 Good morning. Welcome to our 8 30 am public portion of the closed litigation session of the December 11, 2018 meeting of the city council and this part of the meeting the city council will receive public testimony. Thereafter the council members will move to the courtyard conference room for the closed session. I'd now like to ask the clerk to please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. Council member is Cron is absent. Matthews is currently absent. Chase? Here. Brown? Here. Narayan? Here. Vice Mayor Watkins is currently absent and Mayor Tresa? Here. Before we open public comment, I have a brief announcement. The city attorney will provide a report on items listed on the closed session agenda at the beginning of the 9 am session. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak to any items listed on the closed session agenda? Now I'd like to turn it over to the city attorney for any additional comments. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Tresa's members of the city council. I would request that by motion the council add three subsequent need items to the closed session agenda. The first two are threatened litigation items. You've received correspondence relating to both items 26 and 27 on your afternoon morning afternoon agenda threatening litigation relating to those two items. The third is a pending litigation matter entitled state of California ex rel Martinez versus Monterey Peninsula engineering. The basis for adding those is that the need for action arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda and there is also a necessity for the council to take action or give direction prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Thank you. Is there a motion to add those three subsequent need items to the closed session agenda? So moved by Councilman Matthews and I'll second that. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. See no public comment will now recess to the public to our closed session. Passes with. Councilmember crone and vice mayor Watkins absent. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to our now 904 session of the December 11th, 2018 meeting of the city council. I'd now like to ask the clerk to please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. Council member is crone. He's here. Here. Matthews. Here. Chase. Here. Brown. Here. Narayan. Here. Vice Mayor Watkins is currently absent. And Mayor Trazos. Here. And if the clerk would now please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God. Indivisible with liberty and justice for all. There are no new employees to introduce. So at this time it is my pleasure to introduce the Jim House Community Service Award. The officer Jim House Community Service Award. It's an annual award that is given to community members and city employees for outstanding service to the city of Santa Cruz. The award was created in honor of Officer Jim House who retired in 2007 after serving as a Santa Cruz police officer for nearly 26 years. He was known throughout the city for his positive approach and partnership building between the city and Santa Cruz community. The Officer Jim House Community Service Award honors his legacy of positive collaborative problem solving. Recipients of this award are found to one exhibit extraordinary dedication and efforts towards improving the quality of life in Santa Cruz. Through constructive, solution oriented work. They also work in collaboration with the city or city departments and other community stakeholders. And embody a spirit of cooperation between the city and community and set a positive tone that inspires and motivates others. After this year's nomination process in which many impressive and worthy community members and city employees were nominated. A selection committee which consisted of Deputy Chief Rick Martinez and Santa Cruz Warriors President Chris Murphy and myself chose two honorees in each categories for 2018. In the city employee category, we recognize Sergeant Scott Garner and Susie O'Hara. And in the community member category, we recognize Paul Martin and Robert Oritzi. At this point in the agenda, I'm going to turn it over to, in just a moment, to Vice Mayor Watkins. And we'll step down and hear a little bit about each of those recipients. I can tell you that one, I was grateful I received the Jim House Award I think in 2008. And it's really something where I feel very proud and honored and I'm really happy to be here to recognize each of the recipients today. So I will step down and. Good morning. So it's my honor to first recognize Scott Garner, City Employee Recipient. Sergeant Garner has been with the police department for more than 20 years. Colleagues, neighbors and community members share their experiences of Sergeant Garner's willingness to step up and lead complex projects and volunteer his time in the community. Whether partnering with neighbors to address issues, training new PD volunteers, serving as a criminal justice instructor in the county schools, volunteering with youth for Special Olympics, or dedicating countless hours of off-duty time to organize and run the annual Police Officers Association Golf Tournament to benefit our local youth. Sergeant Garner works tirelessly to collaborate with community stakeholders. Thank you so much for your service, Sergeant Garner. Thank you. I just want to say thank you. This is an honor. We all work very hard and it takes a village. It really does. Thank you. The City Employee Recipient is Susie O'Hara. Susie has been with the city for eight years. When the city was facing the challenging task of sitting, establishing and managing the River Street Camp to offer stability and services to the homeless members of our community, Susie stepped up and she got it done. She spent countless hours planning and managing the River Street Camp, making sure the residents had meals, access to services, and bathroom and shower facilities. As a result of Susie's outstanding work, many members of the River Street Camp community went on to successful outcomes. With 56% of the 130 people who lived in the River Street Camp at one time or another, moving on to better living situations. Thank you for your service, Susie. I do have a few prepared remarks. Garner, you can put the timer on for three minutes. Yeah. Written but no less heartfelt. I want to thank Mayor Trossis and Vice Mayor Watkins and the entire council for this honor. Thank you to Amanda for the nomination and the selection team for their recommendation. I'm so happy to share this recognition with two friends and colleagues, Scott and Robert, and Mr. Martin, who I don't know, but I know is well deserving and has certainly, they all have served the community with honor and dignity. I won't take much time because I know that our today's agenda is very full, but I do have a few words to share, and I'm going to get emotional like Chip last year. It's his fault. After a long year of dedicating myself and my work to some frankly monstrous tasks, I've learned a few things that I think are important to reflect on. First, never be afraid of tackling even really difficult and even unimaginable tasks, even if you basically have no idea what you're doing. When you have the potential of doing something good and something lasting. Spending this year building the River Street camp, being immersed in his community of staff and campers, and learning about how best to tackle this vexing challenge of around homelessness has been the singularly most gratifying and painful experience of my career and taught me to be brave, learn from others, and lean on my colleagues to help. I think Mike Hopper, who I don't think is here, but hopefully he will hear this, especially if you're being an exceptional partner in this process. From conception to breakdown to all the other countless city staff who have lent their expertise along the way. And to the River Street camp managers, Chris Monteith and Adam Carruthers, along with many other staff. Some of whom are here today, who I relied so heavily on to share their skills and experiences as the camp was built and flourished. Second, it's easy for you to have, for people to have faith in you when you have faith in yourself. To this end, I thank Martine and Tina for saying, yeah, let's go ahead and do that. When I said, I think we can run this camp, what a leap of faith. In fact, Tina and Martine have been gently nudging my path in this direction since my fellowship year in 2013 and have always been supported of me as I've navigated my career from water engineer to analyst to assistant to the city manager. It's their leadership that has given me this faith in myself. Third, modeling honest, strong and compassionate leadership goes a long way in building trusting relationships with those that you work with in the community. No better example is my relationship with the downtown streets team. Amazing staff and team members I've had the honor of working with for the last 18 months. The team not only has made a huge difference in our town, and they came over with their pickers to be here today, but also helped make the River Street camp a success through serving as camp hosts and maintaining the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you especially to Greg Penzinger, who just last week announced that he's moving on to Modesto to start a new team there. And to Brooke Newman for taking the reins and being my Cat Faw Chair for the last couple years. Their partnership means the world to me. Lastly, public service is an honorable profession and we should be grateful to serve in the ways that we do and share those experiences with those we love. I've been able to share my work with my daughters this last year in ways that I never would have imagined. Casey, don't cry. They spent time with me at the camp, had long conversations with campers and learned about their lives. And saw many lives transformed before their eyes. Those are important experiences that may give them inspiration to serve others and the communities they build their lives in. I think Maeve, who's not here, she's taking the geometry test. Bridget and Farron, who are here for being curious and open to learning and listening. And most importantly, I want to thank my husband, Matt, for his steadfast support of my career and aspirations along a pretty windy path. I'm so lucky to have your partnership for the last 30 plus years. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Susie. That was beautiful. So now I have the honor to recognize Paul Martin, the community recipient. Paul has been voluntarily removing and cleaning graffiti in the city of Santa Cruz for the past 20 years. Each day, Paul sets out on his bike, tirelessly looking for and repairing graffiti. He spends four to eight hours a day on repairs, paying for the materials out of his own pocket. Paul is an inspiration to public service. Thank you so much for your service to our city, Paul. Yes, it is an ongoing activity. That is for sure. Anyone can participate. I want to thank Damon Bruder, who nominated me. And of course, Economic Development, they do supply me. I don't buy all my own goods. They supply me. And it is starting to describe just how much is out there until you really get in and see the depth and the breadth of it. I would like to see the city actually put a little more emphasis on correction and possibly apprehension. But I want to thank the city for this award. And it does occupy about 20 hours a week for me. So it is meaningful. And I would, again, emphasize that we could use more volunteers. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin, for that and for making our community experience cleaner and for your time. This time, it's my honor to now recognize Robert Oritzi, community recipient. Robert takes on projects big and small to make Santa Cruz a better place to live. Whether serving as a volunteer at the police department or helping a group of neighbors collaborate with the public works department to create more crosswalks and bike paths on Broadway Street. Or partnering with neighborhood businesses like Safeway to keep their neighborhoods safe. Robert is an example of community mindedness who continues to work to make Santa Cruz a better place every single day. Thank you so much for your service, Robert. I'm being forced to say a few words. Okay, so my story is I came here in the 70s as a hippie. And now it's my time to give back to the city. So when I entered semi-retirement in 2009, I started finding projects that I was interested in. I got really involved with neighbors. Santa Cruz neighbors has been a great vehicle for me to reach out throughout the city and hear and listen and to work with neighbors and to connect with city staff. And council and it's really a pleasure to work with staff and with council. My method of work is to work in collaboration. And I'm very grateful for your open doors for everybody answering my emails, answering my phone calls, giving your time to meet with me. It really means a lot and I think we get a lot done together. I'd also at this time like to thank my partner, Steve, who makes it possible for me to have all this extra time to get out and do these meetings. I was in these chambers last night on a commission meeting until after 10, parked in the same place this morning. And also I would like to recognize the council members. I mean, you guys have been here already at 8.30 to start your work meeting. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart for doing what you feel is best for the city. I know we differ on many different opinions, but it means a lot to me to know that people in our city are willing to step up and to donate so much of their selves for the betterment of the city. And let's keep on working together. And one other thing I'm very involved also as Susie is with the downtown streets team. I'm very tickled that they're here today and it's really wonderful to see them and have them. And I'm going to take this opportunity for a plug. We are launching this week our 2018 giving tree for the downtown streets team's members. So I'm in the process of getting collections and gifts for the team members. And if anybody wants to help me out on that, just get in touch with me. Thank you. Really nice way to start the day. I mean, we have a long day and I think this really sets a nice tone for us for the rest of the afternoon. First of all, I'd like to thank Jim House, who's not with us today, but for providing the inspiration for the award. I mean, it really means a lot to see these community members and their engagement in Santa Cruz. I think the descriptions that were read just touched on a brief amount of their work. I can attest that Susie O'Hara was a leader in the Public Safety Committee meetings that took place several years ago and has been active in a lot of city manager's work, not just related to what's happening now. So this is a long standing thread that continues of service to this day. I know that I can tell you that Sergeant Garner is constantly at work in the community. I've attended meetings with him at all parts of the city, different neighborhoods, talking about solutions for traffic issues and neighborhood outreach. So I really think it's important to kind of know that these awards really kind of signify their work out in the field. And then for Paul, you might see him around town riding a bicycle with his grandkids, showing them how to be good service minded people so that they kind of have those same values in their lives moving forward in the city. And then of course with Robert, he's not only active on our commission as he mentioned. He's been an active board member with Santa Cruz Neighbors, the UCSC Long Range Development Plan, Community Advisory Group. He's also been a supporter of the Downtown Streets team and also been really actively involved in Santa Cruz Pride with the police department to program for teens at risk of joining gangs. And so we touched on a few of the examples they did but I really want to again congratulate each of the recipients today and I think we should all give them a round of applause. That brings us to the domain meeting and if anyone, you're welcome to stay the rest of the day. We'll be here probably, you could come in and out as you'd like, but I know that now might be a good time if you want to exit just to kind of transition. Nobody here, bye. Congratulations. Okay, I have a few announcements and then we'll move on to our regular meeting for the day. I'll just pause as we... Today's meeting is being broadcast live on Community Television, Channel 25 and streaming on the city's website at CityofSantaCruise.com. Mike Oliphant, who hasn't been here in a while but he's here today. He'll be here for the day recording our meeting. He's our technician for both this morning, afternoon and evening. And I'd like to thank him in advance for his work and hopefully his commitment at this time that he'll be here throughout the day. I'd also like to recognize our Jim House Community Award recipient, Scott Garner, who's in the back getting congratulations. He's not only the award recipient today, but he's also serving as our Sergeant of Arms for all day long. So thank you. That's his reward. That's his reward. So we can see him and congratulate him between breaks. All City Council members can be emailed at CityCouncil at CityofSantaCruise.com if you would like to communicate with us about an agenda item. We'd like to receive your email by Monday at 5 p.m. before our council meeting. This provides us with an opportunity to review your email and include it with the rest of our agenda packet. Please bear in mind that all items of correspondence with the City and City Council constitute public records and are generally subject to disclosure upon request by any member of the public. Accordingly, if you have sensitive or private information that you do not wish to be made public, you should not include that information in your correspondence. Our rules of decorum are on the window ledge to my left. It's my job to keep the meeting running without disruption, and we ask that you respect your fellow citizens, whether you are inside or outside of the chambers. At this point in the meeting, I'd like to ask if there's any statements of disqualifications by any council members today. Seeing none, I'll ask the City Clerk to announce any additions or deletions. There are none. Okay. A big agenda packet, so I'm going to have to monitor the pages. In regards to oral communications, oral communications is an opportunity for members of the community to speak to us on items that are not on the agenda. Oral communications will generally occur at the conclusion of our afternoon business at or about 5.30 p.m. but may occur sometime before then. Before we begin, I'd like to make a few announcements regarding today's agenda. Agenda item number 26, the Laurel Front Pacific Avenue permit item will be heard at a time certain of 11 a.m. And also, due to today's very full agenda, we'll look at taking lunch sometime around 1 p.m. or so before we move on to the next portion of the agenda. And in addition, we'll be recessing at or before 6 p.m. and then we'll return for our 7 p.m. session later this evening. Any questions? Okay. At this point, I'd like to turn it over to the city attorney for their report on closed session. This report on closed session, I should say. Thank you, Mayor Tarazas, members of the city council. This morning, there were three subsequent need items added to the closed session agenda before the council went into closed session at 8.30. The first two involved a significant exposure to litigation. The council received letters threatening to challenge decisions that the council may make with respect to items 26 and 27 on this morning's agenda. Those are the 100 Laurel Street project and the large rent increase ordinance second reading. The third item was a matter of pending litigation entitled the State of California X-Rail Martinez versus Monterey Peninsula Engineering. That is a case that's brought by a private plaintiff on behalf of several public entities against Monterey Peninsula Engineering related to a false claims act or alleged false claims act violations. This morning, the council authorized the plaintiff to dismiss that action on behalf of the city of Santa Cruz. And that matter is pending in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court case number 16, CV 00267. That results as a result of a settlement between Martinez and the defendant Monterey Peninsula Engineering. In that case, the council voted unanimously to accept the dismissal of that litigation. And there was no reportable action taken on the two threatened litigation items. Lastly, there's the claim of Gabriel Suza Barbosa. That is also agenda item 10 on the open session agenda. There was no action taken on that claim. Thank you. Can I just get clarification on the vote? Because I know there were some absences in closed session. So did anybody show up late? Council Member Watkins joined that meeting. Council Member Cron was absent. But Council Member Watkins was not present for the vote to accept the settlement. It was unanimous of the council members present with the exception of Council Members Watkins and Cron. Any other questions? Okay, any other questions at this time? Then I'll move on to the main agenda. First up is the consent agenda. These are items number 2 through 23 on our agenda. All items will be acted upon in one motion unless an item is pulled by council member for further discussion. Are there any council members who wish to pull any of the consent items on today's agenda? Anyone? Council Member Cron? I'd like to discuss the budgetary policy and number 13 raising the minimum wage. Okay, so that... Workers, no, so 513 and the jump by contract amendment. What number is that? 18. Okay, so 513 and 18. So I'll pull those from the consent. Any other? Council Member Brown? I just have a quick question on item 9. I have a comment too on number 6. Okay, do you want to ask that comment? Do you make that comment now or do you want to wait? Sure. Okay, go ahead. I think this is a great thing that has been brought forward here. This is a resolution opposing any future policy change under the federal Title IX law that would reduce or erase legal recognition of the protection for transgender people. I think that this is... It takes very little time. I think that it says who we are as a community. I really am proud that we were getting behind this. Thank you, Cynthia Chase, for bringing it forward. This is... I just wanted to read two, whereas this... Because I think they're really important. Whereas the proposed changes in Title IX definitions threaten policies that protect people of all genders, identities and education, including labor and housing, including assisted care facilities, shelters, foster care housing, and whereas the City of Santa Cruz is committed to providing safe and affirming services to all members of our community, regardless of gender identity. And I think that's the way we stand up. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Brown? So a quick question on the year-end budget adjustments for this fiscal year. And thank you to Director Pimentel for clarifying some of those questions in advance. My only additional question is if you could tell us a little bit more about the professional services adjustment. This is in the amount of $137,259 just to get a sense of what those services were. And thank you. My other question was related to legal, and you answered that previously. Actually, those are one and the same. We had, yes, there were higher than anticipated legal requests during fiscal 2018. There were a lot of different council actions that required additional research beyond what was programmed in. So it was those additional requests. So this is not related to other outside consultants or anything? This is all related to the legal. Thank you. So at this point, I'd like to turn it up. Actually, one thing, I'm going to poll number two, the minutes from the November 27th meeting. So any members of the public that would like to speak to any items other than two, five, 13 or 18, now is your time to speak. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the council for deliberation and action. I'll move the consent agenda with the exceptions of two, five, 13 and 18. That is items two through 13 with those exceptions. Seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins. Any further discussion? In favor of the consent item, moving the consent item with the exceptions of items two, five, 13 and 18, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Just to clarify, items two and three were both minutes where council member Chase was absent for one and council member Naroyan was absent for the other. Which one was council member Chase? Chase was absent for the November 27th. Okay. Did you watch the video? I think you did. And then Naroyan, you were absent for the December 4th special meeting. I did not rehabilitate myself. That just sounds so. She's abstaining on number three, right? That was number three. Okay. So item number two, I just wanted to make sure the record was clear. When we had the discussion about the tobacco, the flavored tobacco ban, there was two ordinances that were brought forward. One had the language regarding youth possession struck. And the direction, why we did that was to have the police department contacted in regards to any impact in regards to striking that language. I just wanted the record to reflect that the city manager's office contacted the police department and they reported back that there was no problem striking that language. Because the record does reflect that it's going to come back and have it reviewed again, but that was how it was presented. And I just want to make sure the records reflect that. Okay. So given that comment, I'd like to move an option of those minutes. That's item number two with inclusion of language expressing that the police department was consulted and felt there was no negative impact. Deletion of that language. Second. Seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins. Is there any member of the public that would like to speak to item number two? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. There's a motion by Council Member Matthew seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Now we'll turn over to item number five, which is the city council ad hoc budget committee. That was pulled by Council Member Cron and I'll ask what was your question? Council Member Cron? No, it's really it's philosophical. It means this is quite a document in front of us. And I mean, the council's never talked about this. I know, I guess your subcommittee did, but I'd love to hear some feedback on there seems to be absent here. We've been putting a lot of emphasis on climate change and there's no, I don't see any reference to that here. I would say also this full cost recovery needs to be fleshed out. What does that mean exactly? And in what instances will we do full cost recovery because not all departments or what services that are provided are equal. So I'm not sure what that exactly means. Yeah, well maybe before we get into the substantive responses. Does any of the committee members would like to speak about some of the work and how this has come forward in the past? We've had a couple public discussions about it when we were going through the budget process. We talked about each of these actions coming forward in regards to policy changes as well as expanded outreach. And as a way to kind of address how we handle budgets moving forward. So we're not necessarily having the intensive internal meetings where we have staff present. This is more externally focused on bringing more community members in to look at how our budget process works. And part of the recommendations were that we have adopted policies that reflect that as our intent moving forward. So Council Member Brown. I mean I would just say having been involved as a member of that subcommittee and working through this. I mean I think the intention here in addition to the goal of really making the streamlining in some respects the budget hearing process but also making it more accessible to the public. That having this kind of policy was really an attempt to reflect some principles that may or may not. I mean I don't think this is in any way binding if you know there, I and I have actually an issue on one small matter related to one time spending, one time resources need to be matched with one time spending because we know that like when it comes to core funding in some other places we sometimes use ongoing funds for one time allocations. So I don't think the intention was to make this a binding document and we cannot go outside of it. But to say these are the principles that we believe the city should follow and that we should follow as council members to be fiscally responsible and ensure that our budget is balanced. So I mean I think that was really the impetus behind this. I'll just echo those comments that it's just sort of a general kind of guideline and structure to follow knowing that sure things change and circumstances differ in terms of various things but in essence this is sort of the process we hope to have in place moving forward based on what we learned this prior year. For example community programs is missing from here. A dedication I don't know of our city and I don't know this document seems like it's stating some philosophy here or like you said guidelines and the climate and community programs are two things I'd like to see included in statements that our city makes because I think that is what our community would like to see also. Council Member Brown. I mean I couldn't agree more however I don't know that this is necessarily a place where we would do that because there are all kinds of areas in which I'd like to see the city make additional commitments related to our budgeting process but I'm not sure that this base document is the place for that. I mean so if you want to work on and I think we will probably do that in the future around some of those issues I'm very much interested. I just want a clarification on what exactly this is and I appreciate the comments. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak to this item? This is number five. It's the City Council ad hoc budget committee. Anyone? I'll bring it back to the council for discussion. Council Member Matthews. I just want to thank the committee for working on this and it is a general document. There are plenty of areas that could be called out specifically but I think this is not the place to do it. I just want to thank the committee and I notice that these principles were drawn from the charter council policies, best practices, et cetera, et cetera and to my mind they're just consistent with what we've done in different settings related to budget decisions and practices. So I think it gives the public confidence that there's a concise statement of how we're approaching our budget issues apart from the specifics. This is the general overall approach. With those comments I'll go ahead and move acceptance of this item. I'll second and also say that this was probably one of the best committees I worked on. I think it was just something where we worked really well together and I agree with Council Member Matthews. This is not intended to create a lock us in on certain positions. It's really about being more externally focused to bring in different groups to see how we're doing. I know that when we had our discussion with that first focus group, many of them were interested in what are certain outcomes that we see from the city as part of our budget process. So they brought to light a lot of issues and I look forward to seeing this work continue during the coming budget year and actually freeing up staff maybe from some of the presentation and work that may not have been as impactful in terms of getting out, getting the word out to the public as far as how they could be more involved in kind of how we're looking at our budget. Any other further discussion? I do want to mention something quickly because the question was raised about the full-cost recovery and this is not, as you say, a lock step mandate but it does reflect many, many discussions we've had about revisiting our fee structure and so forth so that we are recovering our fees but we on a number of occasions have the option and do take action to reduce or eliminate those fees for a specific reason. So it's a general guidance but it's not hard and fast. Right. Okay, Council Member Cron. I'm probably just going to register a no vote because I don't understand this. It seems too rigid to me and I just thought it needed more massaging and a fuller discussion by the city council rather than just having it at the subcommittee and then come to the council on the consent agenda but that's just me and I'm not understanding enough about it. Okay, no problem. Okay, so all those in favor of the motion on the floor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes with Council Member Cron voting no. Council Member Matthews, Chase, Brown, Naroyan, Vice Mayor Watkins and myself supporting the motion. Okay, next we'll move on to item number 13 which is the resolution amending the city of Santa Cruz personnel complement and classification and compensation plans. Council Member Cron. I just wanted to hear a little bit from our HR director, Lisa Murphy and talk about, you know, really we're talking about the lowest paid workers here and despite that they might be 17, 18 year olds, also there's a category right above them that, you know, I'm concerned about as well that, you know, do live off these paychecks and not just, you know, and maybe their families depend on them as well. And I know that the last two, well, campaigns were about the fight for $15 an hour and my thoughts are, you know, wouldn't it be nice if the city could lead on that and, you know, and it did at one point, you know, have a living wage built into our salary structure as well. But I just want to maybe listen, hear from Lisa about what. Well, is there a specific question that you want to ask about? Yeah, what we're, what will be the minimum salary? We're going to just be where the state is. Minimum wage is what the city's paying $12 an hour. Is that correct? Yeah, that is correct. And so there's legislation that will have that rise $1 for the next three years so we get to $15 an hour. So it will go up on January 1st and it'll go up to $12. And I provided some statistics and it might be useful for the public to hear about who those folks are that are at the lowest wage. So primarily there are parks and recreation staff, they're kids. It's their first time, first job. Some of them don't even have their high school diploma just yet. So at the, about $11.50 is what we pay our recreation one staff. And again, primarily, or they all are like 17 and 18 year olds looking for their first job. And then we have a couple other that also fall within that category that you are going to raise today. And again, these are all temporary positions. It's nobody, no employees that are impacted by this in our regular employees. So we also have some office assistants and they'll come in the summertime. I've used them, finance has used them against 17 or 18 year olds. And the last one that's at our minimum wage that will be raised with your action today is a maintenance worker aid. One, and we consider that a training program, you don't even need to have your high school diploma. It's an opportunity to get your foot in the door, get your experience. You don't even have to have any maintenance experience. But again, it builds up time. And once you get some of that experience, you automatically move up into what we call our maintenance aid two. And again, that's a lot of our ground for how we actually move folks into the maintenance worker series. So that's primarily what are the impact of your action today will increase those wages to the $12. And I do want you to keep in mind also those individuals after a certain amount of time with the city will move up to the next step. And the steps can go all the way up to, there's I believe about 10 steps, up to about $25 an hour if they're here that long in that position. But typically those temporary employees don't. But often we are able to move them into permanent positions or these kids will move on. But they'll have a resume builder that they've gained from the city. So that's primarily the group that you are impacting today. A couple more questions. Is this primarily before us because of the state increase in the minimum wage or would have come to us anyway? No, this is because of the state's legislation. It comes in to effect on the 1st of January. And with this action also, we have adjusted several other classifications because of what we call compaction. So in that Recreation 1 series, because we're going to raise that minimum wage that salary level, we're going to raise the entire salary schedule. So it has a little more impact than just the ones that are at the $11 an hour today. But you will see us back again this time next year to get to the 13, because of the state action, the 14 and the 15. Chris, do you mind now, I'd like to just, last year when this came up, is there any reason why we're not just building that in? It's a state law, we know that it's going to change every year. And why do you need to bring it forward each year to provide that information? Because our salary schedule will change through the year. So for example, the temps will receive a salary increase through the MOU negotiations. We don't, we need to build that in. Also, we won't know what other classifications and other bargaining units such as SEIU might also have compensation increases coming. And so when we look at the bigger picture, we raise the $13 an hour, we need to incorporate any MOU changes. And as you know, we're going into bargaining. So I don't know, I can't anticipate what those are. And then we also have the compaction issue that we'll have to take a look at as it increases. How many temporary workers does a city employ? Any time over the course of the year can be up to 300, primarily again, all in parks and rec. And that's, so it's a big summer push and also our lifeguards, they're temporary employees as well. And then now we're pretty light on temps, I don't have the exact number. The recreation one, two, three, and four categories in five, are they also all temporary workers as well? Or are those some permanent people? Those are all temporary employees. Just for the summer programs, that's all they staff. Yeah, I just want to put that before the council and think about raising our wages in the future for the folks that are at the bottom. And they're not just, I mean, I know there's workers coming from high school, but sometimes I've no people whose families do depend on these summer wages. But there's the 17 or 18 year old brings in. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak to the side? And this is number 13, resolution amending the city of Santa Cruz personnel compliment and classification plans for the state minimum wage law for 2019. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the council. I just want to make a quick comment and say, these are really important jobs for youth. I know when I was on the library board, we saw many of those jobs go away during certain budget crisis. And I think sometimes these are initial entry points where kids do have the opportunity, many first jobs for people to start their work and I think they're really valuable. So while this I look at is mainly complying with state law, it's really important that we also protect those types of jobs because they are good entry level jobs for kids that want to have engagement with the city. Council Member Matthews. I appreciate the additional information that was provided. Not simply the fact that these are mostly entry level young people, but also the complexity of one adjustment triggers many, many others. And also want to say that I appreciate, in many cases, these are optional jobs. And it's part of a commitment the city has made in our investing in young people to create these entry level summer job programs for young people to give them that first paid employment. And many of their activities at this level include not just doing some task for the city, but also learning a lot in terms of what it means to be a good employee. So I'm really pleased that we do have these entry level positions. And of course, we'll make this motion to raise the salary as indicated. I'll second that. Motion by Council Member Matthews, second by Council Member Brown. I do want to make a comment since we've opened it up for discussion here. Yeah, I think that the Parks and Rec programs and the kind of training that they provide and leadership skills for young people is absolutely important, and so I appreciate all of this discussion. I also believe that even young people should be compensated fairly for the work they do because it benefits the city, it benefits the city's residence. And so I would like to see us in the future consider wages that go beyond the minimum wage. There are many young people in this community who enter into these jobs, certainly because they're committed and they want to participate. But also because they contribute to their family's household income. And when they can go work at Petsmart or somewhere else for $15 an hour, they may make that choice. And I would hope that we would want to be competitive and bring young people who really are committed to doing this, who don't have the privilege of making that choice. So I just want to say that for now and with that, I'm happy to support the increase and hope to see further increases in the future. That's where we're croak. That's exactly where I was trying to go to, why not make it cachet to work for the city? Like have a young person say, I'm working for the city, and feeling like they're being rewarded. And that being a really good thing, enjoying people who want to actually work for the city. But also feel okay about the compensation. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, Council Member Narion. And while, if I had a magic wand, I would love to pay people a more competitive price. But if you're going to do that, you're going to have to decide what you're going to cut to raise the salaries. So we have a motion by Council Member Matthews, seconded by Council Member Brown. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Next up is item number 18. And I'd like to first ask Council Member Cronus if he has any questions. Yeah, a lot of a few people contacted me about jump bikes, which I think is revolutionizing some of our transportation options in Santa Cruz. And I'm pretty much feeling really good about it. But I think attending to folks who have issues with it, and some of them are just picking at it and wanting to have issues with it. But I think we should go to every possible length. And people have said that the obstructing of the sidewalks has become a real issue in several neighborhoods with the jump bikes. And maybe people don't know how to contact jump bikes or what to do when a bike's been left out in front of their house for several days. So I just wanted some clarification on that. I'm glad this, that we're going, I think I'm glad we're going forward. And the other question I have is, and maybe you sent it to me and I missed it. But any pictures you might have of what this electricity looks like, what the station will look like, and how the electricity is going to get there. Yes, I'll answer the second question first. Claire Fleisler, Transportation Planner, Bike Share Program Manager. To your second question, photos, I sent you three photos yesterday of what they look like. Generally, the charging stations that are proposed look substantially similar to what we have now. They're about the same size and scale, the same color palette, minimally different. So you have three photos there, you can also see them on Jump's website. There's photos available on there at jump.com, I think it is, or jumpbikes.com. To your first question about how you can report potential issues that you see, this is an area that we're continuing to work on education. As you may know, the City of Santa Cruz in our Municode since the 1980s, we allow bikes to be parked almost anywhere except locked to a tree, if there's no official bike rack within 50 feet. That's part of the reason that you see many bikes locked to street signs and parking meters, etc. Which we've always seen, but it's a lot more obvious now that there's a fleet of 250 brightly colored bikes around. To the point of being able to contact jump to let them know about the issue, one of the points that we encourage is for you to email support at jumpbikes.com and note the bike number, which is on the back fender in red and the time. And just state that the bike is parked inappropriately or whatever other issue or concern that you're having. That allows jump to send out someone from our local operations team to go retrieve that bike and move it to more appropriate location. And it also allows jump to contact the previous user and educate them about proper parking so that in the future they can do it better. Oftentimes what we find is that people are not parking these bikes inappropriately on purpose or to cause harm or to be an inconvenience, but they've never pushed a baby stroller or been in a wheelchair or had that issue and it's just something that doesn't occur to them. And with one polite nudge from jump about how to do it better in the future, it tends to resolve the issue. But until people are aware of that, they don't know. And you, I don't recall off the top of my head, maybe you do. You sent me some interesting statistics on numbers of rides in October and November, and there was differences. And I'm assuming the differences might have been because of the rainy season kicked in. But do you have them with you, the numbers of rides? Yeah, I have our systems dates to date. So as you know, we rolled out bike share in May to coincide with bike to work week, bike month and since that time. So we started with 25 bikes that first week. Soft launch, soft rollout escalated to 50 bikes by the end of that month and up to 250 by the beginning of July. So since that time through the end of November, our bike share system has taken over 155,000 trips, almost 156,000 total trips. The total mileage is almost 390,000 miles on bike share. The average trip is 2.36 miles, which we're really encouraged about because that's a distance that you think of as replacing within town car trips, which is one of the goals of our climate action plan. Additionally, each of our bikes is used almost six times per day. This is an awesome stat because other, as I've mentioned before to you, other systems nationwide, the average is between one and two trips per bike per day. What this tells me is that there was a huge amount of latent demand for bike share in the city of Santa Cruz. And that we need to look towards expanding the number of bikes that we have, as well as continue to speak with our neighbor and our jurisdictions about expanding the geographic area to better serve our community. In terms of the variation in system use, what we saw was that the system ridership grew from May to June to July to August. We took an anticipated dip in September because after the summer season, we have less tourists here and UCSC doesn't come back to the third week. So we just have way less population in town during those idyllic first three weeks of September. And then we're starting to increase in ridership again. And it is weather dependent as well. On days that it's raining, we naturally have a lower ridership. But overall, our ridership is continuing to increase. And that almost six trips per bike per day is a fairly stable figure that we've seen throughout the life of the system. I'm absolutely blown away by some of these numbers. I like numbers like this. And the 2.6 miles really is impressive because it is a car not going somewhere. It's a bike and somebody's getting some little bit of exercise, which is really cool. The last question I had was, do you know any city that has vouchers or that jump bike program has vouchers for economically poor people or city workers? Or any kind of, because people have been talking a lot about, maybe why don't we integrate downtown workers into the jump bike program and offer them vouchers? Is there anything like that that's a model now that we don't have to invent? Yes, so there are two programs that we're working on. One, I have a call on Thursday about Jump has a program called Boost. And that is a low income program. We're working right now on building partnerships between existing community organizations. I will probably contact some of you about organizations that you work with and how we reach people who could really use a subsidized bike share membership. And that subsidized on the jump side. The other side jumps coming to us with a framework that could be a proposal for a bike share employee benefit to benefit the downtown employees as part of our Go Santa Cruz program. And as you remember when we, when you authorized us to raise parking prices and revamp our parking pricing strategy to fund the TDM program for downtown employees, that would be one of the things that we could purchase with that. Last, last question. Okay, she said that last one. I know to go from like 250 to 500, what needs to happen with that? We're working on that right now. We'll be going to the Transportation and Public Works Commission probably in first quarter of 2019 with a plan there. And the other thing that we want to make sure is that that goes hand in hand. The counties and discussions right now with Jump as is the city of Capitola and is UCSC. So coordination between jurisdictions as well as just making sure that we're ready to move forward on that. That sounds great. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Cool, Council Member Matthews. As usual, you are way ahead of us already. And this is great coming to us. I've contacted you a few times about complaints from the public. Usually about the parking things. And you've mentioned there is a number people can call. I haven't checked, but is that number on the bike basket or somewhere? It is on every jump asset. So it's on the signs and it's on the bikes and that is a contractual obligation that we have. So if someone sees a bike and appropriately parked, the number's right there for them to call. Okay, great. Thanks. Well, with that, I'm prepared to- We need to go to public comment. Council Member Chase. I just wanted to say briefly because we've had this item before in the past. I have seen a noticeable change since we rolled them out and since we've talked about it at council in regard to inappropriately parked bikes. And also I've seen that a couple people who drive the vans around and restock. And so seeing that they're actually keeping the stations full. So it does seem like over time we are getting better and better at this, which is great. And it's noticeable because the complaints have dropped down and even visually what you see has improved. So well done. Thank you. I had a couple comments and questions. The first question is, one, I think that now that we're seeing a lot of development projects, I know I had a couple people approach me that we're doing some work downtown about how we can integrate maybe some of the bike share programs into those projects. Are there any ideas? Yes, please contact me. If you are interested in doing a project, I can connect you with Jump's business development team. And they would love for new projects to host bike share stations, especially bike share charging stations. It really creates an opportunity for residents and employees and is a pretty simple thing to do. So Jump is completely open to that and has requested that I do pass along those contacts. Great, and then second, when you look outside of the downtown, let's say on the east side near where the fire station three is located, there's a parking lot. The closest bike share seems to be over near where the buttery is. Is there a thought about making bike share so it's integrated where a parking is so that if people want to commute downtown, they have the ability to do that? Yeah, great question. So that is one of the locations that we have an approved encroachment permit for. It's one of the locations near the fire station on the east side in that parking lot that we will be installing a charging station. And that's part of the contract amendment today is to allow for electrical cost reimbursement and the building permit for that location was just finalized yesterday. So that should be moving forward in the next couple of weeks. Okay, and then I know we talked at a couple meetings ago about the policies that go along when they're, what we consider when we install these stations or when we look at when we need to add new ones based on usage. Is that something that will eventually come before the council as far as looking at those guidelines? Yes, so we did a brief update to the Transportation and Public Works Commission last night, very late last night. And so we're continuing to crunch that data with jump. We're working with the jump data science and analytics team on building out a dashboard that hopefully we'll be able to turn over after it's in the beta phase to a publicly facing dashboard. So not only can I present that information to you, but you can go self-serve to see where the most common origins, destinations, routing info, how many trips happened yesterday, tomorrow, not tomorrow. We can't predict the future. Yesterday, last week, last month, et cetera. All right, and last, how long do you think it'll take before platinum community? I'm very hopeful that the next time that we apply for a Bicycle-Friendly Community Award, we will be granted Bicycle-Friendly Community Platinum-Level Award, not only based on this program, but based on the significant infrastructure investments that our whole community has made over the past few years. One of the exciting ones, as you know, is the rail trail coming right up. So we're really excited for that. Great. Thank you for all of your work. Vice Mayor Watkins. I just have one quick question, Claire. I appreciate your presentation and the jump bikes have been fantastic. And I often ride them over to my meetings with my team from one office to the next. There's those sort of those times that I apologize and ask this in advance, where you see the youth or like certain people doubled up on bikes. Are there ways to also sort of report that or prevent that? Because that sort of just gives your heart a sort of a stops for a moment when you see the youth kind of not appropriately riding the bikes. Yeah. So we would love if you could report that. Also recognize that it's hard to report, but that's one of the key areas of education that we are focusing on. So those are, please wear a helmet. Although it's not required. We love your brain. We highly recommend you do. You can get a cheap subsidized helmet from Jump on their website. Please look into that. If you are a parent, please do not sign up your underage child for a jump account or allow them to use your account. Please do not ride more than one rider per bike. Not only is it in violation of your user agreement, but it is dangerous. Please obey the rules of the road and please ride with consideration for others. Are the big pushes that we go with our education and encouragement. Okay. Great. Thanks. So see no further questions or discussion. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak to this item? This is item number 18. You see none. I'll bring it back to the council for either further deliberation and action. Council Member Matthews. Great. We'll remove approval. Second. Okay. Second by Council Member Chase. So motion by Council Member Matthews. Seconded by Council Member Chase. Council Member Cron. One more quick question for Claire. What's the enforcement like when you say that's the kind of what we stick with? Do we have something a little bit more than just please you all, you guys are not really following the rules or do you have something that you actually write a ticket for somebody? How are we dealing with young people when they're, you know? Yes. So the first notice is a warning. The second notice is a $25 fine. And then future breaking of the rules is a suspension from the system. Okay. So there's a warning first. That's right. There's a warning first. Yeah. Thanks. So we're related to this. I know we got a motion and second on floor, but it's so nice also to know how you handled all of the discussion about the scooters and the birds and all that stuff. I think we've kind of like really focused on this and it's been a very, very successful program. So thank you for all your work you've done. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Council Member Matthew, seconded by Council Member Chase. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Next up is item number 24. This is the city interim representative to Metro District Board of Directors. I asked that this be on our general business. I think it's pretty straightforward and I support the item. The reason why I asked it to be on the general business is because our practice as a council has been where we have a motion that comes forward from the council for the prospective board members for the year. This one takes place after the new council is seated and we'll carry over until the new selections are made. And so I wanted to ask the city attorney just on that background on why we're handling this because we have not done this ever before. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Trousas, members of the city council. This is an unusual situation. Typically city council members are appointed to boards and commissions by actions of the city council and they serve in that capacity until a successor is appointed when in a circumstance like this a council member serving on a commission or a committee when the term is expiring. State law prescribes the manner in which appointees to the Santa Cruz County Metropolitan Transit District are appointed and the length of their terms. And it has an unusual provision that says when the city council appoints a council member to serve on the metro board, their term expires automatically upon the expiration of their city council term. What that does is it leaves the city in the situation where in this instance, there is a committee meeting that council member Chase has served on scheduled for, I believe later this week or early next week but her term will have expired at that point. And the council members who do serve on the metro board have expressed their interest in having the council be fully represented at those committee meetings. So somewhat other unusual provision of the Transit District Act provides that once an appointment is made, it will be for the duration of the term. So this interim appointment in some respects is relying on the good faith of the appointee to step down when the new council takes action to appoint a successor. So that's the sort of unusual situation. I'm happy to answer any questions or respond to any comments. I just had one additional question. When is the first meeting scheduled for the new council in terms of in January? First council meeting is the eighth. Okay. Okay. But the council appointments are scheduled for the 22nd. Later in the month. I'm on Lafkin, we have a January 9th meeting. And so I guess I wanted to know like for any, one thing I asked is that maybe in addition to, you know, the motion that's on the floor based on the city attorney's report, that there be some additional language requests the incoming mayor to make any other advisory board member service appointments during the winter recess as needed. So if there's other things for other board members, you know, that needs to be filled in, that she has the whoever he or she, who the vice mayor and mayor have the ability to make the appointments directly. Tony, you can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I think part of this glitch is due to the bylaws of Metro, because many agencies do allow for a member to continue until their replacement is named. And Lafko could very well be in that situation. I don't know. But we can decide that separately. It's not even the Metro bylaws. It's written in the state law that the term expires. So I have been told by general council for the Metro that there is going to be an effort in the coming legislative session to amend the law to in a common sense way that basically says that appointees serve until their successor is appointed. Well, I guess I'm just asking that in addition, we just say that the incoming mayor, she has the opportunity to make the appointments for anything during the winter recess as needed. Let me just, if I could just finish. Nonetheless, my recollection is the mayor designates, but those designations are confirmed by the council. And so that would- I'm asking that we give authority through this action to the incoming mayor to make any other bridge appointments that are needed so that those current council members are, if they're on something, can do it. I wouldn't be comfortable supporting that. That's a technicality because they still wouldn't be confirmed by the whole council. We're confirming it now. That's what I'm saying. On this one. No, I'm asking, but what I'm saying is I'd like to expand- Okay, I would like to make the motion. I understand what your issue is. I'd like to keep this clean. I am the other person that serves on Metro. And one reason it's particularly important is that Cynthia has been serving not only in the board, but on the facilities committee. There's some very critical discussions coming up about the partnership between the city and Metro regarding the Metro, the Pacific Station, which just has huge potential for housing, for our downtown, for a really key location. And to have the continuity of her knowledge and participation in that is absolutely critical during the next month. And so I think that's why we particularly need to take action on that. So for that reason- Before we do all, is there any member of the public that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the council. Council Member Crohn. Two questions. I think it's an academic one, but what council member Matthews is bringing up and maybe the city clerk can help us out on this. I don't remember approving, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't remember it coming to the council for approval of all the boards and committees that we sit on. Does that just come regularly with us at the beginning of the year? That's right. Yeah, it does. Yeah, typically it's a second meeting in January. And I would love to know, it seems like there's a hot issue going on here that I have no idea what it is. And I don't know if council member Chase is at liberty to talk about what the committee meetings about and how strategically you're the person, because I'm not saying you're not, and I'm not saying I'm not gonna vote for this, but I appreciate what council member, excuse me, manager Rousa said too about interim appointments and trying to fill things. Sure. So I can say specifically that the item that council member Matthews just referenced was the Pacific station project. So I'm the chair of the capital committee for Metro and the primary reason that I'm the chair is because we've been in very long negotiations between the city and Metro on the Pacific station and the housing, namely affordable housing project that we've been working for more than a decade on to get in that space. And the only agenda item for our capital committee in January is the Pacific station. And so the continuity of that project is important to the city and absent me being there, we will have no representation and it's a three committee, three person committee, which means nobody from the city, just Capitola and the board of supervisors will be represented making the recommendation to the Metro board on how to proceed on Pacific station. So it's pretty critical in terms of our involvement and at least having seated the table for that discussion. And it seems like since you've been working on this, I mean, somebody filling in might have to take a while to get up to speed. Yes. Oh, yeah. That's no border? I would also add that this is something I happen to be in this position right now, but this has been an ongoing issue and outgoing council member Lane thought that he had fixed this when he was on council because this happens every cycle where we have this gap and then the city is unrepresented at least by one person on the board for that period of time. And it does seem like, I mean, certainly it's good that Metro is taking a look at that now because it could be problematic for us in terms of making big decisions that could impact the city with us having a fairly big gap for those meetings and any other committee meeting. So hopefully this will get fixed moving forward. I just happened to be in the position right now where I'm serving on that committee and I think it's important the city have representation. Council Member Matthews. Just the bigger context on this also is that Metro in partnership with the city, you may remember has conducted a couple of studies of the space layout for possible alignments for both the Metro operations and other associated buildings. And these are all coming to a decision point. So it's not a matter of just kicking this down the road. I think Metro and our economic development department which wants to move forward with the affordable housing and related projects wants to get moving. And so we've funded, we've completed the studies. Those are coming to Metro. And so it really is reaching a decision point. So that's kind of the context for wanting to have that continuity and knowledge represented. Is there a motion? I will move approval of the item to appoint Cynthia Chase as the city's interim representative to Metro. Second. Okay, motion by Council Member Matthews, seconded by Council Member Brown. And again, I think you're gonna say no, but I'm requesting that you also have some sort of, that the incoming mayor make any other advisory body service appointments during the winter recess as needed. I'm not gonna add that. Okay. I'll make a motion to allow that to happen that the incoming mayor make a advisory, be able to make advisory appointments before we officially seat our member. As needed. As needed. For meetings that might take place. Okay, I'll second that. I would interpret that as a motion to amend the main motion. Yes. Okay, well, now we'll vote on that particular item first. The motion is to add language that requests the incoming mayor to make any interim advisory appointments before the full appointments are made at the second meeting in January. If needed. If as needed. Okay. Motion by Council Member Crohn, second by myself. All those in favor of that motion, or there's any further questions? You look like you have a question, Council Member Naroyan. I'm just trying to decide if I wanna support it or not. No, go ahead. Okay. All right. What's the downside? Cause I would like to get informed. Go ahead. I think that the downside is, again, procedural in that all our other appointments to boards and committees for council members are confirmed by the whole council. And this one would not be, I fully trust whoever is gonna be mayor to make good decisions. We don't know of any others coming up. I would be quite comfortable asking the staff to see what other commission, board and commission assignments might run into this same snag and try and make procedural changes. So those aren't a problem. And I would say this is only for if there is a meeting. It's a pretty minor issue, but I understand your point. But I also would have full confidence in the mayor to do that. I mean, that's the person leading our group and we should put trust in that. Council Member Chase. I was just gonna say it would be helpful to know which bodies we're even talking about. Because there is a lot of variation in there and some of them it seems like are already covered. Some of them aren't even meeting and some of them there's nothing we can do about it without talking to those bodies. So it's an unknown for me. So I don't believe there are any, we can explore it further, but I don't recall there being any. Nothing I'm on is meeting. Lafko, there's one I'm thinking of. Okay, so there's a motion on the floor. And I second it for amendment to the main motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay, so that motion fails with Council Member Matthews, Council Member Chase, Council Member Brown and Council Member Naroyan voting opposed that motion with Council Member Cron, Vice Mayor Watkins and myself voting in favor. So we'll go to the main motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. So now we'll move on to item number 25. This is the Regional Transportation Commission's Unified Quarter Investment Study and Chris Snyder, you'll be presenting. Thank you, Mayor and Council Members, Chris Snyder, Assistant Director of Public Works. The item before you is an action on the Regional Transportation Commission's Unified Quarter Investment Study. And the motion is to support the draft preferred scenario in the Transportation's UCIS Study and inclusion of multi-modal intersection improvements on the Soquel and Mission Quarters and reconstruction of the Highway 1 bridge over the San Lorenzo River. The UCIS was unveiled in September and since then, and prior to that actually, there have been a lot of public meetings and discussion of the study. Staff has released a draft preferred scenario which I've just handed out as well as up on the screen. The primary recommendation here from staff is that because we've looked at the preferred scenario, we think it's a good one, but that there are some things missing that are currently in the City's General Plan as well as actions that the Commission or the Council has taken in relationship to transportation improvements. The concern from staff is that if this document, if and it's likely that this document will inform future investment opportunities and grants that we have to make sure that we're not precluded from applying for those state and federal grants that go through the Commission. And so therefore, we are recommending adding to the preferred draft preferred scenario the additional lanes on the San Lorenzo River. That is the Highway 1 bridge over the San Lorenzo River which improves traffic circulation safety, protects the transportation infrastructure by providing a better bridge, improves flood flows currently having issues with that's the abutments in the piers in the river, back up water potentially flooding the tannery and other properties and then also improve fish flows of fish passage. The Mission Street improvements as well and the SoCal Avenue improvements, multimodal accommodating, transit, bikes, pedestrians, automobiles, deliveries and those are part of the City's General Plan mitigation. And one of the attachments at the end of the staff report are the traffic impact fee program and the intersections that are included in that program. And that program is mitigation to the City's General Plan that was adopted a few years ago. So those are the additions to the preferred scenario. If you'd like commission staffs available to answer questions specific to the UCIS and I can respond to questions related to the additional projects. Being there for questions. Are there any questions from the council at this time? I usually do have one. Serving on Metro, I'm looking at a couple of the items that have to do with transit and particularly in A, B and C all of those recommend the BRT light and but that was not transferred over to the 200335 preferred. And I know that some of the other transit recommendations talk about increased transit frequency and that is a big expensive operational thing but it seems to me that some aspects of BRT light could be a one-time capital improvement that could, for example, the signal priority and so forth that could help the buses maintain their scheduling. Do you have any comment on that? I don't have enough specific information related to that one. Any? Okay, it's just something that occurred to me on that one item. You know, I see someone, I'm not, you're from. We have Ginger Diakar with the Regional Transportation Commission, she could respond. Thank you. I'm happy to provide clarification on my question. Ginger Diakar. Yeah, thank you. Transportation planner at the RTC and the project manager for the unified car to study. The reason the staff recommendation to not keep the BRT light on SoCal Freedom was due to the passenger rail service on the rail right of way that that would provide a high quality transit service as well as on the highway. Initially, the bus on shoulders project would provide a faster travel time, higher quality service for more of an express service through our community. Obviously, SoCal Freedom is a very important transit part of the network for our community but we didn't see a vast improvement in transit travel times for given the expense of the extensive amount of additional frequency that was evaluated in the unified car to study for scenarios A, B, and C. So part of our staff recommendation is not necessarily to increase the transit frequency of the BRT light on SoCal Freedom but we do have in our staff recommendation that we're feasible when there's intersection improvements on SoCal Freedom to try to provide that transit signal priority and transit queue jump for the existing services but not necessarily to increase extensively the amount of service that's provided on that route given the higher quality transit services that will be provided on the two other routes. Okay, but some investment in those improvements along the route are anticipated. Transit signal priority and transit queue jump were feasible at intersections. Yes. Council Member Brown. I have a general question. So I have the pleasure of serving on the Regional Transportation Commission and a lot of my questions have been many most of my questions have been answered. I always come up with more every time I read through this document. So I have had the again the pleasure and the privilege of having access to getting those questions asked and answered. And so I appreciate you being here for other members of the council. I do think that this is a, I'll preface my question with a comment. This is a big document and we have spent the members of the council who are on that commission have spent considerable amount of time with it. And for the council to be asked in 72 hours to come and digest this and feel comfortable with stating the city's support wholesale is, I mean, I think that's kind of a big ask. And so the question I have is given that the commission has voted to delay until our meeting on the 17th. Our own, well, we've considered it, but our vote on this, what would it be a problem for this council to continue the item and have some more time with the document in order to maybe ask some additional questions or, you know, fine tune our recommendation at the city level, bringing it forward to the commission. Is that, would that be problematic from your perspective? What our plan was for the January 17th staff report to provide to our commission was to provide as much input as possible from the various different local jurisdictions that have made a decision, made a motion regarding the preferred scenario. So if it, if there was time on your agenda for future meetings, that's up to your discretion, obviously our packet has to be put together a week before the January 17th meeting. So it could still be be part of that staff report of them if your meeting was prior to that time. One other possibility. I know it is clearly a lot of information, but the recommendation be more general about the RTCs, the recommendation on the plan, but just that any plan that's approved include projects that are required in the city or interested by the city in future, in any scenario that's selected. I mean, I really see this as more of a, just an insurance policy that in the future, if we pursue these projects and when we pursue them, that we're not gonna be precluded from asking for grant funding for the projects. Every one of these projects is gonna require a lot of public process, environmental review, design, and a lot more action by council in the future. So I think, again, just more of an insurance policy to move forward. Thanks for bringing that up. I just wanted to interject on that point because you have the recommendation where it talks about the inclusion of these additional projects. You know, actually I feel comfortable on the RTC recommendation that we have before. But the second one as far as the inclusion of the multimodal intersection improvements, I'd like to make sure that we are qualifying those as they're the council approved projects because it was unclear to me which of these have actually come before the council and approved. Some of them were, but some of them, they're intersections improvements that are planned out for the future that do require some planning. And I don't wanna, you know, make, I don't wanna in any way, you know, prevent us from getting those funds, but I just wanna make sure that we're qualifying that these are, that the funds that we're getting are for council approved projects. And I think that's your intent. Yeah, because any grant funding that we bring forward has to go through first through the council. So in terms of the recommendation you have, do you have any objection to say that they're the inclusion of council approved multimodal intersection improvement projects? Do you have any? Okay, that's, I mean, that's something that's in the most, the recommendation, I'd like to see that language in there when it gets to a point. But council member Matthews, did you have an initial point? No, I think what you're getting at, Chris, is we could indicate support for either the 2035 preferred or simply say that any action taken by the RTC final adoption should include three added features that you've pulled out here. Yes, that's what I'm referring to. And I feel quite comfortable with that direction. Council member Crown. Is this the entire document that we have here in our packet that they've been considering? No, it's a summary. I think there's quite a bit more. Yeah, I would feel totally comfortable that we would, I think a study session would be great with the council to get grasp on these issues. So I mean, I would actually move to continue this to our first meeting in January since the RTC won't be taking it up till the 17th, and I think that'll be enough time for them to, for the new council to study it, get up to speed on this project and also get our recommendation to the RTC in time. We're at a point for just questions right now and discussion. I know that I have two people that request from organizations to ask to speak, and I'd like to first go to them and have them kind of provide that. That was Rick Longinati for the campaign for sustainable transportation, and then Manu Koenig from Santa Cruz County, Greenway. So each have four minutes to speak, and then we'll, any other members of the public that wish to speak to the side and we'll then have their opportunity. Okay, please go ahead, or whenever you're ready. Hi council members, my name's Rick Longinati with the campaign for sustainable transportation. So the request before you is to endorse the RTC staff's preferred option and I believe that's out of sync with the city of Santa Cruz policy and the voters in the past. We support compact development rather than the sprawl and we want to increase affordable housing and we want to have good transit and safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. We don't support projects that increase vehicle capacity and that means widening highway one. I want to remind you that the HOB lane project was a subject of a ballot measure in 2004 where it only got 43% of the vote it needed. Actually it was a sales tax measure but most of the money would go to the HOB project. In Santa Cruz it was overwhelming number of voters who voted against that sales tax measure. The climate action plan, you know, it's, I mean you just passed something that's even more assertive than the climate action plan. So this is really out of sync because widening highway one according to the draft EIR would really increase vehicle miles traveled in greenhouse gases. We also, our group doesn't support expanding intersections to expedite auto flow if that means it's at the expense of pedestrian and bike safety and that's often what happens just inadvertently. You know, you can think of intersections around town that are totally intimidating to bicyclists and pedestrians and often that's because they've been expanded to increase auto flow. So here's the HOB lane project doubles the footprint of our freeway right now. We had Susan Handy come to Santa Cruz. It's our Loudon Nelson Center right there. She says, adding capacity to roadways fails to alleviate congestion for long because it actually increases vehicle miles traveled. We know that but the staff recommendation from the RTC doesn't really reflect that. The draft EIR on the highway, it analyzed something called the HOV alternative and the TSM alternative which you see on this chart here. The measure D funds are listed in orange there. Measure D funds would fund about a quarter of the TSM alternative, a little less than a quarter and we know from the draft EIR that the TSM alternative would result in very slight improvement in traffic congestion. Nevertheless, the RTC wants to go ahead with this project and the staff is recommending even more auxiliary lanes which will, just to go back here, the next level of auxiliary lanes, none of this is going to do more than very slight improvement in traffic congestion according to the EIR. Either would it improve safety because the total accident rates would be remain the same. But there are alternatives that have been analyzed in the unified corridors study, bus on shoulder of highway one, transit on the rail corridor with either rail or bus rapid transit or something else, and enhanced transit on Soquel and Freedom Boulevard. So in conclusion, I want to make the request that you do not approve, you do not send any kind of support for the staff preferred alternative. And I also want to mention that the request to widen the bridge over Highway One, bridge over the San Lorenzo River, the Highway One bridge which is in the city limits is another auto expansion project that's very expensive, over $10 million. We don't know what terms of time savings it would, how many seconds it might save somebody who's in travel on that bridge. It's just not a project that has been substantiated in terms of its worth to our community. And the Mission Street, my neighborhood, the Bay and Mission and the Chestnut and Mission Intersections likewise are calling for large expansions of those intersections without insurance in my mind that they would be better for pedestrians or bicycles. Thank you very much. Thank you, wow, right on time. Thank you, Rick. Okay, Manu, you are up next. Do you need, do you have a presentation? I do, yeah, okay. Great. So Manu Koenig, Executive Director of Santa Cruz County Greenway. The cartoon you're showing here really shows the risk involved in approving the staff recommendation today which is it's going to limit our options when it comes to the rail corridor because as Executive Director Guy Preston said at the last meeting, the Unified Corridor document is, it's a planning document. It doesn't direct any specific action. But what does happen if we approve staff recommendation is that it forces us to approve the Progressive Rail Contract which means that they become the short line operator for the entire line and we commit to doing freight throughout the entire county for the next 10 years. And that means that they really pre-empt anything that we want to do with the corridor when it comes to transportation. The reason for this is simple. Federal rail, when we were building railroads many years ago, that had to take precedent over local jurisdiction in order to happen at all. So the Unified Corridor study, it's a great document. It has some good data in it. But it's also seriously lacking. And let me put this simply, it has a cost benefit analysis without the cost. That's really only half of the information. And so what we've tried to do with this graph is provide the other half. This is really what we should be looking for, right? What is the bang for our buck when it comes to the different transportation options? And this is what the data shows. They basically cost $16 to the public every time someone gets on a train, $10 every time someone gets on a bus. So if you're looking at how do we improve transit and how do we make that transit go as far as possible, buses are gonna get us a lot further. And that's the same conclusion that a lot of other communities have come to. Of course, the best of all is a trail. And I think that as Claire was talking about some of the bike share options, let's build infrastructure that supports that kind of modality. So then there's this thing called the planning fallacy that Daniel Kahneman has described. Daniel is the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. And he says that forecasts are unrealistically close to best case scenarios and could be improved by consulting the statistics of similar cases. So this is your opportunity to avoid the planning fallacy. This is some data from rail projects throughout the United States. And I'm just gonna read you the summary. This is Daniel Kahneman's own words. A 2005 study examined rail projects undertaken worldwide between 1969 and 1998. And more than 90% of the cases, the number of passengers projected to use the system was overestimated. Even though these passengers' shortfalls were widely publicized, forecasts did not improve over those 30 years on average. Planners overestimated how many people would use the new rail projects by 106% and average cost overrun was 45%. As more evidence accumulated, the experts did not become more reliant on it. Then there's the fact that rail, should it be completed, it's not gonna be done until 2035. I can't wait that long. Can our community wait that long? Then we had the technology risk. The train on the left there costs $6.7 million and holds 130 people. The ollie on the right costs $250,000 and holds 12 people. So $50,000 per person for the train, $20,000 per person with the ollie. You can buy 27 olleys for the price of the train. And they don't require a driver. They can go, they can be on demand and they can provide a lot more flexibility in transit. We talked about the jump bikes already. The city doesn't have to pay for this unit whatsoever, right? And 2035, how much is technology gonna change between now and then? There's a political risk. Greenway, supported measure D. We're not gonna support a tax measure for a train. Let's do something we can agree on. We've provided this alternative. Time's up. All right, just wanna say one brief comment. Round it up. Sure, we'll do. You can't get everything. You can't get the San Lorenzo River Bridge improvements if we pay for a train. And this data provides that. Thank you. Did you get permission from Claire to use that photo? I believe it's publicly available on the internet. I'm just joking. Any other members of the public that wish to speak to the side and please? Good morning. I am Brett Garrett. I am in agreement with Rick's comments and most of Manu's comments. I would not be ready to endorse the preferred scenario nor the scenario B. I wanna bring up that the Santa Cruz Metro has requested a comprehensive alternatives analysis to determine the best mode of transit on the rail corridor. In my view, the city should support this request for a comprehensive alternatives analysis instead of endorsing the so-called preferred scenario. Here's something Alex Clifford said about it during the November 16th Metro meeting. Alex was making a huge distinction between the alternatives analysis that Metro is requesting and the alternatives analysis that would come through the CEQA process that RTC would do by default. Alex said they sound similar, but they're very different. I quote, we're saying don't pick the mode. Do an alternatives analysis. Look at rail and there's variations of rail you could put in there. Look at BRT or bus. There may be one or two or three other alternatives that can function as mass transit in the corridor. Look at all of these. Lay out very detailed cost analysis of all of these including potential funding sources. Then make a decision based on a preferred alternative that comes out of that process. So that's what Alex Clifford said. I, as Brett Garrett, support what he said. I would take it a step further to say that personal rapid transit should be among the alternatives to be studied. Personal rapid transit, PRT, pod cars on an elevated guideway, preferably in a solar powered system with zero emissions. Lowest cost per passenger of any mode, much better safety, actually better transportation for everyone. I helped to get a study done showing that PRT would attract about five times the ridership of a train. I also believe that PRT would likely satisfy easement requirements. I don't know that for sure. So please recommend a comprehensive alternatives analysis to determine the best mode of transit on the rail corridor. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers, please step forward. You have two minutes. Hi, my name is Michael Posner. I've worked on transportation issues in Santa Cruz for third year, 40 years, 30 years. I do support alternative B. It's a proven track record, so to speak, for affecting land use in a way and doing transportation in a way that respects the world's climate and helps people that aren't rich. It's a public transportation and it's proven. In the 1930s, people that preferred private transportation ripped up rail lines all across the country and said that they were going to supply public buses. Instead, they purposely rode those buses into the ground so that they could make more money. And even though I'm not saying that people in this room want to do that, it's a potential outcome if we rip up our tracks. We need to keep the tracks. That's how we know we'll get public transportation and how we know that we'll support the kind of planning that helps the environment. I don't think the council should add a rider about widening the bridge over the river or Mission Street. Doing so would be saying that you agree with these principles, that you care about the environment, you respect how people should go around the county, but you're not willing to have a little bit of short-term suffering. You want to do old-school economics when it comes to sort of your transportation, your congestion, while you ask everyone else to move along to the next century. I think it would be kind of disingenuous. I don't think it'd be taken well by the people of Watsonville or other people in the county. And as you know, the highway bridge over the river is not considered important by Caltrans. It's not a high priority. So I hope you'll stick with B. It's been carefully negotiated. It's not everything I want it, but it's a good plan and I hope you'll recommend it to the Regional Transportation Commission. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item? This is item number 25, the Regional Transportation Commission's Unified Corridor Investment Study. Please, step 40, you have two minutes. Good morning, Mayor, Council members. It's nice to see you at this time of the day. Oral of controversy starts. I just want to talk really quickly in regards to this item about the concept of opportunity cost and looking at the regional or the Unified Corridor Study and the results that come out. I personally was a little dismayed by the wide differences in the amount of money and different projects that were chosen, ultimately the very marginal differences that were coming out of the different performance metrics that were given from the Unified Corridor Study. And so we're looking at spending hundreds of millions of dollars of public money, potentially up to a billion over the course of between now and 2035. We can be really cognizant over if we invest $600 million to do something, a brand new thing, whatever that may be, that's $600 million we cannot spend on something else. And we've got a lot of problems that we're dealing with. So just keep that in mind. And also the Highway 1, Highway 9 bridge is a significant pain point for everybody who drives that part of the highway every single day. It backs up onto the 17, it backs up along the fish hook and it causes chaos everywhere. It is a high priority, please consider that. And I'm sure the businesses in that part of town over by Harvey West, whether it's later construction, kind people's Costco would really, really appreciate it if you got to get that investment in that bridge. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item? It's item number 25, the RTC Unified Corridor Investment Study. I'll bring it back to the council. Council Member Matthews. Yes, I would like to move that. I already made a motion to continue this item. Is there a second on that earlier motion? I'm sorry, on Council Member Matthews. No, no, no. I made a motion to, let me clarify. Before we went to the public. Okay. I'm confused now because I believe we were heading towards potentially a motion to not actually weigh in on the UCIS today and to proceed as recommended by staff about the city items for now. So if we can just clarify where this is going, then I'll know whether or not I'm seconding your motion. Let me hear, let me, I know I said I was going to go to the public for comment. Council Member Crum, before we did that, he made a motion to continue the item. That's where he was. Okay, so I'll second for the sake of discussion. I'm trying to figure out what we're doing here. Okay, so are we prepared to take action on what's before us? Let's revisit RTC Ginger. The timing of any action we take and how that gets integrated into your report for RTC. Just want to understand the. Ginger, our RTC staff, we have been asking people that if there, so there is a chance for the staff recommendation to be revised and brought to the January 17th meeting. If in order to get that information, in order to do that and be based on your decision, we would need to have that information. What we've been telling people is December 28th prior to that in order to make that change. Your motion can always go to the commission up until the day before if we receive the information, January 16th. So there's three different time frames. December 28th, if we had the information then that we could evaluate your information to consider changing the staff recommendation. If we received the information from your council prior to let's say January 10th, we could incorporate it into the staff report that would then be in the packet available to our website. If we receive the information by January 16th at noon, we could incorporate it as a handout to our commission. Is that the information that you're looking for? That is just my question exactly, thank you. So there's motion on the floor in a second. Is there further discussion on that? The idea of postponing. Council Member Chase. So I think I'm where Council Member Brown is on this where we had a discussion right before Council Member Cron made the motion to basically make a recommendation for the RTC to consider some items that are in part of this. So I'd like to hear more about that. I think that's kind of more where I was going particularly as a member of the RTC. So this is, the outcome of this is important. So you're opposed to the idea of postponing? I am opposed to the idea of postponing because I wanted to really flesh out, particularly given what Ginger just reported to us, I think that that makes no sense to postpone. But I wanted to sort of hear more about what Council Member Matthews and then I believe Council Member Brown made some comments on so I think that's where I'm moving. I agree, I'm opposed to the postponement. So I will withdraw my motion if it's okay with the second. Okay, Council Member Matthews. Then we will proceed with the main motion. Please go ahead. And I will go ahead and move that we support the RTC preferred scenario in the Regional Transportation Commission's UCIS with specifically the inclusion of the Council approved, and I'm adding Council approved multimodal intersection improvements and projects on the SOCAL and mission corridors and inclusion of the reconstruction of the Highway 1 Bridge over San Lorenzo River. Second that, further discussion. So I'm more confused. My sense of where we were going was along the lines of what Mr. Schneider suggested that we could send our letter in support of the city approved projects to ensuring that the city approved projects receive consideration, whatever the preferred scenario is that the commission elects. Actually, I'm fine with that as well. Okay, so that was what I would, Scott, where we were gonna go. Then let me just restate, race motion, restate motion. I'll move that the City Council express its desire that the RTC include in its final scenario additional lanes on bridge over San Lorenzo River, improvement of city improved projects on the Mission Street Corridor and intersection improvements for automobiles at city approved projects. I'm looking here at the line items that were packed. So it would be to include in whatever the RTC does to add those three as the city's strong preference. Can I refute back to the original recommendation in your staff report just to make sure there are multimodal improvements on the SOCAL and mission corridors? Yeah, because it says you're here just auto. You're right. Yeah, that was an emotion. So that's pretty clear, right? Intersection improvements, multimodal intersection improvements at city approved for city approved projects. Yeah, council approved multimodal projects, intersection. Yeah. So it will be the line that calls for additional lanes on the bridge over San Lorenzo River, which I agree is really a public safety issue. The Mission Street intersection multimodal improvements and multimodal intersection improvements for city approved projects. Those three items. Is there a second? Do we have a second? No, we already had a second. I'll leave a second. So Cal, the city clerk was looking for that language, some something so we have it in. It just gets really hard when the door opens. It was hard to hear you. Okay. Just the last part of it. We requested the RTC include in its final decision on preferred scenario the following. Additional lanes on the bridge over San Lorenzo River, Mission Street intersection multimodal improvements and multimodal intersection improvements for city approved projects. And I think does that cover for you? Yes, council member Brown. I will support the motion for the sake of moving this along. However, I do want to go on record and the only record we have for anybody who's listening out there because we only do action minutes. I am not currently in support of the highway one bridge over the San Lorenzo River. I understand there's serious safety issues there. I understand that this will be coming back to us in whatever form and this council will have the opportunity to weigh in about that in the future. But for the sake of moving us along today, I'm okay with moving the recommendation as made. Great. So we have a motion on the floor by council member Matthew Second and by myself, council member Crone. So Chris, if we do this, is this the city going on record that we're supporting highway one widening? This, the motion just is about Mission Street improvements as approved by the city council. And multimodal improvements. And as well as the highway one bridge. But not highway one, per se, the whole. Not highway one past south towards Watsonville. Oh, I think it'd be a good idea. I too want to, you know, I don't know. I really think, you know, I try to read all the stuff that comes to us. And I don't know if maybe outside of the council members who are on the RTC have read these documents. They're of enormous length. And I really, we've never had a study session on them. I really think we should. I think these decisions are really huge. And I will say for the record too, I support the council of endorsing the transit and active transportation measures in the UCIS, but I oppose auto-centric projects. And I don't support the highway widening that bridge over the San Lorenzo River. Thank you. Okay, council member Narayan. And this is where I just don't understand why people wouldn't be in favor of widening that bridge when there are safety issues. People are not going to ride their bike, not ride their bike because we widened that. People who are on that road coming into Santa Cruz aren't doing it, usually through there because they said, gee, I could have ridden my bike instead of driving on this stretch of road. It is a huge safety issue. I grew up here. I've seen so many horrific accidents at that intersection. So I just don't understand. It's the approach that's dangerous and it needs to be fixed. Okay, council member Brown. I just want to reiterate my willingness to support this motion in the interest of moving us forward here. We have a busy agenda today. And I believe that we will have plenty of time to discuss, get more information and debate the merits of the highway one bridge. I just use it as an example in the future, a future meeting. So I assume that will happen. I look forward to those conversations and I absolutely appreciate council member Crohn's suggestion and I suggested the same that for council members who do want to have more information and fully digest this document, I do think we could have some kind of study session with the council sometime in January to allow council members who are interested to really understand it better and potentially weigh in further. So we could do that if the incoming mayor is so inclined and or council members are so inclined. Would the maker of the motion see that as a friendly amendment that we schedule a study session on this document? We would really need commission staff to be part of that study session. They're really focused on trying to get their side of the equation for the commission done. I don't really realistically think that's gonna be possible before the January commission. This is gonna be a discussion over years and I think you're gonna probably have plenty of opportunities to weigh in on this. So I mean, if it's okay with the council, let's like to call the lock. I mean, I'd like to see where people are. So all those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes with council member Crohn voting no, council member Matthews, council member Chase, council member Brown, council member Naroyan and vice mayor Watkins and myself voting in favor. And we will then be moving on to the next item, 11 o'clock time certain. We're not on that right yet because we're gonna take one quick break. We've been going since 8.30 a.m. and then we're gonna come right back. So can we give us five minutes? That'd be perfect, mayor. I got a bunch of members outside that wanted to come in. They can come on in. Yeah, how about give us five minutes and, yeah, thank you. And get comfy. So it looks like there's a lot of people out there. Hey, thank you. Welcome everybody who's here. We actually have some audio that can be projected outside so that I know we're in kind of close quarters here. So if people would like to step outside that feel more comfortable, you'll still hear the proceedings and you could come up when this time when we call for public comment if you'd like. So just wanna make that option available for you because we do need to have access in the aisle ways so people can travel through the facility. So next up on our agenda is item number 26. This is a public hearing for the 100 Laurel Street project. We are going to, at this point, turn it over to Samantha Hatcher, our senior planner, or excuse me, Lee Butler, our director of planning to speak. Please, go ahead. Good morning, mayor and council members. Lee Butler, planning director for the city. And we're very pleased to be presenting to you today the project that is proposing redevelopment of the properties on the north side of Laurel Street between Pacific Avenue and Front Street. We're all well aware of the housing crisis that we're in. We're also well aware of the many decades that have gone by since we've seen substantial investments in the southern end of our downtown. And the council and our entire city team have been taking a series of efforts to address both of those issues. And I'll start with, by framing the conversation with the updates that we did to the downtown plan last year. In response to the lack of investment in the southern end of our downtown, as compared to what we had seen in the north end of the downtown following the 89 quake and since that time, we embarked on updates to our downtown plan. And those updates specifically addressed the provision of additional height in the downtown area to facilitate the redevelopment of those projects. That was approved by the council in late 2017. And then it was certified by the coastal commission earlier this year. And those changes are what has facilitated this project moving forward. And so we're seeing the fruits of that labor now with this project coming forward and embodying the vision that was articulated by those revisions to the downtown plan. The other thing that the council has done and that staff are responding to is the housing blueprint subcommittee work and the large community engagement effort that then Mayor Chase led at the end of last year that led to a series of recommendations that were then prioritized by the housing blueprint subcommittee. And then on June 12th of this year, council provided direction to as part of the housing production arm of those recommendations to really facilitate downtown housing creation. And one of those specific recommendations and the direction provided by the council on June 12th was to focus city resources and staff to encourage construction or approval of units downtown with a specific focus on enabling projects in the current development pipeline to break ground. And so this project does represent one of those projects that we've had in the pipeline and we're pleased to present it to you here today. Samantha Haschert, senior planner as well as Bonnie Lipscomb, the director of economic development will be providing some more details on the project and will be available for questions following the presentation and public comments. Thank you. I'll turn it over for the presentation. Thanks. Thank you. This is a six story mixed use building with ground floor commercial and 205 residential apartments above. It requires approval of a demolition authorization permit, a sequential lot line adjustment, a design permit, a special use permit, a coastal permit, a revocable license for outdoor extension areas, a heritage tree removal permit and approval of street tree removal. This project in this location, as Lee was saying, was directly envisioned by the downtown plan with the objectives of increasing housing stock in a transit priority area and also providing better connectivity between downtown and the beach and downtown and the San Lorenzo River. An approval of this project would be in line with strategic goal one of the city council's two year work plan to approve 500 to 600 housing units downtown and would also be in line with goals of the housing element to provide a diversity of housing types and concentrate new housing in the commercial core. Also to facilitate development of affordable housing through collaboration with nonprofit organizations, this development would contribute land to allow the city to meet that goal. There are many project specific details in the staff report that we provided to the planning commission. And so I'd like to focus this report just on some of the concerns that were brought up by the public during this process. This project was heard by the downtown commission on September 27th who recommended approval of 37 to 65 parking space deficiency. This is in line with the parking district resolution to encourage shared parking in the downtown area. The planning commission heard this item on November 15th and recommended approval with some modified conditions. The project is also subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA provides streamlining provisions that allow for a lead agency to not repeat an analysis where impacts were adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR. This is under public resources code sections 21083.3 and it's parallel CEQA guidelines provision section 15183. We completed a checklist and found that the certified EIRs for the general plan and the downtown plan amendments adequately address the impacts of the project. The project density that's proposed is consistent with the assumption of build out that we used as a basis for the previous analysis in the downtown plan EIR. But we did require subsequent reports to confirm these analysis. We required full traffic reports, parking and circulation analysis, noise impact assessments, an arborist report, a historic resource report, archeological reports, and all of these are referenced in the staff report to the planning commission. We also consulted with multiple departments, public works who reviewed the traffic and parking impacts and the parks department who reviewed the tree preservation and our checklist was prepared by our professional CEQA consultant in consultation with Rami Moos Manly, a law firm that specializes in California environmental law. The checklist found no new impacts triggering changes or additions to the previously certified general plan or downtown plan EIRs. And the variations that are proposed as a part of this project are really minor design modifications that had no environmental impacts. So I'm just gonna go through the project to show you some of the proposed development. This is the project site shown here between Pacific Avenue, Front Street, and Laurel Street. The property is seven parcels that would be combined to create a 62,806 square foot lot. The property is entirely located in the central business district zone district and within the regional visitor commercial downtown Santa Cruz general plan designation. The entire project is within the downtown plan, though with the western half in the Pacific Avenue sub district area and the eastern half in the Front Street River Front Corridor. The project site is also entirely within additional height zone A that allows for buildings up to 85 feet under specific criteria. This is just a zoom in of the project site. The project would require the demolition of five existing buildings and we completed a historic analysis of these buildings to ensure that none of the buildings were of historic significance. Here's a site plan for the proposed project. The ground floor consists of commercial uses and two floors of above ground parking. That ground floor covers the entire project site. The upper floors, floors two to six are shown in tan. Those are separated by an interior courtyard area and then there's an interior mezzanine located at the middle of the building. This area down here is an open rooftop courtyard or open space area. That's above a 55 foot high portion of the building. The tan portions of the building are 75 feet in height and the mezzanine area shown in green here reaches a height of 85 feet. This is a bird's eye view of the project. Gives a good idea of how the architect has provided significant breaks between buildings and a variety of design styles and also step backs in building height and variations in stories to provide a grouping of buildings rather than one large monolithic building. There's a view of the Laurel Street Frontage. This is a pretty significant building mass here. However, it benefits from a two-story height variation and also this significant break to the interior courtyard area. And then the Front Street Frontage which again is another large building mass but this one doesn't benefit from any significant breaks. So we have included a condition of approval that would require the architect to provide either differentiation in design, building step backs, recess breaks to break down this building mass. This is a view of the downtown area with the project site shown here at the bottom in red. You can see the Palomar building here. That's a seven-story, 95-foot tall building at its tallest point. And then 1010 Pacific is here and 1010 Pacific is six stories and 68 feet tall and then the future will have under construction a building at the top of downtown which is five stories and 50 to 60 feet tall at 1547 Pacific. So the proposed project is within the range of building heights downtown. Onto uses, the ground floor of the building is shown here in this floor plan. The commercial uses are concentrated on Pacific Avenue with outdoor cafes, extension areas and a main lobby to the building to funnel the residents to Pacific Avenue. The Pacific Avenue Frontage would include wide awnings, retractable storefronts, mix of materials, significant landscaping. This is all really intended to eliminate the heart edge between the public and private realms and create gathering spaces for residences. The design is generally consistent with the design and development standards provided in the downtown plan but the downtown plan recognizes that the criteria can't address every situation so it does allow for design variations that are minor in nature and that help the project better meet the goals of the downtown plan. Those variations, I'm sorry, the applicant is proposing six variations and the planning commission and the planning department support all but two of those. So the first is going back to the floor plan here to not wrap the parking garage with commercial uses. So as I mentioned, the commercial uses are concentrated on Pacific Avenue. There's less commercial uses on Laurel Street but on Front Street, there's very minimal commercial uses and none other than just the one at the corner. The current state of Front Street is not a thriving commercial area but the proposed development will include 205 new residential units. The Metro site is also being considered for redevelopment into 100% affordable housing development and a large mix use development is in process on Front Street at the terminus of Cathcart. So Front Street is in a state of evolution and we would like the project to better meet the downtown goals by providing additional commercial space on Front Street. The condition of approval is included and has been drafted in a broad way to allow the applicant to determine what's economically feasible to provide true commercial spaces or possibly residential amenity space to activate that frontage. And the planning commission included an additional part in that condition that requires any space that's not converted to commercial uses to be designed to be able to be easily converted in the future to commercial uses. The second variation that's not supported is to allow for a mezzanine at the corner in this commercial space at the corner of Front Street and Laurel Street to create a 10 foot high ceiling within that space for about 70% of the space. We found that that would be very limiting to a future tenant. It would reduce visibility at that corner which is identified as a gateway corner in the downtown plan. And so we've recommended that the mezzanine be set back at least 20 feet from the front walls of the tenant space and we would desire that bike parking in the mezzanine to be relocated to an interior space instead. Here's some renderings of the project. These are from the Laurel Street Bridge. This is the Front Street elevation. And then another rendering from Front Street and then another rendering at night here. I have one more showing the active space illuminated within the ground floor of the building. So I just quickly wanted to go over how the inclusionary housing is being proposed for this project and then I'm gonna turn it over to Bonnie Lipscomb the economic development director to get into further detail on how that was calculated. But the project is proposing to use two sections of code to address the inclusionary housing requirements. The first one is section 24-16055 of the zoning ordinance. That was adopted on October 9th, 2018 and allows for the city to determine an alternative percentage only in cases where properties were acquired and applications for projects commenced during the time when the courts ruled that cities could not limit rental amounts for affordable housing due to a conflict with the Costa Hopkins Rental Housing Act. So this is commonly referred to as the Palmer case. So this ordinance, the zoning ordinance was intended to address situations where a developer moved forward with the purchase of a property and a project with the assumption based on this court case that they could construct a 100% rental project without the requirement for inclusionary housing and where the full 15% inclusionary requirement could make that project economically infeasible. So consistent with that ordinance, they did submit a pro forma analysis for review and Bonnie will go over them. The second section of the zoning ordinance that applies is section 24-16030 subsection seven. That is a section that allows for land dedication as an alternative method to comply with the inclusionary housing requirement. This is a feasible option if the land to be dedicated is adjacent to city-owned land and is a critical component of a larger city-supported affordable housing project. So the applicant is proposing to dedicate two parcels at 820 and 822 Pacific Avenue to the city to be used as part of a future 100% affordable housing project adjacent or concurrently with the Metro Center. The land meets both of these requirements and then in addition, the city is asking for the property owner to obtain and dedicate the parcel at 818 Pacific Avenue or pay an in-loofy of $1.2 million to the housing fund to ensure that the value is consistent with the value of the land dedication. So I think at this point, I'll turn it over to Bonnie to get into further detail on them. Great, thank you, Sam. Good morning, council members, mayor and council members. So we actually have our financial consultant on a WebEx and I'm going to give her the opportunity to speak at the end of this presentation because a lot of what has been discussed as far as financial feasibility is based on her analysis of the project. This isn't a city staff analysis of what's financially feasible. This is our independent financial consultants analysis of what is feasible. I think from our perspective, we would love for the project to be able to support a 15% inclusionary within the project, but based on the analysis, it's just not supportable within the project. With that said, we do believe that the 15% inclusionary requirement can be met. As Sam mentioned, the land dedication is an alternative means of compliance and I'll go into that in a little bit more specificity here in a minute. There have been some questions about the project specific analysis for this project that's been conducted. We initially had Kathy Head from Kaiser Marston do an analysis when the project first came forward in 2016 and then update that analysis in 2018. And so this is based on the general project specifics of a 205 unit project at a density of 130 units per acre. The assumptions for that are that in order for a project to be feasible, there needs to be an unrestricted market rate project approximately a 5% stabilized return to the developer and put a different way that a project is not supportable if there's a reduction in the land value by more than 30%. So that's sort of the threshold. And if it starts to dip below 30%, it's deemed not feasible from a developer standpoint. And Kathy can go into that in a little more detail. So that's the threshold basis for the percentages that we're discussing for this analysis. And so the August 2018 downtown inclusionary analysis, this actually was included in the inclusionary housing ordinance amendments that came forward to you in September, had a discussion of a downtown base case that ultimately supported a 15% downtown inclusionary requirements in the downtown and a 10% outside the downtown. And the difference between those two is that for the downtown base case, the assumption is that developers in the downtown are going to be able to take advantage of the density bonus provisions. And so the difference between that specifically in the downtown, and I don't think we went into detail about this back in September, but the difference of the base zoning before you add in the density bonus, downtown supportable is 6% inclusionary. And so this is relevant when we actually get into this specific project analysis. But there are a few reasons why this particular project is not going to take advantage of the density bonus provision. So as a result, the actual affordability for their project is closer to the 6% and when you actually get their specific financial information, the actual supportable inclusionary housing within their project is 5.5%. But there've been a lot of discussions of how can we have 15% and you're suggesting 5.5%. So I wanted to give a little bit of background on that. But at the end of the presentation, Kathy Head can go into the specifics. So key differences that I wanted to just call out to your attention between the specific project, and that means the proposed project before you today, and the base case scenario. The base case scenario was based on a hypothetical 90 unit per acre project. The base case was based on 100 units in the downtown, so it would be easy to see as a percentage the number of inclusionary units. The proposed project is already developed and they can do this by right at a higher density than the base case scenario was anticipated. The no higher density on the proposed project can really be achieved without changing the construction type. And once you change the construction type, the costs go up dramatically. So as a result, the density bonus does not change the economics overall to support that incentive for the developer to take advantage of the density bonus provisions within this particular project. Hopefully that won't be the case, I think, for a lot of the other projects in the downtown. Also, as Sam mentioned, because the Palmer case was the prevailing, we couldn't enforce the inclusionary provisions over the last, since 2009. They did purchase and assemble this land, paying higher land value with the expectation that they wouldn't be required to provide that 15% so they did pay a higher land value. When you actually look at the analysis of what a 15% inclusionary would require for this project, when you look at that, it actually creates a negative land value, meaning that everything they paid for the land would have to be completely free and then some by a couple million. It just doesn't work financially. With that said, because we have alternative means to comply with our inclusionary housing requirement, that 15% threshold can be met by alternative methods. And specifically, we're talking about the land dedication. And so, as Sam mentioned, but just to call out specifically, an applicant may propose to donate a minimum of 15% of the net developable land area of the residential development to the city for the construction of a project with at least 25% of its total units restricted to low income households or below. And I underline the next part of a lesser amount or a lesser amount of land of the parcel is adjacent to city-owned land and is a critical component of a larger city-supported affordable housing project. With that said, I still, when I'll show you in a second, we're actually really close to the 15% of land dedication and we'll show that to you. Additionally, we have the recent 2018 AB 1505, which does amend section 6585 of the government code that requires jurisdictions to include alternative means of fulfilling the affordable housing obligation, including in Luffy's land dedication, off-site construction, et cetera. So what we're proposing today and what we're recommending does comply both with our existing ordinance as well as the government code section as far as inclusionary housing. So specifically to look at, and I will show you a map in just a second, but just wanted to run through the numbers with you first, the land dedication inclusionary analysis. So the project, the net developable land area, that's when you take away the setbacks, we're actually taking, I think it's like eight foot right away off of Laurel Forestry Dedication. When you actually take out the areas that the developer can't develop, that developable land area is 55,160 feet. So we take per our inclusionary requirement, we take 15% of that as a land base, which is comparable to a 15% and that gets you to 8,272 square feet. When you look at the sites that we're proposing to be dedicated to the city, that's the commonly known as the Tampico site, 820 and 822, that's a 7,797 square foot project, which is approximately 14.14% of the developable area of the existing project. If you add in 1818 Pacific, is what we're proposing, we're proposing to either the developer to additionally acquire the 1818 Pacific and also dedicate that to the city or alternatively, if they're not able to do that, to provide an inclusionary fee of 1.2 million to fully satisfy what we feel like is the inclusionary requirement. If they're able to acquire the 1818 Pacific, that additional square footage actually brings the total inclusionary as far as a percentage of the land area up to 19%. So it does exceed the 15% if they are able to develop both areas. Okay, so this actually shows the map of the areas we're just talking about. And the city-owned, just as referenced, the city project that we already own that we're working on is adjacent to the Metro project. And so last year, actually last year this time, we completed the acquisition of the NIAC building, which is at the back on the side facing Front Street. And that's 333 Front Street. In the front, we already owned the city parking lot. So we have a total of 24,000 square feet, a little over half an acre that we currently own. We're in discussions with Metro. We would like to do a project that includes this city acreage and does a land exchange with Metro so that we can develop the frontage along the existing Metro. We'd like to be able to add an additional land, including this land dedication. The 1820, 1822 Pacific are the two areas in yellow that the applicant, the developer here today, currently owns and is proposing to dedicate to the city to satisfy the inclusionary land requirement. That's the 14% of their current project, which is the 7,797 square feet. We are additionally, the area in back is just to show you ultimately what we would like to have the footprint for our proposed affordable housing city developed land project. The area in purple, pink, is the additional land that we're at the city also requiring to be part of the conditions of approval to meet the inclusionary as far as the land dedication. This is the either additionally acquire and dedicate to the city, this additional 2,874 square feet or pay an enlou fee of 1.2. So it's the yellow and the purple together that makes up the land area that exceeds the 15% alternative means of complying with the inclusionary. So that's the overall area. I wanted to show you and just to show you the map and then go to the next area. This is the proposed adjacent project and I thought it would be good just to provide that context of what we've been working on with Metro for the proposed Pacific station. In this one you can see the city owned land that's shown in red on the preceding slide, I'm sorry, blue on the preceding slide is also blue on this slide and that's just a little over half an acre. What we'd like to do is exchange the area that's translucent and blue with the area that sort of cross hatched along Pacific Avenue. And so to create the city frontage which would be an affordable housing project over ground floor commercial retail a new sort of entryway for the Metro with housing on top. And then we'd like to add in the proposed land dedication from this project of approximately 10,000 additional square feet to the project as well which is the area to the right on yellow. Additionally, we would like to add the area behind that that goes to Front Street but we first want to secure these parcels before we move on to that next area. We've had some questions of well, if you dedicate or accept this land dedication how many units can you actually create on this project? So just looking at the hatched area along Pacific we did an initial analysis of how many units we could fit on that site. And for this site keeping under the existing construction type that's more affordably developed we could develop approximately 100 to 108 units on this site with a range of unit types. When we're looking at the density specifically of between the downtown base case just to have sort of a range that we made for the financial analysis as well as a proposed existing project which goes up to 130 units per acre. And look at this total land area which is approximately a quarter of an acre. That gives us an estimate that's very conservative and reasonable between 22 and 34 affordable or inclusionary units that we can actually create with this combined land dedication area. So I wanted to look at it from two different ways. One, by our ordinance it's just a 15% or less land dedication but I also wanted to look at well what can we reasonably develop within that 15% and obviously it's comparable to what would be the requirement if you were to include that 15% which would be about 31 units within the project. Obviously the density would be subject to a future council direction and that would be at some point in the future when we actually bring the design development forward to you for the city public project. And then I actually wanted to give you the opportunity to hear directly from Kathy Head if you wanted to go into the detail of how she got to the downtown scenario of a 6% base case inclusionary percentage as well as the 9% for the density bonus but I wanted to first see from you if you would like to hear her to go into that level of detail. It is relevant to the discussion today but it is quite detailed financial analysis. Well, let's just say we could see how the questions go and if we need to we're gonna have her supplement unless there's anyone who's looking for that information now. I'll just say there's a lot of information I'm looking for and I don't think we're gonna cover it all today so I won't do this right now. Well, I wanted to, I mean, I think that we purposefully scheduled this to get as much information as we can. So I would encourage you let's, we have the professional staff here, let's hear it. I mean, is there something I just wanted, you've suggested that Bonnie and so if there's something you'd like to bring forward please do so. Well, I'm just sort of going just scrolling through the slide so you can see the information that Kathy had our financial consultant who I believe is on Webex. She's muted right now on her phone but is willing to go through the detail of how she got to the six and the 9% and I know there have been some questions about that. Council Member Crabb, I would appreciate that. Great, thanks. Okay, let me make sure. Kathy, are you there? Oh, wow. Great. So this is Kathy Head with Kaiser Marston who is our financial consultant. As you can see, she's traveling between meetings. Kathy, I'm going to turn it over to you and let me know if you want me to go back to your slides. Thanks for being in the passenger seat. Yes, they are the same slides. A couple of years looking at it. I also, as you know, is an inclusionary study that you all heard of in the last few months. And so what I understand is the question that's come up is how a 15% requirement could be recommended feasible in the downtown, but this project is a significant amount in a length of 45.5%. And so with the slides you're going to look at now relate to the downtown study. And what I try to do with the next three or four slides is to show you how you can get from 5.5% to 15% in a perfectly rational basis. So what I want to share with you is this again, the first slide just comes straight from what the downtown inclusionary study was as the base-selting case that we analyzed. And so I'm finding if that slides out. So we're just looking at slides that was about 48,000 feet on the slide, which equated to 90 units per stretch. So lower, as Bonnie mentioned in her presentation, a lower density than what the participant plans is proposed to have. And the idea is that from the base-selting to a density bonus scenario is essentially how you get to it being supportable. So that, so then in the next slide, I have a market rate alternative person, how I got to a financially feasible inclusionary percentage for the downtown before consideration of density bonus, otherwise, you know, state density bonus. Yes, that's it. So in that scenario, what I did was I, the prototype project, I ran on a full form before it as well as a 100% market rate project. And the reason I ran that was to say, look, if a developer was in town and bought land, built land costs in downtown, and had no restrictions on internal affordability what return would be generated by that project? So this isn't an analysis of whether that project would then be feasible for the developer. Nobody's restricting you. You can get the market random whatever the market will bear and it costs what it costs to build. And so that's the last-hand column under market rate alternative. And so as you can see in that column, the market rate alternative has a cost of about $54 million. And then from there, what I did was I said, okay, and it's not only that this is her presentation, this notion of the state can impose a restriction that alters the financial return, that alters the financial characteristics of the return. You just have to make sure that you haven't basically taken an unreasonable amount or an onerous amount. And so over time, and we've done these analysis, we've come to use, as a surrogate, a 30% reduction of land value, which Bonnie mentioned in her presentation. And so what you can get to that then, what you can do from what I did, is I tested how many affordable cities affordability measure, which is taking 80% of the area we didn't income and using 30% of that to the allowable rent. And so the result of that analysis, and this was in the August analysis and the September analysis, was that it could, for the downtown, before any consideration of density bonus, a 6% requirement. And that's in the right-hand column. So now looking at Roman in Room 3 on that chart, you have the stabilized net operating income from a market-rate scenario, which is $2.7 million per year. And then with a 6% inclusionary requirement imposed, that income falls to $3.6 million a year. So it's $100,000 a year reduction in income generated by the project. And again, going back to the market rate now, no restrictions, et cetera, what would the developer return, if you'd like, return on full occupancy. And that would have to be 5%. Reduction in income does to the project economics you divide the $100,000 by 5%. And again, it involves a return for the market-rate scenario. And as you can see on the chart, that map has about a $2 million impact on what could be supported for the project. And we need to buy that. We need to buy that by the 6th imminent, because it's 3% of 100. And that's a cost-effective cost per inclusionary unit of $334,000. So I'm going to stop here for a second and ask if you have any questions. Well, yeah, I just wanted to make two points. One is thank you for the detail and thoroughness of the presentation, the analysis you did in regards to calculating these costs. Second, how often have you done this before in looking at other projects and how significant of a level of review and close to these outcomes have you seen in past analysis? So would you say this cost is highly reliable? Thanks. Council Member Cron. We met with the local developer who had enough to share numbers from their project. And the numbers you're looking at now were then done in August. So I'm going to take the June analysis to fold those numbers in. What you're looking at half the times were provided the direct cost numbers and our construction cost numbers were done having reviewed the numbers that the developer provided. Thank you, Ms. Head. One of the council members has a question. Council Member Cron. Hi, Kathy. My question is, and maybe I am not seeing this, is 15% of land of the total project, how is that equivalent to 15% of the affordable units? It seems like apples and oranges kind of comparison or is it what I'm not seeing? Okay, thanks. Are there any other questions while we have this kind of market analysis regarding the market rate versus inclusionary percentage while Kathy heads on the phone? Any questions? Right, but I'm just up to this point. You're giving a lot of good detail in regards to the project analysis, so I just want to make sure that we can kind of pace ourselves. Okay, I don't see any. So if you'd continue, please. So my analysis from August and June said, okay, if you don't count density bonus in, the supportable inclusionary percentage is 6%, reducing density bonus in downtown because it is primarily because of the downtown where they can take advantage of reduced parking standards and not harm marketability as much as when you're in the non-downtown area. So the next analysis, which you're looking at the slide, which is called incremental value analysis, 35% density bonus, it is an analysis to say, okay, if a developer loves the density bonus, are provided by the additional market rate unit that a developer would get. So using the density bonus on a hundred unit project, a developer could get up to 35 additional units. And in those 35 additional units, 20 of them in this case, because we're getting no 15% requirement, 20 of those units would be market rate units, low income units, and those very low income units are required by this density bonus. So that's a more stringent requirement than the city of the province. And so that becomes relevant to this analysis. And so you can also do low income as a state density bonus, but those rents are also lower than the rents provided in the inclusionary. And just automatically, financially, it's better to do for the project. It's better for the project economics to do the very low income standard. Okay, I'm done. And then the other three, to get up to 15 total local units, for low income units, using Santa Cruz inclusionary rents. Okay, so that's the 35 additional units that you get with a density bonus. Okay, I'm going to ask. Can I just want to make sure, are there any questions at this point? I mean, we're going over some of the detail. No, okay. I just want to make sure that we're, you know, we can cover any sort of questions people have as you're going through your presentation. 20 extra market rate units. And so in this project, if you do own this prototype project that you're developing, you would have incremental costs to build 20 additional market rate units. And so it's not all new values, but you do get to spread some of the other costs across these units. So what I do, I just look at the incremental cost of the 20 market rate units, and what that adds to the net value. And so if you're looking at road and numeral 2A, the income, the table and net operating income, which is the rent minus the operating expenses, is $484,500. Here's the 5% threshold return on investment again. That's from the market rate analysis of the base case. If you divide the 484,500 by 5%, you get $9.7 million of ad value. $8.7 million can build the looping. The $9.7 million, and effectively your net value created by the 20 additional market rate units is $3 million. Now, I just want to make one comment that is really probably way more detailed than you want. Another factor that played into the same life and operating income of those 20 market rate units was the fact that the very old income requirement being imposed on units that was strict for standards in your home and in your kitchen, I also factor out that differential income out of my state-of-the-art operating income. Again, that's probably way too much of a no-meat, but I wanted to end on that. But anyway, net value is $3 million, that extra $3 million. You will, in a comment about the new original three there, you'll see that some $2,998, or effectively $3 million, divided by the net cost per ski-hair unit, which was from the earlier table, $330,000, generates nine units, and the out-of-the-year base project, and you can only measure, again, the base project with 100 units. So I move on to the final slide or the questions on that. No, but while you were speaking, I made sure that we had copies of each of the analysis out so we have them on the desk so that if people do have questions, they can. Are there any questions up until this point regarding the presentation, regarding the analysis in the next slide? Anyone? Okay, I don't see any questions. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the council regarding that analysis? I think you had a question in regards to it. So thank you for that thorough report. And I understand this was also presented, at least the analysis from the report to the Planning Commission. Is that correct? Not at this level of detail, but we did have the base case scenario. Great. So I'll go ahead, please. I just wanted to quickly finish up the report and give you a recommendation here. We have received public comments, both in opposition and support of the project, which you have received. You also received today a revised resolution. And that is because we added one find, finding related to off-site land dedication to meet the project's inclusionary housing requirements. So essentially that finding states that because the parcels will be dedicated to the city, the city can control the ultimate use of the property for affordable housing. And so the city's control of the land represents adequate security to ensure that the future construction of inclusionary housing units will be provided. The proposed development as conditioned is consistent with the goals and design and development criteria of the downtown plan. Therefore, it's recommended that the city council acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the permits that are before you today for the proposed project based on the findings and the conditions of approval. Thank you. Thank you. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes, it does. Thanks. Are there any questions from the council regarding the staff presentation? Anybody? Councillor Moeller Brown. Thank you for the presentation and all your work that's gone into bringing us this project and to the applicants. I just have, I have many comments which I'll reserve for later, but just if you could, when was the environmental checklist that came, we had a hard copy this morning when we arrived at City Hall, when was this made available to the council, the checklist that you referred to with respect to coverage of environmental review through the downtown plan and the staff's determination of items that fell outside the downtown, excuse me, the downtown recovery plan and the items that fell outside of that plan, when was that provided to council and made available to the general public? When was the checklist made available? The checklist was completed prior to the Planning Commission meeting. It was provided as an attachment to the Planning Commission staff report and it was recently provided to you. Am I correct that it was at 9.58 p.m. last night because that's the email I received, 9.58 p.m.? Yeah, I'm not, I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the exact time that it was provided, but it was provided, yeah, it was provided as part of the Planning Commission staff report, but yes, it was provided. Another follow-up question. Are there questions regarding the information that was presented? Well, I haven't been able to read it because we received it at 9.58 p.m. last night and I actually didn't look at it until I walked in this morning. I would just say and add that there was not any additional information that from the environmental review that needed to amend what was studied in the Downtown Plan EIR that this council certified. So all of the analysis that we conducted concluded that the Downtown Plan EIR adequately covered all of the project impact. So while we did several studies and the Planning Commission staff report identified those including things like traffic counts were specifically called out in the Planning Commission staff report that was attached to the council's packet, that conclusion as identified in the Planning Commission staff report was that it all falls within the previously analyzed Downtown EIR. Second question. Was the council at any point asked to reacquaint itself with the Downtown Recovery Plan EIR and if not, which I believe the answer is no, when was the last time the council was directed to review the Downtown Recovery Plan environmental impact report? I can't recall that. The council reviewed the Downtown Plan EIR in roughly November of last year, so about a year ago and the staff report did call out that this project is relying on the Downtown Plan EIR. So that was specifically calling the council's attention to that issue. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions at this time? Council Member Cronin. I appreciate you leaving ample time for questions. That's why we got here at 8.30. That I don't know. Bonnie, could you talk about the exchange of the property again because I'm not sure I was clear on it. I'm understanding that there's the Tampico's building, which is either a Tampico's building or 1.2 million, do I have that right? And so is that like going to be assessed value at the time of this whole deal coming together and we'll figure that out? No, the Tampico, which is 8.20.8.22 are the two parcels outlined in yellow and the applicant, the developer, already owns those and is proposing to dedicate that to the city. Additionally, we are looking at them also either acquiring and dedicating the area outlined in purple, also commonly known as the pipeline site. That's 8.18 Pacific Avenue. So we're asking for all three. And alternatively, if they can't acquire since they don't own that site, in lieu of dedicating, acquiring, dedicating the purple parcel they would pay the city on top of the land dedication, an additional 1.2 million. Are there any other land exchanges that you talked about? For the purposes of this project and the conditions of approval, we're talking about the three parcels, the two in yellow and the additional one in purple. Do we have an idea of what these units are going to rent for? The yellow and the purple? No, the units in the Market Ray project. The applicant is here, and I'm sure he's done that analysis. Kathy Head independently has done an analysis of its market rate supportable rents for the Market Ray project, but they can specifically talk about that. Similar to 555 Pacific Avenue, those kinds of rents that are getting 32 to 3800. They're going to be presenting after this portion so we can have them address that or just mark it for reference. Another question about not wrap garage with commercial uses, why would we not want to do that again? You mentioned not wrapping the garage with commercial uses. The proposal from the applicant is to not wrap the garage with commercial uses and the downtown plan specifically encourages the addition of active uses along Front Street. Plus we see that Front Street is evolving to a more pedestrian friendly area and we'd like to activate that area. We are specifically not requesting shoulder-to-shoulder commercial as that might not be feasible for the applicant, but we would like to them to provide some additional active spaces. Okay, so that would be one of the requirements. That would be one of the requirements, yeah. Is this six stories or seven stories? It's six stories. Six stories. And how many heritage trees are going to be removed? There are 22 trees on the property and I believe two are heritage that would be removed. Yes, there are 22 trees on the property. What page is that? This is actually in the staff report to the Planning Commission, page 20. Thank you. There's eight heritage trees and then two non-heritage trees on the site too. Those will remain, you're saying? There are 22 existing trees on the property of the 22 trees. The report identifies eight heritage trees of which two are non-heritage tree trees. And those all would be coming down or leaving some of them? Yeah, so of those eight trees, two are coming. Two are within the project site and those would be removed as a part of the project. Okay, thank you for that clarification. And would this be the time to ask the Measure O question to our city attorney if we could get some clarification and I don't know about giving away legal strategies or anything, but we can receive the letter from what we're in parking on the Measure O and how the city is not implementing Measure O and the fact that we're only getting 5.5% inclusionary, aren't we violating the ordinance that exists? That was a vote, actually it was a vote of the people. It wasn't just a city council made ordinance. Right, yeah, I can address that. Measure O was a community supported ballot initiative that requires that 15% of new residential construction, be it for sale or rental property, be affordable or inclusionary. I think back in October when the council initially amended its inclusionary housing ordinance, this was covered in some depth by the planning director who pointed out that first of all, that has historically been interpreted to mean 15% of the total number of units constructed in the city, not 15% of each parcel that's developed. And I think the... And that's the manner in which the ordinance has been interpreted in the past, at least since 2007 and also provided the basis for modifying the inclusionary ordinance as you did back in October and again more recently. The argument that's made in the parking letter is that the 15% applies to all development projects in the city. That argument has not been tested in the court, but it's not the way the city's interpreted measure O in both crafting its inclusionary housing ordinance and in applying it. Do you have any other questions? Councilmember Rucro? Yeah, maybe just an analysis from Bonnie about why developers in general maybe not on this project, but don't want inclusionary units built within their projects. Yeah, I think it's largely just a matter of economics and looking at what is feasible for the project. And as they're calculating their return, they're looking at what the market can support and they're looking at the risk that they're taking as they're doing a development project. So I think that's largely based on what is financially supportable. So for example, the city came in and said, no, we'll build 20 units of market rate housing within your project. Would that kind of deal be accepted? You said market rate. Do you mean affordable? Affordable, excuse me. We'll put in 20 and just sprinkle them around, but the complex. I think often we have done that in the past. I mean, I think that was the role that we really played when we had redevelopment and redevelopment funding is that we often were able to fill that affordability, that feasibility gap for developers. So when we had requirements, we would come forward and provide that financial gap that made that feasible. So a number of our projects in the past have done that. If we had a viable source right now, and I know that there's some discussion of some legislation in the next session that may provide that, I think that's something that we can look at again. We didn't include today the chart that we've shown to you a couple of times in the past that shows the creation of affordable units since 1980. But the large spikes that you see and the majority, I mean 90 to 95% of the affordable units that were created, were created with redevelopment agency, city assistance financially. So I think the reality in our market is that it takes a subsidy to create the affordable units. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Matthews and then Council Member Brown. Yeah, there's been some questions about the process to proceed with the dedication of the two yellow parcels there. What would be the process to move forward with the affordable housing? Would it be an RFP to non-profit housing providers? Is that how you would anticipate the meeting? Yeah, it would be similar to how we do other affordable housing projects is that we would finish assembling all the land that we wanted for the project. In this scenario where we have, you know, I understand there are a lot of possibilities. Right, we have sort of a plan A, which includes the activation on Pacific and the plan B, which is more of a rectangle that includes the Putney Perry Building facing Front Street. So we have sort of two different development scenarios. So our first goal would be to finish acquiring the land and assembling the land that we need and then we would put out an RFP for an affordable housing developer. Because we're effectively completely underwriting the value of the land, it becomes an extremely attractive project for an affordable housing developer. We're not only providing the land at no cost, we're actually providing a number of things that make it very compatible for state and federal funding and that it's a transit-oriented development project. We have two partners which I hadn't mentioned, Santa Cruz Community Health Center and Dientus Low Cost Dental Care. There are a number of grants out there in addition to being very competitive for 9% tax credits for an affordable housing project. We feel highly confident that we're going to be able to develop this project. Thank you. It's just a question that's come up. So I want the answer to be public. Thank you. Thanks, Council Member Brown. Yeah. So I do have some additional questions. And so far as the Pacific Station project is not specifically on the table here today, but it is related given the alternative with the land swap or land dedication, as you suggest. I do have some questions about that. But first, one quick question that occurred to me when Council Member Cron was speaking. The pipeline property, I've been told various things and I know you can't really speculate about a willing seller here, but how close are we to knowing whether or not that property will be for sale? What is the estimated value and is the 1.2 million an equivalent to the value of that property itself? We have done just from comps of some appraisals that we've done on the surrounding properties. We do believe that it's comparable to what we're estimating as the in-loofy. With that said, we haven't, as a city, pursued that property at this time. However, the applicant has been in discussions with the owner. Thank you for more questions coming. So it would be helpful because I'm still a little bit confused about the valuation of the land that is available to be dedicated to the Tampico site vis-a-vis the actual construction of units. So it would be helpful to get a better understanding of, because these formulas for the alternatives when it comes to in-loofies and alternative land dedication to facilitate affordable housing somewhere else if all the other variables can, all the other variables come into play and we can secure the financing, et cetera, et cetera. But is it really equivalent to that number of affordable units if they were actually built by the developer? How do we know this? It's something that confounds me every time we charge in in-loofies as well. Well, as we were talking just a few minutes ago, the actual development cost of creating affordable units is something that generally is heavily subsidized. And so if you're looking at the land dedication, because we already have the property on the slide in front of you in dark blue, we're able to leverage that into more units in a project. So the conservative estimate that we had was based on a density per acre, between 90 and 138, 138 being a very dense project that is the applicant's density, 90 being the base case scenario that our financial consultant did, and that's with the assumption of the 90 per acre that you would do density bonus, so it would become an even denser project. So that range that I gave you earlier between 22 and 34 units is conservatively within that area of looking at the three parcels, the two yellow and the purple, of minimally what we would be able to create fitting within that density, so between 22 and 38. I mean, if your question is, are we getting the same thing from the developer as if they were to provide that 15% as an in-loop fee, no. And I think that really goes back to Kathy Head's analysis of that's why it's a 5.5%, because if we imposed that as a monetary, as a dollar amount on the developer, that 15%, they would be underwater on the project. So basically, they would be giving the land away for free and then paying the city an additional couple million for the rights to develop that property. If we imposed a 15%, you build the inclusionary units within the project. Yes, we can do that, but we can't force the developer to build the project. So I think that's where it comes back to our independent financial analysis of saying what is it that's supportable on the developer so that the land value isn't reduced more than 30% because that's sort of the industry threshold. So essentially, what we're saying here is the calculation of 15% can be flexible and that is up to the... I mean, I believe that's a decision that's up to the council whether or not interpreting it to suggest that this is 15% is... I mean, that's a decision that the council ought to be making based upon the information we have, but one could say it's 5.5% if we look at it a different way versus 15%. Right. Included in the project, the dollar value is 5.5%. If you're looking at the dedication here of how we're able to leverage it with the adjacent property, it's between 15% and 17%. Given that we're talking here... I'm very much in favor of the Pacific Station project. I appreciate all the work that's gone in and in no way do I want to suggest that I'd like to disrupt that, but because this is kind of the cornerstone of getting some affordable units connected with the decisions we make here, I really want to understand this. I mean, I want to understand the feasibility of the Pacific Station project because right now all we're going to have is the land. We don't have redevelopment money. We don't have deep pockets to subsidize development of those affordable units, so it's really kind of hypothetical for the future. So it's a bit speculative and I'm all for finding those resources, but I'd like to know a little bit more about your sense of, and it sounds like you think that we are globally competitive, our ability to get affordable housing tax credits for this to move forward on construction. Will, sorry, will we... Can the city be competitive for getting access to low-income housing tax credits or the non-profit through RFP? Can an entity be competitive? Will we be competing with other potential affordable housing projects in the city for those tax credits? You know, I'd just like to know where that is that you're thinking is in the mix on that. Yeah, we are highly competitive because of the level of investment that we have in the city and we've completely underwritten the land value from it's extremely attractive to an affordable housing developer. I mean, this is the level of subsidy or even greater than any of the other projects that we've created over the year, this 1200 plus affordable housing units we've created as redevelopment. This is the level of subsidy comparable to those from the tannery to any variety of the projects from 1010 Pacific to Shaffer Road to any of those projects. So in discussions with probably three or four affordable housing developers, they are all anxiously awaiting for us to put an RFP out here out on the street for them to respond to because this fits right within projects that can be supported. So we don't have any doubt that we'll be able to move forward with the project once we finish assembling the parcels. Okay, what is the plan for the vacant lots in the interim before? So those properties will be, I believe we're talking about a demolition permit here. Yeah, as part of the condition of approval for the two in yellow is we are recommending that the applicant demo that within a certain number, I think six months of council approval, because they're vacant right now, they are a nuisance property and we could come back to council to determine how we want to use that in the interim during the period. So you can, but will we be looking at that or will the site be engaging? I don't know. Just curious. Yeah, your question is will we come back? We absolutely will come back. Okay. Well, I have major concerns. It's not really a question, but I mean, I have major concerns as I've suggested about our ability as a council to determine how we can use the downtown plan EIR. And I just don't think we have enough information, but I'll reserve that for comments later. Last question. I know you said that a historical review was conducted and there are no buildings of historical significance, which on the face of it seems reasonable to me, but I am interested to know a little bit more about that and in particular, if any of the buildings in that project area are over 50 years old. Yes, that's true. Some of the buildings are over 50 years old, which is what triggered the requirement for the historic report. And some of the buildings were, it could have been historically significant, however, because of the extent of the remodels that were done after the earthquake, the building no longer maintained the significance. So the historic consultant recommended that those would not be eligible for listening. Is it for now? Thanks. I'm going to just real quick because I wanted to follow up. First of all, I'd like to thank everyone in the public that's listening. I know that we're taking some time on this. It's a really important project. I want to make sure that we get every all the questions asked before we open it up for public comment, as well as having the applicant present their project. I just have one question on what you asked. What were the concerns about the EIR? Because I'm not clear and I would like to know that, you know, just so we have an understanding what the issue is that you're referring to, the downtown EIR. I mean, it's just a general concern. I have not had, part of my point is that I haven't had time to review, re-review the EIR up against this project. So I don't, I mean, there may be many, there may be none, but that has not been something that we've been asked to do, that we've had time to do in acting as a quasi-judicial body here to approve a project. I think that we should have that opportunity. And specifically with respect to measuring this against the EIR, but also with respect to what was not, the staff does not suggest was covered in the EIR. I mean, we're told it's insignificant. I received this information at 10 o'clock last night. Actually, when I looked at my email this morning, because I didn't look at it that late, and here in hard copy. So it's, I can't answer what questions I have, because I have not had time to review. Well, I just had a couple of questions before I asked Council Member Cron. This went through the Planning Commission, and I just want you to reiterate, what were some of the issues that they had, so I can kind of re-educate myself on what were their specific areas. I know it was a unanimous vote, wasn't it? Yes, it was. So were there specific concerns that they raised that we should be thinking about right now before we, as we go into the public comment and deliberation? They addressed their concerns through modifications in the conditions of approval. There was a recommendation for a design alteration to the large building at the corner of Pacific and Laurel Street that they eliminated. They felt that the design was appropriate for that corner, and actually the design, they felt, reduced the height and massing of the building. There was also quite a bit of discussion on the recommendation for adding active areas at the Front Street frontage, and like I said, during the staff report, the only modification they made to that condition of approval was to require that any spaces that were not converted to commercial were made easily convertible in the future by stubbing out utilities and that kind of thing. At the end of their deliberations, did they feel those issues had been sufficiently addressed? Yes, yes. And I just wanted to ask in terms of, I know, I believe I saw it in the report, but how many new units, residential units will this project produce downtown? 205. Okay. All right, Council Member Cron. The six stories, what was the total height on the six stories? It's 75 feet, and then there's a mezzanine level that we don't count as a story, and that mezzanine level would go up to 85 feet. Yeah. Sounds like seven stories. For the city attorney about Measure O again, on page four of Bill Parkin's letter, he says, because the applicant has no vested right to develop the project without imposition of inclusionary housing requirement, the city, through the city council, had no right to override the wishes of the voters in enacting Measure O. Has Measure O ever been challenged in court, or has the city ever been taken a task on this before? You mean has a similar project that the council approved with less than 15% affordability? Has it been challenged? And gone to court, yeah. Over the issue of Measure O, not being interpreted by the way the... Not to my knowledge. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, any other questions regarding the staff presentation? No. Okay, so then now it is the opportunity for the applicant to come forward. You have 15 minutes to speak. Whoever the designated staff applicant, you'll have 15 minutes to present. And then after that, we will go towards public comment. Greetings, everyone. Thank you, Mayor Tarasas and city council members. And first, thank you, staff. Very thorough. Well done. My name is Reuben Hellick. I'm one of the members of LHH Partners LLC. I'm here today with Owen Lawler, Jan Hochhauser, our attorney, Frank Pirelli, land use attorney. Of course, Owen's the L, and Chan's the H, the other two in LHH Partners. We're with our equity partner, DevCon Investments, LLC. We're really quite pleased to present for your approval this Pacific Front mixed use project. You know, by the way, also, Brett Sistine with DevCon Investments is also here today in the audience. We started working on the design of Pacific Front five years ago. And since then, we've been working closely with city staff to bring this vibrant new building to the front of you today for your approval. During the past several years, I've served on the Downtown Management Corporation, which is an advisory board to the city council. And I served there with city mayors, city council members, and along with local business owners and property owners. And all of us are working collaboratively towards improving the overall downtown experience for both our residents and our visitors of Santa Cruz. Now, I'd say it's a fair statement to make that this Pacific Front project is viewed by many as a terrific step in the right direction towards increasing the economic fatality of this community that you all love so much as do I. With 205 apartments, we're providing desperately needed housing for the citizens of Santa Cruz. Instead of a block of old dysfunctional buildings, we're bringing revitalization to our lower Pacific Avenue area. And that's going to greatly enhance our public health, safety, and our local economy. In short, this really is a renaissance moment. While I have not served in a governmental role such as you, I have served on many lawn profit boards, including the local Santa Cruz Habitat for Humanity. We build homes for those who really need affordable housing. And I understand how it works. Professionally, I work as a commercial real estate agent. I am responsible for bringing many of the tenants right here into your downtown. Over the past years, we've watched the housing deficiencies in this community continue to grow. Clearly, there's one thing I hope we can all agree on. At least most of us, Santa Cruz does need more housing. And the vertical solution provided in front makes great sense. To that end, both the City Council and the Coastal Commission approved the revised zoning ordinance for this area of Pacific Avenue. Earlier, we know that the Coastal Commission approved it unanimously. Then, last month your Planning Commission approved this particular project unanimously. One of the wonderful benefits of this project is the affordable housing element. As you learned firsthand from Bonnie and staff, we've put a lot of thought and a lot of expense into an innovative solution that secures affordable housing right next to the Transit Center. During the past five years, since we started this, we've seen construction costs literally skyrocket. I mean, the numbers are staggering, what it costs to build now. Interest rates are climbing. Lenders, who we need to build the project, are tightening their underwriting standards. Yet in the face of all these very serious headwinds, here we are today committed to moving forward with this project as submitted. I love this town. So do you. Why else would you serve? What's the point of serving on a City Council if you don't truly deeply care for the real quality of life in your very own community? Us guys, LHH partners, we look forward to providing Santa Cruz with a really beautiful new apartment building five years in the making. In just a few short years from now hundreds of your citizens are going to happenally refer to this place as their new home. I now turn over the day as to Owen Lawler and then after Owen Jan Hochelser they'll present the Pacific Front project. Thank you for your time and happy holidays. We plan to use ten minutes of our time and leave five minutes for questions and rebuttals later. Thank you, Reuben. My name is Owen Lawler and those who don't know me I've lived and worked in Santa Cruz for over 40 years, raising my daughter here. She attends Westlake in the fifth grade. As a member of this community, this project is more than just about housing. This project brings a greater sense of engagement to our downtown. This is about bringing vibrancy and positive energy south of Cathart Street. This project is about creating a more healthy community that we are excited and we are excited to be here today. I really want to thank Leigh Butler-Bonney and especially Samantha for all their hard work to get this project before you here today. And I want to thank your council for your consideration. Community engagement included over 30 community meetings on both the downtown plan and this project. The project aligns perfectly with the downtown plan. Unanimously supported as Reuben mentioned by the coastal commission and the planning commission. We're gratified by the large cross-section of community members that have turned out here today to support this project. And as you can see from the package there is a large coalition of community support. We know intimately how critical the rental and affordable housing shortage is in this community. As we all know, lack of housing hurts this community to its core. From the inception of this project we've been looking for ways to maximize both the rental housing and permanently affordable units in our downtown. With staffs as well as council's guidance we've crafted a project that will facilitate the creation of over 100 units of rental housing in our downtown core. In closing this project brings sorely needed workforce rental and affordable housing adjacent to transit to our downtown. This is the environmentally and socially least impactful location and consistent with community values of environmental stewardship and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging a walkable inviting family friendly downtown. Community has stated clearly that downtown is where the housing should be located. Thank you for your consideration. And Jan will continue the discussion. Good afternoon, council. Mayor Terazis and members of the council, my name is Jan Hochhouser. I have been working as an architect in Santa Cruz for almost 10 years. Santa Cruz is indeed a wonderful place and I do really appreciate the opportunity and experience to have worked with the city and community stakeholders in the pursuit of a quality housing and architectural project. I think it's timely and in that regard I'm very pleased to inform this council that the all affordable 100% affordable project at 350 Ocean Street has finally and just recently received tax credit allocations from the state. That's a 63 unit all affordable project that's contributing to the crisis, the housing crisis in town. There are no market rates units sprinkled amongst that project. It's 100% 63 affordable units. So I'm really pleased to report that that's now moving forward. Perhaps reiterating what my associates presented about the rigorous and comprehensive process that has been undertaken to bring the Pacific Front project before you today, I can emphasize enough how this project is conceived not as an affordable entity, but a critical piece of the downtown plan. It interfaces with future development straddling the Maple Street alley, as Bonnie presented and the adjacent transit hub. In cities all over the world this is like a textbook solution for housing and commercial adjacent transit in the heart of downtowns. The proposed design is crafted in a way to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the city and bring the best of downtown to lower Pacific. Our team, DevCon, Joanie Janaki, and city staff work very hard to resolve design issues so that every frontage, Pacific, Laurel, Front of this project is both functional and beautiful. Enhancing the experience of pedestrians and bicyclists was paramount in this process. This new development proposal goes beyond the literal requirements of sculpting the architecture with an array of courtyards, terraces, and patios. The community experiences inviting spatial diversity up close and from afar. The project employs three distinctive architectural styles that deliver a richness and sensitivity to the fabric of the city. In contrast with the monolithic design of the county building on Ocean Street, for example, Pacific Front is premised on a playful macro and an intimate scale. We generally all agree that entering Pacific Avenue at Water Street is a positive community experience. We believe the Pacific Front project will be a positive community attribute from so many different standpoints and contribute to the betterment of Santa Cruz now and well into the future. I'd like to say that words are sometimes not adequate, but we are indeed honored and proud to present the city such a finely crafted and considered project. Naturally, I am here to answer any questions you may have, and I would be delighted to share more about the specifics of the project if you so desire. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Can we give pause time, please? How much time is left? Okay, so you're reserving that time for questions and rebuttal. I'd like to ask the council at this time if there's any other questions they have of the applicant presentation at this time? Council Member Cron. I was wondering about the notion of workforce rental and could you go into that a little bit and talk about what that means, what is workforce rental, how is that defined and what are the rents that will be charged and will folks who are present from building trades be able to live in these units? First of all, it's the project for successful won't be available for at least two to two and a half years. So I can't tell you exactly what the rents will be. I can tell you. Go on, please. You could just pause for a second. We have a really long day ahead of us and now everybody has different viewpoints on different matters. If we can just be respectful of everyone's point of view, it'll make this process a lot more manageable. Okay, please go ahead and complete your response. I do know that there's a number of competing projects coming online. We're taking the risk that whatever the rent is, this project will still work and that's what I can tell you. So we don't have, I mean, folks who are present here, we're talking 3,500 for a two bedroom, maybe by that time 4,500 and maybe the market goes south. If we continue to go up as we've seen in the last four years, you know, rents rising 40 plus percent, the rents could be as high as 4,500 for a one bedroom. So no, I don't think that's possible. And I also say that people now are paying $1,500 a month for one room in a 100 year old house on the west side of Santa Cruz. And many of those people could pay less and live in this project with a roommate. So I don't think that's possible for people living in units that are built for one, you know, one bedroom. Let me just say just for the purposes of our discussion, this is an opportunity for questions. And so I mean, I'll just, I know it's more rhetorical, but I think that one of the things is we do have, you know, housing crisis is add more units and so having more supply, I think that the answer will be provides more information. Thank you. Mr. Helig, a real estate question. You said you're responsible for bringing in many tenants and what I hear from folks who approach me and say when they're driving over to San Jose, they hear units advertised in Santa Cruz over there. I'm just wondering how much is this going to solve the housing crisis that exists for Santa Cruzans right now and not like Google or Apple or anything like that. When housing is built, people rent it and those rental applications come from a variety of areas. Who will be renting this project? My personal opinion is it will be lateral moves for people like Owen mentioned. We all know a lot of people in town here that are just aching to have a decent place to live but can't find it. We'll have it for them. By the way, now that we brought all of our property partners out in Milpitas and when we drive to DevCon construction, main headquarters, we go down Montague Expressway. When we started, there was no housing on Montague Expressway when we got off at 680, excuse me, 880 to head out to their office. Yesterday, I took a visit past about 5,000 units and a giant BART station. My point, people have places to live here. They have places to live there. The population continues to grow. The U.S. Census Bureau says the United States of America will have over 440 million citizens by 2060. Your question is esoteric and frankly we hope to find a really great mix in our property of young professionals, students, retirees of our age who have been able to come and live in Santa Cruz and enjoy this great lifestyle. Yes, perhaps we'll have some tech workers. At least 40,000 feet to Amazon downtown at the Cooper House and I've heard that they have a hard time finding proper hires and part of that problem is housing. You all know very well how hard it is to hire people. Housing is an issue even for your own city staff. So let's talk about housing. It's 205 units with thousands of bedrooms short. What's the point? We're going to build housing. It's very simple. You don't deny that you do participate in advertising units here in Santa Cruz over the hill for people to come and live here. Those units are leasing up very quickly and I would ask you to talk directly with the property manager as to what the mix is about. Do you have a definition of workforce housing? The definition of workforce housing I'll defer to staff who understands all of the technical issues revolving around workforce housing, income ratios, etc. Is workforce housing equivalent to affordable housing? What's the difference between those two terms? And then there's affordable by workforce housing. Workforce housing doesn't have one dedication as does affordable housing. Affordable housing can be many different percentages. It means it's affordable to a certain income group. Generally speaking, if you're talking about workforce housing the general thought is it ranges from 80% of area meeting income to 120% of area meeting income. Again, there's no set definition both of those ends could stretch. If you're talking about affordable housing it depends on the types of housing you're talking about. Our inclusionary ordinance for example sets everything at 80% of area meeting income. So we're on kind of that edge of workforce housing for our inclusionary units. Just to be clear, the housing and affordable housing is right so we live within those guidelines. HUD sets the guidelines for their programs at being 80% or below and that's just for like the home program but there are other guidelines and that's just for rental housing. If you're talking about ownership housing it increases up to 120% but since this is a referring to rental. My point also is workforce housing that term is not defined like natural environment. It has no formal definition that anybody is holding anybody to standards as far as housing between $1,200 to $2,000 a unit or 50% of the median income to 30% of the median. There's no restrictions there. We check up on affordable units. I understand when people have signed those kind of covenants with the city that they're going to keep units affordable workforce housing units has that rises and falls with the market. Workforce housing units per se aren't necessarily rent restricted. We do a program for workforce housing where you rent restricted them but in this instance workforce housing is not rent restricted but if you're thinking about the definition of it you have to be reasonable. In other words you're not saying oh I'm building workforce housing and saying I'm building for those people that are at 200 or 300%. We can't say that but there's nobody enforcing that. What about affordable by design? Affordable by design is again another term that is used to talk about units that usually rent at a lower rate. Affordable by design usually refers to the size of the building. We can't say that but we can't say that. We can't say that. We can't say that. We can't say that to the size of the unit and the amenities in the unit and that kind of thing that just makes it a little less expensive. The bare cost of building the unit or the whole complex is less since a luxury complex would be. The units are then considered affordable by design because it's not affordable by design. We can't say that. As much as I would love to debate the state of urban land markets and the laws of supply and demand, I don't believe this is really the venue to do that. But I do have a follow-up question related to prospective rents because I think at the end of the day what we know is we live in a financial hardship. I think that the applicant is asking us to make a determination of financial hardship for reduced inclusionary housing percentage. I have to think that some thought has gone into what anticipated rents might be. I would like to hear more about that aside from whatever the market will bear. I hear that. I would like to add one thing to that that I should have mentioned earlier related to that before the applicant addresses the question. One of the opportunities through the land dedication for the city is that we for the Pacific Station, our proposed affordable housing project is that our recommendation to council will be for us to develop the affordable units at affordability levels that are available to us. We're going to be able to do something that typically even some affordable housing developers wouldn't be able to do and that we're going to look at what our needs are for the remaining five years of arena allocation and create those extremely low, very low units in a project. We're going to be able to subsidize that. We're going to be able to subsidize that. We're going to be able to subsidize that. Because this is a city supported project, we'll be able to more accurately meet the needs of the community on deeper affordability levels than most even affordable housing developers will be able to do. Does that answer your question? I'm going to turn it over to councilmember Narroyan who had a question. No, I'll pass. Kate Roberts who contacted me in advance for modern economic partnerships but before you speak, I wanted to ask the planning director there was a question about the downtown EIR and if you could just kind of again you mentioned that that came before council November 2017 is there anything else you want to provide in response to councilmember Brown's comments? I can just sort of generally provide some information to address those either myself or with the team. So a few things the CEQA analysis relied primarily on the downtown plan EIR. It also tiered from the general plan EIR the downtown plan EIR was also looking at the overall general plan EIR so those two work together and there is a public resources code section 083.3 and that essentially says that if a project has been analyzed under either a general plan EIR or a specific plan EIR then as long as there aren't any site specific analyses that would warrant additional study then that prior certified environmental impact report or negative declaration whatever it may be can be reused for the new project and so there were a series of analyses that our CEQA consultant prepared and was reviewed by staff so traffic and transportation historic analysis to clarify is that what's in this document I've yet to be able to read? Yes so that document goes through and does identify some of that information the studies themselves I believe those are separate the findings are referenced in that report and so are those publicly available? They're all public information Where would we access them? Samantha can answer any questions that you have related to that and that I will say that I did just learn that the council received that checklist that you were referring to last night it is available under the planning commission's web page as well so it's been publicly available there with respect to the council it was identified as an attachment to the planning commission staff report and it was available on the planning commission website but apologies for having just realized that it was forwarded to the council yesterday evening there were a whole series of analyses that were conducted the historic analysis the trees with the arborist report the air quality and archaeology and so forth and so while we were confident that the downtown plan EIR and the general plan have mitigation measures to address those and have thoroughly analyzed those all those impacts we did conservatively take the approach to doing new analysis on those and for example in the planning commission staff report it identifies the number of trips that were anticipated from this project and it identifies that that trip count was adequately evaluated and anticipated as part of the downtown plan EIR so there are those linkages in the materials that the council has seen and also that the planning commission reviewed in advance of their decision but happy to answer any other questions that you may have Any other questions regarding that Council Member Cronin? In a letter the Sierra Club wrote this project does not meet the requirements for an exemption to CEQA do you think perhaps because they hadn't seen this document that Council Member Brown was holding up? That document was available for their viewing I don't know the date of that letter but that document was prepared in advance of the planning commission and that CEQA exemption I will say the statutory exemption is just one of a three-prong approach that we're taking with this project to the downtown EIR it's relying on the downtown EIR and the general plan EIR in conjunction with that exemption in order to have the project qualify for that CEQA review Okay so great so we have any other questions thank you Mr. Butler I'm now at this point in the hearing I'm going to open it up to public comment Monterey Bay Economic Partnership Kate Roberts asked for some additional time First before she speaks how many people would like to speak to this item that are here present can I get some short hands so we're going to abbreviate the 20 okay I see 11 which means 20 correct Kate you'll have two minutes okay if you could come speak to the clerk because I sent you an email in response and hopefully you saw that she doesn't represent one minute yeah oh my god good afternoon my name is Kate Roberts president of the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership I just wanted to thank you all for your thorough research on this really important project for downtown obviously it is an alignment with our housing initiative and our program criteria mixed use utilizing vertical space effectively maximizing existing infrastructure near jobs and services and as staff mentioned it helps get the city closer to its rena goals so we're pretty excited about the project we've done a lot of work to get communicate to people about the importance of this project in hopes that it does get through it's in line with the downtown plan and it will enhance the downtown given what's currently there so it seems like it's all good from that perspective and I think the creativity that's involved here by contributing key parcels of the land to the city that are adjacent to the site in order to assist with the land assemblage that the city is undertaking for an affordable mixed use project will actually allow for more affordable units and that is also something that as we're talking about being our triple bottom line and really focusing on equity too is really important to us this is an example as I said of innovative solutions between public and private sectors to create more housing for different income levels we hope it serves as a template for other high density housing opportunity and these creative solutions that create more housing and provide economic development is something we really want to support more of so thank you again for your thoughtful consideration and I just want to give a quick shout out to those who came here on their own time using their break and lunch to support this project so good job guys thank you okay thank you now those of you that are lined up to my left are on line to speak at least if you want to go first you did send me in advance an email I mean you're speaking out individually but if you wanted to come up and speak please go ahead yeah we're going to go one minute based on the number of people that are here today and the amount of proceedings yes my name is Elise Caspi I'm going to make a motion that speakers get two minutes two minutes each this is a significant project this is really important and this is in the middle of the day so many of these people have come out here today to speak and if it was at night we'd have maybe a little more time we'd have a lot maybe even more people so is there a second to that motion would the maker of the motion be willing to go to a minute and a half or a second okay so all those in favor of allowing 90 seconds for public comment per person please say aye aye those opposed please say no that motion passed unanimously so you'll have 90 seconds we'll reset the clock I've got to change it thank you again everyone for your patience okay you're on actually it's not correct okay I need it reset then at the start please a full minute yeah reset please so it's going to say a minute but I can go an extra 30 seconds excuse me okay could I please have my full minute I'm trying to get straight on the time please to be clear I had to reset another button for 30 seconds so you will have a minute and 30 seconds to speak okay 90 seconds and thank you my name is Elise Caspi I'm a community organizer and I live in California where the Loller Project is going to be built I've been canvassing businesses and residents in the area the overall project is being rushed through this is a very politically maneuvered project we're getting a snow job sales job and unfortunately it's very deceptive highly deceptive in the most basic language for example the head shop does not intend to sell to Romo of Calderon Tires barely knows about this project and I hope you're not just going to counter what I'm saying there is zero affordable housing being provided it's probably going to be a lawsuit about this but it's not going to go to workers in the city so what's happening here is sad I want to say that when I went to get the 41 page report the other day from the planning commission a developer I'm not sure who I really don't know was bellowing actually bellowing to some of the city workers in the room where they were meeting which is right next to the desk where I got the report I've given $800 to an affordable housing fund and the city worker was saying we're going to play by the rules we're going to play by the rules this sales job snow job is full of bureaucrates it's extremely hard to follow for the city council members the public can't follow this it hasn't been vetted sufficiently by the public but if these parcels get sold where's the bus company going to be and I really think that it's atrocious that you've had the final hearing for this project with all these all this information and all this detail that you rushed this through before the outgoing council goes out it's political it's a bad deal and bad faith the emperor is wearing no clothes this is a crying shame next speaker please next speaker I'm disgusted Robert thank you next speaker please I'm not going to shut up until I get out the door because this is an outpage he can wait this is a world outpage you have a warning thank you Elise thank you point of order thank you sergeant at arms if you can help thank you please begin my name is Moss Modegao Denzi I am the public relations and community relations director for the Santa Cruz Warriors I want to express that a positive vote for this mixed use and housing development is a positive vote for what I do which is my responsibility which is building a connection between our players our coaching staff and our front office staff with the children citizens and community in our neighborhood here in Santa Cruz County that starts with connecting where we play which is 140 front street up to our front office which is at 903 Pacific Avenue making that a better foot traffic area with residential and community space will allow us to walk around Pacific to go to the boys and girls club downtown chapter will allow us to walk up front street to serve produce to citizens with food not bombs and in turn it will allow us to use Kaiser Permanente arena as more of an event space for community organizations so that families schools and after school programs will allow us to use that space in those property manners real quick just because in front of my mind last Wednesday because game of the season I was walking with a fan interested in purchasing tickets for that game on Wednesday the 5th we turned the corner and found a man bleeding profusely out of his mouth and face because just seconds before we turned the corner someone hit him with the face and took his phone with his skateboard and took off I feel that that happened at Pacific and Laurel Street that would not have happened with the amount of foot traffic on with this project thank you for your comments next speaker please Pete Kennedy planning commissioner you've read my report heard my recommendation this is a great project I urge you to vote it through it's hard to hear allegations of last minute when you've been through all the meetings and all the work that has gone into this I want to acknowledge this is a big building for Santa Cruz and we quibble about 10 grand here 20 grand there this is 200 apartments let's build them an architect said when I was up there and he was over here you have a choice today you can vote yes on housing or no on housing and I urge you to vote yes on housing thanks thank you Pete and again like Pete's example you don't need to use a full amount of time just come right up and speak your piece thank you next speaker I'm Sean Heabard carbon is local 505 member on this council campaigned on affordable housing and their successors campaigned on affordable housing and we all believe that this is something that needs to be addressed immediately in this community everyone has ideas and they're all different the only consensus that we have is that we need something that is multifaceted and addresses all the different elements of the affordability crisis excuse me my interest in this is not academic I didn't learn about poverty in college and I'm here representing a roomfully union carpenters that believe in this project and the jobs that will create with all due respect to council member Cron I think his argument about our members expectation of living these units is specious we built the apple campus and nobody working there right so we're talking about real jobs in this community we're talking about pathways with apprenticeship and living wages retirement benefits and health benefits for these members and their families when we talk academically about putting this unit here and that unit there we think about them like little monopoly pieces like we just grab them and stick them there the building of these units is how these members feed their families and I know it's not the same when you get to build affordable housing you got 30 units 30 plus units that could come from this project and I know it's not the same if you don't get to stick it to the man and get those units out of him but the people you're really sticking it to are the people in this room thank you next speaker please hi mayor thank you council members my name is Jack Williams I'm a member of local 505 I'm also an apprentice carpenter I just want to say I'm in support of this this project you know I live in Santa Cruz County and I've lived here my whole life finding work in Santa Cruz County for what I do is very difficult this project not only for the apprenticeship the jobs that are going to be generated from this project are going to be immense and the apprenticeship has been able to give me and my two children the opportunity to put them all the medical benefits that they need my daughter needs massive amounts of medical benefits and this apprenticeship and this union has been able to provide that for me I've been able to come from a place of poverty in my life where I did grow up in section 8 housing I completely understand the importance of that but the reality is this is jobs for our people jobs for me to support my children I don't have to drive to San Francisco every single day come back see my daughter for like 30 minutes you know because I'm stuck in traffic for four and a half hours like these are jobs here in the city that I grew up in in the city that I love thank you thank you next speaker please the development you are considering before you would contribute land and cash equal to building 5.5% affordable units if you understand that please ask your staff not a whole outrageous circular thing about what else is going to happen the number is 5.5% the fact that it will help build housing next door is great whatever but the contribution that this developer is proposing is 5.5% it is not 15% the city is wagging the tail of capitalism when you should be setting the rules you had a consultant decide how much the developer could afford instead of setting a rule that says this is how much you will provide in affordable housing but if it's a big developer then you decide well I had to follow the rules because you busted me right but if it's a big developer then you say how much could you afford you're coming and begging for some amount of affordable housing when you should be setting the rules what the staff are proposing is some kind of well meaning collusion with capitalism it's like the Hillary Clinton form of government but in a few hours we'll have a new council with a majority of its members committed to reforming capitalism and endorsed by Santa Cruz for Bernie to enforce its own standards on the largest development proposed in the next 30 years then the new council should reconsider that decision market rate housing is failing our city which is why the citizens demanded at least 15% affordable housing you have no right to unravel that thank you next speaker please I'm Danielle Wilcox and I've been a resident of Santa Cruz for about 12 years with no plans to make or else my home soon as someone who works downtown I appreciate the efforts to help grow develop businesses and to make the streets safer and cleaner our limited access to restaurants and stores has made it challenging to support the local scene but it's clear that the downtown plan will continue to make this easier one of my biggest pain points as a resident is how difficult it has been to find viable and affordable housing with respectable landlords having a mixed use housing project that will utilize parking to its residents would create more opportunities for individuals like me to be housed this housing project will also encourage continued downtown growth stimulate the economy and create further motivation to keep our streets safe and clean especially this area of Pacific I know I look forward to this project moving forward and enjoying the amenities it will create and seeing the added benefits of its execution thank you next speaker please hi again I'm Stacy Nagel I'm the chair in support of the new downtown plan allowed this project so I'm super excited here Looker just hired their 300th employee in Santa Cruz we just opened an 18,000 square foot floor in Santa Cruz we are hoping to stay in Santa Cruz but Santa Cruz has to provide what our employees need and if you think our board and our VCs aren't pressuring us to leave then you're wrong it's a fight so we need you guys to provide what we need housing housing housing we're hiring to have a conscious choice that they do not want cars they do not want to get to work in a car they live very differently from the way we were grown up so having the ability to walk to work to bike to work having downtown housing is huge they're college educated many of them have families and still don't have cars we have people coming here from our other offices in New York San Francisco they would love to relocate to headquarters but they need that walkable life so we need to provide that for them also having trouble with we're outgrowing our downtown hotel options we're filling up the paradox nothing else is walkable downtown we need more hotels that provide walkable options let's create a downtown where people when they get here don't have to use their cars again right also as looker employees we are a group of residents who want downtown more usable and comfortable and we're sick of telling people to stay away from the dodgy end of Pacific I want to stop telling people that it's embarrassing to be better so please approve this thank you next speaker please good afternoon mayor council members I'm Robert singleton also planning commissioner in support of this project I just want to speak to a couple key concepts in terms of this being rushed in any way this project has through incarnations of the downtown plan and through years and years of planning and public outreach we've had over 30 community hearings about this the planning commission we personally have done this in several separate times so this isn't new this isn't coming out of the woodwork this is actually the project that we've all had in mind when going through those hearings this is exactly what we were looking for and here it is before us so we have a huge opportunity here and you'll see a countless number of business owners of local employees of nonprofit housing developers I mean these are there's like a huge consensus around getting this done and the contributions right next door that could be 100% affordable go far beyond what you would get by mixed in inclusionary units I mean you're going to get more bang for your buck it's going to be done efficiently and we've been waiting for this to happen it's time to pull the trigger and move forward thank you next speaker my name is John McKelvie I think it's an exciting opportunity that this project represents I think the staff and the applicant have done a really amazing job putting together a very comprehensive proposal I believe that this is not a subtractive proposal it's an additive proposal to downtown it's going to generate significant economic activity in addition to the housing that's provided I also believe that all housing improves all additional housing improves affordability not just low and very low income but this project with the land allocations and the possible project that the city is proposing will give, will end up having more widespread and deeper affordability than it would otherwise have just with a simple inclusionary requirement I believe this project is a down payment on writing the housing ship that we have founded on for 40 years I really encourage you to support it and let's have more like it thank you thank you next speaker please I'm Zeeman Strowkey I'm back with Santa Cruz UMB we're in support of the project and a lot of people have talked about the main things that make this a great project it's looking at as a whole with the deal with building the affordable next door it's really more like 30% affordable it's right next to a transit center and then one other thing I'd like to add is kind of the environmental argument it's a trade off of downtown where else are people going to live do this mean people are commuting and clogging up Highway 1 when they commute from Salinas or something yeah that's all I got thank you next speaker please Robert do you want to excuse me hold one second Mr. Norse were you in line to speak not yet okay my name is Zachary Buck I've lived at the corner of Laurel Pacific for over 10 years and I love this part of Santa Cruz it is beautiful south of Cathar I don't understand it's my favorite part of town I love how it is and the idea that anyone could enhance it developers, real estate gentlemen could enhance that it's like talking about enhancing the woman I've spent 12 years with it can't be enhanced it's perfect it's part of the community and my father worked construction by his projects he's proud of the work he's done and I'm proud of my father for doing that but my dad cannot live in these houses they're not affordable and this is not the world that I grew up in I live on Laurel Pacific because that is my home I love how it is I would love more development in this community that built the community that was planned to be a beautiful aesthetic thing that could be loved and cherished this looks like anywhere else in the country that has venture capital behind it which is fine I guess I don't want the calculations for affordable house being to be the future I think they should be now it's speculative we don't know what's going to happen to the global economy and you don't know if you'll be able to afford to build these or if any developer will you're flushed with cash right now but things can change so thank you for letting me ramble on thank you business south of whatever it's really beautiful and nice thank you next speaker please and before you speak people are speaking and when you get into conversation it gets distracting so if you could thanks go ahead my name is Zachary Davis business owner downtown been on the downtown commission for six years I think I first went to a visioning for this project or some early incarnation this project maybe four years ago so I've been following it for a little while a fear and a hope my fear is that we'll look at this project in isolation we'll say we can't make it perfect but we're going to try we'll settle the developer with all kinds of rules requirements and they'll say can't be done to walk away and we'll throw up our hands we'll say we tried, we failed and nothing will change housing crisis will continue my hope is that we'll look at this in the greater context as a piece of building a downtown community a place where we want to spend time where we want to start businesses where we want to bring our families where there's housing for all types of people and I see this as a piece of that puzzle an important piece but I encourage you not to stop there I came to the library discussion the last time that was brought up and one of the council members said I see there's a housing component in this but I just don't believe that's going to happen you are the elected leaders you say we're going to do this project all of the things happen I really ask you to seriously accept that commitment do this project do the affordable housing and don't stop there keep going, thank you next speaker please good afternoon council I'm Chip I work downtown I want to speak in support of this project I think it does quite a bit to increase the walkability of downtown obviously housing is huge approving this project will approve a number of market housing as well as affordable housing not approving this project 15% of nothing is a Taco Bell drive through so I encourage you to support this for all of the reasons you'll hear about thank you so much thank you next speaker please mayor council members my name is Matt Wertham housing program manager with the Monterey Bay economic partnership here to support the project one hit on a couple key pieces thank you all for your leadership this is a project that has been very thoughtfully put together and I've lived in affordable housing I've been doing affordable housing development for nearly 20 years it's hard I wish that we had a wand and could have this be 100% affordable but guess what until we have a national discussion on affordable housing and actually invest in affordable housing at 100% the same way we need to with health care and the other things that we need for our shared community we're just not going to get there it takes this kind of layered conversation this kind of very intense way of doing development in order to squeeze out the kind of public benefit that we need so unfortunately council member crone and others that have these concerns about affordability this is how it gets done the state needs to do its part our local and regional governments need to do their part and this is what is going on so I'm really pleased though that the affordable piece here is going to be honored by the land dedication and potentially the in lieu piece and can at least match or maybe even exceed that 15% requirement that the local folks here want to see in this development so I urge you to move forward with this project it's a major step forward and meeting your affordable housing needs here regionally thank you thank you next speaker in the design and construction industry I have a business downtown and I'm also a renter in Santa Cruz and this is a hugely pivotal project in helping create more housing in our town there are not very many lots like this left so I agree with a lot of the statements that have already been said I don't want to repeat them I just want to encourage everyone to approve this project and create some much needed housing in our community thank you next speaker please my name is Barbara river woman child there was a great philosopher thinker called Henry George he said that the land belongs to all people it doesn't belong to anybody any individual for private profit so and this development will draw the value not only of the downtown land which is prime land but it will also draw on the value of the beautiful river so I have an alternative proposal that I would like to see you pass tonight I approve we approve the staff recommendation to develop Pacific front development with the understanding that the property will revert to public ownership by the year 2018 or as soon as the developer has recovered it's cost and made a 6% profit over that amount I hope you pass that instead of the present proposal thank you next speaker please hello my name is show CBU cannon and I work downtown and rent in the city of Santa Cruz when I graduated from UC Santa Cruz a little over a year ago every one of my peers with rare exception was for sleep area I heard the same sentiment from all my classmates that though they love this town and they did not believe oh that though they love this town they did not believe there would be ever be an opportunity for them to live here or find jobs here jobs that would benefit the city many members of the community complain that UCSC students are only temporary residents when they what they don't realize is that we are almost forced to be let's make a town where young educated people living and working in Santa Cruz is no longer the exception I urge you to vote for housing and for future generations of Santa Cruz residents Santa Cruz needs more housing creating housing where people work is an important step to creating a better future now and for everyone thank you thank you next speaker please good afternoon I'm Ron Pomerance I find the planning department staffs been working really hard and I'm shocked shocked at the outcome you the council have allowed for a huge swath of the downtown to be re-zoned for higher densities and height in order to allow developers more profitability to assure affordable housing would be built in my view your planning department has cut a sweetheart deal with DEF CON Lawler to make sure not one affordable unit is included in the project important public benefits have been minimized taxpayers paid for a study that concluded a paltry 5.5% inclusionary apartments would be financially viable no other studies no second opinions no updates even though the real estate market is blown through the roof DEF CON Lawler have no contractual responsibility to make sure any of the affordable housing gets built staff works for you and the community in order to provide community benefits for the great majority of residents not the case here staff is not to be a shield for developers did staff agree to a nondisclosure statement with a developer open up the developers books to see how accurate the financial projections have been why has the project been so clearly fast tracked is the urgency different because you're worried about the new council are we Santa Cruz or are we Wisconsin this project is a litmus test for giving developers incentives to provide affordable housing providing public benefits work for those or your legacy will be an embarrassment I strongly encourage you not to approve the project today thank you thank you next speaker please good afternoon I do not agree that we have a housing crisis I instead believe that we have an affordable housing crisis that was the conclusion of the state and what people in the city are seeing and on the listening tour that was a resounding plea from the community so why are we considering a project that could provide 15 percent which would be over 30 units why are we considering approving it even if you required the developer to produce 15 percent it would mean that 85 percent would not be affordable you know we are the most unaffordable city in the united states 60 percent of our residents are renters but most of our renters need affordable housing not market rate which will gentrify and displace the current residents I support workers and I want you to have jobs but believe me you would still have a job if this project were changed land dedication is a tricky business there's no guarantee that that affordable housing would ever be is that it? okay thank you would ever be built thank you very much next speaker comes up are there any other members of the public that wish to speak that are already standing to the left any other members of the public that haven't spoken that wish to please line up now okay next speaker please hi everyone my name is Alexia and I'm here on behalf of the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership to express my support for this important housing development I'm also a student at UCSC and in addition to experiencing the effects of the housing crisis firsthand I would like to thank the University to support Student Housing West which is a non-campus housing development that would provide over 1,000 units of housing to students and the reason I bring this up is because Pacific Laurel has the potential to create more student housing opportunities by increasing housing stock and thereby relieving existing housing stock our community urgently needs more student housing additionally the contribution of three key land parcels has the potential of creating another 100 units of student housing opportunity for the city to do its share when it comes to housing and I urge you to support this development thank you thank you next speaker please good afternoon mayor council thank you very much for your time my name is Rafael Hernandez I'm also with the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership Housing Program quick points you've received communications through our action center from various businesses affordable housing developers plus members for O2 the points about the downtown plan the advocacy around that set the criteria that this development is in alignment with there was a comment about setting the rules that you set the rules and the thing about the rules that have been in place haven't helped alleviate the situation that we're in so the way this project is proposing to provide for inclusionary housing is an innovation that could set a template a precedent for others to follow and one point I want to make in closing about the environmental point a Eurocentric view of looking at things environmentally limits actually the way things can be done an indigenous view of environmentally conscious lens applied would say that people are also part of the environment so we can't disregard folks in being an environmentalist thank you very much next speaker please Mayor Tarazza's council members my name is Gillian Greensight and I'm here speaking for the Sierra Club you received our letter last week like to read the main points from it the Sierra Club has reviewed the environmental checklist for determination of secret exemption and concludes that a secret exemption for this project is inappropriate this project should not be considered exempt from secret analysis because its environmental impacts were not fully considered under the program EIR for the downtown plan amendments or under the general plan EIR an initial study must be completed to assess the environmental impacts and risks of this project by a negative deck or EIR as listed on page 3 of the proposed project requires a number of design and development variances from the downtown plan amendments these variances need environmental review the claim that this project is exempt because the other documents were done is inappropriate because the city acknowledges that vulnerability study indicates there are significant flood risks. I'm running out of time you have the letter I would like to add also that there's a lot of glass in this project and I've heard nothing about bird safe design as a condition of approval for this project I would ask that you look at that carefully in your deliberations. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hi my name is Kim Dowling I don't understand a lot of what's been said here today and I can't really address it therefore I come from more of a heart place but one thing that was said that I don't understand is if a developer knows how much money they're going to be investing in this why can they not say how much the rent is going to be now I guess that that's because they don't know what the market value will be but they know how much they've invested and they know what they can afford maybe they can get more in the future because the market value has gone up but that doesn't mean that they should get more and they should be able to tell us how much the rent is going to be and I have a feeling if we found out how much the rent was going to be we'd all be like going well that's not you know what somebody said about 80% won't be able to afford it even the affordable housing and then I want to read what somebody else started because I thought what she said was really good I wanted to continue it she said maybe the affordable housing should be the first consideration and perhaps a more modest project is more appropriate rather than building luxury housing and having to live up to the amount of money that they've spent to build this luxury housing maybe we should be building something that therefore we could afford the affordable housing for those who are interested in it for Santa Cruz do not approve it's a black eye to those who truly need housing and to disgrace who those do care about working middle and low class wage earners. Thank you. Next speaker Mr. Norse are you ready? Mr. Norse are you up? Members of the community and City Council Huff Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom voted against this project aside from the luxury the rent ambiguities the failure to provide housing for people who need it and to stop those who are being driven away from town the arguments advanced today have been some of them persuasive to me the sweetheart deal I spoke with one individual who said that we couldn't be assured there'd be SROs in it there might be there might not it's a massive gentrification effort and it's being done on the eve of the new council this point has been brought up before I've heard arguments from some council members gee measure M got defeated let's follow the will of the voters well how about the will of the voters to allow the new council to make this decision I think that's what's important here dodgy and a pacific different kinds of attempts to gentrify this whole scene and it's being presented as that let's get rid of the undesirable element that could be poor people low income people throughout the city and will be because of the fact that you're investing money and you're allowing developers to seize a large part of the downtown as part of what looks like a continuing kind of project elsewhere in the downtown this was rushed on to a council agenda packed into the longest agenda I've seen in years other than the budget agendas so don't do it give it time be fair to the community thank you before you begin sir and the jean jacket are you going to speak on this item sir are you going to speak on this item okay you'll be our last speaker good afternoon I attended the community meeting at cruise I O and the planning commission meeting and I appreciated that all the documentation was on the city website prior to the planning commission so I as a member of the public could access it I do support your professional planning staff and your office of economic development staff as well as the unanimous decision from I believe it's actually the city government that dictated this project since this was specifically laid out projects such as this in your city's general plan in the downtown plan and I think most would agree that this helps a problematic portion of the downtown I've just one word Benicio's liquor store in the Taco Bell dry through and see what type of environment that is at 10 p.m. I think this project we would all agree provides increased property tax and utility tax revenue to for example to pay for park fees so yet you can do park capital project improvements and that's one of the only ways you fund park projects in the city the land dedication from this project comes at no monetary cost to taxpayers especially importance it's essential to the affordable housing project which your staff laid out a painful alternative to obtaining the land is imminent domain and that would take years of litigation and that cost would of your time and the litigation would mean the city at some future point would pay highest and best use of the land money that you don't have Santa Cruz does not meet its rena goals by supporting this project you would be closer to your rena goals and would be more eligible for state funds to pay for future low-income housing projects thank you thank you very much I'm gonna just make this final cause are any other member of the public that wishes to speak to this item any other member of the public okay you'll be our last speaker please go ahead I just arrived here but member of the Santa Cruz climate action network and I have heard that no one addressed the environmental impacts of sea level rise and global warming on this project and that is something that is supposed to be considered first with all city actions and policies and I think that the project is inadequate without considering that this project will probably be subject to flooding and sea level rise and it should be assessed in that respect all these developments are irresponsible unless they are assessed this way and I believe that all the development that is planned for close to the ocean should be very carefully considered and most of it either scaled down or rejected or somehow constructed so that whoever buys these things for instance isn't flooded out or taken out of their dwelling this may be profitable for those who develop it but I can't see in view of our current really emergency global warming that this is a wise move to develop that area thank you that closes the public comment portion of this hearing the applicant reserved 4.33 4 minutes 33 seconds from their initial presentation for rebuttal and to answer questions you have that time now and then we'll bring it back to the council for deliberation and action I'll just here to answer questions of the council as you deliberate thank you councilmember matthews I am prepared to put a motion on the floor to get the discussion going I have a couple of brief comments and others I'm sure will kick in I will put on the floor let me just say before I do that I very much support the action and the conditions of approval that have come to us already I have one small amendment to make I appreciate the comments that were made by the planning commission about fully activating the pedestrian experience and so I want to refer to condition number 19 and that says that the plan submitted for building permit shall include the following details and it has to do with street level appearance I would like to modify the existing language very slightly to say and my interest is in activating what are currently long expanses of wall it's extremely important to me that the pedestrian experience at an individual level walking down the street enjoying downtown is activated interesting and beautiful I think it's a relatively small modification to that condition 19a I will propose the staff recommendation and the conditions of approval with the following changed language to 19a the plan shall include the addition of active uses along the ground floor of the front street frontage that will accomplish the objective of substantively enhancing the pedestrian experience along front street the entire area of the parking spaces where the parking spaces are shown in the plans to face front street shall be converted to uses such as commercial uses office uses residential amenities and or public restroom and some portion of the space must be publicly accessible from front street services including access ceiling height size use and architectural features shall substantially meet the requirements of the downtown plan approval of the new design shall be subject to the discretion of the director of planning and community development and it continues as the rest of that condition speaks so that's my one relatively minor change to the conditions of approval one thing I'd like to know whether or not this is something you need to step behind I'd like to first also ask if there is any interest in some sort of historical treatment plaques we've done for some of our structures downtown to recognize some of the sure I'm happy to include a condition that there be some element of interpretation of the history of that part of town okay thank you I just received a note from someone who said that there was an individual who was waiting outside to speak to this item she says she wasn't allowed to speak is there someone outside waiting to come in to speak yeah that's what says in the note but I'd like to know multiple times let her come in I've made a call out numerous times to speak she wouldn't let okay I'm going to reopen the public comment for this one speaker who I was told was not allowed to come in I'm going to reopen the public comment for this final speaker thank you I didn't know that did you ask did you say you wanted to speak maybe you could tell me afterwards who you spoke with because I just want to make sure that doesn't happen again okay okay you have 90 seconds that's what we agreed to 90 seconds good afternoon everybody so my name is Arnestina Saldana and I'm here to tell you that this is a great project and I support the work for as a union person I support the job for the unions to have it but what I don't support is that you guys are completely invalidated in the 50% to affordable housing in this project and with the crisis that we are and this is like probably the end to the end time that I'm coming in here and asking you to please respect your own rules and keep the 50% inclusionary housing thank you okay that closes the public comment period we have a motion and a second on the floor council member Brown an alternative motion and I have some reasons for that my motion is very simple my motion is to continue this item to a meeting in January and I'll give you January 8th or the 22nd probably the 22nd reasonably in order for the council to have time to review some of the materials that were not really made available to us in any kind of appropriate way so the council we have not seen the reports the staff references that are being used as justification for approval on environmental review as well and we have also not seen information that provides us with evidence, real evidence that to base upon which to base a claim of financial hardship for meeting the 15% affordability requirement that this, the voters of this city approved in 1978 or nine I can never remember measure O there are some debates about the applicability or the potential violation of measure O I think that those are debates that may well play out in court so I have serious concerns as a, I mean we are being asked as a quasi judicial body right now not as a policy making body to approve a project but we have not had sufficient evidence to make those determinations so I just don't think it's responsible for us to do that I'm not willing to do that today I do believe that we need and I'm not saying this is last minute I'm not in any way trying to make the case that this is coming to us last minute I'm saying this is coming to us without the full information that we need to do our job thoroughly and thoughtfully and responsibly so that being said legal challenges that may be coming our way and I have a feeling they will be coming no matter how whatever we decide if we do this now without thoroughly considering and having the access to the evidence we're going to have due process claims potentially coming at us from all sides of this so I have major concerns about that and I do believe that the council has received some of those concerns out there so with that it would be the responsible thing for us to do to give it some more thought and time and discussion I want to add one thing I absolutely support housing at this site I support the workers who are going to build it I absolutely 100% support that I would support I've been a long time supporter of prevailing wage and project labor agreements in new construction I support unions and union wages for those workers what I do not support is us being asked being told that the only way we're going to get any housing built is if the developer is allowed to not meet our affordable housing requirements I just can't support that I do believe that we have other reasons aside from just the overall affordability concern to need more time for these considerations so my motion is to continue this item to January 22nd and I believe it needs to be voted up on before the... you're absolutely correct so there's a motion on the floor from council member Brown which is seconded by council member Crone to postpone or continue this item to the 22nd of January I personally feel that this project like I've heard for Lee is this project consistent with the downtown plan and also our city rules in regards to development thank you mayor the plan that is presented before you has six variations from that the plan has for example some recesses that are included to break up the building mass the project does not conform with all of those and as identified in the agenda report the planning commission and city staff are supportive of four of those variations as miss hasher expressed with the initial presentation the plan does anticipate that there are going to be some variations and it provides that process whereby the council can approve those they are minor in nature they do not have any environmental effects when you're talking about projections into a recess for example however there are two of those six variations that staff has not supported those are the the mezzanine and the front street frontage there the number of units yes the general massing yes this is the type of project that was anticipated as part of the downtown plan amendments that the council approved late last year I'm prepared to vote for this today I feel like this is an important part of our downtown we've had numerous hearings over the past two years and this has been something that's encouraged extensive public outreach this is the absolute type of project that I think our community needs not only for the housing but also to activate our downtown in a positive way I'm prepared to I'm not going to support the motion on the floor call the question please is there a second to call the question yes you do I think you do okay we have a motion to call the question all those yeah the substitute mention first could you read back the substitute motion substitute motion is to postpone this action until 22nd of January okay none of the rest will be recorded in our minutes all those in favor of that substitute motion please say aye oh no those opposed no okay that motion fails with councilmember crone councilmember brown voting in favor councilmember matthews councilmember chase councilmember noroyan vice mayor walk into myself opposed so we'll return back to the main motion unless you have questions on the main motion I now have some comments and questions so I guess a couple of questions for the city attorney related to one possibilities for triggering reconsideration of this item we gave us some information via email but I want to just make sure that I'm totally clear about how we might proceed here given the potential for other actions to be taken that might cause us to want to reconsider this item so I just want to make sure I'm clear here before I make my decision about what to do so if we are if we are sued either on the basis of a measure o law inclusionary failure to comply with our measure our inclusionary and or process issues related to council making a decision of financial hardship lack of need for additional environmental review etc I'm just going to make those general comments or areas of concern if we are sued on any or all of those contentions what would we be able to do in the future as a council in order to address that just wait for the lawsuit to play out or would we be able to reconsider in order to address concerns that are in a legal challenge I want to make sure I'm really clear here should a lawsuit be filed that the city council believes is meritorious then one option would be for the council to rescind the prior action and that is provided for under the council meeting guidelines so a motion for rescission can be made at a subsequent meeting so my understanding of rescinding that would have to be at a subsequent that's when that would take place upon some other outside action being taken the rules do not provide for the council to rescind a decision on the same day that the decision is made that's right so and with respect to motion to reconsider that can be made on the same day if it comes from a council member that has voted in the majority on the initial vote yes a motion to reconsider may be made only on the same day that the action was taken and is this evening session considered part of today's council meeting well given that the rule does not specify only at the same session that says the same day in my opinion that could occur I think it would be since that's not on your agenda the council could not engage in a discussion about that but it could be agendized for a future meeting thank you I'll just make a comment I know we have a motion on the floor but I do feel that the whole purpose while we're here is to have an opportunity for a full and fair hearing to make sure that we get the evidence out on the floor to make sure that we have the process of the questions are answered we have a public body that's here that's heard roughly we started at 11 so we're going on now two three and a half hours of basically hearings and testimony I really feel that the type of discussion when we say that we're anticipating a decision like of because of some circumstance of our hearing later on this evening I think it's unfortunate because I think it erodes the trust that the public has in our hearing process and our decision making body this is a matter that we've had come up before over many years we've talked about housing not only last year but this year we've also had numerous outreach meetings and public discussions this is a project that has the opportunity to significantly transform our downtown in a positive way regardless of what your position is on the matter it is something that I think is going to create new housing units and it also is going to activate spaces that right now I think are underutilized from a public safety standpoint from a community standpoint in my opinion it's a good project when we talk about the idea that we're looking at using our decision making rules to undermine what has been I think one of our best public hearings in terms of evidence that's been presented in terms of the analysis of the costs and the inclusionary value of each of the units what the developer is bringing to the downtown and what our decision making body is I think it's something that we haven't seen that before in a project and I think that's something where it like maybe would deter other people from bringing similar projects before in the future and I think foremost we rely on our planning commission to give us their opinion and analysis we've had that seven member body do a full review and analysis with numerous public hearings and they also unanimously supported this project coming forward so the idea that we're thinking now are anticipating some decision that's going to let's say discount all that I think is unfortunate because it does in my mind as you mentioned we anticipate serious concerns about the process, the hearing process that we're here and about to decide Council Member Matthews I would like to make a few additional comments people will vote however they do on this project I mean this is not the first time in history that a vote is split on a final project that will play itself out I want to make a couple of comments about why I specifically support this project I want to go back to some of the big policy directions that this community has taken back to our community effort in the 70s to protect our green belt and that was done with a very explicit understanding that future growth would rely on infill and increasing density over time after the earthquake there was an enormous lengthy and deep public process with vision Santa Cruz and community engagement to decide about the future of our downtown and out of that came a downtown plan which has gone through some revisions over time but it contains some elements that are reflected in the project that's before us now underlining all that was that our downtown would be active that it would be a mix of components it would contain housing both market rate and affordable housing there would be a mixture of civic and commercial and cultural activities going that our streets would be vibrant that it would be a mix of architectural styles this is a modern building and one of the directions that came out of downtown was not going to be Victorian we're not going to be Spanish we're going to reflect the times we live in and this building does and particularly one of the real concerns that came out of that vision Santa Cruz process was a long standing desire to connect our downtown more effectively and positively to the beach and that's these sort of things don't happen overnight but that's been a goal that's been in our community for many many years particularly want to speak about the housing I think the this particular project can't be considered independently from the gift of land the the dedication of land nearly adjacent next to the metro center for the explicit development of affordable housing that's the package and that's how we get to or exceeding the 15% and the fact that we have several nonprofit housing developers eager to move forward on this dedication of land in a downtown is not a trivial contribution to affordable housing it's a thing that makes it happen so I see this as ready to go it's not a far-off pipe dream that we have to worry about it will I think that's that's a real promise that we have to act on so I see that this project supports both the long-term vision we have for the nature of our downtown an active vibrant place with a whole mix of activities appealing to a whole mix of people and including development of affordable housing so that's my reasoning behind moving this forward thanks councilmember norion and councilmember brown we can sit here and wish all we want for requiring a developer to do a straight perfect 15% you know affordability you know and to say it's the only way it can be done but our own rules allow flexibility and how we get to that 15% and we've done that you know and like councilmember matthew said having land in downtown Santa Cruz that we can work with a nonprofit developer on to build housing is not inconsequential it's actually huge it's a game changer and a life changer for a lot of people and so you know if you really don't want growth I just want people to say it instead of nitpicking projects to death with with you know what I see is you know fake concerns maybe they're not all fake but I see that and issues that waste time and money no housing project is going to be perfect in this environment I mean the realities that we face are we don't have redevelopment agencies anymore to provide funding to subsidize provide money to subsidize affordability hud cut their budget to cities for new housing starts I believe by around 60% over the last 20 years the recession happened so lenders have become very tight with the money that they loaned to developers and have a much higher threshold for developers to meet a certain level of profitability until they can even get the money for the project so all those things combined getting to the 15% inclusionary requirement kind of does require spit and bubble gum approach you know however we can get to it let's get to it and what I haven't liked either is this idea there's not a place for market rate housing it's needed it's definitely needed my physician's assistant was checking me into my doctor's appointment started a conversation with her she's a local she grew up here she graduated from Santa Cruz I in 2008 guess what she's now moving to Monterey County and will be commuting to her job here because as a local she says I can't even find a place that I would run a rent or going you know even trying to go to Watsonville or you know northern Monterey County was so much more compelling price wise for her and I have to say every time we punt building higher density apartments in our urban core and our downtown core we're relegating people having to drive from Monterey and San Benito counties to work here and we're also relegating those areas to develop over farmland and wildlife corridors because they're going to have a demand they're not going to build densely because it's pretty rural in those areas and so as a region we're really being bad players here by telling the counties that surround us they're responsible for our workforce housing so come on folks let's you know the details the devil is in the details sometimes but this is a good project I've lived in this town you know since I was a four-year-old kid the threats of lawsuits nitpicking a project to death this is par for the course for people who don't want growth so you know I am really upset to see the same people who own several homes who've lived here forever actually suggesting we should build a Trump-like wall around our city to keep it the way it was when they moved here in the 70s that's you know I'm sorry that's selfish and it's not taking into consideration the realities that people face when they work here when we say workforce housing those are people who work you know they're people who are not necessarily making high-tech wages but they're not necessarily people making wages that are low enough to be able to qualify for affordable housing we need to consider those folks too they're the backbone of our community they're people like the physician's assistant who checked me into my appointment there are teachers there are people who are clerks at our places of work so we really need to stop thinking like we have for the past 40 years and and consider the population and the region as a whole council member brown well I'm not going to debate this here but I really do have to take issue with the notion that that those of us who don't support letting developers get out of affordable housing requirements are nimbies I have no intention of opposing legitimate affordable housing projects that come our way I believe that is a major priority I believe we have not been given the evidence to suggest that financial hardship is sufficient rationale for the developer not meeting those goals I do not believe the city has the ability to be flexible about how we make laws it is our responsibility to enforce them it is not our responsibility to say okay not this time you know because we believe you that you can't afford it I just don't believe that and so that is why I have said all the things I've said in addition I say we just don't have the evidence and that is why I move to continue and it is why I look forward to having this conversation with a new council so we aren't saying that you know we aren't saying that they haven't gotten to the 15% they have it's not in the perfect ideological straightjacket way that some people want it to be but we have reached that also we had a report we had an analysis it is kind of getting to the point where it is like are we going to just poo poo something that is in front of us because it doesn't fit the information we want I mean that sounds like what happens at the federal level of government these days so we are requiring 15% we do have a report that shows that this is not viable and we could say hey 15% straight up then 0 of 0 is 0 there is no affordable units in that scenario Council Member Chase so among the dozens of housing items that we heard certainly last year and continued presentation on an expert from a non-profit affordable housing developer from the East Bay and she we said tell us how can we develop affordable housing here and she went through all these things and the first thing she said well you have to have dollars you have to have subsidies and since RDA went away we don't have that so we are like okay what's the next thing infill development we don't have that so then we said what's the next thing land dedication so we've finally gotten to the thing that is the way the only path that's on the table right now unless RDA is restored that we're going to get affordable housing we had the project that was referenced earlier that's on ocean or rather not on ocean on water in front of this council no fewer than five times trying to cobble together the multiple sources of funds to fund that project for 63 units which is great and it's fantastic it's finally moving forward every bit of dollars that we had as a council in the trust fund to pay for that it's gone we've got no other infill options this is it council we said we cared about affordable housing this whole time we've been on council together this is our chance to make it happen it really is the thing that when we heard from the community when we listened and we sat through all of these meetings they said they needed and they wanted and here it is it is our responsibility to say yes if we really believe in affordable housing and we really believe in having a diversity in this community that can stay here we have an opportunity to say yes I feel like we have we have to Vice Mayor Watkins I'll just briefly echo the comments made by council member chase I think you know one thing I think I see that we all agree on commitment to providing more housing and more affordability of housing in our community we may have different views on how to get there or beliefs on how to get there but at the end of the day I know that that's something we all share I do think that we need to be in action now we spent the last year looking at housing I feel grateful to have had the opportunity to be part of the housing subcommittee that created a blueprint for supporting affordability of housing in our area there is a reality that we face today that Santa Cruz is on the map for no affordable I mean we are becoming so increasingly unaffordable that we have to be in action and so I'm committed to be in action I know there are imperfections within most things that we see but we have to keep moving in the direction of progress and for that reason I'll be supporting the motion Council Member Brown just have one more quick comment because I want to be and people are throwing out this idea that isn't going to be that even market rate housing is necessary for the physician's assistance I mean a back of the envelope analysis can say that we're talking about given that we're not getting anything from the developer about what anticipated rents will be if we look at the current market rate and don't even adjust for increasing rents which we know has been happening annually we've done 46% in five years so rents are going to continue to go up at some degree back of the envelope these are going to be units that are affordable to people earning $120,000 to $200,000 a year so you know I don't know that to me that's not necessarily affordable to the people who live and work in the city some of whom work for the city who have written to us on other issues recently so you know I don't think I don't call that affordable housing you know I don't call that a real contribution to the needs and the current housing stock and I certainly don't call it a contribution to our arena targets for you know we're well above our arena targets on market rate and above market housing so I just had to say that in response to you know I get it I want more housing but I can't use a project that is not going to provide any affordability or relief for people who live and work here now as an excuse to build a project without more information got some over chase well I agree this is not a place to continue to debate this but 100 affordable units for low and very low meets arena goals because of this project 100 it is the largest affordable housing project we will have in the city downtown exactly where it needs to be next to a transit station walkable with a health center there I mean it's like I don't know what more you would ask for and so I don't know how we're ignoring the land dedication part of this this is going to make that possible absent that we'll get nothing it's like it's I don't know how else you want to slice that but it's going to give us a project we desperately need and it's going to help us meet our goals in the place we need it we can continue to go back and forth I mean it's to me it's a no-brainer I just I'm just going to say I disagree though with all due respect that the one parcel in the land swap is a maker break for getting an affordable housing project I mean we actually own a significant portion of property over there and I know you've been involved much more than I have but I mean I think it doesn't mean all or nothing to me with respect to an affordable project I just can't see that well just what Council Member Chase said I would ask that the city council do what the voters said and enforce measure O and get 15 percent I mean that's what I thought our job is supposed to be I was wondering if Bonnie if you know what the arena if those what those statistics are the high the middle the low the very low what the percentages are do you have that by any chance what we our goals I guess or these are suggested goals or these are they're not mandated do we get penalized if we don't meet them we have a nine-year period and the last time we checked we were about 46 percent of meeting our goals during that during that nine-year period as I mentioned earlier the area where we need to build substantial amount of housing is in the very low and low categories and the last completed year which is 2017 we had completed 343 of the 747 allocation by income level when you compare us to other cities in the county we're doing very well obviously from our perspective we want to exceed the arena allocation by the end of the nine-year period if we're able to move forward with the project in the downtown creating those very low and low numbers will be well on the way of meeting those income category breakdown of the number of units for very low and low that we need to create in the downtown. What percentage have we done as far as market rate housing is concerned with respect to the rena goals? Yeah I don't have this broken out by percentage we in the above moderate category and I just have through year three and I think there may be yeah I think I think that's right the we have currently a need for 313 units and there's about 175 yet for above moderate in moderate we've met the category breakdown so we fully met what the rena allocation is for moderate for low we have 89 units that we need to create in the low category and the very low 154 thank you I wanted to touch on the mayor to ask us what you said about trust because this is coming at us pretty fast and this has come to us at the 11th hour it's not just a coffee house around the corner so I want to know where the trust is there that we have to like rush to approve this tonight you talk about rep you talk about the planning commission we have nominated people to the planning commission guess what they're not on there we have no representation on the planning commission this has been a problem this has been a problem we had an election and there was different results because we are at the height of this market rate housing boom where we agree with one of the speakers is affordable housing crisis not a market rate housing crisis so to talk about representation and trust I just think it's a little bit disingenuous because this is a fast-track thing right now and you don't want us to vote tonight or tomorrow or next week or next month on it but we have to vote right now on it you know I agree with one of the speakers said 5.5 is still 5.5 percent you know I join Ernestina saying 15 percent is 15 percent and 5.5 percent is still 5.5 percent you know Mr. talked about building in the community that builds community I just thought that was that's nice you know building a community that builds community it's it's I don't know it's just we're not getting we're supposed to represent all of Santa Cruz and get the best deal possible this is not the best deal possible let me just respond and say I think the trust is this process and it's the integrity of each of us that have reviewed and heard what we've said and I think that is why we're here as an elected members of this body to review this project and see what it has for our future in our city I think some may disagree that this is the type of project they want and they need to make sure that we have a positive outcome and a positive future for our downtown in our city creating new housing creating affordable housing and creating a more active and vibrant downtown when I look at this as a final decision one that we are looking at for our city's future and I wholeheartedly support us creating this opportunity for the next generation by the way we do have a vibrant and active downtown now we've had outside consultants tell us that and tell us that we would be the envy of other cities so I don't want to leave that on the table that there's an active and vibrant downtown now I think different parts of it have different levels of activity and vibrancy and some as far as who we're pushing out and who's going to be living here understand well I think if there's no other comments or discussion I would like to add I would like to put it to councilmember matthews and I seconded that all those in favor of the motion please say aye those opposed okay let's do a roll call all those in favor of this motion if you call out each individual council member councilmember crone no matthews I I okay that motion passes with councilmember crone councilmember brown opposed councilmember matthews councilmember chase councilmember neroyan and vice mayor Watkins in favor thank you everyone all of the labor that was here today and everyone for this presentation in this process I really appreciate your patience as we kind of worked our way through this at this point now let me just say at this point here since 8.30 in the morning I'm going to adjourn the meeting we're going to return at 2.45 p.m. and begin the next portion of the day okay thank you since we had an early start and we had to take our lunch break or we wanted to take our lunch break so right now we're back on this agenda item number 27 this is the document reading final adoption of ordinance number 2018-20 amending chapter 21.03 of the municipal code pertaining to relocation assistance for displaced tenants this is on the consent public hearing I'm going to pull it from the consent hearing just for the discussion and ask first that city attorney Tony condadi kind of give some background on what has occurred since this was presented at the last meeting a number of speakers raised concerns about the fact that the ordinance as originally written would enable a landlord who chooses to implement a large rent increase to circumvent the requirements of the relocation assistance part of the ordinance by simply terminating the tenancy and in response to those comments planning department staff had been working on language to address that situation and then specifically during the course of the meeting prepared some alternative language that the council could consider if it wanted to add that to the ordinance for purposes of closing that loophole so that was done and the ordinance was introduced with the modifications that we talked about that basically requires relocation assistance in addition to the circumstance where there's a large rent increase but if a tenancy is terminated without cause or at the end of a lease a tenancy is terminated without cause except for holding over at the expiration of the lease so it's similar in some respects to adjust cause eviction rule because it would protect tenants from being subjected to large rent increases or having their leases or rental agreements terminated for the purpose of increasing the rent but what's different about it is that it doesn't prohibit landlords from increasing the rent to whatever the market conditions will bear it only requires the payment of relocation assistance if a tenant as a result of that type of rent increase decides that they can't afford to stay there anymore and wants to move out so that language was prepared I think during a break or when I stepped out of the chambers for a minute I mean of course that hearing and Vice Mayor Watkins happened to be also outside of the chambers at that point we discussed that briefly and when we came back into the hearing at the conclusion of the public testimony portion of that agenda item council member Watkins asked a question as to how we might address that and that's when the language that we had been working on earlier in the evening appeared on the screen for your consideration okay just a couple more follow-ups and I know that you've received some comments about that from several members the public as have I from a legal perspective but I don't think there's anything improper or untoward about what occurred I can understand somebody not being happy with that if they opposed the large rent increase ordinance in the first instance or having other policy reasons to disagree with it we also did receive a letter from Mr. Grodberg who also spoke at the last meeting who basically asserted that addition of that language to the ordinance in his opinion constituted a violation of the Brown Act I would just note I track it down here that the agenda item that was before the council at that time described the matter in the same fashion that it's described in your current agenda packet which is amending chapter 21.03 of the municipal code pertaining to relocation assistance for displaced tenants in a tenant whose lease is terminated certainly is a displaced tenant so in my view the description is adequate but the description of the action to be taken at that prior agenda as I recall also included in the text below the agenda title due to a large rent increase so that's a nuance but in my opinion it's in all likelihood adequate description under the requirements of the Brown Act that only require that an agenda item contain a brief general description not exceeding 20 words of the subject matter of the meeting that being said Mr. Grodberg has threatened to file a legal issue and also if you could explain what's the impact if any changes are made to this ordinance that's before us today under your under the charter if a change is made to an ordinance after its initial introduction then the same restrictions apply it can't be finally adopted until a subsequent meeting after public notice is provided with the changes intact so if you make any substantive changes today that's totally appropriate and it's permissible but you would have to then set the matter for a further hearing for a second reading again that's the implication Council Member Brown just a follow-up question so in response to the communications we've received regarding the potential Brown Act violation from our previous action in your opinion would that be mitigated if we were to use the existing language today and call this a first reading and direct that would completely address the concern yes and so you're saying just the language that was presented at the meeting so the information that we've received today is a second reading we move to support it support that and make this a first reading with direction to staff to bring it back for a second reading that way I don't see any prohibition on the Council voting to adopt the ordinance for introduction at this meeting which also eliminates that question about whether or not there's been proper notice under the Brown Act the ordinance on its face is intended to apply retroactively to November 27th of 2018 that also shouldn't affect the outcome that would result from adopting the ordinance in January that was for clarification I'd like to hear from the public and I have a follow-up frankly I understood that when those changes were coming back they were coming back from the staff that were there so I would like to know if when we go through this I'd like to see that original draft and have some discussions as far as if a Council member is proposing a particular change the ordinance understand what the intent is of that change so we can have a full understanding of what the impact is and at least give the public an opportunity to let us know what that means in practice I know that the original draft ordinance was presented at a public meeting in I think July at the Loudon Nelson Center and then was brought forward to the Council perhaps with some changes based on that public input but most of the changes that took place at the meeting that ordinance represented what was presented to the public and their feedback so any changes beyond that I'd like to kind of hear from the Council member on what the basis of this change so we can really understand that Right and in this case I don't think that those changes I mean I don't think it would be accurate to say that those changes came from a Council member it was my attempt at staff's attempt at being proactive to address concerns that the Council might have based on the public comment so and I agree that that it's not ideal to have those issues come up at the end of a hearing after the members of the public it's not it's not improper but it's not the ideal situation and I also got the sense after the meeting that some Council members might not have fully appreciated all of the implications of the added language that was presented so in that sense too I think it would be appropriate for reintroduction if the Council decides to go in that direction If I could press a little further when you talk about the idea that you were anticipating these questions I mean were there specific reasons why you were anticipating those obviously when we're talking about it in public we want to know what why we're making the change I can only speak for myself on that but from my perspective it was based on concerns that were pointed out by members of the public that I thought the Council would be interested in in addressing specifically related to having an ordinance that has an obvious way of circumventing its intent by enabling landlords to terminate tendencies for purposes of increasing the rent so from my perspective it wasn't with the intent of persuading the Council to go in one direction or another it was simply recognizing what I've perceived as a loophole in the ordinance and trying to be prepared should the Council want to close it Mr. Mayor if I may just wanted to clarify you had a question regarding when the so I'm Sarah Fleming principal planner with the long-range planning team here with the city the meeting that we had did take place November 27th at the police station community room July oh I'm sorry what did I say November 27th yeah July 27th and or I think it was the 17th actually but the only changes that were made from that to what came before Council were a few typos other than that the original ordinance that you saw was the ordinance that we presented to the public and then the second reading ordinance are the changes then that we discussed at the last meeting occurred at the meeting after the presentation during the meeting that's correct that's correct okay Councilmember Chase just to clarify then what we're seeing electronically there is that the red line version everything in red was added after the first reading no so the first the red line version that you have before you has both the everything that was in that first meeting as well as the changes so the changes are reflected in red all of the changes both are reflected in red so the entirety of the changes to the ordinance are reflected in red although we could pretty easily call out for you which ones came from November 27th and which ones were the original proposal okay that's what I was kind of trying to differentiate yeah sure I was wondering I had sent an email asking if we could have maybe multiple versions to show what the first one was and then show these iterations so that we can make sure that we're tracking what exactly the process was that got us here are there any other questions okay then I'm going to ask for a presentation on this right I mean I could provide a brief presentation if you'd like just in regards to the original ordinance that was presented and then these changes sure so thank you mayor and councilmember leave out there I'm the planning director and as you've been discussing the ordinance before you would require that if a landlord chooses to increase their rent by more than 5% in one year or more than 7% over two consecutive years so cumulatively 7% in two years and the tenant chooses to leave within 60 times of that rent increase then the tenant would be provided with relocation assistance in the amount of two months of rent for within 21 days so prior to their leaving typically so within 21 days of the notification to the landlord there were a couple of changes the last meeting the one was those percentages it was previously proposed as 10% in one year and 15.5% in two and council's action moved it to 5% in one year or cumulatively more than 7% in two years and there was one other change and that was related to the termination of tendencies for reasons other than the breach of the rental agreement and so the language that was added would mean that if a landlord requests that a tenant leaves for any reason other than a breach of lease and excluding the extension of time beyond the initial set period so if a landlord said or excuse me if a tenant were not paying rent that would be a breach of lease if a tenant were damaging the house that would be a breach of lease if they are not allowing the landlord to come in and make repairs that would be a breach of lease so those things would not trigger the relocation payment but if they're otherwise in good standing and the landlord asks them to leave the changes put in place at the last council meeting would entitle that tenant to two months of relocation assistance so whether or not they have a large rent increase or not of five or seven percent if they're asked to leave and they haven't breached a lease then they would be entitled to that so those were the changes and there are a series of them that related to that and the intent and purpose had identified that those who terminated a tenancy for reasons other than the breach of lease and then the percentages were changed and the specific provision that was changed reads that for tenancy relocate due to a large increase and then it was added or who are required to vacate due to the termination of a tenancy for reasons other than the breach of terms of a rental agreement except for continuing to occupy a residence after the expiration of that term so that's where you've got a year long lease and you stay on for month to month that would not be considered a breach of lease under these provisions then they would be entitled to that relocation assistance so those are the changes that change was made as an option for the council to consider in response to the public comments as well as as a option to address some of the comments that came in at the September 11th hearing council will recall this was considered then and council said let's hear it after the election and one of the comments was that we should look at the low scottos ordinance and we looked at the low scottos ordinance it didn't entirely line up with what we were looking at because that was really a just cause eviction provision and so we have now we included in the presentation some options but then during that meeting we came up with a a better option that the council could consider so that's what's before you today and happy to answer any questions looks like the only item that was not mentioned was we did change I believe it's in section 3 of the ordinance the date for with the ordinance was effective we changed it from certification of the election results to November 27th are there any questions before we have some public comment I'd like to open it up for public comment we did have two individuals that requested additional time Mr. Norse from Huff you're up members of the community and city council this has been said before at several hearings has no enforcement provisions so similar even to the rent freeze of February people who are short changed or unlawfully treated by landlords have no real recompense from the city council law enforcement agencies unless they have the money and the power to get an attorney together in a court case going is my understanding could be wrong about this this has the same defect and problem and I anticipate the same kind of problem even with an extension of the rent freeze that of course is the real issue that many people are here for this as was pointed out before is a sort of a stop to those who want to believe the city council is doing something though it antagonizes landlords as well and I understand that the issue to me is whether this council wants to accept an emergency resolution and whether council members brown and crone seem to be the only council members interested in this want to put forward an emergency resolution in spite of the misinformation provided by the city attorney which I pointed out in a letter to the mayors both David and martin Watkins the incoming mayor that is that the brown according to the first amendment coalition of San Francisco actually the state which follows these issues reads as follows a legislative body may discuss a non agenda item at a regular meeting if by a majority vote the body determines the matter it mentions constitutes an emergency now that may be five votes here or maybe four I'm not sure at least determining so you can actually discuss the matter the brown act provides for emergency meetings to be held by a legislative body with little or no notice to the public Mr. Kandadi's claims for crushing the discussion in the last two meetings not withstanding and I would really appreciate it if the two council members who are supposedly standing up for the renters would actually make such an emergency resolution yeah you might get voted down and of course you can try to bring it up again this evening under a new and hopefully different city council but at least empower those of us who are listening and make us feel that you're doing everything you can and I know that in the last meeting one council member decided not to use a technical trick to vote in favor something so that she could later vote against it I understand her reasons for doing that but this has to do with the safety and security of many people in the city and it's going to be happening over the vacation probably even with the city council rent freeze unless enforcement provisions are added and I don't hear that likely to be happening unless someone pulls it out of a hat which I certainly hope they do Huff Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom the group I work with of course is concerned with homeless folks and the increase in homelessness that throwing tenants out on the street produces we're having a meeting tomorrow at 11 o'clock at the Sub Rosa Cafe in concert with renters and this is a first for us because we think that alone all our groups are so much spit in the wind but when we get together and point out that disabled people people of color elderly people homeless people and renters need to act together against the mighty power the very mighty power of the landlord establishment which ran through the defeat of measure M and proposition 10 and I would hope that some members of the city council will you know get the ovaries up or the balls up to do this at this council and perhaps tonight thank you thank you mr. Norse next speaker again contact me in advance for four minutes additional time it's Lynn Renshaw Santa Cruz together so Lynn Renshaw Santa Cruz together calm Santa Cruz together calm is concerned about the affordable housing shortage and we advocate for solutions that don't make the bad problem worse the housing crisis is self evident but overreaching laws will make it worse based on your preliminary discussion I it seems you share our concern about the process surrounding the amendment to the relocation ordinance the past first reading there was no discussion about the amendment requiring two months rent for relocation fees when a mutually agreed upon rental agreement is not renewed this we perceive this as a substantial amendment and there was no public notice given with a red line text available in advance the city council spent only a few minutes before voting to make a citywide change to housing law the lack of discussion might have meant some council members were not crystal clear before they voted aye the section of the relocation ordinance is poorly written and hard to understand and may have contributed to the confusion I hope you will reconsider this amendment as it seems from the earlier discussion might be happening the city council needs to be transparent and careful particularly about broad sweeping policies that affect everyone in Santa Cruz including homeowners requiring two months rent for relocation if a mutually agreed upon lease is not renewed is a very significant change with wide raging impact on thousands of rental agreements this penalty apparently applies whether or not rent is increased the amount of the relocation fees is unjust compensation for a situation involving zero wrongdoing the majority of the public likely opposes changing basic contract law in this manner Santa Cruz together paid for professional polling that accurately predicted the 62% opposition to measure M our polling captured responses to particular provisions we pulled on numerous points including the following 72% of the public public thought it was bad to make end dates of leases unenforceable 60% of the public are opposed to excessive relocation fees unreasonable rental regulations jeopardize the rental housing supply remember with the California Ellis act that preempt city council action people can withdraw from the rental business in particular renters depend on nearly 8,000 single family rental homes that can be sold and converted to owner occupied housing when those giving public comments talk about selling their rentals their point is that the city is at risk of losing a substantial amount of rental housing this will create more competition for rentals which will push rents even higher and since by California state law rent is unlimited on houses condos and any apartment when people move every future renter would find it more competitive with higher rents everyone should understand that the city council cannot create laws that conflict with state law since state laws supersede the city the California state has occupied the law and said that rent cannot be controlled on single family homes or when anybody moves to an apartment with substantial state housing laws and consider pursuing more balanced solutions that don't reduce the rental housing supply. Santa Cruz together.com thank you so that those are the organizational speakers at this point is there any member of the public that wishes to speak to this item if you do I'd like to line up to the left and we'll start with you let me just show of hands please how many people wish to speak to this item I'm going to go with the 90 seconds that's what we agreed to last time so we have 90 seconds to speak to on this item we've been here since 8.30 we're trying to 8.30 a.m. we'll go and see how it goes please begin 90 seconds I counsel my name is Mickey Larson and there's been a lot of talk about language and I was just wondering about that phrase displace tenants I get the image of a boatload of refugees without flotation devices when I hear that and so relocation fees for not renewing a lease is another spin off on measure M it is a divisively ill-conceived concept to usurp a landlord-tenant agreement the lease is an agreement between tenant and landlord in which both parties agree to certain conditions it is signed by both parties it can be altered if both parties agree and it can be challenged in tenant landlord resolution centers or court why relocation fees these are not small amounts they are thousands of dollars we're talking about there are many positive reasons for not renewing a lease for example if a landlord wants to move his sick aging mother into his rental unit to be close by and gives proper notice and waits for the expiration of the lease why should the landlord also pay exorbitant fees for the tenant to leave caring for the sick is difficult enough without throwing hefty fees into the mix these fees are predicated on tenants being victims to life's exigencies next speaker hi Donna Bloomfield thank you for your time why would a tenant ever leave willingly if they can receive relocation fees under any circumstances such as the owner not wanting to renew the lease this has no checks and balances you would be an idiot to leave thousands of dollars on the table and why am I considered a government subsidy the lease has ended the contract has expired its private property I believe that pro-measure and people want to abolish private property rights and they have so much said so I also can't I don't believe that about the Los Gatos thing I've read the Los Gatos and it has lots of great checks and balances and it protects both tenants and landlords and I'm all for it I'm a landlord who lives in the ADU behind my main house because I can't afford that mortgage and I would never been able to stay in Santa Cruz without being able to do that I also happen to know from seeing the finances of my tenant that he has hundreds of thousands of dollars and so in addition to what it would cost me to even change a mortgage to because it's so costly I would now have to give an additional two months relocation fees which he can totally afford on his own this should only apply to erroneously high increases you are punishing the good with the bad and it is not fair thank you thank you next speaker hi my name is Tom Powers and the relocation fee of two months paid to tenants mutually agreed upon to legally binding contract is unreasonable untenable and unfair to landlords those mom and pop landlords operating on really narrow margins it makes absolutely no sense to have to do this this is absolutely unfair and really really I believe truly will deplete rental stock if it goes through personally my wife and I will sell our property immediately upon if this were to go through and I just I can't believe that city council is not representing the will of the people vast majority of the voters and the city Santa Cruz voted no on measure M and so I think you really have a responsibility to represent the community and the other thing too all the proponents of measure M they really demonize landlords they suck in greedy scum of the earth and I think that is really not the case I mean basically you know a lot of us are carrying more long term community members responsible trying to provide great housing and it's really unfair and it's really turned into us against them versus looking for viable solutions so put your heads together and come up with something that will work thank you next speaker please next speaker Hi my name is Christina I'm a landlord in Santa Cruz and I agree with Santa Cruz together what they have to say and all the people that spoke before me the increase to pay out people two months rent would literally from my situation would wipe out any profit that I would have on the property and I bought during the recession so I probably have a lower payment than some people but I just can't imagine people even buying now and being able to rent at a market rate or even lower market rate in a responsible way if you have to pay out two months rent and again like the other people said you haven't agreed upon lease with two parties and during in that lease there's a timeline I don't think that the city should step into that agreement so thank you next speaker please Good afternoon City Council my name is Dee Murray and I'm speaking for the responsible and conscientious landlords who do not gouge their tenants with high rents they have had tenants for many years without complaints since their living conditions are well maintained or kept below the market so to impose these conditions on these landlords is not fair if some landlords are gouging their tenants they should be responsible and maybe rules and regulations should apply to them but not the conscientious landlords that we've had in Santa Cruz City of Santa Cruz for many years mostly to maintain their properties and taxes etc etc so I just want to say we certainly agree wholeheartedly with the presentation that was just made by Santa Cruz together it was well said and done and thank you very much next speaker please hi my name is Elise Caspian I just want to try to keep my thoughts straight because I have a cold I'm sorry so I hope this is coherent I'm very interested in seeing this measure pass because I think and I'm speaking here to some of the landlords for example Measure M was funded to a large extent by outside enormously wealthy landlords so they weren't the mom and pops and what landlords I hope will understand is that that alliance that a political alliance is exactly what the kind of thing that renters don't have and that's why we're asking for some support here the rent freeze is about to end people are going to be out on the street just another point I want to address about people being against private property I think that when the deck is stacked in the way it is it's very hard for renters to even have a choice about where they can rent we have to decide okay I'm going to take this lease because that's the best I can do I have to go to school here I want to work here whatever it is the reasons for being here what I'm trying to talk about is it's difficult to find just solutions because the aggregates the collectives here are so unjustly stacked so I don't agree with what some of the renters say about some of the landlords but I just wanted to say I think this measure please help us next speaker please it's me again I'm here before you again to express my concern about both the substance and the process for changes proposed at the end of the November 27 City Council meeting that address the relocation assistance for displaced tenants the language of this section is confusing the end of a mutually agreed upon lease completion date should not precipitate payment requiring such payments in light of agreements between property providers and tenants is unfair for housing providers who have not done anything wrong as a more practical matter for example if a property owner chose not to renew a one year lease and the tenants decided to stay beyond the completion date without a lease they would only be required to vacate only if the landlord paid the tenants two months rent effectively meaning that the landlord paid 10 months rent for 12 months of occupancy this approach would create serious disincentives for property owners to provide rentals tenants were required to vacate due to continuing to occupy a residence after completion of the lease should not be eligible for relocation assistance this new language was drafted hastily and passed at nearly 11 p.m. without any public notice public review or comment to be more transparent particularly about broad sweeping policies that affect all of Santa Cruz housing thank you next speaker please good afternoon my name is Debra Wallace and I'm here to express my concern about the process surrounding the relocation ordinance that passed the first reading on November 27 the amendment requiring two months relocation fees and any tenancy even to not renew a finite lease contract was not on the agenda the original intent I believe was to only penalize owners who made rent adjustments in excess of a certain percentage punishing owners for no wrongdoing is a surefire way to further shrink the housing supply sweeping changes to housing policies shouldn't be made without careful thought research and public input the Santa Cruz city council is now faced with a choice of implementing policies to encourage mom and pops to stay in the market new investors to buy properties to rent and developers to add to the housing supply or as seems to be the case to impose measure M style restrictions such as just cause eviction and relocation fees against the will of 62% of our community no one is required to provide a rental restrictions the new council is set to gleefully implement will result in rentals continuing to be sold withdrawn used by family or left vacant thank you next speaker please hi my name is Holly Locatelli and I just want to echo the sentiments here about not going through with relocation fees at the end of a lease agreement that doesn't seem fair we happen to be the landlords that have not raised our rent we're way below market value we haven't raised rent in over five years and this just feels like a punch in the gut when we've been doing the right thing we didn't raise our rents we didn't do anything like that but we have a great relationship with our tenants and I just want that to continue thank you thank you next speaker please Mr. Mayor City Council thank you for taking the time on this we all know we have a major shortage of housing I've been up here before I'm a little bit less nervous this time but I still feel it we I really want to be part of the solution a lot of people in this room want to be part of the solution taking rights away is already the market for rentals it's gentrifying neighborhoods owners are buying things to live in that used to be rentals it's happening I see it every single day you guys are causing a problem bigger than what we had prior and it's really on all of us I really the hasty decision making isn't working we need to be leaders Santa Cruz is so progressive we're so good let's come up with a solution that works let's let's put a committee together let's make it happen it's something that other people haven't done and that will work we really need that every landlord needs tenants every tenant needs a landlord it's how it works let's not have a big battle let's not fight let's work together thank you next speaker hello my name is Jeff VC I've been a landlord and resident Santa Cruz for 28 years anyway as other people said I really think it's unfair to put on this two month relocation for a mutually agreed lease that ends and if the landlord doesn't renew it I think the city council needs to be much more transparent when it comes to broad sweeping policies like this that affect all Santa Cruz housing including homeowners Santa Cruz needs stability in the rental market not on the fly policies for example if you look at the 5% 7% rent control policy that recently was stated how long will it be in effect speaking about stability are we talking in the next city council meeting when they decide to change it again and another thing will a new city council put back in the rent freeze these are examples of why there's no stability and this is what scaring landlords to death including me is we have no idea what's coming at us for landlords and developers to embrace the rental market we need stability we need stability without stability landlords will continue to sell or convert their rental properties to other uses and contractors will be reluctant to the way to retain our existing rentals and encourage developers to build new rentals is with long term stability in the city council's rent policies so please think of that when you make changes thank you next speaker please good afternoon I'm ginger die car I'm a resident of the city of Santa Cruz and I just remodeled my house and I added an accessory drilling unit the reason we did this was because it's an investment as well as very aware of the need for housing in Santa Cruz and the need for higher density housing and I feel like accessory drilling units are important component of that I really believe that the city should be making it easier for people to add accessory drilling units and not adding more restrictions to these units I have a lot of objections to the city council and their decisions on rent control but my main one is the landlords and a recent addition of the landlord cannot terminate a tenancy for reasons other than the breach of the terms of a rental agreement without bearing the responsibility of the two months rent I just can't believe that I can't have my sister live in my accessory drilling unit make that decision without two months rent paid for I can't have my son live there I can't have a good friend I can't even myself live there without having two months part of the dream was that my husband and I eventually as the kids got out of the house we would move to our accessory drilling unit and run out the main part of the house but it sounds like there's potential for me to have to pay two months rent in order to do that the city of Santa Cruz measure did not pass neither did the cost of Hawkins law get repealed there was four people at the city of Santa Cruz council that made this decision and I feel like you need to be looking at what the people is in making this decision thank you next speaker please next speaker good afternoon mayor and city council my name is Brennan I'm a Santa Cruz tenant and organizer with students united with renters tomorrow is being called eviction day in Santa Cruz as the current substantive protection for tenants in the city expire thousands of the workers who make this city run as well as students who depend on stable housing in this city for their education once again to massive rent increases and evictions for no fault of their own as so many tenants told you two weeks ago the ordinance before you is still not what we need to keep us in our homes even with the amendments that were made at your last meeting but I urge you to pass the ordinance as is instead of making it weaker as some landlords have called for today the relocation assistance that this provides to tenants who are thrown out of their housing will at the very least give us the ability to find replacement housing after an eviction instead of ending up sleeping in a car or friends living room or on the streets for the many tenants on month to month leases reversing the decision you made two weeks ago after hours of public comment calling for just that would mean the continuing threat of an eviction at a time when it is so difficult to find housing I have twice needed to find a place to live in this city starting January 1st and it's extremely difficult with a number of houses fully occupied by students for the entire academic year without relocation assistance tenants who are displaced are in extreme disadvantage housing market with no opportunity to build up savings in advance with this situation facing tenants in the city it will be an unconscionable and harmful choice to remove what I know myself and other tenants consider the only effective part of this ordinance please keep it in thank you thanks for keeping on time speaker hello Barbara river woman child I want to tell you the story of Laura a woman I know who was evicted by the rent freeze which was more rigorous than the ordinance you're considering right now and she was 64 years old she is 64 years old she is disabled she worked in this town for 23 years she lived here raised her children here and she worked at right aid she worked at jack in the box she worked at in-home health care and as you know she probably made $14 or less an hour she lives with her boyfriend the owners she was evicted in August under the rent freeze the owners I'm going to call out their names because we need to begin calling out the names of landlords who are doing what they're doing they are David Flores and his wife Melissa Flores and they own a foreplex on Pearl Street next to the Jesse Street Marsh Melissa Flores gave Laura her name has changed to protect her an eviction notice saying that she was required to do a city required repair she left she had to live in a hotel she spent $4,000 a month this is a really poor woman not well and she's now in Fresno total sham what that woman did and she said she hates that woman so much it's horrible what happens even under rent thank you Barbara next speaker please hello I'm one of the displaced people I've lived here for 42 years have been a very contributing member I think in a positive manner I've had two people from Apple come and buy where I live they're coming out now if they can afford to buy a place they can afford to help me to relocate two months rent won't even cover a deposit to find a place now I'm 71 years old what do you expect me to do where is the morality in this I just don't understand how here we go back in the back pink shirt how many thousands and thousands of dollars did he make off the profit of selling my place and yet two months rent is too extreme the seller made over 500,000 off of it yet two months rent is too extreme I just don't understand where the care is about community members I'm an artist in this community I'm not a big money maker yet you don't seem to value people like me in this community so I have to leave how was that fair how was it fair that the seller didn't help me with relocation costs and then someone comes in and buys and says you're leaving because we want to do a remodel so we can make more money yet they can't help out a senior citizen who has contributed this community for 42 years and they are just not even in their place yet yet I'm out don't understand that thank you next speaker please hi I'm John McKelvie just to reiterate I think a lot of people are not necessarily opposed to reasonable rent stabilization but this was posted by Students United with Renters on Thursday our opposition Santa Cruz Together has naturally put out a call to their we need community members to mobilize against this coalition of right-wing homeowners and real estate business giants that lies through its teeth to defend massive rental profits made on our backs what many opponents actually said was that they were not against some reasonable form of rent stabilization period just cause eviction and the rent board were non-starters including specifically trying to invalidate the end date of a rental agreement which has now been added back into the proposed relocation payment ordinance M supporters all say that just cause eviction is the only way of stopping evictions just like they said rent control was the only way to provide community stability these statements are wrong both soundly defeated at the polls just because one can't formulate an effective or fair set of rules doesn't justify passing a bunch of bad ones because they're easier to enforce the city council either outgoing have zero mandate for enacting any part of measure M and as far as I'm concerned if they don't substantially increase the construction of new housing of all kinds we will see no improvement in affordability in our community thank you next speaker please Mayor City Council members Jillian Greensight I'm not a renter nor am I a landlord however listening to the summary of what was presented from the planning director it seems to me very reasonable and it seems reasonable if you come from the perspective of the goodness that I don't like using the word health but the stability of our community with 56% of renters demands some sort of protection and so I would see it as the cost of doing business if you're a landlord that incorporate into your business plan two months rent relocation if that becomes necessary a couple of other thoughts I understand that measure M did lose however the same community elected two new council members who will be seated tonight who were strongly in support of measure M so I'd say the will of the community is a little bit less clear on this question and just a comment about the mutually agreed on contract in the days when I was a renter when I came to Santa Cruz in 1975 apart from the fact that a two bedroom house was $120 a month the landlord sets the contract and you sign it because you don't have any other choice so it's not quite an even playing field so I'd encourage you to continue down this path and pass it thank you next speaker please good afternoon Mayor Tarazzo and council my name is Jeffrey Smedberg I was pleasantly surprised to see the wording in the proposal it's before you and I think that it really will actually help some tenants if you do adopt it as is it's not really just cause for eviction because there's no limitation on evictions landlords can still tell people to leave and most of the the local non-corporate landlords who charge low rents and like to have tenants stay long term because it's their benefit these people will never face the the need to pay this relocation fee in the cases when a family situation changes and the landlord needs to move in themselves or family member if they are respectful to their tenants they will realize the big upheaval in their life in them through no fault of their own being pushed out on the rental housing market and a couple of months rent is not that much really and there will be a benefit to those landlords who really do charge a lower rent because the two months is based on what they're charging so that would be an incentive for those landlords to keep the rent slow thank you very much thank you next speaker please afternoon my name is Neil Langholds I urge you to remove the amendment requiring two months rent for relocation if a mutual agreed upon lease is not renewed this is unreasonable the property seems to apply whether or not rent is increased if two parties mutually agree to a one year lease why is there an unbalanced penalty at the end the property owner is not responsible for any wrongdoing just complying with contract law I attended the city council meeting and the discussion of this amendment was very short and unclear the public didn't get any advance notice of this significant amendment no written text was available in advance the very short discussion might have meant both public and council members didn't understand what was voted on it was hard to comprehend the language of this amendment is the intent to confuse people please remove this amendment which will make the affordable housing shortage worse I hope the city council will make this amendment transparent and careful particularly when passing laws that affect housing including those who rent out rooms to make ends meet thank you next speaker hi Jill Wynn senior and retired low income person I'm not going to repeat what's been said together presentation said I just want to tell you a bit about my story I it's public record that my tenant from 2018 owes me $10,000 and now it's news to you but my current tenant knows that I plan to move into my home and so you're talking about a $5,000 payment to my current tenant I'm hearing this lack of funds from my prior tenant and that's obviously a very hurtful financial situation for me so please don't pass this thank you next speaker please good afternoon I'm Nora Hockman with the movement for housing justice once again hearing from the landlord community that they're okay with rent control not certain kinds of rent control haven't really heard what part of rent control they're okay with but I imagine maybe we can get to that in the future I don't I don't really know just to be kind of factual about the whole will of the voter thing 51% of voters cast votes in the city of Santa Cruz voted to repeal Costa Hawkins 51% look it up on votescount.com measure M was defeated but 40% of city residents voted for rent control and that cannot be denied and it cannot be ignored and then the cherry on top we swept into office with two new candidates one of whom was the top vote getter both of whom have been openly supporting rent control so there is still work to be done on behalf of tenants and you have to do it you have to care enough to help tenants out if landlords are owed $10,000 and then have to pay money to the next set of renters they're going to have to pay for some of those funds I feel bad about the woman who's owed that money but that's kind of the gig here once you become a landlord and you rent your property you have now put it in the public square it can be regulated it is regulated it will be further regulated thank you next speaker please good afternoon thank you for your time I am confused and I don't consider myself to be an uneducated person I'm confused that we're here again talking about this matter because it was an issue where rent control is something we all can agree upon in our community what's being argued is these absorbent costs that landlords are having to pay tenants I am neither a landlord or a tenant I help manage properties I can tell you right now properties are empty because landlords are confused they don't know what's coming down the pike and this is a very stressful situation for both tenants and landlords we are now taking the time to make it impossible for landlords to make a profit and that is the whole point of owning real estate if you don't own real estate you don't understand the concept it's an expensive investment especially in Santa Cruz and when you invest in something you are hoping to gain a profit that is the point you are not looking to lose money on an investment we are all willing to help our community but when you are looking to stifle one aspect of your community to help another that is not a solution and I hope our council today can take into consideration that landlords are not heartless they are not wanting to provide housing but they need to do it in a way that they feel protected as well thank you next speaker hi my name is Lalia Kino I'm the vice president of internal affairs for the student union assembly at UCSE Santa Cruz together will giggle about it but we are calling tomorrow eviction day and it has nothing to do with the landlords and it has everything to do with our reality we are retaliating against us you can say that you only want a 5% increase in rent and 7 after 2 years like you did last time you passed that but if you don't enforce that it doesn't matter you have to make it so that if somebody breaks a law they are punished for it if you don't have these relocation fees there is no punishment for when landlords violate things like the rent increases and end of the lease rent is eviction if you don't have a reason for ending the lease then that's eviction you're putting someone without a home for no reason other than to raise the rent I don't have sympathy for landlords who say that they're not making money because they are after 30 years of being a landlord you have a property that you paid no money on I'm going to have to use funds from my office to hire lawyers from these evictions and to go with them to small claims court because these landlords are going to start kicking people out and I should be using that money on fun events on campus on things for students like study nights during finals which it is finals but instead I'm here talking to you and I'm going to have to spend an exorbitant amount of money protecting my students Thank you Next speaker please Hi my name is Chelsea Wagner I'm an apartment complex owner honestly the thing I'm confused about is if you have a lease that expires at a specific date and the tenant refuses to leave that's a breach of the lease and according to what I heard that you then evict the person yet there seems to be a conflict because now you're saying you're required to renew the lease so I don't know which way it is but personally as an apartment complex owner I'm not in the business of evicting people and this fee is a fee that if I lose a tenant on a rent increase okay I can live with it but I'm a single family dwelling or an ADU that's a huge amount of money and I think that's going to be the people who are going to suffer the most from this and those are the renters the landlords who are going to leave the market people like me are going to say yeah whatever so we moved out the rentals and every two or three years they're going to be gone and I can go back up to market rates so good luck make a decision thank you next speaker hello I'm not going to say anything that has already been said I just wanted to point out something which is that not a lot of the people who have things to say about this are able to be here right now just the timing of this on the agenda is a little unfair because no matter what side you are on about this issue you have something to say about it and a lot of the people who have things to say about it are people who are working or in school like it's finals week I know you can't affect finals but it's just the time of day people are at work people are at school and not many of us can be here right now to give our comments but that's fair thank you before the next speaker comes up is there any other members of the public who wish to speak to this side and this is item number 27 okay I'd like you to line up so we can see on the left side any other members beside the three that are standing to my left are there any of them and Ernestina who's in front and center okay so there's four more members are there any other members of the public okay sir please go ahead no you can't sorry what 90 seconds okay thank you council good afternoon I support the intent of the original amendment to deter and mitigate the effect of large trend increases and I have to beg to differ with Mr. Gundati this amendment and also Mayor Taras has mentioned that the meeting in July or June it's actually got a longer history than that it was first agendized on your February 13th meeting there was so much public outreach about this amendment so much I met several times with councilmember Chase Planner Harriman did great outreach I gave him comments in fact a lot of the amendments that were inserted into the November 27th one were from me I know they took those comments seriously there was never one single notice or hint that anything other than a relocation payment amendment for large trend increases would be considered in November 27th the Brown Act is designed to encourage public participation in government we had absolutely no notice in fact not even during the public comment period on November 27th did anyone have any idea that anything other than large trend increase would be subject to relocation payments so I do not agree with Mr. Gundati even though I am not an attorney I think he is wrong on this I think that the notice provision of the Brown Act was not met and whatever you think about the substance of this and like I said I do support the original intent but that is not what you have here thank you very much go ahead thank you ma'am my name is Carol Lauging mayor and council members I am confused too I do not understand why these substantial matters are not being heard by the new council tonight instead of by the lame ducks to put it frankly and I do not know if you can give me an answer on that these are really important the people have spoken that they favor some form of rent control because they have elected these new council members and there is now a pro-rent control council majority even though Chris Cron has been ruled I am sorry not unfit but unable to vote on this because he is a landlord it is a ridiculous restriction everybody who needs housing has a financial stake in rent control whether you rent a room from someone whether you rent a room to someone whether you rent a house or an apartment to someone or whether you have a house potentially rented or whether you just need to rent something and have nothing so I would like an explanation on that I do not know why this is coming only before the council that is outgoing and that there is nothing of substance for the new council to do tonight I know they are willing and able to do it thank you next speaker please yes hello I also wanted to mention that I supported the original measure before you but I do not support the version you were considering this afternoon due to the jam-packed council agenda I took the liberty of going over all of the public correspondence that was submitted to you for your review and there were over 360 plus pages and I counted as very informal tally but I did subtract duplicate letters sort of ambiguous there were 305 letters opposed to approving the measure that is before you today and six that were in favor and I wanted to mention this data because I think that if we review the best practices that go from other cities that have gone before us in any degree of rent control and we insist on empirical data I think it will lead to less confusion in the public and it will lead to greater compliance and diminished tension and vitriol in our community in general and I think that's something that we could all agree would be of collective benefit thank you very much thank you okay are there any other members of the public besides Ernestina who would like to speak to this item this is item number 27 okay ma'am are you wanting to speak to this okay please step right up are there any other members of the public besides this individual and Ernestina who wish to speak okay please go ahead City Council Coral Brun Resident of Santa Cruz I had planned to come and speak I just arrived and I assumed that the the point the this is a second meeting of the final I was at the last meeting I wasn't understanding how it was all working the confusion that the public has sometimes you know their exceptions there's many people that studied all the facts and I'm sure Ernestina will present them what I don't understand is why the the next phase is not allowed tonight why the agenda item will not be added for considering any kind of extension of what has originally planned and what I'm saying is you need to consider all possibilities I see lots of people overflowing from the camps where I live I have to go every day it's just going to be if people are out in the street they'll end up on the street I mean if they don't have a place to live that's what's going to be happening all over there's got to be some kind of collective effort consensus where people get together their values make provisions thank you thank you good afternoon again my name is Ernestina Salvaña and I don't know if they can get you on that camera do you want me there he's got you stop it then hey look at that now you see me I have a list of things that I was going to talk about this think about the mutual agreement listen they pay too much to people who make too much or the costly to maintain the property but I believe this is misunderstanding by the people who talk about this I'm going to be talking about it and the other hand what Jeffrey said I think was very important and I'm going to tell you a story why I think this is important I have a friend who lives in Leiboch and her landlord has only two units when September comes the landlords allow my friend to be late on her rent or to pay the full amount because when the taxes come she catch up and that happens because this landlord knows that tenant and they have a good relationship that's the meaning of a good relationship what we are seeing here in Santa Cruz mainly is the mom and pop housing providers against the real estate moguls and those real estate moguls who are laughing in the back those are the ones who can know how this kind of communication with the landlords with the tenants because they don't know them they live far away or they have so many units that it's impossible to know what is going on with each one so I'm going to urge you again I did it just a couple of hours ago but I'm going to urge you again to please before you leave the three of you who are leaving do something for the community who is here public comment period on the side and I'll bring it back to council I had a couple questions that I wanted to lead off with I think first of all I know part of the I think it was the revised ordinance had to do with making changes by resolution and I wanted to ask you about that because obviously we have this long public discussion about changes in the ordinance how does that impact whenever there's changes that are made make resolution changes ordinance changes by resolution to have the opportunity to have public comment or testimony to see what those impacts are and I'd just like to pose that because that's how I read the current version where it looks that future changes can be by resolution well the distinction is that in order to adopt an ordinance you have to have a first reading publish the ordinance summary of the contents of the ordinance and then bring it back at a subsequent meeting for final adoption so there's more of an opportunity for public process than a resolution which would have to be part of an appropriately noticed City Council agenda but it could be done at one in the same meeting so the version that was presented at Loudon Nelson Center well first of all the version that was the housing committee did that have changes by resolution I Sarah Fleming principal planner with the planning department as far as I understand I had just started then but no I believe that the resolution piece was added after the September 11th meeting so you may or Council may recall that we did have a meeting on September 11th that happened after the community meeting in July then this item was continued after that meeting is when the bit by resolution was added and so when we brought that back on November 27th it was a part of that based on the conversation that we had heard from the community with the concerns about the rent thresholds so okay so the September 11th that we didn't take action on that got referred to November 27th that's the incorporated the resolution or the ordinance changes by resolution that is correct and what was the basis of that why who recommended that was that something we heard from the public or was it something we heard from staff by staff to the concerns we had heard by public and by council that if we locked into the 10% and 15% how would we modify that if the market changed and so staff worked with the city attorney to propose a way for us to be able to do that and that's where it came from any other questions right now okay Council Member Mathews obviously we're not able to act on this current version we have before us as a second reading I think it's true that the public at the previous meeting had not a clue that it was going to be expanded in the way that it was I think that's a legitimate point I am quite prepared to make a introduce an ordinance a first reading that we go back to the original very simple limited expression which I think no one believes will solve problems but it will be a small assistance for those tenants who do have a very large increase to give them a little cushion for relocating that was really the only intent of that it was widely agreed upon and I think it served some function in that capacity I have no doubt that there will be a vigorous discussion about many many other aspects of rent stabilization rent or protections etc etc going forward in the coming months so I would like to see just go forward on this very limited step that does give some assistance it it doesn't automatically mean that every rental increase will result in people moving but you know we all heard enough stories my rent went up by some extravagant amount and I just had 30 days notice and that is a lot that's a huge amount to react to so I would feel very comfortable just going forward back to our original ordinance limited two months reimbursement for those tenants who get a rent increase above a certain amount if they give the landlord notice that they are unable to accept that rental increase then they get the relocation assistance I would be willing to consider also given the point that the mayor raised would we bring that back as a first reading that we have future changes in the percentages done again by ordinance amendment rather than by resolution I see this as it's going to be a very volatile topic for a good time coming so I think that just builds a little more public process into it I appreciate that I'll second that motion and I guess one of the things I'd like to could you define what the original thing was that we're talking about I think 5% 7% yes 5% the large can you read the numbers or maybe the letters or something so we can maybe the staff you have the original one you could put up can you put up the original one original meaning September 11th or November 27th September 11th one that what was presented on November 27th November 27th there were modifications that included changing the rent increase threshold from 10% and 15.5% over any two consecutive years to 7% or 7% over two consecutive years and then we changed the that was happened at the end of the meeting sorry so that was like very amended and very straightforward I would be happy to walk the council through the changes that were made at the meeting so that you could make a motion to adopt the ordinance with those additional changes omitted why not just start from the original one rather than you could do that as well I mean that's essentially what you'll be doing I think the applying director is trying to pull that up on the screen but I don't think it's really it's really not that complicated the the motion is to bring back for this is the first reading the language stripping the additional language regarding the for the purposes of rent increases so the provision that was added that we watched on the power point at our November 27th meeting simply saying the only change would be from 10 and 15 percent to 5 and 7 percent and as the threshold and future modifications be done by ordinance amendment so to be to be specific here you would be deleting the red lines from paragraphs 010 on subsection E of section 020 you would be deleting go back up please I have highlighted in yellow here I think it's just in two places subsection A you would be deleting everything after the last semicolon you'd be deleting that language yes continue go back up again please you'd be up further be deleting that red section or tenants oh no that that stays excuse me oh yeah that was my mistake so this is the November 27th version oh okay fine fine this is the November 27th version so there have been things added there was a section added into 010 that referenced the terminating the rental and then we're hearing also deleting the allowances to make changes by resolution and then this section there was a section here that also specified that tenants who are who are requested to leave for reasons other than reach of lease so that's not showing here because this is the November 27th version so you would be going back to this for this that's my motion is to present as a first reading the original language with the only further change being that future changes are made by ordinance amendment rather than resolution if you just omit the language referring to by resolution then it's okay yeah that would be the corrective that we would like to make a substitute motion that we move this the current version as a first reading with directions to staff to bring it back to us as is for a second reading in January second okay there's a motion by council member brown and second by council member crone to move what's before us as a first reading and then that would come back in January for further council action oh we'll just have to first vote up or down on that I could just say Mayor too that you know renters are asked for first, last and security deposit seems to me that that money can be you know it can be transferred to the tenants who are being booted out or leaving because you'd have to have family members move in so you know there's hardships on both sides and those three things equal out so I would hope folks could consider that any further discussion I seconded the main motion I'll remain comfortable on that because I do believe it follows and provides some process in terms of review and the opportunity for the public to weigh in on what those impacts are so I've heard from people that do want the opportunity to understand what this is and I think it's important for the council to understand what the potential impacts are on our housing so I'm not going to support that motion I have one additional comment seems to me that you know we just voted 5-2 to approve a development project with hundreds and hundreds I mean really thousands of pages of very complex information to digest without a thought about it but we're talking about two sentences here I don't think it's that complicated I think this is just a chance for the opposition to oppose it and if we'd have to delay for a new council then so be it but I don't see why we couldn't just say we've now had time it's been publicly noticed you get an extra 20 however many days and then you know there it is it's time to figure out what two sentences change means so you know I just don't think that's not a persuasive argument to me okay any further discussion? so there's a motion on the floor by council member brown seconded by council member all those in favor of that motion please say aye those opposed please say no no that motion fails with council member crown and council member brown council member matthews council member chase council member norian vice mayor walkins opposed so we'll go back to the main motion council member matthews made I seconded is there any further discussion on that item? just very briefly I think the reason to go forward with this version is it does a little something and we're going to be dealing with many more possibilities going forward but the component about requiring the amount of payment at the conclusion of a rental agreement to me is quite a different animal and much more complex and I'd rather go forward with something clean that we can do in the shorter term as we explore all the other possibilities okay and I will say is there any other further discussion? okay let's put this to vote all those in favor please say aye any opposed? council member matthews council member chase council member norian vice mayor walkins and myself in favor council member crown and council member brown opposed okay so next up we've had a fairly lengthy agenda today and we have two substantive items that still remain before we get on to the next one we have Homelessness Update and ADU Ordnance Updates I think we only have time for one and so I wanted to I mean I have my opinion on which one is a priority motion to continue the ADU until first meeting in January okay hold on a second hold on one second it's too loud is that what you're saying we're going to wait for a minute while people are exiting excuse me if we could yeah thanks we're just okay so council member crown made a motion to continue the ADU item number 29 item number 29 is there I'm going to support that I second that for discussion purposes okay I prefer to discuss the homelessness matter I think that's the biggest priority right now and that's for me in my opinion where I'd like to kind of land on the remainder of our discussion okay any further discussion I mean I think sure okay in case you have a motion on the floor can we get the motion restated planning director has a question about whether or not the motion was to continue it to a date certain right just for re noticing purposes I heard it I missed it with the commotion sorry what was the motion was it to continue to the well to be fair to the new council members possibly maybe the second continue to the second meeting in January which is the 23rd 22nd is that the second meeting in January do you have a calendar 22nd okay and again I'll second that I'd like to discuss the homelessness item now further discussion I mean I will just if I may would just say that you know this is now the third this would now be the third time that we've told the public and the community that we're going to talk about this item that we're moving this would now if we were to not have this item heard today this would then be the third time we would tell the public we would be hearing and deliberating the item and not following through on that so although I realize both topics are very important I feel to be sort of in integrity with what we said we were going to do this this afternoon that that feels appropriate to hear that item specifically personally okay so I'd like to hear from each of the council members that some of the chase yeah I was just going to say the exact same thing so so be the third time we had people who came last time and said that they took time off work to be here to speak to us because it was rescheduled from the previous meeting now we're doing it again and that just to be fair to the public that doesn't seem right that's wrong I you know I don't have a really strong opinion one way or another to be honest but I do agree that you know we have now continued this item several times and I also think that given that well I guess maybe I have a question for staff but it appears to me that since the homeless services update is really not an action item that that could happen in another way but if that is going to interfere with anything that you all need to do for us because it's not an action item I assume we're just hearing from you now and you want to hear our thoughts but we can do that some in some other fashion so is that going to is that going to interfere with your we're moving forward if we do ad you now and wait on the homeless update no we did intend to have some recommendations for you some which would be coming back and generate in any case the one item though that what we can just continue to work on and I think it'll be fine and that is to we're talking with the homeless services center about the poly loft and continuing that because they're anticipate having to close out pretty soon but we can obviously work with them and bring that back to you in January I think we can do that yeah well we just want to have some discussion first and I'll open it up so council member matthews I'm fine going forward I'm going to make a radical thought that we try and be pretty efficient in our comments and I'm going to speak to both council members and the public I mean it's easy for all of us to go on but if we're pretty focused you want to try and go about okay then we'll carry on with the homelessness discussion we're going to do it but I do think it's important to do the ad you that's been bumped and bumped and bumped and bumped so I know I see members of the public that are here for the homelessness item I know that and so I guess well yeah so any members of the public that wish to speak to the item about postponing please just brief like 30 seconds I urge you to postpone it I've been here for each of the times it's gotten bumped but we got a heads up that it possibly wouldn't be gotten to today because of the late hour the ADU ordinance affects the whole of Santa Cruz I think to put it under let's speak quickly is doing it a disservice I just don't think that's fair to the public so I'd urge you to postpone that one and not try and cram two important items postpone the ADU postpone the ADU yes or maybe you could ask how many are here to speak to the ADU you know they give you a sense of did people come out or did they really think you weren't going to get to it anyway okay let me I will do that how many people are here to speak on the homelessness issue homelessness issue how many here to speak to six people how many are here to speak on the ADU issue well you just asked to postpone it and so how many people are here to speak to the ADU issue that do not wish to postpone it 3 do not wish to postpone it 2 alright I'll bring it back here actually one and one agnostic yeah one was agnostic okay so we'll bring it back for discussion so I mean I think we'll carry I agree with Council Member Matthews let's maybe we'll carry on and get into the homelessness and we'll see where we are okay you want to pull your motion back we'll continue on to homelessness and then we consider it 5 are you thinking that how many people are here to speak on the issue of homelessness and then we'll see how it goes let's carry on okay I'll withdraw my motion then I guess okay then we're moving on to the item of this is item number 28 the homelessness update and I'll call up Assistant City Manager Tina Scholl good afternoon Mayor Tarasas Council Members Tina Scholl Assistant City Manager I'll call up the item of this is item number 28 the PowerPoint presentation as well as the agenda report it's about 12 pages and sometimes it's easier to fall along in paper and what I will do is today was largely an update so Council Member Brown is correct but I will go very rapidly through the update section so we can get to the sheltering and the action which I know Council is eager to sink your teeth into so today was being brought to you by Council Member Brown we have lots of lots of action lots of discussions lots of things going forward a very iterative process so we plan to talk about four different topics this afternoon the first being a policy policy and homeless coordinating committee progress report talking about the state funding opportunity sheltering actions and then the Council also did direct some topics come to this meeting under the first one and again I'll move swiftly through this so as a reminder to the Council and the community homelessness has been a chief aspect of the city's work plan we've talked at length about the magnitude of the issue and the challenge in Santa Cruz the need to do things so it does appear in your work plan under a strategic goal to public safety and well-being there's a description here as well some projects and so that really has been driving our work so I'll move swiftly the Council formed a subcommittee in 2016 called the Homelessness Coordinating Committee and Cynthia Chase, Rachelle Naroyan and Pam Comstock served on that and you're all familiar with this this came to Council in 2017 for final adoption there were important recommendations and there were 20 recommendations in that with the focus on the visible adult unsheltered population but one packet was missing this I just want to make sure there's copies I have a hard copy so here's another one we all have it okay we all have it I'll staple next time I apologize I just want to make sure that you have all the materials you need and we've talked about this in the past so they're all very familiar with you and as well appended to the report was a summary of the recommendations and here on the next couple of slides a similar chart to what you've seen in the past showing that on the short term recommendations a great deal of progress has been made 13 of the 20 there's been they're either complete or their substantial work and also I'll note that as time passes some things ebb and flow on these as well and there is more to be done so it continues to be something we work toward but we have dug into quite a number of these and have some results to show I won't go through each of these now and then also in the long horizon there's been a lot of work on trying to move toward a permanent shelter and you're all very familiar with that and then another thing I want to just make the council and community aware of as a reminder is that we're also doing all this work operating under this policy statement that we will work with efforts that seek equal participation from all jurisdictions so that's been a factor in these conversations Santa Cruz isn't moving forward alone it's moving forward in conjunction with the other jurisdictions and within the HAP structure as well and that can add to layers of complexity and more conversations but that has been our policy direction on that so I am moving right along the next one is just a quick update on the state funding the Keshe and Heap programs and we've been alluding to this funding opportunity since about I think July or August when we first caught one of it as being a reality and we've worked very very quickly feverishly to understand what are these programs how is this money available to us how do we access it what's the process it's fairly complicated but to summarize there's about 500 million dollars surplus in the state we're grateful that the California legislature agreed to disperse this across the state of California and the way this is distributed it's going across the state to the COCs and the COC again for those who may not know is a continuum of care that's an organizing policy group required by the federal government to access funds so it's basically here it's the county all the governments providers anyone who's interested there's different levels of it but it's just this organizing policy and service body that handles it and that's another conversation but anyway that so that state money is coming through the COC the county is the administrator of that but all of the jurisdictions have a say in how these things are happening and the money is coming through two programs there's cash which is a California emergency solutions and housing program and then there's heap the homeless emergency aid program and you can see the numbers there to do a quick side-by-side on these funding programs you can see again the amount of money coming to Santa Cruz County so this is a total amount coming to our county and the eligible uses and there's a lot of overlap there with services and rental assistance subsidies and capital on the heap again with the intent that these are emergency one-time monies and to be used really for emergency purposes now what's tricky is if you look at the last row in this table is the expenditure deadline so cash funds should be spent within five years heap she was spent within two years so that's a really important order if you think about it to figure out a way to spend $9.7 million within two years in the most effective way across the county it's a great opportunity but it has taken some time in planning so to we were aware that there was funding availability but then we had to get into actually applying for the block grant to the state and we had to submit to the state a spending plan that says how we propose to spend this money on a managed basis across the bullets you see there under cash and heap so to do that there was a number of community engagement exercises and workshops that have taken place since September five actually have taken place in September across the county so and some of you participated in some of those and it really has been a big effort to try to figure out how is a county do we respond to this opportunity and best position ourselves for regional and localized optimal results so as a result of that not going into all the detail this is the draft spending proposal for the cash and heap funds and the cash has already that submittal went into the state it was due October 15th as you saw on a prior slide and the heap we anticipate submitting that application by December 14th so that's later this week for those funds and so you can see the various percentage breakdowns the heap was that percentage breakdown was an aggregate of looking at Santa Cruz the county and Watsonville together so that really is a blended percentage and then you can see the total funding that's coming in for each of these categories and then so the next steps on this I already referenced that the block grant application was submitted will be submitted within a couple of days we then have the big task of developing an RFPs so what the state is asking the COCs to do is to actually issue requests for proposals and say we want to buy this particular service this particular initiative this model whatever it is we want to buy and the figuring out what it is we want to buy will be the topic of a big conversation so there is a lot of design process conversations happening around that as well as we are setting up briefings with all of the council members we need your input on that as well and we've been having a lot of discussion with the staff from across the city so I can get a sense of what our front line folks at work with homeless individuals or deal with the impacts of homelessness what they would recommend so we're trying to gather all this feedback again figure out on a county wide scale how we develop this and we're trying to turn this around about within a month so we get the RFPs on the street we have a period and we hope the selection of March and April to just make you aware where we are okay and the bigger discussion this is about sheltering so this is a somewhat of a complicated chart this corresponds to in the agenda report when we provide a table of all the significant homeless actions your council has been talking about this issue nearly every meeting for the entire year in some form or fashion so it has been in front of you a lot and also things that move very rapidly just to the nature of it's a difficult challenge there's partnerships, there's siting, there's funding there are operating models there's so much to work out and it's really been a tremendous effort but just to summarize in brief where we've gone from mid-December so mid-December of last year around this time we're grappling with the encampment in San Lorenzo Park and we were looking around and saying how do we deal with this in a better way and we looked at the city of San Diego who had this three tiered model the three phase model to move from a managed campground which I personally did visit in San Diego and worked very well around Thanksgiving of last year and then moving to an interim shelter and then phase three so this is all familiar to the council so we started this work in mid-December the council declared a shelter crisis in January by the way that shelter crisis declaration has made us be able to access the cash and heat money that's an anticipated but positive benefit of you declaring that we did it early the county in Watsonville then did it like in October so they followed on later but that made us eligible for this funding in February you officially supported this three phase plan to get to achieve that permanent navigation center which again is something that was in the homelessness courting committee recommendation as a permanent or a long horizon solution and then in April so we did this we got the camp open on February 26 and then we're working on the interim shelter model and you recall those council discussions and meetings and all the community engagement on that so we presented sites to you in April you directed us to pursue six months at the armory of the four sites available we learned weeks later the armory wasn't available so we had to shift course again and work so we've had a lot of this we're down a path dead end try another path dead end so we did a lot of that through the spring and then we got to June which was only supposed to operate for four months through June and then in June we thought let's try a little bit longer we had some potentially promising work we're working on we're hearing this glimmer of state money possibility let's keep working so we asked for an extension into August to see if we could work it out over the summer and then in August we after working through July and the month of August we were not able to come up with a feasible viable model that quickly and it was a huge disappointment and we hoped we could at that same time we also realized though that since all of this work from the HAP had been invested in finding this phase two this interim site and facility we didn't have a plan for winter shelter we didn't have an operator we didn't have a site and so we said okay let's let's just continue to operate the winters or I'm sorry we're going to start a new street camp into April of next year so we have some sort of shelter however no one felt it was optimal at the time so we came to this council at the end of August and we presented this as part of the north county winter shelter plan to keep the camp going till April and to expand it to explore safe parking and also to see if we can get expanded capacity in the homeless services center and council said yes we'll do that and then in something new is this gets a little confusing but the city operated the camp and funded the camp all the way through June 4, 4 months once we hit July in the new fiscal year it became a program of the HAP meaning that even though we were the operator it was a program that was funded by the county the city of Scotts Valley in Capitola to serve as a bridge solution at that time we didn't realize it was a bridge solution again everything's moving and changing every week but it wasn't just our program at that time but everyone is supportive of continuing with it because we didn't have another option and then in September it turned out that an operator came forward the Salvation Army very grateful for that, as did a facility and all the jurisdictions were talking about this and this very strong preference was to have indoor winter shelter thinking about the rain and the cold and you have an option where do we think vulnerable individuals should be and also the public health officials were very concerned about the camp and the wet and the cold and we were very concerned about how we're going to keep the camp intact, keep it dry keep it warm so this manifested as an option and it moved forward and so in October there was discussion that the funders had wanted their funding to shift to the indoor physical site and we agree in terms of outcomes for these individuals and the camp phased out we readily acknowledged things moved really fast on a staff level coordinating across the, coordinating across all the cities and while we were doing updates we didn't have deliberate council conversation until like the ship had sailed somewhat on that so I just wanted to acknowledge that that we were acting in best in good faith and trying to do the best that we could to provide the best sort of shelter model and again it wasn't a sole city decision all of the other funders really felt this was a better model the city supported at that time? We did, we did absolutely because we felt we have individuals here who are vulnerable and we were terrified how are we going to keep this dry how are we going to keep this warm how are we going to keep the tents not from blowing away and in fact that bore out just the next weekend after we closed we had a very very windy weekend it was about three weekends ago and just tents would have blown it would have been a real problem so we felt that people had a better outcome and then also during it's a different model so during the day people in the river or in the winter shelter people during the day are you know leave and we were concerned about that because at the camp you have the option to stay however we learned from experience that a lot of our campers left during the day anyway so you know we you know it's it's where we are we continue to look forward when you say funders who are the funders absolutely it's the county of Santa Cruz the city Capitola and Scots valley fund the north county shelter but the camp that was on 1220 river street who are those funders those are the funders and who sits on the committee from the city staff who attends those meetings that was part of that deliberation so that was the HAP executive there's three layers to the HAP they're the executives of the jiffen jurisdiction so you had martin and myself were there Susie was at that meeting as well we had city managers from Capitola Watsonville and the assistant county administrative officer as well as other county staff their executive level just if I could back when we were looking at the the shelter we talked about knowing that we were going to get these funds or be eligible for these funds from the state requesting reimbursement for our participation our development of a temporary emergency shelter what was the outcome of that review? Thanks for that question reimbursement's not eligible so it's only prospective expenses and then I do want to be mindful of time the river street camp has been reported before has had very positive outcomes we ended up having a total of 130 persons served and 56 percent moving on to improved living circumstances so you can just see this table here someone into SUD treatments or sober living environments someone into vehicles not ideal but improved and then 32 went into transitional supportive permanent or mental health housing and people availed themselves of that and then just 14 went over to winter shelter and what we found or experiences that when the closure was announced that was actually a real motivator for people to get very serious about their housing plans and so we found this natural attrition from about 50 something odd people down to when we started actually closing it we had about 40 people in the river street camp at that point so the outcomes were positive we think it is a really intriguing model to consider for the future and so then moving on to the north county winter shelter so I kind of went through this summary is that the river street camp was proposed to serve as the winter shelter and along with that direction there was talk of safe parking that proposal was tables and then also the expansion of beds at HSC was explored but not pursued mostly because of cost for the number of beds at this time and we thought maybe this could be a good heap opportunity for us to discuss and I talked about how an operator in a site emerging and then the preference for indoor however this council has made abundantly clear to us as staff and we agree with you in half agrees that we want more options and we've been working on those since that's what we want to talk to you about today I think Martin will present on this before we gather I just want to have a question regarding that last slide when it was tabled is that the half tabling it who's tabling just there's no viability to the operator so it was a non-profit operator okay the question about the half have you all contemplated having elected officials from the various cities on that half as well well and that gets to the question of governance and we've talked about that a little bit too and we're in agreement that we need to find a better way to manage homelessness policy and services and distribution across the county so that is also another topic of conversation and yes I think elected officials need to be part of that conversation I think that there needs to be it across the county so I mean your council is very involved in this issue and talks about it a lot and we're in the paper about it a lot because you're very active in it so we do want to see some changes and are starting those conversations just on that too I'd mention it to one of the you know local local papers but you know there was an article in the paper yesterday about or this morning about homelessness and you know it discusses the cities all the cities efforts so in terms of you know how this is being looked at regionally I really do feel that is key to kind of get you know buying as a kind of a unified voice that this is a critical issue for all the entire region and not just maybe the impacts that we're seeing here in the city I just wanted to clarify too how much is the this is like eleven twelve million dollars that's going to be that ten point six million how much has it been in the past like how much has gone through zero so before we might receive grants from HUD of maybe on the order of one or two million dollars but that's distributed through another process like right to the services so this really is a unique pivotal game-changing reason is I'd like to see them brown acted too because I get questions from the public and they're wondering like oh it's just a way of have some transparency and have people know how we're spending this money and people can come to the meetings and see what's going on make their case just as a follow-up when you talk about that they've had never had money that's flowed through the before they have had money that comes through from state grants right because the half is the one that's determining how they spend those funds in the county and their pass-through monies no well what what did the HAP do what was their role well they had no money management the HAP would get maybe one or two million dollars from federal grants from HUD and those would be distributed and those are support going to current homeless services providers and I know we got some money to help launch the coordinated entry program as well but it's not been something that jurisdictions have touched as a ground game opportunity like this is so this really is a different animal so the the HAP is really a legacy from the continuum of care federal process and so in that process typically what would happen every year is that there'd be grants available the federal government required this process whereby really the service providers got together with a consultant that was led by the county where they work together to come up with applications and they would try to get as much funding as they could for a variety of homeless programs and so every year I think about a million to two million dollars a year for a variety of different homeless programs that primarily went to a variety of non-profit organizations in our county in addition so that was really the basic purpose for it the executive committee tended to essentially just approve because it really came from the subject matter experts in terms of what they were going to apply for and the executives mostly just obviously agreed with that in order to be able to apply for the grants it was really the first two grants primarily the other function that they had was a winter shelter and funding a winter shelter so those are really the two key pieces however we're in different times now and I think there is a general recognition that with respect to governance and everything that has changed with respect to the need for homeless services there has to be a change I think there's agreement with that and there were some talks that were begun as part of that process with the council the two by two recommendations do need to be made about what form should be in place in the future for the governance of homeless services in our region so that is a question that needs to be answered okay all right so with that as Sina mentioned we and there's a desire to continue to work on trying to increase shelter capacity particular indoor capacity and even with our last set of recommendations and with the closure of the river street camp we continue to do that and so we do have some specific recommendations here that we'd like you to consider and provide feedback on again things that we've been working on on a ongoing basis as early as yesterday and I'll go over these one by one there's five the first is to again through the HAP process and the winter shelter program to and I've mentioned this in the past too that we'd like to increase capacity by opening an emergency shelter for women families and mobility impaired individuals with about 40 beds over at the lower street Salvation Army and so we'd like the council to provide some direction on whether you'd like us to pursue that now we have some operating issues that we have to work out so this would give us direction to do that and bring that back to you with respect to costs and with respect to how that operating model would work in order to address public safety or other concerns in the immediate neighborhood so that's the first one any questions on that one is there any sort of public outreach or any sort of discussion that would take place before that because I know last year we talked about that and there was some concerns we would certainly do that particularly people want to know what the operating model because I think it is true that shelters can operate with very little impact and we have some examples of that I mean the current winter shelter program for example operating on 7th Avenue operates with little impact the river street camp did that as well so we would have to do some of that I think this would be the third year it would be at Laurel right if it was approved this is the third year but it's a very different model different population smaller size and we did have some issues that have cropped up in the past we'd have to address those some history there with having some issues and then how to do with the facility is because it's used for other purposes it's not consistently available every night and also the meal service so the other recommendations kind of get to that so we just have to figure out a way to operate it without those impacts of how to provide the meal service and how to address those days where they are not it's not available the benefit is this isn't our first time there we've been in the neighborhood before and we have some lessons learned so we know correct and hence recommendation number two which is to again authorize that we look at city facilities to host the meal service because we were hosting this at the Lawton Nelson and that became problematic and so we would look at alternative sites to do that and to work it out so that it is compatible but works with the shelter program that's number two question about number one just the 40 bed target how did you come up with that and what are you know data driven how are we basing it on just what the city can do right now and that's our capacity well there are currently 60 beds the VFW based winter shelter and traditionally we've had about 100 beds last year we got up to 110 and so that seemed to be a goal and to be an issue of let's try to at least replicate what we've done in years past so we're starting with 40 there's actually additional space within the facility but we're being mindful of impacts as well to the community and so we want to start out let's target with 40 see how things go if there's a possibility to flex up it could flex up to maybe 50 there when is this open again well we would have to work it out of council approves the use of this site it would maybe be nowhere earlier than late January to work through everything so we come back in early January and hopefully open it up as quickly as possible after that do you want to go through all three of these and then have discussion is that what you're thinking is to the other component of this again trying to maximize beds would be again as part of the HAP to winter shelter program to work with the Warming Center to provide some additional beds or capacity there and that would be the third one and we would also bring that back in January with costs and the Warming Center is trying to expand from its traditional 20 nights the Warming Center again is a pop-up shelter operated by Brent Adams who is here he's standing right there during the coldest and widest nights of the year he hosts a pop-up shelter usually in different faith communities across the region and he's asked for city assistance so he can expand the number of nights and the number of people served and so he's asked the city to be part of that conversation I will note that back in 2016 or so there was also direction by this council to authorize I think additional use of 15 bed nights in the city and we got all the way through the MOU process getting it done and then I think the winter improved it was a very late acting action so we've already gone down this path quite a ways before so we look at city facilities as well for that are we the two questions really how many beds are available through the Warming Center we don't really know that what the need is I think it serves about 80 people we serve 80, 85 can you step up to the mic please yeah we've traditionally been ready to serve 80 people we've already made purchases higher materials staff and a vehicle we're ready to double that if needed for extreme but we're focusing about 100, 120 I hope this is an okay question but members of the council have expressed interest in seeing other parts of the county step up are you going to specifically look in the faith community in different places around the county we already operated Warming Center in Watsonville that has a capacity to 50 plus and so we can transport out there we really want to be ready system wide if there's a 10 night cold snap to 30 degrees or less that we might like a Red Cross or a fire department be ready to actually shelter as many as 200 people in a night so our system is ready for that if I could follow up I know the city of Watsonville operates a program there what about an unincorporated county has there been any interest in other facilities out there other than the live oak facility that operated last year you know we've done some foray out into the San Lorenzo Valley but the county didn't entertain that possibility last year with our expansion to Watsonville let's see now where is we go far a field as I think Morrissey at this point so nothing in mid county nothing outside but we're open to that we're actually reaching out to anybody who wants to open there it's really relationships with community centers and faith so we have just make an MOU process so far we've had perfect experience with all of our site locations and just in regards to these three recommendations does the HAP support all those for funding well this would have to be worked out but the HAP is very interested all the jurisdictions in increasing sheltering capacity I'm sure as Brent could attest as well very fast moving and very fluid as we're all trying to figure things out so we're trying to get as much online as possible as quickly but yes you know just in regards to you referenced the earlier council direction it's been consistent from 2010 and then we did it again in 2017 about the idea of a regional approach was there any interest in any of the other HAP executive groups to say hey what are some other citing locations where there might be opportunities for expanded meal service because I could support these here but I'd also like to see I know that our needs much greater than just perhaps what the city can offer absolutely and I think what we are at this point too we really are on this cusp of having a lot of money flow into the county that can really catapult a lot of county wide conversations so what this represents is us trying to do the best we can within the next few month horizon and what can we get as quickly as we can to help the real need out there but to your point that those are exactly the conversations we're having about ongoing and next season what happens post April if I could go off a little bit off topic I mean we have this listed as recommendations for north county would it be more would it make more sense to start thinking of this as like we're looking at kind of these emergency shelter space in the third and fifth district so identify a particular geographic location we're saying these are places where we need to find expanded citing because it's hard to kind of grapple around looking at the whole county the south county is doing their own but like let's identify what are the particular locations that where we could do this and by having specific districts identified then at least it focuses our efforts on where we might find a suitable place well that the funders of this also are in the second district in the first district so I would say the first second third and fifth districts the fourth which is Watsonville is the only one that's different that's why the city Watsonville is not a funder of it so it actually touches all those supervisorial districts since we have Capitola and Scotts Valley also servicing them in the past around should there be some sort of geographic delineation somewhere in the county to say this is covered here and again I think that's a conversation that is very worthy when we're talking about how to allocate the state money what makes the most sense and I guess if I could just follow up it is something where it's not just about the funders it's what's the strategy on how we're approaching it because we do have a we have an interest of identifying citing locations that might not just be in the city but external to the city based on a review and by limiting maybe what where the geographic areas are we could have the other districts kind of identify other sightings because we do want to have some geographic equity in terms of looking at these various services so that's why I'm by describing as North County it's pretty large area and we as we talked about before it's unclear what that means when we were had the discussion about the Benchlands last year we had people from Aptos that were in our city that we're seeking care and it might be a way for us to better manage the impacts that we're seeing so that we can have different jurisdictions take on their appropriate share so I wanted to bring that up here and as seen mentioned some of that will be in the heap and hash process because that's really where the book of the fundiness and so these are really more interim measures in many ways so four is kind of an extension of the third which is if you're amenable to that to try and expand the warming center then we would look at using city facilities to help with that for 15 nights you mentioned city facilities in number for the food meals any particular thoughts there we were looking at the freight building in depot park as a good site for the meal service for the 40 or so women family mobility impaired as a lot of benefits and as for the shelter possibility we think the Harvey West clubhouse scout house is likely the best option that was a facility identified in 2016 to serve as well we of course have to work around calendar and reservations but as this is a mostly night time use we think that's the best one and I think it would accommodate the size of the city and the city and I think it would be an adjacent to a park and having other impacts where we've seen some issues in terms of managing some of the impacts when programs are doing there it's all in the operating model we agree with you it's all about how we manage and what are the requirements we have and that's hashed out through the MOU process what sort of security are people able to minimize that I see that with all of the locations that are being mentioned it's in fact perhaps not so much the people that are participating in the program understand the agreement but those who just show up and are not participating and that's where a lot of the impact is and I can see that at depot Salvation Army at Harvey West and I'll just second David's interest in seriously exploring some more mid-county sites because that's part of the transit corridor location to health and social services sheer numbers etc I'll just say too I've been hearing from folks the population is moving in different parts and while historically we've had a high concentration of programs here where people have challenges coming to Santa Cruz to access services because this is where we're located so I think part of it this review might include maybe reconsider maybe some historical programs that have been here finding ways where we could move them to different parts of the county where they might be closer to where they're needed I is this the listing of the total recommendations are there more? before the the Polly Loft and their funding gap and a desire to see this interest on the part of the council to continue to continue that program for a period of time here so that would mean funding at the Polly Loft beds for an additional four months and I believe the county has also helped with that as well. Thank you so the Polly Loft did run into an operational place where they were going to close as of I believe the end of September and the homeless services center came to the city and the county and said can you help us keep our doors open we saw the mutual benefit obviously the Polly Loft this is 40 individuals that bought for the shelter would be homeless likely in Santa Cruz. The county funded for four months so they funded October November December and January so right now as of January 31st the Polly Loft may very well be closing for lack of funding so we learned about that outcome the county stepped up so we wanted to propose to the council that we fund an additional four months so that would keep operations in February March April and May and then you might ask well what then well then by then the heap application should happen that period there should be a notice of award we should have a sense of whether or not we have a forever problem with the Polly Loft or if they've got staple funding at least for the next couple of years and kind of work to see this as truly bridge funding to keep this to keep the program going to keep these 40 people housed in order to preserve that option for continuing it and hopefully or possibly the state money is an option for that. If I can just follow up on some of this so you talk this has been presented to the HAP Executive Committee you've discussed this. No this is not. None of it's all new. This is not no I had a chance to preview some of it with the county because I was in the city yesterday so they wouldn't be surprised with this discussion today. I talked with the executive director of the homeless services center to talk about this option and the sense that we wanted to have this discussion here today but no this is really kind of late breaking. And so these are all located in the city did they have any suggestions on places they might consider? I mean I know the HAP Executive Committee other jurisdictions other than just the city of Santa Cruz. No again just looking back to the timeline so as of the end of August we thought the river street camp would serve as our winter shelter in September there became an option for a physical site the VFW and an operative Salvation Army and then so people left on that yes let's do that we think that's a better option. October we're working to get that ramped up we're working here at the city Susie O'Hara in particular to have a sensible wind down plan to make sure that they're being taken care of so it has been all and then in addition we've been exploring this heaping cash and trying to understand that and having innumerable meetings to understand this opportunity to position us so right now we have been in a what can we handle what can we get on the table as quickly as possible I think that countywide conversation is what's coming up with the cash and the heap. I know we have some public comment but I do want to ask the proposed spending plan allocations for the heap will be presented on December 11th 2018 and here it comes that was this and I flew through this just because of our time. But you can see I'll just quickly you can see the rental assistance and housing subsidy funds you can see that's about two million dollars emergency services 2.8 million capital dropping down 3.3 million and that's one time funds to maybe build, acquire or do something because this is one time money the use services got a healthy and this is in addition to 2.2 million dollars also that came in from a HUD grant to use on transition age youth and youth in some other categories okay thanks did that come from the group that met at the police community room or how much input was yeah that was that was part of it yeah so there were three very similar meetings to that one in Watsonville one in the county and incorporated and one in Santa Cruz and those results were aggregated to come up with this and I will say this is a 100% flexible spending plan nothing we are not locked in if we issue RFPs and we find out that no one is submitting for a category there is latitude then to reallocate that in addition if not all the COCs in the in the state grab the money there's a second round of heat funding too so we want to be prepared for that if we can grab that money as well does that conclude the presentation and not quite a couple more things those five recommendations here in your presentation is a chart of what some of these things look like the expansion and preservations I thought this would be a nice reference point just to show the programs, the agency the beds, the duration the cost information we know I won't go through that but you have this in the presentation in front of you and then finally well actually not finally penultimate finally we also want to present the opportunity to discuss the encampment that has grown on the Caltrans and City properties that we want in River Street and you can read the comments here that the county has been providing services we've been managing somewhat but not actively involved and so the council said before you like to get involved in these discussions more so we want to present this opportunity and then finally at your November 13th council meeting you directed that some other topics come back for possible discussion so we're presenting these here for you to discuss these things and providing you direction if you wanted to on them council member brown thank you for the report I appreciate all the work you put into it and understand this is a very challenging process and so it's good to see the thinking that's gone into it and you know I in terms of the action as appropriate I assume that these recommendations that you're making here the actions you're hoping that we take now to move ahead so that you can move ahead with the funding piece I would like to hear a little bit more about the river street the managed on the informal camp that has emerged because we do get some a lot of constituent messaging about it and you know similar to what happened in the bench lands so you know and I know that when that we that was in operation that chief mills gave us some remarks about their plans for low-fi low-key management if you I don't know if you would be prepared if you could tell us a little bit about your thinking I know this is a joint effort with parks and rec but it would just be great to hear a little bit more about what's aside from what we can see those of you who go visit it you get a sense of what's going on but what's the plan would be nice to hear a little bit more about okay well I'll say a few words first and then we do have police in parks here so about this the genesis of this camp so there were a couple of tents there for a while and then we noticed I believe in about October I would say it was increasing and building and growing and to what to attribute that we're not entirely sure we know that we've had increased enforcement in other areas of the city like downtown the Coral Street we did close our open space for the explosive fire danger around Thanksgiving and we did find about I think 40 people out of all of our open space together so we think that we all need a place to go that became a place to go it grew it felt safer and then also we learned later that the county had been there HPHP out there supporting and helping people passing up food doing services and they asked us can you come in and please help with some of the hygiene and refuse so we did so we brought in portable toilets and hand washing just to maintain some basic level of hygiene in this area as well as some refuse and the management refuse and some contractor and I know in terms of public safety you see I'll go to this slide they monitor it daily they go in there they're making arrests I know the police are interfacing with the businesses and that adjacent shopping center as well talking about it but right now we're in this place where it is there it's not a sanctioned campground there isn't a place for these people to go and that's a discussion we wanted to have with you today I don't know if there's anything else would like to add to what I've said no okay so that's exactly why we want to be here today yeah I'm just curious why we're doing the sanitation services it sounds like a very much a health and human services sort of function so why is the city providing that well I think we you know the city we want to step in because we wanted to be better it's our river walk as well we have our community members traversing that pathway there it's adjacent to a river which is a major part of not only our ecosystem and environment but something we we work hard to protect so we had a vested interest they requested that we provide it when yeah their county health so I just that's where you know I get a little not a little I get annoyed with that the county gets millions of dollars for health and human services and we don't so I just find it strange that they would ask us to provide something that in my opinion is right up their alley in terms of their responsibilities and it's on our property and CalTrans property and in the past that's also how the health council comes from a brown it's a question that you know I would like council member Noreen to get her question if answered if there if you have more to say but it sounds like they asked us weeks staff accepted and they did it I'm not debating the need for it I want these facilities out there but once again it feels sort of like the city is taking on a responsibility that's you know health and human services is strictly county well I would also say that you know I think from the staff perspective we're just trying to respond to the immediacy of the problem you know we've got the businesses neighbors really really concerned about just the basic necessities that are there so that's the first sort of when we go in there it's how do we you know fix it as best we can and this really just goes through this issue of an ongoing basis we really don't have a governance or a structure to sort of deal with these issues we've got like the HEP and HEES process going on but that's for that specific area so this just goes to we do need that approach there isn't a structure in place we can certainly have discussions with the county about it but as far as what we do on a day to day basis it's really just trying to address the immediacy of the issues yeah I know I can understand that but I I do think you know like we're part of it's Caltrans land we're providing part of the land we're using our police officers to monitor the situation so people who are there and around the area are safe so you know I think going forward we really need to have the county step up a bit more and this is identical conversation we had last year with the hepatitis A outbreak and I think discussion was where is the funding because we were going to request reimbursement for those as well I know and you don't have to answer it but I do agree with Council Member Naroyan that one it's like a coordinated approach and it seems to be that we're using city resources in ways where we're kind of deploying things here or there rather than being strategic and I know Tina you've been really active with the HEP but I mean I would hope that you know that's something we could stress with HEP Executive Committee in terms of I think it goes back to governance it's about the elected officials getting together and figuring out how are we going to govern this you know again the staff level we are implementing we're trying to be responsive to day-to-day complaints you know as far as the overall policy and direction that has to come from the electives we do have that regional that discussion about the regional approach but I totally agree that this is the structure we have we have the HEP Executive Committee that's what exists Council Member Brown a follow-up questions to my previous open-ended question about what's the plan one are there thank you for the response the general response two follow-up questions one the last time I was out there I didn't see and we also I think received a couple of messages about this any dumpsters or refuse facilities so I'm wondering about how the refuse pickup is actually occurring could we get a dumpster out there for example I personally don't have it seems to me that we're this is triage mode here so you know some of these I do know that we're monitoring and adjusting as needed maybe Tony and the parks folks have been working on that's one and then two are there plans for an organized cleanup similar to what happened in the bench lands where people were moved out and then brought back in following cleanup that's happening if people should expect that yep for the record Tony Elliott Parks and Recreation Department we have approximately three to four people out there two three four hours a day picking up trash we do have the 96 gallon toters out there but we're taking them off-site to dispose of them there's not a whole lot of space for a dumpster so that's why we just have a system of toters out there but it's about really about five or six labor hours per day seven days a week just managing the trash geez can I ask a follow up on this what part of it is city land and what part of is state because I was I thought it was all state at one point when I asked as I understand the section that borders the levy path going down towards the to river street is state and then the at a point probably like midway it transitions to city between midway in the shopping center and river street hold on a second we're still debating you'll have your opportunity to speak okay and then I'd like to ask also the police chief last year when we had the bench lands camp and the movement there was outreach that took place and I know we had our public safety meeting about understanding who are the people that are out there so we can make sure that we're doing is that something on doing again this year and I know the report came back several months later but we talked about even having an independent group kind of do that to have a better understanding of who who the people were that are in the site for the record it's Andy Mills police chief and thank you for your question we have been out there on a daily basis talking with people in the camps I went out there and addressed everybody in the camp myself I got everybody gathered around to let them know that there needs to be some level of decorum and rules of behavior for this location and the and the community that surrounds it how far that went we don't know in terms of the compliance with that however we have it routine routinely programmed into our computer a dispatch system to send officers there multiple times a day to the camp to do checks and to do enforcement as needed we've made multiple arrests and we've had officers out there not only there but down in the parking lot at the gateway plaza so we have talked with many of them and talking with the people who are there seems that many of them are long term homeless persons from our community not saying that's exclusive we didn't take an exact survey but talked with dozens of people out there who explained that to us anecdotally if you would like a further survey we certainly can work with other departments to try to conduct that to find out who's there we talked about that the public safety committee and I thought that you periodically were going to do that we had discussed that yes whether or not we also talked about have an independent body do that because sometimes what people are going to tell the police is very different from somebody that they're less intimidated by so we want to make sure that the information is as accurate as possible thanks Chris before you go I know we've got oral communications at 5.30 and then we still haven't gone to public comment on this item so I'm going to ask before let me hold questions and just say is any member of the public here to speak to this item and I know Mr. Norse has to speak to this I'd like to try and you know one minute per person Robert if you go to two minutes so we can kind of get through this I appreciate it okay go please go ahead oh I'm Nate Alex Kennedy at gmail.com call or text me at 3469888 what I've got to say about this whole situation is we've been closing parks the parks and the bushes and they have nowhere to go but the sidewalk itself and doorways of businesses we really need to address this we need legitimate campsites not just for the homeless people of Santa Cruz but for travelers for refugees from fires and floods and otherwise we need to have campsites that are legal completely legitimate regulated would have a police trailer located nearby or right on the site maybe even put a needle drop box right on the police trailer itself for people to get rid of their needles or needles that are found thank you next speaker please mayor council since April when it was expressed that the anniversary camp was going to be extended through April there wouldn't be a winter shelter possibly I'm really happy to see this step up that there looks like the city is really going there I'm talking with Paulie Loft and then potentially with the warming center since August ever since then we declared our own shelter emergency double down like I said spent almost $10,000 on extra materials hired somebody and said we are going to now be ready to shelter twice as many people as I said before but potentially ready to be to raise our temperature threshold but we've worked with the Salvation Army the county and the city to actually be ready to we've been sheltering their sorry storing their large belongings bicycles there's they put a shuttle stop right in front of our spot it's the fourth one to make sure that that we can actually make sure that everybody who needs to isn't denied shelter because of their dislikes or things like that so we've been really doing a lot of this work to this point so I just want a warming center to be recognized for that thank you next week okay let's see if I can talk fast I would suggest that if you can get some sort of advisory group to try to get together to try to solve some of these problems because some of these problems are starting to domino that you have that group that's over there by river street but you also have less bed space this year that it's true that 40 beds would be starting at Laurel street but we actually did 50 last year so there's not actually a staffing difference for that and if you're busing them in anyway it's still a manageable thing which still takes program design and that's what I'm talking about sitting down but I'd say if it was possible to do an intake site like we did two years ago which wasn't the best thing in the world at 1220 river because right now people are just sitting in the rain at different bus stops pretty confusing thing about reservations and then they're getting their intake a very potential conversation that's just sitting in the middle of the VFW at a table with people around them saying hey have you been raped have you been you know have you used drugs and people are just sitting around listening to these conversations I think it would be really compassionate a lot more professional if there was an intake site too. Thank you. Next speaker. Having only a minute to speak about this a little unfair but let's go. The property the middle of the property the city owns the top part the bottom parts owned by the city those people came from Coral Street the train tracks and the other river street campus closed we have an I'm a business owner my name is Michael Spadafore I'm a business owner at the Gateway Plaza dead body found in a car car stolen this past weekend pet smart employees afraid to talk to their customers the security guard having to stay in Ross for 20 minutes till a cop came to help them because he's being bullied by the people in the parking lot you guys want to do something about one o'clock in an afternoon go sit in that parking lot and watch the people go from that parking lot up to that levy my customers see that every day my owners were there the other day some lady lifted up her dress and peed in the parking lot right in front of Ross that's something we deal with on a daily basis and for nobody to have an answer of why that's there is completely beyond me it is too close to the people leaving the tannery leaving the bridge it's not safe for kids anywhere around the world. Thank you Mr. Speaker please. Hi Elise Kasby I'm a long-time researcher and activist I've gotten a lot of first-hand observation and so forth what the gentleman was just saying there is exactly the kind of information that I would like to see us have an actual process we need an evidence-based system and also this has been a political football from my research at least deep as far back as the 80s and as good as this people who are currently sitting on this council or take back Santa Cruz people a lot of this information in terms of what's being provided is coming out of that very very political anti-homeless stance. We need to take it out of there for the fact that these are people who are going through a lot of trauma these are people who are then further traumatized by the fact of being homeless I could talk and write reams and reams on this about how people are treated in churches in the United States. I want to see an independent body like that that hires sociology majors do evidence-based research and maybe that's where a substantial part of the 10.6 million can come from thank you. Thank you next speaker please. Hello my name is Andy Paradise I'm a Santa Cruz City resident and I'm actually here for a different reason I'm here to thank you all and especially Cynthia Chase for the resolution. You know what that's we've already had that can you put it on pause. This is item specific but I appreciate that and I we're here for the item number 28 it's a homelessness update then we're going to have a public oral communications after that but you can't speak to an item that wasn't on the agenda so if you can generalize your thanks and praise that would are you going to have a public thing where I would be at 5.30 sometime after that we'll do it. Okay go ahead. I'm like concerned about the millions of dollars that are being contributed to the city and for these programs and I hope that it doesn't go primarily to administration or to other kinds of things like that then we get that you know we often hear like millions of dollars going to homeless services and stuff and then you home with them because they don't see where it's happening and I point out like the river street camp was approximately $1500 per person per month that was living there and that could have actually paid for rent for an apartment for each person so we might want to see how this is figuring out. Also heroes camp is amazing and I think that it would be great to honor the heroes at the moment by calling a day sometime soon in honor of the people that helped rescue victims of the car crash and so on and give them the kind of respect that does do them. Next speaker please. Are you here to speak to item number 28 the homelessness update? Indeed sir. And I'll just keep it brief and go back to predictions. I predict that there will be a fund of probably you'll come out to like $433,000 on Kickstarter and the other GoFundMe maybe and also I expect there to be some better community relations with IBM. Thank you. Okay Mr. Norr she have two minutes as part of Huff. Nice to have highly paid staff members talking to death proposals to get more money without any kind of homeless input. But I guess that's standard for this council. Survival camps throughout the city are where 1,000 to 2,000 homeless people live. About a 70 to 80 tents when I was out there a couple days ago 100 to 200 people are out at the Ross camp or heroes camp as it was called. These camps are the real winter shelter that people have in spite of all this yabber yabber yabber about plans that never go anywhere how you can listen to Tina Scholl and Susie O'Hara after they betrayed the campers at the river street camp ground which you spent so much money and time in I just I don't understand why should we believe what they have to say what difference does it make if they're going to change their minds the next month and dump these people out on the ground on the street or into vehicles where there's no place to park because you've also dumped because of bigotry and your fear of the neighborhoods the car park proposal at the edge of town. Sharps containers need to be in these camp grounds perhaps Tony or Andy can get their butts together and head them out that way obviously two porta potties for more than 100 people are just not enough they weren't there was a greater number at the San Lorenzo campground last year open bathrooms are still needed throughout the city we don't have them we continue to see a stall from the parks direct department on the Loudon Nelson problems there and I continue to hear complaints about elders who don't get access to those unless they come in during the very small limited time during the noon meal there's a cutback in real services from last year was pointed out to you in the one minute interval you gave this guy but there's an increase in funding what the hell is going on thank you so I'm going to bring it back to the council for deliberation and action now is there anyone who'd like to perhaps look at those recommendations go ahead there was a package of five recommendations is that correct yeah and my questions were answered about which city facilities I should just mention staff has offered to meet with each of us individually to go into more detail and get our personal observations interest concerns I appreciate as part of moving forward on this and I'll have some thoughts of my own to convey so given all that and that we do want this to move forward I'll go ahead and move the package of five recommendations here motion by council member Matthews seconded by council member I have a quick question and I know that we're in the interest of time trying to keep things moving but thank you for your work and the presentation I know this is not the last time we're going to be having this discussion so I will go into some of the other questions I have I just want to sort of share an observation just because I've worked in that area that it is located in a highly busy intersection and there is concern of public safety not just in terms of those that are residing in the camp but crossing the street and potential for that kind of impact so without kind of going into any more detail knowing that we don't have the time for that I just sort of want to highlight that seeing people across the street there it's concerning to see for their safety Council Member Brown I do want to support the motion and just have a quick question though about the process so where you sent apparently a message that I never received so I'm looking forward to connecting with you individually would that be the appropriate time to give you feedback about perspectives on governance structure around and Council elected representation within the HAP or is that something that we should do else wise I just want to make sure that that doesn't get lost the purpose of the briefings were around the cash and the heap and talking about the needs in the RFP so I can get feedback for that development I would also love to hear observations on governance because that's something that needs to be tackled just on that topic it occurred to me as that conversation was going on is this another JPA in the making I mean it almost sounds like it that's something that had been talked about it is a formal JPA formed there are models that work that way I know Martin Bernal he brought up a few early in the year the model down in San Diego that was used I thought was one that this isn't the time to pursue it but I think as soon as you feel that's right to bring back some ideas for discussion that sure the in terms of the direction potentially on that encampment out there I mean I don't know where the council is but I would like to understand who the people are and like we did last year understanding you know what are the what are the needs or how we can kind of get at least some sort of independent review of this so we kind of know where they are we did that last year from the bench lands and I'd like to do the same again I know that we had this discussion at the public safety meeting and it seemed like either the police or independent group could do that so would that be something you'd be willing to put in the motion I think that's additional direction these are more actions but I'm happy to add that we request that depending on resources available but a legitimate effort be made to get a better handle on who are the campers at that site and is that okay well that was council member chase seconded that I mean that makes sense since the county is already out there and their health and human services are meeting with them it feels like that is the appropriate request to make to that very much so I mean I'll just echo the interest in that because I think that helps also to understand their ability to understand the various sub populations of need and to tailor those services appropriately so it's helpful to have that and then just one other thing and that is there was further direction about the you know what to do about this area out there and I think that is it possible to at least issue some sort of request for information are there facilities that are out there so that you know obviously staff can't do it but putting out some sort of RFI to see well what kind of facilities are out there let's put an RFI out to kind of get something in place so that these people aren't in the space out in the open and are in some sheltered space now councilmember brown I just have one more thought but if you want to respond to this I think that's a good question I think that's a good question I think that's a good question I think that's a good question I just have one more thought but if you want to respond to that now I'll wait for a second I have some questions so you'd want the city to issue a request for information the HAPT issue request for information to find out where there's available real estate that can potentially serve as an emergency shelter or review even existing county facilities that might be underutilized right now that you know could provide us an immediate opportunity the city council has this request of the HAPT that would be most appreciated I think I'm under the impression that that's consistent with what you're doing for the warming center looking for incidental spots or I don't know it sounds like they haven't came up with any you just like to ask them directly I would say in martin was I had an aside with him that's what we envision for the heat process is that if you saw the categories again here very strong emphasis on emergency services as well as capital improvements and we're trying to ascertain if capital improvements can pay for leasing costs that's one of those many many details we're trying to refine with the state but that's exactly what we would want to do what can we get online to focus on emergency shelter that has been I mentioned also all these processes like the singular commonality has been the sense of we need more emergency shelter across the county south county mid county everywhere that is exactly a major priority we'd go for so I think that fits in with that process which is going to launch in mid-January so I couldn't do it any faster so your expectation is that there would be locations outside of the city limits that are in the unincorporated county that would be presented to you for review we would issue a request for proposal and this hasn't been ascertained it's not my decision but we would issue a request for proposal for additional emergency shelter services across the county now that depends on submittals coming back to us to have operators and sites to do it alternately one of the jurisdictions could decide we want to operate said shelter and they could respond and say we would like that money to come in and we will operate it so that is an option available to Santa Cruz Watsonville in the county that doesn't guarantee but then you have to identify the site we've done when we spent all year looking for phase two in a room shelter we looked all across the county all in Santa Cruz we had a very difficult time so we are working with property real estate folks across the county our economic development looking at our warehouse I mean there just really isn't there isn't some space we haven't thought of yet that's going to manifest I don't anticipate because we have we have looked with that said we will put this out with the real funding offer behind it we'll see what we find and even could be even existing facility that's probably owned a government county facility that might be underutilized would that be something that absolutely we'd be open to even I mean we need to flat parking lot frankly we can put up a sprung tent structure which we've had many conversations about that that's what we need we could be very creative I'm prepared to support the motion that's on the floor so council member Brown still prepared to support that motion but I do have one other question that I wanted to ask for the work that they're doing with you know only nominally supported by the city and county and I know Tina you mentioned that we may be looking at providing them some support for the services they're providing some additional so I'm just wondering is that something that will happen through he been cash or is that something you're going to be coming to ask us about in the future or is that something you want action on tonight in terms of the funding in terms of get I understand the county is maybe going to provide some resources and they have asked that the city provide some kind of as well and you know I want to make sure that happens so just wondering how that's going to come to us or it will just what's built into every component of this motion is coming back in January with here's how we think it'll work and that would be the operations and also here's how much it will cost because if you look on this chart that we got a lot of two BDS on some of those expanded costs and how's that being paid for exactly $100,000 we're asking for under recommendation five we envision would help be our contribution to these programs okay so that's that's right there in the number four that is what you were talking about earlier yeah number four yes that's the primary thing yes Councilmember Crohn's thanks sir thank you you know I'm worried about the camp there the rest street somebody mentioned a hundred people is that does that sound accurate because I was wondering what a preliminary count was I mean how many campers we had I think our number was more around 60 when it was originally proposed we thought we'd have more double occupancy per tent and what we found is when people moved I'm talking about camp Ross or the heroes camp okay I wasn't sure with I don't know what the latest estimate is apologize sorry I don't think anybody has a good you know reliable number the last time I was out there about a week ago I counted 60 tents now are they double occupied single occupied we don't we don't know for sure when we gathered everybody around us the crowd was about 60 65 people when we counted thank you it sounds like mr. Spadafore has under some really good information he's been looking into it too so I mean that I don't know if that's where he's got that but he sounds spot on from information I've gotten just anecdotally between now and January what what well let me back up Tony Elliott do we have do you hear that we need more services there I mean we did have I think four or six porta potties at the Benchlands and if there's only two that and it sounds like there's even more people possibly yeah we've got two to four more portal lets if I recall coming out by the end of this week so they're they're in process we recognize that and what's the plan if it just starts to rain or is that on the horizon are you looking farther out and that's a good question I think that's something we'd have to explore with our team internally to evaluate what does that look like what's the impact and what resources together here for another you know three weeks right I mean it's not going to come back here until just worried so we've been monitoring and this was councilmember browns question to what's the plan that we didn't actually get to and right now we've been in this this period of monitoring doing some light support of it and so we were wondering do you want the city to be to intervene more do you want the city to get involved similarly to what we did with the some runs of park bench lens where we actually went in cleared people out as those reference cleaned up set up camp sites to that sort of thing this is tricky because it's not our property you know it's Caltrans or we could go in and we could go through an eviction process and start closing it down and moving folks out with the result you can anticipate is that folks will just be dispersed across the city in different parts so so it's tricky it's tricky and so we wanted to get a sense of the council it's been it's been growing and we've as I said been lightly managing the impacts of it not the individuals but what we heard tonight was that you'd like to understand better the populations so we'll go back and we'll talk with the county and ask really what are you doing day by day can you go in and start working with these folks on an individual basis to understand them their stories their pathways with services they need to get a better handle on that and I think that we'll continue to manage it in that way watching the hygiene needs adding a little bit of capacity here and there until we can come back and have a fuller discussion with you in January that's what I think the course will be and thanks to parks and rec for as you heard the five hours a day of staff work to do that as well as our police officers who are out there daily as well as interacting and knowing it's a difficult situation we're also hoping that if we can get excuse me some of the shelter capacity online we can really move these people if we have people that are currently in the winter shelter that are eligible for this expanded program should it happen that freeze up space there and then we can move more people into there so what we're hoping that all these things can converge that we have a better outcome but it's not immediately on our doorstep yeah I just like to ask I mean just because I'm we're about ready to vote on this but has there been any discussion about mutual aid I mean one some of these things that we have out there I mean I know our police officers are kind of if they're spending that amount of time they're unable to attend to other things are we able to bring in other groups to help support some of the kind of needs that we have to manage this space has that been looked at you know not not to date we're just managing within current patrols as the chief mentioned it shows up and so we just have a regular rotating patrol as part of the different beats and I think that is meeting the need now I think if things increase or change we would have to look at every available resource to intervene I'd like to make sure you know when you look at it and see because I know I've heard anecdotally from some people in the field that there is a need there's there's a kind of a burnout factor with all the other issues that are going on in the community and it would be great to have mutual aid because these are again a shared burden that we're all trying to address regionally and I think it would be good to hear from them to see in the county if we can get some more resources not just the social services wants to help support the city's management of this crisis well and also you know I referenced earlier talking about the heat money that I'm doing a road show and talking with different groups of employees I have the chance to meet with the police department tomorrow afternoon so we can talk more about that as well and I can learn more in addition I want to thank Mr. Norris for raising a point about people who lived experience he's right there weren't there were some at the September 21st meeting but to my knowledge there weren't at others so I had already planned on doing two specific groups one with the downtown streets team and one with Rabbi Posner who made this offer to help convene some people who lived experience who are currently homeless to hear their perspectives as well as part of my information gathering on this I don't think I will get that fully accomplished by the next time you meet in January but that is something we're doing to understand that better we have a motion on the floor and a second is there any further discussion on this matter okay seeing none all those in favor please say aye and you oppose that motion passes unanimously again thanks everyone for being here it's been a long kind of meeting 830 now to 545 we're up a little bit later than usual but oral communications how many people are here to speak at oral communications the first person we have up for oral communications is Ellen Primack she's speaking on behalf of friends of Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium and Ellen we went a little late you know generally we have four minutes I'm wondering if you can condense your comments like two okay yeah okay please go four take your time I'll read quickly thank you for this opportunity to speak briefly on behalf of the friends of the Civic Auditorium I am Ellen Primack Santa Cruz City resident executive director of the Cabrillo Festival of Contemporary Music and a friend of the Civic Auditorium Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium is our county's largest cultural gathering place built nearly 80 years ago issues of safety audience comfort accessibility and technical relevance have become ever more urgent in 2012 a civic minded leadership team of community city and nonprofit leaders convened to envision a renovated and modernized civic auditorium that could turn an iconic historic fixture into a vibrant performing arts and cultural center to serve our community in the next generation we want to thank city leaders for their commitment to supporting the civic as a vital community asset during these past eight years the planning stages have included community surveys producer input and architectural concept design engineering and seismic studies situational analysis and a business plan all the essential groundwork for renovation has been laid even with all the challenges of the civic auditorium it serves approximately 85,000 annually and has an unparalleled economic impact on the county and on our downtown center ask any downtown business restaurant owner or their employees waiters sales people sandwich makers yet what we have learned is that it's real potential is enormous and we are leaving so much untapped the civic auditorium is used half as much as comparable facilities in other communities and the longer we wait the more we undermine its usefulness so in 2018 under the auspices of the arts council an affinity group called friends of the civic auditorium was established to share our dream to renovate activate and stimulate and to provide civic minded community members the opportunity to voice their concerns volunteer their efforts and to support this vision of a safe comfortable vibrant civic auditorium to fund the renovation through private funds and a bond measure in 2020 using a t.o.t. increase to help make that possible these efforts will serve our local community make downtown a more welcoming and safer place create jobs support our hospitality industry and help generate added sales and admissions taxes to the city coffers I recognize that the city council has profound challenges ahead and that there are many concurrent needs including the most serious of our social services housing but I believe that it is the city governments imperative to not only work to mitigate the negatives but to initiate the positives to help provide a quality of life here in Santa Cruz that makes it a place worth living in I am reminded of the line bread for all and roses too the civic plays a vital role in the social and cultural life of our community that indeed helps define our community and what makes it worth fighting for so on behalf of the friends of the civic auditorium I would like to present this ribbon of requests for many community members who ask you to move this important project forward we ask you to prioritize the renovation of the civic auditorium and plan for a bond measure in 2020 and I thank you very much you had it almost time perfectly with the number of postcards address to you thank you you know there was a woman who spoke came up earlier and she's in yellow I don't have you to come up because you basically were here I think early for the comment and again how many more people are here to speak for oral communications one two three okay you have 90 seconds go ahead all right well here I am again my name is Andy Paradise I'm a Santa Cruz city resident and I am here to thank you all especially Cynthia Chase for the resolution if that's what it's called I don't know my city council lingo to oppose the federal government and Trump's rollback of transgender non-binary gender and intersex rights put in title nine by the Obama administration I am the parent of a transgender child who lives in this city and I'm very concerned for my child's safety and treatment as our federal government is determined to strip protection and erase this very vulnerable community I speak not only for myself but for the many parents the local support group trans families of Santa Cruz County as well as all of our transgender and non-binary children we are extremely thankful for your sure of support with this resolution thank you next speaker please and congratulations sweet bring that forward hello I'm Nate Alex Kennedy dot at gmail dot com also call our text three four six nine eight eight eight the big thing I want to say here is what we need to have is radio access to these meetings kzsc ksco etc etc etc we need to approach all these different radio stations and see which ones will allow time to broadcast entire meetings we also need broadcast live off the internet or on the internet with the radio with a radio on internet type of live streaming that we could get through the city council website and another suggestion with that is when we put the mp3s up on the site in the end we should lower it to a really low kilobit rate and make it mono to make the file as small as we possibly can let's see aside from all that tandem for the police thank you thank you I came back next speaker please Pat Kittle santa Cruz I'm going to cover something I've covered before because it needs to be covered we're Trump just spent what 700 billion plus dollars on our military for the for the coming year a lot of that just goes to fighting stupid wars in the mid-east for the benefit of nobody, but at least the perceived benefit of Israel. In truth, it doesn't benefit Israel either in the long run, but Israel thinks it does and Israel gets its way. That's why we've basically destroyed Iraq and Iraq did not have anything to do with 9-11. Israel was primarily responsible for 9-11. How ironic. If you simply go to Bolin, B-O-L-L-Y-N, Bolin.com, an investigative reporter right out of Santa UCSC. Excellent investigative reporter and he's got a highly documented evidence. Somebody saw this sign as immediately as I pulled it out as she was leaving and she said, I looked that up. That's pretty impressive. And I think anybody that does look this up, might agree. It's worth a look. You don't have to hear the official version of 9-11 all your life. Bolin.com, thank you. Thank you, next speaker please. My name's Elise Caspi. I wanted to take the opportunity to thank every single one of you. I also want to share a couple of things. Most of you, my politics is different. My ethical system is probably different and I believe that people's ethical and cosmology forms their political views. But I want to say that as much as you probably have not understood this, that I actually consider you some really worthy opponents. I think there's been an amazing tolerance for my behavior a lot of times. I just want to say too, that that is not completely impulsive. For me, and I'm just speaking personally, I look at things and I do my research and I reiterate. A lot of times I feel I'm looking at corruption. I feel I'm looking at what I call snow jobs. I'm not saying I know everything or whether that's true. But what I do want to say is that's part of why I justify my outburst because I'm so frustrated because I feel, for example, that we're going to have no affordable housing after the research I did. I hope I'm wrong. I really hope I'm wrong Cynthia Chase and it was really interesting listening to you. I just really want to say, even Michelle, I went up to you to try to say this earlier, but I respect your opinions. I think you are an excellent politician and a worthy opponent. I hate your politics a lot at the time, but I really deeply appreciate you all and I hope you'll still speak to me in the coffee shop, David. Thank you very, very much. Thank you, Elise. Next speaker. I'm Aaron Singleton, I'm sure y'all. Next coffee's on me. Go ahead, Geron. Aaron Singleton, third generation. I think y'all know why I'm here. What are we going to do about the illegal internet games of torturing and tormenting people, especially myself? They have not quit. I was told I was going to get paid by Bonnie. I have not gotten paid. I still get tormented, torturing, and I don't want to take the city down when I can. I don't want to be a bad guy. And I think you know a few other things have been illegal around here, like Colfax property disappearing and being sold under its feet. I'm not going to get into that. I think we all know what's going on. Thank you. I'll make it right. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Gillian Greensight, I know you can't take any action tonight, but hopefully Adoro Communications put a little thought in the city manager's ear or the Parks and Recreation Director's ear. I'm on the wharf a lot. Usually I'm at my favorite restaurant, but the other day I needed a new beach towel, so as I was walking home, I went into a couple of the stores that sell such things. And it was a very cold day, raining and all of that. And in both of the stores, and I noticed other stores, the doors are wide open and the heaters are blasting. And there was no one in the store except myself and three very bored looking people who were behind the counter selling things. So since you own the wharf and most of the buildings on it, seems to me maybe you couldn't get downtown merchants to do this, but if the shop owners, the restaurants, most of them, or a lot of them have their doors closed, but not the other stores, if they have a very big open sign and a couple of languages, I think people get the idea. And there was a letter to this effect in this morning's Sentinel. I didn't write it, but obviously somebody else noticed the same thing in other places. And lastly, I just say all best wishes to the three of you who are leaving. I know you've never voted to save a tree. However, I do respect the work you've done and the hard work you've put in. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jillian. Okay, I handed out a letter that I wanted to include in the record. And I just was gonna say, as you may recall, Edward Peter McGettigan, also known as Peter McGettigan, passed away on June 14th, 2018 in Santa Cruz. He'd been a resident since 75. And I'd like to please, I ask that the next council, please consider during the next council term the renaming of the room where community television records our city council sessions in honor of Peter. It's something where we have to wait a year before that happens. And I'd like you just to consider that. And I just want this letter in the record to think about it moving forward. Yeah. Thank you for doing that, Mr. Mayor. I really appreciate it. Peter was a close friend. Yeah. I was with him the night before. I'd given him a ride home. He was at the bus stop and so. Okay, so that closes our oral communications period at, you know, what is it now, 557. And we, again, we talked about this, the ADU item. So, what do we do? Just make a motion to move. So is there a motion to put this out to the next week? We defer this item to as early in 2019 as reasonably practical, given that we have a new council coming on. Is that? I believe the planning director has requested that the council set a date certain, so. What would you suggest as a doable date? We have all the materials available. It's really the council's discretion. It does save us a little bit of effort in preparing additional notices. We have a huge mailing list of folks, but if we have a specific date certain, then the publishing would not be required in the paper and the cost associated with that. We're thinking everything that the new council members are going to need to get oriented on and this is going to take some time. My motion was the second meeting in January. Yeah, that's fine. Does that sound doable? Absolutely. Okay, I'll second that. Okay, a motion by council mover Matthew, seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye, aye. So we will recess. I'd say, let's say we'll return back at 715, just to give some time to get back for a meal. Thank you, everyone. Hey, I just want to make sure that everyone is comfortable. We've got another 50 or so people coming, so just make sure there's a room next to you, all right? I'm joking. So we are here for the evening session or 7 p.m. session of the December 4th, excuse me, the December 11th meeting of the city council. I'd now like to ask the clerk to please call the roll when she gets back. Thank you, Mayor. Council members, Crone. Very happy to be present. Matthew, here, and here. Vice Mayor Watkins, here, and Mayor Trump. And here. I'll have to say that we've been here since 8.30 a.m. and we're just about ready to go out. So we're feeling a little punchy right now and we're ready to finish. Thank you, Chris, Crone. Hi, I'll stop. David, you had us here, you set the agenda. Earlier this afternoon, the council confirmed and approved the November 6th, 2018 general election results as submitted by the Santa Cruz County Clerk's Office. We begin this item this evening with item number one. And item number one is the remarks by outgoing council members, Cynthia Chase, Rachelle Naroyan, and myself. So I will begin with you, Cynthia. Well, I will make my comments brief. Mostly what I want to say is that tonight I am just filled with gratitude. It's been an incredible four years of an amazing opportunity to serve this community. I've been honored and blessed to do that. This is an incredibly engaged community and we are like no other. And I got many, many opportunities to meet and talk with and listen to a lot of folks who are in this room, a lot of folks who are out in the community and I'm better for it. I hope our community is better for it. I'm really just pleased that I had the opportunity to interact with so many people and I hope that I brought your voices to the council in as many votes as I could. I'm also really grateful that I had the opportunity to serve with past and current council members. I learned a lot from them. This is not an easy job that we have. It's not like any other people said, is it what you expected? And over and over I said, I didn't know what to expect and I would give that advice to everybody else because there's kind of no way to expect exactly what this position is like. But I am appreciative of everything that we worked on together. I am also really grateful for the dedication and the commitment determination of this staff who works really hard every day to do things that are pretty much just keep in the city running and so many people I think don't realize all the things that need to happen just to have clean water and their garbage picked up and paved streets and sidewalks and parks to play in and fire responding when there's emergencies and so I just want to express my sincere gratitude to the staff who show up every day and do really hard work sometimes because we've given them really complicated direction and asked them to do a lot of things and jump through a lot of hoops to make the community even better than it already is. So I just want to say again that I'm grateful for this opportunity. It was a pleasure to serve and because I have now three times forgotten to thank my husband. I will not forget to thank my husband who has not seen me pretty much for four years. So it will be great getting to know him. And thank you all for being here tonight, for being the engaged community that we have and thank you for the opportunity to serve. Council Member Naroyan. So I would just like first of all to thank everyone for the opportunity to serve. This is an incredibly unique experience at least within my life up to this point and I just want to thank all of you who supported me with your kind words and encouragement during the last four years. None of us who run and or serve in office do this alone. And as the Hillary Clinton book title says, it takes a village and I really learned that running for office and being in office. I could not be more proud and absolutely grateful to my village. I know all politicians and this is going off of what Council Member Chase just did. Like to thank their spouses and I also too forgot to thank mine at a kickoff party four years ago. So we're in the same boat in that area. Well, I'm going to go ahead and do it even though I know that he doesn't necessarily like getting shout outs and attention but I do have to thank my husband, Jim Jensen who not only was in charge of the lawn and big sign distributions for both campaigns but he's been my sounding board, my rock and my best friend through all of this. He's been my best advisor and I couldn't thank him enough. Just like I said, people say this but it really does impose on the spouses and on the partners when you're in office because they see a lot less of you. We depend on them a lot more to do the daily tasks that are needed to keep our households running and our lives going. And so I don't know how I'm going to show gratitude for him, but thank you very much, honey. He deserves an applause. Right, he deserves it. Other parts of my village, I have to give a shout out to Gus Sabios who as my campaign manager and who's been a really good friend and like me, he grew up in Santa Cruz and we actually met at Mission Hill Junior High because we both played clarinet in the band and then the clarinet and the marching band at Santa Cruz High. And I thank his wife, Rachel Thompson Sabios who I've even known longer since second grade and she let me borrow Gus even when she was starting her new food truck business Union Foodie, check them out. So, you know, a really busy time in her life instead of Gus helping her, he was helping me. So I really appreciate that. Holly Locatelli has kept us from getting nasty grams from the Fair Political Practices Committee for two campaigns. So she's been the campaign treasurer. She serves her city also in the Parks and Recs Commission and raises money for FOPAR, an organization that gives scholarships to kids whose families can't afford classes through the Parks and Rec Department. A big thanks to the rest of my campaign committee, Robert DeFredes, Robert Orizzi, Sharon DeJeong and James Goldwin. They were all amazing and were just really supportive. And I still am distraught by the hours of people who will put in volunteer wise to support people that they really believe in or causes they believe in. It always just really blows me away. So to the new council, I just wanna say when it comes to housing, it's really important today we passed a project that I wouldn't say was perfect, but it's really important to not let perfection get in the way of progress. We need both market rate and affordable rentals. And there are a lot of people who make a little more above being able to qualify for subsidized rental units. So we need to think of them too. And I just wanna say, let's not make Monterey and San Benito have to bear the brunt of us not developing enough housing in our community. Infill, urban infill downtown is a lot better than them covering up ag land and wildlife areas. So I just really is a parting shot. I really hope you do look at housing and look at both affordable and market rate. I just wanna say each issue has its nuances and I've learned I don't know everything. That's one thing this job will teach you is that you don't know a lot. And listening to people from different walks of life is really important. I listened to a lot of people who I didn't think I would ever see or would request a meeting with me, but I did and I'm really glad that I did because they brought in a perspective I could never have because so many of us, some of us are landlords, some are renters, some are both, some people have worked in the high tech industry, others haven't. So it's just really important to get those perspectives and it's really important what really distressed me during the campaign around Measure M and I'm not accusing one side or everybody of doing this but I heard a lot of assuming. I heard a lot of people making assumptions about folks and not sticking to the issue and not, you know, instead going for kind of those personal attacks and I think it's really important that we don't assume. You know, somebody who owns a house is not necessarily home free. It's very hard to own a home in Santa Cruz as I can tell you my family's story sometime if you're interested in it. There are times when renting, you know, obviously isn't a breeze either in this market. So I think it's gonna be really important to talk to each other and try not to emulate the people who are in Washington right now. You know, we all need to live with each other and we all live in the same community and see each other. So let's try not to go Trump on one another. So, and in regards to the county relationship, you know, I just wanna tell the new council, if I had a magic wand and had all the resources I would love, love to have been able to do more in regards to solving our homeless problem. It's a true humanitarian crisis but honestly we don't have the resources to address it on our own. And so really reach out to those other agencies. I think the state needs a bit more nudging to understand its role as well as the federal government. But if you know, to do more than mitigate it, we're gonna have to bring in these other folks to work with us on this. And I really, really stress and it was something that we just started doing to join with other cities and become a loud voice both in Washington and in Sacramento for the services that we need or else what's gonna happen is if we don't have a World War II level effort to address this issue, we're just gonna be mitigating it. And I hope that we can get to a point of doing more than mitigating it. And just remember that, you know, the county is the level responsible for health and human services. So don't be afraid to lean on them a bit to take a little bit more of a leadership role in this. Look at Modesto, Stanislaus County is doing a lot of, they're taking the lead. In fact, a former city council member here, Tony Madrigal posted on his page, Facebook page about all of the work Stanislaus County is doing to address their homeless problem. And so I really recommend giving that a read and maybe seeing if we can use that as a model. You know, and while I believe more must be done immediately, we really do need to lead or to take the lead in compelling other agencies to just take this up like the city has. And to the public, I just want to say, please fact check what you read on Nextdoor. You know, I was really astonished by how much time I took answering phone calls and emails, having to explain information on Nextdoor was incorrect. And it was awful because you would see these discussions that there would be 50 comments and it was all based on something that completely wasn't true. And there was just this consternation and upset people and folks, you know, talking on and on about it. And then I would sometimes swoop in at that point and say, well, actually this isn't true. And then the conversation ended. So really, really fact check and not base assumptions on what you read there because I found that there were a few individuals too who would use Nextdoor and purposely put incorrect information out to create the drama and to create people to oppose a project. It's okay to oppose a project, but let's do it on facts. So I just, you know, to make it a little easier on the next council, that would be a great service to them to do. So maybe they don't have to spend so much time answering emails saying, nope, that's not true. So, but, you know, as I go off council, I know this things will go on. I hope the city continues to progress towards our goals of housing more of our individuals, having more housing choices. And I'm really looking forward to seeing the new council at work and, you know, know that those of us going off are available. Chris, I'm volunteering you guys right now are available for information and good luck. It's gonna be an interesting adventure. Thank you. Now it's my turn. I just wanna say again, good evening to everyone. I'd like to really express a warm welcome because this is our final meeting for this group of people right here to the 2017 and 2018 term. It also happens to be the first meeting of our incoming newly constituted city council. And I'd like to really express my appreciation for those who ran the Civic Gauntlet and made it here today. And again, welcome to everyone, our neighbors, fellow Santa Cruzans for being here tonight to witness and celebrate the next chapter of our more than 150 years of civic self-government. For the past year, I have been honored to serve as the 95th mayor of the city of Santa Cruz, a whirlwind experience that has been both demanding and very rewarding. When your kids are young, they say the days are long but the years are short. Here in our council chambers, as many of you can testify, the nights can be extraordinarily long. But at the same time, my eight years of service on this council have simply flown by. I'd like to begin tonight by thanking family, friends, and community members who have supported me over the past eight years. And most importantly, I'd like to thank my wife, Monica, who's still with me. And in the audience, I think. And my children, Isabella, who happened to be six years old when I first got off this eight years ago. Amalia, who was eight, no, three, excuse me, three. And then Nathaniel, who had just been born. They've all been so patient and kind to allow me to be here and to serve our city during this period and I just really wanna tell them how much I appreciate that and thank them. Their love and support that they give me every day of the year has not only been really fulfilling but I hope they sometime will consider that public service is really an important part of their future as well. And for me, I'm deeply humbled to have been entrusted by the people of Santa Cruz to serve our city. Holding elected office here is a life-altering privilege. I truly love this city and feel very lucky every day to call Santa Cruz my home. Like every single person in this room, my dream for our city, I believe, is to move forward in solving our problems while protecting what's precious about our past and our present. Santa Cruz works best when our residents work together, embracing local solutions and rejecting the bitter factualism that is damaging our national discourse, identity, and in my opinion, our political institutions. I encourage everyone here to set aside divisive political ideologies and set our sights on solutions. We cannot solve issues like homelessness, mental health, public safety, and housing without regional cooperation. And regional cooperation requires our city to speak with a strong and united voice and to engage others with unified action. Let's seek that united voice as we push forward into the future. Let's talk to our neighbors and not just our friends. Our city and all those who have called this place their home are counting on us. Again, I want to thank you all for your support in the honor of serving the city of Santa Cruz. Good night. At this point is when we make the full handoff. I'm going to do it right now. This stage and allow some new participants to take on over. It's a pleasure to introduce the next item, council members. The council member elects Justin Cummings, Donna Myers, and Drew Glover. Congratulations. At this time our city clerk, Bonnie Bush, is going to swear you in. Justin Cummings. Do solemnly affirm. Do solemnly affirm. That I will support and defend. That I will support and defend. The Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of California. And the Constitution of the State of California. Against. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance. That I will bear true faith and allegiance. To the Constitution of the United States. To the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of California. And the Constitution of the State of California. That I take this obligation freely. That I take this obligation freely. Without any mental reservation. Without any mental reservation. For purpose of evasion. For purpose of evasion. And that I will fully discharge. And I will, while unfaithfully discharge. The duties upon which I'm about to enter. The duty's upon which I am about to enter. Whoaa! It depends upon which way you're looking. I, Donna Myers, do solemnly swear that I will support, and defend, the Constitution of the United States. That I will support, and defend, the Constitution of the United States. and the Constitution of the State of California and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign, and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, And I will bear truth, faith, and justice, and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of California. And the Constitution of the State of California. That I will take this obligation freely. That I will take this obligation freely. Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Without any mental purpose, sorry. Without any mental reservation. Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And that I will and faithfully discharge. That I will, well and faithfully discharge. The duties upon which I'm about to enter. The duties upon which I am about to enter. I drew Glover. Do solemnly affirm. Do solemnly affirm. That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But I will defend and support the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of California. And the Constitution of the State of California. against all enemies, foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California that I will take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter. Now's the time for the newly seated council members to make their incoming remarks and I'll start with you, Justin. Great, well I would first like to start by thanking my mother who was able to make it here from Chicago tonight. So open and willing to allow me to travel all over without reservation, I wouldn't have found the place that I now call home. I'd also like to thank my other family members but I'd especially like to thank my campaign manager, Fazz who will help get me to this point and then my treasure, Ross Albert. I'd also like to thank the outgoing city council and the current city council members. This is not an easy job to take on and it definitely is a service that few have the honor and privilege to provide to their community but the people who get to these positions are doing it because they really care about the community that they live in and that they serve. In addition to that, I'd like to thank all the people who supported my campaign which many of you are in the audience and those people who are at home. And I'd also like to acknowledge and thank the people who ran. There were 10 of us this year who ran for city council and out of the tens of thousands of people we were the 10 who stood up and really wanted to make a difference by representing our community and it takes a lot of courage. So I want to acknowledge all the people who actually stood up and have run this year and in previous years. And finally, I'd like to thank all the voters who got us to this point during this campaign season. We are here to represent you. We are your voice here and we want you to come to us at all times so we can make sure that we represent you appropriately. It is an honor and a privilege to serve on the Santa Cruz city council and I'm excited to be here to represent the people in the place that I call home. I'm really looking forward to and I'm committed to working collaboratively with integrity and professionalism with the staff, with the other council members here and the other people who represent elected officials within our county and throughout our state. I really want to work to preserve the values of this place that we call home. I really want to be an ear to everyone within our community and protect all the people who reside within it. At any point, if anyone wants to come to me, we may disagree on things but I want to know that I want to hear your perspective so I know how to represent you appropriately and want to work with the rest of the members here so that we make the best decisions to make this a place that we can all live in. Thank you. That's good reminders. Okay. Well, first of all, I just want to thank everyone for coming out tonight and express my deepest gratitude to my wife, Birdie, of 33 years. We have a little history tonight in terms of who we represent on our city council right now. So I'm very proud to be part of the LGBT community and this is truly a historic night tonight for our community. So by recognizing that, I want to thank my dear friend, Marta Beckwith, who is my treasurer. We met the first day of college at UCSC and we've been friends ever since. So Marta, thanks for everything. She's a busy mom and she really rocked being my treasurer. So thank you. And I want to thank Allison Harley, who's somewhere in the back. Allison was my campaign manager and neither of us really knew what we were doing but apparently we did a pretty good job because we made it and we also had a really great time doing it. So Allison, you will always be an important part of my life. So thanks for sending me that email and having the coffee with me at Abbott Square because we ended up doing a good thing. So thanks for your help. And just briefly, my brother and my sister, a lot of longtime friends here tonight. So thank you all for coming out and thank you for helping with my campaign, signs, walking, dinners, all of it. So the little red pot from David and Leslie, my neighbors that would arrive with soup every week. So thank you everybody and I am so excited to begin. I feel like I've been waiting for literally 30 days to start this up and I'm just really excited. I feel very privileged to serve everyone here in Santa Cruz. I've been here a long time. I've seen Santa Cruz do some extraordinary things and we've designated one of the largest marine protected areas in the world. We recovered from a devastating earthquake. We've had a lot of firsts in this town and this body has always truly been guided by fairness and really trying to do the best for all the people here in this community. And I really truly hope and I know I will be a council member who reaches across this place, this dais daily. I will reach across in my communications with my fellow council members. I will be available to anyone in the community that wants to talk to me about anything that's of importance to you or of concern to you. And we will only solve these problems by working together and we are not alone as a city right now facing the issues that we face. This is not only a California issue, it's a national issue and we all need to lean in and put our arms around each other and not keep at arm's length because we will not get there at arm's length. We have to link our arms and when we misbehave I'll bring out the gunny sack and we'll get in that and we'll hop around on city hall till we figure it out. So we've got to keep our humor, we've got to keep our compassion, we've got to keep our manners and we need to treat each other the way we would in the grocery store and I ask that everyone in our community think about that when you step through these doors is that this truly is a place of privilege. It's a recognition of our democracy and how we can be as people and please, please treat everybody well. That will be the most important thing we can do in the next four years together. So please, we will always be here to listen to you but we will listen a lot better if we can actually hear you through a quiet voice. So thanks for the privilege and I really look forward to serving with these extraordinary people and learning from the people who have been up here before. So thank you. We must all learn to live together as brothers and sisters or we will all perish together as fools. We are tied together in a single garment of destiny caught in an inescapable network of mutuality and whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. That's a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I chose to open with it because it's a quote rooted in empathy. It's a foundation is in the understanding that what affects one of us affects all of us and I believe that we as elected officials must understand this and must exemplify this concept as an example for leadership. Good evening, everyone. Yes, good evening. How exciting. I'm honored to be here with you today to accept the decision of the Santa Cruz community to allow me to serve you all as a member of the Santa Cruz City Council. I wanna thank those who helped me to ensure diverse representation on this body and allow for new perspectives to help guide us and the new the direction of the city. As one of the first two African American male city council members in our city's history, I wanna say thank you. Also, also would like to say thank you to all of the outgoing city council members for their work. We may not have seen eye to eye on policy a lot of the time but it takes a lot of energy and dedication to even go into this position. So I want to express my appreciation for the work that you've done. Also thank you to all of the campaign team but most importantly, thank you to my mom. She was the one that got me here and is the reason why I am who I am today. So now it's a time for a change of direction. It's time for a change of values. I believe that the results of the election communicate a shared desire across the community to see us move to embrace the values of equity, justice, empathy, and compassion, values of fiscal responsibility, community empowerment, and diversity and a belief that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, none should be too poor to live. The No Place Like Home project reported that Santa Cruz is the fourth least affordable place in the world with over 24% of our population living under the poverty line. We have one of the highest rates of poverty in the state. Our median rent jumped from $1,899 in 2013 to $2,834 in 2017. That's a 49% increase over the last four to five years with stagnant wages and limited job opportunities. We have an unacceptably high population of people experiencing homelessness and houselessness because any amount of people is too many. People having to fend for themselves in this bitter cold tonight without adequate shelter or food, many of them women and unaccompanied minors who are at risk of violence, abuse, and trafficking. We're faced with the reality of climate change, sea level rise, and the impacts that will have, the impacts that that will have on our most vulnerable communities. Our transportation system is broken with too many cars on the road and an ineffective public transit option. So our roads are congested and dangerous. The youth in our community lack adequate outlets for their creativity, development, and have limited places to turn for support. Our natural resources like water are being depleted. We have a severe lack of representation of people of color in leadership positions and so many other critical issues need to be addressed. Well, we cannot remedy all these problems at the local level. It's my responsibility, our responsibility as elected officials to do everything we can to ensure equity and justice for all. We are capable of ensuring that we have basic frameworks where people can have shelter of some kind and move them into services. We are capable of offering our youth, all of our youth, support to gain access to college and trade schools. We're capable of pursuing a bold agenda on climate change to protect our future and we are capable of having a moral and ethical economy. Each and every day, we all must dedicate ourselves to these causes. So, I'm looking forward to working with my peers on the council and city staff to actively get where we need to be and doing so in a way that builds community and strengthens relationships. After this election and the conversation around measure M, a gazillion type, our community is broken, torn, and facing the reality of a great divide between certain groups. Now is our opportunity to rebuild, to come to the table with open minds and open hearts ready to have difficult conversations about the direction we will take our city. We must be ready to face hard truths and make ourselves uncomfortable and ask ourselves if business as usual, tradition, and our current path is in fact the right choice. We must analyze past decisions and ask ourselves not only if they make economic sense, but even more importantly, if they make moral sense. And in doing so, we can craft a framework to build a future that Santa Cruz not only needs, but what it deserves. These may seem like idealistic goals, but that's what they said about my choice to run a campaign on $13,000 and reuse yard signs. In the words of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I'm optimistic in my goals, but pragmatic on how we can get there. I believe we can get there together. And quickly, a word to my opponents, those who opposed my election and have called me an extremist. At first it bothered me to think that someone would, or people out there would cast a negative perception on my values that I hold really dear, or who would question my character for trying to achieve them being represented in local government. But then I remembered. I remembered the words of Dr. Martin Luther King in his letter from a Birmingham jail as a response to the Alabama clergyman who had called him and the non-violence civil rights movement extremists. In his response from a cold narrow jail cell, he wrote, quote, I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized. But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you. Was not Amos an extremist for justice? Let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream. Was not John Bunyan an extremist? I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience. Was Abraham Lincoln not an extremist? This nation cannot survive half slave and half free. Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? We hold these truths to be self-evident that all people are created equal. So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremist will we be? Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? And so I ask those in our shared community, what kind of extremist will you be and what side of history will you be on? I look forward to serving you and thank you again to the community. We'll move on to the next item, which is the election and swearing in of the new mayor and vice mayor for 2019. And I'll hand it over to you, Bonnie, our city clerk. So we will can start with the vice mayor for nomination for vice mayor. I nominate council member Cynthia Matthews for vice mayor. You need a second for that? A second, you don't need a second. All right, and shall we take the vote for that then? Other nominations. Other nominations, excuse me. Are there any other nominations? Yeah. Okay. Council Member Cron. Hey everybody, how you doing? This past election is evidence that many in Santa Cruz want to go in a different way in a new direction. Perhaps that might even be the road less traveled. Because right now we know almost every bump, rut, ditch and broken pavement on the road we've been on. We have a chance to embark on a new path beginning tonight. Many new woke people came out and participated in this past election. Santa Cruz County saw the number of registered voters soar past anything they've seen before. This may very well be the largest number of voters that ever voted in a midterm election in Santa Cruz history. Sure, there's many reasons why the turnout was so high, but I am convinced that one of them is the fact that people want change. People are awful tired of the madness they see coming out of Washington, D.C. And many of those same people, newly registered voters and registered voters wanted to do something and see something. They see where their country is headed and where their community is going and they want to change Santa Cruz. My sense is that most people in this room want to see local government doing something different. New ideas for bringing affordable housing. More imaginative approaches to providing services and opportunity for the community's growing homeless population. Many want to just feel like their government is theirs and it is here to serve the interests of not only those who already have, but the majority struggling to come up with another $100 rent increase or keep up with the escalating tuition costs or maybe just searching for a safe place to park their car so they can sleep. Maybe government can do better for them. This past year, many of us unchanneled where many of us were anxious and fretful and used our chaotic energy and focused it on real community change. Years from now, when our children and grandchildren look back on the second decade of Santa Cruz history of the 2000s, they may sense that positive changes were indeed taking root. This past year began with young people and old people, renters and homeowners, students and community activists pounding the pavement and gathering over 10,000 signatures to place a rent control initiative on the November ballot. Out of the initiative, a grassroots movement began and it grew right up to election day. Out of it came two African American candidates for city council and guess what? Santa Cruz elected Drew Glover and Justin Cummings to sit on the Santa Cruz city council. While no one can predict the future, I am confident that history will reflect some big changes in the next few years. In the years after two African American men were elected to the Santa Cruz city council for the first time. I believe this past election, if it means anything it meant that people want to go in a different direction. That is why I am proud, I am awed and a bit overcome with emotion because I will get to nominate Justin Cummings to be our next vice mayor for the city of Santa Cruz. You already likely know of his PhD in ecology. His teaching science, his job teaching science research skills to college students up at UCSC and his love of punk rock. But you might not know he's also a hell of a campaigner and he's going to make a great vice mayor. As Ayanna Presley, the newly minted congress member from Boston said something in her victory speech recently that made me stop and think. She said, change can't wait and it can't wait in Santa Cruz either. The election of both Martin Watkins and Justin Cummings will portray a community that is looking forward to solve their problems, not backward. So I asked my colleagues up here on the dais to join me in voting for Justin Cummings for vice mayor of the city of Santa Cruz. I didn't realize I could speak to my nomination for council member Matthews, can I? Well, maybe I'll just, I'll turn to council member Matthews because I saw her first, if you had a few words, and then. That's fine, I appreciate Donna's interest to say a bit more. This has been a really tough election season. I think there's not a person in the room who doesn't know that. A lot of dedicated candidates but also a lot of, the toxicity level has been there, let's be honest. And that's not a way that I wanna spend my last two years on the Santa Cruz City Council. Many people have talked about the really intractable, much bigger picture problems that face our community but I also think we have so much potential for good here and we have so much potential for creativity and we have so many people, thousands more than are represented in this room who are invested and generous in so many ways with their community and that is our strength. And I do appreciate Donna's nominating me under kind of the old format. I'd be next in line but I also don't want to perpetuate what I think is a really divisive perception that things happen on a four, three vote or a clear dividing line because I think that's not true. So I would be, I thank you for your nomination but I'm going to withdraw my name and I am happy to support Justin. I have gotten to know Justin a bit in the course of the election, really impressed with what I perceive in our little brief acquaintance. Your admirable motivation for wanting to run for public office, your intelligence, your spirit of wanting to reach out, be inclusive, be fair and I hope to work constructively with all the council members. I hope we can put to bed as much of the divisiveness that has typified a lot of the recent few months and we'll take a break over the holidays and I honestly do look forward to working with the entire council and our magnificent staff. They work so hard and the community that I think of each in their own way wants to do something to make Santa Cruz a great community. So thank you. Well I would just like to recognize council member Matthews. Cynthia Matthews has been working to protect women's health for generations. She established our health center here for women and families as part of the group of people who did that. She's worked tirelessly for Planned Parenthood. I don't know of anybody in this town who has worked harder to make this community a better place. She was front and center after the earthquake, helped stitch this place back together and I think it's important to recognize people who serve the community for generations and that's what Cynthia has done and she's done it well and she's done the best that she can for our community and I nominate her tonight because I think it's important when someone's ending such a long run on city council and has contributed so much to our community that the fact that she did earn under tradition to finish her last year as the mayor of Santa Cruz I would have liked to see that and that's why I did nominate you and I think it's very telling about who you are that you recognize that we do need to come together now that we have a new council and so thank you for your words but most importantly, thank you for your service and I look forward to working with you for the next couple of years. I'll just add, I too want to thank you for your service to this community and- It's not over yet. I look forward to working with you for the next couple of years and for your humble and humility this evening as well. So is there any other nominations for my vice mayor at this time? Seeing none, we will vote on that or I will turn over to the speaker. There is a vote, yes, there's a vote. Okay, all in favor of Justin Cummings for vice mayor this evening. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? You can vote for yourself too. Oh, I did, that's what I- Yeah. That passes unanimously. An animus. Now's the time for the other- nomination for mayor. I'm not gonna make a big long speech but I just, we came onto the council at the same time and I feel like we've had a lot of first days at school together and it's been a pleasure to get to know you, Martine, and to really get a better understanding of your dedication to your role serving the city, the people of the city, and the commitment that you bring and the calm energy that you bring for all of us. So I think it's gonna be wonderful to work with you for the next two years and it's my pleasure to nominate Martine Watkins as our next mayor. I too have enjoyed, thank you for the nomination. I'm honored and I too am enjoying it. Are there any other nominations for mayor? Seeing none, we'll go to vote then. All those in favor of the nomination for mayor? Aye. Aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. I'd now turn it over to our city clerk, find this. Aye, we'll turn it over to Michael Watkins to swear you in. Aye. Aye. Vice mayor Bonnie, two questions. Follow after me, okay? It's a pleasure of me to be here and introduce my daughter as the mayor. And we've been here for 40 years supporting Santa Cruz County. And I'm in education, she's in politics, but it's all the same I guess. So, all right. Okay, so you can announce your name after I say aye. Okay, aye. Martine Watkins. Do solemnly swear. Do solemnly swear. I will support and defend. That I will support and defend. The Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of California. And the Constitution of the State of California. Against all enemies. Against all enemies. Foreign and domestic. Foreign and domestic. And I will bear true faith. And I will bear true faith. And allegiance to the Constitution. And allegiance to the Constitution. Of the United States and the State of California. Of the United States and the State of California. And I take this obligation freely. and that I take this obligation freely? Without any mental reservation. Without any mental reservation. Or purpose of evasion. Or purpose of evasion. And that I will well. And I will well. And faithfully discharge. And faithfully discharge. The duties upon which I'm about to enter. The duties upon which I'm about to enter. Congratulations. Woo! May I come down to be sworn in as well, or do I make my remarks first? No, we just forward you in, so you're good. Oh, yeah. OK, there you go. All right. So I was told I can get a few extra minutes, not quite as long as our former mayor and council member Dawn Lane, but I have a few prepared remarks, so I appreciate and advance your attention. I just want to start by saying and sharing with you all my sincere expression of gratitude to our community, the people of Santa Cruz. I am privileged to be in this position and to serve our great city. And I am deeply honored to serve on the city council and now to assume the position of mayor. I have to begin by thanking a few folks. First, I want to give my sincere appreciation to my colleagues who are exiting the council this evening. My sincere gratitude to you, David, Cynthia, and Rachelle, for all your service to our city and for your leadership. I am thankful to have had the opportunity to work alongside you these past few years, and I wish you the absolute best. I also want to thank those who are here tonight, and I look in the audience and I'm so warmed to see your faces, as well as those who couldn't come out this Tuesday evening. I am so grateful to have you in my life and thank you for believing in me and for what I stand for. I have to thank my husband Brandon for your enduring support and love and so much more. And I want to acknowledge and thank our beautiful, wonderful, smart daughters, Evangeline and Watkins Proctor, and Winnell Love Watkins Proctor, who are all here this evening. You inspire me every day, and I'm lucky to be your mom, and I'm so proud of you both. I want to thank my parents, Michael and Ann Watkins, who are my foundation and who have guided me in my entire life. You have helped me embrace who I am as a woman of mixed heritage and appreciate all that a company's experiencing life from that perspective. I want to thank my brother who's here from Oakland and the back there for being so smart, my older brother that is, keeping it real and always being there to support me. As well as my in-laws Linda and Colin, you truly make up the village that allows me to participate in civic service in this way. Because as a mother of young children, there is no way I could be here doing this job without your support. I hold you here with me as I assume the position this evening. I want to thank our city staff for all your dedication and hard work. As you know, we have an incredible city, and I'm honored to be one of seven who serve on this council, but merely one of hundreds that keep and contribute to our city running every single day. One thing I know is that we share a deep appreciation and dedication to service at all levels of all of our staff and departments, parks, public works, water, management, senior management, council members and everywhere in between. We all play a role in our shared success. My ideals and aspirations as a candidate, as a council person, as a vice mayor, and now as a mayor have really not changed, orienting around really three things for me, which is integrity, community and vision. And the first point I want to make is to talk about my commitment to integrity. My commitment to being a person of integrity, authentic, open-minded and reflective, a leader who strives to understand all perspectives. As an elected official, I believe it is our duty to demonstrate to our community members, to our children, that we can lead with integrity and we can govern from a foundation of respect. The second point I'd like to highlight is a bit about community and process. And I don't think I have to explain to anyone in this room or to our colleagues up here that we have a number of challenges that we as a community face. Homelessness, the cost of living in balance, affordability of housing, economic opportunity, climate change, rising pension and healthcare costs. And although hurdles, yes, absolutely, but they're not insurmountable. Our community issues are complex. They're interconnected, they cross city lines and boundaries and I look forward to working with this council on solutions to the issues impacting our city today. But as well as to have the foresight to prepare for the future and what lies ahead. We are so lucky to have an engaged and dedicated community. Over the past few years, I am often inspired by community members who come with incredible insights. They share experiences that we need to know and be made aware of, but they also often come with solutions and ideas to how to overcome those. And as a council, we are elected based on who we are and what we represent as individuals. But once seated, we shift our roles from candidate or activist to a member of a governing body. And as mayor, I will inspire to enroll the council to find alignment, to foster a policy agenda that incorporates community input, that builds on the work of previous councils, but ultimately allows us to get things done for the current and future residents of Santa Cruz. Because yes, we can be both pragmatic and action oriented and it's up to us to seek alignment in the interest of progress. And this leads me to my other point, which is a vision towards health equity and prevention and children. And I close with vision because I believe that integrity, community and process are the essential elements necessary to have in place before vision can be actualized and ultimately become reality. And as I enter into the role of mayor, I intend to inspire the council to focus on health equity and children. And health equity and children are essentially interconnected because healthy futures for all Santa Cruz children must be rooted in the need for Santa Cruz to be a healthy and vibrant community. And when a community is thriving, we all stand to gain. And community health is influenced by more than just individual choices. And when speaking about health or community health or wellbeing, I'm referring to what is often described as the social and physical determinants of health, where you're born, where you live, where you work, where you play and where you age. These circumstances are often responsible for inequities, but with intention can be mitigated and avoidable. Every decision we make as a city government influences how we live, learn, work and play. And policies that influence our experiences are typically developed by agencies other than health departments, such as fire, police, planning, public works, parks or economic development. And I think it's clear that we cannot put health in a silo for others to address, separate from how our residents experience the services of our city. And a few months ago, I was so proud that our city council voted to create a subcommittee to explore the health and all policies public health framework. And you may ask, what is health and all policies? What health and all policies is a collaborative public policy approach that incorporates health considerations into decision making across every branch of city government and policy area. And the health and all policies framework is essentially about doing things differently to increase efficiency and impact. So whether you're in the police department, fire department, planning, public works, the orientation of services can be centered positively to impact the social and physical determinants of health. And my focus is to find the best way for us to institute this framework throughout all that we do so that no matter the decision we make, we'll be reminded to design policies that for example, sustain our beautiful natural environment in the face of global climate change and the potential impact of environmental injustices. Policies that foster safe and accessible neighborhoods and parks for all residents, not just some, from the Upper West Side to the East Side to the beach flats. Supporting affordability of housing for everyone at every stage of life, finding creative ways to support people struggling to live and work here due to the cost of living in balance of our region. Continue to invest in all types of transportation options, walkable communities, safe routes to school, access to healthy foods, clean water and air, economic vibrancy and employment options and sound fiscal sustainability. It's how we weave these all together. Because ultimately when departments and agencies understand the health implications of their decisions, as well as support other institutions in expanding their responsibility for health, collectively we can improve conditions for all people in Santa Cruz. And over the past several years, throughout the country and state, the health and all policies framework has been tailored to meet individual communities' needs. And although they vary in application, many share common elements, encompassing collaboration, planning and advancing public policy decisions, investing in change and applying data-driven approaches for continuous improvement and accountability. And they're seeing results and I think Santa Cruz can too. And I'm ready to get to work. And knowing our city government plays a role in ensuring all children raised in Santa Cruz, regardless of their neighborhood or background, we will be able to live healthy lives, which brings me to my other aspiration, which is to have and support upstream prevention policies. And it is my hope that the new council will continue to find ways to make sure that every child in our community is given the best opportunity in life. And as our former President Obama said, that the size of your paycheck should never determine your child's future. And the science and data is clear in regards to the socially-returned we yield when we make these investments. Investing in children is public safety, it's community well-being, it's economic development and it's tied to affordable housing. And we all know that there is a pressing and increasing need for families and working people in our city. I don't think we'll find a hardworking family or parent trying to raise their child in Santa Cruz who doesn't seek a safe, thriving learning enrichment environment for their kids. And I wanna thank the previous councils for their work on establishing a dedicated children's fund for the city of Santa Cruz, focusing on early childhood development, vulnerable youth and prevention. This action truly put Santa Cruz on the map as a model for local governments to create set-aside funding resources to support our community's children. I also wanna thank the Santa Cruz City Council for making a recent decision to make Santa Cruz healthier and stopping big tobacco from getting our youth hooked on tobacco products by selling them and marketing flavored tobacco to them. We limited and banned flavored tobacco recently. And it's these types of policy actions that we must continue to make. And they paved the way for all Santa Cruz children to be given the best shot in life. And as a result, we all win. And I think my supervisor, who knows me well, would say I have a lot of vision. So I'll just stop there in the interest of time. But I'll say one last thing. We as local leaders can see and feel the impact of the decisions we make. It's a gift. And I've been honored to be elected to serve this community. And I look forward to embarking on the journey with the newly elected council to ensure and sustain our beautiful city. So with that, thank you so much. So at this time, unless there's any additional remarks from the vice mayor, I will ask if you have a century, however you'd like. I would just like to say, again, it's an honor and a privilege to be in this position. I want to also acknowledge Cynthia Matthews and all her years of dedication and work that she's put in in the city. I'm just beginning this trajectory and I know that I have a lot to learn. And I'm gonna be looking to work with the people from our community, the former elected officials, the people on this dais, and the people within our community so that I can be the most effective city council member as possible and the most effective vice mayor as possible. And so I thank you all for this opportunity to serve and represent our community once again. And I've already said enough earlier, so I will leave it there, but I want to thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Cummings. Council Member Brown, I can come on and acknowledge you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Before we adjourn, I have a couple of things that I want to say and I'm gonna make a motion here because I tend to stick with business. This is an evening of celebration and recognition of the change that we're making here. And I hate change, but I'm actually very excited to work with my new colleagues. And so I'm glad you're all here, but we have some business that is what I consider to be quite pressing and we're gonna be taking hiatus until January 8th. And there are a lot of people in this community who are unsure about what's going to be happening, speaking of how our policy decisions, we feel the effects of those decisions and people will continue to feel the effects of our decisions through the holidays while we're on break. So with that, I wanna provide some indication of where I'm interested in going and I've consulted with our city attorney about this. I've consulted with the new mayor about how we do this. So I just wanna make a brief motion with little fanfare, little discussion to assure people in the community that we will be taking up the question of tenant protections and trying to engage in a real meaningful community conversation to take people up on the demands they've made on all sides of the issue to come together. And so I wanna just move that we direct staff to come back to us at our January 8th meeting with a proposal regarding the resources, including funding and staff time for some kind of task force comprised of community stakeholders, including but not limited to landlords big and small, tenants and others regarding policy options around tenant protections from evictions without cause and other relevant measures for the longer term for a three month period somewhere around there. But I'd like that to come back to us on the 8th so that people know that we're really serious about having that conversation as well as an ordinance extending the joints, the just cause eviction provisions that we pass as a temporary measure. I wanna be really clear when I say that and I don't wanna take up too much time here but I wanna be really clear when I say that. This is not about passing measure M de facto or through the council post election and this is about limited protections with pretty extensive exemptions. And I think that it's worth having that conversation as a council in the new year. So I'd like that to come back to us as well. I have some materials that I'd be happy to give to you Mayor Watkins and to the city attorney and I've offered up myself to work on that over the break so that we can come back and really have that discussion. That's my motion. There's a motion on the floor, is there a second? Second. Okay, seconded by council member Cron. Is there any further discussion amongst the council at this time? Council member Cron, yeah, all right. Well, I'm assuming no public comment here. Okay, there we go. Then we'll just take the vote, I assume. Yes, it is appropriate to add an item to a future agenda without it being on this agenda, but no discussion or very limited discussion can be had and in oral communications would not be appropriate under those circumstances. So this is simply accepting that we would be adding this item to the future agenda, okay? I believe it requires a second. There's a second, council member Cron. Okay, all right, at this time, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Aye. Okay. At this time, I'd like to adjourn the meeting and offer you all to go next door to the Civic Four A reception. And thank you all so much for being here. It's the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Woo! Woo!