I'll now call the June 2nd, 2020, regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Will the clerk please call the roll. Supervisor Leopold? Here. Friend? Here. Coonerty? Here. McPherson? Here. Chair Caput? Here. Thank you. We have a quorum, we have everybody. Okay, we'll have a moment of silence and prayer, and then we'll follow with the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Caput, I'd like to make a special recognition. It's just with great sadness that I announced that victory to the lumber owners, lumber company people, personnel and their friends announced the death of Homer Bud McCrary on Sunday night. At the age of 93 years old, along with his brother and family, they grew from 1946, a company that has five retail building stores, a functional operation and a wholesale lumber division. Bud McCrary was a special guy, I can say the least. He was self-educated but owned more than 10 U.S. patents. Amazing feed. But perhaps Bud's greatest legacy was his contribution to forestry practice on the Central Coast and the entire state of California. He helped pioneer the style of forest thinning, battering and clear cutting was the way that they did business in the prevailing practice. Big Creek Lumber really put that practice into place. It was followed by Santa Cruz, from Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and throughout the state. We gotta appreciate much of our forestry that we have in this great county of ours and this great state because of the practices and the leadership and the foresight of Bud McCrary. He was a mountain of a man, a gentleman and a scholar in every sense of the word. And I just think that we should remember him in our prayers. Santa Cruz County and the people of California can really be thankful that Bud McCrary came along to protect that forestry that we have, we appreciate so much today. So I'd like to have you, everyone, keep his memory on their minds when they say their prayer today. Absolutely, thank you. I didn't know. Yeah, I know. Great guy. All right, congratulations to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Yeah, Mr. Palacios, are there any late addition? Yes, they are under the regular agenda, item eight. There's additional materials. A revised attachment A packet pages 56 revised attachment B packet page 98, revised attachment C packet pages 128 and 129, revised attachment D packet pages 171, replacement attachment F packet pages 177 and 178 and attachment M insert after packet page 185, attachment N insert after packet page 185 B. And then on the consent agenda, item 19, there's additional materials. There's attachment D packet pages 273A. And then item 30, there's a correction. The item should read, approve four year expenditure agreement in the amount of $1,292,020 with beacon health options for inpatient psychiatric utilization management services for the health services agency, behavioral health and take related actions as recommended by the director of health services. There's additional materials, revised memo, packet pages 441 and 443. And then on item 43 added, this is an agenda to the consent agenda. Item 43, there's direct county council on the department of public works to negotiate a license agreement for the use of a portion of Daveness Avenue parking lot for local restaurants, can sit stint with states approval of the variance from stage two restrictions of the state's resiliency roadmap and return on June 16th to 2020 with Daveness Avenue parking lot license agreement for ratification and with a process for implementing agreements for use of other county owned parking lots or other properties by local businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic as recommended by Supervisor Leopold. There's item A, board memo printout. That concludes the corrections and additions to today's agenda. Okay, thank you. Let's see, do any board members have anything to pull off of the consent agenda or a regular agenda, I guess? Any comments? No comments on the consent agenda? We'll get the comments later, but I have nothing to pull off the agenda. Nothing to be pulled, right? Doesn't sound like anybody else does either. Okay. Public comments. Now's the opportunity for members of the public to address the board on topics that are on today's agenda, consent items, closed session agenda, and topics that are not on the agenda, but are within the jurisdiction of the board. If you cannot stay later to speak on the regular agenda items, you may address those items at this time. I wanna ask everybody, thank everybody for being here and cooperating. I know it's a problem to wear the mask, but if you look around, we're all putting up with that. And if you're not gonna wear the mask, I'm gonna ask you to leave. Okay, I'm sorry. I'll have to do that. You could wait outside if you want. And then when your time comes to speak, you can come in. And please address the board and not address, you know, individuals and people, department heads and things like that. Thank you. And we're wearing the mask. It was brought to my attention earlier. That's our respect for everybody. We're trying not to pass it on to you. We're not wearing the mask to protect ourselves as much as we're wearing the mask to protect the public in general. Thank you very much.  Hi, my name's Tim Thompson. I live in the Santa Cruz mountains. I've been living up there for 37 years. I was here two years ago to speak out against the cannabis growing regulations. I'm really against the lowering of the acreage from, I think it's two and a half or five acres down to one acre. I live on an RA parcel. And from what I've read, this would entail, road building, forest clearing, greenhouses, right at the property line, which in my case would be 10 feet from my bedroom. I wouldn't want my family, my 12 year old son to be smelling marijuana growing months on end. Not to deal with the traffic up there, the crime that's related to it, just pushed on us by the planning department for the profiteering of the dope growers. Not to mention the road insides that kill the wildlife, the illegal diversions from streams. I feel that a big land use decision like this should have an environmental impact report. This is ridiculous to have such a huge change in our zoning of our properties. I live in a neighborhood. It's not a place where they should be growing cannabis. A cottage grow, that's a joke, it's industrial. There's no way about it. I think it's appropriate in a place like in ag lands, but not in RA, probably not in SU and probably not in TP. Apparently my experience with the planning department is their enforcement is abysmal at best. There is a cabin in my neighborhood where they built a wall on top of a foundation that had no footing. I complained, made nine complaints, no action whatsoever. That wall finally fell down into the street when I was driving up during a driving rainstorm. If I was five seconds later, it would have killed me. I told a Mary Bolster grant that her department failed miserably for, the other thing is too, there is another cabin that's near where I live and it was deemed unsafe to occupy. I've made at least nine complaints over the last 10 years. That person is still living in the house. Nothing has happened with that property. There is an illegal structure, somebody living in a place called Happyland. I've made two complaints and all they told me was, well, you can go up there with our enforcement crew. They said, why would I do that? Put myself at risk. Did I hear from them ever again? No, that's after two complaints. So the only time that they have done anything was when they followed my brother, had a truck full of lumber to put a foundation under existing house. They stopped him and they penalized him. It cost him $17,000. And my experience is the only time the county does their job is when they smelled money and they smelled money that time, big time. So I have absolutely zero faith in the planning department whatsoever. There, the laughing stock, everybody knows it. The record is invisible. Thank you. Good morning. I am always an advocate for sharing information and asking questions. I'm here to talk about face masks today, which we were mandated six weeks ago to begin wearing, although it is not required in the state of California. This is our own ordinance, our own requirement, which is being justified by the CDC and the California Public Health Recommendations as the reason. So this is the CDC who in February told us not to wear face masks. Also the Surgeon General who stated that face masks should not be worn as they have not proven effective. But now he's being, a video of him is being shown on the CDC website suggesting we make a face mask out of an old scarf. So the CDC of course has already has said, changed their mind, said yes, we should wear face coverings, but provides no evidence of this. They have some listed studies but they have nothing to do with face coverings. The California Department of Public Health, which is also the reason for our face coverings, says that, quote, there is limited evidence to suggest that the use of cloth face coverings by the public during a pandemic could reduce disease transmissions. But they also have provided none of this limited evidence that they speak of. So being the person I am, I decided to do my own research, look for my own evidence either way. What I found was abundant evidence that face coverings not only do not prevent the spread of COVID, but they harm our health. They reduce oxygen intake, they increase carbon dioxide, which causes fatigue and headaches. I think you can ask anybody that wears a mask all day long and they'll tell you, and you may know this too, lowering the immune function. These studies are all in prestigious scientific journals. Most upsetting, I read a story that was reported in the New York Post. The death of two boys dying within a week of each other while wearing face masks during gym class. So in my, I mean, we don't have to do scientific studies to know these things. These things, you know them. I mean, all you have to do is look inside and ask yourself, you know, there's also the other things such as the increase of fear and judgment, social, further social isolation at times when we don't need these things. So I just ask, well, we have this indefinite timeframe set up for us. I've heard a year, a year and a half, two years thrown around. Let's have a limit to this. Our numbers were low when this was implemented. They are still very low. Please, I ask for your help. Thank you and your consideration. Hi, my name is Ann Swedberg and I live in the Aptos and I'm here to object to the item 13, which is increasing our taxes for CSA 48. I think it's a really unreasonable time to raise our taxes. We passed in 2020, just January, we passed a separate assessment for CSA 48. Prop 172 was passed to help fund local fire protection. Measure G was passed for this very purpose. I'm not sure where any of that money is going, but we believe that we should not be, you should not be raising our taxes at this time when businesses are struggling and people are out of work. It's really not good thing to do. So I ask you please not to pass the CSA 48 increase. Thank you. Monica McGuire, Corralitos. I'm coming with a heavy heart and wearing black for the absolute horror at watching what's going on in this country due to a death that should not have been and all the mayhem that has ensued. I feel deeply, I'm very upset. It's so hard to sleep even knowing what's going on. Gratitude for the leaders of Santa Cruz City who made the front page of the Sentinel because they actually spoke for us as we have come to you asking you to do. I'm asking you again, please speak on behalf of the county about what we cannot say without fear of putting our law enforcement in danger and all our people in danger. Normally this county is filled with people who want to protest and advocate for what we know is safer and better. And we can't do that right now because of what you're asking us to do. And everything Satya said is what I've been saying for close to three months now. And yet the science is not being followed despite the claims that that's what you're following. That is so contradictory and upsetting and harmful. Also, I know that people in Watsonville, Mr. Caput are quaking in their boots because I have met enough people, Latinos who have been beaten simply because of the color of their skin by the Santa Cruz police force that they are terrified. I know that a member of the board of supervisors called ICE on the people of Watsonville just to terrorize them years ago. I know that these things are against most of our principles. But until and unless you actually speak up for us because we're not allowed to right now, we are more pained and terrified of what else is coming, of what else we don't have any control over. Please come to each of us as you're supposed to and ask for our input in all the ways that you can.  You are not coming to us. All we get are supposed town hall meetings where we are talked to. Again, we have asked for the ability to give our input and you have ignored that request over and over. I don't understand that. I know that you are good people who care. I trust you're doing your best. I do. I really believe that's what people do. But if we dilute ourselves and think that it's okay and that the ends will justify the means or shirk our actual jobs, which your jobs are to come to us, ask us for our needs, our fears, our desires, and then represent us to the rest of the county. And that has not once happened in my 23 years of living in this county. Please start that part of your jobs. Bruce Tanner. In this room last Friday, county officials maintained a unified front saying that they're basing their actions against the rights, livelihoods, and mental health of the people of Santa Cruz on what you called science. But despite the fact that many of the comments to you in these meetings have pointed to the real scientific research which has flooded the internet, which contradicts the county's official story on the pandemic, you seem unable to look at anything that contradicts the narrative you cling to and proves that your actions harming the people you purport to represent do not follow common sense and are in fact unscientific. You say that the pandemic is making you violate our lives, but the truth is that this narrative you're receiving from unnamed sources that you clearly obey is leading you to do this violation of us. Your excuses for what you're doing are empty and fraudulent. You are complicit in conducting deliberate psychological warfare against us. You want us to believe that suddenly all of the people of the world are no longer responsible for our own lives and health, but are now merely quivering protoplasm that is unable to maintain its own health and is a constant pernicious threat to what you call public health. You claim the authority to control our lives to mitigate this threat, a threat which will never again go away. Rather than basing our decisions on the spiritually informed understanding that everything we experience in our lives has an important purpose and that we as free beings have the agency to meet any challenge and live in harmony with our families, friends, and neighbors, we're now to accept that random outside forces will be attacking us from now on and that we need government that is you to irrigate to yourselves the power to defend us at any cost to our lives. You want us to see anyone who does not accept your edicts based on this assumed authority as our enemies and potential threats to our very lives. In short, you want to remove our agency to live our lives as free women and men. You have shown that you're willing to use the power of the state that you claim to represent to force us to suppress our understanding, impulses, and intuition, and to cower in fear. This despite the fact that we see that your edicts and agenda are based on empty lies, we must ignore what we see and obey. Most importantly, we must remain silent in the face of this crazy making aggression. Good morning. My name is Rebecca Mills. You may recognize me, not great. So I have appeared in front of the board previously as an advocate about mental health, incarceration, healthcare, and the intersection of those things. I may still be a member of the County Mental Health Board, although I haven't been able to attend our recent meetings serving with Mr. Caput. And today I'm just representing myself. I was born in Fort Knox, Kentucky to a father who was active duty in the Army. I lived in Fort Ord as a preschooler. I lived in family student housing at UCSC as a kindergartner. I was a student at Westlake Elementary. I was diagnosed as an intelligent person at a young age and provided gifted and talented education. I took college classes while I was in high school in Virginia at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria. My original passion was biology. I did a senior project at the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Then I attended the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, which some people say is the best science institute in the world as a physics major. And during that time, I commuted to Claremont Mechanic College in Pomona to do Army ROTC, going to Camp Pendleton for field training. In the summer, I had an opportunity to do paratrooper training at Fort Benning. Got my airborne wings and got to see some of the amazing people that choose to serve in our active duty armed forces and train with them, some of whom have probably died in our useless wars. I chose to leave the California Institute of Technology. I earned a Bachelor's of Science in Economics from George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. The study of economics is actually the study of the allocation of scarce resources, branches of which include cost-benefit analysis and game theory. Recently, I was involuntarily, psychiatrically institutionalized after being stopped for a rolling stop by police, Santa Cruz police with canines, guns, et cetera. The government said over $20,000 denying me my rights while my vehicle racked up $1,700 in impound fees. I was not getting, they claimed I was gravely disabled, unable to care for my own food, clothing, and shelter when actually that was never the case. And finally Judge Gallagher ruled on a writ of Hubey's corpus that they had to let me go. This is a very broken system that kills people. It killed my friend, Vicky Brown. It killed my house. Someone who lived in supported housing next to me, Cola Constantine from medical neglect. She was a beautiful person who had paranoid schizophrenia. She left these flowers behind. If you don't know the system, this is- Are we ready? What? I should start. Okay. I'm very grateful to the previous speakers who I agree with. And I wanna recommend videos to view. I think real existential threat is the radiation and the environmental devastation. 5G Apocalypse Extinction Event. I recommend saying 5G Apocalypse Extinction Event. Also 5G Trojan Horse. And this week starting yesterday through this seven, the 5GSummit.com. This is Josh Del Sol's website and he's interviewing some authorities on the dangers of 5G. And Chairperson Caput, this is from Take Back Your Power website. This is the documentary on the smart meters and wireless radiation dangers in which you are in that film. Takebackyourpower.net. You have a camping overall, I guess they call it. You know, the insects are being decimated by all this radiation. And here's from Arthur Fursenberg's, one of his newsletters. And that's selfonetaskforce.org. Melbourne, Australia on 111919, a 5G antenna was placed 250 meters from Angela's house, she writes. And the next day we saw bees dropping on the driveway then dying. I managed to film one trying to collect pollen, but it was hanging upside down and could not make it to the center of the petals. Then it rolled off the petals to the ground without the pollinators were doomed. And I recall seeing also in the film, Take BackYourPower.net, beekeepers testifying at hearings when the five, when the so-called smart meters were installed, beekeepers who had flourishing hives and then the bees dying after that. We do know what is poisoning us. There's a lot of evidence of the pesticides, the chemical pollution, the radiation. We all have, for instance, strontium 90 in our bones. There's a whole list. Why don't we stop these polluters at the source? Locked down, shut down the polluters, not the bees. Thank you. My name is Becky Steinbruner. I'm not going to wear my face mask. It makes it difficult for me to breathe. And I've heard that in many of the speakers this morning. We should not be required to have our masks on when we speak to you, our elected representatives. Supervisor Caput, I again want to thank you for calling the special board meeting last Friday. I really appreciate your leadership in taking that role. I was disappointed the board did not further add requirements to remove the beach closures and to stop the prohibition of short-term vacation rental use and hotel use. These added restrictions, which are completely up to our health officer, not elected officials, being backed by law enforcement's daily, seven deputies patrolling the beaches to ensure that people are following the rules of no lying, standing, sitting, anything like that is ridiculous and is killing our county. It's making us unhealthy. It is further putting our economic condition in shambles and you are aware that this county faces a possible 40.5 million dollar deficit. If we get no funding from state and federal sources, but Supervisor Caput, again, I want to thank you for your leadership in calling that. I also want to again protest that CAO Palacio commandeered the meeting. He is not the Sergeant at Arms. That direction to close the meeting should have come from you, Supervisor Caput. You give direction to your meetings as chairman and law enforcement, present in the room, follows your orders. It is not the CAO's duty or right to shut down meetings and to participate in ways that he has been doing, including instilling censorship on the public. I have just learned that no consent agenda items were pulled this morning. I wrote all of you and asked that. I think it's important that everyone wear their mask when they're inside the building. This is a basic community need. No, it is not. It's all right, we're six feet from someone. They're six feet from everyone. Please. Why are you muting me? I'm being told here that I am told I have to be mutified. You need to wear a mask when you're inside this building. It's out of respect for the other people in the room there. Okay. It's important that people wear masks. This is about not transmitting the virus. It's about your care for community and care for not infecting other people. You can choose not to wear a mask, but that has to be outside this building. When you're inside the building, you need to wear a mask. Is your job than any other member of this camp? Please, you had your three minutes. We'll wait for the next speaker, I guess. No, it's out of respect for the other people in the room. I think there's a speaker here, Chair. Hello. Okay. I just, after all this discussion and complaints about mask wearing, I'd like to assure the county administration that I personally have no problem with it. I have some education in biology and virology. And I started wearing high grade masks. The reason I have this one is because I was a general contractor that was exposed to asbestos and all sorts of toxic materials. Masks are effective. I could wear them all day long without getting a headache. So thanks a lot. Appreciate it. You're welcome. We need to clear downstairs. Okay, we'll go to the website. Do we need a recess? I believe there are other people downstairs that would like to speak. So I don't know if we need to. Chair, if you can't clear Ms. Steinbrenner from the microphone, we're gonna need to declare a recess. Because there are other people who want to speak down there. I heard there were only two. I was told there was one more. Okay. We'll see if somebody comes up. That's a question we're waiting. Okay. We'll come to the microphone. Hi, my name is Michael Tyree owner of Scotts Valley Gym. I just didn't know if today's agenda was gonna talk at all about gyms reopening timeframe or what's gonna be required. Was today's meeting gonna be anything about that? Yeah. Yes. No, there's no items on the agenda that's gonna talk about that specifically. You can make a comment and express your interests in gyms, but we're not taking that up as a subject matter today. On Friday, we held a special meeting to go as nearly as far as everything opened in the state allowed by the state. And we're not dealing with that today. Okay. Do you know when you will? When the state allows gyms to open, we'll likely allow the state to open. Okay, thank you. Okay, there is nobody else. But we do have some web comments. Okay, thanks. The first one is from Richard Gallo. Dear Board of Supervisors, I am a resident of Santa Cruz County and a volunteer state ambassador with Access California. I wanted to inform the Board of Supervisors that the commissioners serving on the Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board needs kudos for serving on behalf of the mental health community. You have supervisors to support SB 803, peer certification to expand and support peer services for and on behalf of the mental health community. The County needs to look at funding, whether it's getting the value for the money and serving people with disabilities in Santa Cruz County. I do not support central co-center for independent living unless they can show the numbers in serving the disability community with the housing and disability advocacy services. The County needs to use their resource funds including interest, excuse me, including interest earned with the Mental Health Services Act, funding during COVID-19 and evaluate program funded by MHSA. The community planning process is incomplete and needs to be completed to include consumers' feedback about services being funded and gaps in the programs and must be used before state takes back the reserve funding with MHSA funds. Supervisors need to follow the general standards set by the MHSA. You need to thank MHSA coordinator who is doing a great job despite juggling between two assignments. Mental wellness is possible with regards, Richard Gallo, status ambassador, Bay Area, region ambassador, Access California, a program of CalVoices and that is it for online. That is it for online. Now we're probably ready for comments from the board. I'm happy to make the first comments. We'll go with, I have an order here somewhere. Any comments from Supervisor McPherson? Yeah, Mr. Chair, can you hear me all right? Okay, first of all, on an item that's not on the agenda, I wouldn't have liked to have mentioned it before. I want to congratulate and thank the people of Santa Cruz County, but in particular the people of the city of Santa Cruz for the peaceful recognition of the terrible incident that happened in Minneapolis, Minnesota. What followed was terrible, but what initiated it all was the worst. And I just want to thank the city from Mayor Cummings to the police chief Mills and everybody who was involved for its peaceful recognition of this. We just need to address this pointedly and more seriously in the future. And I hope we'll all do that. Certainly I think we have a great chance to do that in Santa Cruz County. For on the items on the consent agenda, I just wanted to recognize the CalFire agreement. Item number 19 for too long, County Fire has been underfunded, understaffed, and there were legitimate concerns about the condition of the outdated equipment that it had. But thanks to the voters who passed the revised CSA 48 tax assessment earlier this year, we can all rest a bit easier that the County Fire has the necessary resources to serve the two CSA areas covered in this contract. So thank you very much to the voters in particular. And then on items number 35, 6, and 39 concerning roads. Again, I want to thank the public works department for bringing these items forward. We continue to work through on our storm damage roads and particularly there's some serious ones in the fifth district, my district and throughout our County. This is also a good time to remind our members of the public that we maintain 600 miles of roadway in Santa Cruz County. Much of it was damaged in the previous storms of a couple of years ago. This is a big task with limited funding and this reminds us of the importance of measure D that was passed by voters of Santa Cruz County. And related, but not on the agenda, but I think it deserves recognition that on last Friday, May 29th, six and a half miles of highway 17 between Las Gatis and the summit in the Santa Cruz mountains. We have now a shaded fuel break. People have seen this who commute, I know they've been watching this for months that the project began in August, the end of August. This $9 million project was the largest one of its type and most complex of Governor Newsom's 2019 priority list for wild fire protection. I want to thank CalTrans, the state of California for getting on that. I also want to recognize that the Santa Clara County Fire Safety Council will continue to lead work on complimentary projects near the highway to strengthen the brakes of fuel effectiveness. There will be some continuous removal of hazardous trees that make awesome delays, but the main part of the project is done and it was a collaboration built with cooperation on multiple agencies, the state, the county and at local levels as well. It's an important fire safety measure that needed to be done and I congratulate the state for getting that done so quickly. Thank you. That's all. Supervisor Friend. Thank you Chair. I do have a couple of brief comments. First on item 24, I'd like to thank Supervisor Leopold with joining with me. And I'm confident that the board will support our action, which is to direct the chair to write a letter to the governor as well as the Senate assembly and our delegation here opposing the elimination of funding for community-based adult services.  It's quite remarkable that the governors may revise as proposing to eliminate this. A lot of money is leveraged with this relatively small investment across the state and it really allows a lot of people within our low-income seniors, especially within our community to live locally with dignity. So this is something we need to take a strong stand on and I appreciate Supervisor Leopold joining with me for this item. On item 32 briefly, which is just to schedule the public hearing on the vacation rental amendments, I appreciate that the planning department came up, came through with this and I also appreciate the actions of the planning commission on this. I'm looking forward to these coming to the board. We really do need to do what we can to protect the local housing stock. And I imagine that my colleagues are experiencing what I'm experiencing, which are a lot of complaints associated with vacation rental. So I think this is an important action that we can take in the coming weeks. On item 34, which is regarding a grant applications for the congested four doors program. I can't thank enough public works and especially Steve Wiesner for his leadership on this. There are some pretty significant improvements that are proposed for multimodality throughout the mid-county area. In fact, this would be one of the largest improvements we've made in that area in decades. And so we've been working with him actively. I know Supervisor Leopold has as well. This is a lot of credit really deserves to be given to public works for their leadership on this. And we hope that we can secure these grants and work forward on these improvements, both in the mid-county and for Supervisor or Chair Caput also for you for the Highway 152 and Hulahand Road project. Just finally, on the deferral of the award of the design bill contract for the Aptos Library, obviously any deferral is disappointing. I know that August is just after our July recess. I hope that there isn't any additional delay on this. I know the community is still looking forward to it, even given all the challenges that we're facing right now as a community with COVID. I mean, as Supervisor McPherson had noted, we're still doing a lot of work out there and we're excited through Measure S to get this moving. We've had a lot of community outreach, special appreciation to Damon and others that have been working on this. And we're hoping that we can, that August is the absolute latest state that this pushes to. Thank you, Chair. Professor Coonerty. Thank you. I just have one brief comment and additional direction. On item number 38, which is to ratify a motel lease for people experiencing homelessness. I wanna appreciate the county staff and the city staff who move quickly to find safe places for people experiencing homelessness to be during this COVID stay. We've more than met the capacity required by the state and we should commend their efforts in making that happen. Given that we know that the shelter place, the shelter and place order will eventually come to an end and these leases and the funding associated with them will also come to an end. We need a demobilization strategy that incorporates the housing resolution work of focus strategies that focus strategies are recommended even before the pandemic. So I'd like to add additional direction that the CAO's office come back at budget time with a demobilization and a housing resolution plan. So that we're prepared for the future in helping these hotels and expanded shelter clients, secure stable housing going forward. That's it, thank you. Thanks a lot. Okay, Supervisor Leopold. Thank you, Chair. I have a number of items to comment on and one to add additional direction on. On item 19, I will join my colleague in recognizing the good work of Cal Fire and especially with the shaded fuel break work that we also mentioned. Cal Fire was instrumental in a demonstration project in the Summit area around the Loma Prieta School District building that are very appreciative and the South Santa Clara County FireSafe Council was also very helpful along with County Fire. They are a great partner and in these days where we worry about something other than COVID, we worry about fire and they are an important part of our County Fire System. On item number 20, I just want to express my great appreciation to the Parks Department for all their work on the completion of the Chanticleer Park Phase One Development Project. Fortunately, we were able to have an opening of that park before the COVID pandemic fell upon us and we had hundreds of people join us in the opening of that wonderful park unlike any other in Santa Cruz County. The hard work of park staff in order to make that happen is greatly appreciated and I appreciate their ongoing work to provide recreation services to people here in Santa Cruz County. On item number 23, I would ask the board to join me in supporting the nomination to create the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary in San Luis Obispo County. We have seen the benefits of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. We know what a difference it has made in preserving such a beautiful location as the Monterey Bay and the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary would accomplish many of the same goals. On item number 24, as my colleague mentioned, joining with supervisor friend to ask the governor and the legislature to not make the funding around community-based adult services. And not only do these services provide critical support for families and especially people who couldn't afford other services but it's actually the kind of upstream investment you need in order to avoid long-term costs as people would be put in more expensive facilities. Pennywise and pound foolish and I hope the legislature will not go along with the governor's suggestion here. On item number 32, I'm glad to see that we're finally getting a hearing on the amendments around the vacation rentals. I would like to add an additional direction that county council come back at that meeting with an interim ordinance under government code section 65858 to place on hold any new vacation rental applications until we're completing their review and adoption of these new ordinances. I think it would be helpful, especially we're spending a tremendous amount of resources trying to make sure that all vacation rental owners follow the rules of our shelter in place order and to add new ones to the system right now doesn't seem to make sense. On item number 34, I will also express my appreciation to public works. This is a tremendous, this would be a tremendous investment in Mid County safety to receive these funds and build buffered bike lanes and other projects in the Mid County. As we've seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more people have gotten out of their cars and onto bicycles and other forms of transportation. And we need to be able to support that kind of behavioral change and make sure it's safe on our major routes. Being able to access these funds should they be awarded would make a huge difference in the safety in the Mid County. And I really thank the staff for going there. On item number 40, the shared mobility services, it's completely understandable with the change in ownership of jump bicycles that we can't do a contract with them right now as they reorganize under their new corporate entity. But I'd like to direct the public work staff to come back with the associated ordinance before our September 15th consideration of this item because the ordinance does not have to be tied to the contract and it sort of sets our goals of what we wanna see in that contract. So I'd add that as additional direction. And lastly on item 43, I hope the board will join me in a way in which we can help local businesses while the COVID pandemic requires that we reduce the amount of people in restaurants and other businesses to ensure that we don't spread the virus. We should be creative about the way in which we use outdoor space and letting businesses use their own parking lots which will be considered in our first item on the regular agenda. But for those who don't have parking lots of their own, but there are county owned property, we should be a partner with these local businesses to be able to help them survive and thrive while we live under these restrictions. The first one here would be for the Daub and Biss parking lot in Soquel. We are also working with the parks department on placing picnic tables and other tables at the heart of Soquel Park to support businesses on the other side of Porter Street. But this would be very helpful and I encourage the support of my colleagues. Thanks for public works for taking a look at it in County Council for helping us figure it out. Thank you. Yeah, item number 25, this is Chairman Caput. I wanna welcome Pat Foreman for her appointment to the In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Commission. I wanna thank her for stepping forward. Item number 34, it's hopefully we'll get that 3.65 million dollars for Highway 152 and Hulahan Road. I wanna thank the public for being so patient to see work being done in that area. And then item number 42, the Freedom County Sanitation District for the phase one, replacing all the sewer lines in that area around Freedom Boulevard, Airport Boulevard and Green Valley, $607,000. And it's gonna be a great improvement to that area for the people. Thank you. Well, I'd be prepared to move the Consent Agenda as amended. Okay, we have a first. Second. And we have a second. Was that Supervisor Coonerty? Yes, it was. It was, okay. We'll call the roll. Roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend? Coonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. And Chair Caput? Aye. Passes unanimously. That'll take us now to item number seven. Consider resolutions supporting the use of temporary permits and directing other measures to allow modifications to business operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. Thank you. How are you doing? Okay. Chair Caput, members of the board. Out of practice. All right, this item is before you because as we're all aware, we're making so many changes to how we work at the workplaces and at home. And so the County of Santa Cruz and by the way the cities are also doing very similar thing is having a series of actions that we're recommending so that we can be as supportive as possible to our businesses and our communities, economic health as well as physical health. So the first thing that is recommended is that you adopt a resolution and you would authorize and direct staff to implement the existing temporary permit provisions of our County code in a manner that would allow for up to six months for businesses in any zoning district to propose modifications to how they operate. And clearly there's a lot more physical distancing that needs to occur. And so this will allow people to come to the County through an easy level three process. It's an administrative permit. We're proposing that you waive the fees and they can propose how they might use part of a parking lot or make some other adjustments to best support operations. We've developed a pretty simple application form along with a self-certification that outlines some of the requirements they need to be mindful of and that will be available online and can be submitted and issued electronically. How long that will take to issue will of course depend on the nature of the proposal. If it's just tables and chairs, there's no building permit required, no food or alcohol, that'll be very straightforward. If there is extension of food uses or they want to use the public right away or public properties or they wanna serve alcohol that might involve getting a form, a license from ABC. But in any event, it should be all be very straightforward because it's a temporary type of activities and uses, not all the normal standards and requirements that we apply to permanent uses will be applied. We'll be primarily looking to making sure that they maintain their ADA path of travel, that their arrangement of the space is safe given nearby vehicular activity that they are complying with food safety and other safety protocols. Of course, including the COVID-19 protocols. So that's the recommendation with regard to the short term going ahead and using our existing code provisions in a little bit more flexible manner so that we can quickly take in and authorize these modifications. For the longer term, you may recall that we've already had developed some changes, some amendments to our temporary permit provisions. Currently really, they only mostly speak to outdoor sales, Christmas trees, and pumpkins. And it's only for commercial districts. But the provisions that have been drafted, which we're suggesting that you go ahead and initiate and we get those code amendments started so that they can be in effect by the end of the year, that would allow temporary uses in any zoning district. It would allow for 180 days with extensions and even all the way up to three years for the temporary arrangements to exist. So we're asking that you initiate those amendments at this time. They would be considered by the Planning Commission in July. They'd be back to your board in August. We would then submit to the Coastal Commission and hope for certification by the end of the year. So we will have those permanent, if you will, changes to the temporary use provisions. Now, because all of the adjustments in our lives are not only occurring in the workplace, but they're also occurring at home. I would have imagined that the extent of working from home had gotten to where it is. But you may recall, but it has. And so people are modifying all aspects of their lives. We had also drafted in the code mod some changes to our home occupation provisions. Not a lot of changes, but a couple of the key ones that we thought was worth going ahead and initiating at this time were ideas that came out of the economic vitality strategy process. In that process, we heard from our stakeholders that they really felt that one or two employees ought to be able to also work at the home occupation. So if it's an engineering consultant, they wanna have a junior engineer, work with them at the home occupation that that would be allowed. As well, for classes, sometimes people cut hair or they'll do art classes or cooking class. You can do that under our current homework, but right now you can only do one person at a time. So the code mod was very modest. It says you could have two people at the class at the same time by right without needing a public hearing and all that. The other thing that we're anticipating, we've already gotten some interest is people who are now shifting to a home. They find they don't quite have the right office arrangement. And just as with ADUs, now people are thinking about not a full-on ADU, but building a home office as an accessory structure. And so we had made a few, again, minor changes to our accessory structure provisions. There are no kitchens, so they're not fully units or anything like that, but sort of like an art studio or a home office or that. Currently, you can have a toilet in that facility, but you can't have a lavatory sink. And this is the type of thing where we make it clear that you can have a lavatory sink as well. So very minor adjustments, but just they made the provisions more workable. So the, at this time then, it's recommended that the board adopt the regular resolution directing the how we would administer the existing temporary permit provisions. And then also direct the planning department to initiate the code amendments as described. And then with respect to use of public lands, we just wanted to point out that we have existing procedures. The Department of Public Works administers the encroachment permit procedures for uses of public ride-away or the parks department issues, special event permits for uses of public parks. We own public parking lots as Supervisor Leopold alluded to, a couple in Soquel that are actively being worked on. So we do concession licenses and leases. We do special event permits. We give encroachment permits. So we just wanted to also sort of highlight that that is also an opportunity is that a more flexible use of public properties and rights of way to support these modified business activities and community activities. And so those are administered again by the Public Works Department. And if you have any questions about that process, we do have someone from Public Works who's available to speak to you. And that concludes my remarks. Chair, I just have some questions. Thank you for the presentation. I'm very interested in having a simple process for business owners who are just this week opening back up for the first time in months. And so having a simple process that people can access it become very important. So I want to make sure that it really is simple and that there is one point of contact and it's as simple as possible for people to be able to take advantage of this because now that they're open, days actually make a difference in terms of them being able to have the space in order to do the business necessary to keep their businesses afloat. So if I come in and I want to use the parking lot at my brewery or restaurant, I could submit something online. Yes, we'll have an online form, a simple application. We've created a self-certification form, sort of a check the box that runs you through what are the things you need to think about making sure you don't affect ADA path of travel, putting you on notice that you might need some review depending on what you're doing from environmental health, that type of thing. But pretty simple, we want to make sure we maintain public access and the safety but very simple and along the same lines as the vacation rental permit we ask for a diagram of the site plan doesn't need to be professionally prepared but just gives a diagram. And so someone will be able to print out these forms and PDF them in. We have assigned two planners, Lozan Jeffs is a senior planner and we have Sheila Bagley who's a little bit less senior and they'll be working as a team to make sure that these things get processed quickly. We've also had a meeting and coordinated with the other departments and those departments have also designated sort of team leaders, if you will. And so for environmental health, that's Olga Zuniga for the encrotron permits that's Travis Rieber in DPW and then there's a parks planner as well if it comes to that. Yeah, so I just want to stress how important this is for local businesses and how important it's gonna be for us to move quickly. You had mentioned in your comments that they would need to get ABC approval before we would give them the permit. And do we have any idea how long that take? I mean, because it's less than 48 hours is what we've heard. There's a pretty simple form that's available online from ABC. I forget the form number and then bring that with me but it's just you go online to ABC and there's a form that you can fill out if you're modifying your app, your business so that you're having outdoor service, then there's a form and it's $100 is what I've heard and it's processed within 48 hours. So it should be quick. We understand that people, businesses are going to start making these modifications and as long as they're working in good faith to attain the right certifications and permits, that's fine. Yeah, I mean, in order to make these spaces nice, I mean, a parking lot nice that they want to, I think the ABC requires some kind of fencing or gate or. Some sort of a barrier from what I've heard. It's not the same thing as like a building code that it has to be 42 inches higher or anything like that but it has to be a meaningful barrier to separate the alcohol service area from the other areas. Yeah, so I hope that we will, I hope that we can offer the same thing, 48 hours or less for review of our part of this because some businesses will have to invest in outdoor furniture, whatever the barriers are, everything else and there's a lot going on there in order to make it happen. That's why we've put together a special team that they'll be the ones and we've got a special form and our intention is to get them out as fast as possible. Yeah, the last thing I would add is it would be really helpful if our economic development department did some outreach with chambers of commerce and others in the community to let people know about this simple process because I think it would be very helpful for people to try to follow the simple rules rather than doing things on their own and then we have to get into enforcement action later on. So I take out a word that we're gonna move it quickly and I look forward to this change being able to be put in place to help out local businesses during the pandemic. Well, we looked forward to taking a look at all the creative ways that businesses are gonna propose their modification and they're really, we'll look at anything. We not necessarily can approve everything but we'll be open to considering any modifications that they wanna pursue. Chairman Caffett, the Supervisor McPherson, I'd like to thank their planning department for bringing these items forward and many of the questions I had were answered. Thank you Supervisor Leopold. It just really makes sense for us to provide more flexibility and creativity with our public and private spaces to support our economic and social wellbeing. I also appreciate maintaining our ability to condition temporary uses based on our public health guidance and compatibility with surrounding areas. And I especially appreciate the work to advance our code updates on accessory structures and home occupancy as it relates to workers at home, which we're gonna see more of I'm sure in the future. I can't think of a better time to update those provisions when many of us are working from home during this shelter in place. I think the planning department has done an excellent job of accommodating and addressing the needs of this unusual circumstance that we're in today. So I just wanna say thank you to the planning department. I think these will be well received. And I really do, I think it's important that we get the message out to our business partners throughout Santa Cruz County, as was mentioned by Supervisor Leopold. Thank you. This is Supervisor Coonerty. I wanna appreciate the planning department for bringing this forward, both the short-term and the long-term changes. And I guess I just wanna add my plea to Supervisor Leopold's comments, which is the business owners are under tremendous stress. They're often operating their business full-time because they can't afford employees. They don't have the luxury of time or money right now. And to the extent that we can keep this as easy and simple as possible, it makes me nervous that we have several different departments involved. And to the extent that things can be self-certified or simple check-offs, it's really, it's essential that this, what I've been saying all along is that this process can be less than one page and less than one hour. That should be our goal. And so for all the different department, for the total permit process, not for each department, but we really wanna make this as simple. It's a, we're dealing with a emergency situation and we have to have this be as simple as possible. So thank you. And Chair, this is Supervisor Friend. And just to add on, I would like to also thank the planning department as well as County Council for a very quick turnaround on this and for the emphasis on flexibility. If there is a silver lining on what's going on, just knowing that we're looking at ways that we can be flexible during this emergency to ensure that these local businesses not only stay in business, but also they're doing this in order to ensure greater safety for the community. So it meets the balance in both needs. I think that it's gonna help provide a framework for us as we move forward as well. I'm absolutely supportive of this. And to, in addition to Supervisor Leopold's recommendation about Economic Development Department Outreach, I think that we should have our PIO also do some media outreach today on this. I think that this is something that we absolutely need to, as of today, make sure that the community at large knows is available to the business community so that they can start getting those applications in. Thank you. People to be outside and working on taking part in the mass or the service. So anyway, it's good to see this all happening. And also, like I said, the outdoor dining. I saw one restaurant yesterday. They were setting up for outdoors. So I guess that started Saturday. Okay, okay. I didn't have the answer for when it started. Thank you. Hi, this is Dr. Underwood, Director of Environmental Health. And I just wanted to add a few comments about, again, I appreciate the leadership of the planning department on looking at this issue as we start to reopen. Just a comment, just any food facility that already has a permit for this. Again, we carry out state law. If they already have a food permit, dining outside is certainly fine. We just have some concerns if they start we're taking beverage service outside and things like that, but we can work with the folks. The other thing I do think is a concern is bars wanting to open and they're not allowed to understate or the health officer unless they add food. There is some flexibility there for them to do that. They can engage a catering truck to work with them. They can also apply to us for a host facility permit that would take a bit of time, but as long as they meet the requirements in their state law for certain things, like restroom accessibility and some other things, they could meet those as well and bring caterers in to provide food and thus be able to also open. And I will just say, I know we've had a lot of questions and other people have had questions about how to do this safely. We do have two really nice documents on our website that help people think about how to open up a food dining restaurant safely and think about some of the COVID related things, but as they do that, so again, those tools are available for them in English and we hope them have them in Spanish very soon as well. Dr. Underwood, anything you can do to help speed this along will be greatly appreciated. Right, as I say, right now they can just do it as long as it's dining outside and they already have a food permit with us, so. Yeah, well, I'm sure there's gonna be alcohol requests that's where a lot of businesses make money. I heard of that when we did the closure and the pickup service and everything else. And I know that the state guidance that you have to have a bona fide meal. I think that's what their language is. So having some kind of food allows them to do that and it could be the difference between whether these businesses stay or not. We've got to keep the local businesses. Yep, so we'll be looking forward to working with them. Thank you. Okay, do we need a motion or anything? I wouldn't move the, oh, I'm so sorry. Is there any other public comment? Is there anyone who speaks? Hello. Dancing some background noise. Is anyone in the upstairs room speaking? No, no, no. Is it my turn? Yes, yes, it's your turn. So much for modern technology. Ain't it grand getting radiated and not so good. I'm listening to this and I just, it's mind boggling. You call this simple and this is supposed to help businesses survive and thrive. This adds more complication and you know people's livelihoods have been destroyed and that these businesses, many of them will not come back. And I just heard you have a lot of discussions and don't cut me off, Mr. Palacios, about consent agenda items. And it says right here, consent items are routine business that do not call for discussion. You just spent as the kings of the county, the male board of supervisors, lots of time discussing consent items, which you Mr. Palacios have censored the public from weighing in on and therefore being able to offer valid information to the public. I consider this such hypocrisy. I'm almost falling out of my chair. You just heard about the masks and you've heard it before about how they really don't offer protection. Viruses circulate all over and your acronym, your acronym SAVE stands for slow S, slow down the virus, A, adapt to the new normal, which is all these further restrictions and seizure of the commons, what belongs to the public. The V stands for vaccinate, which is something hazardous. And the E stands for what was I forget the last one, but I consider what you're proposing here is not helping businesses at all. And we need genuine help.  Thank you, Marilyn Garrett. I'm Monica McGuire from Corralitos again. Stunned as well at the contradictions that we're hearing and the lack of public input. The factors throughout this meeting, like the last one where we were kicked out for a nonsense reason and where we are constantly having to fight just to have the hope that people will wake up and begin to take our public rights into account in our very, very limited lives now. Our freedoms have been cut so dramatically and our need to reach out to each other is cut dramatically by this continued insistence that people should be meeting in small groups at most and to think that someone could survive with their small business teaching two people as opposed to only one is ludicrous, as Marilyn said. And there are too many ways that you have continued in your bulldozing forward rather than take the very gentle and polite requests on all our part to take public opinion and desires and needs into account on a large scale. This is what we are asking for continually as we are asking all our fellow residents to come forward and make their voices heard to you because you keep saying that we are all going along with you and it's not true, but people are so discouraged about coming to meetings like this and so discouraged about speaking when their voices are completely muffled, all the more by a mask. This is the most important time of our lives. As Bruce Tanner said, it is a spiritual exercise. Again, more people in Santa Cruz are aware of this than any other place I have ever lived certainly and most of us who know that this is a spiritual important experience to allow us to recreate ourselves as humankind. We have the ability and the need to act like the spiritual beings that we are having a physical experience that requires us to grow and move in new directions. So in one way we're asking for you to just do what was always correct, which is to take the public's voices and opinions and care, but it must be in the new ways that now we have to invent since you're forcing us to harm our immune systems, everyone that you are forcing to wear this. It is apparent to me in the supervisors that there's a degradation to the health and ability to do their jobs. It is apparent in all sectors of our economy. The worst of all are the first responders or anyone who's forced to do any kind of physical labor with this on. We will see more deaths by far if this continues. Chair, I'd ask that we make sure that the comments are related to the actual item in front of us, which is about permits for people to be able to use their parking lots. Thank you, Becky Steinbrenner of Aptos. I am on medication right now, preparing for surgery that makes it difficult for me to breathe. So do not censor me again. Under item 12 of the County Health Order, regarding face. Go to the web. Actually, I'm sorry for number seven. I apologize for number seven. We do not have any web comments. I mean, everybody's going by the rule right now and you're not so. Your microphone may not be on. No, your microphone may not be on. No, I'm not speaking to it, I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah, we're gonna go to the web comments. Becky, if you're not gonna cooperate. Okay, just, yeah, let's just go to the web. It done, there are none. Okay, my understanding is that you're not choosing to speak because you're not gonna wear your mask and everybody else is. It's a respect for the, okay, go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you.  Turn back on the microphone. Yeah. The code modernization that was begun in 2015 and has required environmental review, but it has been languishing and I feel the planning department, I feel the planning department is using this opportunity to, I can't continue. Why don't you have a seat, sit down. Thank you.  Okay, so they know you wanna speak. Okay. Yeah, with my head. Okay. Yeah. I'm light headed. Okay, what? It's very sensitive, it just wants to speak and they'll still pick her up. It'll still pick her up. You wanna speak? I'm sorry, just very light headed. You can keep speaking, they're saying the microphone is very sensitive. I can't. Okay, I'm gonna, it's okay to stand here and I'll speak. So sorry. Fine. Okay. She needs to breathe and she needs to breathe, she needs oxygen now because of this. I'm sorry, I feel nauseous. I'm gonna just move back. Is there a million oxygen?  There should be. No, I just need air, I just need air. Okay. I'm not putting this on, I'm on medication, preparing for surgery, this is rude. It's not a treat. And I have the ability under item 12, it's simply to take it back. It's okay, no one's gonna move you, right? Okay. Okay, I'm just gonna move back. Okay. I'm ready to speak if that's okay. Hi, I'm Jujie Tyroller and I have, I am also self-employed and I also work in Santa Cruz and I work, I'm from Larkin Valley, Watsonville area. And with my massage therapy, there's no way for me to be able to open up because Governor Newsom also says that, it's a touching thing, I can't touch anybody at this point. And the truth is that all of us are gonna suffer because none of our youth and our children, our infants, they're not getting enough touch. And it's not just the parents that do it. And so I'm just asking for that, the idea of having two people in a class, this is, it makes no sense. We have a lot of outdoor areas. There's hardly been any evidence showing that COVID is contagious outside. And you can have 10 people or 12 people in a class in a public area. They were allowing us to gather in groups of 10. And I think that that should be where it is. And if there's bigger gatherings and there's enough room to keep six feet apart, even though I disagree, I'm going to obey that. I would like more chances for public to come out and speak. I took off from what I was doing. My father-in-law just died, and it was very difficult for me to get here today, but I think it's extremely important that you know that there's way more community that are very uncomfortable with the laws that are being set. And the reason why we live in Santa Cruz is because we felt like the county supervisors were having our back. We're actually listening to us. And I know you're up against the state and what they want and other counties, but I think we need to really say, okay, let's take a stand. We're listening to our community and see how it goes. And I'm not saying open up everything at once and have people take off their masks, but for sure a lot of people are unable to breathe with a mask on. I tried to walk up the five flights of stairs and I'm in relatively good shape. And still it's very difficult. I'm not a runner. I don't live in a high mountain. You know, we're at sea level here. So please give us oxygen. We have fresh air. We have beaches. In addition, I am not willing to get a vaccination that has not been tested and tested well. I don't want to test it on people and I don't want to test it on animals. It's awful what we're doing. We're combining different DNA and RNA and destroying our entire civilization. And us and we should be thinking about generations to come. Well, there won't be any generations to come if we keep screwing with science and that's real science. Start listening to the doctors who are being silenced just so the agenda can be made so the pharmaceutical companies can make money. And this does interfere because the vaccination is extremely important. It doesn't work. In front of us and that we stop speakers if they're going off the subject. We're not allowed to talk about things that aren't on the agenda. We had an oral communication period.  Okay, thank you. Okay, there's no web questions, okay. I would be prepared to move the recommended action. Second. We have a first and second. If there's no more discussion, we'll go to a roll call. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Anderson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. Passes unanimously. Takes us to number eight. And that is public hearing to consider ordinances amending Santa Cruz County Code chapters 7.128 and 13.10 relating to non-retail commercial cannabis regulations and making findings of exemptions from CEQA. Schedule these ordinances for second reading and final adoption if we adopted. On June the 16th, 2020 and take related action as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. Okay. Supervisors that are on teams, if you could please remember to mute yourself. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning board members. I'm here to present to you good morning board members. I'm here to present to you proposed modifications to various portions of Santa Cruz County Code chapter 1310 and 7.128 related to non-retail commercial cannabis. We're gonna test check your microphone. Is the green light on? My green light is on. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, I will scoot closer. So I'm here to present proposed code modifications related to chapter 1310 and 7.128 associated with non-retail commercial cannabis based on your input at the January 28th board meeting. At that meeting staff stated that the last 17 months of code implementation in the use permit process have revealed the time consuming nature of the use permit process and complying with the conditions of approval. The process is taking much more time than expected especially for our existing commercial agricultural operators. Therefore, we're proposing modifications that will help streamline the process as well as reduce the barriers to entry. These proposed amendments aim to implement the objectives of the board while adding proportionality to the approval process. Now, as you recall the cannabis licensing process includes both a use permit and a cannabis license as operators have been going through the use permit and licensing process. We have noticed some patterns which make the process arduous. First, cannabis cultivation has been defined for the purpose of a use permit as a commercial activity rather than an agricultural process. This creates a large financial barrier in order to comply with commercial development regulations. For example, one operator with existing greenhouses have shared their construction cost estimates of $2.5 million to comply with the conditions of approval. For another site, the operator is looking at $250 to $275,000 just to comply with drainage improvements required for commercial development even though the site is fully developed and all work has been permitted. In addition, with cannabis defined as a commercial activity farming operations can't just swap crops or change out a current crop for cannabis with ease. Now the state allows for the planting of industrial hemp which is the same plant and requires no use permits due to its definition as an agricultural commodity. In addition, cannabis operators interact with a number of state and local agencies besides the planning department and cannabis licensing office. These include the Water Board, Department of Food and Agriculture, the County Ag Commissioner and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. All of these organizations have a number of regulations that an operator must comply with creating a permitting barrier for small operators who have limited experience with regulation. Our proposed changes do not affect regulatory oversight in any way but instead seek to recognize cannabis cultivation as an agricultural activity in the commercial Ag zone and ease some of the barriers for smaller cottage licensees which made up a significant portion of our earlier registrants. Now the environmental protections included in the cannabis program remain unchanged by the proposed amendments to County Code. The best management and operational plan or BMOP requirements cover all aspects of siding, water use, fences, energy efficiency, biological resources, et cetera. Specific to cultivation operations there are added environmental protections required from the Water Board and these protections are based on a tiered permit which classifies the threat level based on total disturbed area, slope of the area and proximity to water body. The Water Board requires the cultivation site to implement a variety of prevention and mitigation measures, very similar to our BMOP. Based on the threat level, cultivators are required to submit a variety of documents. These plans alone require the same technical expertise as the stormwater pollution prevention plans, the state requires of high risk construction projects and industrial facilities such as mines and ready mix concrete plants. Professional engineers, geologists and stormwater experts are required to prepare these. Now coverage under these permits also requires monitoring and reporting of stormwater discharges which is in line with those required of most large construction projects. At the county level, we require will serve letters from all water suppliers and share well users, while at the state level they require coverage from the Water Board for surface water diversions and all sites are required to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife for analysis of their water source to determine if it's applicable for a 1602 permit otherwise known as a lake and streambed alteration permit. Like all commercial farmers, pesticides are regulated by the Ag Commissioner but unlike all others, cannabis has a very limited amount of pesticides which can be used on the plant because of strict residual testing requirements. Harmful pesticides are all but banned due to this testing and agricultural chemicals are inspected quarterly and they're evaluated against the hazardous materials reporting thresholds. Now, the staff identified a variety of areas within county code to be amended, including the use charts, clarifications within cannabis uses sections, minor setback modifications and definitions as well as some language cleanup. Now with regard to the agricultural use chart the CDFA defines commercial cannabis cultivation as an agricultural process but the term commercial cannabis cultivation has resulted in us seeing cannabis cultivation as a commercial development rather than an agricultural process. This differentiation of growing plants but being commercial was furthered by the fact that cannabis is an agricultural product and not a commodity as defined at the federal level. In an effort to align the goals of the board to utilize existing greenhouses with the state acknowledgement that cannabis cultivation is an agricultural process, changes to the agricultural use chart are proposed to let cannabis cultivation occur as principally permitted in the CA zone within existing greenhouses and outdoor cultivation sites. This proposed change conforms to 1310 312 A which defines principally permitted uses in the agricultural zone district. Now we've removed hoop house cultivation because hoop houses under 12 feet in height do not require a permit and we utilize the compliance inspection program to ensure compliance with this and various other aspects of county code. Now these changes to the use chart do not affect licensing and oversight for cannabis cultivation and distribution operations in the CA zone. Now following along the same thought that cannabis cultivation is an agricultural process we've aligned the greenhouse replacement reconstruction and structural alteration changes with existing greenhouse code. And similar to many commercial ag operations distribution occurs from the farm either directly from picking the product and sending it to a central packer and distributor or packing the product into consumer ready containers and sending it on to retail outlets. So the proposed change to distribution is about aligning cannabis farmers with other farmers. Oftentimes we hear traditional farmers want to explore cannabis operations only to be priced away from the crop due to cost associated with commercial development standards. Cottage gardens which are outdoor grows in the CA and A zone are proposed to be principally permitted because they have a 500 foot size limit which is the same size limit as medical cultivation allowed by the county and state. The outdoor requirement for the grow was not previously noted in the youth chart presented to the PC, a footnote clarifying that the grow must be outdoors has been added to the youth chart. And notably medical cultivation sites of the same size do not require any permit, any oversight at the state or local level, no minimum parcel size or setback requirements. And lastly is the inclusion of transport only distribution as a principally permitted use. Transport only is a very limited operation which allows a licensee to move cannabis products in between state licensed cannabis companies. These are restricted because they cannot store any cannabis goods at their facility. They're just transporters moving products between businesses. Proposed modifications for the commercial youth chart include level one approval process for cultivation and non-volatile manufacturing operations within the C4 zone principally permitted use in the proposed for distribution within the C4 zone and also within the C2 zone with the caveat it must be paired with an existing retail operation. This approval level would only be for existing legal structures. And this conforms to the defined principally permitted use in 1310332A, which for the C2 zone includes community serving large scale retail uses and small scale commercial services which aligns well with the proposed change of allowing distribution when it's ancillary to retail in C2. So cultivation manufacturing operations will require building permits. So all structures will be brought up to current code and these are some of the most secure businesses we have because of the bank like security requirements, odor controls and no signage to indicate what's happening in the building. Lastly, transport only is proposed to be added as a principally permitted use in the PA, C2 and C4 zone district. PA was included because of the restrictions on the transport only operations aligned this license type with the principally permitted uses in PA which includes professional and administrative offices. The existing restrictions on new structures and development remain the same in this zone district. The industrial use chart modifications are similar to the changes discussed in the commercial zone district and these restrictions on new structures and outdoor cultivation remain unchanged. These changes are meant to be consistent with the commercial zone district because the majority of M1 sites are located in the South Rodeo Gulch industrial area which has mainly mixed commercial and industrial zone parcels. Additionally, the principally permitted use in the zone districts include small light industrial facilities for M1, light industrial in general for M2 and mining agricultural and timber harvesting in M3. Within the residential use chart, the timber and the timber production use chart, the proposed changes are consistent. Cottage gardens which are grows in the, which are outdoor grows in the RA, SU and TP zones are proposed to be principally permitted because they have the 500 foot size limit which is the same size as medical cultivation allowed by the county and state. As previously stated, these medical cultivation sites do not require any permit or oversight at the local or state level. The intent of this change is to align the cottage garden license with the existing home occupation standards and the existing medical rules to ensure human health and safety are maintained with these small cultivation sites. They can only be considered principally permitted if the existing residential structure, if there's an existing residential structure on the property and there is not any electricity used in the cultivation of the plants. The transport only distribution option has also been added to the RA and TP on the home, based on the home occupation standards and their restrictions placed upon those operations. Similar to the cottage garden requirements, a residential structure must exist on the parcel and any vehicles associated with this operations must have dedicated off street parking spaces as required within HOMOC standards. The bulk of the remaining changes within 1310-650 are associated with the BMOP being the sole responsibility of the CLO to approve and verify its implementation. This changes based on the practical reality that the CLO is inspecting these sites quarterly and is best positioned to ensure compliance with the BMOP requirements. Additionally, the actual language of the BMOP states the BMOP requirements shall be administered by the CLO and later in the same paragraph, the BMOP states the CLO will determine what requirements apply to Canvas business operations. The cottage license type was originally approved by the board to allow small artisan mountain growers to have an entry point into the commercial market. But due to costs associated with use permits, county fees, professional engineers and architects plus commercial development standards, these types of licenses are not feasible for people to pursue. The cottage garden license allows the same cultivation area as the medical cultivation gardens and those have no fees or oversight from the state. We're proposing lowering the parcel size because there is no minimum parcel size for the same size medical garden and staff feel that this minimally sized operation aligns with the current home occupation standards and the purpose and intent of the zone districts. In order to assure the alignment, a cottage garden license via principally permitted use is only applicable to sites with a residential structure and it must be an outdoor cultivation using no electricity as earlier stated. Additionally, the site must comply with all security requirements and ultimately the sheriff will continue to sign off and approve on security plans. Lastly, allowing people into the market is beneficial for the community because of oversight and it reduces potential criminal activity associated with unlicensed cultivators. Consideration for this change was run past the sheriff's office and they expressed that it would be better to have people in the commercial system where oversight and tracking occur. Now the PC recommended that the changes to the minimum parcel size in the RASU and TP zone districts remain at 2.5 acres. Their concerns have been summarized in the board memo and include concerns about commercial activities in residential districts, speculative real estate artificially driving up costs, odor and a good baseline for these operations already existing. Staff analyze these concerns in the memo and have recommended the minimum parcel size be reduced to one acre based on the following information. The licenses are limited to 500 square feet same as the medical garden with no oversight from the state or county. This type of small scale agricultural operation appears to align with the purpose of the zone districts. By allowing cottage licenses as a principally permitted use there is no land entitlement, just a license paired with a limited amount of money to be made by these operations. Therefore a speculative real estate bubble does not appear to be a reality. Licenses for cottage gardens are not land use entitlements. The green rush the county experienced in the 2010s and teens is over and many of the big players driving the speculative valuations of cannabis companies are going broke. For example, Tilroy Incorporated CEO thinks at least a dozen more of the large companies will file bankruptcy this year. And this is after Tilroy lost $184 million last quarter which was a celebrated downward revision from their assumed $210 million they lost. Well, canopy growth estimated over a billion dollars in losses last quarter. They're currently, and to provide additional perspective there are currently 40 industrial hemp operators cultivating roughly 137 acres of hemp and their operations have given the county valuable objective data on odor. Three odor complaints were received by the CLO and planning and the ag commissioners office combined. And large swaths of Brown Valley, Larkin Valley correlates at large and portions of the summit had the aroma of cannabis as observed by staff. Lastly, with regard to a good baseline the baseline for cottage licensees and people applying for use permits is zero which may reflect some of the goals of certain PC members. Other non-retail modifications currently cultivation RASU and TP zones is restricted to those that can prove cultivation occurred prior to January, 2013. We're proposing removal of the 2013 restriction because there's not a clear mechanism to accurately implement this requirement. When this requirement was approved with the original adoption of the non-retail program it appeared to be punitive for young people people who decided to move and all the registrants who never grew cannabis. Those registrants have viewed this as specifically punitive because they weren't willing to take risks associated with the legal uncertainties of prop 215 and felt that they were restricted from the program because of it. Now these changes will increase the total amount of parcels eligible for licensure in the county but the increases only for the small cottage garden. Licenses as the 2013 restriction was always impossible to implement. For context, after 17 months of use permits and licensing, we have eight sites in SU, two in RA and two in TP. We have a lot more than 12 medical grows occurring in the mountains. We estimate the current total to be well north of 3000 medical grows and the change in minimum parcel size for cottage licenses will increase the number of parcels as noted in the board memo. For these zone districts, all of the other restrictions remain in place including a ban on cultivation in the coastal zone and one mile buffer and the minimum parcel size for those larger sites. That's why the figures attached included the coastal zone and one mile buffer being excluded from the available parcels. So with regard to setback modifications their practical changes that are needed to meet the goal the board has been saying, simplifying the approval process and issue license. There have been multiple sites seeking use permits in the C4 and M1 zones but all of them require a level five or public hearing because there's one non-conforming home in the South rodeo Gulch area. This delays the process and creates a burden when the person in that home never provides feedback to all the notifications. Now, the outdoor cultivation setback must be reduced for cottage gardens in order to allow for the parcel size reduction. Measurement methods for setback is proposed to be altered to reflect findings that have been made for various sites. Oftentimes a home or a school is within 600 feet of a proposed site when you measure based on parcel lines but the practical reality is there may be topographic variations distances between the edge of the school parcel and the actual grow can be over 1,000 feet and this requirement slowing the process and by altering the language we can maintain safety and the original intent of the board. We are proposing a few definition changes to add clarity adding the definition of a financial interest holder reducing the ownership percentage threshold and these are in order to do proper due diligence during the licensing process. Based on experience enforcing the ordinance counterfeit language is proposed to be added to 7.128 based on occurrences of finding counterfeit packaging materials at various locations during enforcement efforts. Counterfeit materials undercut the legal market and potentially endanger people by subjecting them to unknown chemicals. There are major revisions to the enforcement sections based on our enforcement experience. The objective is to clearly define the enforcement protocols and find structures. Administrative citations are proposed for civil violations instead of notices of violations and revisions to the fines schedule based on plant counts, packaged product, weight of cannabis concentrate, weight of cannabis flower and weight of cannabis biomass and we've added clarification of liability requirements of liability issues for property owners. In summary, the goal, the proposed changes reflect the board's direction and the challenges the program has encountered. Growing cannabis in a greenhouse or outdoors in the CA zone is an agricultural activity and we need to define it as such or we'll never meet the original and continued vision the board has that cannabis is a crop and should be grown within the existing infrastructure in the CA zone. We have some of the best environmental protections of any locality based on the beam up and when paired with the requirements of the water board, the Ag Commissioner and Department of Fish and Wildlife, cannabis operators are some of the best commercial agricultural operators we have in regards to environmental regulations. The proposed modifications do not change these protections but more licenses and operators will only further the environmental protections and practices the industry follows and utilizes. By streamlining the process for operators in the C4 and M zones, we are following the existing county code for principally permitted uses while meeting the board's goal of simplifying the approval process. These buildings will require tenant improvements so human health and safety will be maintained through oversight from the fire marshal and sheriff's office. Cottage gardens are the same size as medical gardens and by allowing them as principally permitted use on smaller size parcels, we provide a licensing mechanism that supports the intention of the cottage license in an economically feasible manner. Lastly, cannabis businesses are like all businesses. They generate jobs and tax revenue. The proposed code amendments help further align the non-retail commercial cannabis program with the initial goals set by the board. The iterative nature of these changes further reflects the will of the board and the recent direction the board gave to staff. Thank you. Thank you. We'll open it up to the board for questions and then we'll have comments, okay? Do you want me to? Yeah, I just had a couple of questions. I may have more comments later. You mentioned that the ad commissioner has been doing 40 hemp licenses, which is a virtually identical plant in terms of the way it looks and smells. I wonder if you could answer a couple of questions about that. How long does it take for someone to get a hemp license and where have those hemp license, what zoned areas have those hemp licenses been in? So I'll start with the last question. The hemp licenses can be issued to anyone in an agricultural zone district, including TP, RAA, I believe SU and CA. It's really based on the principally permitted uses as defined by 1310, which allows small scale agricultural operations in a variety of zone districts. The process itself, there is a $900 fee. It's a, I believe a three page document and there is a background check. Now the background check was recently implemented.  It was the same day within a couple hours, generally speaking. So now I believe there is a bit of a delay waiting for the results associated with the background check. And if we had any, you mentioned in there that there hasn't been odor complaints, but have there been any calls to the sheriff or any other actions at those 40 sites? I can't give specific details, but I do know that there was a site that was mixed use cannabis on a portion of the site and industrial hemp on another portion of a site. The industrial hemp was very visible from a major roadway in South County and they did experience theft of their industrial hemp on I believe two occasions. That's the only site that it's the only one I'm aware of. Got it. And do you think that most of those hemp licenses have been in the A or CA or have they been in other places as well? They've been, oh, I don't, I have the breakdown for my PC presentation. If you just give me a moment. It's in here somewhere, it's RASUTPA and CA. I believe the majority of them are in the CA, but I know we had a couple in RA, quite a few in TP and a couple in SU. I will try to find the numbers if you have other questions. Well, the other question I had is the state has a license for these cottage farms. How much is, you know, if someone wants to, under your proposal, using, creating cottage farms, what would be the state licensing costs? So that is actually in the PC resolution. In the cottage financial estimates that I provided, the state licensing fee for an outdoor cottage license would be $1,200. So it's, it's, it doesn't sound very much. So that wouldn't be a prior to barrier. The state fees are probably a little bit less than our fees, honestly, will be for that same license type. All right, I'll have other comments, but I appreciate the work on this. I think the goal of making it easier to do in the commercial ag zones is clearly warranted and we've received letters from families in, in ag for long periods of time. And so it is considerably harder for someone to get a permit to do legalized activity in commercially zoned areas in Santa Cruz County as compared to other counties. And I understand the concerns about cottage business and there, there may be some work that needs to be done in terms of outreach and connection with people about what's really going on. But I appreciate the work that you put into this. It's a, it's a clear document. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Chair. This is a supervisor, Fran. I do have some questions and some, some comments on this. I appreciate the presentation, Mr. Laforte. I mean, I do want to be clear that what is before us, it really is the largest proposed expansion of cannabis cultivation since the board originally approved this framework. There really hasn't been any community outreach on this. I mean, as you noted by our calculation, it would add at least 2,500 new parcels to be eligible for cultivation, including in rural and residential rural areas. So I'm comfortable with some of the changes that you're talking about for commercial agriculture, but not this entire board item. And I can't support the board item as it's currently presented. I do have some ways on which I think we can craft a better proposal and hope to hear from the community to help inform that. But I have a couple of questions for you and I'm just sort of like a 10,000 foot view. I would caution that there were some pretty broad statements made about what the board's intent is. You know, we had a lot of, we've had seven or eight years of discussion on this, at least since I've been on the board, obviously predating when you were with the county. And so there were a lot of fights and a lot of discussions and a lot of these things were actually hammered out and they're there for a reason. And so we have to sometimes be careful about how we interpret how things are because they actually were a result of a pretty significant public process.  So I'm not gonna argue it's a perfect structure of what we have, but I think that we should at least honor and respect the fact that the planning commission and board, maybe their intent can be seen by the end result as opposed to trying to read in to intent beyond the result. So a couple of the questions I did have was one of the key arguments in favor of this cottage license expansion is this argument that people would come into compliance that are currently gaming the system under what I, at least I read from your language are basically fake medicinal arguments. But I don't see why they would, is there any evidence to say why somebody who currently is operating outside of the structure and can continue to do so, even if we lowered the threshold would now come into compliance, what would their incentive be? Because unless a hundred percent of them did come into compliance or a significant number, all we're doing is massively expanding the amount of possibility for parcels and permits while also not addressing the issue that the sheriff's office is bringing up. I think that we currently have a system in place, which has made it so no one has pursued or will ever pursue a cottage license. It's economically infeasible. And we will not be able to provide the board data on whether people are willing to become a commercial cultivator and go down the cottage license path with the current system. So by doing a principally permitted use, our hope is that certain cultivators who, and many of our registrants who didn't qualify because of their parcel size will come into the commercial program. I can't provide the board evidence of what that impact would be, how many people would come into the program. But I can say that there is no economic incentive for spending north of $20,000 to try to obtain local cottage license approval through the use permit process currently. Okay, I appreciate that. I think that it's a pretty significant expansion. I mean, this is my philosophy on it, that it's taking a pretty large risk of expanding a lot of parcels. I mean, way more than are currently eligible in our county. Again, the largest expansion since we've even had this policy in place at all, maintaining cultivation at all on the possibility that some people may come into compliance. That doesn't seem like a very good trade off for either the community, the public benefit, either the environment or the community at large. So I think that that's not maybe the wisest decision, but just moving on to a couple other questions I had because I know we want to get to some public comment. On the hoop house issue, there was a pretty strong statement made by the board that we wanted no new construction in the coastal zone. And, but we're fine with existing greenhouse structures or even existing hoop house structures that are currently there. And so I just wanted to clarify that I'm not supportive of the elimination of this change in 1310-650-C3C, which would allow these new hoop houses when our whole goal was not allowing new construction, but we want to make sure that we emphasize that we allow existing. So I saw from your presentation, you were saying that there's already a by-ride activity if it's under 12 feet, but are you saying you're trying to formalize a process to allow for an expansion of hoop houses within the coastal zone? I'm just trying, the goal was to just align that we don't restrict hoop houses anywhere in the county if they're under 12 feet, because there's no permitting required. So by differentiating them in the code, we weren't necessarily doing anything. We were just adding a layer where we don't stop someone growing raspberries from putting up hoop houses because there's no building permit required. We already have that restriction waved within our building code. So we're just trying to clarify the cannabis regulations with the building code to have a uniform pathway for people. Okay, thank you for that clarification. My last question just deals with there's a subtle but could be significant change on some of the language regarding cultivators to use energy efficient methods. Currently, we require them to do so. We want them to be green growers. It's a countywide policy. As you know, we're doing solar expansion throughout the county facilities, but the language was changed in 7128-170-J to now say that they should make their quote, best efforts. Can you explain to me what best efforts means or why we would be reducing the threshold of wanting them to be energy efficient? Sorry, I want to get to that specific piece of language. 7128-170-J. Oh, yes. So this has become, this is an interesting one. And I'm going to jump into the weeds a little bit. And I'm sorry, but I have to in order to properly explain this. But what we've seen from analysis of data from various cultivators is when they're using LED lights or fluorescent lights or high intensity discharge lights, the difference in energy uses can be significant within greenhouses and hoop houses. So it's, we still require people to go down the road of using the least amount of energy for those facilities. But in our few indoor facilities, we've noticed that people continue to want to use high intensity discharge lighting. And the issue really is that that lighting actually reduces the total amount of energy used in cultivations because it produces heat and drives down humidification within the rooms where LED lighting does not have the heat aspect. Therefore the energy consumption of those rooms is actually has been shown to us and we've reviewed data from various cultivators that they actually use more energy because of the dehumidification and air conditioning capacity required to keep the humidity down. So by requiring LEDs, we've actually, we were actually requiring people to use more energy, which is not the intent that we felt the board had. I appreciate that. Perhaps though, as opposed to saying best efforts, which seems like a slippery slope where people can argue they made best efforts, if the goal is to reduce energy consumption, then we should require reduced energy consumption maybe without being prescriptive of how somebody does it. It seems just counter to everything we've done with the creation of Monterey Bay Community Tower and everything else. This is what our, then we shouldn't allow it to just kind of be upon an industry to make their best efforts. We don't do that on any other industry that we regulate. So it would make sense to be more specific, I mean, in what our goal there is. Those are just my questions. I appreciate that and I'll hand it back to you, Chair. Now they're supervisors. Why don't we open them for public comment then? No, I'm gonna, I have a few questions. Oh, okay, all right. Yeah. I know a few years ago, actually, we had a C4 committee and they looked at all this and I'm starting to wonder if they even recognize what they recommended back then. I think they still can, but we keep changing things. And I appreciate all the work you're doing, by the way, on the report and everything. So you're the only one here to take the questions. Anyway, the changes, is that coming from interested parties that are growing and selling marijuana and how much of the report and changes are coming from the general public. What I'm getting at here is, if somebody has a special interest, they're gonna want changes all the time that's gonna benefit them in their sales and in their profit margin.  As supervisors, we're not, we don't have that insulation from the public. We get all the complaints later after we make all the changes. So how much of the changes that everything would you say are coming from the general public rather than the interested parties that have a profit margin? Well, I don't think any of the changes that we've proposed for the CA zone have really come from the public other than from the input we've received from the Farm Bureau representative at the previous meetings. And with regard to the general public input, we really value in the CLO our responsiveness to the general public. We investigate complaints and we tried to be very careful in the changes that we're proposing here, which are relatively minor for everything except for the Cottage Garden license. So that's why we've tried to maintain all the protections within our residential zone districts. And the basis for the Cottage Garden change is really the fact that we have a plethora of medical grows that are 500 square feet where we have no oversight. People complain, we go check them out. They have prescriptions, we walk away. We felt it would be better to have people in the fray versus doing it medically. And potentially that material is getting diverted and being sold commercially. We know it's occurring to some extent. Our sheriffs know that. They've found the same prescription at multiple sites, for instance. That's the clearest indication. We know that the medical program may be being, or is being abused by a few people. Yeah, we've reached out to community groups, to the CPP specifically, Community Prevention Partners. We've reached out to industry groups, such as Green Trade. And we've reached out to various commercial agricultural operators. And then we've also reached out to growers outside of the community and to other counties to understand how we can make this program work in the direction the board has said, which are, the biggest change here really is the CA. And it has appeared to staff that the board wanted people to grow cannabis if they were gonna do it in the CA zone. And it has not worked out that way currently. I recognize all the medical benefits and things like that. But I think we're talking about a lot of, it's a serious subject. We're not talking about strawberries. We're talking about marijuana, which one of the things of marijuana, why people smoke it is to get high. Okay, and it is stronger than the marijuana of the old days and all that. It's something you wanna keep away from children. And so it's not like a strawberry. I guess the language in the report, and I'm not blaming anybody for the way they wrote it, except that it sounds like it came from somebody in the marijuana industry, saying that hemp looks like and smells identical to cannabis, marijuana, with the only difference being the amount of intoxicant produced by the plant. I mean, I can say that about grapes. The only difference between grape juice and wine is the alcohol content. So there's a big difference here. Hemp and marijuana are not the same thing, even though they look the same and smell the same. I mean, if I got pulled over for driving and I told the police officer, I'm really only drinking grape juice, that's not gonna go anywhere. So what I'm getting at is when we're talking about cannabis and marijuana, we're not talking about hemp. We're talking about something that gets you high. What about the roads? We're actually reducing the restrictions on roads in order to get to and from greenhouses. Is that correct? We're not reducing restrictions or roadway requirements for the CA zone. Well, I'm a little confused with that question. Fire hydrants and access, if we talk to the fire departments and stuff like that. Yeah, so the fire department was concerned with the potential to use existing structures within the CA zone as a principally permitted use. And the way we've proposed to mitigate their concerns is by utilizing our internal staff who are building inspectors and to assess buildings for safety based on human health standards and current code. So if a building does not meet code requirements, we will not let it be utilized for cannabis operations. And we do know we have limits as inspectors in terms of what our professional capacity is to make those decisions. And we've reached out to the head building official on a few occasions to come out to sites with us to provide input so that we make sure we are meeting the county's best interest and we're ensuring human health and safety on existing sites. We want applicants to know what they're gonna need to do to utilize a site and we don't want a site to be used that could potentially result in something bad happening. So we're utilizing our expertise similar to the way the building department utilizes the safe structures program. Okay. And then jobs, we're talking about people that right now are working in the fields picking food off of the best farmland in the world, basically. It could compare with any of the best land anywhere in the world. And there's gonna be a loss of jobs, right? If more and more of the land goes towards marijuana cultivation rather than food cultivation. And the food industry right now where our pride is for Santa Cruz County, we produce $800 million worth of agricultural products in a year and we're talking about jobs and the packaging, the picking, the cold storage, the transportation, the whole industry. With marijuana, there's gonna be a reduction in that, is that correct? I don't agree with that. I think you'll actually be increasing jobs. And one of the key things that I think the board needs to understand with these changes is we're not in any way increasing the canopy allotment that the board has previously approved. Worst case scenario, it's 2.5% of the minimum or of the parcel size could go to cannabis cultivation. So you're talking about losing potentially 2.5% of all of the commercial ag land. It's unlike Santa Barbara County where they don't have limits. I think the board and the Cannabis Licensing Office did a great job wrangling a usable amount of land so people could be cannabis businesses while protecting the existing agricultural companies that we have. And I believe that cannabis companies probably have more intense labor needs than many different commercial agricultural operations due to the trimming, processing and overall needs associated with maintaining the cannabis because it is a sensitive crop similar to some of the other sensitive crops. But there's a very limited pesticides, that can be used to maintain the crop unlike other commercial ag products or commodities I should say. Sure. And again, you're the only one here so I'm directing the questions to you. It's not personal, okay? I appreciate everything you're doing. I'm just trying to provide you the proper framework to make the decisions. That's all my job is, is to provide you data and analysis and recommendations so you guys can do the hard decisions. And of the 2.5% that we're talking about, about how much of that is in South County, District 4, compared to the rest of the county. I don't have that information. I can say the majority of the CA's own parcels are in- It's about 90% or more. Okay. So it's very, very personal to District 4. And then we have, well, and then when we're talking about the changes, 2.5%, I have no problem going along as long as there's a stopping point. This one is going beyond that stopping point for me. We keep changing the rules as we go along. And it seems like marijuana was gonna generate all this money and it would come in on the South County, which I represent, and it would go to the whole county. What I'd like to see from the beginning was spreading it out, but then with all the coastal restrictions and everything like that, and all the most of the 80% of the $800 million in the ag industries coming out of District 4 and part of District 1, I believe, or 2. 2, 2. Yeah, so is there a stopping point? That's what I'm getting at. Okay, then we have the energy use. You did talk about a little bit on that. I guess what gets me too is, and what I'd like to see in the future is solar power, some kind of power, because my understanding with PG&E, the bill for a cannabis indoor growth about a little bit bigger than this room around, about the size of this room, it's about $25,000 a month for their energy bill. I take it personally because like a lot of us we tell, I tell my kids, turn the light off when you're not in the room. Don't leave something running when you're not using it. Don't have the TV going if nobody's watching it. The public in general is watching out for conserving energy, and then with marijuana, they're burning up everything that we're trying to save. Do you have anything on that? To put it in perspective, we have one indoor cannabis cultivator currently, and we have proposals for two additional indoor cannabis cultivators. Everyone else is outside. Mixed light, greenhouses, or outdoor grows. And I believe other localities have required solar panels for commercial cannabis cultivation operations. I don't think that's the proper way to go. The power of many is much greater than the power of one, and Monterey Bay Community Power is a prime example of that. When you aggregate resources, you can have everybody go green. When you force the hand of few, those few go green, and it doesn't benefit everyone else. Everyone right now is under Monterey Bay Community Power, is utilizing carbon-free power. I think that's great. I think it aligns well with many of the county's goals. I think that requiring individual companies further disincentivized growth in the industry, and we have to look at the whole here. We have up, what could be three indoor growers utilizing a lot of power. Seems like we could add that requirement, but it's only gonna be applicable to three people. So just for perspective. And when we're talking about the environment, well, this is directed to everybody, not just you. In the past, Santa Cruz County has done everything they could to protect farmland. We have measures on urban sprawl and all of that. The food value of marijuana is what? I mean, I don't even know the answer. I'm imagining the food value, if you ate it, if you were hungry, it would be minimal. Somebody could not survive. So. I have no idea. No one's making that claim. The point is that if we're protecting the best farmland in the world, comparably to anywhere in the world, the pressure, if we turn over even a little bit or more to marijuana grow, our argument then becomes we're not feeding the world. We're not, we're bending to something that does get you high and does make you feel better. And it does have some medicinal benefits, but people can't eat it and live on it. So we have food banks and we have food distribution sites in a time like a pandemic that we're going through now where people are out of work. And we're talking about something that gets you high rather than actually puts food on your table for yourself and your family. So I want to protect farmland and that's my statement. Well, chair, I just want to make a comment because the rhetoric that you just shared is not based in an actual reality. As the staff member has pointed out, we have created a limit on the number of acres that can be used for cannabis production. This is not a food or cannabis fight. This is not, this is not a food or cannabis. We are not jeopardizing food in favor of cannabis. We have a letter from a guy who grew flowers, has millions of square feet of flowers, didn't produce any food. We had no problem with him producing flowers until the federal policy changed around NAFTA and CAFTA and ruined that industry. He's trying to use his facilities, already existing to use the existing space to provide a legal product and jobs. And so we should be looking to figure out how we can support that activity because it's not a question of whether he's gonna grow lettuce or something else. He grew flowers and now he wants to grow a different kind of flower because the flower market that he's historically been involved with has changed. So if we're concerned about taking care of people, we should look at the jobs that are created through this industry, which pays better than farm workers do when they pick strawberries. Most of these folks are being paid over minimum wage. So if we were caring about food on the table, having a job in which that pays better than a minimum wage, that's a good thing. We should be striving towards that. We can't take a moralistic point of view on a policy in which we've asked our staff to figure out a way that can actually meet the goals. This board directed the staff to figure out a way by a vote of this board to figure out a way to get 150 permits. We got a report last month that showed that we're nowhere near that. These changes are meant to try to figure out a way to balance the various interests. Now we can disagree and I'm sure we're gonna hear testimony from the concern, especially about cottage grows. And I understand that completely and we can have a, we should have a good debate about that. But when we're looking at commercial agriculture sites or agriculture zone sites, we should be thinking about what the growers will actually wanna grow. That the testimony we have is that they wanna grow this plant. The Farm Bureau is not coming out saying we're choosing cannabis over food. They're not saying that. Folks who are involved with the Farm Bureau are saying we should support these regulation change. So I just wanna make it clear because I don't think the misrepresenting what's actually being discussed here is healthy towards the debate and we should talk about what our goals are and what we're trying to get done rather than making a broad assumptions about why we're choosing to work on this instead of something else. That's a false dichotomy. Well, that's very easy to say when very little of it really impacts your district. I'm talking about a district that farmland is number one. You go and talk to anybody working in that field right now picking strawberries or berries and they're gonna tell you that's what they wanna do rather than working and losing jobs because marijuana produces less jobs than the ag land is producing right now. Well, that's not what the testimony we just heard. They're very protective. That's not what we heard. You are making a claim not back. It's actually a fact. It is not a fact. There's the great effect on jobs. The whole thing is based on money and jobs. The only reason we're bending over backwards for the cannabis industry is because we want more money for the county coffers. I understand that but we're gonna do it in district four. We'll be producing all that money and it's gonna go to the whole county.  Well, when we have vacation rentals which provide 57% of our transient occupancy tax. We asked her questions. You interrupted me. I'm just saying the idea that because something happens in district four, the money should stay there. If we drew that out, there'd be a lot less money for district four because if you look at the 57% of our TOT which comes from vacation rentals of which there's 400 or 350 in my district alone that probably generates more more tax dollars than what we're getting from cannabis right now. We don't choose that. That's why it goes to the general fund and we collectively decide how to spend that money. I don't think you wanna get into who's generating the income in order to figure out where the money goes. The money should go where it's needed. Well, anyway, I'd like to see another C4 committee actually look at it because we lost whatever we started with. That was what was supposed to get all the input and make all the changes. But anyway, I'd like to see this put off to a future date. I'm gonna ask for an amendment rather than June 12th if anybody will entertain it that we actually look at this closer. And I'd like to speak with the Cal Fire a little bit more about the roads and access to everything. If anybody wants to... Why don't we take public comment? I think that would probably be helpful before. Okay, anyway, but I did make my recommendation that we put this off to a future date to look at it. It's very, very, very serious for district four. We go ahead, public comment. Good morning, Chair Caput and members of the board. Ken Hart with Swift Consulting. I'm really happy to be here today. Thanks for the opportunity. I wanna address some of the discussion that was happening amongst board members first and foremost. I believe that the county's position has been to support cannabis cultivation on CA properties. And I think in support of that is the fact that on CA land in greenhouses, there is no canopy limit. So I think that that in and of itself speaks to the intent of the county in terms of support for bringing cannabis cultivation to CA properties. At the outset, I wanna say I support all of the changes including the changes to the minimum parcel sizes for cottage grows. I've processed a number of permits for CA parcels and those permits have total about 1.3 million square feet of cultivation. Most of those that number of square feet are in greenhouses and I would say 90% of those greenhouses are currently vacant. And it's because what the point John Leopold brought up was they had been growing flowers and the flower market now is a thing of the past. About six cents per square foot for lease price for growing flowers. So protecting farmland, I think that this to supporting cannabis cultivation, especially in greenhouses on CA property, it does support and protect farmland and it actually does create jobs. I, like I said, we have been involved in a number of use permits and it's been a very, very heavy lift on CA properties. Plants come at great expense and great effort and I think that this change would go a long ways towards simplifying, making it cheaper, making it easier to convert to cannabis. Now the conditions of approval on these applications that I've processed are very onerous and a number of my clients who have obtained use permits are in the process of trying to comply with these conditions. So I guess what I'm assuming that if this were to be adopted and the cannabis would become a principally permitted use, that these holders of these use permits would be granted relief from having to comply with these conditions of approval. Now, when I assume something, I usually get into trouble. So I guess what I'd like to hear from a county representative or representatives is that that would occur, that they would get relief. Okay, I guess I'm out of time. Thank you very much. Good morning, Kevin Collins. I live in an RA-Zoned neighborhood subdivided about 1953. The parcels range in size from about an acre to five acres at greatest. Most of them are less than two and a half acres in size. The proposals for TPSU and RA are really stunning in my opinion. The fact that there being signed a principally permitted use in a residential area for commercial marijuana cultivation is I was just amazed when I saw that. Anyone who has experience as I do in land use regulatory code knows that those codes are only marginally enforced. The Water Quality Control Board has hardly any presence in this county. I used to be on the county's fishing game advisory commission and I know a lot about the department of fishing game. It has totally inadequate capacity to carry out its mandate. So in any case, let me focus on the residential impacts. To make pot cultivation, a 500 square foot grow is worth a lot of money. You don't wanna set off a new set of problems in the residential districts by removing setbacks. These setbacks are defined as to their neighbor's house. So the pot grower can plant his plants on the property line if the neighbor's house provides him the setback by being 100 feet from that line. And if he's indoors, your COLA has a temerity to propose a zero setback on a one acre lot. No county in this state allows pot cultivation on less than five acres. And most require more. So the proposals for, and as far as water quality, you can knock down a quarter acre of forest, tall 150, 200 foot tall forest in this county. You can take down a quarter of it. If you don't sell it, you just drop it on the ground and start growing pot on a mountain side slope. This is a major water quality issue. There's a fire issue. 27 firearms were confiscated during the bus of these so-called medical grows, most of which are likely to be commercially. Everybody in this room knows they're commercial. A few of them I'm sure are not, but my letter speaks for itself. I hope the board will consider the impacts to residential zoning seriously. It's very dangerous for those of us who live there. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mary Jo Walker. I live in the Santa Cruz Mountains near Felton. Nice to see you all, everybody. I made up this story, but this will happen all over the county if these changes are proved in the RA and SU zones. My protagonist, Anne, lives in a nice 1800 square foot house on a two acre residential agricultural parcel. She and her husband built it 25 years ago. He died a few years back. Her daughter was going to move into the house with her husband and kids next year and build a granny union on the other side for Anne to live in near her daughter and grandkids. But that whole plan went down the tubes when the county passed some new rules in 2020. Anne's house sits close to the lot line with her neighbors, the Greens. Anne's bedroom is there. The Greens' two car detached garage is maybe 30 feet from her bedroom window. That's fine. Garages are quiet. The Greens wanted to convert the garage to a greenhouse to grow pot, but couldn't because it had to be 200 feet from Anne's house. That was until the county's new rules allowed a zero setback from the neighbor's house, zero feet. So now Anne has a 500 square foot pot greenhouse, about 30 feet from her bedroom window. It smells. They work there at night because they have day jobs. They play music while working all the while Anne is trying to sleep. Anne can't use the bedroom at the other end of the house because that's even worse. Mr. Bloom is on that side. He bought a five acre parcel in 2015 during the so-called Green Rush. He cut some trees and planted a big pot farm. It was all on the other side of the five acres. So Anne didn't have to look at it, but he got busted because he bought it the property after 2013. Then the county passed these new rules. Mr. Bloom got a license for a 2600 square foot outdoor pot farm. That's 50% bigger than her whole house. Not only that, he pushed it over to Anne's property line to give himself a buffer around his house. The required 400 foot setback from the neighbor's house, but somehow he convinced the licensing officer to allow a 100 foot setback from her house right on the property line. She wasn't notified this or anything. So she has to look at this all the time. It's dusty. It smells. There's rodents. There's chemicals. He's using a lot of water from the stream. So of course Anne's daughter doesn't want to live there with her kids. Heck, she doesn't even want them to do sleepovers with grandma anymore. So Anne sits alone in her house surrounded by cannabis, not sure what to do. Thank you. Good morning, members of the board. Robin Bolster Grant, attorney with Rice Luxon and Bolster Grant. Thank you to Sam for bringing these welcome changes, particularly to the commercial ag zones. I've come before you a couple of times. Oh, that was really fast. I've come before you to talk about the perceived failures of the program, which is not attributable to any particular person or agency, but just the layers of regulation that have made it really hard for folks to get through. So we're super happy about the changes. We think we'll see more successes. As stated in my letter to your board, we also support modifying the regulations for cottage gardens. We view this not through the lens of enforcement, that the notion that this is somehow to give folks who have been breaking the law a pass. I don't see that at all. We represent folks who have legitimate medical gardens. And as we've discussed, they're not subject to county oversight, but they often find themselves with excess product. And if they keep it on the property, they're in trouble, they can't sell it. So we see this as a way to help folks to offset the costs of providing medicine to folks. But it's also the case that small farms really are where cannabis got started in this county. And when we came up with this grand scheme a few years ago, it was with the idea of protecting local farms, the folks that had been doing this forever. And a lot of those folks were left out. And so we don't wanna see the industry captured by larger operations. We want the little mom and pop folks to be able to succeed. Finally, with respect to the changes to the enforcement, and this is just, I don't know, I helped to draft the administrative citations ordinance back when I was in the planning department. It's disheartening to me to see the expanded use of that mechanism. I know very well how hard enforcement is and I promised the board robust enforcement. Administrative citations were always meant for minor violations. That was in the enforcement plan that was presented to you. And that was the basis for the citations program. 100 bucks, 200, you know, it was originally envisioned for commercial signage. There's no hearing rights when you are hit with a ticket. It's up to you to appeal. And we're talking tens of thousands of dollars in fines.  And