Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors 08/11/2026

Reporting in progress. >> For those present today who feel more comfortable making their comments in Spanish, please let us know. We have someone available who will translate your comment into English. For those who require translation of the whole meeting, please make arrangements in advance with the clerk of the board, either by visiting their office in person or by calling our office at 831454 2323. We want to hear from our non-English-speaking community. So, please do so. Request translation to request translation assistance if you feel language is a barrier to your participation. for welcome. Good morning. I'd like to call to order the August 11th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. Madame Clerk, will you please call the role? >> Certainly. Chair, good morning. Supervisor Dura, >> present. >> Koig, >> here. >> Hernandez >> here. >> Cummings >> here. >> And Martinez >> present. We'll now move on to our moment of silence. Would any of my colleagues like to recognize anybody this morning? Supervisor Koig. >> Thank you, Chair. I'd like to recognize Charles Cap Panel, who was a District 1 resident at the time of his passing away in July. Uh also known as uh he was a lifelong Santa Cruz County resident who grew up in Ben Lman and passed away suddenly on July 22nd, just shy of his 76th birthday. known by his call sign KE6 AF CAP served for decades as our county's district emergency coordinator for amateur radio emergency services and mentored many new operators. A longtime CDF fire captain, he led a crew into Nine Marks during the 1989 Lum Praa earthquake to put out fires that threatened the park and nearby homes. And in 2009, he kept our 911 center and hospitals connected by radio when a fiber optic outage cut phone service countywide. He is now a silent key and he is deeply missed. Please join me in a in a moment of silence uh for CAP. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> Please join us. Thank you. Please join us for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We'll now move on to consideration of late additions or deletions to the agenda. CEO Coburn, are there any changes? >> Uh, no, Chair. There are no changes this morning. >> Thank you. Would any of my colleagues like to remove anything from this morning's consent agenda? Seeing none, we will now move on to item number five, which is our oral communications. I would like to invite the public to make public comment on any item that's on the consent agenda, the close agenda, or anything that's within the subject matter or any subject matter within the jurisdiction of the board. If you'd wish to speak on an item that's on today's regular agenda, I'm going to ask that you please hold those comments and make those comments when that item is heard. If you'd like to join, please um stand up and form a line behind these folks so we can get a sense of how many people are here. Madame clerk, how many people are raising their hand online? >> Currently, we have two speakers with their hands raised online. >> Okay, we have um a large number to this morning. Um but we're going to set the public comment period at two minutes each. Go ahead. You may begin. >> Yeah. Hello, my name is uh James Ying Whitman. We used to have three minutes here. How to deliver a corporate sandwich in two minutes. How about I start with the beginning and the end. You know, the only thing that second grade girls need to know about boys is that boys have cooties. Now, I've had a bumper sticker on my truck saying artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. And um last Friday after uh changing out the tires on my little ebike and you know not really paying attention to the front tire making noise although it was rated for only 35 PSI. I like my tires at 65 PSI. So when that front tire blew I looked down and um there was a fullsize truck tire exhaust and quarter panel. And fortunately, the vehicle was stopped on SoCal. Um, so I got really lucky, but artificial intelligence isn't designed to kill itself. Human beings make mistakes. I'm quite lucky. So, I'm wearing this interesting t-shirt called the World Homicide Organization in 1913 when the Clayton Act was uh enacted, which was 10 years after the Biologics Control Act, which somehow enabled when some kind of an inoculation had a reaction in the body that didn't just immediately kill it. It was assumed to be effective. So, we have an inversion going on in our government. If you stand outside the building, you have a US and California flag without the gold maritime pirate flag, pirate fringe. So, we're under Admiral Ty law here. These officials, any charter, city or county, they sign confidentiality agreements and they're controlled by international Rockefeller, Stanford, Carnegie, Rothschild's puppet. So, that's sedition, sedicious misprison of treason and sedicious conspiracy. Anyway, good morning all. >> Good morning members of the board. We all met ahead of time and decided we'd go alphabetical order breastfeeding before health center. So, I'm Dana Wagner. I'm the director of Community Bridges Wick program. I'm here to thank the board for the August 2026 proclamation supporting breastfeeding awareness month. This is the 19th year the board has approved a proclamation for breastfeeding awareness month. the 19th year of the community bridges wick health fair and breastfeeding walk. I'm thrilled to be here celebrating 19 years of support for families in our community with you. This year we partnered with the health improvement partnership to celebrate World Breastfeeding Week and National Health Center Week and we're happy to be partnering with the county once again to develop this proclamation. Together members of our community are collaborating to help families get the best start in life to feed their children optimally and to create a more healthy Santa Cruz County. Thank you for your support of our efforts and for being WIC advocates. We couldn't do our work without the collaboration with the county and health centers and with the advocacy of this board. On behalf of community bridges, I thank you and I'm just going to read the first part of this proclamation. Whereas breastfeeding, chest feeding is one of the most effective public health measures providing health benefits for mothers and birthing partners, infants, families, and communities by reducing rates of obesity, breast, and ovarian cancers, diabetes, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome. And whereas human milk provides children with the complete nutrition necessary for optimal brain development, and an ideal foundation for early learning readiness. Good morning board of supervisors. My name is Prima Vera Hernandez. I am the health services manager for the children and family health branch of our public health division. I will continue reading the proclamation. Whereas fathers and partners are integral to breastfeeding chestfeeding success and their support has been shown to help increase breastfeeding chestfeeding rates. And whereas the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that infants be exclusively breastfed chestfed for six months before complimentary foods are introduced with continued breastfeeding for at least two years. And whereas the following community partners maintain certified lactation consultants on staff to support new mothers and birthing parents. They are Watsonville Community Hospital, Sutter Maternity and Surgery Center, Dominican Hospital, Dignity Health, Salute Parahente, Nurse Family Partnership, Trauma-Informed Approach to Field Nursing Program, and the Community Bridges Women, Infant and Children Wick program. And whereas all hospitals in Santa Cruz County either hold the baby friendly hospital designation or adhere to the guidance outlined in the California Department of Public Health model hospital policy recommendations for breastfeeding, chestfeeding and good morning. My name is Rachel Van Kai. I'm a public health nurse here in Santa Cruz County and I serve as the perinatal services coordinator and also the SIDS program coordinator and I will continue with the proclamation. Whereas the Santa Cruz County Breastfeeding Coalition promotes exclusive breastfeeding chest feeding for 6 months or more raises awareness, supports workplace and public lactation accommodations and educates families and professionals about lactation support. And whereas the Santa Cruz County Breastfeeding Coalition, all local hospitals, and the Mother's Milk Bank of California collaborate and host an annual donor milk drive to promote the most vulnerable babies with human milk. And whereas the theme for the 2026 World Breastfeeding Week and breastfeeding for was is breastfeeding for a sustainable start in life. Strengthen what works. emphasizing the need to strengthen proven breastfeeding, chestfeeding support across health and health care systems, workplaces, and communities. It's not listed here, but as SIDS program coordinator, I also want to mention that feeding human milk is also a protective factor against sudden infant death syndrome. So now I would like to thank you the board and Monica Martinez chair of Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors hereby proclaiming the month of August 2026 as breastfeeding chestfeeding awareness month in Santa Cruz County. Thank you very much. >> Good morning uh Chair Martinez and members of the board. I'm Dr. Lisa Hernandez, public health officer for the county of Santa Cruz. I'm joined here this morning with Emily Fenan, director of nursing for the public health division, uh, to honor one of our soontobe retiring public health nurses. These are flowers, not for me, but for Amy. So, I'm going to hand them over to Amy Wright. Um, thank you for the opportunity to recognize Amy, who is retiring after 21 years of dedicated service to our community. She most recently worked as a supervising public health nurse in our communicable disease unit in HSA's public health division, a role she's held for 11 years. I remember when I heard that Amy was joining uh the public health team from the health centers and I basically jumped out of my chair in excitement. Actually um I did I did this. Sorry, Amy Peeler. Um and thank you for sharing her. Um Amy is an excellent nurse, a strong advocate for both her patients and colleagues and someone with true knowledge of disease control and public health. Our community is safer because of her. In addition to our discussions about work, I will treasure our chats about gardening. I promise to take good care of your office plant, though I suspect that you gave me the easiest plant to keep alive. And I will think of you every time I see the cornflour seedlings blossom in my garden. So, thank you, Amy. Congratulations on a well-earned retirement and you will deeply you'll be deeply missed. And now I will hand it over to Emily Fenan who has additional remarks. Thank you. Good morning board. Good morning Chair Martinez. Uh today I have the honor of recognizing Amy Mesa whose career has shaped public health in our community for more than 20 years. Amy joined the health services agency as a bilingual clinic nurse in 2005 and over the two decades that followed served in multiple roles as a clinic nurse two superi supervising clinic nurse three both in health centers and today serves as a public health nurse three in our communicable disease unit and what a unit to serve in. Amy has stood on the forefront the front lines during some of the most demanding public health emergencies this county has faced. the 2017 hepatitis A outbreak, the CO9 pandemic and the Chagela outbreaks in both 2022 and 2024. Through every one of them, she brought a steady leadership and deep clinical expertise when our community needed it most. I can speak to that firsthand. I've had the privilege of supervising Amy for the last 5 years through more transitions and shrinking shrinking staff FTEEs than any of us would have liked. And if there's one thing I could always count on, it's that Amy's decision-making was sound. When things got thin and the pressure got real, she didn't waver. But just as importantly, she didn't just tell me what I wanted to hear. Amy challenged me when it mattered. She uh Amy um she pushed back when something didn't sit right and asked the hard questions instead of the easy ones. That same conviction showed up in how she treats the people she serves. Amy's impact isn't only measured in outbreaks, emergencies, and infectious disease response. She has been a fierce advocate for her patients, always keeping equity at the forefront, making sure the most vulnerable received care that both that was both compassionate and accessible. And that same voice for the community became a voice for her co-workers, too. Amy spent six years of her career as a union shop steward, advocating for the staff working right alongside her on the front lines. So today, I want to say thank you, Amy, for your steady hands, your fierce heart, and your 20 years of service to the people of Santa Cruz County. It's my honor to present you with this proclamation honoring your retirement. Congratulations. You've earned every bit of it. Amy uh good morning uh county supervisors. My name is Marit Salara. I serve as the executive director of the health improvement partnership of Santa Cruz County. HIPP for short. Hip is a coalition of 25 organizations who promote collaboration over competition in the local healthcare ecosystem. Last week you recognize uh the work of the safety net clinic coalition because they really do heartfelt work and it was national health center week. We really thank you for that recognition and we're here to not only uh express gratitude but also raise awareness of the threats health centers continue to face. Before I transition to my colleague Amy Pillar, I want to emphasize something that we all know and that is that we are incredibly lucky to have leaders like Laura Marcus, Anita Gir who is back here, a Amber Williams, Amy Pillar, Donna Young leading the health center movement in our community. They are not only smart and resourceful and full of heart but I think they have something that throughout the years I have really come to value uh when I wonder like how do you keep going and it is that they have the moral clarity that healthc care is a vehicle to promote and to achieve social justice. So with that I'll pass the mic to Amy. Thank you, Marita and Amy. On behalf of health centers and especially Watsonville Health Center, we are so grateful for you and so happy for you. Um, thank you, Chair Martinez and board for proclaiming last week National Health Centers Week. I will read this without all of the whereases to speed it up a little and to give you some information about our health centers. For over 60 years, community health centers have provided highquality, affordable, comprehensive primary and preventive health care in medically underserved communities, delivering value to and having a significant impact on the health care system. Santa Cruz County's healthc care sector has long been known for its collaborative nature highlighted by enduring partnerships among Salude Paralleente, Santa Cruz Community Health, County Health Centers in North and South County, Encompass Community Services, Janice of Santa Cruz, and Diane's Community Dental. As the country's largest primary care network, community health centers are the health care home for 52 million Americans in over 17,000 communities across the country. One in every seven people in the United States receives their care from community health centers. Community health centers are responding to the chronic disease epidemic by expand expanding access to primary care which keeps Americans healthy and out of expensive settings like hospitals and e hospital emergency rooms. Community health centers provided cancer screenings to over 10 million patients in 2024 and help 67% of patients control their hypertension and 72% control their diabetes. The community health center model continues to provide an effective means of overcoming barriers to healthcare access, including geography, income, and insurance status, thereby improving health outcomes, and reducing health care system costs. Community health centers are on the front lines of emerging health care crises, providing access to care to our nation's veterans, addressing the opioid epidemic, and responding to public health threats in the wake of natural disasters. We celebrate the legacy of community health centers and their vital role in building innovative care with local communities where it matters most. Thank you again and I'll turn it over to Deantes. Hello, my name is Kristen Glenn. I'm the development director at Dantes Community Dental Care and I came here with our partners to thank you for recognizing National Health Center Week. As you know, community health centers are the backbone of our county's healthcare safety net. We provide care to those who need it most. Regardless of income, insurance, status, or ability to pay. We're not just treating illnesses. We're preventing disease, strengthening families, and building a healthy healthier community for everyone. At Dantes, we're proud to serve as a unique part of the safety net. As the county's largest dental provider, we understand that oral health is inseparable to overall health. And when we ensure that someone can eat um comfortably, speak clearly, and smile with confidence, we're not only taking care of their health, but improving their quality of life. We're deeply grateful to partner with the county in so many meaningful ways. through core funding that helps us serve seniors, um through our contracts with HSA and through collaboration with the county office of education on our registered apprenticeship program, which this year has successfully expanded from six to eight apprentices. Um also this year though, the healthcare safety net is facing big challenges. The impacts of HR1 mean that thousands will lose coverage as new work requirements and eligibility restrictions take place in take effect in January. Community health centers are required to serve everyone regardless of ability to pay. And therefore, we're bracing for less revenue to support the care that our patients need just as more people turn to us for help. That's why your continued support matters. We work collectively with all of our safety net partners to ensure that Santa Cruz County remains a place where everyone can access the healthcare they deserve. Thank you for recognizing the vital role we play and for being partners in building a healthier community. Good morning, Chair Martinez and members of the board. My name is Karina Chavez with Salupar Alente and I'm proud to be here alongside our fellow community healthcare centers and safety net partners. Last week, we joined healthc care centers across the nation celebrating National Healthcare Center Week. This year's theme is building innovation where it matters most reflects what we do every day. At Salude, our doors are open for everyone regardless of immigration status, insurance, ability to pay. At Salude toosen, everybody belongs. We provide medical, dental, behavioral health, vision, and specialty care while also helping address barriers that affect our patients health and access to care. As federal changes make it harder for patients to stay enrolled in medical, including new work requirements, we are working with our community partners to help patients navigate those changes and get the support they need to stay covered and healthy. Partnership is central to that work. When the county's homeless persons health project reached out to salute during the syphilis outbreak among the people experiencing homelessness along the Bahad Levy, our teams quickly mobilized and work with the county to provide outreach, testing, and connections to care. This is what innovation means. Meeting people where they are, expanding access, and working together to better serve the community. And while we're responding to today's needs, we're also investing in the future. This summer, Salude completed a major expansion of Clinica dev de Paharo, doubling the clinic's cap capacity to serve our community close to home. We are grateful for the board, the board of supervisors who stands with community healthcare centers and share a belief that everyone deserves access to healthcare. Thank you for your continued partnership and support. Morning, Chair Martinez and board members. Um, thank you so much for honoring National Health Center Week. Uh, you know, our safety nets are the really the net in the community that holds the most vulnerable individuals um that need care. Janice has been around for about 50 years. We're celebrating our not about 50 years and we're celebrating our gala on September 26. We hope you guys will join us and celebrate alongside us. Um, but Janice most importantly is serving roughly about 5,000 individuals suffering substance use disorder and mental health in our community on an annual basis of which 3,000 are roughly served at the sobering center across the street. We know that that has been even more of a safety net than Janice um our main location on 7th Avenue with residential um and withdrawal management. When we started this morning and did the pledge of allegiance, I couldn't help but listen to liberty and justice. And I really feel like in Santa Cruz County, we do an amazing job at being collaborative. And the board members, thank you for collaborating with us and coming alongside us through the CZU fires through COVID. When I think about the health centers in our community, um, County HSA, Salude Palente, Encompass Community Services, Diente, Santa Cruz Community Health, um, and Janice, I think about all the trials and tribulations that we've gone through and despite all of those contracting and expanding. Uh, we continue to remain steadfast in treating the population in our community really at no matter what it takes. Um, so just wanted to be here to thank you guys and and continue to encourage us getting back to the drawing board. We know HR1 is is upon us. Um, and we'll have to get creative again just like we did in CCU, just like like we did in COVID. So, thank you so much for your collaboration and honoring National Health Center Week. >> Good morning. My name is Zenita Agiri. I am the CEO of Santa Cruz Community Health where we provide comprehensive primary care to nearly 14,000 residents. Thank you for recognizing National Health Center Week, which comes at a critical moment. Over the last few months, I have shared with you the impact of a potential November ballot measure. And today, I share with you that the measure has qualified and community health centers throughout California are no on Prop 44. With federal Medicaid cuts already placing severe financial pressure on community health centers, California should be strengthening the health care safety net. Instead, Proposition 44 would deepen the strain by imposing rigid restrictions on how health centers use resources for patient care and essential operations, limiting the resources we rely on to hire and retain staff, maintain safe facilities, strengthen technology and cyber security, and ultimately remain financially solvent. It threatens our ability to keep our doors open, protect patient services, and respond to the needs of our community. When the healthcare safety net is weakened, patients wait longer for appointments, lose continuity with trusted providers, delay preventative care, and may be forced to seek help in already strained emergency departments. Those who already face the greatest barriers to care will be harmed by the most by this measure. As the safety net clinic coalition of Santa Cruz County, we oppose Proposition 44 and stand with the patients, providers, and communities whose health and well-being depend on a strong safety net. Thank you so much. >> Hello, my name is Mickey Sanders and I'm from Watsonville. Um, a few years ago there was an electrical problem with a telephone pole in front of my house and the lights went out and I called PG& and they came and took the meter and I did not have electricity for a while. So, I come to the county after I got a new panel box put in and I talked to a Matt Johnson who said he'd meet me out there with electrician the next day or so and he came out and they looked at the uh box that I had put in by electrician um panel box and he said it was all good and then I said, "Would you like to look at the one in the laundry room?" He said, "No, that's okay. You want to look at the one in the shop?" and he said, "No, that's okay." I said, "Do you want to look at the one with the units in the back?" And he said, "No, unless you have a loose wire that is arcing, we're not interested in looking at it." And I said, "What if I have a tenant um and I rent to veterans?" Um I said, "What if I have a tenant that says I'm not going to pay the rent because you have illegal units?" And he said, "Don't worry about it. We got your back." So that was Matt Johnson that was that's in this building. And anyway, I'm going to run out of time. Um, I turned 90 years old April 1st and one of the units that they want destroyed, which I've already taken two or three down and it ripped my heart out. Of course, there's homeless veterans. And one of the units I built for my son who did not have um facilities, uh, he was 17 years old, broke his neck, quadripollegic. This was 1979. I built him a place that had handicap counters and sinks and toilets and exercise room that I'm living in now. And um I don't want it tore down because I need it at my age. Good morning supervisors. My name is Kathy and I'm a resident of Mount Charlie Road in district 5. In the past few months, residents in our corridor submitted multiple letters with over 50 signatures expressing urgent concern over the developing historic El Nino and the complete lack of budget prioritization for our county roads. Despite these formal petitions, our own supervisor, Monica Martinez, has not once acknowledged or reached out to us. We pay taxes like every other resident in this county. Yet, because we live in the remote mountain areas, we can't even access the specialized social programs you choose to fund with our tax dollars. Meanwhile, you neglect our most basic life safety need, our roads. Supervisors Dura and Martinez, you both ran on platforms promising to understand rural infrastructure and to be a voice for everyone. Please explain to our communities in simple logic how non-essential programs take higher precedence than basic road maintenance. Without maintained roads and working coververts, our lives are in immediate danger when severe storms hit. Your elections brought diversity and hope to this county. But that hope has vanished because your voting records are proving to be no different from your predecessors. I urge you to let the moral compass that led you to run guide you. Keep your campaign promises. Listen to our rural communities. Prioritize our safety, our livelihoods, and the basic funding needed for our roads. After all, we pay taxes, too. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. >> Good morning. My name is Ivonne Manosian. I'm a Mountain Charlie Road resident of four years and I too was in attendance when uh Ms. Martinez visited our community and pledged her support to have the road repaired. As many of my res fellow residents on the mountain, we go down to the valley or on the Santa Cruz side as employees of public schools, nursing, housing. Um, we are advocates for the homeless. We are parents. We have grandparents up in our community. We use that road to drive our children to school. We are teachers that support early childhood education. We are social workers. We are parents of the el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el elderly who though not employed use that road to drive our families to appointments, therapies and recovery. We need a safe access out. We need the assurance that our first responders will be able to access our homes and our health and that you would in turn remember your loved ones if they were living on that road or in those communities if you would want access. In closing, I would like to quote Margaret me who said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Thank you. >> Morning, supervisors. Um, first I'd like to acknowledge the uh health services, but I want to put, you know, make it very clear where that a good chunk of that money is coming from to to fund the health services. So, I'm with the Mountain Charlie group as well. And I'd like to read a abbreviated version of the letter that we sent to you guys a while back. So, I'm reading the key excerpts from the formal position sub by the over 50 residents of Mount Charlie Road. As residents of district 5, we urge the board to reallocate funding to prioritize the immediate structural stabilization of remote uninorporated mountain road infrastructure. Roads are our ultimate lifeline. For rural residents, access to health care, schools, employment, and emergency fire and medical services depend entirely on the physical integrity of our pavement. Safe in structure is a basic fundamental her human service. The county is hereby placed on official notice of a critical structure hazard between mile markers 189 and 194 on Mount Charlie Road, very close to where we had the last slide. A failed covert is actively undermining the roadway alongside multiple other failing clog covers along our corridor with NOA forecasting a robust El Nino strengthening this winter leaves these coverts unressed and ensures our road will collapse trapping hundreds of families without evacuation routes. Rural property owners cannot continue to see our tax dollars diverted to urban centers while our basic infrastructure crumbles. We urge the board to stop diverting infrastructure funds away from rural areas and prioritize funding for unincorporated roads. Our safety depends on it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Becky Steinbruner. I also live in the rural area in District 2 and I want to um applaud these last three speakers for their their comments. Um, with an El Nino coming, many of us in the rural areas living on roads in my area, one way in, one way out that has not received any even painting in over a decade. We're all wondering how the roads are going to hold up. So, please prioritize fundings for this. And don't hope that FEMA will come bail us out. That hasn't worked out before. So, I want to ask um if there has been were there any items pulled from the agenda? I I arrived late and I'm sorry. Were there any agenda items? Item 21 especially. Was it pulled? No, I guess. All right. So, I would like to speak to you then about consent agenda item 21. And that is you are the board of s of directors for Santa Cruz County Fire. And uh I urge you as board of directors of Santa Cruz County Fire not to approve item 21 because it lacks a complete uh comprehensive financial and operational analysis demonstrating long-term service sustainability for the Paharo Valley Fire District. This is a controvers controversial issue. Mr. Don Jarvis, former expert, fire consolidation expert for LAFCO, has demanded that there be an impartial analysis. Mr. Serrano, director of LAFCO, has thwarted that and insist he can do it in house. This is not going to be an impartial analysis. I ask that you table this item 21 and insist there be an outside consultant qualified such as AP Triton to do this analysis. This is going to cost the people of Paharo Valley Fire District over half a million more to join up with Santa Cruz County Fire than it would be if they approved their own um in-house assessment. And they need to be given another chance. It's all the decisions have been made in a vacuum with the board and no public at all. Thank you. >> Is there anyone further in the room? >> Seeing none, madam clerk, will you please call the first online caller? >> Yes. >> Tim, your microphone is now available. >> Hello. Thank you very much. This is Tim Delaney. Um, so anyways, uh, wonderful comments today. Loved hearing all of them. Uh, yeah, unfortunately, uh, for a lot of folks, you know, that are younger than me, I do have this thing called intuition and, uh, you know, I was skiing uh, in Tahoe in September in 1982 and I stopped skiing in mid July. And uh then you know we got the bright idea that we thought we can go camping in desolation in late August and we got caught in a big old snowstorm. So our roads collapsed up in Tahoe Basin. A lot of damage was done. We had a 45 foot cornice hanging over Crystal Bay. Uh my friend, he was the hang glider over uh Washo Lake when Slide Mountain collapsed all the way in a huge landslide. It went across 395 right into Wo Lake. It was awesome. So, uh, you know, there are some huge concerns here from Mountain Roads for sure. So, that's something to consider because all unfortunately all you folks that are younger than me that are in their 30s and 40s, you haven't lived that long and you haven't seen things like that. That's why it's important to talk to older folks for mentorship to get an idea of what could possibly happen. And yes, I stood on that huge pile of snow for the Alpine Meadows avalanche. So, so those are some things to consider. Um, the women here that all spoke before you, uh, wonderful people. They have common sense, which, uh, very far-left Democrats and very far-right Republicans don't have. I'm a little tired of them attacking the scientific community and engineering community, and we don't want to be running around with wooden teeth. So anyways, so those are some thoughts of mine and uh I I wish the very best for a military without weapons, food, and water to fight a war. >> Thank you, >> Don. Your microphone is now available. >> Don, if you're on a call-in device, it's star six to mute or unmute yourself. >> I'm sorry. Good morning. My name is Don Jarvis. I'm a resident of the Pajaro Valley Fire District, a retired fire chief, and a past LAFCO fire consultant. I'm commenting today on the Pajaro Valley Fire District Reorganization Project, specifically the comprehensive financial and operational analysis called for in condition number one of the wills served letter that you're considering in item number 21 on your consent agenda. I've repeatedly asked both the Pajaro Valley Fire District Board and the LAFCO Commission to obtain the services of an outside consultant to provide an independent, objective, unbiased analysis of the cost of this project. The Pajaro Valley Fire District Reorganization carries a total price tag of almost $4.4 million a year, a number that has received no scrutiny nor verification. The $4.4 $.4 million cost is driven by the two CSA48 benefit assessments which have been arbitrarily set at the maximum level by LAFCO and county staff. Application of these assessments to the parcels in the Paharo Valley Fire District results in about $1.8 million in new charges against property owners. These charges have not been validated in any objective way. I've raised concerns about the overall cost of the project, about the amount of the assessments, about the way the costs have been determined, and about the compliance to the requirements of article 13D of the California Constitution. The county is assuming all of the risk in this scenario. If the assessments were to be ruled invalid, the county would be still be responsible for providing service, but without the funding to support it. I'm requesting that the board of supervisors direct that the financial and operational analysis called for in condition number one of the wells served letter be conducted by a qualified outside consultant to ensure that all relevant data is presented to both the public and the respective governing boards and commission. Thank you. >> Call in user 401. Your microphone is now available. Marilyn Garrett, I think it's essential that you pull table item 21 for the reasons just stated by the previous speaker and Becky Stein Bruner. And I'm thinking of all the fires that are going on now, many of them caused by PG&E. And I live in Atoss. As I drive out Freedom Boulevard daily almost, I'm seeing uh these polls being replaced by higher polls. And I recall a congressman being interviewed and he said with AI we're going to have to do a lot more transmission upgrading. These polls are about some of them twice the size of the original ones. and PG&'s May 29th um marketing and communication stage PG begins major powered system upgrade in South uh Santa Cruz County and check Monterey Baymatters.org. states. These upgrades appear to be linked to new battery energy storage facilities planned near Watsonville on farmland and near a board refuge and another one next to Halftops High School despite public objections. The hazards of these vests and lack of public protections have been in sharp focus. No battery storage facilities in Santa Cruz County. Protect the public health. There's a huge environmental cost to this. Thank you. >> Chair, I see no further speakers online. >> Thank you. I will now return to the board for comments and action on the consent agenda. I'll start on my right with Supervisor Cummings. Thank you, chair. I just want to thank everybody for being here today. Um, first want to start by congratulating Amy Mensah on her retirement and just want to thank you for all your many years of service here for the county. And then I want to also acknowledge uh breastfeeding chest feeding awareness month and the proclamations for encompass child support awareness month and national health center week. Uh we thank you all for your hard work and dedication to this community and helping us be a healthier community as a result. Item number 21, uh, or sorry, item number 20. I want to thank the CEO for recommending that we oppose the fuel aviation tax credit, which would reduce funding for local roads. Um, as we've heard from some folks here today from Mountain Charlie and as we've discussed on this board, there is a need for increased funding for roads. And anything that is going to be done to um reduce that funding, I think we should be opposing. And so, just want to thank the CEO again for making recommendations for item number 20. Um item number 21 as we were just hearing I do just want to provide some context. We did have a discussion about this at Lavco. It was anformational item only. It was not an item that we were to take action on. Uh we did have the chair from the Po Valley uh fire protection district who came and um actually highlighted that there had been work had been ongoing on this item for about eight years before the board came to this conclusion. And it wasn't very easy decision for them to make, but they did feel that in terms of um being fiscally responsible, this was the best um option for them to move forward with at this point in time. I do share some of the um and I'm sympathetic to some of the concerns have been raised um by some of the folks around, you know, how they got to the numbers that they want to recommend for charging. And so I just hope that moving forward that our county staff and laughco can work with some of the residents who have concerns um so that we can help try to address those concerns moving forward. Um item number 23. I just want to thank GSD staff for the ongoing work regarding the McDermott station which caught fire earlier this year and has been um going through ongoing repairs. I'm going to speak more to um some issues around that item later on in the consent agenda. Um item number 29. Um, just want to thank everyone who applied uh to serve on the youth commission. It was a we had um I think at least three or four applicants and they were all very qualified. But ultimately uh we want to congratulate Natalie LeBlanc who will serve as a third district representative on the youth commission. Item number 31. Uh, this has authorized the board chair to submit comments on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's performance evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program. And just to update the board and the community, I actually went down to Santa Monica um yesterday to join hundreds of residents, elected officials from local, state, and federal representatives of the state of California um to comment during the only public comment period that's in person um to oppose the uh Noah getting rid of our California management program. This is a program that's been in effect since 1977. And every time that they've done a review of our coastal management program, they have um they have concluded that we have been meeting our obligations, that we have been enforcing the program successfully. And all of a sudden now um the Trump administration um is saying that we are um environmental extremists who want to get rid of who are trying to oppose offshore oil, space launches, um undersea cables, desalination among other things. Uh I will be happy to know there was 150 people who commented yesterday all of whom said that we should maintain our coastal management program and there was not one person who agreed that we should get rid of our coastal management program. Um comments will be um taken orally online today and tomorrow. Um I believe you have to sign up in advance. Um and then the the comment period for written comments closes on August 22nd. And the recommendation that's before the board today is the formal letter that will be sent on behalf of Santa Cruz County um in opposition to the removal of our coastal management program. And I also want to thank um supervisors Martinez and Derpa for attending the local press conference with Jimmy Petta down in Monteray yesterday. Item number 32. This is related. Um um this is authorize the county of Santa Cruz to participate as a consulting party under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's programmatic environmental impact statement for proposed offshore oil and gas lease sales offshore California and take related actions. Um as many folks have known that the federal administration has been moving forward with offshore lease sales. Um, our board has submitted numerous resolutions in opposition and a couple weeks ago we actually received a letter um from BOM asking us to participate as consulting parties as they move forward with the lease sale process. Um, in discussions with county council we and with other councils, we thought it was in our best interest to engage in those conversations to ensure that we're on the record um expressing um some of the areas of interest um that may be problematic for offshore drilling. Um the letter is attached if folks want to see the exact letter, but we're um asking authorization to engage conversation to ensure that there's representation and to be on the record with MOM. Item number 33. This is another uh fire related item. Um this is directing the general services department to work with district 3 office, county fire and related parties of interest to evaluate options and conceptual design for rebuilding or refurbishing the Martin station uh in Bonnie Dune. And um just so folks are aware um as we mentioned earlier there was an item related to the McDermott station. There are only two fire stations in Bonnie Dune. One is the McDermott station, one is the Martin fire station. And the Martin fire station was built back in 1972 and as a result it does not meet the current standards in terms of bay height uh for uh fire apparatuses to get inside the station. The station is made of wood. It has significant damage from woodpeckers. does not have fire suppression. And as we saw recently with the McDermott fire, had that fire been worse um and had the McDermott station sustain more damage, we would not have an operational fire station in San in in Bonny Dune. And so this is an attempt for us to um create redundancy in terms of fire protection in Bonny Dune. Um, and this is just a first step in terms of um, conducting a feasibility study to see based on conversations with the community, you know, what could a new fire station look like? Um, what would be the size, what what would be um, the different amenities that it would have. And we're proposing to use measure Q funds to do this initial assessment. Um given that a big part of measure Q was wildfire risk reduction and we see having redundancies and fire protection as meeting those goals um as they were set out in Measure Q. And additionally, measure Q um is also um was also put in place to help leverage funding. And we see this initial investment of about $8,700 to conduct this feasibility analysis as a first step to understand what it would cost to put in a new station and then from there explore other state and federal funds that may help us achieve being able to build a new station that would help increase our fire risk reduction and um firefighting capacity in Bonnie Dune. Item number 48. I want to congratulate CDI staff on receiving $1 million from HCD for the tenant based rental assistance program. This program will provide security deposits and/or short to medium-term monthly rental assistance to our low-income renting households. And so really just want to congratulate CDI on that success for getting that grant. Um also want to thank CDI for item number 49. Um, we've been trying to help address nighttime parking impacts on the north coast and this is one more step in helping us address uh nighttime parking at Shark Fin Cove, Davenport Pier um in particular Shark Fin. seen graffiti um down at that beach which generally has been occurring through nighttime parties and we've also seen nighttime parties in Davenport beaches having negative impacts in terms of people leaving trash behind burning pallets and we're hoping with these nighttime parking restrictions we can help mitigate some of those negative impacts that we're seeing on our environment while also allowing for public access during the day. With that, that concludes all my comments on the consent agenda and we'll um yield the rest of my time. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Hernandez. >> Thank you. I also want to congratulate Amy on her retirement and years of exemplary service and dedication. And I also like to give a big thanks to all of our everyone here from our community uh health centers. Um I also want to recognize uh our commissioners that take a role important role including our youth commission uh Khloe Shocker from the fourth district and Julio Andrade from for first five commission. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you, >> Supervisor Koig. >> Thank you, Chair. On item 26, requesting this board support for AB 635, a measure relating to enforcement of the mobile home residency law protection program. I do want to acknowledge that AB 635 has been amended since our board memo was submitted. However, none of these changes alter the core reason I support this bill, which is stronger enforcement for the mobile home residency law and better protection for our mobile home residents. And so, I'd recommend we move forward with our letter of support. On item 27, the youth commission appointment. I want to thank all 12 of the applicants who applied for the District 1 Youth Commission seat. Every one of them was impressive and wellqualified, which made this generally difficult decision. And to those who applied and weren't selected this time, I hope you will stay involved and apply again in the future. Because our community is stronger for your willingness to step forward. I'm pleased to nominate Aliia Marquez as our new District 1 Youth Commissioner as a sophomore at SoCal High, a varsity wrestler, and a band member with a real gift for foreign languages. Aliia brings energy and a genuine commitment to making our community the best it can be. What st stood out for me is her focus on making sure students feel who feel unheard have a voice and her practical ideas for expanding awareness of county mental health resources like the Esparonza Center, including reaching young people who don't have easy access to transportation. I'm confident she'll bring thoughtful perspective and hard work for the commission, and I look forward to hearing what she and her peers have to share. Congratulations, Aliyah, and thank you. On item 46, the $584,000 in Prop 36 funding for a contract with Sierra Health Foundation. I should do have just a a few questions on this. Um, if our HSA director is is available to answer those. Good morning, Connie Monopraza, HSA director. >> Great. Thank you for being here, Connie. Um, first question is, what is our total state allocation for this program, the Prop 36 response? >> So, I don't know if my partners from the sheriff uh are here, but that the only other thing I know is that is the allocation for the contract for the to expand capacity, dreaming capacity. >> So, so the the $584,000 is sort of the total amount that we could expect to see as far as state money. >> Yes. Um, and are there restrictions on the funding? I mean, was this a specific grant that we applied for or is it I mean, my understanding is there was a state bill that said made more money available to counties for adaptation to, you know, or deal with the impacts of Prop 36. Um, is that, you know, do you have to do we have to apply with uh for a grant to get those funds or are they formula based? >> It's it was in the governor's budget. It's an allocation that they do for counties. And the the great thing about those funds is that it it helps us to, like I said earlier, to build a treatment system to serve folks and keep them out of custody and or off the streets. >> Okay. Um and I mean it just seems like this is such such a high area of need. I mean, are we what makes you confident that that um this consultant is actually going to be doing the highest and best work as far as responding to, you know, the needs from Prop 36? >> Yeah. So whenever a contractor is selected, we go through a very thorough review and criteria for selecting uh based on their competencies, their training, their evidence-based practices. Prop 36 as uh the treatment system that exists in California has proven to be effective to work with that population. So we have confidence and trust. We will we do monitor the contracts regularly for the scope of work and deliverables. So if at any point in time we are not seeing the results that we expect um then we will definitely address it. >> Okay. Okay. I mean, could this money have be used for other kinds of programs like uh work programs or housing programs for the Prop 36 population? >> Um it it can like one of the areas that we are always looking for and I know you and I have had conversations about sober living environments or recovery um homes. So, we're looking to have an an existing uh treatment system that expands. as far as the uh allowable expenditures um is designed for treatment capacity because it is proven to be effective. Uh but we can definitely uh research and find out what other the other um allowable expenditures and get back to you. >> Okay. I mean that that's my hesitancy here is that you know we're taking this this money uh and and spending it on a consultant instead of you know ways to actively support housing or um uh you know treat specific treatment or work solutions for this population which I think might actually be more productive and I and I'd encourage us to think creatively about options for that going forward. >> We will definitely explore and get back. >> Thank you. Um on item 48, the million dollars in tenant assistance from HCD, I agree this is fantastic uh that we received this um this money and I would encourage staff to look at what LA did. Um they as far as I understand utilized a machine learning model to analyze administrative records from county systems including healthcare, mental health, public benefits, child family services, probation arrests, and prior homelessness services. They identified housed residents who appear at unusually high risk of becoming homeless within approximately the next year and then proactively called or sent letters to those residents, people who um do not need to have applied for rental assistance or contacted homeless services hotline first in order for this proactive outreach to occur. Um, and then if someone did choose to enroll, a human case manager provided roughly six months of rental assistance at about an average of $6,469 in flexible financial aid. So, um, maybe they'll let us fork the program uh, and implement it here. I think that'd be great. And I've heard that they've had some really great results uh, with this method of allocating tenant assistance. Um, finally on item 53, I just want to thank our uh public works division for their work on the emergency culvert replacement at Rodeo Mobile Estates. Um, and just to um sympathize with the need highlighted from some of our public speakers when I went to look at which covert was actually being replaced on our covert dashboard. Um, there were two others that are in poor condition and one more that has essentially failed in this exact vicinity. and the one that was replaced wasn't actually on the map. So, um there is a huge need out there and I and I do agree that we need to allocate more resources uh particularly to covert mason maintenance but to uh road maintenance in general. Thank you, >> Supervisor Deserpa. >> Um thank you. Um, I understand there's some controversy about um, PB fire coming in and reorganizing with CSA48, but I'll say that I have been a breast of this situation since the very beginning. Um, I watched carefully when the PB fire district went out for uh, Proposition 218 uh, in 2024. It did not pass. they came into a very difficult budget situation where their staffing on the on the fire trucks are not safe. So if everybody can think about where PV fire happens to be located, it's at the sort of the base of the Hecker Pass. There are many many accidents uh on that road. It is also the closest uh station to uh all of the um residents up on Mount Madonna. It's a very very important um public safety fire station. If right now they can only staff two people on the rig and that's not safe. If they if they come across a burning building, they cannot send somebody in to rescue anyone with only two people on the rig. So the staffing has to be improved to for public safety and for their own safety to three. Um we have um had several community meetings. We have vetted. There's an engineer report. I feel very confident that we've um held and had a very transparent process. Um and so I am uh supporting item 21 today. Uh item 26. Thank you Supervisor Koig for bringing forward important um protections for mobile home uh residents. Uh item 28, I'm very happy to appoint and uh honored that Dana Perez Garcia from Paharo Valley High School, go Grizzlies, um will be our youth commission, youth commissioner for district 2. Uh her interest lies in mental health for um for teenagers and students, and she hopes to uh lend her voice to help improve mental health across the county. So, thank you, Dana, for your interest. Item number 30. Um, thank you to Michael Weatherford, uh, who will continue to serve on, um, our community health commission. Uh, Michael is a former CFO of Stanford Hospital or Stanford Health and also has been, um, high up uh, in the Sutter um, family. So, he brings a lot of excellent experience. Um, item 40. I think I have a question on item 40. Is Dave here? Can you just answer a couple quick questions? Dave, just for the public. So, item 40 is a second um approve a second amendment agreement with a consultant, Sikitch, increasing compensation by $100,000 not to exceed 600. So, and expanding the scope of work um with regard to trying to pull back some FEMA reimbursement that we're owed. Could you just talk a little bit about our work with the consultant and if if it's been successful or how much we've recovered, how much is still outstanding? >> Sure. Um our consultant that we hired in August of 2024, um originally a 12-month contract, they've been able to stretch that original contract now almost two years. They've been um super supportive and select um and effective at supporting our CDI team as well as um O3 and some of our other divisions as well as the regional transportation commission in getting as much of the of the money that we're owed particularly in the space of work that has been completed. So for the 23 and 24 disasters in particular, um there's only one project that has about four sites of completed work for about $2 million that's been stuck in FEMA. All the other projects, particularly in the completed work category where we have spent money already um to repair those sites um has been obligated and paid by Calles. So we're doing pretty well in that sense. And then there's a body of work um in the to be completed work. So existing sites that CDI has spoken about in budget hearings and other opportunities around how we're going to evaluate how to repair those sites. So the consultant has helped us get over some of the environmental and pre historic preservation issues that FEMA has thrown at us, some of the contracting and procurement issues that they've thrown at us. So they've been an effective partner um for the county. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um uh like other colleagues, I want to thank the sheriff's department for moving uh their grant forward item 43 um through the California Department of Healthc Care Services um the Calamayan path. Um it looks like we're going after an additional three million over $3 million grant. So um I hope we get it. Um and then item 58 is Eureka Canyon Road. I under I I see that we were set to sort of complete the work at on Eureka Canyon Road, but there were some issues um with particular reports that were needed um in Nepa. Who's is Steve here? Do we have any roads people here? Maybe Matt. While we're waiting for director Mashado to come up, uh, I'll just say that um I I commiserate Northo Gulch is facing the same situation. I believe it's from the listing of the yellow-legged frog uh as threatened and that required us to go back and do a lot more reports. And so that impacted uh the Eureka Canyon project, the project uh in North G, but I'll let Director Mashado speak more to it. I know we're frustrated as well. Certainly. >> Well, we got a lot of criticism today for not prioritizing rural roads. And so, I'd like to say on behalf of District 2, I have prioritized rural roads. Um, since I've been in office, and this is one that I was really looking forward to completing. So, just for the public's sake, can you talk a little bit about what what this delay will mean, and when can we expect completion of those repairs? >> Sure. Um, good morning. Matt Machado, CDI director. Um, and Supervisor Koig really did nail it. It It's just some delays right now due to permitting. Uh, but we're confident that we'll get through that. And the good news is that the project's fully budgeted. Uh, we're going to see it through to the end. And so, that's really good news. And with regard to this board's prioritization of of all storm damage roads in the past eight years with eight major disasters, we've completed well over 330 project sites valued at well over $180 million. And so um your board in this county has prioritized storm damage. It's it it may never be completely complete because the magnitude of these disasters is just beyond uh really anything we can imagine and certainly beyond um our limited resources. But I will say that we're making great strides forward and the projects that are on the agenda today are are proof that we're committed, we're budgeted, and we're moving forward with them. >> That's great. One last question. So, if um all systems are go in December, I'm guessing we can't do the work in December because of the winter storms. >> Well, it will depend upon weather. Uh but if we have enough dry weather within the winter, we should still be able to get um some if not most of the work done. So, we'll just have to see how the winter goes and and just, you know, play it by ear of sorts. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks for coming up. >> Sure. That concludes my remarks. Thank you. >> Thank you, Supervisor Durpa. Good morning, everybody. I have a few comments. I want to start by thanking everybody who came to speak to us this morning. Um, I want to congratulate Amy Mesa on her retirement. Um, she's a true healthc care hero in this community and it was nice to recognize you along with many other strong women in our health safety net this morning. Um, in recognition of National Health Center Week and Breast and Chest Feeding Awareness Month, um, you know, we are at a time when our safety net is, um, under threat. And while we recognize these events annually, um now more than ever, it's important to lift up the life-saving work that happens in our safety net clinics and in our public health um with our public health partners because um they're doing more with less. And so I want to appreciate you. U keep up the great work and um you know we are with you now and hopefully our local residents will be with you at the ballot box in November to continue to protect your services. Um we did have public comment today regarding uh Mount Charlie Road. I'm not really going to respond to those comments today because that's not an item that's on today's agenda, but I have asked my staff to meet with those of you who are here today. um in the lobby or in my office to follow up and give you um the latest information on the county resources that have been allocated to that road um because there has been some activity in that direction. Um couple other comments. I would like to thank Supervisor Cummings for both item 31 and item 32. Um these are both efforts to protect our coastline. um and which is a valuable resource here in the Monterey Bay and across the state of California and is again under attacks from the Trump administration. And so now more than ever we need to partner regionally and locally to ensure that we're protecting our coastline. And um I appreciated the opportunity to meet with Congressperson Panetta along with um Supervisor Dura um yesterday at the Monterey Aquarium to really declare hands off our coast. So thank you for that. And finally um actually two more items. Item number 48. I just want to thank CDI Planning for um receiving the million dollars in home funding um that will help to provide some rental assistance to low-income households. Um I know that we give that to subreients and every dollar matters when it helps to keep people in their housing. And finally, I want to thank our appointee, Paige Hitchens, um, who is joining the youth commission. And also thank all of the applicants both from district 5 and across the county who, um, have gained the experience of participating in application process, an interview process. Uh, we were able to make some selections. We hope that those who weren't selected perhaps apply for next year since there'll be a new crew annually. and I'm really looking forward to hearing the um input of our county's youth in how our county can better serve each of them, all of them. So, with that, I'm going to conclude my comments on the consent agenda and look for a motion. >> Supervisor Durpa. >> Move to approve our consent agenda. >> Second. >> We have a motion from Supervisor Dura, a second from Supervisor Hernandez. Madame Clerk, will you please call the role? >> Supervisor Cummings. >> I. >> Hernandez. >> I. Koig >> I >> Durpa >> I >> and Martinez >> I motion passes five to zero. >> We'll now move on to our regular agenda and the first item on this morning's regular agenda is item number seven to consider a resolution providing for the issuance and sale of 2627 tax and revenue anticipation notes in an amount not exceeding $55 million and take related actions. And we have a presentation from the auditor, controller, treasur, tax collector office. >> Good morning, Chair Martinez and members of the board. I'm Laura Bowers, the auditor controller, treasur tax collector. To my right is Brian Howard, chief deputy auditor controller, and across from me is Peter Detliff's uh principal administrative officer. I'd also like to introduce across from me, Melissa Schik with KNN. Um KN&N and Melissa are serving as our municipal adviser on this note issuance. Um and Melissa and KN&N are replacing Suzanne Herrell with Herald Advisory Services who had worked with us for many many years in the past. And I just wanted to welcome Melissa here and thank her for joining us. Um, the item before your board today is uh a request to authorize the county auditor controller to proceed with the necessary actions to secure our annual tax and revenue anticipation note or tran in an amount not to exceed $55 million. This note is being issued because counties have inconsistencies between when property taxes are received and when expenditures are to be paid. Taxes are the county's largest funding source and are primarily received in December and April. Yet, the county begins paying budgeted expenditures as early as July 1st. This note, or TR, is normally issued at the beginning of the fiscal year, generally in early July, and paid off within 364 days with funds that are set aside during the year as tax reserves, tax revenues are received. However, this year is different because of the county significant cash flow issues. We needed to delay the issuance of the TR until we could ensure that adequate available cash would be on hand to make the final TR payment at the end of fiscal year 2026-27. As a reminder, the board took action on June 24th to move approximately $25 million into the general fund to ensure that enough cash would be available. This included having the risk fund pay back five million in its debt to the general fund early as well as transferring $20 million from the storm fund to the general funds reserve for natural disasters rather than using that $20 million to pay down the disaster lease revenue bonds. These actions were necessary because of the seriousness of the county's current financial situation. Regarding the method of sale for this year's TR, our municipal adviserss are recommending the notes be sold using a competitive sale. However, the resolution presented for the board's consideration does allow for the county to switch to a negotiated sale if market conditions deteriorate. The county's fiscal team will be making a presentation to standard and pores tomorrow to obtain a rating for the note. The county's past short-term bond ratings from rating agencies have been at the highest rating level, and no change in rating is anticipated. In addition to current year tax flow concerns, this trend also provides funding to cover a portion of the prior year tax delinquencies that the county has already dispersed to city and agencies, cities and agencies. Under the Teeter plan, the county distributes property tax revenues to the cities and agencies based upon total amount expected with no adjustment for unpaid or late tax payments. This provides those entities with consistent guaranteed cash flow and in exchange the county receives the penalties and interest on any delinquent taxes when ultimately collected. In summary, I request that you approve the recommended actions necessary to secure the 2627 tax and revenue anticipation note in an amount not to exceed $55 million. And that concludes my presentation. Both myself and Melissa Shik, our financial adviser, are available for any questions. Thank you. For this item, I'm going to start by going out to the public and then returning to the board for questions, discussions, and actions. Is there anyone here who'd like to speak on this item? Seeing no one, Madam Clerk, is there anyone on the phone? >> I see no speakers online. Chair, >> thank you. I'm going to return to the board for any questions or action. Supervisor Koig. >> Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um, obviously in support of the items today we need to issue the tran to just to deal with the natural es and flows of of money through the county. Um, but I do think that it's u really highlights our state of fiscal distress. Um, you know, particularly the borrowing that the general fund had to do from uh the disaster repayment fund. Um, I mean, this is money that essentially was that we we issued the disaster bond to do road work. FEMA started paying us back and we had to take $20 million of that that we'd received from FEMA and rather than pay back the bond, we are holding that money so that we have enough cash on hand to run the county. I mean, that is significant. Um, and so again, I just think it it it highlights the state of fiscal distress we're in. Um, and uh, I'm glad we finally qualified for this and can move forward. Thanks. >> Further comments? >> I have a comment. >> Supervisor Durba. >> Um, I I noticed I think it was brought to my attention, so I didn't catch this on my own, but that this year's issuance is about 13% higher than last year. C. Can you talk about why that might be? >> Yes. Um, for each TR issuance, we have to estimate what the county's most negative cash day will be based on prior year projected ending cash balance as well as the current year's budget. Um, you guys are all aware, you're all aware in the board that we uh balanced the budget in some ways by using reserves. So that meant that our expenditures did exceed revenues and our most negative cash day was more negative than it had been in the past, but it does fluctuate based on those projections. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> Thank you. Further questions or comments? I might just um share that, you know, I appreciate the work that goes into bringing this forward and I know that this is a a common practice for public agencies to meet their cash flow needs. Um like my colleague Supervisor uh Koig I think it does demonstrate however um the impact of our low reserves and really anything we can do to help build up those reserves will help avoid spending money on interest in the future. So um that's something that that I'm committed to doing and in our future uh budget years and um hope we can all participate. So with that, uh, I would accept a motion to accept the recommended actions. >> Also move second >> a motion from Supervisor Durba, a second from Supervisor Koig. Madame Clerk, will you please call the role? >> Supervisor Cummings. >> I, >> Hernandez, >> I. >> Koig, >> I. >> Durpa, >> I. And Martinez >> I. Motion passes five to zero. Thank you. We'll now move on to item number eight, which is to hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Moran Lake monarch butterfly habitat management plan, approve riparian exception, and issue bio biotic approval for the plan, approve the notice of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, and take related actions. And we have a presentation from Parks, Open Spaces, and Cultural Services. Welcome. And after you get settled, go ahead and introduce yourself. And you're welcome to begin. All right. Thank you. Uh, good morning, Chair Martinez, members of the board. My name is Rob Tidmore. I'm a principal planner with County Parks, and I'm here with Rebecca Hurley, our deputy director. We are pleased to present the Moran Lake monarch habitat uh excuse me Maran Lake monarch butterfly habitat management plan today which represents the culmination of roughly four years of work. And I'd like to thank uh the many community members, stakeholders, and county staff that contributed to this effort. See? Okay. Uh today I'll start with a background on the monarch habitat in Moran Lake and the importance of having an updated habitat management plan in place. Then I'll provide a history of the plan development, including the significant community and stakeholder input that shaped this plan. I'll discuss an overview of uh habitat management proposed by the plan, as well as recent and upcoming habitat management actions. Then I'll go over the environmental reviews and approvals that are needed alongside plan adoption. And I'll conclude by reviewing the six requested board actions. So why does this plan matter? Monarchs are cold-blooded, so they require protection from freezing temperatures to survive the winter. Western monarchs migrate from the western United States and southern Canada to California, where they overwinter at dozens of sites along the coast. The main overwintering season at Moran is October to February, but small numbers of butterflies are found from August to April. Moran is the third most important roosting site in Santa Cruz County behind Natural Bridges and Lighthouse Field and holds up to 5% of the statewide population. In 1997, 70,000 butterflies were counted at Moran Lake. In 2020, there was a low of 50. The numbers have rebounded slightly since that time, but the population is still dramatically reduced. Overall, there's a widespread 90% decline from the population numbers in the 1980s. Due to this widespread decline, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the monarchs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in December 2024. Uh, but a final decision has not yet been made and it is unclear how the current administration will rule on this. Um, in the proposed listing from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Moran Lake overwintering site is included as one of the five sites in Santa Cruz County that's designated as critical habitat, demonstrating the importance of this habitat. So, what can we do as a county? Municipalities with known monarch overwintering habitat develop plans known as habitat management plans to protect and manage this valuable biological resource. The Moran Lake monarch habitat management plan is the document that guides the county's management of the habitat. The management area covered by the plan is shown on the image on the left and covers the publicly owned property around Moran Lake. This includes the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District property surrounding the hatched area at the top of the screen. The hatched area represents the sanit the the DA Porath sanitation facility which is excluded from the management area. County parks owns the remainder of the management area shown in yellow. Anou between County Parks and Sanitation District was approved by the board in September 2025 and specifies that parks is responsible for managing the entirety of the habitat with sanitation responsible for funding the costs of management on their property. In general, there are four components of overwintering habitat. Roost trees where the monarchs overwinter and cluster through the through the the cold season. primary wind protection, which is provided by trees that surround the roost trees, which provides the majority of the wind protection and offer a diversity of sun and shade to allow monarchs to modulate their temperatures throughout the overwintering season. Secondary wind protection, which are trees outside of the main roost site that help slow wind, and nectar and water sources to sustain monarchs during their overwintering period. As a note, the limiting factors at Moran are the roose trees and the primary wind protection. The image in the middle of the screen shows the core habitat zone in purple on the north side of the sanitation facility. This contains the roose trees where the majority of monarchs overwinter. The areas outside of the core zone surrounding the hatched sanitation facility area provide the primary wind protection for the grove. The shelter habitat zone is shown in orange and comprises the secondary windbreaks, nectaring locations, and water sources that make this location ideal for monarchs. And the final image on the right shows how the habitat management plan breaks the entire management area into various zones. And I'll refer to these letters and names throughout the presentation today to describe specific areas. So, how did we get here? The original habitat management plans were created in 2006 and separated by jurisdiction. One for parks, one for sanitation. They were combined into a single plan in 2010 which was approved by the board in January 2011. That habit that habitat management plan has been in effect since that time. In 2021, parks received a US Fish and Wildlife Service grant to update the plan to reflect the latest science and guidance for monarchs. Our department hired a consultant team, including monarch expert Dr. Stu Weiss, who's one of the leading monarch scientists in the state of California, to research and update the plan. After the completion of the existing conditions report in 2022, county parks and our consultant team reviewed the draft findings with regulatory agencies and local monarch experts including staff from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, local entomologist John Dayton, the Xeries Society, California Coastal Commission, and County Environmental Planning. We held multiple meetings over several months to ensure that the plan accurately reflected sight specific data findings and best management practices. The draft plan was shared in summer 2024 via a community meeting, posted on the park's website, and sent via email to neighbors and project stakeholders. Comments were collected over a two-month period. Most comments focused on the need for increased tree management, proactive risk assessment, prioritizing public safety, and gaining a better understanding of the relationship between tree height and monarch habitat. And during the community meeting, this was one of the main things that became apparent as a missing component of the work to date. So to better answer these questions about the relationship between tree height and monarch habitat, uh Dr. Stu Weiss recommended conducting a wind study that was funded by first district supervisor, sanitation district, and parks. The wind study was started in fall of 2024 and was completed in May of 2025. Through the process, the consultants created a digital model of the tree canopy, buildings, and topography within the management area and used this model to simulate the movement of wind from various directions to understand how the existing tree canopy modulated the wind and impacted the monarch overwintering sites. They then ran multiple analyses of various tree height reduction scenarios to see how the tree height affected wind speeds within the monarch habitat, which is a limiting factor for overwintering monarchs. The general findings were that the existing tree heights could be reduced to roughly 80 ft without negatively impacting monarch habitat. These findings were then incorporated into the habitat management recommendations of the final draft plan. The draft plan was reworked to include the results of the wind study and to incorporate comments from the 2024 community meeting and public comments. Changes to the plan included prioritization of public safety in the habitat management, the addition of regular risk assessments, and proactive management actions. The revised plan was shared with the public at a community meeting in June 2025 and via email. Public comments were collected for three weeks. Most comments expressed general support for the increased management actions proposed under the plan, and a final draft was released in June of 2026 via email and the parks website. Now for an overview of habitat management. The three goals of habitat management specified by the plan are prioritization of public safety such as the identification and mitigation of hazardous trees, protection and improvement of monarch habitat such as planting trees in certain areas to add or replace tree canopy in the surrounding windbreaks and restoration of native species and habitat for biodiversity such as planting native riparian species along the edges of the lake and creek. These three goals are mutually beneficial because prioritizing public safety and preventing tree failures also protects monarch habitat. The diagram on the right outlines some of the specific habitat management actions recommended in the plan. Habitat management framework uh and this plan is organized by zone. You'll recognize these from an earlier slide. In the core habitat zone shown by the purple area again that's where the monarchs consistently cluster. Um, this area is comprised of densely planted eucalyptus that create an environment where most other tree species are difficult to grow. There is no feasible way to transition this grove to native species. So, this area will be managed to maintain uh optimum overwintering conditions for monarchs. To protect those monarchs, this area has the most restrictive work windows. No work is allowed to occur between October 1st and March 31st. Replacement trees within the core habitat zone include eucalyptus, red iron bark eucalyptus, or monterey cyprus. In the shelter habitat zone, again shown by the orange shaded area, this surrounds the core zone and buffers it from adverse weather conditions. The shelter zone has a restriction on tree work from October 15th to March 15th, so is slightly less restrictive. Replacement trees for the shelter zone will prioritize native species wherever uh feasible. Potential species include Monterey Cyprus, coastlive oak, island oak, Monterey pine, Tory pine, Canary Island pine, Toyon, and red alder. Eucalyptus species will only be planted where native replacement species have consistently failed. In general, shorter stature trees and trees that can withstand wind and coastal pressure will be planted along the southern boundary of the management area nearest the coast. As with previous iterations of the habitat management plan, the seasonal restrictions to tree work that I mentioned previously do not apply to emergency tree work that requires immediate intervention to address hazards. These will be addressed on an asneeded basis. The most important management action is to conduct routine risk assessments twice a year. Once in the summer and fall prior to the overwintering and winter storms to identify any immediate hazards and once in the spring prior to scoping treework for the upcoming summer. Additional risk assessments will be conducted during the winter as needed to identify any new hazards. One change from the previous management plan is to avoid the past practice of topping trees where the height is reduced by cutting the trunk off at a specified height. This negatively impacts the health of the tree and can lead to future maintenance issues as the tree regrows new shoots in a chaotic manner. The new approach is to prune the tree under guidance by an arborist to generally maintain the existing structure of the tree while still reducing end weight and branch length thereby reducing risk of failure. And finally, the habitat management plan outlines a adaptive management approach whereby identified hazards will be addressed quickly by trimming or removing trees to alleviate risk to the public and the monarch habitat and tree planting will be address identified habitat deficiencies and management actions will adapt to changing conditions. In parallel with development of the habitat management plan, county parks and sanitation have been conducting ongoing habitat management in the area. The county experienced a se severe wind event in February 2024 that resulted in the failure of hundreds of trees across the county, including 28 within Moran Lake County Park. In response to the failures, several trees near the failure areas were removed or significantly pruned, and all of the trees within the 40anway parcel were topped to reduce the risk of additional failures. Existing swailes and drainage features were improved in 2024 and 2025. And in December 2024, parks worked with over two dozen volunteers to plant 64 native Monterey cypress and white alder trees in the park as part of the effort to transition to native species. In the summer of 2025, parks received $300,000 from the county's risk management fund for tree work. All of the trees in the north and south uh south lakeside areas, that's areas B in pink and C in orange on the diagram below, were pruned. and all of the trees on the 40anway parcel area A2 in the bottom right of the diagram were removed and the site was regraded. The trees in the critical windbreak along Plaster Street area H also received minor pruning. Parks and sanitation district are working to secure additional funds for tree work, including measure Q to occur later this summer. Measure Q funds are expected to be identified by the board at the next board meeting on August 25th. The amount of tree work is dependent on funding, but will be prioritized based on the two habitatwide risk assessments and three area specific risk assessments that have been conducted by the county's consulting arborist within the last year. Depending on funding, the treework is expected to include priority areas identified by our arborist that did not receive trimming last year. areas E in the top right corner, A2 in uh on the bottom of the diagram, F again in the top right corner, and H in the narrow the green narrow area between the sanitation facility and Plaster Street. In addition, the 40 Moran Way parcel will be planted with a mix of native trees and shrubs to support monarch habitat and improve native biodiversity. The selective the the plan and the selected trees and species are shown on the right and they are adapted to the windy coastal conditions at the site that do not grow as tall as blue eucalyptus. And we plan to organize a volunteer day after the onset of rains. It is important to have long-term management objectives to guide these actions. So to best meet the three goals mentioned before, public safety, monarch habitat, native species, and biodiversity, the long-term objective is to eventually replace many of the eucalyptus around Moran Lake with native species once the replacement trees have reached a mature height. These will primarily consist of Monterey Cypress with some coastlive oak, pine, alder, and willows mixed in. Monterey Cypress is more suitable for this area in that it doesn't grow nearly as tall. It's tolerant of salt and coastal conditions and it works well in other monarch habitats. This will require ongoing planting and management of the native trees around the lake edges. And I think we all know this, but it it just may not be feasible to replace all the eucalyptus around the lake, but a reduction will still lead to a more sustainable and resilient monarch habitat that has the added benefit of improving native biodiversity. And as I mentioned previously within the core eucalyptus grove on the sanitation district property, it's not feasible nor recommended by the experts to replace the blue gum with native species. So this will be maintained as a eucalyptus grove into the future with some native species mixed in as appropriate to provide greater grove diversity and to fill in gaps in the canopy on the edges or as they develop. So now environmental review and approvals for the plan. The purpose of the habitat management plan is to protect and enhance monarch habitat. So the plan is generally considered to be protective of sensitive resources and have an overall positive impact on the environment. That said, the plan requires protective measures such as conducting bird surveys prior to tree work that occurs during the nesting bird season or by having an arborist and monarch butterfly specialist oversee emergency tree work during the overwintering season for any and all management actions to ensure that we are avoiding and minimizing unintended impacts to monarch and other sensitive habitat to the maximum extent feasible. The protective measures were developed in coordination with monarch experts, arborists, biologists, and county environmental planning staff. And those requirements are summarized in table six in the habitat management plan. The habitat management plan and the associated management actions were determined to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to class 4 minor alterations to land and class 7 protection of natural resources exemptions because the activities are limited in scope, protective of monarch and other sensitive habitat, conducted under professional oversight, and designed to avoid environmental impacts. A categorical exemption report is included in the agenda item which documents the environmental analysis that was performed to reach this conclusion and staff prepared a notice of exemption for the adoption and implementation of the habitat management plan. Similarly, the proposed actions contemplated by the habitat management plan are consistent with county policies and county code chapters 1630 and 1632 to avoid and minimize impacts to reparian corridors, sensitive habitats, and special status species. The habitat management plan exceeds the requirements for a biotic report and the protective measures serve as conditions of approval for a biotic approval of the plan. The findings required for a riparian exception are included in the staff report for this item. So to facilitate efficient permitting and habitat management, staff are recommending programmatic riparian exception and botic approvals for all actions and activities covered by the plan for a period of 5 years with authorization for administrative renewals afterward. And finally, some of the actions covered by the habitat management plan, such as vegetation removal, are considered development under the coastal act and therefore require a coastal development permit to approve um the habitat management plan. Typically, the county would issue the CDP for the plan, but portions of the management area fall within the original jurisdiction of the coastal commission and therefore the plan qualifies for CDP consolidation whereby the coastal commission issues the CDP. This streamlines permitting and staff recommend this approach. So, in conclusion, uh we recommend the following actions. Hold a public hearing on the proposed Moran Lake monarch butterfly habitat management plan. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, approve a notice of exemption under SQA for the adoption and implementation of the plan. Adopt the updated Maran Lake monarch butterfly habitat management plan. Approve a 5-year programmatic riparian exception for actions covered by the plan and issue a 5-year programmatic botic approval for actions covered by the plan. And finally, authorize the parks director at the conclusion of the five-year approval period to provide five-year administrative renewals of their riparian exception and biotic approval for actions and activities covered by the plan. Thank you for your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you'd like. >> Thank you for the presentation. For this item, we're going to start with questions from the board. Then we'll go out to the public for public comment and then we'll return to the board for discussion and action. I'll start with Supervisor Conig. Thank you, chair. Um, first I want to appreciate that the plan before us today really does a good job of balancing safety for the butterflies and safety for the public. Um, I mean, I'm we spent what, another year, year and a half working on this plan from when it was first debuted as a draft largely to make sure we got that piece of it right. um when it first came out um the push back we got particularly from from neighbors was you know this plan prioritized safety for the butterflies and really only kind of gives a nod to safety for the public but doesn't say how we're actually going to do that and so we went back and uh particularly the work that was done with the wind study while the wind study itself is not perfect it did provide a better understanding of where that balancing point is and basically it's around 80 ft right um >> you take 12 foot eucalyptus uh down to 80 ft. You're reducing a ton of the leverage that is exerted on it from a major wind event uh and makes the the neighboring residents a lot safer without uh reducing it to a point where um the habitat starts to be impacted. So I really appreciate that we did that work. Also appreciate um the uh the contribution from the risk fund last year and all the work that was done uh to really to begin to implement um those findings. Um, and it was done in a very um, beautiful way really. I mean, it would didn't like going by the grove afterwards. Didn't look like someone had just gone through uh, with a chainsaw and hacked everything to bits. It was it was done more by like a Zen master um, type approach to canopy maintenance. And um, I I think it did a good job of striking a balance. Um, also really appreciate the work that we've done with the replanting. um now a couple years ago. Um I think that was a good solid uh first effort to start to get more native plants in the area. Uh just a few questions. So um uh it sounds like we're going to have a bit of a discussion around funding uh at our next meeting, you know, particularly whether the measure Q funds could be used as a source for some additional work. Um but right now and you you did answer the question of um you know we're looking at areas E F and A2 as far as additional potential work this year. That's that's great. I mean those are all the areas that I'm aware most need work as well. Um if the funding becomes available, how quickly could we mobilize more work? >> Uh great question. So um one of the challenges of conducting tree work at Moran is there's multiple overlapping restrictions. So we have nesting bird season which typically goes until September 15th and then our you know the monarch season in the core habitat zone starts October 1st. So um and folks from sanitation who have been dealing with this issue for years can speak to the challenge of this. And what we've learned from them is that um the the best time to schedule that tree work is from September 15th to October 1st or October 15th depending on when it happens because this is the the one window when all the restrictions align for you to us to actually do the work. So, we've we have a great relationship with Lewis Tree Service um as the company that does much of our tree work. They have a long history with Moran. And so, our maintenance superintendent um has worked with them to say, "Hey, you know, we don't know exactly how much or where the work that we're going to do is is going to happen, but it will occur from September 15th to October 15th. Please reserve this time for us to do that." So, we're we're intending to do the work during that 2 to four week period. >> Okay, that's great. uh that we have a special relationship and that they have well reserved capacity for us during that uh narrow window. Um you know we've had a plan in place actually since I mean as you said 2010 2011 um and the plan has more components than just the trees right I mean it really looks at supporting an environment for the butterflies in the area including uh food sources like um like ivy. Um I'm just wondering what training is done for maintenance staff on the the habitat program. >> Yeah, great question. So um I think one thing that's unique about monarch habitat that a casual observer such as myself when I was new to parks, you know, you walk through a habitat and you see all these invasive species such as eucalyptus, English ivy, and cape ivy. And you go, well, this is ridiculous. We should be getting rid of these terrible invasive species. But the the truth is English ivy and cape ivy both flower during the winter and provide really important nectaring sources for the monarchs. So, um, one of the things we work on our maintenance staff with is training them on the importance of these two species in particular and making sure that, um, we don't inadvertently remove some of those that provide the important habitat. Um, you know, we also, um, our one of our staff works with our consulting arborist, um, participates in the tree assessments with them and walks around and is is starting to learn and and get familiar to the habitat and so that during a winter storm, we can observe any major changes to the habitat and alert our arborists to come out and take a look at them. I think the habitat in itself is is functions quite well. There's there's, as you noted, there's good water source, there's good nectaring sources as well. And so the one of the main things that we do is is look for changes in the habitat. >> Okay. Um I yeah I just think we need to double underline that and make sure that that maintenance staff are aware of um the special place they're taking care of. I mean I have heard that we've cut back the ivy um in the past. And while that sort of zealousness which is appreciated in pretty much every other county park, right, this is a unique uh space and a unique set of circumstances. We actually need the ivy as a food source for the butterflies. Um so let's just make sure our maintenance staff know that. I think that also some b um some bushes that were planted on the 40 manor man way parcel may have been inadvertently cut uh this year during during regular mowing. So um need to think about that as well. Um and then you mentioned potentially a volunteer day after it rains. Um you know when where and how many trees we plan to native species we plan to install next. >> Yeah. Um I can go back to that plan. the the the when I can't answer um because I don't know when it's going to rain unfortunately. Um but typically like the the planting that we did and as you remember Supervisor Koig in December of 2024 that was scheduled for December 7th. Unfortunately it hadn't rained a significant amount at that time and the ground was very hard and we had to bring out an excavator to dig the soil. So we really want to try to avoid that approach given the number of trees that we're planting. Um, in this case, 108 trees are are uh specified for this parcel. Um, and so as the winter season develops and we get a better sense of when it rains, we'll we'll reach out to your office and neighbors and and volunteers to to let people know when that uh that planting day is scheduled. But hopefully sometime in early December. >> Okay. And that's 108 additional trees or about 60 70 trees because we already planted I think 40ish, right? So the the 64 trees that were planted were in um on the in the diagram on the screen on the left in the the pink area, area B um and in area A2 um in the sort of light colored orange. The 108 trees are proposed for area uh A1 which is the bottom sort of dark orange on the screen and that's what's shown on the plan in front of you. And in general at an early stage like this, we tend to overplant, meaning that we don't expect there to be 108 mature trees in 20 or 30 years on the parcel. But as always happens, you have failures in a restoration type project. And so we overplant expecting the need to remove some trees proactively moving forward to create space for them to grow. >> Gotcha. All right. Well, that's great. That's a significant number of trees. Um, and then finally, what are the next steps here in addition, you know, besides the besides the tree work, the the pruning and the planting that we plan to do? I mean, are we uh going to be taking this habitat management plan and applying for uh for grants to improve um the lagoon, for example, or other other elements of this park? >> Great question. Um we are always actively looking for grant sources to fund our work um that will happen um for this habitat management plan work. the the lagoon. Um the restoration of the lagoon, one one thing we want to do this winter as well is plant native willow species along the banks of the lagoon. Um it'll be a little bit of a trial and error because the the lagoon is very saline and so that can be difficult for willows to survive in that environment, but it's it's worth an attempt to see if they will take because they'll provide significant bank stabilization. Uh and I do expect that we'll get some survival farther um upstream in the lagoon where there's more fresh water. Um the restoration of the lagoon is is more tied to the work that we're doing with sea level rise analysis on East Cliff as part of the coastal conservancy funded grant where we're looking at Moran Corkran and Schwan lagoons. Um, we know that when we went to the coastal commission to talk about replacing the parking lot and restroom at this site, one of the things they were they required of us before they would issue a coastal development permit for that was to look at the impacts of sea level sea level rise on that parking lot and on the lagoon. So, we expect uh this sea level rise study for East Cliff that we're conducting to identify a preferred alternative for Moran for a long-term solution to sea level rise in the next 18 months or so. Once we have that, then we'll be we'll be well positioned to go after more significant grant funding to fund the design and construction of of those improvements. >> Got it. Thank you very much. >> Welcome. Thank you. Any further questions, Supervisor Cummings? >> Yeah, it was good. The one of the questions I did have was about whether or not you were overplanting because there more than likely will be some mortality. So, it's good to hear that that's going to be happening. Um, I guess so there's the A1 parcel that's that was on the map and I recently drove by there and like all the trees are removed and it looks like there's a picture of it's like graded and removed. So, what's the plan for that parcel? Are we going to replant trees there as well or is that going to be converted to some other like a park use or what's the plan for that? Because it seems like, you know, you have this island of houses that were kind of, you know, surrounded on two sides by two eucalyptus groves. One of which there was a lot of trees that fell and fell on some houses. Um, the other one of the sides of it, I think there's still some housing that's there. And then you have the road, right? So, what's what's going to be the plan for that parcel? Yes, thank you for that question. So the the plan for that parcel is actually shown on the on the screen in front of you. When we say 108 trees will be planted, that's the area A1 that that those trees are planned for. Um so you can see on the screen there there historically has been sort of informal pathways that provide uh neighborhood circulation um from the Moran Way Street to East Cliff Drive. Those will be recreated on site. You can see the those informal pathways shown on the screen. We'll install uh four benches and some signage. And then the the majority of the site um since when the board purchased the site, it was for the purpose of monarch habitat preservation, the majority of the site will be devoted to the the native planting that I described earlier. >> Got okay. That's all I had. >> Thank you. >> Oh, and I guess the last question, sorry. Um well, it's more of a comment. the fill in with native species. Just wanted to better understand that a little bit, especially as it relates to the eucalyptus grove because what we as a plant biologist, one of the things that we notice in terms of eucalyptus groves and many people who walk through them is there's very little to no biodiversity under eucalyptus because there's the potential for alilopathy and all these chemical interactions with native species or species in general. So, I'm just wondering how that's going to be accomplished because it seems like uh I just I I just want to make sure we're not wasting our resources on, you know, trying to attempt something that many of us know may not be achievable just given the interactions that this invasive species has with many native plants, which is why we don't see native species recruiting in those understories. >> Correct. Um yes. Uh great question. I'm going to try to find an image representing this uh properly. Okay. So, um the image on the left in this screen is showing uh the northern bank of Moran Lake where there's the trail that connects to 30th Avenue. Um the eucalyptus in this area, you can see the the canopy on the left side of the screen. There's roughly 60 to 80 feet in this zone that is is not shaded and covered by eucalyptus. That is true for um some of the this entire pathway as it goes back towards the sanitation facility. So where there are gaps in the in the eucalyptus canopy, that's where we're planting the native species. Um in along the lake, um as I mentioned, the the act the core grove, that sort of dense area surrounding uh the sanitation facility. So in the very top of the screen, as you noted, that's a that is a very dense grove of eucalyptus where um there has been efforts in the past to try to plant native species such as Monterey Cyprus. Um like you said, it's not really feasible to transition that grove to to native species. So the the goal essentially long-term goal is to maintain that as a eucalyptus growth. Understanding the the sort of impossibility of transitioning that to native species without negatively impacting monarchs. There has been a couple Monterey Cyprus that have been able to establish in that area. They provide uh really nice low-level roosting areas and so we'll continue to do that um here and there, but it it will continue to be a eucalyptus grove into the future. >> And just one brief comment, thanks for that. is that um through having conversations I've been out there with some um folks who study butterflies and one of the the unique aspects about some of these areas where we find the monarchs is the fact that you have this kind of donut hole-shaped grove similar to what we have down natural bridges and that has been found to be a key structure that actually provides better habitat for monarchs and so I just think that maintaining that is a good way forward in terms of trying to make sure that um you we maintain that monarch habitat at that site. So, thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, a couple quick questions. Uh, the plan calls for monthly or bimonthly if possible butterfly census counts. How is that done? Who does those? >> Yeah, that's a great question. So, the thankfully um there are a lot of dedicated volunteers and community members in our area who volunteer with the Xerxes Society with with Sierra Club. Um, I'd like to give a shout out to John Dayton in particular, who is a local monarch expert who's been doing research out at the site for 30 years or so. Um, and so those those counts are done by the Xers society and other stakeholders. Um, to date, parks has not actively participated in those counts simply due to lack of resources and expertise to do that. So, we really rely on uh volunteers from and staff from these other agencies to do that work. >> Great. That's that's great that they're doing that. Um, another question about the plan. It says that hillsides, vegetation, including trees and structures on private property immediately adjacent to the management area also provide critical windbreak to the habitat. Um, so those aren't under county jurisdiction. So does that mean that private property owners are responsible for the costs of managing their properties consistent with the actions described in the wind shelter um or described for wind shelter and are they coordinating with us? Is there any followup on that? >> Yeah. Uh, great question. So, the the management area is just for the publiclyowned property. However, county code such as 1632 for sensitive habitat protection does govern actions on private property. So, private property owners are expected to coordinate with environmental planning staff to have, you know, proposed tree work or removals, trimming, um, reviewed by an arborist. Um, typically they they come to us and they have the county's uh uh monarch butterfly specialist review those as well and then environmental planning will issue a permit uh for that work. >> Thanks. That's that's really informative. All right, seeing no further questions, I'd now like to take this item out to the public. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to speak on this item? Welcome. Come on up. I'm going to set the public comment period at two minutes each. So, um, I'm very invested in the butterflies. Love the butterflies. I can actually hear the owls through my walls. I live in between E and F. You are um responsible for the management of those trees. Uh it doesn't look like we were um included in your plan for the monarchs, but recently uh you may be able to see in the picture, you can't see my home anymore because my home is completely covered by the trees. It's gone halfway into my property and has the trees without the wind have beun to destroy things as debris falls from the trees and um uh has actually even fallen on my dog. So, we've been sending you emails. We are very very concerned now with the coming El Nino that there be a plan for our part of the park as well. So, it looks like you need to do this in a very small time frame. We've been emailing you to ask you when that will be done. Um, the most we've heard is that it will be done. Um, but we continue to be um pushed back. Is there a plan for the non uh included part of your monarch plan for the residents in the area to keep us safe on the back part of the park? So during public comment period, there's not um time for back and forth, but when it comes back to the board, a board member may ask for a response to the question. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Anyone further in the room? >> Please form a line so we um can expedite the process. Thank you. >> Uh hi Mike Guth. I've been coming to this room usually holding a picture like this of the Moran habitat. for talking about Moran Butterflies since I was in my 30s and I'm now in my mid60s. Uh before I critique some of this stuff, I want to start by making sure I acknowledge Rob Tidmore. Uh he met me because he received a 25page scathing critique or the first draft of this plan and didn't know me. And boy, have we come a long way and he was the one after 20 years of inaction that was able to get parks to finally start planting trees a year and a half ago. So, thank you so much for that. Um, I was here when the board of supervisors uh adopted the first plan in 2011 after 5 years of significant public work. All in reaction to large amounts of losses, all unpermitted in the late 90s, all documented in county records. Very little was done in for code compliance or any of those kinds of things. Um, John Dayton wrote a treatise on Moran. It's a great thing kind of came the source of the habitat management plan in 2010. It said we need to plant more trees to replace these ones are lost. Too much wind is getting in. We need to manage runoff because infill is now running water into these tree lines making the soil soggy and they're falling over in the wind and we need to safety prune and remove bad trees. That was in the plan 15 years ago. This is nothing new. What we need to do is plant the trees really. And the biggest cough law with regard to not getting trees planted is the county. It keeps removing trees. It's required under sensitive habitat and it's in place planned or to mitigate, but they delay for decades. It takes 10 years for a tree to become effective and 25 to 30 years for it to have full function according to your own scientific documents in support of this plan. Let's let's just adopt this so we can go get money. But keep in mind, even without grant money, we have responsibilities to do planning for past losses. Again, I want to thank Parks and especially Rob Tidmore. >> Thank Supervisor Koig for his support all along. Thank you all. >> Hi there. >> I'm Roland Jones from Plaster Street and um I like your report. It's very detailed. I just would say that two things. One is I live in Plaster Street with these giant trees behind me. They're like 160 feet. They look like to me. Some of them are two giant uh trees on one base. Okay. Fortunately, the wind is blowing against us. I really am uh was appreciative of the trimming that you did. However, they're still gigantically tall and the literature I think says they can grow five or six feet per year. So I was concerned when we heard about not trimming them lower. That's I think very very worrisome. Um yeah, everyone in the street sweating bullets. Okay. They last one tore down houses, crushed houses, ripped out the power line which was flapping around in the middle of the road. It was pretty nerve-wracking. Um the other problem with I think the eucalyptus as Mr. Cummings has said it it kills all the plants. I've tried to plant a few some seeds for um plants that the butterfly would like for food, but I have to plant them in buckets relatively small because the eucalyptus kill everything around it and it rains stuff in my backyard all the time and the trees are overhanging somewhat into the yard. But anyway, the eucalyptus while they help the wind, they also are killing the food supply. And I was thinking that we didn't address what is the critical factor in bringing the butterflies back. Certainly is their environment, but also their food supply. Okay. Thank you. >> Good morning. My name is John Martin and I live on Plaster Street. Also, I'm going to start off with a couple of questions uh from a a neighbor of mine who couldn't be here. Uh the first is that uh according to the plan, I guess it was the arborist uh Mr. Guestner, is that right? Was he the arborist as part of this writeup? Um on page eight of the plan, he says, uh reduce height of the trees to help reduce the risk of stem failure, reduce the risk of failure of contacting the residents. Um reduce the height by approximately 25% where possible. Will the county allow residents to pay to have trees already topped but are still too tall and would hit their house if failure should occur? In other words, can we pay to have an arborist do the job since money seems to be the problem? Right? Would that be possible? Um, and also she has concerns about reassessing the dangers of these trees, especially after this winter's predicted bad storms coming in. Um, finally, my issue would be Rob was talking about 80 feet being uh the height for the trees and we know that on Plaster Street those heights, as Roland said, are well over 100, 120, 140, 160 feet estimates. That's not 80 feet. So if we could this fall from September 15 to October 15th get on those street those trees that are on Plaster Street that would be fantastic. I mean we've talked about that before about uh this is going to be the year that we're going to actually trim them. So I' I'd really like to hear a push for that. All right. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Carolyn Burke, CDI, assistant public works director and here representing Santa Cruz County Sanitation District. And I just wanted to express my gratitude to Rob, Rebecca, and their team on the collaboration on this habitat management plan. I think it's going to be a major benefit to the monarchs to have um unified uh implementation of the plan. And I want to thank Supervisor Koig for your assistance and support with the wind study so that we can more effectively deal with um some of our challenges. And I do want to recognize that it's a challenge with pulls in many directions. And Rob has done an excellent job just being um in constant communication with the community and with ourselves. So just want to say thank you. Thank you for this report. My name is Becky Stein Bruner. Um I am aware that in other areas of the county with eucalyptus groves, there are populations of solitary roosting bats in them. So I would like to know if that issue was addressed in any of the surveys. Um, I also have noticed recently the monarchs are already beginning to return. Here we are in August. So having a date of September 15th may actually be uh cutting into the time when they are already here. So how flexible is that date? I know it's uh we're trying to match a lot of overlays, but with different weather patterns, um I'm seeing a lot of migratory animals arriving early. The eucalyptus trees that have been topped are going to need continual maintenance. And this is because when you top a tree, it sprouts. And those sprouts turn into branches that are very weak at the joining of the main trunk. those will become hazards to those who live around them. And so what uh built-in annual maintenance is going to be done for those areas that have already been topped. Um I want to thank Supervisor Cummings for bringing up the issue of um the a eucalyptus not allowing anything to grow under it. How will we establish alternate species like the cyprress in the areas where there is that it's called a leopathy um happening due to the eucalyptus there and I also would not want to see um waste of money on trees when it just will not work because of this issue. Who is the tree supplier? I hope that it's a local nursery, a local supplier, so that we're um using our local businesses in this effort. And my final question is, who is our county's butterfly specialist? Thank you. >> Seeing no one further in the room, Madam Clerk, is there anyone on the phone? >> Yes, chair. Tim, your microphone's now available. >> Thank you again so much for allowing me to speak. Um, yeah, th this is awesome science all day long. You know, the the women in the very beginning and uh right now with the monarch butterflies and everything, I I really really appreciate all the communication back and forth. It's tremendous and and honestly the the Trump administration could learn from that because you know we all know you know what's going on with their aircraft carriers and lack of food and hygiene and water and getting into a war when you don't have enough offensive and defensive military uh ordinance to fight the war which is remarkably stupid. So they could learn a lot and um you know the comments regarding timeline that I just heard there. Yeah, keep in mind again I always mentioned 8283 winter and I was skiing deep powder on Mount Rose in the middle of September in 1982 and I didn't stop skiing until mid July and that's only because I was tired of it. So, you know, looking at this big picture here, I I think uh there's a lot on your plate and a lot to consider with regards to things like the monarch butterflies and whatnot in order to get it right. So, those are my thoughts. Um so, I just wanted to say that I think that think uh all the talk here was fabulous and I really appreciate it. Thank you so much. You take it easy. >> Call in user one. Your microphone is now available. >> I appreciate the comments of the speakers. Many questions are raised in my mind here. You spoke of elements of the habitat and to me this is like trying to put a band-aid on a gushing wound. And uh there are factors of the environment that are creating disasters. One of them being geoengineering and I want to refer to geoengineeringwatch.org and just one section here. Geoengineering is contributed contributing to unprecedented species die offs. We are now in the sixth great mass extinction on our planet with up to 300 species of plant, animal, and insect insect extinctions every single day. This is 15 times the background extinction rates. Another factor is the radiation and referred to a document bees, birds and mankind destroying nature by electromog. All the cell towers, satellites, wifi, antennas are contributing to the demise of all life, including the monarch butterflies. Unless this larger picture of destruction by corporate interests is addressed, we are left with utter destruction. It has to be stopped. The monarch butterflies are >> Jean Rockelbank and Michael Lewis. Your microphone's now available. >> Yeah. Hello. Um, Michael and I both wholeheartedly support the implementation of this habitat management plan. Um, terrific appreciate the terrific work by parks staff, the work by our supervisor Manu Koig and everyone involved, all the volunteers and everyone involved. And mostly I'd like we'd like to say I will say for both of us that it is so good to see the county of Santa Cruz focusing on adaptation and resilience. Adaptation and resilience. This is the way of nature. Truly a good nature-based habitat management plan. Congratulations all. Thank you. iPhone 9, your microphone is now available. >> Hi, my name is Sarah Matsumoto and I am also a community member. Um, our property is just adjacent to Moran Lake Park. And I also want to really appreciate the county and the park staff and all the uh nonprofits like Xerxes who have been um working hard to create the balance between monarch protection and you know larger habitat and ecosystem protection and public safety. Um, so I know that, um, you know, there's long been a need to that is outlined in the plan, a need to do more, um, native planting and, um, watershed runoff work in uh, Moran Lake. And um so I'm really hoping that this plan um uplifts that and highlights that and that the um county will now put funding towards it because um we really want to ensure that all the actions in this plan are actually um funded and implemented. And so I'm hoping when it turns back to the council that um that folks can talk about the the plans to fund and implement this. I really urged you to to make this plan a reality. Thank you. >> I see no further speakers online. Chair, >> thank you. I'll now return to the board for discussion and action. Supervisor Koig. >> Thank you, Chair. Um so just a couple of quick follow-up questions that we heard uh from the public. So uh in the so we will first of all to the last comment uh have a discussion about funding at our next meeting. Um so stay tuned for that. Um it's not the context of today's meeting. Um if the work is funded would the um overhanging area between zones E and F be considered for tree work? >> Yes. very short answer to your question is yes. I I did want to uh clarify something because I think there's some there's some plan graphics that may be confusing um some neighbors because I did get an email with this question last time. Um well, I guess I was hoping for a larger graphic. Oh, there we go. Okay, here we go. All right, one second, please. Okay. Um so I think uh the the first uh speaker was saying there's areas of the habitat management that are not covered by the plan and I think um that misunderstanding is coming from the fact that there's areas surrounded in yellow outside of the FNE areas that are not covered by the the graphic blurb and the it's really just a graphic uh indication of the different zones. Um the all of the trees in the FNE zone are in the top three priority areas for tree work this coming fall. So should the board allocate sufficient funding and the sanitation district allocate sufficient funding, those areas will be pruned. Uh we did get a arborist report from those neighbors um commenting on those risks. We had our arborist go out and assess them and there's a specific risk assessment for those trees where he recommends some pruning work. So given funding, we will we will do that work. >> Okay, great. Thank you. you. And then the second question was about uh plaster street trees being reduced in height. I think you did mention that plaster street was another priority um area h there and I think we had sort of some leftover funds where we started work there um a couple of years ago and so it wasn't really sort of the full work envision for the area. Um would we go back and trim those trees to a lower height if uh the funds are available this year? >> Yeah. So you're correct. There was those trees were trimmed in a in a small extent last year and I know the sanitation district has spent, you know, a lot of funds and effort over the years keeping that that area of trees pruned. Um yes, if there's sufficient funding, we will go in and prune those trees. I do just want to reiterate that um past practice of topping those trees say to go from 160 foot tall down to 80 feet um is not something we're recommending and and moving forward with in in the future per uh Becky's comment regarding the the sprouts that form. And so I just want to manage expectations when we go in there and we do that pruning work. It'll be in the same manner that was done last year at B and C where it there's not an obvious dramatic reduction in that tree but the overall height and weight will be reduced but in a manner that is consistent with you know best our burst practices. >> Right. Yeah. I think uh in B it was something like a 25 or 30% reduction in overall weight. So that probably dramatically reduces the the uh leverage that wind would apply to the tree uh without necessarily taking down the the top of the tree whatever to the maximum possible point. >> Correct. Yes. >> Um and then the final question was could private residents fund additional work if needed or desired. >> That is a that's a great question. Um I don't I don't know the exact answer to that. I know in the past when a say for in in the in the park area where a tree branch has overhung private property, we have allowed private property owners to go in and trim the portion of the tree that is overhanging their property. That's that's allowed under under state law. whether or not the county would support private property owners paying for um you know additional tree work beyond that point. Typically when people have asked that of us, we've always deferred to our arborist to uh provide recommendations because we don't want to conduct the work that's not recommended by the arborist, but I don't know if you have any additional thoughts about >> No, I I'll I'll just add um that I think that certainly just with other endeavors that we've done with county park friends, if there was a group of neighbors that wanted to come together to fund raise to put together um you know, some funds available for that tree work, we certainly could work with them on doing such things, >> right? Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think as long as it's in the plan, right, there's no real problem with with accepting funds to do additional work, especially if it's the county's arborist executing the work. Um, and certainly, I mean, I know idea has been considered that um, even potentially maybe this is an option for a CSA in the area um, so that that all the residents contribute some amount to the upkeep um, going forward. But um, yeah, so short answer, yes, private citizens could contribute. Thanks. Um, those are all my questions and in the interest of time I will move the recommended actions. >> I I'll second. And I do have one more question. Go ahead. Um, I was walking along the harbor recently and noted that there are big colonies of I think they're corrants that are um, nesting up in the eucalyptus that you know border um, the Back Harbor in particular. And I'm so sorry I didn't read every page of this hundreds of pages of report, but um was there consideration taken into other species or that may be needing protection? >> Yes. >> This area? >> Yeah, thank you for that question. Um we don't see the the roosting of corrant specifically in in Moran like you do in other areas. Um primarily because I think the lagoon is just too saline and there's not a you know an abundant supply of fish in the area. Um, that said, there are there certainly are other bird species that nest in those trees. It's part of the reason why when we began to do work uh last summer, there was a Cooper hawk nest uh found in area B. Um, and we had to delay the work until uh I want to say August or September until the the chicks had fledged. So, that is part of the consideration. That's why we recommend waiting to do the tree work until September 15th to avoid impacts to um other species, particularly birds. >> Thank you. Yes, >> we have a motion from Supervisor Koig and a second from Supervisor Dura. Further comments? I'll just um add my appreciation to the years of hard work that's gone into this plan. Um, you know, worldwide we know that insect populations are declining and this has um a major impact on sustaining ecosystems and supporting, you know, our food sources and really um our natural environments. And so this is an important responsibility of the county and I'm glad that we're taking it seriously. Um, in although this isn't in my district, in my neck of the woods, we also um care a lot about preserving um pollinator gardens and native species. In fact, there's a um the Valley Women's Club annual native plant sale at Highlands Park on September 26th where you can learn more about this um and how to support our um pollinators in Santa Cruz County that folks would be welcome to. Um so with that, we have a motion and a second. No further discussion. Madam clerk, will you please call the role? >> Supervisor Cummings >> I. >> Hernandez >> I. >> Koik >> I. >> Durpa >> I. >> And Martinez >> I. Motion passes five to zero. Thank you again for your hard work. At this time we'll be calling item number nine which is to consider reports on the affordable housing impact fee nexus studies and inclusionary housing feasibility study. direct staff on next steps in the work plan to implement housing element programs H3H and H3J and take related actions and we will be receiving a report from community development infrastructure planning. So go ahead and get yourself settled, introduce yourself and um we look forward to the presentation. >> Great. Good morning, board, uh, Chair Martinez, supervisors. Um, we're pleased today to present the affordable housing feasibility and nexus studies. These studies um, analyze our inclusionary rates for new development as well as our affordable housing impact fees. The studies were prepared by Ka Kaiser Marsten Associates who also prepared similar studies in 2014. and also studies for the city of Santa Cruz and other communities. They're very familiar with the economic and housing conditions in the county. Um, Ka Marston is a leading California firm specializing in it uh real estate advisory services, affordable housing policy, land use economics, and infrastructure financing. With us today is Kathleen Hed who is president of KMA and has been doing this type of work for over 40 years. Also with us today is Suzanne Eay, principal planner of our housing section slide. I don't have a clicker. Thank you. Okay. Um just as as a reminder, the um there are two programs in the county's uh housing element that direct the work that we're presenting today. Program H3H was included in the housing element to maintain a solid legal foundation for looking at our uh housing impact fees and also at the inclusionary zoning program. Nexus studies are required by the California Mitigation Fee Act whenever localities impose fees on new development or make changes. The feasibility study provides a basis um for looking at the inclusionary rates um and should provide a foundation for any decisions made today. slide. As a little bit of background, we wanted to um give you an overview of how our current program works. Um this is regulated in county code chapter 1710 um and implemented by our affordable housing guidelines. um new development is required um to if you're an ownership project of 1 to six units um then you pay the affordable impact fee which is per square foot. Ownership projects that are larger seven or more units must provide the 15% inclusionary units on site or a county approved alternative. and rental projects may pay the fee or provide the units on site. Um, as you know, heard a lot about uh density bonus law. This interacts with chapter 1710. Um, most rental projects are going to pay um uh I'm sorry, we'll provide the uh bonus units on site in order to get the concessions and the waiverss that is allowed under uh density bonus law. So, they're providing the affordable units anyway to get those. Um, and the county's code allows um a uh 40% bonus for ownership um projects that meet our standard. Now, I'll turn it over to uh Kathy Hed who will present the findings in the report. >> Good morning board members. Um as as Stephanie mentioned, I'm Kathy Head from Kaiser Marston. Um we can just move the next slide please. Um, so I just wanted to start off with a discussion of the foundational concepts that are guiding inclusionary housing ordinances in the state of California. The the big ones are the 2009 Palmer case from the city of LA that ended up prohibiting rental inclusionary entirely um due to Costa Hawkins regulations. Um, in 2017, the state legislature adopted AB1505, which restored that authority to provide inclusionary for rental. However, they also put on some restrictions that apply based on how you've met your arena, etc. That said that you have to evaluate the feasibility of reinstating a 15% affordable housing production requirement. And that's why we did the feasibility study. That's why we're engaged to do it. um 2015 there was the San Jose case which um really led to 2017 AB505 which was to say that inclusionary is a planning tool not an exaction and it also said in that court case was that the obligation cannot be confiscatory and it cannot deprive a property owner of a fair and reasonable return on their investment. They did not define what that meant. So as a policy I've done I've done plus or minus 50 inclusionary housing ordinances over the past decades and we try to take a conservative approach in our analysis to to avoid that confiscatory nature. Next slide please. So what we did first is as in our analysis is we created prototype ownership housing developments and rental developments to analyze the impacts created by the imposition of affordable housing pro requirements on those developments. The reason we do that is we want to look at the types of projects are actually being developed in your jurisdiction. So no two inclusionary analyses are the same. They really are tailored to to each market in which we're working in. So we do market surveys um to get property values. We look for market sales prices and rents and then using your existing policies that you have. We calculated affordable sales prices and affordable rents. So we didn't do anything to those metrics than what you're already doing in your in your policies. And then what we do is we prepare proforma analyses to evaluate the impacts created by the imposition of the affordable housing requirement because by having an affordable housing requirement you're by definition lowering the income either the sales price or or the rent that's being achieved. So it has an impact and the courts have said you can do that. You just can't be confiscatory. So what we did in this analysis is we established benchmark feasibility and what we did is we said we looked at a market rate project and then we said okay to avoid this confiscatory nature we established that it couldn't create more than a 30% reduction in what somebody' be willing to pay for land or what somebody would receive when they sold their land. And the other benchmark we tested was and it's and they're separate. So one is the land and you look at that and you say okay did it meet that? Then the next is does the price impact is it more than 6%. So is the reduction in the the I'm sorry the price increase excuse me the price increase that would need to be achieved to override that um obligation is no more than 6%. Um, we're not saying that prices will go up because you've done inclusionary. We're saying that this is the impact over time that would have to happen in order to catch up, if you will. Next slide. And then the next slide. So what we did now, the prototype developments we looked at for ownership is we looked at projects that are actually either proposed or being built in unincorporated Santa Cruz County. And what we wanted to do was we wanted to get a range of densities and we wanted to get a range of unit sizes. And so that's what you see on this slide here is the three prototypes that we had that range from an acre to 2.4 acres and town home and small lot single family homes. Now, what was important about these prototypes was that what we found when working with with county staff was that the ownership housing that's being developed largely in the county is using your existing enhanced density bonus. And so what we did is we factored the enhanced density bonus into our analysis. And so you'll see that the instead of being 13 units in the first scenario, it's 15 units or etc. Um and then we had different unit sizes. And again, these were based on actual projects, which I think is really important. Um, next slide. So, when we looked at the existing 15% moderate income requirement, we were testing it to see does it meet those benchmark metrics that I discussed. So, does it create more of a 30% impact on supportable land value or would it require more than 6% increase in market prices to be viable? So, as you can see in the in the first column, the 1acre town home site, um that one, the 15% requirement is just over the benchmark metrics. the second town home scenario well outperforms the metrics and then the small lot single family home also outperforms the metrics and so we go to the next slide um so we determined in essence that the 15% requirement works that there's no need to adjust the 15% requirement we were also then asked using the same prototypes to evaluate two different standards The first standard was to look at raising that requirement to 20% moderate income. As you can see on the chart, that doesn't meet the metrics for any of the three columns. So, it's well over it in terms of needed acquisition cost reduction and it's well over it in the needed price increase. Um, so we determined that a 20% requirement under current market conditions is not viable. Um we were also asked to look at the supportable lowinccome percentage and um so if as you can see on this table the lowinccome price is is nearly half the price of the moderate income price using again the affordable sales price calculations that the county currently uses. And given that price reduction in in the affordable price for low income, it lowers what the supportable requirement is as a percentage of the total units. And so in that case, it ranges from 9% to 11%. If you went to a low income requirement versus your 15% requirement for moderate that you currently have. Next slide. And then next slide. Okay. So, um, in Santa Cruz County, unincorporated Santa Cruz County, um, since the mid 1980s, there has been very little, um, market rate apartment development. Um, so that creates an issue with creating prototypes, honestly, because if you're not seeing market rate development, then there aren't really prototypes to look at. But um we are we were able to to create prototypes that we'll discuss. But it really and and the bulk of your rentals development that's been built in unincorporated county has been affordable you 100% affordable projects using former redevelopment money largely. Okay. So the incorporated cities within Santa Cruz have generally also experienced very little apartment development except downtown Santa Cruz in the westside areas of Santa Cruz which has had significant development of apartments market rate apartments. But in unincorporated Santa Cruz County, we were only able to identify one market rate project that's been developed within the last 10 years and it was a small mixeduse project. um that has a commercial component to it. So what we did was we looked at the incorporated cities in in um like Watsonville for example um in the county to help us create our prototypes. Next slide. So what we ended up doing was we took a zoning compliant project at 50 units per acre and then we looked at what the density bonus, the state density bonus would do to the project economics. So that by definition you would get affordable units because density bonus requires you to put the affordable units on site. And we did two tests on that. We did a 50% density bonus which requires a 15% very low income requirement. Um and that's the top of the regular density bonus. Then a couple years ago the the state added a stacking bonus which then you could get up to a 70% density bonus in in the analysis that we did. So you end up with three it's the same site but three prototypes. So you have 50 units the acre, 75 units the acre and 85 units the acre and we tested those. So if you go to the next slide. So what we looked at on that again just like we did in the last one we looked at um the development costs, the market rents, the lowincome rents based on the standards that the county currently applies to lowincome units. And then we estimated what the supportable lowinccome percentage was. And as you can see on the chart, if you look at it as a percentage of the base units, the zoning compliance scenario supports a 12% low income requirement. The 50% density bonus by statute gives you 15% of the base zoning units and the stacking bonus, again by statute gives you 20%. um but they're of the base units. So then when you calculate them just for math purposes against the total units, it ranges between 10 and and 12% of of the total units in the project. And what you can see in that table is they all generate about the same return. So some of this just relates to what type of product that a developer would want to construct in unincorporated Santa Cruz County as to whether they would use these density bonuses or not. Next slide. So, um, there's a there was a question, this is this relates to the city of Santa Cruz about the 20% low-income inclusionary housing production requirement that includes an option for 5% of the units to be occupied by tenants with housing choice vouchers. Um, so there are just some factors to consider related to that. And one is voucher holders can go wherever they want. So voucher holders can't be told what project to live in. So they would have to want to choose this the project being developed in order for the landlord to be able to attract that tenant. The other thing because these tenants carry the voucher themselves. They're not related to the project. Then that's not a guaranteed source of income to the project. And so it's typically a lender will not include that income when they're underwriting the project's um viability and how much of a loan it'll support. The third thing is that fair market rents are not always as high as the rents that new projects in an area can achieve. So that they're higher than the affordable rent for sure. So they create a benefit um to the extent you can get a voucher holder to reside there and that is a benefit no doubt but it's not an incentive if you will that to um in a market rate project. And then the fourth thing is right now landlords can't be barred from renting any unit to a voucher holder. So if if a landlord chooses to rent to a section 8 tenant choice voucher holder they can. So it's not really a new benefit that they don't already have the opportunity for. Um okay, we're gonna go on next slide. Okay, so um the conclusions of the inclusionary study were that a 15% moderate income requirement can be supported and so there's no need to to change that. um a 20% moderate income requirement is not supported in under current market conditions and that if you wanted to change your requirement to low income, it should be reduced to 9 to 11%. Um from the 15%. On the rental development and and Stephanie already went over the housing element um issues that that caused this study to be written, so I'm just going to go over what the actual conclusions are. and that is that a 12% in low income requirement can potentially be supported by um rental development and that slightly less than 12% of the total units are affordable under the various density bonus scenarios that are available. Um but and I I think if you look back to our 2014 study as well that we did for the county, you'll see that it it has similar conclusions and that is that market rate rental development continues to be financially challenging in unincorporated county and that creating a production requirement versus your fee that you currently have in place will create an additional constraint on future development opportunities. So the idea is you don't want to you don't want to create a constraint to future development be given back to the to the San Jose case. Um and so our recommendation is that you continue to allow developers to pay the affordable housing impact fee with the option to produce the the units to fulfill a requirement and if they choose to use density bonus they absolutely will provide the affordable units. So I think that's one thing I always say when I talk about these these programs is if you have a production requirement you should expect density bonus to be used because it isn't it is a very excellent tool to help make it more viable. Next slide. Okay. So now we're shifting gears to the affordable housing nexus fee analysis. We did both a residential affordable housing nexus fee. you can go to the next slide. Um, which I'll talk about first and then we did a non-residential nexus study as well. They're they're similar in their goal. Their goal is to create funding sources for affordable housing. So, the first one we did is a residential nexus study that looks at and this is a tested this is a tested methodology. This has been through the court systems. Um, it quantifies the impact of new market rate housing on demand for affordable housing. So what you do is well I'll go into it in a subsequent slide. So what it does is it establishes the maximum legally supportable fee. So the legally supportable fee is different than the feasible fee. And that's a really important distinction because a nexus study is limited or tells you what future demand for affordable housing will be and how much the fee would need to be to accommodate that future need. it doesn't tell you whether that's feasible for a developer to pay but so it's legally supportable but not necessarily financially feasible. So that is the the balancing act that needs to be done but the residential nexus study um and the non-residential both comply with the California mitigation fee act. Now we can go to the next slide. So the conceptual framework as I mentioned of the residential nexus is new housing creates demand for goods and services which generates jobs. New jobs have a variety of pay levels. So a share of those jobs are going to very low-income households and a share of those jobs are going to moderate inome households and a share of those jobs are going to above moderate income households. So you need to figure out what the affordable demand created by these new households is and then you translate in that into the affordable housing needed and then the cost to mitigate the cost to provide those units to create those units. Next slide. So again with the prototypes. So we have the prototypes they are actually if you look at them um with the exception of the individual single family home prototype the other prototypes are directly from the inclusionary analysis. So we did we used them to assist us in that analysis and so we looked at um the just the average value of those um of those units and then we translate that into the price per square foot for those units. So that's what this part of the analysis is meant for. Moving on. So then, and there's a lot of numbers on this chart. So then what happens is, as I mentioned, you're looking at households in this case, um, extremely low, very low, low, moderate. Those are the categories. So each of those comes with a financial gap. And each of those financial gaps we've translated into a per square foot cost. And then what you do is you add them all together. And so for example, the supportable fee for a small lot single family home development is $43 a foot. Okay. Um so as again it's just adding up all the columns. Then we go to the next slide. So now we're just we're just summarizing what we did. And so your current fee, which you do on a graduated basis based on the size of units, ranges from $2 to $15 per square foot. Um whereas based on our study, the legally supportable rate ranges from $43 to approximately $61 per square foot. Looking at apartments, your current fee is $2 per square foot. Looking at the legally supportable fee, it's 5250 per square foot. um we did not analyze ADUs so that's just apartments for that okay moving on okay so okay so that's the residential now the non-residential affordable nexus fee analysis we again now in this case what it does is it quantifies the impact of new commercial development and new non-residential development on demand for affordable housing again it establishes the maximum legally supportable fee for that and then we make sure it complies with the mitigation fee act. So again, what happens with new non-residential development is it generates new employees to the community. The new jobs again have a share a share of lower income households and moderate income households etc. So that's the added affordable housing need created specifically by non-residential development. Using exactly the same methodology, we look at the cost to mitigate the affordable housing need. Next slide. So we looked at um with you know help from the county staff we looked at retail, commercial, office, hotel, light, industrial, agricultural and assisted living uses. And we did the nexus study on all of them. We did the each independent analysis on each of those land uses. Go to the next slide. And so it's the same chart. So it's exactly the same chart as before where you're looking at extremely lowincome households, very low-income households, low-income households, and moderate income households. As you can see, the nexus cost per square foot of building area for each of those uses ranges from $7.40 for per square foot for agriculture up to $243 for retail and commercial. So those fee levels of that like $243 is not seen anywhere in California, but it is the legally supported fee. Going to the next slide, please. So your current fee for non-residential uses other than agriculture are $3 a foot and then agriculture is a dollar. So what we looked at and and this staff has their own recommendation, but we looked at the various uses and came to basically 0 to $7 for the various uses and 0 to $3 for for agriculture. One thing you want to keep in mind when you're establishing a non-residential nexus fee is what type of uses are you trying to attract to the community? Because if you want to attract given uses to the community, then if you add another impediment to them being developed, they're less likely to be built. But that's just that's a policy decision for you all to make. Next slide. And that's me for now. Good afternoon. Um Suzanne Eay, principal planner for housing in CDI. Um so I I know that was a lot of information. It was a pretty um dense uh presentation and um there were a lot of detailed findings and recommendations in the the KMA studies that were attached to this item for your consideration. We wanted to try to boil it down to some easily absorbable staff recommendations um given the sort of complexity of the overall report. And so I'll summarize those briefly for you. Um I want to just um note that as as Kathy mentioned, you know, with the fee requirements um uh certainly to the extent that the county wants to attract development that would be in the vein of economic development creating jobs or fiscal positive fiscal impacts, you might want to consider, you know, no changes or even reduction to the current fees that we have. That is also an option you have. We have some specific recommendations that are a little bit different than that, but they're not really like strong recommendations. It's just kind of here's a range of options you may consider. So, firstly, I'll go into the recommendations regarding the county's inclusionary program. Again, these are the requirements that are currently codified in chapter 1710 of the county code. So, as Kathy mentioned, the findings support the county maintaining its current 15% requirement for ownership projects. And just to go into a tiny bit of detail there, that requirement is imposed on new developments that create seven or more net new units for sale. So, those typically are in subdivisions, town home projects, maybe condo projects. And the recommendation is to maintain the locally developed enhanced density bonus in county code 1710.065. For those of you on the board that weren't here in 2018 when we wrote that new section of the density bonus chapter, we created a 40% density bonus. This is above and beyond anything in the state law. um four new ownership developments that meet that 15% on-site requirement. That was a result of a board initiative started. I think it was 2017 or 18 to address the fact that the county was not seeing many new ownership developments and developers were expressing feasibility challenges. So, we developed that policy and fortunately it has proven successful. We have seen a rebound, not a huge one, but some rebound in for sale development since that time. And they are using that specific program. They're not necessarily building the bonus units, but it's there for those projects that are able to accommodate those some or all of those extra units, but they also are using the incentives and concessions that come with that. The second um recommendation here is related to the rental side of that program which also comes from the housing element program that Stephanie um mentioned earlier um to reinstate uh the mandatory requirement to build on-site affordable units. Um however because the study did not support did not evidence the feasibility of reinstating that rate at 15% um we're recommending it would be 11% which is simply the average of the range that was provided in the study between 10 to 12%. So here's a summary of our recommendations on the um impact fees and we've sort of consolidated everything of all the various project types into one table here. So in the um second column from the left here, we're showing basically the summary of all the findings in the KMA feas uh nexus study of those legally supportable maximum rates. Now, as Kathy mentioned, it would be pretty um perhaps self-defeating of a community's um economic viability to impose, you know, $243 a square foot rates on commercial development. We already don't get much in the way of new commercial floor area or non-residential floor area in in this community. um which is why um about 10 or so years ago when these rates were first imposed, they were set far below what the legally supportable rate was. So in the middle column here, we're showing what the current rates are for each of these types of development. Um and in the far right column we're showing um sort of a summary of the staff recommendation which we've sort of narrowed the range since the report provides a really broad range for some of these categories. We've looked at a couple of things to come up with this more narrow range if the board was so inclined to increase the rates at all which again you don't necessarily have to make a change. Um so if we look at the um residential rates on the slide here, the way we got the lower in end of that range was just applying a CPI index to the existing rate. So in other words, um let's take a look at rentals since that's a little bit simpler than the for sale. Um the current rate is $2 a square foot. We applied a CPI indexing factor from 2015, which is when the rates were established originally. And so that would get us to a $3 range. Um, similarly for the for sale, we looked at the $15, which is the the for sale uh fee has a sort of complicated fee structure. It's a table with like five rows and five columns depending on unit size and project type. But just to keep it simple for the purpose of this presentation, let's just talk about the top end of that range, which most projects of five or more units, net new units would pay that $15 a square foot. So we just index that to inflation, you know, to the CPI to to bring it from 15 to 21. Now, and similarly with the non-residential, the lower end end of those ranges is just a CPI index for inflation. For the higher end of the range, we looked at examples of some neighboring communities. Um, and that data was also provided in in these reports. Um, they were either cities within the county or I think in a couple of cases our neighboring counties. Um, and so we averaged, not every community has a fee for all these different development types, but whatever communities we did find with a similar fee, we basically averaged those. And so, like, for example, the $28 range is an average of two or three communities that are nearby that have a fee of that type. And similarly um through the bottom um the uh commercial fees the A and the non-residential we didn't find uh fees of that nature in many neighboring communities enough to run an average. So we just put the high end of the recommended range from the KMA report for those last two rows. Uh so moving on to the next slide. summary of our staff recommendations. Number one, accept and file the reports from Kaiser Marston Associates. Number two, provide CDI with direction on uh revisions to the inclusionary rates and impact fees consistent with the study findings and recommendations. And number three, direct CDI to complete community engagement and report back to the board by March 2027 with recommended draft ordinance andor fee adjustments. And with that, I'm we're available for questions. >> Thank you for your presentation. I'm now going to return to the board for questions and then we'll go out to the public for public comment and then return to the board for discussion and direction. I'll start on my left with Supervisor Koig. >> Thank you, Chair. Um well, thank you for a great very detailed presentation. I think I understood most of it, but uh my questions will will show where I didn't. Um, so you said you had trouble finding market rate rental projects in the unincorporated area. Maybe there was one uh we have like a total number of units that were built for market rate rentals in the last I don't know 10 years. >> So I can give you data on market rate rental projects. Um so we did some research I think around the time we were working on the housing element update and since around the year 2000 um we have two market rate rental projects of five or more units that I found in all of our data and you know a number of our staff was researching this so um we really you know put some effort into it. Um there was a a um 13-unit rental project built by Swenson. They didn't complete it till 2020, but it was actually the first entitlements were filed I think around 2008. Now it was delayed with the recession, but then they really um resumed around 2017 to pursue the permitting and I think they broke ground around >> 2019 maybe. >> Um and then we just have gotten completed, which is a happy story, a um seven unit density bonus rental project. So it includes two uh lowincome units and that's on um both of these are in Live Oak. Um so those are the two. Now I think in the study we didn't have the seven unit one was not completed yet at that time. So that was not included in the study. >> What street is the seven? >> It's um 432 Capitol Road extension. So it's near that um former private school. >> Gotcha. >> Right off of Capella Road. >> All right. Thank you. I mean, yeah, two projects in 20 years is pretty anemic. Uh, >> almost 30 years. >> Yeah, it's true. 2026. Thanks. Average round up. Um, so I mean, it seems like we really have a problem here in terms of trying to get any market rate rentals to come in. And ultimately, I mean, more supply would bring down the cost of housing. Um, and then I had asked this question to you via email. I think you provided some data, but just how much these fees are actually generating today. Um, and so I'll I'll go ahead and read the response you shared. So, as far as residential projects, um, the affordable impact housing fees, revenues collected in 2024 25 on from residential projects was $551,000 and in 2526 was $370,000. So, uh, we saw a decrease there. And then for non-residential projects in 2425, we collected $47,000 and that decreased to just, uh, just just about $8,000 last year for non-residential projects. I mean, again, pretty uh pretty anemic, particularly on the non-residential projects. Um, is there anything you want to add to that data or >> um, I can add a couple of things. Um the last fiscal year so 25 26 was pretty challenging. Um you know as we know with the national environment with the tariffs and a lot of uncertainty interest rates going up and everything. So I think we can assume some of that led to lower than >> average construction rates across the board and that was not just here in the county but of course nationally that's been widely reported. The second thing regarding the the fees specifically for housing projects of 10 or more units, there was a a state law that took effect in um January of 2026 that now allows pretty much all but your you know one unit infill housing projects to defer payment of fees of this nature to project completion. Now, we had already had our code regarding this fee allow that, but not all developers were taking advantage of it. So, a lot of them were paying it at permit issuance. So because they can now defer it and often it'll take a project three, four, five years to build out. Um some of that reduction in the second year's worth of data that you mentioned may reflect some projects taking advantage of those fee deferral options that maybe they weren't taking advantage of previously. And we expect that impact to continue. And not only on the housing impact fee, but also the parks, traffic, all the other impact fees, >> right? Right. Okay. Thank you. Um, next question. Would a tiny home on wheels be subject to the affordable housing impact fee? >> Generally, no, because we exempt units um of 500 square feet or less. So, it only kicks in above 500 ft² and a tiny home on wheels would not be over 500 square ft. >> Okay. I just maybe there's some confusion there because I actually heard from a constituent who was trying to put in, you know, 400 foot tiny home on wheels and um we quoted them an $800 affordable housing impact fee, right? $2 a square foot. And so um you know, I think that's just a instance where >> I can look into that. >> It seems pretty counterintuitive that, you know, trying to add affordable housing comes with, you know, by design a tiny house is uh comes with its own affordable housing impact fee. Um, I mean, well, that's just one example. I sort of I think that's generally true of uh the situation we're seeing here. I mean, I I don't think that taxing housing in order to try to make housing more affordable is necessarily a good approach. Um, you're just going to get less of the thing that we actually want. Um, I received feedback from someone who's been trying to to build some rental housing. They said, "I'm working on a lot of different scenarios involving housing development. My modeling shows that new projects are almost impossible to pencil unless there are significant subsidies. So basically affordable housing developments. Uh so even with increased density, the construction costs are severely elevated and I don't see them coming down anytime soon. I uh I can't get things to make sense even with high rents. Not sure what the answer is. In the old days, the redevelopment gap financing helped, but those days are gone. So um those are my questions. Thank you. Supervisor Dura, >> thank you. This is complicated stuff and I this is not my area of expertise, but uh I but the presentations were very well done. Thank you so much. Um I do have a couple of questions about agriculture and um assisted living. those columns. Years and years ago, um when Sunshine Villa was turned into an assisted living, there were measure J units there so that I could often as a social worker in my practice get people from the hospital who were low income actually into an assisted living situation. And I'm wondering, can we continue to do that? Because what we have now is we've got for-profit companies that are coming in here charging so much money that somebody's entire estate is being transferred into the hands of a for-profit corporation and they're not, you know, they don't take anybody that's, you know, that can't afford it. So, I'm wondering, is there any way we could make some of these assisted living that are charging upwards of 12,000 or more a month take or put some affordable units in in those properties? Uh, I can try to answer that. I I don't want to get into it. It's a big topic and it has its own legal um complications. I don't want to get into it too much since it wasn't part of our noticed item here, but just um I can mention that um I'm not aware of the Suns Sunshine Villa having any affordable beds, but we do have a project called Dominican Oaks in the unincorporated area. So, I'm not sure. Maybe Sunshine Villa is in the city of Santa Cruz. >> Yeah, I think it it's down by the >> We have a a project called Dominican Oaks that was built, I believe, in the early 80s. It was an effort um initiated by Dominican Hospital and there's a lot of overlap on the board membership and so forth as a nonprofit effort and it's a little bit of a an anomaly in the county's overall inclusionary program. um the developer offered to the county that they would restrict, I think it was 25% of the beds in that facility um as affordable units um in exchange for getting the project entitled more easily or something like that. Now, typically when we're permitting assisted living facilities, they're considered facilities, not housing units. And that's consistent with the census and the state definitions of what counts as a housing unit. So, um, our ordinance doesn't include assisted living facilities or any type of care facility in the definition of a project that's subject to our inclusionary requirements today. But that said, we do have this sort of unusual one-off project, but I think it was because the developer sort of offered that as a means to I don't know get the county to approve the project. Maybe they were worried about whether or not it would get approved. But we still are um monitoring and we work with the um operator of that facility to pre-qualify the folks who get into those um lowerc cost beds. However, they're still not it because we can um the way they charge their fees, most of the fee is not actually for rent. So, we can limit to some extent um the rent and the the basic what they call a care fee, but there's all these ancillary fees they charge depending on the needs of the the the occupant. And >> correct, >> we're it's just too much. You know, there's no way we could regulate that legally. And so it doesn't really result in the unit being or the bed being that much more affordable to folks. They're usually um spending down their assets to to stay in those facilities. So it's a very challenging topic. >> Yeah. I'd like to maybe do a little bit of a deeper dive and figure out ways to consider some kind of inclusionary rate for people. There there's a state law I forgot to mention there is state law that conflicts with us trying to impose uh rent restrictions on care facilities because they are regulated by the department of social services as care as community care facilities. Again, it's kind of a big topic, so I don't want to get too much into the weeds, but >> Thank you. >> Um, I think there might be some challenges with trying to establish a a new requirement in that vein, >> but but we are charging them the fee to try to get some level of resource back in for affordable housing. >> That's great. >> Um, and then when I just look at the agricultural fee, I mean, I know it's pretty low, but it's so expensive to do agriculture these days in terms of their water and a million other things. So >> yeah, and what what I can say about that is um it only applies to built, you know, if somebody was proposing to build a new barn or something. And I can say it's extremely uncommon for us to see permits for those types of structure. I don't know if folks are building them without permits or using old buildings or what, but I, you know, it's it's pretty rare for us to see things like that come through our um counter. >> Okay. Well, thank you for the this Nexus study. We've been waiting for it. I Yeah. for a while and um I support um many of the things that you've put forward today. So, thank you, >> Supervisor Cummings. >> Thank you, Chair. Um thank you for this study that's come before us today. Um I'm going to just start with asking when this study um commen like when did the study actually start? I believe we started it last year about now. >> We updated it over time while we were working on it. So, the final draft was was updated from that. But, >> thanks. And then, so I guess my follow-up question, so it's 2025. Um my follow-up question on this is just can you explain why the market rate rents for the city of Santa Cruz weren't taken into consideration? Um I mean we have seen a lot of development in the city of Santa Cruz going as far back as you know 20 I want to say 2016 or 2018 when we had 555 Pacific we had the um the building at the northern end of Pacific we've got Anton we've got River Row and so I'm just wondering why those because that's going to be more reflective of as we're building like as we're going to see projects coming online I feel like the rents that we're going to experience in the county are going to be more reflective of those market rate rents versus some project that was built 10 years ago. >> No, I understand. Um, actually the rents that I ended up Well, I'll answer your direct question first, which is it's a completely different market than the rest of unincorporated county because you've got the university and you've got downtown. And so that's where that development occurred because of those market forces and that's why premium rents are achievable. The rents that I used are actually um there's a project um in Watsonville that's been proposed and is is now you know it has a website but it's still not really well it's not finished for sure but anyway they have rents that they're actually identifying for those units and that was a lot of what we used in addition to existing buildings that are outside of of downtown. But it just it it really was a it's a for me it was a financial decision that it's a completely different market in in downtown Santa Cruz. And you haven't seen and I I can't emphasize this enough. You haven't seen apartment development in unincorporated county. So I I don't have a means of of saying logically that you could get that type of project in unincorporated county because it hasn't happened. Well, I guess I'll follow up with staff just to ask historically why that's been the case. I mean, because, you know, one of the things that I feel like has complicated housing and that's been changed now is the fact that the zoning was different in the past and did not allow for higher density market rate, which is part of what was changed within the housing element. So, I'm wondering if you could speak to the historic kind of zoning that was in them incorporated because my sense is now and based on some of the um projects that are um the builder's remedy projects and other projects being proposed, we are starting to see some of these higher density projects being proposed in the unincorporated which will be more reflective of what we're seeing in downtown Santa Cruz because I will say that some of the projects that are being proposed like 555 Pacific um has 90 units. Nanton on Pacific has 79 units. And so I'm just wondering speak to how the zoning changes like what that will mean in terms of how we'll see upzoning occurring in the unincorporated part of San Cruz County. >> So >> and and the past zoning. >> Sure. So it is um definitely the case that um most of the acreage in the unincorporated county had much lower zoned densities in the past and that was one reason why um was I would say one but not the only reason why market rate developers were not developing. I think there's probably a variety of reasons if we're talking about you know the '9s the so forth. I won't go into all of them, but um some of those factors have not changed and don't change just because we've updated our general plan and increased ours our densities. One of the key things that a lot of developers that are market rate rental project developers are looking for is what does that higher income market rate tenant want in their vicinity of where they're going to be renting and willing to pay these higher rents. And one of the biggest things is transit availability. Another thing is a walkable downtown with restaurants and amenities and you know walking to work. Um a couple of factors that are unique to the downtown that don't apply in most of the rest of the county is that you know obviously you're close to UCSC. You've got lots of bus routes running up to UCSC from downtown Santa Cruz. We've also got Silicon Valley employer buses driving over 17 and picking up folks from various areas downtown to take them to, you know, Apple and Google and Yahoo and whatever else. Um, I see them from my office window here in the building, you know, driving down Ocean Street after they've, you know, made the afternoon drop off. Um, they don't go into Live Oak, they don't go into SoCal. And so, you know, that developer that's looking and anticipating either UCSE affiliated staff or maybe grad students or whomever and or tech workers renting those units knows that they're not going to have that level of convenience in terms of transit options and proximity to their place of employment or study or what have you if they're, you know, on somewhere on Capitol Road and, you know, Maciel Avenue or you know it's just not happening and these are things I mean I talk to developers all the time because they're contacting us with questions all the time and I've been talking to them for you know 20 plus years in the various you know jurisdictions in this region that I've worked for and they'll share with you what drives their their locationational decisions and I ask them because I'm curious you know how come you'll build in this jurisdiction but not that so you know those are just some of the examples another thing I'll say is even with our sustainability update and the upzoning of, you know, our higher density zones, the maximum we went to is 45 units an acre, whereas downtown Santa Cruz, I mean, I don't know what they're at now, but obviously from the development they're getting, it's significantly higher. And also, our height limits are still only um 30 feet even with a 45 unit an acre. And of course, yes, they can do density bonus and, you know, get some flexibility there. And we are starting to see um inquiries of that nature, but we have yet to see anyone um get to the point of even submitting a building permit application, let alone p pulling a permit. We are seeing higher density affordable projects, the 100% affordable projects take advantage. They have similar, but not exactly the same, locationational concerns about proximity to to higher frequency transit and so forth because that factors into how they can get funding those state state and federal subsidies for their projects, but they're not necessarily concerned about like whether the Google bus stops nearby, you know, those private sector factors or whether it's, you know, a walkable downtown and because they're catering to a different clientele, right? It's a different population of prospective tenants. >> Can I just Excuse me. Can I just make one technical addition? That was really excellent. Um, if the rents were higher in my analysis, the affordability gaps would be bigger because the gap between the low income rent and the afford and the market rent would be larger, which would mean a lesser percentage would have been supported. I have I guess I'll follow up with a comment on that because I I don't believe that would be the case because looking at the housing authority the numbers that they use are 80% and that was actually one of my other questions which is why did we use 60% of area median income when our local housing authority uses 80 and at 80% area median income we're looking at $111,000 uh for someone who could qualify. Um, and that's based on our own county's housing authority numbers. So, I mean, it's just I was taken it back by the fact that we're not using percentages that we here in Santa Cruz are using to define the maximum limits of affordability. And we're not using rents that would that are reflective of what people are experiencing. Because on page 29, when we look at studio units, the market rate rent is $2,244. And in most of the units that we're seeing in the city, it's like $3,100. And even if we say, you know, those units are in the downtown, what have you, that cater to more people. But as we're projecting out, you know, and we're thinking about what's going to be built in the future, the likelihood is that the amount that's going to be paid in those future units could be more reflective of what people are paying now in the units in the market rate. Because we're going to see and we're seeing tariffs, inflation, cost of labor going up, cost of materials going up. And so, you know, for me, I'm thinking about this as a tool of how are we projecting out what this is going to look like in the future and using these upper ends in terms of like 80% AMI and some of the average U market rate that we're seeing here currently seems like that would be a better number to use. So, I'm just wondering so and that's why we would like for my office when we were doing these calculations. Sure, if you use the current market rate for a studio and you use 60% of AMI, yeah, that gap's going to grow. But what we actually use here is 80% of AMI. And so I'm just wondering how we can kind of resolve that issue because that's something that I feel like is a little missing in this analysis and as a result further justifies us reducing our inclusionary versus keeping our inclusionary at a minimum of 15%. >> So I'm just going to take a stab at part of it and then I think Suzanne will jump in. Um you could make a policy decision as a board to change the way you calculate rent for the inclusionary. That's absolutely appropriate and that's something you could you could make a decision. You're absolutely right. That would change the affordability gaps. I'm reluctant to change the market rents again until you see development. And so you can always look back at this again at another time when the market is different. But right now, I really worry because you haven't had any development really to speak of for 20 plus years to say not only are we going to get development, but we're going to then put a requirement on it that it be affordable. That is just by definition a constraint because you're you're reducing what somebody could get. So it makes it less likely that somebody would build and they're already not building. But at the same time, just to counter to that, at the same time though, we now have density bonus law and we've been seeing since density bonus law has been implemented that we're seeing more development occurring, right? And so if we lower our inclusionary percentage, which sounds like we're keeping it 15% for four sale, and we have density bonus, that's feasible. If we're going to have density bonus at 11, then that will further reduce the amount of affordable housing that we have in these new developments. And the issue right now that we have is that uh we are the most expensive rental community in the United States. And therefore, yes, supply is an issue, but we also have to be building the supply for people who are at the, you know, afford who need affordable housing because that's because that's what we're losing, >> right? Believe me, I manage an affordable housing practice. That's what I've done for 40 plus years. So, I'm I'm a affordable housing advocate. I just need it to be feasible. So, I need people to to want to develop it. And so I think we're in a situation right now in addition to everything I said so I won't repeat it where you know interest rates are high, costs are high and so we're in a constrained environment nationwide as opposed to just here. And so I just can't in good conscience recommend a higher percentage um given given my duty on this to to provide something that isn't confiscatory and doesn't deprive a property owner of a fair and reasonable return on investment. >> I thank you. Um my next question and this is kind of for staff and maybe director Machado you can also weigh in on this but one of the things so as you mentioned this study so it's August 2025 back in 2023 when we were having our discussions around the housing element one of the things and when supervisor Hernandez and I just first joined the board we had brought forward the recommendation around increasing our inclusionary with an additional 5% in new units that would be for set aside for people with section 8 housing vouchers. Should those vouchers not be available, then it would go to to moderate rate rent based on what uh was done in the city of Santa Cruz. The board did not accept moving forward in that direction. However, through our um you know the agreements that we made around the housing element as part of this nexus study, we were supposed to move forward with an actual feasibility study of that specific program. What we received was an analysis on if we went to 20%. Which is not what we asked for. We were asking for the 20% with that additional 5% being through the section housing vouchers and in the absence of those vouchers having those units go to people at moderate rate rents. And I'm just wondering why that analysis wasn't done because what I'm reading in the report is, you know, reasons why market rate developers may not want to have somebody who's section 8, but it did it didn't actually get to the question of doing a feasibility analysis on that type of program because we know that section 8 housing vouchers do produce fair market rents. Um, and knowing what that is for us right now would be helpful. And in the absence of that, what the feasibility would be to have those be at moderate rents because when we passed the policy at the city of Santa Cruz in 2020, we didn't get any push back from developers, we never heard from HDD. People said, "If you do this, it's going to reduce and and I think this is also based on the Kaiser Marson study that was done at the city. You're going to deter development." And that hasn't happened. we continue to see more and more projects and more and more developers coming to the city of Santa Cruz even though that policy is in place. So I'm just wondering why that wasn't done because it would have really helped us understand from a numbers perspective if that would have been like what that outcome would have looked like. So in scoping this study, we um tracked really closely the language of those two housing uh element programs that Stephanie showed earlier and the detail about vouchers and moderate income was not in that program 3H. Now we did get a request from your office to um consider whether or not a program like that would be any more or less feasible. And I think Kathy spoke to that. We had a slide on that in the presentation. Um there's a couple things to keep in mind. And again, I I say this after, you know, 25 plus years of working very closely with developers of all stripes, market rate, affordable, small, big, you name it. Um they can already legally rent any rental property they wish to someone with a a housing choice voucher. So by saying, you know, we want you to take, you know, 5% of the units in your project and you must rent them to a voucher holder, you're not giving them any kind of additional flexibility, but you are saying they can't rent it to a market rate tenant. And that difference is what they're not super thrilled about in many cases. And so it still serves as a constraint. And um again because we have literally only seen two market rate developments break ground in the unincorporated area since the year 2000 for a total of 20 units that you know we're talking about what is actually getting built as opposed to what gets proposed and mowled over and maybe gets entitled but they never build it. We have a number of projects as does Santa Cruz that have gone through the development review process but not pulled permits. Right? And those we can't rely on in a court situation or in a study like this that we're trying to do to conform to the requirements of state law, the mitigation fee act and so forth. We have to rely on actual data from rents that have been paid, home prices that have sold, projects that have been built. we can't project theories about what will happen in the future and rely on that for the purpose of this kind of study. So that's part of the reason we couldn't do exactly what you're asking. But I can say that um you know again hearing from developers over time um it's not that all developers are necessarily opposed to running to someone with a voucher, but they can already do that anyway on any type of unit. and to be told you're going to have to reserve a certain number of units just for voucher holders. A lot of them see that as an additional constraint and it may just be one more reason why they won't bother building in your community. Now, with respect to the moderate income idea, there's been quite a bit of press coverage over the past year or so about programs in the Bay Area, for example, that have had requirements for a significant number of moderate income units in their Baymare programs. San Jose, San Francisco, I think Kathy knows about this as well. And there's been a lot of reporting that they've had real difficulty filling those units and achieving those moderate income rents because they are they tend to be very close to the market rate rents in the same project. And if you think about it from the tenants perspective, if I'm a moderate income person and I can just apply to rent a market rate unit in a project versus I have to go through all the red tape and and you know submit way more of my personal and financial records to this leasing office so that maybe I might get one of these moderate income units and then I'm going to have to redo that income eligibility process every year or sometimes it's every two or three versus I could just rent the the market rate unit which may be at or you know it could be a little more a little less than the moderate income rental unit. That's literally what they're finding tenants are opting to do and so they're having a really hard time filling the moderate income units. So we don't really recommend that approach. >> If Kathy has anything to add >> um Suzanne, I'm sorry. Could could you please also address the 6080 discrepancy? Sure. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, going back to one of your earlier questions about why we use the 60% of median as sort of the the pricing formula for the rental units and that is because um that is actually what's in our measure J program regulations currently. That is how we set the rents and that is a very standard approach. um the community redevelopment law that was um you know written into California law in the past century and was in effect for about 50 60 years I think if I recall correctly had definitions for regulating units of this type and a lot of localities used those definitions when setting up their BMR programs in the late 70s 80s and so forth and and beyond and the county did too. And so in that CRL it says if you're going to restrict a unit at the low-income level, the income limit for the prospective tenant for that unit is 80%. And there's sort of a presumption that they're going to categorize households generally into the low income level if their income is between 50% of median and 80%. But you should set the rent for that unit at 60% a median because many people applying for those units will not have their income exactly at 79.9% a median or you know whatever that maximum dollar figure is. They're going to be substantially below that maximum income limit. So maybe their income is 55% or 62 or whatever. And if you set the rent unit using 80% by definition, you're making it unaffordable to people in the bulk of that range and it's only affordable to the people at the very top of that range. And that's just not a good practice and a good way to make housing affordable. So generally you want to set the rent limit or the price somewhere in the middle of that income range so that it is affordable to a range of the households at that income level. So for example, that's the definition we use when using when regulating our measure J rental units. The rent is 30% of someone who has a household income of 60% of AMI. But a household can qualify for their unit, that unit, if their income is anywhere up to 80% of AMI. And what I can say is generally when we get applicants for these type of units, their incomes tend to be way lower than the maximum income and it wouldn't be affordable to them if we charged a rent right at 80% of AMI. Similarly, on the for sale side, um the sort of moderate income range is defined both in state law and in our measure J guidelines as 80 to 100% of the median. >> I'm sorry. Thank you. 80 to 120% of the median, but we established the maximum sales price in the middle of that range. So, it's actually it was for many years 100% of median. I think it was around 2015 or so that the county decided for new units to set that price at 110% of median just for newly built units on their first sale. But for resale units, it remains at 100%. So, I know that's confusing and that's a a question we get very often from all sorts of participants in these programs is why is that little difference there? But that's the rationale. >> Appreciate that. And I will say just because I I dive deeply into this, it's not confusing for me, but I it wasn't explained enough in the report for us to understand why certain numbers are used versus others, which then makes it challenging for us as we're going about trying to look at here's the numbers that we actually use that are realistic for the community. Why are these numbers so much lower versus, you know, what we're seeing and what we're like through interactions with the housing authority and looking at the numbers that they use, for example. I will say that and maybe this is just a a difference in memories, but what I remember when we voted on moving forward with the Nexus study was having the study be done on the 5% additional being um looking at section 8 vouchers and then in the absence of section 8 vouchers having uh those units go towards moderate rate rents. And it may be to your point that those moderate rate units aren't renting or what have you, but the board my what I remember is that the board voted for that to be included in the study. It would have helped us better understand what that type of program look like from a financial perspective and having those numbers available. Now, would we have moved forward with that? I don't think the votes are there for it, but it would have helped us in the community understand how that program could function should we have moved in that direction. And I will say that to you know some of the points brought up around um developers and uh you know the fact that section 8 vouchers holders can go anywhere they want. You're absolutely right. However, what we've been seeing, what we hear throughout our community is people get these vouchers and as we heard from them when the housing authority came here and gave a presentation earlier this year, people get these housing vouchers and often times they have nowhere to go because there is discrimination against section 8 housing voucher holders even though state law says a landlord cannot discriminate against section 8 housing voucher holders based on the fact that they are voucher holders. But the reality is there is no enforcement of that. And so we see people, we say we care about homelessness, we're trying to do something about homelessness, we want to get people off the street and into housing. And from my perspective as somebody who's really trying to, you know, make a dent in that, it's if we're building all this new housing, why are we not trying to set aside a small percentage of that for people who could who are experiencing homelessness or who are low income who could pay, you know, use that as a way of paying back fair market rents and getting those people into housing so that they're not being discriminated against because, you know, some of these people are on these list for like 10 years, they get a voucher and then they have nowhere to go. And so the reason why we're moving forward with this, this isn't an incentive for developers. It's trying to figure out a way that we can help do our part in reducing homelessness and providing affordable housing for people and getting people off the street. And the fact that it hasn't been, you know, it hasn't been at the detriment of new housing development coming into the Santa city of Santa Cruz, which has had this program now for six years. That was the purpose for trying to see what this could look like here in the county and trying to move forward with something that obviously folks in our immediate vicinity have had success with. So, um, I'll have some additional questions before. Oh, and I guess the last question I had is just are you all familiar with you brought up court cases, but we had a local case here, Hatch vers Pomeran, city of Santa Cruz, and I'm wondering if you're familiar with that case as well, because that and we can talk about it after we go out to the public and after other folks have an opportunity to comment. I do have some serious concerns with the fact that that case similar with measure O which was set by the voters in 1979 set their affordable housing inclusionary percentage at 15%. The study from Kaiser Marson recommended that the city reduce their affordable inclusionary housing to 10% for rental units. The city did that. they were sued and they lost and they ended up going back to 15% and that's when we increased it to the additional 5% to go towards section A voucher holders um and in the absence of that going to moderate rents because of the fact that that lawsuit was um found that the city had violated measure J and I have concerns with this moving forward with the recommendations because it would put us in a similar situation with Measure O and I'm just concerned about us having additional lawsuits um moving forward with this. So, I'll end my comments there and then when we come back, I'll have more to say. Thank you, >> Supervisor Hernandez. >> First of all, I have to say it's amazing that we've only had two market rate projects that have been built. Um, but yet our county has been named several years in a row now the most expensive county in the nation. I can't imagine if we doubled the amount of market rate that we built to four projects. I'm being facicious of course. You know, bottom line is I think that and you kind of mentioned it as well too. Um that I I think that the way we calculate the formula for both affordable and market rate is kind of skewed. I believe that the higher income levels in the north skew those numbers especially for uh the lower income levels in in in the fourth district. uh and it makes it extremely high what you even affordable is uh and market rate of course you know I don't think that housing housing is not dictated by these inclusionary rules otherwise Watson would have t tooken theirs off um and two market rate projects is not a symptom of inclusionary rules uh it's more the culture of no that we have in the county uh my question is how can we move ourselves off that most expensive housing in the country uh list that's out there that's been going on for a few years and can we actually change the formula how we uh calculate what affordable and and market rate housing is. Um, you know, I I know this Nexus study is certainly not going to get us off that list. Uh, the most expensive uh housing in the nation, but what can we do to move move ourselves off that list? And can we actually change the formula how we create uh what the u income levels are for affordable and what the level the housing costs are for for affordable and market rate. >> Yeah. So, I I can take a shot at that and we'll see if Kathy has anything to add or Stephanie. So, um, just in terms of what the affordable levels are for our local program, for our measure J program, yes, of course, it is in the board's prerogative if you wanted to modify the program to say, oh, rather than having low income units where we're going to require very low or extremely low, right, or we're going to split it across categories or something like that. It's in the, you know, the board has the prerogative to do that. whether or not that would prove to be a feasible requirement. Um, I think maybe Kathy could weigh in on that. Um, but I I will say it's not that the only housing policy the county implements is the Measure J program. There there's a pro and a con with an inclusionary program. The pro is if it works well, you're getting affordable units interspersed in a market rate project and you're getting some level of income diversity and you know maybe other types of diversity in those new developments. That was part of the theory behind why people created these programs to begin with. The con is if your community for whatever reason is not seeing a pretty large volume of development on a regular basis, then you're not getting any units of any kind, right? You're relying on the private sector to build housing. So, it's not a single solution to any community's housing problems, which is why we also have the various housing funds that we manage and we provide direct subsidies and we have a lot of our land use policies to try to encourage um housing to be built by non-private sector or non-market rate forces, right? We have nonprofit housing developers that we assist or other types of developers that are willing to build subsidized housing. We also have county policies that prioritize our housing funds to assist in the development particularly of extremely low and very lowincome units. And we have been doing that for about 30 years now. The amount of money we have to to to assist those projects goes up and down over the years. But that is county policy. And of course, as you may be aware, you know, with our housing for health division, they um really are putting forward a lot of initiatives to try to address those very lowest income levels. You're acutely low and extremely low in the permanent supportive housing projects. So, we have to think about the entire context of county efforts and policies related to housing. We're only talking today about one tiny component in that overall mix of county policy. So, I think to really emphasize, we we understand very much that there's a lot of need in the community for units that are affordable to people in those, you know, very low, extremely low levels, people with special needs who may have very little income. And there's a lot of effort we're putting into trying to address those needs to the extent we can. But of course, county resources are pretty limited. But at least with our policies, you know, policies are less expensive than construction costs. So our policies do encourage and add incentives for um those developers that are interested in developing that type of project. But what we can't control is for that market rate investor who can invest in, you know, PaloAlto or wherever they want, wherever they think it's the most um conducive development environment for a variety of reasons. Wider market forces, geographic location, proximity to certain amenities, um land use policies, like it's a mix. It's not just one thing that guides those decisions. Um, some of those things we can control and some of those things we can't control, right? So, we can't necessarily come up with a study that's going to show that it's feasible to impose, let's say, I don't know, a 10% requirement for extremely low income units, for example. And I'll let Kathy chime in on that. >> Well, no, because it all just be in for inclusionary, it all just becomes math at that point. I mean, it's if you lower the rent, then you're going to have fewer affordable units. I work on a number of programs that do provide options that do provide a very low option versus a low option versus a moderate option with different percentages which is perfectly legitimate, you know, as a as a policy decision to make as long as you're doing the balancing act. Just to throw in another wrinkle in all of this is until 2012 we had redevelopment and with redevelopment 20% of all the tax increment went to affordable housing. it was about 25% of the equity into affordable housing in the state. And so when that went away in 2012, that's where you saw affordable housing really start to fall off. And for a variety of other reasons, the the need for affordable housing continuing to grow and the resources becoming less and less. So the state over time and especially in the last few years has done a couple things and then taken back a couple things which is they started throwing a lot of money at affordable housing but competitively awarded and so you know San Francisco got a bunch of it you know and um that was available to sort of start replacing the lost redevelopment money um and so savvy affordable housing developers you know nonprofits for profofits but doing 100% afford affordable projects, which means you're not dispersing the units throughout the community. You're putting them in one place. So, that's another policy decision to be made, is that um they got very good at competing for those funding sources. Well, now with the California budget being a mess now, most of those for the last two years, most of those resources have been surve severely curtailed and not not being available as they were. So now we're going to run into that sort of when redevelopment ended problem of now where's the money coming from because the federal money is being reduced, the state money is being reduced. So the legislature over the last several years has put in a lot of you know the legislators legislature has decided they're zoning experts and so they've done a lot of of telling you all what you can do and what you can't do. And so some of that I I would say this about the density bonus which does change every year pretty much. um is that's been a successful program. I mean, people use the density bonus and they've made it more, you know, it was originally adopted in 2005. In the last seven to 10 years, they've changed it every year and it is more viable. And then once again, it kind of acts like inclusionary because then you're you're spreading your affordable units throughout the community. And so to the extent that market rate residential is viable, it's very likely they'll use density bonus. And if they use density bonus, then they will provide affordable. That hasn't happened yet here. I'm not saying it won't, but >> one >> one Yeah, I'm sorry. The seven unit project. I'm sorry. Uh, I'm not, but I'm just saying I go back to what Suzanne said, which is until it happens, we can't put a requirement on it in my opinion. >> So, what can we do to make it more affordable to get off that list? >> Um, I can say a little bit about what the state theory or answer to that is. I mean, if you look at housing element law as well as all the new streamlining bills that the state has passed in recent years, um the way you can read all of that legislation and that law is that the theory is by making it easier to develop and taking away some of these constraints to development that have been imposed in California really since the early 70s to varying degrees by different communities. um it will make it easier to develop. Now, I think we might have seen more um proof of that theory had we not run into these really rocky economic times at the national level in the last couple of years with the tariffs and the interest rates and things like that. You know, I think we might have seen a a little bit more of a um development projects getting underway, starting construction had that uncertainty not come into the the market at that time. And maybe maybe we will see results along those lines in a few years if some of this sorts itself out. We are seeing development on the affordable side now. So we are seeing the bulk of our development so far in this housing element cycle. Uh I just got the latest data from our staff and um our our current it's the sixth cycle housing element period as the state defines it for us that runs from July of 2023 through 2031. The data we have to date for that period runs through um from July again of 20 23 through June of this year. 84% of our units that broke ground that we issued building permits for in that period are either affordable or ADUs. And we sort of analyze the ADU rents and they do fall within that low to moderate category. So 84% affordable of our current pipeline. A lot of the the bulk of those units is coming in several subsidized housing projects and those projects do include extremely low and very low income units. So for example, we had the Pippen project breakground in South County. Um I think that was in 2022 2023. um 80 units of affordable that was subsidized by recycled RDA funds from back in those days. Um we have the um link project on 41st in SoCal with 256 units. They recently pulled their permit so they're contributing a big chunk to that 84%. And then we're going to have the Anton project on also in SoCal on um Thurber Lane 171 units I think that's not even included in that figure yet but they'll be pulling permits in October and um that is in the you know extremely low to low category. So we are seeing development in these subsidized housing projects. What we're not seeing yet is the market rate projects. Now again, we have updated our general plan. We've increased densities. We've done a lot of streamlining and we are seeing interest. We're seeing activity in the development review pipeline, but most of that market rate activity has not moved into the construction phase. And the proof is really in the pudding. you know, if we want to survive a lawsuit or HCD inquiries or whatever else, um, they're going to look at what has actually gotten built because that's when you prove it's feasible, right? Until somebody says go on that construction project, it's just theoretical. Um, and we have a lot of projects that are entitled that have been entitled. We've had some nice density bonus projects that were entitled in 2018 2019 market rate projects for sale and rental using the density bonus and the developers I mean we talk to them sometimes they come back and check in when interest rates are a little lower whatever and they're thinking about saying go and they haven't yet in what six seven eight years because it's not penciling. They literally tell us this, we can't get commercial financing for this project or it's not producing um you know with the new interest rates it doesn't pencil. They've put sites on the market. So you know again we really have to look at stuff that actually gets built to be able to reasonably use the data in a study like this. Speaking of things that get built, you know, I've seen in my time in council, an entire neighborhood get built in South County um right behind Target and it was um they had their inclusionary ordinance for 20% and it didn't hinder that project at all. As a matter of fact, it has both mixed income levels within that entire project. Even the project that's being built underway right now is I think it's 114 units. It used to be called sunshine. Not the sunshine that supervisor uh disturb was mentioning but I think sunshine they changed it to terrace something but it's 114 units and they have 33 market rate units and then the rest is all affordable and and um intermediate rate. >> I don't I believe that's in the city of Watsonville. So yeah, I mean what I'm saying is our you said the con the con for these inclusionary rules is that these type of projects won't get built out but it doesn't seem to be the case in in the city of Watsonville. How can we take a page from them to learn how we can do the these mixed income uh level housing where we do have affordable very affordable market rate intermediate. So, um I can tell you I mean I used to be staffed to the city of Watsville. I'm very familiar with their program as well and um you know all of us local jurisdiction staff in the county. We talk we compare notes. So I mean and a lot of the communities literally have copied their program structure from the counties because the county was one of the earliest. Um so believe me we are sharing best practices and things like that. But what I I don't know that much specific about the project you're referencing, but one thing that may be the difference in that case is timing. And again, right now we're in a very challenging time and the study is looking at recent data. The project you're referencing, it may be that somebody bought that land, I don't know, 15, 16 years ago and got the project entitled and financed, I don't know how many years ago, and they just didn't start construction until several years ago. We have projects like that, too. I mean for example Aptoass Village you know they just sold their last measure J unit there um what was it within the last 12 months that project um started their entitlement explorations I think in 2010 they I don't know when they acquired the site but you know it took 15 years more or less to get it entitled and built out and they were completing during this time period but they didn't start it and finance it during the time period when everything got really challenging. So, you can't look at just one project and that happen to be able to be built, you know, in a relatively recent time period and assume that all the future sites in the county that we're going to look at are going to get the same deal on the land that maybe this party got. Maybe it was a familyowned property and they had a development company. I don't know. But, you know, and often in Watsonville there are a properties and they're sold when they're still zoned a and then they're reszoned. And so often you can pick up those a properties for a much lower cost than an urban site that's already zoned residential. So there's there's just so many factors it's hard to go off of like one anecdotal case. Um but I can just reflect on you know what the conclusions are in the report and looking at recent data and we did actually we did include some Watsonville projects um data in some components of the report but it's not just based on you know one project. >> Well thank you. You know I just think that we have to do something else something different you know because what we're doing is not working. of course, you know, address the culture of no, but I think we're also going to have to continue to work on different policies that that get us off that list. >> Thank you. Um, you know, as it relates to housing, development, affordable housing, inclusionary rates. Um, this is the sort of thing that as elected officials we get a lot of comments about. Um, and so what I appreciate about the study is that it's an independent feasibility analysis. And so I really want to stay keep my questions really focused on the facts, help me understand what the facts are. And I hope that our further discussion after we go out to the public and bring it back, it stays focused on the data. um rather than a rebuttal of opinions because I think that that is what has kind of gotten us here is a lot of opinions and and we hired you I believe to bring us an independent analysis, right? >> Yes. So, so let's just start kind of like zoom way out. If if there was one key takeaway from this report, what would that be for the public? I think the one key takeaway is this is something the building industry says and you know so I just caveat it with that is 15% of zero is zero and so I think it's really important to target your requirements to something that will not def d defer people from from wanting to come develop in your community. I think there have been some really good points made about zoning and ability and making it easy to develop, you know, helps, but I also think that um Suzanne's made some excellent points about location. And that's I mean that really does bring us back to downtown Santa Cruz in many ways is downtown Santa Cruz is different than the rest of the the county. And so I think it's really important and as I said at the beginning, no two of my inclusionary studies look alike because I look at each community and what it's actually seeing being developed. And and and and in fairness, and I said this at the beginning, I take a conservative approach to to what can be supported because I'm mindful of the fact that you can't make a developer develop in your community. they can go to another community and and develop there. And so the goal of inclusionary is to create affordable housing and it is to intersperse it throughout your community, but you need to have development to have that happen. And for today's item that you're bringing before us, can you just list out like what are the key decisions before the board today? >> Yes. Uh thank you chair. So they they are on the slide. Um accept and file the reports. Um provide CDI with directions and this is just optional if the board has some consensus about what direction you think you might be interested in going in making any changes either to the the program and the mechanics of that would basically mean amendments to chapter 1710 in a future ordinance. um and or any changes to the fees. A and this is just to help staff prepare to launch a community engagement effort. Um to go back to our stakeholder group, you know, we started the study with um some meetings with our stakeholder group which includes both um housing advocates, affordable housing developers, market rate developers, policy, you know, housing policy people. Um we would um if the board directs us that you are interested in making some sort of changes to the program or to the fee rates then we would um start this community engagement process with um meeting with the stakeholder group again and then meeting with the housing advisory commission. We would be presenting these reports and this staff report to those groups getting their feedback. They may have thoughts in all kinds of directions, right? There may be factions of the community with differing opinions on these topics, right? And then that would help us come back to the board in maybe the spring with a a summary of all of that input for your consideration and then you could reconsider, okay, do we want to make any changes? Do we not want to make any changes? If we do want to make changes, which way do we want to go? What things do we want to change? So if there is some consensus on the board today about maybe narrowing the scope of what you would like us to bring through that community engagement process. In other words, I'll just give you an example. Maybe the board decides um we agree we don't need to make any changes on the for sale program. Maybe we're amendable to considering some changes on the rental side. You know, in whatever direction the board wants to give us some input on that. Maybe there's some consensus on the fee rates. You know, keep them the same, change them, increase, decrease. You know, if you have some consensus where you want to sort of give us a little bit of parameters so we could have that focus when we go to the community engagement process, that would be helpful. But if you don't, that's okay, too. We'll just take the report as is through that process and come back in the spring. That so so those are our recommendations. So there's no legal action today. There's no ordinance to be adopted or anything like that. >> Thank you. And and now that we have this report that provides some factual data around inclusionary rates for the rental properties, what limitations may that place on us based on uh future policym? So basically it um when we started out with this housing element program, it had a goal of um reinstating the 15% requirement that had been the case through more or less 2009, let's say. Um because that didn't prove to be a feasible rate. You know, legally speaking, we would really recommend that you stick within the range of 10 to 12%. Let's say an average of 11% low. That's a specific finding for the low category, which is what we require currently in our program if somebody is opting to provide the on-site units. Um, so that's in essence how the f how the study findings have narrowed the scope of what you could increase it to potentially. Now, you could take a risk maybe and go a little higher than that, but we don't recommend that. And I don't know if Jason has anything he wants to um clarify on that point, but you know the report says it has found that that 10 to 12 range looks feasible. >> We may get assertions that challenge that finding from some of the folks who have developed recently. Maybe they didn't share their data with us and so we don't have the same data they have. So, you often will get that from stakeholders as you go forward with a potential ordinance amendment. Um, what I have found in the past is the closer you get to actually enact enacting a change, the more people will engage with you in these type of hearings. And you know, obviously we don't have too many people here today, but if we had a draft ordinance here before us, you might be hearing a lot more from people with um you know, that might be potentially impacted by those ordinance changes. And the 10 to 12% um inclusionary rate for rental came from the math, right, of the independent feasibility analysis. And that math came with it a series of assumptions, right? Assumptions on the market rates, assumptions on the what we how we define low income. Um I heard my colleague ask a series of questions around those. I had some of those. Um and I feel it helped me understand because I had some of the questions in reading the report as well. Um and those are examples of levers that if changed may change that percentage. Are there any other levers that we as a policy board may consider if we wanted further analysis on that percentage? You've talked about the the major components. I mean, if you were to change the way you calculate affordable, then you would by definition get a higher percentage immediately. I and there are other levers and there's kind of the same things that the state's doing with their with the zoning and the density bonus. You know, if you reduce parking requirements as a general rule, that's a huge benefit in terms of development costs. Now, again, if you're in a downtown, reducing the parking really works better because you've got transit and and ability and walkable area. If you're out, you know, in an area where you don't have transit or walkability, then reducing parking isn't necessarily marketable. So a developer doesn't necessarily want to reduce the parking even if you allow them to to reduce the parking. Um but I mean those are those are the typical things because what you'll see with development is developers will build as dense as they can till they have to go to another construction type. So adding density doesn't always create value. It creates value as long as you're staying in the in the same construction type or if rents or sales prices are high enough to justify the higher construction costs. But those are the things that developers are looking at when they when they come to your community. So the idea is and to and to come back to the earlier question about how can you not be the most expensive county in the United States is it is a supply issue for sure. I mean the more development you get then the lower the you know the prices will then fall to reflect that but then there needs to be a means of attracting the development and that hasn't happened. Thank you. Um, let's see. Any further questions that weren't covered by others? Um, you shared where how you came up with average rental rates. Um, you shared how you landed on the 60% of an area medium income. Um, I think that I think I'll conclude my question so we can go out to the public. However, when we return to the board, um, you know, I I appreciate you outlining kind of what it is we're trying to accomplish today. Um, and I hope that we can continue to have a a dialogue and potentially actions that are really based within the parameters of the report um, and the guidance for the um, next steps um, because we because this can become a very philosophical conversation and I think that um, you know, when it comes to good policy, you want to stay really focused on the evidence and the facts. So, with that, I'm going to take it out to the public. Anybody who's in the room who'd like to speak on this item, feel free to join a line in front of us. >> Welcome. >> Good. Good afternoon. So, I'm Tim Willoughby and I'm speaking for Affordable Housing Now. Um, some of you know me and I'm sure you know that Affordable Housing Now, our goal is always to push to get as many units as we can. Um however uh there is a threshold in which you end up with no units as she has as has has been brought up 15% of nothing is nothing. So um we uh I concur with um the staff's recommendations um and I think the the report was very thorough uh and very understandable. Sometimes you need somebody to help you know the jargon. But anyway, so the 15% restoring to 15% is good. And that 11% figure is very important. So you need to go back in time before affordable housing was 15% at the moderate rate and at that rate nobody was building rental housing. So I'm just going to focus on rental housing. So that's why the density bonus system is uh is was invented and the second reason was that it was all at the moderate rate. So the density bonus system encourages rental production and it encourages developers to offer those at lower rates than moderate. And here's where people get really confused because they focus only on the percentage of units or the number of units. What is happening is it's the subsidy, the total subsidy. So as an example, a very lowincome unit is twice the subsidy of a moderate rate unit. So if you have a housing project with with one with two of um low income very low income units that's equivalent to having four moderate moderate income units and so that's why it's just not so important. So okay anyway sorry >> thank you >> thank you Becky Steinbruner. That was a very informative and dense report. I appreciate it. I've been watching this issue for about 10 years when the Aptas Village project came to my neighborhood and I began to try to understand all of this. Um I I think it is important to uphold the will of the voters with measure J and I do not think we should reduce the percentage of rental inclusionary housing because that the measure J issue was really adamant that that we we keep that at 15%. I I have seen this county take different approaches that there was the inloo payment fee where developers could pay money instead of building affordable housing. Well, that didn't work out and that's maybe a part of why we have seen so little in this county. There are projects coming along. We can look at village on the green in district 2. uh two six-story apartment buildings with 200 three-story town homes. We can look at what is proposed on the NY property uh multiple multi-story pro uh buildings. So the these are in the part pipeline and I think that we have to hold the developers feet to the fire to make sure that these inclusionary units are there and built and offered to the public. It isn't just the the cost of building, it's also um until recently cost of water was extremely high. So, Kell Creek Water District's rate um water demand offset was extremely high. So, that has also been a factor. Um I I want to know um if um medical facilities are considered commercial because I think that's where a lot of our building commercial building is going to be happening. Brick and mortar commercial is not >> Thank you. Yeah. >> All right. See anyone else here in chambers? Is there anyone online? >> Yes, there is. Rafa, your microphone is now available. >> Thank you. Uh, good morning or afternoon supervisors. I've been on the phone for a while. Uh, Rafa Sunfeld speaking on behalf of Santa Cruz. Um, we strongly support building more affordable housing, but in uh we are concerned that uh inclusionary requirements reduce feasibility of housing in Santa Cruz County. And uh as has been said stated over and over again, uh uh it only produces affordable housing when underlying market rate housing projects actually get built. And we've seen almost, you know, virtually no uh market rate housing in the county in decades. Um so so we really encourage the county to uh be moving to to reduce the constraints on on market rate housing in in the county. And if that means uh reducing the inclusion error requirement uh below current levels or providing alternatives that's the direction we should be going in. Um the staff reports a little bit confusing um in terms of the recommendations. Uh uh program housing element program H3J actually would require the county to increase its affordable housing requirement for rental uh projects to 15% and makes them mandatory uh on site. Uh we don't think that that is a good program. Uh we recommend that the county uh work with HCD to modify program H3J, eliminate it uh so that you do not have to provide uh uh I affordable units with a market rate project or at least reduce the number below the 15%. Uh certainly no more than the 10 to 12% that's recommended in the staff report. We also don't don't recommend that the county increase uh impact fees for affordable housing on rental unit properties. Thank you very much. >> Thank you >> Tim. Your microphone is now available. >> Thank you again for allowing me to speak. I really appreciate it. So listening to all this I am concerned. You know, nothing against people that are homeless or caregiving, agriculture, you know, I view those entities there, you know, they kind of should come first in all of this discussion. Uh, but I've heard virtually nothing about fire, water, and environment. you know, like it or not, you know, I ski and I surf and with this type of discussion here, they totally destroyed Tahoe. And so, this is where, you know, I don't agree with Gavin Newsome, for instance. You know, it's like he sounds more like a Republican that's backing a bunch of developers up there in Tahoe. They wrecked it. So, the thing is is is also, you know, that creates a situation where my community cannot escape in the event of a fire. And another concern here is, you know, I I heard, you know, Justin, you know, brought up some points. He's wondering, you know, why there isn't more development in unincorporated areas and stuff like that. The reason is is about 99 or maybe 95% of the American public isn't suitable to live in those unincorporated areas. You know, my home up in Tahoe is over 7,000 ft and a lot of the American public just cannot handle living in that type of environment. And same here in the Santa Cruz Mountains with all the water and heavy weather that we get. It's not an ideal environment to be in. Up in Tahoe, they pulled all the wood stoves and things out of the homes and thought they're doing the right thing. Well, in the 1516 winter, a bunch of folks, the whole town was dark up in in Village and everybody was sleeping in their cars next to the gas station. Go figure. And I was the only one, you know, I was one of the few people in the town that had a survivable home. They just don't know how to live at these altitudes. So, right now, I just can't be supportive unless I hear about fire, water, and environment. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, >> Janine. Your microphone is now available. >> Hello, everyone. My name is Janine Roth. I'm a volunteer lead with >> Janine. We seem to have lost you. Please go ahead and attempt to reconnect um or accept. >> Yes, thank you. We can hear you now. >> Great. Thanks. Hi, my name is Janine Roth. I'm also a volunteer lead with Santa Cruz Yimi. We advocate for housing at all levels of affordability. I really appreciate the presentation today. Um I appreciate all the questions that you asked and the really great answers from the staff and KMA. Um, I agree with Supervisor Koig that taxing housing to get more affordable housing just simply uh doesn't work. So, I'm going to add a voice to urge you not to raise the impact fees and not to impose a mandatory rental inclusionary percentage. Um, the market rate housing, as you guys have mentioned multiple times, is already pretty anemic and so doubling impact fees or adding any inclusionary requirements will just shut down future projects. Um, I heard KMA say that the key takeaway is that it could shut down projects and um that the biggest threat here is to the future development. And I'll just add that 11% of zero housing is still zero housing. So Santa Cruz has been named the most unaffordable county in the country four years in a row. And you have direct local control to change that by lowering fees and removing barriers. And that's consistent with state law, state housing element law that you must reduce constraints on housing. And so adding any fees, adding inclusionary maintenance mandates does the exact opposite. So just once again asking you to direct staff not to raise the fees, not to imply the rental inclusionary percentage, but rather let's remove those constraints and actually get housing, including market rate housing built. Thank you very much, >> chair. I see no further speakers online. >> Thank you. We will now return to the board for discussion and action. Supervisor Cummings. >> Thank you, Chair. So, um again, I just want to appreciate um this study that's come forward. Um I guess I'm a little shocked that it took this long for this study to come forward just given that we had provided direction back in 2023 and it sounds like the work started this time of year in 2025. But that being said, I do, you know, want to just um express appreciation for the work that's been done. Uh speaking a little bit to the housing situation, I mean one of the things I think it's worth noting is that there have been a variety of changes in housing law, density bonus in particular that has been successful at increasing the amount of housing in our communities um and in many of these communities with an inclusionary rental rate at 15% and in the course of the city of Santa Cruz 20. Um, and so, you know, for me, I really, and there's a lot of other policies that are coming through the state around parking and what have you. So, and I think more importantly though, the fact that Measure J was passed by the voters for 15% inclusionary, the fact that the city had passed measure O and they, similar to the study that we have before us, the Kaiser Marson study at that point in time recommended reducing inclusionary housing percentage to 10%. They did that, they were sued and they lost. And I think that that should be an example of us in terms of a data point of why we should maintain the 15%. And I think that um you know, one of the things moving forward is that you know, this isn't our final decision today. This is going to go out to the community. There's going to be a number of groups that are going to weigh in. There's going to be more time for us to analyze if that were to be reduced. But I don't think that today would be a good time for us to reduce that percentage given that we haven't had a deeper discussion about the legal implications and rather than kind of stirring things up at this point in time, it might be in our best interest to move forward with both the for sale and the rental at 15%. Um, if there isn't, you know, I understand there's probably not going to be unanimous support for that, but maybe what we could do is present both of these options for the for sale housing, which I do agree with the staff's recommendation, but for the rental housing, putting these two the option of 11% and 15% out with the different arguments for for each. Um, and for me in particular, it's really the legal aspect. This is was passed by the voters and should we um, you know, we don't want to undermine the vote of the people. Um, I I appreciate the 60% being used. I think it would have been really helpful for members of the public and myself to have better understood why 60% was used and why we didn't use data from um, you know, our own housing authority who calculates the fair market rents and they calculate the percentage of folks who like the the income levels for people who qualify for um, low, very low, and extremely low housing. And so I'm a little, you know, taken back by that why that wasn't used, but I do appreciate the um explanation. Um I think it would be good for us to understand those numbers. Um, but again, not sure whether the board's going to want to, you know, pay for an additional study on that, but I think that it should be clear when this goes to other groups that this does not reflect the I I think it would be important to include what HUD and what the housing authority provides in terms of their numbers for affordability and how this is, you know, in the calculations on how we got to 60% rather than um the percentages and the numbers that they use. Um, I will say based on some of the comments that were made around kind of the feasibility of housing, I I really hope that um, we can start sending better messages to our state representatives and having deeper conversation because the fact of the matter is that based on conversations that have been said, based on my experience being in local government, we are approving permits for housing. We are approving entitlements for housing. And people push us to rush through the entitlement process to get these, you know, projects moved through the system. But the reality is it's not local government who's in control of whether or not someone can build a building. It is market forces, it's labor cost, it's the cost of materials, it's interest rates, it's inflation. And so to blame local jurisdictions and say we're not building housing, the reality is that the developers aren't getting financing for their projects and it's for a variety of factors. So, I just hope that we can kind of destigmatize this idea that the counties and the cities are preventing housing from getting built when the reality is that people come in and get the permits and then they sit on them and, you know, they're like golden medallions where they sit on them as long as they can and when the when the moment is right and they can find the right buyer, they can sell them off and make a bunch of profit. And you know, I think the reason why, you know, I'm so adamant about affordable housing and trying to maximize the amount of affordable housing is because for all the single family homes in this community, those are all market rate homes. None of those homes, unless they're under a measure J program or some other program, are being sold at low or moderate income rates. And so, as we see as someone who's looking for housing is when you go on Zillow, when you talk to folks, none of these houses are in the affordability range. And if we're going to continue to build more market rate, we're going to continue to have our county be one of the most unaffordable counties. And I actually like the fact that right now that what we're seeing coming in is affordable housing because that's going to help our workforce. And based on what we heard, the market rate that's getting built in the city is going for people who work in tech over the hill and students who go to UCSC, which means it's not going to people who work in our local government. It's not going to the people who are small business owners. It's not going to people who make this community sustainable. when I'm out in the community, that's what people complain about the most is that they see new housing getting built, but they don't have people in their families or in their orbits who are getting into that housing. And so, again, Supervisor Hernandez and I have been working on this local preference requirement. I really hope that we can follow up with staff to make sure that that continues to be moving forward as well. Um, again, you know, just want to reiterate and remind oursel this is a conservative analysis. We could have done this with using 80%. And so I think that, you know, the fact that 11% was recommended, that is a conservative estimate. And what we know is that based on demand that's here in Santa Cruz, we likely have more demand than what is being presented in that conservative analysis that would justify um units going towards those higher levels of affordability under the low-inccome category, which again was around someone making $1,100,000 a month would qualify for low income. So I think that you know that's another reason why we should consider moving forward with the 15% and again you know if there's options that we can have. I think that would also be beneficial for the folks who are going to be reviewing these programs. And um I guess with that I'll leave it there and I'll just say that I'm supportive of so I'm actually going to make a motion and maybe we could work on it but I'm going to move that with the affordable housing impact fee that we move forward with option B. I support the for sale housing uh at 15% which is staff recommendation. Um I also support the 15% for rental and then I would move that um we also um well I I actually would make a separate separate the motion out too and I I don't know if I can make two two motions at the same time. No. Okay. um that we accept the report but acknowledge that um the report lacks the analysis related to the 5% increase inclusion area for section 8 housing vouchers and moderate rate rents. Um and that concludes my motion. >> I'll second that motion. >> We have a motion from Supervisor Cummings and a second from Supervisor Hernandez. further discussion. I might just make ask a question actually of um county council. We've had a couple of comments related to legal risk. One relates to the city of Santa Cruz lawsuit and I believe measure O and then another one related to potential risk in setting an inclusionary rate that's higher than what our the study shows. So, can you kind of talk to each of those um risks and provide some guidance? >> Yeah, I might try to might try to just rephrase it a little bit. I'm I'm hearing concerns that um the voter approved measure J required requires the 15%. Well, and and it's 15% of what? It's it's not 15% of each development. It's 15% overall development in the county is required to be 15% affordable. So if we if we look for example at the last three years the first part of this this housing development cycle I think and Miss Eay can correct me if I'm wrong I think 85% of our housing stock that's been built during that period of time is affordable. So, we're way way above uh the 15% that we're talking about. Um I am not concerned about getting a lawsuit regarding Measure J if um if your board were to um lower the percentage to 12% or 11%. Um but it's, you know, it's it's something that your board could do. It's it's it's uh something that your board could do. Um if you if if you wanted to do that, if you wanted to raise it to 15%, you could. The um uh the concern I would have about that second issue about raising it to 15%. Is that at this point at this point it's not supported by the data, right? And so if if when we go into court and we try to defend these things, the first thing that the trior of fact asks is you know what what what did you base your decision on? And we have to have evidence supporting what we base our decisions on. And so if we have a study that says, you know, the amount shouldn't eclipse 12% or it's confiscatory, then what I get concerned about is that if your board were to adopt something that were 15%. Then a judge turns to me and say, "What was that decision based on?" And I can't point to any data that that decision was based on. Um, so does that answer your questions? >> Thank you. Yes, it does. >> Okay. >> Through the chair. Then if there's an opportunity for us to have an analysis done at 80%. Then that may actually resolve that issue. >> Yeah. That's not a legal issue though. That's you know what I mean? That's it's a policy issue. I agree with you. If you change if you change inputs, you're going to get um by very nature you're going to of changing inputs, you're going to get a different result back. Um, so does that make does that make sense, supervisor, or >> I know it makes complete sense okay because I mean I think the the reality is I mean >> the direction I'm moving in is based on personal experience when we had a similar study at the city of Santa Cruz and we did you know move the city I wasn't on the city council at the time the city did move in the direction that the study had recommended and again the city was sued and then they based on the lawsuit they had they came to an agreement to reinstate the 15%. So >> yeah, so so to that point to that point exact to that very point um measure O measure J very different uh they're they're very different programs. um you know the um measure measure um the city's program is significantly more complicated as I understand it than our program is and the analysis that I'm doing is based just on looking at measure J and what Measure J requires. If a lawsuit occurred over in the city regarding measure O and the city took um uh efforts to resolve it for whatever reason the city decided to resolve that lawsuit. I don't have that information. I don't know if it was. I would love to see if this if there was a judgment, for example, if if if there was an actual court case that led to a court judgment that said that the city had done something wrong. I would want to see that, right? And I would want to and I would want to see not only the judgment, but I would want to see what measure O required and how measure O is different than what measure J requires. >> Okay. So maybe maybe the different direction maybe I'd be willing to provide a little bit of different direction which would be to have the have staff return with analysis continue the the study have staff return with analysis using 80% based on um housing authorities numbers and have staff or have county council conduct provide county council with more time to review the potential legal implications of measure O as it relates to reducing our affordable housing requirement. Is that >> okay? So, first of all, let me hold on one second. Wait one second. There was a motion on the floor. It got a second. >> I'll withdraw. >> So, is that motion withdrawn? Okay. So, that motion is withdrawn. >> So, so there's a new motion. And can can you please um >> Sure. Uh repeat the >> the motion would be to for the for the rental housing study use 80% for low income as a parameter for rentals and for income based on the housing authorities now numbers for Santa Cruz County. Additionally, conduct the analysis related to increasing the inclusionary by 5% for section 8 voucher holders and when section 8 housing vouchers are unavailable for moderate rate renters and direct county council to to investigate the legal implications for for reducing our 15% based on measure O and recent court cases in Santa Cruz County. >> Yeah. So, so the the um I I don't need I don't need to review measure O. It would not it would not be helpful to the board for me to review measure O because the board is not governed by measure O and it it what I reviewed is measure J is the language is the language from measure J. >> My my mistake. Okay. Sorry. Now I'm um Measure J. >> Um so so what would you be wanting from my office regarding the third part of your of your motion? >> So from your office would be understanding what the implications would be for reducing what the legal implications would be for reducing the inclusionary in rentals. >> We can talk about that right now. I mean I've done I spent a ton of time working on this yesterday. I've I've worked this issue up. But I thought you just said like a minute or two ago that you didn't understand what happened in that court case and you needed more time to better understand. >> No, no, no. It's more it's more it's more that what what happened in that court case doesn't doesn't impact my analysis of what's going on with measure J because it's they're two they're two different things. Measure J and Measure O are not are not necessarily carbon copies of of each other. and what what happened with a lawsuit in the in the city. I just don't know anything about that, you know, and so, >> right, and that's why I thought >> I can't speak back to you and say, for example, when you're saying that the city, you know, got into a lawsuit and lost, for example, I that doesn't move me at all with regard to Measure J and the analysis that I've done regarding measure J. All right. And I and I actually don't know why it's necessarily being equated, why the two things are being equated just because they both involve affordable housing. Well, I think they both involve affordable housing and percentages that were voted on by people back in that time. And in terms of having it, >> but what I'm what I'm and what I'm saying is that Measure J, if you look at the language of Measure J, which is ours, Measure J says that 15% overall, the policy is that 15% of construction of ownership and rental units countywide need to be affordable. And the board can pick all kinds of ways in order to make that happen, right? One being the things that you're arguing about right now or debating right now. But Measure J does not require that each development have 15%. >> I don't think that's true. >> I literally have the language sitting in front of me, >> you know. So, so, so, um, you know, it it, you know, what's going on with Measure O? I, you know, I would I would it's it's it's a red herring to me. What's going what what what might have happened with Measure O when I look at the language of Measure J and I determine what would we be sued on? What What would we be sued on? We would be sued on not having policies where 15% of the constructed units were affordable. Well, over the last three years, 85% of the units are affordable. So, I'm I'm I'm I'm struggling to to to to figure out who would have a viable lawsuit against us based on a violation of Measure J because your board toggles the amount of affordability with regard to rental units and pegs it at 11% or 12% when in reality 85% is what we're is what we're seeing. So I guess thank you. Um I would then stick with the other two parts of that motion because the reality is the board asked for a specific analysis to be done and it wasn't done. We had another analysis that was done on 20% but what we were asked but what supervisor Hernandez and I had asked for was not done and we had included it into our housing element. I think that at a minimum given this that we're supposed to accept this report that we've asked for four years ago that that at a minimum should be done along with looking at the same parameters under at an 80 at 80% um of area median income. >> So I think that's just fair for us to be able to provide options and then moving forward this is going to go through a longer process and as it goes through that process we can provide them with the two options of you know looking at this from 60% AMI and looking at this through 80% AMI. And I think it's important that we use um numbers that are realistic to all parts of our region, including the city of Santa Cruz. So, just for clarification, um I'm I'm understanding what you're asking for. Do you is part of that motion to accept these reports and order a new study that that that addresses what you are asking for? Because the study that they've done is is is is done at this point. Um is the are you asking for a new study? It would be just for those if so it would be just for those two components >> because that needs to be I mean that needs to be flushed out. >> Okay. Um I I just you could either try try to get a second right now or you could ask staff first whether it's possible to do what you're what you're asking for in your motion. I don't know. >> I think Supervisor Nand had seconded it. >> We we made a alternative motion. I'm No, I withdrew the motion. I made a new motion. New motion. I didn't realize Supervisor Hernandez had second. >> You second the new motion. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, I was trying to before. >> Okay. So, there So, there's no reason for there to be a second, but just so the clerk understands exactly what's happening right now, and we're not going to have any arguments later about the minutes. Um, does staff understand what is being requested? >> I I do. I I I did want to make a point that the 80% would not reflect the reality of how rents are um are developed. It that's at 60% so that it can be affordable to more people in the affordable range as we discussed previously. So that's probably, you know, just to come up with different numbers that's not really reflecting the way the housing development works. >> If I can, if I can >> just one other thing, if the board wants an additional study, we can do that. We have no budget for additional studies. So we would need the board to help us understand where we would find the money for for additional study. All of our budget which you know you went through it all was is very slim. It has absolutely the minimum that we can get away with. Um and at this point we're looking at staff reductions um by attrition that we aren't necessarily um even backfilling. So, it's pretty dire before you order a new study. Please understand. Thank you. >> I'd like to give others a chance to uh weigh in on this. Supervisor Koig. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh I'd like to offer alternative way forward with a substitute motion. I'd move the recommended actions with staff to consider potential revisions that reduce or eliminate inclusionary rates and impact fees in order to encourage business development and housing production, particularly for affordable by design housing units. I'm a little confused about your motion. I understand a piece of it, but are you tagging it on? >> No, this is a substitute motion. >> Can you repeat it one more time? >> Sure. To move the recommended actions with staff to consider potential revisions that reduce or eliminate inclusionary rates and impact fees in order to encourage business development and housing production, particularly for affordable by design housing units. I'll second that. >> And if I could speak to the >> We have a motion from Supervisor Koig, a second from Supervisor Dura. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um I mean I think it's pretty clear that the patient is almost dead here on the table in front of us as far as market rate development. Um and if we want a policy framework that works, we need to uh do things that will bring it back to life to to bring market rate development back to life to produce housing. Um, in addition to all the affordable 100% affordable housing projects that are happening, I mean, Supervisor Cummings, you frequently talked about downtown Santa Cruz, an example, and I think that's natural given that it's the middle of your district. If you want to produce that, we should partner on increasing the densities and the height limits in the unincorporated area to match those of downtown Santa Cruz to begin to see some sort of I mean, I'm just saying that's what it would take. that's what it would take to begin to see comparable development. And if we don't do that, there's no reason we should have the discussion. So, um I I will also say I understand the 15% on for sale housing is working pretty well. I think that's actually true. We saw with the KB homes example, 100 town homes, they were able to make that work. So, I don't have a huge problem with that. Just where I wanted to provide more flexibility with the motion was um particularly on ADUs um and the fees on ADUs. I mean, why 750 ft? I mean, should we really be like encouraging necessarily smaller ADUs? I mean, a family maybe could live comfortably in 1,000. And so, I think I just want to provide that flexibility where staff can look at, well, maybe if we eliminate the the impact fees on ADUs up to whatever 1,200 square f feet. Um, and those also could in the future become for sale units if we adopt uh an ordinance in line with AB 1033 that allows the sale of ADUs. So, I just think we need to consider that stuff. I generally speaking though, I'm say I'm supportive of just leaving the for sale uh inclusionary requirement as it is and primarily looking at at how to address some of these other things. And I would also love if you you know the the tiny home on wheels example was particularly um alarming to me that something that sort of was supposed to be affordable by design was being charged $800 in a port affordable housing impact fee. So um I I just think at its simplest motion simplest level what this motion does is say let's go down let's let's reduce requirements to try to reduce the pressure uh so that get we get more activity here. Thanks. >> Can can I get a point of clarification? So, was the motion to leave the 15% for for sale units and maybe not adopt a inclusionary rate for rental and look at other things such as the ADU level of fee exemption. >> Well, my understanding is you're coming back to us in March of next year. You're going to go out and do this public input process, right? One way or another. um you know I was trying to provide general direction of like let's just reduce reduce the requirements in order to get more um more housing production particularly I would if and we have a motion to second on that if we feel like we need to include the 15% on for sale housing and leave where it is I'm be supportive of adding that >> yeah I think perhaps you might consider a friendly amendment to keep the 15% % on for sale. Um the numbers support that. It will get us somewhere. Um so, uh that would be something that I'd be hoping to see returned if it came back in March, but if we could include it in the motion now, um you know, it gets us one step further. >> I I would accept that as a friendly amendment >> and I would second that. >> I do have a couple of comments for it unless you want to talk. I have a couple comments as too, but you can go first. >> Um, right now, and I I sort of would love Peter or Matt to come to the podium. I mean, right now we've got a number of projects particularly in Supervisor Koig's district that are 100% affordable. Correct. >> Correct. >> Like how many units, how many projects, how many units do you think? Well, it depends on how far along they have to be for you to for you to count them, but somewhere between 670 690 units >> and I have uh at least one in my district that will supply 225 completely affordable units um as well as market rate town homes. Um, I don't know if you can speak to the I mean I feel like soon like if these things actually get built, which that's why we're here is we're hoping to make it easier to build these things to completion. I mean, we might be saturating the market with affordable housing. I don't know, but I think it'll work to hopefully bring down some of the rents in the county to make things more affordable for everybody. Yes, >> right on. Um, our pipeline today is is is more than half full of affordable units coming our way and depending on the, you know, the the time mark you put on it, I mean, it's definitely in the hundreds. And so I think this 85% um history, the last three years of what we've built, which 85% or 86% affordable, it looks like that's going to continue. I think that'll continue for the next couple years until until market rate units can start penciling and we can start seeing those come our way. So I think what you're saying is is right on and the past three years have shown it and I don't see that changing at least for a few more years until economic conditions change, market conditions change and those market rate projects start to pencil out better. >> What I've heard like over and over again are that there are these barriers in the way to and multiple barriers in the way to getting things to completion across the finish line. Um, is there anything that that in this motion here today that you think should be included to make things um easier to get projects to the finish line? >> I think the uh motion that provides flexibility is helpful. Uh, I think the clarity on the on the um on the for sale makes sense and flexibility in general so that we can get to this next step and gather more data and more information from the community and bring back a proposal that hopefully will hit the mark uh with finding the right mix for the market. markets driving everything and we have to find the right balance to to hit the market right and and encourage growth to happen here. So I think that flexibility makes sense. So I I would leave it at that. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> Are those your final comments? >> Yeah. Um, I'm I'm going to be supporting the motion today because um I think that it'll help pave the way towards progress. I think we've seen a stalling of market rate housing. We have had philosophical conversations and debates just throughout the county for a very long time. Um, but what I don't want is the search for for perfection to get in the way of progress. And we know that 15% of zero is zero. And so my hope is that this will get us somewhere. Um, I appreciate the staff for bringing forward this presentation and I honestly really appreciate the discussion and the questions that came forward from my colleagues. Um, I for me this was a hugely dense set of reports. Um, took multiple attempts to get my way through them to fully understand that and I'm still continuing to learn. Um, and so I while we spent a lot of time on this item, I think it was worthwhile. Um, I hope that some of my colleagues had their questions answered and I um I hope that we can continue to work collaboratively towards solutions that'll help us increase the affordability um and um the size of our housing stock here in Santa Cruz County. So with that, we have a motion and a second. Any further comments? supervisor coming. >> I just need a point of clarification around the >> rental housing. So, is this motion not going to have the the whatever the staff recommendation is for the rental housing? Is it because what I heard was that it's just going to include accepting the report 15% providing flexibility around fees and potential with potential elimination of fees. I'm just trying to get an understanding >> and inclusionary rates. I think that basically what staff was saying is I mean they recommend 11%. But that what even you know that wasn't before us today to approve >> finally right that was going to come back in March no matter what. And so whether it's uh so this basically just says go lower that might 11% is lower. So that might be the what comes back in March. Um but it could be 10% could be 5% could be zero. I mean those are all within the scope of consideration um under staff's work. Any further clarification before we >> No, go ahead. >> Okay. So, well, I guess I'll just say it's not for me that that's it's a little too opaque for me to support. And um I appreciate the work that's been done, but again, you know, um just really disappointed that the recommendations that Supervisor Hernandez and I brought forward four years ago that we um were able to incorporate and get full board support on incorporating into this nexus study were not accomplished. And now that we're asking for the work that should have been done to be done, we're being tasked with, well, we don't have the funding to do it. Um, we did have the funding to do it. It was supposed to be a part of this and it didn't happen. And so I can't in good faith accept the report that's been done. Given the fact that that was um excluded um and is something that's been working, I'm still a little confused with the motion that's before us. I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out with the different stakeholder groups in the community and and it will be back for us to make a final decision on and I still have some concerns with measure J. I appreciate the county council's um you know response and I know that at the time when the similar when similarly with measure O this went before the city council they were told that they legally could move forward with it and then they found out after the lawsuit they couldn't. But we will see how this all plays out. Um and I'm happy to engage with folks. I do want to thank the chair especially because of the fact that when this was supposed to be come before us in June, it was coming before us when we were going through a massive budget and we were having to wrap our heads around the budget and engage with folks. And so the fact that we were given another month's time to really dive in, I just really want to express my appreciation for that because it has allowed me and many others to really kind of get a sense of what's going on and have conversations about the study. Um, so I can't support the motion today, but I do want to just express my appreciation for this conversation and for the time we've been able to take to really dive into something that we've been waiting on for four years. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Will you please call the role? >> Yes. And before I do so, just for the sake of the minutes and clarity of the record, I want to ensure that the maker of the motion intends for the potential revisions to also return in March of 2027. Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you, Supervisor Dura. I >> Koenig >> I >> Cummings >> no >> Hernandez >> no >> and Martinez >> I motion passes 3 to2 at this time we will be breaking for close session and lunch and we will return at 3:00 is there anything reportable that we expect from close session >> no >> thank recording stopped. >> Yeah, hopefully depending on how fast. >> Welcome back. We're now going to return to the regular agenda starting with item number 10, which is to consider approving in concept an ordinance of the board of supervisors of the county of Santa Cruz amending chapter 5.48 48 of the Santa Cruz County Code to align the code with changes to state law, delete unnecessary material, and make additional miscellaneous changes, approve the notice of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, and take related actions. So, welcome. Go ahead and introduce yourself, and you can begin the presentation. >> Hi, my name is Darcy Puit. I'm the resource planner for recycling and solid waste. Um, and I'm with Carolyn Burke. She's the assistant director who covers special services. And we are here to bring you the um ordinance to amend chapter 5.48, which is the bag reduction ordinance. basically to align the ordinance with state law changes that took effect in 2026 and that will take effect in 2028. There you go. So, um Senate Bill 1053 uh took effect well was passed and signed into law in 2024. And the first part of that state law changed basically um eliminates store distribution of single-use plastic carry out bags. It also made a lot of changes to definitions in the existing part of the law that governs carry out bags. And currently our ordinance is in conflict with state law. We still allow um plastic or recycled paper bags. And the amendments that took effect at the state level beginning January 1st, 2026 um eliminated plastic carry out bags and required um recycled paper bags. And then the other thing that we'd like to do um is that the state law also will change the postconsumer recycled content that's required for um the recycled paper bags that have become the de facto standard in California. Um, currently our ordinance allows just 40% of postconumer recycled paper which was the stand the state standard before um Senate Bill 1053 passed. So we're basically having that take effect beginning January 1st, 2028. Um, so it allows the 40% until that sunsets and then the 50% state requirement would take effect. And then we made some updates to bring the um kind of 15-year-old state uh or local ordinance into alignment with the new requirements of the state. Um, and that's about it. Thank you. That concludes your presentation. >> Yes. >> Wonderful. Um, with that, I'm going to take it out to public comment. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this item? Thank you, Becky Stein Bruner. What happens to the money that is collected at the uh stores for um paper bags that customers wish to purchase? Where does that money go? Thank you. Is there anyone on the phone? Yes, chair. >> Tim, your microphone is now available. Thank you. Great question, Beck Becky. So, I always kind of wondered that myself where the muds and the thing is that I'm concerned about is I see all this, you know, propaganda envir and shuffling with environmental law and some of this stuff is really good. I'm supportive of this, okay? But uh you know I I'm not totally stupid when it comes to developers and stuff and I see the pressure on Santa Cruz County and the towel basin and I don't like uh how Mr. Newsome is kind of like blaming my county, you know, for things like affordable housing and whatnot. I heard a lot of good stuff today like about the butterflies and whatnot. So, I want to remind people when you see all these different environmental laws being bounced around, okay, and you you're talking about some great things with the monarch butterflies earlier, these uh two wonderful environmental scientists down there in Mexico that went to bat for monarch butterflies were both murdered, okay, back in like 2020. So, that's the pressure. So, when you're looking at all this sort of stuff, you're talking about all this stuff, including affordable housing. What I want to hear is I want to hear more environmental stuff. I want to hear what's going to happen to my aquifer, okay? And I want to hear how that's going to impact, you know, where the sewage is going to go and how that's also going to impact our quality of water, too. So, you know, it all goes together and everyone needs to think about their kids. So, if they're not going to think about their kids in the future and are just going to like go along with these sorts of things, then, you know, it is what it is. the world that's going to erupt around us isn't going to be very nice. So anyway, so those are my thoughts. I'm supportive of this and I appreciate Becky's comments. Thank you very much. >> I see no further speakers online. Chair, thank you. I'll now return to the board for discussion and a motion. >> I'll move staff recommendation. >> A second. >> We have a motion from Supervisor Hernandez, a second from Supervisor Dura. >> Thank you, uh, Chair. Yeah, I'm I'm supportive of the actions today, but just play devil's advocate. What would happen if we just repealed our ordinance? I mean, at this point, the state law would stand, right? I mean, aren't we just stuck updating this ordinance as the state I mean, they might make revisions again in the future? >> Um, well, our ordinance is still a little different than the state's ordinance. The state's ordinance only regulates stores. So, the definition of a store really is grocery stores over a certain level. And uh and our ordinance is a little broader than that. We actually res um regulate all retail businesses that provide bags to customers. So, our ordinance is a little different. Um also, our ordinance specifies the amount that they're required to charge. Um the state ordinance says they must charge a minimum of 10 cents. Our ordinance requires that we charge 25 cents. Um that's a fair price. Um that and to answer Miss Steinber's question, the stores keep the money to pay for the bags so that they're not building in. So for me who always brings my reusable bag, I'm not paying for everybody else who doesn't bring their reusable bag. So they're supposed to cover the cost of providing carry out bags without upping the cost of my groceries. So there there's there are a few differences in our ordinance versus the state ordinance. So we can either try and stay in step um and we really haven't made a substantial update to our ordinance in the last six years. >> Actually the last seven years. >> Siser just just to to add on to what she's saying. our our our ordinance was grandfathered in because it was it was done previous to um to the state acting on this and so we can have broader protections in our ordinance. Um but we cannot uh do something that is in conflict with the state. So as as the state continues to move forward and do things if our ordinance is in conflict with it, we would need to make minor adjust adjustments to it to uh accommodate that. >> Gotcha. Actually, and to to that point, um I think we still um our or our ordinance doesn't apply to restaurants, right? I mean, >> it it actually does apply to restaurants. >> Oh, okay. >> But we we have um an element in our ordinance where they can apply for a waiver. >> Interesting. >> So, if they want to use plastic bags, they could apply for a waiver to continue to use plastic bags. But our ordinance has always regulated all retail businesses and it includes even food trucks. >> Interesting. Yeah. I mean, it's that's still a weakness. I mean, just like as far as enforcability then, right? I mean, as a consumer, I can't just be like, yo, uh, the Takaria down the street keeps handing me a plastic bag. They think they're out of compliance, right? Oh, they applied for a waiver. Okay. Well, I mean, just it makes it harder for as a consumer to like have any >> Well, I can tell you we don't have any active waivers. >> Yeah. And I can tell you that, you know, enforcement happens more globally. Like we're not going out and enforcing the bag reduction ordinance. We're going out and looking at all kinds of operations that overlap into solid waste. So we're looking at do they have the waste sorting that's required by state law that's also required by our ordinance. Do they have like an organics recycling program in place? Do they have adequate service for you know the you know the you know the people that they're serving you know and that goes for all commercial businesses but it also goes for residential. So we tend to look at enforcement in a global way, but if we see a problem that they have with bag reduction ordinance compliance, that usually fits into a lot of different things that, you know, are are of concern to recycling and solid waste. So we're not looking to target people about the bag ordinance. We're kind of looking at, you know, do they have a good recycling and solid waste program going and how can we assist them? We try and do most of our um work in a much more carrot oriented enforcement rather than kind of punishment. >> Great. Well, that's very helpful. Thank you for the information. I'll be sure to help disseminate it and I'm supportive of the ordinance. So, let's move forward. >> Supervisor Cummings. >> Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the presentation. Very two really brief questions. Actually, maybe a question and a comment. Um, is this going to take effect then in 2028 or are we going to make this effective sooner just with knowing that the state law is going to change in 2028? >> Uh, so the way that we updated the ordinance um the things that are already in effect um would take effect as soon as the ordinance amendment is approved and has the second reading. Um the 2028 effectiveness is actually written into the code that it will be beginning January 1st, 2028 and after. >> Okay, great. Thanks. And then um I've had conflicts with some of our uh uh integrated waste management task force meetings, but I do um I know it's come up a few times in conversation, but I hope that we may be able to in terms of you reducing waste um try to start addressing restaurants that are serving disposable containers for indoor for dining in just because of the fact that that's been something that um I've seen as a product of COVID and it's just really concerning that, you know, folks who have the potential to wash dishes are choosing not to and instead choosing to just give people disposable trays um when they're um dining in and then that just goes in the garbage and just adds to more waste. And so it'd be interesting to explore opportunities there on how we can further reduce waste. >> I'll send you the presentations we've done the last three meetings so you can take a look. Great. But yeah, we're we're actually looking at um kind of encouraging a program that the Surf Rider Foundation manages with OP uh ocean friendly restaurants and we talked with Sandy about it, so I'm sure she can bring you up. She'll bring up speed, >> but yeah, but basically almost everything that's in the ocean friendly restaurant program um that Surf Rider runs um is included in the ordinances that we already enforce. And the cherry on top is the fact that to be able to participate and get basically worldwide surf rider recognition is doing all um reusables for dine in. >> Great. And I >> and that's why we're looking at that program >> because then we don't have to create something new and somebody else can from the outside actually do implementation for us. >> Sounds great. Awesome. And I will just say one last thing. being in Ireland last summer, they did their just waste management program in general is based on weight and that has deterred people from um also kind of throwing things away because the the more your garbage weighs, the more you pay and if there may be some opportunities to have conversations around that it pertains to commercial. But anyway, I'll leave my comments there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that that's sort of how we work with the sizes, >> you know, because bin size, the bigger your bin, the more you pay. >> Right. Got it. Thank you. Any further questions or discussion? Madame clerk, will you please call the role? >> Yes. Supervisor Dura >> I. >> Koenig >> I. >> Hernandez >> I. >> Cummings >> I. >> And Martinez >> I. Motion passes 5 to zero. Thank you. We'll now move on to item number 11. Consider approving in concept an ordinance amending section 2.32.040B. 040B of the Santa Cruz County Code to update automobile liability insurance requirements and take related actions. Welcome. Go ahead and introduce yourself and you can begin your presentation. >> Your mic on? Sure. Good afternoon, Tara Martinez and members of the board of supervisors. My name is Gina Ochapenti Barasi and I'm the county risk manager and I will speaking on item 11 on behalf of our human resources department. The existing ordinance governing county employees who use their personal vehicles for county business, including insuranceances and insurance requirements, should be updated to align with the minimum coverage requirements established by the California Vehicle Code. We recommend that the county ordinance be amended to provide that an employes's insurance coverage shall not be less than the minimum amounts statutoily required under the California Vehicle Code as amended from time to time. This approach will ensure continued alignment with the statutory requirements and avoid the need to amend the county ordinance each time the minimum insurance limits are changed by statute. With your approval today, the item will be placed on the consent agenda for a second reading and final adoption on August 25th, 2026. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Seeing none, I'm going to take this out to public comment. Thank you, Becky Steinbruner. I am uh somewhat surprised that county employees are able to use their own vehicles for company business, especially since the county has such a a lovely fleet of increasingly electric vehicles and many of them are parked out in the lot. Um how many employees do use their own cars for company business? Thank you. >> I'll bring it. Madam clerk, is there anyone on the phone? >> I see no speakers online. Chair, >> thank you. I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. >> I'll move approval. >> Second. >> We have a motion from Supervisor Dura and a second from Supervisor Hernandez. Further discussion. >> I was asking if someone could clarify Miss Steinbrer's question. >> Sure. We do encourage county employees to utilize our fleet when they're working under the course and scope of the county. Um, we do encourage that, but I know there are occasions when employees do drive their personal vehicles um for various reasons like going to trainings or um picking up supplies or items along that line. So, I don't have an exact number, but I know that we do encourage the employees to do that. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? Madame clerk, will you please call the role? >> Supervisor Cummings >> I. >> Hernandez >> I. >> Koenig. >> Durpa >> I. >> And Martinez >> I. Motion passes five to zero. >> Thank you. >> We'll now move on to item number 12. Consider whether the board should amend Santa Cruz County Code section 2.02.060 060 to eliminate linkage of board salary to the to those of superior court judges and take related actions for this item um was brought to us by supervisor Cummings. So um I'm going to turn it over to him. Um but before I do that, I just want to say that um we know that as elected officials speaking about salaries is never a popular discussion, but it is part of our job to have these discussions. So I appreciate supervisor Cummings for bringing this forward. Go ahead. >> Thank you chair. Um and I just want to mention that um Ajita Patel from human resources the director is here as well to help provide some background on this item. Um so every year uh the board um has to pass an ordinance to um more or less increase their salaries. Um over the course of me serving on the uh board of supervisors uh became aware that our salaries were linked to the judges of the state. And not only were they linked to the judges of the state, but for whatever reason our salaries are supposed to be 63% of what the judges make. In some years, that's been pretty comparable to what our in terms of the just the uh cost of living increase has been very comparable to what our employees make. Um, last year I was very shocked to see that the recommendation was that we have a salary increase of 2.6% when the majority of our employees were getting closer to to 4% 4% if not more than that and maybe a little bit less for others. Um but it just struck me that you know what we try to do as a board is um when we're considering salaries for our employees, we're taking into account consumer price index, cost of living, cost of housing, compaction, all these different factors that are relevant to where we are, which is very different from the judges throughout the entire state of California. and it's unclear even what they take into account when making the decisions of how judges salaries should be established and what their cost of living adjustment should be. Um so this year when it was when I'd been interested in approaching us considering reforming this process anyway and then this year it turned out that the judges were going to not get a salary increase at all which meant the board of supervisors wasn't going to get a salary increase at all. I just didn't think that that was fair. And I think what we've been trying to strive for on this board is that um we take a fair and equitable approach at a lot of our policies. And what I'm bringing before the board today is the opportunity for us to consider, do we want to continue to tie our salaries to 63% of what the judges make, or do we want to create a process that more equitably looks at our salaries in comparison to our labor groups, to the cost of living, to to um consumer price index, and all these other factors that are very relevant and specific to where we live, especially given the fact that um that our cost of living is very different from other part um parts of the state and then if uh if director Patel wants to add anything to this or provide any further background you know happy to invite her up to discuss how this process what this process could look like. >> Sure. Good afternoon. The only thing that I would add to this is just so that you know historically the superior court jud your salaries were linked to superior court judges until 1997. In 97, the seated board at that time broke the link because they were entering some deep budget times and that seated board at that time did a couple of things. One, they added some language into the code that a board member can wave their salary if they wish to and that is still in there. And then the idea of eliminating the linkage was so that the board had the authority to determine if they wish to take a pay raise or not if there was difficult economic times. And then that actually lasted for many many years. And and um then we um in 19 so that was 1997. And when they broke the linkage they used consumer price index internal alignment looking at the class the compensation pattern for labor groups and that lasted for 24 years. And then in 2021, the seated board at that time decided to go back to linking to judicial salaries. So that's really just the history. And in my time here, it's only been changed twice. So if you chose to change it again, it would be the third. >> Great. And you know my hope is that you know what's recommended is um not something above and beyond what we are giving to our employees but it's something that's comparable to our employees are facing in this in um this financial time. We are in a in a very challenging financial time and at the same time I think we're all feeling some financial pressures as well as board members. this is, you know, five additional employees of the county getting similar. You know, the recommendation that I'm hoping for is we get something that's similar and comparable to what our other um employee groups are getting. And so that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to take any questions. >> Thank you. Are is there any are there any questions from the board? >> Then I'm going to take it out to public comment. If you're here to speak on this item, please go ahead and Thank you. >> Thank you, Becky Steinbruner. I've been trying to understand why this would come up at a time when um all of the employees in the county are being asked to maybe take cuts. The public is feeling the pressure and your board has taken action to put a half cent sales tax on the ballot. Further putting pressure if it is approved on the people financially. I think the optics are not good to do this right now. Um, I have been attending these board meetings for a long time and I remember when Supervisor Kappet was very proud of being able to get the linkage with the superior court judges reestablished, he took great umbrage with approving his own salary and um he was one of the very few that actually gave a percentage of whatever the CPI increase had been before this linkage happened again. He gave that money to charity and he was very proud that he was able to get this reinstated. So in the spirit of former supervisor Greg Capit, I I urge you not to do this for a number of reasons. Um lots of people are not getting raises and we're all feeling financial pressures. I think it would look very bad if you did this. Um, especially on the heels of because there was no raise given to the judges in the state this last year and it would make it easier for you to get a raise. I think that's how the public will see it. That's how I see it and um I think that will really harm your uh optics for this sales tax coming up in November. Thank you. >> Is there anyone on the phone? I see no speakers online. Chair. >> All right. I'll turn to the board for discussion and a motion. >> Martinez, I think it's important before you discuss this item, I want to share one piece of information with you that although the judicial council has not approved any increases in the judge's salaries, what oftent times does happen in the fall, they do approve some. And so I just want you to know that. take that factor into consideration because if in October, November, December they approve something, if you don't change the code, then you would get 62% of that salary at that time. >> Further discussion. Supervisor Koig. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh thank you, Supervisor Cummings for bringing this item before us today. Um I mean I I definitely want to raise in my family. We're expecting another daughter this fall. Our child care costs are through the roof. Uh I'm starting to get holes in my best blue suit here. Um but I I don't think we should be quick to throw out our existing ordinance and the logic that led us to that. Um you know, we voted to link uh our salaries to judge judges salaries really to try to depoliticize this process. Um, and I mean, as we just heard, it's quite possible that judges could still get a raise in the fall. Um, I also think that it's best to keep the decisions about our employees separate from decisions about ourselves. I mean, we could be facing some very difficult times in the future. Um and and we shouldn't be, you know, creating a new process whereby we consider our salaries and everything that we've done for employees relative to ourselves because I mean again we could be um we could be looking at uh cuts and layoffs and uh furlows in the future. Um, and I think as in Miss Stein Burner and quite frankly a lot of other people have raised uh in communications to me that um this is just super bad timing. Um we're in a we literally at our last meeting declared that we're in a state of fiscal distress. We just put a measure on the ballot that asks everyone to sacrifice a little bit. And so if we don't do that, if we don't sacrifice, why should the public trust us? So, yes, we're only five county employees. Um, that's why I think this is a bargain for us to forego uh any any increase to our salaries because it's not a huge amount of money, but it has a large symbolic value and it shows us leading by example. So, uh for those reasons, I I'm not going to support the recommended actions. >> Further discussion? >> Yeah, Supervisor Despa. Um, yeah, I'm I'm going to have to say I can't support this action um at this time. It's not that I'm not sympathetic. We all work very hard. We all work more than full-time, I think, at this job if we're doing it correctly. Um, it it just given that we've got a sales tax measure coming um to try to save and salvage our health care system, which is in crisis right now in our county. um given that the metro is also um pushing forward um a measure which would um continue to fund some of the good things that they're doing in terms of transportation. I just I I just think the timing of um trying to do this is not good. The other thing is I will say that I talked to a friend of mine who is a superior court judge and they truly they're very underpaid like they're making less than the district attorneys than the I think the public defenders. Um they haven't had a meaningful raise since like 2007 really. So the and it's becoming increasingly harder and harder to um to find people who want to continue um working as superior court judges across the state right now because the pay is not commensurate to the workload and it's not keeping track of all of the increases that um county their counterparts in different counties and different jobs are seeing. So, I think there is a problem there and I I would be willing to table this until a later time, but I can't support this today. I'm sorry, >> Supervisor Hernandez. >> You're good. Um, I appreciate the comments. Um, you know, taking a step back, I I began by saying that I understand how politically difficult these conversations are. However, it is our job to have difficult conversations. So, I appreciate the the conversation that is before us. I think when I was elected and took this seat, I found it surprising that the salary was linked to what I felt like was quite a subjective number. So, it's 63%, you know, why isn't it 55? Why isn't it 75? I I couldn't find the basis for that. And I think that it sends the message that the board is like special or different. And I think what I what appeals to me about the proposal is that if we're proposing a process for salaries for our workforce that we feel is fair and is in our values and is good enough for our staff, we should feel proud of that and that should be good enough for us. Um, if that's where we landed. Now my question is um this proposal if we were to if we were to vote to support the proposal here will it come back before us? So what what are we voting on today? >> So so what we're voting on today is to this isn't a first reading. This is whether or not we want to get rid of this, you know, linkage of our salaries to the 62% of what the judges make and instead have staff come back with some kind of proposal and recommendation for what our salary increase would be for this year based on um a variety of factors. I'll just read them off real quick. Um if I can get back in front of me. Sorry. Give me one second. So for example um under the new strike the board you know right now we can't consider factors such as inflation changes in consumer price index compensation trends among comparable public agencies or internal alignment which are all factors that consider considered for our existing labor groups and so the idea is that we would get you know HR would make a recommendation based on these factors and bring that back to for us to consider as a salary increase for this year. And I will say, I'm going to push back on some of what I heard from um from the public. As part of moving forward with our budgets, we did give salary increases to our employees this year. We did not cut salaries this year. We did not cut positions this year. And moving forward, for example, in the next budget season, it may be that we come back with furls and we may want to furlow ourselves. under the current model that's not necessarily an option. I mean there is you know for individuals people can wave their salaries or they can donate portions of their salaries but that wouldn't be an option for us to consider because we would be still tied to the judges. Um I think that if we want to look at last year as I mentioned before many of our labor groups got or many of our employees got 4% raise we got 2.6%. That's a savings that we had that we you know did not because we didn't apply our raises equally to others. I think to supervisor Dura's point and this was my experience on the city council which was that for years we deferred to give ourselves a raise when I was on the city council and as a result the city council salary is at 22,000 a year and the mayor makes 44,000 a year. They were going to put an item on the ballot to allow themselves to increase their salaries. But when you get so far behind, what ends up happening is that when you want to catch up, then it looks even worse cuz it could look like you're giving yourself a 25% raise. When the reality is you're just trying to get yourself back up to market and we have done that for many of our employees where we've had compensation studies and we give people, you know, 4% cola plus we bring all the other employees up to comp, which means some some employees maybe get a 10% raise that year. And so this is really just trying to, you know, given the market forces and where we're at today, think about how we can do this in such a way that is equitable and it's based off these market forces that are relevant to our community versus based on some arbitrary number that's applied to an arbitrary group at the state. I mean, if this is the case, well, what about, you know, um, why don't we set it to the salaries of like the Secretary of Natural Resources and what they make? I mean, it's just completely arbitrary why we would pick that group over anybody else. And what I'm really hoping is that we can get to something that's comparable to what our employees are receiving and so that in the future if there are reductions and our reductions are based on our employees and not on some random group and some random number of first state employees. And I and I do hear folks that know we are going into, you know, we have, you know, made this declaration. We're asking for a sales tax increase. But again, what we're asking for ourselves is and what I'm hoping would come back is something that's comparable to what we've given all of our employees. And I just know that moving forward for many of our employees, compensating them well makes them want to, you know, work harder, makes them want to stay here, allows us to recruit better candidates for board of supervisors. And um and at the same time, you know, um we're able to make a strong argument about, you know, why we need to compensate people better. we know how much the cost of living here is. And um and lastly, we have one maybe two people who have written letters in of opposition to this. I think what would be beneficial is for us to allow staff to come back with some numbers and if we disagree with moving forward in that direction, we could always revert back to the um to the judge to tying our salaries to judges. It just doesn't seem like there's any rhyme or reason as to why what we currently have makes any sense. And so I'll stop there. But I the reason why I brought this forward is because this current situation just it doesn't make sense. >> Thank you. So to be clear, we are not voting on a raise today. We are voting on a process. >> Correct. >> Thank you. Are there any further questions? Seeing that, madam clerk, will you please call the role? >> I don't think we have a motion yet. >> Oh, sorry. Is there a motion? I'll move the recommended second. >> We have a motion from Supervisor Cummings, a second from Supervisor Hernandez. >> And I'll just say again, I'm going to vote no. I understand that it's just a process vote, but I mean, we are asking the HR director to come back at our very next meeting with a proposal for a change in our salaries. I just don't think we want to be having this conversation at all right now, process or otherwise. So, thanks, >> Supervisor Dura. No >> Koig. >> No. >> Hernandez. >> I >> Cummings. >> I >> and Martinez. >> I motion passes 3 to2. That is our final item on today's agenda. Uh so we are going to adjourn the meeting. It is 3:39 and we will see you back here in two weeks. >> Oh yeah, 2:39. I don't I don't even know what to do. >> Recording stopped.