call to order and we have a few. Are you ready? Yeah. Sorry, my supervisor, Leopold. Here. Friend. Here. Poonerty. Here. McPherson. Here. Chair Caput. Here. Before we do a moment of silence and a moment of prayer and then we'll follow with the Pledge of Allegiance but I'll turn the meeting over to Ryan Coonerty at this time if he would like to say something. Sure. Thank you, Chair. This has been a sad couple of weeks for the County of Santa Cruz. We lost Damon Gutswiller tragically a couple of weeks a week and a half ago. He was from all reports, funny and caring and just the kind of office that the world needs and that Santa Cruz County needed. And I wanna extend my condolences to his whole family and his all his fellow officers and everyone in our community has been so impacted. Also yesterday, Allison Inder who serves as my analyst and has been my friend for more than 25 years was hit and struck by a car killed as she crossed the street. She was incredibly talented and had a passion for public service. She showed up every day trying to figure out how to make lives better for especially families in our community and especially families who were struggling. She was a key implementer behind the nurse family partnership program and any number of local efforts as well as a Twin Lakes Beach project. She will figure out something in a future meeting to honor her service and her commitment, but I ask that during the moment of silence people please think about church girls, her husband, Andy, her mom who are trying to deal with this incredible tragedy. Chair Caput. Okay. Yeah, share for it. Yeah, thank you, Chair Rae and Ryan, I really, I share your pain. Allison was a wonderful person. And yeah, no words can express what I'm feeling right now, but I'm really sorry, really sorry about Allison. I do want to talk about Damon and in this day and age when people are concerned about police and how police behave, one of our best deputies was taken from us. He was truly a community deputy and the pain that we all feel behind this violent act is not describable. I've known Damon for 20 years and he was a good man, he was a father, he was a son, he was a husband, he was that good, good guy. And a lot of people are speaking up about others that have been killed by the police and I just, I think we need to speak about the police that are killed by others too. And a man like this, he deserves to be remembered, he deserves to be thought of. And I love this guy, I love all my people, they're all good people, they're truly good police officers. We did our reform many, many years ago, back in 2015, we reformed and we did a lot of new things and we did things that no other police agency in the country did. And so for people locally, I just want them to know that our people, they embraced it, they did it and we don't have the problems locally that some of these other agencies have across the country. And I think we need to remember Damon like that, that he was excited about the reform, he helped with that. And that's probably why we don't have the problems that we have here local, he is because our staff embraced it. And so I care about him, I love him. We're gonna have a memorial tomorrow and Mimi, we're gonna do everything we can, we have a mask station, we have social distancing. The governor allowed us to do this and we're gonna do everything we can to keep people safe. I promise you that and Gail and we're not, we're not gonna be dangerous about this, but this was a good man. And I can't say enough how much I loved him. And then Ryan, for you and Allison too, I just, man, I can't put into words what I'm feeling right now. I just feel like we're just getting beat up and, but she was a very good person though, Ryan. I want you to know that and I will miss her a lot too. Thank you. Add my voice. Absolutely. First to speak about Damon Gutswiller, Damon was someone that you could always count on, he would be there with a smile, he was always willing to help. The community members that interacted with him always felt as though they were being well supported, that they were being listened to, and that he was always there to help people out. He helped folks in the community that I represent on a regular basis, but he was always there to help people in Santa Cruz County. And as someone who grew up here, he knew the people who lived here. He had that insight. He could respond based on who we are here in Santa Cruz. And it is an unbelievable loss to have him struck down in the line of duty, doing what he did, which is responding to help out others. And to think about the loss of our colleague, Allison Ender, who has been working on the fifth floor here for years and been in the public sector for many years. She's always committed, always friendly, always caring, always loyal to those that she worked with. And it's a tremendous loss to her family, to the Galt School family, or the Galt School community, to the third district into Santa Cruz County as a whole to have such a bright light extinguished so early. And so for both of these incredible individuals, Santa Cruz County has suffered a great loss and a great loss of opportunity for the contributions that these two would have made over the course of their lives. It's a sad day. Mr. Chair, this is Zach. I will add a few comments. These losses are so incomprehensible. I think as a community, we can't even begin to process the magnitude of the loss for Bobby and Carter and the family of Damon, who was the absolute perfect husband, perfect father, perfect friend, perfect son and perfect law enforcement officer. I just hope we all commit as a community that when the memorial occurs tomorrow, that is in many respects the end of the beginning for a very long and difficult road for not just the Sheriff's Office, but that family. We will commit that the love that we are sharing right now as a community with the Sheriff's Office and that family shall not be extinguished just because the memorial has occurred. You've spent any time around his beautiful son, whom by the way, you couldn't be near Damon without him pulling out his phone to show you photos of. He was so quick and so proud of his son. I think that as a community, we need to help raise his son and the one that's on the way as she's due any day. The loss is incomprehensible. And it's impossible to not get emotional thinking about Allison and the loss of Allison. One of the most beautiful souls in our community and to Rachel and Ryan and Neil and everybody that had the honor to work with her so closely. She loved you so much and she loved all of us so much. I never heard her speak ill of anybody. She respected everybody in this community equally. She served the community and was so dedicated to public service in the better Minnesota Cruz County. I can't even imagine the loss for her husband and her kids and we're obviously praying for the safety of her daughter as well. Heaven is shining brighter right now with those two in it. It's the only thing that gives me hope right now is the knowledge that Heaven is brighter right now with them in it. This community I hope will also rally around her family right now. She gave and dedicated her life to this community and we should do the same for her. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. Anyone else? Mr. Chair. Yes. This is a surprise. I'd like to reiterate everything that's been said, but to the Santa Cruz County community, on behalf of, sorry, that's why there's nothing else here. We're some, I'm not gonna apologize. We're in some very tense times now. And now more than ever, people exhibit kindness and consideration and understanding to the best of you that you can do. That's the best thing we can do to get us out of a situation like this. Be kind to one another. God bless Alison. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if the Deputy Sheriff's Association, they are here to make some comments. Thank you very much. I'm trying to hold myself together, so I apologize. This community has suffered such a tragic loss just the other evening. You had another tragic loss. Damon was my friend. He was a friend of so many. He was my partner, a husband, a coworker, an incredibly well-respected man in our community. He embodies what we as Sheriff's Deputies, as law enforcement, all strive to be daily. Damon was a good man. And he's been stolen from us, murdered because of a national social narrative that is going on right now. I thought about what I would say and there's a few words that express the pain and the sorrow that each one of us is feeling in so many different capacities. As a brother-in-arms, as a community member, these things are tearing our community apart. We need support and leadership from our leaders more so now than ever. I've cried more over Damon and the loss that we've suffered in the last week than in my entire adult life. I was there when Butch and Liz got killed many years ago. And this is just so much more difficult. Every day, my fellow brothers and sisters in law enforcement, we put on this uniform, this bulletproof vest, this gun, because we are there to protect all of you and the community. I may have never met you, but I love you as another human being. And the men and women that serve in this community all believe the same. We're not the enemy. Damon was not the enemy. And I know that we're hurting and we all understand that, but we truly need to recognize and honor Damon in that capacity. I love Damon. There's been more love and more compassion amongst the group of people that work in this community than there ever has been. And if there's one silver lining, it's that Damon's death will bring us all closer together. And I honor him every single day. I continue to show up for work and be there for him. I respect all of you and the people that are in this room. And I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to talk in front of you. God bless you all. May I say a few words? Good morning. It was an honor and a privilege to work alongside Damon Gutzweiler for the past 14 years. He will forever leave a void in our hearts and his laughter, smiles will remain in our hearts at the sheriff's office and within the Santa Cruz County community forever. I thank him for being an exemplary deputy and sergeant and above all, our friend. Thank you. Thank you all. Jeff, I could say a few words. I just wanted to state on behalf of the county family, how proud we are of Damon and Allison. They are both public servants in the best sense of the word. They both did very different jobs, but they both served the community with their whole lives. And I am incredibly proud of the sheriff's department and what they represent and how they do their job. I'm so sorry for the loss of Damon. And I am also very proud of Allison and how she exemplified the best of county employees. She is who we are and aspire to be as public servants. So I'm very sorry for those closest to Allison. And I'm very proud of her and the life she led and of Damon as well on behalf of the county family. Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak, feel free to. I think, yeah, we're all numb from what's been going on. And the moment of silence would be a little bit longer than normal and also a moment for others if they want to pray. We've had a lot of loss and it hurts, it hurts a lot. So please join us and we'll follow with the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God and invisible with liberty and justice for all. Do we have a consideration of late additions on the agenda and additions and deletions to the consent and regular agenda? Yes, we do. And the regular agenda, item seven, there's a correction. The item should read consider ordinances amending Santa Cruz County Code chapter 7.128 and 13.10 relating to non-retail commercial cannabis regulations and making findings of exemption from CEQA schedule the ordinances for second reading and final adoption on June 30th, 2020 and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum from the County Administrative Officer. There's also additional materials, a revised memo, package pages 19 and 23, replacement attachment A, packet pages 28 and 371, replacement attachment B, packet pages 72 through 116, revised attachment C, packet pages 137, 143, revised attachment D, packet pages 165, revised attachment E, packet pages 192 and 198, and revised attachment F, packet page 220. On item number eight, there's additional materials, replacement page, attachment A. On the consent agenda, item 33, there's additional materials, attachment C and D, insert after packet page 553. On number 76, authorize, this is an addenda to the consent, item number 76, authorize the chairman of the board to write a letter to Senator Connie Leyva and our legislative delegation supporting Senate Bill 915, Mobile Home Parks, Emergency Relief, Coronavirus, as recommended by Supervisor Leopold. There's a board memo, there's a letter of the Manufactured and Mobile Home Commission and the bill text of SB 915. There's also an addenda, item number 77, authorize the chairman of the board to write a letter to Senator Tom Umberg and our legislative delegation supporting California Senate Bill 999, Local Rent Stabilization, Mobile Homes, as recommended by Supervisor Leopold. There's a board memo, printout, letter of the Manufactured and Mobile Home Commission and the text for SB 999. That concludes the corrections additions to the agenda. Let's see. Do we have any announcements by board members of items removed from the consent or to the regular agenda? I don't see any, I don't hear any, so we'll move on to the next. We'll have public comment. Any person may address the board during the public comment period. Speakers must not exceed three minutes in length and limited established by the chair. And individuals may speak only once during public comment. I will say this, sometimes people get personal and they direct something when they make a comment to a department head or to a supervisor. If you make it today, everybody's numb and for the sake of my friends and colleagues on this, if you make it personal and you point out somebody's name, I'm gonna have the microphone cut off. And today I'm just, we're not in the mood for that, for anything personal, okay? So you have free to speak your mind, thank you. Wow, thank you so much. My name is Carol Bjorn. Thank you for your service, for your public service. And I also wanna publicly say thank you to the sheriff's office. And my heart goes out to you and to you for this tremendous loss. And I will send everybody love and light into our community as well. Thank you for this chance to speak. So Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency in California under the California Emergency Services Act on March 4th, 2020. So the first paragraph of that executive order that he issued states, and I'm quoting, whereas on March 4th, 2020, I proclaim a state of emergency to exist in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. Okay, the word that was used is threat. So I looked that up in the dictionary. A threat is an indication of something impending. So on March 4th, 2020, we had an indication of something impending, which was COVID-19. We're in June now, it's been three months. So we've had three months of dealing with COVID-19. It's not a threat because it's not impending. We have dealt with it for three months. So I wanna make that point to everybody. So further, the California Emergency Services Act, it does include epidemics, that's within the purview of the law. It also, and I'm quoting the law here, it says, which by reason of their magnitude are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single county, city and county or city and require the combined forces of mutual aid or regions to combat. And so I think we all agree on March 4th, 2020, that that was the case, right? But again, we're three months beyond March 4th, 2020. Okay, so hasn't our county since that date shown that we are no longer beyond, and again, I'm quoting the law, likely to be beyond the control of services, personnel, equipment, facilities of any single county, city and county or city and require the combined forces of mutual aid, region or regions to combat. Further, that same law in section 8629 states that the state of emergency must end at the earliest possible date the conditions warrant and all local health orders related to that have to end with the end of the state of emergency. Okay, that's extremely important. So this phased approach that the governor's taking and that the counties are taking, it's not within the law. It's not within the law of the state of California. Okay, I wanna keep going. So there is no current threat of pandemic from COVID-19 because we've dealt with it for three months, okay? Even if we did have a spike in cases, we know how to deal with it. We have therapeutics. Luckily in this community, we have a lot of alternative healthcare that's available for people. There's herbs, homeopathy, nutrition. There's so many things to help remedy this. Plus we have hospital space. We have healthcare workers ready, willing and able to care for our sick. Our hospital system was not overwhelmed in this county. We have the remedies. We have everything available to help people in the event that they get ill. So my question to the board is, why are we continuing to act under the state of emergency and what legal authority do you guys have to continue this phase in approach? Thank you for your time. Bruce Tanner, first I'd like to give my condolences to everyone in the county who has experienced these grievous losses in the last week and a half. What the officials of Santa Cruz County are doing now in the name of the pandemic would be ridiculous if it weren't so damaging to their fellow Santa Cruzans. Anyone thinking clearly could come to the conclusion that in particular the mandate to wear what you like to call face coverings is arbitrary, unscientific, and what seems deliberately demeaning. They could also conclude that all of you are most likely fully aware of this and pursue these policies while lying about why you think they're necessary. The evidence of the ineffectiveness of masks and of the harms they cause is widely published as are conflicting edicts about their use even from the official arbiters of the truth in this pandemic, the CDC and who. But so-called health officials don't seem to be able to inform themselves on these matters. The county's own order of the health officer generally requiring face coverings in paragraph 12 says, a face covering is also not required by this order to be worn by a particular individual if the person can show either. One, a medical professional has advised that wearing a face covering may pose a risk to the person wearing the face covering for health related reasons or two, wearing a face covering would create a risk to the person related to their work as determined by local state or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines. A face covering should also not be used by anyone who has trouble breathing. In this room two weeks ago, Becky Steinbruner, whose contributions to the work of organizing County Affairs has been so vital over these last years, demonstrated exactly this troubled breathing nearly fading at the microphone and it was forced by the petty tyrants governing these proceedings to remain masked or be removed from the room. She has important testimony for the item on today's agenda on the seventh day Adventist cell site and made a request to this board to be freed from the face covering requirement and received only a perfunctory authoritarian denial. This is ludicrous. The behavior of what passes for County government toward Becky, who has essential qualities, in particular, honesty, inquisitiveness, and a dedication to the well-being of the people of Santa Cruz that this travesty of a County administration obviously lacks is simply shameful. And if the people of Santa Cruz actually knew of it, they would, I'm sure, find it unacceptable to them. Good morning. My name is Nathan Sigler and my family and I live in Soquel on Edison Way between Mountain School and Blue Ball Park, less than a mile from the seventh day Adventist campground. I'm here today to comment on the County's intended location for the homeless trailer shelter reference in your consent agenda. I also represent a group of about 80 neighbors known as Keep Soquel Safe. Honestly, I'd rather not be here, but don't worry, I won't ask you if you feel the same. Be brief. First, I wanna thank each of you as supervisors for the no doubt taxing work you've put in these last few months with responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. None of us takes that for granted. If we thought that this homelessness camp was truly temporary like the pandemic and limited to 10 trailers, I wouldn't be here. I have three questions I'd like to ask you to think about this morning. But before I get to the three questions, I wanna take a minute to remind us all of the importance of community input regarding what happens in our neighborhoods. I'm grateful for this opportunity today, but I'm hopeful it's not the last on this issue. And you're holding less than a handful of closed meetings by a seven member advisory group is really not how the planning process works. There's a principle in American government that the power to govern comes from the consent of the governed. I think that's pretty pertinent to what's happening in Soquel right now. In spite of a petition of opposition to the Adventist property location signed by 498 residents of tiny Soquel, the County and the SDA have shoved the program through in order to free up the Simkin Swim Center of 17 homeless young people and to operationalize the state RV trailers at a parcel without a permit for it. As an example, I'd like to point out that at a national level, we have a certain public official who is obviously unqualified and very destructive. Why did anyone elect this person to national office? The answer is that the voting public's perception, correct or not, was that the incumbent party candidate was corrupt, was not listening to its citizens and was serving outside interests. My point is that what happens when the citizens perceive this from officials is that the officials get voted out. So as you consider supporting locating your homeless kid encampment at the seventh day advanced property, property with a 50 plus year commitment to non-commercial use and only vacation length trailer camping two miles down a dangerous highway isolated from town and in conflict with its permits, we ask that you consider not only the 498 signatures on that petition by the residents of Little Soquel but also the following questions. Question one, are you listening? Question two, can we trust you? Question three, are you doing your best to serve the people who matter? The permanent residents of your community, regardless of their income or status, one neighborhood at a time, when you listen to what Soquel wants, is this really temporary? And does it really help with COVID? And is this really the best location for young adults who need to grow and become productive? Do the right thing for us. Thank you. Good morning, council. And my name is James Hewlin Whitman. Was very touched by the horrible event that a fellow citizen was murdered almost two weeks ago on a Saturday. My understanding is the rules of engagement with us communicating is you will censor and turn it off if we speak poorly and designate a particular person, right? But if we have positive things to say, you'll probably let us say that. Great. I take a lot of notes. It's like my research is like a full-time job. I'm a contractor. And when I'm working by myself, I'm just listening to stuff and I love it. I mean, I listened to something this morning and a speech from President Trump came up that was 20 minutes long and he's very good at what he does. There's a positive comment. So I want to read some stuff that I've written before and I keep notes until unless I lose it, I have it forever. I thought this one was nice. What about this book I haven't really used in about a year because it's full. So all these are full. And God said, love your enemy. And I obeyed him and loved myself. I thought that was pretty cool. So I met with, I had a phone call conversation with Andy Mills yesterday because I spoke at least four times in the Santa Cruz city council last Tuesday. And although I was given four minutes at the end to comment after I read my first paragraph, which had a lot to do with being in this room two weeks ago, the mayor stopped me and he asked, does this really have to do with what we're talking about? And I said, you know what? It absolutely has to do with what we're talking about. But I already submitted it to the city clerk of Santa Cruz and I'll make my point with Andy Mills. And I spoke with him yesterday. We had a great conversation. Didn't really talk to him about the subject I wanted to bring up with him when I spoke with him on January 24th, but I really appreciate Andy. And I want to say that I've seen a lot of beauty with law enforcement and because I'm out and I guess breaking rules in ways that don't get me arrested, I got a parking ticket. I've had a lot of positive engagement with law enforcement and since I have 42 seconds left, I don't think enough information was really brought up about the contact tracing. And it just so happened that on the 29th, a friend turned me on to a program that a person did that had the two certifications. And there was a tremendous amount of information, enough for me as a geology major to state that the contact tracing is the equivalent of all 104 nuclear power plants melting down at the same time. So fortunately, since I am present, I was present to be at that very beautiful ceremony with 15 other people and about 35% of us weren't wearing masks. So when the contact tracing comes, I would expect 60% of the police, the sheriffs and emergency responders to be quarantined. And I think at that point we can stand together and really work for some changes for all of our benefits. Thank you very much. Good morning, supervisors. Good to see two of you here today. Yes, we all mourn the tragedy that has currently happened. Regarding the mandatory vaccines, we find that the National Institute of Health reports that there's 189 scientists for undisclosed foreign ties, was 93% of them with hidden funding coming from Communist China. That's the National Institute of Health that's been telling us what to do about this Wuhan virus. The organization warned universities across the nation that they've been systematically targeted and diverting their intellectual and obtaining confidential information. It should be of note that Diane Feinstein's so-called driver was with her for 40 years and ran her office and was speaking at this campus just recently. I don't think that's conducive to safety when we see Communist and deep state people puncturing tires. You see coordinated organizations and rioting going on. We also find that six months before the virus pandemic hit the United States, the bill in Melinda Gates had a $100 billion back contract that includes meeting with Bobby Rush in East Africa who wrote a law called Reaching and Contacting Everyone. It's called the TRACE Act. The idea is mandatory vaccination so they can keep track of everybody everywhere. The congressman traveled to Rwanda with his spouse in 2019, months before the pandemic and took part in a week long underwritten event by Bill and Melinda Gates and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Some of the invitation to the violence in this area is our own fault. One, sanctuary cities. Two, allowing prisoners to go out. Three, routinely having espionage agents speak at UCSC. And four, having two members of the Board of Supervisors threaten board members of the Grange and having Sheriff Tim Hart nor any of the sheriffs take a report. That is outrageous. That is setting up violence. And like Bruce McPherson said, we need to be kind to everybody and we need to go through proper procedures. I reject that application. I feel for your sincerity, but you are responsible and I suggest you talk to your county council about laying that out. I understand your feelings, but it is wrong. It's a violation. Hello. First of all, I wanna express my condolences for the loss of the deputy and Allison and it was very moving, your tribute to them. And I support, I just want you to know, I support law enforcement and totally 100%. So thank you very much for that. I wanna speak about the unlawful state of emergency kind of on the coattails of the other woman. I speak as a member of your electorate and I just do wanna remind everyone here that we are your boss. So it is really important to listen to us. And I will speak, part of this has to do with the governor obviously. According to the California Emergency Services Act, the ESA, section 8558B, a state of emergency can only be called if the threat overwhelms the current resources of the state. As far as I know, we're still operating under a state of emergency and that definitely doesn't apply. Furthermore, the state of emergency has to be terminated at the earliest possible date. Section 8558B, quote, state of emergency, unquote, means the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by such conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease. The governor's warning of a California Emergency Services Act for California Governor's Office of Emergency Services earthquake or volcano prediction or an earthquake or other conditions other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy or conditions causing a state of war emergency, which by reason of their magnitude are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single county, city and county or I'll leave the rest out. Thus, a state of emergency related to public health can only be declared if the threat overwhelms the response capabilities of California's healthcare practitioners. And Gail Newell, I'm sure is gonna be listening to this. Thousands of healthcare workers are being furloughed in California. So there's zero evidence of grounds for this state of emergency based on public health. There's no threat that overwhelms the current resources of the state since the COVID related deaths with inflated numbers are fewer than 5,000 compared to 6,000 for the average seasonal flu. Therefore, COVID-19 cannot lawfully be classified as an epidemic under this California emergency. So therefore the basis for the state of emergency is invalid and unlawful. As we have clearly seen here in California with the virus fatalities, they're approximately one third of the early as possible date. Therefore, there are no legal rounds for an additional extension.  Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. So I wanna make this personal in a good way. I'm wondering how you're doing wearing face masks. How are you feeling? How's it affecting your breathing? Can you breathe fully? And you don't have to answer that. I know you know the answer to that question.  You know this, you can feel this. Everyone can feel it. It's the thing that's not being talked about. It's also logical that carbon dioxide will be trapped and rebreathed. All of this is so obvious. The masks will become highly contaminated easily. There's also abundant scientific evidence proving these facts as well as the lowering of arterial oxygen levels and the weakening of the immune system. These are not in question, none of these things. And yet the county has required mask wearing anyway. There's no evidence provided to show that the wearing of face masks prevents virus transmission. The CDC does not prevent, does not provide this evidence. The FDA does not provide it. The California Department of Public Health does not provide it. I've been talking with Dr. Newell. I've shared this information with her in person and by email and what she wrote to me is that she considers all information and quote especially appreciated the lack of science about face coverings. Even Dr. Fauci now is saying that face coverings are not a good idea and only useful as a symbol. So what are we doing? What are we doing to everyone? Why this mandate still? What about the employees being forced to wear these masks all day long, eight hours a day? I've talked to a lot of them and they're suffering. They don't wanna do this but they need their jobs. What about the children who are gonna be going back to school soon forced to wear a mask for the whole school day? What about the two boys in China who died wearing face masks? They were forced to wear in gym class. What about that? After this meeting ends, I'd like you to keep your mask on for the entire day and see how you feel. Do some personal research on this. Everyone knows this. We don't need scientists to answer this question of how this is affecting us. You know what the right thing to do is. We need your support and leadership on this to end this mandated face mask wearing. People who feel at risk should certainly wear a mask if they wish to do so. Protect the population. I have a scientist friend in Sweden. This is what they did in Sweden. It worked. They have herd immunity now. Let us be smart. Let us truly save lives and look after the health of our community. Thank you. Apologize for the little timer thing wasn't working right? It's okay. I said everything I needed to say. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Is it working? It's short. Thank you. Good morning and so I'd like to address the situation we're dealing with in our county here that is putting a wedge between the public, the business owners and the employees of the businesses, especially grocery stores and other places where people are commonly shopping. And that is according to the order of the health officer dated April 23rd, 2020. And according to item six, it says all members of the public, except as specifically exempted below, must wear a face covering in the following situations. When they are inside of or in line to enter, when conducting business through a car window, walk up counter with any essential business, et cetera, but not limited to grocery stores, convenience stores, supermarkets, laundromats and restaurants and goes on. So line 12 discusses the exemptions and that exemption is a face covering is also not required by this order to be worn by a particular individual if the person can show either one, a medical professional has advised that wearing a face covering may pose a risk to the person wearing the face covering for health related reasons or two, wearing a face covering would create a risk to the person related to their work. It's determined by local, state or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines. A face covering should also not be used by anyone who has trouble breathing or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the face covering without assistance. So as I'm sure many of you are aware, there has been a lot of contradictory information out there in the public leading to a lot of problems within especially grocery stores. There was an incident at New Leaf that I witnessed last week where there were people who had exemptions, health exemptions specifically outlined in number 12. And they actually showed them to the manager of the store which they are not required to do by HIPAA. So we're having stores violate HIPAA and still not accept or understand this number 12 exemption. I talked to a business owner, one of my favorite businesses in town and they're terrified because they said that they were threatened by the health department to be shut down if they allowed anyone in their store without a mask. Despite the fact that in the order itself, this exemption is clearly laid out. So I ask all of you to step up and clear this once and for all so that we don't have these problems and these horribly embarrassing situations for people with medical exemptions and medical conditions where they are being discriminated against when they go into a business and yelled out by managers of the businesses. It's a horrific situation. So I would ask you to please step up and clear this up once and for all. Thank you. Good morning. This is Rebecca Mills. Thank you. My arthritis is flaring up today. I'm gonna try to stand. I'm wearing my Army RTC hat with my paratrooper wings. I'm speaking today about priorities in funding mental health and public safety expenditures. I think it's important to take an approach emphasizing values. Do we value freedom or control? Do we value health or illness? Do we value truth or lies? Do we value embracing and supporting each individual in community? Or do we value selectively disabling and punishing those already struggling? I would ask you to unbundle policing, including shifting responsibility for the response to most mental health issues to a core of trained peer workers, which is a proven successful model. Also to defund jails and psychiatric inpatient facilities, which are expensive and cause proven harm, including increased suicide rates, permanent disruption of connections to community and deaths from medical neglect. I would ask you to instead provide struggling individuals with support in community versus placing them in systems where abusive authority is the norm, not the exception. And for those who do present a threat of violence, let's focus on providing interventions that lessen instead of increase that risk, which unfortunately is what we're doing right now is increasing risk with the way we handle that. As for me, I will be starting an organization to train and assist people with mental health challenges to cut out the middleman and help each other. I would ask you all how much more could be done with the $1,792,392 that you are today allocating to support coercive and abusive psychiatric inpatient so-called treatment if instead that was devoted to funding non-coercive person-to-person community-based approach. I'll be sending materials to each of you, documenting abuses in the current system and providing constructive suggestions for change that should enhance wellness and safety in our community and move us closer to truly providing liberty and justice for all. I hope to meet with each of you supervisors to discuss ways to implement a more affordable, compassionate, effective approach to mental health care and public safety. Thank you and God bless. I got it, I got it. Thank you very much. Good morning supervisors, Kevin Collins. I wasn't intending to speak at public comment but I'd just like to thank the county for cooperating with the state when it comes to the medical recommendations for preventing the expansion of this epidemic. Anybody that understands infectious disease, even a little bit realizes the point is to stop it from getting loose. The only way to do that is to use interventions like wearing masks. I didn't want the record of this meeting to go down with no one thanking the county for the prescriptions for masks. I appreciate it, thank you very much. We have two web comments unless there's still somebody else. Okay. I'm only five feet tall, so. Hello everyone, I'm Annie Allegretti and I've been in this community about 30 years now and I call it home. Thank you all for having the consideration of our health and I know that is your intent of doing the best for us. I am congruent with the other women and gentlemen had said regarding wearing the mask. I myself, let me just first, there's everything that they said I won't repeat it but in regards there is something that I did want to note that they didn't but if you're familiar with OSHA, the US Department of Labor, oxygen deficient is an atmosphere that contains less than 19.5%. This happens when the oxygen is displaced by inert gas such as carbon dioxide and is the leading cause of fatalities unquote. Myself wearing the mask, I can personally say it does affect me as depriving my own personal oxygen. That's my experience speaking for myself. I tend to get dizzy spells, it creates a lot of anxiety and it's as my brother is a physician and a surgeon, ears, nose and throat when I asked him regarding this and his quote unquote was there is no science behind it. So I ask for the lift of the mandate but do support anyone that wishes to wear it and feels that it would benefit them. They have their freedom and choice and right to do so. Thank you very much. Chair, there's a comment from a staff member. Yeah, Mimi Hall would like to comment. Mimi. Good morning. Thank you everybody. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity for public comment. I just wanted to express our deepest sympathies as well as respect for the Sheriff's office and Sergeant Gutts-Willer as well as Allison Endert. Jim started out this meeting talking about the reform work that his office started years ago and we all benefit as citizens from the investments of that and everything I didn't know Sergeant Gutts-Willer but many of our staff do and worked with him both in the past and the day he passed away and I've heard nothing but that he had simplified the best of not only law enforcement in the Sheriff's office but humanity as well. I think that we're all fortunate in Santa Cruz County to have law enforcement and other leaders who embrace love and kindness and humanity first and foremost in how they lead. And to our county family and the Sheriff's office I would like to express our deepest condolences and let you know that we grieve alongside you and those who love Damon and Allison you all have our deepest love and respect especially the law enforcement community. We are here behind you and we support you and we're so sorry for the pain that you're feeling and I appreciate Jim's Sergeant Sheriff Hart's leadership in navigating this very, very difficult time in continuing to support public health and safety while acknowledging the immense loss of one of their own, thank you. We have a couple of web comments. The first comment comes from Crystal Cadillus. My deepest sympathies for your loss. Thank you for your service to the community in regards to topic 22 and 23 covering vacation rentals I urge you all to allow applications currently in process to be completed. Additionally, allow all applicants who submit it prior to this hearing to be processed as well. The community benefits from tourism vacation rentals are a huge part of tourism in this community. The current percentage caps are assisting in keeping the balance. Please consider leaving the current policy as it is. Remember that it benefits this community to have owners follow policy by applying for permits and paying TOT taxes. With fiercer restrictions or limits in place you could start to see more rentals attempting to rent illegally. Thank you for your time and consideration. We have one more. This one comes from Monica McGuire. Dear Board of Supervisors, Mr. Palacios, Mr. Baton Kroveski and Ms. Hall, please respond fully in voice and in writing to this request that 1.8 million consent agenda item number 52 about mental health plans be cost and cost be pooled and placed on the main Board of Supervisors agenda. Either for this 616 meeting or in the near future. I feel alarmed that this item number 52 today at the Board of Supervisor meeting is listed as a consent item because one, I was present at two County meetings in which cogent and clear public comment were made alerting this County of problems with mental health systems which have not been publicly addressed yet to the 1.8 million dollars size seems exorbitant for this item to be lumped together with 50 other consent items. Three, you received another public comment letter from Becky Steinburner asking many excellent questions about this large expenditure which the public deserves to hear responses to before you vote. Four, the two alarming stories brought to County Board meetings recently on this topic should at least be investigated and reported on publicly. They are Rebecca Mills, a board member of the Mental Health Advisory Board who the public heard at the County of Board of Supervisor meeting June 2nd. Rebecca's poor treatment in the County's mental health system at the end of May, 2020. And it seems to have included the San Jose facility B and another clear and congent complaint was made by Melody McComb to the MHAB in May, 2020 explaining that her similar April through May, 2020, similar to the terrible experiences. Thank you, Monica McGuire. That's all. Okay, any comments from the board? Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of items to comment on. On item number 28, which is the whistleblower hotline activity report for the calendar year. I really appreciate getting this information and I appreciate the followup that takes place with all these actions. And it's a good sign for government to be responsive and use the tools to make sure that we're rooting out problems and fraud wherever possible. On item number 33, I'm glad to see the focus strategy, systems design and implementation efforts continuing. I think that coming back every six months to fill us in makes a lot of sense. And I think that I think we had been planning to do some kind of study session about focus strategies and their work. And I still think that would be good to get on the calendar. On item number 69, I understand the reasons why we are rejecting the bids for these mowing and tree trimming project. I hope that as we move into the budget cycle that we continue to look for ways to get this work done, these streets and roads were identified because of problems that they create now and the fire dangers they represent. Those dangers don't go away. And it's important to find a way to take care of these mowing projects, especially to ensure the safety of our community. On item number 73, I wanna thank the work of the Public Works Department about the efforts to put a parking lot license agreement for the Davenbis parking lot. As you find when you get into these things that there's various issues about who owns what. But I appreciate the drive of the Public Works Department to try to find a solution to help out others and to have an agreement in place so other people could potentially take advantage of this program. Thank you for the work of the department. And lastly on item number 76 and 77 at the request of the Mobile Home Commission, I have these two bills that I'm hoping the board will support to protect the homes of Mobile Home Park residents. One in regard to the COVID pandemic to make sure that they have the same protections as every other homeowner. And second to close a loophole that may prevent some manufactured homeowners getting the benefits of rent stabilization. That's it. Any other board members? And Mr. Chair, this is Supervisor Friend. I have a couple of brief items. Thank you for the opportunity. On item 32, I wanted to thank Public Works. And I also wanted to thank Supervisor or Chair Caput as we partnered together to help fund a new walkway on Green Valley Road that looks outstanding. Thank you for the work of the crew at Public Works and we're working on one on Buena Vista as well. Just goes to show that when we can have some funds that Public Works really can make some great improvements for road and pedestrian in the South County there. I'd like to, on item 60, also acknowledge Public Works for their continued work on the Rio de Mar drainage improvement project, something very important to residents and businesses down in the Rio de Mar flats area. So thank you for your continued work on that. Item 61, which is the ADU item accessory dwelling unit item, I appreciate the staff is recommending the continuation of these loan programs and as we have seen the work that the board has done and that staff has done an outstanding job on has led to a pretty significant increase in the number of applications in the last few years. Now we're about a third more than we had previously which goes to show that we did need to make some improvements to those regulations in this essential housing stock, especially as we have an economic downturn is something we want to continue to encourage. And lastly, on item 64, thanks again to Public Works on the Valencia project. It's a very expensive and very complex project. Special thanks to Steve Wiesner and Matt Machado for your advocacy and Director Machado for your trip to Washington DC with me to help try and see this through and the other board members that worked on this. This is a lifeline project for those that live on the upper Valencia area and we appreciate that this is moving forward. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. Mr. Chair, it's Ryan Coonerty. I want to just speak, offer some additional direction on item number three which is focus strategies. Yesterday we received a letter from the mayor and the vice mayor and a council member for the city of Santa Cruz, thanking the county for undertaking this work and really stepping up to try to help solve the homelessness crisis that our community is facing. They asked that when we move forward in our next six month plan that we work with them to combine the homework bound funding into a regional and comprehensive approach that we create interim standard operating procedures and outcomes for outreach, case management and housing navigation and rapid rehousing. And so I'd add that as additional direction is that our staff work with the city of Santa Cruz to implement those components into what I'm hoping will be a robust and effective approach to address the homelessness. Okay. I'm Chairman Gaffett, Supervisor McPherson. I'd just like to make a couple of comments on some consent items has been addressed. Item number third three on the focus strategies report. I want to thank especially assistant CAO, at least a Benson and staff for making this thorough report. This is a huge amount of information on where we're headed in developing a more cohesive and effective approach to homelessness. And I especially want to thank our staff for putting together this initial financial matrix that outlines the various federal, state and local funding that can be directed toward homelessness. It really helps to have a good full picture of what's available. Right now we're not using every dollar that could be spent on homelessness for that purpose even though our funding is certainly being used for other worthwhile endeavors. However, anticipate the board may want to make some policy adjustments around that down the line. I would like to give some additional direction on this that we return August 4th to detail how our COVID-19 response is informing future plans as well as the board study session in late August or early September updating us on the focus strategies work plan. I also would request that county staff offer the Santa Cruz city council a similar briefing during one of their meetings. And I know that they appreciate what we're doing and leading this effort. So thank you to everyone on that regard. On item number 38, very contentious issue, but I'm glad we see that we have these trailers to serve our transition age youths who are experiencing homelessness. This is a very vulnerable population that needs safe and stable shelter to work on stabilizing their future. I especially want to thank supervisor Leopold for working with the neighbors, communicating them to the best effort he can to ensure a safe and well-flexing program. And I want to thank the Seventh Day Adventists for being willing to host this important service on their site. On item number 61, the accessory dwelling unit loan program. When the board approved this program, I remember a great deal of enthusiasm regarding the potential to get accessory dwelling units built. We've had some requests for interest in it, but lack of participation so far is discouraging. And I'd like to have an update from planning sometime this fall that addresses how to increase participation, including any barriers that might be mitigated to improve the program. And on item number 62, a quick thank you to public works for re-fitting this project on the Boulder Creek Library. We hope the bids come in closer to our budget as determined by our measure S funds. The first round came in very high, so I'm very hopeful that we can have a successful bidding process this time around. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome, you're welcome. Okay, if there's no other comments. I would move the consent agenda as amended. Okay, we have a first and second. Do we have a second? I'll make the second. Mr. Chair, I'd move approval with the added direction. Okay, you can change that. Coonerty second. Coonerty made the second. Okay, we have a second. First by Supervisor Leopold and a second by Supervisor Coonerty. I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Supervisor Friend. Supervisor Coonerty. Can you guys hear us? Supervisor McPherson. Okay, we seem to be having- Can people hear me? Yes, we hear you. How do you vote? Supervisor McPherson, how do you vote? We seem to be having audio difficulties. Mr. Chair. Yes. We have a first and second on the consent agenda. We can hear you, Supervisor McPherson. Got it, okay. It takes a long time to unmute, it seems like. So did we get all the votes? Supervisor Leopold, let's just do this again. I'm sorry, I didn't hear it. Aye. Friend. Coonerty. Supervisor Coonerty. I just got a message that they cannot hear us. Okay. So we have a audio- We will do our best to fix this. I think we're gonna need to take a five minute technology break. Okay, let's do that. So we'll take a five minute break. We fix the technology. And we'll do the roll call vote on item number six, consent agenda. Supervisor Leopold. Still aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Supervisor Coonerty. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. I'll try one more time. What, Supervisor Coonerty? Well, did he make the second? He did. He did. So can we assume he's voting aye? No, we need to hear him vote aye. Supervisor Coonerty, how do you vote? I think the challenge clerk is that you had said we were taking a five minute break. I imagine it provides some people acceptable. Why don't we just go ahead and take a five minute break then? Let's take five minutes. We'll come back. Is that okay, Chair? That's fine. Because the technology is not working. We'll come back at 10.25. We're gonna really have to rush if we're gonna get this done. Okay. Okay, we'll be back at 10.25. We'll continue the vote on the consent agenda. Item number six, we had a motion by Leopold, second by Coonerty, excuse me. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. The person. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Just like the way it's supposed to be. It moves us to public hearing to consider ordinance is amending Santa Cruz County code, chapter 7.128 and 1310 relating to non-retail commercial cannabis regulations and making findings of exemptions from CEQA, schedule the ordinance for second reading and final adoption on June 30th, 2020 and take related actions that's outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. So we'll go ahead if we do have a 10.45. I don't know if we're gonna be able to do this, but we'll try to limit the comments as quickly as we can. Okay, thank you. I'll be very brief, Chair. Good morning, Board members. At the January 28th Board of Supervisors meeting, staff stated that the last 17 months of code implementation have revealed the time consuming nature of the use permit process and complying with conditions of approval. The process is taking much more time than expected, especially for our existing commercial agricultural operators. Can you switch the slides? It's not letting me, sorry. On June 7th, June 2nd, staff presented a variety of code changes to the Board. Those changes were discussed and the Board provided clarity on which of the proposed modifications should be altered. The Board made a motion and staff has attempted to convert that motion into code for the Board's consideration. With regard to the agricultural use chart, cannabis cultivation and distribution are proposed to be principally permitted in the CA zone district. These changes are based on existing commercial agricultural operations being allowed to cultivate agricultural products and distribute or drive those products off-site. Proposed modifications for the commercial use chart include level one approval process for cultivation and non-volatile manufacturing operations within the C4 zone. Principally permitted use is proposed for distribution within the C4 and also within the C2 with the caveat that it must be paired with existing retail operations. Cultivation and manufacturing operations will require building permits, so all structures will be brought up to current code. Additional changes include the transport only distribution, which is proposed as a principally permitted use in the PA C2 and C4 zone districts. Industrial use chart modifications are similar to the commercial use chart. The restrictions on new structures and outdoor cultivation remain unchanged. These changes are meant to be consistent with the commercial zone district changes because the majority of the M1 sites these changes will impact are located in the South Rodeo Gulch industrial area, which has mainly mixed commercial and industrial zones. Within the residential use chart and timber production use chart, the proposed changes do not alter cultivation requirements. The transport only distribution option has been added based on the home occupation standards and restrictions placed upon those operations. The bulk of the remaining changes within 1310.650 were discussed at the last meeting and remain. There's a small change to setbacks as described in the motion. Now additions to 7.128 to the enforcement appeals and administrative hearing were discussed at the last board meeting and remain unchanged. The proposed changes reflect the board's direction and additional clarity provided in the motion. Staff has provided an alternative version to 1310, which has been presented to the board as items 7E and 7F. The difference being that staff is recommending decreasing the area where the CLO has discretion to approve setback exceptions, while increasing that discretion to extend beyond just indoor grows, but also include distribution and non-volatile manufacturing. The area where staff is proposing to allow this is presented in the Rodeo Gulch Zoning Overlay. I hope the board is willing to consider evaluating staff's recommendation prior to voting for your consideration. The zoning overlay is shown here. Thank you. Chair, I just had one question. I just had one question, but you're done. Yes. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the work on this. I know a lot of effort has gone in. At the second time, we'll try to make it quick, whatever we can do, okay? Yeah, of course. All right, go ahead. The exceptions for the Rodeo Gulch area, just to be clear, only for that area, only what's on this map. Yes, only for staffs proposing restricting it to just these areas because there is no, there are C4 zones outside of this area, which do have residential areas adjacent to them. And we're proposing to restrict it to this area to avoid potential conflicts or issues with residential zone districts. Yeah. I've talked to a number of the property owners here who are in favor of this and they're, this is really a very commercial area, research park. It seems like an appropriate use. And when we do the motion, I hope that we will all support, including the, these exceptions in there. Chair, this is a friend. Yes, I do have a brief comment. I'm supportive of the overlay specifically, but not the general, as originally presented, the general use chart change that would apply county-wide. So as long as we specify that, but there is one problematic component that I think was unintended in what's presented. And that is the elimination of the 2013 date, means that now what used to be that you could only do 10 acres on SU if you were in existence in 2013. If we eliminate the date that now means the 20 acres becomes 10 acres across the board. That's not the board's intention. We were saying specifically on the zoning and the rural areas that we wanted to ensure that the higher acreage would be honored. And so I wanted to be sure that that was a clear statement. If that means that this item needs to come back and the 20 acres is applied, then I'll take direction from council on that. The board was pretty clear that we weren't reducing acreage anywhere. And I think this was an unintended consequence with the elimination of the 2013 date. If you'd like to comment, please. Jason Heath, county council. Yeah, thank you, chair. Yes, if you want to make that change, then I believe that it will have to come back for our first read on June 30th. Okay. I would, I think that that was the intent of the board. I think everything else is good as long as we clarify that there's just one overlay on the use chart change. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you're referring to. So that if you could just be, if you could just say a little bit more, so I understand. I think we're in agreement, but it- I think I could assist a little bit. When the 2013 requirement, was taken out across the board, there was an exception in SU with general plan overlay designations of RM, R, A, and A that said that the maximum, our minimum property limitation was 20 acres. Okay, unless you had been growing since 2013. If you had been growing since 2013, the minimum was 10 acres, parcel size was 10 acres. If we get rid of that clause, just strike it out the way it is in the ordinance. My understanding is that there's a concern that we've automatically allowed minimum acres to be 10 acres in these areas as opposed to 20 acres, which is what the board's policy was as set forth originally in the ordinance. So I believe that's what Supervisor Friend is referring to, and he can supplement that. That is correct, Council. And I have no issue with ensuring that those that have been growing since 2013 on the 10 acres are allowed to continue to do so. My goal is to not change or impact those that have been operating legally under our structure. I just didn't want to change longstanding board policy by reducing across the board the acreage requirement when that we've been universal and that this would be 20 acres, but for those operating since 2013. And Supervisor Friend, the use chart, the remark, was that about this 2013 or was this about the C4M1? The use chart was a comment that, and I've, Mr. Laforte, please do correct me on this. I believe in order for Mr. Laforte to be able to enact the Rodeo Gulch section, and he more broadly approved sort of a discretion across the board, and so I was just clarifying that the discretion would only exist on the level of review to that one area. Is that clear, Mr. Laforte? It's clear what Supervisor Friend would like done, and we can make those changes. Maybe do public comments. Next, any other comments? Otherwise, I'll turn it over to the public. Okay, if anybody would like to speak on this item, if we can hold it to two minutes or less, because we have a lot to get in. I don't see anybody lining up, so let's go ahead. Is anybody on? I think there might be a comment here. Oh, come on, go ahead, thank you. Good, how are you? I apologize for already being late. Are you going over the vacation rental moratorium on not allowing any new applications today? Okay, so if I had a public comment in regards to that, do I speak now or do I wait? If you were here at the beginning of the meeting, you could have spoke then, but now you have to wait until we hear the item. Until after 12? It'll probably be after two. After two, so I can come back then. Okay, thank you so much. And you can also submit something via the web that'll be read here as well if you go back to your home or office. Oh, okay. Just go to the county website and look at the agenda, and there's a little dialogue bubble, and you can write something there, and it'll be read here when the item comes up. Okay, but if I want to do it in person, then I can commit too. Thank you. Thank you so much. We have one web comment. We have one web comment. We're gonna guess a call for a vote. No, no, web comment. We have a web comment. Oh, we do. I'm sorry. This is from Paz Padelia. Dear chair and supervisors, the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County urges your support and resolution submission for an application state. You know what? They put this under the wrong one. Okay. I apologize. They put this comment under the wrong item. I will correct it for them. I thought it was unusual at the Community Action Board. You're weighing in on this one, but we've seen a lot in the cannabis discussions. Chair, I would make the motion to direct staff come back for first reading at our June 30th meeting with two, with this item, including the C4M1 exemption and the Rodeo Gulch overlay and the clarity about the 2013-20 acre to not make, to not change that from what the board policy has been. I'll second. Mr. Chair. Yep. Supervisor McPherson. I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to ask the cannabis licensing office to provide a status report in six months, regarding in their opinion, whether these land use changes and other recent modifications have had a positive impact on the number of licenses and anticipated revenue. They do quarterly reports. I'm happy to accept it as an amendment, but I'm sure that's will be included in the quarterly reports that we get. Do you want to include that? Okay, I just want to make sure it's there. Yeah. Okay, all right, that's been included. Probably the second is okay with this. Well, I'll make a quick comment, but do we have a first and second? Yeah, yes, I first and the supervisor friend. I see a lot of good changes that came about since the last meeting when we were talking about it. But for the sake of time, I won't go into each one of them. There are a lot of good things that were addressed and eliminated and also added or whatever. But cannabis marijuana is a drug and I really have a problem with comparing it with an artichoke or a strawberry. And so it is different than something we need to look at. So I'll be voting no, but I won't be labor of the point today since we're under such a time constraint. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, this is a supervisor friend just to make sure that it was totally clear. Council, I wanted to be sure that the motion actually covered the concern that was raised specifically in the use chart issue that I was raising. No, supervisor, the motion doesn't cover that. I think that if you're talking about the footnote that was deleted in the use chart around indoor commercial cultivation, I don't believe that that was covered in the motion. So you may need a little more discussion on that. I mean, so my goal was just to only have the discretion on the use chart applied to the Rodeo Gulcher overlay and any of the other changes where the discretion was applied that that was not the intent. And so I just want to be sure that's covered in the motion. I think that's what our goal, the board's goal is, is to have this allowed Mr. Laforte that discretion within the overlay zone, but no other changes in the use chart associated on discretion. So I'll just ask a question. My understanding is that there was a footnote in the use charts related to indoor commercial cultivation that was deleted in between the last version that the board looked at and this version. And if that's what you're asking about, I want to make sure that Mr. Laforte understands that that's what you're asking about. That's correct. I mean, the board was not looking to change. Well, I hope the board was not looking to change anything other than specific to this Rodeo Gulcher zone on the use chart. It, I am, are you, are you asking for the slash four N to be reinserted on the C four use chart? Cause that that was deleted per the board motion. So I just want to be clear that that, that's what we're looking at. I, that is, that is, I believe what, what supervisor friend is asking about. And if you want to discuss whether or not that was or wasn't the page, that would be great. And if you wanted to have further discussion about that, whether that was or was not deleted as part of the board's motion last week, that might be appropriate. It would be. Okay. And like I said earlier, I just want to make it clear. I, I was tending and leaning towards compromising because a lot of the changes from last two weeks ago. But one thing that I do like is modifying the proposed language on energy, energy conservation from best efforts to specify reduction in energy consumption. I want to thank you for adding that. I'll call for the vote. Well, no, there's, there's just a question just to make sure I understand. Cause I didn't catch this change. Are you saying it's on pay a pack of page 129? 129 and where would be the deletion of four N under cannabis cultivation, indoor cultivation existing legal structure that was removed for the board motion, but we can easily reinsert that and add a footnote saying that the one carrot P would become one carrot P RG to denote that the one is only applicable to the rodeo go actually, I don't, I don't know if that's what the board wants. Is the one only supposed to be applicable to the rodeo Gulch area? And then it should it be four for everywhere else? And so there should be no N, no N, just a four. That's how I had interpreted what we were intending to do at the last meeting when you had asked for the additional ability for flexibility on rodeo Gulch. I didn't realize that we'd be eliminating that level county wide. I don't think that was the board. The boards, I think the board's intention is to give you a lot of flexibility in rodeo Gulch but to maintain the review that we had on the other areas. So it would just be a four, not the N. We'll get rid of the N and just do a four because the N was referring to, it would be a level four if there's an adjacent habitable structure. So it will just be level four for all C fours outside of rodeo Gulch. Is that the board's intention? I don't know where this was a problem. Do we have this problem in other places? Not that I'm aware of. So knocking off this N that doesn't, in the end. Well, cutting off this N would mean that level, everything for C four would be a level four unless the C four parcel was located within the overlay. Well, I thought that we're trying to make this easier to happen within existing structures in commercial ag. So supervisor friend is, I'm just trying to get a sense if we're trying to move to make it easier for businesses to operate in C four, I'm just, help me understand why we wouldn't make it easy for them to grow this plant inside an existing greenhouse. Because specifically this would apply when it's adjacent to residential. So that's unique in the situation you're dealing with rodeo Gulch, or I don't know if it's unique across the county, but we've happened trying to protect level of review if it's adjacent to residential, but I wanted to honor the rodeo Gulch sort of carve out. No, no, I appreciate that. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the scale of those problem is about C four. I don't, so the question is, I don't know if it is a problem, I'm not trying to create a new problem by simply giving a carve out to rodeo Gulch that now looks broader than that if it's adjacent to residential. No, I'm just saying at others C four, do we have a lot of residential adjacent to C four? I'm just, I'm asking the question if this is a problem in other places. There are pockets of C four on the Soquel commercial corridor. No, no, I understand Soquel, but the other C four, you don't, I'm just, I'm just trying to get a sense of what the problem, is this a big problem or a little problem? I don't think I have a problem with this. I'm just, I'm just trying to get a sense of we have something in there. We have a motion and we have a second if we're ready to vote, let's vote on it. Well, it'd be nice if someone answered the question. That's all I'm asking. I'm asking if what this problem is and maybe someone from planning or the CLO's office could answer the question about the proximity of residences next to the C four outside the Rodeo Gulch area, the prevalence of this. There are a few parcels that I'm aware of, including it mainly in your district off of Braumer. I believe there are some other C four parcels. I can't speak for everywhere in the county, but I do know there are Braumer and Soquel areas which may have residences directly adjacent to C four. Maybe in between we can talk about the other places, at least in the first district, I'd like to understand that a little bit better. I don't necessarily have a problem with this change. I'm just, I wasn't aware that it was an issue in other places. So can we move forward then Supervisor Leopold with the change to eliminate that one element? And then other than for the Rodeo Gulch, we determine later on that it needs to be reconsidered. We can do that, but it gives us the opportunity to do the first read on the 30th. Yeah, I guess maybe the question is if there's other areas that we'd want to include in this, could we bring that back on the 30th or would we have to go again? I think it would be appropriate as part of the motion or an amendment to the motion to ask the CLO to look into this issue further and address it given the board's comments and bring something back on the 30th that represents both the specific asks in the motion and addressing this issue with the board's comments. Is that realistic, Mr. Laforte, to come back on the 30th with that? We can do what the board is asking of us. I would just like clarity, are we supposed to put the N back in the use chart or is it just a four? That's all I would really like clarity on with regard to this motion. I think the rest of it's clear. Supervisor Friend, the four or the N? I think that the goal is to have the level four review in all areas other than the Rodeo-Golch area. And could I add, would you be amenable to adding additional directions? You just get a report back on other C4 areas that might be affected by this as well. Absolutely, thank you. All right. So that was a slight addition to it. Is that clear? If you could read exactly what we're voting on. Well, it's the recommended actions plus the Rodeo-Golch area being an exception that there be a report in six months about how this is working in terms of permitting that the use chart be reflective of only the Rodeo-Golch area being given this exception and a report from our CLO about other C4 areas that may fall into this category. Okay. And I'm sorry, I don't want to over complicate it, but in the beginning you said the recommended action and so the recommended action in this case would be to adopt what's in front of you and so you're not making that as part of the motion. Directing them to come back June 30th for our first read. Okay, okay. All right, call the roll. Is that okay with the seconder? Yes, it is, thank you. I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold? Aye. Friend? Aye. Poonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Chair Caput? No. Okay, that takes us to item number eight. I see people that are here, public hearing to consider whether to take jurisdiction of appeal. We have a 10-45. What's that? We have a 10-45 item. Zone five? Zone five. Scheduled item. We have to cut it off to go to zone five. It's now 10-50. All right. We'll do that. Okay. So the zone five Board of Directors meeting. That'll be fine. We'll convene zone five right now. And I'll do the roll call when you're ready. Are you ready? Okay. Director Leopold? Here. Friend? Here. Poonerty? Here. McPherson? Here. Bertrand? Here. Jaffe? Chair Caput? Here. We have a call. I think you're the chair. I think, isn't Coonerty... No, it's you. It's you. You are the chair. Is she the chair? I think you're the chair. Okay, this, okay. Consideration of additions and deletions to the consent and regular agenda. Okay. Oral communications. Any person may address the zone five Board of Directors during your oral communications. If you would like to speak, if you could please for the second time, try to limit the, I don't see anybody. So we'll go on approval of zone five meeting minutes. I move approval. I second. Okay. We have first and second. We'll call roll. Director Leopold? Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? MacPherson? Aye. Bertrand? Aye. Chair Caput? Aye. Okay. It passes unanimously. Action on consent agenda item six through eight. I would move approval. Okay. We have first. Second. Any discussion by the public or anybody? Okay. We'll call for a vote. Director Leopold? Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. MacPherson? Aye. Bertrand? Aye. Chair Caput? Aye. Item number six is the Board of Directors of Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District zone five. Accept and file the third quarter report of the fiscal year 2019-2020 zone five expansion construction revenue. So that's on the consent agenda. So we just approved that. I think you wanted to do item nine. So we're on item number nine, which is the regular agenda. Okay. We already approved the consent. Oh, that's right. You're right. Yeah. Six through eight is approved. As Board of Directors of Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District five. District zone five. Consider the proposed 2021 zone five and zone five expansion construction budgets as outlined in the memorandum of the district engineer. Okay. Sorry.  In front of you is the proposed fiscal year 2021 for the zone five and zone five expansion construction. The recommended financing for the 2021 fiscal year for zone five operations and zone five construction expansion includes a total of $1,970 and $83 in revenues. And the recommended appropriations are the same amount, 1,970 and 83 leaving zero in an appropriated fund balance. It's all detailed in there. I'm here to answer any questions you have. Okay. Okay. I have no questions. Go ahead. Director Bertrand. Just want to comment. Thank you for recognizing that payment for our portion in Capitola can be extended to five years depending on our revenues. I appreciate that. Okay. For the contract for the master plan. Okay. I would move approval. For me. We have a motion. We have a second. I'll second. I'll second. Okay. Okay. Roll call vote. Yes. Director Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Bertrand. Aye. Chair Capit. Aye. Passes unanimously. Okay. That's the adjournment of the zone five regular agenda. Thank you. Item number eight, public hearing, right? Consider whether to take jurisdiction of appeal of planning commission's denial of application 181556, a proposal by better place for us to operate a business on property located on Buzzard Lagoon, Buzzard Lagoon Road in the Eureka Canyon area, assessors parcel number 106-291-16, take related action as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. And we have an appeal letter from better place for us dated March 11th, applying to 181556. Good morning. Good morning. Hi. Hi there. You ready? Yeah. Good morning. I'm Elizabeth Cranbillett. I work with the planning department representing the item this morning. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. Okay, great. The purpose of this meeting is for your board to consider whether to take jurisdiction of the appeal of the planning commission's February 26, 2020 denial of the proposed commercial development application 181556. Your board must determine whether to accept jurisdiction, allow the planning commission denial determination to stand or remand the application back to the planning commission without taking jurisdiction. To summarize the administrative record, the zoning administrator approved this application on November 15th, 2019 for commercial development permit to construct a small parking lot and restroom improvements and to operate a business that would allow clients to spread cremated remains at selected trees and to visit by appointment. The subject site is located on the north side of buzzard Lagoon Road, approximately one half mile from the intersection of Eureka Canyon Road, Highland Way and Orm Speed Cutoff. On December 2nd, 2019, this approval was appealed to the January 22nd, 2020 planning commission hearing by David Van Lenop, Forest Manager for Redwood Empire Sawmills on behalf of the owners. At the hearing, an oral staff report was presented by staff and public testimony was heard. And at the request of the applicant, the hearing was continued to the February 26, 2020 hearing. At the February 26 hearing, additional testimony from the applicant, the appellant and public testimony were heard. The planning commission then unanimously took action to deny the application. The planning commission determined that the proposed use did not fit within the quote, organized camp and facilities, unquote use that is allowed in the timber production district. Therefore, deeming the proposed use inconsistent with policies regarding timber resources in the timber production district. On March 11th, 2020, the applicant, better placed force, appealed the planning commission's denial to the board of supervisors. The appeal letter asserts a number of issues they feel warrant grounds for the board to take jurisdiction. They assert the decision was not supported by the findings nor by the evidence presented to the commission. The planning commission incorrectly interpreted the uses allowed in the TP district. The planning commission abused its discretion by regulating the manner and method of timber production and forest management. And finally, the appellant asserts the denial of findings are invalid because written findings were not approved by the planning commission at a subsequent hearing date. The proposed use as a memorial and restoration force has never been considered by the county before. While planning staff and the zoning administrator considered this use to be an organized camp and facility, the planning commission made a different use determination and found the use incompatible with the timber production district. The appellant further asserts the planning commission did not adopt written findings. At the hearing, staff presented recommended findings for approval to the planning commission. When the commission denied the application, they read findings for denial into the record. Verbal findings for denial can be less clear. In the context of potential litigation, it is desirable to have clearly substantiated written findings for denial that are adopted by decision makers. Your board packet includes the appeal letter from Better Place Forest and the administrative records. Pursuant to Santa Cruz County code section 1810340C, your board must evaluate the information provided by the appellant and determine that one or more of the following five grounds for taking jurisdiction specified in the county code exists. One, that there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the planning commission, zoning administrator or other officer. Two, there was a lack of a fair and impartial hearing. Three, the decision appealed from is not supported by the facts presented and considered at the time the decision appealed was made. Four, there's significant new evidence relevant to the decision which could not have been presented at the time the decision appealed was from was made. Five, there's either error, abuse of discretion or some other factor which renders the act done or determination made unjustified or inappropriate to the extent that a further hearing before the board is necessary. In conclusion, the jurisdictional hearing process places the burden of proof on the appellants to convince the board that jurisdiction should be taken with respect to one or more of the jurisdictional criteria identified. Based on the appellants letter and administrative record, staff believes the lack of clarity regarding the use determination as well as procedural and other issues related to the denial findings that are reviewed in the appellants letter can be considered sufficient grounds for the board to take jurisdiction. Staff recommends your board take jurisdiction of the appeal of application 181-556 and schedule a de novo public hearing for August 4th, 2020. This concludes staff's presentation. I have no questions. Take public testimony. Well, okay, open it up to the public. Actually, if there's board member questions first, are there board? Do I hear any board questions? Okay, we'll open it up to the public. Okay, so then on your script, you'll see that you're opening up the public hearing and the appellant will have 10 minutes to present evidence. Now open the public hearing and then the appellant will have 10 minutes to present evidence as to why the board should take jurisdiction of this matter. Will the appellant please step forward? Members of the board, I wanted to start by expressing my condolences for your loss of deputy, Sergeant Goodsweller and Allison Ender. We appreciate the time to talk today in consideration of the board taking jurisdiction over this project. Before I turn our time over to our lawyer, Joey Meldrum, to discuss jurisdiction specifically, I just wanted to talk about our efforts to work within the community and work with you and how we want to work with you in the future. I found a better place for us because I know how important it is to have a place you can visit your family after you've lost them. My father died of a stroke when I was 10 years old and my mother died of cancer 13 months later when I was 11. I spent the rest of my life visiting their grave and wishing it was a beautiful place that I wanted to go and that I wanted to remember them by.  Over the past two years, we've worked diligently with the county staff, the community members and stakeholders. We followed the direction of staff by submitting an application for development permit to operate in our use consistent with the requirements for an organized camp for outdoor recreational, educational and spiritual activities. After the zoning administrator approved our permit, it was appealed with support from members of the timber industry. At the time, we did not know the long and challenging history of the timber industry and Santa Cruz and how hard they have had to struggle to create a sustainable commercial harvest industry and in doing so created one of the best examples of that in the country. In response to the industry's concerns, we proposed to create a dedicated section of 50 acres dedicated to sustainable commercial harvest. We hope that would be satisfactory, but we heard loud and clear that the standard the industry believed was fair in Santa Cruz County was to limit any development or activity that might restrict timber harvest to a less than three acre timber zone conversion. Redwood Empire, Big Creek, Cal Forest and the Farm Bureau all proposed and appeals our project that we could conduct memorial forests on the specially used portion of the property and or apply for a less than three acre timberland conversion permit from the state on the timber production portion. I wanna be very clear today that if the board takes jurisdiction, we are willing to propose and accept a condition that would limit any memorial activities solely to the SU area as well as to a less than three acre conversion of timberland. In addition, after reviewing county tax rules related to timber production zone, we were willing to donate tax benefits associated with our use back into the Santa Cruz community. We now understand the concerns of the timber industry and the important sustainable commercial forestry in Santa Cruz and we wanna express that we support this and that we wanna be a part of this community. We're not suggesting a compromise. We are suggesting 100% accepting the proposals that were offered in the appeal to our permit. I believe this proposal is important because by accepting this proposal and taking jurisdiction and potentially approving this project in August, it would mean millions of dollars of investment into for forestry workers and construction workers at a time when the community deeply needs that kind of investment. It addresses 100% of the concerns expressed by the industry around the project itself because all activities would be restricted to that conversion section that is the standard in the timber zone for other projects. And most importantly, I believe it's incredibly important for families to know they have a place to come back to and for people to know that's where they're gonna be. And for my mother, it was very important for her to know that one day she would be together with her children. This is what we're trying to create without affecting the industry and by bringing this to the community. So with that, I'd like to turn this over to Joey Meldrum to speak to the finer points of jurisdiction. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sandy Chair, supervisors. My name is Joey Meldrum. I'm a partner at Mallchamp Meldrum. I'm outside land use council for Better Place Forest. I echo the condolences expressed by Sandy. I will focus my remarks today on why it's appropriate for the board to take jurisdiction as explained well by staff in their staff report and in our appeal letter to you dated March 11th. As you just heard from Sandy, Better Place Forest worked diligently throughout the appeal process to propose alternate project configurations that mimicked other projects that the county has proved, such as the San Vicente Redwoods project, and propose numerous new conditions of approval that would ensure continued commercial logging operations on this property. This was all done in the spirit of cooperation, attempting to find common ground with the timber industry who appealed the project. Without acknowledging Better Place Forest's alternative conditions, the Planning Commission granted the timber industry's appeal and as explained in our letter, their decision was based on no evidence and the findings for the denial provided no rationale at all that explained their decision. Based on your code, the board should take jurisdiction of a Planning Commission decision when it's not supported by the facts presented to the Commission or the Commission committed an error or abuse of discretion. This is a case where these grounds are easily met. First, and this is a procedural issue, the Planning Commission's findings for denial were inadequate. One of the fundamental principles of land use law is that an agency's findings to approve or deny a project must be based on substantial evidence. The key term is that the findings much bridge the analytical gap. Here, the Planning Commission did not bridge that gap. Their conclusory one-page findings prepared by staff seven days after the hearing do not meet these basic standards articulated by the California Supreme Court in the Topanga case. In addition, and as noted by staff, the Planning Commission never saw or approved these denial findings. Second, and this is a substantive issue, the Commission incorrectly interpreted what uses are allowed in the timber production district. Better Place Forest proactively went to the county prior to, excuse me, prior to applying for a permit to figure out if their use would be allowed at this site. County staff advised Better Place Forest two years ago that their use was essentially the same as a facility for outdoor recreational, spiritual, and religious activities, and that the zoning ordinance allowed this use on this site. Your code gives the zoning administrator the responsibility for the interpretation of whether a proposed use is essentially the same as a use allowed in the zone district, and she did exactly that here. And this determination was supported with reasoned analysis based on facts included in the staff reports for both the zoning administrator hearing and both Planning Commission hearings on appeal. In contrast, the Planning Commission gave no coherent explanation as to how or why this project, which allows visitors to walk together through the forest to spread their loved ones ashes around a selected tree could not be described as a site with facilities that provide spiritual, social, or recreational elements. As noted from staff, there was no clarity provided by the Planning Commission. While the Planning Commission implied its decision was based on commercial nature of Better Place Forest's use, there is no requirement in the county code that organized camps and facilities cannot be commercial uses. In fact, the purpose of the organized camps and facilities designation, and this is a quote, is to foster commercial use of scenic and recreational values in the county. The physical improvements and visitors to the site are entirely consistent with an organized camp and the Planning Commission had no issue with this part of Better Place Forest's use. The Planning Commission's error here was to distinguish this project from other organized camps based solely on the fact that the visitors would spread their loved ones ashes around select trees. This does not matter in terms of consistency with the timber production zone because spreading ashes, especially those that are mixed with soil so that they integrate into the natural environment does not prevent future harvest of timber as evidenced by Cal Fire's communications with the county prior to the Planning Commission's February 26th hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission's decision that is contrary to all the findings made by the zoning administrator and staff is an abuse of discretion. Either of those two points as well as the other points in our appeal letter are grounds for you to take jurisdiction of this matter. I'd like to just briefly address some of the comments that have been raised in letters to the board prior to this hearing. First, their arguments are based on the merits of this project and should be heard at a hearing by the board de novo on August 4th as recommended by staff. Essentially, as explained in our appeal letter, spreading ashes on private property is permitted under state and county law and is not incompatible with timber harvest in any way. Furthermore, there's no requirement for commercial timber harvest in its TP zone. Better Place Forest proposes to work cooperatively with the timber industry to actively harvest trees from the property. The Planning Commission ignored these assertions and based its decision on the same speculation the timber industry now urges you to accept. The Better Place Forest is somehow saying one thing, but we'll do another. The county, including staff and the board have the ability to impose conditions on projects. The courts have routinely held that those conditions are enforceable. And if you put a new condition on this project, conditions will be enforced by the county. We urge you to take jurisdiction and hear this matter on August 4th. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So now the opponents will have 10 minutes. Right. Good morning, Chairman Caput. Members of the board, difficult day to stand here and give testimony for all the things that the board has had to deal with in the last several months and in the last several weeks. So I appreciate the effort of the board and staff and county workers and of course the Sheriff's Office could know that they do have a lot of community support and that there's a lot of people that appreciate them and the things that they do. My name is David Van Lennep. I'm a registered professional forester today. I'm representing Birch Family Trust's adjacent landowners to the parcel that a better place for us is proposed for their use. I've been with the Planning Commission process all the way through as the opponent in the original, our original letter to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision. And I'd like to ask the board at this time to refrain from taking jurisdiction of this matter. If what better place for us is just indicated they are willing to do, then they can do that through the planning process starting from with a new permit in hand where it doesn't have to be vetted through the board. It doesn't have to be taken through the board's control, something they can do through the planning process. And they are correct. I made those suggestions to them early on as things that they could do through their, with their property in addition to harvesting timber and maintain the autonomy of timber production zone zoning, which is as they understand now very, very important and very limited in Santa Cruz County. They chose not to take any of those options at that time. And I'm now asking the board to take that permit over so that they can get those put in place. I'm asking you to, as the board, not take jurisdiction of this item. The planning commission had a very thorough review of this item, any characterization that it was somehow done shoddily or without lots of consideration. I would disagree with, I met with planning commission members, I know that planning commission members went to the better place for a site, talked with them to try to get the best understanding they could of the proposed uses and how it would be implemented and how it would conflict or intertwine with timber production, timber harvesting, which is the primary best highest identified use on TP zoning. They made their findings and they found that the speculative land use is not consistent with county code and the things in county code that the county of Santa Cruz is allowed to condition as compatible uses in TP. The county has that authority, the county has used that authority in the past to condition what things are compatible on timber production that's vested to each county through the Timber Productivity Act of 1982, which allows the counties to put in compatible uses in TP. What better place for us is proposing is tandem ounce to a cemetery, although they've been very careful to point out the statutes in state law that allow scattering of ashes that do not create a cemetery, but their proposal that was reviewed in Mendocino County was reviewed and stated as a cemetery. That's how the planning department reviewed their permit. That was the reviewed use. That's how they viewed the use. That was not on timber production zone parcel and it was approved as such. It was approved as a cemetery. A cemetery is not compatible use with timber harvesting. The format that was delivered for the findings of the planning commission was vetted through council. There was a very specific conversation outlined in the transcripts. You can read in the transcripts where commission asked a very specific question about how they could render the findings in this case. Could they render findings without a long written specific finding on each individual item? County responded, county council responded back to them that in fact they could take the findings that were generated by staff and add in we do not find as the commission. We do not find as the commission. And that was a very specific conversation that county council had with the commission before their findings were rendered. So I think that's an important point to understand that that decision was not done out of character with what county council had recommended. And there was no confusion or ambiguity when the commission voted unanimously that this was not a compatible use on timber production zone land. There was no confusion or ambiguity about what the commission deemed appropriate. Applicant is now asking the board to take control of the matter presumably to have the board input some restrictions or some different conditions into their permit. I would assert again that this can also be done through the regular process. This does not have to be done through the board taking jurisdiction. It's my understanding that the applicant could, since they have a lot of this already, a lot of their designs and plans in place that they would not have to start from ground zero. And in conversations with them, they're concerned about time. And I would offer that that might be a quicker process than going through the board. If the board hears this, sends, remands them back to the planning commission or the planning process as part of the board's recommendations, then they still have to go through that planning process. It may be a quicker path for them to go right back to planning. Ultimately, it urged the board not to take jurisdiction on this matter. I think the planning commission acted in conjunction with state law, with county code. And after great consideration, there was two months of meetings and information and volleys of legal documents that went back and forth that the planning commission had to review. So I don't think they were lacking in facts of the law or facts about what they believed consistent. The planning commission also benefited from a great deal of information that the zoning administrator did not on November 15th. We were able to bring a lot of information to the table for the planning commission to consider in their consideration of whether this use was as projected as outlined to staff and whether or not this was actually going to physically work. Is this going to actually work on this property? And that's the job of the commission is to look at things that are brought to them and run those through a filter of county code, state law, and practicality to find out if that's actually going to work. We did generate, we did have some concerns and we do still have concerns that the applicant is not going to harvest commercial timber on that property. Their statements to us and to the department, to the planning department or that they were in fact going to honor timber production. But time and time again, we see their marketing. We see the ads, people who've been contacted by them that say we're never going to harvest these trees. These trees are never going to be harvested. And when you match that up with the sacred place which people deserve, if you're paying the kind of money to have a sacred tree, a sacred place for your family and where you are going to go with your family as a forever place, it doesn't commingle with timber harvesting. And you can't do timber harvesting and commingle with dedicated memorial trees and the scattering of loved ones ashes.  And we don't see that the two mix and neither did the planning commission and we have concerns that if they, there's a financial incentive, a huge financial incentive for them to continue to dedicate our memorial trees and more and more, because that's frankly their primary business model. Timber harvesting is ancillary to their business model and primary to ours on that parcel. I'll conclude and I thank you for your time and I appreciate your efforts and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you. 10 minutes. Now public comment. Now public comment. The public comment. Oh boy, I'll do my best. Do the best you can. Do my best. Chairman Caput, members of the board, Bob Berlage, the Creek Lumber, before I start I hardly have words for the sorrow and condolences to our law enforcement community and to Supervisor Coonerty, Aide Rachel Dan. I didn't know the sergeant. I spent many hours talking to Allison and she was everything wonderful that's been said about her already and so sad. In order to get my two minutes, I concur with everything Mr. Van Linnup said.  The issue is whether this land use is compatible with timber production zone and in our opinion, it's profoundly incompatible. It's, they would make so much money on an acre of land. It would take 1,000 years of repetitive timber harvest on the rest of that parcel to even approach the money they're going to make. This is what the legislature did when they passed the Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 and gave you the authority to determine compatible uses as long as they didn't inhibit the growing and harvesting of timber. If they do this land use, there's gonna be no economic reason and a whole lot of, like Mr. Van Linnup relayed, social reasons why timber harvesting would never occur. This is exactly the sort of land use that the legislature was intended to prevent on what's basically an agricultural zone for the growing and harvesting of timber. And so our recommendation is the same. You don't need to take jurisdiction. They have the right to go back and ask for the things that Mr. Gibson said they would agree with. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions. First of all, before I introduce myself, Monterey, Santa Cruz County Billing Construction Trades Councils gives their condolences to the County of Santa Cruz for the tragic loss that you had in the Sheriff's Department and within the County. We're the chair and we're the supervisors that are here and those that are remotely. My name is Manny Penero, I'm the CEO of Monterey, Santa Cruz County Building Construction Trades Council. This project, Better Place Forests, we feel is a great project. It brings jobs, a community with a good livable wage and also benefits that come with it. They have reached out to us. We're in support of this. We encourage that you also support it and move forward. It'll benefit both sides. And not only that, the young kids and pupils that come out of your schools and high school here in Santa Cruz we're an accredited pre-apprenticeship program that's certified by State of California. That gives opportunities for those who are not gonna go off to college and get a two, four, six or eight year degree to go into the trades. So either trades ask you to consider supporting this and moving it forward. I thank you and have a nice day. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Dennis Webb. I'm a registered professional forester and my family operates Big Creek Lumber Company. We've been harvesting timber in Santa Cruz County for the last 74 years in a way that recognizes the forest's value to our community. Our 200 local employees and the dozens of local workers in the forest products industry. This is our only source of products is from land that is zoned for timber production. State law requires land uses on this zoning designation be compatible with TP zoning. And there is no question as to the incompatibility of Better Place Forest project with timber harvesting. As a registered professional forester, I would never attempt to harvest timber on a property where the trees have been sold as memorials for the spreading of ashes of people's loved ones. At the planning commission recognize this reality in their unanimous decision to deny the permit for Better Places burial ground. The planning commission's decision was the right decision for our community. And it was the right decision given the project's legal incompatibility with TP zoning. Our County has zoning designations because we've decided what we value what is important to our community. That's why we zone land for agriculture, for housing or for timber production. Our community depends on these zoning designations and we depend on the planning commission to correctly decide whether a project like this is appropriate in a given zoning. And the planning commission got it right in this case. So I urge the supervisors to stand by the planning commission's unanimous decision. And I thank you for your time today. Good morning, my name is John Swift. And I would like to point out that this is indeed a jurisdictional hearing. We're not talking about the issues of whether this is right or wrong in terms of the substance of their proposal. This is about the jurisdiction and the findings that were made. Now I was a planner for many, many years worked for the County of Santa Cruz, the city of San Jose and the Santa Monica. I've never seen findings such as this finding cannot be made and that being the complete finding, the extent of the analysis that was involved. I'd like you to think about an approval of a project. Have you ever approved a project by simply saying this project or this finding can be made? You know and I know that the analysis required is far more than that. When we were trying to figure out how to address their issues, it was very difficult to figure out what the planning commission actually rendered. How did they render their decision? So I would encourage you to think that this is really not a reasonable substantive findings that were made. Mr. Van Lettep suggested that we should go back to the planning process, go back to the planning commission or the ZA. This is the same project that was originally proposed with the exception that we're asking or suggesting that a condition be placed that limits the memorial area to exactly what was proposed by the original appellants. To go back through the process would be a lengthy process. It would consume enormous amounts of county resources. There is really no benefit to the county or to anyone else to extend this back through months and months with the possibilities of further appeal. Let's deal with the issue. This is the same project with some minor modifications that are in fact compliant with what these folks are suggesting. These people have made a tremendous, I'll use the word compromise, but they've modified their position to comply with their concerns. So thank you very much for your time and we hope that you do take jurisdiction. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Chair, we have a web comment. This is from Robert Singleton. Please accept staff's recommendation, take jurisdiction and schedule a hearing for the applicant to make a fair case for the unique project. The applicant has made good faith effort to work with local companies to preserve the ability for sustainable timber harvesting onsite. I'm confident that given more time, they can address any concerns that exist timber industry partners may have, while also doing something novel and noteworthy. Dealing with death can be complicated and deeply personal process for many people. Being able to memorialize lost loved ones with the tree over a cemetery plot is something worthwhile and something that would resonate with many Santa Cruzians. Please consider accepting the staff recommendation. Thank you. So you can now close the public hearing. Chair. Public. Bring it back to the board. The agenda item number eight. The public hearing is now closed and I'll bring it back to the board and then we'll get a clarification of exactly what we're voting on. What yes means and no means. Chair, I just have some comments. You know, this is, this application is interesting. It's an unusual business idea. Finding a place for being able to remember those who've gone before is a primary activity in the establishment of any new community. It's actually was one of the first roles that unions played in actually trying to create cemeteries. I served on the board of my temple, my place of worship and all the things that I did on that setting up a cemetery for the community was probably the thing that was the most significant. So this is an interesting idea about a way to recognize those who have gone before. I think that it doesn't fit neatly into categories. And I think the idea of making it seem like a camp, why creative probably has led to some confusion about what we're actually trying to do here. You know, I also know that here in Santa Cruz there has been a great work done about sustainable forestry to find the zoning and legal requirements to allow sustainable timber harvesting to go on and that we have many fine examples of firms that are actually leading the charge in terms of sustainable forestry practices. I think that in some ways the planning decision made the right decision with the information that was in front of them. I think that the idea that this is somehow a camp and therefore should be allowed in TPZ zone land does not seem like a great idea. I think that I'm a little concerned today, later on in today, we are hearing a, we are having a de novo hearing there. And in that case, we also heard that the findings were inadequate. And I would ask staff that there has to be a better process at the planning commission that these issues don't come back to us. We count on our staff and our attorneys to make sure that the findings are accurate. And if they require another meeting in order to get them accurate, that that's something that should be done because it creates a problem as to whether we have done the work necessary and given the fact that the number of hearings that this has gone on to find out that the findings were never approved by the exact written finding were never approved by the planning commission is of concern to me. And we have to do better about that. To me, this is an interesting enough application of land use that I think we should take a look at it. It's obviously not gonna fit into our use chart as currently conceived as principally permitted use because no one's ever thought about doing something like this before. But doing it in TPZ land doesn't make sense to me because it's clearly not that. But there is other parts of this property which are not zone TPZ. And I think to me I'm interested and would like to hear my colleague's opinion about taking jurisdiction to give some clarity about how this new kind of use should actually be categorized and to create policy to make clear that we don't want these quote unquote novel activities to be happening in TPZ. They're more appropriately in things like SU. So I look forward to hearing from my colleagues but I would be prepared to take jurisdiction of this one. Chair, this is Supervisor Friend. And I would like to add on this as we have comments. I'm in agreement with Supervisor Leopold on a lot of these elements that he's bringing up. I think that this warrants the board taking jurisdiction. I think that the board doesn't take jurisdiction. There will be an unsettled question of TPZ compatibility that wouldn't be answered if the applicant simply went through a re-application process for SU because as we can imagine that would be in a loud use as has been agreed upon by staff, the applicant and everybody involved. But there would still be the possibility that this in the future would be discussed as a TPZ compatibility. And I think that it's important for the board to make it a termination to report about the compatibility of TPZ while also making a finding value of the application in regards to SU. I also believe that that would have been impossible for the planning commission to fully process. I agree with the staff's recommendations on taking jurisdiction. And I think that the board has a responsibility to provide clarity on the TPZ use moving forward. Mr. Chair, Supervisor McPherson. I've talked to people on both sides of these issues, this issue who I highly respect and I think they both made good points. I do have a couple of concerns just basically about downgrading, if you will, the TPZ zone. If we allow something like this or something that we helped establish in Santa Cruz County 30 or 40 years ago that's really saved our forest in essence. I'm concerned about a slippery slope of, if you will, to allow this, but, and that we're talking about something, a proposal now that is different from what was before the planning commission. I just wanted to clarify now, does the compromise offered by Better Place Forests to reduce their use to three acres from 10, reduce the conflict with the timber harvest zone regulations? I don't know if the county council could help me on this. In essence, is it correct for us to take jurisdiction on what is a different proposal of sorts? I don't know if county council can give me some insight on that. Thank you, Supervisor. I think if you were interested in taking jurisdiction, the question of how this kind of use comports with the TPZ regulations is, as Supervisor Leopold and Supervisor Friend have mentioned, is a more complete and robust way to take jurisdiction over the matter. Another way to do this is you, if you wanted the PC to review a different project as you could take jurisdiction and your board could send it back down to the PC to review, however, the PC wouldn't have the guidance of your board in that instance of what you want to have done in the TPZ regulations. So does that answer your question? Yes, it does. I mean, there's, I think there's really, do we go back to the planning commission or do we try to set the policy ourselves and get clarity on the way from the planning commission in the future in essence as well. So I'll just listen to other comments by board members before I decide what to do here. But I think that we might get to it more quickly. If we took jurisdiction to figure out exactly what is allowed and not allowed. I do think it's important that we limit the acreage in this as it's been proposed. This is Supervisor Coonerty. I'm supportive of Supervisor Leopold and Supervisor Friend's comments. I'm appreciative that the planning commission put the brakes on this potential use because it is in conflict with the timber harvesting, sustainable timber harvesting that our community has engaged in for so long. But I do think that we should, we could take jurisdiction and I believe we're getting close to a compromise that can work for everybody and fits within the limits of our, or fits appropriately within our current zoning and land uses. So I'd be supportive of taking jurisdiction and then moving forward with continued input from both the timber harvesting community, neighbors and better place for us for how they can work together. Chair, if you're ready for a motion, I'd be prepared to make one. Okay. I would move that we take jurisdiction of this item and that we schedule the hearing on August 4th. So that's the motion. I just, just an additional comment is the issues brought up by the forestry are critically important and we should be sending a clear as message as possible that we value the compromises that have historically been made around timber harvesting to ensure sustainable forestry and that the compromises that has been discussed by Better Place Forest may meet that and we'll have to take a look at that to ensure that it doesn't negatively affect the sustainable harvesting that has always been part of Santa Cruz forestry. Supervisor Leopold, this is Supervisor Fran, just a quick clarification. We have to make findings for taking jurisdiction. Does your motion include the recommended actions for findings? Sorry about that. Yes, it does. I will second the motion. Okay. We have a first and we have a second. Is this in line the first and second with the planning commission five to zero vote? The, so it doesn't negate what the planning commission, what we've, what several of us have said is that given the, what was before them and the planning department's description of this as a camp activity, that action was appropriate. And because this is an unusual use that we should, that taking a de novo hearing provides us the opportunity to set clear policy for staff and the planning commission and the community about how we, how we would work to protect TPC land. Okay. So either way, I mean, if we, if we voted to not take jurisdiction, then we would have the five to zero vote of the planning commission would, if we said we're not taking jurisdiction, we would be agreeing with the planning commission's recommendation. Correct. Okay. So, but you want to clarify it by saying in August fourth that we're going to look at it again. You know, one of the things that was suggested by Supervisor McPherson is, you know, could this go to the planning commission and council pointed out that they're not, they wouldn't be getting the direction and the planning commission isn't the legislative body, right? They're an advisory body. So it would be helpful for us to take the jurisdiction, provide clear directions for this and other proposals in the, if there's other proposals in the future, to have clarity that that doesn't exist right now with these kind of creative uses of land. Okay. So both you and a friend are saying it's really not clear. We could provide clarity if we took the, the DeNovo hearing. I'm ready to settle it right now, but... Well, we're not allowed to do that. Go ahead. I know. All right. We'll call for a vote then, unless any other comments. And there's a motion by Leopold and second by McPherson. The public hearing is now closed, right? Still closed. We have a motion and a second. I'll call the roll. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. Public hearing, if we can go, some of these we can go through pretty quick, right? Okay. Public hearing to consider the proposed five year plan for permanent local housing allocation funds and adopt the resolution to authorize the submittal of an application for funding to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. Hi there. Hi there. Okay. Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. I am Tracy Cunningham and I am the newest addition to the housing division. I mean... You might want to get closer to that, Mike. It's easier to hear. Hello. Thank you. I'm here today to introduce you to a new source of housing funds called the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program or PLHA. After today's public hearing, the County of Santa Cruz will be submitting an application to the State Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD to participate in the state program. This one? On February 27th, 2020, HCD released the first notice of funding availability for the PLHA program, making available $195 million statewide in PLHA funding. The initial estimate for Santa Cruz County over five years is about $3,395,000. The PLHA is the result of many years of advocacy by housing supporters to create a reliable source of local housing dollars. This source comes from recording fees on certain real estate documents. To access these funds, the County must develop a five-year plan showing how it intends to use the PLHA funds over the next five years for eligible activities. We are also required to seek input on the proposed plan from the community. The PLHA is set up to enable communities to target funds to address local needs and are summarized in the slide. Communities are encouraged to address the housing needs of their workforce and are allowed to target some assistance to households whose incomes are up to 150% of the area median income or AMI. Eligible uses of the program focus activities into three general areas, production of new or preservation of existing affordable rental housing, addressing homelessness through creating facilities for emergency, transitional and permanent housing and homeless prevention activities. And finally, home ownership programs for qualifying households, which could include programs such as down payment assistance, ADU development or accessibility improvements. Public input was gathered through an online survey that was conducted from May 12th through May 26th, as well as communications to several stakeholder groups. A summary of the survey results shown in the table were predominantly aligned with the proposed priority uses of funds for housing production and homeless activities. The recommended five-year plan is a result of public input received and a collaborative discussion between staff of the Housing Division and the Homeless Services Coordination Office. The plan designates 51% of the PLHA funds for housing production activities over the five-year period and 44% for homeless activities. Housing production funds will target multifamily residential rental housing for households at or below 60% of the AMI. To participate in the PLHA program, the board of supervisors must approve the five-year plan and adopt the resolution authorizing the county's participation in the program with the application due July 27th of this year. It is recommended that the board of supervisors take the following actions. Hold a public hearing on the permanent local housing allocation five-year plan. Adopt the resolution to authorize and adapt a five-year plan for permanent local housing allocation funds and approve a submittal for funding to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development and the PLH five-year plan. Finally, authorize the planning director to execute the standard agreement and all their documents required by HCD and the county to participate in the PLHA program. Thank you. And I'm available for questions. I don't have any question, but maybe see if any of my colleagues do. Yeah, I do. Supervision in person. Just that we're welcome to the planning staff. It's nice to have you here. I just, there's some questions I have and maybe you won't be able to answer them right now. How do other similar counties, how are they allocating these funds? And just kind of like to get a comparative nature of what others are doing. And will there be a competitive process for both affordable housing, homeless funding pots? And I'm not sure exactly how that'll work. In the first two years, we have nearly even distribution between affordable housing and homeless. But in the out years, it returns to a much deeper investment, it seems on the housing side. Is that because you anticipate projects coming to fruition in a couple of years? Can you answer that? Do you know, do the supply and department, is that what they're anticipating? Is it on? Yeah. Got it. Good morning, Julie Conway, housing program manager. I'm happy to be there with all of you today. And welcome to Tracy. So we do anticipate and we discussed for quite a while, again, talking with the homeless services coordination staff. We would like to have steady funds available for homelessness. That's an ongoing issue and we know that. We also know that we are expected to be producing housing with these funds and to be keeping the funds moving along. So what we were really balancing is meeting the needs of people in our community, our homeless and acknowledging that one of the best steps we can do that is to produce housing. And we're trying to balance that out evenly. What we expect to be doing is once we are active in the program is we will be issuing an annual process inviting participants, both for homelessness and for housing. You'll note that the funds are divided according to percentage. The exact amount is gonna depend on real estate activity, but we will be issuing each year an invitation for projects that meet the requirements of the board. So you can expect to be hearing about it annually. We have had conversations with other jurisdictions. This is a source of funds that housing providers advocated for for 25 years. I know I personally was signing postcards for 25 years ago. So it's very much welcomed, but it's really designed to enable communities to address the needs that they see as most urgent. That was what we considered as we formulated our initial proposal for feedback around the five