session agendas, yet to be heard items on the regular agenda or on a topic not on today's agenda within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. We'll take public comments now for up to 30 minutes. If necessary, additional time for public comments will be allowed at the last, after the last item of today's regular agenda. Clerk, do we have any public comments? Yes, we have two members of the public. Sorry, they are raising their hands now. There are multiple members of the public that would like to address the board. If you wish to comment in our joining us through the Zoom link, please find the hand icon at the bottom of your screen and click on this icon to raise your hand. You'll be placed in a queue to speak. You're calling in from your phone, please dial star nine now. This will raise your hand and place you in the queue. You'll be identified by your name or the last four digits of your phone number. Please dial star six to unmute yourself if you're on the phone. You'll be unmuted on the computer. Once your time is up, your mic will be automatically muted after two minutes. Please accept the mute and start speaking. This is Speaker Joe Caffaro. Hi, good morning. This is Joe Caffaro from the Hospital Council of Northern and Central California. We're an advocacy group that represents all the hospitals. And we were hoping to have a table item 51, which is the appointment of a hospital representative to the CCAH board. The current individual who is being asked to represent hospitals is not a hospital representative. And we're just wanting to have a little more discussion. Not that we don't think it's a good representative, it's just we wanted to have a little more discussion to talk about actual hospital representation. Thank you very much. Eight, zero, four, five. Your microphone has been unmuted. Well, good morning. This is Linda Black. And thank you for taking my call today. A couple items I wanted to bring up. One is why is public only getting two minutes? Suddenly something has happened. It has not been addressed. So why it went from three minutes as it's always been two minutes? The public is really not being allowed enough time to talk about things of substance. Meanwhile, the consent agenda today has over 80 items on it. I had over 60 items last time. And we've got 796 pages in the agenda packet. So there's a lot of stuff going on that the public really needs to be able to have input on. And this is one of the only avenues for the public to have input. And the other is an anecdote. I just recently met a young business owner in another county of California who described to me that due to his interactions with the supervisors in his county, he ended up getting pushed out of the rental home that he was living in. And we all know how hard it is to actually get the victim from a rental home during these times of COVID. So I am only hearing one side of the story of course, but the idea that that could even possibly have any impact whatsoever on someone's home just because they're questioning what the actions of the supervisors are is really scary. And I certainly hope that our board of supervisors in our town would never take these types of actions no matter how much they disagreed with another citizen's viewpoints within that county. So thank you all very much. And we'll continue looking into other items on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. I think it's worth mentioning that we have the board of supervisors here in Santa Cruz has taken actions to protect tenants and landlords as well. Go ahead with public comment. Thank you for your comments. Thank you, Collin. User one, your microphone is unmuted. One, your microphone is unmuted. Is it, am I on? Yes. Oh, okay. Countless 5G deadly consequences are documented and the county is rushing to put 5G technology everywhere. Dr. Thomas Cowan describes some of what is poisoning it. We're hearing a lot about sick people, but there are some sick people who are hypoxics and have what's called hyper-implementary state. Now, how do they get hypoxic? It has nothing to do with any viruses. Viruses don't make you hypoxic, but we do know from clear scientific research going back to the 70s, the Naval Intelligence Research Institute did this. The Soviets did this. There were recent papers on it that if you expose a place to millimeter wave otherwise known as 5G, three things will happen. One, you'll degrade the oxygen in the atmosphere. So you're essentially like this one ER doctor said, it's like these people are walking up the Himalayas, unquote, I think his name was Kyle Seidel. He said they're in a low oxygen environment, but yet they're in New York City or Wuhan or on a cruise ship that had just had 5G installed. He calls for more investigation, that refers to Dr. Christine Northrop, and I am excerpting from the transcripts of vaccines revealed. Thank you, caller 2915, your microphone is unmuted. Hello, can you hear me? This is Becky Steinbruner. Yes. Hello, good morning. Again, this is Becky Steinbruner. I would like to say speak to consent agenda items. Number 25, extending the CZU local emergency, there is still no money for those who have lost their homes in the fire to be able to have a housing, even at the county fairgrounds. This violates the county's MOU with the county fairgrounds. Even under a state of local emergency, there is no housing being provided for these people. They're still paying $950 a month to stay in the fairgrounds campgrounds. And I request that you look into this. It's terrible that we can spend millions to lease hotels for homeless to make them safe from COVID, which is a good thing, but we cannot support those in our community who have lost their home to fire. Number 27, purchasing adding $100,000 to purchase a new type one fire engine for CSA-4 makes sense. It does not make sense that county fire is also purchasing two type one street queens, they're called for the rural areas of Davenport and Corralitos. I have written your board and have not received any information back from you. And I'd like you to look into that. Number 32, I'm very sorry to see Commissioner, Historic Resources Commissioner, Suzy Miriam be replaced. She was amazing and was the only commissioner that had the drive to do research and presentations on the Mills Act and present policy recommendations regarding demolition by neglect. I hope that Mr. Woods will follow her excellent act. I think that concludes this because for public comment chair. Okay, we will now go to action on the consent agenda. Finally get there. Is there any comments from board members on consent items? This is number six, Supervisor Koenig. Thank you, chair. I just want to put out, I'm excited to see item 28, one stop permitting center and approval for architectural plans for the fourth floor of our county building. I mean, it's essential that we help people get permits better, faster, cheaper. And I think this is a great step forward on that front. For items 29 through 49, I just want to extend my great thanks to the 20 new first district commissioners who've volunteered their time to serve our district and our county as a whole. And I'm sure they'll all do great work. On item 30, I just urge my colleagues here to support AB 1061, the mobile home residency law that is moving through the state. It will prevent mobile home park owners from charging a surcharge on water to residents and basically making money on the supply of water that. So I hope we'll go to support that. And item 72, I just wanted to point out how great it is, the parks has received $380,000 from the coastal conservancy for our grant for stormwater treatment and habitat enhancements at Morrin Lake Park that's much needed and restoring wetland spaces like that is going to become more and more critical as we adapt to the climate crisis. And that concludes my comments, thank you. Supervisor Friend, your comments? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'd also like to echo in regards to the one stop permitting something the board has definitely put as a priority and I really appreciate staff's work on this and looking forward to what the end result of this actually will be when we're done with that. And I would like to welcome Michael Watkins as well as the remainder of each of the districts appointees to the redistricting commission. They'll have quite a job this year, especially with the late data coming in but we appreciate everybody's willingness to volunteer and it looks like a great collection of people to hold a very transparent and good process on that moving forward. So welcome Michael Watkins and others. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Supervisor Coonerty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just two quick items versus item number 52 which is urging the board to support HR1. We're seeing an unprecedented attack on voting rights that we haven't seen for several generations across the country and we need the federal government to step in to protect the rights of people to vote as well as to fix problems with partisan gerrymandering as well as too much money in our politics. And so I hope that my fellow survivors will join me in that. Secondly, an item 53 seems every year we face an attack by PG&E on our local solar industry and on people who've chosen to install solar panels in order to help PG&E better deal with its corporate failures and significant losses year over year. And so I hope you all join me in sending a letter to the PUC urging them not to or change PG&E's proposal to really reduce the viability of rooftop solar in our community and across California. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. Thank you. Just item number 55, I'd like to welcome Felipe Hernandez with the alternate for the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission and also Peter Rodden on the Registration Board. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you. I have several comments I'd like to make on the one stop permit center, number 28. I think this is a great step forward and I wanna thank our General Services Department for spearheading this project. This is not gonna just require a physical change amongst the public works planning and environmental departments in particular but it's going to be a cultural shift too. So I hope that the County employees and I think they're excited to do this. I think the County will improve its service to residents once this is in place and we've been working with this for a long time. We have a great model now with four leaf currently handling the CZU fire rebuilding permits. On item 52, which was mentioned for HR one, I'm going to be voting against that. It's not because I don't like the general thoughts of it but I'm concerned away the Congress is addressing some of these issues and it's all encompassing it seems. They did this with the code and I'm appreciative of what we have gotten for instance in the previous COVID bill but really the understanding is about 20% or less of it really went to healthcare directly but we needed that money, I get it but it was much more expansive than that. Then we had the infrastructure bill which everybody thinks of infrastructure as roads and bridges and airports and so forth but this has a lot more to it than that. It's only about 30% in infrastructure and on this one with HR one, I do want to certainly as a former secretary of state want everybody to have their ability to vote as openly and clearly as possible but this includes, it could put DC as a state can permit ballot harvesting and there's just much more to it that needs to be addressed independently and that's why I'm just concerned about the way we're approaching this and as Congress is approaching this I should say and so that's why I'll be voting no on that and I do appreciate the concerns. I think it was tremendous how much of the voter output was certainly here in Santa Cruz County and that's no good on our clerk's department because we do a fantastic job here in Santa Cruz County and for item 53 that was mentioned by Supervisor Coonerty I want to thank him for bringing this forward. This resolution really sends a clear message to Sacramento and the PUC and to investor-owned utilities that Santa Cruz County supports the current net energy metering policy. It also sends a clear message to the local solar industry that we support their business model. As you know, I'm much associated with the Central Coast Community Energy Agency and we'll be discussing the net energy metering policy as it pertains to the triple C E rates over the in the coming months and I do invite the community to participate in that conversation as I'm the chair of the Central Coast Community Energy Policy Board. Item 76, the animal shelter renovations. I want to thank the, and acknowledge and thank the animal shelter staff for their tremendous work for the CZU fire. They organized a terrific response during that very troubling time for evacuated and endangered animals. And I'm glad we can make these improvements to the shelter in order to improve those kinds of services even more. And I also want to note the architect for the project is Teal Messer. He was the architect for the beautiful new Felton branch library. And I think we're once again lucky to have his participation in this County project. It's really something much needed and people really care about their animals as we know. Item 77, the Hopkins Gulch, the residents of Hopkins Gulch who belong to County Service Area 51 have waited for several years to get this FEMA money. And I want to thank Public Works and the CSA 51 members for working together to make this happen. The same goes with item number 80 on the Jameson Creek storm repairs. These huge storm damages that happen to our roads take several years to get the appropriate funding to make these things happen. And this project represents another opportunity to highlight that storm repairs continue to be a priority for the County despite all the challenges that we face and the funding aspect in particular and with the pandemic and the fire. This is nearly a $2.7 million project to repair damage that really dates back to the storms of four years ago. So I want to note the dedication of our Public Works Department staff and make these improvements on behalf of the community up in the San Lorenzo Valley. With that, I would entertain a motion as amended to approve the consent agenda. I'll move approval, Coonerty. Mr. Chair, just a point of order. Was there an actual amendment I heard that? No, I know it's just my no vote. Okay, then I'll second Supervisor Coonerty's motion. Okay, call the roll please to approve the consent agenda. Okay, to approve the consent agenda with a no vote from McPherson on item number 52. Supervisor Koenig. Hi. Friend. Hi. Coonerty. Hi. Caput. Hi. McPherson. Hi. Thank you. Thank you, the motion is approved. We will now go to the regular agenda, item number seven, a presentation from the Health Services Agency's Public Health Division on National Public Health Week, 2021, Building Bridges to Better Health is outlined in the memorandum of the Director of Health Services. We have a strategic plan, vision, mission values, information sheet, and I think our Health Services Agency Director Mamie Hall will introduce this to us. Thank you, Chairman McPherson. Yes, I'm really, really pleased to be here to help our staff acknowledge everyone that works with us as well as the entire community in observance of National Public Health Week, which was last week from April 5th through 11th and was different than any National Public Health Week that we have celebrated before. After more than a year of the COVID-19 pandemic, I hope that we all have a better glimpse into just how crucial public health is. So I have been saying for the last couple of weeks that public health is like the public utility of not only the health system, but the entire community. Similar to water, power, and roads, it's incredibly essential to safe and healthy communities and people, but it's often invisible and taken for granted until there's a crisis. So today, I'm pleased to introduce our Chief of Public Health, Ben Herrera and our Public Health Manager, Emily Chun, who also wear additional hats of leadership roles in the COVID-19 public health emergency response. And I also wanna thank all of our public health staff from our epidemiologists, public health nurses, our laboratory workers, health educators, and more who are essential to the health of our community. At the end of the day, all public health is local and every community's health relies on the often invisible work of its local health department. And I wanna also acknowledge that our work cannot be done alone. It requires the entire system of government, health system partners, as well as community members. And so today I wanna acknowledge everybody who has joined us over the last year in celebration of national public health week and I'll turn it over to Jen. Thank you. Thank you, Director Hall. Thank you, Chair McPherson and members of the board. And I am Jen Herrera, Chief of Public Health for Santa Cruz County Public Health and I'm joined by my colleague, Emily Chung, who is the Public Health Manager for our division. And we are here to continue the celebration of National Public Health Week. It's an annual celebration that occurs during the first week of April. So it happened April 5th through 11th and this year's theme was building bridges to better health. What you'll see in our slide deck is that at the bottom of each of the slides includes our Public Health Division's vision, mission and value since they're foundational to everything that we do. So for National Public Health Week, it's a time to celebrate, reflect and advocate for the conditions which affect the population's health. This year's daily themes are all about rebuilding, building resilience and addressing root causes of inequities that have the downstream effect of health and wellness on populations. So these themes include advancing racial equity, strengthening community, galvanizing climate justice and looking at these themes, that's a reminder that health care, health that happens in a doctor's office and a medical home is just one piece of the puzzle in terms of what health is and how what affects the health and wellness of the communities. And it reminds us that health happens in the community, health happens in parks, it happens with access to food, it happens with the, how much resilience you have within your family structures. So it's a recognition that health happens here, it happens in the community and not necessarily in a health care office. And these themes have a basis in equity, building resilience so that everyone has an opportunity for wellness and happiness. These big complex issues such as galvanizing climate justice and advancing racial equity reminds us that the legal basis for public health is rooted in the population's rights to health, safety and life. And public health division is also just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to supporting the population's health. As a division, we promote, protect and improve the health and wellbeing of all which is our mission statement, but other services do this in the county. Our libraries promote health by making health and knowledge accessible, public works and parks, creating beautiful built environments. Other jurisdictions are community partners and even the public interpersonal relationships between children and families, neighbors helping each other out. And so public health is a program, but it's also a concept. The concept is shown here by the Ten Essential Public Health Colorful Wheel on the left, which I'll go into detail on. And our program is noted by this blue hub and spoke on the right. So as a program, public health, the public health division is one of four divisions under the Health Services Agency. The other divisions include clinics, behavioral health and environmental health. And our role is to ensure core state-manded public health services are available for the local health jurisdiction. So in this case, the county. Our population-based health services include health surveillance and data analysis. We do this through our disease control unit as well as our vital stats and epi units, control of communicable disease, which is why we have been at the helm of the pandemic response. Upstream health interventions, including health education strategies and advocacy for policies that promote health and wellness, such as tobacco cessation and tobacco prevention programs. And development and oversight of a medical health and disaster, medical health disaster plan. So in addition to being at the helm of the pandemic response, we are actively ensuring the medical needs are in the medical system is supported in times of disasters such as the CZU fire last year. And this has been spoke is just a representation of how our division is organized with our various units. And as a reminder, this is how we're organized is based on how, what we are mandated to do through state and federal codes. But to tackle these complex issues like racism and climate change or the pandemic, it requires the public health approach, which we can turn to the 10 essential public health services as a reference. So this is a colorful wheel that provides a framework for public health to protect and promote the health of all people in all communities. At the core of our essential services is equity. It's the concept that everyone should have a fair and just opportunity to achieve optimal health and wellbeing. You can see on the outer edge of the wheel is these 10 services can be divided into three buckets, assessment, policy development and assurance. It follows the scientific method. What we do is based in evidence, it's based on data. We create recommendations and we create systems to assure and monitor the health status of the community. We do this with COVID-19 and we've done this with the CZU fire response. Every action that was taken, there was data or intel to support those actions. And then there are follow-up steps to assure the health and safety of the community. We also do this with housing for health. We are, Human Services Department is coming back in August to provide more recommendations or on their assessment of the health status in the community. We will provide policy recommendations and develop assurances for the health and wellness of the community. In terms of Santa Cruz County's health status, Santa Cruz County is known for being a healthy place to live. County health rankings show that Santa Cruz is ranked among one of the healthiest counties in California in the top quartile. And there's another data set called the California Healthy Places Index that notes that most of the census tracts in our county have healthier community conditions, meaning we have higher income, access to food and education attainment, good transportation access. However, Healthy Places Index also notes that there are neighborhoods that have barriers to health. These barriers that impact health include poverty, limited transportation, inaccessible housing, and even access to voting. These are called social determinants of health. The graph on the right shows an example of how we use data to promote health equity. And this is specific for the COVID-19 response. So what we found is that the areas that have, that experience more of these barriers to health had a higher positivity rate of COVID-19. And so what we've been doing is tracking the positivity rate or the rates of COVID-19 in that region compared to the county and what the county-wide statistics. And so what we're trying to do is make sure that the gap between the blue line and that black line are decreased, which we've seen over time is that we've done a lot of work with the community of South County, which is the area most impacted by COVID-19. And I just wanna provide a special shout out to the community organizations of South County in the city of Watsonville for their partnership because in order to close the gap, we do need to collaborate with the community. And I think our metrics have shown that we've been able to do that. And I'll turn it over to Emily Chung for the next few slides. Good morning, thank you to Ferrara. Thank you honorable members of the board for our presentation today. My name is Emily Chung. I am the public health manager for our public health division. And I wanted to share that this is a really wonderful opportunity for us to celebrate public health in our county as well as in the nation and to really culminate that public health has taken such a forefront in the public mind in terms of the COVID-19 response as well as the CZU fire response. But public health is far more than just emergency response. And here on the slide, you can see a few highlights of programs that we are very proud of in our community, such as supporting population level and prevention focus activities that are focused on upstream interventions. We really value our community partnerships and collaborations. Examples of these partnerships and collaborations include our ACEs aware program, which is a new grant to prevent adverse childhood events. And another example would be that together we care, care coordination platform, which is being put together by our Santa Cruz community health information organization to help us improve care coordination and data sharing. We have many more examples, such as our safe and active transportation activities, our Friday night live alcohol, tobacco and drug prevention activities with youth, and so much more. We couldn't highlight them all today, but I wanna make sure that we celebrate everything that public health does on a day-to-day basis and has done this past 13 or 14 months around the pandemic and other emergency response. Our robust programs really support infrastructure and building capacity as well as empowering our community and our partners to the extensions of our public health essential services. Next slide. And in order to really endeavor towards moving forward to a more population health focus and more infrastructure projects like we have started with ACEs aware and with the Together We Care platform, we will need to rebuild public health. Public health has perpetually been underfunded and even defunded over the decades. And it was only shown more brightly on the issue of the defunding and underfunding during the pandemic response. Now more than ever is there the need for the investments in public health infrastructure in order to elevate us and readiness for the next emergencies, the next pandemics and in general, improving our community's ability to have better health every day for everyone as our division's vision entails. While we have been really fortunate to have received infusions of funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic response, they really only sustain the services as we continue to respond to the pandemic and start to prepare for any future pandemics. In order to really rebuild public health, we will need to focus on science, action, health and justice. For science, we need to elevate the importance of public health. The role that public health plays in day-to-day lives as well as the lives of everybody in our community, not just to those who are disadvantaged. We also need science to drive our innovation for a future vision of public health that is more inclusive, data-driven using advanced analytics and technologies and built on our strengthening partnerships in our community. For action, we'll need to look at our workforce. Our workforce has been tested and exhausted at this past year and they have an essential yet unwavering to their commitment to serving community. We'll need to invest further in supporting our existing staff and recruiting more talented staff to take on bigger roles that address the science, action and health and justice. For health, we can better improve our health outcomes and reduce health spending and save more lives when we focus on health. When we allow public health to play that role to focus on the prevention and messaging and interventions that will really support our vision for better health. Our other statewide coalitions are starting to work on advocacy such as the California Can't Wait Coalition to really emphasize the role of public health in terms of really making a big difference and the infrastructure needs there. Finally, for justice. Your board has taken early action to make a declaration that racism is a public health crisis. We thank you for that. It has been really upstanding to that our county takes a strong stance on that. And that is a big part of where public health can play a role in justice. That to take equity to the next level and include justice and inclusion in terms of our new housing for health division and the work we've been doing to ensure vaccine equity and services for our most disadvantaged communities. And we can continue to do more. So we wanna highlight our, in closing, we wanna highlight our vision, mission and values which drive all of the work we do in public health. Every one of our staff members owns these visions, this vision and our mission or value, our vision to better health every day for everyone. Our mission to collaborate with the community to promote, protect and improve the health and well-being of all. And our values, which are the core reasons for why we do our work, which are to be community focused, to collaborate, have compassion, use equity, have high quality of services and show respect for everyone. So we thank you again to the board for your ongoing support of public health because our successes are the successes that will help our community and you all become more successful as well. We are one of the top performing counties in terms of vaccination as one example that when we all work together to be successful around public health, we all benefit and we all succeed. So thank you so much for this opportunity to share National Public Health Week with you and some of our wins and some of our challenges. And we look forward to collaborating even further. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I believe you're muted. I wanna thank you. Thank you, Ms. Rara and Ms. Chung for that very informative presentation brief but very, very much informative for the general public. I'll go to the board members first to ask if they have any comments on this and then go to the public starting with Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just having a note of appreciation. I think that we've all, you've heard a lot of appreciation from us over the last year, but I mean, it really highlights the need for investment within the greater public health sphere, something that has been under-invested in not just at the local and state level but definitely at the federal level for quite some time. So as I've said to Ms. Hall at repeated times that she's been generous enough to participate in town halls that I've done. There are people that are alive in our county because of your work and your early work and your continued work and they won't know that. Obviously, people don't know the counterfactual of what would have happened if we would have done something different, but I think we can all be known that you've made a significant contribution in the lives of this community through the work that you've chosen to do and the leadership that you took early and often during this pandemic. So people are seeing each other and families are reuniting as a result of the work that was done by this county public health department here. So I just wanted to give a lot of credit for you that you deserve. So thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Supervisor Coonerty. Yeah, I just want to take a moment and thank the whole team at Public Health. It's been an insane 14 months and I know you all have been managing multiple crises and we're really grateful. One of the big surprises when I got elected to this board seven years ago was how interesting and impactful public health can be and the importance of the investments, as you all mentioned, it's really the opportunity for government to act in sort of an entrepreneurial way to figure out how to change behaviors and or impact lives. And it's also one of the few areas where we can really engage in preventative work, helping people before we're in the response mode, which is often after people's lives have been impacted at high costs and really challenging for everybody involved. This opportunity, especially with children to get involved in their life early and give them the resources they need and reduce the barriers is incredibly important and I want to thank you for making us all aware of the many facets of public health and the way it can impact the communities. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. You're muted. Yeah, I want to thank the Health Services Agency for stepping in during this very trying time in our lives and getting up and moving and getting things accomplished at breakneck speed. I'm very impressed by all the work that your agency has done and I want to thank you. Basically, that's what I want to say. Very well. Supervisor Koenig. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just also want to add my deep appreciation for all the work that you've done this year and that you've, of course, always. I think that the excellent quality of your work really shows in our fantastic health equity metrics in this county, in our high vaccination rates and you guys are clearly doing an excellent job. And I look forward to working with you to identify new investments to improve public health going forward. Thank you. I'd like to repeat much of what's been said about, thank you for facing the unprecedented challenges we've had in the last 14 months to see our counties in the top quartile of California, I think speaks for itself. This all reminds us of how important it is to look up the health more broadly. We have to realize that the many challenges that we've worked on in the county ultimately have a bearing on achieving good public health outcomes. These include, it's just not in the doctor's room, it's a homelessness, substance abuse, mental health, affordable housing, public safety and on and on. And I want to thank you for your presentation based on science and evidence that we continue to work on these topics and we aim to support the health services department throughout. I've done a phenomenal job facing it and unprecedented challenges I mentioned. So thank you very much. I will go to the public for any comments. Are there any comments from the public? I have two speakers for public comment. Colin, user one, your microphone is unmuted. Hello. Can anybody hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Oh, hi, good morning. Thank you to the public health officials who spoke today. And I have some information here from a prior former Santa Cruz County health officer. Her name is Pokey Stewart Namcom, MD, MPH. And she discussed the, in this paper which is entitled health risks associated with smart meters dated January 13th, 2012. Memorandum actually for a board meeting. And the still, I'll just say as an aside, this still pertains to the 5G issue. At this point, she was discussing the smart meters. It's all the same stuff. Here's what she said. There is, however, a debate regarding the health risks post the public given these increased levels of radiation. An intriguing divide noticed by Genius 2011, is that most research carried out by independent non-government or non-industry affiliated researchers suggest potentially serious effects for many non-ionizing radiation exposers. Most research carried out by independent non-government or non-industry affiliated researchers suggest, anyway, that's a repeat there. And she goes on to say that meeting the current FCC guidelines only assures that one should not have heat damage from smart meter exposure. It says nothing about the safety from the risk of many chronic diseases that the public is most concerned about such as cancer, miscarriage, birth defects, semen quality, autoimmune diseases, et cetera. Therefore, when it comes to non-thermal effects of RF, radio, that's radio frequency. The FCC guidelines are irrelevant and cannot be used for any claims of safety unless heat damage is involved. And that's from she's studying a study by... Carol, your microphone is unmuted. Good morning. I would like to express my concern with when we have governmental agencies like this, it takes away freedom. So we don't have the ability to make our own healthcare decisions, which would be in our own personal best interest when we have governmental entities making those decisions for us. This past year has been a great example of that. We don't have health freedom to make the decisions that are best for us. And some of us have taken the time to do research to find out things that public health doesn't have access to. For example, Marilyn Garrett recently referenced in her public comment earlier this morning, Dr. Thomas Cowan. So Dr. Thomas Cowan and both Dr. Andrew Kaufman have talked extensively about how the COVID-19 virus has not been isolated. Since it hasn't been isolated, causation cannot be proved. So all of these health orders that have been issued by our public health are a result of a theory that the COVID-19 virus causes the illness. That's certainly, that's not true. I would like to recommend Mimi, Jen and Emily, please get Dr. Cowan's book. It's called The Contagion Myth. And please read that, please educate yourself and everyone who can hear me, please listen. And Dr. Cowan does some amazing talks. You can find them on BitShoot. He talks about how the COVID-19 virus has not been isolated. So I would like to highly encourage more health freedom for people. It's fine to educate everyone, but at the end of the day, it's my personal decision what I wanna do for my health. It's my health, my choice, my body. And my biggest concern is we have these more and more governmental entities that think they can make decisions on our behalf. And that's certainly not true. It goes against our constitution. And we need to be more advocating for freedom at this time. Raymond Cancino, your microphone is unmuted. Good morning, board of supervisors. This is Ray Cancino from Community Bridges CEO. I just wanted to take some time of appreciation for the public health work that has happened in over the last 14 months. I just wanna commend the team that you have over there, the hardworking team has done such an incredible job of working and partnering with a local community to identify, respond to, and address inequity. This is for the first time in my seven years of being in this county that I feel this type of level of partnership with public health and with HSD. The changes in the staffing that have happened over the last seven years have been tremendous to improve the outcomes and the alignment of the mission and vision and values that the new, not so new anymore, CAO has implemented across the whole county is really important and really needed. I just wanted to just highlight one thing and I think it's critically important in Mimi's conversation is that none of this could have happened without the federal and state support that came in to public health. And the reality is that you have an opportunity to think about and observe and make decisions about how your future budget will be reflective to continue these values into the next years. And I know that's a difficult conversation. It's one that sometimes feels like a zero sum game, but it's a really important needed conversation to be had if we really value public safety, public welfare and public health in a different manner. So I just urge you to start thinking about that because it is gonna be a long road to get there. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Calling user one, your microphone is unmuted. Calling user one, your microphone has been unmuted. Please accept the request and mute your microphone. Hello, I appreciate the previous callers on quoting Dr. Thomas Cowan. I also quoted him. And we need to look at independent science, non-pharmaceutical funded science. And we are just getting one perspective and that's the pharmaceutical perspective. Now, here's a quote from international vaccine developer, Gerard Van Den Bosch. He's from Belgium and he's interviewed by Dr. Philip McMillan. And I saw the interview on thehighwire.com. And the topic was toward a vaccine disaster. Part of what he said, these vaccines don't prevent infections. These vaccines outcompete our natural antibodies, our non-specific antibodies. These are long-lived vaccine-induced antibodies. Basically, everyone getting a vaccine, the COVID shot, is having their innate immune system destroyed. This is very, very serious problem. A steep incline in severe illness is inevitable. And he's calling for a halt to these masks, what they're called vaccinations. So that's Gerard Van Den Bosch, another source of truth about what's going on is children'shealthdefense.org, children'shealthdefense.org. That's Robert F. Kennedy. Thank you, caller 2915, your microphone has been unmuted. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. This is Becky Steinbruner. I support everything that the previous speakers have said, especially regarding the hypoxic conditions being created by masks and the continuance of seemingly made-up information to suit the needs at the time. I would also like to support the concerns about 5G being rolled out in this county and relate that to the current amendments of the county's wireless ordinance that Council's Asweta is putting forth. Representatives in New York state have just introduced a bill requiring that there be environmental and health studies of the risks of 5G technologies. New York state is not the only one. New Hampshire also conducted these studies in 2020 and released landmark information showing the potential health risks and the need to improve monitoring of wireless radiation emissions coming from existing and future wireless systems. This is an assault on many people's immune systems, their sensitivities. The American Disability Act covers and recognizes electromagnetic sensitivity that exists in members of our population. I urge you and all health agents to pay attention to this. Your board signed a letter of support in 2018 citing with Anna Eshoo that 5G should not be rolled out unless there were further studies showing that it could be safely done to members of the population. I think the big thing was that she wanted and you wanted local control of how much. Thank you. There are no other speakers to this item. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Coonerty, Supervisor Coonerty. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I just want to, in honor of public health week, I think we owe a duty to point out that these sort of whack job conspiracy theories that are found in the dark corners of the internet about COVID and vaccines are totally irresponsible to be making in public and that we've had almost three million people die worldwide. We've had more than a half a million Americans die. We've had many people who got sick and are still sick and still feeling the symptoms. And that if one thing we can do for public health awareness week or month is to actually listen to experts and listen to data and engage in responsible behavior and don't spread blatant falsehoods and pretend like you are engaged in science or have any idea of what you're talking about. Thank you, Mr. Coonerty. You made your point. Mr. Supervisor Friend, do you have a comment? Anybody else have a comment from the board? I think our action is just to accept the report. And again, I want to thank Jennifer Herrera and Emily Chung and under Health Services Director Mimi Hall for that excellent presentation and for what you have done to make Santa Cruz County a safer place for all of us. So thank you very much. There's actually no action on this item. Yeah, I think I just said, we're just to accept it. Okay, we'll move to item number eight. A public hearing to consider the recommendation of the planning commission to approve application 181068 relating to open space easement affecting assessors partial 063 071-24 property located on the Redwood Meadows Ranch subdivision lot two. It's just one lot in Bonnie Dune to turn that the project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA and you take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. And then we have other items literally A through Z that are listed in the agenda and I will not mention each and every one of them but we have items A through Z so that if we could have a presentation on this it would be much appreciated. Thank you. I think Annette Nielsen and Suzanne Isay are going to present this along with Jerry Bush. Thank you, Mr. Supervisor McPherson. I'm Jerry Bush with Annette Olson and Suzanne Isay and this item concerns application 181068 which essentially is a single family dwelling project in the Bonnie Dune area. And I hope everyone can see my screen just confirming. Yes. It's very perfect. So this is the Redwood Meadows Ranch subdivision which includes 12 residential parcels and an agricultural lot protected by an open space easement. And this subdivision and planned unit development ordinance was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1983. Here's a closer look at the subject parcel lot two at the time five acres and you can see the original building envelope on this parcel. In 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a lot line adjustment adding areas to five of the parcels for the purpose of establishing a buffer between potential agricultural uses and buildings on the ag parcel. The lot line adjustment did not include amending the open space easement. And so the open space easement continues to govern uses in the northern or a next half acre of the subject parcel which you can see here outlined in blue and covered by the dark green of the open space easement. So one of the actions before you today is to abandon that part of the open space easement affecting the northern or a next area of parcel or lot two. The project also requires recognizing an extension to the building envelope and reconfiguring the building envelope to conform to our site standards for the A or agricultural zone district. And this is the area to be abandoned in yellow shown in the context of the open space easement which encompasses 67.5 acres, including the subject area. So abandoning that area would reduce the overall open space easement to 67 acres. Here's the northern area of the parcel and you can see along the northern boundary a dense row of evergreen trees that already serves as a buffer between potential agricultural uses on the ag parcel, excuse me, and the subject development or proposed development area. This area has only moderate quality soils and a high water table, high base rock, thin soils, poor drainage. It was reviewed by the open space programs committee which included a representative of the ag commissioner's office. And that committee voted four to zero to recommend approval of the proposed project. Here's a slope map and you can see the northern part of your parcel outlined in blue is the least sloping area of the parcel. And so the proposed project or amendment of the open space easement and building envelope would enable the project to be moved into the least sloped area of the parcel which is beneficial to the watershed and would help both to minimize grading, minimize erosion and get the drainage structures away from the steeper slopes, which is very important in these North Coast watersheds. The owner Kyle Endier and architect Fuse redesigned the project to make it more compact to minimize grading and to avoid resources on the site. Here's a view of the potential, well, this is a view from Bresa del Mar looking down across the ag parcel towards the development site behind the windbreak. The middle row of dotted lines represents the approximate roof height. So the proposed dwelling would be hidden not only by the windbreak but almost entirely hidden by the topography of the site and would have no impact on open space values from either Bresa del Mar or from Bonadune Road. The proposed structure complies with LCP policies regarding structures in potential view and opens with the policies that would affect or govern agricultural structures within the easement in that it is a very low profile comprised of earth tone and actual earth materials. The state law on open space easements requires findings for abandonment and these are established would be put into action by the proposed resolution and are outlined in detail in the findings which are attachment G. So the recommended action is to conduct a public hearing to consider the recommendation of the planning commission to approve application 18106H including actions two through five. Action number two is to adopt the attached resolution attachment A which would the resolution abandon approximately 0.57 acres of the open space easement affecting the parcel. It would approve the contract amending open space easement 3808277 and certify the required abandonment fee that was required by state law. It would the resolution would also adopt findings for the open space easement abandonment subdivision amendment, PUD amendment, development permit and coastal development permit and C determined that the project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA. The third element of the recommended actions is to adopt an ordinance attachment B which amends planned unit develop the original planned unit development and number four to approve application 181068 for a coastal development permit preliminary grading and amendments to the original permits to construct a single family dwelling, attached carport and swimming pool. And finally to direct planning to forward the adopted ordinance to the California Coastal Commission for certification. And that concludes the staff presentation. I believe Mr. Comments from the board. No comments. Any comments from the public? One speaker. Okay. Name fuse architecture microphone is unmuted for the caller under fuse architects. Hello, can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, I'm sorry, we were muted. This is Deidre Hamilton with Hamilton land planning the applicant for the project. And I wanted to just give a little bit more clarification on the purpose of the removal of the open space easement when the lot line adjustment was done. The purpose of it was to allow a larger building envelope because as Jerry pointed out, most of the rest of the property was extremely sloping. And one of the other reasons is the archeological sensitive areas that are also found on the property which limits the ability to build in much of the rest of the property. So it is essential that the applicant be allowed to build the house in this area. Otherwise it would be a lot more damaging to the environment. And I think there will be a lot more impacts to the open space easement. So I am available to answer any questions you have about this, but I would ask you to support staff's recommendation. Thank you. Any other public comments? I have no other speakers to this item, Chair. Okay, I'll return to the board, close the public hearing and return it to the board for any action. Yeah. Just one question. Just a minute. Supervisor Coonerty, just one moment. Sure. So I mean, I'll let Supervisor Caput ask the question and I'm prepared to make a question. Okay. Very well. Supervisor Caput. Thank you. The only question I had was this will end up going to the Coastal Commission for their approval. I don't know how close is it to actually to the coast? Well, it's at least several miles as the crow flies, but it is within the coastal zone, which is defined by Empire grade in this location. And the only other comment I'll make is we're talking about high-end homes and also a gated community. The only concern I have is the proposal is fine, but I hate to see more and more gated communities going in when they're doing development. We're kind of separating people with money from the rest of the public, the building wall, building gates, locking people out, things like that. Anyway, it's just a concern of mine about how many gated communities are we gonna have. I think we go ahead. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just wanna take a moment and recognize, Bonnie Dooners are not quiet about their opinions on various matters. And so I think it's significant that we haven't received any correspondence to the board about this project. And I wanna appreciate the planning staff as well as the architects and their team and the planning commission. And I'll move approval. Got the motion. Do I second by a friend? Clerk, please call the roll. I approve the recommended actions. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you, motion passes. That's unanimously. Okay, we will move to item number nine. It's a public hearing to consider the recommendation of the planning commission to approve application 2-0-1-2-1-2 to construct 21 new town homes on property located at 3212 Mission Drive. Assessors partial number 025-082-14 and affirm that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. We have a CEQA statutory exemption determination, be a planning commission February 24th, 2021 meeting materials. It's on the web link. See a planning commission resolution 2021-01. D, a planning commission staff report, 91 pages online and on file. And E, public correspondence for February 24th, 2021 planning commission hearing. Who's going to be meeting the presentation? I think it's Jonathan DeSalvo and Suzanne Isay and Jocelyn Drake from the planning department. Just a moment, Chair, they're all coming back up. Okay. Not showing Jocelyn Drake on the line. Okay, Ms. Drake, please. Hey, good morning. Hold it. Jonathan DeSalvo. I did not have, I did not have. Jonathan DeSalvo? Okay, very well. Good morning, Chair and members of the board, Jonathan DeSalvo, planning department staff. The item before you is a proposal to construct 21 two-story townhomes, each containing three bedrooms. The project would construct a combination of attached and detached housing as part of a common interest development resulting in 21 condominium units within one lot with common areas for access, parking and landscaping. This project requires approval of a subdivision residential development permit with density bonus, roadway roadside exception, over height fence certification and preliminary grading review. Proposals for more than 20 residential units in the RM three zone district require review and approval by the board of supervisors. The subject parcel fronts on both Mission Drive and Thurber Lane extending from the east side of Mission Drive to the west side of Thurber Lane. The project site is located in the live-up planning area within the area identified in the sustainable Santa Cruz County plan as the medical district two market focus area. This area is anchored by large medical service facilities at Dominican Hospital and the Sutter Medical Center containing both neighborhood and regional serving commercial uses in a mix of medium to high density residential uses. To develop the project, one existing single family dwelling and its associated accessory structures would be demolished. The existing home was constructed in 1935 and is not identified as a historic resource. The house has received numerous alterations since its original construction and the building is currently in poor condition. The project site is bordered to the north and south by both multifamily and single family residential uses. Two parcels border the northern property line containing five detached residential units and 16 two-storey townhouses. Three parcels border the southern boundary of the project site containing a single family dwelling, a duplex with an active permit application to legalize a third unit and 12 two-storey townhouses. Across the street from the project site to the east of Thurber Lane is a large undeveloped parcel measuring approximately six acres in size containing split commercial zoning designations. To the west, the project site on the west side of Mission Drive is an approximately two-acre parcel developed with medical offices doing business as Cypress Medical Center. Surrounding residentially zoned properties are developed with a mixture of one and two-storey buildings containing both single family and multifamily residential development and a range of architectural styles. The proposed development with front on both Mission Drive and Thurber Lane with right-of-way improvements along both frontages. From the street, the proposed buildings would be two stories with private yards and landscaping wrapping the northern and southern peripheries on a private accessway bisecting the middle of the lot. The subject property is a 0.88 acre lot located in the RM3 or multifamily residential 3,000 square foot minimum zone district, a designation which allows both attached and detached housing. The proposed product would result in a development which is consistent with the permitted uses in the zone district and the zoning is consistent with the site's RUH or urban high density residential general plan designation. As the subject parcel would abut two streets, it is considered a double frontage lot. The required front yards are measured from both right-of-way. Therefore, front yard setbacks of 20 feet are applied at both frontages. For the front yard along Mission Drive, adjacent averaging results in a reduced fort, first-storey front yard setback requirement of about 14 feet, 11 inches. The standard 20-foot front yard setback is still applied to the second story. Side yard setbacks are eight feet, five feet. A waiver for proposed minor encroachments into setbacks is sought, which I will discuss later in this presentation. The height limit is 28 feet and the project as assigned would be more than two feet below the height maximum. The four area ratio or FAR requirement is 50% and the project seeks a concession to exceed FAR by 8% for a total FAR of 58%, which I will also discuss later in this presentation. The project meets all other site standards including law coverage and market requirements. The project is eligible for a 43% density bonus to allow for the development of 21 residential units in exchange for the provision of three affordable units. The total number of units permitted is calculated based on the number of base units allowed as subject to the site's current zoning and general plan designation. This allows for 17.4 units per acre, therefore for the 0.88 acre site, the number of base units is 16 units. When the 43% density bonus is applied to this number, the total of 23 units can be constructed. The project proposes to construct 21 of the 23 units for which it is eligible. To qualify for this density bonus, a minimum of 18% of the base units are required to be provided as affordable units. The project would provide one affordable unit to be sold at the very low income level and two moderate income level affordable units. The three affordable units are included as part of the proposed development and will be regulated and restricted to rent and income limits subject to a recorded affordable housing and density bonus agreement. The remaining 18 units will be available at market rate. Density bonus law allows an applicant to request specific incentives or concessions in order to make the project feasible with the proposed number of housing units. This project qualifies for one concession and may also request waivers of development standards if necessary to enable construction of the project. The applicant has requested a concession to increase the FAR requirement for 50 to 58%. This increase allows the project to be comprised of all three bedroom units, which would result in financial costs reductions for development. The applicant is also requesting two waivers for this project. These are first, a waiver to allow for an accession from usable open space standards and second, a waiver to allow for minor encroachments into setbacks. Staff fines granting a waiver from usable open space standards is appropriate given that the constrained geometry of the site restricts the provision of code-compliant usable open space. Additionally, the project is designed to incorporate as much usable open space as possible, even when meeting all locational and dimensional criteria contained in the county code would not be achievable. Each unit contains their own private backyard and second floor balcony, resulting in a total of about 318 to 448 square feet of private usable open space per unit. The requested waiver from setback standards would allow minor encroachments as second stories only of approximately two feet into front yard setbacks and approximately one foot four inches into side yard setbacks. Staff fines granting a waiver to allow for minor encroachments into these setbacks is appropriate, given that the parcel is constrained due to the number of three bedroom units proposed along with the necessary associated site improvements such as access, parking, and open space. The project would provide parking as required for affordable density bonus projects, which requires two parking spaces for each three-bedroom dwelling unit. As required, two parking spaces will be provided for each unit, one space in the garage of each unit, and one assigned parking space provided nearby each unit. While localities are not allowed to require density bonus projects to provide parking in addition to the per unit parking ratio noted above, the project as proposed voluntarily provides six additional parking spaces on site for a total of 48 parking spaces. The project proposes to construct 20 attached and one detached townhome. The building massing would follow a linear arrangement as is typical for townhome development and will essentially be mirrored on the north and south sides of the interior access way extending through the lot. The proposed townhomes would consist of three bedroom floor plans measuring about 1,300 square feet in size. Kitchens, living rooms, and garages are proposed at the first story and bedrooms are proposed at the second stories with attic storage space provided above. Townhomes are a type of development often located in medium-density residential neighborhoods or in transition zones between commercial and low-density residential areas. The surrounding area consists of commercial development transitioning to multi-family residential and then single-family residential housing, progressing further north from Soquel Drive. The massing of the project fits with the surrounding area and that the site is bordered by medium-to-high density residential development in a transition area neighborhood. Per county code, 24 feet is the recommended minimum width for two-way circulation within interior driveways. The driveway design has been reviewed both by DPW Road Engineering and the Central Fire Department and meets county design criteria and fire standards. On both Mission Drive and Thurber Lane frontages, the existing streets do not meet county design criteria standards. The project would tie into existing streetscape elements such as sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Staff supports the request for a roadway roadside exception in that proposed improvements would result in a continuous transition and use of each respective driveway, both of which do not currently meet county design criteria standards. At its meeting on February 24th, 2021, the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend that four supervisors approve the project. No modifications or further conditions were added by the planning commission. To date, since the planning commission meeting the department has received one letter in opposition to the proposed project, which was forwarded to your board for review. No other public correspondence has been received. As proposed and conditioned, the project is consistent with all applicable codes and policies of zoning ordinance and general plan and will also further plan goals of attainable housing, dynamic economy, and a sustainable environment. Staff therefore recommends that your board determine that the project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and approve application number 201212 based on the findings and conditions attached to the staff report. This concludes my presentation. Presentation staff is available for any questions. And I believe the applicant, Chris Kumar from CKA Architects may also have a short presentation as well. Okay, we'll have that presentation. Thank you, Mr. DeSalvo. Would he like to make that presentation now? I think that'd be proper. See. Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. All right, thank you. Jonathan, I'll try to share screen. It says I cannot do that while you were sharing. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Chris Kumar of CKA Architects in Menlo Park. I'm happy to be here today to present this project to you. As Jonathan mentioned, this is an infill site located very close to Soquel Drive, particularly close to the bus stop on Soquel Drive. It's also located among existing two-story multi-family developments to the North and to the South. There's the hospital on this side, and the idea would be that potentially folks working at the hospital and the medical office buildings would be able to live in these townhomes. As mentioned, this project takes advantage of the state's density bonus law by providing the three affordable units the project is eligible for one concession and the waivers discussed by Jonathan. I'm happy to sort of address any questions on the waivers if you have any. As mentioned, the project is designed as a through street from Mission Drive to Thurber Lane with townhomes on either side of the street to the North. Again, we've got two-story multi-family development and to the South similarly. As far as parking, the project provides one garage space, one covered space for each townhome and one uncovered space. Additionally, there's a covered bike parking space for each townhome and the project provides five shared bike parking spaces. When meeting with the neighbors, it became quite apparent that parking was the major concern in the area. So the project team added six additional parking spaces near the Thurber Lane side to try to address that concern. Additionally, the project team will provide transit passes to all of the owners of the townhomes. And the last step that was taken was a deed restriction will be in place to forbid using the garages as storage and to maintain cars parked within the garages. And I should mention, again, the bus is half a block away on Soquel. It's ideally located for transit. As far as open space goes, the requirement is for 150 square feet per townhome. And this is achieved on all of the buildings, except for the two on Mission Drive. And that's where the waiver comes into place. The waiver is to allow usage of some of the front setback for open space. So the waiver is not to waive the restriction of open space. In fact, we've gone over the required amount by two and three times the amount of open space. But the waiver is to allow the use of what's the front setback for open space. So you'll see that the units on the north side have about 415 square feet of open space and that required 10 by 15. And the units on the south side have 318 square feet of open space. Similarly, the required 10 by 15 space. This is the view from Mission Drive. You'll see the project is designed with south-facing roofs. And the idea here is to maximize the energy that can be generated by the roof-mounted photovoltaics solar panels. So the goal for the project is to use these roofs to power the entire project with electricity. There won't be gas meters installed. And similarly from the thurber side, you'll see the south-facing roofs again. And the mix of materials is meant to compliment the modern design with natural wood, stuck with siding and some metal accents. We think this site is ideally located for a development such as this, near transit and near the hospital. We hope that the south-facing roofs are a good design to maximize the use of solar power to power the project. The project team has worked with the neighbors to address parking and privacy concerns. We provided approximately three times the amount of open space that's required for the project. We hope it's an attractive mix of materials in a modern design. We were proud of the unanimous approval of planning commission and proud that the project provides three affordable units. And really also thrilled that we're able to provide the three-bedroom units. That's really what supports small families and can help the county to take a step in the right direction to solve the housing crisis we're facing. So thank you and I'm available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you for that presentation. There's nothing else from the staff. Is there any comments from the board? Or Ms. Sey, do you don't have anything else to add? Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Any comments from the board? Now, Supervisor Koenig, did you have a comment, Noah? I have no questions. Okay. I'll open up to the public. Any comments from the public? I currently have no speakers to this item. Okay. We'll close the public hearing return to the board. I just want to say I'm happy to see more multi-family units going in that developers are taking advantage of the bonus density. And particularly, as we're going to hear from a little later this afternoon about being sensitive to the parking spaces that are needed as well as for bike spaces as well. Thank you for your consideration of that. It's very important for that area. Mr. Caput, did you have a question? Yeah, thank you. The question I have is, it does allow for three affordable units. And two would be what? Moderate income and one is very low income. Moderate, I guess income is considered affordable housing, right? Yes, that is correct. You may notice this project has a somewhat unusual component in that it has a very low income for sale unit. The reason for that, typically our Measure J affordable program that most of you may be familiar with, any affordable units in a for sale project are restricted at the moderate income level. That is common for these types of programs throughout the state. The reason this project has one very low income unit is because as it is taking advantage of the density bonus law, there is a component in that density bonus law at the state level that requires replacement of housing stock that was previously on the site if it met certain parameters. So in brief, this property had one rental unit on it or it may still have it on there, which will be demolished for this project. Now the state law requires that we determine if the unit was affordable in a variety of definitions. One of those definitions is if the any tenant within the past five years of such an existing unit was in fact a lower very low income household, then they have to replace that what is considered by the state sort of a de facto affordable unit. They have to replace that within the project in order to be able to take advantage of the density bonus. So essentially the applicant was required to coordinate with the tenant, have them sort of declare what their income was on a form that they provided to us and then we determined they were in fact a very low income. So that meant that one of their three affordable units had to be very low. And that's the same type of requirement that we examine that replacement housing requirement for any project that is applying for the density bonus. Yeah. And moderate income is considered one income for let's say a family of four. So I can give you what the median is and that's the middle of the moderate range. It is 110,000 for a family of four. The upper limit for moderate is, I think it's currently close to 130,000. So it's much higher than you might think. The income limits for this area and for much of California are actually adjusted upward by HUD to reflect how high the prevailing housing costs are. So those figures don't mean that people on average actually earn that much, but that they would need to earn that much to afford sort of reasonable housing in the area. Okay. And then finally, there's low income and very low income, this was very low income. That's around the $50,000 range. Yeah, slightly above that now, I believe it's around 60,000 for a family of four. Okay. And with the three units that we're talking about be onsite or are they paying money to have it built maybe somewhere else? One interesting component of the density bonus law is that they may not be provided offsite. So they have to be within the project. So that's kind of a nice feature of the density bonus law. So they will in fact be on the within this project and we've already scoped out with the developer which units they will be. So they're evenly dispersed throughout the project. Okay, thank you very much. Any other comments? Just a couple of comments. Thank you, Mr. Kumer and Mr. DeSalvo for the presentations. I think this project is exceptionally well designed. It's exciting to see that it's, you're putting in all electric units that won't even have gas meters. And that's a great step forward in terms of sustainability for our community. I think you've taken excellent steps to account for transportation considerations in the area including having onsite bike parking, the deed restrictions that prevent people from using up their barrages for storage space and also offering free metro passes to residents to encourage transit use. I think that's great considering how close this project is to a bus stop. And of course to really one of the primary corridors Soquel Avenue or Soquel Drive corridor in our community. So it's a great way to take advantage of that. And of course, I think the, clearly as planning said, the proposal fits well with the size of existing units that are already in the area, the 16 town homes to the north, the 12 town homes immediately to the south of the parcel as well. So I'm happy to support this project and thank you for your good work. With that, I'll move the recommended actions. Okay. I'll second. Moved and seconded any other comments from the board. Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Coonerty motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We will now move to item number 10 to consider report on the American Rescue Plan Act of 2020, approve the County of Santa Cruz ARPA recovery plan of $52,988,000 and direct the County Administrative Office to return May 18th, 2021 to accept funds in fiscal year of 2020-21 and approve the first monthly update and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. A, we have the American Rescue Plan allocation examples, attachment A, the ARPA plan SCC attachment B, the ARPPA plan SCC expenditures attachment C and the COVID-19 update attachment D. Mr. Palacios, you were going to present this to us, please. Yes, Chair McPherson and members of the Board, very pleased and happy with the work that staff has done on this item. It's incredibly complex and yet they've had to do that under a lot of time pressure. So congratulations to staff and I'd like to introduce Christina Mauri who's led our team in this effort, our County Budget Manager and she will also be presenting with Eric Friedrich, one of our CAO analysts. Thank you, Carlos. And good morning, Chair McPherson and members of the Board, Christina Mauri, your County Budget Manager. So I'm pleased today to be able to introduce the report on the COVID-19 funding provided by the American Rescue Plan. And as Carlos said, I'm joined today by Eric Friedrich, our Senior Administrative Analyst in our County Administrative Office who's been working very closely with the departments and providing the details for this plan. Our agenda today will provide an update on the COVID-19 response costs. Next slide, Eric, there you go. An overview of the American Rescue Plan Act, the multi-year expenditure plan, FEMA reimbursement risks, the multi-year expenditure plan, the revenue loss reimbursement recovery plan and some conclusions and recommendations. So during the mid-year report, your Board may recall that we talked about the County costs to mitigate and respond to COVID-19 and the funding provided to date. And at that time, we had a gap estimated about $55 million to address our revenue losses and our necessary costs through September, 2021. Now, thanks to the current administration, Congress and the president have approved additional funding in March for local governments. And the County is expected, as Carlos said, to receive $52.9 million over the next two years. This funding is intended to first cover our costs and second to cover our revenue losses, which will help the County address some of our structural budget problems over the next two years. The recommendation includes covering our COVID response costs that we believe are true for the rest of this year and support our staff by eliminating the furlough, making investments in our community by continuing to support our community partners and making small investments in infrastructure and beginning to restore our reserves as funding allows and as we navigate the timing of the FEMA reimbursements. So here you can see an update of our COVID-19 resources now estimated at $152.5 million, including the American Rescue Plan funding of $52.9 million. And FEMA funding of estimated at $44 million. It's estimated only 80% of our FEMA eligible costs based on our past experience. We know that FEMA won't reimburse us 100% of our costs, but we are gonna claim 100% of our costs and hope for the best. And then this is offset by our revenue losses of $28.4 million and our COVID response costs for a total of 128.1 million, leaving a small gap of about $4 million, which we believe could be addressed by some of the homeless funding as needed for some of the shelter and care costs, which is the majority of our FEMA eligible costs. So it's important to remember as you listen to the presentation and as we go forward that these amounts are estimates based on the information we have at this time. Details will change, especially since we haven't received full guidance yet from the U.S. Treasury on how to claim these costs. So we are gonna be recommending, as you've seen in the report, to provide you monthly updates so that we can make adjustments as needed as we go forward. So now I'd like to turn the presentation over to Eric and he'll go over some of the details. All right, thanks, Kristina. Chairman Kirscher and members of the board, I'm Eric Friedrich, I'm a Senior Administrative Analyst in the CAO's office. And I'll be emceeing the rest of the presentation here this morning. As you all may know, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was approved and signed by the president on March 11th of this year. Fun fact, the ARPA allocates $362 billion to state and local aid and you can trace the red line on the left down to exactly how much is being allocated to counties. That translates into the county being expected to receive $52.99 million in direct aid from the federal government can quite make it to $53 million even, about $52.99. And I will stress this because it's pretty important that this will be received in two equal payments. The first tranche expected in mid-May and then the second tranche expected and in equal payment one year later. Chris said that we're still waiting for final guidance and as well as our final numbers of what the actual allocation is from the US Treasury. One thing we do know based on the law is that funds can be spent up through December 31st of 2024. We don't exist in the vacuum here locally and we wanted to highlight that many jurisdictions here in Santa Cruz County have also received funding from the American Rescue Plan Act. And while $53 million coming to the county seems like a lot and it is, we wanted to show that as a percentage of our overall general fund, this accounts for about 8.5% of the county's general fund. And when you compare that to some of our peers we're actually on the lower end of funding received from the American Rescue Plan Act when you look in terms of overall budget. And that creates some complexity in that we need to be a little bit more careful around how exactly we allocate and spend our resources because just the sheer scale of county government, $53 million doesn't go quite as far as some of the allocations from our neighboring jurisdiction. So what are we going to be doing? Well, we have a multi-faceted strategy in allocating the entire amount and what we're showing you today is the total amount and we decided for complexity's sake to not break it down by year one versus year two because again, this funding is going to be received in two tranches. And so but in total the $52.99 million we're going to be looking to continue our response and mitigation cost coverage of about $24.6 million and we're expected to be able to recover some revenue losses of about $28.4 million. And what that does is that allows us to again, respond to COVID-19 as well on all the mitigating costs needed. It'll help us eliminate staffing furloughs, make infrastructure investments and restore reserves. And it'll also help us navigate some FEMA reimbursements as we move forward with the emergency and I'll talk more about that in a little bit later. So our multi-year expenditure pan again of $24.6 million it funds 45 different programs spread across the 11 county departments and they can be generally grouped into some of these nine categories and we have them to scale based off funding here on the right hand side. Many of these programs are a continuation of COVID-19 programs that were originally funded but the 2020 CARES Act funding which came through an account called the Coronavirus Relief Fund. So many of these are just continuations of things we've already been doing. Many of these programs provide targeted assistance to vulnerable residents and to our communities. And the CA's office we believe that most of this funding will be spent by September of this year though we do recognize that some programs may extend later into 2022 or 2023. Again, we have until December 31st of 2024 it's a calendar year to expend these funds. So some highlights I'll go over here. It continues our shelter and care services continues great place which has been a really successful program during the COVID-19 emergency. It provides for community health outreach support continuing parts and recreational programming. And one thing that we would ask the board's feedback on today is there is a specific bucket that is related to board directed COVID-19 response in which we're looking for your guidance on how best to use about a million dollars worth of this funding to address community needs. Switching over to our revenue loss recovery plan. This is a major shift from previous legislation related to stimulus around COVID-19 whereas previously local governments were not considered to have any aid directed towards our revenue losses which is vastly different from how the private sector had been treated. This legislation does and we are very grateful that it does provide us to supplement or supplant our revenue losses. The law itself requires that we calculate our revenue losses based on our baseline of our 2019 actual. And so when we apply that formula we estimate that we can recover about 28.4 million dollars. Now 77% of that or about 22 million is directly back to the general fund. So what are we gonna do with the revenue loss losses that we're able to recover? Well, first and foremost, I'm really excited to talk about today that we'll be looking to end the staffing formula that we put in place in July of 2020. Now the CEO's office is prepared in the coming weeks to release our proposed budget for next year. And in that budget, we will be recommending that we eliminate half of the staffing furlough. With this revenue loss recovery from the ARPA funds we can now look to be eliminate the second half of the furlough this coming July. So really excited. Our staff has worked extremely hard this past year responding to multiple emergencies and doing so under a furlough is just a tremendous task and just really proud of the whole entire county staff of really coming together under these conditions. And this funding is really helpful to getting us back to where we need to be. Secondly, the revenue loss money will help us navigate some complex reimbursement issues. And I'll again talk about those and a couple of upcoming slides. But once we know what our reimbursement levels are going to be from FEMA, then we can move more towards step three, which is be able to invest in specific projects, repair roads, bolster reserves, and other uses. Once we know sort of what our FEMA rates are going to be. Okay, so I apologize here. I'm gonna go a little bit into the leads and into the details around this, but it's a really important topic because it is a major headwind in our ability to use these funds as flexibly as possible. So as Christina mentioned in the beginning of the presentation, county staff we estimate that about $55 million is FEMA eligible to be claimed through FEMA through the end of September of this year. Now we also estimate sort of based off of past practices and conversations with various professionals that we maybe 20% of that could be potentially disallowed. So even though FEMA recently was given the executive order to reimburse 100% of the cost of the emergency, that doesn't mean that they changed what their allowances or disallowances are. The second issue around this is also that while it's at $55 million now, that number could grow and we could have other unanticipated COVID-19 costs that we would need to be able to cover with ARPA funds. So our proposed solution is to set aside some ARPA funds and some homeless funds together to be able to cover this potential fall that we have. The second risk related to FEMA has to do with the timing delays related to receiving FEMA funding. As we know from past practices, from other disasters that we've had, whether they've been roads washed away by storms, whether they've been earthquakes, whether they've been a wildfire, is that there can be considerable lags between when we file a claim to FEMA and when we actually receive the funding. And for this particular emergency, that creates two separate issues. First being a budgetary shortfall, which we're hoping to cover with available contingencies. And the second is a hard cash shortfall, which we'll be able to cover temporarily with funds from other trusts. Now, we anticipate that FEMA reimbursements will be able to come back to us. We'll actually receive the funds sometime in fiscal year 23, hopefully earlier, the better. But until then our solution is to use ARPA funds just for offset those reimbursement delays. All right, so I wanna start wrapping up and I just wanna give a high level overview of the overall plan. So out of 52.99 million dollars, we have essentially three buckets versus our ongoing COVID response costs, our general revenue recovery and our special revenue recoveries. And that's spread across the 15 sort of high level buckets of uses that we'll be using. The recap, 24.6 in COVID related expenditures, 28.4 in revenue recoveries, which will allow us to first navigate the claims and reimbursement process with FEMA, which is fraught with risk and complexity. It will help us eliminate the staffing furlough by July 1st, and it will help us make long-term investments and replenish reserves as funds allow. And ending on here, just a reminder of what our recommendations are today is first to accept and file the report. Secondly, to approve the county recovery plan as provided an attachment B and C to the staff report today. Directive CAO's office to return to the board with appropriate resolutions need to accept and appropriate the funds into the current fiscal year. And the directive CAO's office to make monthly updates to the board starting on May 18th of this year. And I will also throw out there just as a reminder that we are also looking for board's guidance on about a million dollars worth of board directed funding for the community. With that, myself, Christina and the whole crew are available for any questions. Thank you for that understandable presentation of the circumstances. Despite my comments before about my concerns for being all inclusive, I'm very appreciative of the funding we're getting from the federal and state governments. I wanna thank the CAO and staff for bringing this item forward. I'm relieved that we have received this direct response from the federal government for the cities and counties. I know there was some lag time in that. One of the concerns, as you've mentioned is on page 196, the timelines for FEMA reimbursements are unclear, but experience suggests there will be considerable lags between filing reimbursement claims and receiving FEMA funding. So it's kind of a wait and see. We don't have pure clarity, but thank you for trying to put this together in the most understandable ways that we can and what we might be able to anticipate and recognizing that we may not get everything we've asked for in essence, but a tremendous job, very well done. Any other comments? I have some questions, but any other comments from the board? Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the presentation, Mr. Friedrich and Ms. Mowry as always. I would like to just from a sort of a 10,000 foot view obviously thank not just our congressional delegation also for all those on NACO that worked pretty hard to ensure that this would actually come through. On the FEMA set aside that we're gonna hold, I would like as part of the monthly reports back, although it's gonna take a little while, report specific to that funding because I wanna be sure that if we start getting reimbursements, I think the board would like flexibility on how to direct that funding moving forward as opposed to just kind of having it sit out there, not that money sits out there, but we'd like to have a say in it. In regards to the board directed funding and I was working with Supervisor Coonerty on this idea. I mean, I would like to see a pretty significant investment as the federal bill directs as well in broadband deployment for our communities in the unincorporated area. There's a lot of areas that need some sort of financing help in order to make this a reality. And so I think that part of the board directed funding I'd like to see to go to that to some sort of fund in that regard. Obviously, I'd like to we'll need with the treasury guidance, et cetera, what the flexibility on that would be, but we can provide sort of this parent concept of broadband related funding and have that be a portion of what it is. It would, I think it would really be a pretty significant benefit to my district, Supervisor Koenig's district and Supervisor McPherson's district to be able to have some funding that would work that way. I know that Supervisor Coonerty also has some additional ideas, but I would like to tap one more concept that the investments that are outlined currently are all good ones from county staff. And I appreciate that as always on things like parks programming, that is important to the degree that we can also have infrastructure related to both parks and or public works I think is important. I think that we need things that will actually have long-term economic and job related benefits in our community and to have some of this funding similar to the 2009 RF funds really did help kick off a pretty significant shift in economic benefits for our community. So to the degree that those investments can also be an infrastructure meeting in redoing parks or investing in new parks or redoing roads. And I've heard what you said, Mr. Friedrich about the road component and some of the not knowing as far as some of the FEMA reimbursements, et cetera. But I just think from a policy phase, I feel like it's the board's job to kind of give a policy perspective. And I understand the implementation is going to occur at a different level. But I like to see something that's tangible on the longer term on the investment side. I know that there was words given that in the presentation but I just want to double emphasize it. So the two parts of this or the three parts of this are keeping us up to date on the FEMA money so that we know whether we've got flexibility moving forward on the board directed. I'm pushing for broadband and I know Supervisor Coonerty has some additional concepts to that. And the third thing is that investments in things that are actually infrastructure related on top of programmatic, I think we'll have long-term benefits. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Supervisor Coonerty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to just take a moment and appreciate that the federal partnership we have, it's felt for much of the last year like we were out on our own even as our revenues were declining, we were trying to fill the gaps in the community. And the fact that we are able to get this money, fill some gaps, continue great programs like the Great Plates Program which benefits seniors in our community, the after-school programs, the homeless support programs is incredibly important. And it's an appreciated change of direction for the federal government. Secondly, I want to, and I do want to mention, I think there's been a lot of conversations in this community about the homelessness crisis and the amount of money that we have and are planning to continue to spend on addressing that crisis, I think is important. The reality is the city or the cities and the county will not be able to solve homelessness, but with an investment from the federal government, we can make a big difference. And then so as Supervisor Friend mentioned, I'm gonna wait till we hear public comment for a motion but just to give people an idea, Supervisor Friend and I talked about how we could take and make an investment not just in sort of filling some of the gaps that have been created by COVID but in making investments that improve in the future. And so the broad outline, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues, but we think this benefits the entire county would be $500,000 for broadband access to expand broadband access in our county. COVID has shown the digital divide as people needed to work and access school or remotely and struggle to do so. $300,000 for apprenticeship programs for the trades. These are oversubscribed right now. And one of the things, Supervisor McPherson and I are experiencing is people having a hard time rebuilding their homes because they can't find people who can do the work, whether it's electricians or contractors, plumbers and other folks. And I think this is a good, if we can trade people, we can rebuild after the fires, we can build affordable housing and we can create some good paying jobs so that people can live and work in this community. And so by providing more apprenticeship slots, we can create a workforce for the future. And finally, $400,000 for programs to support business development with a focus on women, minority-owned businesses and cultural institutions. These are three demographics that were hard hit by this pandemic. And I think if we can partner with the Small Business Development Center and some other programs, we can really help foster a next generation of business owners that can help reestablish jobs, reestablish a tax base and create the sort of vibrant economy we want. And so that's what Supervisor Friend and I are sort of hoping we can carve out as good investments for our community from these dollars that will pay dividends, hopefully not only in the short term, but also in the long term to address, to make our economy more equitable and vibrant going forward. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. I like the thought of what Supervisor Friend and Coonerty have mentioned. I want to make sure it adds up. I heard community broadband 500, 300 for apprenticeships, 400 for business. So I think it'd be, I don't mind the proposal, but I would hope that maybe we'd have the CAO come back with a definitive of proposal, maybe hearing some input from other supervisors beyond what we're discussing today for that $1 million set aside. But I'm on the same page with what your thoughts are overall. So Supervisor Caput, do you have any comments? Yeah, thank you. I want to thank Carlos Palacios, Christine, Maury, and Eric. How do you pronounce your last name, Eric? Bradree. Okay, I want to thank you too. And anybody else I'm leaving out. Yeah, my concern is the same as it was already mentioned in FEMA. That money, that's a national pot of money that goes out nationally. What if we had another hurricane or storm or fire somewhere in the country? A lot of FEMA money would have to go to that. So what effect would that have on the actual pot of money that FEMA is pretty much something we're depending on? What effect will that have on the rest of the funding that we are more secure in having? I don't know if anybody can answer that. Sure, I mean, the American Rescue Plan did allocate additional funding for FEMA to make sure that they could address the 100% of the cost, eligible costs of the various communities. I think they won't know how much it will cost until it's all said and done and they've set aside to the best of their ability. I think it's important for us, we are focusing on getting our claims in as quick as possible so we can get them obligated and funded. And I'm confident in staff's ability to do that and we're just gonna do the best we can. I think the fact that we are spending the majority of this money through September will be helpful so that we can claim that money right away to FEMA. And if the amount comes in quite a bit less than we're anticipating, will that affect all the other money that we're getting on COVID-19 response? And that's why we've set aside some of the American Rescue Plan funding, Supervisor Caput, we've set aside some funding in the event we don't receive as much from FEMA then we can use some of the America Rescue Plan funding. But likewise, if we get as much more money from FEMA then we'll have additional funding that can be allocated and that's where we're gonna come to you each month and hear your direction. And I don't think it'll be a problem to carve out a million too as opposed to a million for the board. And obviously there'll be other opportunities as we find out more about the FEMA reimbursements to have your board direct even more funding. You bet. And I'm very confident that you and the rest of your staff and everybody can figure this out. So thank you. Supervisor Koenig. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Friedrich and thanks Ms. Marri for the report. Just to have a couple of questions to make sure I'm reading this correctly, as far as understanding what money, what expenses we've already incurred and need to basically reimburse and what money would be paying for those programs going forward and perhaps we have a little more discretion over. I'm looking at Detachment C and do I, am I understanding it correctly if I look at the amount requested for 20 to 21 as sort of being money we've already spent and what's requested for 21, 22 as what's going forward? Is that fair? Sorry, yes, that's correct. Okay, great. And then I also wanna echo Supervisor Friend's point that of course the more we can use this money to make investments and reap long-term economic benefits the better. I think some of the, for example, some of the programs, the virtual programs that Parks has been running are really great. I'm just wondering if we come out of the pandemic by June 15th as the state is suggesting we could within a vaccines, could some of that money for, for example, virtual parks programs be reallocated to investing in parks infrastructure? Certainly, that's a possibility. One of the things is that it will take time for parks revenue losses to recover. And so we've been dependent on some additional allocations from CalWorks to help fund some of their distance learning. Some of that funding wasn't available for next year but it could be in the May revise. So that could help free up some money as well. So we're kind of waiting to see what happens with the May revise. But certainly if there is, if they don't need that funding for their distance learning programs then we could allocate it elsewhere, yes. Got it. Similar question for the $3 million for paid sick leave going forward. Where did that number come from? Is that based on sort of historical paid sick leave data? And it seems like with more and more vaccines available it may not be necessary. So could we potentially reallocate that? And if so, to what? Yes, that is a good point. It was hard for us to estimate how much that would be. We did estimate the $3 million essentially based on our experience up through December. And then we took a look at what the cost could potentially be January through for this current year, for current calendar year through the end of the program. And then we looked at the percentage of experience we had in the last program, which is about 25%. So if every employee took the 80 hours that they're entitled to, it would be, including our extra help, which are also eligible. It could be as much as $13 million. So we only took 25% of that based on our experience. Many of our employees don't need the funding. It's there for them to assist them. And if they need it, we will provide it so that we could have some savings there. We just don't know at this point. Okay, Brian, what I'm hearing you saying is that it's also basically cover through next winter. So if we get some troublesome variants or any kind of other unexpected challenges we're dealing with in the dark months this coming year, we would have it available for that. Then if that money sort of in the personnel department would it happen? I mean, it would have to be reused for personnel uses if we're not, and we don't end up using it for? No, your board could reallocate it to anything. It's money set aside for that purpose based on our experience so far and what we think we need. But like I said, when we come back month to month we'll give your board an update. So any of the funding allocated to any of the various items that haven't been contracted like some of our community support funds will have been contracted and wouldn't necessarily be allocated. But these other pots of money we could easily reallocate that funding. Okay, that's good to understand. And then you referenced a community program or community programs. And I was just curious how luck for the Great Plates Delivered Program how much longer would that be funded with this allocation? So we've put a plan together. I mean, it's essentially through September when we believe the emergency will be declared over but we really don't know. So that we think through September is where the majority of our costs are. And so the department overseeing the match on that program has included costs through September. Great. All right, that's all my questions. Thank you. Sir. Okay, I think maybe some of that's been answered on page 201, the unanticipated COVID related costs with seven million set aside in that category. If we don't end up needing that funding, do we have any early ideas of how we might program it or how we can reprogram it? Yes, there's, we haven't really developed that next plan. I think we were waiting to hear what kind of direction we receive from your board. Obviously, the sooner we find out from FEMA where we stand, I mean, we're getting a lot of information from them right now. We have about $22 million worth of claims in the system and we just got approval and we're gonna receive a check for the first two million in about three weeks. So it does take a process but we believe we'll have, we'll know quite a bit more within the next year. So, and each month we're gonna get more information. So I don't, I couldn't tell you at this point but obviously I think we've identified some programs in the plan where we didn't feel we had enough funding. Health services is getting quite a bit of funding for their equity programs but they have an increased need there. There's a suicide prevention program that we've been wanting to fund and we haven't identified any money for that program. And Eric, I think you can correct me. There's another couple of programs that staff identified where it could help build up some of the technology infrastructure in terms of software to help us be better prepared for that next emergency where staff would like to make investments but we didn't feel like those were the highest priority right now but if funding it becomes available, your board could direct, we spend money there as well. Okay, thank you. Maybe to ask the CEO, you've heard the discussion now and I don't know that we have to make any definitive decisions right now. How long would you like to come back to us with more direct allocations to certain programs? Would you want a couple of weeks or wait the next month and does that hurt us by waiting? We'd like direction as soon as possible. That would be helpful. So if you were to write their direction today, for example, regarding the board directed million dollars and I know that the proposal that's on the table is for 1.2. So if that and the rest of the plan were approved today, then we could come back in two weeks with more information about the million dollar board directed funds and then with a plan that staff has developed and we could present to the board. Okay, I don't know if that, I could be okay with that because like I said, I think those are, I just want to make sure we get enough board input, maybe in two weeks. I don't know if we need to make a decision right now or we can wait for two weeks. I just want to be sensitive to any other board proposals that might come in. How does the board will decide that on a motion to come up but I would think that maybe it wouldn't hurt to wait another two weeks to see, let's get more input if necessary. One thing I'd like to make an amendment to the direction that we've had is for or the chair to write a letter to the congressional delegation asking for assistance in the timely processing of FEMA to the county for COVID related costs. I think we should try to be specific in that request and ask them to do that. But I don't, it's up to the board of how they wish to move ahead with the board directed actions. I guess that's the main point we're making here. If we want to make a decision on that today or wait for another two weeks for Mr. Palacios to come back to us. Personally, I'd like to wait. That's Supervisor Caput. I feel that, Mr. Chair, that we're providing a framework and they're still coming back with specifics. So we're not actually allocating the money today. And so what this was was providing a framework around what that would be. But that was the request of the recommended actions was that we actually provide this direction today. So I was coming forward prepared to do that and as was Supervisor Coonerty. So I would like to move forward with doing that and seeing what staff comes up to what those look like. Cause as I said earlier, from a conceptual standpoint, these are the things that we're interested in what it looks like to ensure that it actually qualifies as an allowable expense as part of what needs to be reviewed and what kind of program could actually be implemented as a result of that is what they would be coming back in a couple of weeks with. Okay. Yeah, I just like to add, I think, you know, I think idea was to sort of get the ball rolling on a couple of these programs, but as I think Supervisor Koenig and his friend talked about, I mean, I think the CEO's office is being conservative as regard to sick leave and to FEMA reimbursements, which as they should be and as we all should be, but to the extent that those get resolved, there will be, I think, an additional dollars in the future to allocate. And we can look forward to more board input, but this was just to sort of get the conversation started on some real needs we saw emerging out of the pandemic. Yeah, okay. Yeah, then there's always board members could come up with some other recommendations in two weeks in that discussion as well. I don't know if that you want to make the motion to that. I want to go to the public first excuse for what we can put. Yes, thank you. I have three speakers for public comment. Caller two nine one five, your microphone will be unmuted. Hello, can you hear me? Yeah. Thank you. This is Becky Steinbruner from rural Aptos. This is a staggering amount of money and I don't know how our county, how our country is ever going to recover from all of this, but I'm glad there is help coming to Santa Cruz County for these programs. I appreciate the board's request that there be regular reports on the FEMA reimbursements. And I hope that those reports continue on for this very large sum of money too, to provide some transparency and accountability for how they are spent. I want, I'm happy that the furloughs will be ending. I want to know if the jobs that were cut will be restored, such as the very critical full-time paid position for the county's Office of Emergency Management, Rosemary Anderson's job was cut. And I feel, and many do, that this county suffered as a result. So I would very much like to see her job restored and the jobs of those who were cut, including the parking lot attendant that keeps money coming in for the parking facilitation there. Why are we not also looking at reimbursing county fire personnel for the PPE that they also had to buy? General Services Department does not list that. There's reimbursement to sheriff and probation, but nothing for fire. I would like to see county fire and fire personnel also reimbursed for their expenses for PPE. I would like to see hydrants included in the infrastructure in the North Coast and the very vulnerable fire risk areas. Your board has discussed this and was going to put the onus on the property owners. Now you have the money to put in this infrastructure. I am asking if this would also pay for a project home key that would actually buy the home key. That's right, okay. Colin user three or microphone is unmuted. This is Marilyn Garrett. I'm really dismayed to hear about all this pushing for broadband, which is toxic microwave radiation. You've received many documents and references of sources verifying this. And I'm thinking of a publication, these birds and mankind destroying nature by electro smog we can't live without the bees. And this is a major cause of the decline in the bee population. Also fires have been caused by these cell towers, smart meters, very dangerous and power line. I'd like to quote dog. And so there's total ignoring of the facts and just like, oh, how great this is. Well, it can kill you and permanently damage the environment. Oh, how great I just incredible. Dr. Marston Paul is another source he was interviewed. He's a professor emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical science. He published studies over 17 publicized studies. He quoted showing serious effects of harm from non ionizing radiation from these sources like smart meters, broadband, Wi-Fi, antennas, nervous system damage, endocrine system damage, oxidative stress, DNA damage, increased program cell death, lower fertility, increased cancer by 15 separate mechanisms, excessive intercellular calcium. These are extraordinary well-documented review articles showing this harm. Why are you promoting radiation? There are no other speakers for this item chair. Okay, we will return to the board for action. I think that, I think that obviously board members would be welcome to come back with any other suggestions. They might want to add to board directed items, even though we have focused on three today. And also I'd like to just add to the motion to direct the chair to write a letter to the delegation, congressional delegation for processing a FEMA reimbursement to the county for the COVID related costs. Just to show them how important that is to us. Yeah, so Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the recommended actions, include the direction that the chair reach out to our congressional delegation to assist with COVID reimbursement time and funds, add in that the board, that the CAO's office return with proposals for the following programs, $500,000 for broadband access, $300,000 to expand apprenticeship training for the trades in Santa Cruz County and $400,000 for programs to support business development with a focus on women, minority-owned business and cultural institutions in our county. Second. Seconded by Supervisor Friend, please call the roll. Thank you, Supervisor Koenig. Excuse me, point of information. I just wanted to clarify that with this motion and approving the second recommended action of the, to approve the County of Santa Cruz ARPA recovery plan, essentially we are somewhat fixing the amounts itemized for various departments. Breck. Yes, that is the plan at this point. Much of that money though, including the million dollars your board is discussing or million two is part of next fiscal year. So we would provide a supplemental to go along with that. So there's no rush. So if the board would like to continue to provide us direction, it would be nice to have a little more time than a couple of weeks so that we could come back in about four weeks in May and we'll probably have more information at that time as well. So let me, yeah, I was going off of what the CAO had mentioned, but I'm happy to have it come back in four weeks to amend my motion to have it come back in four weeks. That's fine with the second one. Okay. And I'm just going to come back in four weeks. Good, and then direct the chair to write to the congressional delegation. Court, please call the roll. Thank you, Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. First, then. Aye. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. And you know, I want to just make one, thank you again to the CAO's office, but thank you to our county employees for weathering this horrific storm that we've been going through for the last year and a half. It's above and beyond the call of duty and we thank you very much for what you've done. Very much appreciated. We will now go to item number 11, a public hearing to consider this collection of activities and authorize the middle of 2021 community development block grant CDBG application to the state of California. Adopt a resolution authorizing the staff to apply for the 2021 CDBG funds and take related actions that that find in the memorandum of planning director of resolution community development block grant 2021. I believe Priscilla Wilson be presenting to us from the county planning department. Yes, thank you, chair. That is correct. Priscilla Wilson is our housing specialist and she'll be pulling up a slide, a few slides on this program. Thank you, Ms. Yixing. Good morning, board. This is Priscilla Wilson from the housing section and as Suzanne, as she stated, we will be going over the CDBG 2021 grant process. Today's public meeting will focus on the notice of funding availability that was issued. The county of Santa Cruz is not an entitlement jurisdiction and applies during the annual competitive state process. Under the NOFA, the county is eligible for up to one and a half million dollars. Applications are due at the end of this month, April 30th. The county's application can include up to three activities with a total of no more than one and a half million. Limits are shown per activity and funds for activity costs should be reduced by 7%, which is general administration costs that are paid back to the county for implementing these activities. Eligible activities under this NOFA include home buyer assistance, housing rehab for single family units. These are loans that go to homeowners or home buyers, public services, which must be new or expanded programs, economic activities such as business assistance, micro enterprise assistance or infrastructure and supportive businesses. Activities cannot be similar to activities currently funded in an open 2018 CDBG grant. Those activities are a planning and technical assistance grant, which is funding the Davenport domestic water feasibility study and a multifamily rehabilitation project, which is for funding a hardiness Del Valle housing project. Public facilities and infrastructures funding were not available as part of this year's NOFA as HCD oversubscribed in the previous years and is funding those projects as funds become available. All CDBG activities must address a national objective. This is predominantly met through a benefit to low income households, especially true for public services activities. Staff held an informational meeting on March 11th for prospective applicants. True proposals were received, both requested the maximum allowed of $500,000 under the public services activity. The first proposal came from the Humanist Services Department, Housing for Health, which requested funding to provide a pilot program in conjunction with the homeless persons health project to create a street outreach group to target persons experiencing homelessness in the unincorporated areas of the county. The second proposal came from Community Bridges, which requested funding to support a pilot program for the Santa Cruz County Free Legal Defense Clinic. The clinic will provide services to low income community members housed through the moratoriums and offer protection after the eviction protections end. The recommended action is that your board hold a public hearing to consider these select proposals received for possible inclusion in the county's application for funds from the state community development block grant, 2021 Notice of Funding Availability, to adopt a resolution authorizing the staff to apply for half a million dollars in the 2021 CDBG funds for the staff recommended proposal, Street Outreach to Homeless Clients, which is a public service activity, and to direct your staff to notify the board of the results of this application when CDBG 2021 awards are announced by the state. Staff and representatives from, I believe, the proposals are available. Should you have any questions? And this concludes staff's presentation. Thank you very much. Any questions, comments from the board? Don't see any, we have any? Okay. We will go to the public hearing. Are there any comments from the public? Yes, I have one speaker to this item. Dutron Kay, your microphone is unmuted. I'm sorry, and if I may please ask Priscilla to please stop the screen share. Okay, second call for Dutron. Okay, they're using an older version of Zoom and they're unable to unmute themselves, unfortunately. The next caller, Raymond Cansino. Hi, board, Raymond Cansino, CEO of Community Bridges. I just would like to thank staff, Priscilla, and the rest of the team, Susan, for their consideration of our project that was submitted. Unfortunately, we did go through the process and we weren't selected as far as the staff recommendation, but did want to ensure that the full board was fully aware of this project and the goals of this project moving forward. As we know, the moratorium, the rental moratorium will end and we have been identifying individuals that might need additional support, including legal support in order to properly maintain housing in Santa Cruz County. Our clients have been really speaking to the need of particularly not only a right to counsel conversation, but an opportunity of an unmet need in our community which speaks to undocumented right to counsel. So individuals that are current neighbors, friends, community members that don't have full legal representation in our community due to lack of resources around this issue. There's only a handful of organizations that do it and the majority of them do not serve this specific need. We have been working on this project and have received some funding for initially starting a project like this and thanks to the Packard Foundation, they've invited us into a larger proposal. And so we are hoping to at least partially fund this project in the next coming months. And so we are looking for guidance beyond just CDBG, but also for the board to identify other resources where this project might be able to thrive. We've been working with the self-help courts as well as the Conflict Resolution Center as well as our partners at the Senior Legal Services which is willing to drop down their eligibility requirement of age in order to fully serve this unmet need and help both tenants and landlords have some legal representation in this process. As you know, Community Bridges is also doing the SB 91 project and we've identified that this is a need in terms of those folks that might not be able to agree through regular mediation or through the current services we have offered. Thank you. Wow, right on target. Thank you. Thank you. Second caller, Dutron again, we're unable to meet you unfortunately. Okay, that concludes the speakers, Chair. Okay, we'll return to the board. Any comments from the board? Number 11. I'll move the recommended actions. Okay, move by Coonerty. Second. Second by Coonerty, Coonerty, thank you. All right, please call the roll. Thank you, Supervisor Koenig. Hi. Friend. Hi. Coonerty. Hi. Caput. Hi. McPherson. Hi. Thank you, Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We will go to item number 12, public hearing to consider proposed 2021-22 benefit assessment rates for county service areas or CSAs, 3, 13A, 18 and 28, request the middle of ballots for the proposal, for the proposed 2021-22 benefit assessments, continue the public hearing to May 25th, 2021 and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the deputy CAO director of public works at Shadow. We have 2021-22 proposed benefit assessments for CSAs, 3, 13A, 18 and 28, Mr. Machado. Thank you and good morning. Thank you, Chairman, Board of Supervisors. Appreciate the introduction. So that and before you is a public hearing for benefit assessment rate increases for CSAs, 3, 13A, 18 and 28. In order to complete the proposed benefit assessments, it will be necessary for the Board to open the public hearing, take testimonies and consider objections or protests to the proposed benefit assessments. I would like to remind the Board that all proposed increases are at the request of the CSAs. Our role is simply to implement their requests. And Chair, as you mentioned, the recommended action today is to open the public hearing and hear objections or protests, if any, to the proposed benefit assessments for CSAs. Number three, Aptos Seascape. Number 13A, Oak Flat. Number 18, White House Canyon. And number 28, Lowman Terrace. Also to request the submittal of all ballots for proposed 21-22 benefit assessments for CSAs, 3, 13A, 18 and 28, to close the public testimony portion of the public hearing and to continue the public hearing to May 25th, 2021 to allow for tabulation and certification of the ballots. With that, I can answer any questions that you may have. Any questions from Board members? Seeing none, any questions from the public? I have no speakers for this item. Okay, we will close the public testimony of this portion of the public hearing and come back to the Board for action to continue the public hearing to May 25th, 2021. Mr. Chair, I'll move the recommended actions also with appreciation for these CSAs. I know they've done a lot of outreach within their own communities in order to try and look for these increased assessments. I appreciate the work that they do to help improve their neighborhoods in partnering with public works in the county and the projects they do. So I'll move the recommended actions. I'll second. Second by Caput. Please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. We will go to item number 13 as a Board of Directors for the Davenport County Sanitation District. Consider approving in concept ordinance D96 to amend Title IV. Caput. 0.04. Article five, section 4.04. 0.446. Private sewer maintenance of the Davenport County Sanitation District Code. Consider proposed notice of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA and schedule the ordinance for final adoption on the next available agenda as outlined in the memorandum of the District Engineer. The ordinance number D96, DCSD Code Amendments. Amendments to the DCSD Code that's a strike out underline. CEQA notice of exemption from the Davenport County Sanitation District and from the Davenport County Sanitation District Homeowners Association Flyer Ordinance D96. I believe Maria Warnquay and Sonya Likens from our Public Works Department is going to present on this. This is Ashley Trujillo. I'm with the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District. This is for the Davenport County Sanitation District. Excuse me. I will be presenting on this. And as you know, this has been a challenging year for our County's residents due to the COVID-19 pandemic. And as such, the district is proposing that we give owners of private sewer collection systems an additional year to submit the sewer inspection videos and reports required by the private sewer maintenance ordinance that was passed in 2019. The amendment to extend this deadline does not change the ongoing maintenance requirements for owners of the private sewer systems that were set by the 2019 ordinance. So therefore, we recommend that you consider ordinance D96 in concept amending Title IV, Chapter 4.04, Article 5 of Section 4.04446, private sewer maintenance of the Davenport County Sanitation District Code. Consider the proposed notice of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and direct the clerk of the board to place the ordinance D96 on the next available agenda for final adoption. I'm available for question. Thank you, Mr. Trujillo. Any comments from the board? Do we have any comments from the public? I have no speakers to this item. Okay. We will return to the board for action. I'll move approval. Move by Coonerty. Second. Second by Koenig. Please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We will go to item number 14. As board of directors for the Freedom County Sanitation District consider approving in concept ordinance number F-27 to amend title three, article five, section 3.04.446. Private sewer maintenance of the Freedom County Sanitation District Code consider proposed notice of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and schedule the ordinance for final adoption on the next available agenda as outlined in the memorandum of district engineer. We have ordinance number F-27, FCSD code amendments, amendments to the Freedom County Sanitation District Code strike out underlying. See the sequel notice of exemption ordinance F-27, the Freedom County Sanitation District Plire about ordinance F-27. And again to present is Ashley Trujillo of our Public Works Department. Thank you, Chairperson McPherson, supervisors. So this item is the same as the item for the Freedom or the Davenport District that I just presented. Again, we're just wanting to give a longer timeline for owners of private collection systems to submit the required inspections and reports. So we recommend that you consider this ordinance F-27 in concept amending title three, article five, section 3.04446, private sewer maintenance of the Freedom County Sanitation District Code consider the proposed notice of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and direct the clerk of the board to place ordinance number F-27 on the next available agenda for final adoption. And I'm available for questions. Thank you. Thank you. Again, any questions from the Board of Supervisors? Seeing none. Do we have any questions from the public? There are no speakers to this item, Chair. Okay, we will return to the Board of Supervisors for action. I'll move. I'll move for approval. I'll second. I'll move by Caput, seconded by Friend. Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. That completes our regular agenda. We do have a one pretty scheduled item on the live of parking program. We will, it is quarter to 12, we will go into closed session at noon. So if we would do that, Mr. County Council, if we don't go immediately and go at noon, that's gonna give us enough time to come back at 1.30. Yes, Supervisor. Okay. We will go into closed session. We recess to closed session and come back at noon and then come back for the public hearing on the parking program for the live Oak parking program at 1.30. And Mr. Chair, is there anything reportable coming out of closed session? Yes. Thank you. There's nothing reportable coming out of closed session. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We will return to public session at 1.30. See you at noon and closed session. Okay. Hello. Welcome again to the April 3rd, 2021 meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. We have a scheduled item at 1.30 PM. It is 1.30 as we speak, as I speak. We're going to item number 15 to consider the 2020 live Oak Park parking program report, adopt resolutions establishing the designated parking zones, period of restricted parking and fees for the 2021 live Oak parking program, consider amendment to parking penalty amounts and take related actions. As outlined in the memorandum of the Deputy CEO, Director of Public Works, it's Matt Machado. We have a resolution 2021 live Oak parking program fees, resolution 2021 live Oak parking program street address and a map of the live Oak parking permit streets. So to present this, I'm not sure as Mr. Machado, are you going to be presenting this? I am. Right, very well. All right. Thank you and good afternoon, Chair McPherson and supervisors. The item before you is to review last year's live Oak parking program and to formalize this coming year's program plan. For the 2021 season, we are proposing the same program area and the same seasonal days for program operation. We are proposing two significant changes for this season, a fee increase resulting in a $75 seasonal permit paid, which is, which would be paid equally for all vehicles parked in the program area and a mobile app to replace the paper permits and freestanding kiosk system. The existing program permit does not currently generate enough revenue to cover its operational costs. The recommended action is to make the existing program financially viable while streamlining the permit process. A financially viable program would in turn provide a better program for the community with improved infrastructure and enforcement. Our intention is to operate a program that serves all stakeholders in the most balanced way. Additionally, we are pursuing a new coastal development permit which will consider an expanded program area and an expanded season of operation for the future beyond the 21 season. I do want to also share that we in coordination with district one have conducted considerable public outreach and have strived for transparency. Public Works hosted two public meetings, February 3rd and February 17th and have posted those public meeting recordings and PowerPoints to the Public Works webpage. We've also posted our draft budget detail for this program. This information has been posted for more than a month and has been the topic of much debate. Additionally, district one supervisor and staff have done extensive outreach, including regular community meetings and extensive polling to better understand the needs of our community. This is a very consequential program, whether the program continues or not. I'm going to keep my comments brief to enable more time for a robust discussion. The recommended actions before you today are to accept and file the 2020 Live Oak parking program report to adopt resolutions establishing the designated parking zone, including the period of restricted parking and fees for the 21 Live Oak parking program, to consider amendment to parking penalty amounts and to direct the Department of Public Works to initiate the 2021 Live Oak parking program. I am available to answer any questions or provide any additional information that you desire. And I thank you for your patience and understanding and making this difficult decision. Thank you. Supervisor Coney, I don't know if you probably have some comments to make. Yes, thank you, Chair. I want to start by thanking Director Machado and all the staff at Public Works who have invested so much time into trying to improve this program. It would be really easy to say, hey, this program, we haven't been able to make it financially sustainable over the past years, let's just forget about it. But instead, Public Works has invested more time in an effort to do what's best for the entire community. And I really want to commend them for that. I think a lot of people might question staff's motives or my own motives in trying to move this program forward. And really I would encourage anyone who is making a comment today to focus on positions and the issue at hand. I just want to express, I have the utmost confidence and respect for the integrity and attitude with which staff has done this work. So thank you. And then to build on what Director Machado said, as he said, we co-hosted two public workshops together. In addition, I have held several town hall meetings myself. I spent a few hours at the Live Oak Farmers Market, in which it was literally a marathon of public engagement standing for three and a half hours straight. I heard from a lot of constituents there, discussed the changes to the Sparking Program or the proposed changes on a local podcast. We've reviewed hundreds and hundreds of constituent emails through my office. And then in an effort to be as objective as possible, I put out a survey both through my social media and email newsletter to collect more information from the community at large. My newsletter distribution list is over 25,000 recipients. So it is a large number of people, both primarily in the first district, but throughout the county as well. We received over 980 responses to that survey. And I tried to really make it as straightforward as possible in terms of whether people think the program should be updated based on really the program proposal that we're seeing here today, or eliminated or scrapped. And we saw in over 980 responses, 45% of respondents said the program should be updated, including with the $75 season permit. 42% said it should be eliminated and 13% still weren't sure. So the results were very split. And while it wasn't statistically representative in terms of a random sample of people, as I said, a lot of over 25,000 people were given the opportunity to take the survey. And we really saw that split remain from when the first couple of hundred respondents had answered all the way to nearly 1,000 respondents. And so I believe it pretty accurately reflects the general feeling in the community. Also did a follow-up survey to see if changing the price at which the program was offered would build any more support for it and ask people who had originally said that the program should be eliminated or they weren't sure if they would support the program at a $50 season pass. And that increased support for the program about 56% of all respondents. So that's just the additional information. I wanna provide the board on some of the background work that my office has done. And then I wanted to ask a few questions. And particularly I wanted to highlight the elephant in the room, which is the Coastal Commission letter we received yesterday saying that they do not support the any changes or expansion of the live out parking program. As the board is probably aware of this, this program has a coastal development permit to allow it to operate. And the Coastal Commission expressed that they believe are current and proposed program are in violation of that. I'll just go ahead and actually read a paragraph from that letter, which I think is probably the most to the point. And I quote, we do not support operation of the program inconsistent with the underlying coastal development permit, CDP, and we not support making changes to it as you are, you, our board are currently being asked to do without a proper CDP amendment application and appeal process. Please be aware that continued operation of the program inconsistent with the underlying CDP, whether it is modified as is being recommended or it stays the same as in recent years, represents a knowing and intentional violation of the CDP, the Coastal Act and the local coastal program to which the Coastal Act includes a series of remedies, including administrative fines and other penalties to rectify both past violations as well as new and prospective violations. Any changes to the program that you, our board, may make outside of the coastal development permit process as you are being asked to do here, e.g. geographical expansion, operating time modifications, fee changes, app-based interface, et cetera, are not recognized or authorized by the underlying CDP. So with that, I wanna direct my first couple of questions to County Council to understand what the, and just ask what are the legal risks to the County of proceeding with the program as it's currently proposed. Thank you, Supervisor. So the letter is troubling. It's troubling to get a letter that pointed from the Coastal Commission on this program, which has operated for a number of years, but the County is consented to the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction, otherwise we would not have sought a permit to begin with. And just like the County is the arbiter of whether a permit is being complied with when we issue permits, in the initial phase, the Coastal Commission really is the arbiter of whether we are in or not in compliance with their permits. The access issues that they're raising are within the scope of their mission. And the penalties for violation, if they're found can be significant. They have the ability to seek monetary penalties against the County. They also have the ability to seek injunctive relief from a court action. And so from a legal perspective, when we get a letter like this, my advice would be that we try to engage in a robust discussion with Coastal, further consultation with Coastal to really get at the meat of all of the issues that they are raising. So we can really get into them in detail and then your board can be acting more in choice around whether or not you would wanna try to proceed with something given the risks involved. Thank you. And I will also just point out, we did receive this letter yesterday after we have been engaged working with the Coastal Commission really since the beginning of updating this process. So that's part of why we're here today and trying to consider this evidence at this moment. So if another question for you, Mr. Heath, if we didn't operate a parking program this year and there was, we've had a really difficult summer and there was strong demand from the public for a parking program next year, could we pick up where we left off with the previously approved and I presume still active Coastal Development Permit and try and come into alignment with it if we're 2022 season? Yeah, I believe that the permit will not go away if the board does not implement the program this year. But when you wanna ask whether we can continue the program as it is currently in place, Coastal is making an argument right now that we are in violation as the program is currently in place. So what I would wanna do is go back and look at that permit and see exactly what was permitted at the time and then have a more full conversation with Coastal about their allegations that the way that the program has expanded over the years does not meet with their expectations. Okay. And then for Director Machado in terms of, you might have a more full understanding of what particularly the Coastal Commission is taking the issue with. If we did something like remove the Pleasure Point area from the Live Oak Parking Program area, maintain the existing kiosks, as I think that's seen as maybe a access issue or stay within the, I believe the original operating dates were May 1st to Labor Day. If we maintain those changes, I mean, do you see us being able to do that and have a successful program that we ran in the 2021 season? So I think the concerns, I mean, beyond what they said in the letter is that they really simply recognized the original 1983 permit. And there were a handful of amendments in the 90s and maybe even into the 2000s that expanded the program that they don't recognize. And so I guess to answer your question, to be in compliance, we'd have to at a minimum scale back the area to the original 83 area, which is a handful of streets less than what we have today. One of the other concerns that they continue to push and they referenced the Coastal Act is the disparity between charges. Some people get charged full freight, some don't. And so I think there would have to be a leveling up of those charges one way or the other. So we would have to resolve that as well. I think those are the big issues. I mean, there's smaller issues that it continued to share, such as eliminating encroachments. That's a big topic as well. And that's always been a contentious point throughout this whole program. But I think scaling back the area to the original 83 boundaries and having a consistent charge for all users would probably get us close to alignment with what they see is right. And if we delayed this item until a couple of weeks until the next meeting or even a future date, you think that you could work with Coastal Commission staff to get to a program that for the 2021 season that everyone agreed on? You know, I don't think so. I gotta be honest. For us to have a financially viable program, we are in that $75, that's the amount. That's what it takes to pay for enforcement. That's what it takes to run the program. And I think they see that as unaffordable. And so even though we're proposing a constant permit fee across all users, I think they would probably say that that's a high fee. And it's unaffordable for many people. And I don't know how to resolve that because less than that puts us in a deficit mode, especially if we scale back the area. So then permit sales will go down. Costs won't go down that much. You still have to have enforcement. You still have to have management of the program. You still have to have those systems in place. And so, it might actually get worse for us if we try to meet their needs, the cost could almost go up. And I think that's contrary to what they believe is right for the community as a whole. First of all, thank you, Supervisor Koenig and Mr. Machado for your outreach efforts. I'm sure your constituents appreciate it too. I don't know, just looking at it from the outside of the district again, I'm afraid if we just go ahead with the proposal right now, we're gonna get a lot of pushback. I don't know that much is gonna be gained if we have further conversations with the Coastal Commission. And I know there were probably a lot of people waiting to make comments now, but personally, I'd hesitate from making a decision at this point under the circumstances. And I'm really sorry that we didn't get a letter or concern from the Coastal Commission before yesterday. Could have made it a lot easier for us to move accordingly. I'm just hesitant to go ahead and approve something at this point knowing we're having pretty good evidence that Coastal Commission's not going to accept it. I don't know if any other board members have a comment to make on it. I do, Mr. Chair, but I wanted to ensure that Supervisor Koenig had actually had an opportunity to complete his questions. I wasn't sure if you were quite done yet, Supervisor Koenig. I mean, there's a number of other questions I could ask based on the nature of the program itself and some of the finer details, but I think those are less relevant than some of these top-level issues. So I'll defer any questions you might have, Supervisor Friend. Thank you. And so thank you, Mr. Chair. And actually, I wanted to start off with an appreciation to Supervisor Koenig as well as Director Machado because this has been an intractable problem for some time and it really hasn't had any movement. And so I appreciate your leadership on trying to reach this as a resolution, especially as a new County Supervisor. And to Director Machado, if some of the emails that I had received and outreach I'd received are any indication, I just wanna say that to a point that Supervisor Koenig was alluding to, some of them were kind of personal and I felt were inappropriate and questioned motives and ethics that I really think cross a line. So I want you to know that the Board fully supports you, fully supports your department and I'd like to remind the community that his job and his department's job is to implement our policies. So if you have an issue with the policies, that's what we're here for. I did wanna talk a little bit about the program though, because I do have, there are some issues that I think that might actually be a little bit irreconcilable to one quick sec, I'm in some audio here. To Supervisor McPherson's point, I mean, Coastal has actually been engaged for quite some time on this issue. They've spoken to the Board previously about it, they've expressed their concerns about it. I know the letter did come in a little bit last minute, but the viewpoints that they've been expressing have been pretty consistent. Ultimately, they don't like the program. I mean, they have concerns about the equity issues, they have concerns about the costs and those aren't gonna be remedied by any of the proposals that are in front of us today. And I think that there are some pretty difficult issues with it as well. I mean, I would argue that other districts are subsidizing the program because the program isn't self-sustaining, that it creates impacts outside of the Live Oak parking area because people will go to areas that don't cost anything to park. So it creates impacts on Supervisor Coonerty and my districts and other areas of Supervisor Koenig's district. There's greater just questions about equity and access to the coast and whether it's reasonable, for example, to charge my constituents who access areas of Live Oak to access the coast a fee, but Supervisor Koenig's constituents or Supervisor Coonerty's constituents can come down to my district and not engage in a fee to also access the coast. So there's an inequity across the line there of whether that's reasonable. So I think that these are actually irreconcilable differences if we have a program functionally, at least under its current construct. And I think that maybe one of the easiest things to do is to actually scrap the program as currently designed and start anew and see whether we can design something that does actually work. Because if we were designing this program from scratch, we wouldn't design it to look the way that it currently looks. I mean, you would design a program that A is self-sustaining. I mean, that is a reasonable initial pillar. You would design a program that honors and respects access to the coast for all people regardless of incomes. You wouldn't have a regressive citation rate policy that basically the citations are more expensive than the permits is proposed. You would work on some of the encroachments as we have in all of our districts in the coastal zone that need to be addressed in my district as well. And I think that maybe just based on the input that we've received leading up to this point, that with the significant amount of pushback for what really is a reasonable ask of cost, in my opinion, that maybe it's impossible to reach a point of compromise on this, but for starting over anew. And for that matter, $75 is just a cost recovery. It's not actually even the amount of money that would be needed to run a robust program. The numbers that were originally that I remember hearing from some of the early community outreach was maybe $100 to increase some of the needs that people have. And I think that there would be a lot of frustration if the board were to approve a program that had an increase in costs that didn't actually really provide an increase in services to the area and would still expose the county to challenges from the coastal commission. I think that the coastal commission has been very measured in this process leading up to this. They've let the county know repeatedly that there are violations in regards to this program and yet they haven't enforced yet. I think that's a good neighbor policy on their part, but I also think that we need to respect their jurisdiction as well in this situation and help build a program that fits within their jurisdiction that also meets the needs of the community at large. I haven't seen anything in the recommended actions or under the current construct of the program that actually meets those needs. So I think that I would actually be supportive of starting anew. And I think that there is a way to construct a new program with coastal at the table that actually meets the needs of both the neighbors. It doesn't impact the other districts in the same way. It addresses the equity and the access issues and also provides for a self-sustaining program for public works moving forward. Under what's proposed, I don't think that's the case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very good. I hear the comments from the Supervisor Coonerty. Sure, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to just lay out a little bit of my initial comments. I look forward to hearing from the community. First, I want to thank Director Machado for his work in trying to think this through and express my admiration and sympathies for Supervisor Koenig who sort of has walked into this very, very difficult issue. And I think has approached it with a real openness and a desire to hear and represent his community. This does affect some of my constituents who live in the Live Oak area. But I think it will come as no surprise to those who have heard discussions with this program over the past six or seven years that I've been on the board. Yeah, I fundamentally, as Supervisor Friend has outlined, I fundamentally disagree with this program. So there are many problems with the program, the primary one being the issue of equity. A lot of us over the past year and a half have talked a lot about equity and the need to improve equity and charging people to access the coast of California is not only a violation of the Coastal Act, but just contrary to the values of this community. I understand the frustration of the neighbors. I live about four blocks from Westbrook Drive and there is no permit parking allowed in the city of Santa Cruz near the coast. And so every weekend and summer, there are no parking spaces on the street in front of my house. But that's part of the price I pay for being fortunate enough to live this close to the coast and wanting the rest of California to be able to have an access to the coast and not have costs be a barrier. The second piece of it is it does affect other members of my constituency in that because Live Oak has a permit and a cost program, that does push people into the Seabright area where there is no permit or cost program. And frankly, where the Coastal Commission wouldn't allow a program like that to exist. So it does then create more impacts on the community. I think Coastal is pretty clear on where they lie on this issue. But I do think that there are better solutions. There's the expanding our efforts through the encroachment process, can not only generate revenue to improve public access and facilities, but it can also increase the number of parking spaces. And at the end of the day, what this is really about is that we have more people wanting to access the coast than our current infrastructure allows. And if we can expand parking, we can relieve some of that pressure on for both visitors and residents alike. So I've always had a deep concerns with the inequitable, unequitable nature of this program. And I look forward to hopefully ending this program and going in a better direction that better reflects our values and reduces the impacts financial and otherwise to other parts of our county who have long contributed in order to reduce the impacts for one particular neighborhood. Thank you. Any other comments from board members? Well, the only, my video is turned off by the host. Maybe I can get the video back out of it. This is my Greg. Yeah, right. We can hear you. Now we're okay. Yeah, I didn't have any video. What a mess, huh? I don't even know what the step recommendation is now. I'm willing to back up supervisor Koenig because you're the one who represents that area. So are we recommending that we just scrapped the whole thing or are we recommending that we're gonna try to fix this, it's a tough one. So anyway. Well, I don't know, we've heard from our council. I don't know that we, well, we can come to a decision if we wish, but I don't know that that would be proper. I, let me ask council, would it be? Do you feel that we could make some advancements and trying to ask supervisor Koenig to talk with the coastal commission to maybe put out some general ideas of what we had to rectify or come up with a new program of sorts that they may accept or I'm just trying to get a sense of how we can go, what direction we can take to get to some kind of a resolution to this because it doesn't appear that it's gonna be able to stand as proposed. And that's not to the fault of anyone. What would be your thoughts, Mr. Council, Mr. Heath? Well, thank you. I was particularly taken by Mr. Machado's comments that he did not think that getting back in touch with coastal at this point was going to resolve an issue. If your board was interested in proceeding along those lines, I would of course be happy to participate in any discussions, but I wanna take Mr. Machado and staff's lead because they've been having those conversations with them for a long time. I think that the idea of scrapping the program completely right now, I would just caution that I don't believe that that's been fairly noticed under the Brown Act and that a motion to scrap the program on this agenda might be a little risky because there may be many people who would come out to comment if they understood that that was on the agenda. If you're bored, there's a variety of things that your board could do today with this. One would be to simply reject a portion of the staff proposal to adopt the resolutions and move forward with the program today and staff could come back in a couple of weeks if staff felt it was appropriate with a new program or they could take from your board's direction that your board was not interested in implementing the program this year and come back in next May after they've done, I say in May of 2022 with a new proposal to either go back to the basic of the 1983 permit or to see whether or not we can reach agreement with Coastal or a variety of other things. Okay. I did, Supervisor Cohen, do you have any recommended action? I will open it to the public. There's, I'm sure you've made a tremendous outreach to the public and I'm sure there's many people who would like to speak on this. If we go to there and I'm hoping to do that, I would like to just ask people that I'm sure they have the same comment and we've gotten the same letters for all board members on what the feelings are and it's pretty split as Supervisor Koenig said. So I'm just, if we're not going to come to a Supervisor, one other point I just wanted to make to be clear is that the board could adopt a motion to come back on the next agenda or the next agenda after that with an ordinance to repeal the County Code Section that governs this program if the board was interested in doing that and staff would bring back a ordinance to repeal the Live Oak Parking Permit Program that would enable you the ability to start over again as Supervisor Friend and Supervisor Coonerty were mentioning. However, if we did repeal the program, my belief is that that permit would in fact die with our repeal of the program. You could not depend on that original 1983 permit continuing to go forward into the future. So it would truly be a complete do-over. So I just wanted to add that into the discussion. Okay, anybody have any, want to make any comments? I think I'll ask the public to participate. Any comments from the board though before we? I'll add just a little bit more. I respect Mr. Heath's commentary on that. I do know that this has been discussed pretty openly at community meetings in the media and elsewhere about the possibility of elimination. I think that just in my conversations with Coastal and Coastals over the last eight or nine years with Coastal's letter today, I think that the only way this is gonna work is by a restart. The only way this is gonna work is by redesigning the program and not trying to conform within the narrow 83 confines that don't meet the needs of the community, don't meet the needs of a fundable program for public works and probably also don't meet the needs in regards to equity and access. But I respect that that's also an existing permit. So that is what that is. But again, if we were reconstructing this program from scratch, which has been part of the discussion about whether in other areas of the county we could create similar programs, we wouldn't design it like this. We would design it differently. So I think it's, from a public policy perspective, I don't think it makes sense to try and modify something that isn't fixable when we have an opportunity to start a new, recognizing that's a heavy lift, but recognizing that we need our coastal partners at the table in order to create a sustainable program moving forward. So I understand the legal advice on this and I would honor that component of it. I mean, I feel like it actually really has been, people are aware that today that could be a discussion point, but irrespective of that, I would still think that the direction should be for that moving forward to start this program in new regards to when that timing is. Okay. I think there's general consensus on the board from what I've heard in the comments to address it in that manner. I do think I'll open it up to the public. They have a sense of what we might be doing or it might be forced to do in essence. So I think I will open up to the public. Do we have a lot of people or how many people do we have that are waiting to speak to us? Here, I currently have two, three people. Okay, great. Let's open it up to the public then. Sure. 2915, your microphone will be unmuted. Hello, this is Becky Steinbrenner from rural Aptos. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Thank you. I just want to bring into this conversation also how this would interface with the Opal Cliffs Recreation District where people are paying and they are restricting access to the beach. Money from this expanded program has been said it would go to improve private speech, the speech that the Opal Cliffs Recreation District maintains. So this needs to be on the table too. I am bothered that Director Machado has already applied with the planning department for a permit to expand this program throughout the county. I want to thank the Coastal Commission for being very clear. And part of this letter that has not been read is that they are completely against parking fees at all. On page two, it says it is not clear that any acceptable version of the program would be able to generate enough revenue to both pay for itself and systematically improve public parking and public access going forward, which is described as a goal of a potentially modified program. We therefore respectfully suggest that it is time for the county to consider whether or not, I'm sorry my screen went off, continuing to operate the program makes financial sense, is in the public's best interest and can be found coastal act and LCP consistent. In our view, the answer to each of these questions is no. And we believe that the program should be discontinued. This has been our consistent position regarding the program for decades. And we have shared this position repeatedly with county staff over the years and any representations to the contrary should be disregarded. We do not support the Live Oak Permit Parking Program. Robert M, your microphone is unmuted. Robert M. Hello, board. Yes. Good afternoon. So I've lived in the Live Oak Parking Permit Area for 30 years and I wanna emphasize to the board that the program has been successful in improving our quality of life for those of us who live on these very busy streets near the beach. I understand that the program runs at a deficit and I'm hopeful that the board can find some way to make the program pay for itself. That said, and listening to both the meetings presented by the Department of Public Works and having read through all the comments that the board has received and also reading through the letter of the Coastal Commission that was received yesterday were faced with an intractable problem. I think the previous speaker noted that the Coastal Commission is never gonna come out and say that there is an acceptable parking program. That's very unfortunate. And as I said, it has a direct impact on the quality of life in our neighborhoods. My recommendation is that the board would continue with a revised proposal that would go back to the 1983 permit and seek a way to make the program pay for itself. I really can't emphasize strongly enough the benefits that the parking program has. That said, I think that if you look in other coastal jurisdictions throughout California and I did some research, there are other districts with permitted parking. So while it may run afoul of what the Coastal Commission would like to see, we know that there historically are permitted areas in other districts. So please take that into consideration. And as I say, I hope you can go back to the 1983 permit for 2021. Joe Hall, your microphone has been unmuted. Thank you, board. And I'd like to echo the comments of the last speaker. Basically, we live next to a major destination and we have very little enforcement other than the parking program. There are our UN peacekeepers. If we unilaterally drop this program, we will end up starting parking wars, which we had before. Really can't say too much more, but I appreciate the time you're putting into this and I appreciate the 30 years of peace. This program is brought to both the visitors and the residents of the Live Oak area. Thank you so much. And good luck trying to find a middle road that works and can continue. If not, I would say keep the program as originally permitted and we'll work from there. Thank you. Trudy Vinal, your microphone has been unmuted. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm just concerned. I'm not against the program as it currently is. I'm concerned about the fees that were suggested and bringing that more and more to the residents. I think it's ridiculous that we would have to pay $100, $75 or now what's being thought of is $50 to park in front of my house. However, I understand the parking program does have its benefits. I would strongly want to know, I guess, the issue of why this has been in the deficit and run in the deficit and then the proposed moving out, becoming such a profit for the county and then having it not be redistributed to the parking program, but then into other funds, I guess general funds and then it allocated outwards. So I'm not against it totally, but I really think we're jumping too fast on this and my vote right now would be to try to keep the coastal commission permit because if we close that right now, I think we're gonna have a hard time reopening it for something else. But it's not working the way it is or what is projected to cover expenses. I think we just need to take a step back and re-look at this and come back next year if that's possible. Thank you. I'm sorry, speaker B, your microphone is unmuted. My name is Bill, 25 year homeowner in Live Oak near Sunny Cove and have to say, generally approve of the program over these many years. We have stairs leading down to the beach on our street. So it's an extremely high traffic area, especially when there's good weather and in the summertime, we would have concerns if the program were to go away about how things would be enforced, like it's constantly happened over the years of people blocking our driveway or, campers and vans overnight parking on the other side of the street. We've appreciated the fact that two resident parking permits are free each year, but we kind of have objected to having to pay for two guest permits. I guess our feeling would be maybe raise the day permit rate for people who are visiting and residents not have to pay for a couple of guest permits. But just a thought on that, but it's also hard to know not having drilled down on the economics and the specific line item, revenue sources and deficits to know if that could help get the program to break even. Thank you. Laurie Otto, your microphone has been unmuted. Hi, I'm Laurie Otto. I live outside of the parking program currently and I've been buying passes so that I can drive a little bit closer to watch friends surf. And I think the program in existence, while it didn't make money and lost money, it should remain in effect because proper time has not been invested by anyone resident input has not been allowed in until February. And we had a whole year to talk about this program that people are very passionate about. And a whole year should be enough time to really put together a good program that everyone can be proud of and count on using in the future. Thank you, board. I appreciate your time. There are no other speakers to this item, Chair. Okay. Return it to the board for discussion. I know there's a concern that if we just try to restart a new once we lose it, it'll never come back. But I think we're not in an offensive position so to speak at this point in trying to continue to implement it as is under the coastal commission's suggestions that they, strong suggestions that they have made and continually made over the years. I don't know if anybody wants to, who might want to make a motion or at this point or is it? Chair. Mr. Chair, I'll try to apologize. Supervisor Koenig, please. Sure. So I would move not to move forward with the live out parking program in the 2021 season but also not to necessarily take direct actions to get rid of the existing program. And the reason being, I think that I understand Coastal's arguments and the arguments of my colleagues around there being an equity issue, but there's no free lunch. And if we create free parking for people in the area, people will pay in their time looking for parking. And I think that a lot of residents will simply react to the elimination of the program by parking in front of their house or on the street. And thus eliminating parking for the public. And so I think that we should, I don't see any reason to eliminate that backup position of re-approaching a parking program in the future under the permit that's been created. We know that Coastal doesn't like paid parking programs but the city of Santa Cruz makes your park, if you're parking by the Boardwalk, City of Capitola makes your park if you're parking in downtown Capitola. And I mean, my understanding is that those programs exist because they've been sort of grandfathered in. And so I would hate to eliminate the ability to create a program that's ultimately best for everyone based on that pre-existing permit. So again, I'd move to not to move forward to live a parking program in the 2021 season but to retain the option for the future. The supervisor, Konig, before I second it, let me see, because I'm supportive of that, let me see if I can articulate what I was thinking a motion on this would be. There's four recommended actions. And I think that we need to accept number one, which is just an exception of this report, but reject two, three and four, which would include the implementation of this program, a cost structure, et cetera. But I think there needs to be additional direction to Director Machado and County Council to meet with the Coastal Commission, to come back in six months to see if there's a program that's viable and in agreement for everybody because that'll give them enough time to implement it for next year. And if not, I'd like to, I think that there should be language or notice at that time that elimination would be on the table at that point. But so to me, I'm willing to, I'm not gonna second the motion yet, but I wanted to see, because your motion only just talks about that one element. And I wanna see if you would consider those to be reasonable as things to include an emotion, which is only number one, but not two, three and four, have a six-month factor where they have to come back and then we actually can see if this can be sustainable or not. Yeah, I accept that as a friendly amendment. All right, so I'm gonna second the motion and then I'll make the amendment. I apologize to the clerk that this is a motion for items two, three and four, or excuse me, it's an item, it's a motion for item one or rejection of two, three and four, so the program will not occur this year. And then to direct Director Machado and the, and Council to work with the Coastal Commission to see if there can be an agreement on a new program that maintains the 83 permit currently, but it's possible though, at some point at the six-month return that this, we're gonna have to have an honest conversation about the viability that's moving forward. It's reasonable. So we have a motion and a second, is there any other comment? The only other, this is Ryan, the only other comment I wanna make, I'll support this motion is we do have a policy and an ability to engage in encroachments into public spaces and I think that should be part of the strategy as well in order to, in order to create more, more parking for both residents and visitors alike. Supervisor Coonerty, did you have additional direction you wanted to add to the motion? I think we already have something on the books. So it's just a matter of staff, exploring that possibility. So it can be part of the motion or it can't, but I think it should be, the discussion should be in the mix, a strategy should be in the mix. I completely agree with you, Supervisor Coonerty, that's an important element. We've seen a lot of encroachment in the public right away. A lot of people think of no parking signs when in fact there is public parking there. A lot of people paving the entire front of their entire frontage and treating it all as private parking. And so I would also like to see some enforcement in reclaiming of that public space as public space. So I either happy to be add on to the motion if that's appropriate given the Brown Act in today's item or maybe if we're all right with as that program is developing already with staff, it's not needed fine, but at the very least I would definitely concur that that's an important thing to look at. Mr. Machado, would you prefer, I know Mr. Gaffney is also somewhere on here, but would you prefer to have that as additional direction as part of the motion? You know, I don't think we need it as additional as part of the motion today because it's been part of our discussion and I hear the board's interest in it and we can absolutely put some interest in that. Parks has been doing a lot of great work and we can step that up and we can even make it a part of the conversation with Coastal, which has been a hot topic with them as well. So it aligns with everything we're doing. We will just put extra energy into that component. And so just we don't need to make a part of the motion from my perspective, we can act forward. Okay, I make this Machado this, if we do not implement this program, this is no cost to you or it's not a little accounting loss then, is that correct? We're not losing money in this, this is what we're gonna be doing, is that correct? That is correct. And so if the program does not move forward, we don't spend money on it. We've already have, you know, we've thought this through. We know this is a challenging discussion and decision to make and the resources we do have committed to the program can be reassigned to other duties. And so there's no loss. I think, you know, we can move forward as the board wishes without any additional consequences in terms of county resources or county staffing and things of that nature. Very good, thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second idea. The clerk is clear on the motion as amended. Okay, please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Community. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you, motion passes as amended. Thank you. Okay, that concludes our meeting for today. Our next meeting of the County Board of Supervisors will be on April two weeks from now on April 27th at 9 a.m. Thank you for a good discussion and this meeting is adjourned.