tal Commission regarding Santa Cruz County local coastal program, LCP amendment number LCP3 SEO-20-006-6-2, coastal hazards update, withdrawing the amendments or maintain the status quo and allow the Coastal Commission to act on the amendments as outlined in the memorandum with the deputy county administrative officer, director of community development and infrastructure. And for report on this item, we have our director of community development infrastructure, Matt Machado, as well as David Carlson, our resource planner. Thank you, good morning chair and supervisors. My name is Matt Machado, I'm the director of community development infrastructure. Thank you for the introduction. I'm gonna kick this off and then turn it to David. Today's board item, the subject of it is an LCP amendment that your board took action on about two years ago. At the time it was a difficult decision because it adds additional challenges to those in our community who reside on our coastal bluffs and beaches. Fast forward to today and we now have comments from coastal staff who do not support our LCP amendment. And in fact, are asking us to withdraw our application to enable further negotiations of this amendment. This is where it becomes very difficult. Further negotiations will certainly add more challenges to develop and redevelop our coastal bluffs and beaches, which will be in conflict with our parcel owners on our bluffs and beaches. But choosing to not withdraw our application puts us in direct conflict with coastal staff and coastal commission, forcing them to take action could likely result in a denial of our application. So like I said, it's a very difficult situation. We're in difficult decision we have before you today. For the past few weeks, our staff has worked diligently to pull this item and presentation together. My regret is that we don't have more time to discuss and prepare for this challenge and that we weren't more proactive with the pending deadline for coastal commission to take action on our LCP amendment. With that, I do wanna turn the microphone over to David Carlson, who will provide a presentation and will provide more detail to this topic. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Matt for that introduction. So the presentation will focus on the coastal commission comments on the county's local coastal program amendment regarding coastal hazards and how we can move the project forward. The presentation will review a brief history and timeline of the project, summarize the major issues and provide a staff recommendation. In late June, early July of this year, the local coastal commission office informed the county, they would recommend the coastal commission deny the local coastal program amendment and recommended the county withdraw the amendments. If the county doesn't withdraw the amendments, the staff recommendation for denial would go on the commission's October 12th through 14th agenda for action prior to the October 21st, 2022 deadline for the commission to take action. The coastal commission staff has communicated a variety of issues with the current LCP amendment, but this slide illustrates the overarching difference between the county's current amendments and coastal commission expressed policy. The primary difference involves shoreline protection structures or armoring. County policy is consistent with the coastal act in that only existing structures may qualify for shoreline armoring. However, the definition of existing development or an existing house is where the policies diverge. The county has always defined existing development as whatever is legally existing on the property when an application is submitted. The coastal act doesn't define an existing structure, but the coastal commission's interpretation is that structure is built after the enactment of the coastal act on January 1st, 1977, or older structures that have been redeveloped since enactment of the coastal act are no longer existing structures and are not entitled to any form of shoreline armoring, whether the armoring is existing or proposed. In this context, the definition of redevelopment becomes really important, and this is another area where policies diverge. The combined policy differences have significant implications for properties on coastal bluffs regarding the ability to redevelop and the ability to rely on or construct shoreline armoring. This map shows the approximately 192 coastal bluff properties in red, where the effect of the coastal commission's policy approach would be felt most acutely. Coastal bluffs in this area are subject to direct wave attack and shoreline armoring is common. The same policies would apply in the orange zone, but the impact on coastal bluff properties would be generally less severe because of the different dynamics on that part of the coastline. This slide is also meant to illustrate that overall, compared to the many tens of thousands of developable properties in the county, these numbers represent a small fraction in a hazardous location that will only become more hazardous in the future as coastal erosion continues and sea level rises. And the coastal commission's policy approach is not just about development in a hazardous location. The aversion to new shoreline armoring and reliance on existing armoring is based on the established geologic principle that shoreline armoring contributes to the loss of public beaches of all sizes. This is the classic and extreme before and after shot of loss of beach to the shoreline armoring and recovery of the beach after the armoring is removed. This is not meant to advocate for removal of structures as part of the LCP amendment. It's just a dramatic illustration of the inevitable problem with shoreline armoring on an eroding coastline. The county's proposed LCP amendment includes maintaining existing policies regarding existing development and its relation to shoreline armoring. And it includes a suite of additional policies we called a hybrid approach. This includes reevaluation and maintenance of existing shoreline armoring to reduce impacts on coastal resources. An example of this is removing riprap boulders from the beach and restacking them. It includes a mitigation fee program, a requirement that property owners accept the risks and assume liability related to building on an eroding coastline. And it includes the shoreline protection exception area allowing shoreline armoring along the opal cliff bluffs continuing the pattern established by the successful county projects at Pleasure Point and the Hook. However, this approach has been overshadowed by the major policy differences on existing development and shoreline armoring. During the local approval process in 2020, both the commission staff did submit letters to both the county planning commission and the Board of Supervisors explaining their opposition to our proposed amendments and their position regarding existing development and shoreline armoring. And their position hasn't changed. However, county planning department leadership at the time believed that our hybrid approach wasn't a reasonable compromise and as such had a chance of succeeding at the coastal commission level. The commission in their adopted sea level rise policy guidance document discussed such a hybrid approach and the county took that seriously. However, the commission has consistently maintained their position that these major policy considerations are non-negotiable. Their position is borne out by numerous actions on similar LCP amendments brought forward by other local coastal jurisdictions and in meetings with a local government working group. If the board chooses to withdraw, county staff is committed to pursuing the clearest and quickest route to an LCP amendment that can be certified by the coastal commission. There are areas where additional work with commission staff may lead to compromise and consensus. The issues and stakeholders are well-known and a staff negotiation on the issues seems like an appropriate course of action at this point to see how we can move forward. A renewed local process on a revised LCP amendment would involve meetings with stakeholders, additional public hearings at the planning commission and board of supervisors before a public hearing at the coastal commission to certify a revised LCP amendment. And the goal would be to get this done in 2023 to coincide with the update of the housing element because the two are related in terms of required timelines and updates. So withdrawal of the current LCP amendment appears to be the only viable path forward at this point. The LCP amendment includes some innovative approaches to maintaining coastal access while retaining the ability for bluff top homeowners to continue to protect their structures and public infrastructure from erosion and retaining these approaches in our LCP amendment is a goal. Staff is concerned that going to the coastal commission with current plan and a staff report recommending denial may force the commission to make a preliminary determination regarding some of these key features such as the shoreline protection exception area based on the current context. And this may preclude our ability to effectively incorporate them into a future proposal. And so staff is recommending that your board consider directing staff to send a letter to the coastal commission withdrawing the amendments or maintain the status quo and allow the coastal commission to act on the amendments. And that concludes my staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Carlson and Director Machado. Are there questions or comments from members of the board? Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I may. I have a friend, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Carlson. And thank you, Director Machado for your introductory comments. I mean, it's probably not a surprise. I'm disappointed that this item's before us at all at this late of an hour when a few years ago the board provided direction to send this to the commission and now is being presented with really kind of a Hobson's choices to what we can do here. I'll say too that at the time of approval a few years ago, I'd made a comment in even making the motion that the Coastal Commission has been very consistent and very clear as Mr. Carlson said that they did not support what the board was proposing to send to them, but that what we needed was to have a decision made on our end in order to open up that dialogue and in particular actually have the commission take action with some sort of guidance that could be very clear to community members and county staff as to what the parameters that would be accepted from the Coastal Commission would be because this has been really done at a staff level both at the county and at the Coastal Commission staff. I think everybody's working in good faith, but there isn't really a sense of, I mean, other than us, since we actually cast a vote as electives, there isn't really a sense of what the commission itself thinks just what the actual staff thinks. And so I'm not really supportive of the withdrawal because I feel like at some point we need clarity in order to have that. I mean, if it's denied, it's denied. I don't disagree that the commission staff is gonna recommend denial in the strongest way. They've been very consistent that way. I'm not delusional about that. I do think that we need to have that clarity though from commission members to have an understanding as to what it is that they're looking for because I mean, look, we received some letters of support for withdrawal from some community members of my district that believe that a withdrawal means that we're gonna end up with a more permissive document or property owners. And I think that that is a very unlikely outcome of this. I think that the reason that Coastal Commission staff is recommending denials, they think that what we're doing is not in conformance with the Coastal Act already and what we're proposing that is too permissive to property owners. So I don't really believe that engaging an additional discussion is going to do something that really brings along some of the concerned property owners in the first and second districts toward this, but we would have that we'd actually know for a fact if this actually went to the commission for a vote. So again, I feel like there was a lot of time that this could have been brought back to the board for a discussion. So to have it be where it's literally a couple days before when staff reports are due to the Coastal Commission for them to make their findings is, I mean, at best unfortunate, but I mean, I really think it forces the board into a decision we shouldn't be forced to make in this kind of level. There was two years of opportunity for discussion those discussions really didn't happen and that's what I'm really disappointed about. But also this board did provide direction to actually send it to the commission for a vote and now it appears that that's really not was being recommended. And so I just think that this is gonna leave us in that purgatory of not really knowing what it is the commission members themselves think instead we just have what County staff and Coastal staff again, operating a good faith. I have no question on either side of that but there isn't that clarity. And so that's why it's difficult for me to support that initial staff recommendation but thank you Mr. Chair for me expressing those thoughts. And you Supervisor Friend. I'll jump in here and say I agree with Supervisor Friend that it's been portrayed like this is a negotiation but it's not a negotiation on one side that tells exactly how it's going to be. And we're supposed to come into compliance when we pass these regulations a couple of years ago. I think we all remember that we were hammered by coastal property owners that this was far too restrictive and totally unacceptable what we're doing. And now we're sending it to the Coastal Commission the Coastal Commission says it's not restricted enough. So I believe we should send this to the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Commission should hear from property owners and there should be a more transparent direct negotiation around this issue. It doesn't feel like it's a good use of our time to continue to be pilloried by both sides essentially. And when we don't really have seemingly the authority to find compromise or find middle ground. And then the final thing I'll say as I said this couple of years ago but this is our strategic plan and our county values center around equity and we've spent an enormous amount of staff time on very expensive coastal properties issues and that comes at a cost of less time to other housing projects in our districts. And so spending more time going back and forth between these two sides doesn't strike me as a particularly good use of time. And I'd rather the Coastal Commission directly outline what can she done and then we can go from there. Yeah, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Kennedy, Supervisor McPherson. I agree with that. It's the ninth inning or the fourth quarter the two minute warning or whatever season you're in but it's not a good one for property owners along the coastline in Santa Cruz County. And I really appreciate the planning staff's effort and the time it's put into the last two years to attempt to reach an agreement with the Coastal Commission but despite the good efforts, the commission has yet to show any flexibility and that we need regarding the options that could be available to property owners. And I'm open to supporting the staff recommendation to withdraw the local coastal plan amendments and we hope that our county staff can continue to their dialogue with the commission staff and the property owners but times getting short that's for sure that's unfortunate. I wish the Coastal Commission would have gotten on this or responded in kind kindly earlier than this. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Yeah, I mean, certainly this will impact my district incredibly most of the red and all the red properties shown on that map are in the first district. It's, you know, I can see the rationale and the staff recommendation to withdraw and try to negotiate. I mean, although it seems as it's been said that we haven't accomplished that over the last two years and I just, I don't see how we can get into a fundamentally different form of discussion one way or another. I mean, I guess a couple of questions. Is there any way we can get a commitment to actually like reach some kind of resolution earlier in the year? I mean, like February or March timeframe, not, you know, how do we avoid getting into if we did withdraw or if it's heard is rejected and then we have to put together a new application? I mean, how do we ensure that we get there by the end of next year when we need a certified safety element for our housing element? Well, as I mentioned in the presentation, we are definitely committed to that timeframe because it does potentially impact our housing element. So 2023 is the timeframe for getting this done. So I can assure you that the staff is committed to coming back with something as soon as possible based on our discussions with the Coastal Commission staff. They've outlined, you know, they've given us a draft outline is attached to that letter of what they think our policy should include and we would use that as a basis for constructing something that we think will work for us. Is there any difference in terms of application fees? I mean, if we would draw, was there an application fee to submit this in the first place and are we gonna have to pay an application fee to? No, there's no application fees. I mean, it's tough. I feel like I could kind of go either way. I mean, one way or another, we've got to sit down and discuss these items with Coastal staff and I certainly see Supervisor Friend's argument to be nice to at least daylight what the actual commissioners themselves are thinking about these issues rather than, you know, just keep it behind closed doors on, you know, on the other hand, it's nice to be able to still keep some of the options in play, so to speak. Although I don't know what actually, what could happen to actually change Coastal staff's opinion on those different items. So there's no further comments or questions. Let's open it for public comment. Seeing no one here in board chambers, is there anyone online? Yes, Chair, we do have speakers online. Brian, your microphone is now available. Yes, hi, this is Brian, people with trail now. You know, first of all, I suggest that you give this presentation to the Regional Transportation Commission who believes that they can spend, build a billion dollar train along the Coastal bluff and actually are moving forward and many of the commissioners on supervisors are favoring that and so I'm very surprised by Supervisor Unity's comment that, you know, they, you know, basically he's not really truly addressing reality when it comes to investing in the Coastal court or investing in the Coastal bluff. For our community to believe that we're gonna spend, invest in a train along the Coastal bluff is exactly the reason why the California Coastal Commission is pushing back on y'all because you're not realistic and you need to be more realistic. And it really hurts our community because we miss out on opportunities. Look at Monterey County, they just received $25 million grant for a busway that goes from Marina to San City. In the meanwhile, we're spending millions for a temporary armory up by Davenport, a temporary seawall. So that kind of leadership, you can't go off and say, well, we don't know what to do. No, you know what to do. And unfortunately you're unwilling to direct the community in the right direction. You can't go and we need you to direct the community and be realistic and meet the requirements of the California transportation or Coastal Commission on what you can do on investing on that Coastal bluff. So please pull back on your request with the Coastal Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Papples. Laura, your microphone is now available. Hi, good morning. I'm Laura Walsh with Surf Riders Santa Cruz County Chapter, speaking on behalf of our thousands of members who use the beach here in Santa Cruz. The county's LCP update for sea level rise really currently puts pleasure point in grave danger. This is one of California's most iconic surf breaks and a shoreline protection exception area. A long pleasure point in Opal Cliffs will protect the homes in the area but harm the public space that everyone enjoys. Going forward with the LCP as is will protect private property along Opal Cliffs and sacrifice the beaches and waves from rising seas over the coming decades. Beaches here are naturally narrow and if we armor the coast there, sea level rise will eventually meet the sea walls, start causing backwash and then permanent high tide conditions in the surf in coming decades will make this area inaccessible. And the waves won't be reliable because of refraction which we're all already seeing. So we do really hope this board reconsider this plan and comes up with policies that don't negotiate away the natural coastal processes and recreational resources that everybody benefits from. This is the bedrock of state law and we're not trying to negotiate away from it. Sir Frider wants to be here to say that the beach belongs to all Californians and not just those lucky enough to own bluff top homes in this beautiful area. We object to the shoreline protection exception area, the definition of existing development and redevelopment, setback calculations and several problematic policies that put public resources in jeopardy. And we've detailed this in a series of letters submitted on September 17th of this year, April 15th, 2021 and September 9th of 2020. Thanks so much. Thank you, Ms. Walsh. Caller ending in 2915, your microphone is now available. Hello, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. I have submitted this in the online comment that the summary of the LCP amendment issues and the withdrawal letter to the Coastal Commission, links on your website are broken. I'm not able to read them at all. So I hope that that will be repaired very quickly. I have to wonder about this process. How did this fall between the cracks and what can we do to improve our planning department review process so that this does not happen again? The September 9th, 2020 letter from the Coastal Commission clearly outlined what they wanted the county to submit in place of the amendments proposed, 13 pages, a very clearly worded recommendation suggested by the Coastal Commission. How did that not come back to the planning commission? How did that not come to the Board of Supervisors? Where did it fall apart? And I recognize that that was all during COVID and a lot of things were upside down, but this is a very important issue as we're seeing. And now I read that it hinges on being able to get $500 million worth of money from the Coastal Conservancy. So what can we do to make this better? I don't know if withdrawing is the best or if it would buy us more time to try to negotiate with the plant of the Coastal Commission and get something that will help us get an approved housing element by our deadline. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Steinbrenner. Jeffrey, your microphone's now available. And Jeffrey, your microphone's available. I do show that you're unmuted. It appears you're having difficulties with the speaker. We'll come back to this individual later. Mandy, your microphone is now available. Hi, Mandy Sackett with the Surfrider Foundation. Hello, Chair Koenig and Supervisors. If the county moves forward with the Coastal Hazard Update policies, including the shoreline protection exception area along Pleasure Point and Opal Cliffs and the incorrect definition of existing development and other policies that we detailed in our letter, which is in your agenda packet from our legal director. If it does move forward, our beaches and waves will not stand a chance. The waves along Pleasure Point are worth doing everything we possibly can to ensure they're protected. This is one key location where seawall exceptions should never be granted. The California Coastal Act was designed five decades ago to protect our public resources along the coast. And it does this by grandfathering in existing pre-coastal act development to stay put, rely on seawalls if needed until the end of its useful life. But it also necessitates that we ultimately change our pattern of development so that new development and major remodels can no longer be right up against the bluff edge or shore. And it does that by establishing setbacks, ensuring new development does not rely on seawalls. Santa Cruz cannot have an exception. That is the bedrock of our law. The County shoreline protection exception area would essentially lock in this pattern of development for the next century, excuse me. This is not only illegal, it's also unconscionable. We agree with Coastal Commission staff in the county that the county's plan is inconsistent with the law. Sir Fryder and Coastal Commission staff have been saying this all along. We have submitted three letters. We hope you'll work to update the policies to protect our public resources, not just private property, and that you'll do everything you can to save our beaches and waves. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Saga. Carol, your microphone is now available. Hi, this is Carol Turley. It's my understanding that if the commission looks at this application, they can make modifications to it and approve it in their state. And if the Board of Supervisors doesn't deny that those changes within a short period of time, that it becomes our new local coastal program, that's concerning to me because some of the things that have been talked about earlier in this meeting that are problematic will be forced upon us. I believe if you don't pull the application, we could be stuck with those draconian Coastal Commission measures. I urge you to withdraw the application as many other counties and cities have done so far. Thank you. Colin, user one, your microphone is now available. Marilyn Garrett, I keep wanting to hear more of the speakers because I keep learning more about what's going on. We definitely should be protecting public resources and not putting them in jeopardy to the interest of the priority of private interests. This is under the title Coastal Hazards Update. There are many coastal hazards here.  There've been many fires associated with these meters and towers. The board has been provided photos and information on this. I also consider this cell tower, 4G, 5G continuous coastal radiation on these utility poles by Verizon, 4G, 5G hazard to all life, including the coastal birds and bees, serious fire problems and environmental threats by these radiation emitting towers. Additionally, I just heard last week that trees were pretty much clear cut off of Highway 1 by Fogline Farm under the power lines. I think we need to be saving the trees and preventing fires and not clear cutting. Are you aware of that that's evidently happening? Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Sean, your microphone's now available. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. All right, thank you, honorable supervisors. My name is Sean Burns. I am born raised in Santa Cruz and a longtime avid surfer and frequent visitor, pleasure point, the hook and private surf breaks. Here, on behalf of Save the Waves Coalition, a local non-profit organization in Santa Cruz dedicated to protecting surf ecosystems around the globe and more specifically here at the Santa Cruz World Service. The Opalcliffe area is part of the Santa Cruz World Surfer Reserve, which was designated over 10 years ago by the Save the Waves Coalition. While this World Surfer Reserve does not currently have any legal designation or protection, it is a commitment of the community of Santa Cruz, led by a local stewardship council, which includes surfers, scientists, policymakers, as well as all the people who enjoy the incredible coastline of Santa Cruz to protect our coastal resources from threats that impact the waves and the environment. Save the Waves Coalition and the World Surfer Reserve is concerned about the Santa Cruz local, County local coastal program amendment as it lacks any increased protection for the surf breaks while allowing for increased and or expanded duration of existing shoreline arm range. Increased extents and life spans of coastal arm ring structures, cause significant alterations to the coastline and have the potential to negatively impact the coastal process, assets, access and surf breaks. Save the Waves believes along with the Santa Cruz World Surfer Reserve that more community engagement is necessary for bringing out of nine to the Coastal Commission and more attention and discussion must be given to the relevant impacts on coastal resources and surf breaks. Save the Waves and World Surfer Reserve can offer a relevant outreach platform for discussing this important LCP amendment with the local community and ensuring that solutions to coastal erosion consider the relevant impacts of surf breaks and coastal amenities of the Santa Cruz World Surfer Reserve. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burns. Chair, if you don't mind, we'll circle around to the caller that was having difficulties earlier, Jeffrey R. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. Chair, the caller has not raised their hand. I believe they do not wish to speak at this time. All right, then I'll turn it to the board for deliberation and action. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I agreed with your assessment that about going either way. I mean, the reason I feel the way I do is just to provide some sort of finality, but for the people that are asking to withdraw it, it's not that that is an avowal approach and I agree with that staff as wants to work in good faith with the Coastal Commission. I mean, in regards to Ms. Shirley's comments, there is no desire and it's been made clear by the Coastal Commission their letters. They're not gonna propose any modifications at a Coastal Commission meeting because they feel that what we brought forward is in violation of the Coastal Act and so there isn't really a modifiable document, but again, without hearing the actual commissioners themselves. But I also understand what Supervisor McPherson's saying about an opportunity for a reset wasn't said exactly that way. So I'm not adamantly opposed to the idea of withdrawal. I just don't think that anything's gonna subsequently change and I think that when you have environmental organizations and property rights organizations coming forward asking you to withdraw because they both think that they're gonna get greater elements of what they're asking for than you recognize that no one really knows what's about to come down the pike. And so I think what's gonna come down the pike is not something that, I mean, well, I don't know. But I'm open for continued discussion on this and I would, like I said, I'm gonna support sending it to the commission, but I understand there's a board majority that wants to withdraw. I mean, it's not like I'm not married to what I'm saying. I just think from a strategic standpoint, it makes the most sense to have the commission actually go on the record with where they stand on something. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I'll make the same comment and argue that it actually would be much more efficient for the Coastal Commission to make clear its position and move forward rather than people have a perception that the county has a lot of leeway in this and can meet the needs of the opposing sides in this. It's ultimately not our decision and people are coming to our meetings wanting us to weigh in and it'd be much better for that to happen in a public, transparent way than us doing shuttle negotiations back and forth when we don't really have the authority to set policy in this area. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. I mean, I guess I would ask staff, is there anything that would be, is there anything either happening out there in the general debate? I mean, whether it's a lawsuit or the status of other LCPs submitted by other areas that would fundamentally change this conversation anyway over the next 12 months. And are we really in a, from your perspective, better or worse situation with drawing versus essentially having a rejection on our hands? Well, I think the message that we're trying to convey from the staff's perspective is remaining in a positive position on this with the Coastal Commission staff and not wanting to see that become negative with a Coastal Commission action that denies it. I mean, that's kind of the basis for our recommendation. I'm not aware of really any significant activity or progress on these basic issues with regard to other local jurisdictions that have withdrawn their applications. Regarding lawsuits, I am aware that there is a lawsuit pending right now on this definition of existing development as the subject, but I mean, I'm no expert. It's at the trial level now. So for the time to resolve that is probably significant longer than a year, I would say in my experience, that sort of a thing. So I don't think we're gonna see any kind of, of significant movement in the positions of either side and over the next year. Yeah. So particularly the Coastal Commission, I mean, they've been very clear on this and it's immovable on these basic policy issues. Okay. Thank you. To the President MacPherson. I don't know that I don't think Supervisor Coonerty's second is axed motion. I'll do that. I'm just... I didn't make a motion actually. Sorry. Sorry. I was the one that can... Well, let me just ask a question then before that. I'm just a little concerned that Coastal could require something more restrictive. That's, you know, I don't know how they might get in their discussion, but I think that there are some areas where we can negotiate. I'll just give you one example of the definition of redevelopment. Having to prove all of the work that's been done on a house going back to 1977 is not possible in this county. We don't have the records to do that accurately and fairly. So we need to come to some other... We need to talk about that. I mean, we can't agree to something that's basically impossible for us to do. So there's just one example where we think we can negotiate with the Coastal Commission staff to come up with something that might be workable for us based on our records. Thank you.  Let's see if I was a candidate. Yeah, so, I mean, I'll just, for the sake of moving things along here, I'll move that we send our application to the Coastal Commission. And I'll second. And as I said, I can see either argument. And so the board majority wants to go the other way and withdraw the application and understanding this timeline in order, in the idea of maintaining relationships with Coastal, I actually completely can see that component. I think we just will have that lack of information about what the actual commission members themselves think. But, you know, this is really just a judgment call. And I don't think there's actually a right answer, quite frankly, but that's why I'm seconding this motion. But I can understand why somebody would support the general staff recommendation. All right, so we have a motion by Supervisor Coonerty, a second by Supervisor Friend. Any further discussion? Or are there any, I mean, just to declare it, then there's no additional motions, right? There's no substitute motions. No. No. Okay. All right, seeing none. Clerk will call the vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. All right, thank you everyone. We'll now proceed with Item 10. We'll consider approval and concept of an ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 8.43 of the Santa Cruz County Code related to tenant protections against retaliation and harassment. Schedule second reading and final adoption of the ordinance on October 18, 2022 and direct the county communications manager press release and a tenant rights flyer in English and Spanish to distribute via the county's media and community facing channels of communication is outlined in the memorandum of Supervisor Koenig and Supervisor Caput. I don't believe we have any staff presentation on this. And I'll just say, of course we had a robust discussion on this item at our last meeting. The ordinance that's being brought back to us, I think reflects the concerns of both the tenant community as well as the real estate community. And I think that is a fair compromise. For the more, I think that the tenants rights flyer will make sure the county does our part as far as making sure everyone understands the law and their ability to use it on either side. Is there any comments or questions from board members? Yeah, Mr. Chair, I thank you and Supervisor Caput for bringing this, I think the biggest immediate thing we can do about our homeless housing crisis is not to let more people get, become homeless. And I think this is, we need to support both the tenants and property owners and keeping folks in their units to the greatest extent possible. And I think this is a step toward that end. So congratulations. I think this is a good move. I'll move, make the motion that we accept the recommended, recommended actions. If you just hold on a minute, thank you for your comments. I wanna make sure we take public comment before, before our motion. Any other comments or questions from board members? Seeing none. Is there anyone from public that was just to address us on this item? There's no one here in chambers. Is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair. We do have a speaker online. Barbara, your microphone is now available. Yes, thank you. Barbara Meister, a leader at Holy Cross Catholic Church and COPA. And I wanna thank Supervisor Koenig for taking the lead to really refresh the county ordinance to protect tenants from harassment and retaliation. COPA's heard hundreds of stories of the pressures that renters are facing and this ordinance is a very important first step. And again, I thank you all to Senator McPherson's point that I was surprised to read in the Sentinel the county's homeless count and comprehensive survey report data. It really underscores the need for greater efforts to keep our tenants housed. The survey found that the leading cause of homelessness was eviction. 39% of those survey had previously been housed and were evicted. And so COPA would like to continue to strategizing with you about additional steps we can take to prevent evictions from happening in the first place and keep families in their homes. And last week, yes, we had a robust conversation and you heard stories from COPA leaders about the high degree of fear that tenants have toward their landlords so much so that they tolerate mistreatment and often are afraid to stand up and assert their rights. So this proposal for a strong communications plan is necessary to both inform tenants about their rights but also to educate landlords, to uphold the law. For example, it is unlawful to discriminate against section eight vouchers. Elizabeth Cruz was planning to be here with us to testify and share how when she looked for places, it was always, there were tons of ads saying section eight, need not apply. Well, that is not a law. So this idea of a robust communication would really be useful. And I encourage you to county staff to convene a meeting of the community-based organizations that are involved in eviction prevention and also who are providing rental assistance to co-design this communication plan of materials so that the information's accurate and relevant and clearly communicated in technology or terminology that any tenant can understand. And also to be sure that people know where to go for assistance. Again, COPA appreciates your leadership. We stand ready to continue to strategize on more solutions. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Meister. Caller ending in 1705, your microphone is now available. Hello, board, can you hear me? Yes. Great, this is Eric Robert. Thank you for taking my comments. I wanted to thank chair Koenig and the rest of the board for listening to my concerns last week and taking out that section D that we had concerns about. And I fully support the item as you've modified it. I think that I agree it's important to protect vulnerable tenants from abusive behavior, although I don't believe it happens that frequently. Even one incident of such abuse is reprehensible and we should do everything we can to prevent it. Also, I did submit a letter expressing my thanks and support and it doesn't seem to have gotten onto the packet I submitted in time and I am certain that many others did. So I don't know what happened with those letters, but I did confirm with the clerk's office yesterday that they were received. So whatever SNF who happened, if that could, those could get into the record because I do want to express my support for the board for taking this action and for hearing our concerns. So thank you very much once again. Thank you. Caller 2915, your microphone is now available. Rebecca Steinbruner, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I also support protecting the vulnerable people who are renting their housing. I also want to respect the rights of the landlords when there really truly is a problem with a tenant. I have friends who have themselves self evicted from housing complexes because there are tenants in them that are dangerous and the landlord has no ability to address them getting out. So what can we do to also protect the landlord's ability and thereby the safety and wellbeing of others who are renting when there are these problem tenants, drug dealing, domestic violence, prostitution, it is all happening and a lot of it in some of the affordable housing complexes that I'm aware of in Live Oak. So I would like to have somewhere that landlords have the ability to appeal any decision and how will this new ordinance be enforced and monitored for its effectiveness. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Steinbruner. We have no further speakers for this item, Chair. Great, then I'll return to the board for action and deliberation. We've got a motion from Supervisor McPherson. And Mr. Chair, I'll second it. And let me also just assure the previous caller that we did receive those letters. They actually were submitted to us through from the Board of Supervisors. So I don't, they may not have made it in the packet but we definitely did receive that packet of support letters. So I wanted him to be assured of that. Great, thank you. Motion by Supervisor McPherson, second by Supervisor Friend. Any further discussion? Seeing none. We'll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. And Koenig? Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you. Then we'll now move to item 31, which was removed from the consent agenda to the regular agenda, which is to adopt resolution accepting unanticipated revenue of 10,660,000 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Project Home Key, Park Cave and Plaza, authorize the execution of a county product agreement with 2838 Park Avenue LP about services and FBI property management, direct the Human Services Department to return on our before November 15th, 2022, to ratify the agreements and take related actions recommended by the Director of Human Services. And for a report on this item, we have our Director of Housing for Health, Dr. Ratner. Hi, thank you for considering this item and happy to answer any questions that the board may have regarding the proposed actions. This is a follow up to the presentation our department gave to the board in our Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz update, our six month update. And during that presentation, we mentioned we had submitted four applications for Home Key Awards and received notification that two of the projects had received an announcement from HCD that they were awarded funds. This is one of those two projects. The other project is the Veterans Village Project in Bend, Lomond. And both these projects happen to be in unincorporated areas of the county and the securing of these funds helps the board and the community achieve one of our stated goals, which is to increase the number of supportive housing and housing projects in unincorporated areas of the county. The particular project that's before you was originally presented back in January with a request to apply for funding for the project and the state announced that the project received a funding award in June. And we've finally gotten documentation back from the state around the standard agreement and the dollar amount. So the actions before you today are to allow us as staff to work with the state as in development department folks and execute the agreement and bring the funds in to support the projects. Just a quick overview of the project and then I'm happy to answer questions. It's a 36 unit development that's gonna be built with modular construction. The address of the project is 2838 Park Avenue, very close to Cabrillo. And it's a novel project for creating more permits for housing in that it's modular construction and the proximity to the community college is unique statewide. There are three primary target populations that we're gonna be serving there. One is veterans experiencing homelessness and at our last update, we shared with the board that there's some concerning data that the number of veterans in the county experiencing homelessness has gone up. So 17 units in the project will be for veterans, 14 for youth who've been in the foster care system, either homeless or at risk of homelessness and four for families, plus one residential manager unit. The housing authority of the county supports the project as an invested supportive rental subsidies to link with the building. And the approval of the board for the project will help it to move forward. Overall, the development's estimated to cost around 20 million. So the award that we're getting from Home Key is a piece of the puzzle. There's some private financing that's also helping get the project up and running. And with Home Key, we anticipate that the project should be completed within a 12 month period. That's one of the standards of the Home Key effort. And it will have a significant impact in our community. It will help us meet our arena goals to increase housing for households with extremely low incomes. It will help us with our housing for healthy Santa Cruz goals around creating more building base permanent supportive housing. And also as I mentioned, our policy goal of creating more affordable and permanent short-term supportive housing for folks at risk of or experiencing homelessness in the unincorporated areas. And happy to answer any more questions that board members have. Thank you, Dr. Ratner. Supervisor Friend, you wanted to pull this item. So I'll hand it to you first if you have further comments or questions. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just felt that this is an item that's clearly of broad community interest. And so I just didn't really believe that it belonged our consent. And so I appreciated this overview from Dr. Ratner as well as a little bit of the timeline. Dr. Ratner, if the board pulled the item of the funding element of the item today, when, if it's from today, if it has to be completed within 12 months, when would people start to see action actually on the site? I mean, when would construction begin? What would site clearing or preparation begin? How would information be communicated to the community about the process of that? For example, just so I can also see how communication would go moving forward. Yeah, good question. So if the board approves the action item today, we'll go through a process of securing funds from the state. And because there's some work done, some necessary work on the property around leveling, we're entering in the rainy season. So depends on the timing of the funding announcements and other things, but we'd wanna try to get work done as soon as possible, ideally in the next few weeks, just some basic grading of the property. In terms of communication, the development partner in open development has created a website for the project and we're gonna encourage them to keep the community up-to-date and we'd work with your office and others to make sure we're letting members of the public know when various elements to construction are gonna start. And then we also in our office have a newsletter that we send out with about 900 subscribers to let people know what's happening with some of the work of the Housing for Health Office. And if you have any suggestions on other means that you'd like us to take to spread the word, I'm happy to pass it on to the developer and make sure communication goes out about what's happening when. So about a month, I would say. Okay, about a month. Yeah, to me that the proactive communication is key. And so I think to the degree that people can passively receive information from directly from the developer should the board move forward is very important. I also think that we as a county should also, there's nothing wrong with over communication in regards to all these projects. There have been high profile and there have been a lot of questions as well as support too. There's a lot of analytic questions regarding the projects. And I think it would move us to ensure that we continue to communicate a lot moving forward. But thank you, Chair, for letting me pull the item. I just wanted to make sure the community had an opportunity to ask those questions and also express their thoughts on it. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. I have to know other comments or questions from board members. I'll open it for public comment. Seeing no one here in chambers which is to comment on the item. Is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair. We do have speakers on Zoom. Caller ending in 2-915. Your microphone is now available. So this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I want to thank Supervisor Friend for pulling this from the consent agenda. That's really good because this does really merit better public discussion as we're having now. And I want to thank Dr. Ratner for his information. I would like to point out that I have not yet seen the water demand offsets provided by Soquel Creek Water District. That whole water permitting issue, I've not seen that on the Soquel Creek Water District agenda since it first came to them nearly a year ago. And their comment was, what is this that these units are so small? Each unit will have to have its own submeter and the water demand will have to be offset either monetarily or with actual water conservation projects. So I'm wondering how this project will comply with the water demand offset requirement for hookup with Soquel Creek Water District. It's a huge issue in the Mid County. I also want to know, I'm hearing there will be grading done now during the rainy season. What protections will be offered? I assume there will be for the riparian area for erosion. But also how many trees are going to be removed? Next door in an unrelated project, a number of very large trees eucalyptus were removed. What will this lot look like in terms of tree removal? And that mostly completes my comment. I do and seconding Supervisor Friend's request that local residents who have participated in these public discussions be kept apprised of the project's progress.  Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Steinbrenner. We have no further speakers for this item, Chair. I do think we have someone here in chambers who should speak. Good afternoon, Morta Supervisors. Thank you so much for having me here. My name is Iman Novin. The applicant president of Novin Development wanted to address some of the comments I heard today in terms of community outreach. We've held a large community meeting at Cabrillo College. We've also met with residents on at least two occasions to discuss the project and are continuing to field questions. We have an FAQ section of our website and a communications manager who is available to address questions that have come up. You know, I think important to note that the Veterans Village Project, which is the second project that was also awarded Home Key Funding, was approved on consent. You know, this project is located in a very amenity-rich area. Residents will benefit from all of the services available to veterans and families at Cabrillo College. I've had the pleasure of growing up in Santa Cruz and I went to Harbor High School and it's just an honor to be able to come back to the community I grew up in and give back and build permanent supportive housing. And so I really appreciate your consideration and myself and my father, Abe Novin, are here to answer any additional questions you may have for the applicant. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Novin. By seeing no one else from the public who should address us on this item, I'll return to the board for deliberation and action. Mr. Chair, we did receive a lot of letters so I'm a little bit surprised that people didn't come to speak today, but I do recognize the importance of this and I really appreciate the work of Dr. Ratner. And also let me say also really appreciate your work, Mr. Chair, on doing community outreach on this item as well because it straddles the two districts, even though I know it sits in yours, you really have taken on a lion's share of the outreach and I want to compliment you on the work you've done on that. So I'll move the recommended actions. Second. All right, motion by Supervisor Friend, second by Supervisor Coonerty. Any further discussion? I'll just add, you know, first of all, thank you for the recognition, Supervisor Friend, and then the explanation. Dr. Ratner about the project, I mean, I certainly understand all the concerns that we've heard from community members in the area. I think that's natural enough given that, first of all, anytime there's a product of any kind, we tend to hear from people that say there's a port of housing community, but just not next door. So I think that it's a natural human reaction and especially on a situation or a topic as sensitive as homelessness. And I know I frequently find myself frustrated by homelessness in our community and the fact that we can't do more. But I do think that this is what the solution looks like. I mean, 36 new units of permanent housing, targeted to groups that we are already focusing on children, youth, families, vets. And by doubling down, we have a real chance of making a even greater difference built with fast state-of-the-art modular construction. We're gonna get these units really as fast as possible and bringing in state resources that would not otherwise be available in our community. I mean, $10.6 million is a significant amount. And again, thanks to staff for putting into this application together quickly and for deep Mr. Novin and his firm for bringing it forward as an option. So with that, I'm happy to support the recommendation. If there's no further discussion, then we'll call the police. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. And Koenig. Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you. And again, of our regular agenda, the board will now move into closed session. Is there any reportable actions from closed session? No. Great. In the next regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors will be October 18th at 9 a.m. And we'll now move to closed session. It is 12.40 right now. So we'll convene at 12.55.


What's going on everyone? Sam here with late in sports cards ripping two boxes of 22 Star Wars chrome galaxy for UC It's good luck here. You see see we can get out of here for you, man. It's like something big Do another I'm at WWE. Yeah, I mean I've got Right now in queue. Let me see. I just I don't think I could get to it like fear like Realistically because we've got Um What we have after this a top-strome Boondis Liga, which takes a while and then Don Russ football hobby Then a revolution soccer, so I think that it probably gets to that and that's probably gonna be it Then there's another like three orders in queue after so I do apologize there Dave I'll be on drip tomorrow and Ken's he'll be doing Personals on here tomorrow morning as well Mace Windu's barrage refractor Star Wars refractor nice one there Creatures of the cancina. There's a yeah, no problem Dave. You got a man Vintage crosshair We're fracking we need our salacious be chrome you see in Wahoos.  Or were they not here? There's I don't think they were Boba Fett battles the Sarlacc. They might have heard of the first Got auto is croissant in that's Kerry Jones is croissant in I think they have heard it at least at some point time there's Original trilogy Anthony's a fail Boon to Eve classic. Oh god. You don't think we have Wahoos. Oh, you would know Yeah, oh, yeah for sure. You would definitely know if you did a stormtrooper swarm Darth Vader When you pull a salacious be crumb super fractor dude. Oh God, yeah, you wouldn't know Now we got a pole one out of here refractor is a base card sketch variation Han Solo Chewbacca in the cockpit. I know we need to get some nice numbered stuff out of here Give something big Tusken Raider sketch variation X-wing Starfighters refractor honey hunters Enter Darth Vader and Wookie's wrath sketch variation And first power refractor nice one there see a super dude would do for another super There's a dark lord in a new hope nice refractor there Yoda base portrait Galaxy within grasp nice one there No numbered yet. No, come on Pick it up here. Oh There we go. There's an atomic of Lucas symbols is lightsaber Nice one there 113 out of 150. We'll take that congrats. You see Yeah, very solid one there nice one. It's one of the more desirable ones high fighter at least from what you see is told me Stop this guy this guy This guy There's Darth Vader versus Obi-Wan Kenobi refractor top five. Yeah, that's what I was gonna say Star Wars Chrome Galaxy is awesome. I agree this guy There's X-Wing Space combat simulator you walks under attack See like a purple or something now Luke Skywalker in action. There's slay she speak from not there that it's the That one solo investigates refractor as well Ask me this slay she speak from Yeah, yeah, Chewbacca on the portrait nice one there. Oh, maybe they talk in the vintage. I have to go All right box number two see if we can get a better one than that there you see that could have a voice to it And then I can be really in a way on Yeah, that's true. It's only one number at least it's a good one That's true. At least it's like one of the best better ones you could call for sure That makes it feel a little bit better. See if you can heat up on the second one though Fire there's weak way. Well, don't don't you know someone who pulled the super of this? You see you know the owner of the super of that I get it. It's cuz it's him ha ha There's Finn Refractor yeah, he's lame Star Wars rebel strike rogue squadron three Wicked W work refractor.  Come on box. Yep. Let's go box. Let's pick it up here Luke Skywalker assembles his lightsaber refractor They some days there's lando Calrissian portrait not say sketch Um variation Omega refractor slays to speak from just the base Troll right there Obi-Wan Kenobi and Boga boss refractor didn't mean to intrude refractor Okay, we need something now with an orange at least of Original trilogy concept art that is 24 of 25 nice one there helps getting some nasty emails We also do have the wave behind it. That is patrolling the cantina 80 out of 99. So there's two numbered at least We'll take that two numbered which is good orange and a wave base dark Vader portrait refractor very nice work W Wicket and Last pack So I think we're gonna get shorted the auto Super Star Wars Luke Skywalker on Endor and They send you the empty box and wrapper again. Sorry about that. You see Thanks again as always for the support though man to appreciate it get them right out to you


I can't wait to broaden my horizons with all the new challenges the Galar region has to offer I'm gonna take on all the gyms and make new friends. They'll teach me and I'll teach them Hold on there little buddy. You must be new here You're in the Galar region and we require a little more from our trainers and listen kid right now You're just not cutting it. Don't you want to be the very best like no one ever was yep pretty much Then you're gonna need sponsors something to rope in the advertisers Sponsors advertisers what what what does that have to do with Pokemon and all the fun that we have learning lessons through respectful battle You're funny kid. That's a good start Pokemon battling is a sport and sports aren't about fun or respect They're about marketing if you can't put pokey boats and pokey seats, then you're no good to Chairman Rose You're being ridiculous man. I mean what would I even do with a sponsor?  Oh, oh a cape. What do you think about a cape? Wait, no way. This jacket's been with me for like 20 years, or maybe it's just one I don't know it feels like 20. Okay, so you won't do ads. How about a new angle tragic backstory that way? You don't even need talent here. Look it talks out She's one of our top earners all I ever wanted to do was make my parents proud But I didn't have any Pokemon and then one day as I was about to get hit by a bulldozer a wheezing flew in And That's the story of how we won three beauty palgins and the heart of gala gala All at once beautiful, isn't it the two take care of each other, but the relationship is killing her Literally killing her such commitment to character. She never breaks pokefake back to you This is just a wild jump in the dark, but do you have a dad? You don't do you but no Of course not, but still I'm nobody sob story. Okay. I'm gonna do this my way With guts and heart. All right. All right. Tell you what? I'm just one guy. What do I know? Let's get a focus group together. Oh Who's that member of team yell they're all sponsored by hot topic. What do y'all think of this kid honestly? pathetic and I know There you have it.  Guess I'll have to change What do I do? I knew we'd get through to you. All right So first off we got a sponsorship with Moo Moo milk All you got to do is wear overalls and drink two jugs of milk a battle and they'll fork over 10,000 of fight that's incredible Second off, I noticed you use a Pikachu that doesn't really connect with the tiktok generation ever heard of a more pico It's like a Pikachu that lost all its family in a fire and now it's swearing revenge. What do you say? Hey, you want to see us? Hey, you want to see us play video games head on over to twitch.tv slash doormaster TV And you can watch us play some video games sometimes Joey's there a lot and so is Ricky and I might be joining him pretty soon since I don't have quite as much stuff to do on the main channel Also, be sure to follow us on Twitter for updates You can go to twitter.com slash door monster at door monster and you can also find each of the individual cruise Twitter accounts You're the worst