isolate. I wanna talk about our rehousing wave effort and what's included. We have three teams that have started. They're doing amazing work. These are supportive services teams that are going out, building relationships with people, helping them get income benefits, IDs, finding out if there's family or friends they can connect with, helping them fill out housing authority paperwork. They've started by enrolling 140 households of those 15 have gotten housed already. We have through our partnership with the Housing Authority, 330 vouchers. So you can see we have more housing subsidies available than we actually have households left in our COVID-19 shelter programs. So we have the added benefit with these additional federal and state dollars of making those vouchers available to other households outside of our COVID-19 shelters. And we wanna make sure as many of the guests in our COVID-19 sites get through that process and get access to those vouchers. But those vouchers are only good if we can find opportunities in the private market. So that ties into our real estate partnership program with one of our contractors. Well, actually all of our contractors are working with private property owners to find opportunities to incentivize and encourage folks with vacant properties and units to help us with this overall effort. We're bringing incentives for the owners, support for deposits, money to help if there happens to be damages in the process, which is very unlikely. I've heard over and over again from our providers that that's something that property owners like to know is there, but it's very rarely used. And we also have a 24-7 hotline for owners if there's any questions or issues coming up when they're working with our programs. In addition to that, we have some flexible dollars related to the housing problem solving and the homeward bound that we have available. And the biggest challenge, I think several of us have mentioned today is really finding housing in this private market. And we're gonna explore a range of options from pursuing state funding to acquire properties over the next six months to looking at master leasing longer term, some of the sites so that we can use these vouchers that help to pay for those housing costs and reduce the amount that our participants have to pay. But that's gonna be our biggest challenge over the next six months is really finding partners in the private market, pursuing public funds to secure more properties that we can use quickly, and also not so quickly. Longer term, we need to keep moving on our affordable housing development goals. I think earlier, I skipped one of the slides that I wanted to highlight to you all. In California, there is something called the housing element, which a part of that is the regional housing needs allocation. And what that process is, is that the local government level, we need to establish some goals for housing development for different income groups over the course of an eight year period. And you can see in our report that the core type of housing we need to develop to address homelessness is for people with the lowest incomes. So in the regional housing needs report, that's called the very low income population group. And our community, we have roughly two more years to go to issue building permits. And our target was around 730, 740 new housing units and we're only at 10% of that goal. So for us to really make progress on homelessness, we've got to address this affordable housing need for those who have the lowest incomes. And our framework calls for us to at least get to our renegals over the next couple of years to put the renegals into context, our housing advocacy groups in the state who've analyzed Santa Cruz County, think we probably need 10,000 more affordable housing units to fully guarantee that all of the low income households that we have in our community are paying less than or 30% of their income toward housing. So that goal is incredibly ambitious would require a massive change in terms of federal investment, but we're not even meeting our smaller renegals. So I think collectively, if we all can work together to get to our rena targets, we're gonna start momentum and make progress in that area. So next six months, what are the big things that our staff think are really critical for us to work on and we look forward to getting feedback from the board members and members of the public. Number one is prevention. We have this unprecedented time we're all living in where so many people are struggling economically, job losses, challenges with paying bills. And there's funding available at the state through a program called housing is key for people who have trouble with their rent, paying their utilities. And I think if the eviction moratorium passes and folks who either own property or who are struggling to pay their rent don't know about this program, we're gonna leave a lot of money on the table. And from the data that I've been seeing, we are, and we're not alone here in Santa Cruz, we're not accessing that fund to the degree that the need is there. So we've got to figure out a way to get the message out to people who are behind on their rent and their utilities. There's money available. So I think that's a really key thing for us to focus on over the next six months, actually in the next month or two before the moratorium comes to an end. Second is what I alluded to, the need to create more housing opportunities, not just relying entirely on the private market. We've got to take advantage of federal and state funding to secure property and build more affordable housing. And when there's possibilities to acquire something that we can use quickly, I think we should do that in the context of our COVID sheltering closing, but we also need to think long-term, looking at vacant parcels and developing the kinds of pathways to affordable housing that can take anywhere between three and five years to develop. But the first step is securing that funding to move those projects forward. Related is maximizing the number of people who leave our COVID-19 sites into permanent housing. I've been incredibly impressed by the work of our staff, mostly doing housing problem-solving work. I hope we can keep it up. I am skeptical. So with the Veterans Hall, which was our first site to close down our staff, helped every person there create a pathway to either some kind of temporary or permanent housing. So no one from that location had to go back to the street. I'm not sure we're gonna be able to keep that up. Obviously our goal is to try to make that the reality going forward. And that's a core part of what we wanna work on over the next six months. We also secured funding, and I don't know if the board remembers, but you all approved of us submitting a community development block grant. We're waiting to hear back, but we're trying to expand the multidisciplinary street outreach teams that do focused work with particular people, not just ask people to move from one location into another, but actually to help people move from being unhoused into shelter or into permanent housing. So we wanna get those types of outreach programs started with the money we have available, continuing to work on our performance and getting our providers more data and giving them feedback and supporting them in their efforts to get better outcomes. I alluded to the change in coordinated entry that we're gonna work on, implementing the new governance structure in 2022, and then having some focused population groups, really doing more detailed work, particularly for families and veterans. So those are our core priorities and look forward to getting feedback on those from the board and others. And I wanted to share that our governor, and this is a quote from him during this last budget season that he doesn't think homelessness can be solved. He knows homelessness can be solved. And I think for me personally, I remember when I was an undergraduate student in Los Angeles and homelessness was a fairly new phenomenon at that time. And I genuinely believe back then that, oh, we can solve this problem. And we just need more affordable housing and the right kinds of services to help people get back into housing. Well, the problem has grown, disparities and wealth have grown. I still believe like the governor that we can solve this problem. We're not gonna do it overnight, but by working together to get people the supports they need to be stable in their homes or to move back into homes and creating more affordable housing for folks, either by helping them increase their incomes or reducing the cost of the housing, we're gonna get there. So I like the governor wanna continue to get to work on this and appreciate the chance to present to you all and I'm done with the formal presentation and open to questions. Well, that's a pretty detailed analysis of what we've gone through and what we wanna do. I'd really do appreciate it. I think from a county's point of view, a place where we could help, we have a lot of parcels scattered throughout the county and maybe we can identify those where it would be the best place for housing. But that's gonna take some time to construct as well. Any comments from the board members? Professor Cohen. Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director Morris and Dr. Ratner for a great presentation. Obviously the statistics are a little bit grim, not what we'd like, but I think the fact that we have those statistics is a great testament to your work and really laying the framework for getting a better grip on this issue. In the fact that you've met 42 or at least partially completed 42 of the 43 milestones, also demonstrates your great progress on this. I guess since one of our primary goals here is to determine the next six month work plan based on the slide that you shared and the report clearly, you guys have made a ton of progress with the milestones, but for the next six month implementation plan, what three elements do you see as being the most important? Is it more or less the same as the order of the bullets that you shared on the slide? Yeah, great question. I do think they are similar to the order of the bullets on the slide. I think number one for me is really prevention. And one of the things we heard in gathering feedback from the community was you all wait too long. You wait till people have lost their homes and we gotta figure out how do we move quote unquote upstream? So number one in helping our community access the available resources. Number two is the securing of the housing through the state and federal funding and using every tool we have from master leasing to buying existing properties to building on vacant land. And then number three is there's been so much amazing effort to help people through the COVID pandemic to get into safe places. And I wish I could share all the stories I've heard about how transformative it's been for people who historically would never come into our shelters as they were structured but having a private room, your own shower, meals, being able to bring your belongings, that has transformed our sheltering system in ways that I think people didn't appreciate. And folks who didn't come into shelter are now in shelter. And I would hate to see many of those people return to the streets. So I hope we can all work together. Number three is on this rehousing wave like maximizing those dollars to get the biggest impact. And I think the private market partnership is gonna be critical. These state funds and federal funds are gonna become available. I just want to augment what I said in my introductory comments by adding to Robert's response to Supervisor Koenig on number two. I think we have a role as staff to be more clear with the community and more clear with you all. What we see is how to break down what does it take to create affordable housing? And I don't, I think in the chaos and the confusion of everything, kind of that detail gets lost. And if we can work with your offices and the community to be very clear and map out what the choices are in front of you with these new dollars that are coming so that you can make fully informed decisions. And what I was trying to get at in my introductory comments is I think sometimes county staff don't make that information really clear and understandable because it's so complex. And so decisions get made that aren't fully informed by no mistake other than we take very seriously. We think we do have a decent understanding of what the costs are, the full costs of getting something up and running that's sustainable. And we owe that to you and we owe that to the community so that it's not just, let's create affordable housing. That's an easy statement to make. What are we gonna do to get there? We will get you that information when this money comes down.  And that's, I wanna really break that down that we feel responsible. We feel we do have the information to lift that up to you. Right, yeah.  How do we ensure that they can maintain that level of stability and not have the rug where it would pulled out from under them? And so of course, that's, again, is the slide bullet point that had the ticking time clock next to it. I think we have somewhere between, maybe at best estimate, five months to resolve this issue. And right now we've only been able to house about 6% of the households currently in county shelter. Of course, many more have been sort of registered, but without the actual housing for them, they still risk getting the rug pulled out from under them. You know, you've talked about trying to secure more properties and that obviously is going to take some time. You know, I also had voiced some concern about this when we looked at the $8 million in federal emergency services grant and state funds back in March of the 23rd. And I hate to say, I told you so, we have a tight housing market here, but I think the numbers demonstrate that today. You know, so how can, first of all, how much of the approximately $8 million in federal and state funds that we have for the rehousing wave remain at this point? Yeah, a couple of responses. I think we have about 80% of the funds still left. Last time I reviewed the budget and a big chunk of those funds were to cover some of those, the gap between housing costs and rent. So a couple of things about the housing authority vouchers is that I think of that as a, if people can get through that process and secure a voucher, it's a way that they are able to close the gap between their incomes and the cost of housing. The vouchers we have available through the federal government, they're called emergency housing vouchers. They have a lot more flexibility than vouchers traditionally do in our community that allow people to use them outside of our county. So part of what we as staff try to do is honor people's choices and have reality-based conversations about, what is it that you wanna do and present? I appreciate you, I knew it was a tight housing market, but it's tighter than tight here. And I think it's a combination of many factors. So on the ground, what this looks like is trying to get people those subsidies to close those gaps and then having the conversation about, we're gonna look for a place here, but are you open to this county, that community? While we're also looking at master leasing locations so that we can use those vouchers in a building that's willing to take people in. And if you just look at the vacancy rates here, there is actually technically more than enough housing available, but it's finding the property owners who are willing to jump in and contribute. If you just look at the percentages. And I think one of the challenges there is what the federal government authorizes in terms of a rent level is based on a survey using a methodology that changed eight years ago and kind of deflated and is not necessarily really reflective of the actual market. It's kind of the low end of the market. And the incentives that we have available. So I think there's a little bit of asking our community to kind of step in and make a contribution. And then I think you're alluding to this supervisor, Conan, what are the other ways in which we can use those ESG, CV dollars, those particular funds. And I think I mentioned this at the time you had asked before. Every, we have 40 different grants that we're trying to keep track of in our department and we try to bray them together. Each one has different rules in different categories. This particular one doesn't really let us use it to buy property. It does let us use it to cover operating cost. So if we can find sites where we can continue to have a physical location where people can be, we can use those funds to cover the cost to operate the housing and the services component. So before this session, I was actually having an email exchange with some of our providers about, okay, let's start looking at that possibility of making adjustments to those dollars so we can secure a property. And then even though our COVID shelters will be closing over the next six months, if we can get people the vouchers, there's, in my work, people have often referred to it as the golden ticket with over 12,000 households waiting to get a voucher in our community on a long waiting list. There's this priority to help people experiencing homelessness that came from the federal government. So folks are frankly jumping a line in some ways to get this. And so we need to figure out how to support them to use it effectively in as many different locations where it's available. And then I think that other funding that's available coming our way and we're gonna get more detail soon, if we pair it with the ESG CV and some of our other resources, we use pot A and B to buy and set up a location and we use these pots over here to cover the cost. I think that's gonna be the path we need to look at. And keep in mind that these are all one-time dollars. So while we're doing that, we also have to be mindful of, okay, this money's gonna run out and what are we gonna do when it runs out? What funds are we gonna use to backfill it? What I don't want us to do is buy property because I've been involved with this and then you don't have money to operate it. And it just basically you end up with a property that was not gonna be used long-term. So it's a juggling act to figure out how do we put all of those pieces together? And I think we can do it. Great, what exactly meets the definition of the type of dwelling unit that would be eligible for a voucher? Yeah, there's something called the housing quality standards and there are some federal standards that articulate kind of minimum expectations of the unit. I would say that the high-level things where often with short-term quick fixes, we fall short are the access to utilities, having cooking facilities, toileting facilities and showers, those are kind of essential. And then there are some general health and safety requirements. No loose electrical wires, no evidence of water damage, mold and mildew, those sorts of things. But I think that the biggest hurdle is the utilities, the kitchen, the bathroom, those are really critical. And do those have to be within the individual unit or can it be shared? They can be shared. So the payments are actually lower when they're shared. So then you get into operating cost issues, but a single room occupancy or kind of hotels that maybe don't have kitchens or bathrooms for everyone, we can work with those types of properties. Great, thank you for the report and as I've expressed, look forward to working with both of you on identifying locations and properties for purchase. Supervisor Coonerty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I wanna thank Randy and Robert for putting together this presentation and data for in my six years on the board, we went from virtually never talking about homelessness to sort of engaging the various myths in this community around homelessness, that if we sort of didn't provide any services, they would all go away or that if we just found a place for homeless, the whole problem would be solved. We could just house our way out of this crisis. And I think having you here, having you engaged, not only with us, but with our federal state and other jurisdictional partners, having your really elaborative approach has been great. And then having this data, although as Supervisor Coonerty pointed out, that is in some ways very hard to read and take in, I think is a benefit in sort of finally addressing what is the biggest crisis facing this community. A couple of things that I'd sort of wanna just point out is, I think at the beginning it was said that these four specific report backs that we've asked for should be incorporated in. And I do appreciate that, although I think the reports on these specific populations or activities have actually been pretty informative. I think one of the few bright spots was the homerbound money that was a relatively small amount of money considering how much we're spending and other approaches that really solved problems for a lot of people. And I'd be looking to you in the future for how we can both expand the amount of money available for this kind of problem solving and also build in a culture of applying these micro fixes to help people quickly get out of homelessness or be stabilized. The data around families was in many ways the hardest to read because one of the few areas of this community is unanimous and wanting to support. The fact that we had dedicated vouchers from the Housing Authority, the fact that we had a focus and a prioritization and we still can't find places for these families to be housed and that the rates of rehousing are heading in the wrong direction is a challenge. And I still believe that we need to increase the churn, increase the speed at which we can get people placed both because it reduces the trauma of these folks experiences and because it makes our capacity, our current shelter capacity, that much more available for people in need. I think as you said, the idea that we're gonna be able to solve what is a national crisis in a small community like ours is just not realistic. Our housing stock has just too much demand on it from too many different areas and I don't see that trend being reduced. In fact, I think it's only gonna intensify as we move forward. So helping people find ways so that they aren't put on a list for more than a year to nowhere but instead are put on given options to figure out what's best for them and their families to find housing I think is an important step. So moving forward, I'm still interested in having those units identified in the unincorporated area. I appreciate the effort we're making in partnership with the Rio College. That was sort of before this direction so we need to still find additional units. I'm looking for more of how we can provide you the resources for this problem solving, this quick problem solving and then supporting your efforts around data-driven and outcome-driven approaches to addressing this very, very challenging issue. Thank you, Supervisor. I don't think Supervisor Friend is with us. He has any comments? I don't think so. I'm sure that I did not have any comments. I appreciate the amount of time that I spent with Dr. Ratner and Mr. Morrison in advance of this and I appreciate the presentation that I was able to catch at the end. Thank you. Supervisor Caput. Yeah, good to see you in person. Okay, great job on the study session. I want to thank you for all your hard work and with the role of Section 8, is that going to expand? Yeah, there we go. Okay. The Section 8 has a lot to do with the homeless situation. If we didn't have that program, then we'd have a lot more homeless people. So what's your outlook on the expansion of that? Yeah, great question. I refer to the golden ticket earlier in the housing world and it goes by different names, but Section 8 is classically what people refer to as the housing authority provides that subsidy for a low income household to be able to afford a place in the private market. Our current president during the campaign made a statement that he wanted to move towards universal housing vouchers for all eligible families. So the concept was if you are living in our country with an income below a certain level, we want to make a voucher available to you. Since that campaign commitment, there's been some backing up on that idea, but I think that the federal budget package that's being discussed is looking at how do we expand? Maybe not to that degree that was mentioned during the campaign, but a significant amount. I think for communities like Santa Cruz, the challenge with Section 8, which we've talked about today is it's highly dependent on the private market, being willing to take people who have that voucher. And there are some federal, and perhaps we could work with your offices on this. There's a lots of policy dialogue about the Section 8 program. And one of the origins of the program was that it was an alternative to public housing where you were concentrating people in government owned buildings and people struggling with issues in their lives and lower incomes were all concentrated and segregated in one area. So the Section 8 program in some ways was to help people to find a place in the private market. Well, the challenge is the private market is not always readily willing to enable. So lots of policy makers are looking at reforms related to that. One is can we change the percentage of the Section 8 program that can be tied to a specific building? So when someone develops more affordable housing, there's something called project-based Section 8 where you can take that voucher and tie it to a unit, which means a family that moves in, they get that subsidy when they move into the building. So I think under the current federal administration, I would expect an increase in Section 8. What we're gonna be left with is this challenge of using it in our community. So we've gotta figure out ways to create more housing that will accept Section 8. And there's lots of different policy tools. We could come back and come with some suggestions to you. But most of those, I think, are federal and state regulations that will need a lobby to change to be able to make those kinds of changes here. But positive news, I think we will be getting some more Section 8 in this budget process. Yeah, and what I really like also, it's we're taking a realistic approach. There's gonna be success and there's gonna be some failure, depending upon who we're trying to help. And I think in the long run, we're gonna get a lot done. And that's what I really like about the way you guys are looking at this. I guess the other thing I would say is, of course, we have the Salvation Army and Teen Challenge and different programs like that. And they're gonna be a big help in the future. I know in South County, Teen Challenge is gonna have a shelter for women and families. Yeah, just building on that comment, Supervisor. I came from working in big counties with larger budgets. And I have been personally very impressed with the private sector commitment to addressing this issue. I alluded to it in one of the reports. If you look at our shelter programming, there's heavy dependency on foundations and private donations to keep our current shelter capacity going. So without that kind of generosity that you're alluding to, we'd be in a much worse situation. So I'm deeply appreciative of people who are giving and contributing to this issue while we're working on it on the public sector side as well. And those are great examples of that. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Good seeing you again. Yeah, thank you for the very in-depth report. And it's clear our biggest challenge is finding partners in the private sector. And as you alluded to it, we do have a pretty good job here in this county, but more needs to be done. And but another thing that is not a concern, it's just a reality check that even at the best results that we could have, we could reduce unshulted homelessness by 50% in three years. That still means we're gonna have some. So we're doing our best. I really appreciate your professionalism and under Director Morris, we're really fortunate to have you to address this and pinpoint what some of the needs are. And I think we're gonna be able to do that and have more success in the future as well. So do appreciate your in-depth analysis of this and I'd like to hear from the public if they have any comments on this. Hi, my name is James Ewing Whitman. I would really like to thank Mr. Morris and Dr. Ratner for the presentation. There's an incredible amount of information working behind me. I know there's a meeting externally on Fridays behind this building where a lot of the information that I heard you share and I took notes on I could share with other people that along with myself could use the information. But since I left the room for a little while, I'm not quite aware of everything that transpired because when I walked in, this conversation was already going. Like for example, I don't know what percentage of the homeless population has actually been diagnosed or tested or become sick with COVID. Now it kind of gets kind of challenging. I'm gonna do some quotes. Great things are not done by impulse but by many small changes. All changes are done by not by impulse but by many small changes. My understanding following what's going on in the world is it's possible that the US dollar could be highly devalued very soon because it's my understanding that 130 countries are going to stop using the dollar. And while there have been all these protections from evictions from people in this county, I believe that the homeowners who are renting these buildings out and maybe on very fixed incomes are not being compensated. So it's entirely possible that the homeless population could grow by leaps and bounds. And maybe I missed some of that before I came in about how to take care of if there's just an explosion of homeless. So there's a lot of things I could talk about but I'm going to leave it at that. And I just wanna thank you guys again because that was some great information you provided that I think the whole community should listen to and not just the homeless. Thank you. Outstanding presentation. What I came away with that was that we by 90% are not meeting our new housing goals. That's an astounding number right there. And even when we get funding from the government or whatever to house these people, there's no place to put them. Now during this fire crisis, I had a neighbor who has a horse ranch in an orchard field and we hosted about 50 people there during this time. And I said, what can I do? So I came down to the county building like I normally did, gave him my parcel number and said, hey, what can I do to help this? And they said, wow, you've got a large parcel. You can have two, three car garages for six cars. You can have 305 peacocks on your property. But if you wanna build an extra guest house or two on your property, no way. Not allowable, can't happen. Now we've got these projects that are coming through and they're wonderful, I'm sure they're gonna be great. But we know that building large complexes here in this county takes five, 10 to 15 years. Now I was lucky enough to be raised with a tool belt around my waist. So I can convert any one of these six garages that I have into a living housing unit in about two months in my spare time, if I'm allowed to do so. So please, they're asking you, I'm asking you, work with us together so that we can create some of the most affordable, quick housing that we possibly can. So we can get some of these people off the street. Any other comments from the public? Seven participants via Zoom. Is there anybody on Zoom? Yes, seven speakers. Seven? Yes. Call in user six. Your microphone is available. I thank you very much for the presentation. It was very informative. I would actually like to see Keith McHenry and Food Not Boms and some of the homeless people he works with do a presentation to give another perspective on it. I always think if we had the military budget that wasn't draining our resources, 50% of our taxes approximately, we could do a lot of housing schools, et cetera, with that money. In terms of the recent happening in the last 18 months, I'd like to read a little bit from an environmental attorney here to give a little bit of a context. The suspension of due process, due notice and common rulemaking meant that none of the government prelates to ordain the quarantine, had to first publicly calculate whether destroying the global economy, disrupting food and medical supplies and throwing a billion humans into dire poverty and food insecurity would kill more people than it would save. In America, their quarantine predictably shattered the nation's once booming economic engine, putting 58 million Americans out of work and permanently bankrupting over 100,000 small businesses and skipping down while obliterating the American middle class and dropping an additional 8% of Americans below the poverty line, the 2020 COVID coup transferred. Sir Cagno, your microphone is available. Can you hear me? Okay, thanks. Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name's Serge Cagno and today I come to you wearing multiple hats. First hat, stepping up Santa Cruz, I'm an advocate and I'm a consultant. I've done some work helping with setting up the shelters in the vet's halls. Huge, I wanna give huge thanks and appreciation to Randy Morris and Dr. Robert Ratner and the entire Housing for Health team for the presentation today, for joining our community and bringing your passion and expertise towards supporting those at risk of homelessness and those currently unhoused. Switching hats, I'm on the Mental Health Advisory Board with Supervisor Caput. Good morning, Supervisor Caput. And I'm on a committee that would like to partner with Housing for Health regarding the multidisciplinary street outreach teams. We're also looking at the alternative policing, the upcoming 988 system and peer certification. We'd like to find a way of doing that outreach and supporting people towards housing and resources, including behavioral health. So I'll be reaching out to you again, changing hats. I'm the Executive Director of Recovery Cafe Santa Cruz and we're now offering a weekly support group, something we haven't mentioned on homelessness prevention and homeless housing stabilization, both needs in our county is support groups for people to try to give them the emotional support and the goal setting and accountability and support to be able to reach those goals to keep their housing. And then last hat, I'm also for sprung shelters, a sales rep for them. We'd also like to be a resource for possible shelter options in the county for new shelters and for new programs. That's it for me. Thank you guys for everything you do. Michelle, Ellie, your microphone is available. Hi, thank you. Michelle, a registered nurse working on my badge where it's looking for a community project internship. I had purchased my 5,000 square foot home on three acres initially for a nurse retreat. And then I had considered the CNO logo type of a treatment center that's Catholic in Medjugorje of Croatia. Now it's uninhabitable since the fire. So I had a lot of questions and I was just wondering if you had any contact information where I could continue this discussion to get internship project ideas for my bachelor's in nursing for community project and then just brainstorm some ideas as I was listening to your lecture and also it gets books, articles and slides that you had previously done. If you'd followed any of Van Johnson's models, apparently he has a million dollar ideas and if we can get the infrastructure green packages to redo the Redwood elementary school, have the vets get jobs, green jobs and turn the Redwood elementary school into some housing. So I don't know if you have any information where I can contact you with something that I'd like to pick around more than a few minutes. Thank you. Rose McNair, your microphone is available. Okay, I just unmuted. Can you hear me? Okay, this is Rose Marie McNair. I am a realtor in the community for the last 45 years and I would like to thank Robert Ratner for stepping up and coming to our community to help us figure out ways to deal with the homeless issues, which is just huge. And also I want to say that I do want to help if I can in any way. Sometimes I think things that are as large as this when they're a problem for the community to be able to find help. I find a lot of times they get lost. Somebody makes a call, someone's supposed to call back, they don't call back and then neither does the person who's seeking the help because they feel like they've possibly got ignored or didn't find a way. So I'm hoping that somehow or another we can design a critical path whereby no phone call is lost, whereby there's a protocol for answering those people and finding ways to deal with unutilized or underutilized property space that we can get people into. I would like to help with that. I think that if you have that critical path in order that every protocol, every person is treated exactly the same when trying to reach them and gather up the information that that be followed. And I hope that can be helpful in the future so that there's a design to it. I see I only have a very short period of time. So I want to offer my gratitude to those who are going to try and implement this. And I've been saying for so long that words are not all we need. We really need action. So thank you very much. And let's really do it. Boots on the ground. Thank you very much. DM, your microphone is available. Is it, am I the right person to be on? Oh, hi. Yeah, hi. This is Darius Mosamine. A couple of things I want to just mention. I've been told I'm one of the largest section eight landlords least in the city. I have 33 units with voucher holders. One thing, and unfortunately, I will not rent a unit to a currently homeless person on the street, which is sad and ironic. I've done, in the past 10 years, I have rented to five formerly, right off the street homeless folks. And by the way, I've got, I work with three counties. I have property in three different counties. And of the five I've rented to, I've had to evict four of them. In fact, there would have been six, but he actually died in the unit. You can't just, the process doesn't start, stop when the voucher holder gets housing. For these kinds of folks, like I say, the hard cases that are from the street, that you need to provide services for them. That you need to provide some kind of adult supervision, so to speak. I've had voucher hold, I've had one guy, he does the things that we take for granted in terms of renting an apartment, like paying a utility bill. We can't, some of them can't handle that. When I came up one time and the guy had a generator hanging out of his window running, and he didn't pay a speech any bill. That's not a formula for long-term housing for these folks. So I just wanna say it's part of the solution having housing vouchers, but it's not the total package. And lastly, you mentioned about the rents, the section eight rents that are under market, that is not true. They're actually very, very generous. In fact, too generous to be honest with you. I think my time is up. Colin, user five. Yeah, begin speaking. Yeah. Douglas Beach Poglian Foundation Inc. DBA Monterey Bay Conservancy. Really here to comment on the flood conservation meeting. I think that got lost somewhere. But since I listened to this, it was very informative. It seems like what you're talking about here is a six month plan. And it seems to me that the, oh, by the way, my nexus to the homeless garden or the homeless of the situation in Santa Cruz goes back to prior to 1996, when actually was running for your position. And this was an issue which we dealt with on actually a TV show at lawandorderliberal.org. And we still haven't been able to get it right. But anyway, we have to deal with a short-term problem which is housing people who are going to need housing and get them to start draining instead of having them on the highway or having them in parks. Temporary solution. And as having a quite association with Poglian Club House in that area, I would suggest possibly during the filming of Lost Boys, there was one very huge tent that was constructed up there. And three of those tents were provided for male, female and family housing on an emergency basis. Get people out of the rain and the homeless garden's been approved. But I'm not saying on a permanent basis, but I would really like to see that addressed on a temporary basis. And first day of the homeless garden project with Paul Lee, I was the one who provided the tractor service. And I'd like to see that everyone would, a community participated resolution that certainly betterment. And we have to deal with, hopefully, everybody's praying for rain. But we'll be prepared for it, please, to tap me. Thank you. Mila, your microphone is available. Hello, do you hear me?  And I cannot get, I cannot achieve it. Nine years, I'm trying to get help for my daughter. I wanna thank the landlord who was talking about homeless people that was put in his building and it was unsuccessful. Because I know why, because they do not get in-home support services that they should get. And this is what was happened to my daughter when she finally, again, got voucher section eight that I signed up for in 2008. And they've been handled that, they were not giving her that voucher section eight with me. They wanted to give it to her only.  They gave her that voucher section eight. And I helped my daughter to find an apartment and move in. And what the next thing they did, they didn't provide any services. They never visited her, but they isolated her from normal society and they alienated her from me, completely alienated. She will be alone in that COVID-19 year. And as a result, she lost her place and she lost her apartment. Now she's 60 days homeless. Already 60 days, she's on the street artistic nature person. It's very dangerous for her to be on the street and she gets raped and robbed. Do you hear me people? Rape and robbed. And I cannot even protect my daughter because you keep me alienated by those judges who are unelected ever by people, but they surcount. As a reminder, public comment is limited to two minutes per person per item. Tim Richards, your microphone is unavailable. Hi everybody. My name is Tim Richards. I own a business here at the Old Sash Mill and I hold three commercial leases. And I guess I'm supposed to press start or even to press start. Okay, great. Yeah, I'm calling in to voice my support of Tiny Homes. Myself, my partner and our 15 month old are currently houseless. We're camping on some friends' land. And we've been waiting to get clarity on whether or not the Tiny Home on Wheels are gonna be legalized in this county. I attended a public meeting back in March and there was a timeline presented to the public that we'd actually be legalizing the phase one of Tiny Homes on Wheels by August. Unfortunately by March 26th, that timeline had shifted and the Tiny Home on Wheels were removed from the rest of the ADU provisions. So basically it's been indefinitely postponed. And my family and I would really like to know that there will be action on this and that Tiny Homes on Wheels will be legalized in our community as they have been in so many other towns and counties around California. We really see this as a low cost solution to the housing crisis. And we'd really love to be able to buy our own land where we can park our own Tiny Home on Wheels because it's not, it doesn't really help us just to have it legalized and then to have to rely on a landlord to park it on their land. In my view, this is a really useful form of legislation because we're able to take parcels of land that were previously undevelopable for any number of reasons. And as long as there's somewhere that can be graded flat and stable enough to park, we can actually utilize previously unusable land and generate more property taxes and get more people housed in our community. So I'd really love to see a updated timeline presented to the public. And I would like for the Tiny Homes on Wheels to be legalized, not only as ADUs but also as standalone units on land. Thank you so much. Emily Hansen, your microphone is available. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Emily Hansen. I'm also Supervisor Koenig's appointment to the Human Services Commission. So thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm born and raised, still reside in Santa Cruz County. I'm a homeowner and provide housing for both my father and my mother who are extremely limited resource and also have a home that I'd love to be able to build a second unit on. I think one of the challenges that we hear today and have heard over time is that in many instances we are limited by resources and in some instances, and in the terms of housing availability in Santa Cruz, it's not necessarily the resources we are limited by but the actual limits to deploy those resources. And I wanna really just commend Randy, Dr. Radner, the Board of Supervisors and everyone who has hands in this very important issue of homelessness in the unhoused community and working together for the strategic deployment and integration of the available resources. It's multifaceted, it spans multiple departments and anything and everything that we can do to take currently available yet unused resources and get those resources out to the community is going to be a win every which way we can find one. I think that looking at streamlining the approach to being able to deploy these resources specifically as it pertains to getting more housing in our community is gonna be imperative, looking at strategic permit coordination programs where we can design buildings to be able to accommodate what the restrictions are in the county is gonna be critical. And again, I admire you guys for proceeding down this path and hope that coordinated approaches continue. Thank you Chair, there are no other speakers on Zoom. Thank you. Good. We'll return to the board for the, discussed the recommended actions. We have a motion to do any comments for the comments from the board. Are you prepared to move the recommended actions? Okay. Second. Second by Coonerty. Call the roll please. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Friend. Thank you. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. Okay, it is 1230, but I would like to move ahead and complete our last item on the regular agenda number 11 of public hearing without objection to consider an ordinance amending the county code chapters 1310 and 1320 regarding accessory dwelling units and the diminished waiver for cultural development permit and CEQA notice of expansion, exemptions, excuse me, and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. There's a proposed resolution and notice CEQA notice of exemption, proposed ordinance and a proposed ordinance strike through planning commission resolution 2021-05. And there's a link to the planning commission staff report on May 26th, 2021, a map of the coastal designated areas and public comment received March 18th, 2021. I think that Daisy Allen from our planning department will be presenting this. Thank you, Chair McPherson, members of the board, Stephanie Hansen, special projects sustainability with me today is Daisy Allen. We're very pleased to bring back the ADU ordinance once again and the revisions to that ordinance to help the county regulations be aligned with state regulations. And Daisy's gonna walk us through our presentation today and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Great, yeah, thank you, Stephanie. And thank you, Chair McPherson and supervisors. So I'm here today to present the key provisions of the ordinance updating the county's accessory dwelling unit or ADU regulations as recommended by the planning commission as well as the housing advisory commission. Before I dive into the ordinance, I wanted to mention that there's also an effort underway to develop regulations for tiny homes as directed by your board on March 9th. The planning commission requested that preparation of the tiny homes regulations be separated from the update to the ADU regulations as a separate policy project. And so staff will be pursuing that project next starting with community meetings. For that reason, the ordinance before you today deals only with updating the regulations for ADUs. Due to the wide public interest in ADUs enhanced community outreach was conducted for this policy project beyond the usual newspaper notice. And community outreach information was provided in detail in the May 26th planning commission staff report. Public comments received since March are provided in your packet. So I wanted to take a minute to review the scope of this project. As you may remember in January of 2020, there were new state ADU laws that went into effect. Last year, we moved quickly to update our zoning code to comply with these new laws. But at the time, there was not guidance available from the state on how to interpret some of the confusing provisions of the state law. Since then, this past fall, the California Office of Housing and Community Development or HCD released an ADU handbook. HCD is the state agency that reviews and approves the local jurisdiction ADU ordinances. So it is important for our local rules to be in alignment with HCD as interpretation of the state ADU law. Based on this handbook and subsequent discussion with HCD staff, there are some areas of county code that need to be updated to meet the state law minimum requirements. There are some other areas where our local regulations exceed state law minimum requirements for ADUs and that's okay. The intent of the state ADU law is to remove barriers to ADU construction. So our local ADU regulations can be more lenient but may not be more restrictive than the state law. There are also some updates proposed to our local ADU regulations that are unrelated to the state ADU law requirements. These updates are proposed for the purpose of reducing confusion for applicants and staff, further streamlining ADU permitting and construction and addressing special circumstances including disaster recovery as well as ADU regulations in the coastal zone where the state ADU law must be balanced against the objectives of the California Coastal Act. So on this slide, I have listed the changes that are being made for the purpose of meeting the minimum state law requirements to align with the HCD ADU handbook. These are changes that we need to make and there's not a lot of room for flexibility in our local regulations. So in terms of ADUs allowed on a given property, single family dwellings are subject to single family ADU rules and multifamily dwellings are subject to multifamily ADU rules regardless of zone district. There is no longer a maximum size for conversion ADUs. Also conversion ADUs can include complete demolition and rebuilding as long as the rebuilt ADU does not exceed the envelope of the original structure by more than 150 square feet. ADU square footage needs to be calculated based on habitable square footage only. Also the four foot side and rear yard setbacks are now applied to street facing side yards on corner lots as well as rear rear yards that are on double frontage lots. Public improvements such as sidewalks cannot be required for the creation of an ADU or junior ADU. However, this rule does not apply to life safety provisions such as fire access. In terms of discretionary review meaning project review before an applicant can apply for a building permit. Development permits are no longer required for ADUs. Certain ADUs may still require discretionary review for special circumstances such as a coastal development permit or a variance. I would like to point out that there is an error in the strikeout underlying version of the ordinance which is attachment D packet page 98 section 1310 681 H1A. Subsections three, four, and five show as being added but these sections are actually being deleted. And this is shown correctly in the clean version of the ordinance which is attachment C. And that's related to discretionary review. Finally, the ordinance clarifies that ADUs and junior ADUs are not counted towards the county's maximum annual allowed residential permits meaning that if the county has already reached the maximum new housing production allowed for the year ADUs are not counted for the year ADUs and junior ADUs may still be constructed. Okay, so now I will discuss additional provisions in the ordinance that either exceed state law or address topics that are not addressed at the state level. In other words, these are areas of our code where the county has more flexibility in terms of what we decide to include in our ADU regulations. So first regarding the number of ADUs on a parcel for single family dwellings the state law minimum is 180 U plus one junior ADU per parcel. The current county code goes beyond state law and allows for 180 U plus one junior ADU per single family dwelling, meaning that multiple ADUs are allowed on parcels with single family dwelling groups. The draft ordinance maintains this allowance and then adds an additional provision that a nonconforming dwelling group can be relabeled as a conforming dwelling group with ADUs. So the five diagrams on this slide illustrate what would be allowed on an example, 10,000 square foot single family parcel. Scenarios one and two are what is required by state law. So one shows a single family dwelling with an ADU and a junior ADU and scenario two shows that same lot subdivided and then each lot can have a single family dwelling with an ADU and a junior ADU. And then scenarios three, four and five show how the county code goes beyond state law to allow ADUs in situations where there are dwelling groups. There was a lot of discussion at the planning commission on the topic of the number of ADUs allowed on a property. There was some community input calling for multiple ADUs to be associated with one single family dwelling. In other words, to go beyond what we were showing here. There was also some community input voice and concern about impacts associated with allowing more ADUs than are required by state law. So ultimately what is in the ordinance is a compromise solution that was reached. And then for multi-family dwellings, the county code similarly goes beyond state law to allow two detached ADUs that may be attached to each other, as well as conversion ADUs and up to 25% of the units. To use an example of an eight unit apartment building, the county code allows for ADUs as indicated in the diagram on the left, whereas the state law minimum would only allow two ADUs on this parcel. Okay, and then regarding ADU dwelling size and floor area calculations, the proposed ordinance clarifies that an attached ADU or junior ADU does not count as part of the primary dwelling unit floor area calculation. This removes a barrier to construction of ADUs since the county code requires a special discretionary review once a dwelling exceeds 5,000 square feet. So now an ADU or junior ADU construction would not trigger that special review requirement. The ordinance also goes beyond state law to continue to allow small additions as part of junior ADUs in order to provide more flexible design options for applicants. The state law requires that local jurisdictions allow for an 800 square foot, 16 foot tall ADU, regardless of a parcel's existing floor area or lot coverage. This provision in the law is intended to make it easier for property owners with small lots to fit in an ADU. Before the state law went into effect in 2020, the county code already had a provision to address this issue and allow for an additional 2% of building floor area on small lots. At this time, we are proposing to remove the 2% allowance because the 800 square foot state law allowance gets at the same policy goal and that simplifies the code. The ordinance also clarifies that the 800 square foot allowance should function as a floor area credit for the parcel, meaning that ADU square footage up to 800 square feet would not be counted towards the overall building floor area on a parcel. This encourages ADU construction on small parcels where previously owners may have had to choose between building an ADU and building an addition onto their home. The ordinance also removes the 16 foot height limit for an ADU that exceeds floor area or lot coverage, allowing property owners with tight lots to construct second story ADUs, which currently is not allowed. Okay, and then regarding ADU design, the proposed ordinance removes the existing subjective requirement that ADUs must be compatible with the main dwelling. The ordinance adds design standards regarding additions or alterations to historic buildings. The ordinance requires that ADU kitchens have built-in appliances, meaning that a plug-in microwave is not enough for an ADU, although this would be okay for a junior ADU. Regarding ADU placement on a parcel, clarification has been provided that a junior ADU and an ADU attached to a single family dwelling would be considered a triplex in terms of building code regulations, which triggers more requirements for applicants. So in order to avoid those existing building code requirements, applicants wishing to have that configuration can internally connect a junior ADU to the primary dwelling. The setbacks of ADUs and agricultural parcels have been clarified. And then additionally, the planning commission added a setback requirement for second story ADUs, as shown in the diagram in the lower right on this slide. The state law requirement for four foot side and rear yard setbacks is only for ADUs that are up to 16 feet tall. So above this height, local jurisdictions can add further setback requirements. In order to mitigate for privacy impacts to neighbors, the ordinance therefore requires an additional rear yard setback of four feet for ADUs that are over 16 feet tall. And then regarding parking, there was a lot of discussion at the planning commission and input from the community regarding parking for ADUs with a range of opinions and concerns represented. In the end, the commission opted to keep the parking regulations as they are for the most part. The ADU parking requirements and the proposed ordinance reduced parking requirements per state law for all areas of the county except for three coastal areas that are particularly parking impacted. The live oak, Davenport Swanton and the sea cliff, Aptosla Selva designated areas as indicated on the maps on this slide. So these are the same areas that have special regulations in the county's vacation rental ordinance. In these areas, replacement parking must be provided when parking is lost to ADU construction and new construction ADUs are not eligible for reduced parking requirements. Coastal commission staff have shared the concern that was raised at the planning commission regarding parking in these areas. And the coastal commission staff have indicated that they would be supportive of having reduced parking provisions in our ordinance. Regarding approval and occupancy, in addition to removing the discretionary permit requirements for ADUs, the ordinance goes further to streamline and encourage ADU development. There's a provision that following a disaster, ADU construction is allowed before construction of a primary dwelling. There has been strong community support for adding this officially into the regulations as property owners are rebuilding from the CCU fire. The ordinance also includes coastal development permit waiver to streamline approval of ADUs as well as other small projects, specifically in the coastal zone. This waiver was recommended by coastal commission staff to streamline processing. Similar waivers were recently approved by the coastal commission for the city of Capitola and Monterey County. Regarding occupancy, the county code currently requires owner occupancy for ADU properties except for ADUs permitted during a five-year period as required by state law. So at this time, in order to remove another barrier to ADU construction, the planning commission has opted to propose removing that requirement for owner occupancy entirely. Finally, the ordinance clarifies that existing declarations of restriction that don't allow habitation in accessory structures can be removed and those structures can be converted to ADUs with the appropriate geotechnical and structural work. All right, and then regarding infrastructure and utilities, the existing code disallows second driveways for ADUs within the urban services line unless special approval is received by the Department of Public Works. The proposed ordinance removes that provision so that any ADU can have a separate driveway. The ordinance also clarifies that sprinklers may not be required for ADUs when they are present in the primary dwelling but there are some caveats to this rule. And staff has coordinated closely with fire district staff in creating this portion of the ordinance. Utility connection fees are currently charged for new construction ADUs but not for conversion ADUs or junior ADUs. The HCD handbook clarifies that local jurisdictions may charge utility connection fees for conversion ADUs and junior ADUs built concurrently with the primary dwelling. So the proposed ordinance reflects that update. The ordinance does not, however, require impact fees for junior ADUs even though the state law allows us to charge those fees. Impact fees are not applied to standard ADUs that are smaller than 750 square feet. So it makes sense that these fees would not be charged for junior ADUs either since they have a maximum size of 500 square feet. And that removes a barrier to construction for the small ADUs that are more affordable by design. All right, so staff recommends that the board hold a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance, take public comment and then affirm that the proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA, adopt the ordinance and direct staff to submit the ordinance to the coastal commission and direct the clerk of the board to publish a notice of adoption. And I'll just say based on recent feedback from coastal commission staff, it is likely that the commission will have several suggested changes to the ordinance related to alignment with the coastal act and local coastal program that will be brought back to the board for consideration. And then after final coastal commission certification of the ordinance, the ordinance will be submitted to HCD for approval at the state level. Planning staff has coordinated closely with HCD during the preparation of this ordinance and we've received feedback that as drafted it is consistent with state ADU law. So that concludes my presentation. Thank you for that very thorough report and for making those adjustments that were requested. I think the county's award-winning ADU program is one of the most effective ways that we can get affordable housing built in this county. And I think making a streamlined effort that we can have more affordable ADUs is gonna provide more critically needed housing as we've just discussed it in the previous report from our homelessness discussion. And I think removing some of the regulatory and the process barriers is a key and I'm just somewhat concerned who knows what the coastal commission is just gonna ask us to do but I think it's the best that we do move on because this providing ADUs and junior ADUs is going to provide us with fewer obstacles for our property owners to provide these and provide more housing for our community. Thank you, Mr. Koenig or Supervisor Koenig. Any questions? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Allen and Ms. Hansen for the report and for all your hard work on this. I think there's a lot of changes to the ADU ordinance in here that are really gonna help new ADUs and junior ADUs be constructed. Some of the ones I'm really a fan of, the fact that ADUs and junior ADUs will only require a building permit and will be ministerially approved that up to 800 square feet do not count towards the floor area ratio that we're not gonna require parking for junior ADUs and conversion ADUs outside of the specified zones, of course, that owner occupancy is not required for ADUs and junior ADUs that were moving the design standards that maybe you must look like the primary dwelling allowing for more prefab and modular type ADUs. I mean, all this is really gonna really liberalizes our ADU code and will allow for a lot more construction. So I'm a huge fan of it and thank you for all the hard work. I noticed that the public comment was packet that was attached was 29.3 megabytes. So a substantial amount of public input there already, even though not everyone is in the chambers here today. I guess that this question of the multiple ADUs for larger parcels, it sounds like it came up a number of times during the discussion. Is it correct that the city of Watsonville does currently have such a policy? You know, I'm not familiar with their current, the details of their current requirements related to number of ADUs per parcel, but I have heard that they were looking into making that change to their regulations. Okay, yeah, my understanding is that for parcels over 12, I think it was 12,000 square feet that they would allow an additional ADU. I guess, I mean, and I understand there's pros and cons to that. I mean, we're, as you've already mentioned, we'll be looking at tiny homes including at some point tiny home villages. Would that be an appropriate time to re-look at multiple ADUs per parcel? Given that tiny homes, by some, I don't know if they'll be defined as ADUs within our code or could be, but obviously tiny home villages bear a lot of similarities to multiple ADUs per parcel in terms of the impacts on the community. Yeah, just like a lot of the provisions in this code, in the Coastal Commission parking and some of the issues that have come up, I think the Planning Commission had concerns about allowing additional ADUs on larger lots in our rural areas. So we can take another look at it, but it's a balancing act to make sure we're meeting all the regulations. Got it, thank you. And just the other point of clarification around the two-story ADUs, I've heard some concerns from architects that really we do need two-story ADUs and this code change makes some, allows that to happen in some locations, but within the urban services line, you only can have a two-story ADU if it's on top of a detached garage, is that correct? The regulations inside the urban services line allow for a detached ADU to be only 16 feet tall maximum. But above a garage, it can be, I believe it's 20 feet, 24 at the roof peak. And if the ADU is attached to the primary dwelling unit, it has the same height regulations as the primary dwelling. I see, and the concern I'd heard was that because of the state requirements that new construction, including ADUs, would be self-sufficient in terms of energy, needing to put solar panels on the rooftops that if you're building an ADU, or I guess in this case it'd be a detached ADU in an area where there's other two-story buildings around, it could be hard to get that sun exposure if you're dealing with the 16-foot height limit. I did note that there was the five-foot kind of variance that could be applied for in there. If someone was trying to get solar panels on their roof to meet a state requirement, would that be a reason they would get such a variance? Yeah, so there's an exception process whereby you can apply to increase the height of an ADU by up to five feet in excess of the zoning standards up to a maximum of 28 feet is the hard maximum. And there are findings that need to be made for that, mostly related to the situation on the site specifically and potential impacts to neighbors. So that certainly could be the type of project that might be able to get that type of approval depending on the site-specific conditions. Got it. Okay, thank you, that's all my questions. Thanks again for the hard work. Supervisor Friend, any questions? Yes, Mr. Chair, you have some questions. Thank you again, Ms. Allen, for your presentation, your work on this. There are a lot of updates that we've made over time. I think we continue to make it better. I do have some questions just from a lack of clarity when I would read the actual proposed modifications versus the staff report versus even the presentation, I just didn't fully make sure I understood. So for example, on a conversion ADU, there's no maximum size for a conversion ADU that's being proposed, is that correct? Requirement that's in the state law, that we didn't read that state law requirement the same way that HCD read it, and we're modifying our code to align with the HCD handbook. Okay, so then to provide clarity, so for example, in a lot of areas in my district or Supervisor for Connick's district, there are non-conforming, well, I suppose they would have been garages at one point, but they're just basically non-conforming outbuilding. You can demolish that and do what with it? You can build it 16 feet, you can build it 20 or 24 feet, you can increase if it's on the quote unquote same footprint, does that mean that it can actually be larger because it can be two stories that that would have the four-foot setback, the eight-foot setback, I'm just confused as to what would all apply in a situation like that? Yeah, so in order to be considered a conversion ADU, if you were to demolish an existing garage or barn or something and wanna rebuild on the same footprint, you'd have to use the same footprint and the same building envelope and not increase the size of that building by more than 150 square feet from what the original size was of the structure. And if it was non-conforming, for instance, if the structure was within the setback line for the property, you would be able to rebuild but you would not be able to increase the degree of non-conformity, for instance, you wouldn't be able to build further into the setback than the previous structure. So if you had a 10 by 10 former garage, for example, I mean, it's obviously larger. I will just say you had a 10 by 10 and it was had a 10-foot roof. If I were to demolish that and rebuild it as a conversion, is that my exact size that I could max out out or could that be a 16-foot or 20-foot height situation? Could it be a two-sided, I'm sorry to interrupt, could it be a two-story on the exact same footprint, base footprint, the level? Or are you defining footprint, including height? Yeah, that's a good question because now I'm thinking, I wonder if the ordinance, I believe only uses the word footprint and doesn't use the words building envelope, but that is the intention of the HCD interpretation of the state law that it's the building envelope itself. So if you had a structure that's a one-story structure, then the idea is that you wouldn't be able to build a two-story structure, that wouldn't be a conversion ADU. You could do it potentially, but it would be considered a new construction ADU with all of the associated requirements with that. Okay, no, that's not, I would be more comfortable with that clarity being provided. I don't know if that's just cleanup language before a second reading or if that's a policy interpretation internally, but the way, the reason I was confused is because the language to me, I couldn't tell whether that you were allowed to do something more or not. If I'm confused on it, I imagine 10 years from now the interpretation may be confusing to somebody trying to determine an application as well. So I'll defer to your expertise on the best way to address that. I do have a question in regards to the driveway changes. Can you just kind of explain to me the rationale as to why we would want to incent a second driveway in some of these applications? I know there's other portions of our code that also define how much of a front area can be used for parking no more than 50% and stuff. And so I wasn't even sure if this was in harmony with other elements of our code and why we would say that a second driveway would be ideal in some situations. Yeah, so what we've heard from some applicants and property owners that are interested in constructing ADUs is that the logical place to put the ADU may be, for instance, on the rear of the parcel. And it may be more appropriate to have an access to that property from the rear if there's an alley or some situations like that. And that they would like the flexibility to be able to design the site in such a way that the access to the ADU and the primary dwelling makes the most logical sense. Currently the code allows for that but requires a Department of Public Works review of those second driveway options. So what the ordinance does is allows for that that second driveway to be part of an ADU design if an applicant would like to pursue that without having a special Department of Public Works review. However, all of the other requirements of the code still apply, for instance, that the code section you mentioned related to the driveway percentage of the frontage area. Incluses of the second driveway. So it would, you would only be allowed a second driveway if it still did not in aggregate apply to more than 50% of the front yard. Right, yeah, the proposed ADU ordinance is not changing those other provisions in the county code. Okay, I just, I saw a conflict there.  So I just wasn't sure then how you would be able to squeeze the second one in there. But if, so I'm just trying to work through the practicality of those two code sections that I think are in conflict. I mean, I hear what you're saying and I think, and I appreciate that it doesn't run in conflict with the other one, but I think in practicality then we may run into issues on that moving forward. I'll just close with a question about the design standpoint, I'm all for this idea of a prefab or anything that accelerates the construction. I do have some concerns though about how broadly that's going to be interpreted if there's absolutely no design review at all. I mean, we're dealing with this on something relatively different in my district that I know planning's familiar with on a single family home in theory that was constructed with no design review at all. And it's very unique, I guess, for that neighborhood to say the least as far as what you would generally define to be neighborhood character compatibility. So if you have sort of like a traditional ranch style home or a Mediterranean style home, I mean, could you just, am I interpreting this right that you could literally build an ADU that looks absolutely different from the rest of the house in that footprint? There would be absolutely no review in regards to that. Yes, that is correct. And I will clarify that actually one of the provisions in the state law updates, I believe it was the update from last year, disallows us from having any kind of qualitative design review for an ADU that only requires a building permit. So that provision in our code, that was kind of a qualitative provision about the design compatibility between the ADU and the primary dwelling. At this point, that provision in our code would only be able to be applied to an ADU that was subject to discretionary review for some other reason, can't be applied to a ministerial review. What we are potentially allowed to do is add objective design review standards. So we could add that into the ordinance. And it's not currently there, you're saying? Not currently there. The only provision we have in the proposed ordinance is some standards related to modifications of historic buildings. Okay, I mean, what I'm trying to strike here is a balance of, I mean, I feel like that, I agreed with Supervisor McPherson's opening statements that I think that this is the best way to, and the quickest way to build affordable housing in our county, especially considering the fact that basically we're sued over every good affordable housing project that we put forward. And this, you know, one of the reasons by the state removed this out of sequence to take away this argument that people will use, I think, over broadly in order to stop affordable housing because they don't want it in their neighborhood. That said, I do think that realistically, if you had five or six ADUs, especially street-facing, second-story ADUs, it didn't look anything like the home or the neighborhood. I mean, you're gonna, we're all gonna hear about it. And I think that there should be some balance there, because ultimately it's not the design standard that's really stopping, or I shouldn't say the design look, it's necessarily stopping somebody. It's other elements that really do make something financially infeasible. So we spent a long time, and there's been a lot of discussions about roof pitches and blocking out light, and whether it should be 27 feet in previous iterations of these discussions. And I mean, one of our colleagues was involved in those early discussions, but they were pretty contentious. I mean, leading up to even where we are here, and some of the things that are being proposed today kind of don't discuss those histories. And so I respect the fact that what we should absolutely, not just align with state law, I think we should go further than the state does to make it easy, because we're in a very unique area that really does need affordable housing. I just would like some feedback from planning about, just like we did on the parking standards, which I know some people are gonna express concerns with and within the coastal zone, but I think absolutely should be maintained. I mean, look, we had quite a discussion about the live-out coastal parking program for a reason. There are issues and impacts within the coastal zone that are unique. And so I understand that. And I think that we should maintain the parking regulations there. But I think there should be something on the design as well. I just think that there has to be something where, I mean, what I'm trying to get is to a policy place where this doesn't hold up projects, but we also don't end up with something where an entire neighborhood is up in arms and a neighbor has to deal with that because they built something that doesn't look anything like it would normally belong in a neighborhood. Or if there were a single family thing, we would actually not necessarily approve it. So we have to think about, because these are functionally turning into primary single family residences, I mean, a secondary form of it. And yet they would not have that. So Ms. Allen, I mean, I heard what you said on the objective standards. I don't, I'm taking your guidance on what I should ask of my colleagues in order to continue this discussion on that element. But I really am also trying to make clear I am in no way trying to bog down the approval process for ADUs. I just, I can anticipate this being an issue moving forward once these things start getting approved. Yeah, absolutely. So the option that the board has here would be to add in some kind of objective design standard where a staff member in our building division that's reviewing ADU plans can check a checkbox and say, is this here or isn't this here? As part of that review process, rather than making a finding or making some kind of qualitative determination, it has to be something that can either be seen or not seen on the building plans very clearly. It's very common for planning staff to work with an applicant to make them aware of situations even though it isn't necessarily covered in code. And so what I'm asking it for something like that, which is to say, before you move forward with this, have you considered X, Y and Z because this may create an issue within a neighborhood that I think is gonna end up causing greater problems for us and may actually be detrimental to the overall program, right? Cause right now this is a program that has a lot of public support. But if we don't do it right, I think that we could have issues that go counter to that. So would it be then saying to create some objective standards with also the very clear direction that this shall not bog down in time-length or cost, you know, the elements of that application? I don't know if those are mutually exclusive or not, but that is my policy objective in this discussion. They just depend on what those objective standards were. And like I say, I think that if it's something that our plan checkers can easily see on the plans and as part of their usual review process, then that would be ideal. If it's something that requires an extra meeting with our development review staff or some kind of consultation, then that kind of starts to perhaps not be in alignment with the state law and also adds to the time for the project. And of course, as you mentioned, you know, we can have different standards in the coastal zone as well. If we wanted to do that, we would have to make the case that there's a unique situation in the coastal zone that would warrant the need for those special design considerations inside the coastal zone. Given the densities within the coastal zone and given the number of complaints that I think supervisor and Konig that I received within the coastal zone versus not in the coastal zone, I think that that is realistically where these issues are going to occur more than not. I don't think it's gonna be exclusive to it, but to me, an area out in Corralitas that has 10 acres, I think that they should be allowed to do functionally what they need to do in order to improve housing on that stock. I think that in a situation where you have a, I mean, like I personally live on a four or so thousand square foot lot or a 3,000 square foot lot. I mean, the idea of, and I share my fence line with six other residences to put this in perspective, like I think about what they do to their property, what I do to my property has significant impacts on what any one of us experience. And I don't live in the coastal zone, I actually live a block right next to it, but it's still with that level of density, that size and parcel, and it would be something that I'd be concerned about without some additional eyes taking a look at what that would do to a neighboring parcel while still trying to not bog down that process. I mean, what I would say is that, because I think that there's gonna be some modifications anyway from the board today, is that I think that I would be totally open to you coming back and just, I'm in favor of functionally 100% of what's proposed and I'm just trying to flag something that I've experienced in nine years of experience from dealing with community on this issue, that this is going to be a problem unless we have something there. And what that something is, I really do need to defer to you and your expertise to come back with something that it'll be. And so I'll be prepared when it comes back to make that general component and whatever additional additions my colleagues have. But thank you so much for walking me through it, I appreciate your patience on it. Sure, no problem. Did you want to comment on that? Yes, but I think it landed in a fine place. I was going to suggest that for now, we could just emphasize in our information to people who are building ADUs voluntarily, we can let them know that they should consider the exterior look. And even though we don't have a discretionary design review option, we can work with people to make that consideration when they do their design. So we can begin with that and then we can, it sounds like we'll talk about it again in the future. Any other questions to my advisor friend? Supervisor. I know thank you, Mr. Chair. I just think we're going to need clarity on the conversion on the building envelope versus footprint as well as on this design. So I do think there's going to be something that comes back anyway. Okay. It'll, okay. I think it was the good, good, been comments of great concerns because in identifying with the past concerns we've had to supervisor Coonerty, you have any questions? Yeah. Let me just say, I appreciate the work the staff has done. I think we're heading in a good direction. And as everyone has mentioned, ADU is one of the biggest opportunities we have. So to the extent that we are, you know, obviously complying with state law, but then going beyond it to meet some of our local needs, I think makes a lot of sense. On many of the issues that supervisor friend was just talking about, I'll defer to them since it's his and supervisor Koenig's district that will be, you know, likely the most impacted by some of these rules. I did want to take the temperature of my colleagues around the change around the requirement of owner occupancy of either the home or the ADU. You know, while I do understand it's, it is a barrier to construction of ADUs. I also think that it creates two potentially negative impacts, right? And the first negative impact is that you have homes being turned into essentially or properties being turned into duplexes, which may erode public support for ADUs as a policy strategy with absentee landlords or investment landlords. And the second part is it increases, I think the value or the cost of properties for, you know, families that are competing for these properties to try to figure out buy a home and make a home here, they are now competing more with investors. And so while we may create some additional rental stock by not having the owner occupancy, I do think it does put additional burdens on figure the first time home buyers who will be competing. And I wanted to see if any of my colleagues share that concern and would want to adjust. Mr. Chair, I'll speak to Supervisor Coonerty's point. There was actually a recent article that I think came through CSAC or County News that talked about this occurring in San Diego, exactly, San Diego city, excuse me, exactly what Supervisor Coonerty is speaking of. And they've had a lot of issues with investors taking over, especially center city type properties and pushing out people that traditionally use it as a single family opening home stock. So I think his points are well taken and I'd be open to what he's saying. Also considering we're doing a regular review of this, I think that this is an iterative process similar to a lot of the evolving policies we have, assuming that it is in conformance with state regulations to do what Supervisor Coonerty is saying I would be supportive of what he's presenting. I'll just respond to that with an alternate point of view. I mean, take a look at what the housing market is today. I think it's pretty far out of reach of most first-time home buyers at this point with the average cost already being around a million dollars or more. So I think the benefit to affordable housing is actually in creating more rental housing on some of these units, even if that does mean they become investor owned and at least that housing is getting created. I don't think we're gonna be creating any more affordable first-time home buyer options by preventing investors from buying these units. Supervisor Caput, you're. I'd like to say thank you for the report. You've covered a lot in the questions that were brought up by the other supervisors. And I guess we've had a lot of public input at what the Planning Commission and also has there been public forums Yes, we had two community meetings this past spring. Each was attended by over a hundred folks online. And we had a planning commission study session before holding the hearing. Right. And it always comes up. We're trying our best to do what we need to do in order to have affordable housing and everything like that. Parking and traffic and cars are always a problem. So hopefully we can work this out so that it doesn't create neighborhood problems. Thank you. Okay, I think I'll go to the public now but I think we're gonna be coming back with not sure exactly what the additional direction might be from supervisors. Well, either a colleague or a friend or a coonertee but we might be considering how we might put that package together. But go ahead, we'll open up to the public. Yes, hello, my name is James Ealing Whitman. Maybe I missed something. And I guess I'm glad. I'd like some clarity to this question, which is I thought legislation was passed where ADU units were reduced from 17 feet to 13 feet. That doesn't seem to be the case. And I'd like some clarity on that. That's one question and then just an observation.  So thank you. I guess a third, okay, I'm okay. I'll hold the third question. Thank you again for the presentation. So the main points here is that we need to align with the state and we can be more lenient. And this is something that I would like us to do as the city of Watsonville has already done. Now, for years, I've been proposing this to us and I've heard reasons from the staff that's been echoed back by you guys that say we'd like to do this, but we can't because it would require a change in the general plan or we'd like to do this, but we can't because it would require an environmental rule. Please call your colleagues at Watsonville and ask them. None of those things were required. So now we have another attempt to limit this option of having multiple ADUs. By this presentation that shows an example, hey, if you have a 10,000 square foot house, you can have one junior ADU and one ADU. But we have all these other options for having multiple ADUs. Well, her 10,000 square foot option, I have 120,000 square feet and none of those other options are available to me. Now, the whole point of ADUs is that we're supposed to be building affordable ones. So even if you possibly could do one of those other options like doing a housing cluster or a subdivision, the permit level required to do so is just below building an airport. You'd have to be here and get individual permission and that renders it completely unaffordable. Now, as far as the owner occupancy, you do not make a profit by building an ADU. If you wanna make a profit, invest in some of our local tech companies. Now, also here, you've had a hundred foot distance between buildings for an ADU. You have to have like a six acre property to do that. Between the setbacks of the areas and between the houses, that again, you're effectively not allowing it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Seeing none, we'll return it to the board. There are two speakers on Zoom. I'm on Zoom, okay. Jennifer Sanchez, your microphone is available. Thank you, can you hear me? Yes. In my opinion, this ordinance doesn't provide adequate options for existing safe, non-conforming ADUs to be legalized and permitted. Throughout Santa Cruz, we have many existing garages, homes and ADUs that are built near property lines. In pleasure point alone, we have more than 200 backyard ADUs with more than 90% sitting on or within a foot or two of property lines. These ADUs deemed illegal by the county have been providing critical, affordable housing for decades. In the ordinance, we see options for temporary amnesty, but not for permitting or legalizing safe, critical, existing ADU housing stock. I believe this is very flawed and needs to be rectified. We need solutions that recognize the reality of our local housing crisis, the importance of these non-conforming ADU structures in providing low-income housing, the ramifications if these structures are removed from our local housing stock, and the reality that most of these existing ADUs have setbacks less than four feet already. This is the California minimum, and we need to be more lenient with existing ADUs. A case study from pleasure point for this April, the county red tagged a backyard ADU on Lowd Street that had been there for 18 years. It was safe with a stable tenant. The county said they needed to tear it down or move it to a four-foot setback in 90 days or pay thousands of dollars in daily fines until those things happen. As a result, the ADU was torn down and has resulted in a ripple effect of displacing five different groups from local stable housing. The owners need to sell, they're selling to an investor, they can't afford the house without the ADU, they're moving to places where two different groups are being evicted. Those tenants are moving so on, so on, five parts. For decades, county planning has made it almost impossible to convert existing structures to ADUs and legalizing existing ADUs. We cannot take a kick the can down the road approach of temporary amnesty. We need to acknowledge the reality of very common setback situations in Santa Cruz where many existing ADUs in homes don't even comply. This ordinance needs to be modified to provide pathways to legalize our grandfather's safe existing non-conforming ADUs regardless of setbacks. DM, your microphone is available. Yeah, hi, the presentation was quite dense with a lot of information and I apologize if I missed any parts regarding renting ADUs as vacation rentals. But as a landlord, I would allow, consider allowing ADUs to be rented as vacation rentals for one as kind of a backup to increasingly restrictive rent control, just cause eviction laws that have already been put on the books and might be more coming. Reason being, I just imagine the mom and pop landlord living in the main house that rents to a tenant in their ADU in their backyard, which, and then ends up, that tenant ends up going south and they're not able to evict them as effectively as they wish. And now they're stuck with this problem tenant in their own backyard. Now, hopefully that, the majority of these ADUs would be rented, but I think it should be, we should open it up and expand the vacation permit process allowances. So at least we could get some lucrative, 12% trans-an occupancy tax out of them should the owners of the parcel of the builders of the ADU choose not to take the risk of having a tenant, again, given the increasingly restrictive landlord tenant restrictions. Thank you. There are no other speakers on Zoom. Okay. We'll close the public hearing on that and return it to the board. Is Mr. Carroll unprepared to make a motion? First let me just address a couple of points that are made. We have in place, the ADUs can't be vacation rentals in two different places in our code and it seems to defeat the purpose to allow them to be that way. So the board's been consistent on that. To Mondo's point regarding Watsonville and violations of the general plan, I mean, the general plan is not the same as ours. I mean, we have two different situations. So something that can be a violation of our general plan may not be relevant in another community, especially a community that has primarily urban service line areas, the city of Watsonville. But I mean, I hear what he's saying. He's been consistent on wanting multiple ADUs on a parcel and I appreciate actually a lot of the points that he's raised over the course of time. And I got to say that the ordinance has moved a lot more toward what he's been asking for over the last five years than away from it. So I think that there should be recognition of that as well. With that said, I'm prepared to move the recommended actions with some additional direction. To Ms. Allen's point, I think that the building envelope, on conversion ADUs, there needs to be clarity on the building envelope versus footprint size, which was the intention of the HCD anyway, but we just need to have the clarity. On the review, I just, I think the board just needs some options that allow for some sense of review, whether that be in the coastal zone, whether that be on parcels that are under a certain size that can be characterized outside of the coastal zone. But again, things that don't add cost or time, that's not the idea. The idea is just to ensure that there's a set of eyes on these for consistency. And third element is to introduce Supervisor Coonerty's suggestion of the owner occupancy. I think that there's a value to that because other communities that are flying ahead of us on this have seen issues with that. So it'd be modifying or continuing the current owner occupancy requirement. I second. For clarity, would that be owner occupancy for both an ADU and a junior ADU? Supervisor Coonerty? Yeah, they just need to be in one of the units. They can be in the junior ADU, the ADU, or the house itself, whatever works best for them in the situation. And we have a motion with additional direction. Chair, I have a question. Sorry, can I just clarify a question? The motion was for the staff recommendation, which includes a number of things, including adopting the ordinance. And so I just wanna make sure we're clear for the record that what is being asked is for staff to bring back a revised version of this ordinance for the Board's consideration. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Heath, I'm sorry. Reflexively, we moved the recommended actions. So you're correct, yes, we're not. This is not an adoption, it's to bring back. But I think that the overall point is that we are in support of the overwhelming amount of this proposed ordinance, but these are some both minor and I think relatively minor modifications was proposed, but I know that they need to come back with them as a clean version. That's the recommendation. So the recommendation, it includes coming back with the minor changes that we have. I think the way I'm hearing the motion is that it's to reject staff's recommendation that is part of the package and instead to come back with a revised ordinance pursuant to supervisor friends and supervisor Coonerty's recommendations, which may be small, but they are meaningful and they need to be reflected in a clean copy on another agenda. Okay. As my spokesperson there just said, this is exactly what I meant to my motion, Mr. Chair. Okay. Well understood. Okay, okay, we call the roll please then. Supervisor Koenig? No. Friend? Coonerty? Aye. Caput? McPherson? Aye. Thank you, motion passes for one. That completes our regular agenda, it's 125 and what I'm gonna do now we have, we're gonna be going into closed session. We have six items. My recommendation is we come back at two o'clock for a closed session. So it's just over a half hour. Do we have any reportable items, Mr. Council? No, Supervisor. Okay. Okay, then we will close the regular agenda or we'll move into the closed session at 2 p.m. Thank you.