We'll move on to item four. Announcement by board members of items removed from consent to regular agenda. Any member of the board like to remove any item from consent? I would like to remove item 29 to the regular agenda. I personally received over 100 emails on this topic. Probably that was last night's count. So probably many more this morning. So I'll move that to be heard after item 11 on our regular agenda. Do you want comments from the board on the consent agenda at this point? I'm going to take public comment first. This is just items to be removed from consent agenda. All right. Then we'll now move to public comment. Any person may address the board during its public comment period. Speakers must not exceed two minutes in length or the time limit established by the chair, which will be two minutes. And individuals may speak only once during public comment. All public comments must be directed to any item listed on today's consent agenda, closed session agenda, yet to be heard on regular agenda, or topic not on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the board. Board members will not take action or respond immediately to any public communication presented regarding topics not on the agenda, but may choose to follow up later, either individually or on a subsequent board of supervisors agenda. And with that, I'll open it for public comment. I believe we had one person who our HSA director wanted to introduce. Clerk, if you wanted to start with that. Director Morales, your microphone is available. Thank you so much, board of supervisors, for allowing me to speak in. I just want to send my gratitude for that week's approval of public health week in the fact that you took the time to recognize this important significant week for us in public health. Maybe if you know that National Public Health Week is an annual event and it recognizes the hard work of our community efforts, including obviously all of the mason work that we've done over the past two years to try to end the pandemic, but public health week goes much more beyond just emergency response. It has decades of really serving our communities, focusing on prevention and thinking about community engagement and community empowerment. And we've seen a lot of great movements to improve health over the decades, including our tobacco prevention efforts, our seat belts, our helmets, you know, our work on all health in our community, physical activity and health eating. And so I really just wanted to thank the board for acknowledging public health week and really setting precedence for the importance of this field in our community. As such, I also wanted to take the opportunity to introduce our new public health director, Emily Chan-Shi, has been with us since 2018, serving in our public health department in behavioral health, and now we're very pleased to announce her as our new public health director. She comes from other counties serving, you know, multiple jurisdictions, has over 20 years of experience, both in public health at the local level, working with community-based organizations and counties. So I'm very pleased that I know that Emily will continue our proactive work to move our mission forward as it returns to public health. So with that, I want to introduce Emily. I know she's there in person with you guys. Thank you. Thank you, Director Morales. Good morning. Thank you to the board of supervisors and to Director Morales for those kind words. I want to thank the board for proclaiming last week, April 4th through 10th as National Public Health Week. The theme this year has been public health is where you are. And now in a lot of ways, it is both a physical location of where public health is, which is all of us, no matter where we are, as well as a philosophical mindset of how the last couple of years have really impacted how we think about public health. It is a time to acknowledge and support our public health professionals. Our workforce here in our county has been dedicated and passionate of our public health mission, vision and values. Our local vision is better health every day for everyone. And our mission is to collaborate with the community to promote, protect and improve the health and wellbeing for all. So this work really resonates as we announced National Public Health Week with your support as a board and for our community to continue to grow and improve. Our public health professionals are a part of this community and preparing for a range of impacts and threats, including diseases and emergencies. Our teams are made up of health educators, epidemiologists, health program specialists, clerks, administrative aides, public health nurses, analysts, the list can go on. It's a really robust, diverse and passionate group of people that we wanna recognize and thank every day. So our work is a collective impact approach with our community partners. So when I thank our public health professionals, I thank our community. Our partnerships we have to improve our wellbeing goes beyond just the county walls. And finally, I wanna end with acknowledging that the future of public health is changing and there's a lot of great opportunities to come out better as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. So we encourage your board's support in our efforts to continue doing this work for our community and serving. Thank you. Thank you, Health Director Chung and congratulations on your new position. Good morning, my name is James Ewing Whitman. It's April 12th, Santa Cruz County, California. Excuse me, what are there 3133 counties in the United States? You know, I was really hoping that Bruce McPherson was gonna be here in person, so I'll save some information for when and if he ever is here in person. It's interesting that Ryan Coonerty and Zach Friend has not, have not been here once since this was opened up to the public. So yeah, wow, we have a new health person now or unhealth person, whatever you wanna say. You know, I've only been following, you know, alternative histories for about 25 years. It was background information for when I was professionally at work. So let's see with these vaccines. Thanks to Ronald Reagan on, what was it? November 13th, 1986, there's immunity. There's a lot of issues going on.  It's rather disgusting. I'd be happy to discuss this with any professional. And as I feel a lot other community members would, I wish more community members were actually here. We have a lot of situations that are going on. Why aren't people presenting you guys with notices of liability for the businesses you have destroyed and for the men, women, children and elderly that you have irrevocably hurt due to what you guys are doing. So I wish there were more people standing up to just say, hey, we need to have more dialogue. You guys need to be accountable. But Santa Cruz County is just a corporation. You do nothing for the individual people, except hurt them. I wish I could say different. I'd like to see some changes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. Good morning. My name is Robin Leckett. I am the Child Welfare Director for Family and Children Services. And it's nice to meet you and to see you. I just wanted to thank the Board of Supervisors for acknowledging April as Child Abuse Prevention Month with the proclamation that I've already received and put up for my staff to see. The designation matters to our entire community and especially to the individuals that I am so fortunate to work with. Family and Children Services staff are committed to engaging and serving the families, children, and youth that we work with throughout our entire community. I also want to acknowledge and thank the community-based organizations that without their support and ongoing collaboration, we would not be able to support the families the way that we do. One of the things that we're continuing to focus on is how do we engage our children and our youth and our families in their own decision-making. They are the experts of their own lives and we are here to support them in being successful and maintaining their children in their home. Our ongoing vision is to ensure the safety, well-being, and permanency of children in our community. Thank you again for the proclamation, acknowledging and highlighting April as Child Abuse Prevention Month and the staff that I am fortunate to work with. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Shalaka Bonas and I love Santa Cruz. I'm here to say that I'm gonna address some of the climate that comes during public comments. I've worked with Supervisor Caput for many years. He is a kind and thoughtful man. Watsonville has more support and resources since his tenure there, not the cost of the beauty of Watsonville, keeping historic trees. I wanna say something about all of our elected officials in a process that we all took place in, whether it's their Board of Supervisors, whether it's their superintendent, fair support, whether it's an election or a sheriff. Every morning they wake up with our souls on their shoulders. They don't get a day off. They don't get time after five off. They don't get a weekend or a holiday without knowing that. If someone gets lost on their watch, whether it's because they weren't conservative enough or whether you agree with their decisions, trains or not, it seems that so many people are quick to pick up stones and rocks and branches and throw them and point their fingers and scream. That has nothing to do with if a life is lost, that that weight on the shoulders of our elected officials. I'd like to keep that in mind when we talk about the great work, the wellness and the volunteering for this job. Not many of us have a job where people come and scream at us, throw rocks and stones and are angry at us while we try to do our best for our community. I'd just like to bring that up after watching many, many public comments. Thank you so much for this time. Thank you Sherlock. Seeing no third people here in the chambers, is there anyone on the phone or Zoom that would like to address us? We currently have two speakers via Zoom. Call in user one, your microphone is available. As a reminder to star six to unmute. Hey, this is Marilyn Guerra. Thank you James for your comments. My comments relate to both item 43, about 4G and 5G and the wireless ordinance and item 23, broadband. And I'm, which is highly dangerous. I'm quoting from before you cut me off, cell phone task force frequently asked questions. So it's cell phone task force.org. And the question is, what's wrong with wireless technology by substituting radiation for wires? We are swimming in an ocean of artificial electromagnetic fields that are interfering with life itself. We are in effect electrocuting ourselves, our children, our pets, the insects, birds and animals trees and plants around us and all of living creation. We are killing the planet. Next question. This is about long-term exposure, right? Cancer that takes years to develop? No, the effects are rapid. Heart rate changes immediately. Blood sugar rises in minutes.  Using a cell phone to destroy brain cells in minutes to hours and can cause a stroke or a heart attack. Studies show that even cancer can develop within months of first exposure. When a cell tower is turned on, birds leave the area immediately, insects disappear, even slugs and snails vanish. Most of this takes no time at all. By proliferating broadband, you are increasing. Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Caller 2915, your microphone is available. Good morning, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I would first like to request that the public be given three minutes instead of two. This is a lot to talk about and this isn't enough time for us. The city council of Watsonville holds their council themselves to the same time limits as they hold the public. So I'd like the board to think about that out of respect to the public and to you, mutually. I agree with Ms. Garrett on item 23. And I'm happy to see in the report that there is a plan to put fiber optic under the SoCal Protect bike lane. I propose that the county do the same for the schools. I looked at the list of those projects and their schools and for the most part, and I agree. I think wireless is something that really needs to be investigated more. There are many reports out about negative impacts, especially on children. So let's put it in fiber optic to the schools instead of wireless. I want to ask your board to follow up on my earlier request that county fire department do an after action review of the CZU fire. Cal Fire refused to do that at your request. They gave no real reasoning for it, but we still need that information. So please have County Fire do an operational after action review of the CZU fire. I want to ask that this county become part of the RCRC, the rural county representatives of California. That is a strong rural county advocate on many pieces of legislation. Our county is not a member of that, but needs to be. They do good work supporting rural dwellers and we need to be part of that action and support it. I would like. Ms. Steinbrenner. Caller 8204. Your microphone is available. Please dial star six to unmute yourself. My name is Diane Dutton and I'm opposing agenda item eight on this agenda today. It's about the uncautified ordinance to adopt military equipment use. And my main objective is the second one and it states that the proposed military equipment use will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties. And this comes across as a feel good sales pitch to me in California and across America. I've already seen a coordinated attempt to intimidate voice in debates and efforts to intimate individuals based on their views. From school board meetings to the one-sided narrow minded COVID policies, people's civil rights and civil liberties have been violated by our government system. My major concern is that people with contrary views can be vilified and targeted with any or all of these military equipment being sought after today. So please don't know to adopt the military equipment use. Instead use the money in law enforcement training to help citizens and protect their constitutional rights which they've been sworn to do. Times ahead are gonna get tough and we really need people in law enforcement to help make this community work well together and not attack them with flashbangs and the such. Anyway, that's my opinion vote no on adopting the use of military equipment. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Evans. Joseph Thompson, your microphone is available. Hello, my name is Joseph Thompson. There we go. Hello, my name is Joseph Thompson. I'm an affiliate with the Student Housing Coalition. I'm a Starbucks barista working at Ocean and Water and also the State Assembly candidate for District 28. And I'm asking you guys to support SB 886, the Student Housing Crisis Act for a lot of reasons. Specifically, I'm a student at UC Santa Cruz and over 9% of students at UC Santa Cruz face housing insecurity and they're homeless and we need action. And although you may disagree with this bill, you need to recognize that students are still facing housing insecurity over carding conditions. And each year this project is being delayed. It's hurting the students who are going to be trying to get education at our universities. And although CEQA reform needs to be pushed forward, I'm asking you to support this bill because it's the best way to start that process and really gain the knowledge necessary to be able to completely look at reforming CEQA when it comes down to the law and how we need to really address these different issues. Not only do I think that housing and security matters for a lot of students, but it matters to the entire community. We're all facing multiple housing crises and every time a housing project wants to be put forward, CEQA is threatened to delay the housing projects and it's impacting students, it's impacting members of the community. It's hurting everyone. So I'm asking you to please support SB 886, the Student Housing Crisis Act because it's going to allow our community to not only move forward, but also push forward an agenda that is actually seeking to better students, better the housing crisis and fix the housing and security that has plagued Santa Cruz and other areas throughout the state. And we still need to, of course, balance the environment and local control and housing needs, but we need to do that by supporting SB 886 to really make sure that we're advocating for all students, not just the ones who already have a half housing, but the ones who will need it in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Palmson. There are no other speakers. All right, thank you.  Last call for public comment. Venan, you light Crowe, your microphone is available. Hi, thank you. I also, sorry, I'm a bit confused because I'm commenting on the SB 886 agenda item, but I'm unsure if I should be commenting now or if there'll be comment time when it comes for discussion. So I'll just go ahead and give that comment right now. Hi, my name is Venan Aliya Crowe. I'm president of the Student Housing Coalition and coming out today in strong support of SB 886 and asking you to deny the motion to oppose. I think we know that we're in a crisis and we know we need to make change. We know that 9% of UC Santa Cruz students are homeless and as is evident by our recent action drive where over 175 people sent in letters to the Board of Supervisors asking you all to please support SB 886, we know that we need to change. We know that there's a crisis and we know the status quo can't work. And so when we talk about this bill, when we talk about SB 886, essentially what it does is it eliminates a duplicative process that simply adds time, delays and doesn't, it opens up opportunities for student housing projects that are environmentally cleared under the long range development plans to be sued. And it opens them to the opportunities for people who have always been resistant to change to go ahead and stop students from having homes to put it very bluntly. And so really what we're trying to say here is what we're trying to advocate for is that we need change, we need to make sure that SB 886 passes and that comes with having more support from the local level. We need to have, you know, we always ask the university to do its housing and the least we can do is to make that possible, is to actually allow them and give them the tools to fulfill those promises. So please, I urge you all to reject the motion today and instead move to supporting SB 886. Thank you. There are no other speakers. All right, then I'll return it to the board for item six action on the consent agenda. This is items 13 to 64 with item 29 having been removed to the regular agenda. Yes, sir. Go ahead, Supervisor McPherson. Thank you. I'd like to comment on a couple issues on the consent agenda. Item number 19, backup generator lease with the Central Coast Community Energy. I'm very pleased that the Santa Cruz County was the first member of the Central Coast Community Energy to benefit from its $25 million uninterruptible power supply fund. The $2 million supplied by the fund will bring back three backup generators to critical county facilities. It's a triple CE is contributing back to the community. It was one of its main tenants for establishing the Community Choice Energy Agency four or five years ago. I am proud that our county led that effort and after five short years from startup we're already seeing these tangible benefits and they will be focused at our county jail, the Blaine Street Women's Facility and the Roundtree Detention Facility. I'm really happy to see item number 60, the Felton Remembers Parade. It will become back to Felton for the Memorial Day weekend. That is a tremendous event and it's good to see that we're gonna have it live and in color once more. That is all I have to say on the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Any other member of the board? Yes, Supervisor Coonerty. Sure, Mr. Chair. I just want to, an item number 42, which is North Coast Management Plan, take a moment to thank the park staff for pursuing this and allowing us to do some coordinated planning on the North Coast. Just so many different projects come online and it'll help get a better final product for our community and the visitors and everyone who enjoys our North Coast. Thank you. Supervisor Caput. Yeah, thank you. Just on item number 27, I'd like to welcome Marine McCarty to the Mental Health Advisory Board as the representative of the general public. Thank you. Mr. Caput, Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few items I'd like to speak to. Item 22, just a great appreciation to our general services team, our CAO, the office, CAO's office as well as our health department in regards to this pilot program on menstrual products. We have a lot of members of our community that are struggling financially and have been forced to make decisions about food and rent and other life necessities such as this. And so I think that anything that the county can do to help take away that stress and to offer these products is a commendable and necessary step. And so I'm glad to see that we've done this and I'm looking forward to as the pilot continues just learning about the additional needs that maybe the county can provide for in this regard. On item 23 in regards to the RFP on the master plan appreciation as well to the information services team on this as the board, as you may remember at our meeting in February, we had discussed the need to come back as quickly as possible to discuss a broader broadband master plan so we could have something in place in order to spend the approximately 11 million that would be coming down the pipeline from the state and federal government for middle mile projects. One thing though that the RFP seemed to be lacking one thing that the board had expressed interest in was how to immediately deploy some of those funds in known locations. And so I'm going to have additional direction on this RFP that I'd like to add in when it comes time for emotion but I'll read it in right now which is the additional direction that the following be added to the scope of work in the master plan RFP which is that as funding becomes available that there is a short-term investment plan to enable targeted rapid deployment in areas with known and immediate needs. So that would be additional direction on that item it's just another bullet point to that RFP so that when the company or organization or whomever is selected in the RFP to do an analysis that they also are required to identify already identified locations so that when that money comes down we can have a short-term deployment of it as opposed to just some of this long-term master planning that we're doing i.e. get that money out as soon as possible. On item 26, I'm very excited about this item and appreciate the board support on a pilot program for a digital wallet creation and looking at additional blockchain technology here in the county appreciation for a company that's partnering with the county called Humble in order to provide a no-cost pilot for us on this digital wallet. And I think that while there's still a lot to be done at the state legislative level in order to provide clarity in particular around virtual currencies the advantage here is that it gives us an opportunity to help influence the state process by having additional information that we wouldn't have otherwise if we didn't engage in the pilot and also engage departments to be ready for these changes in state and federal legislation that will really I think dramatically increase blockchain technology across the government usage of the local state and national level and also provide for over time the possibility of virtual currencies to be part of the county system maybe for payments for parks or maybe for payments for property taxes those are all things coming down the road but in the meantime there's a lot of things that we do that actually limit access in ways for those that are unbanked or that may use digital forms more than non-digital forms but I think that it's very important for the county to engage in this from an equity and access standpoint in particular for members of the South County that would disproportionately be advantage from this so I'm excited to introduce this I'm a lot of appreciation because I know this is putting another thing on the CAO's plate to take a leadership role on this but I think that our county has a real opportunity here to set a model across the state as to improving equity and access that fits into everything we're doing on the strategic plan so I'm looking forward to your support on that on item 28 I appreciate Supervisor McPherson joining with me on this local control issue this has been an ongoing discussion that we've had that the county we may have different positions over time on how cannabis proliferation should occur in our county but the one thing that the board's been unanimous about has been that we wanna have local control on this item and the item that's presented to the state level would remove that so I appreciate your support of our item on item 28 and item 30 appreciation also to Supervisor Coonerty for working on this anti-Semitism resolution as you know, it's been an issue not just across the state and country but just here there's been a number of incidents locally that have been very concerning and so I think that it's important that we take a formal stand on this and two Supervisor McPherson's points about some of the road work being done appreciation to public works item 57 in particular in Trap Gulch still digging out of those 2017 storms and it's no that there's still members of public works department really fighting to make sure that that funding comes through and that work gets done. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you Supervisor Friend. I also like to express my gratitude to Central Coast Community Energy on item 19 helping the county provide backup power at our public safety facilities on item 23. I'm also excited to see that we are moving quickly with getting those wireless access points in place particularly the four sites with the Live Oak School District and I think this RFP and the broadband master plan will help us really position well to get access for more middle mile funding from the state. On item 28, I wanna thank Supervisor Friend for putting this item on the agenda to oppose SB 1186 concerning medical cannabis. While I support the ethos of SB 1186 which is ensuring that more people have access to medical cannabis. I agree that it's poorly worded and would undermine local control and probably really undermine a lot of the local businesses that have worked hard to play by our rules and establish legitimate businesses within the county. So I support opposing 1186. And also wanna thank public works now the Community Development and Infrastructure Department for item 58, Storm Repairs on Old Santa Cruz Highway. And finally, I'm also happy to see the return of more in-person events, especially item 63 with the Wharf to Wharf and this will be the 50th running event. Is there a motion on the consent agenda? I'll move Supervisor Caput. I'll move for approval of the consent agenda. Second. And does this include additional direction on item 23, Supervisor Caput that I proposed? Yeah, that's fine. All right, we have a motion by Supervisor Caput, a second by Supervisor Coonerty for the consent agenda with the additional direction by Supervisor Friend. Any further discussion? Bert, please call the roll. This is for items 13 through 64 with additional direction and with the exception of item 29, Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Koenig? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll now proceed to our regular agenda and item seven to consider status report on formation of the Pajaro Valley Healthcare District, including initiation of district operations and Board of Director meetings, update on Watsonville Community Hospital operations and efforts to raise funds necessary for acquisition and operation to approve the expenditure by the CAO to acquire special legal services and appropriate insurance on behalf of PVHCD and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. And for a report on this item, we have our Health Services Director, Monica Morales. Go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for the introduction. We're very excited to be here with you today to provide you with an update on all of the different moving parts around the Watsonville Community Hospital. There's a lot of acknowledgement. I can't say everyone obviously but want to let everyone know that there's so many people in our community working to really move this effort forward. CAO Palacios and myself, I will start by giving you a brief introduction and kind of background on what's going on on the business operation aspects and then Carlos Palacios will continue by just giving you an update on what is going on with the fundraising efforts. So part of next slide, please. Part of what I wanted to start first is giving you a little bit of background to provide some context around the hospital. The hospital has about 106 beds right now. It employs about 620 folks and that's a lot of important people in our community. We know that it also serves primarily an underserved population and it offers very important services including OBGYN, pediatrics, medical surgical care and so forth. And so it really becomes an important anchor in our community. It receives about 41% of all emergency room visits in our county and that's significant because when you think about the need in our community we know that it plays a significant role for ER visits. It also delivers more babies than other hospitals in our county. So next slide, please. There's no question that this hospital is an important aspect of the life of health in Santa Cruz County. It also is a reality that it has experienced a lot of administrative setbacks. For example, over the past 20 years it's had more than 20 different administrations. It suffered tremendously from the COVID pandemic with high raising cost of labor and supplies, significant losses in revenue. And so unfortunately what this created is that it was no longer able to pay its suppliers, its employees and lenders. And so as you recall in December 6th it filed for section 11 bankruptcy. So the community came together very quickly in December to really put together the Parle Valley Health Care District project to move quickly in purchase, I'm sorry, to move quickly inform the health district to purchase the hospital. And so in February 4th, it was a significant milestone for our community that the governor signed the district into the health care district into law, very significant accomplishment for us. Next slide, please. And so what have we been doing over the past four or five months is really trying to understand what has happened in the hospital to cause its financial difficulties. You'll see here from this slide, it's a very high level slide, giving you so far a synopsis of what we're learning. And there's seven key items and actions that the project, the now newly formed district board is looking into. And so I'll start at the top with the first one, which is that the hospital, as you are aware, serves disproportionately a high percent of MediCal patients. What this means is that usually hospitals use revenue from commercial insurance plans to offset the losses from public insurances because they tend to pay less, right? In addition, we are noticing that the hospital has very high administrative property costs, including also expensive management contracts with external companies. And unfortunately, there's a reputation in our community right now where folks tend to want to skip the hospital, not get care from there. And so that unfortunately creates a loss in revenue. And so it's also important to recognize Watsonville has been standing as a standalone hospital, right? It can leverage, for example, physicians, IT supplies, like powerful large health systems can in our county. And when you look at also the physician capacity, it also has a very fragile current primary care services. And what happens is we catch them in the hospital, a lot of patients, but sometimes for the most part, they go over the hill or they go somewhere else to receive that specialty care or the primary care. And so that creates a loss for the hospital as well. I already talked about COVID, but we've noticed that with COVID, we had a significant bracing cost, labor. And so that created a really unfortunate situation for the hospital as well, compounding all of the other issues that I have highlighted for you. And finally, something else that we've noticed is that commercial payment rates are below market. And so what that means is that insurance companies are paying the hospital a lower rate for what we're noticing other hospitals around us get paid for. So this is in a nutshell some of the issues that we're noticing right now in the hospital. Next slide, please. And so over the past, I would say three months, we've had a lot of movement taking place. We're analyzing what the situations are. We've had the ability to work with strong consultants to really help us think, okay, how do we then reset and start thinking about a healthy business plan? So currently right now, some of the key activities that are taking place are looking at negotiating some of the contracts as I highlighted for you that were noticing or not paying market value, thinking also about the revenue cycles, doing assessments, what's the best way? How can we improve some of the services or the payments that are coming into the hospital? Also looking and monitoring all of pre-closing activities. There's about 300 activities or line items that are being assessed. We need support obviously in making sure that we don't lose the ability to track any of these because they can really impact the overall revenue of the hospital. And we're also looking at the possibility of using vacant spaces, spaces that we know are just sitting there that potentially can serve to create revenue and also bring in some of the care that it's needed in our community, such as behavioral health or rehab, as you know, it's very critical in our community. And also there's been a strong movement to bring in new leadership into the hospital. We right now have hired nearly full senior management in the hospital and that we're hoping also changes the dynamic of the operations in the hospital. Next slide, please. So specifically to the newly appointed District Board of Directors, they just formed three ad hoc committees. The committees will be focusing in three areas, fundraising, also looking closely at the transition and assessing some of the items that I've covered with you when it comes to some of the operations and business plan, and also looking at the clinical business planning for the hospital. They're gonna be embedded in a steering committee where they're gonna be analyzing which services should continue, which services are bringing profit, which services are important to our community. And looking at the type of resources that are needed for each of them, maybe tweaks that need to be made around some of the operations or implementation for some of these. And then finalizing that those key assessments into a strong business plan for the hospital moving forward. Next slide, please. So all to say is that we will come back to you but to give you an update, but you can see here just from this small summary that there's a lot of work. We know that this hospital is a strong anchor in our community, that it plays a significant role for the prevention and primary care of our citizens. And so we see a vision where we have a hospital that provides quality care at every step of a family's journey, right? In that it will create integrated care in a really open, equitable experience for our community members. And so that's why for us, the fundraising continues to be very, very important for us. So at this point, what I wanna do is pass in now to our CEO Palacios to continue and give you an update on what's going on with our fundraising updates. Great, thank you very much, Director Morales. I wanna provide a bit of context before I get into the actual dollar figures with regard to the fundraising. So on December 27th of 2021, the Pajaro Valley Health Care District Project entered into an asset purchase agreement with Watsonville Hospital Corporation for the purchase of the hospital and in order to return the hospital into public ownership. Now, it's important to understand that the healthcare district project is not the healthcare district. The project is a nonprofit whose sole mission is to create the creation of a healthcare district in the Pajaro Valley for the purpose of returning the hospital to public ownership. So that's an important distinction is that there's a nonprofit called the project. They've entered into an agreement with the hospital corporation for the asset purchase agreement. Eventually that asset purchase agreement will be transitioned into the healthcare district, which is the public body that this board appointed five more members to recently. And that will be the eventual owner and operator of the hospital. But right now the project is basically, so to speak, in escrow. It's the purchase agreement has been made, but the purchase has not been finalized. And so it's an important milestone, but it's also not the end of the, it's not the completion of the goal. So the two things that have to happen. One is that we have to raise enough money to complete the purchase of the hospital. We haven't raised all the funds we need to yet. So that's the biggest obstacle. And then eventually the project, which is the nonprofit, will need to transition that asset purchase agreement and to the healthcare district. And then the district will complete the purchase of the hospital and return it to ownership. That purchase has to take place by August 31st. So we have this asset purchase agreement that's been entered into with the hospital corporation, but it must be completed by August 31st. Otherwise the asset purchase agreement is no longer valid. So that's a very important deadline August 31st. So we can go to the next slide right now. So this is just to show you that there's a lot of support for the purchase of this hospital and returning this hospital back to public ownership. As director Morales pointed out, this hospital is critical not only to the Pajaro Valley, but in fact, to all of Santa Cruz County, over 40% of all emergency room visits were in Watsonville hospital. Imagine if that hospital had been closed during COVID. And we all know that we're still not over COVID that future outbreaks could happen. So that and other reasons, hospital's critical for our county. It's also critical for our region, right? The entire region of the Monterey Bay is also, it's important to keep this hospital open. So it shows you that we have labor support, other healthcare providers are supporting private businesses, nonprofits, local governments all supporting this effort. All of these listed agencies has either contributed funds or in-kind donations or just other forms of support to trying to keep this hospital open and returning it into public ownership. Can go to the next slide. So we know that we have to complete the purchase of the hospital by raising more funds. We have raised over $40 million that is either been collected or committed so far. And we know that we have to raise another 15 million by July to complete the acquisition and in order to have sufficient working capital. So go to the next slide and I'll go into the details. So this is a chart that shows the needs. We can, you can see that the actual purchase price of the hospital corporation was $9 million. The debtor in possession financing, which is basically the funds that are keeping the hospital open during the interim period between the entering into the purchase agreement and the actual final sale is 23.5. There's various other costs that end up costing about $40.5 million. So that is the acquisition cost, $40.5 million. We know that we're having to spend legal and consultant fees in order to facilitate the purchase of the hospital. It's a healthcare sewer where is an extraordinary complex field. This is not an easy thing to do. It's very complicated. There's lots of moving parts. And so we're gonna spend $2.6 million in legal and consultant fees to facilitate the purchase of the hospital. And then we know that we have to raise working capital. First of all, we are required that the project is the nonprofit is required to turn over $2.5 million per month in the interim period between the April 1st and August 31st when the sale will close. That could total potentially up to $12.5 million. Those funds are helping to keep the hospital open and funded during this interim period before the close of the sale. We also know that the hospital will have to have about $10 million in working capital just to keep their business going. Every business has to have a fund balance, has to have cash balances. And healthcare funding is very cyclical in nature. And so they've got to have a working capital. They also need to improve their facilities by equipment and other things. So altogether, we need to raise $61.7 million to complete the purchase of the hospital. Go to the next slide. Thank you. So these are the funding sources. So there's the budget, the 61.7. We've already got raised and committed 23.8 million. You can see County of Santa Cruz, 5.5 million. County of Monterey, 3 million. And then you can see the various other institutions that have already committed funding, including Driscoll's at 1.75 million. So we've raised 23.8 million to date. We know that we have strong expectations of getting $20 million from the state of California. There has been a budget request for this budget year, for next budget year rather, in the current discussions on the governor's budget of $20 million, Blue Shield Insurance Company has committed a million dollars. And then Driscoll's has committed a matching amount of another 1.75 million dollars as well. So we are expecting 22.7, 22.8 million. And so you can see that we've raised over $45 million, but we're still short, $15 million. And that's really the minimum we need. We'd like to have 20 million if possible, that would give the hospital more security and be able to purchase more equipment and so forth when the ownership changes. But the minimum amount is 15.2 million that we need to raise between now and August 31st or before August 31st. So we've made a lot of progress. We have come an amazing amount of weight towards the goal, but the goal is not achieved yet. We still have a shortfall of $15.2 million. Next slide. So we have a very active fundraising campaign. It's being led through a number of organizations, including the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County and the Ponderville Valley Healthcare District and the Health Trust of the Ponderville Valley as well. So these are just where you can give if you'd like to or the community would like to give. And we're gonna be very active trying to raise this funds over the next few months. As you know, we have a very tight deadline and we need to get the funds raised. So with that, I'll bring it to our presentation to a close. I don't know if Director Morales if you have any closing comments, if not, we'll go to the board for any questions in the community as well. No, thank you. CIO Palacios, you covered all the important topics. Okay, that concludes our presentation. Thank you. CIO Palacios and Director Morales for the presentation. Are there questions from members of the board? Professor Cameron, go ahead. Okay, thank you. I'm looking at all this and thank you, Monica, for your report and thanks to Carlos Palacios for all you're doing. It seems like everything we're doing, we're reacting to situations around us. I know everything has a deadline and we're working with the Paw Patrol River flood control right now. That deadline is coming up, $400 million project. And then we're moving some of our services down to the West Ridge property in Watsonville. And those are all deadlines that we're trying to meet. And here it is, South County again, in the center of all of the problems that are going on. So with the, is there any federal money? I noticed it's a state of California, 20 million, Blue Shield, 1 million, and Drisnals, we've got to thank Drisnals for their kind support on this. Is there any possibility of federal funding and maybe talking with Congressman Panetta? Yes, we have been in conversation with Congressman Panetta personally and with the staff. There are grants that we will be pursuing. The issue is that those grants take a fair amount of time to go through. And so there's nothing in the short term we can do, but certainly there are opportunities in the future for this hospital to get federal funding, federal grants, and we will be pursuing those. Okay, and then I think what jumps off the page to me, and maybe we're still talking with them though, if you look at it, we have the Kaiser Foundation, 3 million, we have the County of Monterey, 3 million also, Central Coast Alliance for Health, 3 million. Of course, our five and a half million from Santa Cruz County. What jumps off the page to me is even Sanford Hospital is over a million dollars and Drisnals, but Dominican Hospital, only 300,000 committed from them. I'm wondering, my twin daughters, Christine and, I'm sorry, Lorraine and Claire were born there at Dominican Hospital. They do great work with their maternity ward and they do a lot of good work with the twins that are born, which takes more care. Christine and Pauline, my other daughters were born at Watsonville Hospital. So what I'm getting at here is Dominican Hospital is going to looking at over $700 million to build a new parking lot and additional beds for their hospital. That's a huge amount of money. I'm wondering, do they realize, and I'm sure they do, that if Watsonville Hospital closes the parking lot there and the additional beds, a lot of them will be taken up by Watsonville residents that'll have to drive past the Watsonville Hospital if it closes and go all the way to Dominican. So their commitment, we appreciate the 300,000 but I think they need to up the alley and support this project. It's critical for South County as a disadvantaged community and also it's critical for the future of Dominican Hospital on whether or not how many they can actually see. And then the timing of all this, hopefully coming out of the COVID-19 crisis that we've had to be closing a hospital at this critical time is something that we have to get a hold of. So one last question after my comments here is that August 31st, is that written in stone that it can be extended six months or is this something that is gonna happen whether we can't extend it or what? Yes, Supervisor Caput, it is a hard date August 31st. Now, what would happen if we reached that date and we hadn't raised all of the funds and anything can happen, anything's possible but it is a hard date and it is something that we are not expecting any extensions or changes to. And so it's an event, we're treating it as it is which is a hard date that we have to meet all the expectations. Okay, but we are, at least we're thinking about trying to extend it, but I understand, yeah, it's a hard date, but we are looking at a possibility as flight as it might be to extend that date. Yeah, our focus is on raising the money and not getting to that point because you never know what would happen and right now it is a hard date. So our focus 100% is on raising that final $15 million so that we can close the sale and get this hospital back to public ownership. Okay, and last question. Thank you Carlos, the health trust, I don't see the existing health trust out at the hospital there. They do have money, I don't see that they're committing any money at all or is the possibility there? I mean, do they realize how critical this is? Yeah, yes, actually they have committed $6 million at this point and so that's what they've committed to date and as I said, we're in a very strong fundraising mode right now trying to raise more money from all over the community and certainly with the health trust given their history that they are actually a direct descendant of the hospital and that their endowment was actually came from the sale of the hospital. I'm sure they have been taking a lead role and they have been very cooperative and they will continue to be as they help us to raise the final $15 million. Okay, where are they on the funding sheet I'm looking at? You said $6 million, I don't see it here. Yeah, it's. Blind item number three. Yes, community trust of Pajaro Valley. It's called community trust of Pajaro Valley $6 million. It's a third item under capital sources. Okay, all right. And that's committed, right? That is committed, yes. Okay, is it possible to get more from them? Well, they've been very instrumental in helping us and we're definitely asking everyone to get more and we're certainly gonna be in discussions with everybody on this list giving more and I know that the health trust is a leader given their direct descendant from the hospital and we're gonna definitely be in discussions with them as well about anything else that they could commit and help us raise funds as well. I know this is a big priority for them as well. Okay, and I guess the other thing, the matching funds on Driscoll's challenge grant where is the challenge money gonna come in from that? They're saying if we have to come up with somehow of 1.75 million and if we do, where is that coming from? Is that public support? Do we have a fund that the money's going into to meet that grant? Yeah, that's private philanthropy that Driscoll's match is aimed at and we have an active philanthropy donation program that's been run both by the health district project the community foundation and the health trust all are running a fundraising campaign to get that 1.7 million dollar match. Okay, and the general public I guess can donate to that also. That is absolutely correct and they have, we already have received quite a bit of donations from just a general public. Okay, that's good. Anyway, like I said, these hard date deadlines August 31st is like tomorrow, the way time is going by. So we can't fall short. This is a deal or no deal like that old TV program. It's all or nothing really. We've gotta come up with this. It's critical to South County. It's critical to the whole County because of what's in the hospital collapses. The rest of the County is gonna fill the crunch. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. Other members of the board that would like to ask a question or make any comments. Mr. Chair. Supervisor McPherson. Yeah, I'd just like to repeat what Supervisor Caput said. I mean, literally the health of Santa Cruz County is in the balance here of how well we treat our County residents and those outside our County in Monterey County as well. So I wanted to mention thank you for your presentation, Ms. Morales, and their whole health services team and especially our CEO, Carl Spalacios and Mimi Hall, former health services agency director. And the five people who stood up and are the directors of the district, it can't be overstated and Senator John Laird, the work he did is, believe me, is phenomenal what he got done up there to establish the district and then have this $20 million grant hanging in the balance as well. So it can't be overstated how much elected and employed County employees have done for this cause. I just can't overstate it. It's the biggest challenge we have before us and I hope that we can have as many donations as possible to make this become a reality, to continue the operations at Washtenville Community Hospital. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Mr. Chair, I just want to briefly express a note of appreciation to our CAO and others who have been very actively engaging the broader community I'd invited. The CAO now twice to do community outreach sessions regarding this as well as Director Hall and some others when actually she's not Director Hall anymore but she still came to discuss the district and it's been very useful also in making people recognize what both Supervisor McPherson and Supervisor Caput were saying about how this is a very essential leg in the healthcare system here and if it falls and the entire system will collapse along with it. And so it isn't just viewing it as a South County essential, it's a countywide essential and I would encourage my colleagues who maybe haven't been as actively involved in the outreach specific on this as a, you know, it's true that we need to raise this money but also we all have our own individual contacts and capabilities to do exactly that. And so if you have organizations or if you have people you think that would be useful in this I would please take agency and don't just have this fall upon others at the county level to do it because we all have responsibility to ensure that this stands for the entirety of the county health system. It's been a lot of outreach on my office's behalf Supervisor Caput, one of the things that he was talking about is how essential this is and he can also continue that outreach to the agricultural community and others and for others that are the other board members or maybe people within your districts that I think that it would be important that you do the outreach and encourage and invite all of us to attend those outreach sessions so we can explain that issue because the timing is tight, the need is great and there are future generations within this community that are counting on us to get this right. We have one shot at this. We've been given a remarkable gift through state legislation and a remarkable local team but with that gift comes in enormous responsibility and future generations will judge us and how successful we are in the next few months to be able to stand this up and I hope that everybody takes that responsibility equally. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. I'll just add my appreciation for the CAO Palacios and CAO Morales. I know both you and your teams have been burning the midnight oil on this now for many months and it's nice to see that we at least have visibility to raising this huge sum of money and of course, we've already seen many members of our community make huge donations whether it's the Community Foundation, Driscoll's, Kaiser, Dominican or many other individuals but there's also much on the expense side of that sheet. I was trying to understand what is the monthly shortfall in operating revenue right now? There's the extension fees that we're paying which is about two and a half million dollars a month and then there's also this debtor and possession amount that we're paying which you mentioned was for to help cover operating expenses and that's almost 24 million dollars. So I mean, is that and roughly $4 million a month over the six month period? Does that mean that we're looking at something in the neighborhood of $6 million a month in terms of an operating deficit? No, the debtor and possession funding is from prior debt that the corporation has incurred over the year and also what they're incurring during this interim period but the actual operate, they've had an operating deficit per month. The good news is that it's actually been going down. So we've had various consulting teams that have come in as well as some of our own staff and the hospital staff working together with consultants and the good news is that this hospital can be turned around and it will turn around and it will be very successful. There's a lot of things we can do to make sure that it is thriving financially. So they've been having deficits. I know that the two and a half million dollars was originally negotiated based on what their original losses were projected to be but the good news is that they've been doing better and so we're hopeful. That's why if you notice on the chart that we had, it actually projected that there would be about $4 million of the 12.5 that we're turning over to them per month, we projected that they would have about $4 million left because they're doing better financially. So anyway, I think it's a hopeful sign and it's the sign of things to come. Okay, that's good. It's less than $2 million a month in operating shortfall but I mean, yeah, definitely a huge task to write the ship here. And then it was also mentioned that the lease for the property is a big part of the expense now and I know we're not actually going to acquire the ground under the hospital. I mean, will there at least be favorable lease terms for the real estate as we move forward after? Yes, the project as part of the asset purchase agreement negotiated a much reduced lease price with the owner of the property going forward and that is a set lease price. And so that will help the operating results of the hospital. And then we also negotiated in the asset purchase agreement a pre-negotiated sale price to purchase or purchase price for the land. So the hope is that over the next five years the healthcare district will be able to put together a financing plan to actually purchase the real estate as well. Okay, thank you. That will be, I'll continue to work on this and I'll be happy to spread the word as far as the additional, try to help raise the additional funds needed. All right, I have to know for the comments by the board, is there any public comment on this item? There's seeing none in the chambers, is anyone on Zoom? As a reminder now is the time for public comment please use the raise hand feature to place yourself in the queue. Caller 2915, your microphone is available. Morning, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Again. Thank you. I'm concerned as a member of the public about this that there is no public outreach really about it. It will be a tax base that the voters will be expected to approve. And yet I have seen no public meetings with other than board of supervisor meetings where people who will be paying, helping to pay for this and are helping to pay for it through the county's donations, we're not being involved. I think it's important to start having those meetings with the public right now to bring us on board to help educate us. And I'm really happy to see that to hear I'm coming in by phone that a business plan is in the works. I think it's important to ask why the commercial payments are lower for this hospital than in other hospitals. Will that be the same if it is publicly owned? And why are people going over the hill for special services rather than having them here and detracting from the Watsonville hospitals in revenues? I personally always go if we'd have to go to Watsonville hospital because the MRSA rate is much, much lower than Dominican hospital. I want to point out that Kaiser, Kaiser wanted to buy this facility and another hospital corporation wanted to buy it and they were essentially turned away. So if this fails, there is a backup I feel and I'm quite concerned about this headlong thrust into the project that in 2019, the trust, the Pajaro Valley Healthcare Trust was told by experts was not financial. Thank you, Ms. Steinmurner. Colin, user one, your microphone is available. Hi, this is Marilyn Garrett. You wouldn't be so rude cutting off people in mid sentence if they were there in person, would you? Anyway, I think COVID policies are further depleting and bankrupting hospitals. Community should belong to the community, more and more is being corporatized. A book that sheds light on this whole topic is and don't hang up on me. The real Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children's Health Defense. A comment on the book, the story of Dr. Fauci's rise and reign is really about the absolute corruption of our major institutions, government, medicine, academia and above all the press by Big Pharma and the Gates Foundation. Those of us who really do believe in science now have this book to help rid the world of that corruption. Statement by Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media and Studies at New York University and editor of News from Underground. From Ralph Pizzuilio, bestselling author of Job Raker. If you want to understand the role of Fauci, Gates, Pharma, CDC, WHO, Intelligence Agencies and the others played in planning, launching and profiting from the COVID pandemic, drop what you're doing and read this powerful and meticulously researched book. Your future, your family's future and the future of our democracy are at stake. Thank you, Ms. Garrett. There are no other speakers. All right, then I'll return to the board for action. I'm prepared to move the recommended action. I also can urge the chair that when we get comments that are completely unrelated to the to the agendized topic that you should feel free to step in and redirect people or cut them off. I'll second the motion. All right, we have a motion by Supervisor Coonerty and a second by Supervisor Caput. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, please call the roll. Supervisor Friend. Coonerty? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Onyx? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, then we'll now proceed to item eight to consider approval and concept of revised uncodified ordinance to adopt military equipment use policy pursuant to Assembly Bill 481, adding military equipment to the county's policies and procedures manual as military equipment use policy and adding section 1600 under title seven of the county's policies and procedures manual pursuant to Assembly Bill AB 481 to increase the county's transparency to the public. Direct staff to return to the board on and before May 10th, 2023 to provide manual report as required by Assembly Bill 481 and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the sheriff corner. So on this item we have Sheriff Jim Hart. Good morning, Chair, Board of Supervisors, Jim Hart, Sheriff Cooner. And as you may recall, Sergeant Robbins and I met with your board on March 22nd to introduce Assembly Bill 481, which is a military equipment use law that requires my office to inform you and the community of any equipment that we have that falls under the definition of military equipment. After your board took action on March 22nd, I felt it would be appropriate to supplement the findings section of the ordinance to more clearly reflect the required statutory findings of your board. You have the added findings requirements in your board packet. Your board has already approved our military equipment use policy which has not been changed or amended. Today I'm requesting your board to approve the revised ordinance which contains the added findings requirement language. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Sheriff. Are there any questions for members of the board? Seeing none, are there any comments from members of the public? Please approach the podium. My name is Lee Brokaw. I was excited about 481 because it provides a transparent look into law enforcement military equipment and it also outlines process and that process starts with notification with a document that doesn't change. When that document is carried forward for presentation it implies that there will be study and then an ordinance will be crafted. But to change that document in midstream is like trying to change a contract unilaterally. I take exception to that and urge the board to study and not react as Peter Goebbels has a message to this board. We're playing a game of hide and seek about assault weapons and I find that offensive. And I have expressed myself about that in a letter to the board. I would like to share with you 7071 2D1 talks about the board determining all of the following no reasonable alternative, safeguard the public's welfare and cost effective with respect to military equipment. And to that end, I asked last night at the meeting with the chief of police for Santa Cruz, how do your policies protect the citizens of Santa Cruz? Another person on the chat whose name is available if you chair to look, responded, the police need protection from the citizens of Santa Cruz with military level equipment. This is what it's come down to us versus them. We have accepted the version of crime from law enforcement for way too long. And it's time that we take a fresh look at what they are doing and what they are using in the way of equipment. Thank you, Mr. Brokaw. That was short and sweet. I don't know if I'll be as short. I certainly probably won't be as sweet. Yeah, what about the military weapons that aren't being talked about? Specifically talking about the military weapons and the inoculations that so many people in this room are promoting and even the hospital is promoting. What about the military weapons that are the frequency weapons? I remember giving a talk in the city of Santa Cruz late 2019. At that time, you could walk into public works and look at sets of plans. So I was curious about the phased array technology that was specifically being installed diagonally across the street from the main mail service area. So, you know, this military weapon is only one watt. You know, it still has incredible power depending on how close it is to your body. The frequency phased array antenna had one that was a set of eight, 300 watt and then three, 500 watt. So that may not seem like a lot of energy, but this is only one watt. This is an incredible amount of energy. On my last count, there's over 50 phased array antennas now in this county. Anything that can be done with a pill can be done thousands to millions of times faster with frequencies. So, although I read this information, I have 40 seconds. Some notes that I took. On page 33, I don't know how many pages. It looks like it's a thousand. Number eight, weaponized aircraft vessels or other vehicles of any kind. That's really rather broad. Also on that page 33, number eight, shock wave, microwave weapons, water cannons and long range acoustical devices. So those phased array antennas are long range acoustical devices. And there's a lot of damage that can happen from just this one watt microwave weapon, which is a modern smart phone. Smart surveillance military armaments for residential technologies. Morning Chairman. And those listening in, I just wanna emphasize a few things. And I'm speaking here on behalf of dozens of people who didn't have time to really prepare notes and appear to this meeting. Brief couple of comments on some things that have already been said, especially by Becky Steinberg. Limiting speaking time to two minutes is not adequate. Having short hybrid meetings is not adequate. The supervisors of this county work for us and not the corporations above who pay you. And we need some town hall meetings where a lot of people could sit around and talk and debate as needed. With a lot of gratitude to those who've been working on the Watserville Community Hospital as a proposal that needs broad public support. And I certainly support that. But I'm here primarily to speak against item eight. This is insanity as James and Lee have already spoken. This is something that needs further extended public review. And I disagree with the comments from the sheriff. And I disagree with all the comments that have ever been made so far. And if this is not put down now, some of you may not be here next year. We will not continue to pay you for doing things that are not submitted for broad public approval. And I surrender. Thank you, sir. Are there any comments from members on Zoom? As we currently have three, caller 2915, your microphone is available. Hello, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I want the board to discuss publicly, Mr. Brokaw's message stating that the inventory has been changed back and forth over time as this matter has been brought to the board. That does not support transparency and does not instill public trust. I agree with the previous caller. This should not be approved now. It should first go to a broad town hall meeting. You know, this is a very controversial topic. Please do not approve this and instead have a town hall meeting that is well-noticed and gather the public input on this to make this a better issue. I support safety for our law enforcement people. It is a crazy world out there. I don't know if bringing in military equipment really supports safety for anyone. I don't understand why military equipment would have to be brought in and would much rather see a better level of training for our law enforcement people to make them more aware and not focused on things that may make them oblivious or less aware of things going on around them. But the fact is, it is a crazy world out there. And you only have to look at the Salinas police officer that was shot and killed recently in a traffic stop to see that. But I'm not sure that bringing military equipment to our community, the whole guise of it is the right thing to do. And I request that the phased array technology also be disclosed. That is a weapon and it is a military weapon. And I request that it be disclosed in a town hall meeting. And I hope... It's time, Bernard. Peter Geldlum, your microphone is available. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Thanks. I'm generally a believer very strongly in the power of elected government to benefit residents. But I'm really very sorry to say that your behavior on this item is shaking my confidence very badly. It was clear at the March 22nd hearing that not one of you, not one of the supervisors had actually read and studied the sheriff office submissions because it very clearly violates AB 481, but nobody cared about that apparently because you hadn't actually read it. The amendment before you today, in my view, is the most cynical effort of all in this subject by the sheriff who I generally greatly admire and County Council. Contrary to what Sheriff Harf said a few minutes ago, AB 41 is not about providing you an inventory. That's one part of it. He must provide an inventory, but he also must, and this is the crux of it, provide use policies for each and every military weapon on the inventory. And those use policies must include very specific matters and they do not, and it's clear, it's not subject to controversy.  Today, what you're being asked to do, and it was the result of my conversation with County Council, not a review by Sheriff Hart. You are required to make certain findings about how the use policies protect civil liberties and benefit the community. It's right in the statute, it's been cited to you in what I sent. And yet what County Council has proposed through the sheriff is that you just add those findings to the ordinance without actually studying them, analyzing them and actually making the findings themselves. You have 180 days, there's no rush. You have 180 days to review this and make a decision. I beg you, I urge you to take that time and not approve this today. Thank you. Mr. Bill Bloom. Colin, user one, your microphone is available. I agree with the previous speaker, if this needs to be halted, studied further. In my opinion, military weapons do not belong at all in communities. There are, in my opinion, already too many ways the public is being harmed by weapons that are presently used and by the phased array and microwave weapons. These are microwave radiation weapons, the drones of what has been stated. And I just want to end with a quote by Barry Trauer, who was with the British Navy Microwave Weapons Program and expert in microwave radiation weaponry. To my, and you can see him on YouTube, B-A-R-R-I-E Barry Trauer, T-R-O-W-E-R. To my knowledge, microwave or radio wave sickness was first reported in August, 1932, with the symptoms of severe tiredness, fatigue, fitful sleep, headaches, and tolerability and high susceptibility to infection. Unquote, the paradox of course is how microwave radiation can be used as a weapon to cause impairment, illness, and death. And at the same time be used as a communications instrument. Unquote, check out Barry Trauer. These are weapons against the community with the microwave technology and what Sheriff Hardt is listing. Thank you. There are no other speakers. All right, then I'll return to the board for action. The motion would be in order. Mr. Chair, I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Motion by Supervisor Friend, second by Supervisor Coonerty. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Onig? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Then we will now proceed to item nine, a public hearing to consider proposed 2022-2023 benefit assessment service charge reports for various county service areas. An adopt resolution confirming the benefit assessment service charge reports as outlined in the memorandum from the deputy CAO, Directive Community Development and Infrastructure. Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Sonia Likens, and I will present items nine and 10 on the agenda on behalf of Public Works. The item before you is a public hearing to approve the benefit assessment service charge reports for various CSAs. The recommended actions conduct a public hearing to hear objections or protest, if any, to the proposed 2022-2023 benefit assessment service charge reports for the various county service areas, then close the public hearing and following the public hearing adopt resolution confirming the benefit assessment service charge reports for the various service county areas. Thank you. I will open officially the public hearing. Are there any questions from members of the Board? I did have one question, Ms. Likens, which is I see that we are increasing the CSA rate for some of the listed CSAs, but not for others. And why aren't we just increasing all of them by the consumer price index increases? And I heard this morning on the radio that 8.5% CPI increase from a year ago, and at most we're contemplating 3.2% for some of these. Yeah, why not just sort of increase it for all of them? So for the road CSAs, they elect if they've previously had a successful election based on Prop 218, they are able to increase by CPI. So they have that option. Many of the other CSAs are not road CSAs and it would require a separate county-wide election to do that. I see, so this increase was at the election of the road CSAs themselves rather than the record. Exactly, a few of the CSAs have elected to increase by CPI. It's not very many. It's always a very few each year. Okay, and I see that for this item, 3.2% is a contemplated increase, but for I believe it's item 11, it's 4.2%, what's the discrepancy between those numbers and why it's about? I can't really speak to number 11, that's a sanitation. I believe Director Edler will be able to answer that question. And so how is the 3.2% determined for? That is used by the U.S. labor rates that we received and it's based on the previous year average. Okay, thank you. It's the same one we've used every year. Seeing no other questions for members of the board, I'll go to the public. Are there any members of the public that wish to comment on this item? Yep, on Zoom. Everyone speaker, two speakers for you, Zoom. Caller 2915, your microphone is available. Thank you, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. My community is in a couple of different CSAs, one for road, one for fire protection. The issue our road CSA has always had is the very high cost of administration by the county. What rate is the county administration percentage taken when road CSAs do projects and how much will that be increasing this year? If you'd like to answer the question, go ahead. So we don't have a rate. The charges for road CSAs are based on services that are rendered, auditors work, public work, employee time on various road CSAs. It of course increases if you have work done or if you have a large project. For large FEMA-based projects, it can be dependent on the federal share, which is 75%, the state shares 18.75 and that requires a local match by the residents of 6.25%. On top of that, there are items that are not covered by the state and fed. So those items are passed along to the residents. It can be about 20% overall of the complete total amount of the project. Thank you. Thank you. User one, your microphone is available. This is Marilyn Garrett and benefit assessment. I think you should just call it increased taxes to be lucid about it. And I think we're already paying huge amounts of taxes. And there's a time when a lot of people under these lockdown measures have been put out of work, can't afford to pay bills. And I'm just opposed to this. And I don't see much that the county is doing as you heard from comments on military weapons. What is the county actually doing to benefit the public instead of harm the public, like with all the broadband? I don't like what my taxes are going for against my will and decision making and input on this. So I, as a citizen, vote no on this. I just paid huge property taxes. Thank you. Miss Karen. David Hawkson, your microphone is available. Yes, thank you so much. So I'm calling with regard to CSA 46. And just, I think you guys know this, but to make the record clear, these increases are not about increased taxation. They are, the reason the CPI is used is because they are used to actually keep us up to date so we can make the improvements and maintain our roads with what the current cost is. And recently, of course, it's astronomical. With CSA 46, I would like to say, please push this through. My only frustration with it is that when the vote went out, it did not include the fact that we are asking for a one time increase because of the fire damage that we need and we have a a FEMA grant that we were trying to take advantage of, we have to match it. So we've all looked at this, the only frustration with people that are getting confused and they're saying, wait a minute, maybe I don't want to do this. They think that this massive increase is going to go add in to an item. And that is not true. And we need to get that through to people. Otherwise, we're going to have to go through this again immediately. We have to do this. There's no getting around it. Thank you. There are no other speakers. All right, then I'll return into the board for action. The motion would be in order. I'll move the recommended action. I'll second. The motion by Supervisor McPherson, seconded by Supervisor Friend. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Clerk, roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Supervisor Coonerty. I believe their feet has frozen. Caput. Good. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Koenig. Aye. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we'll proceed to item 10. A public, sorry, I'll close the hearing on item nine. I'll now pursue to item 10, a public hearing to consider proposed 2022-2023 benefit assessment rates for County Service Area number 16, number 21, number 26, number 36, number 46, number 55, and number 58. And request the submittal of ballots for the proposed fiscal year 2022-2023 benefit assessments. Continue the public hearing to May 24th, 2022 and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the Deputy CAO, Director of Community Development and Infrastructure Department. I'll officially open the public hearing. And for a presentation, Ms. Leichen. Thank you, Chair. The item before you is a public hearing for the benefit assessment rate increase to the following CSAs, CSA 16, 21, 26, 36, 46, 55, 58. And these are all requested by the CSAs. These are increases that they've requested an election for. The recommended actions are open to public hearing and hear objections or protests, if any, to the proposed benefit assessments. Request the submittal of all ballots, propose 2022-2023 benefit assessments for the CSAs, close the public comment portion of the public hearing and continue the public hearing to May 24th to allow for tabulation and certification of the ballots. Thank you. Are there any questions for members of the board? I just have one question. The rates for this item, I think we saw an initial rate estimation in February 15th, the engineer's assessment. And many of these rates are a little bit higher. Is that just because it's determined that costs have continued to go up since February 15th or is there some other reason? So they determine what they want to do. So in the case of one CSA 46, they realized they needed to raise money to cover their share of costs for their FEMA project and they elected a certain dollar amount. They can also elect a time period for it. So all of these vary in rates based on what the CSA needs are. All right, thank you. So any member of the public that would like to comment on this item? Anyone on Zoom? One speaker via Zoom, calling user two, your microphone is available. As a reminder to star six, if you are calling in by phone. Marilyn, Karen, what is this for? Was specifically to benefit, so supposedly benefit for. And the other question I have, this means that it will be voted on by members of the public by ballot, whereas the previous item number nine didn't require that. Could you elaborate on those? Answer my questions, please. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Carrad. Why don't we take questions at the end of the public comment period? I'd be happy to pose the questions myself. Is there any other speakers? There are no other speakers via Zoom. Okay, then I'll close public comment. We heard a couple of questions about the balloting procedure particularly. Could you answer this? Yes, the ballots only go to the CSA residents for each vote that is requested. So for CSA 16, only the residents of Roebuck Drive would receive the ballots for 21 and on and on. They, the benefits that are received are by each individual CSA for work that they choose or need to have done on their road. These are all road CSAs. All right, thank you. And we'll return it to the board for action and motion would be in order. I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Motion by Supervisor Friend, second by Supervisor Coonerty. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Oh, sorry. One question. One question. New back. Some of them may, it's just my own confusion. Some of the rates are gonna actually go down, is that correct? It says the existing rate per parcel parcel and then proposed to rate. If you look at Riverdale Park Road, some of them are going down, is just for my own knowledge, please tell me why. Yes, Supervisor, with CSA 55, they have changed their calculation of rates from a flat rate to a price per foot. So it's based on the location of the APN. So in fact, many of the CSAs in 50, or residents in CSA 55 will see a reduction. There were a handful that we're gonna see a bit of an increase, but again, it's something that the CSAs have met and discussed and requested happen. Okay, that's kind of nice that actually something's going down when everything else is going up. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. There's no further discussion. Clerk, roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Community? Aye. Caput? Aye. The person? Aye. Honig? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. I will now end the public hearing for item 10. We'll proceed to item 11 to adopt a resolution confirming previously approved consumer price index increases in benefit assessment rates for County service areas two, five, seven and 20. Adopt resolution confirming previously approved rate for CSA number 10. Adopt resolution scheduling and public hearing on June 7th, 2022 on proposed benefit assessment service charge reports for the various CSAs and take related actions as recommended by the Deputy CAO, Director of Community Development and Infrastructure. I'll officially open the public hearing. And for our report, we have Assistant Director Kent Edler. Good morning, Chair Koenig and Supervisors. I'm Kent Edler, Assistant Director of Public Works with the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure. This item is regarding increases to the sewer system benefit assessment rates for CSA 2, Place de Mer, CSA 5, Sand Dollar in Kenyon, Del Sol, CSA 7, Boulder Creek, CSA 10, Rolling Woods, and CSA 20, Trussell Beach. So these CSAs with the exception of CSA 10 are proposed to be increased by the consumer price index. For CSA 2, Place de Mer, this results in a $4.40 increase per month for apartments and homes and $4.74 increase per month for the town homes. For CSA 5, Sand Dollar in Kenyon, Del Sol, this results in the increase of $6.58 for the Sand Dollar homes and $5.52 per month for the Kenyon, Del Sol homes. For CSA 7, Boulder Creek, this results in the increase of $6.58 per month plus 30 cents per 100 cubic feet for the clubhouse, $7.21 per month for the condos and $8 per month for the single family dwellings. For Trussell Beach, CSA 20, this results in $13.04 per month for all properties and the rates for CSA 10, Rolling Woods will not be increased, so they'll be the same as last year. So the recommended actions are to adopt a resolution confirming previously adopted consumer price index increases and benefit assessment rates for CSA 2, Place de Mer, CSA 5, Sand Dollar, Kenyon, Del Sol, CSA 7, Boulder Creek, CSA 20, Trussell Beach. Two, adopt resolution confirming previously established rate for CSA 10, Rolling Woods slash Woods Cove. Three, adopt the public hearing notice and adopt a resolution setting June 7th, 2022 at 9 a.m. or thereafter. It has the date and time for public hearing on the proposed benefit assessment sewer service charge reports for CSA 2, CSA 5, CSA 7, CSA 10, and CSA 20. And finally four, direct the clerk of the board to publish the notice of public hearing once a week for two weeks before the hearing in the newspaper of general circulation. And I'm available for questions. Thank you, Assistant Director Edler. Are there questions for members of the board? Seeing none, are there any members of the public who should comment on this item on Zoom? We have one caller, calling user one. Your microphone is available. I wanna thank you for your presentation of the specifics of the costs and what area they're in and who they will be assessed on. I didn't hear that on the previous presentation. So thank you for that. And again, I'm opposed to these increased rates. Thank you. There are no other speakers via Zoom. All right, then I'll return to the board for action. Move the recommended action, Mr. Chair. Second. Motion by Supervisor McPherson, second by Supervisor Coonerty. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. Burson. Aye. Onig. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. We'll now proceed to item 29, which was removed from the consent agenda. And to begin, this item is on SB 886. Supervisor Coonerty, you had put this on our agenda this morning. Could you give a brief description of why you thought we should oppose Senate Bill 886? Sure, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I put this on at the request of our delegation in Sacramento, who have been working with us in order to mitigate the potential impacts of UCSC's planned growth in their next long range development plan. It should be noted, I think that Miss County and the city as institutions have never opposed university growth for its own sake. We've always asked that and understood that the University of California, San Cruz needs to grow in order to educate the next generation of California students, but that it needs to be done in a way that mitigates the impacts on the community as well as the students who and faculty and staff who are all caught in the impacts of increased traffic and housing prices and water shortages and beyond. This bill, I think we've gotten, as you mentioned, we got a number of emails about it. And I think in some ways we are all in agreement about the outcome. It's a matter of strategy. So we want UCSC to provide housing for 100% of its new enrollment on campus and a percentage of faculty and staff are currently litigating that because their current LRDP, EIR does not make a binding commitment. It makes a loose commitment to that. And as we all know, building housing anywhere is difficult and expensive and challenging. I would be supportive, frankly, of this bill if it came with a commitment that if in order to waive these regulations, which I believe are important as it's part of the city's overall water supply and different projects can have impacts on different natural habitats and other aspects of the campus. If it came with commitment from the legislature to house 100% of the students on campus and to provide the funding from their record surplus to do so. But as we saw in the Berkeley situation where the legislature rushed to provide space for additional 3,000 students without providing housing for them so that the people I know who are in Berkeley, the students I know in Berkeley are suffering mightily and the community's suffering mightily so that the legislature could pat themselves on the back for increasing access without really increasing access and opportunity, I think is the wrong approach. And finally, let me just say in 2008 we were able to get a binding commitment from UCSC to house 68% of the new enrollment on campus. That created thousands of units of housing in our community that not only benefited the students but also benefit the community as a whole. We were able to do that in part because there was a project level EIR on a biomedical building that forced the university come to the table and take the community's concerns seriously. So without that, you would have higher percentages of homeless students, higher housing costs for both students, faculty, staff, and community members. And so it plays an important role if the legislature and the UC system wanna get serious about providing real access to the community, to students and reducing impacts on the community, I'd welcome that. But this measure that sort of all carried so no sticks with no commitment, in my opinion, doesn't do the trick to get us where we need for either, for anyone involved in these important issues. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. Are there questions from other members of the board? One question I had was, so the bill only makes an exception for housing projects themselves, not for the long-range development plan. So how is it that, I mean, wouldn't this bill still, we would still have the opportunity to ensure that the university is making sufficient commitment and it has studied the impacts of, if they were to increase enrollment, but wouldn't this just streamline the implementation of a specific housing projects to actually meet that, to actually house students one, after the long-range development plan and its EIR has been approved? So I think there's two questions here. So one is, yeah, so it does not address the programmatic EIR of LRDPs, but does address project-based EIRs. However, as I cited in 2008, it was a project-level EIR that gave us the ability to increase and make a housing commitment binding on the university. There's separate questions about the role of CEQA and the importance of doing analysis at the project level. I think that's an important debate to have, but my concern in this is that without that, without the stick piece in this legislation, which says we're gonna give you this pass on frankly, what I think is some important environmental analysis in exchange for a binding commitment and funding to build housing, I think we're in a situation where the university will make good faith, I think. And to be fair, they've lived up to all their commitments under 2008 and exceeded them and they should be applauded for that and we're looking for that going forward. But I think we'd be left in a place with less ability to get binding commitments for them to not only protect things like our water supply or the natural habitat, but also increase the percentage of students they're housing and faculty and staff they're housing on campus. Good, thank you. Your memo also, you express concern over environmental impacts on the campus itself and for the surrounding city. And I think we all would agree that UCSC is a beautiful campus and in a place, an environment that we want to protect. But the bill does explicitly say that this cannot apply to university housing projects located in very high wildfire risk areas, farmland, hazardous waste sites, earthquake zones, flood zones, wetland, habitat for protected species or conservation area. Do you think that those are still insufficient exceptions? I mean, I think, again, I think reforming CEQA thoughtfully and increasing student housing is an important thing to do. One of the things I worry about is that I think a lot of UCSC falls under that. But as I mentioned, it also sits atop the cars that provide a significant portion of our water supply that wouldn't fall under one of those categories. So if the UCSC system, if the legislature wants to come forward with a binding commitment to do this in a way that provides the housing and also ensures that we have a dialogue about the environmental potential, environmental impacts, I'm open to it, but the bill has written, I think it's really just a slap-dash effort to solve one problem that, in fact, it may not address. Thank you. Any other questions for members of the board? Seeing none, are the members of the public that wish to comment on this item? If multiple members may assume. Michael Wolfe, your microphone is available. Hi, I only have a few minutes because I'm on a bus, but I just would like to say we should, as a city, be supporting SB 886, because that would be a way to enable UCSC to actually build more housing on campus. As we've seen with the delays of student housing west, CEQA has been used by groups to prevent UCs from building housing, and it has affected us students more than anyone. Right now, I work full-time just to afford to live here and I study full-time, it's absurd, and we should really be supporting legislation that takes common sense, exemptions from CEQA for student housing. And again, sorry, this comment is so rushed, I am on a bus right now, but thank you. Mr. Wolfe. Caller 2915, your microphone is available. Hello, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty, for pulling this off. Maybe it was Chairman Koenig. Thank you, this should not be on the consent agenda, and I thank you for bringing it to the public for better discussion. I agree that we have to protect CEQA. It is not simply a stalling mechanism. It is the public's ability and sometimes the only ability to weigh in on big development projects. That is the issue with CEQA is that it supports and invites public participation in projects. And as Supervisor Coonerty said, there is a vital need for projects to consider the water supply issue in our county and other areas. So I oppose SB 886 because it erodes the value of CEQA and we need to investigate and analyze and mitigate water supply impacts. LASCO, as well as energy and infrastructure and emergency response in wildland fire and evacuation procedures. LASCO has not been involved in this. They are now with the UCSC LRDP, but they need to be and that is being brought out only because of CEQA requirements and LASCO director, Mr. Serrano's attentiveness. So please do not support this bill. It erodes CEQA and that is a vitally important part of protecting our environment and having public meaningful public participation. Thank you. You miss Steinbrenner. Ray Diaz, your microphone is available. Good morning, Board of Supervisors. My name is Ray Diaz. I'm a first year politics major at UCSC and I'm a member of the Student Housing Coalition. So I am in support of SB 886 and I'm also a candidate that's running for president here at UCSC to represent the student body. And the biggest concern that I hear across the board, across all students, all 17,000 undergraduate students, it's housing, housing insecurity. We've seen what CEQA has done to Berkeley. We've seen what it's done to our other sister UC campuses and it's just a way to stop our UCs from actually building student housing on campus. So for us to be able to build the housing that we need and the opportunities for our students to pursue higher education, we need to have SB 886 put in place so our UC campuses can be able to build on campus student housing. Right now Project West has been stuck in lawsuits. And so I'd encourage this board, I'd encourage this board to pass or to support this bill. It's urgent that we support our students and we support students wanting to get a better job and pursue higher education and get that degree. So I encourage the board to support SB 886. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Diaz. What happens on infield, your microphone is available? Yes, thank you very much. I'm calling in support of SB 886 on behalf of Santa Cruz EMB. California EMB is one of the co-sponsors of this bill which is targeted specifically for streamlining student housing projects. As was mentioned earlier, this does not absolve the university of its responsibility to plan for the environmental impacts of more students. Whether or not you think that's an absurd premise or not, but this bill makes it easier to actually build the housing that the university needs to fulfill its obligations to have additional students. I think it's really disingenuous for the county to be opposing a bill like this when the county is demanding that 100% of the student housing be built on campus. In order to build the housing on campus, university needs to have a streamlined way to do that. And by simultaneously demanding that all housing goes on campus and allowing NIMBY lawsuits to delay projects for years, potentially even kill them all together, that's not a genuine honest discussion that we're having about how to solve our problems. So I encourage this board to support SB 886 and stop making a mockery of this process.  Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Sonanfield. Zane Sanchez, your microphone is available. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you for letting me speak. I just wanted to talk about this. I am a student at UCF. See, I have personally firsthand experienced homelessness as a student. Luckily enough, I had family nearby, but I strongly urge you to support this bill because it's a very big problem as Mr. Diaz spoke about earlier among other students. I've heard other people have experienced homelessness have to leave the county, state and motels. I really, it's clear that Santa Cruz already has a very large issue with homelessness and we don't need that to increase. And just to address what Mr. Coonerty said earlier, this does have a lot to do with potential growth in the UC system and with UCSC, but it is already a very big problem. And I am a working student. I work and I go to school full-time over the summer. I work full-time and when I, during my breaks, I was looking for housing and whenever I was not working, I was going to house showings and it was virtually impossible for me to house, find one. I ultimately found one in my locality, just being able to talk to people in the know, but this is a very big problem. And I really strongly urge you to think about who you are representing and what benefit, like if you really want to help your constituents because this is a big problem and I've experienced it firsthand. And thank you so much. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you, Mr. Sanchez. Zenen, you like Crow, your microphone is available. Thank you. Hi, everyone, my name is Zenen Elliott Crow. I'm the president of the Student Housing Coalition. I kind of just want to respond to some of the concerns and comments today that we've seen. To first start off, we've talked about growth impacts. We talked about water impacts and things like that. And these are all things that are quantified in the long-range development plans. All of these things are things that are accounted for in the long-range development plans and that's why this bill doesn't touch long-range development plans. The only thing that the project-based CEQA reports have been used for, and I've started to be used for over the past decade, is to stop student housing projects. More than half of UCs have had housing projects delayed or reduced in size because of CEQA over the past decade, more than half. It's a much larger problem than just at UCSC and this new method of trying to stop student housing is something that's very prevalent and is resulting in thousands and thousands of beds not being built. And so the issue is that when we talk about UCSC and we talk about student housing West, for example, which has been tied up, we saw that the university had an 100% commitment to tie housing growth to bed growth. And so what the university did, since every time they proposed a project, it was caught up in CEQA lawsuits. They went ahead and converted every lounge to a six-tuple. They converted every double to a triple, every quad to a quintuple. I literally, on my floor, I am sitting in my dorm right now. There are two six tuples on my floor. And so the idea that we don't need more student housing because the university has had an 100% commitment to housing in the past just won't fly anymore. The fact is we need more student housing and we know that with the mitigations that are already in effect in the language of this bill and through the long range development plans that guide this kind of development, we can have that safe and responsible development and we can get the housing that students so desperately need without the name of the opposition. Thank you. Bode Shargel, your microphone is available. Hello, everyone. Thank you for listening to public comment. It's an important part of our democratic process. My name's Bode Shargel. I'm with the Student Housing Coalition as well as the UCSC YDSA. Frankly, I just think it's kind of unconscionable that the board wouldn't be opposing right now SB 886. We all understand the housing crisis in Santa Cruz and SB 886 is clearly a way to get more student housing built in a time when student housing and the lack thereof is one of the biggest problems facing our state, not just the UC system. And it honestly makes me ask the question if the board is willingly uneducated or just lying about the effects of what this bill would do because this is clearly a question of whether you are pro or against housing in your support of this bill. SB 886 is pro housing. If you want more housing to be built, if you want the things stopping it from being built to go away, you support this bill. And regardless of the reasons for this opposition, I think I can say with confidence that this is going to be a stain on the record or the reputation of anyone who opposed 886 as more and more UCSC students who struggled to find housing are able to stay in Santa Cruz County, maybe with a dozen roommates, but stay in Santa Cruz County nonetheless as voters. This is going to be a stain on the reputation and the legacy of anyone who opposed the building of more housing through SB 886 in this time of crisis, frankly. So please keep that in consideration. Thank you. Mr. Schardau. Hunter G, your microphone is available. Hi, I just like to thank you. Being a community member here at Santa Cruz and somebody who loves our beautiful town and city. Yeah, so as a student myself and a community member, I've talked to a lot of people who I also sit on these boards with for the LRDP for just the Long Range Development Plan and all of the stuff at the UC for UC Santa Cruz. And a lot of the people who go to all these meetings realize just how deceptive this is coming from the board right now, from them disapproving of Senate Bill 886. I don't know if you guys like realize that all of this is tied into the LRDP and that's where all of our community feedback goes into. Those are the legally binding agreements from the UC. And so to say that that doesn't have any impact on a lot of these housing projects, it's just really deceptive hearing this from the board and seeing this being put through. And I'm a person who sits and actively talks with a lot of our community members here. And then another thing is the water. In terms of water being used by UC Santa Cruz, there's been a lot of conservation efforts from these legally binding agreements to where now UC Santa Cruz is using less than half of the amount of water than it used to have at half of the student population, meaning we've cut the water use per student by less than half in order to continue our water conservation efforts and meet all of these goals. Not only that, but like these student housing projects and tying them up with a bunch of sequel litigation, that's all just redundant and already binded by the LRDP. You're having thousands of more students compete with the locals and the workers here who are trying to buy housing or rent housing. That's creating these long lines for rentals. Mr. G. Colin, user two, your microphone is available. I think we should have free public education all the way up through the university. That would help reduce cost and to basic right. It's also a basic human right to a safe and healthy environment. And when projects say they're exempt from the CQA, that translates to let's destroy the environment. And we're already in crisis environmentally. In every aspect, we only have like 32% of the ozone we used to have. The wildlife is dying out, habitat being destroyed. Supervisor Coonerty, this is the environmental problems with this bill. And why do they have to put that in the bill that it's exempt whenever I see exempt from CQA? I think, well, there's a problem here. Like I've seen that over and over again with wireless microwave destructive technology. So this bill that it just sounds like it's very destructive in the environment. And I've lived in this county 40 years. My daughter graduated from UCSC about 30 years ago. There were so many more trees. It was just gorgeous. So much has already been cut down and degraded. So this bill sounds like it would further degrade the campus with this housing. And I have a question. Are all the housing, it sounds like from students who called in and sympathized with the problem, are all the housing units occupied? I know during the COVID lockdown, many students went home and were not living on campus, but were having remote. Thanks, Ms. Garrett. There are no other speakers. Right, then we'll return to the board for action. Mr. Chair, can I just say one thing? Please. So I know we live in a world where it's really fun to have these meta narratives of good guys and bad guys and people are being disingenuous and everything else, but legislation's a nuanced piece of business. And so I think we can say that we wouldn't have as much housing on UCSC's campus had it not been for project level EIRs and CEQA. Student housing less probably wouldn't have been proposed and moved forward on without a project level CEQA. Student housing less also wouldn't be delayed without project level and CEQA. All those things can be true at the same time. And so the question becomes in a situation where we're all frustrated with the outcomes, what's the best solution that will make the situation better and not make the situation worse? And right now, SB 886, I think we'll make it because we had for the last 14 years a legally binding contract with the university where they had to provide housing on campus and it was tied to growth. They are currently unwilling to make that legally binding commitment. And so to the extent that we want to provide more housing to meet this need, we need to do it in the right way. And what I'm arguing with this bill is this is one way that will not get us to that same outcome. There are lots of things we need to fix. The county and the city did not join the lawsuits against student housing less because we asked the university to grow. It would then be unfair for us to sue when they tried to grow. We asked to grow housing and it would be unfair for us to challenge them when they're trying to provide that housing. But it can be true that CEQA has given us an ability to have the university provide housing they wouldn't have otherwise provided. And we can also improve the situation going forward at 886 as currently written, doesn't do that. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. So I'll move the recommended action. I'll second that. All right, motion by Supervisor Coonerty, second by Supervisor McPherson. Mr. Chair, if I may very briefly, I appreciate what Supervisor Coonerty is doing with this item. I'm actually not gonna be supporting the item today. I just have, I do have concerns about there being prescriptive or piecemeal changes to CEQA, which is what this bill would provide. But at the end of the day, the rationale for the bill is not being addressed by the legislature and hasn't been for the last 40 years. So we are in a pretty significant housing shortage, not just at the university side, but across the state. And as we know, unfortunately sometimes environmental laws are not used to their intent upon the founding and this disproportionately impacts, I think first generation, I mean, especially at UCS, first generation students disproportionately impacts students of color and minorities. So I just have a concern with the county taking a specific stand against this legislation. So I'll be voting no on the item, but I do hear and actually appreciate Supervisor Coonerty's leadership and his work with the university on negotiating additional housing over the course of the last 15 years. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. I'll just add that I'm also going to have to vote no on this. I appreciate the history and how we got to where we are today, but given that there's already an EIR process for the long range development plan as a whole and the total number of students that the university would actually have, I do feel that the project level EIRs at this point in time can be redundant. Currently it was holding up over 3,000 new housing units for being built on campus. Those 3,000 students are currently having to find housing in our local market, in the cities of Santa Cruz, in Live Oak, in the city of Watsonville, even. And that's had a huge impact on our housing market as we all know and I just feel we are in a crisis. We can't keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We really have to have all hands on deck and I think it would be a bit, I think it'd be, it doesn't make any sense to me that we would write to the state and say we oppose streamlining in this case, but we do want you to give more money for student housing. I mean, I feel we need to do our part in making sure that when that money comes through for student housing, the housing can actually get built. So for those reasons, I'm gonna have to oppose this as well. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call, please. Supervisor Friend? No. Unity? Aye. Caput? Aye. Referson? Excuse me, aye. You, Supervisor Koenig? No. Thank you. Motion passes 3-2. All right, thank you. That concludes our regular agenda. The board will now move into closed session. Is there any reportable actions in the session? No, there are. There are none. All right, then we will now end the public portion of our meeting, the next regular meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors will be Tuesday, April 26th at 9 a.m. Thank you.