Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everybody. We're going to get started here with our Tuesday, September 15th regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Can we please start with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Supervisor Citello. Thank you, is there a motion to acknowledge certificate of posting? Is there a second?

Moving on to presentations and recognitions, we do have a proclamation today. We have an item to approve proclamation declaring September 2026 as Workforce Development Month in San Miguel County. Is there a motion to approve the proclamation?

Do we have to do that? Or is that my bad?

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Is there anyone here for Word for Development that would like to receive the? Would you come on up? I think I signed it. Sorry.

Good morning, everyone. Okay. This is a proclamation declaring September 2026 as National Workforce Development Month in San Benito County. Workforce Development Month marks an important time to raise awareness of the education, training, and employment opportunities available to residents of San Benito County, and hereby, Preparing San Benito County residents for in-demand careers is essential to supporting the county's economic growth, strengthening local businesses, and expanding employment opportunities, aligning education, workforce development, employer partnerships to create career path

Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We're going to keep moving along here to board announcements. Any supervisors have announcements in this? Yes.

Thank you. I attended the ribbon cutting along with Supervisor Kuro for Southside Haven Community. And I think we all should be really proud about what that is doing for our community and the need. And I realize it's not enough, but it's a good start. And so I really want to say thank you to Enrique and Tracy and all of your teams, RMA. It was a huge push and a big effort getting it done, but we finally did it. And so congratulations, you guys. It was a really nice event. I really enjoyed touring some of the tiny homes. So thank you for all the effort there and really doing something positive

Real quick, and congratulations to Chief Canez. That's a great honor for her. Integrated Waste Regional Agency and the Local Area Task Force has been working on a... quarterly programs report that will give board members and the public a little bit of the achievements and the upcoming and events that they're having. Some of the events that are coming up is just remember that household hazardous waste events are every third Saturday of the month at John Smith Landfill from nine to noon. And then on September 19th, So that's September 19th, October 17th, and November 21st. When it comes to Coast

Thank you. Thank you. We'll be moving on now to public comment. It's an opportunity to address the board items not on the agenda. Is there any public comment for items not on the agenda today?

Thank you. Move forward to the consent agenda. These matters shall be considered as a whole unless a particular item is removed from consent. Do any supervisors have items they wish to pull? Ms. Frizzicro?

Yes, I just want to make a comment on 1.5. Okay, 1.5. Ms. Frizzicro is making a note.

Okay, so we'll pull 1.5 regarding the rest of the consent agenda. I believe we had a slight adjustment item 1.9 from County Council. Is that right?

Thank you. Do we have any public comment on consent agenda items that were not pulled?

Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the remainder of consent agenda? Is there a second? The first and the second, can we have roll call vote, please?

Thank you. All right. Moving on to item 1.5.

And honestly, this is the IT ad hoc has not met in some time. And I have concerns and I haven't had time. I apologize to the CEO. I have not had time to sit with her on this. But my concerns right now with software contracts and renewals. The problem I'm seeing is that we need to have a legacy software policy that allows software programs to be renewed on a longer-term basis for efficiencies for staff. but also that we have to have a legacy kind of conversion process. Because the reason this item is being pulled is it's a CAD program that's been used for years. They're transitioning to GIS. Un

And that's great. And I'd love to bring forward maybe to the IT ad hoc a policy about conversions of programs. So when, do we still have the IT ad hoc? Okay, so then that's why I guess that I, because I've kept thinking we still had it and that we could talk about this. So maybe I'll do a future agenda item, a future AIT that we can talk about a policy of how we can help support IT in not being overwhelmed. Every department is in a flux of technology change, and we need to prioritize these technology changes so that we don't overwhelm IT. So I'll do a future agenda item. I appreciate the board

Thank you. We go to public comment on this.

Great. Thank you. We'll move on to our public hearing item today, 2.1. This is to adult resolution approving annexation number 23, tag zone 29, as well as Approve annexation number 29, tax zone 30. So we have Linda Young.

One second. I think we have county council to . Yes.

Let's take a four-minute break and resume. Sorry about that, everyone. Thank you. Okay, it is now 9.30. We're back, so we will now start our public hearing item.

Thank you. Okay, we will open the public hearing. Do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this item?

Okay, thank you. Bring it back to the board board members have questions or comments on this item. Yes.

Thank you. I'm just curious, based on our conversation last night, I just kind of want to understand the process. And so it appears that one of these items came to the Planning Commission two years ago. Why does it take two years to then get before the Board of Supervisors? Like, what is the process for, like, it got approved two years ago from the Planning Commission, and then we're seeing it now two years later?

Okay, great. Thank you. So there's nothing on part of the county that we did something or didn't do something. This really is led by the applicant when they kind of meet all their conditions of approval, then they come back. and then we do this process?

Thank you. I appreciate you explaining that. You're welcome. Thank you. That's my only question. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's see. Any other comments or questions at this time? So is there any motions for these items?

I'll make a motion. Do I need to read the entire item to be able to?

Okay, so then I'll make a motion to approve per staff recommendations.

Second. We have a first and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Great, thank you. We move on to our regular agenda. On 3.1, receive your presentation on the proposed San Miguel County Parks and Recreation Sponsorship Policy and consider the policy.

You can just do that after if you don't mind.

Thank you. Thank you, I have no further public comment, thank you supervisors have comments reserve. Oh yeah actually will bring side, we should give it just want to kick it off, because I didn't use that you're right.

It's been four long years I think four or five years since I introduced this it was put on the back burner for one or two years, we finally got it going. I just want some, if we can get some clarification. I think it's good. I would like some clarification. I do want to hear from further, because my understanding from the Parks Commission was that the idea was to have sponsorship name recognition at the parks. And what we received from the Tourism Commission was that the Parks and Recreation Commission, and correct me if I'm wrong, was recommending not to have the actual and maybe Maria if you

Right, but we sent it to Parks and Recreation Commission as a natural kickstart just to get input and all that, but this wasn't meant to be something that was overly complicated. I think figuring out the details certainly was something we wanted to have engagement, but the idea itself was to sponsor, to allow businesses and other entities to have name recognition at the parks, in the parks. And that was the difference from what I understood. To me, that's the entire point of it. So if we're... I'm not interested in doing offsite recognition. I don't think that really accomplishes anything. We

It was presented as a future agenda item and I think the intent was if you would like to provide some recommendations on how the displays and things would look, which pieces of equipment may have sponsorship, you know, which benches, things like that. The intent was to, if you had some ideas and maybe we just need to clear up expectations with these items when they go to the commissions. I think that would be perfect. Because it wasn't meant to be. This wasn't meant to be a complicated thing. And I think we can still potentially move forward and just incorporate, because we still have work to

I can tell you, I asked for the item to come to tourism because the parks are an instrumental... part of the plan going forward. And so...

But that would be amazing because... It wasn't meant to step on toes, though. No, no, no. It was just you gave recommendations and what was expressed to us was that Basically, the main thing that we got back was that, well, they're okay with it, but we don't want to have the names in the parks. And that to me, like, let's just move on to something else then at that point, because that's the entire point of this.

from the tourism that's how the that's how our commission but that's how no that's not at all it's just we go to multiple commissions for these recommendations it's not unheard of at all for a recommendation that goes because again i proposed this idea and it went to you guys to get your input and then it would potentially go to other relevant committees and tourism we felt like and i was the chair of i believe the chair of tourism at the time um basically asked for the item to come to tourism because we were discussing already discussing parks the riverview regional park um how we can better

I do want to make it clear. And this needs to be I think this needs to be communicated to commissions is that don't hold back on commissioners. you know, we're sending something to you so you can provide, you know, some input and ideas. And so that's really all it was just, we wanted, what ideas might you have for how this might work?

your representative no and we i think we all value everything you guys do and i just that's what i want to make clear is that i want for me one of my recommendations especially hearing what you're saying is that moving forward if we have consensus as we work on that guide and just the details of how this is going to work that we that we um involve parks and rec and vets commission that they be an instrumental um voice in that and we appreciate that truly i mean we truly i know um i just thank

So, yeah, I'm just a few, just a few more points. I do want to thank the Parks and Rec Commission. I was personally just as the person that proposed this in 21-22, when I was running for office originally, I went to a park on a trip and I noticed this was something that was going on elsewhere and it was done very tastefully and it It sparked it, and I was frustrated because it's now September 2026. I proposed this, officially proposed it over four years ago. So I share your frustration. I don't think there was any. I want Parks and Rec needs to be centrally. I'm actually the one that recommend

So they can just be removed. We appreciate our business community, but we cannot allow that going forward. We cannot allow businesses to just put sponsorships on county property. I don't even know if that's legal without a policy. I do have a few more points. Again, propose this program, provide opportunities, dollar amounts, details. Those are things that we still need to work forward on this guide concept once we hopefully agree to something here. I would like to see once we get that, I think first of all, we need outreach on community engagement, Parks and Rec, Vets Park, other community me

thank you thank you supervisor crowe sotelo any comments questions yes yeah i i'm i i support where this is going but i also have to speak as a vets park commissioner and the frustrations that we are untangling When we say it's common in other communities, we are not a common community. We have a Vets Memorial Park that has been maintained. The fields have been maintained by the people that are using them, and we don't have updated agreements. The signage that's on those fields are the signage that support those individuals, and public members to be able to fund those. And I don't mean to keep

Thank you. OK, a couple of things. I agree on the percentage. 100% might be too high. And I guess I want a little bit of clarification how that would work. Let's take Vets Park, for instance. And we know that there are some paving issues. The entire parking lot needs to be redone. There's lighting that needs to be redone. Each of those could potentially be over a million dollars, right? So if somebody took and said, I want to sponsor the lighting project, But the lighting is only one piece of that entire park. Does that, because they've chosen that one item, does that count as 100% or does it

Okay, okay, I got you. And I think that there could be some, on like a park bench, 100% makes perfect sense, right? On something like lighting that maybe is a million dollars, I don't know, is 100% correct. Maybe it is, I don't know. I would like it to have a little bit more discussion with Parks and Rec, Vets Park Commission, the Tourism Committee, Just because I guess I see this as like, this is really us working together with the community. And I think right now is a really critical time to have these discussions and to make people feel and not just feel, but like be really heard right now,

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the clarification. I almost feel like we would need the on-site, but I think the off-site is a given too, right? Like following up with a thank you note and maybe some public recognition and our website. I would think that that all falls hand in hand. So it's not an either or, but it really should be kind of and in addition to. I would just a point of clarification. I agree with what Supervisor Currow is saying with that spark commission and who is taking care of that spark. I just want to make it clear that it is not teams that is doing it. It is the leagues, the

I've simplified it. There's a park. Someone wants to sponsor the, say, play structure at the park. An ex-local business says, okay, we'll donate the money for the play structure. They get a plaque in front of it that says, made possible through whatever business this is. To me, it makes sense. If they're going to get the recognition, they would pay for the entirety of it, not 70% of it or something like that. It seems like a complicated thing. So that's the way I sort of saw the program. Uh, things like that now, of course, you need to go through the details of okay. What does that look like?

Because Vicky, you look like... Yeah, I just want to... So that there is more clarity going back. And if there's disagreement, then just please speak up. But really, this was not meant to be complicated again. So you pick certain features in parks. It would be play structures, benches. There are other models out there. So I think what we should do is compile a list of potential features that would have sponsorships on them and present those to the commissions and get their feedback on what that might look like. And then, of course, there's dollar amounts and things like that that are, I'm not

Thank you. I really like your idea of each park should have an itemized list of sponsorships. we should be the one saying, these are all the areas you can sponsor in this park because every park will be different and that will help resolve some of the issues that I'm seeing with when I saw 100% park sponsorship, my mind was going, they have to sponsor the entire park. And I'm going, that will never help Vets Memorial Park. And how is this possibly going to help us? So if we could push it back to the commissions and say, we want that from the commissions at each park, get us a list of what are

And I want to point out too, this, I saw this as an opportunity for going forward for things like the regional part. There's a lot of different ideas and amenities for that park. It's like, I know there was at one point there was like a pump track for bikes. Like, okay, does someone want to sponsor the pump track? Like, that makes sense. They pay for that. They get the plaque on it. Okay, now we have that there and we can focus, you know, use our funds for other amenities that don't have a sponsorship yet. So there is a lot of opportunity going forward with this.

Yeah, I would just make a recommendation that he's hearing that there is general support just to send it back to the commissions, get feedback a little bit more on what the logistics might look like within the parks. Keeping in mind, please, that there is a will to move forward with on-site sponsorships. I think that maybe was... the point where there was some, but that really is kind of the crux of what we're trying to do. And that's where we can actually gain some, I think, some moderate revenue to help offset some of the maintenance costs and things within the park. To send it back, get you

I support your recommendation. I will just add, though, it just kind of came to me, we probably need to include REACH as well, because REACH is kind of the nonprofit for all of the parks, and their whole thing is raising money for the parks and awareness, etc. And so that might be a great group for us to bring into this conversation as well. They may have some ideas. So again, I think that more is better than less kind of community involvement right now. So if I could just ask that we reach out to REACH as well and get some feedback. So that's it. Thank you.

So that was a recommendation. Do we need to take a motion on that? I think there's consensus on the recommendation, if I'm correct. We're good? Yeah. Okay, great.

Okay, we're gonna keep moving forward. Item 3.2, receive a presentation regarding the fiscal year 26-27 budget and recommendations.

Thank you. Any board members have questions as far as the crew?

Thank you so much for the presentation. It's a lot of information, but at the same time, it feels like it's almost fluid in how it needs to kind of be rolled out. And that kind of goes to my question. My question is, are there very specific, like, we're not going to be able to do everything all at once. We're going to have to do this through some of a rollout process. I'm very supportive of the RMA audit. I think that could help multiple ways. It can help staff. It can help, you know, kind of get a better understanding. It can help with transparency for the public. I think that's a very good t

Okay, thank you. I really appreciate that because it's been confusing for me. I'm interested in what my colleagues have to say. I have some more comments and notes, but I'm going to just keep it to myself right now. Thank you.

Thank you, Leigh Ann. Great presentation. I agree with Supervisor Crow and I think there kind of has to be a plan. But I'm really excited to dive into this, to set some of these policies, move forward with these recommendations. And so I realize this is the start, right? This isn't where it's going to end. But I think that we are really moving in the right direction. And I appreciate all the time that you put into this and going through all of this quite extensively and with all of these recommendations. So I am supportive of this. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you so much. met throughout this process i think you met with all the supervisors so this might be a little repetitive for you um but i you know i think i like where we're going um what really jumped out to me is that we do need somebody in place who um is at a certain level uh with experience and just a budget whiz who can come in um and and really can just hit the ground running, which means you have to pay that person an appropriate amount of money to be able to recruit the type of person that we need here because the budget is the first priority. It has to

Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the work that you've done. echo my colleagues in that I appreciate this and I want to move forward with all these recommendations to get things moving in a smoother direction. I did have a question on one of them, the reorganizing or renaming, reassigning of the reserves. Now, if memory serves, the board, I believe, changed it to the way it is rather recently, maybe two years ago. So what exactly, can you go run through again the general reserve idea there?

Question on that, just because you said it will forever be in place. Until it's changed. The future board could just undo that, right?

Okay. Understood. Thank you. Ms. Rizzo-Crow.

Yeah, I went through my notes and there was one question that I didn't ask. When you talked about cancellation of obligation of fund balance and then assigned fund balance, I kind of I want to understand how does this work? Am I often understanding that's the role? I call it the rollover where you're rolling over into your next budget and you show where your unspent funds from your budget, where those are and why they happened. before you roll them over and say that now they're like revenue in your new budget. You actually are seeing it more transparently. I'm assuming this, am I understanding

And on those unassigned fund balances, when we are approving larger projects, I'm not talking like contracts for a department. I'm talking about large commitments that we are funding for. There was, we had, well, we didn't, the prior board had a capital improvement project plan for five years. It was adopted, I think, in 2020. It was to run through 2020, 2021. It was to run through 2026 or 2025. And that was a capital improvement project on roads, on specific things where money was going to be committed. And it was committed to these projects. I want to understand how are we taking direction t

Okay, so part of what we're going to be recommending is a policy around that. And this is an area that I really want us to focus on as a board is that we need to make sure that that policy, so when we're giving direction from the board level, that that action takes place and it does not get overstepped by a next year's budget and just erased off the board. That's what I want to make sure we correct.

Thank you. I don't believe we need to formally take a...

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, we'll be moving on then to our next item, 3.3. This is from the CEO to discuss the county's role in the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program round two grant application.

Questions or comments from board members? Ms. Crow?

I'm just a little confused. So I feel like I'm getting two messages. We originally approved a letter that we were not going to be committing county resources The grant application is saying we are committing county resources, but the public comment is saying this is a planning grant for the future. but it's the future of resources that the county will be committing to provide do i have that correct i'm trying to so it may be a planning grant but it's planning for something that we are committing resources in the future that we may not be able to have now i don't have a problem with supporting

Are we reimbursed through the grant for those resources?

And I completely understand, and I thank you for bringing that concern. Is there a way to move forward with the grant application stipulating that we will only provide these services if the grant funds them?

And please, I apologize. We're a co-applicant. Does that mean that we are committing resources? That's what co-applicant means in a grant application. And so if we're committing resources, but we said we're a non-binding supporter, I don't understand how that's going to work. So can they move forward with the grant application with us not being a co-applicant and that we support and want to collaborate, but we cannot in good conscience right now commit people that we don't have and the resources that we can't afford towards this. We totally support where it's going, but we can't support any co

I just wanna- And I see that. I see that, so that's why I'm asking. Can we be removed as being a co-applicant but a supporter.

like this grant is needed in our community, right? And so I'm struggling with like, how do we access this funding that is so incredibly needed? And then at the same time, committing to stuff possibly in the future. But I'm kind of, I mean, I guess some of these things, whether we commit to in a grant or not, are going to fall under the responsibility of the county though, right? Like having cooling centers, dealing with some of the, being prepared for some of these extreme heat or flooding, earthquake, whatever the kind of disaster is, we need to be doing some of those. So how do we leverage s

Yeah, I didn't know if you were expecting an answer. I don't know if anyone...

So just to clarify, the answer is then no, we cannot be a co-applicant and not sign on to the money, right? That's the gist of this, if I understand correctly.

Supervisor Kosmicki hasn't had a chance yet to speak. So you want to go ahead.

Thank you, Chair and Supervisor Kosmicki. The project types, this is the biggest alarming part for me. Applicants, plural. If we're co-applicants, now if I read this, applicants must demonstrate that construction will be completed within 48 months of the grant award start date. Awards range from $3 million to $4.5 million. Does that mean they're giving us $3 million to $4.5 million to construct a facility?

Because my biggest concern, the word applicants, if we're co-applicants, we are an applicant. And so we will be responsible. So I really struggle with any...

know that there's there's something that you know folks out there are trying to solve and bringing us into the fold um however you know this is just is not what we signed up for i mean when we when we approve a non-binding letter of support that's just basically saying we support something that you're moving forward with and then to have it come back we're reading the application form and it says please provide the organization um uh name, type, and summary of their role. And all applications require a co-applicant. The co-applicant requirement varies, yada, yada, yada. Do you have a co-applic

Thank you. Yeah, I'm not comfortable being a co-applicant as long as there's a financial commitment attached to that. So that's where I'm at. Supervisor Crowe, you had, I think, a recommendation.

Where I was going to go. I was going to go with the staff's recommendation from county council as stated by them. Do I need to repeat the entire thing? We would not be co-applicants, but we would support the project, not financially. and that as it moves forward, we could always have information brought back to us. My motion would be to remove us as co-applicant, yet support the project unbinding.

Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?

Second. Can I just ask, sir? Yes. are there opportunities for us to stay like what our role could be in this? You know, like I get Hunter, I agree with you regarding the city of Hollister and their involvement. I think it was a natural look to the County first because of OES and, and all of that. Right. And I think they've done work with kind of the VOAD. And so I don't think it was a, slight to the city or I think it was just kind of that natural oh yes kind of a thing is there anything that we can do I mean this really does help our community is there anything that we could say where okay we

Chair? Yes. So I totally agree that we should add some wording of what we can do, but it should be exactly what our role is. So I love the word that you use, participate. Everything in this is support. That means staff. That means money. That means resources. So I don't like the word support. We support the government. applicant's application, but we don't want to be a co-applicant, but participate. The word you used was participate. I think that we will participate in such level of the OES role of the Office of Emergency Services, and that means participating in coordinating, that means parti

Well, yeah, I just, I think it'd be just helpful as we submit this, just laying it out there a little bit, what we can do. And so, yeah, so.

Mr. Trick, can I add one last point? Yeah. We may want to clarify that we're in no position, we are really in no position to take on another infrastructure project. And that I think needs to be clarified so that there's no false impression from the applicant more than anything that the county in any time in the near future, we've got enough on the to-do list when it comes to infrastructure. We are just absolutely not in a position to take on another infrastructure project or to be a key player in another infrastructure project. We are just simply not. I wish we could, but we are not in that po

resources the office of emergency services would ordinarily provide during any such local emergency thank you um someone to make a new motion as yes so i'll make a new motion per county council's recommendation so staff recommendations from county council's oral statement not not the agenda um i would make a motion to approve is there a second

Great. We have a first and a second. We have a roll call vote, please.

Thank you. Now we do have, I believe we have someone in closed session at 12, is that right? So we'll probably have to break now and give people a chance to grab something before we head into closed session. So do we have any public comment on our closed session agenda?

Thank you. We'll break for closed session and be back in county council. What are we estimating, an hour, hour and a half?

We'll be back by 1 o'clock. At the latest.

All right, we are back from closed session. County Council, do we have any reportable action?

Thank you. We're going to continue with regular agenda. Item 3.4, receive an update regarding speeding concerns along State Route 25 through Trespinos. This is from our Public Works Department.

Thank you. Board members, anyone have any questions? This is your district.

Thank you. And thank you for bringing this forward. I feel like this has been a topic we've been talking about for quite some time. We do appreciate your speed signs. The actual speeds that you are allowed to do are not necessarily near the speed signs, either they're before or they're way after. So if we could maybe have the signs, I'm not directing, I'm just asking if it's something we could have staff look at the signs actually have the speed limit on that sign. So when it's flashing the speed, it tells you what your your actual limit is because that's been one of the comments from the publ

Yeah, I would just say, you know, it sounds like Caltrans wasn't open to further traffic, you know, speed coming, but perhaps it's worth just revisiting, especially in light of you obviously get the study and do some level of analysis. I don't know what the rules are with technically it's a state highway, but it's also basically just a small town, a road through a small town, and just logically, just speaking, it seems like speed humps, something along those lines. If there's no other options, because enforcement doesn't seem to be really all that likely that whatever options are on the table,

Yes. Just so it's on the record, none of the residents want speed bumps or calming. They would rather have a stop sign. at the the post office street they they do not want speed bumps they don't want maybe those rumble you know like when you're right before right when you're at that that sign that says flashing the speed maybe the rumbles to just wake you up and remind you gotta slow down that but no way would they want speed bumps i'm 99.9 sure on this one

Mr. Chair, it's your district, you know best. I would just say in my experience, areas where people know there isn't enforcement, especially a quiet little area, there's a high likelihood they're just going to simply ignore a stop sign because I've seen it. It's a problem we're having, for instance, on the old highway now off 156 where you have these areas that are um you know just not a ton of volume and people literally just drive through the stop signs so i i feel like you're still going to have some level of an issue either way if you simply install soft science yeah um thank you is there

Is that something they would consider basically on a highway is what I'm wondering?

Well, at Airline and 25 and Ridgemark or Fairview, there's a four-way stop sign with a flashing light. You know, with the Ridgemark potential project, they're looking at a potential light going there. There's nothing that says we can't ask Caltrans again to possibly do a flashing light study or even a yellow light, a warning light, you know. where it's not that they're stopping, it's just getting them to slow down. I've sat at flapjacks at noon and at breakfast, and when these trucks go flying by and the whole building shakes because of the speed that they're going, that's the part. It's havin

Next, we have item 3.5. This is regarding the Lands of Lee Affordable Housing Plan. I think we have Abraham here to present. Thank you, Mr.

Thank you. Bring it back to the board. Mr. Kuzmicki, you want to go? Comments? Mr. Kuro? Mr. Teller, you want to start? Go for it. I'll go.

All right. Yeah. So just to recall things, I, you know, I just put it back on the record. Sometimes the media reports these things and leaves out who voted which way and all that sort of thing. So just as a recollection, I've always been opposed to this project as a whole. There was a three to two vote in 2024. I was on the no side of that along with Supervisor Zanger. I'm consistently opposed to, this uh what i would call so-called affordable housing um this is not um and this is not a knock at all on the um the county side the folks that we had a lawsuit from the developer um and i'll get to

Right. So there were, but there were 30, what was approved in 2024 on the three to two vote, there was 30 junior ADUs that the majority of the board was essentially saying you can designate 30 junior ADUs for affordable housing. What was the developer pushing for after that specifically?

Yeah. And so in concept, what we have is 30 junior ADUs, which is, when I read it, it's under 500 square feet, basically. And it's got, it's like an efficiency, but it's very small, um, on, on someone else's property, basically. And I, I just, this is not at all what anyone had ever imagined as being, um, the right kind of direction that we should be going in when it comes to affordable housing. Putting that aside, I want to focus on this plan itself right now. And when I look at this plan, and I think you hit it on the nail, you weren't meaning to, but from where I'm coming from, you said if,

What I read is that they would have to keep something on file for like three years in the event somebody came to them and questioned whether the person was income eligible. That's what I read in the documentation. Esperanza, you had something?

Great. Page seven had the planning director, and this has nothing to do with you. This is just the language. The planning director may in his or her reasonable discretion approve continued occupancy by a tenant whose gross annual household income exceeds the qualifying income for a qualifying low-income household, provided the tenant's gross annual income does not exceed 120%. of area median income um so it's normally it's 80 um we're giving discretion to whomever the planning director is to allow up to 120 percent of median income uh in my book that's not affordable housing um again just to r

One second. uh in the 2.11 um the county may also grant a waiver relaxation or amendment of the restrictions contained in this agreement upon defining by the board of supervisors in its reasonable discretion um or a diligent effort by the affordable lot owner of efforts to comply with the provisions of this agreement so in other words a future board of supervisors can just basically throw all the rules out the door And then 5.1, enforcement. The county may, we always just, there's always that may and shall. The county may designate, appoint, contract, or assign an authority to regulate, monito

Thank you. Professor Crowe, do you have?

So my understanding from your presentation versus what Supervisor Kosmicki stated on the timing of the affordable construction, it's half of the permits have to be issued before the 71st house out of 121 is issued. Is that correct? So half would be 10. of the affordable.

So it's that because these are houses with attached ADUs, it has to go through a flow, but that means that 15 of them have to be done before the 71st and that all of them have to be done before the last main house permit is issued.

And I recall that this had to be deed restricted in order to meet the vehicle miles traveled overriding consideration. We did not approve an overriding consideration for VMT. We said VMT was matched, was met because of the affordability level, which requires these to be deed restricted. I want to make sure that everybody, that that's what my intent was, that these are deed restricted and that the only reason was because we didn't have to do an overriding consideration of VMT, which means less cars on the road because they would be most likely local residents. That's the only way the calculatio

Yeah. Okay. So it's not like a new program that we're asking. We're just adding it to this development. Is there a development agreement? Or will there be a development agreement with this project? Has that conversation been discussed? I don't know. I'm asking. I don't know.

Wouldn't we be looking into, so I would definitely want a development agreement that's negotiated with that hypothetical new negotiation team that we discussed last night. Yeah, yeah, okay. Because without a development agreement, I don't think that there's too many nuances where people could be taken advantage of, or residents could take advantage of these ADUs. And I really want the development agreement to hash that out. The if that was mentioned by my colleague about the if they decide to rent, there are so many people right now that I know personally that can't even afford their own house

So I heard, Supervisor Kosmicki, I think you said 120%. Is that right? I want to make sure I had that right. So they get in and they're eligible because they're low income. And then a couple years go by, and now they're up, and now they're out. Yes. And so, but this gives the discretion that the planning director can override that for a period of time. I'm not in agreement with that.

but it also defeats the purpose of housing people that couldn't afford housing, and it kicks them out of a location that they were able to afford. So is there a way to have a period of time that you now, your annual inspection, your annual review has occurred, and it's been determined that you exceed the amount, you have six months to vacate the property.

I'm just throwing a number out there. I just feel the whole point of this project, in my opinion, I'm looking at the college students at Gav College. I'm looking at teachers. I'm looking at people that can't afford to live in our community. And we have enough multifamily opportunities. Multi families living in one home or even one apartment that could potentially qualify for these homes. And I mean, it's not a one shot fits all. And I know it's not what our long term goals are for affordable housing, but we try to work with what we've got.

And that at least gives them an opportunity to find another place to live because I just feel like we're going to be causing homelessness if we're kicking people out of our affordable housing. I just I don't see by them being successful and getting out of that affordable housing level that that. Yeah. Will there be a waiting list for these deed restricted units that could be maintained by the county so that when that happens, there is a list that those property owners have of pre-qualified people that could come in and apply to rent that unit?

I'm sorry, can you say that one more time? How many?

So there is. So just noticing that there's a big need. So I see this as another thing that if we have, I agree that there needs to be a management of these units and that management needs to be paid by the developer, but the need is there. And if you look at those numbers, we're gonna find people that are gonna benefit from these units. So we did the paid by the developer. I wrote no access, and the reason I wrote this is I don't know how these units are designed. They are attached ADUs. Are they connected by any access doors, like a door? Is it a wall, a full sheer wall between the ADU with a

In our development agreement, can we make it a requirement that they have to be sheer walls? They cannot be connected with a door. And the reason I'm saying that is that is going to be a way of making sure that these are not being used inappropriately. I'm just trying to find ways to...

No, this is an attached ADU. It's attached, not detached, it's attached. It's attached to the building, but is it connected in any way? Because if it has a door that walks through, that is gonna open the door to not being utilized as an ADU. I see what you're saying. Do you see where I'm going? Yes, yes. And because, I'm sorry, I came from Ridgemark. We got ADUs on every corner in Ridgemark 11. Every single house on the corner has an ADU, but every single one of them has an attachment of a door. And if this is truly affordable, which is my intent, I want to make sure that that's a sheer wall,

Yeah, they're not going to use it. We want it to not be a connected ADU. When I looked at this as an ADU development, it was not with a door access or any connection between the ADU and the other one. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. You don't want a door. I don't want any access.

I don't want to just say door because door could mean, you know, I don't want any access between the two. Okay? Because that will help with the management, with the affordable, and the deed restriction. I just, that's my basic comments. I think that was it. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, I'll make it quick. A lot of mine have already, questions have already been kind of answered. On that attached versus detached and this wall, I think in order for them to be in compliance, they have to be attached. Am I? Because I think they actually prefer to be detached. And so I think that that's just, they have to be attached. Attached with no access. Right. Right. But they have to be attached. I'm just curious, Abraham, does this project completely meet all of our affordable housing requirements and everything that they're trying to do?

So are we being told by one of the courts that this is what, in order to be in compliance, this is what we have to do?

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the clarification. I don't have any further questions, thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Abraham, for bringing this and presenting this and the work on it. the whole if thing is just a complete non-starter for me and it doesn't make any sense that if you go back to the intention what originally after this was passed he came forward the developer and said actually would it be all right if we didn't have the affordable piece of it and they could just rent it to friends and family who aren't income qualified so the intention is clear that he wants this to be he doesn't want the affordable requirements to apply Because we all know we live in the real world.

Okay. Yeah. So, well, yeah, I'll be done really soon. Like I said, this is basically just a non-starter for me because none of these have to be rented out. Technically, none of them do. So there's no affordable housing. if no one wants to do it. If the owner doesn't want to do it, if the owner doesn't want to have a low-income resident living next to them, they don't have to. There's no affordable housing. This is a market rate, basically a market rate development. It doesn't make any sense to me. And that was, like I said, clearly his intention when he first came back and wanted to remove the

Sorry, I just thought of, I have another question. How do these, you know, with this if kind of language, how do the numbers correspond to our arena numbers? Like let's say there's 30 and hypothetically 10 decide that they're not going to, I don't, we're not going to rent them out. So now we are looking at 20. Are we still getting credit for our arena numbers for the 30 or are we now at the 20?

Do we have any other communities that have done this that are getting credit or not getting credit? If they've built these ADUs, is it counted? I mean, I understand what you're saying is that, yes, it does essentially count towards it, but with this language of this if may put into question, possibly, but with the deed restriction, it looks like it counts towards our RENA numbers. Are there any jurisdictions that we have you know, look towards and seeing the way that they do it and oh yes, this is how they did that model and HCD has accepted it or is there anything at risk and I don't know.

Thank you. And then my other question would just be, are the duets considered affordable too? Because I know we're spending a lot of time talking about the ADUs, but are the duets considered affordable?

So after hearing and understanding a little more, can we make the duets deed restricted also?

Okay, so, okay, I was hoping we could add that in there. We do have the ability to say that we would amend 2.3, the affordable units are to be made available, that they... are required to be available and remove the first line of if the affordable lot owner elects to offer their respective affordable unit or ADU to rent. No, it is that they shall. The affordable unit shall be rented only to qualified low income. I think we need to, first of all, make that happen. That would be my first recommendation to the board. We need to make sure this management fee, the 5% onto the property owner, I don'

It's low income, but it would not recuse anyone that is very low income from qualifying. So it would be very low and low.

I just want to make sure it's very low and low.

Okay. And then I had originally asked about staff, and now I heard you say consultant. That means money. This addition of deed restrictions would require us to bring on a consultant?

That needs to be discussed in the development agreement. And it needs to be negotiated. But I don't want to be part of that negotiation team. The other thing is we have to look at this in the eyes also of property owners. When you own a property, like let's say an apartment complex, and the county can't force you to take on a renter, but we're in basically making them take on a renter. So it's that where I'm at is either you're having a renter come in that meets the affordability requirements, or you have no one in that unit. I don't understand. I'm trying to fill the problem, which is we had

And I believe that's in Santa Cruz. I don't believe we have our own. It's Santa Cruz, right?

Right. So where I'm at right now is the demand is there. We have the opportunity if we can try and negotiate some of these with a development agreement and remove that wording in 2.3 that makes it a mandatory that they must be made available.

Well, was your question answered, actually? Because I thought your question was, how is the county going to essentially impose and force that they are doing all they can to have them rented out?

The development agreement would have to be negotiated, that there would have to be an agreement of how these are going to be filled. And we have to come, I can't say what that agreement's going to be. I think there's more conversation that needs to happen with the developer. to be able because i'm going to go back to it this did not have the overriding consideration of vmt if we don't have people in these units that are for affordable then they have to come back for that overriding consideration of vmt and i will not approve that i made that clear from the beginning and i'm not stepping off of

Thank you. Mr. Chair? Yes. Oh, did you? No. Well, I think all this conversation about having these 30 property owners, they have discretion whether to rent out or not. The complication of finding the people, going by the list that's out there already, but you have this piecemeal situation where you don't have a manager, but you have 30 different, presumably 30 different property owners really underscores why this entire arrangement is completely wacky and does not fit in line with What we're trying to do, it really complicates things and it just sets up. And then we get back after all this lit

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I do. The problem is we have to come up with a way that it could work. I'm trying to find a way that it could work. If we go through each one of the things that you have, there are some that I'm like, absolutely don't see how if 71%, if we have all, you have to think about construction. If all of the project, if you do affordable first- How is that possible? They're connected to a home. You can't do affordable first. You have to make it where the permits of the affordable units are the first ones that may be in a sequence of events. But you also

So taking out the F language so that there's a requirement to actually rent out the affordable units.

That's 2.3. I totally agree that that should be removed.

Can I ask a quick question on that one for 2.3? So how would that work if you have... I don't know, let's say I buy it and I want to put my elderly parent there or I have a child that is maybe special needs or I just have a child, young adult trying to figure out life and I want to rent to them. Do I have the ability to do that as the homeowner? If they qualify.

That's correct. Under the 80% of income.

So they would still have to, they go through the income qualifications. But they could absolutely qualify. Okay. Just wanted clarification on that. Thank you.

And if we're on that one, I would still need to understand how they wouldn't just not rent them, how that would actually be enforced. If we're going to say, if we're going to change it from if to shall, they have to be rented out. How does that actually get enforced?

We would have a consultant brought on that would be monitoring, if not annually, we could even do it more than annually if that's what the board wants. We could do it every six months where they are and that cost would be borne on the developer in a calculation, but possibly a portion for that resident because it's a benefit for that resident.

And Mr. Chair, I must say, I don't think that, and this again, why this whole thing doesn't work, I got to say, but the property owner should not be choosing who's living there. We have a list and I heard a thousand, what?

49 units, 1,100. So we know there's demand, as you pointed out. So why are we allowing the property owner to choose who lives there, which would only further complicate delays and vacancies and all that. We know there's demand. So if there's a property manager that vets the folks that want to live in these places, this should be treated like affordable housing because it's supposed to be affordable housing. So we have a process in place that would allow that demand That list, call it a priority list or whatever you want to call it, an eligibility list, we have that list. So as long as we're fo

but Mr. Chair, if I may, if your mother-in-law is on that list, I agree, they need to be on the list, but if they're your family member, they should be at the top of the list for your, it's your property. I have to say that that's a property owner's right to be able to rent it out to their parent or to their, you know, whoever it is. I mean, there has to be a give and a take here. Yes, I agree they need to be on the list. They need to be income qualified and it needs to be monitored, but they should be able to pick from that list the people that they want to live in that home from that list.

I would say I think that's a fair point, which is why I'm not going to be supporting this at all, because it's just totally not going to work. It's just not going to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish here. I'm glad I was against this before, because it's proven nothing but a mess since, and I don't think it's going to get any better, frankly. I don't think there's a way to square this where we actually hit our actual requirements that we're trying to hit for low-income housing. I don't think it's going to work.

So can I ask a question, Mr. Chair, to counsel? Counsel, at one point prior to you being here, they had an original project that came before the board that was rejected, and then this project came before the board. There was litigation in that project. There's litigation in this project. There's litigation everywhere. It is my understanding from talking to prior counsel that if we don't come up with something that the developer and we can agree with, there is a potential that they could go back to that prior project that was denied and bring it back in a litigation.

And that I appreciate because the reason I'm trying to come to a compromise is because I don't want that project coming forward. That project I rejected because it had an overriding consideration of vehicle miles traveled.

Right, and we still would have the, Mr. Chair, we still would have the discretion to reject that project because it does not fit in line with the vehicle's mild travel requirement.

I just wanted to make sure that we do not have, I was told that they would have some power over us because of that.

Okay, so then are we going to table this for now, then, to get some more information and bring it back? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Abraham.

Okay, next, 3.6. This is to approve the final map for Fairview Corners Phase 2. Busy day for you.

Great. Thank you. Any comments or questions from board members? Mr.

Chair, I'm going to mimic my colleague because I'm going to say just for the record, this was approved in 2012. You go right before. I'm sorry, I'm going to say it. I'm going to do, because this is a project, again, that I have trouble with, but because it happened, it impacted my decision on the other project. This has been going on since 2012. I just got hired as a county employee at that time. So this was some time ago that this happened. And we have very little, I guess, understand, very little ways of changing this project. But some of my comments are going to be um making sure that some

Okay, that's great. At minimum, it will be a stop sign, won't it? Thank you. And you can turn left or right. Those were my complaints from the beginning. Drainage. We talked a little bit about this yesterday when we had one of my constituents here. There is a drainage issue at the east side that goes down into towards Best Road. I know you're working on that. Sounds like you have a plan already. I just want it to be on public record that it is being addressed by staff and that as we move forward, it will be monitored and adjustments will be made.

Great. Thank you so much. Those are my questions.

Yeah, I don't. Oh, go ahead. Mickey, sorry.

Yeah, I just want to. clarify what supervisor curl said just we may have a newer member of the media here um just so you know a final map is we are not approving a development this development was approved 14 years ago there are entitlements to this development which means that as long as the developer is following the development agreement that this is a ministerial vote that we are required to approve these maps as they go along and work their way through the phases of these projects. Just want to make that very clear. That said, are there any questions that have arisen with regard to compli

to record the face though okay thank you the only other comment i just want to put on record and i appreciate supervisor cosmicky for his comments but making sure that we understand in future developments the biggest feedback i've been getting is how high that project has been built up no one thought when this was approved that those houses were going to be so high off of Fairview. So I just want it to be for the record and staff to know because we're all kind of getting on a new staff thing is that we need to be looking at elevations when we're looking at developments and we need to be more u

I was also confused by that when I saw it, by the way. I wondered why they were building a mountain to put the houses on, but I don't have anything to add. I think they covered it with all their comments. So do we need to take action to approve the final map? Does anyone want to make a motion?

I'll move to approve per staff recommendations.

We have a first and a second. Can we have roll call vote, please?

Great. Thank you. That concludes the regular agenda. Now we are going to switch to the Geologic Hazard Abatement District. Item 4.1, Board will adjourn as Board of Supervisors reconvene as the Board of Directors of the San Benito GAD. Is there a motion to acknowledge the certificate of posting?

Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Is there any public comment of items not on the agenda for the GAD? if you'd like to make a comment in chambers please provide a speaker card on zoom press nine on press nine or the raised hand icon and i have no public comment great we have the consent agenda is there a motion to approve the action minutes of the june 23rd 2026 meeting so move oh we have to open up oh sorry sorry i just caught myself thank you public comment on consent

Great, now is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. All in favor, say aye. Aye. 4.3, this is to approve amendment one with ENGEO Incorporated certified professional geological hazard abatement district manager services as stated.

Here I am again, District 4. This is like the District 4 meeting. So I have a couple questions. One, and I'm sorry I did not ask this in advance, do we have a current fund balance for the GAD? Are we within the current fund balance? Because that's part of what they're going to be working on, but this is a very large contract addition.

Yep, that's great. Then we can kind of do a conversation.

Okay, great. And I appreciate that. And I do want to set up a separate meeting with the residents, so I keep saying that. I've gotten more calls. There's one footnote, and I kind of am going to lean over to counsel and to CEO about this. I'm on page two of the actual amendment, and it says tasks and amounts. And you'll see that there are... six items in the tasks that have a footnote one. And it states, dependent on maintenance and or repair activity by the GAD during the fiscal year 26-27, the GAD manager NGO payment limit is 20% of the total budget item. Does that mean that there is an admin

But you're also doing an administrative fee of $21,000. Correct. So why do I feel like this is double the fee?

I just want to make sure because I have concerns of how I'm going to explain this so we can again maybe talk offline. Because I would love this to be presented differently because it looks like you're putting an administrative fee on top of an administrative fee and we just can't have that in a public document. So we need it to be amended to actually show cost that you're looking at and then the administrative fee or maintenance fee for that cost, maybe a better way.

Okay. I have nothing, so is there a motion to approve the amendment? I'll move to approve. Is there a second? First staff recommendation. Is there a second? Second. We're first and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Great, thank you. That would conclude the Geologic Hazard Abatement District, and we have no future agenda items, so we are adjourned.