Good morning everybody and welcome to the March 26 2019 Board of Supervisors meeting. I'm gonna call the meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll. Good morning Supervisor Leopold. Here. Friend. Here. Caput. Here. MacPherson. Here. And Chair Coonerty. Here. And we're going to have a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance when I'm going to ask my colleague to make a remembrance of a loss in our community. You bet. Rita Eichhorn passed away. She had a wonderful life, 91 years. She was a wonderful woman and she'll be greatly missed. Thank you. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Palacios, are there any changes or deletions to our agenda? Yes, we have a few corrections. On the regular agenda, item number nine, there's additional materials. There's a replacement attachment B, which is the packet page 28. And then on item 16, there's additional materials, a revised attachment D, replacement page 221. And then on the consent agenda, item 21, there's additional materials, a revised attachment A, packet pages 261, 262, and 269. And then item 71, staff requests that this item be deleted at the current time. Great. Thank you. Are there any items that the board members would like to pull from the consent agenda? Supervisor Caput? Okay, seeing none. We are now coming up on public comment. This is an opportunity for members of public to speak to us about items that are not on today's agenda but are within the jurisdiction of the board supervisors. There you can also speak to items on the consent agenda, which are items 21 through 76, as well as the regular agenda if you cannot stay and the closed session agenda. So please, if you'd like to speak today, please line up. You'll be given three minutes. Hi there, Chair Coonerty and honorable members of the board. My name is Dan Terby-Fill. I reside at 2055 Summit Road in Watsonville. I spent the last 25 years working in the public sector. I worked with the City of Manhattan Beach down in Southern California. I worked with the town of Gilbert during the fastest, it was the fastest growing municipality in the decade I was there. I worked with the City of Phoenix and most recently I was a faculty associate at Arizona State University. I now serve as a consultant representing numerous small cannabis farmers here in Santa Cruz and in Mendocino County. I believe we are dealing with the most complex and complicated public policy of our time with substantial financial implications. Two weeks ago I spoke with gratitude for the letter you were sending to the state providing some tax relief. After we left that meeting, we went to the cannabis office to check on the status of our pre-application so we can plan our season. Our project is very straightforward with simple temporary hoop houses and what we believe will actually improve our environment through regenerative farming, which, much like the farm I managed in Mendocino County, where we actually had the board of supervisors come and witness a fully functioning commercial cannabis farm. We saw Sam and met with Mike, who by the way has been very professional and such a pleasure to work with. Mike mentioned he still had about four to five weeks left for review and the planning and building could take up to six to eight months. I was shocked as I realized we might not have a crop this year. Mike asked what was my worst case scenario for our farm and I basically said we won't have plants in the ground. He said you should plan for that. So I met with my team and we discussed a creative way to coordinate or to continue to be employed this year. This is catastrophic to us. We're trying hard to come into compliance. In Mendocino we've already purchased our clones from a licensed nursery and we're moving forward with our crop as we work to transition our temporary state license to a provisional license. It's incredibly hard for us to be sitting on the science lines here in Santa Cruz as other farmers are putting seeds in the ground and gearing up for their season. This process has unequivocally failed us this year for those of us working to participate in the regulated market. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Becky Steinbrunner resident of rural Aptos and I hope you're really listening to this. He's not the only one out there. And if you want to do your best to discourage the black market, you really need to try to work with these people that have come forward and given you money. And it's the money that this county is relying on to meet the tsunami of debt for the CalPERS pension unfunded debt.  I see agendas of other commissions, but I used to see communication that citizens had sent to the board published. I'm not seeing that anymore. And that concerns me. Some of it is mine. I also want to say that you have effectively with your new policies that Mr. Palacio put in place, you've effectively reduced the amount of public input time to one third of what it has been in the past. And I protest that. What I come to talk with you about this morning is first of all, in consent agenda item number 58, the agreement to extend hydrometrics water resources contract for the mid county groundwater basin modeling. I have spoken with you that I am taking legal action against SoCal Creek Water District for their pure water SoCal project, a faulty EIR and a deficient public process. And I want to let you know that I have received the county is named as a real party in interest to that because by definition I must. You are named on the notice of determination. I have received notice from County Council of Disassociation, but quite frankly that makes no sense to me when the county is a trustee agency charged with the stewardship of county parks. One of the injection wells would be immediately adjacent to Willowbrook County Park and the tennis court. The county is charged with the public stewardship of county roads. This project would disrupt over a period of two to three years, at least six miles of county maintained public roads. And that is granted in the project's overriding consideration statement because the benefit supposedly outweighs the disruption and environmental damage. The county is responsible for the sanitary sewer system that the system would greatly impact and for which Mr. Edler said the Rodeo Basin is currently in over capacity and that's where the district wants to put this project. So I am not going to take off the county of Santa Cruz as a real party in interest because I think it is a disservice to the county and to the people not to at least be kept in the know of what's going on with this very serious and environmentally damaging project. Thank you. Honorable members of the board, good morning.  I'm not here to speak for anyone, but I am here to talk in advocacy for some of those who cannot be in attendance today. I work in cannabis consulting for small scale farmers transitioning into the legal market and I hope that it is known that our agricultural model in the United States and California, regardless of what you grow, really doesn't favor small scale anything. If it's big, big, big, bigness and if you don't have it, you need to find your niche elsewhere. But unlike a small scale vegetable farm, a cannabis farm is required by county and state law to jump through hoops that have been described by my colleague just now as catastrophic, bankruptcy inducing and complete death sentences to livelihoods. Rooted in this preconceived notion that if you work in this industry, you're ranking in a lot of money, but these are the people that I work with and they are the reason that I'm here today. Good, hardworking, stewards of the land, environmentalists and activists, taxpayers, soccer moms, literally coaching fathers, voters, truly contributing members to all of our communities. There are, aren't seeing dollar sign dreams, but college funds for their children, fire protection for their homes because they tend to live outskirts of town and retirement from when their bodies finally give way to the immense lifetime of labor. I am here to remind you that these are the faces of the cannabis industry that we see every single day. The very people who are being forgotten about are not invited to the conversation when we assume that an equity tax or thousands of dollars worth of fees means nothing to this quote unquote mega billion dollar industry. We do predict exponential opportunity and economic success and astronomical revenue when the media mentions cannabis. But in my research opinion, the very reason California has yet to see any of these expectations is because of these insurmountable hurdles that we have put in place for the massive network of small scale farmers who up to this point have set the foundation for the cannabis industry's success. I mean, where do we honestly believe that we've pulled this data of these expectations? I'm asking you respectfully to not let yourself be caught up in ignorance and see the devastating effects that these hurdles are having on our communities and this industry. And I'll do the same in recognizing that you and other governing members of the board might already be on our side or having this conversation. The history of cannabis in this country is long, tumultuous, fear bogged, genuinely fascinating and generally misunderstood. Our current situation proves its complexity and the ease of which we all get caught up in the frustration. But we got to this very moment of you up there and me over here having a conversation about this plant and that alone is in a victory. But we can all do better. I applaud your movement and support on the issues in the past, but I encourage you to not lose sight of the incredible benefits of deschedulizing cannabis. I know your hands are tied and that you have reasonable working to loosen the strains on large resources, but you can do better. The farmers I work with can and so can I. It's an absolute honor to work for these farmers and I really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Sheila Delaney, Fifth District. I'm mostly here with the Women's Commission to help celebrate the trailblazers this morning. But I'd also like to speak to you as president of the Valley Women's Club and one of the directors of the Redemption Recycling Centers in the Valley. As you know by now, I hope the Valley Women's Club will not be bidding on a contract for recycling. But there is a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation of information out there that I would like to ask your help about. The recycling is going away in our sites, Ben Lohman or Felton and Boulder Creek, as is the redemption of bottles cans that have redemption value at all three sites. Ben Lohman Transfer Station will continue recycling and for redemption value, you have to go back to the stores where you bought it after June 30th. We'll be in business until June 30th. So please I'm asking you to direct public works to make signage and publicity that lets people know what's right. I keep talking to people who say, oh, we'll be able to, no more recycling, but we'll be able to redeem our bottles and cans. That's exactly backwards. So I hope you can help us with that. The other issue that I'd like to ask your patients on is that because we have a lot of heavy equipment at the Ben Lohman Transfer site, it will take us a while to get rid of the equipment, sell it off and clean up the site to the standards it needs to be. And the one day between June 30th and July 1st isn't really quite enough time. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Tony Crane, representing the Estates Barragas neighborhood in Aptos regarding the second story program. On July 7th, 2017, the county and encompassed community services closed on a house using a grant to house a short stay crisis mental health facility in a residential neighborhood. But the grant specifically mandated that they increase bed capacity by two to eight beds. When we found out about this after the close, several weeks after the close, we requested a meeting on August 21st, 2017. We had a meeting with county and encompass employees on the dais. And they told us three distinct lies at that point in time. That they had no intention of going to eight beds at that time. That there was no licensing required and that they had a two year extension by law to bring this to fruition. I think legally that's called creating a false pretense. So when we realized that they were not telling the truth, we got their emails and I'm going to read a couple of emails for you today. So Eric Riera was on the dais that day and told us that they didn't have to go to eight beds and that there was no licensing required. Here's a message from one of the encompass employees telling everybody Eric Riera's direction. Eric Riera's direction on this is to complete the purchase and move a max of six people into the house over time during the first year without a big public announcement and use that first year to establish good relationships with the neighbors, establish trust and a track record and then go through the process with planning and licensing to then convert the house to a social rehab for eight residents during the second year. The grant also mandates that if it ever becomes anything other than a peer respite that the money needs to be forfeited and sent back. So this was June 29th, eight days before the close of escrow and they are planning to not meet the terms of the grant because they knew they never could. That is a direct quote from Eric Riera. They lied to us. Then regarding licensing, he also said that somebody had brought up the opportunity of creating a new license for something like this because a license didn't exist. Quote Eric Riera, to create a new licensing category, I recap the history of how we got to the licensing requirement and that yes, it was a condition of the grant specifically around expanding bed capacity. I did not go into the other options that we had discussed in the event we were not able to license. So those lies were particularly told to us to avoid legal scrutiny and they need to be brought to justice and that program needs to be removed from our neighborhood. Thank you. Good morning, honorable members of the board. My name is Najib Kamil. I'm a senior analyst with Family Children Services in the Human Services Department.  But before I do that, I just wanted to thank you all for all the work and initiatives that you do in the community to address and prevent child abuse and neglect, as well as thank the Family and Children Services staff, as well as Human Services staff who do this work every day to prevent child abuse from happening, as well as preventing it from happening again. And lastly, I want to thank the community for all the work that they do in terms of helping and supporting the families that are in crisis that can prevent child abuse and neglect.  It's National Child Abuse Prevention Month. And this issue of child abuse and neglect is larger than just one agency to hold. And it really is to energize the community, the agencies who work with our families to make sure that we are doing all that we can to prevent this from happening. And so I'm going to read the proclamation. Proclaiming April 2019 as National Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month in the County of Santa Cruz, whereas over 2,500 cases of child abuse are investigated in Santa Cruz County every year, and whereas Family and Children Services of Santa Cruz County works with more than 300 children and youth and their families every year, and whereas every community has a stake in the safety, permanency, and well-being of its children, and by promoting and supporting programs and services that provide resources for children and families, the community can be effective in preventing child abuse and neglect. And whereas effective child abuse prevention hinges on open communication, collaboration, and partnership among agencies, schools, religious organizations, law enforcement agencies, the business community, and community members. And whereas Child Abuse Prevention Month has been observed each April since its first presidential proclamation in 1983, and since that time individuals, organizations, and communities across the country have participated in this critical campaign to increase awareness of child maltreatment and the importance of prevention. Whereas the child abuse is preventable and unacceptable, and we can all play a role in helping our community better understand child abuse prevention by supporting programs and services that help families and children and community members supporting families by donating new and used children's clothing, furniture, and toys for families, being kind and supportive to new parents, responding to families in crisis and linking families to needed services and opportunities. Now therefore, I, Bruce McPherson, Santa Cruz County Fifth District Supervisor, hereby declare the month of April 2018 as a National Child Abuse Prevention Month in the County of Santa Cruz and commend Family and Children Services for its service to local children. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your work in our community. So that concludes public comment. I'll bring it back to the board for action on the consent agenda, which is our trial items 21 through 76 with the exception of number 71 on consent. Yes. So, Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Chair. Let us have some brief comments on consent. First, I'd like to thank you for bringing forward item on the 47 regarding the Health Services Agency staff to study the banning of sale-flavored tobacco nicotine products. I think that this is an important thing to consider for our community. On item 67, I appreciate the work of public works regarding the potential options for financing. I recognize you're going to come back in June. I recognize the time issues associated with it. I am hopeful that once you meet the RTC, it will be possible we'll find that we can bond so that we can expedite some of the funding for local roads that are so desperately needed. And on item 73, which is the La Selva Beach project, I just wanted to thank Ms. Lindberg and all the public work staff on that. It's moving along very nicely. The community in La Selva Beach is very excited about the possibilities of what will be with that new library. And I'm looking forward to it as well. I just appreciate that you've kept it front and center and that you're moving it forward. Supervisor Leopold. Good morning, Chair. Just a couple items to comment on. On item number 56, it was a deferral about a report on reducing the number of people held in jail. This is our second deferral, so I'm hoping that when we get this back next time, we have good information, including the concurrence rate of our judiciary with our probation-led pretrial effort. I think that's critically important for us in terms of reducing the number of people held in jail with the risk assessment tool that we have. On item number 68, which is a live oak parking program, we are in the midst of negotiations with the Coastal Commission about updating this program. So this is just, we're going to play by almost the same rules as we did in last year. There's a modest increase in the cost of permits. But I'm assured that we're going to have the staffing this year to be able to support that program. And I look forward to the continuation of that program after we get support from the Coastal Commission. I think that's all I have. Okay. So, Mr. McPherson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of four items. Number 34, on gun violence, I support, and I think we all will be supporting the piece of legislation to further limit access to firearms for people with gun violence restraining orders. We need to strengthen those protection. I'm glad we're taking this action to support these pieces of legislation in Sacramento. On item number 61, the state's early childhood investments. I'd like to thank our Human Service Director, Ellen Timberlake, and the Human Services Department for bringing forward this letter of support of the state's early childhood investments. The more we invest in our children early, the better we're going to be in the future. I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for your leadership with the Thrive by Three here in Santa Cruz County to serve one of our most vulnerable populations. On item number 66, I was very pleased to see us return Bear Creek Road to its pre-disaster conditions. The vital link not only to the residents and the Boulder Creek and Santa Rosa Valley area in general, but to the commuters that travel that roadway. To see that slip out that happened there is unbelievable that you could even bring it back to working order, so to speak. It was quite a slide, and I'm glad to see it's back in place. And to repeat, on item 67, I'm glad to see that I tend to support the effort to determine whether we can bond against measure G revenue for looking at our ways to improve our roads that were so damaged so seriously. I want to thank, again, Supervisor Coonerty, Chairman Coonerty, for a suggestion to considering this bonding as a possible measure, especially in light of what we were hearing some rumors from the federal government of some of their withdrawal of funds possibly in essence, but it's very important for our county. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Caput. Thank you. A couple of quick comments. I'd like to welcome Ferris Sabar to the first five commission as an at-large representative for a term until 2021. And also, item 46, approve the appointment of Robert Tanner to the Pajaro Valley Public Cemetery District Board for a term until 2021. Thank you for their voluntary service. Thank you. And just a couple more comments. So as mentioned, item number 34, I'm recommending that we support three bills that will limit access to guns and increase gun safety. And I think it's a small series of small steps, but we need to address this issue both as a state and as a nation. On item 47, I want to thank the City of Santa Cruz and Mayor Martín Watkins for bringing forward a flavored tobacco ban in the city. And I'm hoping that the county leadership of the Health Services Agency will be able to follow suit in that way. And on item number 60, this is a small step towards medical assisted treatment for opioid addiction. And I just, it's a tremendous crisis that's having an impact on all parts of our community. And I really appreciate the Health Services Agency for moving this forward and hopefully we can get this grant and other grant dollars to increase access. On item number 61, I also want to thank Ellen Temberlake and her team at the Health Services Agency. This county has been a leader in our supporting early childhood programs and family programs. We now have the state catching up and potentially providing resources and has put us in a very good position to expand opportunities for all young children in our community. And so I want to thank everybody and then I'll take a motion. I would move the consent agenda as amended. Motion by Leopold, second by McPherson. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. We're now moving on to item number seven, which is a presentation honoring Dan Haifle on his retirement from the O'Neill Sea Odyssey. We don't often have people from outside the county have a special item on their retirement, but Dan has played such a pivotal role in this community in so many different ways over the years that I'm sure my colleagues will talk about. But we wanted to take a moment to really appreciate everything you've done. I'll say personally, you gave me my first job in Santa Cruz that wasn't boardwalk related. Running a school bond campaign where you and Norm Lezen were the chair. You promised me long hours and low pay and you delivered on that promise. But you also taught me the importance of listening to this community, listening to leaders and citizens caring and engaging and the power of public service to do good. And we won that campaign and we invested $81 million in public schools.  We're truly, truly grateful for your leadership and I'll hand over to my colleagues and so Supervisor Leopold. Thank you, Chair. When we get into our careers, at least I think, what can we do to do our part to change the world? And when I look at the career of Dan Haifle, I think he's done a lot to change the world, especially our corner of the world. As an organizer and leader, he led the effort around save our shores to protect the coastline from offshore oil drilling. If that had been where he stopped, that would have been enough. But he continued on and he became an educator and he helped educate generations of children to understand the value of our ocean, what goes on in our ocean, how to protect our oceans. That would have been an incredible piece. He's helped record the history of our region with his regular columns in the Santa Cruz Sentinel and the recently published book about 40 years of advocacy for our shores. He's also contributed to the natural environment, not only protecting the coastline, but ensuring permanent protection for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, which he played a tremendous role in, the new monument on the north coast. These are all incredible legacies that if only one of them had been accomplished, they would have been a great piece of Santa Cruz history and Santa Cruz lore. But to accomplish all those pieces is a career that has been well served to this community and the environment and the people who live here. I'm glad to have worked with Dan in different phases of his career. I'm glad to be able to call him a friend. I'm glad that we've enjoyed the music, food, the ocean together. I wish you to have the great success in whatever the next chapter of your life is, even if it's just relaxing and retiring in the beautiful bay that you helped protect for so many years. Thank you for all you've done, Dan. Supervisor Prem. Dan, I actually wanted to tell you a personal story about just what happened this last weekend, because I see your legacy through the eyes of my four-year-old who, when we were walking along the beach this weekend in essence south of Aptos, and he was collecting shells. And of course I brought with me two bags, one for his shells and one because of Cynthia Matthews for all the plastic on the beach. She's known for picking up trash everywhere she goes and has trained us to do that. This is the world that he is growing up in, that he didn't necessarily have to grow up in. A totally different path could have been had for this county and for this state, but for your work. He may not necessarily know or understand at this point in his life what political and policy decisions and advocacy decisions were made on his behalf to allow him to have that opportunity.  It really is in large part because of your work. And as Supervisor Leopold was saying, you have a remarkable number of accomplishments, but a lot of us go day to day and aren't really sure whether or not what we're doing will have this lasting impact. And there's no question through his life, and I know so many other children's lives here. You know that you have made a remarkable difference in impact on this area and on this state in some respects on influencing national policy as a result with the creation of the sanctuary. So on his behalf, I just want to thank you. It's a beautiful, beautiful sight to see the world appreciated through a four-year-old's eyes, but he is able to live a more privileged life because of your advocacy work. And I just want to thank you, Dan. Thank you. Dan Haifle, you've heard he's touched all of our lives and so many, not just older folks like me, but the youngsters, as Zach said, with his son. When I first got into this political livelihood, so to speak, in my run for assembly, and I was very interested in coastal protection, the first person I talked to was Dan Haifle. He knew what was going on then in 1993, as well as anybody else around here. And we had a great conversation. I want to tell you that that led to me. It was where I was going anyway, but in the offshore oil vote, when I was in the assembly, the 80-member assembly, it was 41 votes, and I was the only one in my caucus to vote for it. The passed by the narrowest of margins. And I want to thank you for the criticism that I got from my caucus, Dan. I guess I should tell you, but it became one. It's really been a key component of our coastal protection, and it's people like Dan Haifle that really solidify the need for these types of coastal protection issues. Does it reasonably, sensibly, and as Zach mentioned, our supervisor friend mentioned, he does it to the young people, too. I think in his oversight of the O'Neill Sea Odyssey, what has it been? 100,000 children, school-aged, that have been, had their first sight of going out to the sea and finding out just exactly what's out there and why we need to protect it and how sensitive it is that we make every effort we can to protect the oceanfront that we have. I think as much as anybody in this state, and probably in this state, we have Dan Haifle to thank for our coastal pristine area that we have. And the best part about it, he's just a great person to deal with and to be with. I just really consider him a good friend, and I really want to thank you for everything that you have done to help our community and to help the coastline of California. Thank you. I didn't know the number on students that actually went out on the Sea Odyssey, but when I was on the Watsonville City Council, I went out with McQuitty School one time and then also one time with many white school. And the kids were more excited about going out to the sea than they were of getting out of school a little bit for a couple hours. But it was a real learning experience, not only for the kids, but for myself. And I think it's a wonderful program, and I want to thank you for everything you've done. Thank you. Thank you. And so there's no way that we can adequately thank you for the work that you've done for our community and for our region. But we do have a proclamation here signed by every member of the Board of Supervisors, recognizing many of the ways that have been mentioned, the ways you've impacted the community. And so collectively we are proclaiming April 11th, because you have to wait until you actually retire. 2019 is Dan Haley Day in the County of Santa Cruz. But I think that as you, as the kids walk the beaches, as we educate and have a generation who knows and appreciates what marine life is and ocean protection is every day is Dan Haley Day in the County of Santa Cruz. I will move approval. So actually hold on. We have to, we need a motion. I would move approval of the proclamation. Second. A motion by Leopold and a second by Friend. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you so much. That really means a lot to me. Just a couple of brief things I want to say. 41 years ago there was a group of eight volunteers, including a staffer in your own County Planning Department, Kim Shantz, who started an organization called Save Our Shores and they did over 41 years of activism by volunteers and others. And then 23 years ago a man named Jack O'Neill, who started a surf business in San Francisco, moved down the coast of Santa Cruz, decided that he wanted to turn what he had seen as a playground into a classroom so he started O'Neill Sea Odyssey. And I think these two things really had their home here in Santa Cruz County. This county has been a leader for many, many years in environmental protection efforts, led by specifically this Board of Supervisors, each of you individually. The work that has gone into successive efforts to prevent the choking of our ocean through plastic pollution, through the changing of ocean chemistry, through climate change. All of the things that you do every day as a county, as staff, as a board to protect our environment, really lead this nation. It's a time that we really have to have this kind of leadership. So that enables people like me and others to do what we do. And it's been a great career. I want to thank you all for your support, particularly your support of O'Neill Sea Odyssey over these past several years, very generously so. And thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Dan. We now are going to move on to item number eight, which is a presentation recognizing the recipients of the Women's Commission Trailblazer Awards. And this is an annual award given by our Women's Commission, which is an advisory body to the board that exists to advance the causes of all women, expand possibilities for women and girls, and advocate for empowerment and equality. It's a remarkable group of women and both who are on the commission and who they've chosen to honor today. Ten nominations were received by the Women's Commission for these awards, and we'll be recognizing four of these nominees as Santa Cruz County Trailblazers. The commissioners used a strict rating system to review each nomination, as well as the applicant's eligibility and impact. Those who have made extraordinary differences in the lives of women and girls by serving as innovative leaders or pioneers have been selected as trailblazers. We will now present the Trailblazer Awards. We will introduce our commissioners and trailblazer award winners and have them approach the podium. Our commissioners will each give a summary of the Trailblazers awardees and accomplishments, and Supervisor Leopold will introduce our first Trailblazer Award winner. Thank you, Chair Coonerty. First, I'd like to thank the Women's Commission for their ongoing hard work in recognizing the needs of women and girls in Santa Cruz County. And it's very exciting for this annual awards presentation, the Trailblazers Award. I am constantly amazed by the powerful women we have in our community who are contributing to the health and success of so many families in our community. I'd like to invite Commissioner Teresa Carino and Trailblazer Margaret Carino-Condon to come up to the podium. Buenos dias. Good morning. Thank you, board members, community members, family and friends. And of course, thank you to our many Trailblazers here today. I think it's important that we are here today recognizing extraordinary women who are lifting up other women and girls in our community. We've come a long way, but there is still work to be done. With that said, I am proud to represent the Women's Commission, District One, and I am beyond honored to give this award to my sister, Margaret Carino-Condon. Margaret is the co-founder and program coordinator of Salud y Carino, a local nonprofit promoting overall health and wellness for middle school girls through physical activity and social-emotional support at a critical time in their development. She is also a facilitator for our program. Serving girls 5th through 8th grade in Live Oak. In 2015, she helped pilot our first program with just 17 sixth grade girls. Now in 2019, she has touched the lives of over 400 girls. Margaret has also been a member of the Institute for Women's Surfer since 2015 and is currently a SERP instructor with the Wahine Project, an organization that strives to reduce barriers and increase access to the ocean and surfing for all girls. Margaret loves being able to spread the stoke through the work she does with each of these organizations and envisions Salud y Carino's programs reaching all girls in Santa Cruz County and beyond. Lastly, I think there are two kinds of trailblazers. There's the ones that are out in the front making a lot of noise with a huge visible presence and others quietly working in the background. Margaret is the latter. She is the strong yet gentle force, sometimes not so gentle, pushing forward. She is opening doors, blazing a trail, and helping others find their way one girl at a time. I'm proud to present this award to my sister, Margaret Guadino-Condon. Our next, now I'd like to invite Commissioner Maggie Barr to approach podium. I'd also like to welcome Trailblazer Casey Coonerty-Prottie to come to the front. As owner of Bookshop Santa Cruz, Casey is committed to diversity and Bookshop Santa Cruz features books with many viewpoints including a specific emphasis on giving females authors a spot in the limelight. At Bookshop Santa Cruz, Casey creates a women's voices campaign, created a women's voices campaign designed not only to feature women authors but also to stimulate a community conversation around women's issues. In 2017, Casey organized a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood called Read and Rights to Support Women's Healthcare Rights in Santa Cruz County, raising $33,000 and sending 260 postcards to elected officials in support of these rights. Casey has been instrumental in creating the Alliance of Women Entrepreneurs, or AWE, in downtown Santa Cruz with the goal of creating community in the downtown area by shining a light on the unique leadership and community building strength of the local women business owners. Casey is a role model for women and girls in Leads by Example, giving women a prominent place in our cultural conversation which inspires and encourages all of us. I'd like to present this certificate to you Casey for all of your dedication and contribution to women in Santa Cruz County. And I believe Craig Capult has a certificate for you. So, yeah, and I just actually I'm going to present this one. Okay, come on down. Supervisor Chair. Supervisor Coonerty. Thank you. And I just want to briefly say, so this is Casey's my sister. And I had nothing to do with this award. Kate McGrew in the Women's Commission's office called and wanted to nominate her just by seeing the impact she's having in the community. It's incredibly, incredibly well deserved. My dad and I tend to take up a lot of the attention in the family, but Casey is getting by far the most done. I know she worries all night about the world, about her family, about this community.  And so it's my pleasure to give you this proclamation. And I've signed many proclamations over the years. The first one I've gotten to write, I love you on. When I did it. Now, Zach. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. I'd like to invite Commissioner Gillian Ritter to approach the podium. And I'd also like to invite Trobo's award, Winnie, awardee, Nicole Kiedel to come to the front. So I'm just going to say a few words about the amazing accomplishments Nicole has accomplished over the past several years. Nicole has worked with criminal justice-involved women as a leader, advocate, and role model in Santa Cruz County for more than five years. Nicole's courage to speak publicly about her past experiences with addiction, incarceration, and healing inspires other women to believe that they too can transform their lives. As a manager of a woman's sober living environment, Nicole worked to support women during their recovery journey and has helped many women navigate the re-entry process, returning to the community after incarceration. Nicole also ran a public speaking class called the Speaker's Bureau for formerly incarcerated individuals. She made a point of making sure that women felt welcome and empowered in this co-ed class and has been able to connect personally with women across class, race, and ethnicity and inspire them to heal through storytelling. Nicole is a full-time mom, a full-time student, and also currently works full-time as an employment specialist providing support to help people gain meaningful employment, stability, and self-sufficiency. Nicole is also an active representative on the advisory task force on justice and gender and has helped to provide task force recommendations to the Board of Supervisors in order to help identify safe, supportive, and affordable housing sites and options for criminal justice-involved women and families. I could go on and on about Nicole's great accomplishments, but I just want to say thank you, Nicole, for everything that you've done for women and girls in our community. You really deserve it. Thank you. A certificate from us. Thank you so much. And a proclamation. Thank you. And Supervisor McPherson will be introducing our final Trailblazer awardee. Thank you, Chair Coonerty. I'd like to invite Commissioner Teresa Carino to approach the podium. And I'd also like to invite Trailblazer awardee, Clara Miner, to come up front. And just as a warning, I want to let you know that Clara has been teaching fitness through young ladies and elderly ones as well, three through 75, as I read it, through martial arts, so you don't want to miss. She's been a terrific advocate for women's rights and self-defense. Awesome. I met Clara in 2014, 2015, so I also know her personally. Clara has been empowering women and girls ages three to 75 in Santa Cruz community for more than 33 years through martial arts, fitness, and as you said, self-defense. Her training goes beyond training to fight and incorporates verbal skills, intuitive training, and mental strategies. Her techniques have helped women of all ages experience emotional ease and increased confidence. Clara's self-defense workshops are offered to the community free of charge and uniquely address the needs for women to feel safe and strong in any life situation. I know this because she also did a self-defense class for our after-school girls. Women who work with Clara learn to appreciate their bodies, their inner and outer strength, and their potential because Clara believes in them and offers the opportunity to take that belief on for themselves. Clara is an active community member and shows up every day with the intention of helping others through her work and community support. She always has a smile. You can't miss the smile. She always has a smile on her face and genuinely cares for this community and I'm honored to present this Trailblazer Award to Clara Miner. I just want to say a quick thank you to the Santa Cruz County Women's Commission to Robin Holland, who's sitting about right there in Monica Kars, who nominated me, and I'm honored to be with these other four women for Trailblazer 2019. Thank you so, so much. Thank you. Thank you to the Women's Commission and thank you to our four Trailblazers who are really making our community a better place. We're going to take a 10-minute recess to join you all for a reception in the Redwood conference room, which is just out here to the right and to thank you for your service and then we'll be back at 10 to continue on our agenda. Thank you. No questions. Yep, exactly. All right, I'm going to... I'm going to call the meeting back to order and we're going to hear item number nine, which is a public hearing to consider the 2018 general plan annual report as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. Mr. Carlson here to present. Thank you. David Carlson from the Planning Department and each year the Planning Department prepares an annual report on the general plan amendments that have been processed in the previous year, expected future general plan amendments, status of major programs in the general plan and status of implementation of the housing element. In 2018, the board considered two general plan amendments related to regulation of commercial cannabis and the Nissan dealership project. In 2019, we expect to process additional general plan amendments related to supporting affordable housing, general plan amendments related to the sustainability policy and regulatory update, beginning with the EIR process on that and general plan amendments related to the safety and noise element and land use near the Watsonville airport. The housing element part of the report summarizes applications and permits for new housing units in 2018 in data tables provided by the state. In table B, summarizes our overall progress in meeting our regional housing needs allocation and there's a revised table B which adds in some additional data from the year 2014. And table D summarizes the status of implementation of housing element programs intended to meet our housing goals. Staffers recommend that the board of supervisors conduct a public hearing on the 2018 general plan annual report, accept and file this report and direct the planning director to submit the report to the state office of planning and research and the department of housing and community development. And I'm available for questions along with other members of the planning department staff. Sure. So why don't we start and see if we have any questions? May I make a comment? Sure. Thank you for your effort on this progress report. It's, well, we need to do it, we have to do it, but I'm paying particular attention to how we're progressing on our housing situation and I just want to see that some interest is particularly in the amendments that refer to school employee housing, farm worker housing, permit room housing provisions just so that's what is really caught my eye or what I'm most interested at this point in our update. I think it's that we need to create and maintain our more affordable options as we all, and that's hard to reach. And I think our affordable housing here in Santa Cruz County, unfortunately, is probably a little different from most other counties, but thank you for your efforts in this and we have a tremendous need here and I appreciate this report. Look forward to it coming back to us. Thank you, Supervisor Leopold. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate this annual report that we get and it's a good look at all the different efforts that are going on, especially as we look around the housing pieces. In one of the items, Program 4.12, which is to maintain the vacation rental ordinance, one of the things I realize has fallen off and I'd like that I'll be adding on as an additional direction is to get an annual report about the vacation rentals and to get a sense of how close we are to reaching our limits in the different designated areas. I think that's very important. The Board has tried to find some limits to the use of vacation homes or vacation rooms and it's good to have an idea of how close we are to these limits. It's also good for the community to know. Also, I appreciate all the different efforts that have been going on and I think that, I know for one of the R-combining sites, which is discussed in here in Soquel, there has been a renewed interest in actually developing that parcel and I think that once the water issues could be dealt with in Soquel that we'll see activity on the Earl Act site because that has proven to be the reason why we can't develop that site. The owners are finally interested in working with people on that. I'm hopeful that in the near future that we'll be able to see some activity there. Thank you for your work. Thank you. All right, now we're going to open it up to members of the public for comments. Please come forward. Good morning, Becky Steinbruner. Thank you for the staff report and the information in the packet. I am curious because I was at the planning commission hearing when the commission reviewed this. I see that the table B of regarding the arena numbers and reports of those, the numbers as you said for 2015 were revised substantially from 62 to 121. The commission did not see those numbers and I'm a little concerned about that because that did address one of their recommendations to the board that there has been historically preponderance of affordable housing for above moderate income with very little going out to very low and low income brackets. And that is part of the commission's recommendation to the board today that that be addressed. I also want to second the commission's, the planning commission's request that the database of all rental housing types in the county regarding cost and vacancies be updated and be collected. And there was discussion about that and how staffing is always a challenge but that kind of information will give us, you, the decision makers the information that you need and Supervisor Leopold, I want to thank you for your request to have an update on the vacation rental numbers. Another recommendation the county planning commission gave was that they wanted to track the demolition of housing in housing element program 4.4. As one who also attends county historic preservation resources meeting I want to ask that there be special consideration and additional requirements made on any properties scheduled for demolition that have historic significance, cultural significance and that this county adopts a Mills Act to really help owners of significant cultural and historic properties to maintain them rather than just demolish them. And along with Supervisor Leopold's comment about the R-combining property, the Nye property and the Kaiser new use proposed, that was to be 102 units of affordable housing. It bothers me that the planning department is allowing the Kaiser developers to choose where those units would go and would allow them to be split up among multiple sites. That's ad hoc planning and I would like the board to address that. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no one, I'm going to close public comment and bring it back to the board for deliberation and action. I'll move the recommended actions with the additional direction from Supervisor Leopold regarding the annual reporting on vacation rentals. And if we could just have that back by budget hearings, I think that would be great. Motion by Friend, second by McPherson. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. Let's... We have a scheduled public hearing at 10.30. So... I need to move to... possibly move to item 11, I think, quickly. Why don't we move to item 11? 11, 12, and 13. 11, 12, and 13. And we'll come back to item number 10 after the zone 5 and zone 7 hearings. I'm assuming item 11 is the coastal commission mods. Correct. Yeah, did you read that in? Oh, sorry, I guess I should read. The hearing to consider accepting coastal commission modifications to the recent amendments to regulations regarding the regional housing needs are combining zone districts, affecting county code sections 13.10, 0.170, D, and 13.10, 476, B, and D, as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director, and we have Ms. Labien here to present. Good morning. Your board recently approved amendments to the regional housing needs overlay district to help support the creation of affordable housing. The coastal commission certified those amendments on March 6th. However, they certified them conditional on two modifications being accepted by your board. The modifications emphasize that any application in the coastal zone does require a planned unit development permit, and that that planned unit development permit is also a local coastal plan amendment subject to approval by the coastal commission. They also wanted us to make more clear in the code that the overlay may only be applied to commercial property that is owned C1, C2, or PA. The staff supports the changes as clarifications, and our recommendation is that your board accept those modifications. The formal recommendation is to hold a public hearing on the coastal commission proposed modifications to 13.10, 0.170, D, 13.10, 0.476, B, and D, adopt the resolution accepting each modification, and direct the planning director to submit the board's acceptance to the executive director of the coastal commission for a finding that the board's acceptance has been accomplished. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any questions? Pretty straightforward. Seeing none, are there any public comments? Good morning again, Becky Steinbruner. I was at the county planning commission hearing when this issue came before them, and they delayed it. They have not seen or considered, to my understanding, these coastal commission modifications, and that was because they came in really the day before, the night before the morning of, their hearing to consider them. So I would like to ask you, because I really respect the level of scrutiny and thoughtfulness that the planning commission always lends these issues that come before them, I would like to ask you that you delay action on this until the planning commission does indeed get a chance to review the modifications proposed by the coastal commission to your board. This requires that, it points out that there could be the discretion of the board of supervisors and the commission in the way that it was written could be compromised. The planning commission did not get a chance to hear that and consider that publicly, and this directly affects that it must have an LCP amendment as a planned unit development. This issue is coming before you soon in a public hearing regarding the seascape estates proposed PUD. So it also says that you must have a finding that the project is consistent with the LCP under code 13.10.215 section D and that there would be no adverse impacts on coastal resources. So to me as a citizen, these are significant modifications proposed by the coastal commission that have not been publicly considered by these counties planning commissioners and I really respect them, I respect you as well, but I think it would behoove this process to have it go before the planning commission and be very thoroughly vetted publicly. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes public comment. I'll bring it back to the board for deliberation and action. Just a question, I ask council, we can take action on this recommendation from the coastal commission. We're not required to go to the planning commission. My understanding from what Ms. Levine said is that they're not significant modifications or clarifications, so I don't have any basis to suggest that you would return to the planning commission at this point. Yeah, they actually seem to increase the amount of public scrutiny when you have to do a local coastal plan amendment. Also just to clarify, you needed to have the coastal, it just wasn't clear enough for the coastal commission that the coastal plan amendment is required. It was in the code previously and they wanted it reiterated, so it's not a change in that way. I would move the recommended actions. Motion by Leopold. Second by McPherson. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. Let's move on to item number 12, which is to consider final appointment of Larry Pegler to the Santa Cruz Metropolitan District as an at-large representative for a term to expire on December 31st, 2020. I would move approval. Got a motion. Second, is there any public comment? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board. A motion by Leopold and a second by McPherson. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number 13, which is to consider final appointments to various persons for reappointment to at-large positions to the Childhood Advisory Council, the Environmental Health Appeals Commission, the First Five Commission, the Hazardous Materials Advisory Commission, the In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Commission, the Mental Health Advisory Board, the Santa Cruz Monterey-Merced Banished Care Commission, and the Water Advisory Commissions to expire April 1st, 2023. And first, I'll ask if there are any comments from members of the public. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for action. Move approval of the recommended actions. Second. Motion by Leopold. Second by McPherson. Your microphone's not on. Just want to say thank you to each of the commissioners. It's very much appreciated. What do we have? Over two dozen commissions and the amount of time and effort that these commissioners put in is much appreciated by this board and the people of Santa Cruz County. Yeah, incredibly talented people serve on these commissions. So all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. We now have a 1030 scheduled item, which is a Zone 5 Board of Directors. Do we have Zone 5 members here yet? We're a couple minutes ahead. Okay, why don't we just get started? You chair this one. I chair this one. All right. So the Board of Supervisors shall recess in order to permit the Board of Directors of the County of Santa Cruz flood control and water conservation district, Zone 5 to convene and carry out the regularly scheduled meeting. And let me just pull up the agenda. So our first item is for the clerk to call the roll. Thank you, chair. Director Leopold. Here. Sorry. I have that Zone 5 here, the chair. Okay. Sorry. I'm happy to be the chair for Zone 5. Okay. Sorry. We'll just move forward. You all just witnessed a coup. Yeah. Okay, so let me start the roll call over again. I apologize for Zone 5 directors. Director Leopold. Here. Coonerty. Here. Capit. Here. McPherson. Here. Bertrand. Christensen. And chair friend. I'm here. Are there any changes to today's agenda, Mr. Machado? None. All right. Are there any oral communications and opportunity for members of the community to address us on items within the Zone 5 purview but not on today's agenda? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move on to the minutes, which is approval of Zone 5 minutes. Any questions or comments on the minutes? Is there a motion for the minutes? Move approval. Second. We have a motion from Supervisor Coonerty. Second from Supervisor Leopold. Any comments on the minutes? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. And number three is the board of directors on flood control on water conservation District Zone 5 to consider the election of the chairperson and vice chairperson for 2019 as outlined in the memo of the district engineer. Mr. Machado, briefly. Thank you, chair. So the item before you is to elect a new chairperson and vice chairperson for 2019 following the call for nominations by the 2018 Zone 5 board chair. Thank you. Supervisor Coonerty, this was the timing issue that normally is the chair of the board. So I would nominate Director Coonerty to be chair and who is the vice chair? Supervisor Caput to be vice chair. Is that how we usually do it? Okay. Okay. All right. Are there any other nominations? Are there any comments from the community on these nominations? Seeing none, we'll vote on the nominations. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? It passes unanimously. Congratulations, chair, if you could handle item four. Maybe, maybe. Thank you, former chairperson Front. So as the board of directors of the Santa Cruz County flood control and water conservation district Zone 5 to accept and file the second quarter report for fiscal year 2018-19 Zone 5 expansion construction revenue as outlined in the memorandum of the district engineer. Thank you, chair and directors. The item before you is our second quarter of 18-19 revenue. A breakdown just quickly. It includes 17,000, 618 and drainage fees, 18,000, 865 and permit processing fees and $1,109 in interest and other revenue. That is the total of our quarterly revenue summary. The item before you, the recommended action is to accept and file this report on the second quarterly report of 18-19 Zone 5 expansion construction revenue and I can answer any questions you may have. Does anybody have any questions? We seem to be on target for funding. Yes. Yes, we are. And are there any members of public who wish to comment on this item? Seeing none, I bring it back to the district. I move to accept and file the report on the revenue. I'll second. Motion by Leopold, second by Friend. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Machado. We have a next scheduled item of the Zone 7 board directors meeting at 10.45. So not wanting to start an item and then having to interrupt. Why don't we recess until 10.45? We'll hear the Zone 7 item at 10.45 and then we'll come back and hear item number 10 immediately following. My apologies to the people who are waiting. We're trying to figure out how to do this and not have it be interrupted and I think this is the best way. Thank you. This time will be the Zone 7 meeting. If we could begin with a roll call on Zone 7, please. Yes, thank you. Leopold. Here. Coonerty. Here. McPherson. Here. Vanister. Here. Belichick. Here. And Chair Friend. Here. Are there any additions or changes or deletions to the agenda? Mr. Strudley. No, Chair Friend. There are not. All right. We're going to begin with oral communications. Anybody from the community would like to address us on things not on today's agenda for Zone 7 but within the purview of Zone 7. All right. I would actually like to offer something for communications. Yes. Thanks, Chair Friend. As the program manager for the Pajaro Stormdrain Maintenance District, I'd like to make the board aware of a project that district is pursuing in the lower portions of the watershed near the Pajaro Dunes community. As you know, the proposed levy reconstruction project with the core does not address any improvements downstream of Highway 1 and there are ongoing flood concerns in the Pajaro Dunes community and adjacent agricultural land associated with the slu system, the river and the Pajaro Lagoon. The district is embarking on a project with Army Corps different entirely from the authority for the levy reconstruction project. We would consider that project very differently than the one that we're proposing here. It's called a CAP project. It's a continuing authorities program project which provides cost share from the Army Corps for feasibility and initial design. So it gets us into the design phase. The funding for those projects are already authorized to divisions and districts. So it does not go through the Herculean authorities and obligation procedures that we're beholden to with the federal levy reconstruction project. So we are pursuing that project and the local share for that project, we are very actively pursuing grant funding from the state and hopeful that we will provide the local match funding from state funds. So I am happy to provide more updates on this project as it becomes more formulated and concrete and just wanted to make you aware of that activity. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Strathley. I'll move on to the agenda now. Item four is the approval of the Zone 7 Board meeting minutes for January 15th, 2019. Are there any questions on the minutes? Director Bilsich? No questions. Just going to move for approval. Okay. Are there any comments from the community on the minutes? Moving back, before we take action just moving forward, I think we can include the minutes for the consent agendas. They're not two separate items moving forward. So do we have a motion? Director Bilsich? I'll move. Yes, so moved. So we have a motion from Director Bilsich, a second from Director Caput. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? It passes unanimously. Move on to our lengthy consent agenda of one item. Item five is as the Board of Directors of Zone 7 to adopt a resolution confirming the 2019-20 benefit assessment rates. That's what is listed under the consent agenda for those who didn't have it out there. Are there any questions or comments on this consent agenda item? I would move the consent agenda. And I'll second. We have a motion from Director Leopold and a second from Director Bilsich. Are there any comments on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? It passes unanimously. Now we'll move on to the regular agenda of the Program Managers Report, which is that the Board of Directors of Zone 7 to consider a status update on the Pajaro River Flood Risk Reduction Project. As outlined in the memo of the District Engineer, we have the memo, the proposal, and the final letter there with the NACO resolution as well. Please, Mr. Strudley. Thank you, Chair Friend. Members of the Board, I'd like to provide you a comprehensive update on our Federal Levy Reconstruction Project with the core. I'd like to begin by reminding the Board that in September, you authorized staff to sign contract with CARTNO to perform SQL analysis for the project, and at the January Board Meeting, you authorized staff to sign contract with Peterson Brustad, Program Management Consulting Team to lead us through the governance and finance aspects of the project as well as review of core design and other technical support for CEQA. First, I'd like to speak to our progress with CARTNO and the CEQA analysis. We have spent quite a bit of time negotiating scope and making sure that CARTNO can construct the right set of alternatives and the right CEQA analysis for us to support this project with the right project description. We've been doing that over the last several months and have finally secured a scope and budget with them, which is attached to this Board item for your review. We are planning to embark on that contract with CEQA beginning this next month in April, and so that you are aware of the planned progress on that front before we next have a chance to speak in June. In April, CARTNO will be conducting backgrounding. Their notice of preparation will be prepared during the month of May and scoping, and in June, they will be developing their alternatives analysis and beginning to prepare the draft administrative EIR. So by the time we speak next time in June, hopefully we'll have the beginnings of an administrative draft EIR in the works. On the program management side, the PBI consulting team has been working fast and furious for us. We are putting all the pieces together with them to form the right governing body to support the finance structure for the project. So in the interim, before our next meeting in June, there will be invitations sent out to rekindle the Governance and Finance Committee. Many of you on the Board were part of that committee previously, and we will be re-inviting those of you to again have two discussions in late April and late May for that committee to quickly arrive at a consensus decision on the governing body aspects and the finance strategy to pursue. With that said, I'm currently in the middle of reviewing some information from our PBI consulting team with a lot of details, but I'm not prepared to report on that today to you. We are continuing to coordinate with Army Corps despite their gap in funding. We are urging staff at the Army Corps to continue at least quarterly meetings with us so that we can stay up to date with their thinking on how we can position the project for federal funding. We issued a joint letter, which is attached to this Board item from Zone 7 and Monterey County Water Resources. Congratulating the Corps on finally finishing that feasibility report, but also stressing the importance of this project to us and highlighting the ongoing concerns we have and the values that this project is seeking to protect disadvantaged communities, high value ag land and an urbanized center in the town of Pajaro and City of Watsonville. We are hopeful that through the budgetary process we will be awarded work plan funds next fall or next winter. We are not currently in the presidential budget with the Corps because we can't actually have the Corps request that funds without a signed report. And that signed report, again, we are still expecting no earlier than March 29th, the signed director's report, as well as the finalized feasibility phase report. I hear some information from headquarters that they are being waylaid by a number of infrastructure initiatives and bills going through the ASA's office, which may delay the release of our report into the early parts of April, but that doesn't really affect the progress of the project at all, because really what we're going through right now is a lot of local activity for governance and finance activities and review of Corps modeling products through our PBI consultant. Staff would like to thank Chair Friend, as well as Supervisor John Phillips from Monterey County for bringing a resolution to the Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee of National Association of Counties. Chair Friend spent a good deal of time negotiating in terms of that resolution and also finding some partners across the country that share some interests and projects that are similar to ours. And it's really a great thing to have the voice of NACO behind us and behind our project. So thank you, Chair Friend. We're continuing to work with Subventions staff at State Department of Water Resources. We've finally gotten a hold of the Corps modeling products, their latest and greatest hydraulic model, which will now allow us to proceed with the application to Subventions to not authorize the project, but secure the obligation of funds should federal investment come along. And we are hopeful still that we're going to get the maximum amount of cost share coming from the state because of disadvantaged communities and because of protection of state facilities. And we would like to thank Assemblyman Mark Stone for continuing to support our work on the Subventions front. With that, I would ask that the board consider, accept and file this status report on the Pajaro River flood risk reduction project. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Director Leopold. Thank you for the report. I do want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, Supervisor Friend. Those of us who've been to CSEC conferences know that not everybody in the state of California thinks like we do. But when you go to the NACO conference, you really understand that people around the country don't always think this way that we do. So it takes a lot of work to get unanimous support for this resolution. I just want to appreciate the work. You did a great job representing the needs of Santa Cruz and Monterey County. And I just want to acknowledge that. I think that was a real great addition to have in our utility built trying to get this work done on the River Levy. Thank you. Director McPherson. I'd like to share those comments. And thank you, Supervisor Friend. And the quarterly meetings, those are regular. Those haven't happened before. I mean, have they, that you mentioned, I think you were mentioning some quarterly meetings. But more to the point, I just want to do the, I don't know who you contacted, but have other counties or states shared the misery that we have through the last two or three decades like we have and we've got some colleagues throughout the nation that say, yeah, we want to be with you. Is that, who did you find? I'm just curious. Is it East Coast, West Coast, all around the nation or what? Well, I'm Chair Friend, came across some, another resolution that was similar in tone to ours from Navajo County of Arizona. And we have, through our advocacy work in D.C. and also our involvement with National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management agencies, we've come across others across the country who share the pain that we do, that have been in similar instances of grief with the core or are continuing to have that grief with the core. I think there's a growing groundswell of this type of concern. The NACA resolution definitely supports that notion and we're definitely hopeful that this kind of support, this kind of voice behind the project will, in a grand scale, hopefully change the way the core and the OMB may do business, but we'll hopefully bring PAHR along for the ride in that change. Yeah, well thank you for that and getting the attention of NACO and some of our colleagues in that organization. Director Bilsich, then Director Caput. I just wanted to say that my colleagues couldn't have said it any better without that leadership of Chairman Friend, this would not happen. And I think he's greatly appreciated by many of us here, but hopefully the entire county as to what, and the residents of Watsonville, this is a big deal. And I'm very proud of you and I'm very happy that you stepped forward and did this. So thank you very much. Thanks for those kind words, Director Caput. You bet. I want to thank you also. Thank you also, Mark. When we're talking about the project and we're talking about, there's different levels of flood reduction. What exactly in a shorter explanation are we talking about? Are we talking about our support for a 25, 50, 100 year plan? I know that that's, you know, a bigger figure than what we're looking at right here. So right now the proposed NED project from the core includes mostly protection against the so-called 100 year flood event. The exception to that would be in the urbanized areas on the north side of Salsa Poetus Creek between Highway 152 and the agricultural land so protecting the residential communities adjacent to the river. The economic justification proposed by the core relegated that level of protection in improvement to 25 years. It's not something we're totally happy about, but it's a lot better than what's there now. There are no levies there actually now, so the protection that's afforded is by virtue of the facility on the Southern Bank. We are still very much looking at improving upon what the core is proposing. And it may not be a solution that is afforded to us through the federal government. It's most likely not going to be. It may be opportunities elsewhere through the state. We're definitely wanting for a more improved project than what's being proposed. And there's a lot of nuts and bolts to how this may all fall out, but we're continuing to look at other opportunities. And there are a lot of new grant, bond-funded opportunities at the state that may open some doors to us. And our PBI consultant team is actually very in tune with that as our staff here at the flood control district. And we're continuing to pursue those very actively when they become available. And we'll be hearing about that fairly shortly. So we will hear whether the Army Corps headquarters is comfortable with the proposed project that the district and division are putting forth. And we'll see that when they sign the director's report and the final GRR, the feasibility report. We'll see that within the next month. In terms of funding, that's something we're going to see next fall or next winter when we are requesting work plan funds from the Corps to support initial design. Okay, right now we're focused on the northern part from Highway 1, or we also focused on the southern part, I'm assuming, which would be Murphy Road all the way to Highway 1. The federal proposed project begins downstream at Highway 1 and moves upstream. And depending on which side of the river you're on, it does go not quite up to Murphy's Crossing. So on the southern side, they're proposing a tie-back levee upstream of the town of Pajaro. On the north side of the river, there are no improvements planned. On which part? Upstream of the confluence with Salcepoides Creek on the main stem of the Pajaro River. So those are the gaps in the federal project that we're continuing to look for opportunities to fill. Yes. Is it an all or nothing proposition or are there, we've got things we can work out with, again, when we come to that 25, 50 and 100 year? Yes and no. It's an all or nothing. So there are arrangements that were made prior to my beginnings here with the district where, and Chair Friend was a principal player in those negotiations to basically accept the proposed plan from the core. And without that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere with the core. So it took that leadership to recognize that in order to get federal investment, we need to perhaps peel back pieces of the project and seek those components through other means. That being said, as we move through the initial investment strategy with the federal government, there's lots of different ways you can approach a project. There's lots of different ways other flood control districts throughout the state have successfully built projects that had challenges similar to ours. And some of them included pursuing the project that's described in different pieces. Others describe the process where you reformulate the project and describe other benefits that may come out of it. So we're looking to achieve the most expeditious result, but the details of that investment through the core and OMB will kind of play into those decisions as we move forward. I guess my last comment would be, I'm impressed by one thing, and that's the communications going on with the Army Corps and Monterey County and Santa Cruz County. But at the same time, we're going to find out if they're just being nice or they're going to give us the same results as in the past. What's good is in the past, there was hardly any communication. It was very hard to talk to them. Now they are talking, which is great. There's no being nice at this point. They're either going to fund our project or they're not, and it's going to be a decision that comes not from the district office or the division. It's going to come from headquarters and OMB. So they're either going to fund our project or they're not. Yeah, I guess the point I was trying to make is how important is this communications towards a favorable result? I really think it's good that we are talking, but at the same time, I'm hoping that we get a different result than we got in the past. The deputy director of the district office is a new individual as of late last calendar year. That individual is much more helpful and supportive than the prior deputy director. And that individual has made his own efforts at reaching out to us, to update us on status, to let us know the tenor of conversation when he makes his trips back to headquarters, to the extent that he knows about them. So he has been very helpful. He is helping us deliver some of our messaging to the core and getting us a bit of insider baseball to play with, more so than we did before. So that's always helpful. But we still have some challenges, especially with OMB. And we have had support from Senator Feinstein and Camila Harris and Jimmy Panetta, of course, with the Congress, which is kind of nice. You've met with Army Corps with them, or they've met separately? We've met separately, but I believe that some of the staff have had discussions with Army Corps, especially Jimmy Panetta's staff, and Jimmy Panetta himself. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody in the community like to address us on this item? I'll bring it back. We still haven't. Yeah. No problem, Mary. Thank you. Becky Steinbruner, APTAS. Thank you for that great report. And I also want to thank you, Mr. Strudley, for the great presentation you made Saturday at the State of the San Lorenzo River Symposium. It was fascinating. And what I took home from that was that the winter of 2016-17 could be the new normal. That's a little worrisome. So, but very germane to what we're talking about here right now. And as a member of the community, I don't understand many of the acronyms that you've used here in your discussion about the NACO resolution. I have no idea what that stands for and why it is so significant, but I appreciate the efforts of Supervisor Friend to do the negotiations regarding that. I, again, want to suggest that, especially perhaps in the area, the South Sepuletis area, where it's the levee to be built would only handle a 25-year storm, which seems a little worrisome, that perhaps with it being near agricultural areas that this county could partner with Dr. Andy Fisher of the Recharge Initiative and consult with Dr. Helen Dahlke of UC Davis. And I've spoken with you about this before, but there is significant groundwater recharge opportunity that could be built into a levee. And it could, in my way of thinking, enhance funding, especially since the Pajaro Basin is in critical overdraft, and Ms. Banister, you would know more about this than anybody, that there could be some component of groundwater recharge built into a levee where a floodgate could be opened and controlled amounts of water be let into well-documented recharge potential areas of agricultural land that are not being farmed in the winter. And there could be some recharge. It seems like that could enhance funding, at least with a state level. And finally, I would like to ask where I might find the hydraulic models that you talk about being done for the Pajaro flood control area. I'd like to see those models. Thank you very much. NACO is the National Association of Counties. Director Banister. Thank you, Supervisor. I too would like to thank staff, Mark Strudley, Supervisor Friend, for the continued scratching and clawing to move this project forward. I think the progress in the last year has been tremendous compared to what I'd seen before, and that's without the core being as involved as we like. I just want to share that, last fall I attended a meeting that Harry Wiggins held in Pajaro a severely disadvantaged community similar to the Watsonville side where it's significantly disadvantaged. And at that meeting, they had the head of the Office of Emergency Services come, and it's the Pajaro Community Action Committee, I think. And they were talking about how to do evacuations in the event of another flood, and someone said, where's the list of people who are mobility impaired who would need someone to come in and get them out? And the head of the OES said there is no list because of privacy concerns. And someone said, well, how would we know? And the neighbors are relied on then to tell the emergency responders where the handicapped people or people with mobility issues are. In 96, the flood of 96, one of the two people that died was in a wheelchair. So there is a real human component to this. So thank you to all of you, Director Machado, and everyone who's really working on this because there is this human component that we forget. And the fact that there are people sitting around trying to figure out how to identify these people in the event of another flood while this work isn't getting done or is getting done. Thank you for the progress you're making. Thank you. Is there a motion for this item? So moved. Second. We have a motion from Director Bilicic from Director Leopold. Director Cobbett, were you seconding the item? A third. A third. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you, Director Stroudly. Thank you for your work on that. And now I'll hand it back to the Chair. That's the end of the Zone 7 agenda. Great. So now we're moving on to Item Number 9. It's a public hearing to consider a resolution amending the general plan and the local coastal program and an ordinance amending the Santa Cruz County Code Chapter 13.10 to create a permanent housing combining zone district with CEQA notice of exemption as outlined in the memorandum of the Planning Director. And I want to apologize and thank everyone who's patiently waited to speak on this item today and turn it over to Planning. Just a moment. Technical difficulties? Okay. Thank you, Board. Good morning. I just want to take a moment to introduce one of the newer members of our staff in the Planning Department. This is Daisy Allen. She will be presenting the item, and we're very pleased to have her with us and to introduce her to you. Okay. Great. Thank you, Paya. All right. So thank you, Chair Coonerty and supervisors. The purpose of today's public hearing is to consider a general plan and county code amendments to create a permanent room housing combining zone district as recommended by the Planning Commission. I'll be providing a brief review of the combining district's purpose and vision as well as the proposed components of the policy. Oh. How do I get that? We usually do this too. Just scroll down. Okay. This is part of the hazing routine for new staff members. All right. So the permanent room housing or PRH policy initiative is rooted in the general plans housing element, which recognizes that former hotel and motel properties can serve an important role in addressing the housing crisis by converting rooms and cabins to housing units that are affordable by design due to their small unit size. In fact, there are properties throughout the county where visitor accommodation facilities have already been converted to long-term rental housing, meaning housing rented for 30 days or more. However, multifamily rental housing is not an allowed use on many of these properties due to the existing zoning or general plan designations. Similarly, there are properties in the county with vacant buildings that were originally constructed as care facilities, such as assisted living and nursing homes, and could be repurposed to housing units as well. But they face the same zoning and general plan barriers. As you can see on the slide, these are photographs of three properties that are actually considered opportunity sites for permanent room housing. There are additional photographs throughout the presentation. As you can see, there are a mix of existing conditions from small cabins in the woods to former roadside motels, et cetera. Okay, so in June of last year, the board directed staff to implement Housing Element Program 4.5 by developing the permanent room housing combining zone district. The intent of the district is to preserve these existing rental units. By creating a regulatory pathway for permanent housing on these properties, the county can offer the potential to recognize this housing option as illegal and conforming use, therefore providing more secure legal basis for permanent multi-family housing to continue on these properties over time. The district would not be resolving outstanding code enforcement cases that are unrelated to the zone district, and also would not be legalizing unpermitted structures. However, illegal structures could be recognized through a building permit process or participation in the county's safe structures program. So this graphic illustrates how the combining zone district would work. So every zone district here in the county has two basic components associated with it, site development standards, as well as allowed land uses. Combining zone district is a set of property use and development standards that function since an overlay on top of the underlying zoning. So in the case of PRH, the site standards associated with the underlying zone district would continue to apply. The combining zone district would then add additional allowed use, permanent room housing, with specific associated standards. The uses allowed in the underlying zone district would still be allowed. One exception to this rule is that the proposed district would limit short-term rentals as an allowed use on properties in the district. So this slide provides a brief history of the permanent room housing policy project so far. Staff determined that the most effective way to draft the policy would be to work directly with the owners of properties that would potentially be appropriate for the district. Staff identified opportunity sites and worked collaboratively with property owners in order to draft the code such that the development standards reflect the wide variety of existing conditions on these sites and make the district available to as many properties as possible. Out of that process, five property owners representing nine properties and 73 potential PRH units did agree to join in the collaborative code development process, and they submitted rezoning applications to us. On January 23rd, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the general plan and code amendments for the proposed district, and they also concurrently considered applications from the nine properties to join the district. The commission decided to wait to consider the property applications until after the policy is finalized. The commission was generally supportive of the PRH district, but did direct staff to make changes to the draft code regarding short-term rentals and the application processing level. At a continued hearing on February 13th, the commission recommended board approval of the PRH Combining Zone District, and a link to that report is provided in its attachment F in your packet. So there are two components to the policy initiative. First, new policies are needed in the land use section of our general plan to enable the creation of the district. The draft general plan amendments are provided as exhibit A to attachment C in your packet. Secondly, county code would be amended to create the new district. A clean version of the draft ordinance is provided as attachment A, and a strike out version as attachment B. In terms of the general plan amendments, changes are needed to policies for both residential and commercial land use. Some of the PRH opportunity sites have a residential general plan designation, but conversion to housing nevertheless does not conform with the general plan because the density of housing units is higher than would otherwise be allowed. The proposed policy changes would allow existing densities on PRH sites to remain. Other PRH opportunity sites have commercial land use designations. Currently the general plan allows up to 50% residential square footage on commercial properties. The proposed policy would allow up to 100% residential square footage on the PRH sites. Okay, and then in terms of the code changes, the code defines a PRH unit as an independent space for long-term rental occupancy that meets specific development standards. This definition allows flexibility for shared kitchens and bathrooms and recognizes that some PRH opportunity sites are buildings with rooms that open onto a hall or outdoor walkway, while other opportunity sites are former vacation cabin properties. The PRH combining zone district would be allowed in all residential, commercial, and special use zone districts on parcels with buildings that were originally permitted for visitor accommodations or care facilities. Once an application is made to add PRH zoning to a property, staff would inspect existing structures using the county's PRH health and safety inspection checklist. This checklist is provided as attachment H in your packet. Building upgrades for health and safety would need to meet current building code or they would go through the safe structures program. The proposed development standards in the code reflect an accommodation of a range of existing conditions on the PRH opportunity sites balanced with the need to maintain consistency with the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff also research standards used in similar ordinances in other jurisdictions and there's a table comparing those jurisdictions as attachment G in the packet. PRH properties would be able to maintain the existing number of units on the property and increase the number of units in certain cases. Unit size would range from 120 to 500 square feet with larger existing units allowed to be grandfathered in. New PRH units aside from one optional manager's unit per property would be limited to 500 square feet to ensure that the units are affordable by design. Kitchen and bath facilities could be individual or shared as I mentioned and full kitchens are not required. Minimum parking requirements are one space per unit with lower minimums in certain cases. Bike parking and storage are encouraged because these can be very useful for units like this but not required due to the range of existing conditions on the PRH opportunity sites. So in terms of affordability since the units are considered to be affordable by design there's not a requirement for deed restricted affordable housing on these sites. However property owners would be welcome to participate in affordable housing programs. In terms of short-term rentals short-term rentals would not be allowed on the residentially zoned parcels in the combining zone district. And on the commercially zoned properties short-term rentals or the visitor accommodation use would be allowed in up to 30% of the units. And those units or rooms would not be considered PRH units. This means what this code means is that seasonal rentals would not be allowed in the district. It also means that property owners with parcels that may be eligible for PRH in some cases would need to choose between short and long-term uses in order to join the district. In the case of commercially zoned properties owners can potentially apply for exceptions to increase the percentage of short-term rental units on their property. And speaking of exceptions, exceptions to PRH standards could be granted on the case basis provided that the appropriate findings could be made. The exception option is an important part of the code because each property that applies for inclusion in this district is unique. And these sites are already built out so flexibility is needed in the regulations to consider these unique situations. For instance, in the applications we have so far, two properties have requested exceptions to the parking requirement or the rental requirement. Okay. And then the application process. Property owners with eligible parcels would apply for zoning plan amendments as well as use and development permits to join the district. Property owners could apply for the use and development permit concurrently with the zoning plan amendment as a level seven review or they could apply for the zoning plan amendment first and then come back for use and development permit as a level six review. Property owners with eligible parcels and development permits would also be needed as well as building permits as needed based on the results of the building health and safety inspections. So next steps. First regarding CEQA, establishment of the PRH combining zone district is exempt from CEQA review because the nine properties that have submitted applications and are therefore reasonably foreseeable as joining the district have been in use as permanent housing and there would be no change in that use and therefore no new environmental impacts from their addition to the district. A notice of exemption has been prepared for consideration and recommendation as attachment D. So moving forward, if the board approves the proposed amendments along with the CEQA notice of exemption, staff would then post the exemption and would move on to get the schedule that upcoming Coastal Commission public hearing. After certification by the Coastal Commission, staff would then begin to take property specific rezoning and use permit applications through the public hearing process. So staff recommends that the board hold a public hearing and affirm the proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA and then approve the amendments in concept and direct staff to place the proposed amendments on your next meeting agenda for second reading and final adoption. Thank you. Any questions for staff about this item? Supervisor Leopold. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the work on this. There's a couple questions I have. One was the question about storage. You know, it was interesting. I really appreciated getting them the chart of the different communities and the storage issue seems to be real for people who are going to be living there for longer than 30 days, and they're going to be living in a place to put their clothes and other needs seems to be important. Do you have any idea of how many of these nine properties have or don't have closets or storage space? Yeah, most of the units do have closets but don't have an extra, like external storage unit or like a storage space that's separate from the living space. Most of the units do have some kind of closet or storage space within their unit but the size of those spaces does vary so in terms of setting a code standard for that we stop short of doing that in the draft. The other question I had was about short-term rentals and you pointed out that it would only be for those that are on commercially zoned property which I imagine is most of these but you said seasonal rentals wouldn't be allowed and could you just point me to the code where that is clear? Sure. Just a minute. Okay, so if you go to packet page 71 at the top on K short-term rentals so under K1 short-term less than 30-day rentals are not allowed on designated PRH units so what that means is you couldn't have a unit that was rented as a PRH unit for maybe nine months out of the year and then for three months out of the year rented as a short-term rental. So the 30% would be saying of my 10 units I'm going to put three and make those vacation rentals. That's correct. They would have to get a vacation rental permit for each of them or how does that work? Yeah, so it's actually for commercial properties so vacation rentals only apply for residentially zoned properties so on commercially zoned properties they would have a vacation kind of traditional hotel room use and they would have to get a use permit for that or in some cases on some properties they may have an existing use permit for the hotel use. It seems to me that we would want to make sure that there's active TOT certificate that they're part of the actual program or it just seems like this could be so in terms of the short-term rental portion of the units on the commercially zoned properties that would be that would have to be we envision that as a separate use permit with conditions for the hotel use. Just so I understand so we have a former motel that's now being used as longer-term housing. Owner decides of my ten units I want to keep three of them for hotel rooms or motel rooms. When I come in for the PRH zoning am I also concurrently coming in for any zoning on those three or because that's probably already zoned that way that you're really only getting a PRH for those seven other units? Right so I think it would depend on the site specific conditions but for instance we have one application in right now that already has a mix of short and long-term rentals on the property and would want to continue that and they're already zoned and have a use permit for the the hotel use. So they would come in for the application is for we actually have two applications like that so the application is for just the PRH units. Got it. Well yeah I just want to make sure that we don't end up turning this into people we want this to be used for housing I wanted to stay as housing. The other question I had is these are the proposed nine here are in just two districts but do we expect others from other parts of the county? I know that there are some places in the first district I think they're in the coastal zone so that's why we aren't seeing them here. Yeah so at the beginning of this process I did do some research on the locations of all the hotels in the county and came up with a list of properties that were formerly hotels that are now used as housing it was mostly in the fifth district and the second district there were some properties in the first district as well just from that research project and we did have an informational meeting in September and we reached out to a larger number of property owners and not everyone wanted to participate at this time. So some of the ones that are currently that are former motels but have an unclear status let's just say you're not holding them back because they're in the coastal zone but they haven't really come forward. Yeah and we did meet with coastal staff and the way the ordinance is written is that if you are if you are zoned visitor accommodation or if you have a general plan designation of CV you wouldn't be able to participate in this program and the reason for that is it would be in violation of our general plan policy of priority coastal uses. So the Sunny Cove motel there on the coastal commission would not allow us to turn that into a house. Right I'm not sure what the zoning is on that site but if it's VA then I don't haven't looked at it recently. Yeah but if property was say zoned residential and used to be a motel a long time ago and converted to residential then perhaps that property would be able to join the district. Okay thank you thank for your work. Other questions I just I shared the concern about the storage aspect too but thank you for addressing that and I support this as another tool in our tool kit to try to address the housing crisis in Santa Cruz County and we've we've reacted to the accessory dwelling units and which were about what 640 square feet this is 150 to 500 square feet is that correct? 120 to 500. 120. Okay and you know in the short term rentals too there's a little concern there it says as currently proposed is there any reason we have that phrase in there we are just instead of saying the ordinance would not allow period? No. I just want to make I'd like to make it a little more definitive I think. Yeah well I mean. In the ordinance will you set phrase or in the staff report? I'm looking at the staff report here. Yeah partly the reason that's there is we wanted to let you know that this was also a discussion at the planning commission. Okay. And we made some revisions based on what the planning commission had to say so the current version. Okay got it. Okay because I'd like to make that more definitive and which you will I'm sure but I a lot of some of these will be up in my district in the 5th district in the Santa Cruz Valley I think and RR and you know limitations there because of the overtax septic system and the traffic concerns as well but I think the important part of disallowing the vacation rentals to as was mentioned those were the major concerns I had but I just hope we don't see a lot of storage and boxes and whatever outside on the walls of these units but I think it's another good step that the county is taking to try to provide some housing proposals who this permanent room housing proposal I think it's another good step for us to address our housing crisis in Santa Cruz County so thank you. Very briefly before you were in public I mean overall I think this is a good policy I support the changes around the vacation rental one question you added the slide up that any additions or remodels would comply with the building code would they also apply with the the county ordinances around affordable housing set asides if they added seven units or four units would one of them have to be affordable that sort of thing. I am not sure I'm assuming yes but there might be something about not applying those fees to commercial vacation rental hotel kinds of places but for the permanent room housing units I would assume you know what we actually I remember now I'm so sorry we haven't fully landed on that part of it because there's a question about which fees would be charged etc and we were going to work those out in the time between this and when you actually see applications so when you see applications that will be covered. Okay so it would so it's going to be covered it's just a question of under what it looks like the planning director these are rental units and so at most they would be the affordable housing impact fee and as currently structured if you're doing additions you only trigger the fee if you're addition of 500 square feet or more so we're not anticipating that this is going to be a big fee revenue generator for the affordable one. Okay great okay let's open it up to the public if you'd like to comment please line up my name is Francis Padilla I represent six sites going through the current process there are no rental units in these six sites and probably won't do any additions either and we're in favor of the PRH ordinance amendment and look forward to finishing up with you. Thank you. Good morning I'm Maggie Ivy with Visit Santa Cruz County I read the staff report yesterday and I just wanted to make a few comments I think it's a great project and maybe there's an opportunity to expand it I'm not sure what the plans are for additional outreach when I reviewed the nine prior visitor serving properties the only one that I recognized was Bayview hotel in Aptos village so I'm assuming that every all the other ones have been non-visitor serving for the most part for a very long time they've never been part of our tourism marketing district for the visitor serving properties around the county so I guess I just wanted to encourage additional outreach you know there's been about a 20% increase by the time all the projects are built new lodging properties in our community that an increased vacation rental stock we have a lot more inventory online and coming online so it may be an opportunity for some of the aging and obsolete properties around the county perhaps the city Santa Cruz might want to look at this model as well I think it's a great way to create some more inventory for housing and then just one caution I was concerned about the Bayview hotel we have this beautiful Aptos village redevelopment project and that's the only visitor serving lodging opportunity right there in this very walkable area and it's in its current state it's obviously pretty compromised and I don't know that that's a compatible situation for that particular area of the county thank you I want to thank Visit Santa Cruz County too for we've engaged them in some discussions with them and trying to work with to see how we can accommodate them and work together in providing some adequate housing for more people so thank you I know the discussions are ongoing but I just want to thank you for Becky Steinbruner resident of Aptos first of all I want to say that I have attended almost all of the meetings that the planning department has held with these property owners because I do assist Miss Locke the owner of the Bayview hotel and I really want to thank Miss Allen for her wonderful her wonderful manner with the public she's been extremely responsive and very very approachable and I really am grateful for all of her good work and outreach with the public and her report today thank you it's been a pleasure to work with you I also have questions about the outreach to other facilities and that was brought up at different points during this process this could also be extended to convalescent centers that are in disrepair and I look at a couple in Live Oak actually the heart and hand is huge and I know someone who's there so if you drive around to the back there is a good percent of that facility that is not in use and I think that's definitely one to look at as is the manner that is now closed on 38th avenue I used to know someone that lived there too and it's now shuttered so I think this is a great opportunity and I have seen in sitting in on these meetings it's really the intent has been to recognize and legalize what has been going on for a long time and to really acknowledge the piece that it helps out in our community with housing what happened with this short term stay was that there are commercial properties like the house that could it could be more lucrative for them during the busy tourist season not to have someone there long term but during the slow term it would be a great help to them to keep them going economically and so I'm glad that the planning commission has allowed a 30 percent use for that and to that end it could specifically to the Bayview Hotel assist with which perhaps partnering with Cabrio College is an apprenticeship for their culinary arts and hotel restaurant management programs and those students could also work at the Aptos Village project where housing prices are way out of reach of most of students so I just want to congratulate Ms. Allen for getting this to this point and I want to say also that there has been some very significant damage to the facility regarding the Bayview Hotel and I was disappointed to see certain people in the community weighing in saying that it was going to be affordable housing and a real detriment and that is not at all the case. The Bayview Hotel is empty right now because of damage done by affordable housing. Thank you. Good morning honorable supervisors and members of the public. Doreen and Dionne Listener they're the owners of the former Arabian motel in Robroy Junction at Highway 1 and Freedom Boulevard. The motel was the first structure built in Robroy Junction in 1949 and has long been used as permanent room housing. I just wanted to voice my support for this program. I think staff and the commission have worked very hard on this. I think Ms. Allen has brought forward a really well thought proposal. She's worked hard on the exceptions and loopholes. It's always difficult to come up as you know with one size fits all regulations. A lot of these properties are very different. I would like to encourage your support of this program. I would like to encourage zoning amendment if you can and I think given the commission did modify it to require individual review at a high level. Each of these properties will have to be vetted individually and I think that will be an excellent safeguard for any concerns about things that might have been brought forward. I would like to encourage staff and then we could work on concerns such as storage. We do have some storage. The owners have no plans to change this building. It's very affordable. The residents have all met and voiced their support for this as well and we would love to work forward on maybe being able to put in a little bit on their deck. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it. Good morning supervisors. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you and to have the public input that is so important on something like this. I think that the creativity of this particular ordinance that is coming before you, the permanent room housing is a grand idea and to have it in a way is wonderful and of course Daisy has been absolutely incredible in the outreach and of course we really like Julie Conway. The face of this ordinance are your staff members who are really exemplary and I wanted to say that. One thing I wanted to mention as somebody who has been around since the general plan in 1994 when I sat through weeks of testimony one of the things that is confusing to me is the letter M as the mountain district because sometimes I believe it to be confusing with multi-residential and oftentimes I just wonder about that. Not anything to do really with this other than the residential mountain thing that's addressed here. One of my clients does have a couple of properties involved in this and has been provided by the community and has I think they are definitely community members who have done a really good job with this and they in fact are affordable by design even though they were under an affordability component in an agreement that was made actually the rents that they were always charging were less even than those provided by housing and community members out. So I just wanted to say that it is possible when things are by design to be affordable in there just the way they are what they are and how they are. So thank you very much for considering that. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment and I'll bring it back to the board. Just a quick question. Ms. McNair just brought up a question. Do you have did you do any kind of census to find out what these rooms are running for now? Yes. We did think about asking or requiring that as part of the application process for the rezoning. We ended up not requiring that but some of the applicants did give us that information. We arranged from about $700 to about $1,200 but they're and kind of everything in between and there's probably some that are a little higher. Some of the units are larger than others. Yeah. I mean it would be interesting for us to have a baseline of information until we were able to check over time whether these really stay affordable by design or not. I just think that's helpful to know that our policy actually accomplishes our goal so if there's a way to request that information so we have it and then we can get a report back at some time to just see where we are with that I think it would be very helpful. Thank you chair. So I appreciate the work of Ms. Alvin and others that have worked on this. I support the PRH in concept but not actually how this ordinance is currently drafted. In order for me to support it there are some changes that I would like to see. I have some concerns with what it could possibly allow and not necessarily provide the board or staff with periodic review. I'm still not sold that there's any compelling interest to allow short term rentals or not to me it's either housing or it's not. I think it's strange to have a 30%. I know that there was a higher percentage initially recommended by staff but I think that the fact that people are already interested in exemptions is a clue that what the board's actual intent is might not actually occur which is that either you want something to be a hotel and used providing that service to the community and the greater community or you want it to be housing. So I would be actually supportive of eliminating that. Specifically also I'd be supportive of making this have a specific review period or a conditional use permit. In San Jose it's a five year review. Right now as we know it's very difficult to bring up problematic properties for any kind of review. I think that if we had an established review period similar to what we do for cannabis I think that that would be important and specific to that since findings would need to be made for denial I think that the board under the current construct there's a broad health safety and welfare catch all but I think that we should actually enumerate what those things are on cannabis under zero one one zero well not directly akin to what we're doing here today obviously it does enumerate ways that things can be denied. I would have concerns with properties that have for example multiple criminal civil environmental violations properties haven't paid taxes properties haven't paid trans and occupancy taxes if you've been a recidivist and a bad actor historically I don't see why it was would be that the county would formalize this process and reward you and I'd like to see those elements brought back to the board so that we could actually have that I would also like I have some concerns regarding in the staff report it talks about the fact that once this were formalized there would be a hope or an expectation that some of these properties would be brought up beyond the substandard conditions that people are currently living in. I'd like to take a step back also to remind people that these are properties that are violating our current ordinance and we have people that are living in these units illegally they're living in substandard units and a lot of them not all and these things aren't being enforced and so when you look at the HUD checklist it's pretty top line I mean it says things like you shouldn't have a severe infestation of vermin it doesn't say anything about the conditions that lead to that it just says that that's apparently a qualification that the county then would be signing off saying is an acceptable housing condition for people to live in I just don't I'm not there yet on on how lax I think that that HUD checklist is it also doesn't say specifically which of those things within the checklist would be a denial it just says it's a yes no and there's no understanding of this board as to what it would mean that would be allowing people to live in so if they were improved which is a good thing then I think to Supervisor Leopold's point on the cost I would assume that rents could increase and then we could have a displacement situation and I would like to see something formalized that says that we either have the live work requirement that we have for other affordable housing investments that we do here where we're saying these shall be local residents these shall be people that live and work here and these shall not be things that are turned into in essence second homes for people over the hill you could envision a situation by which somebody could look at this unit especially if they're brought up to be nice and it becomes now $1,500 a month or $1,800 a month where that's cheaper than either a second home or a vacation rental and now you've lost the housing component but they're treating it as an actual residential unit which is something that wouldn't be within the board's intention so these are some of the concerns that I have that I think need to be addressed before I can definitely vote in favor of it but I also think that this is the intention of the board anyway if we're trying to provide affordable housing then you don't want displacement if you're trying to provide housing that's above substandard then we should enumerate what that is if you have people that have been historic bad actors then we should make sure that they're not allowed into the program and under the current construct what's before us none of those things exist so if I'm unable to it I'd like to see this item come back but with this information provided and options for these things addressed meaning that I would like to make a motion that would continue this item to April 23rd so what meaning is that that's April 23rd okay so for the April 23rd meeting but that would come back with these things addressed which would come back with a timeline for renewal of these permits and a cost structure for what that would be that would come back with something that allows staff to deny applications that have criminal civil environmental code or other violations historically or haven't paid taxes you can use to some of the degrees 7.130 1 1 0 8 which is the cannabis as a model although it's not quite perfect I'd like to see a live work requirement I'd like to make a statement that this is a proactive county investment in an affordable housing type and assuming that that is something that can be done legally okay I'll take that as a no we will look into it there may be some conditions but there are constitutional limitations on that so when we make investments into affordable housing specifically we're able to make those requirements correct so in a measure J unit you can make a statement that has a live work requirement locally correct what would be the fundamental difference then if the county is making a proactive statement here and is it just that we're not investing an actual dollar correct they're not included in the regulatory program and they're not included in an affordable housing investment program so they're treated differently for purposes of constitutional limitations that's not to say that we couldn't craft something that might address this concern it's just it may not quite rise to the same level as those deed restricted affordable units are understood I think that I appreciate that I'll say that it's probably within the board's interest so that we don't have displacement it's probably within the board's interest that this be addressing an affordable housing need for local residents I mean I think that that's a safe statement so the degree that it can come back with that as well and I would just like to take a serious look at and I don't know what the solution is what that checklist is with the HUD checklist some of those conditions to me really aren't something that we don't know where it it is that that cutoff would occur but if two or three of those boxes were checked yes in my opinion if one of those boxes were checked yes I would be concerned with it and so I just like staff to come back with a with at least an explanation as to what would cause denial or at a minimum understanding I think the board's goal here is that we recognize that people are already living in these places we're not trying to codify people living in substandard conditions populations in this county with some sort of permit to continue people living in those substandard conditions so the sunset period or some sort of view period the checklist component some element of the live work to the degree that it's possible and then enumerating ways for denial including criminal civil environmental attacks violations similar to what is found in that and I don't know if my colleagues will be amenable to this but I don't think that there should be a short-term rental element in these properties at all I would second I support the idea of limiting or banning the use of short-term rentals I think that our policy goal here is for housing I would also ask for one additional request is that we actually ask information about the rental cost because in every five years we'd be able to collect that information to know whether our goal is whether we're in the neighborhood on our goal that's friendly yeah that's this all seems fair I mean the devil's gonna be the details of what actually would be adopted at the next at the next hearing of those components but I think having those before us for consideration makes sense do you have a comment no I mean the only thing I would say regarding the short-term rentals is that may impact whether some of the current applicants continue on in their process I understand that's how your report actually mentioned that there were two specific that express concerns so we have a motion and we have a second I'll ask all those in favor please say aye opposed that passes four to zero with a surprise or cap at absent so now we're going to move into closed session and I'm going to ask the county council if there's anything going to be anything reportable no okay and then we will re-adjourn at 130 for a scheduled item several for schedule items for discussion I'm going to call the meeting back to order for a 130 scheduled item and this is item number 16 to public hearing to reconsider resolution approving amendments to the unified fee schedule is allied in the memorandum of the CAO and we have our cannabis licensing officer here to present sorry so the proposed changes to the fee schedule are based on a current conflict we have in our fee schedule with our current code 7.128090 G and based on changes to the cannabis businesses as we're seeing them evolve basically they're all associated with changes to cannabis events so we needed to address those changes in the unified fee schedule as we do have pending cannabis events that are in the application phase currently great are there any questions so with these events at the fairgrounds yes are there any public comment seeing none I'll bring it back to the board I would move approval we got a motion by Leopold second by McPherson all in favor please say aye aye post that passes 4-0 thank you very much moving on to item number 17 which is to consider a proposed ordinance amending chapter 7.130 of the Santa Cruz County Code cannabis dispensaries and schedule the ordinance for a second reading and final adoption on April 16, 2019 is outlined in the memorandum of the CAO right back to you this item is continuation of the item previously proposed on March 26 there was additional language added for per the board's direction on county signage regulations and it typically prohibits the placement of billboards, roadside signs to advertise any aspect of cannabis business, cannabis paraphernalia cannabis products per the board's direction so those are the only changes I can review the remainder of I think we remember no short term memory loss here so are there any questions from the board are there any public comment okay this is an item that we heard in our last meeting was continued to make these changes I'll bring it back to the board motion by Leopold second by friend all those in favor please say aye opposed that passes 4-0 item number 18 is to consider a resolution authorizing the cannabis licensing office to pursue state funds from the Bureau of Cannabis Control for a cannabis equity program outlined in a memorandum by the CAO so the board resolution proposed is a resolution that's modified text from the BCC which is the Bureau of Cannabis Control it's the requirements that we have this resolution in place if funding is awarded to us so it is simply based on that and as the board has already previously approved the 7.136 and it was on the consent agenda earlier this morning so this is the last I dot for our equity program are there any questions the building suspenders feels to me any comments from the public seeing none I'll bring it back to the board I make a motion for the recommended changes motion by Leopold all those in favor please say aye aye opposed that passes 4-0 thank you for your work and bringing these items forward to us and cleaning up some of these areas and giving us an opportunity to apply for the state money finally we're considering item number 19 which is consider an update on the Santa Cruz County continuous process improvement initiative and direct the CAO's office to return no later than August 2019 with information on results of demonstration projects and next steps of the program as outlined in a memorandum by the CAO to make sure I'm on here good afternoon board of supervisors Elisa Benson with the county administrators office and I am the person who's gotten the pleasure of working to bring forward Primo our continuous process improvement program here at the county of Santa Cruz we have a great presentation for you today because we're really going to get to hear from employees I'm going to give you a quick overview of the program just more for our watching public and then we'll get into what we've been doing in the last six months so as I mentioned the purpose today is a six month check-in we were before this body in early October sharing the concept of the program and how we were going to move forward in this first year to introduce continuous process improvement and in particular lean here at the county of Santa Cruz so we're going to talk a little bit about our activities between then and now and then really dive into the demonstration projects which is really the foundation of this first years of activities we will have four of our 11 demonstration project teams present to you today about how it's going what they're learning, what the experience has been like and then we'll close with some observations and some questions and Eric who has been our lead on the demonstration project component of the program will be covering a lot of it and then we'll turn it to our teams very quickly for our viewing public continuous process improvement is really a broad workplace philosophy it's based on incremental change processes and really empowering employees to do that work as they know the work and the processes best this is not a new thing it's been around for 70, 80 years and the most current and common method is lean Six Sigma and that's what we're utilizing here in the county of Santa Cruz I just want to briefly call out what our mission for the program is and it's really to build a common culture of improvement centered on customers driven by employees and focused on measurable outcomes so that's our vision as we move forward then in terms of the program itself and how we put it together in this first year is we recognize there's a number of objectives first and foremost process improvement is not new to this county it's been done in different ways and methods by all different organizations and one of our real broad range of experience across our departments so one of our goals is really to create a more common language and methods and practice so we really can support each other in d