We'll now call to order the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors regular meeting. It's 9 a.m. September 13th, 2022. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Supervisor Friend. Here. Coonerty. Here. Caput. Here. McPherson. Here. And Koenig. Here. Thank you, Chair. You have a quorum. Thank you, Clerk. We'll now have a moment of silence and pledge of allegiance. Is there any member of the board that wishes to honor anyone or anything? Yes, Mr. Chair. Again, I'd like to honor Mr. Dr. Terry Hollenbeck, who is a longtime physician who worked in Santa Cruz County Medical Clinic and helped establish their Scots Valley, the Santa Cruz Medical Clinic, helped establish their urgent care clinic. He retired in 2015, but for many years also wrote a weekly act of advice column on health topics for the press banner newspaper. He provided a lot of trusted wisdom on healthy living in our community and wrote about his illness in an optimistic way that was informative and really inspiring to his readers as well. We will miss Dr. Hollenbeck and we share our condolences with his wife, Beth and the rest of his family. Also, Gloria Nieto was a fiercely dedicated activist for the most vulnerable in our community, including members of the LGBTQ community, seniors and children. She gave an immense amount of time and work and energy to many organizations, such as the Santa Cruz Community Health Centers, including recently in Ben Lohman and the Diversity Center that worked to address inequities across many, many areas. Gloria was also embodied that loving Aloha spirit wherever she went and she was a tremendous lover of her beautiful flowers. She will be missed deeply by many in our community and we send our condolences to her wife, Joe Kinney and other loved ones. She was a very, very special person. Thank you. Supervisor Cabot. Thank you. Yeah, I would like to recognize a good friend of mine that passed away. We've been, we were friends for, since we were probably 10 years old and he passed away this past week, David Trevino. And he was a counselor for many years at Cabrillo College and also a veteran of the U.S. Army. And anyway, he was known as Santa Claus in the Watsonville area. Every time around Christmas, he's what you call a natural.  And so anyway, I will recognize his passing. Thank you. We'll keep Terry Glow and David Santa Claus Trevino in our hearts during this moment of silence. I'd like to say some of America to the requirement for which it stands which is to the occasion under the time when you're doing this home, when the liberty and justice are under the control. CEO Palacios, do we have any additions or deletions to the regular consent agenda today? Yes, on the consent agenda, item number 17, the memorandum had multiple corrections on packet page 149, which has been, and that page has been replaced. Item number 33, staff request that this item be deleted, be brought back at a future meeting, remove packet pages 523 through 526. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Director Caput. You bet. I'll pull, as I was requested actually by the fire department in Watsonville, the fire captain Rudy Lopez, item 29, just for comment. And I guess they would like to speak on that later. So that's to approve amendment to an agreement with American Medical Response West to extend term for 30 months for provision of 9-11 ambulance services. Okay, and to clarify, you actually wanted to pull that item to the regular agenda, Supervisor Caput? Yes. Okay. I'll also ask that we pull item 13 to adopt ordinance admitting chapter 7.38 of the Santa Cruz County Code relating to onsite wastewater treatment systems and move that to our regular agenda. Is there any other item that board members wish to remove from consent to regular agenda? Seeing none, then we will hear item 13 after item 10. And then it was item, Advisor Caput, was it 20 or 33? No, sorry. Remind me, what item was it? Supervisor Caput. 29. 29, okay. We'll hear 13 and then 29 at the end of our regular agenda today. All right, we'll now proceed with public comment. This is an opportunity for any member of the public to address the board on items on our regular or consent agenda today. It's not on the regular or consent agenda yet, but within the jurisdiction of this board, the board members will not respond. This is not a Q&A period, but we can follow up later. And if you ask pertinent questions during an item, we can also choose to address those of staff. Please, go ahead. Good morning, what is it September 14th? Yeah, I have questions on the agenda or the consent agenda, 16, 19 and 20, but whatever. At least law enforcement raised their eyes when I wasn't standing for the pledge of allegiance. Why would I pledge allegiance to the corporate flag? Why would anybody? You know, I had the pleasure, but I'm not always the nicest sometimes to run into a man yesterday who's in his early 70s and still drives 18 wheelers. He's been doing that for almost 50 years. You have to be really careful with those devices. They weigh 80,000 pounds. And just because they have brakes doesn't mean they're gonna stop. So he nudges me on the shoulder. I hadn't seen him. I saw him once last month, but it'd been about two years. And he's wearing a mask.  I don't remember what he said, but I just didn't take the time to explain to him. I just didn't have time for it. But so why would I stand for the pledge of allegiance? You know, there's legislation that's being passed in Illinois on January 1st, 2023, which is pretty much a huge get out of jail free card. 44 seconds. I'm just kind of reminded of what the recent Cox committee and the house and representatives did some research on between 1952 and 1955, realizing that the tax eugenics foundations were already above the executive judicial and legislative branches. Kind of reminds me of a term paper I wrote in 1987 in Foothill College, Wilcox class, analyze the concept of judicial review and show the significant role John Marshall played in the establishment of American jurisprudence.  But I don't have time for that now. It's just nice to see you guys, those that actually show up. Thanks, Mr. Whitman. Good morning supervisors. My name is John Flanagan. I've been involved in real estate for more than 20 years. As a real estate investor specializing in mountain property, I know the challenges associated with septic systems. Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns regarding the lamp and what was consent item number 13. The realtor community and septic contractors have been left out of the lamp discussion as evidenced by the July 11th tag minutes, which have only alternative septic system designers and consultants and attendants. No contractors, no realtors. The point of sale requirements have not been vetted by the real estate community. We are told that instituting this new procedure will begin on January 1st, 2023. Even if the process were vetted and realtors had an opportunity to partner with the county on writing a thoughtful inspection document, three months is not enough time to educate the community regarding these requirements. Since the point of sale is not a state requirement, please remove point of sale inspection from the lamp. For historical context, the county's sewer lateral inspection requirement needed input from the realtor community before it was manageable. The original version produced by county staff had serious flaws. If sewer laterals are third grade math compared to the complexity of septic systems, which is quantum mechanics, how is county staff gonna put together a reasonable document for realtors? My request is simple. Postpone the adoption of the lamp, remove the point of sale inspection requirement, consider septic and well variances for CZU fire victims, and clearly define the alternative processes for winter water tests, not defined in the lamp. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Flanagan. Good morning, supervisors. My name is Greg Lukina. I'm a local realtor, also chair of the local government relations committee at our Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors. I'm here today to also speak on what was formerly consent item number 13, the local area management plan, specifically in regard to the point of sale. I have three main concerns with the point of sale, first and foremost being the process. The process has yet to be defined and we have yet to have any input into that process to give a little bit of context. When the city of Santa Cruz, I know different jurisdiction rolled out there, sewer lateral ordinance, we had multiple months of input into their process before implementing that point of sale, working closely with city staff in order to roll out something that was successful to both buyers and sellers and cleaning up the environment. My next item is the 90 day post point of sale to do upgrades to the system that can be transferred to buyers. I recently had an experience where my wife and I were looking to do upgrades to our home. One of those alternatives was putting in an enhanced treatment system or required putting in an enhanced treatment system. It took us 146 days to get a septic designer out to our site to do an initial site walkthrough. He then estimated 18 to 24 months until we had a functioning enhanced treatment system in our ground. How would we have been able to comply with 90 days if we had a failed system? Third is the January 1st, 2023 rollout. If you approve today, we have less than three months or a little over three months to design the process and get word out to both realtors and the general public. Most of transactions happen with realtors. However, we also know that there's principle to principle transaction. So it's more than just a realtor marketing. We need more time than that to go back to the city of Santa Cruz sewer lateral. They gave us a year from adoption to when it was a requirement. So today I'm requesting that you pull the lamp and specifically the point of sale ordinance so that we can have time to design a plan that will work for everybody involved. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McKenna. Good morning. My name is Becky Steinbrenner. I live in Santa Cruz mountains in Aptos. Thank you for pulling item 13 and I'll speak about it later. I want to really express my concern about how quickly the general plan, County's general plan update and Santa Cruz sustainability plan are being pushed through. Tomorrow is the final public hearing before the planning commission. The commissioners had one other public hearing on August 24th, I think it was. They couldn't get through their agenda. They requested to have an interim meeting that they themselves and staff all agreed would happen on September 1st just to give them more time. That meeting was canceled because of technical difficulties. So tomorrow at 9 30, the planning commission will assumably hold their final public meeting and this is not being vetted by the public. It is a huge document. As you know, with far reaching consequences about how this County policy land use policy will be shaped and what our County will look like for decades. There's no public input virtually. There were 14 comments on the draft EIR. There was no extension for the minimal public comment time that was given to the draft EIR. This whole thing came before the board in concept in 2014 and DUDEC, the planning commission sat on it for years. DUDEC was hired to make it happen and it took them over two years to do and now the public is being expected to review it all in comment in a manner of a few weeks. It's not right. And I ask that you extend it. I would also like to bring to the public's attention that the Burns of Forty and Scotts Valley fire consolidation is happening and there's a lot of discussion about that. There will be a public informational workshop tomorrow. Thank you. Zoom at six o'clock and I urge you. Gary Richard Arnold, the supervisors and members present and not. This is from the governor of Colorado. Talks about regional authority, which you've totally adopted and why these realtors are finding themselves granted like most industries. He says regional authority is the most violent attack on the American constitution that if unchecked will develop into the bitterest issue the Americans have encountered since slavery. Once this regional authority is established, it's a basis for a system that will control our industries, our farming, our education and our lives. All of you, most of you belong to this organization. It was in California. It's called California Forward. The local Soviet is Ambag. There's a network of these Soviets. It's called Calcog. Calcog is a council of government. It's a Soviet. It was co-founded by Lenny Mandanka who asked for eliminating 80% of the local governments from a few people are absolutely guilty of. I've got common cause right here in California Forward. Mr. McSiererson, it's got your name. It's got Mr. Coonerty's name up here. Mr. Coonerty went to the London School of Economics where they're trained in regionalism and they talk about it and they brag about it and how they can control so many things just by going through the back door. Less than a year when the country of England was divided up, it said they had all these offices in place and we do. Nobody's ever been to Ambag and these lying newspapers like they've sent in all, never reports on them. You don't report on them when you attend them and show up here, they brag. The political changes forces their way in at the back entrance. And then he says at one stroke, there will be install a system of regional government leaving local authorities visibly untouched. Arnold, but offers a formidable challenge. All right, seeing no one else here in chambers. It wishes to address us in public comment. Is there anyone on Zoom or on the telephone? Yes, Chair. We do have speakers on Zoom. Call in user one, your microphone is now available. This is Marilyn Guerra, weather radiation from nuclear power plants looks like they're on in a very serious possibility of melting down in Ukraine and Diablo Canyon. And then we have the non ionizing microwave radiation that is increasing dramatically. And the Sentinel of Sunday, September 11th has a picture of one of these military style installation. And it's titled, what's that giant form radar installation now top Santa Cruz sheriff's office rooftop and described as being ex band radar system. So I looked up in this book I have called the Zapping of America by Paul Brodure in 1977. Microwaves, they're deadly risk and the cover up. This is from the cover of the book.  The risks have been hidden from you by the Pentagon, the State Department and the electronics industry. With this book, the microwave cover up is ended. So I looked up ex band in this 1977 book. And I was like an extra minute, but you'll cut me off of course, but just part of it. In 19, it's a chapter on the human factor. In 1961, Professor Susskind performed an experiment for the Air Force, exposed 200 bail. Thank you, Mr. Garrett. That's rude. We have no further speakers chair. Thank you. And I'll return it to board for action on the consent agenda. Move the consent agenda as amended. Mr. Chair, I'll second, but I would like to make some comments on the consent agenda if that's appropriate now. Yes, please go ahead, Supervisor Fun. And actually I just have a comment on one item, which is in regards to the item 32, which is the Wilbrook Park project. First appreciation of this board and the CAO for the additional funding that the county provided at the budget time. As you can see, the community has been exceptionally generous in their funding toward the reimagining of this park. Just recently we had a significant contribution from the Contractors Association. We've had large contributions from local healthcare providers as well as other local community members. And it's really all to ensure that Sergeant Gutzweiler gets the reimagining of the park that he and his family deserve. And it's an absolutely beautiful testimony. So we're looking forward to the next now, moving in toward the construction phase and these improvements. And it's all due to this community outreach in the work of, again, just a lot of appreciation to all of you on the board for your willingness to help also make county contributions toward it. And unquestionably, the park staff and county parks friends, Mr. Gaffney, Ms. Hurley, Noah and others at the parks department and also all those in county parks friends that have helped with fundraising as well. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. All right, we have a motion by Supervisor McPherson and seconded by Supervisor Friend to adopt the consent agenda as amended. That is without item 13 or 29. Hope you heard on our regular agenda. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Consent agenda passes unanimously as amended. Thank you. We'll now proceed with item seven to consider approval and concept of ordinance amending section seven, or section five dot 47 dot 050 of the Santa Cruz County Code to allow the county to collect 12.5 cents of the mandatory charge for disposable single use cups as a tax and ordinance adopting Santa Cruz County Code, chapter four dot 10 relating to collection and administration of the single use cup tax, schedule second reading and final adoption of the ordinances on September 20th, 2022 and take the way of actions is outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative officer. And for a report on this item, we have Assistant CAO, Nicole Coburn. Good morning, Chair Koenig and members of the board. I'm Nicole Coburn, Assistant CAO and I'm here today to present the ordinances allowing for the collection of the single use cup tax and enacting the new tax. This past February 15th, as the board is aware, you called for an election of a ballot measure designating that half of the county's existing 25 cents single use cup charge be collected as a tax so that it can be spent on various actions that were related to reducing pollution, trash and plastics, entering our local waters and beaches, protecting water quality, public health and marine life, addressing and addressing illegal dumping, helping prevent wildfires, cleaning, maintaining parks and public areas and providing other environmental education and general services. This tax was classified as a general tax and was known as measure C on the ballot. It passed overwhelmingly by a majority of voters on June 7th. The single use cup charge following some various delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic was implemented on July 1st during this past summer and the single use cup tax will be effective January 1st in this upcoming calendar year. As part of the ordinances under consideration today, payments will be due quarterly one month after the end of each reporting period. So for instance, for this first quarter coming up on January 1st through March 31st, payments will be due to the tax collector's office by April 30th. There will be a simple form to fill out through an online portal on the tax collector's website and payments will also be accepted online. A printable copy of the form will be posted online and paper copies will be available in the tax collector's office. We have been receiving a number of questions from businesses regarding the single use cup tax and so the tax collector has posted an FAQ on its website in case the public is interested. The single use cup tax, it will be collected in the unincorporated area and is estimated to generate ongoing revenue of approximately $700,000. We estimate approximately half of that or $350,000 will be received in the upcoming two quarters in fiscal year 2223. The additional revenue will be collected as general county revenues in the general fund and will be used to fund various programs and essential services, as I mentioned. Given that these resources are so new and the first quarterly payment won't be known until the end of April, we are recommending that our office return with an updated revenue estimate and spending plan as part of the fiscal year 2324 proposed budget. With that, I would recommend or request that your board approve the recommended actions before you and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Assistant CAO Copern. Are there any questions or comments from members of the board? Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'll be brief on it. Again, appreciation to the voters on this. I think this is a very important opportunity for the county to have a consistent steady stream of funding for environmental-based cleanup and programs. So as part of the spending plan, just wanted to ensure that we do specifically outline some of those programs that we intend. At least in the first year, I recognize that there's flexibility moving forward because we don't know how much will actually be collected but that we actually outline so the community can see the direct connection between their support of this fee and of this tax and the environmental programs and cleanups that'll be associated with it. So that would be, I don't know if that needs to be actually specifically addressed in an additional direction, but if nothing else, I think the board can express its desire that the spending plan come back with that kind of information when it comes back to the board. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. And I'll just add, Supervisor Friend, we are working with the departments on a spending plan that would address your comments. Great, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll open it to members of the public. Hello, my name is James Ewing Whitman. Wow, another way for the County of Santa Cruz to gain revenue, I can usually do simple math, so 0.125 times let's say $10,000, $1,250 a day, that's what is that, $456,000 a year. This County has a budget of $1.3 billion, I think they're gonna need it and they'll probably use some of their get out of jail free cards for acts of God, the damage that these individuals that I'm addressing and the ones that don't even show up to the community members, their businesses, their families, their children's with all of these frauds, you guys are just scripted puppets. That's exactly how you behave. Mr. Whitman, please keep your comments focused on the single use cup tax. Yes, the single use cup tax. I think that you guys need all the revenue you can because when you guys start to get sued, you're gonna need it. Thank you. Good morning, Becky Steinbrenner from rural Aptos. I was very confused when I saw this on the agenda because I am part of a community service group that has been charging beverage cup, disposable cup, 25 cents fees since July one of this summer. And I thought, well, that's kind of interesting. The tax collector told us we had to start collecting 25 cents a cup effective July one. And we were told that it was because of this measure C. And here I'm seeing that it wasn't even put it. It won't even go in effect until January of 2023. So I read some of the codes and what is not clear to the public and certainly not clear to those who are being asked to collect this money is that from July one until December 31st, they get to keep all the money. That's the deal. And you need to make that clear to the vendors because there is confusion because effective July one, they have to give half of it then to the county on a quarterly basis. So there is a lot of confusion out there in the markets. I also wanna protest this whole action because in effect, it is a general tax. It was sold like Measure G and like the grand jury called out the board in its grand jury report about Measure G in 2018 and the deception that happened there. Here we go again. It is a general tax and that's done so that it can pass with the lower majority level of voter approval. But what assurances are we going to have that this money will actually be used for programs that will protect and clean up the environment? I'm looking forward to exactly how it's going to be spent and be accountable. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Steinbrenner. Gary Arnold, yes, point of order. Your last town hall, you had Zoom people, designated speakers called from Washington DC, Chicago and New York. I wanna know if these Board of Supervisors members are in San Diego or in this county, does their participation at least require that? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Arnold. All right, seeing no one else here in chambers, which addresses on this item, is there anyone on Zoom or the telephone? Yes, we do have a speaker online. Call and user one, your microphone is now available. Ms. Marilyn Garrett, I have in front of me a copy of zero waste news of publication for Santa Cruz County Green Waste Recovery about recycling. And I'm looking at this photo of enormous piles of plastic and debris that people are trying to sort through in recycling. So when I read about this tax here, it's like, this is a drop in the bucket. Why is non-pollution and contamination prohibited and prevented in the first place? This is backwards and it's a myth of improving a disastrous environmental situation. So whether it's radiation, contamination, chemical contamination from the pesticides in Watsonville where I used to teach all over, we need to prohibit this corporate contamination, stop pollution where it starts. But we have a profit system and pollution is somebody's profit. I vote no on this. This is a sham that there's any kind of protection, very, very disturbing. That real protection of the environment and our health is not taking place. It's the opposite. We are being harmed in every way and you are voting for that continued harm. This is not what I elected. Thank you, Ms. Garrett. We have no further speakers for this item chair. All right, then I'll return to the board for action. I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Motion by Supervisor Friend, second by Supervisor McPherson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you. And thank you, Ms. Coburn. I know you're also going to present on the next item. So if you could just stay put. We'll proceed to item eight to consider approval and concept of ordinance amending chapter 4.24 of the Santa Cruz County Code concerning the transient occupancy tax, schedule second reading and final adoption of the ordinance on September 20th, 2022 and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. Assistant CAO Coburn, please, if you could give us a report. Thank you so much. Nicole Coburn again, Assistant CAO. For this item number eight, I'm going to present the ordinance imposing the transient occupancy tax or TOT increase. This past February 15th, the Board also called for an election to increase the TOT rate within the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. Unique to this ballot measure is the enactment of different TOT rate increases. The measure enacted a 1% increase on traditional hotel, motel and similar lodging establishments and a 3% increase on residential vacation rentals. As the Board may recall, distinguishing between traditional commercial lodging properties and vacation rental properties and the TOT rate was due to several issues. One was the greater regulatory oversight vacation rental properties require. A second was the greater impacts vacation rental properties have on residential neighborhoods and other areas. And thirdly, the development impact fees and the impermit costs typically opposed on commercial lodging properties but not vacation rental properties. This tax was also classified as a general tax and the ballot measure was known as measure B which passed overwhelmingly by a majority of voters on June 7th. The TOT increase will similarly be effective January 1st of this upcoming calendar year and is estimated to generate ongoing revenue of $2.3 million annually. The additional revenue will be collected as general county revenues and the general fund and used to fund various programs and essential services. Based on historical TOT trends, approximately 860,000 in new TOT revenues are estimated to be received for the January through June months and this fiscal year of 22-23. Staff are researching and evaluating the feasibility of implementing a neighborhood improvement program in residential areas that are impacted by vacation rentals using a portion of the 3% TOT increase from vacation rentals. We will return at mid-year with any fiscal year 22-23 budget adjustments resulting from the TOT increase as well as further information and any recommendations related to the neighborhood improvement program. We therefore request that the board approve the recommended actions as appear on your agenda today and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Coburn. Are there questions or comments from members of the board? Yes, Mr. Chair, if I may. Please. Thank you, Ms. Coburn. I am supportive of the concept of having a portion of the 3% go into the impacted districts specifically within that, which I believe if I'm not mistaken would be actually the 1st, 2nd and 3rd. I'm recognizing it's a small percentage of the overall addition. I do think that I'd like to provide some direction on what that would look like. It is clear that the community has asked for and the county has not historically done any sort of enforcement or oversight on vacation rentals in general. I think it would be important for this working group or committee that you're referring to as part of that funding to come back with, I don't know if it would be a code enforcement officer if it's somebody specifically in the auditor's office. I don't know where it would exist but somebody that can address the specific concerns and a point of contact for community members in regards to violators of the vacation rental ordinance and also somebody to just review compliance issues in general in specific to these vacation rentals. I think that that is something that's been asked for and I think that that's something, by the way that was actually called out within the ballot language that I think would be important. The second thing is I think a clean way to do the neighborhood improvement funding might be to just put it into the parks dedication funds of these specific districts. We have funds already for parks, it's a clean way to do it. I think that that would allow for the supervisors of those districts to make determinations of ways through the parks that could be neighborhood based or it could be a little bit more broader within the district but I think that maybe having some sort of specificity with the neighborhood improvements would look like, I think the parks dedication funds would be the easiest and cleanest way to do it. So that would be my two recommendations for the committee to focus on ensuring that there's an enforcement mechanism and as an IE, somebody that's actually hired to do it and second that the funding go toward parks improvements within those districts. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Other comments or questions for members of the board? Just to add, yes, I'm excited that I'm glad the committee will be looking into potential neighborhood improvement program and I'm on Rake has dedicated something about 16 and a half percent of their TOT to a neighborhood improvement program and they've had great success with that. I will certainly discuss with constituents their ideas for potential projects and how that would align with, I mean, I know I've certainly heard calls for greater enforcement as Supervisor Friend pointed out and also offering some amount of additional funding for amenities, whether that's just parks or other things would be great. So looking forward to your analysis on that and I'll certainly do some outreach and discuss the matter with constituents to see if any amenities provided could be completely handled with parks or if there's other things people are interested in as well. All right, any questions or public comment, please? Gary, Richard Arnold, this housing shortage, this is a back door also to get around Proposition 13 in order to throw tax on the people. As Zach Friend knows, he's worked for a couple of national people, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lieberman, both members of Secret to the Diabetes by the way, but the reverse mortgages require and you know we have a retirement community throughout the whole Monterey Bay area. The reverse mortgage prevents the person getting that mortgage from having a child with them, a day helper, an older friend, anybody like that. So this is a problem that's being forced by the same political parties that you belong to at a national level. You continue to come in and take more and more money. And when you say somebody successful by taxing more, that's exactly your thinking and that's exactly probably why these desiccated Zoom people from across the country shows you're not local. Whatsoever, when you have a town hall meeting that these people are coming in from everywhere, including AmBag and California Forward and the rest of them. This is not local, it's anti-constituent and it's around, it's a get around proposition 13 and your attack on realtors and the people around here that are trying to make ends meet is outrageous and continuous and you should all be replaced. You don't even defend local government number one. Please direct your comments to the transit occupancy type. Okay, occupancy, I'd like you to change and lobby instead of raising taxes to allow people that have reverse mortgages to have other residents with them. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Becky Steinbruner from Rural Aptos. I voted against Measure B because I felt like it was unfair to tax the hotels, the large hotel chains at a lower rate than those who are local property owners. Maybe what Ms. Coburn's report did not state was that it also affects hosted rentals. I've met some of those people and they're trying to make ends meet by occasionally having someone stay in a room in their home while they are living in the home too and now they are subject to this high 3% tax. Again, we're not hearing where this money will be spent and I understand that the county wanted to get an increase in TOT because every dollar that comes in in TOT, the county gets to keep unlike sales tax. It was debated in 2018 when Measure G came before you for the new half cent sales tax, which would be more lucrative. And at that time, the board chose the half cent countywide sales tax. But Measure B imposed this tiered level that I really do think is unfair. And I'd like to hear a breakdown of the complaints that are lodged with the county from the neighborhoods affected by these vacation rentals and hosted rentals. What is it that the county will use this money to improve and address? I would like to propose that there be something to address the increased water use and the increased garbage that is put out, generated by these hosted rentals and vacation rentals. And what are we going to do to address those? So thank you very much. And again, I think this was a very deceptive ballot measure. Thank you. And Steinbrenner. Hello, my name is Game Viewing. So this is an additional revenue as described by our assistant civilization obliteration assistant of $2.3 million. How much is that over 1% over the year? That's $230 million. That's about one sixth of this county's budget. You know, I've observed, because I live across the street from one of these places. After these things are rented out, there's like literally teams of five or six different individuals that come in like clockwork. It's really quite amazing. I mean, it's amazing that they can make a profit off these things. And I think that it's useful that Zach Friend pointed out that maybe there should be some kind of code enforcement in regards to making sure people are doing things the way they're supposed to, rather than just having special cash agreements. I'm sure you guys could get together and figure out a way to do that. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. So you know what else are in chambers? Is there anyone on the phone or Zoom? Yes, Chair, we do have a speaker online. Call-in user one, your microphone is now available. All right, if I could vote in there, I'd vote no on the item on the agenda. I always am better informed about what's going on when I listened to Becky's sign, Brunner. I didn't know the hotels are tax-less and the individual homeowner definitely unfair. And the question of where does the money go where I see the county spending money does not seem to be benefiting the public much. And there are many deceptive ballot measures. This was one. So, yeah, I think this is something you should vote against, but everything I see on the agenda just unanimous approval on any item, even though there are very legitimate criticisms of why something should not be approved. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Carrad. We have no further speakers for this item, Chair. Are you clear? Then I'll return to the board for action. All right, Mr. Chair, I'll move the recommended actions with additional direction that the committee consider enforcement parks and other broad-based neighborhood improvements and come back to us as Ms. Covaring stated in mid-year with what that would look like. Second. Motion by Supervisor Friend for the recommended actions with additional direction. Seconded by Supervisor Coonerty. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Koenig? Aye. Item passes unanimously with additional direction. Thank you. All right, Ms. Covaring, I think you have a couple of colleagues joining you for this next item. Item nine to consider update on county strategic initiatives, including the second biannual progress report on the 21-23 operational plan development process for the 23-25 operational plan and budget and targeted performance improvements for fall 2022 and direct the County Administrative Office to return in January of 2023 with the next update as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. And Ms. Covaring, are you presenting? Chair Koenig, thank you. I will just present and introduce the speakers here today.  Okay. So I'm Nicole Covaring again, Assistant CAO. I'm here today with Elisa Benson, the other Assistant CAO. Together we serve as sponsors for the county strategic initiatives that we'll be presenting on this morning. Sven Stafford is a principal administrative analyst in our office and overseeing the work that you're gonna hear today. Sam LaFordy is the cannabis licensing manager and has been working on our Primo projects. So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Sven to kick off the presentation this morning. Thank you, Nicole. Good morning, board. So on our agenda today, we'll give you a brief overview of our work over the past six months and preview the work for the next six months. And that'll include an update on our current operational plan, a look at the next two-year operational plan process and then an update on our performance management initiatives. So just as a reminder, the Santa Cruz County Strategic Plan for 2018 to 2024 was approved by the board in June of 2018. Continuous improvement was a pillar of that strategic plan. And the county developed three strategic initiatives to embed a plan-do-study-adjust learning cycle across the county. And so here on the visual, you can see that the strategic plan constitutes the planning part. The operational plan and budget are what we do. Performance measurement helps us look at data and study how well we're doing. And then the Primo Process Improvement Initiative helps us to adjust and make changes. So in the plan-do phases articulate those county focus areas, goals, create specific measurable objectives and align county resources and staff to achieve results. And then the study and adjust phases create data, spark curiosity and provide tools to improve processes that serve the community. And so since the adoption of the strategic plan in 2018, the county under the leadership of the board has also moved to embed equity principles across and throughout this entire cycle. For the 2021-23 operational plan, we've completed 25% of the 180 objectives included in that plan. And today I'd like to focus a little bit on the COVID-19 recovery objectives of which we've completed 33%. And so we'll switch to the county operational plan website for a moment. So just as a reminder for everyone on our vision Santa Cruz County sites, you can see all 180 objectives and their various and their status. Here you can see that we've completed 45, that 44 have been amended and that 86 remain in progress. And then at this top bar here, you can sort the objectives through a lot of different lenses. And so if we click on the COVID-19 section, we can see the objectives that are responding, direct response to COVID-19 that are helping us recover and that are increasing our resilience. The one I'd like to focus on today is the emergency rental assistance. And so this was an objective from the planning department to assist renters and landlords affected by COVID-19 by helping distribute emergency rental assistance. And the goal was to disperse $8 million in federal grant funds. Again, all of our objectives are providing verification links and documentation. So here, if you click on that, it takes you to the California Render Relief Program dashboard where you can see $4 billion has been given out across the state. If we go down to Santa Cruz, we can see countywide, including the cities, a total of $26 million has been dispersed and within the unincorporated area, $13 million. So more than 50% greater amount than the original $8 million targeted has been dispersed through that program. As we shift to looking to the next two-year operational plan that'll be integrated and presented as a package with the county budget, major work within this plan will include implementation of the county's climate action strategy, which will be coming before the board in December, strategies to meet the county's housing shortage and a more measurable, accountable equity framework. Four areas that we're particularly interested in making improvements are in budget integration. So continuing to build on the success of the online budget, the operational plan will continue to describe the county's major work and then also having new budget proposals have distinct objectives so that we can track those results over time. In terms of operational plan process improvements based on feedback from the board and our implementing partners, several process changes are being made to create more measurable results-based objectives. This includes seeking earlier input from key county stakeholders, including our commissions and our contracted partners and will again be providing a study session for the board in January of 2023. The last two bullets of validation and measured and targeted objectives really get at our, trying to further embed equity throughout our processes at a practical level in terms of validation. This means just including people closest to a problem in designing its solution. And in terms of providing measured and targeted objectives, we're gonna be providing more and more training in teams to departments to help break their data down into smaller parts, looking at data by race or ethnicity, by age, by geography. Again, to look at which groups or disaggregations are having the worst results and then asking what factors are that we could change to get better results. And so we've talked about the plan due elements to the plan and now we're gonna pivot and talk about our study and adjust elements of the strategic initiatives. And so here we're talking about the tools and data to evaluate whether county programs are achieving their desired community results and how to improve those programs and processes. The county has made significant investments in using data internally and making data available to the public. We released our new budget website and two performance measurement dashboards in the spring of 2022. Additionally, the county began a new results count program in partnership with the Annie Casey Foundation to accelerate equitable results for county residents, particularly groups who face the greatest barriers to success. A total of 18 leaders from the county including the Santa Cruz County Housing Authority are currently participating in a year long program to move specific projects forward, guided by data and targeted to have the biggest impact. For fall 2022, our office will continue to focus on harnessing data for the people who need our services the most. And those specific actions will include supporting the data development for the climate action strategy and housing for health, providing data teams to departments to help increase our measurable objectives and then improvements to the budget website including further integration with the operational plan. And finally on that data piece, I'd like to remind people about our Datashare Santa Cruz County resource. And so here, this data source is open to the public. It really empowers people to be curious and ask questions that can spark change. Datashare provides local, regional and national data that can be viewed on this website. And we've been working with community partners to expand the resource and provide trainings. I just want to do a quick scroll down. Get the mouse to work. So actually this morning, there's an event. I apologize for the shakiness. There's an event on creating multilingual surveys that's going on right now. So it's a guide that'll be recorded and helps community members to create surveys that are accessible both to English and Spanish speakers. That's an example of the training that we're doing. And then under the data spotlights, we have things that change basically on every month. There's a, this month, there's a highlight for transportation. It gives a brief description of issues around transportation in the county, provides some data on sort of mean travel time to work. Workers who drive alone to work sort of and has data on our bikeway miles compared again to other California counties and compared to other communities nationally. And then below that, we also have an opportunity to include local reports. Here we have the city of Watsonville's Vision Zero action plan and the coastal rail trail project fact sheet. And so we're able to take national data sets and local data and combine it to create spotlights on these local issues. So I just encourage everyone to go to go to data share Santa Cruz County and check out that resource. And one of the questions that we've gotten from the board in the past is, you know, now that we, once we have all this data, what do we do with it internally? And so I'm going to turn it over to Sam LaForty to give you a little presentation on our Primo performance continues improvement projects. So we've made progress towards the four objectives of the Primo revival, including development, development and testing of performance measurement, tools, curriculum development on the ground practice and capacity building for rapid improvement cycles or sprints. Based on board feedback, we're prioritizing sprints by adding existing staff resources to focus on tightly scoped improvement sprints prior to finalizing and rollout of revised training curriculum and online resources. Our first CDI sprint focused on workflows between the cashier and building counter staff. Now this project led to a standardization of the payment notification process, revisions to instructions, instruction forms for the general public and elimination of 25 to 40% of processes for the cashier. And this varied based on payment type. And lastly, the removal of all paper from the system. The outcome of this effort sparked additional, sparked interest in additional efforts within CDI, which are currently ongoing. The next few slides will focus on additional sprints and how we complete these. The agenda management system and financial enterprise sprint brought people together from CDI, clerk of the board, general services and the auditor. This project focused on how we process contracts which require board approval in both systems. To analyze the current systems, the group created a visual workflow identifying every process required for each system. The workflows were then analyzed together to identify crossover points and waste, which are denoted in pink. The group then focused on eliminating redundancies which resulted in a single idealized workflow that can be seen here. And this, although implementation is not yet completed on this project, the results of this workflow merger included a 43% reduction in processing steps, elimination of all redundant reviews and we've removed unnecessary historic paperwork from the approval process system. It eliminated rework from the separate systems during the independent review process. And lastly, it led to the development of a county-wide SOP template, which we're testing with other groups and we have implemented in one county office at this time. So workflow analysis and creating an idealized path forward is the first part in the sprint process. And it represents the plan in the plan-do-study-adjust process of Primo. Now to ensure we implement the changes in the do-study-adjust process, we use a variety of tools and documents supporting the work on process improvement sprints. Staff has completed an adaptive documentation template referred to as a do-it-yourself or DIY form of which a sample can be viewed in Attachment A and on the screen here. And I'd like to highlight a few sections to provide a sense of the value here. The example shown is from the sprint we just reviewed. So the document is split into two main sections. It starts by forcing us to define the issue we're trying to address. From there, then we identify the waste and reflect upon customer feedback we have received to ensure the waste is properly noted. From here, we move on to the second section of the form. Here, we define the solution and how we will measure the results of the solution. This is critical because we need to measure the results of these projects to ensure we're making an impact. We also reflect upon the work we have done to define the solution. And then lastly and most importantly, the document ends with a plan to sustain the improvement. This is where the Primo team and the departments define the implementation plan milestones. This accountability is critical for everyone to understand the workload that will be required to make these efforts a reality. This last section represents the do and study part of the Primo process which will inevitably lead to adjustments. And I'd like it to transition to Elisa Benson here. Thank you, Sam. Good morning, board members. I was just going to sort of do our wrap up on our update today. Really, what we've tried to do in the last six months is integrate the four initiatives. And as you see in how the PDSA learning cycle applies at the highest level of these initiatives. And then again, step really closer towards looking and looking at data and using it and creating more systematic tools as the do it yourself form that Sam just walked through as a way to really document the efforts on the ground. This is an interesting turning point for us after the last four years of really building the foundational structure of the initiatives and moving to the next phase of integrating them into daily operations. And that's where we're really looking to move forward. Whether it's in our dashboards, our Primo work is really moving from we're demoing tools to utilizing tools and making it part of our everyday practice. Our welcoming conversation and questions about the work so far and we'll just open it back to the board. Great. Thank you, Ms. Benson. Thank you to the entire team. Are there questions or comments from members of the board? I'd just like to thank the staff for its ongoing efforts to see what we're doing, how well we're doing or what needs to be further improved, especially during the pandemic that we've had. There've been complications that we didn't foresee but you've kept your eye on the ball and kept going and it's really encouraging to see the accomplishments you've made to some of the things that we've wanted to do for some time. It's important that we do continue to track our progress and acknowledge when we shift gears and how we've done it as you explained. I look forward to future updates on this. I think this was a tremendous step that the Board of Supervisors took in 2018. It really got us on track to providing better service to our constituents. So I wanna thank you for your efforts and it's encouraging to see some of the accomplishments and some of the challenges too that you've identified. So thank you very much for everything. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Supervisor Coonerty. Yeah, thank you. So first I wanna say this is really appreciate how far we've gotten and how fast we've done it. I appreciate the efforts to both be transparent and data-driven and then really reach down and have it be really something that's driven county organizational wide and by frontline workers all the way up through management. One of my questions was in terms of the Primo process, how much are we looking at whether we needed to be doing it, the process at all. I wanna make sure where there's a line between efficiency and effectiveness and we can be efficient at things but not necessarily effective. And so how does that come into that conversation? I'll take a stab at that one. I think when we have a number of different performance frameworks that really inform those questions, Supervisor Coonerty and whether it's the application of the results-based accountability at a program level of really coming back to how much are people better off? Are we actually achieving the outcomes for community that we're looking for and starting with that? The honest truth is we have application of that in certain areas of our operations very deeply, I would say, in probation in particular and is continuing to spread that model across the county overall is gonna be really critical in the, are we getting the results we're looking for? So that's sort of at the program level where that measurement framework and discussion comes forward. In terms of the process level, I would kind of pass it back to Sam who's really been a great add to the team in doing those reviews with staff about the steps and processes and are they actually creating value at the end of the day for whoever that consumer of that process? Because that's what those process walks really result in that focus. You do this step, why? What does it do? Is it something you have to do from a regulatory standpoint or you're legally required? Is it that is something we put on ourselves? But that's where we're sort of playing with those sets of questions. Sam, is there anything you would wanna add? Or Sven, we're in a call. I would just add that at this phase of the Primo Sprint process, we're working to get the most out of quick efforts. So we're trying not to bog down staff with these long-term bigger Primo goals that may take months to implement. We're working on projects where we can get people together, we can analyze problems and we can create solutions within one to two, maybe even three meetings. So we're looking at things that will gain interest from people within the county organization that have a high impact and take little time to do. And in order to make sure we are not spinning our wheels and we're doing things that are valuable, we're leaning on the departments to come up with the things that they want to address now. And we're tracking all the time of both CAO staff and the departments to make it so we can present these results and the time that it took to get these results. So the departments have a good sense of the value coming out of these efforts. So on the individual process level, that's where we're focused on short duration, high intensity efforts that are a few hours long and have real results that we can put out there. Yeah, and I appreciate that. And I guess I just say like, I hope that the first comment in all these conversations is do we even need to do this at all? Does anything happen? Because we can reduce things by four steps and people will feel good about it. But there may be a question about whether there's a different way to do it or whether we need to do it at all. So I think just keeping that as a primary question would be helpful. And I appreciate all the efforts and again, the way the team is working to find results. Thank you, Supervisor Kennedy. Any other questions or comments from board members? Well, I'll make a quick comment. Just I want to thank the staff for all the work they put into this. And I think what I see is making us more proactive and where something unexpected comes up, we're able to react quicker. So I really appreciate all that's been put into this plan. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. Just one additional question. I mean, I will add it is really exciting to see us getting down to brass tack sort of as having laid this whole framework and now finally really digging into some of these improvement projects, 25 to 44% improvement on these processes. I mean, it doesn't maybe sound exciting, but we do know that we hear consistently from members of the public. It just takes too freaking long to deal with the county. And that's really the currency we're talking about is people's time. So it's great to have this way to address that and consistently improve results and reduce the amount of time that it takes for the public. And I think we really see that with this project for the cashier in the planning department. My question is how, it sounds like we've got a good initial crop of projects here. How do we sort of encourage and incentivize employees to, I guess anyone can submit a form suggesting a new project. You did mention that we're trying to include people closest to the problem and incorporate their suggestions. I mean, that's an excellent mindset for our organization to have. So has everyone empowered to submit a project? How does that work? Thanks for the question. At this point, we're really focused. We're starting with the willing, which is departments who are like, we know we wanna work on a particular item and getting that experience on the ground with staff, going through process walks and doing that whole identification. So we don't really have a formal intake, like come look at this at this point. I did wanna share one thing that was sort of embedded in Sam's comments where when you do the process work and then you start coming up with the solutions and the super where we think about the implementation phase moving into solutions and getting them on the ground and bringing people along, we're finding takes is taking more time than we expect. So I just, that is one of the things we're learning and how we do roll out these sprints is how do we get them to keep the momentum and keep going? As we get this experience, I think that's where we wanna go, Supervisor Koenig. How do we get people to volunteer new ideas? What we're finding already just from the work that Sam's been doing and both with CDIM with the auditor, it's almost a self-generating process. Folks started in one zone and they're like, oh, well, we have these pain points over here in this other system. So they sort of, they just start being interested in applying the methodology to different parts of their system. We're not to a place yet where we could have employees say, pain point over here, let's bring a team in to work on it, but that's absolutely where we wanna get to. Great, thank you. All right, members of the public that wish to address us on this item. Yeah, my name is James Ewing. It's kind of sucks that I have to put on my reading glasses to read my own notes, the smart technology in this room affects my vision. I must rather talk about the things I'm gonna ingest as soon as I leave here, that'll fix my vision. I do have compassion for these presenters. I just, they're reading scripts and I don't think they're aware of the history of why they're promoting what they're promoting. Right there in the agenda pack, which is 665 pages today, which is actually kind of short for what's usual, the strategic plan, smart, specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time bound. That's really interesting. I'll probably do a longer presentation of what that really means, but I'm holding some smart technology in my hand. And that acronym is surveillance military armaments for residential technologies. So I think when people are educated for what the effects of what they're actually promoting are causing, who are the constituents? Santa Cruz County is a corporation. The constituents are, you know, they're stockholders. It's not the people. So I'm just happy to be here. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. Gary, Richard, Arnold. I hope the people go back and relook at the presentation that's been done today and then look at the supervisors responses. I mean, they responded to such things as tools.  There's none of that stuff. Coonerty mentioned about transparency. I don't see a thing here, except we do have, we do know that this has been going on for four years and it averaged COVID. We had somebody here that gave a secret donation to have a lady that wasn't voted by anybody called Margaret Lopez destroy and kill and you still see businesses wounded and closing because of her decisions. We're talking about COVID and the funding of Margaret Lopez. If you want to throw me out, you go ahead and do it. We're talking about budget, a call, and Coonerty initiatives. This goes right into right. Thank you. I want to commend Supervisor Coonerty for being brave enough to say, do we really need to do this at all? That's the question. That's the big question. I remember when Mr. Blasio was hired, because this was his brainchild. That was what was stated at the Board of Supervisor meeting. What I see different on agendas is there are all these little categories that each item seems to satisfy. And it's like somebody went through and just checked off all the boxes they thought applied. And that's the data that you're seeing. How real is that? And thank you for the asking the question, what are we doing with the data? I wish that the presentation would have been looking more at the fire recovery and the county's progress in addressing that problem rather than the COVID. I want to know if the county's going to support Senator Feinstein and Padilla's work to try to get FEMA to reimburse the fire recovery efforts at a higher rate. As a citizen, I don't think things are better.  I come and my time has been reduced. I can no longer pull consent agenda items. That was something that Mr. Blasio accomplished. I would like to see supervisors give summaries of all of each of your town hall meetings. What are your constituents saying? Give those summaries at the board of supervisor meetings. I want to know, I don't think the online budget made it easier at all. I think it was much more difficult to try to find information. Thank you, Ms. Steinberg. Thank you. I'd see no one else here in chambers that wish to address us. Is there anyone on the phone or Zoom? Yes, Chair, we do have a speaker online. Colin, user one, your microphone is now available. Becky, for your comments and Ryan, that question, do we need to do this at all? I think the answer is no. And thank you for having the courage to answer that question. You also use the word transparent. I am all for transparency and truth. That's what I try to do all the time is expose the truth and be transparent. So in line with that, part of your projects are bringing broadband everywhere, which means radiation. And I want to refer you to a document called Radio Wave Packet, what you need to know about wireless technology because you're promoting wireless technology everywhere we turn by Arthur Fursenberg, President Cellular Phone Task Force. You can get this at info at cellphonetaskforce.org. It was first published in 2001 and revised August 2022. Here's a little section titled Impaired Metabolism and Resulting, Obesity, Diabetes, Heart Disease and Cancer. Radio waves interfere with electron transport in the microchondria of every cell. This starts the cells of oxygen and impairs their ability to metabolize sugars, fats, proteins, just like Kumar et al. in 2011 demonstrated in Honey Beach above this article. The result is the modern pandemics of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer. We have no further speakers here. All right, then I'll return to the board for action. All right, I'll move for approval. I'll second. Motion by Supervisor Caput to approve the recommended action. Second by Supervisor Friend, any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. All right. Coonerty. All right. Caput. All right. McPherson. All right. And Koenig. All right. Item passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you to the entire CEO office team. We have a 1030 scheduled item. I don't think we'll have time to hear another item before that. So we'll take a short break of seven minutes and then come back at 1030 to hear item 10. Thank you. All right, it's 1030. We will now resume the regular meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and we'll proceed with our scheduled item for 1030 AM, which is item 10 to consider approval and concept of an ordinance repealing and replacing chapter 8.43 of the Santa Cruz County Code related to tenant protections against retaliation and harassment. Schedule second reading and final adoption of the ordinance on September 20th, 2022 and direct the County Communications Manager to develop and disseminate a press release and a tenant right flyer in English and Spanish to distribute via the county's media and community-facing channels of communication as outlined in the memorandum of Supervisor Koenig and Supervisor Caput. Now, since I didn't help to bring this forward, I'll offer a few comments here on the reason for doing so. Of course, this board has been committed to helping tenants throughout the COVID-19 pandemic as was outlined earlier by Mr. Sven Stafford. We have distributed over $13 million, just was in the unincorporated county to folks who needed rent relief during COVID, over $26 million throughout the entire county if you include the cities. And then even when we heard that that alone was not enough, we dedicated another $1.6 million to assisting tenants with knowing and implementing their legal rights by funding organizations like the Community Action Board, Community Bridges, and the California Rural Legal Assistance Association. So the question is what, especially as we have the face that's difficult situation where rents are at all-time highs, Santa Cruz County being the second least affordable place to live in the country and you consider the amount of rent versus wages. And what else can we do? Well, the clear next step would be to actually look at our local ordinance as far as tenant protections and see where it can be strengthened and improved to prevent harassment of tenants during this challenging time. In addition to that, just making sure that the county plays its part in getting the word out to people so that they know what the existing county laws are and how they can actually use them effectively as a shield in the case of harassment. So the ordinance that I've worked with Supervisor Caput to bring forward today does respond to some of the many stories that we've heard thanks to community organizations like COPA. I'm sure, and we'll hear more of those today and I'm looking forward to that. And it does a few important things to prevent against the worst kinds of harassment. Prevents landlords from changing the language of the lease in an effort to potentially confuse or include items in a new version of the lease that would misdirect tenants. And it also prevents harassment for things like threatening to report tenants to ICE or release other personal information that would be sensitive. So I'll stop there as far as an introduction and Supervisor Caput, if you'd like to offer any additional words. Yes, I do. Thank you. Yeah, I think what we've done is we've kind of clarified things a little more and the only problem I saw when I was working and looking at it was when you make a list of things that can be considered prejudicial. Prejudice is almost always wrong. And I have an example where you make a list and the longer the list goes where you put it down, you'll always forget something else. It's kind of like when you try to thank friends for all the help they've done for you, you tend to forget a couple of names or more than a couple of names. And I have an example of that, just something to consider. When I was in college back in the 1970s, I did an internship for someone most people will remember, maybe Supervisor McPherson will remember. John Vest-Consolos was an assemblyman up in that area. And I worked as a college intern in his office for one semester. And as the years went by after I left and graduated, I would keep in contact. We became friends, a very good guy, a wonderful man. And he surprised me one day when he talked, he was giving a talk about prejudice. And he said, as a left-handed person, he felt like society was prejudice against left-handed people. And he actually put some legislation before the state assembly that addressed the fact of that. I don't know if it passed or anything happened about it, but I remember when I heard him talking that I was thinking, well, you can't make a list long enough to include everything. So that's just something that all of us need to keep in mind. So, I don't know, Supervisor McPherson, did you know him personally also? Yes, I did, knew him very, very well. We worked together when I was Chair of Public Safety, he was Vice-Chair, or he was Chair of Public Safety, I was Vice-Chair, and now I'm Chair of Education, he was Vice-Chair. Had many great years serving with Mr. Vest-Consolos, the late John Vest-Consolos in the Assembly and Senate. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Caput and Supervisor McPherson. I'll just add one more comment. We have received a flurry of feedback on this item since the agenda was published last Thursday. And I recognize that it's a difficult role to thread the needle between tenants' rights and also landlord's ability to protect other tenants in a building and do their jobs as good property managers. And so after hearing a lot of stories, I do think that Section D of the proposed ordinance, I'd be prepared to remove it in order to give property managers a little bit more room to protect really other renters in buildings from behavior that is threatening or challenging, it creates a difficult living situation for people, but that it becomes extremely difficult to actually provide evidence for. One example that a landlord shared with me or a property manager shared with me was the situation where they had a tenant that was consistently threatening other tenants and was removed multiple times on a 5150 hold. And then when he went to the police to ask for that information, evidence that they were there to remove that tenant, he couldn't get it because the 2150 hold information is protected under HIPAA. So I think we need to provide some leeway for property managers to be able to make the best decisions for the communities that they manage as well. I think that we could remove that and still have an effective ordinance that adds additional protections for those in most need. So that's where I am at the moment. I'll be listening to the stories today to see if that would negatively impact anyone who's currently experiencing discrimination at the hand of landlords. Are there any questions or comments from board members? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Supervisor Caput for bringing this forward. And thanks to the great work of COPA and other organizations working to preserve housing for most vulnerable. I have a question for either Mr. Chair Koenig or Supervisor Caput or maybe the County Council and I want to just reassure that under this ordinance, we're essentially providing a pathway for tenants to seek relief through the court system as a civil manner. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, so that would negate the sheriff and so forth getting involved. Okay, thank you. If someone wanted to know. Any other questions or comments from board members? And Mr. Chair, I do have a point of clarification if I may, you had said subsection D. Let's make sure that we're all in the same page of where that is. I assume that that's 8.43.030, but I wanted to clarify, do you mean section V2 subsection D of that or do you mean the greater subsection D further down? The letters that we got were mentioning subsection D, but if they're referring to a just cause language, I would assume, but could be inaccurate that that's actually B2 subsection D within that section. I just want to make sure that we're under the same page of what you are proposing to strike. Right, yes, sir. Thank you for that. For clarification, this is 8.43.030, prohibited activities dash protections and it is the larger section D, not subsection D that you mentioned. So that is the paragraph beginning or lesser may recover possession of the dwelling. Thank you. All right, any other comments or questions from board members? Seeing none, we'll open it for public comment starting here in the chambers. If you'd like to address the board, please approach the podium. Good morning. I am Frances Guerrero, COPA leader at Holy Cross Church. I am also a homeowner and a rental property owner in Santa Cruz. I want to share the story of someone I know who described to me a rental issue they had. I asked permission to share their story with you as an example of the need for this ordinance. I assured them that their name location or any landlord identifying information would remain anonymous. They were adamant that I do not share the particulars of their situation. When asked why, this person said that they have not experienced retaliation and had friendly relations with their landlord. However, they do not want to push their issue because they are afraid of retaliation in the form of a rent increase. Though this perfectly illustrates just how much fear there can be in tenant landlord relationships where tenants are fearful to assert their rights, leaving them vulnerable if a landlord chooses not to abide by the law. Through my work with COPA, I have heard many stories from undocumented residents that have issues with their landlords but do not stand up for their lawful rights for fear of being reported to Homeland Security. Whether a threat is perceived or explicit, the fear and inaction is real. In many cases, it may be that tenants may not know what rights and recourses exist to help them. Language and economic barriers exist and can contribute to tenants' confusion and vulnerability. Throughout the pandemic, COPA organized 10 workshops with over 800 participants, both landlords and renters to explain the temporary eviction moratorium and to help residents apply for rent assistance so landlords can be made whole. We learned of incredible pressures that renters face and this ordinance is a step in the right direction. COPA urges you to adopt the updates to this ordinance to protect tenants against harassment and retaliation. We appreciate the board's recognition of the pressures on renters. The reality is that any such law needs to be widely communicated to both tenants and landlords and enforced when needed. We stand ready to assist county staff in educating tenants and landlords of the new ordinance and the resources available to prevent evictions. Thank you. Buenos dias. Mi nombre es Marta Guzmán. Soy líder de COPA y miembro de Estrella del Mar. Soy madre soltera, vivo en la Igbo. De antemano quiero darle las gracias a la organización de COPA por apoyarnos en los momentos más difíciles que hemos pasado. También hacernos escuchar por la manera en que hacen sentir los propietarios por los meses que se deben y no han sido pagados. Mi motivo por el que no puedo pagar mi renta es porque me dio el COVID y me quedé sin mis trabajos, pero apliqué para el programa estatal de renta. Me siento discriminada y presionada y me mandan mensaje a los propietarios diciendo que yo estoy diciendo mentiras que no es cierto que mi aplicación está siendo procesada por el adeudo que tengo con ellos. Por mi participación en COPA, yo me siento confianza y hablé con la secretaria y le dije que yo tenía derechos y que era verdad que mi aplicación estaba siendo procesada. No me creyó hasta que Cindy de FIT habló con la secretaria y le dijo que sí era verdad lo de mi aplicación. Gracias a Dios, yo he estado conectada con COPA y conozco mis derechos, pero hay mucha gente que no sabe que tiene derechos y tiene que ser escuchadas. Muchas gracias. I will interpret. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, my name is Marta Guzman. I am a COPA leader and a member of Star of the Sea. I am a single mother and I live in Live Oak. In advance, I want to thank the COPA organization for supporting us in the most difficult times that we've been through and also for listening to me about the way my landlords have made me feel about the owed rent. I got COVID and lost my jobs, so I was unable to pay my rent. However, I applied for the state rental assistance program. I feel discriminated against, pressured, and my owner sent me messages that I am lying, that it is not true that my application is being processed because of the debt I have with them. Due to my participation with COPA, I feel confident and I have talked to the secretary and told her that I have rights and that it was true that my application was being processed. She didn't believe me at first until Cindy from FIT or Families in Transition talked to the secretary and told her it was true. Thank God I have been connected with COPA and I know my rights, but there are many others who do not know that they have rights and they have to be heard too. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Lisa and I'm a leader with COPA. I'm sharing this on behalf of a leader who couldn't be here today. A friend told me a while ago at the beginning of the pandemic that they were renting a room and a house in Santa Cruz. They are a family of five, three girls and two of them. When the pandemic started, she lost her job and her husband was cut hours. The person who rented to them wanted to charge them more for the rent and they couldn't pay. They began to feel uncomfortable there, but since they couldn't find another place to rent and they didn't have a job, they put up with bad faces from the owner. She even told me that they would eat in the room as a way to not have contact with the owner. The owner kept insisting on the rent increase and since they flatly said that they couldn't pay more, the owner threatened to call immigration to deport them. They were very afraid to go to someone or ask for help and preferred to leave. They struggled a lot and the one who helped them was her husband's employer who let them live in his house while they found somewhere to live. Today they are in a stable apartment, but they suffered because they were unaware that there are laws that could protect them. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning supervisors and thank you for hearing my comments. My name is Eric Rodberg. I am totally in support of this measure as far as it seeks to protect tenants who are non-native or non-English speakers or undocumented against reprehensible behavior. Completely agree with that. I would like to thank you for pointing out the issues with section 30D and I would echo what you said. I'd also like to add I'm a very small time property owner and it goes beyond just the 5150 issue. Even things like you've got one tenant who just or one group attends that party and can you imagine trying to legally as a property owner what you need to do is you need to terminate the tenancy and if it's not the end of the lease or the, you know, a month to month then you have to establish that they've violated something. So you have to give them a three day notice to perform coming in or quit. The next day they're not parting anymore. They've already performed coming in and they're not parting. So the normal pathway for good landowners I think most landlords are good. Not to say I know they're abusive ones. The normal pathway is just you let the lease expire and you don't renew. And so just cause eviction, that's why it's a really problematic thing way beyond rent control. And the legislature just passed for AB 1482 which implemented a just cause eviction for certain types of tendencies and there are exceptions for others. And I think that we should leave it there at the local level. And if the state wants to make bigger changes, you know, that's gonna be contentious. So I really appreciate you're putting that out and I will, otherwise I'm supportive. And I think most local landlords would be supportive of the measure if you remove that section. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Becky Steinbrenner. I support keeping people safe and not being threatened or suffering from problems with their landlords. And I agree. I think there are a lot of good landlords out there. There are always others that are problematic. For the, I just wanna relay from sort of an opinion on the other side. I have a friend who isn't in another county, but during COVID she had a rental unit that the tenant claimed COVID restrictions and payment from the state. And the process to get that payment from the state was so difficult. She never got the money. And so understandably there are landlords out there that also experienced similar difficulties during COVID with the whole cumbersome and very difficult process where the state to be reimbursed for those who did claim COVID payments that there is some tension out there. So we need to also recognize that side of the coin. I always, when I'm listening on the phone and somebody says, we're gonna remove section D I like to have it read exactly what that is. And I think it helps clarify. So I wanna do that for the record now. This is section D in the code that was named. A lessor may recover possession of a dwelling if the notice of termination, rent increase or other act and any pleading or statement of issues in arbitration. If any states the ground upon which the lessor in good faith seeks to recover possession, increase rent or exercise the right of eviction consistent with the obligations of a lease and the requirements of law. If such a statement is controverted, the lessor shall establish its truth at the trial or other hearing. So I appreciate having these things read out loud and for the record when you do things like that in general. Thank you very much for your actions. Thank you, Ms. Steinbrenner. There are other comments from members of the public here in chambers. Seeing none, we'll take it to Zoom and the phones. Thank you, Chair. We do have speakers online. Anna, your microphone is now available. It looks like Anna is using an outdated version of Zoom. I'm not sure she's gonna be able to participate. We're gonna go to another speaker. Malia, your microphone is now available. If you'd like to accept the unmute, you should be able to begin speaking. Hi, my name is Malia Patterson and I want to begin by thanking the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors for your attention to the devastating situation facing low income renters in Santa Cruz. I represent senior citizens' legal services and we're on the ground fighting to keep low income seniors' housed in this county and it's really not easy. We're seeing waves of seniors being evicted after having worked here and lived here for their whole lives and once they're evicted, they simply cannot afford the new rents in our county. It's really devastating. We appreciate this change to the ordinance and we very much support this passage. We hope it's only the first step to protecting our local rental community. I want to point out in the beginning that the proposed language of D only requires the landlord state grounds. It does not explicitly require just cause. I would prefer a change to that ordinance which requires just cause as described in 1946.2B. But right now it simply requires the landlord say why they're doing these changes, increasing the rent or evicting. Another thing that I would love to see from this ordinance is to remove the bad to faith requirement from B2. The acts described in this paragraph B2 are already a legal acts. In fact, state law generally makes these a presumption that it is retaliatory if the landlord has done these acts. Making the tenant prove the lessor's mindset when they do these acts is going to be a huge impediment to actually using this ordinance to protect tenants. Finally, senior legal would love to see this board consider a local ordinance that mirrors AB 2713. It's a proposed state law that clarifies and defines the just cause changes in 1946.2B. Right now there is no definition for what withdrawal from the rental market actually means and there are landlords in our county that say they're withdrawing and then place the house right back on the rental market for more money. If the board could consider some ordinance that mirrors that it would really protect tenants here. Thank you so much for your hard work in protecting the vulnerable members of our community. Thank you, Ms. Patterson. Ramon, your microphone is now available. Good afternoon, or surprise, I'm Ray Canceena from Community Bridges CEO. I appreciate you taking on this discussion today and to look at the ordinance as written. I do want to focus in on a couple of items similar to the previous speaker is that there are a little bit of contradictions and undermining of state law that was already against the law including some of the language around harassment. So I just urge the county council review this ordinance to make sure it's alignment with existing state law as it relates to harassment and discrimination. I also believe that AB 2713 is basically where the state is going to be going although that that has not been necessarily gone through committee at this point. I do urge that this is an opportunity for Santa Cruz County to be at the forefront justifying and describing what just cause really means as it relates to the passage of future understanding of what it is to be tenant. And so as you've heard the stories, we've had many stories we've been taking on the housing is key program, seeing both landlords and tenants really struggle with the lack of a payment and the issues as it relates to having a tenant landlord issue. With our partners, we've been working hard to kind of streamline and to have conversations with both tenants and landlords. And we really hope that you continue this conversation and improve the language in our local ordinances but also ensure that we don't undermine state law and confuse tenants and landlords. So I really hope that you kind of move forward and helping not change actually D and actually keeping it in because as the previous provider said, it's really just a proof of, it's not onerous for the landlord to explain the reasons why it's really a matter of course. And really holds the decision at the court. And so really just advocate that you do not remove that. Thank you, Mr. Kansino. Zav, your microphone is now available. Hello, supervisors, audience. Thank you for your time and considering this change to the county code. My name is Zav Hershfield. I'm a tenants rights counselor for the organization Tenant Sanctuary, which is based in the city of Santa Cruz. And I just wanted to call in and express my support for expanded protections against tenants who assert their rights under the law. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the specifics of this law very well. They've got to my colleagues and senior citizens legal services and other organizations, but I can try to represent what I hear from residents. I speak to between 10 and 12 county renters each week about situations they're dealing with. And I can tell you that fear of retaliation is the dominant reason that people do not assert the rights that they have under the law, even when it's fairly clear, for example, that the presence of the rats in their kitchen is clearly the property owner's responsibility or the rent increase that they are dealing with is clearly in violation of laws like AB 1482, which Mr. Grodberg referred to. Any protections that will make tenants feel that they are safe in asserting their rights and do not have to fear retaliation for just asking that their landlord follow existing law, I think would be an improvement to the lives of renting residents of this county. I also just wanted to issue a correction in my understanding that Mr. Grodberg is asserting that the just cause provisions of AB 1482 apply broadly to tenants. And in fact, they apply to very few residents in this county comparatively because they only apply to multi-unit residences such as apartment buildings and not single family residences, which are so prominently used as rental residents by people in this county. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Hirschfield. At this time, we have no speakers with their hands up. Are there any other speakers online? Ah, yes, one just popped up. Giselle, your microphone is now available. Good morning, Chair and Board members. Thank you for allowing me to address this issue. My name is Justine Sanchez and I'm a community advocate with California Rural Legal Assistance. California Rural Legal Assistance is a nonprofit law office that provides free legal services for low-income residents throughout Santa Cruz County and in 19 offices throughout the state. We have been invited to comment on the ordinance based on over 50 years as a statewide housing advocacy organization. The way things stand, CRLA clients must rely on state law when asserting their basic rights as tenants. In this county's unique housing market, state law often isn't enough. A combination of loopholes, market forces and language barriers make it challenging for our clients to confidently assert rights as basic as asking for repairs to create a habitable living environment, be free from harassment, retaliation and free from discrimination. This ordinance attempts to keep those rights more accessible to the county's renters. First, the ordinance increased the penalty landlords can face for harassing or retaliating against tenants. It helps address an important imbalance when the actual expense to attend to are in. When the tenant needs to complete, they have to grapple with the cost that's usually even steeper than money. They risk making their landlord unhappy, which ultimately causes loss of housing unless prepared to face the housing market with the high rent and security deposits. They might become homeless or forced to leave their employment and the area. Lastly, while the language is a bit unclear, the ordinance appears to extend just cost protections to greater number of tenants than under state law. Both those have lived in a unit less than a year, but more than 30 days and those who do not reside on multi-unit properties. This promotes stability for tenants in our county who otherwise are often subject to loopholes that can be used to harass, intimidate and retaliate our tenants. Thank you again for this opportunity to provide thoughts on this proposed ordinance. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. Colin, user two, your microphone is now available. Well, I'm Garrett. I'm thinking of other ways to organize housing. We know in the last two years, the rate of unhoused people has really increased. There's been more poverty with all these lockdowns and destructions of businesses and people who are forced to live on the street. There's something very wrong about the structure of the system.  And I had the opportunity to travel and this was a great insight. In 1966 to the former Soviet Union to visit a relative, people paid about my relative about 5% of her income from rent in this apartment complex. And it was quite nice. It was small and it was a forest on the outskirts. And I thought, wow, what a contrast to here. The other vision of the flashes before me is I was able to visit Cuba in the 1990s and people were building their own homes. And I went with my folks on this ship. My mother actually took some videos of it, very low cause support of the government. And it was for the people they were building it. And it was, I just thought there were other ways. Thank you, Ms. Garrett. We have no further speakers at this time, Chair. Thank you, clerk. I'll then I'll return to the board for action. I do have one question related to some of the comments. It was about section 8.43.030B2. Take any of the following, it is it shall be unlawful for a lesser to do any of the following, including take any of the following actions in bad faith. Then it lists a number of potential actions such as fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by the applicable rental agreement or by federal state or local laws. So the concern was that by adding the further provision that these actions are already protected under state law and that because it says in bad faith, it would require further burden of proof that the landlord was actually doing these actions in bad faith. Would that somehow weaken our ordinance relative to state law? I mean, my understanding was that we really can't be any less restrictive or protective than state law. Yeah, this ordinance supervisor is just creating a new cause of action for tenants who have been discriminated or harassed against. It does not conflict with state law. Does Anne answer your question? So if state law basically lists similar actions or even the same actions and doesn't require proof that it's in bad faith, they could, this would not somehow undermine any case that they made. No, this does not undermine anything. This is basically taking our existing ordinance and providing greater protections and further remedies for discrimination and harassment at the local level. Whatever exists in state law exists in state law and can be pursued either in a normal tentative action or separately if they exist. And this ordinance also contains a section indicating that the remedies are cumulative and that they don't undermine or go past state law or any other laws that apply. Okay, thank you. Are there any? Can I ask a quick point of clarification? If the subsection D that was proposed to be removed is removed, would that send it back for a first, we wouldn't do a recommended actions or is it something that could be removed and you could still move on today? Our practice when we have a substantive change like this is to bring it back on first read, get direction from your board on exactly what change you want and bring it back on first read. Okay, thank you. Supervisor McPherson. I was just waiting for Supervisor Caput to make the motion that we bring this. Well, I don't know if he wants to make a motion. Do you want to make the motion to Supervisor Caput? A motion for what now? Well, I think, well, let me try to get it. Make the motion to approve the recommended action or to bring this back with the corrected or the suggested corrections or to implement this ordinance as proposed. That'd be simplified. Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. Can we do, can we vote on it anyway? Yeah, just a minute. Do you want me to, I just need clarification. I'll attempt to clarify. I'll note the number on. Okay, so we have a motion by Supervisor McPherson and a second by Supervisor Caput to bring this ordinance back for a first read at our next meeting, which would be September 20th with subsection 8.43.030D removed. That accurately reflects your sentiment. And I just want to assure those who have spoken that this is going to further, I think fortify the proposed tenant rights action that we want to move into County. So this is not to change anything that will weaken the proposal that we had. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? That'd be fine. Yeah. Personally, I wanted to apologize to Supervisor Koenig. I didn't get back to you in the last five days to clarify things. And my son is fine. But he got hurt in a high school football game and they had to operate on his knees. So we've been running around, going to doctors and everything for that. So he's going to be fine, but he's going to miss the season. Sorry to hear that. And of course, our best wishes to your son, Supervisor Caput. All right, if there's no further discussion on the motion, then clerk roll call vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Thank you. And Koenig. Aye. Item passes coming back on the 20th or 1st Street removing subsection D. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you for everyone who came to share their stories and specific feedback with us today. We'll now proceed with item 13, which was removed from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. This is to adopt the ordinance amending chapter 7.38 of the Santa Cruz County Code relating to onsite wastewater treatment systems approved in concept August 23rd, 2022. And we do have our environmental health director with us today, Marilyn Underwood, who I assume is available to answer any questions or provide any more clarity on this item. Marilyn, if you wouldn't mind, why don't you just give us a quick overview of what we're doing here. Sure. So coming back for the second reading, this is a required ordinance changed due to state law that required us to look back at our onsite wastewater treatment system ordinance and amend it to meet state minimum requirements. We had been working with the regional board for quite a while on this, got some concessions and one in particular, for instance, that I know as a concern was about the the CZU fire, so I can talk about that in a minute. The basic premise of this is we have water degradation in this county and we depend on only our water to provide drinking water to us, both our surface water and groundwater. A septic system is that we have seen septic impacts, both in all around the county. So not only are we trying to meet state minimum requirements, we're also trying to put in place a path so that we can move forward and have better water quality into the future, as we know is that is very critical. So over the last, since 2019, we've been working with the regional board. We also have had an onsite wastewater attack. That group includes, by the way, four real estate agents that have been active in it over the years, and ever since the 2019 draft, we have always included a point of sale inspection. We think this is a really important point so that buyers that both come through your offices often concern that they are having to meet a certain requirement because they were unaware when they bought the property, that it, for instance, was not permitted for a four bedroom house. The septic system was only permitted for a two bedroom. We had a gentleman recently who bought a property and actually had a garage that had been built by a previous owner on top of the leech field. These are problematic issues that then they have to address as they wanna do something new to their property. So again, the point of sale has been in there from the beginning, and we've had real estate folks part of our onsite wastewater attack as has this gone out to the community as large in public meetings. So I know that there's some concern that has come forward, this is great. I hope they're listening today. So we can allay some of their concerns as it's a very complicated document. It's the ordinance and the LAMP, but I just wanted to make sure that, and maybe it's okay for me to approach some of the three issues that I see the primary real estate agents having concern about. Go ahead, Director. Thank you. So first of all, one of them, two of them are winter weather testing. Currently in our ordinance, we have a requirement for winter weather testing and it's actually not much different in the new one. And in fact, it's already been in place. So this is one of those state requirements that even before when the state policy went into effect, we had to start making sure that we were meeting state requirements. It's been consistent. We wanna know where the highest groundwater is and why is that? Because when the leachate is being discharged to the soil, it needs to travel through soil where microbes live so they can break down the pathogens before they hit groundwater. So it's really important to know where high groundwater is. We realize that the high groundwater ideally should be tested so that we know that, but then we've had many, many dry years. So there's already currently in our current ordinance as well as the one we're proposing, putting forth to you alternatives that any parcel owner can use working with their consultants to if there is no wet winter testing that year. And that includes things like doing a soil excavation and looking for modeling of the modeling of the soil. That's discoloration, mapping. We can use nearby parcel information about what winter weather testing and high groundwater. And also they can just go ahead and design it for the worst case scenario. So those are all available to any parcel owner currently. So I think that's one of the concerns I heard from the real estate agents. And again, I think that should allay that concern. The thing before you today is not new. It is what we're currently operating under and under what we need to the state also. You must do either wet winter testing or find where the high groundwater is in some manner. The second one, I think I wanna address next is the CZU burden. We too, obviously, and you guys have cared about folks rebuilding after the CZU. And so years ago, you already put in place by hiring for leave as a consulting company to help those people through the process. When they're applying the standards that they have to apply the standards that we have and we apply repair standards to those situations. In other words, if we can look at the property before it was burned and the septic system was in good working order, we're going to say the repair standards and those are the most relaxed standards there are. And in fact, we fought really hard with the regional board. They wanted us to have an eight foot groundwater separation for repairs. We fought really hard to say that's not workable in our county. We think five feet is adequate. And they finally allowed us to go for it with five foot separation for medium perk and soils. So that was a big help to our community. That's being applied to the CZU for those people that wanna build in kind. And it's been applied. This will not again change based on your action today. So it's already been applied. It's been applied since the day one that parcel owners were going down to the RPC, the Recovery Permit Center to start to rebuild, okay? So both of those are not changed by any of your action today. The third point of concern is the point of sale. I'm really glad to see that the main concern that I'm seeing in the real estate agent is just getting, they're not sure that it can be rolled out by January 1st. We have been working on this since January 1st of 2022. We have a plan in place, we have tools in place. We were very much looking forward to working immediately with the real estate agents. So I'm still looking forward to meeting with them and rolling out these tools. Remember, this is not a new program in a sense. Malibu does this, Paradise does this now. The whole state of Massachusetts requires a point of sale inspection. So we have lots of examples to work by to develop something that we think will work here in this county. And again, it's an informational thing for the buyer and the seller. It tells the buyer what was the permitted septic system? Was it permitted for two bedrooms, three bedrooms, four bedrooms? Has they or have the current owners or previous owners already used the less than 500 square foot addition? Was it built to plans? Have things been altered afterwards that would affect their ability to do things without expensive intervention? So this is, it's an informational tool and having, looking into the buying a home in this area too, there are many, many disclosures that are already required. Real estate agents are very familiar with these as our buyers and sellers. This would be another one for the septic system. Just to remind you, we require this as the county or the staff came forward many years ago to put a requirement that within our CSAs, our sanitation districts, that a lateral has to be examined before it goes for a sale. And this was again, to protect water quality and make sure those laterals are not leaking pathogens into our groundwater. So this is a similar program that we're proposing. Again, with the overall input of protecting water quality and we think it can be done by January 1st, but if that is the primary concern that we don't, they don't think that we can roll it out by January 1st. We're amenable to postponing that for a couple of months. I will just say as a director, I'm often in charge of rolling out new programs because the state is often passing them. So this is something I think can reasonably be done by January 1st and we have a plan for it. But again, if that is the concern, we would be amenable to postponing the start date when it becomes effective. And I think I'm happy to entertain. I have some more information for some other issues, but I think that primarily hits the ones that are being raised by the real estate agents that I saw in print. Yes, thank you, Director Underwood. Are there questions or comments from board members? The provisor friend. Yes, Mr. Chair, I do have a question. Dr. Underwood, thanks for the most recent update. One of the questions I had is that is there a specific, I recognize that we don't have a certified lamp and that this could have and should have been done years ago, but is there a specific deadline that we're working up against in the state? For example, if the board made changes to this and it had to go back to the regional board, is there a specific timeline that we need to have something completed by? The timeline was based on the October 14th, 2021 adoption of the lamp by the regional board. There is, I don't believe, I know of a timeline by which you're supposed to have then made changes and adopt it here at the county. So that is not necessarily as a concern. As I say, many of the aspects of the ordinance are already in place and we have to follow them. I think the point of sale thing is as obviously, as each property goes up for sale after January 1st and we haven't implemented this, there are more and more uninformed buyers potentially buying a property that they don't know anything about the septic system, but that is definitely not that there's no timeline for that per se. Okay, and let me just say, I'm not opposed to a point of sale requirement. I recognize that oftentimes actually issues aren't even necessarily known until the inspections are done and oftentimes that could be one of the better ways to do it. What I do know though is I've seen you refer to the sewer lateral requirement and some of the language in that which does have a 90 day requirement as somebody who had worked on behalf of the sanitation district on getting the correct language for that. There is a significant difference in my opinion between what we're proposing today and the sewer lateral point of sale and that it has a section within the sewer lateral language that allows, in that case, the district engineer, but in this case, I guess it could be your position to establish or waive or suspend or otherwise modify. I'm reading straight from the sewer lateral language to the authority to establish waive, suspend or otherwise modify any civil administrative penalty imposed by this section upon showing that the property owner has satisfactory repair of the, in this case, private sewer to a degree sufficient to ensure avoidance of further violations or upon showing by the property owner, severe financial hardship. The point that I bring this up is because I think that the bigger concern that's being raised isn't just the implementation timeline. It's just that within 90 days, this isn't, it just isn't gonna happen. I mean, it's just not a realistic timeline. And if we know in advance, even though there are cases within our own example of the sewer lateral doing 90 days, although I think the sewer lateral is actually an easier, not easier, but a less time intensive project is this. Since we know that people are gonna go beyond the 90 days, I feel like there needs to be a section in here that provides the flexibility of somebody to, that is acting in good faith, clearly. I mean, they've attempted to hire somebody and then that person can't do it for a certain amount of time. They need to order necessary elements that take time due to supply chain constraints. I think that people would feel a lot better if they knew that there was a way to in essence appeal the 90 day component. I tell you what, I wouldn't buy a house. I mean, I would not buy house in an area with this requirement because I would feel like I couldn't meet the 90 day requirement under the current way that it reads, there's no flexibility on it. So if we were to add in the same language or something substantially similar that's in our sewer lateral ordinance that provides a flexibility request, do you believe that that would require us to go back to the regional board? We're not really changing the underlying elements of the lamp, what we're doing is just from an enforceability standpoint, the violation component of it that I think people have concerns about even though they haven't articulated it this clearly, would that require a re-review by the regional board? All right, thank you very much, Supervisor Friend for that. So first of all, the board has given the staff the ability to read review non-substantial changes, which is we have made some non-substantial changes because we've improved it with both planning commission also gave us some recommendations as well. Again, we went back to the staff with the regional board to get the approval for those before bringing it to you. So I'm fine with that. The idea we are flexible if folks are showing good faith that they are moving forward with a failure. And I just want to point out this. So because I think it's an important point, these are only talking about things where we found a failure during the inspection, the inspection found a failure, okay? So and those are really a small percentage and we've estimated somewhere around 700 properties change hands that are during a year in sales in that are served by septic systems. And if we have a one to 2% failure rate, which we're sort of applying what we see in the non-sale area, right? Well, we're going to apply it to the sale area. Then that would be between some between seven to 14 properties might be found to have undergone failure at the time of this point of sale inspection. So that it's not a large number. And again, one of the things what we're trying to point out here is the failure is potential impact or real impact to our environment. It's not, we're not going to make somebody upgrade and their odd system, their septic system because it's their house is four bedroom and it's only built for two. On the other hand, if there's a failure, we and everyone want to protect the water quality because a failure will mean that this can get into our surface water. It can get into our groundwater. And that's really important to us that that's why even now we get reports of course with for failures now and we require them within 30 days to show some action on trying to fix that repair come in for a repair permit. So we already have requirements that action must be taken because it is an impact to our environment for water quality, which is the whole purpose of why we're here, right? So if there is a need to amend the ordinance to include something like that, that language that gives us flexibility, I will say we already use that flexibility now.  We need to have something in there that requires them to take some action. And we recognize as you're indicating that they may have contractor issues trying to get a contractor out there, other constraints, but we would work with those individuals and we have already worked with those individuals in those situations. Mr. Chair, if I may continue, is that okay? Yes, please. Yeah, so Dr. Underwood, I don't believe that there's any disagreement at the board level. And I imagine, I mean, you heard our comments at the last meeting in regards to the true environmental need for this. I don't think, I think that's established. And I'm sure that there are some people that would prefer that none of this happened, but that isn't the policy realm or discussion that we're engaged in. What I'm trying to actually conclude here is that you just gave examples on a 30 day and understanding a flexibility that doesn't exist in what we're proposing. And so I think that if you were a homeowner or you were anybody, you would want the clarity, you wouldn't wanna just trust that the county's gonna provide the flexibility. You would wanna see something that says, if I'm acting in good faith and I'm getting the permit in 30 days or whatever it may be that I'm not going to be penalized for trying to replace something. By the way, I think we also want to, since we're all on the same page of trying to ensure that these get replaced, we wanna make it as easy as possible for people to do it as opposed to as punitive as possible for people to do it. I just think it's a different approach to reaching the same results. So yes, personally, I would like to say, and I'm saying this to the board right now, I think that we need to amend this that has language either using the sewer lateral language as the model language or coming up with something that's a little bit specific to this, either way that provides flexibility for interpret, not interpretation, but provides flexibility for somebody due to extenuating circumstances to not meet the 90 day component. Recognizing this is an unnecessary environmental issue at that time, but there are things outside of that individual's control. So I just think the 90 day is just not possible is what I mean. And so since we recognize that in advance, then we need to build things into the code that also recognize how to address it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Other comments or questions from board members? Supervisor McPherson? Yeah. Time is the enemy. And I really do appreciate the environmental staff putting this plan together, which has really required a great deal of work over the years and it impacts my district more than anyone else, I believe, in order to ensure a program that both meets the state standards and their local dynamics that we have that are not really favorable. But this is a big shift designed to improve public health and water quality that has to absolutely be done. I don't wanna see us delay our attack on that to improve it, but we know these changes carry the potential of early expensive upgrades I think it's estimated at $75,000 to $100,000 possibly. And if they wanna sell or make substantial additions, I wanna really push forward with this, but I think that a strong public outreach component is imperative and unfortunately, I don't see that we can amend this here without going back to the state, which means another, what, six to nine months maybe? Supervisor McPherson, thank you for your thoughts. We can get, from the staff, we can get a quicker turnaround time on changes, as they say, not significant changes that might be recommended, such as what Supervisor Friend is recommending. So in other words, I anticipate we could come back much sooner if we wanted to amend the language. I did wanna ask County Council, as it reads now, is there flexibility for one in the 90 days as you're aware of or would we need to amend it? We would need to amend that to get the kind of clarity that Supervisor Friend was discussing. Okay. Trying to figure out the best way to do it. And so if I may also ask a clarifying question, so if we ask for specific amendments or recommend specific amendments to the ordinance today, it would simply come back for a first read, either at the next meeting or another if we need to look, you know. That's our practice, that it would come back for a first read. We do that for purposes of clarity and transparency with the public, so we can be, and actually so we can also be clear that we're capturing in the written word what your board is asking for appropriately. Great, thank you. Yeah, I think, I don't know how comfortable, I know we have representatives of the real estate and I do believe you said that there, you had some input from realtors. We've gotten plenty of comments and a lot are waiting and I don't know how we might answer this. Maybe Mr. Bacchina could say would that be satisfactory or there's a lot of uneasiness in this. And so I'm just trying to get a sense if that would be acceptable. It seems like if we can come back ourselves to amend it, that would be a proper way to go. Can you repeat that? Supervisor McPherson or are you just sorry? Can we amend this to possibly satisfy the concerns that we've heard from property owners and realtors? Can we do that by delaying this and have the first reading come back to us? It's in the discretion of your board. Your board could propose language today that you specific language that you would like to see and staff could bring that specific language back or you could instruct staff to take into consideration the comments that have been made in a conceptual basis and bring back to you specific language. Probably it would be on the October 18th meeting because it would be a very quick turnaround to try to get something done by the 20th for the meeting at the 20th. I wanna hear from the rest of the board members as well. I know that Supervisor Friend had some input in this. I don't know if Supervisor Coonerty who's been impacted by the CGU fire a lot as well. If you have any comments on that, excuse me for taking over the, it's all right. Thank you Supervisor McPherson. Supervisor Coonerty, did you wanna jump in? Yeah, I mean, I'm looking forward to hearing from the public after Dr. Underwood's outlining of where we do have discretion or we don't have discretion, the overall goals, compliance and state law. I think Supervisor Friend's comments last time we heard this about, we're sort of cleaning up a mistake that was made 40 years ago of not having people hook into sewer systems and now left with very expensive, difficult system staff to put in themselves with very no economies of scale. We're in a difficult spot and trying to balance economic needs and also environmental needs. I support the direction that Supervisor Friend outlined of giving people more time and then also more clarity about that process so that even if there's flexibility in the Environmental Health Staff's office, it's clear also in the regulations. Yeah, I do think that everybody agrees that the 90 days and we could have some leeway in that, but that's impractical under the circumstances of how many properties involved and the contractors of how many we can go to and you've recognized that as well. In general, I would agree with the situation that Supervisor Friend said that we might address this as well. All right, thank you Supervisor McPherson. I'll add, I agree that we, first of all, I think we're tinkering here rather than rejecting or really going back to the drawing board on the critical elements. So I think that we can still get this done with a few specific suggestions and then we're not trying to pass the football so much as run it. So I agree with the point that Supervisor Friend brought up that we should really be explicit instead of implicit in terms of the 90 day requirement and any process for which that can either be appealed or amended by the health director provided that adequate progress is being made and that contractor has been scheduled or a permit applied for. I also think that we could be explicit rather than implicit as far as the winter weather testing. So Director Underwood listed a few of those alternatives, soil excavation and looking for modeling, mapping, designing for the worst case scenario. I think today it basically says that if a winter weather test is not possible, that assuming other adequate information is provided the health officer will have discretion to still approve it. And again, I would just like to see those specific tests or information sources listed as being a possible way to get approval against this so that the real estate community and buyers and sellers have clarity and know that they'll be able with certainty to complete the requirements. And then finally, I think we should just amend that date of the rollout. Glad our environmental health director is confident in her ability to roll this out and that we're prepared to launch but out of an abundance of caution, I think that we should delay either till that the actual required rollout till the middle of next year or even a full year just to make sure we have plenty of time. And again, that's not to say that we won't of course be starting to roll this out as soon as the ordinance is approved. I think it just provides a little extra buffer room to make sure the word gets out in the community before there's actual punitive action taken against anyone who hasn't gotten the training or gotten the word. But those would be the areas that I think if we address those three with some minor amendments that we could get to something that'll work for the community. Do you wanna reply to that? Yeah, so definitely do not need six months or a year. And then the requirement is something that would be something that there's not necessarily a punitive thing. It's almost the requirement is that the buyer ends up buying a property and then they become aware that this was never done. So it is actually really something between the buyer and the seller. So at that point, it's not punitive necessarily. So I think that's one of the things to look at is heroes not making a punitive again or encouraging folks to do it so that it's one of the required disclosures. Thank you. I do wanna add on to that last statement that failure to comply with any of the provisions of those is a violation of the chapter. And so it is just so the board's aware it's not solely a matter between the buyer and the seller. The county can take punitive action as you were suggesting earlier just so we have complete clarity. Great, thank you. And I'm just wondering if that's something that could be delayed on that part during the rollout. Whether enforcement could be delayed on the rollout? Yeah. Since that's I'm carrying is the concern. I think it's something that could be done but it's not something that I would recommend. I would, if you were trying to delay it you would recommend, you would delay the rollout rather than delay the enforcement of the rollout. Okay, thank you. Yeah, and where I saw that J was I think it's section 7.38.216 system inspection upon transfer property section A1 inspection and valuation that it mentions before sale of the property after January 1, 2023. So I think we could just amend that date. It wouldn't mean that we couldn't start the educational rollout. So to speak earlier but just any punitive actions would be delayed until whatever date reset there. Any other comments or questions from board members? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I think that realistically this item is gonna come back to us in late October for a first read anyway. January 1st is not, and it needs two readings. I think that the end of the day that January 1st is a kind of obsolete date anyway. So I think that we can change the rollout date on that. I do think that we should have an enumerated list of alternatives on the winter water testing. I heard Dr. Underwood actually outlined a number of them and I think it would be useful to have some of them as for examples just so that there is something in the code to your point earlier. And I think that the similar language to the sewer lateral flexibility so that people understand that they could apply for, I mean, in essence of waiver, that it uses different language in there but waivers one of them would be very useful. But I look forward to hearing from some of the community feedback based on the discussion the board's having. I think that this does, well, it doesn't change the underlying substance of the lamp. These are important clarifications that I think will actually add a lot more comfort to this being implemented in the county. All right, if I know further questions or comments from board members or staff, they'll open to the public. Thank you all for having a educated discussion on this and I'll try to get as much in in the two minutes as possible. So I do appreciate all the concerns regarding the timing. I think ultimately that is our biggest concern is rolling this out to echo what Dr. Underwood said, I believe information getting to a prospective buyer of a property and or a seller of a property is imperative. And I think especially with how convoluted some of the septic stuff is, it's really critical. One other item to kind of speak about to touch on is in this rollout of six months a year, however long it takes into we're getting to this is with this new lamp that's going into place, there's going to be changes on each property with regards to what septic will be, could be installed with more enhanced treatments going in. The reason why we have such a large range for enhanced treatment systems are because every property is a little bit different. No system is necessarily exactly the same. It might correct in that. So, and what I say, what I say with that is when we're negotiating a contract and we find that an enhanced system is required, we're going off of what we think is going to be installed. We don't know exactly what's going to be installed until it goes through design, it goes through permitting, it goes to the contractor, the materials get purchased and it gets put in the ground and then we know what that cost is. And so, as we roll this out further and further, we're going to get a better understanding as to what certain requirements are going to be in specific areas of the community, which will help give buyers more certainty that when they're negotiating a price, that they're negotiating a price that will get them to the end goal, which is putting a new septic on their property that will comply with the current standards of the property. So, I think all of these different items, I appreciate you guys considering this now. I still stand by my r