orhood but once it's established they'll be gone and there will be no way for us to enforce what they have promised us we're fortunate to live in Santa Cruz County we have much open land and other parcels that would be very appropriate to grow cannabis it's not that we're against the cannabis industry or that we feel that it should not be grown in our county our neighborhood houses a preschool and it also borders a very popular state park where many families enjoy their time we just feel it's not an appropriate location for a large cannabis operation so please don't be influenced by these lobbyists and support the moratorium on non-retail cannabis within a 500 foot setback so you have more time to consider this situation and thank you again for your consideration and please do support this moratorium for further study thank you Holder 9876 your microphone is available 9876 Hi Sarah Bybin with Watsonville, California first I want to thank you for your vote in the last meeting to consider minor changes to the non-retail cannabis ordinance and to provide similar protections to our rural neighborhoods as our urban counterparts enjoy secondly there's been some communications that contain inaccuracies or maybe emissions that I could take a moment to clarify residential rural lots have been described as large and maybe not needing the same level of protection as the urban community and while this may be the case or some and I really wish it was the case for my property in our neighborhood there are lots and lots consistent in size at those found in cities and definitely less than 5 acres definitely less than 1 acre a moratorium exception request has been made but in this request they failed to disclose that there's a preschool on the project boundary a state park within 500 feet an ecological reserve campground and high school all nearby these sensitive receptors make this project unlikely and undeserving of an exception the applicant also described the project's existing greenhouses is ready to operate they were built decades ago and quite frankly they're falling down to make airtight buildings new greenhouses will have to be constructed on the footprint of the old and this is probably the foggiest place in the whole county they will need to upgrade the entire electrical system for 24-7 lighting heating dehumidifiers this is not farming as we know it our neighborhood will have 22 buzzing cannabis factories at our doorsteps and because of the area's geography the project sits at the bottom of a bowl with hundreds of neighbors looking down and hearing the nonstop noise I want to leave you with one final thought before you make your vote would you or your loved ones want to live next door to a cannabis grow factory without proper setbacks I urge you to vote for the moratorium so that you can continue the process of examining what is fair for both rural neighborhoods and growers thank you can you hear me hello can you hear me thank you thank you Mr. Chair and supervisors my name is Tom Moran I live in Corralitas and I'm here to comment why I'm in full support of this temporary moratorium this action is an important step in addressing the concerns of homeowners who live in residential areas in the county that are interspersed with CA zone properties that can now be used to grow or process cannabis my wife and I moved to the Browns and we are currently seeing the quarter back in 2012 because it's such a wonderful setting here but with cannabis operations coming into this residential area we are now suffering the pungent odors and other bad impacts frankly it reeks to be clear I have no issue with cannabis related operations in general my concern is the impacts when they operate near residences I believe a compromise can be reached that balances the rights of cannabis growers with the negative impacts by the CAO office and its memo to the board in today's materials addresses our specific concerns very well one argument made by opponents of this moratorium is that it would be inconsistent with the prior county policy favoring commercial agriculture and a long established recognition that commercial farming should be preserved well the CAO's memo today addresses this when it states and I'm paraphrasing that conflicts between residential and agricultural uses are not new but that commercial cannabis operations are a recent development in the ag sector that brings with them a host of new complaints the memo goes on to state that these need to be evaluated even a major agricultural bureau and it's letter to the supervisors yesterday recognize that cannabis licensing changes may be necessary the action today proposed in acts of pause so that the county can consider and study proposed code amendments and that's why it makes so much sense to adopt it thank you for your consideration Michael your microphone is available morning my name is Michael Balch my wife and I are long-term residents of the Crest Road neighborhood I want to thank the board for their balanced view thus far and agreeing to revisit the current cannabis ordinance in relation to large cannabis farming operations family neighborhoods such as ours I ask I plead the board to extend the moratorium without exemptions in order to get this right for the citizens of Santa Cruz and balance their interest with those of the cannabis industry the cannabis industry is attempted to portray large cannabis farming operations as just any other agricultural activity the board members were in receipt of a rather disingenuous letter from the Santa Cruz Farm Bureau parroting the cannabis lobby's viewpoint it's simply not true neither in reality or how cannabis farming is treated under the law no other legal farming crop on the central coast has to conform with ordinance restrictions on odor control, lighting and rigid security there are no eight-foot barrier fences and security around strawberry fields here there's not the 24-hour at home of odor mitigation systems in other fields and for those in many other reasons to state that large grow operations are just another agricultural activity is a false narrative it is said self-advance is not like other agriculture there is no cannabis emergency that warrants removal of the current moratorium on new permits until such time that the board has had the opportunity to review the modifications of the cabinet of this ordinance and do the right thing for the families in neighborhoods such as ours don't make the same mistakes made in Carpinteria and Southern California where large cannabis farming was allowed in close proximity to residential neighborhoods schools and parks all of which exist in our neighborhood it resulted in 800 complaints repeated ordinance violations by the growers at least five law students Mr. 40's office will not be able to adequately monitor compliance in the cabinet of the police itself citizens are aching for politicians to do the right thing for the families and that have invested greatly in their home stands and here's the board's opportunity please extend the moratorium on new permitting and amend the cannabis cultivation ordinance to protect us Kirk Schmidt your microphone is available this is Kirk Schmidt I'm speaking on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau thank you chair McPherson and supervisors for having this opportunity to address you we've already submitted written correspondence outlining our opposition to the proposed moratorium and I will only address one issue during today's meeting and that concerns the scope of the temporary zoning that will be enacted by the moratorium many of the parcels in CA land are large parcels many of the adjacent parcels that are residential parcels are also large parcels when development permits are required for agricultural land the proposed development for example a structure is measured from the location of a residence on the nearest residential property not from the property line the proposal before you measures from the property line and indeed is much more encumbering on distant agricultural properties because a CA parcel is more than 500 yards away from the residential parcel may be subject to the prohibition proposed by this moratorium not only within the 500 feet but for the entire parcel which may be several several hundred acres furthermore there needs to be clarification about whether the intent of your ordinance is for CA, R1, and RR or should also include SU which was surprising to me that the staff thought that SU was included in a residential use in this circumstance it would be better if the 500 foot measurement was from a residence and it would include land within the 500 feet not the entire parcel touched by this 500 foot line thank you very much for the opportunity to address you Rose, Mary, McNair your microphone is available hello can you hear me yes hello everyone and thank you very much supervisors for allowing me to speak I am a real estate broker I have been in this community for I don't know 45 to 50 years and I have to say that I think the supervisors need to step back and consider this if you vote for this moratorium what you are actually doing is saying that something that is illegal is not a good idea let us instead not be legal consider this legal versus illegal suppose we had cars and we didn't have any rules we wouldn't have to stop signs we could just keep on going and doing whatever we want legal versus illegal what you are saying about cannabis grows illegal uses pesticides do whatever they want because they don't have rules or regulations what happens to the cartel issues and the policing that has to happen for illegality if you vote for this moratorium you are basically saying what we think is it's okay to be illegal what about odors my goodness is anyone driven by a cabbage patch or a broccoli patch that is being killed in we know there's odors we also signed agricultural disclosures on every piece of property that we ever sell in the county of Santa Cruz please consider the fact that cannabis does not have an allowance for any pesticides illegals do so legal or illegal consider that and make your choice Valerie McGrowney-Carrell thank you honorable supervisors I'm Valerie Carrell I'm the Executive Director of WAM Phyto Therapies and I have been cultivating cannabis for compassionate access for 29 years in Santa Cruz County and I am a resident of the county for 50 years in a fourth generation in California and I thank you for the opportunity to address this urgency interim ordinance to freeze the issuance of this business licenses I've appeared before this board countless times regarding cannabis regulations and I've heard and I sympathize with many of the differing viewpoints it's what makes our community and our nation great that we can speak aloud and hopefully find a way to merge our viewpoints cannabis is the most heavily regulated and highly taxed business in our community and perhaps the nation I question the necessity to exact an urgent measure to create a moratorium on new cannabis applications and at the same time I respect the wishes of neighbors and I honor their concerns yet apprehensions can be addressed on an individual basis as cannabis applications are submitted this should include careful consideration and review of all interests including transparency regarding any and all investor monies including origin and the flow of any funding and as a matter of fact I hope that you will drive a more comprehensive overview of investor monies scrutinizing the origin of capital investment because soon we will be facing a greater demon Jeff Bezos in the Amazon empire your focus may be in the wrong place and in fact the land in South County that WAM Phyto-therapies currently occupies as was a desolate commercially grown bankrupt rose farmland and it was that was a result of NAFTA but my hope is that over time our opportunities will unify us rather than digress remember that the extent of cannabis regulation is uniquely as highly regulated and uniquely high taxation Greg Fernandez your microphone is available Greg Fernandez let's call for Greg Fernandez okay here we go can you hear me now yes hi my name is Greg Fernandez we have a licensed property recently obtained up there on Hughes Road we're going to build out 600,000 square feet we've spent millions of dollars to get to this point and intend to spend millions more this moratorium would not impact our property now because we already have it I'm just concerned about future regulations this 500 foot rule we would decimate that farm and decimate the 300 jobs that we planned to have right now we just started putting plants in the ground and we intend to have up to 300 employees and we're also looking at a neighboring farm about 400,000 square feet that this moratorium would impact severely in fact we would probably cancel escrow and what does this do we took a fledgling rose farm and purchased it for a quite significant sum of money just the tax revenue just on the real property difference is probably about $500,000 a year when it's all said and done additionally the tax revenue generated the marijuana tax the county tax will be significant if we have a million square feet in total canopy we're talking 6% of roughly $300 million that's $18 million just from two farms and I strongly suggest that you do not pass this moratorium thank you for your time I appreciate it caller 2912 your phone is available star 6 to unmute hello my name is Robert Tidiyama I'm the president of Tidiyama brothers we are large cut flower and landowners in South County we've been farming here for over 55 years we also own a 30 acre parcel on Crest Drive that we are currently in negotiations selling it's 30 acres there's 25 acres of field and 5 acres of greenhouse so we're in the process of selling this to a party who will probably use it for cannabis but on this 30 acre parcel only 5 acres of greenhouse would be eligible for cannabis which is 15% of this property if this ordinance is passed it will probably jeopardize this deal and it would erode the values for this property that we've owned for over 30 years by probably 25 to 50% which is very injurious to a company like ours we are marking the proceeds from the sale to upgrade our greenhouses and our facilities which are over 50 years old and if we want to continue to be sustainable and profitable and efficient business people in South County growing cut flowers we need this investment and so as farmers we want to support other farming we believe that cannabis can legal cannabis can be done correctly and so we would ask all of the supervisors to please use moratorium and the proposed setback rules that have been proposed thank you very much Matthew Groves your microphone is available Matthew Groves Hi sorry I was muted Hi my name is Matt Groves I'm the cannabis business owner in Lawsonville I'm urging the supporters to the survivors to reject the moratorium as well to propose zoning changes there are numerous viable parcels that will be unfairly disqualified for example one of our farms the cultivation site is over 3,000 feet away from the nearest dwelling on a residential zone parcel yet this farm would be disqualified based on the property line requirements also many of the remaining sites are located in the coastal zone as well as the south eastern portion of the county that is just ramped with pesticide spray and the coastal zone is unsuited for cultivation due to the climate and is known as a fog belt so while it seems there are a lot of remaining sites in actuality many of these are not viable and are already being taken for visual cultivation lastly we've been to the process on several farms and it's been an extremely time intensive and costly process and I feel for those who are in the last stages of their own process and the county may potentially pull the rug out underneath them in the last minute throwing away all their time and money our heart really goes out for them it's deeply unfair for the county to put forth a regulatory landscape and then change it at the last minute after many many people have spent a lot of time in investment so I urge everybody to reject the moratorium and propose changes thank you Thank you Thank you Can you hear me? Yes Dear city leaders it's with great respect that I'm speaking today we've been an active participant in the conversation about legal cannabis since 2008 and it's one of the few remaining operators that survived the transition to regulated cannabis and has been actively paying taxes since the inception of the taxation on cannabis we've got great concern with the recent proposed emergency moratorium over 95% of the cannabis businesses that operated under medical law have gone out of business in the transition to regulation the government collects roughly 50% of the cannabis consumer dollar and the fiscal impacts of your decision will be felt by many hardworking constituents including heads of households that are responsible for the well-being of others with this backwards approach many hardworking people will lose their livelihoods our farm alone supports around 50 households during peak season COVID has been very hard on everyone suicide rates are at an all-time high let's not bring harm to the innocent hardworking community members that support our local economy the repeated concern about smell cannot be truly addressed because even if you ban cannabis you can't ban hemp it can be grown on any commercial ag property in the united states fence line to fence line now protect hemp farmers who grow a plant that smells the exact same as cannabis there's nothing that can be done to prohibit hemp from being grown bringing harm to our legal cannabis operators is not the solution the status of our local cannabis industries fragile society is dealing with record-breaking unemployment and mental health issues homelessness suicide and crime rates are at all-time high please don't be the cause of more suffering the voters of Santa Cruz overwhelmingly overturned the last moratorium via voter initiatives wasting tremendous resources that could have otherwise gone towards betterment of the community please don't make this mistake again the bottom line is that there is not an emergency and the legal cannabis economy is created the collective effort to create balanced cannabis policies staggering when you think about all the time we've spent on this issue only to ban it all please do not move forward with this hasty decision Kodiga that continues five more speakers hello my name is Chris Kodiga I'm part of the Correlated Coalition for Balanced Land Use our family has owned and managed the property for over 50 years on Browns Valley Road that includes a 10 acre organic apple orchard we support the urgency interim ordinance to freeze issuance of new cannabis business licenses the Correlated Coalition for Balanced Land Use has been working diligently to find a reasonable solution to the intensification and concentration of cannabis in our small beautiful rural community since 2019 and 2019 is when the second district was opened up to cannabis cultivation and public notification was no longer required you have heard all the real very real complaints that have negatively impact the residents' quality of life many times the constant pungent smell of cannabis, public safety, security concerns, etc the Environmental Impact Report from 2016 listed many unmitigated problems which include traffic, noise, water, and smell that have turned out to be very true the impacts from the 2016 ordinance and the 2019 changes are showing up now it's time for the county leaders to take a pause and enact fair and reasonable solutions for all interested parties the main goals when cannabis cultivation was allowed in Santa Cruz County was to minimize environmental damage to have no residential conflict and ensure a supply of medical cannabis a moratorium and an updating of the current ordinance which includes minor changes is consistent with the goal of residential protection thank you very much for supporting the moratorium Trevor Luxon, your microphone is available Hi there, my name is Trevor Luxon lifelong Santa Cruz County resident and also local attorney I've been involved and watched this cannabis process go on since it began several years ago this is an industry that people felt early on could be a real economic driver for this community and provide a lot of jobs a lot of tax revenue instead it's been absolutely strangled by over regulation, over taxation and the majority of the businesses are either gone or the remaining ones are struggling to survive as Ms. Serino pointed out in her excellent presentation this moratorium would result in a pretty significant loss of tax revenue to the county there's also there's really no reason why this needs to be treated as an emergency ordinance or emergency moratorium this could be handled in November as is already planned there's no reason why it needs to happen within two weeks the way that it has also I think the existing applicants who have already submitted applications that are currently pending should be allowed to continue with their application process they've spent a lot of money time, effort to get to the point where they're at now and essentially they're going to be have the rug pulled right up from under them and I also would like to note that as Mr. Groves said this is going to result in a loss of a lot more parcels than just the 789 that are remaining of those remaining parcels many of them are either in inappropriate areas or adjacent to major roads and couldn't be used for cannabis cultivation thank you Antela Doria do you have microphones available hello I would just like to say that I am a local cannabis business owner wife mother and a supporter of the community at large I want to suggest the projection of this memorandum and to just sort of talk about how cannabis is feared a little bit and it scares me to talk to the people who are opposed to the location of it but I think maybe that's what she has been brought to us to sort of do is like bring it out and have us all talk about it so maybe and instead of accepting a memorandum that is out of fear we can do this patient and realize that this is an evolving industry and that with that it's just going to come with communication and actually talking because it seems like this is just a communication breakdown on some level and then on other levels that can be you can go into a huge broad spectrum that affects a lot of people in an industry that is wanting to heal the planet which we have seen in soil tests as well as tests of the flower it's if you want to be in a community how wonderful it is to know that you are in a community pesticide free because you are actually part of a company that is getting those results and I can say that to people so I hope that with this the families and the areas that are so scared don't be scared this is just an issue to talk about and your kids will need to talk about it and how beautiful that you get to talk about it in your backyard and I think that it can involve into something that's better where they can see the remediation of the earth and the forest out there and everything will get better thank you Shani Ginsberg Shani Ginsberg your microphone is available thank you my name is Shani Ginsberg I live in the neighborhood adjacent to the farm at 110 Crest Drive and I'm calling to speak in support of the moratorium I think it's clear from the extensive comments that this is something that requires further study and that's what the moratorium would allow for I appreciate the supervisor's time I appreciate you reading our letters we are a neighborhood of people who have lived here for decades some of us built our houses with our own hands you have heard from us in letters there aren't more of us on these calls because we are working and that's what we do we earn we work we earn a living and we participate in our community excuse me we really appreciate you your thoughtfulness in taking more time to study this issue more thoroughly thank you so much for listening this is the last speaker chair call her 4497 your microphone is available good afternoon my family has lived worked in operated farms and other businesses across Santa Cruz County for over 30 years we're also raising our children here we recognize that the commercial cannabis industry provides an economic benefit to the county and that the end product is lawful and desirable by many of us however we would urge this board to carefully consider and balance the significant and unique impacts the commercial cultivation industry has on our families our neighborhoods and our sensitive environments for example no other farming industry has resulted in regular law enforcement seizures of guns from the farms as has happened with cannabis farms by the county's own reports there were dozens of illegal guns seized by the sheriff pursuant to search warrants at cannabis operations around Santa Cruz County quite simply cannabis is not a typical crop this fact alone suggests that the board should go slowly consider the precise details of the proposed ordinance amendments and the scope of the future commercial cannabis operations near our families in addition no other industry we are aware of in this county has ever generated such diverse ongoing and consistent public comment and concern about the noxious odors illegal activity and the general disruption to the quality of life for all of those affected in closing there is a delicate balance that this board should strive to achieve between reasonably supporting the commercial cannabis industry while simultaneously ensuring that our families and sheriffs natural environments are protected this effort demands a slow and methodical approach and I would urge this board to adopt the temporary moratorium on new licenses as you thoroughly research and undertake this critical analysis thank you we will return the issue to the board calling supervisor friend who brought this to the board of supervisors thank you Mr. Chair and thank you to everyone who spoke both from the cannabis industry and from the community I would say that other than perhaps the CZU item that is in this afternoon I don't think we have ever received so many letters and calls and participation from rural residents as we have on this one on this specific issue in particular just for today's item even previously when we have done some of these iterations and we started this quite some time ago when I was first on the board many of you remember there was actually a moratorium preventing all commercial cultivation pending a state supreme court decision about seven years ago we started this process actually determined that the cultivation side was too difficult to really balance at the time so we just went down the dispensing road eventually picked up the cultivation side I'm sure supervisor Koenig is thankfully wasn't on the board since today is an indication of what we dealt with for quite some time but this is a very fluid process right I mean the board has made multiple multiple modifications to the cultivation ordinance it was always intended and has always been stated and committed to the public that it would be iterative and it would be modified the idea that the board has created a set of regulations and is modifying it has actually been the one thing that has been constant associated with all of the cannabis related ordinances beyond dispensing, manufacturing or cultivation so realistically there were ordinance changes that both had prohibited or allowed the activity that we currently have in fact we had a as you may remember an entire ban on the second district for outdoor growing we have a lot of conflicts in the hills on environmental issues and residential conflicts and the board had decided to move this down into the CA zoned areas which are disproportionately in my district and supervisor campus district that was an item that I had supported with additional requests that we consider these setbacks that we have in other elements of the ordinance as well as a notification element that happened in mid 2020 it takes a while as many the cultivators noted to get through the process so the first ability for there to really be any sort of issues that were raised with neighborhoods within this last six to eight months and that's exactly what's come up this is much broader than just a few neighborhoods I mean over the course of this process we've heard from not just a lot of people in correlators in fact I've in the nine years I've been on the board I've never seen an issue that has united and received so much input from correlators than this but also in the salva hazel del which I share with supervisor cap at 129 area which is actually within his district as well the day valley and pleasant valley area have all expressed concerns over the course of this process and want to address something that Valerie said she's somebody I admire very greatly within this industry because of her dedication to those that compassionate use she brought up about the idea of allowing for community input well since we moved into a principally permitted use there isn't an ability for any community input no mitigations can actually be proposed and so some of the speakers were saying there needs to be a dialogue that dialogue was actually removed by this board for their ability to actually have any mitigations proposed from community members by the time this is actually in place is by the actually there's no there's no ability to provide any sort of mitigations for input so what this is doing is actually moving those conflicts and creating a noticing component moving forward in the actual ordinance that actually allows there to be the same input that actually it sounds like some cultivators think that there should be but a lot of this talk was on balancing competing interests and I totally agree if this was I think that what we should be able to agree is that given this level of dialogue it's not in balance right now and it had been we've been it's been a very iterative process throughout the last seven years we've been working on it we've been trying to find an equilibrium we're getting a lot closer I do think that commercial agriculture we zone districts are the right ones but being next to within a setback of residentially zoned areas really is not the solution I mean if this were simply a financial consideration and I think it's important to think about the money for a second which is to say some of the numbers that staff presented on what could be lost with these license are just theoretical in the last three years alone during the budget times staff has come back to say that we never met any of the projected estimates associated with licensing fees so that two and a half million in and of itself is not is just at best a guess it was a number that the board budgeted but last year you may remember we were nowhere near the numbers that we said that we'd budgeted so we don't actually know whether but there's also a significant cost of compliance associated with it as a couple of the speakers noted you know this is not akin to a standard agricultural product we don't have a very licensing officer or a lettuce licensing officer compliance office we spend millions in compliance and in our quarterly reports we see that there's a lot of compliance issues associated with this it is heavily regulated for a reason and that's because it is viewed fundamentally different by both the local state and federal approach to this and so I think it's very reasonable the board trying to find what that balance is but if we were only interested in money then there were a lot of other decisions the board could consider I mean we could for example we have hotels that pay a significant amount of transit occupancy tax some of them are single story in the live oak area or other places in the county maybe they should be five six seven stories immediately adjacent to residentially zoned areas but we would never do that because we would say that that doesn't strike the balance and even though the historic use has been you were living next to a hotel the expectation wasn't that the intensification would be that significant those elements of conflict between financial inputs and historic use are throughout our code I mean so we always make these balanced land use decisions throughout our county and I think that this does exactly that I'm fully supportive of what it is I hear the challenge I mean the reason that this is something that the county has permitted to create these issues and how do we start to mitigate some of those issues I think allowing for hundreds of additional parcels to still exist on top of the ones that are currently already permitted but prevent future issues and these conflicts with with residentially zoned districts is just part of the promise we've made the community from day one I mean if the board wants to keep its word and and and all the people that participated in the process were told that this would not have residential conflicts would not have environmental conflicts we're seeing that both are occurring then the board needs to support this more and also the ordinance revisions moving forward I do appreciate the boards the respectful exchange of ideas that was that occurred today I recognize that people are very passionate about this on both sides of the issue but what I do hear is is a common theme that the cannabis industry is inextricably linked with both the agricultural industry and the greater fabric of Santa Cruz County and I don't think that's that's being changed or denied as opposed to what's being proposed here so too though is the fact that we're trying to mitigate any sort of residential or environmental conflicts and that that is what's being proposed here so Mr. Chair when it comes time obviously I'll be willing to make a motion in favor of the recommended actions but obviously I'd like to hear from my colleagues as well thank you I'll probably ask Mr. Caput if you have a comment you don't have a comment okay do you have a comment Supervisor Koenig? Sure thank you Chair you know I just start by saying I do agree with everything Supervisor Friend said as far as the setting here right that the policy needs to be iterative that we clearly need to balance the interests of both parties that we heard today I also think that we heard strong argument for the fact that 500 feet from the edge of a residential parcel is too severe and so I mean during this the extensive public comment we heard was looking at the two particular problem parcels that we know for sure I'm not familiar maybe with all of them you mentioned a few others on Hazelbell etc Supervisor Friend but the ones on Browns Valley Road and Crest Drive if we made this 500 feet from a residential dwelling I think that both those parcels the problem parcels we've heard about would fall under that and so we'd have a moratorium on the kinds of problems we're currently seeing but you know when you hear from a long time agricultural growers in our community like Robert Kidiyama he's got a 30 acre parcel I mean why should all of his parcel be completely exempted from any kind of cannabis grow just because it's within 500 feet of the edge of a residential parcel I mean so I think that we should look to change this from to residential dwelling some foot amount so that we provide a little more flexibility I mean again Supervisor Friend you're completely correct we need to fine tune this policy but I think they're going you know if we pass the ordinance as written it's not going to be fine tuning it's going to be moving radically to complete alternate extreme I mean a policy that could eliminate half of all the currently eligible parcels I think is too extreme right Supervisor Coonerty yeah thank you Mr. Chair so I think Supervisor Kodak just sort of outlined my position which is I understand Supervisor Friend bringing this forward I think he's doing what he's like to do just to represent the concerns of his constituents and then it's the job of the rest of us to look at this in the context of the overall county and hearing the competing needs and values that we have you know when this is brought forward I sort of in my mind thought it was we're talking about a half dozen, a dozen parcels in the Corralitos area and a sort of an incremental iterative regulation to address some specific issues this is a wholesale change in our cannabis policy and in people who have invested a lot of time in trying to play by the rules that we created and so you know a very narrow change I'd be interested in but this change is just too big a leap when we've tried to finally bring some continuity and security to this process I also believe that as the point that many people made which was that if you force people to move to hemp which is unregulated you have many of the same impacts but without any of the additional compliance that we do have put a lot of conditions on cannabis cultivators with the idea of reducing impacts on the environment and neighborhoods and creating a stable industry but we need to create a path for people to be able to comply with the law so that we can enforce against people who are not complying with the law and this seems like an over-correction so I can't support this moratorium as it's written today I am open to small targeted changes to address specific neighborhood impacts Thank you Mr. Chair if I may Thank you and members of the community who have contacted my office in each of our offices on the impacts of cannabis I also want to thank those who previously shared of my office how critical it is that our county continue to remove not add barriers to this industry so that it can realize the goals and objectives that we have set out this has been a controversial issue throughout and it's been an area of policy that requires frequent adjustment I believe and to address those concerns our county has spent a great deal of time over seven years I think ago we started getting into this to get it right and I think we need to continue to work on the challenge I can support this moratorium for 45 days but I don't know if I will support an extension without there being further analysis by the staff I think some changes are needed but I think this will give us pause to see how we can get those changes included in discussion on October 19th otherwise I think we're going to be discussing this issue in November one way or the other so I would entertain Mr. friend you wanted to make a motion sure actually I wanted to ask supervisor Koenig a question we did have some discussions regarding setbacks regarding residential parcel or excuse me residences themselves dwellings so what it sounds like that was something that you were interested in proposing what distance setback do you think there already are some setbacks already that are baked into our current code we have notifications setback excuse me notifications at 600 feet etc as one person spoke they said that they were over a thousand feet from an adjoining residence and they would have been precluded so what setback distance from a residence were you interested in supporting maybe we can move can you hear me now I'd be willing to support a 500 foot setback from a residential dwelling and as I said having measured that distance it seems that that would affect both of the problem parcels that we've heard the most about on Crest Drive and Browns Valley Road okay let me just clarify one point with council based on what's being proposed today would it be feasible to modify the recommended actions to a 500 foot from a residential structure yes it would because we're dealing with an urgency ordinance so you can make a change to what's been suggested and not have to come back to do a second read on it okay well I mean Supervisor Koenig also recognizing that you grew up in the heart of this area that's being discussed I think you would have some intimate knowledge and do you feel that a 500 foot setback would be a situation from your previous community that would be supportive you know in the interest of again iterative policy and this being a moratorium that you know will basically affect it's kind of a prequel to as we go forward into November I think it's a good first step to you know addressing the concerns of the Browns Valley community alright thank you so Mr. Chair based on that information thank you Supervisor Koenig welcome to the discussion on cannabis that'll never leave I promise you I will move the recommended actions with a modification to change it from a 500 foot setback from a parcel one to a 500 foot setback from residential structure second parcel one move is seconded any comments by the board does this require four or three four requires four votes okay any other comments from the board this is to move this from a 500 foot setback from the property line to the residents that's the that's a change in the proposal that clearly I understand it yes okay please call the roll Supervisor Koenig aye friend aye community no mcpherson aye normally I would like to continue with our regular agenda but we do have a set item on 130 and so we're going to adjourn until it is now 1220 we'll come back at 145 we have a scheduled 130 meeting that will start at 145 and we have a closed session now County Council do we have any reportable items yes I expect that there will be reportable items okay I think that when we come back at 145 we will address what has been discussed in closed session and then we'll move on to the 130 scheduled items so the 130 scheduled item will probably be closer to two o'clock okay can that be is that that sounds about right okay alright okay we'll recess until 145 maybe I I'll go ahead and get somewhat started with this first of all I want to thank you in the audience I know we had a 130 scheduled item we went along this morning and we had a closed session that went along as well so I appreciate your patience and even more so for additional patience we had a closed sessions and I want to ask the County Council if there's any reportable items yes there was one reportable item the board approved by 50 an item to file litigation against a defendant in one matter that'll be disclosed later and I understand that you also have something to report out yes it gives me a tremendous amount of pleasure to announce the first public defender for Santa Cruz County reporting out of closed session I am pleased to announce that the Board of Supervisors has appointed Heather Rogers as the first county public defender following an extensive recruitment Miss Rogers is a resident of Santa Cruz County and brings over 17 years of litigation and management experience as a county and federal public defender as well as over a decade as trainer and teacher she has represented hundreds of clients at all stages of proceedings manage the defense teams and work collaboratively to promote client centered programs that reduce recidivism rebuild communities and result in better outcomes currently Miss Rogers is a supervising and felony trial attorney as well as lead immigration resource council for the bigum Christiansen and men's law firm which serves as the county's contract public defender she is a graduate of Stanford law school with distinction and serves on the Santa Cruz County juvenile justice and delinquency commission Santa Cruz County Trial Lawyers Association Board of Directors Santa Cruz County Defense Bar Board of Directors and National Association for Public Defense Wellness Summit Working Group Miss Rogers impressed the board with her vision to build a public agency that provides impassioned client centered holistic defense promotes equity diversity and inclusion and work closely with county court and community partners to reach the best outcomes we'd like to welcome Miss Rogers as the county's newest department head beginning October 1st and look forward to working with her as an indigent defense services transition from the BCM law firm to the county in nine months on July 1st Miss Rogers congratulations and welcome to the Santa Cruz County Thank you supervisors for putting your trust in me to lead the Santa Cruz County public defender through this time of tremendous growth change and opportunity thank you also to our community county and our justice partners to our county administrative officer Carlos Palacios to the county transition team the share of Jim Hart district attorney Jeff Roselle and to everyone who is supportive of this new agency and is wishing our success moving forward and a special thank you to Larry Bigum, Jerry Christensen and John Menzloff and to our community for 45 years as the public defender building a team of dedicated, talented compassionate defenders who will help move this new agency forward over 17 years ago one of my first clients was a goat herd found wandering in the mountains near the border of the United States and Mexico he was charged with illegal re-entry after deportation a federal crime with severe consequences I met him in the visiting room of the Federal Detention Center he was slumped over crying he wasn't interested in the charges against him he wasn't interested in potential defenses he didn't care how much time he was facing all he wanted to know was que paso con mis chivos what happened to my goats he described the goats by name in loving detail and he asked me to find them to make sure that they were safe getting across from a goat herd in my new suit with a shiny briefcase full of books I realized that little I'd learned in law school had prepared me for this work as public defenders were not so much in the business of law as in the business of people people with sad complicated incredible stories people with hopes and dreams and fears people who signed fears people who sometimes feel like they've lost everything that they've hit rock bottom that there's no way forward over the years I've defended hundreds of clients facing charges ranging from shoplifting to murder but that lesson I learned from a goat herd stays with me our clients aren't cases they're people to do this work well we have to hear their stories we have to amplify their voices and we have to honor their humanity Karen Santa Cruz that often means honoring the humanity of a client who's struggling with mental illness substance abuse poverty homelessness or hopelessness aggressive courtroom advocacy is the cornerstone of a strong public defender's office but we've learned that we can't litigate our way out of the issues that drive our most vulnerable clients into a cycle of recidivism the only way to break that cycle is to address root causes and the only way to do that is to work together to find real solutions to our community's most pressing problems I'm grateful to serve here in Santa Cruz County where we're already thinking outside the box to solve these problems in our schools and neighborhood courts we embrace restorative justice as an alternative to prosecution and incarceration our collaborative courts including veterans court packed and behavioral health court use compassion and accountability to empower clients to turn their lives around and we've invested in diversion and record clearance programs to support second chances but we know we can do more and our public defender's office will combine aggressive courtroom advocacy with a holistic defense model that offers culturally responsive interdisciplinary support we'll zealously defend our clients with courageous, compassionate client-centered defense and we'll work together with all of you to reduce incarceration reduce recidivism and offer real solutions to the root causes of system involvement thank you I'm honored thank you this is a big deal for Santa Cruz County and it's going to be great to have this in our judicial system to have it under the county oversight so we welcome you with open arms and can't wait to really get on the job in July that's going to be great thank you very much okay now we will go into the scheduled 130 item it now being almost two o'clock but this item is to consider options and resolution to allow CZU August lightning complex fire survivors to rebuild without evaluating and mitigating potential geological hazards direct ordinance amendments and take related actions that's outlined in the memorandum of the acting planning director we have a resolution from the the CZU rebuild directive 9.921 attachment and a declaration of covenant for geological hazards 9.921 attachment B we will have a staff presentation at this time giving us the presentation will be Pyle Levine of our planning department you can introduce those who follow you thank you very much ready for the first slide good afternoon members of the board and members of the public in the room and also online we're here today at the board's request to respond to concerns regarding rebuilding in the CZU fire burn area we were asked to present options for allowing rebuilding without evaluation and mitigation of potential geologic hazards in order to address the hardship and the ongoing displacement that's being experienced by people who have lost their homes we are here today to present those options for your consideration to discuss the tradeoffs inherent in these options and to receive your direction on proceeding with a plan of action to begin with the staff want to acknowledge that the recovery process is indeed a struggle for victims in addition to the loss of a home families had to deal with last winter's weather threats right on the heels of the fire and thankfully there were no significant debris flow events last winter following that there's the working through the debris removal and the building permit pre-clearance process now we're about to prepare for winter weather events again all of this has been time consuming it reignites the memories of loss and all of us as public servants and community members we must and we do keep in our minds and empathize with the difficulties that really underpins all of our staff work and we just want the community to know that so last September the board acted quickly to create the fire recovery permit center in order to assist in the streamlining of permits for fire rebuild victims and survivors in the streamlining process and typical 2B building permit turnaround and approval for many of the road recovery and rebuilding still remains difficult I have personally spoken with dozens of fire families and heard firsthand how the challenges they are facing are many and numerous and challenging currently our county code Chapter 1610 does not have provisions for rebuilding after a natural disaster which we will discuss in order to address the significant hardship and emotional and financial stress of rebuilding after a traumatic event and the increased housing insecurity associated with the delay and expense of producing the specific reports on August 10 your board directed staff to develop options for allowing rebuild without evaluation and mitigation of potential geologic hazards next slide this is David Reid the screen director of ROR 3 thank you the Santa Cruz mountains are a complicated geologic environment many locations are subject to various hazards including landslides debris flow, flooding and hazards related to earthquakes the purpose of the geologic hazard ordinance Chapter 1610 is to minimize injury loss of life and damage to public and private property in a dynamic kind of an environment the strategy in the code to accomplish that purpose is based on firstly technical investigation of individual building sites in order to fully understand what the hazards are avoidance of the identified hazards wherever that's possible where that's not possible mitigation to lessen the risks is required also disclosure so that future owners have an awareness of the situation we point to the geologic work that's been done so that anybody can see the technical investigation and we ensure that the property owner and future property owners are aware that they need to maintain mitigation measures over time to keep their effectiveness over time this emphasis on avoidance comes out of the experience of our community where we have in the not so distant past had repeated years in landslide and debris flow we experience the disruption of disaster after disaster up to and including loss of life in many locations throughout the Santa Cruz mountains as we discuss the difficulties with implementing the current code as applied to the fire rebuilding it's worthwhile to recall the genesis for the code and the why it was set up the way that it is as we go through the discussion we'll be emphasizing that this is the situation of balancing multiple worthy objectives there is no single right way to answer these questions there's only careful consideration and weighing of the factors after disaster that creates widespread displacement up to and including housing insecurity the protection of health and safety becomes more complicated than thinking just about avoidance the displacement itself can be a major impact to public health and safety it has been very difficult for fire victims to find stable affordable places to be one of the trade-offs is balancing the avoidance of risk through the geologic report and mitigation process with allowing residents to assume risk in order to rebuild more quickly whichever way the alternatives are balanced it's important to acknowledge that public safety is always the goal and the intent regardless of the approach an element of assuming risk is balancing the type of development in this case mostly single family residences and the appropriate amount of caution it's a well established principle in land use planning that public buildings and critical buildings must meet a higher standard than a residence in this case Chapter 1610 does make that distinction for seismic hazards for example but it does not make that distinction for geologic investigations and mitigation those requirements as the code is written now are for all residences all habitable situations equally another balancing is between the clear and present need of the impacted property owners to rebuild on the one hand and the principles of long-term resiliency planning on the other future disasters are expected to occur and they're expected to be more likely than they have been in the past so it's desirable well to build resilience into the rebuilding and the recovery we're turning over a significant part of the housing stock at this point and at the end of the day we want the community in a better position and safer for future occurrences so all of this there are many things to consider as we go through the presentation we're planning on describing the options and the challenges in a high level manner but a discussion about geologic hazards can become fairly technical fairly quickly so I'd like the board to know that various staff are here to address technical as well as land use planning issues next slide so as noted chapter 1610 is organized around the principles of investigation avoidance and mitigation there are several regulatory mechanisms that are available to your board to accomplish a policy change to allow rebuilding without that evaluation and mitigation the options differ in terms of how soon they can go into effect and whether they are narrowly focused on just CZU rebuilding or whether they express a broader emergency planning perspective the three main options are one the board can simply direct county staff not to consider the provisions of 1610 that call for those site specific reports review of the reports and the mitigation for CZU rebuilding two the board can amend 1610 itself to remove CZU rebuilding from the category of development that dictates what the code applies to or three the board can approve broader policy amendments to the code and to the general plan that reflect resiliency policy generally and would apply to a range of natural disasters that might occur in the future next slide at this point I would like to introduce Carolyn Burke she's the planning department senior civil engineer she'll take you through the options good afternoon the first option will present today is for the board to direct county staff not to apply the provisions of county code chapter 1610 in their review of permit applications for CZU rebuilds if this option is chosen the board can provide such direction via adoption of either resolution or an uncodified urgency ordinance with either path the direction would become effective immediately to meet the time constraints faced by fire survivors the main difference between a resolution and ordinance is that a resolution is typically used to address issues of a temporary nature on ordinance is a more formal permanent enactment of law passage of a resolution by the board requires a simple majority passage of an ordinance requires a four fifths vote for approval by the board resolution has been included in the board agenda packet that provides details regarding how the board's direction would be applied in addition to eligibility requirements which will be covered in the next slide the resolution includes requirements for those choosing to opt out of further geologic investigation to sign and record a covenant on title that acknowledges the potential of developing an area subject to hazards and indemnifies the county a copy of the recommended covenant is included in the board agenda packet the practice of recording such a document on title in areas subject to hazards is not new what is new in this situation is that owners would be accepting an uncharacterized risk related to geologic hazards in the case of those rebuilding pursuant to board direction the covenant as written states in the broadest way the potential hazards that may exist on parcels and acknowledges that no geologic report was prepared pursuant to the board direction considered today this informs current and future property owners that hazards may exist and it is incumbent upon them to get a geologic evaluation done if they would like to better understand their individual risks further future property owners are also made aware that the director received a building permit certain provisions of county code were not applied to our review the recommended covenant also includes the clause whereby the property owners acknowledge heighten near term geologic risks be an agreement to evacuate if an order is issued to do so in summary the decision to issue building permits without geologic review is what creates the need for a covenant a resolution is included in your agenda packet if the board so chooses if an urgency ordinance is the preferred direction staff can return in two weeks with an ordinance for adoption by the board whether a resolution or ordinance is chosen by the board staff recommends supporting the board direction with a codified non urgency ordinance in general plan and local coastal program amendments as necessary to this end the attached resolution includes a sunset clause with a direction effective for three years at which time it may be extended by the board it is anticipated that the follow-up non urgency ordinance will be in place well before the three-year expiration date eligibility requirements to not consider evaluation and mitigation of geologic hazards focus on allowing property owners facing immediate hardships related to time and funds to replace their loss structures in kind and assume their risk level as they had before the fire board direction would apply to property owners on title at the time of the CZU fire applying for in kind replacement of the structures destroyed by fire because geologic risks are tied to topography the criteria for in kind structures includes replacement in substantially the same location and of similar size up to 10% more than the previous structure requirements with the same legality provisions applied to other CZU fire rebuild policies which requires that eligible structures be permitted or legal non conforming if you want to sure this is just a graphic that shows how we determine whether a structure that does not have permits is indeed legal non conforming if a structure was built before permits were required and that date was in 1956 there are no questions the structures treated as legally non conforming after the fire in response to the difficulties your board extended that 1956 state to include everything that was constructed through 1985 so those structures if built without permit will also be considered legally non conforming if a structure was built in 1986 or later and does not have a permit it doesn't have any permit to be included with it and at that point it needs to meet all the current regulations and standards of the zoning code the second option before the board today is to amend current counting code chapter 1610 to remove CZU fire rebuilds from the definition of development subject to the provisions of the chapter the current definition of development includes construction of residential structures and does not provide for structures rebuilt after wildfire removing CZU fire rebuilds clearly recognizes that rebuilding homes destroyed by wildfire is fundamentally different from new construction and can be crafted to include provisions regarding eligibility and assumption of risk similar to option one the difference between options one and two is that this option requires a formal amendment to our current code before it can take effect the process for which takes time and cannot meet the immediate needs of those rebuilding as a local coastal program implementing ordinance and amendments chapter 1610 requires approval by the coastal commission and possible amendments to the general plan and local coastal program which can take up to six months and slide will be Dave Reed thank you in this option option three the board could direct OR in the planning department to explore broader policy amendments to our Santa Cruz County code in general plan reflecting resiliency and adaptation policy strategies applicable to a range of natural disasters that may occur in the future well this option would begin a larger regulatory conversation on the implications of climate change and the potential for recurring natural disasters allowing us to discuss and explore ways to build preparedness and processes to be in place for rebuilding in the wake of future disasters it will require the development of a significant plan and work program requiring staff and time resources that would not be accomplished quickly it may be considered by the board to include this option as additional direction in conjunction with the options that provide immediate relief next slide the majority of the rebuild proposals flag for further geologic evaluation are in debris flow hazard areas these areas are prone to debris flows due to geography topography and climate and their risk of impact is elevated for two to five years after fire when it returns to background risk level that existed prior to the fire before the CZU fire was even fully contained a rapid assessment of the burn zone was performed by the watershed emergency response team or work to identify immediate life safety risk to those still occupying structures within the burn area and inform evacuation planning the work report broadly defined debris flow hazard areas using conservative assumptions and field evidence and clearly stated that further study was needed to refine the hazard areas upon receipt of the report county geologic staff immediately took to the field walking the individual basins identified in the work report to chart the course the debris flow may take this refinement reduced the number of properties subject to evacuation but it did not incorporate the computer modeling necessary to estimate the inundation area boundaries and provide site specific data necessary to design mitigation measures recognizing the need for CZU rebuilders to mitigate the debris flow hazard in their home designs the community foundation of Santa Cruz County generously commissioned a flood study by Atkins engineering to provide the quantitative analysis missing from both the word report and county mapping the products of the report a refined debris flow inundation areas and technical design parameters that can be used by rebuilders to avoid or mitigate the impacts of debris flow the Atkins report is not yet final but the county has reviewed draft data and confirmed the report achieved its intended goals of refining and reducing the number of burned and unburned structures and identified debris flow hazard areas and providing depth and velocity data within debris flow inundation areas that can be used by engineers and other design professionals the final results of the study will be presented in further detail at the September 28th board meeting next slide please on board direction the permitting process for eligible projects would begin with an application for a geologic hazard clearance as is current practice to determine whether geologic evaluation is required in most cases the presence of imminent hazards in the need for a geologic report can be determined through the clearance process though in some cases a geologic hazards assessment is necessary to determine whether a full geologic report is required those projects that need a full geologic report to comply with the requirements of county code chapter 1610 may proceed to apply for their building permit application provided they record the recommended covenant on title prior to permit issuance those who do not wish to record the covenant may opt to meet the requirements of chapter 1610 by submitting a geologic report for peer review and incorporating the recommended mitigations into their project designs next slide please it should be noted that the options presented today only relief property owners from requirements of county code chapter 1610 as it relates to the permit process there may be circumstances where private technical professionals such as geotechnical structural or civil engineers determine that geologic information is necessary for them to complete their professional work and to adhere to the provisions in the California building code that address slope stability minimum setbacks from slopes and foundation design separate from Santa Cruz county code chapter 1610 in areas subject to debris flow it is anticipated that data from the Atkins engineering study may assist with meeting the needs of technical consultants in this respect but this data will not apply to sites subject to other types of geologic hazards further pursuant to county code chapter 7.38 in limited locations the proper design and installation of the septic system requires geologic information that must be reviewed by the geologic staff in the planning department chapter 7.38 is currently in the final stages of review and acceptance by the state as part of the local area management plan or LAMP for onsite sewage disposal systems revising the chapter now would risk significantly delaying approval of the LAMP and because approval will streamline the review of all fire rebuild septic permits by allowing them to be reviewed locally rather than by the state chapter 7.38 is not proposed to be revised but next slide in conclusion we have presented three options for the board's consideration to allow those rebuilding after the CZU fired to do so without evaluation in mitigation of geologic hazards as required under county code chapter 1610 a resolution has been provided for adoption today that suggests eligibility requirements and conditions for opting out of further geologic evaluation that may be modified at the discretion of the board should option one be chosen by the board it is recommended that the board direct staff to pursue codification and amendments to the general plan and local coastal program to that end staff is available to answer any questions the board may have regarding the material we have presented today thank you for your presentation I'm going to get some comments from the board I can open that up I made extensive comments to the board on August 10th about this item so I'm going to be brief today we now have twice unanimously approve bringing options back for addressing the negative impacts of our geological hazards code and what it's having for our fire survivors who want to essentially rebuild what they had before the fire I really do appreciate the community members who have contacted me in this and that patients that they have demonstrated as we try to work out a solution and I thank you for sharing your stories to the board again today as you will do now I know I want to support the resolution pathway that provides immediate relief to those wanting to rebuild now while staff work out details of an amended ordinance general plan amendment and other steps during the coming months we can't wait any longer even if survivors choose not to rebuild until later as we know many of them may do it will be reassuring to know that they will not have to spend the time and money evaluating geological hazards and this is what we're talking about today with that I would like to open it for any maybe opening comments from any other board members supervisor Coonerty in the third district whose district was impacted like mine in the fifth district do you have any comments that you would like to make yeah I look forward to both community input as well as the board discussion but very briefly just to frame this a little bit for for folks who aren't who haven't been involved in day to day we obviously have a huge number of families that were impacted by the fire and the goal has always been to get them back home as soon as possible we've as we've gone through we've tried to reduce the barriers that we have control over so we reduced permitting costs and time looked at options for places like last chance which were almost entirely unpermitted and then worked with some of the areas that we don't have control over which is some of the Cal Fire rules around access and septic tank rules that are significant impediments to people getting back to their homes and obviously as people also struggle with insurance companies the high cost of building materials lack of labor and a variety of other challenges and so this is one step in moving things forward I want to sort of put into context that I recognize that this is not necessarily where the staff would have chosen to land had had they been given to themselves and I also recognize that we've heard from the community that this isn't this isn't where they want us to go and they have some concerns around the covenant and so we are trying to balance these interests we're also trying to balance the interest for future future homeowners as well as the county itself as an organization and the liability that we assume so I too like see resident Pearson support resolution going forward so that we can get some immediate relief and a pathway for people to go forward I think the broader conversation that director talked about about this being our new normal and developing codes and systems and operations that reflect an increasing number of natural disasters and challenges especially along our coast and our mountains is really important but there's time of the essence people's insurance money for housing is running out there's an anxiousness to return home and so we're trying to thread that needle today thank you supervisor supervisor friend do you have any comments just very briefly I mean first I want to really appreciate the work of Mr. Reed and that of planning staff being very responsive to this issue is a very complicated issue just as a reminder the board is the one who adopted not this board but the board is the one that adopted the construct by which planning was interpreting the codes on it anyway so it's a it makes sense that the board would continue and this is an iterative process as we discussed extensively on our last item as well I also want to recognize that these are very complex circumstances people that are living in these conditions we need to do everything we can especially in advance of winter to ensure that we can protect people looking forward to rebuild or then provide some sort of interim situation for those that were living in the burn situation and you know while this may have impacted supervisor McPherson and Kennedy's district the majority of fires in the last 15 years actually been within my district and there's nothing saying that it's not that our situation isn't next fires and floods for that I'm supportive of what's come forward today I'm also particularly supportive of the additional review of the item of the actual ordinance so we can get something over time to look at this moving forward recognizing that the whole reason why we created our three is the recognition that things the fundamentals are changing on the ground and we're going to need to have codes that recognize what that is moving forward so I think that we have an immediate component through the resolution but we also need that long-term look we also have to have that these are due to extenuating circumstances that there will not be a situation where the board is just waving codes during due to any specific issue moving forward but what happened throughout the rural areas in the third and fifth district is nothing short of absolutely catastrophic and that's what the board is trying to respond to today thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you. Yes thank you chairs a few questions um you know I understand that we're talking about a covenant that the owner would put on their deed deed recorded so that they're saying that they recognize the risks associated with rebuilding without the geologic hazard report and that anyone who owns the property in the future will be duly noticed at that as well is there any potential risk though to folks who live nearby of a structure being built without the geologic hazard report I mean are we endangering folks who maybe their home didn't burn down or they live in the area because someone rebuilds without this geologic hazard report. I would say there is not we're focused on the particular property and we would not allow a situation where the way the replacement was built was different it's in kind really so that's what covers that we wouldn't allow something to be built that would deflect mud or create some other difficulty on an adjacent parcel. Great thank you. Then you did mention or I think Supervisor Coonerty mentioned the pilot program on last chance road um and what being proposed today would exempt or I should say would not include structures built after 1986 without a permit. Do we have a sense of how many structures that would be? We don't have a number and that's because of course they've never come into our system and we don't have any record of them. So the answer to that is no we don't know the number. Okay I'm just going to curious how many people might be left out of out in the cold you know with today's actions then how would the the pilot program on last chance road were allowing people that didn't have a permit whose structures burned down to rebuild as long as their owner occupants to kind of summarize that how would that program interact with Yeah maybe to clarify something about that program that pilot program is about implementing a version of the building code that doesn't have the same standard as the regular building code and it recognizes different ways to build and has fewer required inspections and just the bar is lower in general and that's because of how rural those properties are but you still need a building permit. Right well I'm saying so are they already exempt from 1610 and the geologic hazard report? No that addresses only construction related building code issues so they're not exempt from other than this applying to that area as well as where else in the burn area that doesn't apply to geology that pilot program doesn't apply to fire access or to septic it's only for construction related questions. Okay so it's possible that someone let's just say living in the last chance area under this pilot program with an unpermitted structure built after 1986 would still would basically still have to do a geologic hazard report it's more like the two programs layer so this would apply to everybody in the burn area including last chance and then in addition last chance has some opportunity to do things differently relative to the code under the low density building ordinance program that we're talking about so they layer they're both in effect there but this one is in effect the same way there as anywhere Okay but the last chance pilot program doesn't sort of doesn't afford any additional it doesn't address geology geology yeah okay thank you Supervisor Caput do you have any questions? Thank you very much for the report and I you actually answered the report almost every question I had I just want to extend my heartfelt feelings for the people that went through the you know a doubly terrible year for most people were dealing with COVID-19 and other issues and you had to deal with losing your home and that's really rough so we're trying to make it better streamline everything at the same time I did notice that there's safety measures in there that we don't we're not looking the other way and ignoring the fact that when they rebuild that we're not actually setting them up for a second disaster down the line meaning like let's say go ahead and rebuild and then we have a big flood year you know a heavy rain and their house part of it washes away or something you can just clarify the safety measures that we have in place I heard most of them but you know make it clear to the public what we would be doing would be approving rebuilding into essentially the same circumstances that structure was in prior to the fire so it's for an in-kind structure in the same footprint or approximately the same footprint so any risks that exist from flooding for example would affect them the same way going forward as it would have in the past does that answer your question? yeah it does and some of the safety factors that remain in effect include the California building code which does have requirements that address foundations and slope stability etc. so that still exists my math is correct but 911 homes is pretty much like 1.5% of the entire housing stock in the county does that sound about right? I didn't do that calculation county-wide think about it it's a significant number of homes of the whole county which is unbelievable that's not structures that's homes, peoples lives thank you any other questions? that's it after having many conversations with residents in my district and I know supervisor Coonerty in his third district I have some questions and concerns from survivors about the proposed covenant recorded on properties that do not do a deep geological hazards report my questions are going to be the county council to get some legal so far the county council and other staff can you please discuss more about what these covenants mean and their impact on the future of these properties number one? thank you I'll take that one first I think Ms. Burke and supervisor Coonerty and some others have spoken to that issue and I'll try to attack it in a little different way which is that the staff and the board are trying to develop policy here that helps fire victims and at the same time doesn't hurt anybody else and the concern is that people are going to be in these homes later someday there are buyers even buyers in our own community who are going to purchase these homes someday and they need to know whether or not county codes were complied with in the building of these homes so that they have a choice of whether they want to go through and determine whether there are any dangers associated with the property so that's a very important aspect of the covenant because without the covenant being on title nobody knows, no future purchasers know whether or not those county codes were complied with the second thing that's important is we want to protect the entire community which is why we need the indemnification provision because should something happen that's unfortunate and that's disaster related that's a result of not complying with county code to be insured that that financial risk isn't going to eventually come back on the entire community this is a choice that fire victims are making to not comply with certain county code provisions and I realize it is a difficult choice and nobody wants them to be in this situation as many others have expressed we have so much empathy for what people are going through right now so we're trying to again thread that needle of providing immediate assistance and help to fire victims while at the same time not harming anyone else very well thank you and you've answered this probably but what immunity is a county already have with permitted buildings and how does this compare well the county has something called discretionary immunity that's associated with permits with issuing permits but that's really a separate issue that arguably protects the county from liability as opposed to with the covenant what we're talking about is protecting other people in the future who are good faith bona fide purchasers of these properties thank you council I'm going to open this up now to the public how many people want to speak okay well just please maybe two or three or four when you get in the line and then we're going to limit comments to two minutes which we normally do so thank you for your attention and for your comments that are about to come thank you good afternoon my name is Julie Lucia I lost my home in the fallen leaf neighborhood 390 days ago today 390 days and not one of them has gone by without the sick feeling in my stomach that we may not be able to go home the other day my daughter was watching a video of herself playing in our home and she said excitedly mama that's my first home try explaining to a four-year-old why we haven't started building our new home she doesn't understand why it's taking so long and frankening either do I it doesn't have to be this way at first it felt like the county was making logical decisions by spending six million to hire four leafs but it seems the planning department keeps halting forward progress and now that so much time has passed and we're continually navigating this information now it feels personal because the point is is that if my house hadn't burned down we wouldn't be here the planning department would not be putting us through such turmoil over non-fire related pre-existing geological features we wouldn't be asked to put a covenant on our deed lowering our property value plus we're up against a very strict timeline and the insurance companies don't care if they make us homeless ironically just this morning I got an email from nationwide stating that we have till April to build our home that's eight months from now and now that this has taken so long and we still don't have permits we will be forced to wait to build until the spring because of the winter moratorium because like so many others we are underinsured and cannot afford yet another extra expense for the winter permits I applaud the board for asking the planning department for a resolution to get fire victims home why in support of a resolution the one put forth here today needs to be reworked honorable supervisors I would hope that you would want a system in place for when not if a fire happens in your district it's time you held the planning department accountable and forced them to put forth recommendations that are actually in support of fire victims I ask that you come back in two weeks with more reasonable proposals show good faith and give fire victims some relief some peace and allow us to go home thank you my name is Larry Green and my own property in Boulder Creek was built there for 38 years my home was built in 1969 and weathered 5 80 plus inch rainfall years 1 20 inch is a rain in 24 hours in the 1989 earthquake the house was built with a permit in 1969 but it was a piece of junk the foundation was a joke and none of the walls were plumb I spent 38 years upgrading remodeling and modernizing that house my family and I never felt unsafe on that property now I'd like to ask each one of you to use your imagination for just a moment assume each of you live in Santa Cruz County and that you went home after this meeting and were told you had to evacuate your home immediately you rush around throw whatever is important to you that will fit in your car and you leave 48 hours later you get a call at 10 30 p.m saying that your house is burned to the ground I wanted to take a minute and try to let that sink in I know it's difficult because you haven't been through it you have lost everything you owned everything that you spent all your life building all your memories, all your dreams in an instant I cannot describe the devastation and psychological toll this will take on you and your family I have more but I want to talk you have another minute left it said 30 seconds I want to talk about the covenant the problem I have with the covenant is first it's an assumption that there's risk on my property despite the fact that there was a house there for 50 years so if there's no risk I don't have to it's already there the risk has been proven I think you should change the code to his point for us that would get around the liability issue and if you issue a permit you change the code so that we can build in kind on a piece of property we've been on for our whole lives that never had a problem despite all these natural disasters hello my name is Antonia Bradford and I lost my home and sees you fire in the last 13 months I've been working nonstop to try and get my family back home on track to break ground early this last spring until geology then everything came to a screeching hull I haven't come across anyone outside the planning department including professionals in the field who think fire victims should have to do non-fire geology surveys on their land this isn't treating fire victims fairly since the county hasn't retired a single home that survived in the burn scar so while I support this resolution there are a few things that few changes that need to be made the covenant that is to be recorded on our deeds will lower our property values I understand that most properties up in the mountains have some kind of disclosure as far as geology but this covenant has every single worst case scenario possible we have no idea how this will affect lending options for resale or refinancing or insurance it truly feels like fire victims are being penalized for our homes burning down additionally the arbitrary and discretionary power of the planning department's piloting that is embedded all over this item needs to be lowered those of us in the situation have not seen advocacy or compassion besides this speech at the beginning of this meeting in this entire and that within the code as it stands there are aspects of flexibility that could have been afforded fire victims but the choice was made not to how can we trust that our best interests are going to be met with this is the culture this is especially important because our county is going to be spending millions of dollars with our contract with for leave within the language of that contract it explicitly says that the consultant rather than the county has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result contracted for there are many other points within the contract that point to the point that the county is going to be spending millions of dollars on this this is a step of the way the planning department in geology are interfering delaying and causing harm to the fire community why waste our taxpayers dollars on this if they aren't going to listen to the people with experience you're risking bankruptcy and homelessness in this process I will end with this so the board can see how this is affecting people after the fire I started support page and I recently shared my latest article with one of our local residents and I said I would like to go back to my home I had no idea would be a full year into this and basically no one has started rebuilding I'd rather go down in flames good afternoon my name is Andrea Tishler and we lost our home on Swanton road to the fire actually we lost two places our original home the big house and I art studio which also burned which was only the 750 square feet art studio is where we would like to build an ADU unfortunately we built that in the early nineties without permits and we tried to get a permit from the building department but well we know about the building department and I built this art studio for my partner and and now that house burned we'd like to build on that in kind structure like that the art studio was built conforming in that all the building codes were followed but not with a permit now that was built in 1992 so I want to address and I think the supervisor over here talked about like what about the buildings that were built after 1986 well is not an arbitrary year what's magical about 1986 why not change that to make it 2020 I mean or why is 1986 because with that requirement is part of the option one I won't be able to build without a doing a geologic report that's extremely expensive to do a geologic report I've already inquired about that so I'd like to know what's magical about 1986 and if we could possibly amend that to make it something other than that so that I can build my little ADU on the in and in kind structure there thank you so much my name is Mandy and I want to thank you for hearing me today my husband and our children and I lost our home located in the forest Springs community in Boulder Creek this is my family's second time dealing with the loss of a home due to fire and our second time trying to obtain a building permit from the Santa Cruz County in the CZU wildfire we lost the home we had rebuilt after a house fire we had had 15 years ago and back then after much effort on our part treating us like a new build rather than a rebuild you questioned whether or not our build was even possible it was one of the most stressful times in our life and because it took over a year to finally obtain the building permit our insurance ran out we had to move six times and a total of three years living on the living room floor in relatives homes with our two small children and pets to eventually living in a camper in our driveway which also was not easy to get permission to do I thought for sure this time we're well insured and the county would be helping us more this time because this time we're not alone and this is not our fault we paid all the fees and we built a home that Santa Cruz County required this time it was a wildfire but instead of helping us get through this process quickly like promised once again our home and our livelihood is on the line and once again I'm scared our insurance will run out before this project is completed once again I'm worried about where we'll live and how we'll afford our mortgage and rent at the same time once again it's been over a year and I don't have a building permit all this stress while mourning the loss trying to work and go to school I really thought things would be different this time treating fire victims like new builds needs to change now and it's long overdue adding to our deeds when our neighbors who didn't burn don't have to we'll lower the values of our homes and it's not fair please help my family and my neighbors rebuild and keep the livelihoods we've worked so hard for thank you my name is Vince Cortina senior and I would like you guys to raise your hand if you know who I am anybody no because I've sat across the table from you and the rest of you guys just don't get out enough I'm a Boulder Creek firefighter and I'm proud to be a Boulder Creek firefighter I spent 12 days fighting that fire to find out my home was no longer I'd do it again I was a part of a small part of something way bigger than me you guys now have my attention and that's hard to do because I'm a pretty laid back guy I don't complain about much I just do what I got to do my son Vince junior joined the department right after the fire like literally right after he was in backgrounds came to help us put out spot fires so in essence I helped save your homes you owe me nothing I want nothing but what I demand is a right to build my lawful home in my footprint and you guys are offering we're going to help you fix your car but we're going to put a salvage title on it it doesn't work are you going to buy a salvage title car I mean you literally stated that there's a clause in an amendment already built in that relieves you of liability but yet for the past 13 months all you guys have cared about is your liability not our homes not our citizens and I'm pretty much not judgmental I don't like to judge people it's just not my thing it's not my shade Rhea which I believe that's her name planning committee which I believe you're in charge of what have you guys done why are we here why are we disgruntled why are we not being heard I met with David he's a nice guy cool guy jw cool guy I went on a hike with him I prove that I live on a rock I don't live on a landslide I live on a rock you would have to give a very big effort and go beyond the deepest you're going to get on my hills four feet and for you guys to sit there and say oh you can build like kind I'm not going to charge you for your permits we're going to fast track you we're going to stream you and then you just pulled it just straight pulled it that's what hurts and I'm aware my time is out I'm a very smart individual my resume is pretty impressive and what I'm going to do with that resume is I'm going to study each and every single one of you and I'm going to figure out who I'm going to replace thank you okay if I have it down a little bit thank you my name is Mary Simon and I lost my home 33 years in the CZU fire sorry my dream is to rebuild my home so I actually appreciate all the county's efforts to support the fire recovery in the Santa Cruz mountains it took four months for my property to be officially cleared by environmental health and I was so excited when I applied for my pre-clearances at RPC I'm very nervous too and then everything came to abrupt halt in April when I was denied geological clearance because of debris flow so I've been in limbo since then unable to make any decision despite doing all the reports necessary and the delay has been heart breaking however I think I'm going to surprise you by saying I would like to request that you delay your decision on agenda item 12 until we have more information and community input since the county is combining both pre-existing and post-fire geohazards I believe if we had the Atkinson report we would have a better understanding of the potential hazards maybe and this is what I pray it's not as dire as we all think also in the sample covenant the county recommends that property owners not sign the waiver that should give us all pause I would be willing to work together with county representatives and the community to re-examine all options and possibly come up with option four again thank you for your efforts towards fire recovery and all I ask is you take the time to make sure your decisions are fair to the county and to the property owners thank you well my name is Adam Pierce I can't pretend to know more than the average Joe about building a house because it comes to codes, permits all the stuff that needs I know I could help, I could frame pretty good I could do things like this but what I do know is over a year ago this community was devastated devastated amongst the scariest pandemic we've ever seen what I do know is that my son his mother, ex was my ex-wife great co-parent and an amazing teacher in the community, his stepfather who is a hard working honest man and his little sister, the brightest, cutest little four year old you've ever seen I do know that they deserve to be in their home and comfortable there's no question about that not only does this gravely affect a teacher who's going to shape the community the future of this country helping teachers sorry I'm kind of nervous she's dedicated her life to helping thank you I know she's dedicated her life to helping the children tomorrow but if that isn't worse enough it affects our children of the community our community, the children don't have their home they don't have the solidity it wasn't their fault that the fires happened to them it happened to these families so if they're not just signatures they're not just dollar signs they're not just numbers on a page this is the children of our community I've been displaced imagine your grandchildren who one day woke up and they didn't have their blankies their stuffies all their favorite pictures and toys the comfortability of a home was taken from them and now due to signatures and question marks they're still out on the streets we have to do better for our kids we have to do better for the community we have to, thank you my name is Jessica Brady and I lost our home in the Forest Springs neighborhood in the CZU fire last year and I'm here today to plead with the county to help us and the other families who lost their homes we are 13 months post fire and still do not have a definitive answer from the county if we will be allowed to rebuild and it is mentally exhausting to live in a constant state of limbo being at the mercy of a county that doesn't seem to care about the families impacted by their lack of action we were on track to break ground this fall until the county announced the start of the GHA which was started almost a full year after the fire and is now holding many of us up and moving forward even once it is complete the proposed options are less than favorable to the homeowners the declaration we are being asked to sign will impact the value of our properties and our insurability which is already a challenge in the mountains and it feels like we are being penalized because of a fire none of us had control over we're glad more families did not lose their homes in the fire however the homes still standing are not being held by the same expectations that we are their homes are at no less risk than ours yet only certain rebuilt homes are being required to record the risk on our titles in fact there are two fellow forest springs neighbors just a stone's throw away from us that have made it through pre-screening without signing the declaration so again why are some homes being treated differently than others the county and the board needs to do better we were promised an expedited process we were promised we would not be treated as new builds we were promised fees would be waived and are lowered and we were promised the county would do everything possible to help us rebuild but so far none of these promises have been kept the county even posted a fluff piece on Facebook patting themselves on the back obviously not anticipating the 156 comments calling it out for what it was a slap in the face to those who lost their homes for us we're anticipating that taking a year to build since we're already 13 months post fire with no idea of when we might be able to break ground our insurance funds are quickly running out and we are concerned that we will be pushed out of our rental long before our home is ever completed due to county delays we ask that the board revise the options and come back within two weeks with a more reasonable transparent proposal please do what is right and help the fire community rebuild we love our mountain community and we want to get back to it hello my name is John Silva thank you all so much thus far in identifying the problems that we're dealing with with geology why couldn't the planning department just simply do a release a liability form and a variance to proceed as long as hazards that were pre-existing and not directly affecting the building envelope as the county representative stated in August meeting a small percentage of people are being affected by the geologic restrictions if this is in fact the case then it seems only logical and fair to make an exception in a timely manner and simplifying things with a variance that is case by case why put a deviated effect on our titles when there wasn't one before when homes are purchased when homes are purchased and sold in this county a geologic hazard clearance is not ever an issue why are not we are not developing we are simply trying to R&R what we had before the fire by the way I have hired a geologist and he performed a DHA and soils report on my property and the geology department refused it they are requiring a geologic assessment to be to the full degree of the law as it was an entirely new development I'm not sure that the planning department I'm sure that the planning department wants the power to do what they decide and what they want to do however as civil servants of us the people this county I wish that they could be compassionate for long enough to understand we need this and by now we deserve this our homes and lives back they ultimately have the ability to make it easier for us and they don't it would not surprise me at this point please be our voice to the planning department as they cannot hear us the people the victims we do not matter we do not have enough power as individuals they need to be governed by you please exercise your authority don't let them make you look like as insensitive as they are my name is Tracy Walker and I'm a CZU fire victim my home was in the Riverside Grove community of Boulder Creek and it was in a low risk to reflow area apparently we're not even included in this basin study that I keep hearing about a large portion of our neighborhood used to live and survive the fire most of which are in a high risk to reflow area but they're all still allowed to live in their homes where does the concern for life come in to me that just sounds like an excuse to make it sound like you're doing something without actually working on a solution for us anything we build will be safer than the 81 year old cabin we had which would still be deemed safe if it didn't burn down there is still a house maybe 50 feet from where my house used to stand is there no threat for them because their house didn't burn after we submitted our pre-clearances we were told we also needed to submit a GHA we hired a geologist who came to our property he took boring samples that he tested in a lab and wrote a report that we submitted to the county in May in his report he gave us his professional opinion on how to safely build our home and we obviously thought we would be good enough to be able to pass our geologic hazard pre-clearance but apparently we were wrong because the county denied our report in his report it states it is our opinion that from our geotechnical viewpoint this site is suitable for proposed construction provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed during design and construction the report also states based on our analysis we conclude that the potential for slope instability impacting the proposed house is low there is no evidence the slope has moved for a very long time including during the Loma Prieta earthquake and then 1806 earthquake I'm no geologist but the man who wrote our report is and that sounds like our land is safe to build on so where's the problem why were we denied why is the county geology department now telling us that we have to bring back our geologist and take more boring samples from a 100 foot hole this time that's not even going to be on our property this is ridiculous something needs to change our lot is not unsafe we have the proof please fix this my name is Melinda Silva I signed on with the geologist with the walkers and the 100 foot hole is actually going on the footprint of my home it will be they also are requesting mapping of an ancient landslide that has not moved in thousands of years there's people above me that are more on the landslide than I am and they are not requiring a GHA report or newer than mine my house went through Loma Prieta it went through the 82 floods these other homes did not and it is not fair that we have been denied and we have to do this hole and the people right next to us do not I don't see the reasoning I don't see why my geologist was shut down and just told no and has to come back and we have to do more testing it does not seem fair I don't understand what the logic is we get to make these decisions and mess with our lives we have been out for 13 months now with no sight of being able to get any answers I want to know why I want to know why I can't simply get a permit to put my foundation in I want to pass pre-clearance I want to move on with my life please help us do this thank you hello I am Chuck Boffman I lived in a Riverside Grove and I lived near the person who just spoke so I am one of the lucky ones I am through geology I initially was declined and I was encouraged to sign on with the same geologist that the speaker just spoke about and I am glad that geologist did not want to take me on it was too far away for him to travel because I waited long enough and my circumstances changed and a couple of months later things were reevaluated and according to when my house was built I am now clear and these people for the vast majority are not anywhere near as lucky in that sense as I was so the county seems seems to be trying to go in a direction that is good that is worrying about its liability its loss its financial risk in this and the financial risk to all the families and people that are here today is enormous they are running up in many cases against insurance limits and their ability to even stay in the county may be threatened so try to justify to yourselves why you are requiring something from somebody who who is probably going to rebuild a house that is better than the one that was before them so they are improving the safety in their neighborhoods but they are being held to a choice that requires them to sign off on liability when I think the county should be taking some of this liability itself hello my name is Chris Lucia we lost our home in the Fallen leaf neighborhood on August 20, 2020 I have worked in the solar industry for about the last two years with the largest presidential solar company in the nation and without a doubt Santa Cruz county is the hardest to work with when it comes to permitting in San Jose an online permit takes about a week or excuse me about a minute to process online through our solar project excuse me in Santa Cruz before daily to submit the permits and it took about two weeks this whole process to unfold for the permit to come back I feel like it really speaks to how I antiquated this whole system is with the county my wife is probably killing me right now because I am going off script a little bit right now but hey it is what it is I feel like I grew up here I moved here when I was 8 years old people in my class got to buy a home in this area I am trying to raise here and I feel like we are at the right there we are at the goal line all we have to do is get the okay to move forward excuse me I don't understand why we are being held up I have a friend that is already putting foundation in just right down the road I play softball with him and I told him if the mud slides down I would write it down to your house the same as a joke because it is not going to happen we are going to rebuild with or without the okay I will put a trailer up I don't care it is going to happen we are going to do it with or without you guys so please help us it is time to move forward thank you ladies and gentlemen of the board thank you for hearing our comments today I lost my home the proposed options presented are a step in the right direction however the current draft is unacceptable for the fire community for reasons that you have all been listening to today that we have submitted at length in our comment section on the agenda through emails you know the reasons we are standing here you know why this is unacceptable this is still being treated as a new build not a rebuild the process of rebuilding feels like the county is working against us with no one interest rather than working with us there needs to be exceptions and exemptions made here I would support passing a resolution as it is a good faith effort in moving along the CZU rebuild process quickly however the proposed resolution needs to be revised if I may offer a suggestion that could benefit all of us try working with the fire community to come to an agreement no one knows what it is like to go through this process better than all of us who are living it perhaps the draft can be revised and submitted for comment by the fire community within two weeks I would also be in support of working on a more permanent solution as we likely won't be the last members of our community to experience life after natural disasters thank you my name is Julie Wiest and I'm a fire victim I lived in the fallen leaf neighborhood I lived in the valley for about 17 years and I've been involved in CERT I'm a CERT trainer in Boulder Creek I used to teach Mapier neighborhood to help improve the safety of our community I've been on the board of the Valley Women's Club to help improve our environment and community and I'm currently working in a community driven development team that is working to also improve the quality of the lives and the recovery of fire victims so I'm I'm on lots in lots of community Facebook groups I've been involved in lots of different meetings and I've been here before to talk to the board about the atrocities of PG&E this was a few years ago and I remember listening to somebody talk to the board and planning department about the challenges they were having trying to rebuild and the money they had spent and the time and angst that they had spent and I thought that poor person you know that poor man standing here kind of begging for help nobody helped him you know the planning department of this county has got one of the worst reputations in the state of California and at this point after you've heard all of these people and you've seen all the comments it's time to bring a mediator in to resolve some of the issues that are going on with the planning department and the relationship that they've had because it's from what I've heard it's been 30 years that they've mismanaged their responsibility to this community and they're not managed effectively to help resolve the issues here so I would suggest that we take two weeks involve the community in helping solve this I used to teach structured problem solving it's time to bring a geologist and mediator in that is not reporting to the planning department and not be holding to the planning department and works for the county and the people to help get a resolution that's effective and timely Thank you very much My name is Karen Wilson-Dixon I lost my home up on Swanton Road my parents lost their home on Swanton Road and my daughter lost her home on Swanton Road and we lost our commercial kitchen on Swanton Road so home and business kind of gone in one swoop Thank you for letting me speak I look at these three options you guys have presented to us I feel like we need all three of them not to just choose one I think that all of them need revision one of them I will sign a waiver that you guys are not responsible for my rebuild but anybody who would buy my property which wouldn't happen anyway because it's a fourth generation property and although I would love to not have the value be removed from it in case I needed to take a loan so please don't make us put it on our title I don't understand why that would be necessary anyone who would be purchasing our property would have to go through a geological investigation themselves anyway that's typical there's no need to put something on our titles in that case the next one is go ahead and give us a waiver for that first option and then go on to option 2 and change 610 so that the fire victims are immune from now whenever you can get that off of our that revision made but both of those things need to happen one first now one as you get it done and third all of us rebuilding are going to be models for that future option 3 how do we rebuild in the future so that there is more fire safety more geological safety etc what is the model for the future we are your guinea pigs so I think all 3 should be looked at and all 3 of them revised and thank you for letting me speak is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak to us do we have anybody on the phone yes I do have speakers on soon thank you Alison Breeze your microphone is available can you hear me thank you for the opportunity to speak today my name is Alison Breeze and I come to you as a homeowner from within the burn scar who is very fortunate to not lose their home as a community member I have been closely following the obstacles experienced by the fire community as they struggle to rebuild and return home I appreciate that options are finally being considered to disable some of the geology roadblocks option 1 removing the requirements for fire rebuilds would provide the fastest approach for families to return home therefore I have profound concerns and oppose the requirement for a covenant to be recorded to the property title as part of this process this action would have significant consequences on the property value and is inherently inequitable as a result surviving homes in the burn storm burn zone under exactly the same pre-existing geologic conditions and under identical risk are not being required to either record the same document on their titles or to pursue expensive studies while I do wholeheartedly support safety and disclosure principles this particular action will create two distinctly different and unequal classes of properties in our county all for the sake of pre-existing non-fire related or temporary risks is the Board of Supervisors willing to force fire rebuilds to become second class properties in perpetuity is the steep price for returning home to create a precedent for inequality in Santa Cruz County after future natural disasters we are a community and what hurts some of us hurts all of us as a homeowner who did not lose their home I urge you to support option one with a covenant requirement removed it is not removed then the only equitable course of action would be to enforce these requirements on all properties in the areas and not solely on fire builds all of us are watching closely for how you will decide thank you first in Flynn okay hello my name is Kirsten Flynn and I lost a beloved family cabin in the CZU fires first of all I want to acknowledge the loss that this community has faced we have lost our homes we have lost our feeling of safety we have lost our neighbors and our neighborhoods we want those things back secondly I want to thank all of the people that have been so helpful since the fire my neighbors on Clear Creek in Brookdale Angie Bruiz and the RCD the county of Santa Cruz planning department especially Jessica Degrassi the new R3 department especially David Reed and the Santa Cruz community foundation all of these people have taken the pain of what happened to their neighbors and turned it into positive action when dealing with complex situations I find it is super useful to constantly check back in what is the goal so what is the goal here we want to make it possible to allow people who lived in the mountains and were affected the fire to be able to build a place to live however that goal runs parallel to a second goal shared by all of those I thanked above the goal to make our neighbors safe to keep the land safe to keep our houses safe that is the overarching reason for codes for laws in general to pass rules that we all agree are to the benefit of society it benefits society to build safe housing geologic time is long and dangerous situations often come in cycles much longer than a hundred years these two goals have been in conflict because of the increased risk of debris flow your goal is to try to find a solution to these as much of both goals as possible to find a middle way the science is clear on the risk and we have to find some way to convey that danger associated with all the land in the valley two land speculators investors developers who might see any loosening of safety codes as carte blanche to build crappy home in our mountains I'm out of time so I stopped there are other speakers on zoom chair again there's nobody from the public that wants to address this hasn't yet I'll bring the issue back to the board I know if there's some questions there that you might be able to briefly answer the 1986 in particular a few questions that were yeah I can do that Andrew Tichler talked about the magic of 1986 what's magic about that it's not magic but it does represent something it's not arbitrary that was about the year when the computer systems at the county become reliable to the point that we can say if we have no record of a building permit then there wasn't a building permit before 1986 there's some possibility that in the old record keeping systems and some of these permits we'd be talking about would be 1960s that we could not 100% say you didn't have a permit so the benefit of the doubt goes to the property owner and that's why the board went with the 1986 I don't know if there was any other question big issue was about the covenant I think the county council had addressed that somewhat any questions from the board I just just wait for a motion we have three options that are before us entertain a motion to move ahead if we can but want to see any supervisor might want to recommend I'll move to approve the resolution as proposed Mr. Chair well before we there's a second to that I'm supportive of the resolution but I think that the board also needs the direct staff to come back with modifications the ordinance long term which is number three so I think it's like a combo of one and three so I don't know if the maker of the motion so this allows for the expediting of the rebuilds now and it also allows for a better look moving forward on resiliency for the ordinance moving forward so to the maker of the motion I'd be willing to second it if that's what the intent of the motion was is that Supervisor Caput is that Supervisor Coonerty I don't want to put you on the spot do you have any because I can't make a motion so yeah no I sorry I'm happy to move the recommended action which is the adoption of the resolution as attachment A as well as provide additional direction to the OR 3 staff to they're already doing this but to continue to work on adjusting our ordinances in terms of to build for more resiliency going forward Mr. Chair Mr. Chair assuming the first motion also I know I think it would be a recommended addition to your your motion I think that's the way to handle that Mr. Chair we can just say that the first motion died for a lack of a second and then Supervisor Coonerty introduced a follow-up motion that I will second we can do that way that's fine okay so this is to accept the recommended action about the resolution and to have additional direction to look into the third or it's about optimizing or updating the ordinance related to the fire or emergency situations that happen in the county is that basically what you would that's your motion Supervisor Coonerty yeah that's correct okay and I guess let me just say that in two weeks we'll have the Atkins report and better understand the nature of this area and this is a process so we're trying to some people will fall into the category where this resolution works well and so we want to get that on the books as soon as possible right I agree I think it's important we act now to move ahead and we're going to have more information in depth information we get the Atkins report in two weeks but we might as well I think it's better that we move now and look at that and then move from that day forward so with the motion on the floor please call the roll Supervisor Koenig aye friend aye Coonerty aye Abbott aye McPherson aye thank you motion passes unanimously with additional direction okay thank you and thank you for your input we appreciate it thank you very much but you left the Covenant in that's correct there's no discussion about it going forward it could be it could be in the future can I join me out of the box we gotta figure out a way to give us some some way to build on a property that will save for our whole alliance we're going to move to number nine Chair could I make a quick comment on the Covenant you know there's already a high risk wildfire area the value of your homes is going to be based on the demand for them someone who wants to buy them the value is set by the markets and you already are required to have a natural hazards disclosure report which will probably say that your home exists in a high risk wildfire area now you all know because you live in these beautiful places that that alone is not determined whether or not someone wants to buy or live in one of these beautiful locations so any buyer of a home is going to buy nature weigh the risks of which this is simply one notification of a potential risk against the rewards of the beauty of living in these beautiful places that you live now so I don't think that if you feel strongly that this is going to have an impact on the value of your homes I think you should come back with some evidence from real estate professionals or expert knowledge and facts will help drive the discussion I'm going to lend on houses with this on the deed I'm in complete slingers I'll turn it to you in terms of this those kind of professional opinions from lenders or insurance agents would probably also be very helpful as we continue to improve this how do we convey them to you I didn't hear any real insurance professionals we're going to go talk to them we'll go talk to bankers we'll talk to insurance people we'll talk to real estate people how do we convey what they're telling us to you I would have them write a letter themselves why aren't you guys wondering if the problem now is that impact looks like this you guys should know this before we pass the bill exactly, you don't understand the rest excuse me excuse me we're going to be with discussion on this issue in two weeks and we will have further testimony then we've made the action on what we're going to do today we're going to move on to the schedule agenda on item number nine we're moving on to the word now something neutral something neutral okay we go to do we close the kitchen item number nine you can consider an ordinance amending the Santa Cruz County Code section 2.124 0.040 to better define the membership criteria for the Santa Cruz County in-home support services advisory commission at large membership consider amendment to the Santa Cruz County in-home support services advisory commission bylaws and reflect the code amendments and schedule an ordinance for second reading and final adoption on September 28, 2021 as outlined in the memorandum of the director of human services ordinance amendment amending the chapter 2.124 Santa Cruz County Code strike out on that chapter ISHS advisory commission bylaws clean copy and strike up copy Mr. Morse human services director hi good afternoon Supervisor and Chair McPherson and board members and county staff and public listening I feel like I need to take a deep breath and pause mindful and I'm about to present something for the first time in my tenure here that's actually maybe simple and straightforward particularly given the morning and the last agenda item appreciate the exhaustion and the energy that's playing out that I'm walking into so yes I'm the director of the county human services department and one of the programs that we administer is the in-home supportive services program which is more often referred to by SNAP acronym IHSS state law mandates in California that every county IHSS program has an advisory board which is predominantly of consumers of our service and in here in Santa Cruz County that's through a formal commission that exists under bylaws and Santa Cruz County code that your board previously has approved what brings this to your board today is that the commission itself has been and this is not unique to this commission but the commission itself over the last many years has been struggling filling the seats and they've been consulting across the state looking at the way other commissions organize themselves and with our own county council's office to see if there's something that could be done with your board's approval to make it easier and more streamlined to keep those seats full the commission itself has not had all seats filled since 2014 so what's in front of you and the written materials which I'm not going to detail I'm just trying to frame this for you so you understand what the vote is in front of you today is some modest what I believe are modest and reasonable amendments to both the bylaws and the Santa Cruz County code that would effectuate the change they're looking for which is to try to help fill those seats a little bit easier I do want to take just a quick minute particularly in light of all the emotions of the topics that you've all been looking at today to explain to you the human element of what in-home support services is and why I'm so supportive as the human services director of doing all we can to help bring the voice of consumers of this program to a commission to help give us feedback in-home supportive services is a medical program so by definition all the customers that we serve in the program are on Medi-Cal which means they're low income and they are also either aged blind or disabled and those are Medi-Cal aid codes and we serve about 3,000 Santa Cruz County residents in this program and if they were not getting this service it is arguable that they would then not be able to live in their home and we also have about 2,500 providers of in-home care to come into the home of these aged blind and disabled Medi-Cal recipients and this advisory commission by state law meets with our staff regularly to look at evaluate and give us feedback on whether or not we're delivering the best service possible so it's a very important effort a very important commission the board action in front of you today is actually broken down into three parts the reason why this requires a board action and is required to be on regular calendar is because this is a change to the code which requires an ordinance which that means there needs to be two readings by your board to make a change to the Santa Cruz County code and the first one past practice in this community has been a regular session and a presentation by the department so of the three items in front of you for a vote the first one is to accept and concept the proposed changes to the code w