Santa Cruz County, CA

UM, I MEAN, I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN ANY COMMENT DIRECTLY FROM HCD OR HEARD- HEARD- I MEAN, I TRIED REACHING OUT TO THEM DIRECTLY AS WELL TO SEE IF THEY HAD ANY COMMENT ON THESE EXCLUSIONS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THEY COM- COMMENTED ON OUR ORDINANCE BEFORE WE SUBMITTED TO COASTAL COMMISSION, AND I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, I WANNA CONGRATULATE YOU, UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR HANSEN ON THAT ORDINANCE, AND I MEAN, I THINK IT WAS VERY WELL BALANCED.

IT'S CHANGED A LITTLE BIT AFTER GOING TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

AND SO... - YES.

- UH, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY HERE, I JUST DON'T WANNA GET IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO STATE AGENCIES.

UH, I'D RATHER LET THEM FIGURE IT OUT.

[01:05:01]

SO, UM, I WOULD JUST FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE DELAYED APPROVING THE SECOND READ UNTIL WE ACTUALLY HAVE EXPLICIT FEEDBACK FROM HCD ON THIS.

UM, YOU KNOW, IF, I DON'T MEAN- COUNTY COUNCIL DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT? I MEAN, DOES THIS, ARE, ARE WE CONFIDENT THAT THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN IS, UH, HARMONIOUS WITH THE INTENT OF STATE LAW? - FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, UH, FOR, FOR ASKING.

UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, AND I FEEL LIKE THESE, SOME OF THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST HEARING, A LITTLE BIT OF THIS, UH, THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND THESE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED AND ANSWERED AT THE LAST HEARING, NOT THE PARTICULAR POINT ABOUT WHETHER HCD, UM, HAD LOOKED AT IT, BUT THE QUESTION OF THE EXCLUSION OF RB AND, UM, ADDRESSING THE COASTAL BLUFFS.

BUT I'M GONNA ASK MS. KIRKISH TO- TO SEE WHETHER SHE HAS ANY COMMENTS BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN THE MOST ENGAGED, UM, IN OUR OFFICE REGARDING THIS ISSUE.

- WELL, WHAT I'LL SAY IS THAT, UM, I AGREE SO, SORRY.

NATALIE KISH, COUNTY COUNCIL'S OFFICE.

I'LL AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UM, MR. HEATH, THAT, UH, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT EXCLUDING RB, UM, IS- PRESENTS A LEGAL ISSUE THAT REQUIRES HCD'S INPUT ON AT THIS TIME.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEIR- THEY'RE AWARE OF THIS CHANGE, THEY HAVEN'T CHIMED IN AND WAITING FOR A RESPONSE FROM THEM MIGHT, UM, DELAY THIS, YOU KNOW, INDEFINITELY.

UH, I'LL ALSO ADD THAT, UM, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION, UH, EXCLUDED THE RB ZONE WAS FOR CLARITY, UM, BECAUSE THE WAY THAT IT WAS WRITTEN WOULD HAVE ALREADY EXCLUDED THOSE PARCELS DUE TO THE, UH, THE COASTAL HAZARD PROVISIONS.

UM, SO IT MAKES THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE CONSISTENT.

- OKAY. I MEAN, I'M JUST NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED, GIVEN THAT THERE'S A LETTER FROM HCD TO LAGUNA BEACH SAYING, BASICALLY WE DON'T LIKE BLANKET EXCLUSIONS, AND NOW WE HAVE BLANKET EXCLUSIONS IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT, I MEAN, AGAIN, I JUST DON'T WANNA GET IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO STATE AGENCIES.

SO, I, I'M, I'M GONNA MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE THE ITEM TO A DATE.

UM, UNCERTAIN- PENDING A RESPONSE FROM HCD REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THE RB ZONE DISTRICT AND THE BLANKET EXCLUSION OF ALL PARCELS IN COASTAL HAZARD AREAS.

UM, AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE I WOULD RATHER THESE TWO AGENCIES WORK- WORK IT OUT THEMSELVES.

- UM, SUPERVISOR, OUR EXPERIENCE WITH HCDS IS THAT THEY MAY NOT RESPOND, UM, AND THEY ALSO, THE STATE AGENCIES TEND TO RESPECT EACH OTHER, RIGHT? SO IT'S LEFT TO THE JURISDICTIONS TO KIND OF HARMONIZE, RIGHT? THE COASTAL ACT WITH OTHER, UH, STATE LAWS.

SO HCD WILL TEND TO STICK TO THEIR PLACE LEAVING, YOU KNOW, COASTAL HAZARDS FOR, UM, UH, FOR OTHER AGENCIES.

UM, ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO POSTPONE, THE BOARD WOULD NEED TO TAKE ACTION BY OCTOBER 11TH.

SO CAN'T POSTPONE INDEFINITELY UNTIL WE HEAR FROM HCD.

WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK OR THE WHOLE THING WILL FAIL AND WE'LL START AGAIN.

- OKAY, WELL THEN MAYBE I'LL REVISE, UH, MY MOTION TO MOVE- TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TILL, UM, NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30TH OR A DATE WHEN WE HAVE A RESPONSE FROM HCD REGARDING, UM, THESE TWO BLANKET EXCEPTIONS, REMOVAL OF THE RB ZONE AND UH, EXCLUSION OF PARCELS IN THE COASTAL HAZARD AREAS.

- YOU STILL HAVE TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL.

- YES. I'LL TAKE IT OUT TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS US ON THIS ISSUE, THIS ITEM.

- RESPECTFULLY.

UH, HCD, I ACTUALLY DID A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST.

UM, TODAY, HCD HAS NOT COMMENTED ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.

UH, TYPICALLY THEY WOULD, AND AS SUPERVISOR KOENIG NOTES, LAGUNA BEACH, UH, HAD A SPECIFIC, UH, TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FROM HCD OF NOT ELIMINATING A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

THE SPECIFIC WORDING OF SB9 IS THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

UM, ALSO SOMETHING IS THAT COUNTY STAFF HAVE NOT MAPPED

[01:10:03]

THE AREA OF THE EXCLUSION OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.

SO THIS BOARD DOESN'T KNOW HOW MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOUSING ARE BEING ELIMINATED, NOR DOES STAFF MOST LIKELY.

I'VE LOOKED IT UP AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE AS MUCH AS 10,000.

I ALSO REVIEWED IT WITH THE YIMBI STAFF, AND IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THE HOUSING THAT IS SHOWN ON YOUR MAPS OR YOUR HOUSING ELEMENT WOULD BE ELIMINATED.

I COULD BE WRONG, BUT NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU.

AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ALSO SAY THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THESE ZONES ALSO AREN'T AWARE OF THAT.

RIO DEL MAR IS IN A COASTAL HAZARD ZONE.

ALL OF IT. CAPITOLA IS.

WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT, OR YOU DON'T.

BUT IT GIVES YOU AN EXAMPLE.

WE'RE ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY IN A COASTAL HAZARD ZONE HERE.

YOU'RE PROTECTED BY A REVETMENT.

SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS BIGGER THAN WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU.

AND I THINK, AT THE MINIMUM, BRING IT BACK, GET HCD'S INPUT, BUT ALSO MAP THE AREA THAT'S AFFECTED.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR KOENIG, FOR TAKING THIS ACTION.

- BECKY STEINBRUNNER.

AND THANK YOU TO MR. COBRIT FOR HIS, UH, GOOD WORK AS WELL.

I ALSO SUPPORT DELAYING ANY ACTION ON THIS AND, UH, HAVING STAFF, UM, SPECIFICALLY ASK HCD TO COMMENT BY A DEADLINE SO THAT OUR COUNTY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH ASSURANCE.

THE FACT THAT HCD MADE THIS STATEMENT TO, UM, LAGUNA BEACH IS, IS NOTABLE AND WE CAN'T IGNORE IT.

SO DO NOT TAKE ACTION ON THIS TODAY.

- ANYONE ONLINE? - YES, CHAIR.

CALLING USER 1, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- UM, CENTRAL COAST, UH, COMMUNITY ENERGY IS HEAVILY INVESTED IN THESE LITHIUM ION BATTERY SITES UNDER THE GUISE OF BEING GREEN.

AND WE KNOW...

- THIS IS AN ITEM ON THE HOUSING ELEMENTS, NOT ON BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS. THANK YOU.

- WELL, CENTRAL COAST ENERGY IS INVOLVED IN THAT AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW PUBLICLY...

- THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 8. THANK YOU.

- HOW TO CONTACT TO GET OFF THE, UM...

- MIKE, YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOW AVAILABLE.

- IS THAT ME, MIKE GUTH, YOU'VE CALLED? - YES.

- UH, THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS.

I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT WHEN THIS WENT TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION, WHAT YOU'VE RECEIVED BACK FROM COASTAL IS A VERY WATERED DOWN VERSION OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED UP THERE.

THERE'S ALREADY TREMENDOUS COMPROMISE, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE COASTAL ACT AND WHAT THEY'VE SENT BACK TO YOU.

I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT THIS WAS PULLED OFF THE AGENDA TODAY OR I WOULD'VE BEEN THERE IN PERSON.

SO, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING THERE, BUT I WILL SEND YOU ALL NOW THE CORRESPONDENCES THAT CAME IN FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES- I'M SORRY, VARIOUS GROUPS INCLUDING STATE GROUPS, CONSERVATION GROUPS, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT GROUPS.

AND, UH, I'M SORRY, UH, COASTAL PROTECTION GROUPS ABOUT THIS.

THERE'S A LOT MORE GOING ON THAN THE SINGLE CORRESPONDENCE THAT YOU'VE GOT FROM AN APPLICANT WHO'S GOT A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN DOING A PROJECT ON A SINGLE HOME DOWN THERE.

SO, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DENY THE MOTION AND TO ACCEPT THIS AS IT IS.

I'LL SAY, AGAIN, THIS REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT COMPROMISE RELATIVE TO WHAT WAS ASKED FOR TO HAVE MODIFICATION TO THIS CODE IN THE COASTAL ZONE, SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

THERE'S A LOT MORE TO THIS, AND I'M SORRY I WASN'T ABLE TO PRESENT THAT IN WRITING OR IN PERSON.

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO ACCEPT THE REVISIONS AS SENT YOU BY COASTAL AND AGAIN, FOR THE THIRD TIME, THIS IS ALREADY QUITE A COMPROMISE RELATIVE TO WHAT WAS ASKED FOR AND CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED AT THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

- KEVIN, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- CAN YOU HEAR ME? - YES, WE CAN.

- GOOD MORNING, CHAIR HERNANDEZ, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

UH, KEVIN HUBER. I'M A HOMEOWNER IN APTOS.

THANK YOU FOR THE WILLINGNESS TO RECONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THIS LCP AMENDMENT, UH, THAT CONTAINS MODIFICATIONS FROM YOUR ORIGINAL ORDINANCE

[01:15:04]

THAT WERE ADDED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

IN ADDITION TO MY COMMENTS, WE'VE SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM JOHN ERSKINE OF AN OSMAN LAW FIRM FOR THE RECORD.

BY THE WAY, IT'S NOT JUST THE RV ZONE, IT IS ALL LAND IN THE COUNTY SEAWARD OF A COASTAL BLUFF.

THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE DID NOT- DID EXCLUDE CERTAIN LANDS FROM BEING ELIGIBLE FOR SB9.

THEY DID NOT EXCLUDE ANY SPECIFIC ZONES, OR THEY DID NOT EXCLUDE ALL PROPERTY SEAWARD OF THE BASE OF A COASTAL BLUFF.

INSTEAD, THEY ALLOWED FOR SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.

THE COASTAL COMMISSION MODIFICATIONS THAT CREATE A BLANKET EXCLUSION FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED AREAS, IN ESSENCE, ARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SB 9 THAT CONTRADICT OR AN AMENDMENT TO SB 9, AND IT CONTRADICTS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION.

WHEN, UH, YOU, AS AN ELECTED BOARD ADOPT RULES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, YOU DON'T EXPECT THOSE TO BE AMENDED BY AN APPOINTED BODY OR BY STAFF.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE OR THE GOVERNOR APPROVED SB 9 WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT AN APPOINTED BOARD OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION WOULD MODIFY THE LEGISLATION.

THE COASTAL ACT AND YOUR LOCAL COASTAL PLAN HAVE LONG PREFERRED SITE-SPECIFIC MITIGATION OVER ARBITRARY BLANKET EXCLUSIONS.

THE AMENDMENT YOU ADOPTED IN DECEMBER OF 2024 WAS THE PRODUCT OF SEVERAL PUBLIC HEARINGS, WORKSHOPS, AS WELL AS ROBUST DIALOGUE BETWEEN YOUR STAFF AND HCD STAFF.

THE COASTAL COMMISSION MODIFICATIONS WERE NOT PRESENTED TO HCD PRIOR TO COMING BACK BEFORE YOU URGE THE BOARD TO REJECT THE MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED OR AT LEAST CONTINUE THE ITEM AS SUGGESTED.

- WE HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE, CHAIR.

- WITH THAT, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

UH, I'M GONNA ASK THE MAKER OF THE MOTION TO REPEAT THE MOTION, BUT I ALSO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION BEFORE HE DOES THAT.

I WANT TO ASK STAFF IF IT WORKED TO COME BACK AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER STATE AGENCY WANTED TO CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF WHAT WE'VE LAID OUT, UH, DOES THAT JEOPARDIZE THE OCTOBER 11TH DEADLINE? - UM, THE COAST SELECT PROVIDES THAT THE JURISDICTION ACT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE COASTAL APPROVAL, WHICH WAS APRIL 11TH.

SO YOU COULDN'T EXTEND THAT INDEFINITELY BASED ON OTHER STATE AGENCIES.

- - SO BEFORE I, UH, GO UP OR ASK THE BOARD FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I WANNA REPEAT, UH, THE MOTION FROM, UH, SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

- SURE. SO, IT'S, UM, UM, I'LL MOVE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30TH, OR, UH, UNTIL SUCH POINT AS WE'RE IN RECEIPT OF FEEDBACK FROM HCD REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THE RB ZONE DISTRICT AND THE BLANKET EXCLUSION OF ALL PARCELS IN COASTAL HAZARD AREAS.

- I'LL SECOND THAT.

- ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? - I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

UM, IF I'M HEARING THE MOTION CORRECTLY, IS IT SEPTEMBER 30TH OR UNTIL WE HEAR BACK, WHICH MEANS IT'S BEYOND SEPTEMBER 30TH, OR IS SEPTEMBER 30TH THE DROP DEAD DATE TO HEAR THIS? - CORRECT. I'M LOOKING- SEEING AS SEPTEMBER 30TH IS A DROP DEAD DATE.

I MEAN, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ALMOST TWO MONTHS FROM NOW, THAT GIVES HCD PLENTY OF TIME.

IF THEY DON'T WANT TO SUBMIT A COMMENT BY THEN, FINE, AT LEAST WE'VE ASKED THEM AND THEY HA- AND THEY'VE DECIDED TO PASS ON THE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE AS STAFF ASSERTS, THEY'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION, EVERYONE'S FINE AND HUNKY DORY WITH THIS, GREAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MOVE ON.

UM, BUT YEAH, SO IF WE, AND IF WE GET FEEDBACK SOONER, THEN WE COULD AGENDIZE IT.

- OKAY, SO THAT'S HELPFUL.

I THINK HOW I HEARD IT, IT WAS SEPTEMBER 30TH, OR UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THEM.

SO, I WOULD SAY SEPTEMBER 30TH, UNLESS WE HEAR FROM THEM EARLIER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

- RIGHT. - SOME FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OF THAT.

- ACCEPTED. YES.

- MY NEXT QUESTION IS TO STAFF.

DO WE KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY PROJECTS OR APPLICATIONS IN THE QUEUE THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY DEFERRING THIS ITEM ANOTHER TWO MONTHS? - I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

EVEN THE APPLICATION THAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT IN YOUR PAST HEARING AND TODAY, MR. HUBERS, WHICH, UM, MR. BRITON IS REPRESENTING, UM, IS, IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE. RIGHT? SO THEY HAD A, UH, COMPLETE APPLICATION A LONG TIME AGO.

UM, FRANKLY, ANOTHER MONTH UNTIL SECOND READING WOULDN'T MAKE THAT BIG A DIFFERENCE.

I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE COASTAL'S, UH, MODIFICATIONS IS A, UH, BELT AND SUSPENDERS APPROACH, RIGHT?

[01:20:02]

SO WHILE STAFF WAS RELYING ON, UH, DEFINITIONS OF SENSITIVE AREAS AND, UM, ESHAS, UM, UH, WHAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION HAS DECIDED TO DO IS TO MAKE THE ORDINANCE MORE INHERENTLY COMPLETE.

SO, YOU COULDN'T DO IT BEFORE, EVEN IF THIS LANGUAGE WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD AN SB 9, UM, DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREAS.

AND THE LAST THING I JUST WANNA SAY IS THIS IS A MINISTERIAL APPROACH, RIGHT? SO IF YOU'RE IN SENSITIVE AREAS OR COASTAL HAZARD AREAS OR OTHER GEOLOGICAL AREAS OR WETLANDS, YOU DON'T BELONG IN A MINISTERIAL APPROACH, YOU NEED TO BE IN A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS.

SO, LAST ITEM. THANK YOU.

- UH, ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO, UH, BY DEFERRING IT, DO YOU SEE ANY RISK OR CONCERN BY DEFERRING IT ANOTHER MONTH? - UM, NO.

UM, SO YEAH, I MEAN, I, I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT POTENTIAL PERMITS 'CAUSE I WOULD BE CONCERNED IF THIS WAS LIKE A LOOPHOLE OPPORTUNITY FOR ONE MORE PROJECT TO SNEAK THROUGH.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT'S THE CASE.

UM, YOU KNOW, I VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING, AND I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT AGAIN WHEN IT DOES COME BACK.

SO, UM, MY SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION ISN'T, UM, ABOUT ANY CONCERN ABOUT THE- THE MOTION AS IS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE POINTS BEING BROUGHT UP BY SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

AND IF IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S NO IMPACT ON DEFERRING, UM, TO HAVE THE SECOND READ AGAIN IN A MONTH, THEN, UM, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THAT MOTION AS WELL.

- YEAH, I'LL JUST SAY THAT, UM, SO WHEN THIS FIRST CAME BEFORE THE BOARD LAST YEAR, I BELIEVE MYSELF AND SUPERVISOR FRIEND, AT THE TIME, VOTED AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF THE, UM, SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WERE KIND OF ROLLED BACK.

AND SO, FOR THOSE REASONS, YOU KNOW, I'M STILL GONNA VOTE NO, UM, ON THE CURRENT MOTION.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE VOTING NO ON IT, UM, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH HOW MY VOTING HAS BEEN ON THIS ITEM, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT WERE EARLIER, THAT WERE INTRODUCED AT THE BEGINNING HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

I DO THINK THAT THIS DOES PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS.

UM, I THINK I WAS THE ONLY NO VOTE AT THE COASTAL COMMISSION, UM, JUST BEING CONSISTENT WITH MY VOTE HERE AT THE BOARD.

AND SO I'M GONNA CONTINUE TO VOTE NO ON THIS ITEM.

THANKS.

- YOU KNOW, I, I, I JUST, I DO, I DO SEE, YOU KNOW WHAT THE- I SEE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS, UH, WHAT, HOW WOULD I SAY GIVE IT ENOUGH TIME FOR IT TO GO THROUGH, UH, WITH THE DEADLINE BUT I, I THINK WE JUST GOTTA MOVE THINGS ALONG.

UM, I THINK OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT DID A LOT OF WORK BEHIND THE SCENES TO, YOU KNOW, GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE AT.

UH, WE PASSED IT A FIRST TIME ALREADY, SO I'M GONNA VOTE NO ON THE MOTION, BUT WE DO HAVE A MOTION FROM SUPERVISOR KOENIG, AND WE DO HAVE A SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

IF YOU COULD TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

- SUPERVISOR DE SERPA. - AYE.

MOTION PASSES WITH TWO DISSENTING VOTES, SUPERVISOR HERNANDEZ AND SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 6.2,

[25. Adopt a resolution to continue opting out of Assembly Bill 1416 as directed by the Board on April 29, 2025, resulting in not listing supporters and opponents of local measures on County ballots]

I DIDN'T JOT DOWN, IF YOU CAN READ THE ITEM, SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

- WELL, CERTAINLY THIS WAS, UH, FORMALLY ITEM 25.

- YEAH.

- UM, SO THIS WAS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE OPTING OUT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1416, AS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD ON APRIL 29TH, 2025, RESULTING IN NOT LISTING SUPPORTERS OR OPPONENTS OF LOCAL MEASURES ON COUNTY BALLOTS.

UM, SO WHEN WE OPTED OUT OF THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT, WHEN WE HAVE LONG BALLOTS, UM, LISTING SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS ON THEM CAN LEAD TO TWICE AS MANY BALLOT CARDS, WHICH REALLY INCREASES THE COST OF ELECTIONS.

UM, I THINK THAT, UH, IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION IN THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ THIS FALL, WHICH IS REALLY ONLY GONNA BE ONE QUESTION.

AND SO, UM, THE VOTERS COULD ACTUALLY BE SERVED, UH, BY HAVING THIS ASSEMBLY BILL IN EFFECT, IT WON'T ADD ANY COST TO THE ELECTION THAT I'M AWARE, ALTHOUGH OUR COUNTY CLERK CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

UM, AND SO I SEE NO HARM IN, UH, LETTING THIS ASSEMBLY BILL BE IN EFFECT, UH, THROUGH THE FALL.

AND THEN, UM, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE ULTIMATELY POSTPONE OR THAT WE, UM, OPT OUT AGAIN IN JANUARY OF '26.

[01:25:01]

BUT I WILL GET BACK TO THE CHAIR.

- HI, TRICIA WEBBER, COUNTY CLERK REGISTRAR OF VOTERS.

UM, TO DIRECTLY RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS THAT, UH, SUPERVISOR KOENIG SAID, UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ.

UM, BUT THE DEADLINE TO BE ON THE BALLOT FOR A JURISDICTION TO PUT SOMETHING ONTO THE BALLOT IS ACTUALLY FRIDAY.

SO, AS OF RIGHT NOW, ONLY THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ THROUGH TWO INITIATIVE MEASURES, UM, HAVE SOMETHING TO GO ON THE BALLOT.

WE ARE IN CANDIDATE FILING RIGHT NOW FOR FOUR SPECIAL DISTRICTS.

THEY MAY OR MAY NOT END UP ON THE BALLOT, AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER LOCAL JURISDICTION THAT WILL PASS A RESOLUTION TO PUT SOMETHING ONTO THE BALLOT BEFORE FRIDAY AT FIVE O'CLOCK.

ADDITIONALLY, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A SPECIAL STATEWIDE ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4TH, WHERE THERE WILL BE AT LEAST ONE QUESTION REGARDING AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW FOR REDISTRICTING, UM, BY THE LEGISLATURE INSTEAD OF BY THE INDEPENDENT, REDISTRICTING COMMISSION FOLLOWING, UH, FOLLOWING CENSUS DATA.

WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN EITHER.

SO, I WILL ANSWER THAT, YES, CURRENTLY, AS OF YESTERDAY, UM, THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADOPTED A RESOLUTION TO PUT TWO MEASURES ONTO THE BALLOT.

TO RESPOND TO ANOTHER COMMENT THAT YOU MADE, UM, I AM OF THE BELIEF THAT WE EITHER DO IT OR WE DON'T.

SO IF WE ARE GOING TO DO SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS ON THE BALLOT, WE SHOULDN'T TAKE IT AWAY FOR LATER.

UM, IT, BECAUSE WHY I, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT MY JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL BALLOT OR ALL VOTERS HAVE THE SAME ACCESS.

SO WHY WOULD I SAY, OH, THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ VOTERS DESERVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ACCESS THAN SAY, A VOTER IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION.

SO MY, MY COMMENT TO THAT IS, IS IF YOU CHOOSE TO, UM, DO THE SUPPORTERS AND THE OPPONENTS THAT YOU DON'T TURN AROUND A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER AND SAY, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO IT BECAUSE IT, IT REMOVES ACCESS THAT YOU GAVE SOME OTHER VOTERS.

BUT I WILL AGREE THAT THERE WILL PROBABLY NOT BE ADDITIONAL COSTS, BECAUSE I THINK EVEN IF WE HAVE MORE JURISDICTIONS GO ON, WE WILL NOT MOVE TO MORE THAN ONE BALLOT CARD.

- REALLY QUICK THOUGH.

UM, SO FRIDAY'S A DEADLINE.

- YES, BUT NOT FOR THE STATE.

- THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF DEADLINES.

- OKAY. SO I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD RIGHT NOW, BUT LET ME, UH, FIRST GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC IF THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENT FROM SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

- I, I'LL JUST, I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF THE CLERK.

UM, I MEAN, I GENERALLY AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD STRIVE FOR, UM, SORT OF EQUAL INFORMATION.

I MEAN, AT THE SAME TIME, EVERYTHING HAS A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

AND IN A SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IT'S MOST LIKELY NOT TO COST ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY, UM, TO LET THIS, UH, STATE LAW BE IN EFFECT, UM, WHY, WHY NOT TRY IT OUT? - OKAY. WITH THAT, WE'LL TAKE IT OUT TO THE FOLKS TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NONE, ANYONE ONLINE? - YES, CHAIR.

- CALLING USER 1, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- COULD YOU CLARIFY, PLEASE? I'VE READ WHAT NUMBER 25 SAYS ON THE AGENDA PACKET.

UM, THIS WOULD RESULT IN NOT LISTING SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF LOCAL MEASURES, OR IT WOULD LIST THEM, I, AS A VOTER, FIND IT INSTRUCTIVE TO READ SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF WHATEVER CANDIDATE OR MEASURES ON.

COULD YOU CLARIFY, PLEASE? - I, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO SO.

- WE'LL BRING BACK- WE'LL BRING BACK CLARIFICATION ONCE THE COMMENT'S DONE.

- OKAY. - WE'LL CALL YOU UP.

- I SEE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE, CHAIR.

- I WANNA WORK ON MY SQUATS.

UM, SO WHAT, WHAT AB 1416,

[01:30:04]

UH, IS THAT LAW IS TO LIST ON THE BALLOT ITSELF THE SUPPORTERS AND THE OPPONENTS OF A MEASURE.

THEY WILL ALSO BE LISTED IN THE VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE ALONG WITH THE ARGUMENTS BUT WHEN ARGUMENTS ARE TURNED IN, THEN THE PEOPLE TURNING IN THE, UM, THE ARGUMENT ALSO TURN IN THIS LIST.

UM, AND IT'S 125 CHARACTERS, WHAT THE LIST IS, IT EQUALS TWO LINES OF PRINT ON A BALLOT.

UM, SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE FULL LIST.

IT COULD INCLUDE ABBREVIATIONS, BUT IT'S, IT, IT, IT LISTS, YOU KNOW, NAMES OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE ALSO SIGNERS ON THE ARGUMENT.

BUT THE FULL LIST AND THE FULL ARGUMENT STILL REMAINS IN THE BOOK.

I HOPE THAT PROVIDED THE CLARIFICATION NEEDED.

THANK YOU FOR THE, UH, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? SUPERVISOR, UH, MARTINEZ.

- UH, FIRST, UM, WOULD THE MAKER OF THE MOTION PLEASE REPEAT THE MOTION? - SURE. I, I SAID MOVE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TILL THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY, 2026.

DOES THAT WORK? - I'M NOT, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT THAT DOES WORK, BECAUSE THE BOARD IN APRIL DECIDED TO OPT OUT AND INSTRUCTED THAT STAFF BRING BACK A RESOLUTION TO CONFIRM THAT.

UM, SO JUST CONTINUING THIS ITEM, UM, YOU'RE LEFT WITH A RECORD IN THE MINUTES THAT THE BOARD OPTED OUT IN APRIL.

- SO THEN YOU'RE SAYING IF WE WANTED IT TO BE IN EFFECT, WE'D HAVE TO PASS ANOTHER RESOLUTION SAYING THAT WE...

- NOT ANOTHER RESOLUTION.

I THINK IT, I THINK IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR, FOR, FOR YOUR BOARD TO, TO ACTUALLY JUST, UM, DECIDE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO, UM, COMPLY WITH AB 1462- AB 1416. THANK YOU.

THAT, THAT, THAT THE BOARD, THAT THE BOARD ESSENTIALLY IS, IS, IS REVERSING OR, OR, UM, MODIFYING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN APRIL THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES AND INSTRUCTING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO COME BACK WITH IN JANUARY, BUT MAYBE YOU COULD BE MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT YOU WANT STAFF TO BRING BACK IN JANUARY.

- UH, WELL, RIGHT.

SOME KIND OF, UM, GENERAL REPORT ON HOW IT WENT TO COMPLY AND WHETHER WE SHOULD, FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS, COMPLY WITH AP 1416 OR NOT.

- OH, THAT MAKES SENSE.

- IT WOULD BE THE KIND OF REPORT WE'D BE LOOKING FOR IN JANUARY.

- I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? - SECOND.

- IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER COMMENT? OKAY.

- UM, YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION.

UM, YOU KNOW, I DO WANNA START OFF BY RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EFFORT TO PUT TOGETHER THESE BALLOTS.

UM, I THINK MOST PEOPLE DON'T RECOGNIZE HOW MUCH ADMINISTRATIVE WORK GOES INTO ENSURING THAT EVERY VOTER HAS- FOR WHERE THEY LIVE, HAS THE DISTRICTS THAT THEY LIVE IN AND ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE.

AND IT DOES COME TO A BIG COST TO THE COUNTY, WHICH IS WHY, IN THE PAST, THIS BOARD HAS CONSIDERED OPTING OUT, UM, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S SOMEWHERE OF UPWARDS OF $250,000 PER ADDITIONAL PAGE OF A BALLOT.

SO I, I RECOGNIZE WHY THIS HAS COME BEFORE US.

UM, GIVEN THAT, YOU KNOW, AB 1416 WAS REALLY ROOTED IN THE VALUES OF VOTER TRANSPARENCY AND VOTER UNDERSTANDING AND, UM, AND ENSURING THAT WHEN A VOTER CASTS THEIR BALLOT, THEY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO BE INFORMED.

AND SO IF THERE ISN'T A FINANCIAL COST TO THE COUNTY TO IMPLEMENT AB 1416, AND UM, IT'S ALIGNED WITH THE VALUES OF OUR COUNTY, THEN I CERTAINLY SUPPORT FOR THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, UM, INCLUDING THE SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS ON IT.

AND THEN LEARNING MORE ABOUT, UM, THE IMPACT OF THAT AND ALSO THE IMPACT, YOU KNOW, THE COST IMPACT OF FUTURE ELECTIONS AND CONTINUING TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE LAW.

- TRISH, IF YOU CAN. THANK YOU.

- SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

SO IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WOULD COST, IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S NO COST FOR NOVEMBER 'CAUSE THERE'S NOT THAT MANY MEASURES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ON THE BALLOT THIS TIME.

[01:35:01]

BUT IN THE FUTURE, IT MIGHT COST UPWARDS OF $170,000 PER BALLOT, OR WHAT, COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER? - SURE. UM, EACH, EACH TIME THAT WE WOULD LIST, UM, SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS ON A MEASURE, IT ADDS FOUR EXTRA LINES OF TEXT ONTO THE BALLOT.

SO LOOKING AT BOTH JUNE OF, OR SORRY, MARCH OF LAST YEAR AND NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, EVEN ADDING FOUR EXTRA LINES ON A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE PUSHED US TO A SECOND CARD.

USING LAST YEAR'S COSTS, NOW, OF COURSE, POSTAGE HAS GONE UP AND SOME OTHER THINGS HAVE GONE UP, IT WAS ABOUT A DOLLAR.

UH, IT'S APPROXIMATELY A DOLLAR.

IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE NOW TO DO FOR EACH EXTRA CARD.

AND, UM, IF YOU, IF ONE BALLOT STYLE GOES TO TWO CARDS, THEN EVERYBODY GOES TO TWO CARDS.

EVEN IF THEY DON'T NEED TO GO TO TWO CARDS, SAY THERE WAS AN, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME AREAS WILL HAVE A SHORTER BALLOT AND OTHER AREAS WILL HAVE A LONGER BALLOT DEPENDING ON WHAT, WHAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR.

UM, BUT EVERYONE WOULD MOVE TO TWO CARDS.

SO TAKING OUR VOTER NUMBERS AT A DOLLAR EACH, WE'RE LOOKING AT 170,000 PLUS, YOU KNOW, AROUND THERE IN ORDER TO ADD A SECOND CARD TO A BALLOT.

- 170,000. SO, WHAT THAT WAS, CORRECT? - YEAH.

- WHAT YOU REALLY TOLD ME.

- I LIKED THE 250 TOO.

TRUST ME, I WAS LIKE, OH, MAYBE I CAN FIT THAT.

NO, I'M FUSING.

BUT, BUT IT, IT, THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL COST.

'CAUSE IT'S MAILING, IT'S THE SUPPLIES, IT'S THE STORAGE, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES MORE STORAGE TO STORE TWO CARDS INSTEAD OF ONE.

UM, THE STAFF TIME, IT'S INCREASED TO DO A BALLOT, UM, PREP- TO PREP IT THROUGH.

UM, SO THAT'S ALL ENCAPSULED IN WITH THAT $1 AREA.

SO, I MEAN, I, I SORT OF FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD MAKE THIS DECISION LIKE WE REJECTED THIS IN APRIL.

IF WE'RE GONNA CHANGE OUR DECISION ON THIS, WE SHOULD AND KEEP IT THAT WAY.

UM, I HONESTLY DON'T, I MEAN, ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IS IN PEOPLE'S VOTER GUIDES ALREADY, RIGHT? PEOPLE SHOULD BE DOING THEIR RESEARCH LOOKING AT THEIR VOTER GUIDES.

THEY HAVE IT ONLINE, THEY HAVE IT IN PAPER, IT'S MAILED OUT TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD.

UM, SO I AM INCLINED TO ACTUALLY TO VOTE NO ON THIS OR TO VOTE.

YEAH. WELL, YEAH, NOT, MAYBE NOT TO SUPPORT, UM, THE CURRENT MOTION AS IT STANDS BECAUSE WE, I THINK WE SHOULD EITHER DO IT OR NOT DO IT.

BUT, UM, GIVEN OUR VERY DIFFICULT BUDGET SITUATION, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM PRUDENT TO ME TO SPEND $170,000 EXTRA EACH ELECTION TO PROVIDE THIS WHEN IT'S ALREADY PROVIDED TO THE VOTERS ONLINE AND IN PAPER FORM.

UM, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A FAIRLY NEW LAW THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, AND BACK IN APRIL WHEN WE FIRST VOTED ON THIS, WE DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE GONNA HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION.

UM, NOW THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE ARE GONNA BE ITEMS ON THE BALLOT AND THAT THERE ARE FEWER ITEMS THAT THIS ISN'T GONNA- THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ISN'T GONNA COST MORE FOR TAXPAYERS, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO USE THIS, UH, MOMENT AS A PILOT TO JUST SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IMPACT DOES THIS HAVE ON PEOPLE'S VOTING, THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF BALLOT MEASURES.

UM, AND SO, UM, WHILE I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD EVENTUALLY TAKE SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, HARD STANCE, WHETHER WE WANNA OPT IN, OPT OUT, WE'VE NEVER HAD AN OP- WE'VE NEVER OPTED IN.

AND I THINK THIS BALLOT MEASURE OR THIS, UM, LAW WENT INTO EFFECT BACK IN LIKE 2022.

SO, YOU KNOW, I, AND, AND SINCE THEN, UM, MOST OFTEN I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ANY, MAYBE WE'VE HAD A COUPLE SPECIAL ELECTIONS HERE OR THERE, BUT I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR BOARD TO ACTUALLY JUST SEE HOW THIS COULD PLAY OUT, UM, AS A PILOT.

AND SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS DIRECTION.

I DO THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AN ITEM COME BACK IN JANUARY FOR US TO KIND OF ASSESS AND HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS WENT COST, YOU KNOW, MAYBE EVEN HAVING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO US ON, UM, THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH, UM, THIS FORM OF VOTING.

AND THEN, UH, THE, THE BOARD SHOULD, SHOULD TAKE A, AN ACTION AT THAT TIME.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS.

- GO AHEAD.

- SORRY, I, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE FOLLOW UP.

UM, SINCE YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE THINKING THIS IS A PILOT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE PILOTING IS HOW THE, ON A LOCAL MEASURE, IF THE PEOPLE ARE, IT'S AFFECTING THEM BECAUSE FOR THE STATE MEASURES, THEY ARE ALREADY ON THE BALLOT LISTING THE OPPONENTS AND THE SUPPORTERS, AND THERE'S BEEN NO DATA GATHERED ACROSS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN ALL OF 23 AND ALL OF 24

[01:40:05]

STATING THAT FOR THE STATEWIDE MEASURES, LISTING THE OPPONENTS AND THE SUPPORTERS ON THE BALLOT CREATED EITHER MORE UNDERSTANDING OR MORE TURNOUT IN ORDER TO VOTE FOR THOSE STATE MEASURES.

SO I'M TRYING, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT IN THIS PILOT.

AND, UM, MY QUESTION ALSO IS WHO'S PILOTING IT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR LOCAL ONLY? - YEAH, THERE'S REALLY NO PILOT.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, I I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT IT'S, IT'S, UM, THE USE OF THAT TERM MAY END UP BEING CONFUSING TO PEOPLE.

IT'S EITHER OPT IN, UM, YOU, YOU COMPLY WITH THE LAW BY, BY, BY DOING WHAT THE LEGISLATURE SAYS TO DO.

OR YOU CHOOSE TO OPT OUT AND MAYBE YOU COULD CALL OPTING OUT A PILOT IF YOU WANTED TO CALL IT.

BUT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO OPT OUT EVERY ELECTION IF YOU WANTED TO OPT OUT EVERY ELECTION IN THE FUTURE, YOU CAN PICK AND CHOOSE AS YOU GO, AS YOU GO FORWARD, SO TO SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE HAVING A PILOT PROJECT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT PROJECT, I JUST, I, I JUST WOULDN'T WANT THE BOARD TO BE CONFUSED OR THE PUBLIC TO BE CONFUSED AROUND THAT.

- OKAY. SO LET ME REPHRASE IT THEN.

UM, I GUESS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO OPT IN TO SEE HOW THIS MAY IMPACT VOTERS ON A LOCAL LEVEL, AND THEN, AND THEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY EARLY NEXT YEAR TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS WENT AND WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA OPT OUT OF THE NEXT ELECTION.

- YEAH. AND THE, AND THE ONLY, THE ONLY WAY TO REFRAME THAT OR WHATEVER IS, IS, IS THERE, IT'S NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPT IN.

THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW UNLESS YOU OPT OUT.

THERE'S NOT AN OPT IN.

SO I MEAN, IT'S OKAY FOR US TO REHASH AND REDISCUSS THIS.

- THANK YOU. UM...

AGAIN, UM, I JUST THINK IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WE VOTED ON ON APRIL AND WE'RE TAKING VALUABLE STAFF TIME AND I JUST DON'T SEE THE VALUE OF THE INTENT.

SO I, I WANNA CONTINUE TO SUPPORT, UH, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE, THE NEW MOTION.

WITH THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR, UH, MANU KOENIG, AND SECOND BY, LET'S SEE, SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ.

WE COULD TAKE ROLL CALL VOTE.

- SUPER... - CAN YOU REPEAT THE MOTION? - I SUPPOSE IT'S TO, UH, CHOOSE TO, UH...

- I CAN HELP YOU. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR MOTION WAS TO, UM, MODIFY YOUR DECISION IN APRIL AND, UM, INSTEAD, UM, NOT OPT OUT OF AB 1416 AT THIS TIME.

- CORRECT. AND REQUEST THAT OUR CLERK OF ELECTIONS RETURN IN JANUARY WITH FEEDBACK ON HOW THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS STATE LAW WENT.

- SECOND.

- SUPERVISOR- - JUST ADD A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT AND THAT WHEN THIS COMES BACK, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE ON WHETHER WE'RE GONNA OPT OUT FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR'S ELECTION.

- ACCEPTED. GREAT.

- CAN WE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE? FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

- YES.

SUPERVISOR DE SERPA. - NO.

THE MOTION PASSES WITH DISSENTING NO'S, HERNANDEZ AND, UH, SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

THAT WAS ITEM 25, 6.2. RIGHT? OKAY.

- NOW, THE REGULAR AGENDA.

[7. Presentation by Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) on the Annual Member Agency Update]

- NEXT, WE MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS NUMBER SEVEN, A PRESENTATION BY THE CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY, 3CE, ON THE ANNUAL MEMBER AGENCY UPDATE.

I WILL TURN IT OVER TO SOPHIA SCHWIRZKE OF 3CE, COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER, AND ROB SHAW, CEO FOR 3CE FOR THE PRESENTATION.

THE MIC.

GREEN BUTTON. GRAY BUTTON.

- THANK YOU, CHAIR HERNANDEZ, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE, UM, TO REPORT AND PROVIDE THE ANNUAL REPORT OF CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY.

MY NAME IS ROBERT SHAW.

I'M A RESIDENT OF APTOS, UM, A CONSTITUENT, UM, AND NEIGHBOR OF MANY OF YOU.

[01:45:03]

I'M JOINED BY SOPHIA SCHWIRZKE, OUR COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER FOR THE NORTHERN, UM, AREA OF OUR DISTRICT.

CENTRAL COAST, UM, REPRESENTS- OR IS COMPRISED OF 30 CITIES, FIVE COUNTIES.

UM, WE SERVE 519,000 ACCOUNTS AND OVER 1.1 MILLION CUSTOMERS AND INDIVIDUALS.

UM, I WANT TO START BY THANKING, UM, SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ FOR SERVING ON OUR POLICY BOARD AND FOR CAO PALACIOS, UM, WHO'S BEEN SERVING, UM, ON OUR OPERATIONS BOARD SINCE THE INCEPTION OF CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY.

UM, THEIR LEADERSHIP REALLY HAS, UH, CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS AND STRENGTH OF THE AGENCY.

UM, I WILL TALK TO THESE, UM, FIGURES IN JUST ONE MOMENT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE SIGNIFICANT HEADWINDS THAT THE RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY IS FACING AND OUR ROLE IN ADDRESSING SOME OF THOSE.

SO SOME OF YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT, SOME OF THEM YOU HAVEN'T.

UM, ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IS PROJECT DELAYS.

PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING DELAYED, THAT RENEWABLE ENERGY THAT WE'RE COUNTING ON TO MEET OUR CUSTOMER NEEDS, UM, IS FACING REAL CHALLENGES IN THE INDUSTRY OF GETTING INTERCONNECTED CHALLENGES IN COST AND GETTING, UH, DEVELOPED AND BEING BROUGHT ONLINE.

THAT IMPACTS OUR ABILITY TO DELIVER ON OUR GOALS OF REACHING A HUNDRED PERCENT BY 2030 AND THE STATE'S REQUIREMENTS OF MEETING A HUNDRED PERCENT BY 2045.

UH, ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT- AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY HAS HEARD ABOUT IT, THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION'S, UM, HR1, WHICH ROLLS BACK BOTH CONSUMER CREDITS FOR A LOT OF ELECTRIFICATION PROJECTS, HOME INVESTMENT PROJECTS, UM, AND WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT STRATEGIES AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DEADLINE OF SEPTEMBER 30TH.

SO WE REALLY ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO, UM, GET APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE, UM, INCENTIVES IN AND REMEMBER THAT, UM, THEY STACK WITH OUR INCENTIVES.

SO, UM, THEY'RE INCENTIVE DOLLARS WAITING FOR YOU, UM, IF YOU ARE A, A MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY AND A CUSTOMER OF 3CE.

ALSO IN THAT BILL IS PEELING BACK A LOT OF THE INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS AND PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS THAT THE INDUSTRY RELIES ON.

UM, AND THOSE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT YOU CAN PLAN FOR.

WE CAN MANAGE THROUGH THOSE.

BUT WHAT HAS BEEN REALLY DISRUPTIVE TO THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE MARKET, UM, BEING FED BY TARIFF CONCERNS, UM, BEING FED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA INTERPRET, UM, THE PROVISIONS OF STARTING CONSTRUCTIONS, PROVISIONS OF WHAT A FOREIGN BUSINESS OR A FOREIGN ENTITY OF CONCERN IS, UM, SO THAT WE CAN DELIVER THOSE PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE.

AND THEN A THIRD THAT PROBABLY NOT VERY MANY PEOPLE, UM, ARE, ARE AWARE OF IS THE HEADWIND OF THE STATE REGULATORY PROCESS.

THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CONTINUES TO TAKE A STANCE, UM, REGARDING WHAT'S CALLED THE POWER CHARGE AND DIFFERENCE ADJUSTMENT, UM, WHICH IS A PROCESS BY WHICH THEY ARE SHIFTING COST FOR THE POOR MANAGEMENT OF, UM, THE IOU, THE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES PORTFOLIOS.

THAT POOR MANAGEMENT LEADS TO ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT'S BEING SHIFTED ONTO MORE AND MORE CALIFORNIANS EVERY DAY.

UM, AND THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT HEADWIND THAT OUR AGENCY FACES.

BUT IN THE FACE OF THAT, UH, THOSE HEADWINDS, UH, THE LEADERSHIP THAT SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ AND THE REST OF OUR POLICY BOARD HAS SHOWN HAS LED TO A REALLY STRONG, STABLE, HEALTHY ORGANIZATION.

WE CONTINUE TO BE A-RATED, WE CONTINUE TO GROW OUR RESERVES.

UM, WE ARE- OUR OPERATING COST ARE DROPPING OVER THE NEXT YEAR, WE'RE SEEING SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS IN THE COST OF ENERGY.

OUR STAFF, YOUR ENERGY INDUSTRY EXPERTS THAT SERVE AS YOUR STAFF THROUGH 3CE ARE LESS THAN 2% OF THE TOTAL BUDGET.

1% FOR SALARIES, 2% OF TOTAL COST OF THE BUDGET FOR THIS AGENCY.

UM, WE HAVE NO DEBT, NO PENSION LIABILITIES.

UM, A LOT OF THAT COMES FROM REALLY GOOD FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND DECISION MAKING AROUND OUR ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND HOW WE MANAGE OUR BUSINESS.

UM, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT WE DO.

3CE HAS, UM, AND SINCE OUR INCEPTION DELIVERED ON OUR PROMISES, UM, FIRST TO PROVIDE COMPETITIVE RATES.

ALL OF THESE FINANCIAL FIGURES YOU SEE ON THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU, THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE LEADING TO THE ABILITY.

WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ON A CLASS, UH, BASIS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PG&E.

SOME OF THOSE HEADWINDS THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT IN THE CPUC REGULATORY STRUCTURE, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE CHALLENGES IN THE FUTURE BUT OVER SEVEN YEARS, NEVER BEEN MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OUR IOU COUNTERPARTS.

WE CONTINUE TO DEVELOP NEW RENEWABLES.

WE HAVE OVER A GIGAWATT OF NEW PROJECTS DELIVERING CLEAN, A HUNDRED PERCENT RENEWABLE ENERGY INTO THE CALIFORNIA GRID.

UM, AND WE'RE DOING THAT AT A SCALE THAT IS REALLY UNPRECEDENTED FOR AN AGENCY OF OUR SIZE.

OVER 500 MEGAWATTS OF ENERGY STORAGE.

AND WE'LL HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE NEED TO DIVERSIFY OUR ENERGY STORAGE.

WE DO HAVE LITHIUM PROJECTS IN OUR PORTFOLIO.

[01:50:02]

WE ALSO HAVE VANADIUM FLOW BATTERIES IN OUR PORTFOLIO.

THOSE BATTERIES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY CHALLENGED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MARKET READY, SO THOSE WILL HAVE A CHALLENGE GETTING DELIVERED.

UM, WE ALSO HAVE, UM, PUMPED AIR, COMPRESSED AIR PROJECTS, AND MS. SCHWIRZKE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT.

WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT PROJECTS THAT, THAT ARE PUMPED HYDRO.

WE'RE LOOKING AT GRAVITY FED PROJECTS.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT SIGNIFICANT DIVERSITY IN OUR STORAGE FLEET WHICH IS NECESSARY TO MAXIMIZE THE VALUE AND THE REDUCE COST TO CUSTOMERS.

THIS IS A NONPROFIT AGENCY.

WE DO NOT MAKE PROFITS.

EVERYTHING THAT WE SPEND IS A CUSTOMER RATE.

IT'S A PASS THROUGH TO CUSTOMERS.

SO BY MANAGING THIS BUSINESS, MAKING THOSE GOOD FINANCIAL DECISIONS IS HOW WE KEEP CUSTOMER RATES LOW.

AND THEN FINALLY, OUR ENERGY PROGRAMS. WE HAVE OVER 11 ENERGY PROGRAMS IN OUR PORTFOLIO, UM, BOTH FOR CUSTOMERS AND MEMBER AGENCIES.

OVER OUR LIFETIME, WE'VE INVESTED MORE THAN $40 MILLION INTO OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES, WHICH MS. SCHWIRZKE WILL WALK THROUGH EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY.

BUT THIS YEAR, WE'LL BE SPENDING $14.8 MILLION IN INCENTIVE DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.

THAT'S A DIRECT BENEFIT THAT MEMBERS OF OUR CUSTOMER, AND MEMBERS OF THIS AGENCY, ARE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.

AND WE'LL BE MOVING OUR, UM, BATTERY OR OUR, UM, ENERGY PROGRAMS TO MORE OF A CUSTOMER EMPOWERMENT FOCUS.

SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A LOT OF REBATE STRUCTURES, BUT SOMETHING LIKE OUR RESIDENTIAL BATTERY PROGRAM IS GIVING CUSTOMERS THE ABILITY TO MANAGE HOW THEY USE ELECTRICITY, GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO MANAGE THEIR COST OF ELECTRICITY, REDUCE THEIR COST OF ELECTRICITY AND WE'VE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM LOCAL SOLAR DEVELOPERS THAT IN THE FACE OF HR1 AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S ATTACK ON THE RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY, THAT OUR PROGRAM IS HELPING TO STABILIZE THEIR BUSINESSES AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

I'M VERY PROUD OF THE WORK THAT THIS AGENCY IS DOING, VERY PROUD OF THE STAFF WORK.

UM, AND I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO MS. SCHWIRZKE TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE DETAILS.

- THANK YOU, ROB, AND THANK YOU, CHAIR HERNANDEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU THIS MORNING.

I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW OF 3CE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MAY BE LESS FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK THAT WE DO.

LIKE ROB SAID, 3CE IS THE PUBLIC AGENCY THAT SOURCES ENERGY FOR THE CENTRAL COAST.

WE WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PG&E WHO MANAGES ENERGY TRANSMISSION AND DELIVERY SERVICES.

3CE SERVES 30 CITIES AND FIVE COUNTIES.

AND LIKE ROB SAID, WE PROVIDE ENERGY TO 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE ALONG THE CENTRAL COAST.

SINCE OUR INCEPTION IN 2018, 3CE HAS INVESTED $43 MILLION INTO CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITIES.

UH, AND AGAIN, TO REITERATE WHAT ROB SAID, OVER THAT SAME PERIOD, WE'VE CONSISTENTLY PROVIDED ENERGY GENERATION AT RATES LOWER THAN PG&E'S.

AT 3CE, WE ARE ON A PATHWAY TO DELIVER OUR CUSTOMERS 100% CLEAN AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.

WE INVEST IN NEW CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS THAT SUPPLY POWER ACROSS CALIFORNIA WITH A DEDICATED PORTION OF THOSE PROJECTS RESERVED FOR 3CE CUSTOMERS.

LAST YEAR, 3CE DELIVERED ENOUGH POWER TO POWER MORE THAN 350,000 HOMES ALONG THE CENTRAL COAST.

THESE EFFORTS PREVENTED EMISSIONS EQUIVALENT TO TAKING 105,000 GAS POWERED VEHICLES OFF THE ROAD FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR.

3CE HAS CONTRACTS IN PLACE TO SUPPLY 64% OF OUR TOTAL LOAD WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY BY OCTOBER OF 2028, AND WE HAVE ADDITIONAL CONTRACTS PENDING APPROVAL THAT COULD INCREASE THIS NUMBER BY 5 TO 17%.

THIS PUTS US WELL AHEAD OF STATE CLEAN ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND MOVES US CLOSER TO A CARBON-FREE FUTURE.

UM, WE'VE RECEIVED MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE THAT BATTERY STORAGE PLAYS IN THE ENERGY TRANSITION, SO I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES HERE TO DELVE INTO THAT A BIT MORE.

BATTERY STORAGE IS ESSENTIAL FOR CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY TRANSITION, AND JUST AS IMPORTANTLY TO CUSTOMER AFFORDABILITY.

BATTERIES CAPTURE RENEWABLE ENERGY WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING AND THE WIND IS BLOWING, THEN RELEASE IT LATER IN THE DAY WHEN DEMAND IS HIGH, AND WIND AND SOLAR POWER ARE LESS AVAILABLE.

[01:55:01]

BATTERIES REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL RELIANCE DURING PEAK HOURS LOWERING ELECTRICITY RATES FOR OUR CUSTOMERS.

THEY CAN BE STRATEGICALLY LOCATED NEAR EXISTING FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS, REDUCING THEIR OPERATING HOURS AND IMPROVING THE AIR QUALITY IN SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

FOR EXAMPLE, 3CE IS INVESTING IN BATTERY PROJECTS ADJACENT TO FOUR GAS PLANTS THAT WILL CUT THEIR POLLUTION BY AN AVERAGE OF 54%.

BATTERY PROJECTS ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY CREATING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION JOBS, GENERATING NEW TAX REVENUE AND INCREASING CAPACITY TO SUPPORT NEW AND GROWING BUSINESSES.

FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, HOME BATTERIES PROVIDE BACKUP POWER AND STORE CHEAP RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR USE DURING EXPENSIVE PEAK HOURS.

SO LET'S LOOK AT A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE THE VALUE OF BATTERY STORAGE.

DURING LABOR DAY WEEKEND IN 2022, CALIFORNIA ISSUED ITS MOST RECENT FLEX ALERT, WHICH IS A STATEWIDE CALL TO REDUCE ENERGY USE DURING A MAJOR HEAT WAVE.

SO YOU MIGHT REMEMBER GETTING A TEXT MESSAGE ASKING YOU TO CONSERVE ENERGY TO PREVENT ROLLING BLACKOUTS.

THE GRAPH THAT YOU SEE HERE SHOWS THE STATEWIDE ENERGY MIX FROM THAT DAY.

THE RED AREA REPRESENTS FOSSIL FUELS, WHICH MAKE UP THE LARGEST PORTION.

THE GREEN SHOWS RENEWABLE SOURCES LIKE SOLAR AND WIND, WHICH PEAK DURING THE DAY, THEN DROP OFF SHARPLY AT SUNSET.

NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT THE VERY THIN ORANGE LINES THAT YOU'LL SEE AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND THE VERY TOP OF THE GRAPH.

THIS AREA REPRESENTS BATTERIES.

UH, THE TOP PORTION IS, EXCUSE ME, THE BOTTOM PORTION IS BATTERIES CHARGING DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS WHILE THE TOP PORTION IS THESE SAME BATTERIES DISCHARGING ENERGY BACK INTO THE GRID WHEN IT'S MOST NEEDED.

UH, AND AGAIN, ON THIS DAY, WE NEEDED A FLEX ALERT IN ORDER TO PREVENT BLACKOUTS.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT A MORE RECENT HEAT WAVE.

ON JULY 4TH OF LAST YEAR, DESPITE ANOTHER PERIOD OF EXTREMELY HIGH ENERGY DEMAND, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A FLEX ALERT TO AVOID BLACKOUTS.

THE GRAPH HERE TELLS THE STORY.

THE GREEN BAR AGAIN REPRESENTS RENEWABLE ENERGY, WHICH GREW TALLER AS MORE SOLAR PROJECTS CAME ONLINE.

THE RED BAR REPRESENTING FOSSIL FUELS BECAME SMALLER.

BUT MOST NOTABLY, THE ORANGE BARS REPRESENTING BATTERIES MORE THAN TRIPLED.

BATTERIES CHARGED DURING THE DAY AND DISCHARGE POWER DURING PEAK EVENING HOURS, PROVIDING CRITICAL SUPPORT WHEN OUR STATE NEEDED IT THE MOST.

SO I THINK THIS GRAPH, UH, REALLY DEMONSTRATES HOW BATTERIES EXTEND RENEWABLE ENERGY, UH, LIKE WIND AND SOLAR, THEIR USEFULNESS INTO EVENING HOURS.

SO WE'VE HEARD FROM MANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SAFETY OF UTILITY SCALE BATTERY STORAGE.

SO I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SHARE A FEW KEY POINTS WITH YOU.

UH, FIRSTLY, 3CE DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS WITH INDOOR BATTERY PROJECTS LIKE VISTRA'S MOSS LANDING FACILITY WAS.

ALL OF THE BATTERY PROJECTS THAT 3CE INVESTS IN ARE CONTAINERIZED SYSTEMS, UH, THAT INCLUDE THE LATEST, UH, INDIVIDUAL FIRE SUPPRESSION TECHNOLOGY AND COMPLY WITH THE LATEST FIRE AND BUILDING CODES.

UH, AND FINALLY, BATTERY SYSTEM FAILURE RATES HAVE DROPPED 98% SINCE 2018, AND THAT'S DESPITE A GLOBAL BATTERY DEPLOYMENT, UH, THAT INCREASED BY MORE THAN 25000%.

UM, SO AT 3CE, WE ARE ALSO INVESTING IN NEW INNOVATIVE STORAGE TECHNOLOGY.

AND ONE EXAMPLE THAT I AM ESPECIALLY EXCITED TO SHOW YOU IS THE WILLOW ROCK ENERGY STORAGE CENTER.

THIS PROJECT WILL USE COMPRESSED AIR TO POWER TURBINES, AND ONCE IT IS ONLINE, IT WILL BE THE LARGEST COMPRESSED AIR STORAGE PROJECT IN THE WORLD.

THIS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE 200 MEGAWATTS OF POWER TO 3CE CUSTOMERS ALONE.

A FEW MORE PROJECTS I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU ARE THE ARATINA SOLAR PLUS STORAGE PROJECT, THE ATLAS SOLAR PROJECT, AND THE VICTORY PASS SOLAR PLUS STORAGE PROJECT.

THESE ARE AMONG SOME OF THE LATEST PROJECTS THAT 3CE HAS INVESTED IN.

TOGETHER, THESE THREE PROJECTS WILL SUPPLY ENOUGH CLEAN POWER TO, UH, ENERGIZE THE HOMES OF 263,000 3CE CUSTOMERS.

[02:00:05]

DELIVERING CLEAN ENERGY IS ONLY PART OF WHAT WE DO AT 3CE.

EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS CONNECTING WITH THE COMMUNITIES WE SERVE.

OUR OUTREACH TEAM IS ACTIVE ACROSS THE REGION, WE SPONSOR LOCAL EVENTS, HOST WEBINARS, AND LEAD WORKSHOPS THAT RAISE AWARENESS AND INFORM THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR ENERGY PROGRAMS. TO BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES, 3CE HAS HIRED ADDITIONAL BILINGUAL STAFF.

WE'VE EXPANDED THE TRANSLATED MATERIALS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE AND WE'VE DEVELOPED AN ACTION PLAN FOCUSED ON SERVING UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.

OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE NOW OFFERS SUPPORT IN MORE THAN 150 LANGUAGES.

IN ADDITION TO ENGAGING OUR COMMUNITIES THROUGH OUTREACH AND EDUCATION, 3CE ALSO PROVIDES DIRECT SUPPORT THROUGH A RANGE OF CUSTOMER PROGRAMS. THESE PROGRAMS EMPOWER CUSTOMERS TO ELECTRIFY THEIR HOMES, VEHICLES, AND BUSINESSES WHILE SAVING MONEY IN THE PROCESS.

OUR ELECTRIFY YOUR RIDE PROGRAM, FOR EXAMPLE, OFFERS UP TO $4,000 TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND THAT PROGRAM ALSO INCLUDES FUNDING FOR EV CHARGING STATIONS.

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS HELP LOWER THE COST OF UPGRADING TO ELECTRIC APPLIANCES, INSTALLING BATTERY STORAGE, AND ADVANCING ELECTRIFICATION IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR.

3CE STAFF IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE AND READY TO HELP ANY OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS APPLY TO THESE PROGRAMS OR JUST GET MORE INFORMATION.

SO I'LL, I'LL LEAVE SOME BUSINESS CARDS WITH YOUR CLERK IF YOU'D LIKE TO REACH OUT FOR MORE INFORMATION.

3CE ALSO OFFERS PROGRAMS FOR MEMBER AGENCIES LIKE THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ TO SUPPORT ELECTRIFYING YOUR FLEET VEHICLES, INSTALLING EV CHARGERS, PURCHASING ELECTRIC BUSES, AND ADOPTING REACH CODES.

SINCE 2018, NEARLY 7,000 CUSTOMERS HAVE BENEFITED FROM 3CE'S PROGRAMS, PUTTING MORE THAN $11 MILLION BACK INTO THE CENTRAL COAST.

OVER 4 MILLION OF THAT SUPPORT WENT DIRECTLY TO UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

UH, SO THIS SLIDE HIGHLIGHTS HOW SANTA CRUZ COUNTY AND ITS INCORPORATED CITIES HAVE BENEFITED FROM 3CE'S PROGRAMS TO DATE.

COMBINED, THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED OVER $5.87 MILLION IN FUNDING THROUGH 3CE.

SO BEFORE I CLOSE TODAY, I WANNA CIRCLE BACK ON SOME OF WHAT ROB SPOKE ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR PRESENTATION.

I WANNA PROVIDE A BRIEF LEGISLATIVE UPDATE.

UM, LIKE ROB SAID, THE FEDERAL MEGA BILL KNOWN AS HR1, OR THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL, DOES IMPACT 3CE'S CUSTOMERS.

THE BILL ELIMINATES FEDERAL TAX CREDITS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES AFTER SEPTEMBER 30TH, AND FOR HOME ENERGY UPGRADES AFTER DECEMBER 31ST.

MANY OF OUR CUSTOMERS COMBINE THESE FEDERAL INCENTIVES WITH THE PROGRAMS THAT 3CE OFFERS.

SO WE ARE REALLY ENCOURAGING OUR CUSTOMERS WHO DO WANT TO ELECTRIFY TO DO SO NOW THAT THEY CAN, SO THAT THEY CAN GET THE MAX REBATE AMOUNT FROM BOTH, UH, 3CE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

HR1 ALSO ELIMINATES TAX CREDITS FOR UTILITY-SCALE SOLAR AND WIND PROJECTS THAT HAVEN'T BROKEN GROUND BY 2027.

THESE PROJECTS ARE CHEAPER AND QUICKER TO BUILD THAN THEIR NATURAL GAS ALTERNATIVES.

AND WITHOUT FEDERAL SUPPORT, THEY MAY BECOME MORE DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY LEAD TO HIGHER ENERGY COSTS FOR OUR CUSTOMERS.

UH, TO HELP ADDRESS THIS, 3CE IS SUPPORTING THE PATHWAYS INITIATIVE, WHICH WOULD CREATE A REGIONAL ENERGY MARKET ACROSS CALIFORNIA AND OTHER WESTERN STATES.

THIS MARKET WOULD ENABLE US TO SELL EXCESS RENEWABLE POWER THAT WE HAVE DURING THE DAY, UH, REDUCING EMISSIONS ACROSS THE REGION AND GENERATING NEARLY $800 MILLION IN SAVINGS FOR CALIFORNIANS.

LOOKING AHEAD, ADVANCING LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE RESOURCE ADEQUACY TRADING PRESENTS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO LOWER COSTS FOR CUSTOMERS.

SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION FOR TODAY.

THANK YOU AGAIN, CHAIR HERNANDEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THIS UPDATE.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP AND SUPPORT AS WE WORK TOGETHER TO DELIVER CLEAN, RELIABLE, AND AFFORDABLE ENERGY TO OUR COMMUNITIES.

UH, ROB AND I ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

[02:05:04]

- I THINK I'LL GO WITH THE BOARD FIRST, UM, JUST TO, I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE ALREADY.

UH, MORE THAN ANTICIPATED, I GUESS.

UH, SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

- UH, WELL, THANK YOU, ROB.

THANK YOU, SOPHIA, FOR THE PRESENTATION.

UM, YOU KNOW, YOUR AGENCY'S WORK IS JUST PHENOMENAL AND, UM, HAS JUST PUT OUR, I MEAN, ENTIRE CENTRAL COAST REGION IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE TO RESPOND TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS.

UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR OWN CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN HERE IN THE COUNTY, I MEAN, ENERGY IS SORT OF NOT EVEN A FACTOR ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE DOING SUCH A GOOD JOB, UH, GETTING A HANDLE ON IT.

SO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR GOOD WORK, AND OF COURSE, THANK YOU TO SUPERVISOR MCPHERSON AND HIS ANALYST JENNY JOHNSON, FOR REALLY HELPING TO - TO SPEARHEAD THE EFFORT TO GET THIS, UH, AGENCY CREATED.

UM, I MEAN, IT'S REALLY ENCOURAGING TO HEAR THAT, UM, YOU KNOW WE'RE STILL, YOU'RE, YOU'RE STILL VERY MUCH FULL STEAM AHEAD.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE ORIGINAL GOAL OF, UH, NET ZERO ENERGY WAS 2030, AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING WE COULD POTENTIALLY REACH THAT BY 2028.

IS THAT, UM, EVEN IN CONSIDERING, YOU KNOW, THE - THE IMPACTS OF HR1, OR IS THERE SOME, WHAT - WHAT DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE DO YOU HAVE IN GETTING TO NET ZERO BY 2028? - I THINK IT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, SUPERVISOR KOENIG, UM, EVEN 2030 WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE.

AS WE BUILD OUT THE AGENCY AND WE BUILD OUT OUR ENERGY PORTFOLIO, WE MUST GET MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED IN HOW THAT PORTFOLIO WORKS TOGETHER.

THAT'S WHY SUPPORT OF SB 540 IS SO CRITICAL FOR THE SUCCESS OF ALL ENERGY INDUSTRIES AND BRINGING DOWN COSTS FOR CALIFORNIANS.

WE CAN'T PRETEND THAT THE - THE BORDER OF CALIFORNIA STOPS THE FLOW OF ELECTRICITY.

WE'VE GOTTA MAXIMIZE THE ELECTRICITY AND THE OVERBUILDING OF SOLAR WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA, IN OTHER PARTS OF THE - THE STATE.

IT WILL BE A CHALLENGE.

WE ARE SEEING A LOT OF PROJECTS BEING DELAYED.

THE INTERCONNECTION GETTING CONNECTED TO THE GRID IS A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE.

UM, MS. SCHWIRZKE WAS SHARING THAT WE'RE NOT SLOWING DOWN, WE'RE FINDING VERY CREATIVE CONTRACTUAL STRUCTURES TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE BRINGING PROJECTS FORWARD.

WHETHER THOSE PROJECTS ALL GET DELIVERED WILL BE A PRODUCT OF HOW WE WEATHER, UM, THIS, THESE VERY UNEVEN SEAS AS WE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER.

- GOT IT. YEAH.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE GRAPH SHOWING KIND OF ENERGY USE THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND THE DIFFERENT SOURCES, THAT IS HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING THE, UH, IMPORTANCE OF OF, UH, ENERGY STORAGE AND BATTERY STORAGE.

UM, AND IT LOOKED LIKE IN GETTING TO 2028 OR 2030, YOU KNOW, WE ARE CLOSE TO, I HAVE TO SEE THE GRAPH AGAIN, BE, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 50% WE EXPECT TO GET TO, UH, BY THAT TIME.

CAN YOU JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE'VE ONLY MET OUR ZERO-EMISSION GOAL DURING THE DAY? LIKE IN THEORY, SHOULD THOSE BOTH BE A HUNDRED PERCENT? LIKE, JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT, YEAH, THAT- THAT.

THANK YOU. SO A LITTLE OVER 50 IS, UM, WE ANTICIPATE BY 2028, I GUESS IT'S CONTRACTS, IS THAT THAT RIGHT? UM, SO WHAT WOULD THE GREEN OR- OR GREENER BAR THERE IDEALLY BE, UM, FOR US TO- TO REACH OUR GOALS? - WELL, I, I BELIEVE, AND, UM, MS. SCHWIRZKE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M COR- IF I'M WRONG ON THIS, BUT THE BLUE BAR IS THE GENERATION, SO THAT THOSE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT ARE GENERATING ELECTRICITY.

AND THEN THE GREEN OR TEAL BAR IS THE STORAGE PROJECTS THAT'S HELPING MAXIMIZE THAT ENERGY GENERATION, BRING COSTS DOWN FOR OUR CUSTOMERS.

UM, YES, FROM A... YOU KNOW, BY 2027, WE'LL HAVE A FEW MORE PROJECTS COMING ONLINE.

WE'LL HAVE GENERATION AND CONTRACTS FOR GENERATION THAT WILL COME TO A LITTLE OVER 75% STORAGE.

UM, THAT STORAGE BAR IS MORE OF A PROGRESS.

ITS STORAGE DOESN'T LEAD TO GENERATION.

STORAGE IS ACTUALLY A DRAW ON GENERATION, SO IT'S JUST MOVING IT TO A DIFFERENT TIME OF DAY.

UM, THIS REPRESENTS SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS.

THE REAL NEED THAT WE HAVE IS GETTING THESE PROJECTS TO DELIVER AND THEN CONTRACTING FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT GO BEYOND THE 28-PERIOD, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE EARLIER PROJECTS WILL START TO ROLL OFF OF THE PORTFOLIO IN 2022 AND 2020 OR 2034 AND SO ON.

SO IT'S A CONTINUALLY BUYING CYCLE THAT WE HAVE.

UM, I THINK THAT WE ARE ON TRACK FROM, UH, ENERGY PROCUREMENT STRATEGY STANDPOINT, BUT AS I MENTIONED, WE'VE NOW GOTTA GET MORE...

WE'VE BUILT THE BASE, AND WE'VE GOTTA GET MORE SPECIFIC AROUND HOW THOSE PROJECTS OPERATE TOGETHER.

I, I KNOW I'M NOT ADDRESSING YOUR EXACT QUESTION.

WHAT SHOULD THAT NUMBER BE BY TO BE ON TARGET? I BELIEVE WE ARE ON TARGET.

THE UNCERTAINTY IS IN THE FUTURE.

SO WE HAVE TO MANAGE THAT FUTURE IN OUR CONTRACT STRUCTURES AND REALLY OVER-PROCURE THE ENGAGEMENT WE HAVE WITH DEVELOPERS

[02:10:04]

SO THAT WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT WE'LL- WE'LL FIND WHICH DEVELOPERS CAN WEATHER THESE STORMS AND WHICH ONES CANNOT.

- MM-HMM. MM-HMM. RIGHT.

UM, IT'S GREAT TO HEAR THAT YOU'RE INVESTING IN THE COMPRESSED AIR FACILITY AND IN SORT OF LOOKING AT ALL, UM, YOU KNOW, ALTERNATIVES, ALL MEANS OF ENERGY STORAGE.

THINK YOU EVEN MENTIONED PUMPED HYDRO, RIGHT? I MEAN, LIKE, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE, UH, SOLAR POWER DURING THE DAY TO PUMP WATER FROM THE SAN LUIS RESERVOIR, FOREBAY BACK INTO THE...

I GUESS MAYBE THAT'S NOT A POWER-GENERATING FACILITY.

SO, BUT ANYWAY, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO...

WELL, UM, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHAT, UM, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE MIX DO YOU SEE THOSE ALTERNATIVES BEING, YOU KNOW, HOW- CAN YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SORT OF WHERE THOSE TECHNOLOGIES ARE COMPARED TO, YOU KNOW, BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE? - UH, ALL- ALL ENERGY STORAGE IS- IS A- A STORAGE TECHNOLOGY.

SO FROM A BREAKDOWN, UM, AT AN INDUSTRY LEVEL, I ALSO SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT OF CAL CCA AT AN INDUSTRY LEVEL.

I THINK YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE 79% OF ALL PROJECTS PLANNED IN THE FUTURE, UM, THAT ARE CURRENTLY CONTRACTED FOR, ARE THE NEWER PHASE LITHIUM.

UM, SO IRON PHOSPHATE, LITHIUM BATTERIES FOR OR EIGHT-HOUR DURATION, AND THEN MUCH SMALLER BEYOND THAT.

THE ISSUE IS THE SCALABILITY OF THOSE PROJECTS.

OUR COMPRESSED AIR PROJECT, WHICH WE'RE A 200 MEGAWATT OFFTAKER, THAT'S NEARLY HALF OF OUR- OUR ENTIRE STORAGE, UM, PORTFOLIO.

UM, THAT IS AN EMERGING TECHNOLOGY.

IT'S NOT ONLY THE LARGEST IN THE UNITED STATES, IT'S THE FIRST OF THAT SIZE IN THE UNITED STATES.

SMUD HAS A VERY SMALL PROJECT.

FINDING PROJECTS THAT ARE VIABLE THAT YOU CAN BRING TO MARKET, OUR BOARD HAS IDENTIFIED AS A GOAL IN ITS PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA, BUT HAS ALSO SET A BOUNDARY AROUND, YOU KNOW, OUR CUSTOMERS ARE NOT VENTURE CAPITALISTS.

OUR CUSTOMERS AREN'T GOING OUT AND SAYING, TAKE MY MONEY TO SEE IF YOU CAN MAKE THIS DEVELOPER'S DREAMS COME TRUE.

THAT IS NOT OUR JOB.

OUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT TECHNOLOGIES THAT MAKE SENSE IN OUR PORTFOLIO AND FOR OUR CUSTOMERS AND DELIVER THOSE.

UM, THE VANADIUM BATTERIES, WE HAD ABOUT 32 MEGAWATTS.

I UNFORTUNATELY DON'T THINK THAT THOSE BATTERIES WILL SUCCEED.

AND THAT'S A LOT OF THE TARIFF AND INTEREST RATE CHALLENGES, UM, TO THAT INDUSTRY.

IT'S JUST NOT READY.

UM, YOU'LL HEAR A LOT ABOUT SODIUM BATTERIES.

I'VE CHECKED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AROUND THE STATE.

THERE'S NO SODIUM BATTERY AT A UTILITY SCALE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED OR SUBMITTED IN ANY REQUEST FOR OFFERS.

SO, I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING VIABLE, UM, CURRENTLY.

UM, ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SOME OTHER TECHNOLOGIES.

MOST OF THE RESERVOIR CAPACITY, AND FOREBAY CAPACITY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS EITHER A FEDERAL WATER PROJECT OR STATE WATER PROJECT.

THERE ARE PUMP HOUSES IN GENERATION STATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE.

THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, WOULD BE REPURPOSING A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT RESERVOIRS IN THE SIERRAS AND- AND TRYING TO MAKE THAT WORK ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMERS.

SO WE'RE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGIES.

WE ARE TECHNOLOGY AGNOSTIC IN THAT WAY, BUT THE REALITY IS THE INDUSTRY ONLY PROVIDES CURRENTLY ONE TECHNOLOGY.

- THANK YOU. I'VE JUST BEEN ON YOUR WEBPAGE 'CAUSE I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THE $43 MILLION IN GIVEBACKS TO COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

- SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

CAN YOU JUST HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THAT BRIEFLY? - YEAH. UM, MS. SCHWIRZKE WILL BRING UP THE SLIDE AGAIN FOR THE PUBLIC, BUT, UM, OUR BOARD HAS SET AS PART OF OUR- OUR BUDGET, UM, ENERGY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.

THESE ARE GOING TO BEING ABLE TO PURCHASE, UM, ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

ALL OF OUR PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED WITH AN EQUITY LENS.

SO THERE ARE HIGHER REBATES MARKETING FOCUSED ON, UM, UH, DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN.

UM, WE HAVE 36% OF ALL OF OUR PROGRAM DOLLARS ARE GOING TO INCOME-QUALIFIED CUSTOMERS.

UM, THAT'S A STAGGERING NUMBER WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ELECTRIC VEHICLES CHARGING EQUIPMENT, UM, ELECTRIC BUSES IN AT-RISK SCHOOL DISTRICTS, UM, OR TITLE- TITLE I SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

UM, SO THE, OUR PROGRAMS ARE A WHOLE HOST OF DIFFERENT THINGS BUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, IT'S MUCH MORE ABOUT DYNAMIC PRICING, GIVING CUSTOMERS MORE CONTROL OF THEIR ENERGY DEMANDS.

HERE IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, YOU CAN SEE THE NAMES OF THE PROGRAMS. HAPPY TO TALK THROUGH WHAT THESE ARE, AND THEN THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE AGENCY, UM, THAT OUR CUSTOMERS ARE BENEFITING FROM HERE.

I HOPE THAT ADDRESSES YOUR QUESTION.

- YES, THANK YOU.

- I FIRST JUST WANNA THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR HARD WORK IN THIS FIELD.

[02:15:02]

I MEAN, WE THINK ABOUT HOW EVERY YEAR WE'RE SEEING, UM, THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE KIND OF INCREASE AND BECOME MUCH MORE DEVASTATING.

IT'S PROGRAMS LIKE THIS THAT'S REALLY GONNA HELP US ACHIEVE OUR GOALS AROUND TRYING TO REDUCE OUR CARBON EMISSIONS AND MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

SO, JUST WANNA APPRECIATE YOUR DEDICATION TO THIS FIELD AND THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DO.

UM, THE ONLY QUESTION- I REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT MANY QUESTIONS.

I APPRECIATE THE CONTENT.

I, IT WAS PRETTY CLEARLY LAID OUT FOR ME, AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, REALLY HOPE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE CURRENT FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION AND HOW THAT REALLY IS GONNA, YOU KNOW, UM, KIND OF TAKE US BACK IN OUR EFFORTS TO TRY TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WILL WAKE UP DURING NEXT ELECTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, GET RID OF THESE PEOPLE AND GET PEOPLE, UM, IN FEDERAL OFFICE WHO ARE REALLY GONNA SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS AS WE'RE TRYING TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH RENEWABLE ENERGY.

UM, THE ONE QUESTION I DID HAVE WAS AROUND THE WILLOW ROCK ENERGY, UM, STORAGE AREA.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHERE THAT'S LOCATED, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE A REALLY COOL PROJECT, UM, USING COMPRESSED AIR TO, UM, TO CREATE ENERGY.

AND SO JUST WONDERING WHERE THAT'S AT.

AND THEN ALSO, LIKE WHAT OTHER FACILITIES ARE OUT THERE LIKE THIS? IT'S JUST A... IT'S JUST REALLY INTRIGUING.

UM, TO- TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS, SO.

- THERE- THERE ARE A LOT OF AMAZING STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES.

THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS LOCATED IN KERN COUNTY, UM, NEAR THE TEHACHAPI AREA.

UM, IT'S THE ONLY ONE IN CALIFORNIA THAT I'M AWARE OF.

UM, THE DEVELOPER IS HYDRO STORE, AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT OTHER PROJECTS.

UM, THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER TECHNOLOGIES, GRAVITY FED TECHNOLOGIES TAKING THINGS UP IN AN ELEVATOR AND DROPPING VERY HEAVY THINGS, UH, TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY BUOYANCY USING, UM, UM, SUB- SUBVERT- SUBMERGING, UM, AIRBAGS IN THE SEA AND LETTING THEM COME BACK UP TO GENERATE ENERGY, UM, UTILIZING UM, ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE UTILIZING HYBRID BATTERIES, PAIRING THEM WITH PEAKER FACILITIES SO THAT THOSE, UM, FACILITIES AREN'T EMITTING, UH, IN THE EVENING HOURS.

LOTS OF VERY UNIQUE TECHNOLOGIES.

THEY ALL TAKE, UM, A GOOD DEAL OF DEVELOPER INGENUITY, BUT THE REAL CHALLENGE AROUND THEM IS THE EFFICIENCY.

IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO PULL THE BAG TO THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN PLUS ALL OF THE- THE IMPACTS THAT IT HAS WHEN YOU DO THAT IN THE OCEAN AND THEN RELEASE IT BACK, AND YOU, IT TAKES MORE ENERGY.

IT WON'T WORK AS A STORAGE DEVICE BECAUSE THEN CUSTOMERS ARE- ARE PAYING FOR THAT.

SO YOU'VE GOTTA FIND TECHNOLOGIES THAT WORK FROM AN A- A CUSTOMER, UM, COST PERSPECTIVE.

- GREAT.

UM, ROB, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BEING HERE TODAY, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING MORE AND SUPPORTING YOU ALL AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

- SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ.

- YES. UM, WELL, THANK YOU, MR. SHAW AND MS. SCHWIRZKE, FOR THE PRESENTATION TODAY.

UM, I WANT TO SHARE TO MY COLLEAGUES, UM, AS THE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE ON THE 3CE BOARD, THAT IT HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD AND TO HAVE A FRONT ROW SEAT TO THE WORK OF THIS AGENCY.

UM, YOU KNOW, I AM, I'M A NEW MEMBER OF THE BOARD, AND MY PRIOR HISTORY IS NOT IN ENERGY.

SO IT'S TRULY BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO LEARN AS A NOVICE ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR CALIFORNIA'S CLEAN ENERGY GOALS AND THE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GREENHOUSE GASES AND CARBON EMISSIONS ON OUR CLIMATE AND- AND, YOU KNOW, SEEING THE IMPACT IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES LIKE IN DISTRICT 5 AND, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT THAT WE'VE SEEN IN CLIMATE CHANGE AND REALLY BEING A PART OF ADVANCING EFFORTS TO REDUCE THAT IMPACT.

UM, SO IT'S BEEN A VERY MEANINGFUL, UM, ROLE FOR ME TO PLAY AND A NEW ROLE FOR ME TO PLAY.

AND, UM, IT HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY...

I'VE BEEN INCREDIBLY IMPRESSED BY THE CALIBER OF THE STAFF IN YOUR AGENCY AND THE- THE KNOWLEDGE, UM, THAT YOU CARRY AS WELL AS REALLY YOUR CARE FOR YOUR MEMBERS AND ALL OF YOUR, UM, YOU KNOW, EVERY RESIDENT IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO'S BENEFITING FROM THIS.

YOU KNOW, REALLY, BY INVESTING IN COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY, IT'S OUR REGION SAYING THAT WE WANT TO HAVE CONTROL AND OWNERSHIP OVER OUR ENERGY, AND WE WANNA TAKE THAT OUT OF THE HANDS OF PRIVATE UTILITIES LIKE PG&E.

AND SO BY INVESTING IN A, IN A NONPROFIT IN THIS WAY, UM, I REALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S, IT, IT'S, UM, A GREAT EXAMPLE OF OUR VALUES AND, UM, AND IT'S GONNA HAVE A LASTING IMPACT.

AND I'M, AND I'M PROUD TO BE THE SUPERVISOR IN DISTRICT 5 WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, SUPERVISOR MCPHERSON AND JENNY JOHNSON

[02:20:02]

WERE, UM, A MAJOR PART OF THIS IMPLEMENTATION.

UM, AND, YOU KNOW, PROUD TO PARTNER WITH CEO CARLOS PALACIOS, WHO'S NOT HERE TODAY TO BE HERE FOR THE PRESENTATION, BUT HAS ALSO BEEN AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF YOUR OPERATIONS BOARD.

SO, UM, SO I'VE REALLY HAD A LOT- CRI- UM, IT'S BEEN VERY VALUABLE TO ME, UM, AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND, UM, THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT US, UM, ON THIS BOARD AND HOPE TO CONTINUE TO PARTNER WITH YOU TO, UM, WORK WITH SANTA CRUZ COUNTY IN ALIGNMENT WITH YOUR GOALS, UM, SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE CLEAN ENERGY FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

YOU KNOW, I, WE AS A, UM, AS A BOARD, WE OFTEN GET A LOT OF CALLS AND QUESTIONS AROUND BATTERY STORAGE AND AROUND FUTURE PROJECTS.

AND- AND I THINK WHEN WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'LL PROBABLY RECEIVE SOME OF THAT.

UM, I WANNA JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS ITEM REALLY IS ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE BROAD PRESENTATION OF THE WORK OF 3CE, AND I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT HERE TODAY AND ENCOURAGE YOU AS A, UM, AS DECISIONS MAY COME BEFORE THIS BOARD RELATED TO BATTERY STORAGE, TO CONTINUE TO SHARE YOUR INFORMATION, TO CONTINUE TO BE A PARTNER TO US, UM, AS, AS POLICY MAKERS AS WE MAKE DECISIONS MOVING FORWARD.

UM, BECAUSE THAT'S, UM, REALLY WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE COUNTING ON YOU FOR.

AND THEN I THINK THE LAST THING, AND I'VE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THIS AS A BOARD MEMBER, UM, BUT I'LL JUST SHARE FOR THE PUBLIC THAT, YOU KNOW, REACHING OUR CLIMATE ENERGY GOALS, UM, IT'S- IT'S DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE, RIGHT? IT'S- IT'S A LOT EASIER FOR SOME FOLKS WHO LIVE IN MORE URBAN ENVIRONMENTS WHERE, YOU KNOW, CAR CHARGING OPTIONS ARE PLENTIFUL AND, UM, POWER OUTAGES ARE NOT VERY OFTEN, RIGHT? IT'S A LOT EASIER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE ENERGY GOALS.

AND, YOU KNOW, FOR RESIDENTS IN MY DISTRICT IN A MORE RURAL AREA IT'S- IT'S MORE DIFFICULT.

AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S- IT'S MY JOB AND I HOPE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU TO HELP BRING ALL CALIFORNIANS, ALL FOLKS IN THIS REGION, ALONG WITH THESE CLIMATE- CLIMATE-ENERGY GOALS.

UM, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK HARDER TO MEET PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE GIVEN THE LIMITATIONS OF THEIR GEOGRAPHIC REGION.

AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS- I'M REPRESENTING AS A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD.

SO, UM, WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS.

AND JUST THANK YOU AGAIN SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

- I WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE PRESENTATION AS WELL AND FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO.

UH, I ALSO WANNA THANK OUR CEO CARLOS PALACIOS, UH, SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ FOR HER WORK AND DEDICATION ON THE BOARD AND HER PREDECESSOR, UH, SUPERVISOR MCPHERSON AS WELL, AND JUDY JOHNSON AND EVERYONE IN 3CE, I THINK.

UM, I WANNA THANK YOU GUYS FOR REALLY CREATING A MORE SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE COMMUNITIES IN, IN OUR DISTRICTS, IN OUR REGION, ACTUALLY.

UH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES TO REDUCE OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT.

UH, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK, OF COURSE, IN MY DISTRICT, THAT THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TAKING PLACE.

UH, I APPRECIATE THE SOLAR, UH, THE CHARGING STATIONS AT TABASA GARDENS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO A LOT MORE PROJECTS LIKE THIS.

UH, WORKING WITH EDEN, WORKING WITH THE, THE, UH, MED PEN TO CONTINUE PROJECTS WITH- WITH FOLKS THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY TURN TO A ELECTRIC CAR, BUT I WAS HAPPY TO PASS BY THE TABASA GARDENS TO SEE THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY A LITTLE NISSAN THERE CHARGING AT THE STATION.

SO I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT AND I WANT- I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THAT, RIGHT, IN OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.

SO, THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, UM, WE'RE GONNA TAKE IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC, UH, CLERK DUE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA LASTING ALMOST TWO HOURS, UM, WE MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT TO ONE MINUTE, AND WE DO HAVE CLOSED SESSION AT 12.

WE DO HAVE CLOSED SESSION AT 12.

- WOW. I MAY NOT BE AS NICE AS I TRY TO BE.

I'M GONNA QUOTE THIS.

"THE WORLD IS NOT TO BE PUT IN ORDER.

THE WORLD IS IN ORDER.

IT IS FOR US TO PUT OURSELVES IN UNISON WITH THIS ORDER." WILLIAM HICKS, YOU KNOW, HE SPOKE DIFFERENTLY TO CROWDS OF PEOPLE THAN HE WENT ON THE RADIO.

'CAUSE WHEN HE SPOKE ON THE RADIO, HE DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU HATED HIM FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

'CAUSE HE WANTED TO WAKE YOU UP TO WHAT'S GOING ON.

I COULD SAY SOMETHING SLIGHTLY MEAN THAT YOU GUYS ALL SOUND SMARTER THE LESS THAT YOU SAY.

'CAUSE, OH, MY GOD, THE PUBLIC DEBATE OF WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE PRESENTED WOULD BE SO EASY TO PRESENT, ULTERIOR OR OTHER MOTIVES.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. IT IS SAD.

[02:25:01]

IT IS DEPRESSING.

THE FILM IDIOCRACY IN 2525, I THINK IT WAS MIMICKED FROM WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL.

IT IS CERTAINLY RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM.

SO THERE YOU GO, 52 SECONDS.

- SO THAT'S NOT REALLY FAIR TO CHANGE IT TO ONE MINUTE AT THE LAST MINUTE.

UM, ROB, SOPHIA THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

CLIMATE CHANGE.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS WHAT'S, UM, DRIVING ALL THIS RIGHT? WE ALL KNOW IT'S CARBON DIOXIDE, GREENHOUSE GASES, RIGHT? WHAT IF THAT'S NOT TRUE? WHAT IF THE WHOLE BASIS OF THAT IS NOT TRUE? WHAT IF THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE LIES THAT'S BEING TOLD TO US? HAS ANYONE INVESTIGATED WEATHER MODIFICATION? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE HAD ZERO WEATHER MODIFICATION OCCURRING? THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE FIFTIES, AND IT'S WELL-DOCUMENTED.

GOOGLE WEATHER MODIFICATION PATENTS, AND YOU'LL SEE ALL THE PATENTS COME UP.

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT USED IT IN THE VIETNAM WAR.

IT'S VERY... IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

SO, ONCE WE GET RID OF THE WEATHER MODIFICATION, THEN WE KNOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY CAUSING OUR CLIMATE CHANGE.

WHY ARE WE SO DEPENDENT UPON RENEWABLES? WE DIDN'T DEPEND ON RENEWABLES.

WE WOULDN'T NEED THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE.

I WAS IN COPENHAGEN, THEY BURNED TRASH TO GENERATE THEIR ELECTRICITY.

THEY REMOVED THE POLLUTANTS FROM THE SMOKE.

IT RELEASES STEAM INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.

THEY PUT A SNOW, UM, A SKI RAMP ON THE TOP OF THIS BUILDING.

WHY AREN'T WE BEING CREATIVE AND HAVING OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY THAT DON'T REQUIRE THIS BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE? PLUS, WE NEED TO BE TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT THE RISK WHEN YOU GIVE PEOPLE...

- THANK YOU. - CREDIT.

MA'AM, PLEASE COME UP TO THE DAIS IF YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK.

NEXT PERSON.

THIS IS A PRESENTATION. THIS IS NOT A HEARING.

- ALL THAT. [LAUGHS] I'M JUDY MYERS, UP HERE AGAIN.

UM, AND I'M THE ONE WHO HANDED OUT THE THING ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING UTILIZED BY CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY.

UH, INCLUDING THE THREE LONG DURATION FLOW BATTERY PROJECTS.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE PRESENTERS, UM, HOW ARE THOSE IN THE STANDING OF YOUR CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING TODAY? BECAUSE IT SAYS, UH, THESE ARE SUCCESSFUL, UH, WAYS OF, UH, STORING ENERGY AND THE LONG TERM, YOU KNOW, THESE LONG DURATION FLOW BATTERY PROJECTS WERE NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN YOUR PRESENTATION.

COULD YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THAT, UM, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING FOR THE FUTURE? - THANK YOU.

WE'LL ASK THEM TO DO IT AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

- HI. I HAVE SOME, SOME REALLY SIMPLE COMMENTS 'CAUSE I HAVE A SIMPLE BRAIN.

UM, WE ARE...

3CE IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF USE ARBITRAGE AND USE MORE EFFICIENT METHODS OF CREATING ENERGY, LOWERING OUR BILLS.

PG&E IS GETTING LESS MONEY, BUT THEY OWN THE DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE.

UM, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THIS INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, IF WE TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM THEM? ARE THEY JUST GONNA INCREASE THE DISTRIBUTION COST OF OUR BILLS AND HAVE A- A NET NEUTRAL EFFECT ON THE CONSUMER? - BECKY STEINBRUNER.

I RECEIVED A MAILER THAT SHOWED THE COMPARATIVE COST OF ENERGY FROM 3CE AND PG&E AND THEY'RE VIRTUALLY THE SAME.

I AM URGING PEOPLE TO OPT OUT TODAY OF 3CE BECAUSE TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY THAT 3CE HAS ADMITTED THAT THEY DO HAVE LITHIUM BESS STORAGE, UM, INVESTMENTS.

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN COMING TO THEIR MEETINGS FOR WEEKS AFTER THE MOSS LANDING FIRE.

AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE FIRST, UH, MISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENT THAT IT BECAME CLEAR THAT 3CE IS HEAVILY INVESTED IN THE CLEAR WAY HOME AND BESS LITHIUM ION PROJECT IN MOSS LANDING, A NEW 750 MEGAWATT LITHIUM IN MOSS LANDING.

WHAT AN INSULT.

AND UNTIL 3CE IS WILLING TO PLACE A MORATORIUM ON ALL LITHIUM ENERGY STORAGE, I'M URGING PEOPLE TO OPT OUT.

BECAUSE THIS IS DISGUSTING AND THEY'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE PEOPLE'S RISKS AND SAFETY.

[02:30:01]

ANYONE ONLINE? - YES, CHAIR.

CALLING USER 1, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- FIRST OF ALL, YOU NEED TO HAVE THE OTHER SIDE PRESENTED WITH EQUAL TIME.

YOU JUST SPENT ABOUT A HALF HOUR ON LIES AND DECEPTION AND WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT, AND IT'S LIKE HAVING THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY BLOTTING THEIR PRODUCT OR THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY SAFE, CLEAN, CHEAP AND THEN WE HAVE THE FUKUSHIMA, THREE-MILE ISLAND, UM, CHERNOBYL, ET CETERA, DISASTERS.

THIS IS A TOXIC INDUSTRY AND YOU NEED TO HAVE EQUAL TIME PRESENTATION EXPOSING THAT.

ONE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS REINETTE SENUM'S FOGHORNEXPRESS.SUBSTACK.COM AND AN ARTICLE MAY 8TH FROM FARM TO FORK, HOW CONTAMINATION IN MOSS LANDING THREATENS EVERY DINING...

- TIM, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- THANK YOU SO MUCH.

SO ANYWAYS, UH, JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS BIG PICTURE HERE.

IT'S A FINE BALANCING ACT WITH REGARDS TO ENERGY, OUR FOOD, OUR LAND, OUR WATER, ALL OF OUR WINERIES, OUR AGRICULTURE THAT'S WHERE YOUR REAL VALUE IS.

AND IF THAT IS DESTROYED AND WE'RE ALL MORE WORRIED ABOUT GETTING PROSTATE CANCER OR CERVICAL CANCER FROM EATING A STRAWBERRY OR SOMETHING, THAT'S NOT TOO GOOD.

THAT'S NOT A GOOD POSITION TO BE IN.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ENTIRELY AGAINST THESE, UH, BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, BUT PLACEMENT IS CRITICAL.

I DON'T THINK THIS SORT OF STUFF, UH, SHOULD BE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

IT'S NOT THE RIGHT SPOT FOR IT BECAUSE OUR WATER AND OUR FOOD IS OF MOST VALUE TO ALL, ALL OF US, AND, AND YOUR COMMUNITY BRINGS IN ALL THIS REVENUE BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

SO I THINK EVERYONE NEEDS TO SIT DOWN AND RETHINK ABOUT THIS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU TAKE IT EASY.

- DIANE, YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOW AVAILABLE.

- ALL RIGHT. UM, I'M OPPOSED TO THE 3CE AND THE COUNTY'S GOAL TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT RENEWABLE BY 2030.

ITS AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE IS, UM, PROHIBITING THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY, DECISION MAKERS THE TIME NEEDED TO RESEARCH ALTERNATIVE LITHIUM, NON-LITHIUM BATTERIES FOR USE IN OUR COUNTY.

ALSO, 3CE IS INVESTING IN LITHIUM BATTERIES FOR NEW BESS PROJECTS THEY'RE INVOLVED IN.

AND DUE TO THE HIGHLY HAZARDOUS PROFILE OF LITHIUM, UM, TO PEOPLE IN THE ECOSYSTEM, I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS TOXIC PRONE TECHNOLOGY IS BEING ALLOWED TO BE USED.

I ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO TAKE BOLD ACTION TO RESEARCH AND FIND THAT NON-LITHIUM BATTERY TECHNOLOGY BE THE CHOICE FOR BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE IN ALL PROPOSED SITES IN CAL- IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY.

EXTEND THE 2030 UNNATURAL MANMADE DEADLINE TO ALLOW FOR TIME NEEDED TO SECURE A TRULY SAFE BATTERY TECHNOLOGY FOR IT.

UM, THE DATA CENTER- DATA CENTER INDUSTRY IS AL- HAS ALREADY MOVING AWAY FROM LITHIUM TECHNOLOGY TO ONE THAT'S LESS FIRE PRONE.

DO IT FOR US.

- CALLING USER ENDING IN 436, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR MY MIC OKAY? - YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

UM, I JUST ACTUALLY WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE, UM, ITEM 8, IF THAT, IF THAT PUBLIC COMMENT IS GOING TO BE HEARD BEFORE OR AFTER THE 12 O'CLOCK CLOSED SESSION.

- WE HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, CHAIR.

- IS THAT IT? THERE'S NO MORE FURTHER COMMENT.

- FURTHER SPEAKERS. - OKAY.

SO, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A HEARING.

THERE'S NO VOTE TODAY.

IT'S A PRESENTATION FROM 3CE TO THE BOARD.

BUT I WILL ALLOW, YOU KNOW, THE- SOME OF THE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED, ESPECIALLY THE FIRST TWO GOOD QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD.

UM, SO, YEAH.

[02:35:01]

- UM, I CAPTURED AT LEAST ONE, UM, TO ADDRESS MS. MYERS, THE QUESTION REGARDING THE VANADIUM LONG DURATION STORAGE BATTERIES.

I DID TALK ABOUT THOSE.

THOSE ARE THE 32 MEGAWATTS OF VANADIUM FLOW BATTERIES.

THAT CONTRACT WAS, UH, AGREED TO, I BELIEVE IN 2020 OR 2021.

UM, AND AS I SHARED EARLIER, I BELIEVE IS SIGNIFICANTLY AT RISK THAT TECHNOLOGY IS NOT VIABLE, UH, CURRENTLY, UM, BY THIS DEVELOPER.

THERE MAY BE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUTURE.

UM, I... THE OTHER QUESTION, AND MAYBE IT'S FOR A CLARIFICATION UM, 3CE DOESN'T HAVE ANY PROJECTS IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY.

WE'RE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY.

UM, OUR PROJECTS ARE, UM, LARGELY THROUGHOUT THE STATE, UM, THE VANADIUM BATTERIES WERE IN THE CITY OF GONZALEZ, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT TRYING TO MAKE A PROJECT WORK AT THAT SITE.

UM, THOSE ARE OUR CURRENTLY ONLY LOCAL PROJECTS.

BUT LOCAL PROJECTS DO LEAVE TO THE ABILITY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO BE ABLE TO SERVE ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING AND NEW BUSINESSES TO HELP GROW, UM, OUR ABILITY TO SERVE CUSTOMERS IN OUR AREA.

SO, UM, WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT TRYING TO BRING GENERATION, UM, CLOSER TO WHERE LOAD IS AS PART OF OUR MISSION.

- THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH THE PRESENTATION.

BUT YOU COULD SPEAK OFFLINE TO, TO FOLKS FROM 3CE.

SO THE, NEXT, LET ME SPEAK WITH, UH, THE COUNTY COUNCIL.

IS IT ALL RIGHT IF WE GO INTO 12:15 AND TRY TO DO THIS ITEM IN 45 MINUTES OR LESS? - YEAH. IT'S... - OKAY.

- IT'S UP TO THE BOARD.

WE CAN, WE CAN, WE CAN, UH, YOU CAN BREAK FOR LUNCH AND CLOSE SESSION EARLY NOW.

OR, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD, YOU COULD HEAR THIS NEXT ITEM, AND THEN WE CAN GO IN AT 12:30.

- I THINK IT'S BETTER IF WE MOVE ALONG.

- THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS NUMBER EIGHT.

[8. Hold a public hearing to approve a proposed resolution to delist the Redman-Hirahara House from the Santa Cruz County Historic Inventory, approve the CEQA Notice of Exemption, and take related actions]

HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO DELIST THE REDMAN HIRAHARA HOUSE FROM THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HISTORIC INVENTORY, APPROVE THE CEQA NOTICE OF EXEMPTION, AND TAKE ALL RELATED ACTIONS.

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MARK CONNOLLY, PRINCIPAL- PRINCIPAL PLANNER, MATTHEW SUNDT, UH, PLANNER FOR, FOR THE PRESENTATION.

- THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD MORNING, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

MARK CONNOLLY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH CDI.

GREAT TO SEE ALL OF YOU THIS MORNING.

UH, TO MY RIGHT IS MATTHEW SUNDT, THE PRINCIPAL RESOURCE OR SENIOR RESOURCE PLANNER WITH CDI.

AND WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU THIS MORNING IS THE DELISTING OF THE REDMAN HIRAHARA HOUSE IN SOUTH COUNTY, WHICH, UH, THE, THE HOUSE WAS ONCE A VERY SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLE OF A VICTORIAN STYLE ARCHITECTURE EARLY ON IN THIS AREA, AND SIGHT OF SOME SIGNIFICANT EVENTS THAT HAPPENED.

HOWEVER, UH, AS TIME HAS PASSED, DESPITE NUMEROUS EFFORTS AND A LOT OF TIME, AND EVEN THE CREATION OF A FOUNDATION TO PRESERVE IT, THOSE PRESERVATION EFFORTS HAVE FAILED, AND THE BUILDING IS DETERIORATED TO THE POINT OF REALLY NOT BEING SUSTAINABLE ANY LONGER.

UH, PROFESSIONAL REPORTS HAVE SUBSTANTIATED THIS, AND EVEN TO THE POINT OF IT BEING A LIFE SAFETY HAZARD.

SO, UH, PURSUANT TO OUR CODE, THE DELISTING COMES TO THE BOARD WITHOUT A STOP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO IT COMES STRAIGHT TO THE BOARD AFTER A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION.

SO ON FEBRUARY 10TH, THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION OR THE HRC AS YOU'LL HEAR THEM REFERRED TO TODAY, UH, UNANIMOUSLY, UH, FORWARDED A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD UH, TO DELIST AND REZONE, UH, THIS PROPERTY.

SO, WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MATTHEW FOR THE PRESENTATION ON HOW WE GOT HERE.

- GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND SUPERVISORS.

UH, THE AGENDA FOR TODAY, HISTORY OF THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA HOUSE, THE COUNTY DELISTING REQUIREMENTS CHAPTER 1642.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.

THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA HOUSE IS ONE OF THE COUNTY'S MOST ELABORATE HISTORIC STRUCTURES.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE HOUSE IS DETERIORATED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT IT IS NO LONGER RESTORABLE BECAUSE OF ITS ADVANCED DECAY AND LACK OF FUNDS TO RESTORE.

NO WORK HAS BEEN DONE TO MAINTAIN THIS BUILDING SINCE THE MID 1980S.

THIS VICTORIAN HOUSE WAS DESIGNED AND BUILT BY ARCHITECT WILLIAM WEEKS IN 1897 FOR JAMES REDMAN, A PAJARO VALLEY SUGAR BEET FARMER WHO PASSED AWAY IN 1921.

IN 1937, IT WAS SOLD TO KASUMI TAO, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN AND BROTHER-IN-LAW OF MITOSH HIRAHARA.

MR. TAO SOLD THE PROPERTY TO MITOSH'S SON, FUMIO HIRAHARA, IN 1940 FOR $10.

FUMIO WAS 16 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME AND A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.

[02:40:02]

THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA FARMSTEAD WAS A COMPLEX THAT INCLUDED A HOUSE AND A BARN.

THE HOUSE HAS BEEN ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES SINCE 2004.

THE BARN, WHICH IS NO LONGER ON SITE, INCLUDED A LIVING UNIT PRIOR TO THE WAR AND WAS EXPANDED POST-WAR TO HOUSE RETURNING JAPANESE FAMILIES WITH ROOTS IN THE PAJARO VALLEY.

IN 20... IN 2005, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA FOUNDATION, A NONPROFIT THAT PLACED THE HOUSE ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

AND THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA FOUNDATION, THE HOUSE WAS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND IS RANKED NATIONAL REGISTER 1 OR NR1.

A PRESERVATION PLAN WAS TO TRANSFORM THE HOUSE INTO A VISITOR AND CULTURAL EDUCATION CENTER.

AS A RESULT OF THE UNSUCCESSFUL CAPITAL CAMPAIGN IN 2009, THE FOUNDATION FILED BANKRUPTCY.

THE HOUSE WENT THROUGH FORECLOSURE AND THE PROPERTY WAS THEN SOLD.

IN 2015, THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE CURRENT OWNER, ELITE DEVELOPMENT OF WATSONVILLE, A FARMING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

COUNTY CODE CHAPTERS...

COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 16.42, AS INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT PER COUNTY CODE SECTION 16.42, WHICH CONTAINS THE COUNTY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODES, A SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT CONCLUDED THAT THE CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE IS UNINHABITABLE AND DANGEROUS BECAUSE OF ITS DETERIORATED CONDITION.

ALSO PER THE CODE, AN HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION REPORT WAS PREPARED BY AN ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT.

THIS REPORT STATES THAT THE HOUSE HAS BEEN VACATED SINCE 1986 AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL DETERIORATION AND REPEATED VANDALISM OVER THE YEARS.

THIS REPORT PROVIDES INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS THE CLAIM THAT PRESERVATION OF THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA HOUSE IS NOT FEASIBLE DUE TO THE DETERIORATED CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE THAT IS THE RESULT OF DECADES OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, EXTENDED VACANCY, VANDALISM, AND LOSS OF ITS HISTORIC SETTING DUE TO THE CLOSELY ADJACENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BEACH STREET TO INCLUDE TWO GAS STATIONS, A HOTEL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS.

BOTH REPORTS ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

COUNTY CODE ALSO REQUIRES THAT REVISION SHALL BE MADE TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC VALUES OF THE STRUCTURE BY DOCUMENTATION AND/OR PRESERVATION OF ARTIFACTS AND BUILDING MATERIALS.

LASTLY, COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 16.42 REQUIRES THAT THE STRUCTURE BE OFFERED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR REMOVAL OR DISMANTLING FOR SALVAGE.

AFTER BOARD APPROVAL TO DELIST THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA HOUSE, STAFF WILL CONDUCT THE FOLLOWING: FIRSTLY, RECORD THE CEQA NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WITH COUNTY CLERK OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

SECONDLY, SUBMIT THE RESOLUTION OF THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR THEIR REVIEW AND ACTION TO DELIST THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA HOUSE FROM THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

THIRDLY, ONCE A DEMOLITION PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL OFFER THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA HOUSE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR REMOVAL OR DISMANTLING FOR SALVAGE BY MEANS OF AT LEAST TWO DISPLAY ADS IN A PAPER OF LOCAL CIRCULATION IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY.

FOUR, PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC VALUES OF THE STRUCTURE BY DOCUMENTATION AND/OR PRESERVATION OF ARTIFACTS AND BUILDING MATERIALS.

SO, THE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.

AND IN CLOSING, THE FULL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

WE PRESENT THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTIONS, CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DELISTING, ADOPT THE DELISTING RESOLUTION.

THIRDLY, APPROVE THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION.

FOURTH, DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE RESOLUTION TO THE STATE FOR THEIR USE IN DELISTING.

NUMBER FIVE, DIRECT STAFF TO ASSIST PROPERTY OWNERS WITH THE ADS.

AND NUMBER SIX, DIRECT STAFF TO ASSIST PROPERTY OWNER WITH PRESERVING HISTORIC VALUES OF THE HOUSE.

THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

- WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, IT IS A PRESENTATION.

THIS ONE, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON, AND PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT WHILE THEY'RE DOING THE PRESENTATION OR THE HEARING.

I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

- CHAIR. MY APOLOGIES.

- PLEASE EXCUSE ME.

UM, I WAS BORN IN WICHITA, KANSAS, BUT I CELEBRATE MY SECOND BIRTHDAY IN WATSONVILLE.

[02:45:02]

AND MY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WAS IN 1980 TO 1986 TO BE ON THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE STATUS OF WOMEN.

AND I WAS REPRESENTING ALL THE METHODIST WOMEN IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY.

IT WAS A PRIVILEGE, UH, BUT I APOLOGIZE THAT I HAVEN'T KEPT AWARE OF WHAT THIS WAS GOING ON AND MY- SO I DON'T WANT SOMETHING TO BE NEGLECTED OR IGNORED THAT BECAUSE OF MY, UH, NOT PARTICIPATING AS A GOOD CITIZEN.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING.

UH, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN IS VERY ACTIVE IN ALL THE STATES OF HISTORICAL PRESERVATION.

AND SOME OF MY DEAR FRIENDS, FELLOW, UM, MEMBERS IN SACRAMENTO ARE AN AUTHORITY ON THIS.

AND I DO WANT TO CONSULT THEM, 'CAUSE I WOULD'VE BEEN PART OF THAT COMMITTEE IF I CONTINUED LIVING IN SACRAMENTO, BECAUSE I THINK THERE, THE USE OF THE CONCEPT OF RENOVATION AND RESTORATION HAS BEEN KIND OF CO-MINGLED.

BECAUSE APPARENTLY, THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO RESTORE THIS FOR SOMETHING LIKE A BED AND BREAKFAST OR FULLY WONDERFUL THINGS THERE.

BUT THERE'S THE DIMENSION OF EDUCATION.

ALTHOUGH I GRADUATED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC, I TOOK MY FIRST THREE UNITS AT CABRILLO, BEGINNING ENGLISH, AND THE NEXT SUMMER, UH, GENERAL PSYCH.

SO, 6 OF MY 124 UNDERGRADUATE UNITS WERE RIGHT HERE IN THIS COUNTY.

AND I THINK, ONE OF THE THINGS I DID, MY VERY- I WAS THE FIRST SPEECH THERAPIST AT WOODBRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT K THROUGH 8 SCHOOL AT 22.

AT 23, I WAS THE FIRST SPEECH THERAPIST FOR ROSEVILLE AND THE OTHER HIGH SCHOOL, AND LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL.

SO I'VE BEEN IN EDUCATION AND ONE OF THE THINGS I DID WAS...

- THANK YOU, MA'AM.

- OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK...

I ALSO ASK YOU TO POSTPONE THIS.

- THANK YOU, MA'AM.

BECKY STEINBRUNER.

UM, WE ONLY HAVE TO LOOK TO THE EMMA BRUSH FARM PARK IN SAN JOSE TO SEE THE VALUE OF LEAVING IMPORTANT STRUCTURES AND FARMS, AND HERITAGE AVAILABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC TO SEE WHY THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA HOUSE SHOULD NOT BE DELISTED.

I HAVE CONTACTED, UM, AND, AND I WILL SAY THAT IT HAS GONE TO ITS DEMO, UH, ITS DEGRADED STATE BECAUSE YOUR BOARD REFUSED TO TAKE ACTION TO ADOPT A DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT ORDINANCE.

IT'S, IT'S ON YOU, TOO, THAT IT LOOKS THE WAY IT DOES.

AND I AM UPSET THAT THE, IT WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS COME TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION TO ASK THEM TO DELIST IT.

WELL, YOU KNOW WHY? AND THEY SAY, WELL, IT'S LOST HISTORIC CONTEXT BECAUSE OF THE NEW HOTEL BEHIND IT.

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? WHO APPROVED THAT PROJECT? AND ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO TO SACRAMENTO TO SEE WHERE HISTORIC BUILDINGS ARE NESTLED IN AMONG THE, UM, THE NEW TO SEE THERE IS VALUE IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

PLEASE DO NOT DELIST THIS.

I HAVE CORRESPONDED WITH MR., UM, PAUL LING, UH, LINGUINE FROM NATIONAL PARKS, AND THERE WAS A VERY SPECIFIC PROCESS.

THE PROPERTY HAS CEASED TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR LISTING THE NATIONAL REGISTER BECAUSE THE QUALITIES WHICH CAUSED IT TO BE ORIGINALLY LISTED HAVE BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN LOST.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DESTROYED.

AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DID NOT GO INSIDE.

HE MERELY WALKED AROUND AND SAID, "IT'S NOT HABITABLE." WELL, THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION.

THE QUESTION IS STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY.

THIS IS HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

AND YOUR BOARD NEEDS TO ALSO, WHICH THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSIONER DID NOT EVEN LOOK AT, WAS THE, HIS, THE, UM, DOCTORAL, UM, DISSERTATION OF MR. JACOB STONE OF 2024.

- WE HAVE A SPEAKER THAT- WHO WISH TO SPEAK, TOO.

[INAUDIBLE]

[02:50:01]

WE HAVE A SPEAKER BEHIND YOU THAT WISH TO COME BACK.

- HELLO, MY NAME'S LARRY HIRAHARA.

UH, NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE HEAD, REDMAN HIRAHARA, BUT, UH, I'M INVOLVED WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN SALINAS AND WE'RE- WE'RE, UH, FACING SOME OF THE SAME DILEMMAS OF, UH, RED TAG AND A POTENTIAL DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS.

AND THAT'S ALWAYS A CRUCIAL, IN MY OPINION, AN ISSUE WHERE, UH, WE, SOME OF THIS MAY BE BASED ON ONE OPINION, AND MAYBE A SECOND OPINION MAYBE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

UH, AS YOU WELL KNOW, AND IT'S BEEN PRESENTED, IT'S A VERY HISTORIC BUILDING, AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT DESERVES EXTREME CONSIDERATION FOR, UH, FOR, UH, CONTINUATION.

- IF THERE'S NO ONE HERE IN THE PUBLIC, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE IN ONLINE? - YES, CHAIR.

CALLING USER 436, YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOW AVAILABLE.

- SO, UM, GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS ELOISE SHIM, AND I'M ALSO LIKE LARRY HIRAHARA, FROM SALINAS HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AND THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA QUEEN AND VICTORIAN IS THE LAST REMNANT OF A LARGE VICTORIAN ESTATE IN A RURAL SETTING, WHICH IN ITSELF IS A HISTORIC ACCOLADE.

TO DELIST IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEMOLITION IS A TRAVESTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE HISTORIC COMMISSION.

THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF YOUNGER BUILDINGS AND LANDMARKS THAT ARE NOT BEING RESTORED AND REHABILITATED.

SO THE ARGUMENT THAT IT'S BEYOND RESTORATION IS WRONG.

REAL ESTATE MOGULS WANT TO SWEEP DOWN AND EXTORT PRECIOUS MATERIALS LIKE REDWOOD AND OTHER VICTORIAN EMBELLISHMENTS FROM THE WRECKAGE.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE ABHORRED.

WILLIAM WEEKS IS A PROMINENT ARCHITECT, AND MANY OF HIS BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED IN THE NAME OF PROGRESS.

BUT THOSE OF US WHO KNOW THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THOSE BUILDINGS REFUSE TO LET THE, THE VICTORIAN DISAPPEAR FROM THE CALIFORNIA HISTORY.

PLEASE VOTE NO AND DEMAND THAT THE DELISTING BE STOPPED SO THAT VIABLE RESTORATION CAN BE FOUND AND ACCOMPLISHED.

ALSO, MR. HIRAHARA IS RIGHT, OTHER VALUABLE RESOURCES WILL BE TARGETED IN THE AREA IF YOU, UM, ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

SO, THANK YOU. DO NOT- DELISTING IS AN UPFRONT FOR THIS CALIFORNIA FOUNDER AND ARCHITECT.

- WE HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE, CHAIR.

- THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.

SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

UM, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUGH ONE FOR ME.

UM, NAMELY, 'CAUSE I'VE SEEN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE'VE HAD HISTORIC BUILDINGS, UM, WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE ALLOWED THE BUILDINGS TO DETERIORATE OVER TIME AND THEN USE THAT AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR DEMOLISHING, UM, WHAT ARE KNOWN AS HISTORIC BUILDINGS.

FOR EXAMPLE, I USED TO LIVE IN LA BAJILLA, AND THERE WAS A BUNCH OF FOLKS WHO LIVED THERE AND HAD HOUSING THAT WAS RELATIVELY AFFORDABLE.

AND, UM, OVER TIME, YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSAL WAS, WELL, LA BAJILLA HAS NOW DETERIORATED TO THE EXTENT THAT, UM, WE SHOULD DELIST IT.

AND THEN PART OF IT WAS SAVED, BUT THE REST OF IT WAS CONVERTED TO A HOTEL AFTER MANY LAWSUITS.

UM, AND IT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR ME THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN, AND FOR CONTEXT, I- JUST RETURNING FROM EUROPE WHERE YOU HAVE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD, THAT HAVE BEEN USED, THAT HAVE BEEN PRESERVED TO HELP, UM, YOU KNOW, PRESERVE SOME OF THE HISTORY, UM, OF THOSE DIFFERENT CULTURES.

YOU KNOW, THIS BUILDING, YOU KNOW, HOLDS A LOT OF CONTEXT.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, ON THE ONE HAND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT WAS AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION OF WHAT WAS THE HISTORIC CONTEXT UNDER WHICH THIS WAS DESIGNATED? WAS IT THE ARCHITECTURE OR WAS IT THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PEOPLE BEING HOUSED THERE AFTER, UH, JAPANESE INTERNMENT? I MEAN, THAT'S A QUESTION I'LL JUST ASK REAL QUICK.

- BOTH.

'CAUSE I FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S THE CASE, I MEAN, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS SITE AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND PURCHASE PROPERTIES WHERE THEY OBVIOUSLY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A HISTORIC RESOURCE AND IT'S HISTORIC SITE, THEY SHOULD BE TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

[02:55:01]

UH, WHEN PURCHASING THE SITES AND JUST LOOKING AT AN AERIAL MAP, THERE'S A LOT, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AROUND IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M WONDERING IF THERE MAY BE, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER OPPORTUNITY TO, IF THE PERSON WANTS TO DEVELOP ON THE PROPERTY, UM, REZONING SOME OF THE LAND, WHICH I KNOW CAN BE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING.

UM, BUT PERSONALLY, I'M, I'M REALLY CONFLICTED WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, US ALLOWING OUR HIST, OUR, SOME OF OUR HISTORIC BUILDINGS TO JUST DETERIORATE AND THEN WIPING THAT HISTORY AWAY IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

AND SO, UM, THOSE ARE ALL THE COMMENTS I'M GONNA MAKE TODAY.

- ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

- UH, THANK YOU.

SO, UM, AND I'M SORRY IF YOU ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS, BUT YEARS AGO I THOUGHT THERE HAD BEEN SORT OF A FOUNDATION THAT WAS ESTABLISHED TO SAVE THE, SAVE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE- THE MONEY THAT HAD GONE INTO THAT? - I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY, BUT THE ORGANIZATION, THE REDMAN-HIRAHARA HOUSE FOUNDATION, WENT BANKRUPT.

THE PROPERTY WAS FORECLOSED.

IT WAS SOLD, I THINK IN 2009.

AND, UH, YOU RECALL THAT IN 2008, THE ECONOMY TANKED.

SO WHATEVER THEIR WORK EFFORT WAS WAS FOR NAUGHT.

THE CAPITAL CAMPAIGN DIDN'T WORK.

AND I THINK, IN LARGE PART, BECAUSE OF THAT ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, THAT STUCK WITH US FOR A FEW YEARS, AND THEN, UH, NOBODY PICKED IT UP AND MADE AN ISSUE OF IT.

AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.

- SO, YOU KNOW, AS I'M LOOKING AT THESE PICTURES, I SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AREAS OF THE ROOF THAT ARE MISSING, UM, THAT, I MEAN, THE HOUSE TRULY IS FALLING APART.

IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT IT COULD BE REHABILITATED TO ITS FORMER GLORY? - I DON'T KNOW ABOUT CHANCES, BUT I CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE THAT IT WOULD TAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO RESTORE THIS.

NEW PLUMBING, NEW ELECTRICAL, NEW, UH, REDWOOD WOOD TO BE USED IN ITS CONSTRUCTION.

UH, NO, UH, NO HOME DEPOT MATERIALS, UM, SOURCING FROM THE SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAIN WOOD MATERIALS, IT WOULD BE A HUGE EFFORT.

NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT HERE WE ARE, 40 YEARS LATER, THIS THING, OR THIS HOUSE, THIS GRAND DAME HAS BEEN ADVERTISED TO THE WORLD WITH THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DRIVING BY EVERY DAY.

ALL IT TAKES IS ONE PERSON TO SAY, "I'D LIKE TO REBUILD THAT." AND IT JUST NEVER HAPPENED.

AND HERE WE ARE.

- SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ.

- UM, JUST A QUESTION ON KIND OF TIMING.

WHAT, WHY, WHY IS THIS BEING PRESENTED TO US TODAY? IS IT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS INITIATED THE DELISTING, OR IS ASKING US FOR THE DELIST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A FUTURE PLAN FOR IT? LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN 40 YEARS.

WHAT, WHY TODAY? - A CONFLUENCE OF FACTORS.

THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING, AND THE HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMMISSION SEEING THIS YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR, AND DISAPPOINTED THAT NOTHING'S HAPPENED, AND THEY DECIDED TO PULL THE TRIGGER AND BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

AND YOU RECALL THE MILLS ACT BEING PRESENTED TO YOU EARLIER THIS YEAR, AND THAT YOU PASSED THAT.

THEORETICALLY, UH, MILLS ACT HAD BEEN AROUND IN 1980 OR 1995 OR WHATEVER, THIS PLACE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED THROUGH THE MILLS ACT.

UH, I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT, BUT IT'S A TOOL THAT JURISDICTIONS WILL USE TO HELP PRESERVE THEIR HISTORICAL RESOURCES.

UM, THAT SUMMARIZES IT.

UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I, I AGREE THAT IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO MAKE THESE KIND OF DECISIONS, RIGHT? UM, HISTORY IS RICH AND VALUABLE TO OUR CULTURE AND TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND I WANNA NAME THAT AND RESPECT THAT.

UM, AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, HAVING BEEN SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN IN, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SERVICE AND FUNDRAISING AND, YOU KNOW, EFFORTS TO BRING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER TO DO SOMETHING, I JUST RECOGNIZE HOW HARD IT IS.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE HAS BEEN A DEEP EFFORT TO TRY TO SAVE THIS PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN FOUNDATION, IT'S CHANGED HANDS.

UM, THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO'VE SAID, WE CAN RAISE THE MONEY TO GET THERE.

AND AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UM, IT'S A, IT'S A SAD SITUATION.

AND ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S TIME TO MAKE A DECISION.

SO I APPRECIATE- PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT DURING THE, UM- - MA'AM.

- PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT.

- PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE, ASK YOU TO GET ESCORTED, IF YOU KEEP INTERRUPTING THIS HEARING.

[03:00:01]

- SO, I WANNA THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION AND THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE, AND ALSO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION WHO HAVE BEEN, UM, WORKING ON THIS ISSUE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'VE ARRIVED AT THIS POINT.

- SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

- YEAH, THANK YOU.

IT'S THE INEVITABLE, UH, RESULT OF YEARS OF INACTION, AS WAS SAID BY STAFF.

UM, AND I THINK THAT IF, UH, THIS, THIS HOUSE WAS GONNA BE SAVED IF THERE WAS ENOUGH COMMUNITY SUPPORT, UM, TO SAVE IT, THEN THAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED BY NOW.

I MEAN, I, FOR ONE, GREW UP DRIVING BY THOSE SIGNS, SAVED THIS OLD HOUSE.

UM, AND IT'S TOO BAD THAT THE SUPPORT WASN'T THERE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

I THINK AT THIS POINT IT'S TIME TO DELIST IT.

- [INAUDIBLE] - MA'AM. MA'AM, STOP INTERRUPTING. MA'AM.

- MA'AM, THIS IS A HEARING. STOP INTERRUPTING.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, DO YOU HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS, SUPERVISOR KOENIG? - UM, NO. I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY SHOWED UP WITH A CHECK TODAY, THAT MIGHT CHANGE MY MIND.

BUT, UM, GIVEN THAT WE, WE HEARD PLENTY OF CONCERN, BUT, UM, NOTHING THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CHANGE THE EQUATION.

AND IF, AS WAS SAID, THIS WOULD COST MILLIONS, UH, JUST TO KEEP IT STANDING UPRIGHT, LET ALONE HABITABLE.

- THANK YOU. SO THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL TIMES, YOU KNOW, THAT THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN GOOD DURING THE LAST, WHEN HE, THIS DISCUSSION STARTED IN 98, 97.

UM, BUT THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL TIMES WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS GOOD, AND THEN THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL TIMES THAT THERE WAS A DOWNTURN AND NO ONE CAME IN TO HELP SAVE THIS HOUSE.

AND I READ THE ARTICLES, I WENT BACK AND READ THE ARTICLES ON THE PAJARONIAN, UM, WHEN THIS GROUP FORMED, AND UNFORTUNATELY, SEVERAL THINGS THAT I READ THERE, UH, THREE I GUESS, IS THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO RAISE SUFFICIENT, EVEN SUFFICIENT MONEY TO MAKE A DENT.

AND SECOND OF ALL, IT BECAME TOO EXPENSIVE IN 2004 TO EVEN FIX IT.

AND THEN THE, UH, ORGANIZATION THAT FORMED WENT BANKRUPT.

THERE'S NO- GONNA BE NO MAGIC BILL. NO MAGIC.

SOMEONE'S GONNA COME IN AND GIVE US $7 MILLION TO FIX THE HOUSE.

BUT YOU GOT TO BUY THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

AND PEOPLE DON'T LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY AND SAY, I'M GONNA PAY 7 MILLION FOR THAT PROPERTY AND 7 MILLION FOR THAT LAND, THE ACREAGE THAT'S THERE.

UM, BUT IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION, AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID.

UH, I THINK THAT THE HISTORY THAT'S THERE WITH THE JAPANESE AMERICANS, UH, THAT WERE INTERNED, AND ALSO THAT THE OWNERS THERE GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME SHARECROPPERS IN THE PAJARO VALLEY.

NOT ONLY THE JAPANESE, BUT TO LATINOS.

AND SO I THINK IT'S, UH, RICH IN HISTORY.

IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE CAN PRESERVE ANYTHING THAT'S THERE, UM, AND HAND IT OVER TO- I KNOW SOME FOLKS LIKE AT THE, THE HISTORY FOLKS HERE, OR THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE, UH, THAT THEY CAN RETAIN.

BUT I THINK, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I THINK THAT US AS A COUNTY AND THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE IS PROBABLY TO SHARE THAT STORY, PRESERVE IT, HAVE IT IN THE LIBRARY, AND LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THAT HISTORY.

UH, BUT RIGHT NOW, UH, PEOPLE TELL ME, OH, IS IT BY THAT HAUNTED HOUSE? PEOPLE THINK IT'S A HALLOWEEN-THEMED HAUNTED HOUSE.

UM, YOU KNOW, AND I ALSO REALLY DO HAVE A FUN, UH, I GUESS IT'S LIKING TO ARCHITECTURE.

AND WILLIAM WEEKS PRESENTED THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HOUSES IN WATSONVILLE.

UH, THAT BEING ONE OF 'EM.

THERE'S ACTUALLY ONE ON MY STREET THAT IS NOT ON THE HISTORICAL LIST.

UH, BUT I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT GO AWAY, BOTH THE HISTORY, AND THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE HERE IN THE PAJARO VALLEY.

WE'RE LEFT AT THIS DIFFICULT POINT, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE THE DIFFICULT DECISIONS ARE MADE.

SO, SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

- YEAH. ONE LAST QUESTION.

UM, IF THE BOARD VOTES TO DELIST IT, AND AT SOME POINT IT'S DEMOLISHED, AND THEN A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT COMES FORWARD, WOULD THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS REQUIRE THAT THERE'S SOME TYPE OF PLAQUE OR MEMORIAL ON SITE THAT'S ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC THAT KIND OF DEMONSTRATES THE HISTORY OF THIS HOUSE? - I THINK EVEN BEFORE THAT- MARK CONNOLLY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER.

UH, IT'LL HAPPEN WHERE THERE'LL BE PHOTO DOCUMENTATION, PLACARDING,

[03:05:03]

UH, AND PERHAPS, AND, AND THIS WILL COME OUT OF THE REPORTS, UM, PERHAPS TO, UH, CHAIR HERNANDEZ'S POINT OF MAYBE IF THERE'S SOMETHING SALVAGEABLE THAT CAN BE TURNED OVER TO A MUSEUM, UM, WE HAVE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL.

- SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS ALSO MEANS THAT THEY'RE AT THE SITE TO SOME SORT OF MEMORIAL OR PLAQUE. OKAY.

SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

- ALSO, ONE MORE QUESTION, JUST BECAUSE IT'S DELISTED.

UM, POTENTIALLY IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO SAVE IT STILL, IT COULD BE DONE AND RE-LISTED AT SOME FUTURE POINT.

SO JUST BECAUSE WE'RE VOTING TO DELIST IT TODAY DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE GONNA DEMOLISH IT TOMORROW. CORRECT? - YES, AND THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO DEMOLISH IT.

IT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH A DEMOLITION PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY.

- OKAY. AND DOES THE PROPERTY OWNER KNOW THAT, THAT THIS IS BEFORE US TODAY? - YES. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS IN THE AUDIENCE.

- OH, GREAT. OKAY.

- [INAUDIBLE] - UM...

- MA'AM, THIS IS A HEARING.

THIS IS A HEARING, MA'AM.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN TO MY MEMBERS TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

- I'LL MOVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.

- I SECOND.

- QUESTION? - MM-MM. - NO? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION FROM SUPERVISOR KOENIG, A SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

- SUPERVISOR DE SERPA? - REGRETFULLY AYE.

- SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS. - NO.

- SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ. - AYE.

- SUPERVISOR KOENIG. - AYE.

- SUPERVISOR HERNANDEZ. - AYE.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DO GET SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT SUPERVISOR, UM, CUMMINGS HAD SAID ABOUT FORMING SOME SORT OF MEMORIAL THERE, HISTORICAL KIND OF, A PLACARD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

- [INAUDIBLE] - STAFF UNDERSTANDS THAT. THANK YOU.

NEXT, WE'LL MOVE TO CLOSED SESSION.

NEXT, WE MOVE TO...

10 MINUTES LATE, 12 MINUTES LATE.

- DO YOU WANNA RETURN AT 1:30? - YES.

- OKAY, THANK YOU.

- RECORDING STOPPED.

[9. Hold a public hearing to consider an appeal of application 241450, a Minor Land Division and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct three new dwellings on each of the newly formed parcels located at 22702 East Cliff Drive, Santa Cruz (Assessor Parcel Number 028-242-25), and take related actions]

- WE'LL NOW RESUME THIS DAY'S, UH, BOARD MEETING.

WE LEFT OFF AT NUMBER NINE, BUT BEFORE THAT WE'LL SEE IF, CHECK IN WITH COUNTY COUNCIL, TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S REPORTABLE.

- NO, NOTHING REPORTABLE.

THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS NUMBER NINE.

HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF APPLICATION 2415450.

A MINOR LAND DIVISION AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT THREE NEW DWELLINGS ON EACH OF THE NEWLY FORMED PARCELS LOCATED AT 22702 EAST CLIFF DRIVE, SANTA CRUZ ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 02824225 AND TAKE ALL RELATED ACTIONS.

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO NATHAN MACBETH, PLANNER FOR THE PRESENTATION.

WAIT, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS ALSO A HEARING, SO WE'LL ALSO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT OR APPELLANT FOR 10, FOR 10 MINUTES.

NO MORE THAN 10 MINUTES.

OKAY.

- GOOD AFTERNOON, NATE MACBETH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 16,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE AND ZONED RM 5, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PARCELS URBAN MEDIUM DESIGNATION.

UH, THIS IS A LOCATION OF THE PARCEL HERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF, UH, EAST CLIFF DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET

[03:10:02]

SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH 26TH AVENUE, UM, KIND OF MIDWAY BETWEEN 26TH AVENUE AND MORAN LAKE, A POPULAR BEACH.

THE PROPERTY FRONTS, UH, THE BEACH.

AND THE ZONING IS RM 5, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WITH A MINIMUM 5,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL SIZE.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN MEDIUM, UH, GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION.

IT'S IN A PLEASURE POINT COMBINING DISTRICT, AND THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING 16,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS OF APPROXIMATELY 925 SQUARE FEET, 1000 SQUARE FEET, AND A LARGER PARCEL OF 11,000 SQUARE FEET INCLUDES A 5,700 SQUARE FOOT, UH, COMMON AREA.

UM, A MULTIFAMILY COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED ON THE NEWLY FORMED PARCELS CONSISTING OF THREE DWELLING UNITS AND AN ADU.

APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF MATERIAL WOULD BE EXCAVATED AT THE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SUBTERRANEAN IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING, UH, TWO OF THE PROPOSED DWELLINGS, AN ADU PARKING AND A COURTYARD.

A TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OF APPROXIMATELY 6,000 SQUARE FEET IS PROPOSED AT THE GROUND LEVEL, INCLUDING A LAP POOL, HOT TUB, AND PATIO.

MISCELLANEOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE NEW DRAINAGE, INFRASTRUCTURE, LANDSCAPING, NEW HARDSCAPE, UH, SUBTERRANEAN STORAGE.

RETAINING WALLS ARE ALSO PROPOSED.

THE PROJECT IS ELIGIBLE FOR AN SB 478, WHICH ALLOWS FOR INCREASED FLOOR AREA RATIO UP TO A HUNDRED PERCENT, AND, UH, SOME RELIEF FROM LAW COVERAGE WHERE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE PRECLUDE, UH, THE ALLOWED FLOOR AREA RATIO, OR ALL OTHER SITE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLY UNDER THAT PROVISION OF STATE LAW.

UH, THE PROJECT REQUIRES A MINOR LAND DIVISION, UH, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, LARGE DWELLING, A LARGE DWELLING EXCEPTION TO THE PLEASURE POINT DESIGN CRITERIA, UH, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

JUST A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY, ACTUALLY, RATHER DETAILED.

UH, THE APPLICATION WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IN NOVEMBER, 2024.

UM, THE FEES WERE PAID IN DECEMBER.

UH, DETERMINATION REGARDING THE PROJECT'S INCOMPLETENESS WAS RENDERED ON THE 27TH OF DECEMBER.

UH, THAT, UH, DETERMINATION WAS APPEALED AND, UH, HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON, UH, FEBRUARY 12TH.

UH, THE DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS APPEALED AND HEARD, UH, AS A JURISDICTIONAL APPEAL BEFORE YOUR BOARD, WHERE YOUR BOARD DECLINED TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF THAT APPEAL.

UH, SUBSEQUENT TO THE, UM, THAT ON, UH, JUNE 11TH AFTER A DULY NOTICE HEARING, UH, AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE MATERIALS AND IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED APPLICATION 241450 BASED ON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

ON, UH, JUNE 23RD, THE APPLICANT, UM, APPEALED THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO YOUR BOARD.

UH, TODAY IS A NON-JURISDICTIONAL APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY APPLICATION 241450, UH, AS SPECIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

STAFF BELIEVES THERE'S SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AND TO DENY APPLICANT'S APPEAL.

NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND THE PROJECT REMAINS INCONSISTENT WITH SEVERAL CODES AND POLICIES AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT.

UH, JUST SO- WE'VE SHOWN THE PHOTOS HERE FROM AS SEEN OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT SEEN FROM THE BEACH.

WE HAVE, UM, THE FRAME TO THE LOWER LEFT IS KIND OF UP COAST LOOKING BACK AT THE EXISTING HOME, UH, RIGHT OUT IN FRONT AND, UH, LOOKING BACK UP COAST.

UH, WHAT'S NOTABLE ABOUT THIS PHOTO IS, UH, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THOUGH VISUAL SIMULATIONS WERE NOT SUBMITTED FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, UM, THE PLANS INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED HOME WOULD BE SITUATED FURTHER TOWARD THE REVETMENT, THE ROCK, UH, REVETMENT IN FRONT OF THE THE BASE OF THE HOME, AND, UH, WOULD BE MUCH TALLER.

THIS IS A VIEW OF THE HOME, UH, EXISTING HOME FROM EAST CLIFF DRIVE.

UH, THE, UH, LOWER FRAME, IT LOOKS LIKE MY, UH, ARROW DISAPPEARED THERE, BUT IT'S, UH, JUST TO THE RIGHT, UH, OF THE RED ROOF.

UH, LOOKING DOWN THE LONG DRIVEWAY AT THE HOME IN THE REAR, AND THEN THE, UM, VIEW FROM THE NORTH OR FROM THE WEST IS OBSCURED PRIMARILY BY A LARGE, UH, CYPRESS TREE.

THIS IS THE... UM, LET'S SEE HERE.

[03:15:04]

UM, THE, UH, MINOR LAND DIVISION SHOWS THE 11,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCELS, UH, LARGER PARCEL WHERE THE PRIMARY DWELLING WOULD BE SITUATED.

UH, THE, UH, DARK BLUE AREA IS ONE OF THE SUBTERRANEAN PARCELS.

AGAIN, THE 1000 SQUARE FOOT AREA, UH, ORANGE IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE SUBTERRANEAN HOMES.

UM, SHADED, UH, RED AREA IS A, UH, THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT, UH, COMMON AREA, WHICH WOULD SERVE ALL THREE PARCELS.

THE GREEN AREA TO THE LOWER RIGHT IS, UH, DENOTES A EXISTING, UH, DRIVEWAY SERVING THE PARCEL.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET IN WIDTH, UH, WHICH IS SUBSTANDARD FOR SERVING THE NUMBER OF PARCELS THAT ARE PROPOSED.

AGAIN, THE SITE PLAN, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE, UM, TO THE LEFT WITH THE ROCK REVETMENT THAT WE SAW IN THE VISUAL IN THE PHOTO, SITE PHOTO, UH, AND THE KIND OF THE WHITE AREA, UH, DENOTES THE DESIGNATED GEOLOGIC SETBACK AS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT WHILE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE BEHIND.

UM, AND THIS SHOWS A BASIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR THE SITE.

THE... WHAT'S NOTED IS THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE, OR IT WOULD BE WEST IN THIS CASE, THE UPPER PORTION IS, UH, ENCUMBERED BY A VIEW EASEMENT.

SO, IN THAT CASE, UM, NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS.

CLOSED ELEVATIONS.

PLEASURE POINT DESIGN EXCEPTION IS REQUIRED FOR A REDUCTION TO THE SECOND FLOOR SETBACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE, UH, WE SEE OUR, OR SORRY, ON THE EAST SIDE, UH, AS SHOWN IN THE SOUTH ELEVATION BE THE TOP RIGHT CORNER.

THE WALL OF THAT HOME IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, SO APPROXIMATELY FIVE FOOT ENCROACHMENT ON THE SECOND FLOOR.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE PARCEL.

UH, THE UPPER WEST ELEVATION, IT SHOWS- THE, UM, FULL VIEW OF THE HOME, UH, AND THE SUBTERRANEAN AREA.

THE...

FROM GRADE, THE HEIGHT OF THE HOME IS APPROXIMATELY 27 FEET, A LITTLE BIT OVER, AND AS MEASURED TO THE BASEMENT, UH, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 38 FEET.

IN SUMMARY, THE TECHNICAL REPORTS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY COUNTY CODE SECTION 16.10.060.

UM, NEWLY FORMED PARCELS IN A COASTAL HAZARD AREA ARE NOT ALLOWED PURSUANT TO OUR GENERAL PLAN.

6.2.17 DEVELOPMENT SEAWARD OF THE HOME WILL RESULT IN VISUAL IMPACTS INCONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICY 5.1.7, AND OUR COASTAL REGULATIONS FOUND IN COUNTY CODE SECTION 13.20.

FINDINGS, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE MADE TO SUPPORT THE MINOR LAND DIVISION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, A LARGE DWELLING SETBACK REDUCTION FOR THE PLEASURE POINT EXCEPTION, UH, THE CONDITIONAL USE CONDITIONAL INSIGHT DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.

UH, STAFF HAS RECEIVED LATE MAIL, AND ALL OF WHICH IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

UH, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, MOSTLY NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS THE COASTAL COMMISSION, HAVE EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU.

UM, THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH, UH, RAISES ISSUE, WHICH, UH, CONTINUES TO RAISE ISSUES THAT HAVE EITHER ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED OR ANALYZED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR A LETTER TO YOUR BOARD.

UH, THE ONLY NEW, UH, ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPLICANT IS WITH REGARDS TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME ALLOTTED, FOR THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I BELIEVE TO, TO RESPOND TO THAT, I BELIEVE THAT THE CHAIRPERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SET TIME FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, UM, UM, AND, UH, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT RECEIVED EQUAL TO, IF NOT MORE TIME THAN OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

I WOULD DEFER TO COUNSEL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THE ALLOTTED TIME, UH, WAS SUFFICIENT.

UH, AND WITH THAT, UM, IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT, UH, YOU HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY APPLICATION 241450 A PROPOSAL TO DIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 16,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS, CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON EACH OF THE NEWLY CREATED PARCELS AT 22702 EAST CLIFF DRIVE.

DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT'S PROPOSED ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,

[03:20:01]

AND DENY APPLICATION, DENY THE APPEAL OF APPLICATION NUMBER 241450, UH, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION.

THAT, UH, CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

- WITH THAT, WE'LL HAVE THE, WITH THAT, WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP.

AND YOU'LL BE GIVEN 10 MINUTES.

- UNDERSTOOD.

UH, CHAIR HERNANDEZ, I DO HAVE A POINT OF ORDER QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

WILL, WILL WE ALSO BE ALLOWED SOME TIME FOR REBUTTAL? NO. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO USE OUR 10 MINUTES, WE NEED TO RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

IS THAT HOW IT WORKS? - NO. THEN IT COMES TO THE BOARD.

- SO WE HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

- CHAIR, IF, IF, UH, IF IT, IF, IF IT'S AGREEABLE TO YOU, YOU COULD, UM, HAVE THEM DO A SEVEN MINUTE PRESENTATION AND RESERVE THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL AT THEIR DISCRETION.

- DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? - SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THE BEST WE'RE GONNA GET. SO, YES.

- SO, I DO HAVE A SLIDE PRESENTATION THAT I'M TOLD IS READY FOR DISPLAY ON THE BOARD, AND I HOPE NOBODY THINKS ME RUDE IF I'M TURNING SLIGHTLY SIDEWAYS IN ORDER TO READ THE BOARD.

UM, THE SLIDE'S READY FOR PRESENTATION.

- WE'RE WORKING ON, ON PULLING IT UP.

THERE APPEARS TO BE AN ISSUE WITH THE FILE TYPE THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

CHAIR AND COUNSEL, UM, IF THE APPELLANT HAS A LAPTOP, WE MAY NEED TO REVERT TO AN ALTERNATE DEVICE SETTING WHERE THEY CAN USE THE, UM, ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL OPTION THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.

- I, I DON'T HAVE A LAPTOP. NO.

- OKAY. YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LAPTOP AND WE CAN'T PUT YOUR SLIDES UP ON THE SCREEN, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROCEED, UNFORTUNATELY, WITHOUT YOUR SLIDES, UNLESS YOU HAVE HARD COPIES THAT YOU COULD DISTRIBUTE TO THE BOARD, UH, THAT THE BOARD COULD LOOK AT WHILE YOU ARE SPEAKING.

AND THEN WE ALSO NEED TO ADJUST THE CLOCK TO SEVEN MINUTES, PLEASE.

- YES.

- UH, I, I DON'T HAVE COPIES.

AND WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL NOTIFICATION THIS MORNING, UH, WITH...

IT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL ABOUT THE READINESS OF THE STAFF TO PRESENT THESE SLIDES FOR MY USE AT THIS HEARING.

- CHAIR, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET IT IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW? - JULIET, CAN WE MAKE COPIES OF THE VERSION THAT'S- THAT WE PULLED UP ON ANOTHER COMPUTER? - WE CAN ATTEMPT THAT. YES.

- WHY DON'T WE TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK, CHAIR, SO WE CAN GET THESE, UM, ISSUES RESOLVED AND THEN COME BACK.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? - SO FIVE MINUTES AND COME BACK AFTER WE GET THE TECH RESOLVED.

[03:25:01]

- FOR THOSE OF US JOINING ONLINE, WE'RE NOW PREPARED TO...

- RECORDING IN PROGRESS.

- WE'VE RESOLVED THE TECHNICAL ISSUE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

- GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME IS JOHN FLYNN.

I'M AN ATTORNEY FOR THE MCINNES AND I'LL BE LEADING OFF IN OUR PRESENTATION TODAY.

AND AS, UH, INDICATED EARLIER, WE'RE GONNA RESERVE THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

UH, CAN WE GO TO SLIDE ONE, SLIDE TWO, PLEASE.

OKAY.

THE REQUEST THAT WE'RE MAKING AT THE OUTSET IS THAT THIS MATTER BE SENT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AFFORDS US OUR HEARING RIGHTS IN ACCORD WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S OWN BYLAWS.

THOSE BYLAWS WERE ADOPTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE THE PROCESS THAT IS DUE THE APPLICANTS.

SO, IF YOU DON'T GET THAT, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DUE PROCESS, AND WE DIDN'T GET IT.

IF... I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE, WELL YOU...

I THINK YOU CAN ALL SEE WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN.

UNDER THEIR BYLAWS, SECTION 11.34, APPLICANT SHALL BE GIVEN 10 MINUTES FOR THEIR INITIAL PRESENTATION.

THEY GAVE US SIX, WE HAD TO BEG AND WE GOT EIGHT.

11.3 0.7 APPLICANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

A LOT OF THINGS WERE SAID ABOUT THE PROJECT BY SOME PROJECT OPPONENTS AT THE HEARING THAT WERE MISLEADING OR SIMPLY FALSE, AND WE NEEDED AND HAD THE RIGHT TO REBUT THOSE ASSERTIONS UNDER THE PUBLISHED BYLAWS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND WHEN WE ASKED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL, BECAUSE IT WAS SO IMPORTANT FOR US TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID THAT WERE UNTRUE ABOUT THE PROJECT, WE WERE TOLD NO, NO REBUTTAL.

NOW, ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SAID, WELL, WAIT A SECOND IT'S MY EXPERIENCE THAT WE ALWAYS AFFORD REBUTTAL TO THE APPLICANT.

AND THE ANSWER TO THAT WAS YOU SEE IT THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN, I THINK THE APPLICANT GOT A TOTAL OF EIGHT MINUTES BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM, I THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT.

THAT WAS THE RESPONSE.

THE TOTALITY OF THE RESPONSE TO OUR REQUEST TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHT TO REBUTTAL.

OUR RIGHT TO REBUTTAL WAS DENIED AND SO WE ARE ASKING ON THAT BASIS ALONE.

I'VE GOT OTHER GROUNDS THAT I'M GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT ON THE SCREENS, BUT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN PUBLISHED AND ADOPTED BYLAWS.

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

AND IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, WE WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS IN THAT HEARING.

SECOND, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT AND I'M NOT GONNA SAY A WHOLE LOT MORE ABOUT THE PSA ISSUES, BUT, UM, ACCORDING TO THE CODE, THE PSA ITSELF, THE TIME FOR THE 30-DAY CLOCK TO BEGIN TO RUN IS FROM RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PSA ABOUT, NO, IT'S NOT RECEIPT OF APPLICATION.

IT'S REALLY WHEN ALL THE FEES ARE PAID.

THE ARGUMENT THAT'S BEEN MADE BY THE STAFF IS, WELL, IF WE START REVIEWING BEFORE WE GET ALL OF OUR FEES, THEN THERE'S GONNA BE AN UNLAWFUL GIFT TO PUBLIC FUNDS.

WELL, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT REALLY TRUE.

THE WEBSITE FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT PUBLISHES A LIST OF INITIAL DEPOSITS FOR EACH TYPE OF PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW THAT TAKES PLACE.

JUST CHARGE THE APPLICANT THE INITIAL DEPOSIT, AND YOU CAN START THE CLOCK RUNNING AND THERE'S A NOTIFICATION ON THE PAGE THAT SAYS, LOOK, WE, WE MIGHT HAVE TO ASK YOU FOR MORE MONEY LATER ON.

THAT'S FINE.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY THEY DID IT.

THEY REFUSED TO TAKE ANY ACTION UNTIL THEY GET, THEY GOT ALL THE FEES, NOT JUST AN INITIAL DEPOSIT, BUT ALL THE FEES THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE DUE.

SO AS A RESULT, THERE WAS A VIOLATION IN OUR CASE OF THE PSA.

BUT THERE'S A BIG HOLE IN YOUR INTAKE PROCEDURES THAT CREATES A SIGNIFICANT VULNERABILITY UNDER THE PSA.

UNDER YOUR PROCEDURES, YOUR OWN INTAKE PROCEDURES, IF YOU SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION, REMEMBER THE KEYWORD IS RECEIPT UNDER THE PSA.

WHAT THE STAFF HAS DONE IS SET UP A SYSTEM SO THAT THEY DON'T,

[03:30:05]

THEY'LL TELL YOU WHEN THEY'RE READY TO RECEIVE THE APPLICATION.

SO IF YOU'RE READY TO RECEIVE OR, OR TO SUBMIT, LET'S SAY ON NOVEMBER 17TH, THEY WILL LET YOU KNOW, OKAY, WE'LL OPEN THE PORTAL IN A WEEK.

THERE ARE NO TIME CONSTRAINTS BUILT INTO YOUR INTAKE PROCEDURE.

IT COULD BE A WEEK, IT COULD BE TWO WEEKS, FOUR WEEKS, FOUR MONTHS, DOESN'T MATTER.

IT'S WHEN WE RECEIVE AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN WE'RE READY TO RECEIVE.

THAT GUTS THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO DO JUST THE OPPOSITE, NOT CREATE INDEFINITE DELAYS, BUT TO START THAT CLOCK RUNNING RIGHT AWAY AND GIVE THE STAFF 30 DAYS TO MAKE A COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

OKAY.

WE TOLD THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE'RE TELLING YOU TO, WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT IN THE FRIENDLIEST WAY POSSIBLE, BUT THIS IS NECESSARILY A KIND OF A CONFRONTATIONAL ISSUE.

16.10.060A SAYS, ANY REQUIRED GEOLOGIC SOIL OR OTHER TECHNICAL REPORT SHALL BE COMPLETED, REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BEFORE ANY PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED AND BEFORE ANY DISCRETIONARY...

- A MINUTE WARNING.

- ...OR DEVELOPMENT, UH, APPLICATION IS APPROVED OR ISSUED.

THERE'S BEEN NO ACCEPTED GEO REPORTS, SO YOU CAN'T HAVE THE HEARING.

IN FACT, YOU WERE, YOU WERE PROHIBITED FROM EVEN SCHEDULING THE HEARING.

THE EXPLANATION FOR THAT GIVEN BY MR. MACBETH TO THE, UH, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS WELL, IT'S OKAY IF YOU'RE GONNA DENY THE PROJECT.

BUT IF, IF YOU SCHEDULE THE HEARING BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT YOU'RE GONNA DENY THE PROJECT, THEN THE APPLICANT'S BEEN DENIED DUE PROCESS TO A HEARING BECAUSE THE ONLY OUTCOME THAT CAN RESULT IF YOU SCHEDULE A HEARING IS A DENIAL OF THE PROJECT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

ALRIGHT, THERE'S A DISPUTE.

UH, I MAY HAVE TO TAKE EIGHT MINUTES AND GIVE TWO MINUTES TO, FOR REBUTTAL, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

UM, THERE'S A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER WE ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE IN CON- INTO CONSIDERATION AN EXISTING REVETMENT IN THE CALCULATION OF THE 100 YEAR SETBACK.

UNDER H1 OF 16.10. 070 YOU ARE ALLOWED TO, IN FACT, YOU ARE, UM, H1 DIRECTS YOU TO CONSIDER THE EXISTENCE OF A REVETMENT IN CALCULATING WHAT THE 100 YEAR SETBACK IS.

OBVIOUSLY, THE EXISTENCE OF A REVETMENT IS GONNA MAKE A MAJOR DIFFERENCE TO WHERE THE SETBACK IS GOING TO GO.

H1 HAS ALWAYS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THIS COUNTY TO MEAN...

- 30 SECONDS.

- ...YOU INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF THE REVETMENT.

IF YOU LOOK AT H7A H7 INCORPORATES ALL OF H1.

SO THE CRITERIA IN H1 ARE BUILT INTO, I'M GONNA CUT INTO HIS TIME.

IN FACT, WE MIGHT EVEN HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE 10 MINUTES FOR ME.

UM, H7 INCORPORATES BY IN FULL ALL OF H1.

THAT IS, HERE'S HOW YOU DO IT.

IF YOU WANNA KNOW HOW TO DO IT, LOOK AT H1.

H7 READS DEMONSTRATION BY A FULL GEOLOGIC REPORT THAT EACH PROPOSED BUILDING SITE ON THE PARCEL IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY POTENTIAL HAZARDS, AND THAT EACH SITE MEETS THE MINIMUM SETBACK GIVEN IN SUBSECTION H1 OF THIS SECTION.

SO IF YOU WANNA COMPLY WITH H7 YOU MUST COMPLY WITH H1.

SUBDIVISION B, HOWEVER, SAYS, WELL, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE SITE IS GONNA BE SAFE AND STABLE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE REVETMENT.

SO, IN A, IT SAYS YOU GOT TO CONSIDER THE REVETMENT.

AND IN THE VERY NEXT SUBDIVISION, IT SAYS, IF YOU DO THIS, IF YOU DO IT THE WAY WE TELL YOU TO DO IT, THEN THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S GONNA TELL YOU YOU DID IT WRONG.

THAT'S AN INCONSISTENCY FROM WHICH IS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RESCUE THIS- THIS ORDINANCE.

YOU CAN'T DO BOTH. - FINAL ONE MINUTE WARNING.

- WHAT'S THAT? - FINAL ONE MINUTE WARNING.

- OKAY. - YOU HAVE 53 SECONDS REMAINING.

- OKAY, SO NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

UM, HOW THE SETBACK IS CALCULATED IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF SB 478.

PUTTING ASIDE WHERE THE SETBACK IS REQUIRED EITHER UNDER H1 OR H7 ASSUMING THAT YOU CAN COMPLY WITH BOTH,

[03:35:04]

HOW THE SETBACK IS CALCULATED IS REALLY DETERMINED BY SB 478 WHICH IS CODIFIED AT 65913.11 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

THE COUNTY IS BARRED FROM IMPOSING ANY DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE ACHIEVING THE 1.0 FAR FLOOR AREA RATIO THAT IS GUARANTEED BY SUBDIVISION A OF 65913.11.

- THAT IS TIME.

- WE NOW TAKE IT TO THE PUBLIC TO SEE IF ANYONE WISHES TO ADDRESS US ON THIS ITEM.

YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.

GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS.

UM, HADN'T PLANNED ON COMING TODAY, BUT I GOT WORRIED THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE SOME OF THIS STUFF.

UM, I'M MIKE GUTH.

I USED TO COME INTO THIS ROOM EVERY WEEK WHENEVER THERE WAS A LAND USE ITEM GOING BACK 30 YEARS.

I WAS A TWO-TERM HOUSING COMMISSIONER.

I WAS A TWO, TWO-TERM PLANNING COMMISSIONER.

UH, I WORK... I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THIS PROJECT'S IN BUT I ALSO DO WORK UP AND DOWN THE STATE ON COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND CO- MOSTLY COASTAL PROTECTION ISSUES.

THERE'S NOTHING TO ANY OF THESE ASSERTIONS YOU'RE HEARING, AND IT'S DISCOURAGING TO ME TO KNOW THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT TEAM HAS EMAILED SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, TRUMPETING ALL THESE BASELESS ACCUSATIONS.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH WHAT STAFF HAS DONE HERE AT EACH STEP.

THE PERMIT STREAMLINING THING CAN BE DISPENSED WITH, LIKE, THAT COUNTY CODE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR.

IT SAYS YOU GOT TO...

AND I CAN'T BELIEVE WE'RE DISCUSSING IT AFTER YOU ALREADY DECLINED AN APPEAL ON THAT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

UM, BUT HERE IT COMES AGAIN.

ACTUALLY, THIS APPLICATION BE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PUT IN REQUIRED APPLICATION PARTS.

SHOULDN'T EVEN GOTTEN A HEARING.

BUT YOU HAVE A CLEAR CODE FOR PERMIT WHEN YOU GET YOUR, WHEN THE CLOCK STARTS ON YOUR PERMITS, CLEAR COUNTY CODE WASN'T VIOLATED.

IF YOU THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM WITH PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT, WHEN THAT CODE WAS PUT IN, YOU CHALLENGE IT UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODES AT COURT.

YOU DON'T DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON A PERMIT WHERE THEY USE THAT.

ANYWAY, IT ALL GOES ON AND ON.

OUR CODE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT YOU CITE NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

REAR WORD OF A HUNDRED YEAR EROSION LINE.

CRYSTAL CLEAR DESPITE WHAT THOSE SELECTIVE EXCERPTS SHOWED.

I WILL SAY THAT WORKING A LOT OF...

I'VE LOOKED AT EVERY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PACKAGE SINCE I QUIT BEING A PLANNING COMMISSIONER FIVE YEARS AGO.

IF ANYTHING, STAFF GOES OUT OF THEIR WAY TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPERS.

BUT NOT THIS KIND OF OUTRAGEOUSLY OUTLANDISH SET OF PROPOSALS THAT ARE SO NON-COMPLIANT.

BY THE WAY, WHEN YOUR BOARD ASKED COUNTY COUNCIL A MONTH AGO IF THEY BELIEVE IF WE COULD DEFEND THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT ISSUE, I COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE PROUD OF THE WAY YOU STOOD AND SAID THAT HE HAS CONFIDENCE IN THE COUNTY POSITION.

I HOPE WE HAVE THE SAME CONFIDENCE IN OUR POSITION IN THE STAFF REPORT TODAY BECAUSE THAT'S FULLY MERITED.

- ANYONE ONLINE? - YES, CHAIR. WE HAVE SPEAKERS ONLINE.

- OH, WE GOT ONE MORE IN PUBLIC HERE.

- GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

MY NAME IS AMBER JONES.

MYSELF AND PAT O'NEILL ARE THE NEIGHBORS ADJACENT TO THE APPLICANT.

WE STRONGLY SUPPORT UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF APPLICATION 241450.

THE LETTER FROM NOSSAMAN ON MARCH 13TH, 2025 WHICH STATES, OUR APPLICATION FOR THE MCDONELL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WILL BE DEEMED APPROVED IF THE BOARD DOES NOT ACT WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OUR CLIENTS PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE, PROMPTED THE ACTION OF DENIAL TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE PUBLIC NOTICE WE RECEIVED FROM THE MCDONELL'S WAS POSTMARKED ON MAY 28TH, 2025, MARKING THE START DATE NOSSAMAN IS REFERENCING.

THE ARCHITECT SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION WITHOUT INCLUDING STANDARD ITEMS FOR AN APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE, THE PERTINENT LORI ITEMS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETENESS.

HE INSTEAD SOUGHT WAIVERS FOR IN A FAILED INCOMPLETENESS DETERMINATION APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD.

IN ADDITION, THE ARCHITECT LEFT OUT PERTINENT INFORMATION ON HIS BUILDING PLANS, LIKE DEFINING WHAT THE SETBACK NUMBERS ARE ON A SECOND STORY AND IS USING CHATGPT TO FORMULATE HIS ASSERTION STATEMENTS AND REBUTTALS POUND ON PAGE 749 OF YOUR PACKET.

THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY FOR A PRICE THAT REFLECTED THE RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT FOR HIS PARCEL.

HE WAS AWARE THAT THE PARCEL IS RESTRICTED DUE TO A VIEWSHED EASEMENT IS LOCATED IN THE PLEASURE POINT SPECIAL DISTRICT, AND IS ON A COASTAL BLUFF WITHOUT A CDP GRANTING CONTINUED MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING TO THE REVETMENT.

THE GEO REPORT HE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE GEOLOGICAL CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE 2021 TO HIS BLUFF TOP.

HIS GEO REPORT STATES IN HIS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION THERE ARE NOT GEOLOGICAL CHANGES SINCE 2021, BUT AT THE SAME TIME,

[03:40:02]

HE HAS RECENTLY SUBMITTED A CDP APPLICATION TO COASTAL COMMISSION STATING THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN DAMAGES FROM THE STORMS IN 2022 OR 2023 AND 2024 AND IS REQUESTING WORK REPAIR TO HIS DAMAGED REVETMENT.

THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO PUSH A PROPOSED MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH BYPASSING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, PROCESSES, REVIEWS, AND PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS.

THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM- - THANK YOU.

- SEEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, UM, IN THE ROOM, I'LL MOVE TO THE ONLINE SPEAKERS.

QUINN, YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOW AVAILABLE.

- GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TODAY.

UM, I WANT TO TOUCH ON A, A COUPLE THINGS THAT I THINK MAY, UM, HAVE BEEN GLOSSED OVER, UM, FROM THE, THE PRESENTATION, UM, AND, AND ALSO FULLY SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT MIKE GUTH HAS SAID, AND AMBER AS WELL.

UM, SO THE, THE... AS MIKE MENTIONED, UH, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE YOU AND, UM, HAS BEEN VOTED AGAINST AND, AND THAT, UH, COMPLETENESS OR THE, THE TIMING OF THE APPLICATION IS PROCEEDING THROUGH THE COURTS.

THIS IS JUST A DETERMINATION ON THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION DESPITE APPLICANT'S ATTEMPT TO, UM, CONFUSE THOSE ISSUES.

AND THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS JUST IN TERMS OF THEIR INITIAL, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT TIMING.

THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO, AT THE VERY MINIMUM, IT WAS WAIVED AT THE TIME.

UM, BUT REGARDLESS, THERE WAS A FULL DISCUSSION OF THE, UH, THE APPLICATION AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A, UM, SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT AND, UM, FRANKLY, QUITE CONCERNING ISSUES IN TERMS OF COMPLETENESS WITH THIS APPLICATION, INCLUDING THE GEOLOGIC REPORT AND OTHER ISSUES.

UM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN AS, UH, AMBER HAS POINTED OUT SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH THE, THE BLUFF AND THE GEOLOGIC AREA.

UM, AND I ALSO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, THE, THE GOVERNMENT CODE, UM, THAT APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY HAS REFERENCED DOESN'T SAY THAT, UM, THE AGENCY CAN'T IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS.

IT JUST SAYS IT CAN'T IMPOSE A FLOOR AREA RATIO.

THAT'S LESS THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER, UH, POTENTIAL REGULATIONS.

UM, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DENY THIS PROJECT.

ONCE AGAIN, IT IS NOT COMPLETE.

- CALLIE, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- GREAT. CAN YOU HEAR ME? - YES, WE CAN.

- THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MY NAME IS CALLIE.

GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS.

UM, I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, UH, 22702 EAST CLIFF, AND I'M HERE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURRENT APPLICATION AND TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE PERMIT.

LIKE MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE.

WITHOUT A PROPER GEOLOGIC REPORT, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL RISKS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THIS PROJECT.

ESPECIALLY ON A COASTAL BLUFF, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD AN UNDERGROUND BUNKER THAT'S LIKE THE COASTAL BLUFF THAT'S ALREADY ERODING IS BIZARRE.

WE ALL LOVE THIS BEACH AND IN ITS UNIQUE- AND ITS UNIQUE GEOLOGY DESERVES CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.

WE ALSO BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS.

WE'RE EAGER TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE, BUT A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND CONSULTATION HAVE NOT YET HAPPENED.

COMMUNITY INPUT IS INVALUABLE AND WE BELIEVE IT'S A VITAL STEP BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN MOVE FORWARD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO MAKING THOUGHTFUL DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF OUR COMMUNITY.

I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE PERMIT UNTIL THESE CRITICAL ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED.

AND I ALSO JUST APPRECIATE ALL THE COUNTY STAFF WORKING TIRELESSLY ON THIS ISSUE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S LIKE BECOME SUCH A HEADACHE.

YOU GUYS ARE LIKE HEROES.

OKAY, THANK YOU. GOODBYE.

- JOE, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- UH, HI, UH, MY NAME'S JOE PRESS.

I LIVE TO A LOT, TWO PARCELS AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

I'M A RETIRED, UH, 45 YEARS, UH, UH, GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

AND, UH, THE, THE APPLICANT'S PREMISE THAT ANYTHING WOULD HAPPEN IN THE PERMIT PROCESS UNTIL THE CHECK CLEARS, UH, HAVING PERSONALLY DEALT WITH A THOUSAND PERMITS IN MY 45 YEARS, IT ALL STARTED WITH PAYMENT.

I THINK THAT'S A BIT SILLY.

SECONDLY, UH, DENIAL OF AN APPLICANT'S, UH, UH, OF AN APPLICANT,

[03:45:07]

UH, BECAUSE, UH, THERE'S SOMETHING GROSSLY, UH, UH, WRONG WITH THE APPLICATION, LIKE A NARROW DRIVEWAY, A DRIVEWAY BEING TOO NARROW OR SETBACKS BEING INCORRECT.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S ACTUALLY A SERVICE TO THE APPLICANT TO DENY THEM BEFORE THEY SPEND $15,000 ON A GEOLOGICAL STUDY.

I THINK THE COUNTY'S DOING A COURTESY TO THE APPLICANT.

UH, BOTH OF THOSE THINGS JUST, UH, JUST SEEM LOGICAL TO ME.

I AM TOTALLY BEHIND MIKE AND AMBER AND THE REST OF MY NEIGHBORS, UH, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS.

I QUESTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES AT HEARINGS LIKE THIS, WHY THE APPLICANT DIDN'T MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

I THINK THAT TELLS ALL.

- AVERY, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS AVERY ORSON.

MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS AND FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN A BIT ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO OUR HOME AT 2-2700 EAST CLIFF DRIVE.

I'VE BEEN VISITING OUR BEACH HOUSE FOR 60 YEARS, EVER SINCE MY PARENTS BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN THE 1960S.

IT'S BEEN A SANCTUARY FOR MY FAMILY, MOST ESPECIALLY, MY FATHER AND, AND LATER YEARS, MY MOTHER.

WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A COMMITMENT TO MAINTAINING THE SERENITY IN THE AREA THAT THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE COAST OFFERS, AND THAT THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS.

MY OWN FAMILY ENJOYED IT WHEN OUR KIDS WERE YOUNG, AND WE ARE JUST NOW ENTERING A NEW PHASE WHERE MY YOUNG ADULT CHILDREN, NIECES, AND NEPHEWS CAN START TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE HOUSE MORE REGULARLY.

IN FACT, WE DID HAVE MY ONE OF MY BROTHER'S DAUGHTERS LIVING THERE FULL TIME, A FEW YEARS, AND OUR HOPE IS TO SPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME THERE IN THE COMING YEARS.

THROUGHOUT OUR 60 YEARS OF OWNERSHIP, WE'VE SEEN MANY OWNERS MOVE IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, AND WE'VE EXPERIENCED A FEW REMODELS.

MY CONCERN WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSED PLAN IS THE IMPACT OF THE CLIFF AND THE POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER EROSION TO THE BLUFF.

WE HAVE ALREADY WITNESSED YEARS OF NATURAL EROSION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL DEED AND THE MAPS, THE CLIFF GOES SO MUCH FARTHER THAN IT DOES NOW, AND THE ROCK RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IS JUST HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT IT ONCE WAS.

WE HAVE SEEN STAIRCASES WASH AWAY, AND CURRENTLY, DEEP-SEA CAVES EXIST ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COVE THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ONGOING DEPLETION OF THE BEACH.

WE HAVE STARTED TO USE ALTERNATE ROUTES TO ACCESS THE BEACH, THE ONE AT THE END OF 26TH, WHICH ALSO HAS BEEN PUSHED BACK, AND ANOTHER ONE BY THE LAGOON.

THERE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN THE GEOLOGICAL REPORT, WHICH THE COUNTY SHOULD FULLY REVIEW THROUGH A REQUEST FOR A FULL REPORT UNDER 162115.

THIS WILL ALLOW FOR MORE EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS AND THE POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE LANDFORMS. IT WILL ALSO PROVIDE THE CHANCE TO ASSESS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION, AND A LOT MORE TIME TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE AND INTERPRET THE CODE.

I DEEPLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU KINDLY.

- BILL, YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOW AVAILABLE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME IS BILL PARKIN.

I REPRESENT THE WALKER FAMILY.

I'M THE COUNSEL FOR THE WALKER FAMILY.

UM, THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE.

I DON'T THINK I HAVE A DECI... I'M SURE OF THAT IN MY MIND.

THE APPLICANT SOUGHT TO HAVE THE APPLICATION DEEMED APPROVED, AND THEREFORE, WAS AND THEN THEY HAD SAID THAT THE COUNTY NEEDS TO, WELL, THE COUNTY NEEDS TO, UH, HOLD A HEARING IN ORDER ONCE AN APPLICANT ASSERTS ITS DEEMED APPROVED.

NEVERTHELESS, THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUEST TO HOLD A HEARING, AND THE APPLICANT STILL HASN'T PROVIDED THE REQUESTED INFORMATION.

ODDLY, THE APPLICANT ALSO ARGUES THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ABSENT ACCEPTANCE OF THE GEOLOGIC REPORT.

MR. FLYNN STATED TODAY THAT YOU ARE NOT EVEN- YOU ARE EVEN PROHIBITED FROM HAVING A HEARING, BUT THE APPLICANT ALSO WANTS TO SEND BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A HEARING.

AND SO I ADMIRE YOUR STAFF.

THERE- THEY'RE THE UTMOST PROFESSIONALS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I WOULD LOSE MY MIND OVER THIS, THE INCONSISTENCIES OF THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENTS.

THERE ARE NO VISUAL SIMULATIONS FROM THE BEACH, AS THE STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STATED, THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COUNTY'S LARGE DWELLING DESIGN GUIDELINES.

COUNTY DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE, DESIGN CRITERIA, DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, AND AN EXCEPTION OF THE PLEASURE POINT DESIGN CRITERIA DO NOT APPLY.

NOTABLY, A NEW HOME WILL BE CLOSER TO THE BLUFF THAN THE EXISTING HOME.

SO, AND BY THE WAY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL TAKINGS ARGUMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CONSISTENTLY MADE ARE NOT CREDIBLE.

UH, IMPOSING CONDITIONS REGARDING SETBACKS FROM A COASTAL BLUFF

[03:50:01]

DO NOT RESULT IN THE TAKING UNDER NOLAN VERSUS THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, AND THIS CERTAINLY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLES IN THE PENN CENTRAL CASE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THE APPEAL.

- WE HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE, CHAIR.

- WITH THAT, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

UH, JUST A FEW QUESTIONS.

UM, FIRST, I'M WONDERING IF COUNTY COUNCIL COULD ADDRESS THIS, UM, ISSUE THE APPLICANT RAISED ABOUT THE RIGHT TO REBUTTAL AND THE FACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T FOLLOW THE, BY ITS OWN BYLAWS, UH, IN HAVING THE HEARING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

- SO WHAT'S THE QUESTION? - WELL, I MEAN, DO YOU SEE ANY ISSUE IN THAT? I MEAN.

- SO, UM, BYLAWS ARE NOT LAWS, RIGHT? THEY'RE MORE EQUIVALENT TO CLUB RULES ESSENTIALLY.

UM, A VIOLATION OF BYLAWS, HOWEVER, COULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE THAT DUE PROCESS WAS NOT AFFORDED, THAT SOMEBODY WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE ABILITY TO SPEAK AND STATE THEIR CASE.

UM, IN THIS CASE, A FACT FINDER ULTIMATELY WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THE RECORD AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT ENOUGH TIME WAS GIVEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WRITTEN MATERIALS FOR THEM TO EFFECTIVELY STATE THEIR CASE.

AND, UH, THAT'S A QUESTION OF, OF, OF WHAT IF.

UM, A VERY CONSERVATIVE READING, UM, WOULD BE THAT, HEY, THE BYLAWS EXIST THERE FOR A READING, UH, FOR A REASON, AND, UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THEIR BYLAWS, AND THEREFORE, WE'RE GONNA SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TELL THEM TO DO IT OVER AGAIN AND FOLLOW THEIR BYLAWS.

THAT'S A CONSERVATIVE READING.

UM, AND IT'S GONNA BE UP TO YOUR BOARD TO MAKE THAT MOTION OR NOT MAKE THAT MOTION.

UM, IF YOU DO NOT SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IMAGINE THAT THIS WILL BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE'RE ALREADY LITIGATING IN FEDERAL COURT.

SO YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER ELIMINATE THAT ISSUE, UM, THROUGH ANOTHER HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, WHICH MEANS THAT IT MAY COME BACK TO YOUR BOARD, UH, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES WITH IT OR TO GO AHEAD AND JUST RULE ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.

- GOTCHA. SO, IN YOUR VIEW, THE BYLAWS DOES NOT CONFER SOME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO REBUTTAL TO THE APPLICANT? - YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT, I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE- IT CAN BE, UM, DISTILLED DOWN TO BE THAT BLACK AND WHITE.

- OKAY. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES WITH THE APPLICATION.

IT WAS SAID NUMEROUS TIMES, UH, BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, BUT I MEAN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S SIMPLY NO ARGUMENT HERE THAT THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE.

IT, IT IS, RIGHT? I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION MEETING, WE DON'T HAVE VISUAL SIMULATIONS OF THE, FROM THE BEACH.

WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN, WE DON'T HAVE PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT.

WE DON'T HAVE A WILL- WILL SERVE LETTERS.

WE DON'T HAVE A SHADOW PLAN, WE DON'T HAVE LIGHTING PLAN.

I MEAN, IS THAT ACCURATE? - THAT'S CORRECT.

- RIGHT.

UM, THERE WAS SOME SUGGESTION THAT SB 478 GIVES THE APPLICANT SOME SPECIFIC, UM, RIGHTS.

I MEAN, MY UNDERSTANDING AS WAS SAID THAT THAT WOULD BE A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF ONE.

SO I MEAN, IN THEORY, WITH A COMPLETE APPLICATION, DOES THAT MEAN THE APPLICANT COULD, I MEAN, IGNORE OUR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND GO TO, I DON'T KNOW, 60 FEET OR SOMETHING IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A FAR OF ONE? I MEAN, OF COURSE, THERE'S A UNIQUE SITE, THERE'S A EASE, UH, A VIEW EASEMENT ON HALF OF IT, AND SO THAT COULD RESULT IN A TALLER BUILDING IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A FAR OF ONE.

BUT, UM, AND IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT'S SUGGESTION GOING DOWN, I- MAYBE COUNTY COUNCIL COULD, UH, COULD DISCUSS LIKE WHAT RIGHTS ARE ACTUALLY CONFERRED THROUGH SB 478? AND HOW HAVE WE CONSIDERED THEM HERE.

- UM, SURE.

NATALIE KIRKISH, COUNTY COUNCIL'S OFFICE.

UM, SO SB 478, UM, DOES STATE THAT A LOCAL AGENCY MAY NOT IMPOSE A LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD PHYSICALLY PRECLUDE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UM, THAT MEETS SPECIFIED CRITERIA FROM ACHIEVING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF ONE AS YOU MENTIONED.

I, THIS IS SPECIFIC TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO EVERY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT WOULD LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT.

- RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, OF COURSE, THE GEOLOGY BEING THE OTHER MAJOR ISSUE HERE, AND, UH, THE PRESENCE OF COASTAL HAZARDS, RIGHT? WE DON'T, THAT DOESN'T ALL JUST GO OUT THE WINDOW BECAUSE OF SB 478.

- AGREED. THOSE ARE NOT LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.

- RIGHT. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PROPOSAL HERE.

I MEAN, TO EXCAVATE 5,000 CUBIC YARDS.

UH, I MEAN, WOULD OUR CODE SUPPORT THIS LEVEL OF EXCAVATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBTERRANEAN STRUCTURES LIKE THIS NEXT TO, IN A, IN A COASTAL BLUFF IN ANY SCENARIO? - I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION MAYBE STAFF COULD ANSWER.

YEAH.

- UH, THE GRADING PLANS ARE REVIEWED

[03:55:02]

BY OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING STAFF, AND I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING GROUP HERE TODAY, AND THEY CAN SPEAK TO THE, THE AMOUNT OF GRADING.

- UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M CRAIG STEWART.

I'M THE COUNTY GEOLOGIST.

UH, SO WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT GRADING, GRADING VOLUMES, WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE 5,000 CUBIC YARDS, UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIVE TO PUBLIC PROCESSES FOR EVALUATING THAT AMOUNT OF GRADING.

UH, SO IF IT'S UNDER A THOUSAND CUBIC YARDS, WE CAN DO IT MINISTERIALLY THROUGH A, UH, BUILDING PERMIT.

IF IT'S 1000 TO 8,000 CUBIC YARDS, IT'S USUALLY A STAFF REPORT.

WE HAVE TO PREPARE SPECIFIC FINDINGS ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF THAT GRADING.

UH, IF IT'S OVER 8,000 CUBIC YARDS, IT'S GOING TO PUBLIC HEARING, A PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL REVIEW.

UH, AND SO THAT WOULD BE EVALUATED DURING THE OVERALL REVIEW BUT WE WOULD NEED ALL THE INFORMATION, ALL TECHNICAL REPORTS TO BE ACCEPTED, UH, IN ORDER TO CROSS THAT WITH OUR REQUIRED FINDINGS IN THE CODE, UH, AND THEN MAKE THAT AND PRESENT THAT AS A STAFF REPORT.

SO IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A PATHWAY TO EXCAVATION OF THIS LEVEL IN THE RIGHT, UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? - YEAH, I WANNA, I WANNA PRECLUDE IT.

OKAY. BUT YEAH.

- ALRIGHT. I MEAN, I'VE WALKED THIS BEACH MANY TIMES, AND THERE'S AN EXTENSIVE SEA CAVE FORMING HERE.

I MEAN, IT'S CERTAINLY, UM...

I DON'T KNOW WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TO DO THIS.

I MEAN, I'VE SAT AT MORAN LAKE AND WATCHED THE WAVES ROLL AROUND THE HOUSE, LIKE ROLL AROUND THE, LIKE GARDEN ATRIUM WINDOWS OF THIS HOUSE.

I MEAN, IT'S BEEN FOUR FEET HIGH, AT LEAST.

ALL ABOVE THE BLUFF TOP.

I MEAN, WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE IS BASICALLY A GIANT BATHTUB COME THE NEXT HIGH, HIGH WINTER.

I MEAN, SO FRANKLY, I MEAN, I HOPE THE APPLICANT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN TO THIS SITE, UM, AND UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, I'D, I'D INVITE THEM TO COME THE, THE, THE OWNERS OF THIS SITE ACTUALLY COME DURING THE NEXT, UH, KING TIDE EVENT AND UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT'S INVOLVED HERE.

UM, THIS WOULD BE A HORRIBLE INVESTMENT DECISION.

I MEAN, SOMEONE MENTIONED THE FACT THAT, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD REALLY GIVE THEM ADVICE THAT THAT 15 FEET IS TOO NARROW FOR A DRIVEWAY.

YEAH. AND EXCAVATING A COASTAL BLUFF TO THIS EXTENT WITH THIS LEVEL OF HAZARD PRESENT IS ALSO A REALLY BAD IDEA.

I MEAN, LET'S JUST BE FRANK.

I UNDERSTAND YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR, I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THE, THE APPLICATION TEAM IN POINTING OUT WAYS THAT OUR, OUR COUNTY PROCESS COULD BE BETTER.

UM, AND I'M ALWAYS OPEN TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS, AND I THINK THAT, UM, IN MANY WAYS THAT, YOU'VE CONTINUED TO PUSH US TO BE BETTER AND WE'RE GETTING THERE.

UM, I DON'T STILL DON'T SEE A PATHWAY OR, UH, TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION WITH CLEARLY SO MUCH OF THE, OUR LIST OF REQUIRED INFORMATION BEING ABSENT.

UM, AND THEN JUST FROM A REALLY, WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY OR FRANKLY FOR THE APPLICANT HERE, UM, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO APPROVE THIS.

SO, UH, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

- SECOND.

- A MOTION FROM, UH, SUPERVISOR KOENIG AND A SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ.

IF WE CAN TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

OH.

EXCUSE ME. IT'S DONE.

IF WE COULD TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

- I'M SO SORRY. I MISHEARD. SUPERVISOR SERPA.

- I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING A ROLL CALL VOTE.

UH, I'M ABSTAINING FROM THIS VOTE. THANK YOU.

- SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS. - AYE.

- MARTINEZ. - AYE.

- KOENIG. - AYE.

- HERNANDEZ. - AYE.

MOTION PASSES WITH ONE ABSTENTION, UH, SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE TAKEN ON BY, UH, VICE CHAIR, UH, SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ.

UH, I HAVE AN, UH, SOMETHING THAT I HAVE SCHEDULED

[04:00:03]

THAT I NEED TO BE IN SOUTH COUNTY, AND I'M 20 MINUTES LATE.

WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11.

UM, HOLD A TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT.

WAIT, ARE WE ON NUMBER 11? - VICE CHAIR MARTINEZ, I BELIEVE IT'S ITEM 10.

WELL, I'VE ALREADY MESSED UP, [LAUGHS] MY ROLE AS CHAIR.

LET'S START AGAIN. LET'S SEE.

[10. Hold a public hearing to consider approving in concept “An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz Amending Santa Cruz County Sections 13.10.312, 13.10.322, 13.10.332, 13.10.352, 13.10.362, 13.10.372, 13.10.689, 13.10.694, and 13.10.700, adding Sections 13.10.695 and 13.10.696, and repealing Section 13.10.690, regarding Short-Term Rentals,” confirm the proposal is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and take related actions]

WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10.

UM, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVING IN CONCEPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, AMENDING SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SECTIONS 1310312, 1310322, 1310332, 1310352, 1310362, 131072, 1310689, 1310694, AND 1310700, ADDING SECTIONS 1310695 AND 1310696.

AND REPEALING SECTION 1310690, REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

CONFIRM THE PROPOSAL IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND TAKE RELATED ACTIONS.

I'LL NOW TURN THIS OVER TO MARK CONNOLLY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, AND FERNANDA DIAS PINI, PLANNER II FOR THE PRESENTATION.

- THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR, MARK CONNOLLY, THE FOREMENTIONED.

AND TO MY RIGHT IS FERNANDA DIAS PINI, AND WHAT WE HAVE PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY IS AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS AFTERNOON.

UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AIM TO BALANCE THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OR SHORT-TERM RENTALS WITH THE NEED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY AND HOUSING PROTECTIONS.

THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE THE OUTCOME OF OUTREACH AND WORK DONE BY A SHORT-TERM AD HOC COMMITTEE THAT WAS FORMED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024.

UH, THAT SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS AND KOENIG, UH, CHAMPION THAT CAUSE AND THE WORK HAS BEEN, I WOULD SAY, INCREDIBLY, UM, BENEFICIAL AND TREMENDOUS IN THE COMMUNITY AND FOR STAFF.

SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

BEYOND THAT, UM, STAFF HAS ALSO WORKED VERY DILIGENTLY TO BRING THESE AMENDMENTS AND KIND OF GET THIS TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE READY TO PRESENT IT TO YOU.

SO, WITH THAT, WITH NO FURTHER ADO, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO FERNANDA.

- GOOD AFTERNOON.

FOR TODAY'S AGENDA, UM, WE WILL GO OVER SOME BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, UM, AFTER I FOLLOWED BY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, A REPORT BACK WITH OPTIONS FOR A HOTEL OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS AND PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, WHILE BALANCING THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FORMED THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2024.

THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS TASKED WITH MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND DRAFTING REVISIONS TO THE COUNTY'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS ISSUES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, COOPERATION OF HOSTING PLATFORMS, SATURATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS, AND TENANT PROTECTIONS.

OH, SORRY.

UM, ON MARCH 11TH, 2025 THE SUBCOMMITTEE PRESENTED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH INCLUDED DIRECTING CDI STAFF TO PROCESS THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS, PRESENT THEM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD, AND RETURN TO THE BOARD WITH A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE AMENDMENTS.

ADDITIONALLY, THE BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO REPORT BACK WITH OPTIONS FOR A HOTEL OVERLAY DISTRICT TO FACILITATE EXPANSION AND ESTABLISHMENTS OF HOTELS, AND TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE IMPACT OF ALLOWING RESIDENTS TO MOVE INTO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, OR ADUS.

ON MAY 14TH, 2025, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOOK ACTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE HOSTED AND VACATION RENTAL ORDINANCES AND ADOPT THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE WITH MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

UM, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROPOSES CONSOLIDATION AND STREAMLINING OF THE HOSTED AND VACATION RENTAL ORDINANCES INTO THE SHORT TERM ORDINANCE.

[04:05:03]

AND BEFORE I CONTINUE, I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION THAT VACATION RENTAL PERMITS WERE RENAMED AS NON-HOSTED RENTAL PERMITS.

AS A REMINDER, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMITS.

A NON-HOSTED RENTAL PERMIT ALLOWS FOR THE RENTAL OF AN ENTIRE PROPERTY FOR PERIODS OF 30 DAYS OR LESS.

A HOSTED RENTAL ALLOWS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF BEDROOMS AND A DWELLING THAT IS OCCUPIED BY A LONG-TERM RESIDENT WHO ACTS AS A HOST.

OTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGES PROPOSED INCLUDE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF A HOSTED RENTAL PERMIT TO ALLOW RENTAL OF UP TO THREE BEDROOMS. AND NOW PROPERTIES WITH JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OR JADUS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OR IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER LIVES ON THE PROPERTY.

I'M SORRY, KEEP GOING. TOO FAST.

UM, A LIMITATION OF ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT PER PERSON, ENTITY, OR PARCEL IS ALSO PROPOSED.

AND STARTING ON JANUARY 1ST, 2026, A REDUCTION OF UP TO 10 PERMITS PER YEAR OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITHIN THE DESIGNATED AREAS IF THERE ARE UNUSED PERMITS AVAILABLE.

UH, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ALSO INCLUDES A PROVISION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW COUNTYWIDE CAP OF 270 NON-HOSTED RENTAL PERMITS.

UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, EXCEPT FOR THE THREE DESIGNATED AREAS, THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF NON-HOSTED RENTAL PERMITS THAT CAN BE ISSUED THROUGHOUT THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY.

AS A REMINDER, THERE ARE THREE DESIGNATED AREAS AND THEY ARE THE LIVE OAK DESIGNATED AREA, THE SEACLIFF, APTOS, LA SALVA BEACH DESIGNATED AREA, AND THE DAVENPORT SWANTON DESIGNATED AREA.

AND THE ON SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT LIMITS FOR EACH AREA.

STRICTER PROVISIONS WITHIN THE DESIGNATED AREAS ARE ALSO PROPOSED.

A NEW NON-HOSTED RENTAL PERMIT WOULD NOT BE ISSUED IF IT RESULTS IN ANOTHER PARCEL BEING ADJACENT TO TWO OR TO MORE THAN TWO PARCELS WITH PERMITS.

AND CONCENTRATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS WILL BE LIMITED TO 20% PER BLOCK.

ADDITIONALLY, THE CAP FOR NON-HOSTED PERMITS WITHIN SALSDA WILL BE REDUCED TO 147.

THE PROPOSED REVISIONS ALSO INCLUDE A CLARIFICATION OF AN EXCEPTION ZONE WITHIN SALSDA.

TO EXPLICITLY STATE THAT STREETS AND ROADS SPECIFIED IN THE CODE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO EITHER COUNTYWIDE OR SALSDA CAP OR BLOCK LIMITS.

NEW ENHANCED TENANT PROTECTIONS ARE ALSO PROPOSED SUCH THAT IF A NEW SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WOULD BE- WOULD REQUIRE THE EVICTION OF AN EXISTING TENANT, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY THE LESSEE SIX MONTHS OF THE DWELLING'S ACTUAL RENT AT THE TIME OF EVICTION.

AN IMPLEMENTATION OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL HOTLINE IS ALSO PROPOSED.

UH, IT WILL SERVE AS A CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR RECEIVING AND ADDRESSING COMPLAINTS OR INQUIRIES RELATED TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, AND ENSURE TIMELY RESPONSES TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE.

ALL SHORT TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DISPLAY A SIGN THAT INCLUDES THE COUNTY'S HOTLINE NUMBER.

THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE INCLUDES PROVISIONS ALLOWING PROPERTIES WITH ADUS TO OBTAIN A HOSTED RENTAL PERMIT.

AS A RESULT, AT THE MARCH 11TH BOARD PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THE BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE IMPACT OF ALLOWING RESIDENTS TO MOVE INTO ADUS AND CONVERT THE MAIN UNIT INTO SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

HOWEVER, DUE TO INCONSISTENCIES WITH POLICY BE-2.5.2 OF THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE RECENTLY ADOPTED ADU ORDINANCE, THE PROVISION WAS REMOVED FROM THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

[04:10:11]

- THANK YOU, FERNANDA.

I'M GOING TO TAKE THE SLIDE ABOUT OUR HOTEL COMBINING DISTRICT AND TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UH, A VERY IMPORTANT ITEM THAT WAS A REFERRAL FROM THE BOARD.

SO AS YOU'RE AWARE, AND YOU HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BEGINNING HERE, UM, ONE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIRECTED STAFF UH, PROGRAMS WAS TO REPORT BACK WITH OPTIONS FOR A HOTEL OVERLAY ZONE OR DISTRICT THAT WOULD FACILITATE THE EXPANSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF HOTELS, INCLUDING IN AREAS OUTSIDE THE USL, THE URBAN SERVICE LINE, WHICH WOULD BE VERY NEW FOR THIS COUNTY.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY'S HOTEL MARKET HAS SHOWN SOME MODERATE GROWTH.

BUT IT'S CHARACTERIZED BY AN AGING INVENTORY.

UH, NEARLY TWO-THIRDS OF THE EXISTING ROOMS ARE BUILT IN THE 80S.

AND WE'RE SEEING LIMITED NEW DEVELOPMENT OVERALL AS WELL.

SO, UH, IN FACT, AS OF MAY, 2025, UH, THE COUNTY HAD 4,438, UH, HOTEL ROOMS ACROSS 88 PROPERTIES.

BUT ONLY 155 ROOMS ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

SO THERE'S A NEED FOR MODERNIZATION AND YOU CAN SEE WITH THESE NUMBERS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF OUT OF BALANCE HERE.

BUT, UH, DESPITE THE CHALLENGES AND DEMAND INDICATORS HAVE IMPROVED, YOU KNOW, THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY ROSE TO 65.5% AND THE 12 MONTH AVERAGE OF DAILY ROOM RATE, ADR REACHED 181 POINT OR $181 AND 58 CENTS.

WHICH IS KIND OF UP FROM THE PANDEMIC LOWS AND SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE PRE-COVID LEVELS.

SO, THE PERFORMANCE TRENDS SUGGEST SUSTAINED VISITOR INTEREST BUT ALSO REFLECT CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS THAT LIMIT BOTH GROWTH AND REVENUE POTENTIAL.

SO TO ADDRESS THIS, UH, THE CEO'S OFFICE AND CDI STAFF HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS MULTIFACETED PROGRAM, IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS WORKING WITH, UH, OPTIONS THAT CAN SUPPORT HOTELS, AND WE'VE GOT FOUR SORT OF IDEAS HERE THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.

ONE WOULD BE A HOTEL COMBINING DISTRICT.

THIS WOULD BE A ZONING OVERLAY.

UH, THIS WOULD PROVIDE FOR STREAMLINED PERMITTING WITHIN THAT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT OR PERHAPS A, A REDUCED PERMIT APPROVAL LEVEL FOR A STO- HIT- A HOTEL EXPANSION AND ALLOWING SUCH EXPANSIONS IF THEY HAVE WATER AND SEWER OR WASTEWATER SERVICES AVAILABLE.

UM, EVEN IF THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE USL.

THAT'S ONE WAY- ONE THING WE'RE LOOKING AT.

ANOTHER ONE IS, UH, UTILIZATION OF SORT OF A TOT SHARING PROGRAM.

UH, THIS WOULD ALLOCATE A PORTION OF FUTURE TOT REVENUE TO OFFSET DEVELOPMENT COSTS THAT ARE REDUCED FINANCIAL RISK OR FUND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DIRECTLY RELATED TO A PROPOSED HOTEL PROJECT.

ALSO, ANOTHER IDEA IS IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT.

THIS WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, UH, AND COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICTS.

THIS WOULD OFFER FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS, UH, TO FUND ROADS AND SEWER AND UPGRADES TO UTILITY AND EXTENSIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THE LAST ONE IS LOOKING AT A SPECIFIC AREA.

IT'S AN UPDATE TO THE SEACLIFF VILLAGE PLAN.

UH, AND THIS WOULD SUPPORT REDEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA AND ADDRESS SORT OF AGING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THAT AREA THAT'S NEEDED AND, AND THE COMMUNITY'S ASKING FOR.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE FOUR THINGS AND, UH, STAFF'S GONNA RETURN TO THE BOARD, UH, IN SOMETIME THIS FALL AS SOON AS WE'RE DONE GOING THROUGH THE OPTIONS HERE.

AND WE'LL PROVIDE YOU A FORMAL UPDATE ON THE RECOMMENDED, UH, PROGRAM AND APPROACHES.

SO, WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO FERNANDA TO WRAP UP THE PRESENTATION.

- IN CLOSING, UM, HERE'S A SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR THIS ITEM IS AS, UM, TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CODE, ADOPT RESOLUTION FINDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND EXEMPT FROM CEQA, APPROVE IN CONCEPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY CODE, DIRECT THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO PUBLISH AND POST A NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE SUMMARY, AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO SCHEDULE AN ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL ADOPTION ON AUGUST 19TH, 2025.

AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

UM, I'M GONNA START OFF BY TURNING THIS OVER TO THE PUBLIC TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. PLEASE STEP FORWARD, SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.

- HI. MY NAME'S MARCELLA HALL.

[04:15:04]

I'M A RESIDENT OF THE LIVE OAK DISTRICT AREA SINCE 1981.

SO WE GOT HERE BEFORE VACATION RENTALS FOR CONCEPT.

WE HAVE WORKED FOR AND SUPPORTED A VACATION RENTAL ORDINANCE SINCE THAT INDUSTRY WAS STARTED IN OUR AREA ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO.

EXCUSE ME.

AND I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE REVISIONS TO THE ORDINANCE, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE CENTRALIZED REPORTING POINT, UH, FOR HANDLING PROBLEMS. THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED LIVING NEXT TO A VIRTUAL HOTEL.

UH, WHEN WE HAD, UH, NOISE PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, LATE AT NIGHT, CALLED THE NUMBER THAT WE WERE TOLD WOULD BE A VALID NUMBER TO CALL IN CASE OF PROBLEMS AND TO FIND OUT THAT THE MANAGEMENT HAD CHANGED OR THAT COMPANY WAS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE.

NEXT DAY, WE WOULD GO OVER AND LOOK AT THE SIGN AND THE OLD NUMBER THAT WE CALLED WAS STILL POSTED.

SO HAVING THAT CENTRAL POINT, I, I WISH WE'D THOUGHT OF IT YEARS AGO.

I THINK IT'S GREAT.

UM, NOT ONLY WOULD IT MAKE IT EASIER, UH, I THINK IT WOULD ALSO ENABLE BETTER STATISTICS TO BE ACCUMULATED ON THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE ACTUALLY CAUSED BY SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

AND, UH, IN OUR EXPERIENCE, IT'S NOT THE HOSTED RENTALS, THERE ARE A COUPLE IN OUR AREA, BUT IT'S MAINLY, UH, THE UNHOSTED VIRTUAL ONES.

UM, ALSO, FINALLY, UH, THIS, THESE CHANGES WILL LEAD TO BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODES THAT ARE ON ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

- THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING THIS, SO...

- WELCOME.

- HI, MY NAME IS GABRIEL KLEIN, AND I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE COUNTY FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS NOW.

I'M A HUSBAND, A FATHER.

UM, OUR SON'S ABOUT TO START AT SHORELINE ON THURSDAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND, UH, I WAS AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR MANY YEARS AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTY.

UM, IN 2011, MY WIFE AND I WERE ABLE TO SCRAPE TOGETHER ENOUGH MONEY AND AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE HERE, UM, BARELY AND HAVE TRY TO STAY IN IT AS BEST WE CAN AND MAKE THE MOST OF, OF BEING ABLE TO LIVE IN THIS COUNTY AND SUPPORT THAT LIFESTYLE.

UH, SINCE 2016, WE HAVE WELCOMED HUNDREDS OF GUESTS INTO OUR HOME UNDER THE HOSTED RENTAL PERMIT.

AND, UM, I NOW HELP THREE OTHER LOCAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS HOST THEIR PROPERTIES AS WELL.

SO WHAT STARTED OUT AS A SIDE HUSTLE TURNED INTO A CAREER FOR ME IN A WAY THAT WE CAN STAY IN THE COUNTY.

WE KNOW THAT THE COUNTY'S BUDGET IS TIGHT, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S FEDERAL ISSUES, UM, THAT WE'RE ALL DEALING WITH.

THAT'S ANOTHER REASON THAT I, I WANT TO SUPPORT REASONABLE LOCAL HOSTS IN HOSTING.

UM, WHEN PRIMARY RESIDENTS OFFER THEIR HOMES WHILE WE'RE AWAY, WE'RE GENERATING SIGNIFICANT TOT REVENUE AND BRINGING VALUABLE TOURIST DOLLARS TO THE COMMUNITY.

UM, I WANNA BE CLEAR, I FULLY SUPPORT OF YOUR LIMITS ON PURE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AS A MEAN TO PROTECT HOUSING AND TO ASSURE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE LOCAL.

UM, POSTING PLATFORMS MUST ALSO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR LISTING ONLY LEGAL RENTAL.

I ALSO, UM, WELCOME REPORTING NUMBERS AND PERIODIC INSPECTIONS, ESPECIALLY, UH, TIED TO NEW PERMITS AND PERMIT RENEWALS.

I THINK THAT STRONG, LIKE RESPONSIBLE HOSTS ARE WELCOME TO THAT.

THEY DON'T WANNA BE IN THE WAY OF THAT.

UM, I STRONGLY URGE THE, THE, THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED PLAN AND CONSIDER SOME SORT OF A TIERED STRUCTURE LIKE LOS ANGELES OR SANTA CRUZ COUNTIES THAT THEY'VE ADOPTED.

THE TIERS WOULD LET PRIMARY RESIDENTS FOCUS AND LIMIT, UM, THE SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS.

UM, I ALSO THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW ADUS AND JDUS TO BE USED IF THEY'RE NOT IMPACTING FOR THE PEOPLE.

NOT TO RENT THEM, BUT FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN WHILE THEY'RE DOING SHORT TERM RENTALS, UM, IF THEY NEED TO.

- SORRY THAT WENT FAST.

SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE, UM, IS THERE ANYONE, ANY CALLERS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK? - I SEE NO SPEAKERS ONLINE.

UM, SO NOW I'M GONNA TURN IT BACK TO BOARD MEMBERS, AND, UM, MAYBE START ON MY FAR RIGHT WITH SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

UM, SO THIS IS A HEARING TODAY.

ARE WE VOTING TODAY ON THIS? YES, WE ARE. OKAY.

UM, OKAY, SO I HAVE- I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND I'M SORRY IF I'M STEALING ANYBODY ELSE'S THUNDER OR WHATEVER.

I KNOW MANU AND, UM, JUSTIN WORKED ON THIS TOGETHER, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I KNOW THIS WAS A LOT OF WORK

[04:20:01]

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS, UM, GOING INTO IT.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED AND- ABOUT, UM, SINCE TAKING OFFICE IS SORT OF, UM, OUR, UM, OUR BUDGET, OUR GENERAL REVENUE, UH, IS NOT GREAT.

WE HAVE THE LOWEST, UM, TAX, PROPERTY TAX, UM, RETURN.

WE'RE FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM OF 58 STATES.

AND SO TO DO ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT WOULD, UM, LIMIT ANY INCOME COMING INTO THE COUNTY TO ME IS A DIFFICULT THING TO SWALLOW DOWN.

UM, HAVING SAID THAT, I DO UNDERSTAND, UM, MANY OF THE REASONS WHY THE TWO OF YOU WANTED TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS, BUT, UM, BUT I'M GONNA ASK SOME QUESTIONS.

SO DO WE HAVE, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT THE LOSS OF REVENUE MIGHT BE TO THE COUNTY? 'CAUSE I HAVE THE NUMBERS ABOUT WHAT WE MADE, UM, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 24-25, IT LOOKS LIKE WE RECEIVED, UH, JUST OVER 9 MILLION- 9.3 MILLION IN PAYMENTS FROM SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON TOT AND HOTEL WAS 4.6.

SO WITH THE PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN SHORT-TERM RENTALS, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THAT WILL IMPACT THE MONEY THAT WE'VE SEEN, UH, IN PRIOR YEARS? - NO, I DON'T THINK WE DO.

WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT KIND OF FISCAL ANALYSIS FOR THIS.

- OKAY. WELL...

IF I COULD RESPOND.

I MEAN, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY REMOVING ANYONE'S PERMITS. RIGHT? THAT WAS SORT OF FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR APPROACH HERE IS HONESTLY TO TRY TO, TO MAKE THIS A REVISION, BUT NOT AN OVERHAUL AS FAR AS THE PERMITTING STRUCTURE AND, AND NOT TO CREATE SOME- ANYTHING WHERE WE STARTED YANKING PEOPLE'S PERMITS AWAY.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE HAVE MADE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS, UM, IN TURNING, UM, THESE HOMES INTO VACATION RENTALS.

AND, AND BELIEVE ME, THERE ARE DEFINITELY CASES WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST LET PERMITS AGE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE THERE'S A, PARTICULARLY, WHERE THERE'S A VERY HIGH DENSITY OF VACATION RENTALS.

BUT WE, WE DID STOP SHORT OF THAT.

UM, YOU KNOW, BOTH AT COUNTY COUNCIL'S SUGGESTION, UM, AND ALSO, I MEAN, BECAUSE THAT THAT DOES, UM, YOU KNOW, START TO PRESENT CHALLENGES, AND PEOPLE HAVE MADE THESE INVESTMENTS.

BUT, BUT ALSO BECAUSE, UM, AS YOU POINT OUT, IT'S A CONSIDERATION FOR COUNTY REVENUE.

SO I THINK, YEAH, MAYBE YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO RTO, OUR TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES WON'T GROW AS QUICKLY POTENTIALLY AS THEY WOULD.

UM, ALTHOUGH GIVEN THE OCCUPANCY NUMBERS, THAT MIGHT EVEN BE HARD TO JUSTIFY.

I MEAN, OUR LATEST REPORTS FROM, UM, VISIT SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SHOW AN OCCUPANCY RATE DOWN IN THE FORTIES FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS.

I THINK IT'S LIKE 46%.

SO THERE'S CLEARLY ENOUGH CAPACITY THERE.

UM, HOTELS, IT'S LESS, IT'S MORE LIKE WE WERE AT A 75% OCCUPANCY RATE, UH, IN JUNE.

SO, UM, SO I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THIS AS, AS HAVING A MAJOR IMPACT ON OUR REVENUES, AND I CERTAINLY SHARE THAT AS A CONCERN, IN GENERAL WITH YOU.

- OKAY. THANK YOU.

BECAUSE WHAT, AND THIS IS SORT OF A COM- MORE COMPLEX MATTER THAN, UM, THAN I'VE REALLY BEEN ABLE TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND.

SO, I'M SORRY FOR SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, BUT WHAT I HAD HEARD IN THE PRESENTATION IS THAT LIKE IN MY AREA THERE ARE 241 NON-HOSTED RENTALS AND THAT IS GOING TO BE REDUCED TO 147.

AND, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE, AND I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS, SOMETHING LIKE IF, IF THE- IF THE RENTAL- IF THE RENTAL ISN'T USED, LIKE IF THEY HAVE A PERMIT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE A REDUCTION OF 10 PER AREA, PER YEAR.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.

- UH, THAT'S CORRECT.

- SO HELP, HELP ME- HELP THE PUBLIC TOO, BECAUSE IF I'M HAVING A HARD TIME, AND I'VE REWRITE IT SEVERAL TIMES, I THINK THE PUBLIC PROBABLY NEEDS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND.

SO, AS SIMPLY AS POSSIBLE, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN, AND THE ONE THING THAT DRIVES EVERYBODY CRAZY INCLUDING ME, IS WHEN PEOPLE USE, UM, INITIALS OR ACRONYMS, IF YOU COULD JUST SAY WHAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF TOT ACTUALLY SAY TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU.

- SO, THE PERMIT LIMIT WITHIN THIS SEACLIFF APTOS LAS ALVA BEACH DESIGNATED AREA, UM, WE ARE PROPOSING A REDUCTION.

HOWEVER, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PURPLE AREAS OF WHAT IS WITHIN SALSDA, UM, THERE'S A CLARIFICATION THAT WITHIN THOSE AREAS THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF PERMITS THAT CAN BE ISSUED.

- AND AS ARE THE OCEANFRONT PROPERTIES, I'M GUESSING, THAT HAMBLIN'S DRIVE AND UP ON THE BLUFF?

[04:25:02]

- YEAH. CORRECT.

THAT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY USED FOR VACATION RENTALS.

SO IN ONE WAY, YES, THERE IS A, A, A REDUCTION.

THE IDEA BEHIND THE REDUCTION IS THAT, UM, CURRENTLY THERE ARE ABOUT 94 PERMITS THAT ARE ISSUED WITHIN THAT EXCEPTION ZONE.

AND IF WE WERE TO THEN MAKE THOSE 94 PERMITS AVAILABLE WITHIN SALSDA, IT WOULD CREATE, UM, UH, SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PERMIT AVAILABILITY.

AND SO TO EVEN IT OUT, THAT'S WHERE THE REDUCTION COMES FROM.

IT'S THE CURRENT LIMIT OF 241, UM, MINUS THE 94 PERMITS THAT EXIST WITHIN SALSDA.

SO IN ESSENCE, THE, THE, THE LIMIT WITHIN IT WOULDN'T BE AS- IT'S NOT AS IMPACTED AS IT SEEMS. - OKAY. WELL, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION NONETHELESS.

UM, HOW MANY PERMITS DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON A WAIT LIST? DO WE KNOW? - UH, I CAN CHECK.

- BECAUSE I THINK I LOOKED AT IT ONLINE AND IT LOOKED LIKE 49 BUT I HAVE NO IDEA.

AND I THINK WE'VE TRIED TO ASK, UM, AND WE, WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS YET, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS IF THEY'VE BEEN HOLDING FOR YEARS OR.

- THERE ARE 75, UM, FOLKS ON, THERE'S A WAIT LIST OF 75.

UM, THERE, A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH THE BLOCK CAPACITY AS WELL.

- SURE.

- UM, SINCE THERE ARE DESIGNATED BLOCKS, THERE ARE BLOCKS WITHIN THE DESIGNATED AREAS WHICH ARE LIMITED TO A 20% CAPACITY.

SO THAT BLOCKS DON'T GET OVERRUN BY VACATION RENTALS OR SHORT-TERM RENTALS PERMITS.

UM, I CAN'T OFFHAND SPEAK TO HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN ON THE WAIT LIST, UNFORTUNATELY.

UH, SOME MAY HAVE BEEN FOR A YEAR OR TWO.

- SO THIS IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRACKING, I THINK.

UM, SO DO LIKE, OF ALL, OF, JUST LIKE COUNTYWIDE OF ALL OF THE, THE VACATION RENTALS THAT ARE PERMITTED, ARE WE CERTAIN THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY USING THOSE PERMITS AND RENTING OUT? - THE ONLY TIME THAT WE CAN CHECK IS WHEN THEY SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL.

AT THAT TIME, WE REQUEST THAT THEY PROVIDE, UH, A HISTORY OF HOW MUCH THEY, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

THERE IS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, AND IF THE PROPERTY, THE PERMIT OWNER DOES NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, THEY CANNOT RENEW THEIR PERMIT.

- OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT REALLY TRACKING HOW MUCH EACH SINGULAR VACATION RENTAL IS BEING.

- WE ONLY HAVE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

- BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TRACK THAT THROUGH TOT, RIGHT? - MM-HMM. - OKAY.

SO WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TRACK THESE THINGS, OR WE JUST- - UM, WELL, THE, THE, EACH PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR FIVE YEARS SO WITHIN THAT FIVE YEARS, THE PERMIT OWNER HAS THE ABILITY TO USE IT TO HOW MUCH THEY WOULD LIKE, AND THEN WITHIN IN THAT, IT WOULD, SO WE ONLY CHECK IT FIVE YEARS.

BUT YES, THERE IS ALSO, UM, STAFFING THAT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT TO KEEP TABS ON.

I MEAN, I THINK, UH, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF 800 TOTAL OUT OF 845 ISSUED PERMITS, UM, AND ABOUT TWO STAFF MEMBERS TAKING CARE OF VACATION RENTALS OF SHORT TERM RENTAL.

SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE A CONSIDERABLE STRAIN.

- SURE. THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S A LOT OF WORK.

UM, AND THEN I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT HOSTED RENTALS.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE, WE CAP THIS COUNTY CAPS HOSTED RENTALS, AND THAT SEEMS LIKE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY.

WHY ARE WE CAPPING HOSTED RENTALS? THAT SHOULD BE COMPLETELY UNCAPPED IN MY MIND BECAUSE YOU'RE THERE IN THE HOUSE HOSTING SOMEBODY IN YOUR THIRD BEDROOM.

LIKE, YOU KNOW, THIS GENTLEMAN CAME UP AND TALKED ABOUT, LIKE, I HAVE A FRIEND WHO'S BEEN DOING THIS FOR, YOU KNOW, SINCE IT BEGAN.

AND SHE HOSTS PEOPLE ALL THE TIME FROM EUROPE AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE HAD SUCH A WONDERFUL- THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO A, MAKE ENDS MEET TO LIVE HERE IN SANTA CRUZ, AND THEN ALSO HAD A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE HOSTING PEOPLE.

SO I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WOULD WE WOULD EVER CAP A HOSTED RENTAL.

- THAT PROVISION WAS INCLUDED IN, IT'S, IT'S INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.

UM, I IMAGINE THAT THE REASONING BEHIND IT IS SIMILAR TO THE REASONING FOR WHY WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY A CAP FOR NON-HOSTED RENTALS.

UM, IN THIS COUNTY, THERE IS A LACK OF HOUSING, AND EVEN RENTING OUT ROOMS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT RESOURCE,

[04:30:04]

UM, FOR FOLKS OF LOWER INCOME.

- I CAN ALSO ADD TO, UM, THE COMMENTS BY STAFF.

CURRENTLY, WE HAVEN'T, UM, I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVEN REALLY CLOSE TO WHAT THAT CAP IS FOR HOSTED RENTALS IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING FOR THOSE PERMITS.

AND SO FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WE DECIDED, WELL, LET'S JUST KEEP THAT IN PLACE.

AND IF WE GET TO A POINT WHERE, UM, WE START REACHING THAT LIMIT THEN WE CAN REMOVE THE CAP.

BUT GIVEN THAT MANY PEOPLE AREN'T EVEN, UM, SEEKING OUT PERMITS FOR HOSTED, WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WE NEEDED TO ADDRESS AT THIS TIME BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM, AND WE'RE NOT EVEN COMING CLOSE TO THE CAP NUMBER RIGHT NOW.

AND THEN IN, IN THIS ORDINANCE, I DON'T, I, AND I COULD BE WRONG BECAUSE IT WAS VERY COMPLICATED BUT YOU KNOW, IN OTHER COUNTIES THEY HAVE, UM, UH, I THINK IT'S CALLED DIMINIMUS UM, PERMITTING, WHERE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE LIKE, IF LIKE A BIG EVENT IS HAPPENING AT PEBBLE BEACH OR LAGUNA SECA, THEY, THEY DON'T WANNA HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL NECESSARILY, BUT POTENTIALLY THEY WANNA BE ABLE TO RENT OUT THEIR HOMES FOR THAT WEEK OR, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN 20 DAYS.

DO WE HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT? IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US.

- THERE IS A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO RENT OUT THEIR HOUSE FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS, ONE TIME A YEAR, WITHOUT A PERMIT.

- OKAY. SO THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD.

- IT'S NOT...

- BUT WE'RE NOT PROBABLY CAPTURING TOT THEN ON THOSE RENTALS.

- NO. - RIGHT.

- BECAUSE IT'S A ONE-TIME-OFF SITUATION.

- OKAY. AND THEN FINALLY, YOU KNOW, I DO REALLY AGREE WITH TENANT PROTECTIONS, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE SIX MONTHS IS A LOT TO ASK, UH, A HOMEOWNER TO PAY OUT ON OR A NEW OWNER OF A HOUSE TO PAY SOMEBODY SIX MONTH RENTAL.

THAT'S, THAT COULD BE QUITE A LOT OF MONEY.

LIKE, I COULDN'T COME UP WITH THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO PAY SOMEBODY OUT, AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY IT'S IN PLACE, RIGHT? AS A DETERRENT.

BUT NONETHELESS, I FEEL LIKE MAYBE THREE OR FOUR MONTHS WOULD BE MORE HUMANE THAN SIX MONTHS, SO.

AND I THINK THAT IS FOR NOW, THE END OF MY COMMENTS.

- WELL, FIRST I JUST WANNA THANK, UM, SUPERVISOR KOENIG AND HIS OFFICE AND STAFF FOR WORKING WITH MY OFFICE AND OUR STAFF ON THIS.

UM, OBVIOUSLY IN SANTA CRUZ, HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE THE TWO, OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES, LIKE JUST ALONGSIDE HOMELESSNESS.

AND, UM, AND WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BEING DESIGNATED THE THIRD MOST EXPENSIVE RENTAL COMMUNITY IN THE NATION FOR THE THIRD YEAR IN A ROW.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, WHEN WE BEGAN THIS, IT REALLY WAS IN RESPONSE TO A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE'VE BEEN SEEING THIS HAPPENING ALL ACROSS THE STATE, IF NOT ALL OVER THE NATION AND IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE, UM, THE INTENT OF THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS WAS REALLY TO HELP SUPPORT PEOPLE WHO MAYBE, UM, ARE ABLE TO OFFER A ROOM IN THE HOUSE TO SOMEBODY WHO COULD, WHO'S COMING TO VISIT.

AND WHAT IT'S NOW EXPLODED INTO IS THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF, UM, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, UH, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, HELPING TO FURTHER MAKE HOUSING LESS ACCESSIBLE TO WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE.

UM, IT'S REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING THAT'S ON THE MARKET, UM, AND IS REALLY IMPACTING MANY COMMUNITIES, UM, THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE APPROACH THAT SUPERVISOR KOENIG AND I TOOK ON THIS WAS, UM, ONE WHERE WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO COMPROMISE THE DESIRE TO REDUCE, UM, SHORT-TERM RENTALS, ADDRESS SOME OF THE IMPACTS IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO HAVE BOUGHT THESE HOMES FOR THESE PURPOSES HAVE MADE SOME INVESTMENTS.

AND WHILE I THINK THAT I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US GO FURTHER, UM, THIS IS A, A STARTING POINT AND IT'S, AND HONESTLY IT'S A, IT WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND I THINK THAT'S PART- PARTLY WHY WE DON'T HAVE THIS ROOM FILLED WITH OPPONENTS, UH, ON EITHER SIDE HERE TODAY, UM, FLOWING OUT INTO THE HALLWAYS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE WERE ABLE TO REACH, UM, SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE THAT FOR FOLKS RIGHT NOW, UM, WE'RE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.

AND SO I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF ALL THE WORK THAT'S GONE ON, GONE INTO THIS, AND I REALLY WANNA THANK STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD WORK AND SUPPORT IN THIS.

IT WAS NOT EASY AND TOOK A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT I THINK THAT WHAT WE'VE GOTTEN TO TODAY IS A FIRST STEP, AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO REFINE THIS OVER TIME AFTER IT'S BEEN ADOPTED AND AS WE WATCH HOW THIS PLAYS OUT.

AND SO, UM, FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW WE CAN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT PERFECT, UM, AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO REFINE IT, BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD FIRST STEP

[04:35:01]

THAT MANY FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY, UM, ARE ON BOARD WITH.

- SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

- UH, THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UM, YEAH, I MEAN, WHAT INSPIRED ME TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS ORDINANCE WAS A NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT PROBABLY MORE THAN ANYTHING, HEARING FROM FOLKS WHO WERE READY.

WANTED TO BE FIRST-TIME HOME BUYERS, UH, BUT FOUND THEMSELVES CONTINUOUSLY BEAT OUT BY, UH, INVESTORS WHO ARE BUYING THOSE PROPERTIES AND TURNING THEM INTO SHORT-TERM RENTALS INSTEAD.

I MEAN, NOTHING'S MORE FRUSTRATING THAN BIDDING ON A HOUSE AND THEN, UH, LOSING THE BID, AND THEN THREE MONTHS LATER, YOU SEE A VACATION RENTAL SIGN GO UP.

I MEAN, LIKE, JUST THAT FEELING LIKE YOUR COMMUNITY'S ERODING AND THERE'S NOT A SPOT FOR YOU IS, IS TERRIBLE.

UM, AND SO THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL THING WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE.

UM, AND THERE WAS JUST THIS KIND OF, I THINK, NONSENSICAL ELEMENT IN OUR CODE, UM, THAT WE HAVE A FEW DEFINED AREAS WHERE THERE ARE LIMITS, AND THEN THE REST OF THE COUNTY COMPLETELY UNCHECKED GROWTH, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU COULD, SKY'S THE LIMIT.

UM, YOU KNOW, THEN KIND OF GOING DOWN THE LIST, THE NEXT THING, UH, TO ADDRESS IS JUST SORT OF THIS ISSUE OF COMPLAINTS.

AND WE HEARD IT TODAY, THE FACT THAT YOU COULD CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SIGN, NOT GET THROUGH ANYONE.

UM, YOU COULD CALL THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

MAYBE THEY, THEY, THEY COULD SEND A DEPUTY OUT, UM, FOR A NOISE COMPLAINT, BUT, YOU KNOW, OUR NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT A WARNING FIRST.

AND SO THEN, UH, THE GROUP WOULD BE WARNED, THERE WOULD NEVER BE A VIOLATION, THERE WOULD NEVER BE ANYTHING ON THE RECORD.

AND SO THEN THESE PERMITS WOULD COME UP FOR RENEWAL, AND WE BASICALLY HAVE NO RECORD OF ANY PROBLEMS. SO THAT WAS A, THAT WAS ANOTHER KIND OF LUMP OF ISSUES.

AND THEN I THINK THE FINAL THING IS THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WERE, UM, HAD THESE UNCAPPED OR LACK OF CAP ON, UH, NON-HOSTED RENTALS, BUT A CAP ON HOSTED RENTALS AND TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS THING THAT PEOPLE ARE, IN FACT, UM, MANAGING TO STAY IN OUR COMMUNITY, THANKS TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

NOW, UM, I THINK THAT THE REVISIONS IN FRONT OF US ADDRESSED TWO OUT OF THREE OF THOSE PRETTY WELL.

UM, AND RIGHT, WE'RE STOPPING THE UNCHECKED GROWTH OF VACATION RENTALS COUNTYWIDE, AND STOPPING THEM FROM ERODING OUR LONG-TERM HOUSING STOCK.

WE'VE CREATED A 24/7 HOTLINE THAT WILL BE A RESOURCE FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND SERVE AS A SINGLE SOURCE OF TRUTH FOR ISSUES.

UH, AND ACTUALLY REALLY IMPORTANTLY, WE'VE CREATED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HOSTING PLATFORMS FOR AIRBNB AND VRBO, AND WE SAID, HEY, YOU GUYS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WORK WITH UNPERMITTED RENTALS, PERIOD.

HARD STOP, AND WE CAN COME AFTER YOU IF YOU DO.

UM, SO THAT EFFECTIVELY CUTS OFF ACCESS TO, UH, THE ENTIRE MARKET FOR UNPERMITTED RENTALS.

THAT'S HUGE.

SO THOSE ARE SORT OF THREE REALLY FUNDAMENTAL THINGS THAT I THINK THIS ORDINANCE IS, IS DOING WELL.

UM, AND THAT I'M EXCITED ABOUT.

I DO STILL THINK THERE'S A BIT OF A QUESTION MARK AROUND THE HOSTED RENTAL PIECE.

UH, AND TO SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS' POINT, WE JUST, WE DIDN'T SEE IT AS THE MOST URGENT NEED TO RESOLVE BECAUSE THERE'S STILL CAPACITY IN THE CAP.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD SUGGESTIONS AROUND CREATING A DE MINIMIS PERMIT TYPE FOR 20 DAYS OR LESS.

UM, SO I MEAN, I, I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD CONSIDER, UM, AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY REMOVING THE CAP FOR HOSTED RENTALS.

I MEAN, THERE'S SORT OF A SET OF ISSUES THERE TO LOOK AT, UM, IN, IN ANOTHER PASS I THINK.

UM, YOU KNOW, ONE THING WE'D HAVE TO DO IN LOOKING AT THAT IS MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T CREATE A LOOPHOLE, RIGHT? UM, DO WE HAVE PROPER ENFORCEMENT TO ENSURE THAT A HOSTED RENTAL IS, IN FACT, A HOSTED RENTAL AND NOT AN NON-HOSTED RENTAL IN, YOU KNOW, WOLF AND SHEEP'S CLOTHING, SO TO SPEAK.

SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I WOULDN'T, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS GENERAL PACKAGE OF UPDATES NOW AND GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE HOSTED RENTAL OPTIONS A LITTLE BIT MORE IN- IN MORE DEPTH.

UM, YOU KNOW, SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS' POINT, THE, THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH THAT WE DID AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS, UH, SEEMS TO HAVE REALLY PAID OFF.

I MEAN, HONESTLY, I'M SHOCKED THAT THERE'S SO FEW PEOPLE HERE IN THE ROOM TODAY, AS WELL AS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND SO FORTH.

I MEAN, AND THAT TELLS ME THAT WE MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING RIGHT UH, IN SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS WE HAD EARLY ON WITH THE VACATION RENTAL MANAGERS, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, UH, AND WITH THE PLATFORM.

SO, UM, THAT'S, UH, WHERE I'M AT.

I DO- THE ONLY THING THAT I CAUGHT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY THAT SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF A MISINTERPRETATION IS, UH, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT, AT THE DENSITY PROVISIONS, UM, THIS ORDINANCE IN 1310694D4 LIMITATION ON PROXIMITY OF NON-HOSTED RENTALS.

IT SAYS THAT NO NEW PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED IF APPROVAL WOULD CAUSE A RESIDENTIAL ZONE PARCEL TO BE ADJACENT TO MORE THAN TWO PARCELS WITH ACTIVE NON-HOSTED RENTAL PERMITS.

THE IDEA HERE IS TO CREATE, UH, TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM BECOMING SURROUNDED BY VACATION RENTALS.

UH, AT THE SAME TIME, THEN THEY'RE, WE MEET THE BLOCK CAP, SO THEY CAN'T GET A VACATION RENTAL THEMSELVES.

THEY CAN'T SELL THEIR HOME 'CAUSE THEY'RE NOW SURROUNDED.

UM, I BELIEVE OUR ORIGINAL INTENTION WAS TO BE,

[04:40:01]

UM, UH, TO MAKE THAT, THAT IT, UM, NO NEW PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED IF ADJACENT TO TWO OR MORE, NOT MORE THAN TWO.

SO BASICALLY, IT CAN ONLY BE ADJACENT TO ONE VACATION RENTAL.

UM, SMALL DIFFERENCE.

BUT THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GETTING- YOU'RE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM HAVING A VACATION RENTAL EITHER ON EITHER SIDE OF THEM ON THE BLOCK, OR, UM, YOU KNOW, BOTH ACROSS FROM THEM AND BEHIND THEM.

UM, SO THAT'S THE ONLY, UH, CHANGE I'D SUGGEST IN THE CODE.

UM, BUT OTHERWISE, I'M PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY.

UM, I'M NOW GONNA PROCEED WITH MY QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

UM, I JUST REALLY WANNA START OFF BY THANKING SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS AND SUPERVISOR KOENIG FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.

UM, I THINK YOU'RE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB OF STRIKING THE BALANCE OF OUR, THE IMPORTANCE OF, YOU KNOW, TOT IN OUR REVENUE STREAMS AND OUR TOURISM INDUSTRY, AND ALSO OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHALLENGES IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SO I'M REALLY GLAD THAT YOU TOOK THIS ON 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT.

UM, AND I REALLY, I MEAN, I JUST, THERE'S SO MUCH IN WHAT YOU GUYS DID THAT I REALLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOUR CLEANING UP PROCESSES THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, NOT SO GREAT FOR EXISTING NEIGHBORS.

YOU'VE GOT TENANT PROTECTIONS, YOU'VE GOT THE HOTLINE, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST REALLY DID GOOD WORK.

SO IN, SO YOU KNOW, IN THE GREATER CONTEXT, I REALLY AM SUPPORTING THE DIRECTION THAT YOU'RE DOING.

I HAD SOME QUESTIONS.

THERE'S ONE THING THAT IS- I'M KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FOLKS WHO CURRENTLY HAVE A NON-HOSTED PERMIT, WHO AS LONG AS THEY'RE IN GOOD STANDING, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY CAN HAVE THEIR PERMIT RENEWED PRETTY MUCH INDEFINITELY.

AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU, AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT KIND OF THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH AND EQUITY AND KIND OF WHAT'S- WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS THAT LIKE THE, THE, THE WEALTHY ARE GONNA GET MORE WEALTHY, AND THE OTHER WEALTHY BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE HOMES, YOU'RE STILL WEALTHY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE KIND OF- YOU'RE KIND OF OUT.

AND SO DID, DID, HOW DID YOUR DISCUSSION GO ON THAT AND HOW DID YOU LAND ON WHERE YOU LANDED? - I MEAN, I THINK THIS GETS BACK TO, UH, JUST SORT OF THE LEGAL DEFENSIBILITY OF THE ORDINANCE.

I MEAN, I SORT OF AGREE FUNDAMENTALLY WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

UM, YOU KNOW, THE WAY ONE COMMITTEE MEMBER PUT IT TO ME, OR I THINK TO OUR SUBCOMMITTEE, WAS WE'RE KIND OF CREATING THESE TAXI MEDALLIONS, RIGHT? WHERE YOU GET ONE AND YOU HAVE IT FOREVER, AND IT'S WORTH A TON OF MONEY AND EVERYONE ELSE IS JUST KIND OF OUT OF LUCK.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THAT WITH NOT TAKING PEOPLE'S PERMITS AWAY AFTER THEY'VE MADE A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY.

SO, I MEAN, I WOULD ALSO INVITE COUNTY COUNCIL TO COMMENT ON THAT.

LIKE, I MEAN, COULD- DO WE- DO WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO, I MEAN, GRANTED, PEOPLE CAN SUE THE COUNTY FOR ANYTHING ANYTIME.

UM, AND WE, WE CERTAINLY SEE THAT.

BUT, UM, WOULD, DO YOU THINK THAT WE, UM, THAT IT'S PROBLEMATIC TO LET PERMITS SIMPLY EXPIRE AFTER FIVE YEARS, AND SAY AT THAT POINT, HEY, YOU HAVE TO GET BACK IN LINE TO RENEW A PERMIT? - NO, I'M NOT- I'M NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

THE, THE- THERE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE LAW OF INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS BUILT AROUND THE EXPECTATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY PURCHASE A PLACE.

BUT IF IT'S A REGULATORY TAKING VERSUS A PHYSICAL TAKING, UM, GENERALLY A PERSON NEEDS TO PROVE THAT ALL ECONOMIC VIABILITY, UM, OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN.

AND THAT'S NOT TAKING PLACE IF WE, AS IF YOUR BOARD AS A POLICY DECISION DECIDES TO ALLOW A PERMIT TO EXIST FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEN TAKE IT AWAY AND LET OTHER PEOPLE GET IN LINE AND DO IT.

A LOT OF THIS STUFF THAT YOU'RE, UM, ENGAGING IN RIGHT NOW ARE VERY POLICY-BASED, NOT, NOT CONSTRAINED SO MUCH LEGALLY.

- I COULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UM, AGAIN, THIS WAS KIND OF A FIRST PASS AT THIS AND PART OF WHAT WE THOUGHT IS THAT IF WE GRANDFATHER PEOPLE IN WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATIONS, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO KIND OF HAVE A PATH FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS ON MAKING THESE CHANGES.

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO REVISITING THIS IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GET PERMITS FOR X AMOUNT OF TIME, UM, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GIVE THOSE PERMITS UP BECAUSE I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHILE THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO USE THEM AS VACATION RENTALS, THEY STILL COULD USE THEM AS LONG-TERM RENTALS, AND AS LONG AS THERE'S SOME AGREEMENT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TENANTS THAT IT'S FOR, YOU KNOW, X AMOUNT OF TIME AND THAT'S BUILT INTO THE LEASE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO EXPLORE HAVING SHORTER DURATION, UM, UH, SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMITS.

AND IF IT'S A STIPULATION OF THE PERMIT ITSELF THAT, YOU KNOW,

[04:45:03]

YOU CAN GET THIS PERMIT FOR, WE'RE GONNA HAVE, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY A HUNDRED PERMITS WHERE YOU CAN ONLY USE IT FOR THREE YEARS AND THEN AFTER THAT YOU, UM, HAVE TO, UM, GIVE UP YOUR PERMIT.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION AS WE WANNA REFINE THIS.

UM, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS JUST KIND OF OUR FIRST STEP INTO, UM, THESE POLICIES AND FIGURING OUT, LIKE, WHAT CAN WE DO, UM, BASED ON THE, THE POLITICAL CLIMATE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

- NO, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I'M GLAD IT CAME UP.

UM, AND I THINK WHAT, YOU KNOW, I MAYBE WE CAN ASK IF YOU'RE AGREEABLE, ASK, UM, STAFF TO LOOK AT A PROCESS WHERE MAYBE IT'S A THREE TO FIVE YEAR PERMIT, LIKE A REAPPLY IF YOU'RE IN GOOD STANDING, COULD BE A LOTTERY.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DEMAND'S GONNA BE.

SO THIS LIKE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF IS A FIRST PASS.

UM, BUT THAT, THAT WOULD FEEL A LOT BETTER TO ME BECAUSE THEN WE'RE, YOU KNOW, FOLKS, YOU KNOW, YOU STILL GET THE GRANDFATHERED IN AND THAT, LIKE TODAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOSE YOUR PERMIT AND, YOU KNOW, REAPPLY.

BUT, SAY, LIKE, IN A PERIOD OF TIME IS WHEN YOUR PERMIT COMES BACK UP FOR RENEWAL, AND YOU'RE NOT GUARANTEED THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE ISSUED BASED ON DEMAND IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO IT GIVES, I GUESS, OTHER PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY AND KIND OF SHARE THE WEALTH AMONG THE WEALTHY FOLKS WHO HAVE THESE HOMES.

I AGREE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE HOSTED RENTALS ARE IN, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH DEMAND THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PERMITS FOR THEM TODAY.

BUT I DO SEE, YOU KNOW, FOR FOLKS IN MY DISTRICT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT MAY BE A WAY TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

YOU KNOW, IT'S- THE COST OF LIVING'S HIGH.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KIND OF AGING IN PLACE.

THEY'VE EITHER INHERITED THEIR HOUSES OR THEY'RE THERE.

AND I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE HOSTED RENTALS IF THAT'S WHAT HELPS PEOPLE STAY IN THEIR HOMES.

SO, UM, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE TO, I DON'T THINK CROSS THAT BRIDGE TODAY SINCE THERE'S NOT THAT DEMAND.

BUT I KIND OF WANNA SECOND THAT CONCERN.

UM, AND THEN, UM, YEAH, I GUESS I, I'M INTERESTED FROM THE COMMITTEE, UM, GIVEN THAT THIS IS A FIRST PASS.

I KNOW WE HAVE A FIRST READING TODAY.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE HAVING, YOU KNOW, THAT CHANGE IN THE NEXT, FIRST READING AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HAVING ANY, UH, ANOTHER CONVERSATION BEFORE SECOND READING, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHAT, WHAT WAS YOUR THOUGHT ABOUT THE TIMELINE OF YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE? WERE YOU GONNA CONTINUE TO MEET TO CLEAN THIS UP? LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WERE YOUR THOUGHTS SINCE YOU WERE CALLING IT A FIRST PASS? - I MEAN, I, I THINK ON OUR END, OR AT LEAST FOR MYSELF, UM, AND I ALSO WANNA PUT INTO THE CONTEXT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS STARTED OUT, WE HAD A VERY DIFFERENT BOARD.

AND SO THIS BOARD, THERE'S BEEN TURNOVER IN THE BOARD.

AND SO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE PREVIOUS BOARD WAS AT NOW, YOU KNOW, AND THE FACT THAT THIS WAS MOVING ALONG, YOU KNOW, WE, IT WASN'T CLEAR TO US WHERE THE- THE NEW BOARD WAS GONNA BE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T FIND OUT UNTIL NOVEMBER WHO THAT NEW BOARD WAS GONNA BE.

AND SO, AS A RESULT, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WERE PLANNING ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PACKAGE OF RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, WITH THE HOPES THAT WE WOULD GET THIS PASS AND THE ORDINANCE WILL BE UPDATED.

AND THEN THAT REALLY OPENS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY OF US TO WORK TOGETHER OR FOR AN OFFICE TO, YOU KNOW, UM, FIRST PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH ANOTHER SUPERVISOR IF THEY WANNA MAKE UPDATES AND CHANGES.

SO, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, MY INTENTION WAS TO REALLY TRY TO, ALONG WITH SUPERVISOR KOENIG, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE HAS A BUNCH OF THESE IN HIS DISTRICT, TO KIND OF SEE WHERE HE WAS AT AND BE SUPPORTIVE AND TRY TO WORK TOGETHER TO HAVE A PATH FORWARD.

AND I THINK, AGAIN, ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS IN THIS ROUND WERE, UM, COMMUNICATIONS, ENFORCEMENT, UM, AND THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO CAP ON NON-HOSTED RENTALS OUTSIDE OF THE, THE DISTRICTS, THE, UH, THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS.

SO, SO THERE'S, I MEAN, EVEN AFTER, IF WE HAVE A, IF WE PASS THE FIRST READING TODAY AND THE SECOND READING, AND THEN THIS GETS ADOPTED, THAT DOESN'T PREVENT ANOTHER SUPERVISOR OR A GROUP OF SUPERVISORS FROM INITIATING A NEW PROCESS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED TODAY.

- THANK YOU FOR, FOR THAT.

AND LIKE I SAID, THERE'S SO MUCH IN THIS THAT I LIKE, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA HOLD UP THE THINGS THAT I LIKE.

UM, MAYBE A QUESTION FOR COUNTY COUNCIL.

IS THERE A CONCERN THAT WE PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT KIND OF OUTLINES A PROCESS WHERE FOLKS CAN REAPPLY INDEFINITELY AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER CHANGE? AND IS THAT A TAKEAWAY IN ANY WAY THAT WOULD CAUSE A LEGAL CONCERN I GUESS.

- I, I, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. I'M SORRY.

CAN YOU TRY- CAN YOU REPHRASE IT? - YEAH. IF THE, THE PART THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS SORT OF AN ORDINANCE THAT GRANTS IN ALMOST AN INDEFINITE ACCESS

[04:50:01]

TO A PERMIT FOR OUR EXISTING PERMIT HOLDERS.

AND THEN MAKING THAT CHANGE IN, SAY, SIX MONTHS BECAUSE ANOTHER COMMITTEE COMES FORWARD WITH A LOTTERY APPROACH OR A FIVE YEAR LIMIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IS IT THEN CONSIDERED A TAKEAWAY? - IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE, THESE ISSUES ARE COMPLICATED, RIGHT? AND SO, AS SUPERVISOR, UM, KOENIG RAISED EARLIER ON, UM, THE DISCUSSION AROUND INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S A TRICKY ISSUE.

I, I DON'T... I MEAN, I CANNOT GUARANTEE THE BOARD THAT SOMEONE WOULD NOT COME AND- AND SUE US FOR A TAKE 'CAUSE PEOPLE CAN DO THAT EVERY DAY.

THEY CAN COME AND SUE US. RIGHT? BUT I'M NOT PARTICULARLY MOVED OR WORRIED BY THE IDEA THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT CONSTRAINT ON ANY BOARD'S POLICY, DISCRETION, RIGHT? TO REGULATE THINGS.

AND IT WOULD PREVENT A BOARD FROM ADOPTING YOU KNOW, A, A, A, A SCHEME LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE WORRIED THAT, WELL, WE CAN NEVER UNWIND IT AGAIN OR NEVER PLAY WITH IT AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING PEOPLE UNFETTERED DISCRETION TO, WE'RE LOCKED IN.

SO I'M, I'M NOT PARTICULARLY WORRIED ABOUT IT.

IF YOU, IF YOU WANTED, UH, IF THE BOARD DECIDED TODAY THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE SOME KIND OF CHANGES TO THIS AND WEREN'T PREPARED TO ADOPT IT TODAY, ALL I WOULD ASK IS THAT YOU GIVE STAFF SPECIFIC DIRECTION AS TO WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE NEXT VERSION, AND THEN STAFF WOULD BRING THAT, DO ITS BEST TO, UH, ACCOMMODATE THAT, AND THEN BRING THAT ON ANOTHER AGENDA.

UH, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE TODAY, UH, AT ALL IF THE BOARD DECIDES THAT THEY WANNA DO THAT.

- UH, ONE QUESTION.

SO I, THIS KIND OF GETS BACK TO WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION NEEDS TO REVIEW, UH, BEFORE IT COMES TO THE BOARD.

SO I DON'T THINK WE, LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SIGNIFICANTLY DISCUSSED, UM, THE IDEA OF RENEWALS, RIGHT? THAT, THAT SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ IS, IS RAISING.

UM, WOULD... SO IF WE WANTED TO INCLUDE OR, OR CONSIDER THAT, WOULD WE HAVE TO SEND THIS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THE RENEWAL QUESTION.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY MAYBE WITH SOME DIRECTION BEFORE THEN IT WOULD COME BACK TO US FOR A FIRST READ AGAIN.

- I AM, I'M UP TO BRING, RAISE ANOTHER POINT.

SO I'LL JASON, GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT.

- YEAH, I MEAN, I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THAT THERE'S A LINE WHAT IS THE MOST, MOST DEFENSIBLE, MOST CONSERVATIVE POSITION AND YOU KNOW, LESS FROM THERE.

AND SO IF YOU, IF YOU REALLY HAD CONCERNS THAT YOU WERE MAKING A BIG CHANGE, AND I'M NOT HEARING WHAT THE CHANGE IS EXACTLY YET, RIGHT? LIKE YOU MIGHT WANT TO INSTRUCT STAFF TO BRING IT BACK TO YOUR BOARD FOR MORE CONSIDERATION IN THE EXACT LANGUAGE THAT YOU WANNA SEE, AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER THAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH DEPARTURE, UM, THAT WOULD WARRANT IT GOING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

BUT IT PROBABLY WOULD BE INEFFICIENT AT THIS POINT FOR YOU TO JUST GIVE STAFF A CONCEPT TO TAKE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEN HAVE THAT WHOLE THING COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND IT'D BE UNCLEAR WHETHER YOU EVEN LIKED THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU JUST SENT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW.

SO, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT HELP? - YEAH, YEAH. NO, I MEAN, AND I HAVE A SUFFICIENT, I THINK, I COULD CERTAINLY PROPOSE WHAT THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE.

I MEAN, I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT, UM, UPON, UH, RENEWAL OR REVIEW TO, FOR A, A RENEWAL, THAT A, ALL THAT...

THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE APPLIES, RIGHT? SO I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DENSITY LIMITS WOULD CERTAINLY PROHIBIT SOME PEOPLE FROM GETTING RENEWED BECAUSE I MEAN, I COULD NAME A FEW SPOTS WHERE THERE'S FIVE VACATION RENTALS IN A CLUSTER, SO SOMEONE IS GONNA END UP BEING INELIGIBLE UPON RENEWAL.

UM, AND ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE THAT UPON RENEWAL YOU'LL, RATHER THAN SORT OF BEING PRESUMED TO FOR RENEWAL UNLESS THERE'S VIOLATIONS.

IF THERE'S A WAIT LIST, YOU'RE NOW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WAIT LIST RATHER THAN EFFECTIVELY AT THE TOP. RIGHT? - I JUST, I WANTED- STEPHANIE HANSEN, CDI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

I JUST WANTED TO RAISE ONE POINT, AND THAT IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE, RIGHT? A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE BEING ADDRESSED.

UM, WE'VE ALSO HAD...

THIS ORDINANCE HAS TO GO TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

OUR FAVORITE TOPIC OF THE DAY, IT SEEMS. UM, AND WE, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF GOOD COORDINATION WITH THEM.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING SOME GOOD CHANGES.

THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE OVERSTEPPING BOUNDARIES, BUT OFTEN WE HAVE A BIG ARGUMENT WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT WE CAN CHANGE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KEEP, UM, UH, UH, VISITOR ACCOMMODATIONS AVAILABLE.

SO, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD LOTS OF, UM, COORDINATION ALREADY THEY SEEM TO BE OKAY.

WE HAVEN'T TRIGGERED ANYTHING.

I WOULD JUST SUGGEST MAYBE WE LET THIS ORDINANCE GO THROUGH.

WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK LATER ON AND ADDRESS CAPS OR ADDRESS,

[04:55:04]

UM, UH, RENEWALS AND HAVE A, YOU KNOW, MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO LET THE GOOD THINGS THAT ARE IN THIS ORDINANCE MOVE, MOVE FORWARD SINCE WE SEEM TO BE SAILING PRETTY SMOOTHLY INTO THE COASTAL AREA.

SO I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT 'CAUSE WE HADN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT IT YET.

- TO THE CHAIR. IF I COULD MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT TOO, IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, PART OF WHAT ALSO HELPED US GET TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY IS THE AMOUNT OF, UH, COMMUNITY OUTREACH THAT HAD BEEN DONE.

AND THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMUNITY AWARENESS AROUND THE CHANGES THAT WE WERE MAKING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH, UM, THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY, WITH RESIDENTS ABOUT THE CHANGES WE WERE MAKING.

AND IF WE WERE TO DEPART AND, AND, UM, AND GO TO, UM, YOU KNOW, CREATING LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME PEOPLE COULD HAVE PERMITS, WHICH I'M NOT OPPOSED TO, I JUST THINK THAT THAT WOULD ALSO TRIGGER US NEEDING TO GO BACK TO THE PUBLIC TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT COULD BE A VERY HOT BUTTON ISSUE, AND WE'D REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT RATHER THAN TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, PUSH SOMETHING FORWARD TODAY THAT WE HAVE, UM, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPARENCY AROUND THESE NEW, UM, TOPICS THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT INTRODUCING.

AND SO I THINK, TO MS. HANSEN'S POINT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND READ, WELL, START THAT DISCUSSION AROUND SOME OF THESE OTHER CHANGES, UM, IT WOULD ALLOW US TO ACTUALLY HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE BECAUSE, UM, I THINK IT COULD, UM, REALLY UNDERMINE A LOT OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING TO GAIN PUBLIC TRUST.

IF THEY THINK THAT AT THE LAST MINUTE WE'RE NOW THROWING NEW THINGS IN AND TRYING TO, TO PASS THE ORDINANCE.

UM, SO THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE POINTS I WANNA RAISE AROUND THIS.

- YES. SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

- SO... AND I GUESS MAYBE IT'S JUST 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF MY SALSDA AREA ABOUT HOW THIS IS GONNA WORK.

'CAUSE WHEN I SEE A REDUCTION FROM 241 TO 147, RED- I MEAN, I HAVE RED FLAGS AND BELLS GOING OFF RIGHT NOW.

I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD SUPPORT THIS.

SO, I... CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN WHAT THIS IS GONNA MEAN FOR MY AREA? OR IS IT JUST THAT, THAT SIMPLE, LIKE A REDUCTION, A REDUCTION THAT BIG.

- CAN I, CAN I EXPLAIN, UM, JUST HOW I'M VIEWING IT TO MAYBE HELP AND, AND THE PLANNING STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

- YEAH. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS IS GONNA GO OVER WELL.

- SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S A CAP OF 241, AND I THINK THE 94 IS JUST WITHIN THE EXCLUSION ZONE.

SO WHEN THEY SUBTRACTED THE 94 PERMITS FOR THE NON-HOSTED RENTALS FROM THE 241, IT LEAVES 147 OUTSIDE THE NON-EXCLUSIVE ZONE.

SO YOU HAVE, SO THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO SEPARATE THE TWO.

SO IT SEEMS AS IF THERE ISN'T REALLY A REDUCTION.

IT'S JUST THEY'RE, THEY'RE DEFINING...

- NO, I THINK IS A REDUCTION. IS A REDUCTION. RIGHT? - WELL, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF THE RENTALS THAT EXIST TODAY.

AND WE'VE GOT THE MAP ON OUR SCREENS HERE. RIGHT? SO, UM, BASICALLY THE REALITY IS THE, THE, THE- A LARGE, I MEAN, WHAT... 94 OF THE UNITS ARE WITHIN THE PURPLE AREA, RIGHT? SO THERE'S A VERY HIGH CONCENTRATION AND THE WAY THAT WE'VE BEEN COUNTING TO 241, THE STAFF HAS BEEN COUNTING, UH, WHETHER WE OR NOT WE'RE AT THE LIMIT, IS TO INCLUDE BOTH EVERYTHING IN THE RED AREA AND IN THE PURPLE AREA.

UH, WHAT SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS AND I SAID WAS LIKE, WELL, HEY, IT'S AN EXCLUSION ZONE.

IT SHOULD BE AN EXCLUSION ZONE.

WE SHOULDN'T COUNT THE ONES IN THE PURPLE AREA AT ALL.

IF 100% OF THE- OF THE HOMES IN THE EXCLUSION AREA WANNA BE VACATION RENTALS.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT AN EXCLUSION AREA MEANS.

UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE TOOK THE TOTAL NUMBER, SUBTRACTED THEM OUT FROM THE TOTAL.

AND SO BASICALLY, EFFECTIVELY WHAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE HERE IS, UM, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE CLOSE TO LET'S JUST SAY WE'RE AT THE, THE, THE CAP TODAY.

YOU'RE BASICALLY NOT GONNA HAVE NEW VACATION RENTALS IN THE RED AREA AND IN THE PURPLE AREA.

PEOPLE BASICALLY, IF EVERY HOME THERE WANTED TO BECOME A VACATION RENTAL, THEY COULD.

UM, BUT NO ONE, AGAIN, NO ONE'S GONNA BE HAVING THEIR PERMIT REVOKED.

- HOW MANY DO I ACTUALLY HAVE IN SALSDA TOTAL? IS IT...

- UH, TODAY SO THERE ARE TO DATE, UM, UH, INCLUDING...

SO ISSUED THERE ARE 147.

UM, AND THEN THERE ARE 49TH ENDING VACATION RENTALS APPLICATIONS.

SO THE TOTAL NUMBER HERE IS, SORRY, IT'S IN MY NOTES.

SO, UH, NO WORRIES. I CAN'T FIND IT. OF COURSE.

UM, SO YEAH, SO CURRENTLY THERE ARE 148,

[05:00:02]

UM, ISSUED PERMITS WITHIN THE... SO, UH, 227 TOTAL.

SO THAT INCLUDES ISSUED AND PENDING PERMITS OUT OF THE 241.

AND SO THERE ARE 14 AVAILABLE THAT WILL BE, UM, GIVEN TO THE FOLKS WHO ARE ON THE WAIT LIST.

THOSE 79 FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN ON THE WAIT LIST ARE GOING TO, 14 OF THEM, WILL GAIN THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, APPLY.

ONCE OF COURSE, THEN ONCE THIS, UH, POST ORDINANCE IS IN PLACE, THEN THE NUMBER WOULD BE REDUCED TO 147.

- MAYBE I COULD ASK A QUESTION JUST BECAUSE, BECAUSE WE KEEP COMING BACK.

THIS IDEA OF REDUCING, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT IS, IS AN IMPEDIMENT FOR SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

SO IF, IF THERE WAS 250 VACATION RENTAL PERMITS BEFORE THIS ORDINANCE GOES INTO EFFECT, IS THERE STILL GONNA BE 250 VACATION RENTAL PERMITS AVAILABLE AFTER THIS ORDINANCE GOES INTO EFFECT? - OH, UM, SO I MEAN, TECHNICALLY IT IS A REDUCTION, RIGHT? SO THE THING IS, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE WAY THAT THE WHOLE, THE, THE 241 WAS INCLUDING THE EXCLUSION AREA.

UM, SO IN A WAY, IT'S A REDUCTION, BUT, AND ALSO IT'S ALLOWING FOR UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF PERMITS WITHIN THE REDUCTION AREA.

SO IT'S ALSO AN EXPANSION.

- IT, IT, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE JUST NOT COUNTING THE UNITS THAT ARE IN THE EXCLUSIONARY ZONE ANYMORE.

IT'S MORE OF A CODE CLEANUP THAN IT IS, UM, THAN IT IS A, UM, RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF VACATION RENTAL UNITS IN YOUR DISTRICT, SUPERVISOR, BUT NOW...

- YEAH. I'M STILL- IT'S STILL A LITTLE CONFUSING.

MAYBE STEPH CAN HELP ME.

BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS, I HAVEN'T TALKED TO A SINGLE CONSTITUENT ABOUT ANY OF THIS.

THAT, THAT HAS A STAKE HERE.

LIKE, AND NONE OF MY STAKEHOLDERS HAVE I HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH SO THAT'S WHY IT'S HARD FOR...

- WELL, THERE'S BEEN CERTAINLY GO TO, YOU KNOW, UM, HEARINGS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD.

SO I'M NOT SO WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER THE PUBLIC WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY HERE.

YOU'RE REALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT A REDUCTION.

WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS JUST NOT INCLUDING THE EXCLUSION AREA IN THE CAP.

IT MEANS, AND IF YOU REVERSE THAT, IF YOU INCLUDED THE EXCLUSION AREA IN THE CAP, YOU'D ACTUALLY BE, UH, POTENTIALLY PUTTING A CAP IN THE EXCLUSION AREA, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE ONE NOW.

DOES, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? - YEAH. - IT'S NOT.

TO SAY IT'S A REDUCTION IS, IS- GIVES THE WRONG PICTURE.

AND WE'RE SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION.

IT'S... FERNANDA AND I WENT OVER THIS MANY, MANY TIMES.

I'M LIKE, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN, BUT YOU'RE NOT, YOU WOULD NOT APPROVING ANY REDUCTION.

YOU'RE JUST APPROVING THE WAY WE COUNT TOWARD THE CAPS.

- OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SATISFIED WITH THAT.

- SO I, I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION.

UM, AND I, I LIKED WHERE YOU WERE GOING, SUPERVISOR KOENIG WITH LIKE, THE TWO POTENTIAL CHANGES.

UM, WELL, I GUESS IT'S JUST THAT THE CURRENT, UM, ORDINANCE WOULD APPLY UPON RENEWAL AND THAT ALSO IF THERE'S A WAIT LIST OR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WAIT LIST.

I AM... I GUESS, A LITTLE INDIFFERENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE MOVE THIS ONE FORWARD AND THEN ADD TO THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS THAT YOU COME BACK WITH CHANGES TO THAT EFFECT, UM, OR IF WE DEFER APPROVING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TODAY FOR FOLKS TO COME BACK WITH CHANGES TO THAT EFFECT.

UM, AS YOU KNOW, I HEARD SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS MENTION THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY, UM, AS WELL AS, UM, MS. HANSON AND THE CONCERN ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH, UH, THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

SO THAT'S WHERE I, I AM, I CAN BE FLEXIBLE.

UM, I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S A PATH FORWARD AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF AGREE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING TO COME BACK WITH A PLAN TO NOT GRANDFATHER PEOPLE IN INDEFINITELY.

- YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME REALLY GOOD STUFF IN HERE THAT WOULD, I WOULD ACTUALLY LOVE TO SEE IMPLEMENTED SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

AND I CAN DEFINITELY IMAGINE, UM, THAT IF WE EXPAND THE CONVERSATION, UH, TO SAY THAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT NOT GET A PERMIT UPON RENEWAL, THAT THAT IS GOING TO, UM, ABSOLUTELY GET SOME PEOPLE VERY CONCERNED.

[05:05:03]

UM, AND SO I THINK THAT IT...

WE SHOULD PROBABLY MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW, UM, AND THEN WE CAN EITHER, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING SUBCOMMITTEE, FORM A NEW SUBCOMMITTEE, WHICHEVER, UM, BOARD PREFERS TO LOOK AT.

UM, I THINK THE TWO AREAS OF THE POLICY REC- UH, SUGGESTED OR DISCUSSED HERE, UH, BY THE BOARD, WHICH WERE, UM, THE ISSUE OF RENEWALS UM, AND, UH, PREVENTING INDEFINITE RENEWALS, AND, UM, OR OUR PREFERENCE IN INDEFINITE RENEWALS, AND THEN, UH, SECOND, ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE HOSTED RENTAL PORTION OF THIS.

- SO, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A MOTION? - UM, OKAY.

- BUT CAN I, CAN I JUST SAY ONE MORE THING? SO, IN PLACER COUNTY, UM, AND THIS GOES TO, UM, WHAT MONICA'S TALKING ABOUT.

BUT IT WAS A WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE WHO HOLD AND WHO HOLD THESE PERMITS AND AREN'T ACTIVATING THEM, SO AREN'T USING THEM AT ALL.

UM, THEY REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 90 DAYS A YEAR OF RENTAL ACTIVITY TO AVOID, UM, PEOPLE FROM BLOCKING ACCESS FOR OTHERS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WOULD NEED TO BE TRACKED, BUT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD OPEN UP MORE PERMITS FOR PEOPLE.

AND SO THAT'S JUST AN IDEA TO PUT ON THE TABLE.

- HAVE A USE IT OR LOSE IT TYPE PROVISION IN THE...

- YES, BUT IT'S ONLY CHECKED AT TIME OF RENEWAL OF PERMIT RENEWAL.

- GOTCHA. OKAY.

UM, WELL, I GUESS THE ONE QUESTION BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION IS, UH, IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING SUBCOMMITTEE OR CREATE A NEW ONE? - I AM HAPPY TO STEP DOWN.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME INTEREST OF OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TO POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS ORDINANCE.

UM, SO I'D BE HAPPY TO, TO STEP DOWN.

UM, AND IF, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'D BE GOOD IF WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED TODAY, AND THEN IF A NEW SUBCOMMITTEE WANTS TO START UP I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF IDEAS HERE THAT ARE REALLY GOOD AROUND, YOU KNOW, UM, TIMING OF LIKE WHETHER PEOPLE SHOULD GET THESE INDEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, LOTTERY, UM, YOU HAVE TO USE LIKE MINIMUMS FOR, FOR, UH, VACATION RENTALS PER YEAR.

AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT, I MEAN, JUST LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS ORDINANCES THAT EXIST OUT THERE, I THINK MONTEREY COUNTY HAS ONE THAT'S ON THE COASTAL COMMISSION AGENDA FOR TOMORROW THAT ACTUALLY HAS SOME INTERESTING ASPECTS TO IT.

THERE'S SOME INTERESTING ASPECTS TO SOME OF THE...

UM, THIS IS ONE OF THE ORDINANCES DOWN IN NEW ORLEANS, WHICH THEY'VE BEEN REALLY TRYING TO GET RID OF VACATION RENTALS.

AND SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT MODELS WE CAN LOOK AT, AND I'M TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER THAT RECOMMENDATION RIGHT HERE IS, IS DEFINITELY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T...

WE SHOULD MAKE THE SAUSAGE ELSEWHERE AND, AND BRING IT BACK.

UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

AND IF THERE'S A DIRECTION FORMING A SUBCOMMITTEE, I MEAN, IT'S GONNA COME BACK TO YOU FOR A SECOND READING.

AND SO, WE COULD ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SUPERVISOR KOENIG AND I CAN THINK ABOUT DO WE WANNA CONTINUE OR WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AT THAT MEETING TO, YOU KNOW, SUNSET THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR IF FOLKS WANNA, IF THERE'S INTEREST TODAY AND PEOPLE WANT TO JOIN THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, I'M HAPPY TO STEP DOWN AS WELL.

- OKAY, WELL, I'LL JUST TAKE A CRACK AT THIS.

SO I'LL MOVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISION TO 13106294D4D TO STRIKE THE WORDS MORE THAN TWO, AND REPLACE THEM WITH TWO OR MORE.

SO THE SECTION NOW READS, NO NEW PERMITS SHALL BE ISSUED FOR APPROVAL, WOULD CAUSE A RESIDENTIAL ZONED PARCEL TO BE ADJACENT TO TWO OR MORE PARCELS WITH ACTIVE NON-HOSTED RENTAL PERMIT.

AND, UH, REAPPOINTING A SUBCOMMITTEE CONSISTING OF MYSELF AND SUPERVISOR DE SERPA, UM, TO LOOK AT ADDITIONAL, UH, CHANGES TO THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE IN THE FUTURE, UM, INCLUDING, UH, ISSUES OF RENEWAL AND HOSTED RENTAL PERMITS.

- I'LL SECOND.

- SORRY. THAT'S ME.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

UM, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? - CERTAINLY. SUPERVISOR DE SERPA. - AYE.

- CUMMINGS. - AYE.

- KOENIG. - AYE.

AND MARTINEZ. - AYE.

THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES.

UM, NOW WE'LL BE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11.

[11. Hold a Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) Hearing for the Cabrillo College/University of California, Santa Cruz Student Housing Project in connection with the proposed issuance of bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) in the amount of $190,000,000, and take related actions]

UM, ITEM NUMBER 11 IS TO HOLD A TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, TEFRA, HEARING FOR THE CABRILLO COLLEGE, UM, UCSC STUDENT HOUSING PROJECT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $190 MILLION AND TAKE RELATED ACTIONS.

SO FOR THIS ITEM, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO PETER DETLEFS, UH, PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST FOR THE PRESENTATION.