Remarks by Angela Curro
201 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 9
- Play at 3:47:58
“And I believe that's in Santa Cruz. I don't believe we have our own. It's Santa Cruz, right?”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 3:48:26
“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.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 3:49:03
“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…”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 3:52:51
“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…”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 3:54:41
“That's 2.3. I totally agree that that should be removed.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 3:55:14
“That's correct. Under the 80% of income.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 3:55:45
“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.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 3:57:20
“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.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 3:58:30
“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.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 3:59:39
“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.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:00:07
“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.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:03:01
“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…”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:07:15
“Okay, that's great. At minimum, it will be a stop sign, won't it?”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:07:20
“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.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:07:59
“Great. Thank you so much. Those are my questions.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:09:46
“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…”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:10:52
“I'll move to approve per staff recommendations.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:14:25
“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.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:15:10
“Yep, that's great. Then we can kind of do a conversation.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:15:42
“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…”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:17:31
“But you're also doing an administrative fee of $21,000. Correct. So why do I feel like this is double the fee?”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 4:17:54
“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.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 37:59
“Yeah, you're not going to like me being, giving me the mic. So I'm really sorry. I really appreciate where Supervisor Kosmicki is going. I have spent a tremendous amount of time doing research on this, and I have actually spent hours with the Ridgemark debacle that's been created because it's an HOA, it's a CSA, it's a CFD, it's a JHAD. I'm not going to say the the other word I say that I'm not supposed to say. But there are so many issues about the decisions that have been made in the past that are affecting residents and the communication of these communities. And so I'd like to take this a…”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 39:27
“It's not an extra added cost. So I want to make this point very clear. We have Prop 13, which is coming out of the overall property tax, not an additional 218, which is an addition to their property tax that funds their services. Correct. And the problem with the 13 is the 13 is 1% with only a kind of 2% average, but I don't understand why it averages 2%. I don't understand why sometimes we can go higher annually or lower. It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not going to get into the math of that because I think there's bigger fish to fry here. we have to understand that when we're looking…”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 40:30
“Oh, I didn't go far enough, sorry. Okay, so we have inactive before active. Now, if we talk about inactive on Prop 13, what does that mean? Does that mean they're not getting that 1% or they're not getting any services? Because if the 1% is still going into their account.”
Board of Supervisors · Sep 14, 2026