CONSIDERATION OF LATE ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA; ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS TO CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDAS

[7. Consider approving in concept an “Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 9.57 of the Santa Cruz County Code Relating to Abandoned, Wrecked, Dismantled or Inoperative Vehicles”, and take related actions]

FOR THE PRESENTATION. I READ THROUGH THAT MATERIAL AGAIN.

THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED. I SUPPOSE MY FIRST, I MEAN, THERE'S SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LOT.

SO IT'S PRETTY REASONABLE.

IT REALLY SEEMS PRETTY REASONABLE. BUT I SUPPOSE MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE A CITY OF SANTA CRUZ POLICE OFFICERS AND CITY OF SANTA CRUZ PUBLIC WORKS. WILL THE SANTA CRUZ SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BE CALLED OUT TO TICKET AND ARREST THOSE OFFICERS AND THOSE PUBLIC WORKS PEOPLE FOR NOT FOLLOWING THIS? I CERTAINLY HOPE SO BECAUSE I'VE HEARD AT LEAST 20 OR 30 HORROR STORIES OF, IT'S LIKE THE KEYSTONE'S COPS, WHO DO YOU TALK TO? OH, TALK TO THE POLICE. OH, TALK TO PUBLIC WORKS. SO THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ IS IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY. SO OVERALL, AFTER READING IT OVER, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE NOT REALLY THAT OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE'S SOME COMMUNICATION. THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT CAME IN WHO WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT HIS MOTORHOME PARKED IN FRONT OF A PROJECT THAT HE WAS WORKING ON, WENT ON VACATION FOR TWO WEEKS AND CAME BACK AND THE VEHICLE IS GONE. SO INTERESTING THINGS HAPPEN I MEAN, I SUPPOSE IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN TO ME AND THAT VEHICLE WERE JUST DESTROYED. I WOULD HOPE THERE'D BE REAL HELL TO PAY BUT AS FAR AS THE DIFFICULT SITUATION THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS BEING PUT INTO, THESE ARE ORDINANCES. I HAVEN'T EXTENSIVELY LOOKED TO SEE WHERE THESE ARE CALIFORNIA STATE LAWS, BUT I KNOW THE LAST TIME I COULDN'T FIND THEM, AND THESE ARE ALL ORDINANCES. THESE ARE NOT STATE LAWS. AND IT'S ONLY PEOPLE BEING THROWN UNDER THE BUS. MORE EMERGENCY RESPONDERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OR TEACHERS AND YOUTH. I MEAN EARLIER, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT TALKING ABOUT THOSE FLOCK CAMERAS, THE 27 DIFFERENT INTERSECTIONS. LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN REPLACED BY THE COMMERCIAL STREET LIGHTS AND SO WE NEED THEM TO ARREST THE CRIMINALS. THANK YOU.

- THANK YOU BECKY STEINBRUNER. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BACK TO THE BOARD. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TOWING A VEHICLE TO A TOW YARD WHERE IT'S GOING TO COST MAYBE $800 OR MORE

[00:40:03]

TO RETRIEVE IT IS REALLY GOING TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT I THINK WE REALLY WANT TO DO AND THAT'S TO GET THESE VEHICLES OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS BUT ALSO HELP THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STUCK IN THEM. I THINK THAT THE COUNTY LIKELY OWNS LAND THAT THESE VEHICLES COULD BE TAKEN TO, AND THE OWNERS WOULD NOT BE CHARGED EXORBITANT FEES, RANSOM MONEY IS WHAT IT IS, TO GET THEIR VEHICLES AND BE IN TEARS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WATCH IT BE, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE BE, DISMANTLED. I ASK THAT YOU REACH OUT TO THE FAITH-BASED COMMUNITY. I KNOW THERE IS A PARKING LOT IN APTOS AT RESURRECTION CHURCH. THEY DO ALLOW PEOPLE TO PARK THERE. WHY CAN'T WE MAKE AGREEMENTS WITH THE FAITH-BASED COMMUNITY TO MAYBE HAVE A ROTATING LOCATIONS WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO. THAT DOESN'T SOLVE THE ISSUE OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE BROKEN DOWN AND INOPERABLE. SO I URGE YOU TO LAUNCH A PILOT PROGRAM. YOU'VE FOUND $240,000 TO KICK TO BRIDGE FUND HEAD START. MAYBE SOME OF THESE KIDS ARE IN THESE VEHICLES. WHY NOT START A PILOT PROGRAM WORKING WITH LOCAL MECHANICS TO HELP FIX THESE VEHICLES ENOUGH SO THAT THEY CAN BE OPERABLE AND THESE PEOPLE CAN MOVE AROUND AND GO TO PLACES THAT ARE NOT GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH THE NEIGHBORS OR CAUSE THEIR VEHICLE TO BE TOWED. WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES WE'RE LOOKING AT? WHAT HAS BEEN TOWED? HOW MANY HAVE BEEN TOWED? - THANK YOU.

- WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS? THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS US ON THIS ITEM? - YES, CHAIR.

CALL IN USER 1. YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOW AVAILABLE.

- MARYLAND, GARRETT.

I RECALL THE TESTIMONY ON THIS ITEM PREVIOUSLY AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD BE RETITLED WAR ON THE POOR BECAUSE OF THE ACCOUNTS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN THOSE VEHICLES IF THEY'RE ONLY HOME AND BEING TOWED AND DISMANTLED. THEY DON'T DO THAT WITH OTHER VEHICLES OF FANCY CARS THAT ARE TOWED, DO THEY? I THINK WE HAVE A STRUCTURAL PROBLEM HERE OF CAPITALISM, WHERE WE HAVE MORE AND MORE POOR PEOPLE. WELL, WHAT IS IT? THE THREE TOP WEALTHIEST PEOPLE OWN AS MUCH WEALTH AS THE BOTTOM HALF OF THIS COUNTRY. WE NEED SOME KIND OF REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, IN MY OPINION. I THINK THAT DOESN'T HELP MUCH TO SOLVE THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE, AND I CONSIDER IT QUITE VICIOUS. BECKY STEINBRUNER'S RECOMMENDATIONS SEEM SENSIBLE AND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. I OFTEN CONTRAST WHAT I SAW WHEN I WAS IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION IN 1966. AND THERE [COUGH] WEREN'T HOMELESS PEOPLE. THERE WAS HOUSING. THEY HAD FREE MEDICAL CARE AT THAT TIME. THERE WERE NOT PEOPLE ON THE STREETS MISTREATED LIKE IS GOING ON. I CONSIDER THIS VERY UNETHICAL, THIS KIND OF WAR ON PEOPLE WHO ARE DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE OF THE SYSTEM LARGELY THAT WE'RE EXISTING IN.....

- THANK YOU - KATHY, YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOW AVAILABLE.

- HELLO, MY NAME'S KATHY LASS. I LIVE IN APTOS, AND I AM STILL OPPOSED TO THIS ORDINANCE REWRITE, BUT I DO WANT TO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S GONE IN TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

BUT I STILL FEEL LIKE IT'S A DRACONIAN WAY TO TREAT PEOPLE

[00:45:06]

WHO ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE. IF WE DO PASS THIS ORDINANCE, I WOULD REQUEST THAT THERE'S DATA GATHERED AND OVERSIGHT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME KIND OF REPORT. AFTER A YEAR OF HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THIS, HOW, WHAT CRITERIA WAS USED, WHAT CATEGORIES DID THEY FALL IN? SO I WANT TO JUST REITERATE, I DO OPPOSE THIS ORDINANCE. AND I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME KIND OF OVERSIGHT. LASTLY, I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PRESENTATION, UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLINE SOUND WAS DISABLED. AND THERE WASN'T ANY WAY TO NOTIFY ANYONE. SO I'M CURIOUS, I WOULD WANT TO TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WHEN THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE I WOULD MAKE THIS THAT THIS SINGLE AGENDA ITEM WAS NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO ME BECAUSE OF THE DISABLED SOUND. THANK YOU.

- ALLY, YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOW AVAILABLE. IF YOU'RE CALLING IN FROM A PHONE PLEASE USE STAR 6 TO MUTE OR UNMUTE YOURSELF.

- GREAT THANK YOU! HELLO BOARD I'M A RESIDENT HERE IN SOQUEL I URGE THE CITY TO APPROVE THE 9.57 UPDATE CODE UPDATE TO ENFORCE OVERSIZED VEHICLE PARKING REGULATIONS AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS WHERE PARTICULARLY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S A LARGE LONG TERM VEHICLE BLOCKING VISIBILITY AND ACCESS TO THE ONLY SAFE ENTRANCE FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OUT ONTO SOQUEL DRIVE. THIS VEHICLE IS IN A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND IT CREATES SOME QUITE TRICKY AND DANGEROUS BLIND SPOTS FOR DRIVERS GOING IN AND OUT OF A GAS STATION ON THE CORNER, AND IT ALSO DISCOURAGES YOUTH ON BIKES AND PEDESTRIANS FROM DRIVING AND WALKING ALONG THE SAFEST ROUTE, FORCING MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS TO SHOOT OUT ONTO A STREET THAT HAS NO SIDEWALKS AND MULTIPLE BLIND TURNS. SO I'M CURRENTLY PREGNANT AND I WORRY ABOUT DRIVING IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WALKING THIS WAY DUE TO THESE HAZARDS. AND SO I REALLY SUPPORT EARLY ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION AROUND AVAILABLE HUMAN RESOURCES FOR FOLKS LIVING IN THEIR VEHICLES. AND I THINK THAT WOULD PREVENT THESE TRAFFIC ISSUES BEFORE VEHICLES BREAK DOWN PERMANENTLY TO MAKE IT EASIER TO RELOCATE IN A PLACE THAT'S REALLY SAFER AND A SAFER PARKING SPOT FOR EVERYONE. SO THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS IMPORTANT SAFETY ISSUE.

- ALICIA, YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOW AVAILABLE.

- THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY EXPECTED TO GET A INVITE TO THIS MEETING FROM MANU'S OFFICE. I WAS TOLD BY HIS ASSISTANT THAT WHEN THIS CAME UPON THE AGENDA, I'D BE NOTIFIED AND I WASN'T.

SO I'M A LITTLE UPSET THAT I CAN'T BE THERE IN PERSON. THE HOMELESS UNION, THE SANTA CRUZ HOMELESS UNION IS OPPOSED TO THIS ORDINANCE. WE REQUESTED THAT A SAFE PARKING EXPANSION BE DONE FOR THE SAFE PARKING PROGRAMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY WORKING. THE TIER 3 PARKING PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY WORKING, ALTHOUGH NO ONE WANTS TO EXPAND IT BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE.

SO IF THIS ORDINANCE MOVES FORWARD THE HOMELESS UNION REQUESTS THAT A EXEMPTION BE MADE TO ANYBODY THAT IS ON THE SAFE PARKING WAITING LIST. THAT INCLUDES THE DAILY USE AND THAT INCLUDES THE TIER 3 SAFE PARKING. IF YOU'RE ON A SAFE PARKING WAITING LIST AND YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY AND WITH THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE, I DON'T THINK THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR RV DEMOLISHED. YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND A SAFE PLACE TO PARK. YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPLY. AND I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT TEN VEHICLES IN THIS ORDINANCE. TEN VEHICLES ARE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND I ALSO WANT TO DISCUSS THE FACT THAT THE EHV VOUCHERS THAT WERE USED TO HOUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY IN RVS, THAT FUNDING IS ABOUT TO END BY THE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY. I'VE BEEN SENDING OUT ALERTS AND MEMOS ABOUT 425 PEOPLE THAT GOT EMERGENCY SECTION 8 VOUCHERS AND WERE

[00:50:03]

HOUSED ARE GOING TO LOSE THAT FUNDING IN 15 MONTHS. I KNOW YOU'VE HELPED HEAD START AND THAT SITUATION I'M ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT THE PENDING EMERGENCY THAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU'RE ABOUT TO GET A LOT MORE HOMELESS PEOPLE IF SOMETHING DOESN'T HAPPEN WITH THAT FUNDING. AND I MYSELF I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. I COULD END UP IN AN RV AGAIN. AND IF THAT HAPPENS, YOU DESTROY MY RV. WE'RE IN AN ENTIRELY NEW DISCUSSION. SO PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE THINK ABOUT THIS AND EXEMPT ANYBODY WHO'S ON THAT SAFE PARKING WAITING LIST.

- I SEE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE CHAIR.

- THANK YOU.BEFORE I BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF LIEUTENANT NICK BALDRIDGE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE QUESTIONS OR ADD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

- THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. I THINK THE OVERALL IS THE INTENT OF THIS. THE INTENT ISN'T TO DO A MASSIVE SWEEP AND GET EVERY RV OFF. IT'S TO ACTUALLY HAVE A LEVERAGE POINT SO THAT WE CAN TRY AND GET COOPERATION INTO FINDING SOLUTIONS. SO RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN INABILITY TO TOW RVS, THEY'RE LESS INVOLVED IN ANY SORT OF OUTREACH THAT WE'RE DOING OR ANY SORT OF CONTACTS THAT WE'RE DOING. THE INTENT OF THIS ISN'T TO MASS DEMOLISH RVS, AND THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THOSE RVS ARE STAGNANT FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. THIS ISN'T THE RV THAT MOVES DAILY.

THIS IS THE RV THAT IS IN THE SAME PLACE FOR WEEKS, IF NOT MONTHS ON END. AND SO THE NUMBER IS IS LOW RIGHT NOW OF THE ACTUAL RVS THAT THIS WOULD IMPACT BUT THE BIG PIECE AND FOR US IS WHAT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IT AT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND REALLY THAT IS TO HELP LEVERAGE THAT COOPERATION TO FIND A LONG-TERM SOLUTION THAT ISN'T TAKING THE RV. IF WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION THAT GETS US TO THE END POINT IT'S A WIN FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.

THANK YOU.

- THANK YOU. YOU COULD PROBABLY STAY UP THERE.

WE'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. DR. RATNER TOO. I'LL BRING YOU BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS, - THANK YOU I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID BECAUSE YOU TOUCHED ON, I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY SO IT'S GOING TO GIVE US THE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO. LET'S SAY THERE'S A HONDA CIVIC. IT'S BEEN PARKED ON THE SIDE OF A STREET AND IT'S BEEN THERE FOR WHO KNOW A WEEK OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND NOTICE HAS BEEN APPLIED 10 DAYS HAS GONE BY. ARE THOSE VEHICLES CURRENTLY BEING TOWED? - YES.

- OKAYTHANK YOU. BECAUSE THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH THIS, WHAT WITH WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY IS THAT IT APPEARS TO REALLY THE INTENT TO EXACTLY WHAT LIEUTENANT BALDR JUST SAID IS FOR IT TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS INOPERABLE RVS. BUT WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY IS INOPERABLE VEHICLES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, AND I THINK TO ATTEND BALDR'S POINT IS THAT CARS AND VANS ARE BEING TOWED IF THEY ARE ABANDONED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THEY GO TO THE TOW YARDS, THEY SIT IN THE TOW YARDS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. IF THEY'RE NOT PICKED UP, THEN EVENTUALLY THEY GET DEMOLISHED OR SOLD. CORRECT. AND SO BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN RVS AND VEHICLES, WHAT THIS POLICY SAYS IS THAT NOW IF A CAR OR ANY TYPE OF VEHICLE IS ABANDONED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD THAT IT WILL GET THE TEN DAY NOTICE AND THEN IT WILL BE DEMOLISHED, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE. I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS IS REALLY TO GO AFTER INOPERABLE RVS. ADDITIONALLY, I THINK THAT EVEN THROUGH WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING, THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION. I MEAN, IF THIS, IF THIS IS SPECIFICALLY SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH INOPERABLE AND ABANDONED VEHICLES, I MEAN, THAT'S 1 THING, BUT THEN NOW WE'RE BRINGING IN SAFE PARKING PROGRAMS, OPERATIONAL RVS, LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS DEALING WITH.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WHILE THESE ARE RELATED ISSUES, THEY'RE CONFLATED, THEY'RE ACTUALLY DISCRETE ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY BECAUSE I MEAN IF WE HAVE A VEHICLE THAT SOMEONE IS LIVING IN, I DON'T THINK THAT AS READING THROUGH THE ORDINANCE, IT'S NOT CALLED OUT SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE HAS TO BE THAT THE SHERIFFS HAVE TO ENGAGE IN SERVICE PROVISIONS OR THERE HAS TO BE A CONNECTION WITH HOUSING FOR HEALTH DIVISION, WHICH IS ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE AS WELL WITHIN THIS, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN. SO, I MEAN, PERSONALLY AND I CAN GO ON BECAUSE I HAVE SOME OTHER ISSUES TOO AND MAYBE I'LL END IT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SIT UP. YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT FOR A SECOND [LAUGHS] IF YOU WANT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I NEED TO ASK YOU WHERE YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION. BUT I WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, AS IT RELATES TO, SO FIRST IS THAT I THINK THESE THINGS SHOULD

[00:55:03]

BE SEPARATE. IT'S, IT SEEMS THAT WILL BE BEST AS WE BRING AN UPDATE TO CHAPTER 9.57 THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES INOPERABLE RVS, WHICH I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MY COLLEAGUES THAT IF THERE'S AN UNOPERABLE VEHICLE THAT'S BEEN SITTING ON THE STREET, I MEAN THAT TECHNICALLY IS TAKING UP PUBLIC PROPERTY, RIGHT? AND IT'S PRIVATIZING PUBLIC PROPERTY.

SO I DON'T DISAGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF AN RV IS THERE FOR TEN DAYS PLUS, THEY CAN'T MOVE IT. THAT IF SOMEONE'S LIVING IN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONNECT THEM TO SERVICES.

IF NOT THIS, I THINK THAT THIS OPTION ACTUALLY IS REASONABLE BECAUSE RATHER THAN IT'S SITTING IN A YARD AND COLLECTING FEES, IT'S ACTUALLY SITTING ON THE STREET FOR TEN DAYS AND THEY'RE NOT GETTING CHARGED ANYTHING. AND SO I DO THINK THAT IT'S REASONABLE, THAT IF A VEHICLE IS, IS STALLED OR IT'S INOPERABLE, NOT A VEHICLE, SORRY, AN RV, IT'S ALL IN AN OPERABLE ON OUR STREETS FOR AN EXTENDED AMOUNT OF TIME.

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THIS AS AN OPTION. BUT DOING THAT TO CARS, I DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE POLICIES IN PLACE THAT ARE WORKING AND THEY'RE ALREADY BEING TOWED, AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE SAFE PARKING PROGRAM, WHAT'S CONFUSING ABOUT IT IS THAT RIGHT NOW THE WAY THAT THE SAFE PARKING PROGRAM WORK AND THE REASON WHY IT'S REQUIRED IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE CITY'S ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR PARKING WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE BETWEEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. I THINK IT'S FROM LIKE 12 TO 6 A.M., SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND AS A RESULT, BASED ON THE COASTAL COMMISSION, BECAUSE THAT'S DENYING ACCESS, THEY'RE REQUIRING THAT THESE SAFE PARKING PROGRAMS BE PUT IN PLACE. I ACTUALLY FOLLOWED UP WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND COASTAL STAFF DID SAY THAT THIS IS THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM DENYING ACCESS TO HAVING AN ABANDONED VEHICLE WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE. AND THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR US TO REQUIRE SAFE PARKING FOR A VEHICLE THAT'S BEEN ABANDONED OR THAT IS INOPERABLE. AND SO IT'S CONFUSING WHY WE'RE ASSOCIATING THESE 2 ITEMS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE INTENT WOULD BE WE TOW AN INOPERABLE VEHICLE TO 1 OF THESE SAFE PARKING PROGRAMS AND THEN WE LEAVE IT THERE. AND SO I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT FITS WITHIN THE SAFE, HOW THIS ABANDONED VEHICLE ORDINANCE FITS WITHIN THE RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND THE SAFE PARKING PROGRAM. I'LL ALSO SAY THAT WE, THAT I MEET WITH CEO'S OFFICE WITH OUR HOUSING FOR HEALTH DIVISION AND WITH RANDY MORRIS FROM HSD. WE MEET MONTHLY WITH THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ TO DISCUSS ALL THE ISSUES AROUND HOMELESSNESS, INCLUDING SAFE PARKING. ABOUT A YEAR OR 2 AGO, ABOUT A YEAR OR SO AGO WE HAD BEEN EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND SAFE PARKING. AND THEN THE CITY KIND OF BACKED OFF BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HAD ISSUES WITH, OVERCROWDING, THEIR SERVICES HAVEN'T BEEN FULL. AND EVEN WITH THE, WHERE THE LIBRARY LOT 4 COMING OFFLINE, THEY STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THEIR SERVICES FULL. SO, I MEAN, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THESE CONVERSATIONS BACK TO THE ONE BY ONE WITH THE CITY, BUT EVEN, I MEAN, WE MET A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND THIS TOPIC DIDN'T COME UP IN TERMS OF THE NEED FOR MORE EXPANDED, SAFE PARKING IN THE CITY. SO WHILE I APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE TODAY, I THINK THAT THERE ARE AGAIN DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO TAKE IN DIFFERENT PIECES. BECAUSE AGAIN, LIKE IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT AN OPERA BAR OF THESE, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE UPDATING WITHIN CHAPTER 9.57 RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, CONFLATING ALL VEHICLES AND, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDING THAT WE DESTROY ANY VEHICLE THAT'S BEEN LEFT ON THE STREET FOR, YOU KNOW, AFTER 72 HOURS, GIVE THEM TEN DAYS AND THEN WE JUST GO TO SHOW THEIR VEHICLES. THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY TO WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, I WAS CONFUSED BY SECTION 9.57 POINT 040 EXEMPTIONS. THE THERE'S TWO EXEMPTIONS WITHIN THIS CHAPTER, WHICH IS A VEHICLE OR PARTS THEREOF WHICH IS STORED OR PARKED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF A LICENSED DISMANTLE OR LICENSED VEHICLE DEALER OR JUNKYARD OR VEHICLE OR PARTS THAT HAVE THIS COMPLETELY ENCLOSED WITHIN A BUILDING IN A LAWFUL MANNER WHERE IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

MY CONCERN HERE IS THAT, IF THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO EXEMPTIONS, WHAT ABOUT VEHICLES THAT ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE THEY ARE VISIBLE, WHERE THE PERSON DOESN'T HAVE, IT'S NOT A BUSINESS OR A LICENSE DISMANTLER. IT'S JUST A RESIDENT. BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO APPLY TO PUBLIC PROPERTY AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S THIS EXEMPTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH CAN BE CONFUSING BECAUSE IS THAT TO SAY NOW THAT IF THERE'S AN OPERABLE VEHICLE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IT COULD BE SUBJECT TO THESE SAME RULES AND REGULATIONS. SO I THINK I CAN, I CAN HELP? THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS THAT, THE COUNTY HAS HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST WITH, RESIDENTS WHO WILL EFFECTIVELY HAVE 10 OR 15 OR 20 CARS OUT ON THEIR PROPERTY THAT WILL ESSENTIALLY END UP CREATING A PUBLIC NUISANCE. AND THEY'VE BEEN TREATED AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT TIMES BY CODE ENFORCEMENT, GONE IN AND GOT COURT ORDERS TO CLEAN PROPERTIES UP BECAUSE IT'S

[01:00:02]

IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOODS. I THINK THAT'S THE DISTINCTION IS THAT IF IF CARS ARE IN BUILDINGS AND THEY CAN'T BE SEEN, THEY'RE NOT DISRUPTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY'RE NOT CAUSING A LARGER PROBLEM. BUT PERHAPS THE OTHER SUPERVISORS COULD COULD PAY IN. BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT'S DIRECTED TOWARDS. CAN I ASK A FOLLOW UP THEN? OF COURSE. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, WHAT A SHERIFF THEN BE ABLE TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND BEGIN TO TAG THESE VEHICLES. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE....

- NO, NO, NO. THE SHERIFF, THE SHERIFF CAN'T GO ON TO PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT A WARRANT AND AND START TAKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

- SO I GUESS AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS ORDINANCE THEN, BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN AND WHERE SHERIFFS CAN GO AND TAG VEHICLES AND PROVIDE THESE NOTICES. AND SO...

- THAT'S ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.

SO, SO, SO YEAH, SO THE, SURE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE SHERIFFS, ARE, ARE NOT OPERATING ON, ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

- OKAY. IT'S JUST, I MEAN, I GUESS AGAIN, POINTING OUT WHY THIS IS CONFUSING.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD CONSENSUS AND TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT GETS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT SPECIFICALLY IF IT'S REALLY FOCUSING ON UPDATING CHAPTER 9.57 TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS INOPERABLE RVS. BUT AS THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BEFORE US, I FIND THEM TO BE CONFUSING.

I AGAIN, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH HOUSING FOR HEALTH WITH THE CITY. I THINK THAT THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO CONTINUE HAVING CONVERSATIONS TO IF WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT SAFE PARKING, WE CAN TALK WITH THE CITY ABOUT IT. BUT I JUST THINK THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE US FOR ME ARE CONFUSING AND I'LL IN MY COMMENTS THERE.

- SO BEFORE I MOVE ON TO IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, I WANT TO SEE IF THE ANYONE FROM A LIEUTENANT BALDRIDGE OR DR. RAN NEVER WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT OR SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

- I MEAN, SURE. I CAN MENTION, YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS REALLY AS FAR AS A VIOLATION 9.5 706. OH JUST SAY THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO A PUBLIC STREET OR HIGHWAY OR COUNTY PROPERTY AND SO I THINK THAT 9.5 7.0 FOR EXEMPTIONS THAT SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS REFERRED TO IS REALLY SORT OF JUST AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION THAT IT'S SAYING THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO ABANDONED WRECKED OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT APPLIES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

- THANK YOU.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? - SORRY, I DID ONE OTHER THING THAT WAS NOT A RESPONSE, WHICH IS I MEAN, IT WAS MENTIONED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE SHOULD WORK WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF FAITH COMMUNITIES ON POTENTIALLY EXPANDING THEIR SAFE PARKING PROGRAM. OF COURSE, THE COUNTY DOES HAVE AN EXISTING CONTRACT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF FAITH COMMUNITIES TO OPERATE A SAFE PARKING PROGRAM AND I BELIEVE IT'S STAFF'S INTENTION TO EXPLORE OPTIONS WITH THEM AS THEY LOOK AT ADDITIONAL SAFE PARKING SITES AS WELL, BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT DR. ECHNER WANTS TO ADD.

- THANKS SUPERVISOR CONE. I DID WANT TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT BASED ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE DO AS A COUNTY HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF FAITH COMMUNITIES. THE TOTAL CONTRACT IS FOR OVER $600,000 IT'S A MIX OF ONE-TIME STATE FUNDING, WHICH YOU HEARD ABOUT AT OUR LAST MEETING AND SOME COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORK OF OUR OFFICE. SOME OF IT IS BASED ON THE GENEROUS NATURE OF LOCAL CITIZENS WHO VOTED TO SUPPORT SOME TAX MEASURES THAT'S HELPING TO FUND SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS. RIGHT NOW, AFC HAS 60 SAFE PARKING PLACES AROUND THE COUNTY. LAST YEAR, WE EXTENDED THE PROGRAM TO COVER BOTH SOUTH AND NORTH COUNTY, AND THEY ESTIMATE THAT IT COST AROUND $7, 300 PER YEAR TO MANAGE THE PARKING PROGRAM. THAT PARTICULAR PROGRAM INCLUDES USING LAND THAT'S OWNED BY FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND HAVING STAFF FROM THEIR AGENCY PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO THE FOLKS THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM OPERATES TYPICALLY BETWEEN 6 P.M. AND 8 A.M., NOT 24 HOURS.

AND THE 1 THING THAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE STAFF WHO ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE PROGRAM, THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LIVING IN THEIR VEHICLES WHO MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO PAY FOR REGISTRATION INSURANCE REPAIRS TO VEHICLES AND THEY FEEL THAT IF THERE WAS MORE RESOURCES AVAILABLE WHICH IS A CHALLENGE THAT I KNOW YOU ALL ARE STRUGGLING WITH TO HELP PEOPLE PAY FOR THOSE THINGS BECAUSE THEIR PROGRAM REQUIRES THE VEHICLES ARE AN OPERATING CONDITION THAT THE DRIVERS ARE REGISTERED AND HAS VALID DRIVERS LICENSE THE CAR IS REGISTERED AND VEHICLES INSURED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM.

SO THAT DOES LEAVE OUT SOME FOLKS WHO ARE LIVING IN THEIR

[01:05:01]

VEHICLES AND IF THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL POT OF MONEY I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT COMES FROM TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE NEEDS THEN MORE PEOPLE COULD PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM AND THE SUPERVISOR KOENIG SAYS THERE ARE MULTIPLE LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY THAT AFC IS OPERATING I DID CHECK IN WITH THEM IF THERE ARE MORE RESOURCES THEY'D BE OPEN TO EXPANDING THE PROGRAM. BUT IT'S A QUESTION OF LOCATIONS AND RESOURCES.

- THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ? - THANK YOU. I WANT TO START OFF JUST BY THANKING MY COLLEAGUES CHAIR HERNANDEZ AND SUPERVISOR KOENIG FOR CONTINUING TO WORK ON THIS ITEM. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT OUR BOARD IS TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN ADDRESSING THE IMPACT OF ABANDONED OR INOPERABLE OVERSIZED VEHICLES ON THE COMMUNITY'S WELL-BEING WITH THE NEED TO RESPOND TO HOUSING AND SECURITY ISSUES IN A HUMANE, EFFECTIVE WAY. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM READING THE REPORT, REALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 5 OR 6 VEHICLES CURRENTLY, AND THAT MIGHT BE WHAT WE'D EXPECT ANNUALLY THAT WE'RE WORKING ON TODAY. YOU KNOW, OUR OFFICE IN D5, WE HAVE RECEIVED CALLS ABOUT LARGE ABANDONED VEHICLES THAT HAVE BEEN PARKED FOR YEARS AND RESIDENTS DO FIND IT FRUSTRATING WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE OUR LAWS AREN'T BEING ENFORCED OR THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE. EVEN IF THE LAW IS BROKEN, IT DOES UNDERMINE REALLY PEOPLE'S BELIEF IN THE USEFULNESS OF GOVERNMENT AND OUR LAWS AND OUR ABILITY TO GET THINGS DONE. SO I AM REALLY COMMITTED TO TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS. ALSO YOU KNOW PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN THEIR VEHICLES THEY ARE CONSIDERED UNHOUSED RIGHT AND SO WE AREN'T FOOLING OURSELVES TO BELIEVE THAT BY TOWING THEIR VEHICLES, WE'RE FIXING A PROBLEM, OR WE'RE SOLVING THIS. WE HAVE CHALLENGES WITH UNHOUSED INDIVIDUALS IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE SYMPTOMS OF THAT MAJOR CHALLENGE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I THINK THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE LANGUAGE IS GETTING US CLOSER TO ACHIEVING OUR GOALS, AND I FEEL CLOSER OR PRETTY GOOD ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT TODAY. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS AFTER I REVIEWED THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD ON AUGUST 19TH AND THE DIRECTION THAT THE BOARD TOOK, AND SO I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE YOU CAN HELP TO KIND OF SQUARE UP SOME OF THAT. ONE THING IS THAT IT SAYS IN THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 16TH MEETING THAT THE BOARD DIRECTED HOUSING MATTER STAFF PROVIDE A PRESENTATION ON THE ENGAGEMENT POLICIES FOR INHABITED VEHICLES. AND I ACTUALLY, I DON'T RECALL THAT PART OF THE DIRECTION, TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST.

I'M WONDERING IF THAT WAS A HOPE THAT H4H WOULD BE INVOLVED.

AND I'M WONDERING, SINCE YOU'RE HERE, DR. RATNER, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE RELATIONSHIP THAT HOUSING MATTERS HAS WITH DOING OUTREACH TO PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS VEHICLE SO WE CAN JUST, THEY'RE NOT HERE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THE INTENT OF THIS QUESTION. - YES, THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION. SO SIMILAR TO OUR CONTRACT WITH THIS AFC FOR SAFE PARKING, WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH HOUSING MATTERS.

THEY WERE THE BIDDER SELECTED TO WORK WITH OUR OFFICE AND THE SHERIFF COMMITTEE POLICING UNIT ON OUTREACH TO PEOPLE WHO ARE UNSHELTERED AND INCLUDING PEOPLE LEAVING THEIR VEHICLES AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY. THAT PROGRAM HAD STARTED WITH SOME ONE TIME FEDERAL FUNDING THAT IS WINDING DOWN, THE THEME. BUT THE CURRENT PROGRAM, THE SHERIFF OFFICE CONTACTS A MEMBER OF OUR STAFF WILL REACH OUT TO THEM PERIODICALLY TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR AREAS WE NEED TO CONDUCT OUTREACH. HOUSING MATTERS STAFF ARE DEPLOYED. WE HAVE A POLICY FOR WHAT WE CALL CONNECTORS WHO WORK IN OUR SYSTEM OF CARE AND THEY'RE INSTRUCTED ONCE THEY GET A REFERRAL OF SOMEONE TO THEIR PROGRAM AND IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT STAFF CAPACITY AT THAT MOMENT, WE EXPECT THEM TO TRY TO ENGAGE THAT PERSON WITHIN FIVE DAYS THAT ATTEMPT 3 SPECIFIC ATTEMPTS IN PERSON AND OTHER MEANS TO TRY TO CONNECT WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL INCLUDING EMERGENCY CONTACTS OR SECONDARY CONTACTS AND ANCILLARY INFORMATION. AND THEN WE EXPECT THAT WITHIN A 15-DAY PERIOD THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO NOTIFY US AND THE SHERIFF THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO BUILD A RAPPORT AND START A PROCESS OF ENROLLING THEM IN SERVICES. SO THAT'S THE CURRENT EXPECTATION.

- GREAT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. THAT'S HELPFUL. MY NEXT QUESTION IS JUST HELPING ME MAKING SURE THE ENTIRE BOARD IS CLEAR ON WHAT THE COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGRAM.

I SAW IN THE BOARD LETTER THAT WE ALREADY HAVE $10, 000 ASSIGNED TO VEHICLE ABATEMENT THAT THIS MIGHT COST NO, WE

[01:10:02]

HAVE 60, 000 AND THIS MIGHT COST 10, 000. IS THAT 10, 000 OF THAT? IS THIS SOMETHING YOU SEE CURRENTLY IN THE BUDGET? - IT COULD BE IT'S A IT'S AN ESTIMATE OF ABOUT 1500 PER RV IF WE WERE TO TOW IT. IT, AND THAT'S AN AVERAGE BECAUSE BASED ON WHICH DISTRICT IT COMES OUT OF IS WHICH THERE'S, THERE'S A DIFFERENT PRICING SCALE DEPENDING ON THE TOW COMPANY AND HOW FAR THEY HAVE TO GO. SO THAT'S LITERALLY JUST AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE AVERAGE PER VEHICLE COST IF WE WERE TO UTILIZE ALL OF THAT.

BUT YES THAT WOULD AS OF RIGHT NOW STILL SIT IN THAT VEHICLE ABATEMENT BUDGET. IT JUST MIGHT INCUR SOME OF THAT.

- THANKS.

AND ARE YOU CONFIDENT, NAT BALDRIDGE, THAT THE TOW COMPANIES ARE WILLING TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE, ASSUMING WE MAKE IT? BECAUSE I THINK THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT NOW THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO TOW THE VEHICLES BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE TO STORE THEM AND THEY DON'T WANT TO. BUT THAT WITH THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE, THEY WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO BECAUSE THEY CAN DISMANTLE VEHICLES IMMEDIATELY. DO WE FEEL [LAUGHING] LIKE THIS? THIS IS THE WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THIS CHANGE IS GOING TO HAVE THE OUTCOME WE'RE HOPING FOR? - IT'S LESS OF A COST ISSUE FOR THE TOW COMPANIES AND MORE OF A SPACE ISSUE. BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE RVS WHEN THEY GO TO THESE TOW YARDS, WHICH ARE ALREADY VERY COMPACT IN SPACE TO BEGIN WITH, THEY DON'T THEY HAVE TO HOLD THEM FOR I THINK IT'S 15 DAYS BEFORE THEY CAN TAKE THEIR NEXT ACTION. BECAUSE OF THAT PIECE OF IT, THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO TAKE THEM TO THEIR TOW YARDS. THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT IF THEY WERE TO GO TO THE DISMANTLER THAT THEY WOULD TAKE THOSE. BECAUSE THEN IT'S JUST A TOW, IT'S A COST OF THEIR TOW PIECE OF IT. AND IT'S NOT THE STORAGE, MAINLY THE SPACE THAT'S IMPACTED.

BECAUSE ALL THE LOCAL TOW YARDS ARE FAIRLY SMALL.

- GREAT, THANK YOU.

AND JUST TO RESPOND TO TWO THINGS THAT I HEARD CALLERS TALK ABOUT, ONE WAS, THE CITY'S SAFE PARKING WAIT LIST. I THINK WE ASKED ABOUT THAT LAST MEETING AND WE HEARD THERE WASN'T, I DON'T ACTUALLY, I'M NOT CLEAR IF THERE WAS A WAIT LIST AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY PROVIDED ANY INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO THAT.

- YEAH SO I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SAFE PARKING PROGRAM WHICH IS FOLKS ENROLL AND THEY CAN SAFELY PARK OVERNIGHT AND THE ONE BASED AT THE ARMORY WHERE THEY CAN BASICALLY PARK FOR AN INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME. I THINK THERE IS A WAIT LIST FOR THE PROGRAM AT THE ARMORY, BUT THERE IS NOT FOR THE OVERNIGHT PROGRAM. AND ALSO THE PROGRAM AT THE ARMORY, I BELIEVE, IS QUITE EXPENSIVE. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT AMOUNT. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY IT HASN'T EXPANDED. WHEREAS THE ONE, THAT IS JUST OVERNIGHT IS, IS, RELATIVELY COST EFFECTIVE.

- OKAY. SO THERE MIGHT BE A CONSIDERATION THAT IF SOMEBODY IS ACTIVELY WAITING TO GET INTO THE ARMORY, - I WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT JUST BECAUSE I MEAN THAT'S AN EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE FORM OF SORT OF HOUSING SUPPORT THAT WE'VE SEEN AT LEAST THE WAY THAT PROGRAM IS SET UP NOW AND THERE IS I THINK AN EXTENSIVE WAIT LIST SO I DON'T YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS IF THEY WERE I THINK THE LOWER BARRIER PROGRAM, I THINK I, YOU KNOW, WOULD CONSIDER THAT. BUT, YEAH.

- CAN I, CAN I THROUGH THE CHAIR, CAN I MAKE IT QUICK? I MEAN, SORRY TO INTERJECT, BUT THIS, JUST GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS, THE CONVERSATION THAT ARE HAPPENING ABOUT, ABOUT SAFE PARKING PROGRAMS WITHIN MY DISTRICT. AND I DO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE CITY HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THEY, THAT THE PROGRAMS THAT THEY SET UP AND THAT THEY ARE PAYING FOR ARE TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE CITY. SO I DON'T WANT US COMMITTING OURSELVES TO SAYING THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT RVS INTO PROGRAMS. WE DON'T HAVE PERMISSION TO PUT OUR VIEWS IN THEIR PROGRAMS. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A DISCUSSION IF WE WANT TO GO ON THAT ROUTE, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION THROUGH THE ONE BY ONE. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GETTING, YOU KNOW, RVS INTO PROGRAMS, WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE PROGRAMS THAT THE COUNTY HAS SET UP WHICH I THINK ROBERT RATNER ALREADY SPOKE TO THAT WE HAVE PROGRAMS TO THE AFC - THAT'S FINE. I'M NOT INCLINED TO MAKE THAT ADDITIONAL DIRECTION TODAY REGARDLESS REGARDING A SECOND COMMENT FROM A DIFFERENT CALLER, YOU KNOW, I WOULD ENCOURAGE WHETHER IT'S THROUGH A REPORT FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OR THROUGH OUR ANNUAL H4H REPORT THAT WE RECEIVE, IT WOULD BE, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING AT THE END OF THE YEAR HOW MANY VEHICLES WERE IMPACTED BY THIS NEW ORDINANCE? AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO ADD THAT ON TO ADDITIONAL DIRECTION OR IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, I'LL COME AFTER YOU AND ASK YOU IN A YEAR FROM NOW. SO ANYWAYS, I THINK THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. AGAIN, I APPRECIATE MY

[01:15:05]

COLLEAGUES FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND HELPING US GET TO A RESOLUTION.

- SUPERVISOR DE SERPA, - THANK YOU. I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS ORDINANCE TODAY BECAUSE I DON'T. TO ME, THIS IS NOT, SORT OF A GIANT CATCHMENT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING, HAVING TO LIVE IN THEIR CARS. THIS IS REALLY TO DEAL WITH NUISANCE VEHICLES THAT ARE INOPERABLE THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE STREETS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. WE HAVE IN MY DISTRICT DOWN AT RIO DEL MAR WE OFTEN HAVE CAMPERS THAT ARE PARKED ALONG THE SOQUEL CREEK. AND IT IS A BIG PROBLEM IN THAT AREA. 1 OF THE THINGS, AND THIS IS PROBABLY FOR ROBERT RATNER, LIKE A REPORT TO BRING BACK LATER. BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT NEW LAWS ON THE BOOKS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT ON FAITH BASED CHURCH PROPERTIES. I'M ONLY AWARE OF ONE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN DISTRICT 2, FOR 9 UNITS. BUT THIS WOULD BE A WAY TO REALLY BRING MORE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE THAT NEED IT. BECAUSE THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT WE NEED MORE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE IN HOUSED. SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW ACTUALLY HOW MANY CHURCHES WE HAVE OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN OUR COUNTY, HOW MANY OF THEM COULD POTENTIALLY BE BUILT. AND WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS FOR TRYING TO SEED THAT OR HELP THAT THOSE IDEAS MOVE FORWARD SO THAT WE COULD HOUSE SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THEIR CARS. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THIS NOW BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT AT SOME POINT WHEN YOU'RE IN FRONT OF US AGAIN. THANK YOU.

- THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR DE SERPA, SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

- YEAH. I JUST WANT TO HAVE ROBERT, IF YOU COULD APPROACH THE PODIUM, I GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BEFORE WE, MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. SO I GUESS THE BIG QUESTION I HAVE ITEMS NUMBERS NUMBER FOUR IS DIRECTION FOR THE COUNTY'S HOUSING FOR HEALTH STAFF TO COORDINATE WITH CITY OF SANTA CRUZ STAFF TO ENGAGE WITH PARTICIPANTS IN THE SAFE CITY SAFE PARKING PROGRAM TO CONNECT THEM WITH EXISTING HOUSING RELATED SUPPORT OF SERVICES AND RESOURCES. I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO WHAT IS ACTIVELY OCCURRING AND I KNOW THAT THE CITY HAS, YOU KNOW, BACK WHEN I WAS IN THE CITY COUNCIL, WE HAD 14 MILLION FROM JOHN LAIRD. WE, YOU KNOW, HAD A NUMBER OF OUTREACH TEAMS THAT WERE HIRED. THEY PASSED MEASURE L THERE'S A LOT OF FUNDING GOING TOWARDS HOMELESSNESS. SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO KIND OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNTY SERVICES AND HOW THEY INTERACT WITH FOLKS, ARMORY AND THE DIFFERENT PARKING PROGRAMS. I KNOW THAT THE KIND OF LOW BARRIER ONES THOSE TEND TO HAVE LESS ENGAGEMENTS BECAUSE IT'S MORE LESS LIKE OVERNIGHT BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD MAYBE SPEAK TO COUNTY'S INTERACTION WITH THE CITY ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

- THANKS FOR THE QUESTION SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

SO IN ADDITION TO THE ONE BY ONE MEETING THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU PARTICIPATED IN, I MEET TWICE A MONTH WITH LARRY AND STAFF FROM THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ TO COORDINATE AROUND OUR EFFORTS TO HELP PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AND I DO THE SAME WITH WATSONVILLE, CITY MANAGER AND THEIR STAFF. AND I THINK YOU ALL ARE AWARE THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING UNSHELTERED EXCEEDS OUR CAPACITY TO OUTREACH AND ENGAGE THEM BECAUSE OF RESOURCE ISSUES. HOWEVER, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, THEY'VE INVESTED IN THEIR OWN CITY STAFF FUNDED OUTREACH TEAM TO HELP RESPOND TO VEHICLES AND PEOPLE LIVING IN SHELTER. THEY ALSO HAVE PARTNERED WITH OUR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT ON AN OUTREACH PROGRAM IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND WE MANAGED SOMETHING CALLED COORDINATED ENTRY WHERE WE TRAIN AND SUPPORT STAFF IN TERMS OF HOW TO ENGAGE AND CONNECT PEOPLE WITH COUNTY FUNDED AND FEDERALLY FUNDED RESOURCES, HELP PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY TO HELP THEIR STAFF LEARN ABOUT THAT PROCESS AND ENGAGE PEOPLE THROUGH COORDINATE ENTRY. AND WE PARTNER WITH UNITED WAY IN 211.

IF YOU GO TO THEIR WEBSITE, THERE'S A FORM ON THERE WHERE REFERRALS CAN BE MADE. IF THE BOARD DID ADOPT A DIRECTION, IN THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS, I WOULD HAVE MYSELF AND STAFF JUST REINFORCE THE CURRENT APPROACHES AND SYSTEMS WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO CONNECT PEOPLE TO RESOURCES AND I THINK WE WOULD EXPLORE WAYS TO TRY TO GET SOME BETTER DATA BECAUSE I IMAGINE YOU'D WANT TO SEE LIKE HOW MANY PEOPLE IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT ALREADY CAME UP HERE IN DISCUSSION MAYBE GOT CONNECTED. AND WHAT WE'D BE ABLE TO REPORT BACK IS WHETHER WE HAD CAPACITY AT THE MOMENT WE GOT A REFERRAL. AND THAT REALLY IS FUNDAMENTALLY THE ISSUE FOR US IS IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO GO OUT AND ENGAGE. IT'S WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH

[01:20:03]

STAFF CAPACITY TO MEET THE DEMAND.

- RIGHT. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED IS ALREADY WHAT'S HAPPENING. AND SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH A DUPLICATION OF EFFORT. AND PERSONALLY, I MEAN, IT'S GIVEN THAT THE CITY HAS RESOURCES AND THEY HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY ENGAGED IN THAT WORK, I MEAN, IT MAKES MORE SENSE THAT FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA THAT WE'RE FOCUSING THE HOUSING FOR HEALTH DIVISIONS EFFORTS ON THE FOLKS WITHIN THAT UNINCORPORATED AREA. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS KIND OF TRYING TO ADDRESS IS, YOU KNOW, IF PEOPLE ARE STAYING IN ABANDONED CARS, THEY NEED OUTREACH TO OCCUR. SO WHY WOULD WE WANT TO DIVERT OUR RESOURCES TO THE TWO CITIES WHEN IT'S CLEAR THAT WE NEED THOSE RESOURCES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA RIGHT NOW. SO I THINK THAT GIVEN THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'VE JUST HEARD FROM ROBERT RATNER ITEMS 4 OR 5 AND THEN I WILL SAY THAT WE ARE ALREADY WORKING ON 6 AS WELL. WE'VE BEEN HAVING THOSE DISCUSSIONS. I'D ASK THAT 436 THAT WE SEPARATE 12 AND 3 FROM 45 AND 6 AND I WOULD MOVE THAT WE TABLE 4, 5 AND 6, JUST GIVEN THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT THIS EFFORT IS ALREADY OCCURRING. AND SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD BRING BACK MORE DATA THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT PROVIDING DIRECTION ON SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE SINCE IT'S A DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS. AND SO I WOULD ASK IF WE COULD SEPARATE THAT THROUGH THE CHAIR, ONE, 02, AND 3 BETWEEN 4, 5 AND 6, AND I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DIRECTION ON 4, 5 AND 6.

- I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I JUST HAVE A FEW COMMENTS. YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE INPUT FROM SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ ABOUT THE COMMENTS FROM THE WOMEN FROM THE HOMELESS UNION ABOUT HAVING A YEARLY REVIEW. AND YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PRIVATE, PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUES ARISE A LOT IN MY DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY ON FARMS ACROSS MURPHY, AROMAS WITHIN MY DISTRICT. AND THERE ARE TRULY ABANDONED VEHICLES, BUT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. BUT I THINK THAT THIS DOES ADDRESS THAT, PORTION OF IT. WITH THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION OR...

- I ASKED THE QUESTION REGARDING THE, THE, RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND I DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER.

- SUPERVISOR KOENIG? - I HAVE NO ISSUE IF WE VOTE ON SOME RECOMMENDED ACTIONS SEPARATELY. SO I MEAN TO HONOR THAT REQUEST I'LL MOVE RECOMMENDED ACTION. I'LL BEGIN BY MOVING RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1 THROUGH 3 WITH ADDITIONAL DIRECTION THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON ITS VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND THE IMPACT OF THIS ORDINANCE IN PARTICULAR DURING THE 26 27 DRAFT BUDGET HEARINGS.

- I'LL SECOND.

- SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM SUPERVISOR KOENIG AND A SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

- CHAIR, CAN I GET CLARITY ON THE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT SEPARATING? I WASN'T CLEAR.

- I MOVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ONE THROUGH THREE WITH THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTION. I DO INTEND TO MOVE FOUR THROUGH SIX OR SEPARATELY. BUT OKAY.

- SO IF I CAN JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT FOR THE RECORD, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS THAT GONE INTO THIS.

I DO HAVE SOME CONCERN WITH THE LENGTH THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR OUTREACH WITH PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. IT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN RVS AND CARS. I THINK THAT IF THERE WERE A SECTION TO BE ADDED THAT SPECIFICALLY SPOKE TO RVS OVERSIZED VEHICLES THAT HAD THIS 72 HOUR NOTICE AND THEN TEN DAYS ON THE STREETS AND THEN WENT TO DISMANTLING. I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO THAT, BUT THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CARS, VANS AND OVERSIZED VEHICLES. AND FOR THAT REASON, I CAN SUPPORT IT. BUT I DO, BUT I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE, YOU KNOW, BEEN HAPPY WITH MAKING A MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE.

BUT SINCE THIS IS WHERE THE BOARD'S AT, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO ON THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BETWEEN 1, 2 AND 3.

- THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS. MADAM CLERK, - SUPERVISOR DE SERPA - AYE - CUMMINGS.

- MOTION PASSES WITH ONE DISSENTING VOTE SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

- CHAIR IF I MAY I'D LIKE TO NOW MOVE ITEMS OR RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOUR THROUGH SIX.

- SECOND.

- SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEMS FOUR AND SIX SEPARATELY. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM SUPERVISOR KOENIG AND A SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR MARTINEZ, SORRY.

- AND FOR 4, THAT WAS 4, 5 AND 6. - YEAH, 4 THROUGH 4,5 AND 6.

SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

- AYE - CUMMINGS - NO! - MARTINEZ.

- AYE - MOTION PASSES WITH 1 DISSENTING VOTE FROM SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

[01:25:03]

AND THAT, CONCLUDES TODAY'S REGULAR AGENDA. THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.

1025, AND OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE A SPECIAL BOARD MEETING

[Adjournment]

AT 1.30, 1 PM, MONDAY, OCTOBER 7TH, THAT'S TODAY. AT HOTEL PARADOX, AUTOGRAPH COLLECTION AT 611 OCEAN STREET, ROOM SEQUOIA C IN SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA, 95060. THIS REMINDS ME OF THE ZACH FRIEND DAYS, 1025.

[END]

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Santa Cruz County, CA

Oct 07, 2025 Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting (trimmed)

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item