o the presentation. So I propose 11 murals in total for this project. Three of those murals will be located on the exterior of the building to welcome kids and parents and families and staff members alike into the Children's Crisis Center. All three will be on the front-facing side of the building. This first one is on the main entryway and really encapsulates the whole vision for the rest of the murals incorporated in the project. You'll notice this kind of abstract shape pattern going through all of the compositions. Next, this piece will be located on the exterior of the two conference rooms. Also facing the front of the building. All three of these exterior murals are referenced from photographs that I took while visiting the Redwoods here in Santa Cruz. Next, and this one will be located inside the covered patio on the exterior. I thought this would be a great opportunity to kind of provide some green space for family members and kids to kind of just take a breather. Next, so inside each floor there'll be four murals total on each floor. These are the locations of the murals. Next, so on the first floor lobby you'll be greeted by some Monarch butterflies. All of the murals inside the building fall within three categories, very specific to Santa Cruz County, and those categories are all focused on the environments here. So category one is the Redwood Forest, category two is the shorelines of Santa Cruz, and category three is the ocean off the coastline of California. So obviously this one falls under the Redwoods. Next, here we have a family of Garibaldes for the first family room. They have these amazing blue spots when they're adolescents, so that's going to be really fun to paint with some kelp because we're famous for the kelp forests here. Next, and then another iconic species for Santa Cruz. You can't go to the shoreline without seeing these brown pelicans, so a family of brown pelicans. Next, and then also included in the first floor is a quiet room where the children can kind of have a space to unwind and relax and have a quiet moment, and the architects have this incredible idea of having these architectural elements embedded and extruding from the wall to allow the kids to lounge inside the wall, which I thought was perfect for some kind of artwork to be there. So we have kind of a sunset motif where the kids could literally lounge inside of a sunset. I thought that was a really beautiful idea. Next, moving on to the second floor. This would be the lobby of the second floor, personally my favorite bird in the area, a great blue heron surrounded by snowy plowers, which are also a native species. Native species, they're endemic to the California coastline surrounded by some white sage, which is known for its medicinal purposes. Next, and here are some locations for the second floor murals as well as some themes that explain. Next, and then the multi-purpose day room on the second floor is one of the largest walls included in the proposal. So I decided to paint maybe one of the largest mammals on the planet, the humpback whale, and with a little offspring as well. Next, here we have a California newt that can be found in the redwoods here. And next, and then the final image is of some native hermit crabs with some kelp forests behind. So yeah, I just wanted to make sure it was really fun and inviting for kids and maybe distracting a little bit for the reasons why they're in the center in the first place, but also just to make it welcoming for families and make it a positive experience when they're at these centers. And I'm here if you have any questions as well. Thank you for that presentation. Actually, I got to say that I was really digging what you were proposing here. Because the building, I mean, let's be honest, the building itself isn't the most attractive building in Santa Cruz County, right? As we sit in clearly the most attractive building in Santa Cruz County. But we don't normally have some of the integrates, the outside and the inside in this way when we get these public art projects and the way that you are able to integrate the two so that you're visually welcome to buy it. And then to have all the family elements and the soothing elements and the native elements I think are really just the thought you brought into it, Joey, was really, really strong. And I just appreciated the amount of time and thought you've put into this. I think this is going to be a special space. Are there any comments or questions from my colleague, Supervisor Koenig? Thank you, Joey. I have a great proposal. I really look forward to seeing you realize it. I work at the, my district office is at the Sheriff's office. So I'm in this complex quite a bit. And I think that your artwork is really going to help set off this building and sort of de-institutionalize it, if you will, and make it a lot more approachable. So I look forward to enjoying this art on a regular basis. Thanks. Thank you, Supervisor Koenig. What a fantastic envelope that you've really provided here for so many aspects of our community. It can be a learning experience for some of those who are going to be here too, who are going to be visiting this. It's, what does this mean or who is this? And it's here at Santa Cruz County. So great job of incorporating all of that in your great artwork. Thank you. Supervisor Cummings. Yeah, I'd share the same comment as my colleagues do and just really am grateful for this artwork that you're going to bring. We've been seeing so much art popping up, and every time I see a new mural pop up on the building, I'm just like, guess and wore white balls. And I think another thing that's really great about public art is that we get complaints of people who, they may get gang graffiti that happens, but in the art world, if there's a mural, you know, you don't touch it. And so this is just going to help bring more vibrancy and beauty to our community and really kind of showcase all the great native species in our area. So thank you. Supervisor Hernandez, did you have something as well? No, just it's absolutely beautiful. I love the marine kind of theme that we have here with our marine based sanctuary here. It's a perfect theme. Thank you. Does remember the community like to address us on this item? Thank you. Becky Steinbrunner. Thank you for this beautiful art. Really, it's beautiful. I have occasioned to go to the Sixth District Court of Appeals from time to time. And in the entrance lobby of that building is a floor to ceiling living wall of live plants. And there are water features there. And I cannot tell you how calming that is to have plant material floor to ceiling and sound and effective water. So if there is any way to incorporate living walls in this building and on this water or the sound of water to calm these kids and their families, I think that is worth the money spent. I would also like to see on some of these beautiful murals, the interior ones, some textural things that could be incorporated at kid level. For example, bumps on the hermit crab or whatever it is, something that could really pull them in and give them a textural piece of interest to help connect them personally with the subject matter. And I hope that there can be some aquariums throughout the building. Because that has been found that when people watch fish swim back and forth, it is a known method of calming the nervous system. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like to address this on the public art? Morning. Hello, Richard Gala from Live Oak. I think the art is beautiful and it's needed, especially inside the building, because it's about being making it welcoming. One of the problems I have is I don't feel welcome when I go to the sheriff's department. They are not welcoming at all whatsoever. So let's hope that this painting will make it enlightening, more friendly, more open to the community, because the sheriff's department is not welcoming. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else on the chamber seeing none? Is there anybody online? No speakers online. All right, we'll bring it back to the board for actions supervisor Koenig. I'll move the recommended actions. We have a motion from supervisor Koenig and a second from supervisor Cummings. If we could have a roll call, please. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Cummings. Aye. Hernandez. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And friend. Aye. Congratulations, Joey. That passes unanimously. We'll move on to item nine to consider resolution exercising the option of opting out of Assembly Bill 1416 election requirements resulting in not listing supporters and opponents of local measures on county ballots and take related actions as outlined in the memo of the county clerk and county administrative officer. We have the resolution and the agenda item. And Ms. Benson, welcome. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Elyse Benson with the CAO's office. I'm here with Tricia Weber, our county clerk elections director to present the recommendation regarding opting out of Assembly Bill 1416 related to adding additional information on ballot cards. Tricia is going to present the background on AB 1416, and then I will be presenting the CAO's recommendation for your consideration as well as the associated analysis. So with that, I'm going to pass it to Director Weber. Well, good morning, Chair, friends and members of the office. I don't want to be heard. I want to project for my diaphragm. Hi, I'm Tricia Weber. I'm the Santa Cruz County Clerk Registrar of Voters, and today I'm here to talk to you about Assembly Bill 1416, which was passed and signed last year and took effect on January 1st, 2023. AB 1416 adds a new requirement for statewide propositions and local measures appearing on future ballots. That requirement, which was codified as the California elections Code 9170, is that directly following the proposition or measure question, but before the yes-no ovals on the official ballot, we are now required to print onto that ballot a list of individuals, businesses, and or organizations who are supporters or opponents of the issue that is before the voters. While there's nothing that we can do locally about the law for the state propositions, the law does allow for county boards of supervisors to opt out of printing that information for county, city, special district, and school district measures on upcoming and future ballots. AB 1416's aim is to enhance transparency of who supports a measure or opposes a measure as well as a list of who may be funding that measure. This list may be the same as who assigned arguments that are found in the county information voter guide, but it also may differ. What will this look like administratively? The people who file an argument in favor or against a measure will also file a list of supporters or opponents along with documentation from those people on the list. This list can only be 125 characters in length. That's character, so it includes also spaces and punctuation marks. So it will most likely involve abbreviations. The county clerk's office will review the character count, the documentation that is signed by the people who are listed, and determine if the abbreviations that are submitted are logical, easy to understand, and not misleading. What will it look like for voters? Well, at minimum, listing the supporters and opponents will add two lines of text to each measure, and at most will add four lines. On our translated or facsimile ballots, that could be more. The law allows for the supporter or opponent list to be reduced in font size if needed to make it fit on the ballot card. Additional lines and or smaller font size will add to the complexity of an already really complex ballot, and it will definitely affect the readability of that ballot. AB 1416 is actually the third iteration of this concept, and it contained many compromises to be in the form that was passed and signed in 2022. Although I understand the goal of the sponsors behind this bill, adding the supporter opponents to the ballot has not been tested for readability, understandability, or voter effectiveness. Many counties have opted out of printing supporter opponents on the local measures, and I want to remind you that if you choose to opt out today, you can always change that decision in the future and ask my office to print the supporters and opponents. Our office has reached out to the cities and some of the schools and special districts, and there was no concern with at their level with the provisions of opting out of this. And I'd like to now pass it back to Alisa for more on the recommendations, but I'm here to answer questions. Thank you, Trisha. So as stated in the memo, the recommendation of the CAO's office is to opt out of the legislation for the March and November elections in 2024 with a report back in early 2025 on the impacts, potential costs, and benefits of how this piece of legislation plays out in other counties. I want to remind everyone we will have the experience of printing the supporters and opponents for statewide measures both for March and for November. So we will have some limited experience of how that plays out in terms of the questions that Trisha has outlined. What we know right now is this increases the complexity of an election administration, getting the information from our supporters and the supporters and opponents of a piece of legislation. And there are some significant paperwork that those folks need to do to demonstrate that they meet the standard set forth in the law. And that is an impact then on our elections staff. As Trisha mentioned, the summarizing and getting it to 125 characters will be an interesting exercise in itself. And this may create some additional challenges for translation. The other thing is, as many of the analyses around implementation, this information is already provided in our printed and online voter guides. There's some concern that it potentially could be confusing or out of sequence between the two bodies of information that are generated for these different implications. There's definitely a possibility of an increase in election costs as the real estate of the ballot has to grow. And we have to add an additional card for each and every election. I did learn from Trisha that we've only had one two card election so far. And generally, when we moved to two cards, that adds about $167,000 per election. What we don't know is, as Trisha said, how does this affect ballot readability, understandability? There has not been user testing. So March and November will be the first massive user testing of this concept. And we do know it increases direct and indirect costs. So with that, our recommendation is for you to pass the resolution to opt out of this for 2024. And we would bring forward additional information for your consideration in 2025. With that, I'm happy to answer any other questions. As is Director Weber. Thank you to you both. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. Are there any questions from the Secretary of State? I strongly agree with the staff recommendation on this item. And we need to have an opt out option for 2024 March and November elections. I'll be prepared to make a motion to that effect. This is just not feasible at this time. And I think we're going to learn more from how it's implemented when other jurisdictions implement it in 2024. But I think it's time for us to wait and not do it, but see how it works or doesn't work. Other questions or comments for we open it up to the community? Say none. Anybody from the community like to address this on this item? Thank you. Elections Director Weber for taking this good action and the good clear report. Thank you. I support this and I wish we could also opt out of the state because I think when you when a voter sees a long list of supporters and opponents, they're going to look at that more than the content of the actual issue itself and maybe not do a level of research that we would hope every voter would do to determine their own opinion on the matter. But I'm happy that we're going to do it at the county level. I read election code 91170 and saw that in part D2 it states that if there is a district or school measure that encompasses other neighboring counties and they do not also do this action, they cannot do, they cannot include the information because our county has made this action. So I want to ask if, for the example, Cabrillo Community College District and perhaps the impending hospital district vote coming up, how will this affect it and have you reached out to those other neighboring counties? Thank you. Thank you. Is there any member of the community still here in chambers seeing none? Is there anybody online? We have no speakers online. All right, we'll close public comment and bring it back. Ms. Weber, do you want to briefly address the question from the community on that? Sure, I'd be happy to. So the reading is exactly correct. If one of the counties in a multi-jurisdictional or a multi-county jurisdiction is not doing AB 1416 provisions at the local level, then none of them can. So many of our neighbors have already opted out of 1416. And so we've talked amongst ourselves and the neighboring counties knew that we were coming here today to ask for this as well. And they're okay with that. Thank you. All right. Is there a motion for the recommended actions? Also moved. Second. We have a motion from Supervisor McPherson in a second from Supervisor Cummings. We got a roll call, please. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Cummings. Aye. Hernandez. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Friend. Aye. And that passes unanimously. We'll move on to item 10, which is to thank you both to consider approval and concept of an ordinance amending Chapter 9.28 of the Santa Cruz County Code relating to stop intersections. Designating the intersection of La Coneada and Mayer Way as a, excuse me, drive as a two-way stop intersection schedule and ordinance for final adoption on December 5, 2023. And take-rooted actions is outlined in the memo of the Deputy CAO. We've got the map. We've got the ordinance and the strikeout underlined version. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back. Good morning, Chair Friend and members of the board. My name is Russell Chen. I'm a senior civil engineer in charge of the- Thank you. Is your microphone on? Does conference on maybe just need to be a little bit closer to- Oh, okay. Sorry about that. Thank you. My name is Russell Chen. I'm a senior civil engineer in charge of the traffic engineering section of the community of the, sorry about that, community development and infrastructure. I'm here to present item 10 for the board to consider approval of the ordinance amending the county code to designate the intersection of La Coneada Way at Mayer Drive as a two-way stop intersection. The residents of rolling woods neighborhood have reported safety issues because drivers aren't following the vehicle right of way at this intersection. That does not have regulatory traffic signage. It is common in this county and other jurisdictions to not have regulatory traffic signage at intersections on local roads. However, after evaluation of this intersection and based on engineering judgment, we have determined that a two-way stop sign at La Coneada Way will control vehicle conflicts and make it safer. I also wanted to acknowledge that two representatives from the neighborhood spoke during the public comment period in favor of the stop signs, but they weren't able to stay here for this agenda item. Since this action requires an ordinance, we request the board's approval and concept ordinance amending Chapter 9.28 of the Santa Cruz County Code relating to stop intersections, designating the intersection of La Coneada Way at Mayer Drive as a two-way stop intersection. If approved, schedule the ordinance for final adoption on December 5, 2023, and direct Department of Community Development and Infrastructure to install all necessary signage and striping to create a two-way stop intersection 31 days after final adoption of the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for the community bringing the issue forward and in particular for your team for doing the professional analysis. And it sounds like everybody's in alignment. Are there any? Yeah, this is my district. I'm strongly ready to move the recommended action. This is close to Brooklynal School too. So it's really critical that this has been an identified need for public safety and I would move the recommended action at the appropriate time. Thank you. Is there any member of the community who would like to address this on this item? Thank you. I also support this safety measure. I only ask that for the first 30 days after the sign, the new signage has been implemented, that there's some sort of a solar powered flashing red beacon around the new stop direction, such as what the city of Capitola has near City Hall, or as what they do in the city of Napa, they install bright orange flags on a dowel on the new sign to really draw people's attention to this new stop sign, new traffic safety measure, just for the first 30 days until people get used to it, to eliminate anybody blowing through because they weren't here testifying today. Thank you very much for your good work. Thank you. It's seen nobody else in chambers. Is there anybody online that would like to address this on this stop sign? We have no speakers online. All right, we'll close the item. Supervisor McPherson. I move the recommended action. Second. We have a motion from Supervisor McPherson, a second from Supervisor Koenig. We got roll call, please. Supervisor Koenig. I. Cummings. I. Hernandez. I think he stepped away for a second. McPherson. I. In front. I. And that passes unanimously. It's just one member absent and appreciate your work on that. We'll move on to the final item today's open session agenda, which is a public hearing to consider the 2023 housing element to adopt a resolution considering the addendum of the sustainability update environmental impact report amending the County of Santa Cruz County, the County of Santa Cruz General Plan and directing staff and send the adopted housing element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for certification and take related actions of that line of the memo that FDCAO Director of Community Development and Infrastructure. We have the memo, the housing element and a number of appendices associated with it. I know we've received a few presentations on this previously and welcome back with hands and thank you for this. Thank you, Chair, members of the board. We're here today to present the Planning Commission's recommendation on the 2023 housing element. The board has had several study sessions on this item already. With me today is Mark Connolly, who is the principal planner in our policy section and policy policy section and the housing sections have been working on the housing element all year long. We've had a robust public engagement process to inform the actual document. We've provided quite a few attachments including the environmental impact report addendum that goes along with. So with that, I would just say there's a lot of information in the packet and what we really don't get to address like head on is the fact that we're in a housing crisis and this is how we, one of the steps that we can take to go about solving that and doing our part for the housing element. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mark to start our presentation today and thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Good morning, Chair and Board of Supervisors. Great to see you all this morning. So as Stephanie said, Mark Connolly, principal planner with CDI and what we have for you today, this is our adoption hearing for the sixth cycle housing element. We've had two prior study sessions, as Chair Friend pointed out. With you one back on June 14th and the other on September 12th, we've also had three planning commission meetings that culminated at their October 25th meeting where they voted unanimously to recommend adoption by the board. We also have had three meetings with this year with the Housing Advisory Commission that culminated in a recommendation to the board to adopt the housing element on November 1st. We have also received comments from our first formal submittal to HCD which have been addressed and we intend to resubmit to HCD tomorrow, November 15th, which will hopefully result in the certification by HCD on January 15th. So to give you a little background and why we're here and how we got here, the housing element is just one chapter of the general plan of the county and has to be updated every eight years. This year it's due to the State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, before December 31st. So the housing element is a policy document that must include actionable items. The implementation programs that the county will report progress on every year in the annual progress report. The element must also be accompanied by a housing sites inventory which shows that we can accommodate the assigned number of housing units specified in the regional housing needs allocation. This is our arena. The arena is handed down to us to all local governments by the state and the association of Monterey Barrier Governments. So there was a robust community engagement process that staff went through and this is following board direction. Staff implemented this engagement plan beginning in early 2023. Staff engaged a consultant who specifies or specializes in community engagement and who created two focus groups. One was the stakeholder group and it was comprised of representatives of businesses and community organizations that are involved in housing. The other was a citizens panel. This was comprised of residents who represented the county's demographics and those affected by this housing crisis. The full results of the stakeholder group and the community panel, they're included in Appendix C of the housing element. In addition, county staff, we also sought input from the community through three public meetings that were held this spring to solicit public input at large. These results were three community meetings and those results are also found in Appendix C of the housing element and reflect pretty similar themes that we came in, came up against. So what were some of the solutions that were identified through this engagement process? This is a list of some of the top needs and solutions that were identified through the public engagement process. We found a lot of support for more multiple family housing at higher densities and heights. Also housing to address needs of workforce housing and teachers and housing to accommodate people with disabilities. What was really interesting here we found was encouraging as well was in general the priorities of both groups were the same and you can see here on this slide some of these priorities and solutions that were brought to our attention. Next, something new to the sixth cycle. Housing elements are now required to include an assessment of fair housing practices which incorporate analysis of relationships between available housing sites and areas of high or low resources and concrete actions in the form of programs to affirmatively further fair housing. Providing these housing opportunities in higher resourced areas in the unincorporated area to accommodate higher density is really the key to meeting the AFFH requirements. Appendix A in the housing element contains the fair housing report and all the data and analysis. So just to give you an idea of some of the new programs and policies that we put together, many ongoing policies and programs that the county had in the previous cycle which is called the fifth cycle are still retained in the new housing element. However, we wanted to highlight some of the newer programs. So this list here shows some of the new programs across all six of the goals in the element, many of which we got and were suggested by the participants of the community engagement process. One such example is H1F here which considers various updates to the development standards including studying four to six-story development in appropriate areas such as major activity centers. Other programs address rezoning as necessary, some code enforcement on vacation rentals, nexus study on inclusionary housing and fees, housing for people with disabilities as well as all electric housing. In 2022, the county adopted the sustainability policy and regulatory updates. So this was a major overhaul of the county's general plan zoning and development standards. So one of the main goals of the sustainability update was to allow more housing units and more housing options, especially along these county major transportation corridors. Project included key changes in development standards that really go along with the housing elements such as increasing number of housing units that can be developed on each acre of land in zones that allow housing and adjusting codes to allow more units. Grading a new zone called the residential flex zone, this is the RF zone that allows between 22 and 45 units per acre and is at the high end of the county's density allowance and range. Allowing units in single-family zones called that missing middle housing, rezoning some properties along the transportation corridors and allowing for more housing and mixed use projects in commercial areas. So at this point I'd like to turn it over to Suzanne Isay to talk about a little bit of our arena and the site selection process. Thank you Mark. Good morning chair and supervisors. Next slide please. So this table on your screen shows the analysis of the county's regional housing needs allocation. Again, as Mark mentioned, these numbers come to us from the state. So if you look at the column furthest to the left on this table, that is the county's assigned arena. The arena needs to be backed up by what the state refers to as a site inventory. So the site's inventory is essentially a list of properties, parcels in the county where additional housing units can be built or added with key parcel data and estimates of how many units could likely be fit on each property. Sometimes we refer to that as like the estimated unit yield of that property. It's not a definitive determination of a maximum or a minimum. It's just an estimate of what is a likely feasible number of units that could be fit on that property. The first column in this table, like I said, shows the arena that the county needs to meet. The state guidance suggests that communities include a buffer because in a lot of cases some of the properties will not be developed during the upcoming eight-year cycle. And so if you include a buffer, then you have some wiggle room in case some of the properties don't wind up being developed. So they suggest a buffer of at least 10% to provide that flexibility. So we've included that 10% buffer here in the second column where if you add the 10% then you wind up with a total goal of slightly over 5,000 units. And as you can see on the table, the units are broken out into four different income levels from very low income to above moderate income. And we have to address the targets in each of those income levels. So we analyzed the existing zoning and general plan designations and came up with an estimated capacity under existing zoning, which is shown in the third column from the left here, which allows development of approximately 4167 units across the four categories. So you just do the math between the buffer total and that number and it shows that we had a shortfall of slightly over 900 units to meet the RENA plus the buffer. Next slide, please. To give you a little understanding of the different factors that we had to use to create the site's inventory to meet the state guidance for these sites, the guidance provides certain standards for what we can consider a vacant property or an underutilized property, the size of properties that are considered to be conducive or likely to develop with new housing, ideally the lack of any obvious environmental hazards or constraints, the availability of utilities. And in the case of the county, we have an established urban services line, which pretty clearly indicates where utilities are available. So we're primarily looking at sites within that boundary. And in order to consider sites as being potentially feasible for development of housing for lower income households, the density, the minimum density of those sites has to be at least 20 units an acre. So putting all that together, we additionally have to look at and analyze these sites in the context of the things that Mark mentioned on the prior slide relating to fair housing and access to resources or opportunities. The state publishes a map called the TCAP opportunity map or sometimes referred to as the resource map, which we are encouraged to use for some of this analysis. We also, as Mark mentioned, engaged in an extensive community engagement process to get feedback from the community about which sites make sense or don't make sense for housing of different types. We also built into our analysis all the application data that we have from our permitting system on pending projects, projects that have been proposed in our system for some of these sites. Property and owner intent is another area that we look at as well as I mentioned the existing zoning and general plan designations. Next slide please. So when we put all that together, we have the shortfall that we're trying to address. We then looked at if we adjusted zoning for certain parcels, how many more units could we generate? So we found that by rezoning approximately 75 parcels in the county's urbanized areas, we could meet the shortfall including the buffer amount. And particularly we have to pay a lot of attention to the very low and low income arena because that's the area where the state is particularly focused. So those were the numbers where we really had to make up that shortfall. So based on rezoning about 30 larger parcels within the urban area to designations called urban high or residential flex and also from rezoning several commercial properties from something called service commercial to a commercial zone that allows mixed use. By doing that, we could generate sites that could accommodate another approximately 1900 units and that's shown in the second column from the left on this table. In addition to that, there's a new state law called SB10 which allows communities to zone for what they call missing middle housing which is infill on existing single family-zoned parcels to allow up to 10 units per parcel which can accommodate project types such as duplexes, triplexes, quads in existing lower density neighborhoods. And we've identified about 40 parcels that met the criteria in that law that would be feasible for SB10 rezoning. So when we add that all together, we were able to address the shortfall particularly in the lower income categories and come up with an estimated new capacity of about slightly under 2,300 units. Multifamily and missing middle housing are badly needed in the county to provide housing options for all people including many local workers of various income levels who need housing they can afford near their workplace. Accommodating the arena for the lower income units as I mentioned is key to achieving a compliant housing element. So this map shows you visually where these sites in the sites inventory are located. So to give you a little sense, you can see the cities, the incorporated cities in the county are shaded out in gray because the county doesn't have any jurisdiction over their development. You can see on the blue line on the map in the sort of mid-county area and also shown in the little curve out here in the top right corner that is the urban services line. So within that line is where the utilities are available and most urban services and development is located. You can see on the map the sites that are shaded in blue and sort of a fuchsia purple tone are the existing sites which already can accommodate housing under their existing zoning and general plan designations and the sites that are shaded in yellow are those that are proposed for the rezoning that I just described in the prior slide. Consistent with the sustainability update and the factors noted earlier, most housing units are best accommodated near transportation corridors and other services in existing neighborhoods and business districts which is essentially infill in areas without major environmental constraints and in areas that help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and plan for climate change by reducing the need to travel long distances by solo vehicle. Because we are focusing on infill opportunities in the unincorporated areas within the urban services line, the proposed rezonings are all in districts 1, 2 and 4 and that is just because there's not a lot of urban services line areas that are unincorporated within districts 3 and 5. Next slide please. So just to give you sort of a quick visual of these other factors that we have to consider, this slide shows you an overview of where those rezoning sites are in the mid-county area with the opportunity map in the background. So this is that map created by the state to show which areas of the entire state have higher or lower resources according to the certain index that they've created. Now this map is created for the purposes of scoring applications for funding for tax credits for affordable housing projects. So it's not created for the purpose of seeking development potential or anything like that, but it is just one other layer we have to analyze. So as you can see, as I mentioned, we are focusing the rezoning sites within the urban services line. So even though there are some areas that are zoned as a higher resource area, which is shown in the darker blue on the map, we're not proposing to put sites in those areas because they don't have access to utilities, their rural and so forth. But to the extent that we have the ability to place sites within the urban services line, it is a good thing in the context of this exercise that the sites that are proposed for rezoning are all going into the high and highest resource areas within this limited geographic area. This slide shows the same map, but for the southern portion of the county, so for South County, here you can see the shading on the opportunity map is actually in the low category, the low resource category. Now a lot of that has to do with the fact that this is an agricultural area and a rural area, and there's just not a lot of urban and suburban type resources out there like transit and so forth. But it also indicates other factors that play into this index that is created by TCAC, which have to do with household income levels, educational attainment and employment levels. So it's a combination of all of those factors. Now here we do have six parcels within this area that are proposed for rezoning, but they are within the urban services line, which you can see on the map here in orange. And although we try to place most of the housing sites within the higher resource areas, we know that there is a need for farm worker housing, for example, in South County particularly, that's where the farms are. And at least one of these sites is actively being considered for an affordable farm worker housing project. And some of the other sites might be conducive for that type of housing as well. I also want to mention that as Azure Board is aware, the county has actively invested a lot of time and effort and resources into improving access to county facilities and services in South County, such as the recent Whiting Road Park acquisition, the West Marine facility in South County for county services and so forth. So this resource map index may evolve over time as some of those projects and transportation improvements and park improvements are completed. Next slide, please. So the next two slides I'm going to show you show the same data overall, but the background layer is changed. So instead of showing that resource map, we're showing you demographic data from the most recent five-year census window, which shows race and Hispanic origin variables. And you can see on this map of Mid County, the brown shading on the map indicates that the predominant racial or ethnic group in that area is folks who responded to the census as white alone, not Hispanic or Latino, and the darker the shading, the more predominant that group is in that census tract. If we go to the next slide, please, you can see in this map we have two general shades on the map, which is the same one as on the prior slide. And also this green shading indicates that the predominant group was those who responded as Hispanic or Latino to the census tickers. And again, the darker the shading, the more predominant that group is. So this is part of the fair housing analysis that we're required to do. And again, I think we're doing the best we can, given that the circumstances we have to try to provide most of the sites for new housing in areas that would counteract those historic sort of forces that have led to more of this segregation pattern that you see in the map here. And that is what the guidance calls for us to do. And with that, I'll hand it back over to Mark. Thank you, Suzanne. We wanted to take a brief opportunity here to talk about one of the major opportunity sites that we have in our inventory. And that's one at 2,600 Mar Vista. It's formally known as the Aptos Part 3 golf course site. It's an approximate 14 acre site that we're estimating to obtain 430 units on. And we recognize some constraints and options in site design that would have to be taken into consideration. Some of these, as you can see here on your slide, the yellow line that runs parallel to Highway 1, that's Highway 1 there in your slide, obviously. That is an existing right-of-way. It's a 50-foot right-of-way that exists on the site. So that's an approximate 2.5 acre amount of easement that exists on the site. There's also another easement you see to the top corner of the site. And that's another easement for access in a right-of-way. The site is also encumbered by other easements. General easements, there's a pink one, as you see, sort of slide north here to the top border. There's a pink easement that goes along the residential communities there and filters down into another easement that's a drainage infrastructure easement that exists on the site. So in general, also ponding and drainage, runoff, inadequate stormwater infrastructure, and these adjacent sites and roadways create quite a lot of constraint on the site for the purposes of development. So given these constraints and the required circulation improvements, staff estimates that obtaining 430 units on the site, about 2 to 4 acres of open space is a reasonable estimate to accommodate those units and still provide for adequate open space, especially given the code requirement minimum of 15%. There's a resolution in your packet that staff is prepared. It has specific provisions for this site, including master planning the site and the 2 to 4 acres of open development space that would allow flexibility for future development on the site given these complexities and constraints on the site. So staff is also included in your packet, just a quick overview of the HCD comments that were received on October 23, 2023, and they were pretty light. So I'll just tell you, just go right through these real quick. It just comes down to additional data that was requested on fair housing and special needs analysis programs and policies. HCD wanted to see some clarification on our capacity analysis and methodology used for capacity and some minor program modifications. So nothing significant, no substantial changes there. So staff has incorporated these revisions into the version that's presented before you today. And we did that on November 14th. So to give you just a quick idea of the depth and breadth of these revisions and where we've landed on them, in your packet, there's a draft update of these that went to HCD on July 25th. And that started the 90-day review of the housing element. We subsequently responded to these comments and added new text and various edits to the housing sections in one, three, and five. Those did not require any modifications. So only two and four in the inventory, as well as some of the dependencies required amendments. So this slide here shows you some of those revisions and that were really key to the document in sections two and four. So continuing on with the inventory, we had some key revisions that really came down to one parcel that was removed from the rezoning list and placed in the pending active project list. There was two new pending projects that were added based on recent development activity. One parcel was added to the inventory based on sustainability update reasons. Two parcels were removed from the inventory based on development completed in the fifth cycle. And then an inventory of emergency shelter beds that was added to Appendix E based on HCD requirements. Sites, I correct, not shelter beds, but sites. Regarding the appendices, staff and our consultant made extensive corrections and changes to Appendix A per HED's request. These were to expand a discussion of lower income housing households overpaying by tenure, expanding analysis of the existing housing conditions, and additional discussions on the subject of special needs populations to include persons with disabilities, persons with developmental disabilities, elderly large households, farm worker housing, seasonal and permanent, female headed households, and the homeless. So we think that all of this, as you can see, is pretty light comments that came back in our responses. So I think it really demonstrates how staff came to really hit the mark of the state requirements. So our recommended actions today. One, conduct this public hearing and on the proposed 2023 housing element and consider any public testimony you may receive. Adopt a resolution considering the addendum to the sustainability update environmental impact report amending the County of Santa Clara Santa Cruz general plan and directing staff to send the adopted housing element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for certification and authorizing the Director of Community Development and Infrastructure, CDI to make minor changes to the housing element in response to potential future comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development or certification by HCD. So that that concludes our presentation and we can answer any questions you may ask. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions or comments from board members before we open up the public hearing? I know that we've considered this a few times, but please supervisor Connick. Sure. Just a general question about one of the changes for permanent room housing, single room occupancy. So if I understand correctly, the only time that we basically allow single room occupancy units for someone owns or lives in just a single room and then would share kitchen facilities or bathroom facilities is in the conversion of old visitor serving accommodations. Is there a reason why we haven't looked at expanding that as an affordable housing option to more sites? No, except to say that we did initial reasons to accommodate approximately 65 units of permanent room housing. We haven't had one application since then. So even though the concept being that old motel rooms and convalescent facilities might legalize any conversion, we still haven't had any applications. So you know, at this point, I don't think we'd recommend an expansion of that program. I guess my question is this, are we precluding the ability of new developments that take like a Walnut Commons type approach where they're shared facilities between rooms? There are building code requirements for units, including some kitchen facilities. So we probably would be looking at a different type of use than some sort of group facility or institutional use. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I see Survisor Hernandez and I'll come back to you, Survisor McPherson. Survisor Hernandez, please. Yes, it's a quick question. I know this is all preliminary, but do any of the identified sites fall under any of the state's streamlining legislation? Yeah, Suzanne, can you help with that one? Sure. Yes, there's a handful of different state bills that offer significant streamlining options and each one of those has its own criteria for what types of sites can qualify. But I would say generally there's a lot of properties within the county, particularly within the urban services line that have the ability to pursue development under one or more of those streamlining options. Reading the site's inventory doesn't really change whether that option exists for a site or not. So they may have the option now, they may have it after we adopt the inventory. But yes, there's quite a lot of property, I would say, within the USL that can utilize some of those options. Thank you, Survisor Hernandez. Survisor McPherson. Yeah, first of all, thank you to the planning staff. Stephanie and Mark and Suzanne for this. I know we have a gun to our head to get this done by the end of the year and I think I can share again my concern or the troublesome perspective that the state's going to take over our land use planning. And we do need housing. There's no question about it. But at least I'm grateful that we had my suggestion. We have greater opportunities for housing density along the rail corridor that have been identified. And housing along the rail corridor, I think, as it's been seen, is the best way to position our community for federal and state money to eventually pursue passenger rail, which I don't think is a guaranteed scenario for that issue. I think that is that why we put additional housing close to the rail line because of the transportation needs as well? Yes, as you know, the sustainability update calls for a strong connection between our transportation facilities and our housing in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled and otherwise create communities that have more options than just getting on the freeway to go to work or home or shopping, right? And so while it may be a while before the rail line is fully developed one way or another, having those rooftops near there will help that facility along in whatever form it takes. Okay. Thank you. A couple of questions. Now that we have identified places to put three and a half times the amount of housing that we had in our last eight-year arena cycle, many community members wonder if our water researchers are going to be adequate. I know we have, I'm a member of the Santa Margarita Water Management Agency. We have one that's so kill. How is that? I'm just trying to get a, has that been adequately addressed? We have water, we don't get state or federal water. We're dependent on rainfall and I just, that's a big concern as well as the power grid too that we've had plenty of outages here too. Yes, those are definitely concerns in terms of the power grid. This is part of the reason why we're really looking at infill housing in our urban services area that's better, better served and not subject to outage and other potential hazards as much. And water is definitely a concern. It's analyzed in the environmental impact report or in a very robust fashion. It finds, you know, we coordinate very closely with the service providers, particularly in this case the city of Santa Cruz and Soquel, Creek Water District. Every five years they need to look at population growth and update the urban water management plans. And so there's a constant kind of what are you planning, what do you got thing going on? And the EIR looks at all of the upcoming improvements that they are contemplating and planning for. I will say that in terms of water impacting groundwater impact, it's funny, but urban development is not the main driver of our water supply. It's really the agricultural uses that really impact water. So that's a multifaceted response, but yeah, we did take a very close look at it. And also as a reminder, any development in the future will be required to have a certificate of availability from the water provider and the sewer provider. So we're not precluding any development regulations or that requirement that they be served by those utilities. Good. Thank you for that answer. And one other question on page 78 of our board deck, the staff writes that we need to work on the barriers creating housing in the coastal zone, but specifics aren't offered there. What are your ideas about addressing barriers of building housing in the coastal zone? Because I'm sure they're going to have a final say on some of this. We intend to work with coastal staff to continue to find those infill development opportunities. And we recognize there's some policies in the general plan that tend to limit heights, for instance. And we would like to address those in a fashion that kind of will work for our needs and for coastal as well. So there are a few things like that that we really want to look at closely. There's been some restrictions on density bonus that we're addressing with this housing element as well. So we have to address both the coastal act and our housing needs, and they don't always match up. And when you add in our environmental constraints, it's really can be challenging, but we are committed to kind of trying to address those things that may be slowing housing down within urban areas. So your thoughts are coming? First, I just want to thank the staff for their work on this and all the community engagement. It was a very, you know, I'm consuming process that required a lot of outreach and a very quick amount of time. And so just want to thank you all for helping us get to where we are today. I do hope that, you know, as elected, we can continue for the state to refine this process. I think to some of the points that Supervisor McPherson just brought up, you know, we need to build for what our community needs, not just be required to build as much housing as possible. And we need to be able to build to what our infrastructure can support because we are going to be faced with, you know, impacts from climate change, whether it's sea level rise and having saltwater intrusion in some of our wells and preparing for that. Or if it's just long term drought and how that will intersect with the increased amount of building and our community growth and how we can make sure that it's sustainable over time. So I just hope that we can, you know, provide some input to the state as this process unfolds and as we continue to develop. I do hope that we can continue to push forward with the increasing our inclusionary requirements. I did see the next study mentioned and I just wanted to put out there that I'm really hoping that we can reference in that study the ordinances that Santa Cruz and Watsonville have adopted. It's very different from just simply increasing the inclusionary to 20% because in those ordinances, they utilize Section 8 that would provide, you know, offset the cost of that increase in affordable housing. And it's a cost effective way to increase the inclusionary ordinance. In the absence of somebody who has Section 8 would also revert those units to moderate rate income households. So it's a cost effective way of trying to make sure pencils out for developers. And so they get fair market return that increased 5% of inclusionary units. And so I hope we can have that exploration in that next study. I also think that, you know, we should make sure that we're not counting replacement units as inclusionary, which is allowed by state law. If we have affordable units that are going to be demolished and we're going to have new units going in, they should be replacing those units in addition to the inclusionary. And so I hope we can continue to explore policies around that. And one of the things that my office had found out during this whole process with that we don't actually have an inclusionary requirement for rental housing. The measure ordinance only has inclusionary for housing that's for sale. And apparently there was a law, the state law at one point in time that prevented counties from having inclusionary requirements for rental housing. But that law apparently has been stricken down and so counties can require on site construction of inclusionary units. And so we're going to bring back an item at the next agenda to have further discussion on that and see if there's an opportunity for us to incorporate that into the county policy. And then, and yeah, I think it would just be to be good for us to understand as the state has removed parking requirements for certain developments that are near transit corridors. The one thing that wasn't required is that those savings for development are reflected in the rents, the whole idea is that it's supposed to make housing cheaper to build and making units more affordable. But if those units are getting, you know, if we're removing those parking requirements and those costs for developers, it'd be good for us to see that reflected in lower cost housing for rent, rather than those units just being subject to whatever the market can bear. And then as a result, it's just a benefit for developers and not for our community. And so I'll leave my comments there, but just wanted to share that. Thank you, Supervisor Cummings. And I'll just briefly address two things. As you continue the conversation in regards to the coastal zone, I'd just like to request that that CDI staff make sure that you kind of receive more direction on priorities in regards to that, as opposed to just going and kind of creating your own construct associated with it to make sure that you're not ahead of whatever it is we might be comfortable with in regards to coastal zone work. In regards to the Mar Vista slash R3 property, I listened to the planning, the extensive planning commission discussion on it. There clearly was a preference on the four acre side. I see that the resolution gives an accommodation of two to four. But I think that we should specify the higher end. It still maintains over 70% of the parcel for housing. It's a removal of almost 14 acres of park space for the community. And so I think that with density bonuses, which was something that wasn't discussed, I mean, the units that are provided don't include that of the 339 that are mentioned in there. You can still get back up to the original number. It just would specify the type of property that would go in there, which is the preference anyway, I think of the board that it be a more affordable project that would qualify for all the same. So when it comes back, I'm not able to make a motion, but I'll just ask that there's a slight amendment to the resolution that specifies that when it comes back to the board. All right, we're going to open up the public hearing. This is an opportunity for members of the community to address us on this item. We appreciate all of you that have been waiting so long to an opportunity to speak on this item. We recognize it's been a long morning. Good morning or good afternoon. Welcome back. Hello. I just wanted the planners to recognize that they need to build more accessible housing. Let's do all housing be more accessible. Keep in mind, we have an aging population coming. They're going to need accessible housing to be able to live in their communities. Also, we have individuals with intellectual disabilities who are in supported housing programs where they get 24-hour support and care to live in the communities that they choose from. They are being excluded from accessible housing. Fighters are struggling to find placements for them to live in a community that they choose to live in, make it more accessible. I do not find acceptable of the housing elements of the lower income and low income not being fulfilled. This is why we have a housing crisis. This is why we have homelessness because of the lack of affordable housing. It needs to stop. County planners can do better. They can do better. Look at the city of Fremont when it comes to accessible housing. I cannot think of the term that it's used because I haven't had lunch yet. He needs to go to the bathroom. You can do better. People with disabilities seniors need to be included. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Good afternoon. Thank you for waiting. Yes, thank you. Lynn Ganey. I want to say how much I appreciate recommendation that when it comes back, it has the higher amount of open space and park. Clarification when we're talking about Soquel Creek Water District and the aquifers, we don't have agriculture that drains our water. However, we only get five to seven percent of every rainfall that goes into our aquifers. That's a point of clarification. The highest agriculture is maybe two or three potted plants I have sitting outside my residential area on Mar Vista. So that's it. Thank you very much. I appreciate. Thank you. Thank you for waiting on this item. Good afternoon and welcome back. Good afternoon. Elaine Johnson, Executive Director of Housing Santa Cruz County. Good to be here this afternoon. Again, I want to acknowledge the county and all the work that they have put into getting to this point today. The invitation to allow the community to work on this housing element for the last 10 to 12 months. You know, I stand before you and I hear the concerns and the suggestions that were offered here from the from you members. And I also would like to encourage us to, you know, adopt the recommendations that was put before you and that we can continue to work together so we can be able to move forward and begin to start building homes here so people have a safe stable place to actually be rooted and grounded in a community. Thank you. Thank you and you do great work. Thank you for your work on that. Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome back. Hello, Becky Steinbrunner. I did write something in the comment for this item, so I hope you will read it. I attended as many of the meetings regarding this as I could, including one of the public meetings and they were pretty difficult members of the public were limited to one question and it was very noisy and you really couldn't it didn't really work well for a lot of people in the community. But I am realistic and know that nothing anyone here says today is going to make a difference because it's heading off to Sacramento tomorrow regardless. I am puzzled, however, that there has been no discussion of Planning Commissioner Schifrin's adamant insistence that your board receive their recommendation to increase the percentage of affordable housing. It was a big piece and it hasn't been mentioned here today. I support doing that and I also point out that in attending past Housing Advisory Commission meetings, it was a Julie Conway that suggested that we eliminate having affordable requirements for rental units because it just wouldn't pencil out for developers and she wouldn't get any applications if that were left in place. So I'm happy to hear that that's going to come back. That's important because the bulk of the people here are renters. I want to ask your board to really consider including a staking and flagging ordinance as this move was along. People need to know what's coming in their neighborhood. The Marvista community did not and showed up in force at the Housing Advisory Commission meeting and really have a lot of concerns about that dense housing on a very narrow street with no sidewalks and no alternative access out. I want to know why your board allowed Seventh and Bromer, a large parcel county owned, to be sold as excess property when it could be used? Thank you, Ms. Steinbrunner. I see nobody else in chambers. Madam Clerk, is there anybody online for the public hearing? Yes, we have speakers. Orchard House, your microphone is now available. The vast majority of housing in this county is not built by large corporate builders. It's built by small mom and pops. More importantly, our current housing inventory is not maintained by large builders. It's built and maintained by the same small pop builders who have faced a policy that has basically been financially infeasible for them. So they have simply moved away. We are now facing the unfortunate consequences of this. Not only can we not maintain the housing that we already have, but homeowners insurance costs for residents and voters in this county has doubled in the last 12 months. Unfortunately, the policy in this housing element does very little to help mom and pops. For example, big developer who would build a flood zone housing will laugh in my face if I ask him to repair my roof from a fire or my driveway from the rains. We've seen examples of this San Jose-style housing get built here in the county. They take a long time to build and are extremely expensive. Do we really expect that large developers will choose to build in our community rather than their own? And if when they do, they do so at a premium. If you authorize this Bay Area type of housing, the people who can afford to live in them are going to be people with Bay Area jobs. If you're going to allow 40 units per acre for big developers, then why on earth would the county continue its entrenched policy of only allowing one or two guest house for lots? Please allow the current citizens of Santa Cruz County to build our own housing. At this point, you've all been made aware that the state allows for additional ADUs and guest houses. And yet our policy is still only allowed the state mandate a minimum. It's foolish to require housing be built around transportation that is decades away. Why not focus our housing near existing infrastructure schools? We expect our representatives to support us. And I'm looking forward to helping elect two new supervisors who will help allow our local builders and homeowners to contribute. Thank you. Thank you. Antoinette, your microphone is now available. All right. Hello again. Antoinette ran it, turned into the Whitmore Park Inn. Our law firm has been retained by the Aptos Council and we submitted a letter yesterday afternoon on behalf of the group opposing the 2023 housing element as it pertains to Par 3. To be clear, the Aptos Council supports affordable housing through increased densities in appropriate locations. However, to do so properly requires adequate environmental review. The county cannot move forward with the general plan amendments and rezonings by merely preparing an addendum to the EIR for the sustainability policy and regulatory update for several reasons. First, simply requiring a future master plan and preparing an addendum to review the impacts of proposed general plan amendments and rezoning of Par 3 is legally. As evidenced by the comments attached to our letter, the history of Par 3 shows that the community has long rejected the site as an area for housing so that it could remain an important recreational and open space resource. Former owners of the Par 3 parcel also shared the sentiment. Additionally, the Par 3 parcels would have access and aesthetic issues if dense housing units are permitted for development. In 2008, the county ultimately rejected building housing on these properties due to community outcry that still resonates today. In addition, the county is also engaging in piecemeal environmental review by merely preparing an addendum. Legal precedent has long established that the environmental impacts of a project cannot be submerged by chopping a larger project into smaller pieces. So, denim isn't proper here. The county needs to prepare a separate EIR for the housing element as it was indeed proceeding with both programs separately. Lastly, assuming for the sake of the argument that the EIR for the sustainability policy can be used for the housing element update, subsequent environmental review is the only proper way to comply with CEQA. As such, once again, an addendum is not appropriate here. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Joanne Karman, your microphone is now available. Yes, hi. Good afternoon. My name is Joanne Karman. I'm the director of housing for Mid-Pen Housing's Watsonville office. Mid-Pen housing is a non-profit affordable housing developer with over 50 years of experience, building over 130 communities and 8,600 apartment homes for low-income families, seniors, and those with supportive housing needs throughout 14 counties of Northern California. Here in Santa Cruz County, we own and manage approximately 750 apartment homes in 13 communities with a development pipeline of an additional nine communities. We echo our partners such as Housing Santa Cruz County, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership and Santa Cruz DMV, and their support of the 2023 housing element as presented by staff. I would like to thank the board of supervisors and county staff for all the hard work and the deep community engagement process, as well as your leadership in exploring ways to create more affordable housing in the county. We at Mid-Pen are acutely aware of the affordable housing need. Here in Santa Cruz County, our weightless exceed over 6,000 households for our existing 750 apartment homes. In order to meet the RENA goals, the county needs to utilize all the tool that is disposal to increase multi-family housing development and ensure that production benefits everyone across all income levels. We support including all of the sites as proposed by staff in the 2023 housing element. Our perspective is that the inventory should include feasible yet wide-ranging sites to ensure maximal flexibility in the system. And the more specific site planning occurs downstream and can occur downstream when developers refine the scope during the entitlement process. So thank you very much for your time today and for your continued leadership in combating the affordable housing crisis. Thank you. Thank you. We have no further speakers here. All right. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. So just as my colleagues are amenable just so I can be clear on what I was asking for on the resolution, there's an item that says that the master plan accommodate from two to four acres and just saying a minimum of four acres of publicly accessible space. No other language change in anything but all other recommended actions. Is there any other comments or a motion from any of the board members? Both comments and a question. So first off, to your proposed amendments or, I mean, the amendments you'd like to see to the resolution, it was mentioned there's several easements on the parcel. I think one, the largest being the one fronting the highways 2.6 acres. So would the open space be requirement, requirement be in addition to those easements or could the open space theoretically be in within those easements? Go ahead. So it's a right away easement in favor of public works roads, basically for presumably it looks like when that map was recorded, was to allow for connection of the end of Marvis to drive, drag it through the lower side of the property and connect up to the right away easement that's on the hotel property and connect to old. We did get some initial thoughts from our director that perhaps not all of that easement would be necessary for road right away. But then we also talked to the fire chief for central fire to see if he thought it would be necessary for what's called an emergency vehicle access, which generally that's a big factor in site planning for multifamily higher density projects because the fire trucks need to be able to get through a property to fight fire if necessary. And the fire chief checked with his development review team and came back and said yes he thinks that it would be necessary. So even if we didn't need it for a public road necessarily you would probably need it for an EVA at minimum. Now it doesn't necessarily have to be in the location where it is, but it would probably take up the same amount of property even if you moved it for example to the middle of the site. So the short answer to your question is basically it's more than likely that the open space would have to be fit on the site outside of that roadway easement. But again I think as one of the commenters mentioned we're not in the site planning stage right now we're just adopting a general plan element and so not enough is known about the site to be able to definitively answer some of these questions about what could fit or what couldn't fit. So that's why our proposed language in the resolution was built around the idea of preserving some level of flexibility so that site planning can happen in the future when an actual project proposal comes forward and they would do more due diligence on the field conditions and existing easements and so forth. Right and then the second question is when we considered an actual development proposal for that site under the sustainability update we now consider gross developer acreage. So what does that mean that effectively the same number of units could be built regardless of how many acres are dedicated to open space? Well so we're looking at this question for different policy purposes at different points in time. Right now the objective before us is to get a compliant housing element certified by the state. So regardless of where we might land on that answer in the future in a development review context with a project application the way our understanding is based on the HCD guidance we can't build in potential density bonus units into our yield estimate. So they kind of require us to look at the yield estimate just based on plain old zoning right what the density range is and that's what we've done and basically you know we won't necessarily know unless they until they review our package and comment on whatever we send them but what we are conservatively estimating that they might do is say well if you're only going to allow development on x number of acres then you need to reduce your yield estimate accordingly and that was what we presented on the slide so in other words if three of the acres need to be open space then you have a net 10 acres left for residential development the way they look at it and so it would be reduced by about 31 units for each acre that we require to be open space that's not to say we would analyze it the same way in the context of an actual development application where a developer would obviously have you know various options such as density bonus and they could cluster units and all of that but we can't guarantee necessarily that a developer would take advantage of all those options and that's why their methodology for projecting yield at this stage in the game where we're adopting a policy document it's a little more high level and a little bit more you know conservative methodology okay so does that mean that if we were to change the language in the resolution to say that it needs to be four acres instead of two with a desire for four that we could see some pushback from hcd and saying that our housing element needs to be revised and just then that impact to the deadline uh yeah we we haven't we don't know what their response will be but susanne indicated it's very possible that they would say look you you decreased your capacity here and so you need to figure out where you're going to provide the units especially that mix of very low and low right where a big site like that is really key to helping us meet that income segment so it's possible okay um i have a hard time wanting to then reduce the developer acreage on this site because of i mean what has been just said um and furthermore i'd point out that the vast majority of the sites that are being considered for rezoning a new housing are happening in the first district and so it's a little frustrating that really one large site in second district that is being considered would be you know reduced and reduced and reduced as far as how many homes we actually want to see built there a few more comments here you know i think the two things people hate the most are change and the way things are and we are stuck in this situation right now we're actually keeping things the way things are we're changing our community faster than ever because we're seeing the hollowing out of the people who can afford to live and work here and actually that's having a bigger impact on our infrastructure than i think even the housing that we intend to build will because if we can't if we don't have housing here to house the sanitation workers water workers um and everyone else who keeps our community working um then our infrastructure itself will fail you know i think when when we i think of a word to describe Santa Cruz it's dynamic and if we're going to keep that then we absolutely need to build this housing in order to support a thriving community a diverse community and ensure that you know all the people who make Santa Cruz special can continue to afford to live here so you know as it's been said you know the actual rezonings and the projects will also all be subject to their own public process in the future i think that you know in regards to the part three site we've expressed some pretty clear desire we've set a reasonable minimum with a desire for more um we've been doing outreach on this issue the housing element all year i know i've mentioned it in numerous newsletters had numerous town halls about it i think it's really at the best place it can be right now or we can all agree to move forward obviously there's more we can do in the future i think absolutely when you look at additional incentives for affordable housing opportunities to increase the number of ad use per parcel so that small property owners can also help alleviate our housing crisis but for the time being i think this is a huge and important step forward in our efforts to address the housing crisis and maintain a diverse and dynamic community all right i just want to i mean i think it's important to comment that the two acres is a is already the minimum on required into the residential flex so what we're talking about i mean we're putting it into resolution as though two acres is like a gift but it's actually going to be incorporated in irrespective of the commentary you just made so what i'm saying is that we'd still maintain over 70% of the developer area at the end of the day developer could come in as we're talking about as a planning document and say they want to put four units there and they could buy it and do whatever they want i mean they could say that they want to put 450 units there based on the on the density bonus my point being that this is the planning document this does not preclude let me say this it shouldn't be included in the resolution if there's a concern about it ever being approved from hcd or precludes development at the site i mean the site the resolution says two to four acres i'm saying then we'll take the four as the recommendation from the board the staff is saying that that's something that could be accommodated also recognizing that we have this 10% buffer which this doesn't completely eliminate right on the 10% overage so i still am requesting that we maintain and also there's a history here of extensive conversations about what would be on the site like we talked about last time with senior housing of course that can't be required but i don't think that reserving four acres for a publicly accessible open space for 400 units is a really unreasonable ask i think it incorporates well especially with the type of housing that will go in there with all likelihood that people should have access to parks i mean they should i mean we're making these investments in south county with a large park and what we're basically saying is that what we think is acceptable for low-income housing is the the least minimum required by code for open space and parks and i think that that's a bad policy decision so i go back to the resolution already says from two to four and let me say that and you could have i'm sure you probably did speak to your planning commissioner it was very clear that the planning commission wanted four i mean that wasn't this wasn't like up to there wasn't a debate in that situation was it was very strongly asked to maximize the amount and they were repeatedly asking questions about what it would mean if it were more than that and these units were not actually provided to the planning commission that were provided us today even though they were repeatedly being asked and you listened to sort of an interesting discussion but with that said that's how it came down to why they refused to actually say a specific number but they recommended in the planning commission recommendation that they recommend to us for acres even though the resolution says two to four the board the board letter actually does state that there was a preference or it states that but the resolution is two to four so i'm still just requesting that we accommodate the four but it would require a motion of one of my colleagues in order to do so but i appreciate what you said are there any other comments from board members and or and or a motion and i'll jump on a motion at once we need a motion to adopt no matter what so is there least emotion or i'll move the recommended actions all right we have a motion in a second with no change to the resolution language is that correct correct is there any additional do i have the ability to introduce a counter motion as a chair or is that something i can't do yes you have the ability to do that okay um then i'd just like to introduce a substitute motion that is for all the recommended actions with one change to the resolution line b that it just stayed four acres of publicly accessible open space all right there's a second to the substitute motion from supervisor McPherson so we have to vote on the substitute motion first yes all right or alternate motion all right yes for the vote yeah oh please roll call please oh sorry is that a question regarding um some of what supervisor Koenig brought up earlier i'm just wondering how this affects um you know how this would be adopted and any kind of pushback we get from hcd i mean i also have some concerns around pieces around affordable housing and having those incorporated so if there's this is the time to you know incorporate other things around affordable housing i mean i think that it would make sense if we're going to be making these changes to the housing element and what's being proposed in these resolutions so i'm just wondering you know how could this if there's if this would slow things down and if not if this is the time because i actually thought that this was kind of it that we were going to adopt the housing element and send it off to the state and that wouldn't be coming back to us is that correct that's what the staff recommendation is that um we you you adopt the housing element and then we send it off to the state um we anticipate the state could have some more minor changes they've um they've required an exacting analysis of all different kinds of fair housing issues and um and so we keep adding to the document but it's not really substantively changing policy or or or pieces of property that are included in the inventory so there could be a further adjustment based on their further comments um builders remedy looms out there for us we are trying our best to reduce the window wherein a developer could come in and build whatever they please with some limitations um so the the more we can support the inventory without the addition of constraints um the more likely we are to get hcd to certify in a timely fashion um the policies in the housing element but do a huge amount to support affordable housing and we did not miss the boat on affordable housing um and we've discussed the nexus study to address our inclusionary um and the board if you recall during a study session talked about that and didn't want to make any changes at that time so that language has been fairly um intact except maybe with some hcd changes um uh so we we strongly recommend that the board move forward uh with the adoption of of the housing elements so that we can get to a compliant situation that doesn't um also have the potential for reducing our ability to get funding for uh projects it's very important that we get to compliance as soon as possible but nobody's questioning whether we're adopting the housing element today right i mean it's a i think that that was kind of a confusing answer for what was being asked i'm just saying that what we're doing is adopting the housing element this is language and then a resolution specific to one parcel which is by the way the recommended language from staff as part of the adoption of the housing element that adds in this range and so i'm just specifying where in the range and i appreciate those comments i do also think that you know this is since this is a slight deviation from what staff is proposing i mean i would feel comfortable supporting this if we're going to have some extra support for some of the issues around affordable housing that i've been bringing up um in particular incorporating in um that replacement affordable units would not be counted towards inclusionary units um which again is a lot by state law so if a new project came in and they were going to be demolishing affordable units they would have to in addition to their inclusionary requirement um rebuild those affordable units i think that's really important for us to maintain that stock and it sounded like at the last meeting that that was something that um that board members were supportive of um in addition to that as i mentioned before um you know we don't have inclusionary requirements for rental housing around um requiring them to build um inclusionary affordable housing on site i think that's something that um we should incorporate into this as well it would just further demonstrate our commitment to um wanting to make sure that affordable housing gets built in the community and um and so that would be something that i want to see included as well and and i'll even step away from i mean i'd love to see the inclusionary be increased and have that incorporated i mean hcd wants to see us building towards affordable housing i'd like to see that as well i'd be amenable to you know have us continue moving forward with the nexus study if we can get some um sense of when that's going to come in forward but you know if this is our opportunity to provide our final recommendations that are going to go to hcd i mean those are at least two if not three of the things i think would be really important and i'd be willing to support supervisor friend your um motion if we could incorporate that into the housing element and i thought that at our previous discussion we had said that that would be outside of there wasn't a disagreement of the need to review it but that that was outside of the housing element discussion and that some of this was reviewed by the planning commission camera what part of it and it was not supported i'm trying to recollect exactly what that was let's see say maybe yeah i can clarify perhaps a couple of points here uh one i would just like to reiterate that the state density bonus law already requires replacement of any existing units that are per the definition in that law uh affordable i'm saying that as a catch-all term it it reflects whether or not the units are occupied by lower-income households whether or not it's a restricted unit so it is extremely likely that any future multifamily rental projects that come forward are going to utilize the density bonus process which would subject them to that requirement so we feel like as staff that's already covered um we haven't we have only had one market rate rental development of more than five units since the year 2000 and it was 13 units it is that lack of any market rate activity on the rental side that had led to the county we do have a rental housing impact fee for rental projects market rate rental projects but we haven't had anyone exercise that because the only applications that have come in since 2018 have utilized the density bonus law where they do have to provide affordable units and they do have to provide them on site there's no option to opt out and pay a fee and if there's any need to replace units they are subject to that requirement so essentially in a way the state state density bonus law is creating that uh bmr framework that measure j used to create but if it differs significantly from our requirements we still have to give that applicant the density bonus that the state law requires us to give them in any event i just say that so that you understand that some of those requirements are in place in terms of what's in the document the program that we have included all along as Stephanie mentioned to study this issue of our local inclusionary requirements remains in the document um if we were to change it now and add some additional uh requirements um based on our conversations with the hcd reviewers to date we feel concerned that that may delay certification um so that's what i want to add and i appreciate that um those comments and that you know as it relates to density bonus law but i think you know from what i've heard consistently throughout the community is wanting that to be a county policy not necessarily relying on density bonus law to um have us you know have those like either replacement units built or the affordable units built because not every project that comes to us although there's i get it there's a lot of interest in these density bonus project but there's no guarantee that there's going to be that all the projects that come before us will be density bonus projects and in the absence of having a county policy we we wouldn't be able to require replacement of affordable housing and we wouldn't you know be able to require that the inclusionary be provided on site so those are just the concerns i'm raising and it sounds like you know if we're gonna if the potential for the proposals that supervisor friends are making could have some could have some um concerns and issues with hcd it's if this is the last opportunity we have to make any recommendations i think that that's what the right that i'm trying to exercise right now because outside of that it sounds like we shouldn't be making any changes we should be supporting the staff recommendation that's it and that's the direction we want to go because we're concerned we have some concerns so be it but if we're going to make some subtle changes which i think that these are subtle changes that we've expressed that we want to make then i'd like to take that opportunity to make those right now any additional comments from board members to just a point order um i guess how would i be able to incorporate that into the motion well there's a motion and a second on the floor right now um you could ask the maker of the motion whether the maker of the motion would be willing to um do a friendly amendment or not and how does it yeah we have a substitute motion and so just so i have an understanding how does this can this be incorporated into a policy document there what's being asked for in the housing helmet side or is this a separate board item i'm not i'm not opposing concept to what's being proposed i'm just this is a mechanism for how it's being done yeah i certainly do it as a separate board item that's always an option for you um but if if the goal is to have a change i recommend we make a change to the policy language do you anybody remember which policy that is i believe it was one of the programs it's in section two it's the the program that commits us to doing the nexus study and considering changes to the bmr program yeah so um looks like we don't have the document up right now but we'd recommend a language change to the nexus study program and we'll figure it out that doesn't seem to be a major hindrance then of the housing helmet based on what you're saying correct i mean if it's a modification of policy of a part of the nexus study which is built on the policy language uh yeah i mean we're it sounds like we're continuing to study the issue it's still a nexus study and we would look at these additional items as a part of that study i don't know i'm going to chair uh real quick it's paul as the h3h they're referring to i'm just wondering if it can be these can be considered to stand alone it's not so much in the nexus study but programs that we will intend to work on and move towards within our housing element that would be another option of adding an additional program so i guess i would like to add the additional programs of um not counting replacement units as inclusionary housing affordable housing and um yeah and that the um there's a requirement for inclusionary affordable housing in rental units at 15 which is the same as measure j again this this doesn't i mean from policy perspective i'm this is fine but i just want to make sure that this is if adding policy lines are not of concern i mean it strikes me that hcd have an issue with something that theoretically could increase or would they have a concern with something that lays down a 15 percent you know we we don't have a crystal ball in terms of exactly where they're going to land i think what they've told us in in meetings so far in discussions about this topic as well as others is that um you know there's a lot of practitioners in the housing policy world that have studied this issue and often conclude that um mandatory requirements particularly if they exceed 15 percent i think there's not as much of a concern if it's below that level but they can serve as a disincentive and essentially scare away market rate developers and i think that's what um much of the commentary from some of our housing advisory commissioners was trying to relay as well that they have witnessed that happen during the implementation of measure j over many decades in in this community and so it's definitely a possibility that hcd will raise similar concerns that adding additional requirements without the benefit of having the nexus study to you know send off against allegations that it would disincentivize market rate development would be something that they would be concerned about it may take longer to get our housing element certified would it be preferred um to have the first element the supervisor Cummings mentioned about that they're not counted um as a standalone and then the second part be part of the nexus study is that a greater likelihood of of securing certification possibly again you know we just don't have a crystal ball on exactly how they're going to react to different variations on a theme so and how do they do we receive the comments back 60 days is their deadline 60 days and based on their 90 day review they took 89 days and three quarter of one but they okay but they've already reviewed everything and so the the only I mean there isn't a whole lot to change here right I mean so I mean in essence it could be called out what the modifications of the board made are correct it could be yes I mean I'd be comfortable with adding that onto my motion are you comfortable to rise my first and this substitute motion yes okay no they're required under state law to deal with us within 60 days and we're submitting tomorrow that's our goal yes the plan so yeah if it's clear with them yeah we wouldn't count replacement units as inclusionary and then we'd add the inclusionary requirement for rental housing there would be 15 percent of the units would be affordable inclusionary and I'd say that that should be consistent with our measure j which I think it's any project greater than four units is when that would kick in and let me add one one element that may that may smooth this over if you're comfortable with it and actually if you're comfortable with it which is that one element of the recommended actions is to allow I think it's director machado right to make the minor changes but it'll really be you I would submit because of the concern of the builders remedy that if we receive specific comments back that they have an issue with the four and they're comfortable with the two to four I would consider that to be an okay thing for staff to make the modification and I would request then that you make the same that you have the same willingness if they say that they'd rather see that as part of the nexus study so that we don't have something it's out of compliance because what we're here is we're trying to get these goals across and we're also trying to get the certified right no I think that what I'm what I'm saying is that that would be board direction that we would consider those minor changes that would be within the purview of the director of cdi that if you receive comments backs I understand the timing of when our last board meeting is and if we get these afterwards in the new year issue of the time the certification that we would give staff that authority to incorporate those modifications in in order to get those certified documents that make sense could you clarify please if you if we receive feedback from hcd that they're uncomfortable with the four acres let's say um then you're okay if director machado makes a change back to the two to four acre but let me say and I mean this and all I mean please don't take this wrong way don't solicit that feedback you're right man I'm saying that that board is still has a recommendation but there's a way to color things I mean I get it but and so I'm just saying that this is the board's recommend be yes that that that we had moved back to the two to four acre language and that's similar to the language we're talking about here the one issue that could be of concern would be the 15% and that that then be folded in as part of the next study works thank you total enough I'm sorry to just a technical matter the language that we're discussing here would be in the board adopted brezzo as far as the acreage and we wouldn't be able to just make a minor change at the staff level to the adopted rezzo language all right well I'll take counsel's advice on on on how that would play out where is it represented programmatically it's not in the document anywhere it's only in the rezzo because we don't want hcd to see it and you know yes okay then then um well what the what I'm understanding the board is providing direction that if hcd has a problem and wants it to move back to two to four that the board is providing staff with the ability to do that but what I really think it should be is that staff would come would come back to the board with that resolution and it should not it it should not impact the certification of our of our housing element um and staff what do you think about that Stephanie I I think we'd agree that we'd have to return to the board to make that change we won't we won't get comments back from them yeah but the agreement with hcd upon certification would be that it's being certified based on that based on the representation that we're going to be coming back to the board to modify that the resolution to to bring it back down to two to four acres rather than four acres right we would have to return to to the board I don't know that that would affect certification or not okay because they're because they're certifying they're certifying these um these elements um based on representations that that we're that we're going to do what it is that we said that we're going to do so I I you would know more from a practical perspective but it seems like something that can be worked out but yes if given that it's just part of the resolution it would have to come back okay I agree with your assessment that it's outside of the actual housing element so to speak and so it shouldn't but it gives you that flexibility and we're giving the flexibility on the policy component as well yeah I guess the only comment I would make is if there if hcd does have an issue given staff this authority I would just want to see those comments come back to us so we can see what issue hcd had and then what support the staff took the the point of number three in the recommended motion is to try to handle hcd comments at a staff level if possible I mean if we had to make big changes in the inventory if they took out the part three site let's say we're you know didn't want several of our sites we probably would return but returning to the board with additional policy language will set us back once that's not that's not what I'm asking I'm asking that we get sent whether it's a memo or an email just an update on what those comments were what actions the staff took to make the necessary changes for it to comply so that we understand what the final action was that was taken by between hcd and staff and where they had differences in opinion and how staff resolved those concerns all right could we have a roll call then vote on this please oh sorry I'm sorry I'm just asked for one clarification on the motion so it is in regards to the addition of my supervisor Cummings which is going to be that we will not count replacement units as a portion of the affordability percentage but this is something that's already essentially covered in state law okay and then that we will have added additional taxes being added to the next study that we'll look at requiring 15 percent of rental units to be or this is an additional program additional program initial program set 15 percent of rental units will be required to be affordable there's a percentage that is actively already being used every time someone it utilizes the density bonus ordinance that we have locally which is most of the time okay I got a question too uh it wasn't clear from staff if we're going to meet the timeline if we do all these changes they seem skeptical um we just don't know exactly what hcd is going to do even with the housing element as we've brought it to you today it's possible they'll have some um more extensive extensive analysis that we'll have to kind of put in there a lot of their comments have been very um analysis driven you know not they're not proposing to change programs when they haven't um but all of that analysis will inform how they look at our inventory and so we are hoping that they're going to be good with the analysis and then good with the inventory and as I mentioned we're trying to close the gap in between certification we as if we submit it tomorrow they have to return to us within 60 days with our with a either certification or another comment letter and if it's another comment letter we'll have to address them and it'll go back and forth a little bit so we're just trying to close the gap as fast as we can so that builder for a midi and um threats to our funding um don't go on for a long time all right thank you and I think it's unlikely because we've had a positive relationship with them we've been going back and forth this isn't like some of the other communities across the state that aren't in that position so we should also be realistic about the likelihood of that scenario if we could have a roll call please supervisor conic hi nothing's hi conandis hi mcpherson and friend hi and thank you all for your work out there um councils are anything expected to be reportable out of closed session we're going to move into closed session no all right thank you all