 Really short, short to that. On that note, we'll go ahead and get started. So good afternoon, welcome to the 1230 PM public portion of closed litigation session of the January 22nd, 2019 meeting of the city council. In this part of the meeting, the council will receive public testimony and thereafter the council members will move to the courtyard conference room for closed session. I would like to ask the clerk to please call roll. Thank you, Mayor. Council members, Cron? Here. Glover? Here. Myers? Here. Brown? Here. Matthews? Here. Vice Mayor Cummings is currently absent and Mayor Watkins? Here. And let me just just to know that we, oh, there he is. Yeah. Okay, are there any members of the public who would like to speak on any item on closed session? Seeing none. We will now adjourn to the courtyard conference room where the council will go into closed session. Are we ready here, Bonnie? So good afternoon and welcome to our 2 PM session of the January 22nd, 2019 meeting of the city council. I would like to ask that the clerk please call roll. Thank you, Mayor. Council members, Cron? Here. Glover is currently absent. Myers? Here. Brown? Here. Matthews? Here. Vice Mayor Cummings? Here. And Mayor Watkins? Okay, and here. And if possible, could the clerk please lead us in the pledge of allegiance? So we have one presentation today. And we have Cherie Storm from the Chief Development Officer from Dientes. Hi, welcome. What should I click? The magic. Hi, I'm Cherie Storm and I'm the Chief Development Officer for Dientes Community Dental Care. Thank you for coming and inviting me to come and speak. I'm going to walk through the 2018 report card, which is an update to the countywide Oral Health Strategic Plan. And you have a pretty version in front of you. It all started in 2016 when Dientes commissioned the first ever Oral Health Needs Assessment for Santa Cruz County. From this report, we found that the access to oral health care in our community is at a crisis level. Nearly 70% of those who are on MediCal cannot go to the dentist due to lack of available appointments. The situation is worse when you include those who are uninsured and seniors on Medicare for whom there are no dental benefits. The needs assessment also found that across all incomes, 31% of kids age 1 to 11 have never been to the dentist. And 1 in 4 pre-K children have dental decay. Something had to be done to change this. So we brought together a group of stakeholders including Council Member Cynthia Matthews and 16 other organizations to create the Oral Health Access Steering Committee. The goal of the committee was to address this crisis with a perspective that you don't have to be a dentist to improve access to oral health care. The initial report included 12 recommendations and we used those as the basis for the strategic plan. We focused on steps that would have the highest impact as far as the number of patients served. And we also focused on prevention for children at an early age. The top three recommendations emerged and became the basis of the Oral Health Access Strategic Plan. Which we'll dive into next. But because of our early work in developing the plan, we were well positioned to take advantage of a grant opportunity that came about to implement the plan. So the good news is that the county has received a million dollar grant from state Proposition 56 tobacco tax funds to invest in oral health. And that includes a dedicated oral health staff at the County Health Services Agency. So let's see how we're doing towards that plan. Starting off, we launched a first tooth, first birthday campaign. This is an education campaign that is focused on kids, parents. It's recommended that kids go to the dentist by the time they're one, or they have their first tooth. This way, we can focus on education and hopefully prevent the decay problem that we saw earlier. In the first phase of the campaign, we worked with the Central Coast Alliance for Health. And included articles and information in their newsletters to their providers as well as their members. We also did oral health education flyers with first five's baby gateway packets, which every newborn in the county receives. We're now in the second phase of our campaign. This past summer, we ran online and radio ads. The next wave of advertising starts in February for National Children's Dental Health Month. We've also set up a website, a bilingual website with information that includes a list of dentists that people can access. These early efforts have positively influenced the medical utilization rates, and we look forward to continued improvement. The second part of our plan was to reinstate mandatory dental visits prior to enrolling into kindergarten. With buying from the state, excuse me, from buying from the Santa Cruz County Office of Education, we were able to make this happen and 3,500 children received dental visit forms in their enrollment packet so far. And what this means is that children need to visit a dentist just like they need to visit a doctor before enrolling in school. As a result, the percentage of our children's elementary school age kids who have never been to the dentist was reduced to half. It dropped from 31% to 15%. The last goal is to increase capacity. The two community dental clinics organizations in town or in the county are Salud and Dientes. And we've increased our patient visit capacity by 30% in three years. At Salud, they have introduced oral health coaches and 2,000 medical visits to apply fluoride, scheduled dental appointments, and set up good oral health goals for their patients. They're expecting to grow their visits by 15% to 31,000 this year. At Dientes, in September, we expanded operations to four days a week at our beach flats clinic. This is due to the high need for services in that neighborhood. We expect to see nearly 1,000 patients this year, and we've also grown our outreach program to six new schools, and we expect to provide over 40,000 dental appointments this year. Looking forward, Dientes is partnering with Santa Cruz Community Health Centers and Mid Peninsula Housing and Health and Housing Hub at 1500 Capitola Road. It's a very exciting project and it's opening in 2021. Dientes' new 10-chair dental clinic will serve 7,000 additional patients. Santa Cruz will have an 18,000 square foot medical clinic, and Mid Peninsula Housing will have 57 units of affordable housing. In addition, Dientes is exciting about partnering with Santa Cruz Community Health Centers in a new medical dental clinic downtown next to the Metro Center. If possible, Midpin would also like to be a part of that project providing affordable housing. Santa Cruz would move their existing Locust Street clinic and provide additional services to new patients at this site. Dientes would serve medical health center patients in need of dental care, and the timeline on this is three to five years out. So our third goal includes also another area, which is about incorporating oral health within a primary care medical visit. This is kind of an innovative thing, and we've worked to have the application of fluoride varnish become the standard of care at well child medical visits for children ages 0 to 5. To do this, we focused on training providers and medical staff. And as a result, there's been a 270% increase in the number of children who have received fluoride varnish in a medical setting. In addition, Cabrio is changing training all of their students on medical assisting and nursing programs in this process, so they're ready to go when they enter the workforce. So we've made some great progress towards our goal, and so there's still a lot of work to do ahead. But we really appreciate the partnership and the commitment of the Oral Health Access Steering Committee. Together with Prop 56 funding, we look forward to really improving the oral health of our community. So one last thing, I'm going to wear my D&T's hat. An invitation in front of you. Every February, we have, as part of the celebration for national children's dental healthcare month, we provide a gift seniors, excuse me, give kids a smile day. We also do give seniors, but that's in August. And this event provides free care to uninsured low income children. So if you've not yet seen our clinic in action, this is a perfect opportunity to come and learn, have coffee, and see what we're all about. Thank you. Thank you. This is wonderful. Thank you for taking the time to be here and sharing where you've been and where you're planning to go and the good work that you're doing in our community. It's exciting to hear about some of the mixed use opportunities coming up as well in terms of. It's very exciting, that is very exciting. I want to see if there's any questions. Well, I'll just add the oral health, I even forget the name of it. Committee that I've served on has included other representatives elected. Others from public sector, from schools, from the dental profession, from community clinics. So it's a really great collaborative that meets to work with the D&T staff and other professionals to move this long range plan forward and it's been impressive. Thank you. I mean, the focus of the work has really been on impact. Like doing things that have a real impact and that's why we focused on kids. Because if we can get kids and parents to understand the importance of oral health at an early age, then we're preventing all these cavities in the future and dental issues in the future. So, thank you. Wonderful. I'll just make a plug because I visited the clinic during the campaign to learn more about their work. And just make a plug for any council members who haven't been there. The kids room is amazing and the kids facility is amazing. So I'm excited too about the potential partnership for our community. Thank you. With you all and thanks for taking care of the kids in our community. Thank you. All right, thanks. So that concludes the presentations for this afternoon. At this time I just have a few announcements and then we'll move on to our regular agenda. So today's meeting is being broadcast live on community television channel 25 and streaming on the city's website, cityofsantacruz.com. Jennifer Cameron is our technician for both this afternoon into the evening sessions. And I'd like to thank you Jennifer for your work. All council members can be emailed at citycouncil at cityofsantacruz.com. And if you would like to communicate with us about an agenda item, please we'd like to receive that information and email by Monday at 5 PM before our council meetings. This then provides us an opportunity to review your email and include it with the rest of the agenda packet. Please do bear in mind that all items of correspondence with the city and city council constitute public records and are generally subject to disclosure upon requests 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 and it's my job to keep the meeting running without disruption. We ask that you respect your fellow citizens when you are inside or outside of the chambers. I will also just take a quick moment to read a few of the rules of procedure for conduct of city council business agreed upon by a city council, which include to be respectful, to engage in open and honest communication, to be honest and truthful, to address difficult issues, to find areas of common ground, to be open to different perspectives, to give the benefit of the doubt, to be role models of good leadership, and to be considerate of each other's time. So at this time, I'd like to ask if there are any council members who are having a statement of disqualification today. Okay, seeing none. And to the city clerk, is there any additions or deletions? So a quick announcement about oral communications. Oral communications is an opportunity for members of the public and the community to speak to us about items that are not on our agenda. Oral communications will occur at or around 7 PM. At this point, I'd like to ask our city attorney to please report out on closed session. Yes, thank you Mayor Watkins, members of the city council. There were two items on this afternoon's closed session. The first item was a conference with legal counsel concerning liability claims, specifically the claim of John C. Gellbart. Second item was a conference with labor negotiators. City council met with its negotiators and discussed all bargaining groups and including unrepresented employees. There was no reportable action on either of those items. However, the liability claim is number four on your open session agenda. Great, thank you. Okay, so before we begin with our action items, I just want to make a brief announcement. That agenda item 23 will be heard at a time certain of 3.30 PM. And this means that we will stop whatever we are doing within the agenda and hear agenda item 23. And then after subsequently returning to the item before where we had left off. So that then moves us along to our consent agenda. So those are items two through 11 on our agenda. All items will be acted upon in one motion unless an item is pulled by a council member for further discussion. Are there any council members who wish to pull any items? I just, so if I just had a question pertaining to one of them, I would have to pull it and then- No, not this one. Just a quick question. So this is a question from Mark. Before you ask your questions, I'm going to see if there's any items- Okay, for number six I have a question. I have a question on number six. Okay, I have a quick question. It doesn't need to be pulled. Okay. Seeing none. Okay, now would be then the time for any comments or questions in terms of items, so we'll go to your question. Great, thank you. I was just curious with staff, I'm sorry, I didn't get a chance to reach out to you before the meeting. But I was wondering if I could get the information at some point about how our roads are prioritized for the paving and how that decision's made. Also in the report it specifies other utility cuts as being a reason for wanting to see some additional paving happening and I was just wondering who's responsible for those other utility cuts that are referenced in the gender report. And then the last thing is if I could at some point just request a budget so that I could understand what the allocations are that we have towards paving and how percentage of the 150,000 proposed in item six is. Okay, Mayor Watkins, members of the city council, I'm Joshua Spangard, senior civil engineer. So what's going on over on the west side right now specifically on Wyndham Street is, as the report says, PG&E has a transmission line project and part of their contract is restoring all the streets they came across. And so Wyndham Street is a concrete street which presents particularly difficulties. It's very expensive to repair. So while they're out there, we're just going to have them do a bunch of repairs for us. And in terms of what, the budget, I'm more guessing this is going to cost about $150,000. For comparison, our project right down here on Cedar Street is $2.3 million. So I don't know if that answers your question to give you some kind of scale. But I'd be happy to provide whatever information you. Thanks, so we can touch base after the meeting and everything just for those other future things. Just with regards to the other utility cuts that are- So sewer, sewer and water primarily. Okay. So I mean, it's the city's responsibility to take care of those. We identify any other, any failed PG&E cuts that are in the road and they have to take care of them. Whether it's part of this project or not, that's on them. But basically, city water and sewer. Thank you. You're welcome. Did you have a question on this item, Councilman McCartney? Not this one. Okay, Councilman McCartney. Any other follow-up? Is there a queue for street paving? Is there a whole list that we're going to do this street and then we're going to do this street and then we're going to do this street? Yeah, well, I mean, to answer your question, we have, we're about ready to go out with a surface seal project. Which is not the repaving, but it's the cape seal with the slurry seal. We have identified something on the order of, I want to say, one and a half million dollars worth of street work that needs to happen. And that's all predicated on, we have a pavement management system that has the rankings of all the street condition index, but pavement condition index. And so what we're going to do right now is just we're going through there and identifying all the ones that look really bad on that map that we have and we're putting them all together in one big project. So to answer your question, I mean, realistically a lot of our projects are more reactionary than anything else, because things happen and fall apart right away, but we do. I mean, we try to get to the worst streets first. And the arterials, anything that's used by more and more people is generally a priority for us. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. And then we have another question on a different one. On number seven, which was the notice of completion for the City Hall NX Mechanical System Upgrade. I noticed you referenced here the project and grant funding for a whole list of projects. I remember when that study was done and there are all sorts of things we could do and there's a list. So this mentioned in the report was the big one. I'm just curious to know what's in the pipeline for the others. And I don't need to know it now, but maybe if you can get an information piece out to it, I think the new council members would be probably interested in that. Well, all the things that are queued up that can deliver energy savings for us, and we have a grant to do it. Yeah, okay, so we'll look for that potential memo in the future. Thank you. So at this time, I would like to ask any members of the public if you would like to speak on any item on our consent agenda or request any item be pulled. You're given two minutes. Thank you, Mayor Watkins, Councilmembers Gillian Greenside. I hadn't intended to speak, and I frankly hadn't noticed item six, what was just referred to. So I just, and since it says restoration of distressed concrete pavement, I'd like to just express appreciation for that because those who've lived in Santa Cruz for a long time, it might be a small item in the scheme of things, but the concrete streets are quite beautiful. And a lot of people feel that way. And over the last many decades, quite a few of them have been covered with the slurry. And it seems a loss. There may be other reasons that I'm unaware of not being an engineer. But if this is a restoration of the concrete street rather than covering it or changing it, and that is the sort of agenda for our few remaining concrete streets, which aren't usually main arterials, I'd like to express appreciation for that. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any members who would like to speak on our consent agenda items? This time, okay. Seeing none, I'll return to Council for Action and Deliberation. Move consent. Second. Okay, so moved by Council Member Matthews, seconded by Council Member Brown. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Okay, so the next item on our agenda is under general business. And that's the appointment of representatives to the external agencies groups, council committee and task force. Without revisiting in depth the conversation that took place at our January 8th meeting, I made some modifications based on input and discussion at that time. And these are the recommendations that I have brought forward to suggest for adoption. Is there any questions? Okay, Council Member Brown. Well, given the significant amount of discussion we've had about it, I don't want to add too much to that. But I would like to move that we- If we can before your motion, I'll just maybe open it up to public comment. Any public comment, thank you. Yeah, no problem. Are there any other questions before we open it up to public comment? Okay, no problem, I just want to make sure we acknowledge that part of the process. Is there any member of the public who'd like to speak to this agenda item? Okay, we'll have two minutes. Good afternoon, Damon Bruder. From what I understand, as mayor of Santa Cruz, it's very much an honorary title. There's not a lot of special separate powers that the mayor has given. One of the powers that I do know you have is the ability to appoint people to certain commissions and councils as you see fit. That's one of the ways that you actually have a strength to help shape and steer our committee, or our city, separate from just being a council member, that you have that little bit extra oomph because you can appoint those people. I feel that changing stances, because someone didn't get what they want, might show a bit of weakness in the future, or a bit of vulnerability in the future. And I feel that if minds are changed because somebody didn't get what they want, well, I didn't get what I wanted either, I'm not a billionaire this morning. I feel that the mayor could get steamrolled and bullied and walked over by the council if she gives up the power to make her choices and stand by those choices. I think in this situation, first thought correct. I know that Cynthia Matthews was surprised to be appointed to the Public Safety Committee two weeks ago. But she was more than willing to accept that, even though it wasn't what she asked for and what she wanted. I feel that that's the kind of council that we need, people that are willing to take whatever is given them, work with it, and learn from it, and maybe next year the shuffle happens, and other people are on public safety or whatever committee. Anyways, I just hope that people can stand strong and not get walked over by a council that might have one agenda and might. That's all I have. Good afternoon, Councilor Lees-Casby. I have questions about this, and I've looked into these commissions and various advisory bodies. And I just want to express a couple of things that I want to keep track of. The first is that my understanding is that some of these commissions are extremely effectual in terms of their decisions and then what actually happens in the concrete world, such as buildings that are approved, and I realize these go through a process. But what I'm going to ask today is that you help the public at this time, at the beginning of the year, by just giving a little more information and not referring us just to online sources. Some people do not have ready and available access to online sources who might be very interested in partaking in these bodies. But also because these bodies interact with other places in government such as the city hall, such as the economic development department to really make things happen. So at a brief look, for example, one of the commissions I was interested in, it seems that I would have to commit through the year 2023. And I'm not able to make that commitment at this time for that long. I'm sorry, this is committee appointments that the mayor recommends to the full council for adoption. But we'll get into the committees later. So I think maybe you'll be revisiting your public comment. But what committees are you interested in? This is on item number 12, which is the recommendation from the mayor to the council for adoption of appointment of council member representatives to external agencies and government bodies. And that's not the same thing as the Arts Commission, the Commission for Prevention and Planning Commission. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor, Councilmembers. Jillian Greensight, I'm not sure what changes are being proposed by the mayor, so these comments I'm going to make maybe moot. But since I don't know that, I'll just go on what was shared at the last meeting when this was discussed. And I didn't have a lot of facts at that time, but I was concerned that one council member, I think council member Glover, got no appointments to, and I'll say there are significant boards and advisory bodies and less significant. But one appointment to one of his, that he said he was willing to serve on. Another council member got, I think, quite a number. So that did feel an imbalance. I was further moved by council member Glover's explanation of the makeup of, I think it was the safety committee. And I know that he has been a member of the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women. I was one of the co-founders of that commission. I feel that his presence, based on all of the reasons that he shared last time, would mean that he'd be a very valuable member of that committee. And while everybody is valuable, some people's experience and background interest concerns can bring a better balance to the committee. So I hope there is some adjustment given contrasted to last meeting's appointments. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Is there any other further comment at this time? Okay, I'll bring it back, and I'll just quickly say for context for those that haven't tracked that. One of the things that was discussed at the last meeting was to move forward with the recommendations, but to revisit after conversation the appointments of public safety. So that's why those changes have been modified, which then led to one change on community programs. And in regards to measure you, it came to my attention that that working group had already begun with Council Member Brown. So in terms of continuity, that's why that recommended changes was incorporated. Okay, Council Member Brown? I'll just make a brief comment that I want to say that my two motions that I intend to make, in no way, I want to appreciate the work that's been put into this. And I really understand that this is a challenge and we don't always get the appointments that we would like. I am really okay with getting what I get, and so I'm one of those Council Members. And I don't intend this to be politicizing or calling into question, decision making, and authority. What I am interested in here is addressing some of the sense that there has the equitable or representation and giving new Council Members an opportunity to serve on these boards and commissions I feel is extremely important. There's been enough discussion about this that I feel, or for me at least I felt it was worth additional review and work and discussion with others. And so that led me to the conclusions that I have come to. And so I just want to put this out there and suggest that I want to make a motion that we approve the list of representatives to external agencies, groups, and committees and task forces for the calendar year. But I'd like to take two of these commissions separately and that is community programs and a metro board. So I'd like to move approval of the recommendation and then I don't know exactly, I think I need to do this in two separate motions for community programs. I'd like to make it a revision and for metro revision. And I'd like to take those separately so they can be voted on separately. So my understanding is that this had been approved at the last meeting with the two modifications. So I'm not sure if we need to have a separate motion. Is that correct? That you would be then modifying and then we would approve it. I'll just make the two motions. Okay. Just make the changes and then we would, if the majority of the council wants to change it, they can change it. Correct? Okay, go ahead, you can just move it. So I'll move for community programs that the appointees be Mayor Watkins, council member Matthews, and council member Glover, for the community programs committee. That's my motion for one, and then I have another motion I'd like to make. Second. Okay. Is there any discussion before we take? Are these two different motions? Are you putting? I'd like to take them separately. We have a second on that one, but what about for the first one? The first motion? That's the first, so we don't have to approve the whole list, it's already approved. You can either do it one by one or did you want to make two changes? I think it's, I'd like to take those separately. You'd like to take them separately. Based upon conversations I'd like to. So the motion on the floor, which is the first motion by council member Brown and seconded by council member Crone, is to remove council member Matthews from community, I'm sorry. Remove council member Brown from community programs and put council member Glover on community programs instead. And now it's the time for any discussion? Well, actually, it is to remove the vice mayor from the committee. Leave you on and leave me on. That's how you have it. That's how it, what's recommended now is Watkins, Brown, and Matthews. No, yes, that's right. So you're suggesting, I see, take you off. Yeah, got it. So you and Red here were the addition. I got it. Any discussion? I'll be voting against the motion. So will I? You want any further discussion? Okay, so all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. That's council member Brown. Okay, I'm sorry. All those no, please say no. No. Okay, council member Brown, vice mayor Cummings, council member Crone, and council member Glover voting in support. Council member Matthews, myself, and council member Myers voting against. So I would also move that council members Myers and Crone be appointed to the Sanctuary Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Board. Is there a second? Second. So the motion by council member Brown, seconded by council member Glover to appoint Myers and Crone to Metro. Is that accurate? Okay. Any discussion? I am going to speak strongly against that. I've served on the Metro Board for just a little over a year. We are going through some really significant discussions with Metro right now. Not only on services, but on our relationship and partnership on the Pacific Station. I think I can really contribute a great deal of continuity and understanding of issues at stake in the strategy, really in a fairly short term. Moving forward as well as the other operational and budget issues that Metro's dealing with prior to my coming on last year, I took a place that Don Lane had occupied before he termed out. And other council members serving on the Metro Board prior to that were Don for most of his tenure on the city council and Cynthia Chase for most of hers. And that is an assignment involves people from other, just for those who don't track, other public sector designates, as well as some individuals from the general public. It was very important to the city's interest to have people who had a real sense of continuity of the evolution of the issues facing Metro and the city's partnership project. So I frankly would like to stay on that board. I think it really would play a key role in what moves forward there. It's not a matter of ego, it's a matter of understanding the context and the projects on the table. Just a comment. In just my short research of, if I was appointed to this board, looking at the Metro's past agendas as well as learning the projects in the pipeline and the importance of continuity and most importantly, respecting the mayor's ability to appoint people to these external and internal committees, I just want to go on record that I won't be supporting the motion. I understand the need for our council members to serve not only our community, but also to be representative on these commissions and committees external to the city. And I think the mayor has done a good job of trying to find some compromise as well as has responded to some of the concerns brought up at our last meeting regarding these. And I'm not going to support the motion. I feel like council member Matthews is necessary to this board and should be able to continue her work that she's initiated on it. And I, most importantly, like I said, I just want to respect our mayor's process and her careful consideration of all of our requests. So, Council Member Brown? Just to have a quick follow up, just to comment and clarify. My intention here is in no way to, again, call into question or be disrespectful of the mayor's prerogative in this case. I just, like I said before, in response to what I saw as an imbalance. And there was significant discussion about that in representation. I felt it was important to try to address that in a small way. Not a small way, but with some of these appointments. And so I'm not in any way suggesting that Council Member Matthews' participation and representation on the Metro is, I have any problem with that. I just feel like at this point I am weighing all of the factors that go into our decision making about this. And on balance, I think it's important to provide some additional representation from other council members at this time. Council Member Crone, in this case, is a Metro transit rider, has been for a long time. He also served on the Metro District in the past. And so I think he has some qualifications and some direct experience that lend themselves to making decisions and participating in the Metro process. So I just wanted to clarify that. This is not about questioning authority or qualifications. It's really about balancing that with the equity question. So I appreciate some of the motions that have been made so far and the intention around them. I think it's important to realize, at least from the way I perceive this, is that it's not an issue of disrespect in any way to the mayor or to the process. But more has to do with what I perceive to be an apparent effort for representation and equity in what's going on. And as we heard from the community member that they didn't wake up as a billionaire so they don't always get what they want. I think that's a very unequal comparison to try to compare wanting to fibrously wake up as a billionaire someday and not doing it compared to running a campaign on specific issues, being voted into office, and then being surprised when that representation of those people and of that perspective that was elected is not represented in the appointments. So I will be supporting the motion as I am the second. That's what we're going to do. Well, I appreciate the support and I will say that students are underserved in this community and the transportation system on campus, which I'm there three, four times a week, is a mess. And I have been in touch with bus drivers, been in touch with students. There's a lot of good ideas that they've given me and I'll take that to the Metro. So I really feel pretty strongly that I would give good representation to this body as well as our constituents. Okay. Mayor Matthews. One more thing I just want to put on the record is that I think it's really important to acknowledge that we are what we're doing is a democratic process, which I think is super important. And one of the things that makes the country great, we may not agree 100% of the time, but it is important. And from my perspective to acknowledge that dissent is a form of, is patriotic. And we are trying to figure out a process that works for everyone through conversation in a transparent way. So thank you. Okay, unless there's any further discussion, we'll go ahead and call the vote. Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Brown, second by Council Member Glover to have Myers and Cron serve on the Metro Board. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. So that fails with Council Member Brown, Cron, and Glover in support and Council Members Matthews, Myers, myself, and Vice Mayor Cummings against. So the appointments will remain with Myers and Matthews. I just want to make sure that we, if I can. I just want to make sure that we are also acknowledging that or maybe it would serve to have a motion to accept the changes for Measure U implementation working group. I also wanted to make a motion if possible. Just given the fact that I've received some public comment regarding the fact that public safety is completely made up of men and knowing that it's really important for women's voices to be heard when it comes to public safety, I personally would like to step down and from the public safety committee and offer that Donna Myers be appointed in my. That'd be something of interest to you or other female. I definitely see the need to have a woman on the board. And if no other women on our council are interested in serving in that, I would be. I'm not raising my hand. I have a comment. I would be happy to accept that. If I could, I think procedurally, well, just to step back. This whole agenda item is globally a case where the mayor recommends trying to incorporate a whole lot of different issues, make his or her recommendation, which are then confirmed by the council at large. And we've had some adjustments here. But I don't think it's really appropriate to do kind of horse trading. And I'll give this up and give it to you because that's not, that deviates from your role as making recommendations. I think it's appropriate if you make your observation and maybe we bump this off one more for the mayor to come back with her recommendation. That's just how it strikes to me rather than dealing cards around the table. I'm happy to do that and I'm happy to continue to do that and revisit that again in terms of the makeup. As I did to notice that it's all men. And as I think you can see, it's very difficult to get the representation and interest where everybody wants to be. So I'm happy to do that. Again, if the majority of the council sees different, then they have the right to change that. So that being said, my understanding is to have me revisit the composition of the public safety and to look at replacing Vice Mayor Cummings with a female council member. Correct? So I'm clear on my ask. Yeah, okay. So then if maybe I could entertain a motion to then ratify the Measure U Implementation Working Group to now incorporate Council Member Brown. Correct. Okay, I'll second that. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No? Okay, that passes unanimously. Did you give a motion? So were you taking Vice Mayor Cummings as a motion for you to revisit because we never got a second or a vote? I think he's, did you withdraw your motion and I'm taking it as direction to return. Okay, thank you. All right, okay, so the next order of business is the advisory body appointments and reappointments. So before we begin, I would like to make a few announcements. For each commission, I will begin by calling for nominations from each council member starting from my left, that will rotate the council member giving the first nomination. Only new nominations should be called. So if a council member has already nominated an applicant, then that nomination should not be called again. At the end of the nomination selection period, the city clerk administrator will take a role called vote to determine appointments or reappointments. The city clerk will then tally those choices and determine a majority vote. The nominees who get the majority of votes are the ones who will be appointed or reappointed. So before we begin, I'd like to call on members of the public who would like to speak to us on any of the commission reappointments or appointments and now is the time for members of the public to comment on agenda items 13 through 22. So all of our commission and advisory bodies. Hi council, my name is Elise Caspi and I'm just here to sort of comment in on the public process for these commissions. As you know, I've become somewhat of a regular fixture here at City Council since about 2013. Don Lane put that out on a Facebook at one point. And yet, even so, my ability to kind of understand how the various governmental departments and bodies work together is, it's not easy sometimes, especially when you're interested in kind of getting a picture of a lot of different aspects of government as I have, such as the Metro and how it relates to City Council and so forth. So what I'm just, what I want to ask for is for there to be some kind of a fair, like a day of outreach to the public. And that it be held very close by, like at the Civic Center. And that the students be invited to it and that there be extensive outreach to various people in the public to try to understand, especially this aspect of government, because I think it's a way that people might be able to join city government without having to run for office, which is an enormous prospect. So the reason I'm asking for this is, for example, I've been looking at these bodies from a bit of a distance for a long time and I've come to the city hall main office and so forth. My activism is in certain areas of interest that has a lot to do with the community, as I'm sure you all know. And my interest mainly often has to do with working to get community participation here. So more than understanding exactly how government works. So I, for example, see that some of these, you have to commit through the year 2023, which I would not be able to do at this time. So I'm hoping that these questions can be taken seriously and that maybe we can resolve to bring the public in. Thank you. Are there any other speakers who'd like to address the council this time? And this is for items 13 through 22. Okay, seeing none, let's begin. I just want to remind the council that you won't need to have a second for your nominee. You can just state the names and that's not part of the process. Are there any questions before I begin? I just want to clarify, sorry about this. We're going to take each of them in turn. I'll give you all my lists forever. You're not going to start with me for every single one. No, I'm going to rotate. Just so I understand, so a nomination is one name, correct? But if there's X openings, you can suggest X names. You can. Okay, for the appropriate amount of openings. Great, thank you. I'll just say in advance, this is sort of a strange process for the new ones joining us at this time. That's what I have to pass the list. Okay, so we'll begin with the Arts Commission. There is one possible reappointment with a term expiration of January 1st, 2023, and three vacancies, two with the term expirations of January 1st, 2023, and one with the term expiration of January 1st, 2020. So the appointment appointee with the least amount of votes will get the shorter of the three terms, essentially is how we're working with the Arts Commission. So at this point, may I please have nominations starting with Council Member Brown? As always, we have a very qualified and exciting list of applicants. And so I am at this point just going to highlight and nominate two that stood out for me, although I think there are many on this list who would be very capable representatives. Janina Loranis and Maria Krushevini, yes. Can you give me that second name? Maria Krushevini, I guess. Okay, I'm sorry, you're incorrect. Okay, Council Member Matthews. Yes, I'd like to nominate Mary Tartaro, who's currently serving and is interested in reappointment. She's been very active and with that many new appointments I think would give some good continuity. She's been very involved in some of the projects to date, and I'd also like to nominate Allison Garcia. Vice Mayor Cummings, any additional names to those that have already been nominated? I would like to nominate Sean Swain McGowan, just for the record. He's been someone who has done a lot of work in the community with doing a lot of community outreach. And he has been working on some major projects in the city of San Francisco. And I think his talents and abilities would be well served on this commission. And that's my only recommendation at this time. Great, okay, I have no additional names to nominate. Council Member McLevver. Owen Thomas. Council Member Cronin. Nothing to add, thank you. Okay, so at this point, we'll go through again, correct? I'm looking at you, Bonnie. Now we'll do the roll. Now you'll do the roll. Okay, vote. Allison Garcia. Council Member Brown. Do I go through? Or do we go down the line and just say who our choices are? You can go down the line and say our top four and then go through there. Does that sound good? Is that easy? What's the least cumbersome for you? Okay. Okay. Okay. We're naming our choices. Out of the nominees, who are your four? And then she'll tally. Okay. Council Member Brown. Okay, my four, Janina Lorenaz, and Kevin Negas, Allen and Owen Thomas. Matthews? Allison Garcia. Janina Lorenaz, Shawn McGowan, and Mary Tartaro. Vice Mayor Cummings. Janina Lorenaz, Shawn McGowan, Mary Tartaro, and Owen Thomas. Okay. So my four are Allison Garcia, Janina Lorenaz, Shawn McGowan, and Mary Tartaro. My four are Allison Garcia, Janina Lorenaz, Mary Tartaro, and M.K. Vinnie, Janina Lorenaz, Shawn McGowan, Owen Thomas, M.K. And then Vinnie, I guess, and then Vinnie, I guess, and then Vinnie, I guess. Council Member Crom. Janina, Shawn, Owen, and M.K. Yeah. So we have a tie between Mary Tartaro, Owen Thomas, and M.K. And there are the three with the least amount who would be, so the three- We need two more out of that three. Two out of those three. Okay, so let's go through again and list the two. Okay. Between Mary Tartaro, Owen Thomas, and M.K. Vinnie, I guess. Owen Thomas and M.K. Vinnie, I guess. Council Member Matthews. Mary Tartaro and M.K. Vice Mayor. Mary Tartaro and Owen Thomas. I'm Mary Tartaro and M.K. Mary Tartaro and M.K. Lifer. Owen Thomas and M.K. Owen and M.K. I'm getting a tie again. Okay. Can I just confirm, Sandy, you have Owen Thomas and M.K. Vice Mayor Cummings, you have Mary Tartaro and Owen. Mayor Watkins, you have Mary Tartaro and M.K. And then Council Member Tartaro. Yes. Sorry. Council Member Lover, you have Owen Thomas and M.K. And then so Mary Tartaro is reappointed and we have a tie. Okay. We'll go around one more time. Okay. And that's what I had. I had M.K. with five and the other two with four. Right, that's what I had. Oh, yeah. Mary Tartaro and M.K. Okay. Okay, great. And so M.K. would have the appointment to 2020, correct? We have M.K. and M.K. and M.K. and M.K. and M.K. and M.K. and M.K. and M.K. and M.K. and M.K. and M.K. would be correct? We have a discrepancy. Okay. I had four for Tartaro, four for Thomas and five for Venegas. That's what I have, too. Yeah. Which totaled up to 14 which was twoogether. So there would be one more vote if that is indeed the case? Going for the last one? Right. Do we have what we need or are we needed? No, there's one more tie. It's between Owen Thomas and Mary Tottano. Okay, we'll do another round. Okay. Okay, so we're going in, Owen and Mary. I'm Owen and- Mary, no, no, no, yeah, only one vote now. You're going to get one between Owen and Mary. Yes, I'm sorry. Owen. Oh, my turn? Yeah. Mary. Owen. Mary? Mary. Owen. Still on, still on. Okay. Now you see what I mean. That was always hard. We're going to mix it up with the PPVA. So can I just clarify that it was Janina, Owen and MK that were the finalists? And Sean. And Sean, yeah. Cool, thank you. She's a rock. So next we have the Board of Building and Fire Appeals. And there are six possible re-appointments with terms expiring January 1st, 2023, and nominations can come from Councilor Matthews. Well, I get the easy one. I nominate the horse late. Okay. Any additional nominations? I think we can. Exactly. Okay, so I think we're there. We need a motion to- By consensus. By consensus, do we accept the six? Okay. Okay. Great. Okay. Next we have the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Getswimming, please. Mr. Request, if we could slow down for the nomination vote. Can I ask a clarifying question? Absolutely. For the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women, are we continuing? Sorry, procedure for the, there are, my understanding is we each have- Yes, correct. I will ask those who have openings if they want to state their nomination. Okay. And then we will go through and accept, confirm the nomination. For the commission. And a lone one. So you have three of the nominees for the new council members and then one vacancy that you would do the nomination selection for. Okay. Okay, great. So at this time, Council Member Brown, you have a nomination with a term expiring on January 1st, 2021. You will have an opening. Council Member Glover, Meyers, and Vice Mayor Cummings also have nominations for direct appointments. So I'll begin with Council Member Glover. Can I have your nomination? I'd like to nominate Krishna Lekind-Williamson. Council Member Meyers. I'd like to nominate Brooke Newman. Council Member Brown. Ann Simonson. And Vice Mayor. I would just like to ask, and I know that there's a lot of people who have been interested in this appointment but given the number of applicants and the charge of this commission, I would want to see if we can maybe extend the application process and allow for more members of the community to apply to this position. I do your direct appointment. Okay, no problem. So then we'll confirm the three with one vacancy. Correct? Okay. So you mean leave? Vice Mayor Cummings would like to leave his nomination open for more applicants to defer. Thank you. So we have Council Member Glover nominating Krishna, Council Member Meyers nominating Brooke, and Council Member Brown nominating Ann. So I will move approval of those who've been nominated by the respective council members deferring the decision on council member Cummings. Motion by Council Member Glover. Second. Okay. Second by Council Member Glover. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay, great. Now we have our downtown commission. So there's one possible reappointment and one vacancy. And both of the terms will be expiring on January 1st, 2023. So starting with Vice Mayor Cummings, may I have your nominations? Can I just clarify? My understanding is there are two vacancies now with the withdrawal of the initial resignation that we received? So there's one reappointment request and one vacancy request. So there are two openings essentially, yeah. Okay. Do I have this just one or? One vacancy and one person seeking reappointment. And the Matt Ferrell is the individual interested in reappointment. Sorry. No problem. No problem. So you'll have an opportunity to nominate two people. Nominate Matt Ferrell for reappointment and Brett Garrett. Okay, and I will nominate, in addition, Linnea Holders. My nominations have been made. Yeah, nothing to add. Yeah, mine too. Okay. Additional nominations, and additional nominations, Council Member. So we'll start with the top two beginning with Vice Mayor Cummings. My top two selection will be Matt Ferrell and Brett Garrett. Okay. I am Matt and Linnea. I'm Matt and Linnea. I'm Brett and Linnea. Matt and Brett. I'm Brett. Matt Ferrell and Brett Garrett. Matt and Linnea. We have a tie. Okay, who is the tie between? Linnea and Brett Garrett. Okay. And Matt's appointed. So Matt would be reappointed, and now we'll take another vote for between Brett Garrett and Linnea Holders, and we'll begin with you, Vice Mayor Cummings. Brett Garrett. Linnea, Holders. Linnea, Holders. Brett Garrett. Brett Garrett. Linnea. We will now move on to the Historic Preservation Commission, and there is one possible reappointment with a term expiration of January 1st, 2023. And one vacancy with a term expiring on January 1st, 2021. And I will start with nominations from Council Member Myers. I would like to nominate Tracy Bliss and William Schultz. Council Member Cooper. Ross Eric Gibson. Any additional names? Nothing. Any additions on this side? We make comments. I wish I had made comments. Previously, my nomination's been made, but I think it's important to look at the full range of talents that are represented on the commission. And Tracy's a known historian, Joe Michaelak, who serves on the committee already is a solid local historian. Ross also is known in that field, but I think what we're lacking now is someone who has kind of that direct. We have people who have experience in historic preservation policy, but I think what we're lacking is someone who has that kind of practical experience of what it means to do historic preservation in the field, in the community. And Bill Schultz as a local contractor, I think brings that. Any additional comments before we go through? Okay, so we'll go through starting with our top two and beginning with Council Member Myers. I, my vote's for Tracy Bliss and Bill Schultz. Lever? Tracy Bliss and Ross Gibson. Tracy Bliss and Ross Gibson. Tracy Bliss and Ross Gibson. Bliss and Schultz? Bliss and Gibson. And I am Bliss and Schultz. So it's Bliss and Gibson. Okay. Great. All right. So did you say it was Bliss and Gibson? Yeah. If I can just say, since we're moving on to the Parks and Rec Commission item, we did have another, we have another vacancy that we will put on the agenda for next meeting for the 12th. Okay. So, if there's something to keep in mind, we will use the same application for that appointment. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So for Parks and Recreation Commission, so what we're discussing today is one possible reappointment and one vacancy with both terms expiring January 1st, 2023. And I will begin with nominations from Council Member Glover. Altaria Hatten and Don Scott Norris. Okay. Julian Greensight. Maggie Duncan Merrill for reappointment and Ron Goodman. No further appointments. And I would add, Rina Dubin, my, my appointments have, actually, I'm I will, did you nominate Goodman? Yeah. Okay. That might have been, might have been made. Okay. So we'll go through with Council Member Glover listing the two. Altaria Hatten and Don Scott Norris. Julian Greensight and Don Shot Norris. Julian Greensight and Don Shot Norris. Matthews. Maggie Duncan Merrill and Ron Goodman. Altaria Hatten and Julian Greensight. Maggie Duncan Merrill and Ron Goodman. I, Maggie Duncan Merrill and Ron Goodman. Orway Tye. Orway Tye. So that Maggie Duncan Merrill, Ron Goodman, Julian Greensight, and. Okay. So we'll go through again. Okay. And we'll start with Council Member Glover. Top two. Two. Don Scott Norris and Julian Greensight. Ron Shot Norris and Julian Greensight. Don Shot Norris and Julian Greensight. Maggie Duncan Merrill and Ron Goodman. Greensight and Norris. Ron Goodman and Maggie. Goodman and Duncan Merrill. Mayor, welcome to where you're at too. Maggie Duncan Merrill and Ron Goodman. Duncan Merrill and Goodman. Green site and Don Scott Norris. So we'll move on to the Planning Commission. At this time, I will start with nominations from Council Member Krohn. And there are two vacancies and they both have terms expiring on January 1st, 2023. We're starting with Planning Commission. Planning Commission, two nominations. Yes. I would like to nominate Andy Schifrin and Miriam Greenberg. Mike Sylvie, please. Nothing yet. Marina Dubin would be mine. Mine might have been added. With the nominees, we'll start with the top two. Council Member Krohn. Well, Council Member Gleber has it. Apologies, I'm sorry. It's okay. Nothing to add. Okay. Miriam Greenberg and Andy Schifrin for Planning Commission. Miriam Greenberg and Andy Schifrin. Schifrin and Sylvie. Schifrin and Greenberg. Schifrin and Dubin. Schifrin and Sylvie. Schifrin and Greenberg. And it's Schifrin and Greenberg. So at this time, we have the Sisters Cities Committee. We have five vacancies, three with term expirations of January 1st, 2023. One with the term expiration of January 1st, 2022. And one with the term expiration of January 1st, 2020. As a reminder, the appointees with the least amount of votes will receive the shorter term. And at this point, may I begin again with nominations from Council Member Brown? Brown? Brown. I nominated the first. I don't think that Council Member Gleber got to nominate first. Yeah, you nominated. I think it's good. Yeah. We're just rotating through. We're back to you, Council Member Brown. Qualified folks, and I'm just trying to review my notes here. So, Dennis Etler, Andre Kikov. I'm not doing these in particular order, sorry. One, one, one, one. Okay, so Marta Beckwith, Chandra Duffy, Dennis Etler, Andre Kikov. I'm sorry, the last one. Anita Wood. Any additions, Council Member Matthews? Yes. I'm not sure exactly who's been nominated by, but Isabel Tencer and Anita Wood. Could you repeat the list of people who've been nominated currently? We have Marta Beckwith, Chandra Duffy, Dennis Etler, Andre Kikov, Isabel Tencer, and Anita Wood. Are there any additional nominees? I don't think so at this time. I don't have any additional nominees. I don't either. No additional nominations. Etler, Kikov, Tonker, and Woodall were nominated, right? Yeah. Okay, excuse me. Okay, so going back to Council Member Brown. I think so quickly. Okay, so Marta Beckwith, Dennis Etler, Andre Kikov, Isabel Toncer, and Anita Wood. Marta Beckwith, Chandra Duffy, Andre Kikov, Isabel Toncer, and Anita Wood. Chandra Duffy, Dennis Etler, Isabel Toncer, Anita Wood, and Marta Beckwith. Marta Beckwith, Chandra Duffy, Andre Kikov, Isabel Toncer, and Anita Wood. Marta Beck, are you ready? Okay, sorry. Marta Beckwith, Chandra Duffy, Andre Kikov, Isabel Toncer, and Anita Wood. Marta Beck, oh, sorry, are we good? Marta Beckwith, Dennis Etler, Andre Kikov, Isabel Toncer, Anita Wood. Beckwith, Etler, Kikov, Toncer, and Wood. I would like to make a suggestion. Chandra Duffy is the one who's asked for reappointment. She's been of all of them, the most involved for several years on the sister cities committee has been invaluable. And I would just put it out there if someone wants to add a vote. Pardon? She lived outside of the city limits. But she- She's not on the committee. Last year she was nominated- Excuse me, I understand that. She is not up for reappointment, but she's been active for a long time waiting for an out of city slot to come up. Yeah, I just put it out there. Do we know what the tally is at this point? We have Marta Beckwith, Isabel Toncer, and Anita Wood with the terms expiring in 2023. Great, with a term expiring in 2022, a tie between Chandra Duffy and So, we'll go through between those two, say the one choice. And we'll start with Council Member Brett. Chandra Duffy. Duffy. Duffy. Duffy. Butler. Butler. So, we will move right along to the Transportation and Public Works Commission. And there is one possible reappointment with the term expiration of January 1st, 2023, and one vacancy with a term expiring on January 1st, 2021, and may I please have nominations starting with Council Member Matthews. Phil Boutel and Sean Argel Olson. Vice Mayor Cummings. No further suggestions. No further suggestions. I'd like to add Bruce Sawhill, please. Dana Bagshaw and Steve Schnier. No further suggestions. Any additional suggestions? No further suggestions. Back to Council Member Matthews for Boutel and Orgel Olson. Boutel and Orgel Olson. Same for me. Same for me. Bagshaw and Snier. First one. Bagshaw. Bagshaw. Dana Bagshaw. Phil Boutel and Sean Orgel Olson. So it's Phil Boutel and Sean. Oh, sorry about that. Dana Bagshaw and Phil Boutel. It's Phil Boutel with the longer term and Sean Orgel Olson. The last, but certainly not least, is our Water Commission. And we have one vacancy with a term expiration of January 1st, 2023. And I will start with nominations from Vice Mayor Cummings, correct? Sierra Ryan. I have no addition. No addition. Acclamation. There you have it. Okay. Well, thank you, Bonnie, and thank you, Council, for going through that process. It's never easy when we have such a committed community willing to step up and serve. So I want to thank all of our applicants for their willingness to serve it. You make our jobs very difficult. At this time, we have about, oh, maybe five minutes. We'll take a quick break and return at 3.30 for our time-certain agenda item in regards to the ADUs. Okay, we'll reconvene now. So now we will begin the public hearing, which is item number 23. And as a reminder, the order will be a staff presentation and that will be followed by questions of staff from the council. We will then open it up to public comment and return to council for deliberation and action. And I will go ahead and turn it over to staff. Thank you, Mayor Watkins and Council members. I'm Lee Butler, the Director of Planning and Community Development here. And we're very pleased to be presenting this to you today. The city embarked on a significant outreach effort in 2017 and that culminated in a series of recommendations that were then prioritized last year by the Housing Blueprint Subcommittee that consisted of Council Member Brown, then Council Member Watkins, and Council Member Chase, and then Council Member Chase, I should say. And the facilitation of ADUs was one of the top priorities from that exercise. Specifically, the community readiness scoring was particularly high for these particular changes. And we went through some specifics and we had an opportunity to really vet a lot of the proposed changes with the community. And we're pleased to be presenting these changes to the council today. The city has long been recognized as a leader in its Access Redwelling Unit policies. Back in the early 2000s, the city received national recognition for some of the policies and programs that we had in place. And while all of the changes that we have before you tonight are not groundbreaking, we do have some very progressive policies here. For example, our allowances for categorizing ADUs into conversion ADUs, which offer a number of benefits. And so we're going to go through the proposed changes and we will try to tackle those in an organized manner. It's a fairly detailed topic and, as you all know, in having reviewed the material, but for the benefit of the public, we do want to go through some of those changes briefly. And if the council needs any more details, then feel free to stop us and ask. And so with that, I will turn it over to Sarah Fleming and Sarah Noisy, our senior planner and principal planner in advanced planning. Thank you. Good afternoon, council members. I'm so happy to be here with you today. It's been a bit of a process getting here and I'm just so excited to finally get to present this material that we've been working with the community to create for the past several months. I'd also like to thank the community members that were able to make it today and have stuck through this process as it has had some challenges along the path. So we'll get started with a little bit of background. As Lee mentioned, the City of Santa Cruz has had an award-winning program for ADUs. We were recognized nationally shortly after the amendments were made in 2003. Our first ordinance came into place in 1983 following the first state law that created at the time what were called second units. We've also done amendments recently in 2008, 2012, 2015, and then in 2016 in response to state legislation. All those other times, those were locally initiated amendments to our code. These prototype plans that you see here were released in 2003 and certainly generated a lot of publicity for the program and interest from local residents. So also, as the planning director mentioned, the majority of the proposals that are included with today's ordinance amendments come from the housing blueprints of committee recommendations. So these are recommendations that were generated out in the community and heard during the housing voices process and prioritized by the subcommittee as objectives that we should be pursuing. And then I'd just also like to highlight this chart comes from a white paper by the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership about affordable housing. So policy changes that could really improve affordable housing in the Monterey Bay region was published January of last year. And it identifies ADUs as having a significant effect on the affordability of housing in a region. And so we do feel like the direction that came out of the housing blueprint subcommittee was well founded in evidence. And the community is also aware of that and supportive. So the community outreach that we've done on these proposals in sort of a variety of iteration, so our earliest community outreach was in March of 2015. The Accessory Dwelling Unit proposals were part of a larger community meeting focused on the housing blueprint. And as you can see here with the green dots, please don't try to read what it says on the boards. The pictures are far too small for that, but you can see that in general there was overwhelming support for a lot of these proposals. There are a few here that we can clearly identify as being more controversial and we see more red dots on the boards. And those are issues about short-term rentals, about removing owner occupancy, and about parking requirements. And legitimately there is community concern and interest in those issues, so we'll get to that. In July, we discussed ADUs with the community at an informational meeting about the work that was happening in the advanced planning section at the time. And we did take a small amount of input at that meeting, but more than anything we were trying to get help people be aware of what the work that we were doing and how they could be engaged in the process moving forward. At that time, we were hearing concerns about just cause eviction. And then again, we heard more concerns about parking and owner occupancy, the owner occupancy requirement on both sides. Talking about the desire to legalize existing structures, and then some also some specific questions about fire sprinklers. And then we had some recommendations about how we can reach out to the community in the future once we have new codes in place and sort of strengthen the program of ADUs rather than the policy and regulations of ADUs. So then once we had drafted specific language for the ordinance, we held a community meeting in September of last year that was an open house focusing on soliciting written comments from the community. And we really wanted people to explain why one of the policy proposals was right or wrong for Santa Cruz or right or wrong for their neighborhood or for their parcel. And we got extremely thoughtful and detailed comments. I hope you've all had a chance to read through the comments we got at that meeting. Alone, we received over 100 comments. We've since then received another probably 200 pages of comments that represent probably 175 individual comments from folks. So the community's been very engaged and overwhelmingly, these folks are supportive of most of these proposals. And there are a few that are controversial and we'll get to those shortly. So since that time, since that last community meeting, I've been doing my best to keep folks up to date via email. I'm sure there are some people who are ready to block my email address because I keep writing saying, we got postponed again. And yet, here we are. So the last time I was happy to be able to email them and tell them we had a time certain, which guaranteed we would be heard today. So we've also been keeping our information on the website up to date. And then I also drafted a summary of all the proposals and we put them in lay terms and set them in the context of what was the status quo. Because there was some sort of information that was flying around about the degree to which we are proposing changes. That was a little bit inaccurate based on not understanding where the status quo was at the time. So I believe that was very helpful to folks. So here we go, into the policy proposals. We've broken these down into three categories in the same manner that they are broken down in the staff report. And we'll go through them one by one. So category one are things that are required by the state law. Category two will be our land use policy proposals, I'm sorry. Category two is our site standard, development standard proposals, which are more sort of specific zoning standards. And then category three are the larger, bigger picture land use proposals about how we choose to use land and how our values are as a community in terms of creating housing and balancing competing needs. So category one changes that are required by state law. We are required to remove our current standard that requires a parking space be created for an attached ADU. So that's an ADU that's either attached to the home, attached to a garage, attached to another legal structure on the property. State law preempts us in that arena. There's an asterisk there because our current proposal is actually to go a bit further than that. But we'll discuss that piece later under land use proposals. We are also required to remove the minimum parcel size. So currently we limit ADUs to being on parcels that are 4500 square feet or larger. We can no longer maintain that requirement. We also need to allow ADUs to be built by right, which means they only need to apply for a building permit. There's no zoning permit, there's no planning, design review. And all zones that allow residential use when they're built on the same parcel with an existing work proposed single family home. So there were a few multi-family zone districts where we had not previously allowed the creation of ADUs. And we are adding those to the list of zones where you can create an ADU with a single family home. We are removing requirements for use permit in public hearings. So the current code only requires a design permit and public hearing for ADUs when they're built on substandard parcels. A substandard parcel is one that is narrower than 50 feet wide or smaller than is required by the zone district. And because we are not allowed to apply any discretion to ADUs, we have to have a ministerial process, we can't hold public hearings and require use permits. So we're removing that standard that applied to that subset of ADUs. And then finally, we are, this one's a little complicated, I'm sorry. So the state law in 2016 created an allowance for ADUs that are built above garages. It said that the setbacks for an ADU above a garage, we can't require anything more than five feet from the side and rear. At the time, the way we wrote that into our code was that we set a date and we said if your garage was built before the date of this state law, you can take advantage of five feet side and rear if your garage is built after this date. You have to meet our setbacks for a two-story structure, which would be five feet from the side and ten feet from the rear typically. Our attorney disagrees with that interpretation and so we are removing the date. So any garage built at any time, an ADU built on the second story above that would be eligible for these five foot side and rear setbacks. So category two, site and building standards. So these are the specific zoning standards that apply to development on a parcel. So the proposal is to, the first proposal is to increase the allowable rear yard lot coverage from 30% to 50%. So currently the code for all, resident, all single family home development allows no more than, that no more than 30% of that rear yard lot area be covered. The rear yard lot area is the area that is the width of the lot and the depth of the required setback for the primary structure. So on a residential parcel, so the setback for the primary home. So for example, an R15 parcel, so single family, 5,000 square foot, typical parcel size. That setback is 20 feet, so a typical R15 lot is 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep. So that rear yard setback area is an area that is 50 feet long and 20 feet deep. That's the rear yard setback area. And our code requires that no more than 30% of that area be covered by structures. And what we're proposing is that when there's a detached ADU proposed on the parcel, that we allow them to increase that coverage area to 50%. We're also proposing to change the way that we define what a conversion ADU is. So the planning director mentioned that conversion ADU is we're creating category for that in our code. That's in response to some of the state law provisions of 2016 and 2017 that really carve out a special category of ADUs when they're created from any existing legal structure that says they do not have to pay certain fees and they do not have to meet our zoning site standards. So if there's already a structure in place that may exceed some zoning standard, if they want to convert that to an ADU, we must permit them to do that. So long as they can bring that structure into conformance with the building code. So we're actually recommending that we go one step further to update the definition to allow the full reconstruction of those structures and also to allow modest expansions. So currently, we only allow folks to reconstruct 50% of a structure in order to still qualify as a conversion ADU as using an existing structure. The challenge that we run into with that particularly arises as we are trying to legalize some of these units that have been created without the benefit of permits. Applicants get into a situation where because the cost benefit of avoiding those connection fees is so large that they are trying to figure out how to build a structure and only change half of it and really building the whole thing because it's old, the lumber is potentially substandard. And we're trying to figure out ways to accommodate them. We want to keep these homes on the market and yet we are obligated to make sure it's safe and durable housing that's created. So there are just situations where it would be reasonable to allow up to the full reconstruction of a structure within that same footprint. And then additionally, we're also recommending that we allow modest expansions. So up to 120 square feet of new floor area to be added to a structure and up to two feet of height. And this, again, is to try to facilitate the use of older structures where sort of the impact to neighbors in terms of sight lines and perception of privacy is already in place to reuse that footprint area to create housing. We think that's a good use of our time and a good use of space in neighborhoods. The third one about changing the green building standards. So Santa Cruz has a green building program that already takes construction, requires that construction meet a higher threshold for green building than is required by the state, which is already higher than other states in the nation. And additionally, the standards that are in place today are more energy efficient and more environmentally conscious than were in place when the majority of our housing stock was created over the past decades. So what we're talking about changing here, the 80 U amendments that came through in, I believe, 2015 or 2016, with the best of intentions, added an additional threshold of green building points that were required to create new ADU. They had to, for conversion ADUs, they had to achieve an additional 15 green building points, then would be required for other types of residential construction. And for new construction ADUs, they had to meet the threshold for priority processing, which is really a very high threshold. And what we heard from the community and what came up through the Housing Voices report is that this was really sort of a disincentive or a challenge for homeowners as they're considering creating one of these for a family member. And we, both the Housing Blueprint Subcommittee and staff kind of worked internally and discussed what's the right threshold to set. We set this as one of our priority actions and then staff took it to our green building program and our planners. And it seemed that creating parity with the requirements for single family homes just made sense. It's already a very high standard and creating an additional threshold for ADUs just didn't seem to match our priorities of creating housing units and facilitating that process for homeowners. Number four here, changing the ADU size. So currently attached ADUs are subject to two size thresholds and they can be larger than, and it's sort of the smaller of either one applies. So they're either allowed to be up to 10% of the parcel size, which is the size limit otherwise for all ADUs. Also, they could be no larger than 50% of the size of the primary home. And we don't really see a good reason for maintaining that standard. We should just, we're recommending that we allow all ADUs regardless of how they're constructed to be the same size limit at 10% of the parcel size. And then finally, this is something that staff heard from, we've heard from several different applicants and it's just a tiny little thing but could create a lot of convenience for folks that are living and using these ADUs, we're proposing to allow interior doors between attached ADUs in the primary home. The classic example of why you would want this is that you have literally your mother-in-law living in the unit and she wants to use your laundry room and because we don't allow a door between the units, she has to carry her laundry outside through the rain, uphill, whatever. And through the front door and to use your laundry room. And so we think it's reasonable that compliant with the building code we could have a door that connects the two units so they can share facilities, share a garage, share a laundry room, share a storage area, things like that. So category three, land use policies. These are the issues that are a bit more controversial. I'll go through each of these, I'll have a set of slides about each one. But just really briefly, the overview is that we're proposing, or I'm sorry, we're proposing allowing two ADUs on certain large lots. Allowing temporary short-term rental activity in order to incentivize ADU development. Eliminating the parking requirement for new construction detached ADUs. And then modifying the definition of owner-occupant to include immediate family members. So we'll start with policy number one, allowing two ADUs on large lots. So we wanted to, in analyzing this, we wanted to sort of take a cautious step into this arena. So our suggestion or our initial goal was to sort of identify that largest 10% of parcels. Has maybe a good place to start and explore this new kind of policy. So what we did here was we mapped all the parcels that would be eligible to create an ADU based on zoning. So this is everything in the city that carries a residential zoning. Yes, including De La Viega Golf Course carries a residential zoning. The next cut is to identify parcels that are eligible for an ADU based on existing use. Because let's remember an ADU has to be built alongside a single family home, either existing or proposed. So this is a map that shows all the parcels that have existing single family dwellings or an existing home and an ADU. And then the next step we took was to filter out those that were too small. So we identified, we did a rough calculation based on our GIS information of the developable area on each parcel. So that excludes areas that are in flood plains and over 30%. And one other thing that I can never remember. But so there are three factors that determine what's not developable land. So we pull those out and then we look at the size of the parcels and these are the parcels that are over 10,000 square feet. So you can see this is about 11,000 parcels are eligible for ADUs. And we have over 1,100, so it's a little bit more than 10%, it's about 11.5%, I think, parcels. That might be eligible to build two ADUs. As you can see, they are in every neighborhood of the city, they are concentrated in certain neighborhoods. And that is certainly something for your council to consider. We had a number of comments both from the, during the public open house. And since then, that have commented that we should actually choose a lower threshold than 10,000 square feet. So we did this same sort of analysis at a couple of different thresholds and those were addressed in this policy alternatives attachment. It was attached to the staff report if you wanted to look at how that might impact the number of parcels that would be eligible for this. And finally, what we're proposing is that in cases where two ADUs are permitted, the size of those ADUs be a total of 10% of the parcel size. So you still get your ADU size and you can decide how to distribute that over two ADUs if you choose to. So on a 10,000 square foot lot, we wouldn't have two 1,000 square foot ADUs. We would have two 500 or a 600 and 400 or however, the homeowner might choose to distribute that amount of built square footage. The advantages here, this promotes not only the creation of more housing, but of more small housing. Which is really, when we look at our numbers, small housing units are what's really missing in our existing market for single students, seniors. And so this might be a way of allowing that to happen in some of these neighborhoods where there's potentially space for these other units. So policy two about short-term rental activity. So let's just remind ourselves that the short-term rental regulations were finalized in April of 2018. And that properties with ADUs were specifically excluded from being eligible for short-term rentals. Reasonable people might ask why we are now suggesting it, given that we just went through this process and just made a decision about it. It's a very good question to ask. So the thinking here, and again, this comes from, this was an idea we were instructed to explore through the housing blueprint. So that's the nexus of us bringing it here. We do think there's some evidence that it could incentivize the creation of these housing units. Once housing units are exist and they're on the ground, they're durable for decades. And so the proposal as it's currently drafted would allow a brief period of three years of short-term rental activity for all ADUs that are newly completed as of January 1st of this year. We think this could help some homeowners recoup some of their costs. These are very expensive to build. They're not built by developers. They're built by private homeowners, many of whom have never even pulled a building permit before. They've never remodeled their homes. This is their first foray into building something. And quite frankly, there's a lot of sticker shock involved. I think that typically these cost between $200,000 and $450,000 to create, depending on how they're built and how they're finished and how large they are. And so our thinking is that allowing some period where a property owner could enjoy a higher rate of return on their investment might help some people who are cautious or not sure they could afford it without that to come off the fence and create an ADU, which will then be available in our community after that. And I just, I found one piece of data on this that I just would like to share with you. When we're talking about ADUs, people like to talk about Portland a lot because they have a very progressive and successful ADU program. So the Turner Center for Housing Innovation out of UC Berkeley did a paper that came out in 2017 sort of analyzing a bunch of the different reforms that had been implemented in Portland and the effect that those had had on the production of ADUs. And I will call your attention to the change in 2010. The SDC fee waivers, so SDC are their system development charges. So that's most of the development fees that apply to residential development in Portland. When they did that fee waiver, there was a bump, not in significant bump in production from creating that. And then we see that STRs are officially allowed, short-term rentals are officially allowed in ADUs starting in 2014. And the change in production is notable. So we would just offer this as one data point that there could be a lot of other things that are going on that are not shown in this graph. There are certainly things in the financial market. There are things in the private sector and the construction trades that are happening in Portland around this time. We could also be contributing to this. We certainly don't have every exhaustive piece of information, but I would just offer that this is one of the reasons we're suggesting this. Yes, it's a balance of priorities for your council, but I just wanted to provide this piece of information. So number three, eliminating parking requirements for detached ADUs. So state law already preempts our ability to require parking in many cases. Any ADU that's attached to another legal structure on the property. Any ADU that's created by converting any legal structure on the property. Any ADU that's within a half mile of transit, which for our purposes and our code, we define transit as the metro station downtown, or within one block of a car share parking space. Or any ADU that's located in a historic district. So we can't require any parking for all of those ADUs already. We can require one space per new construction detached ADU outside of a half mile from the transit center. And more than a block from a car share vehicle and not in a historic district. So that's the universe that we're sort of discussing here. Those ADUs that exist outside of those areas. We currently require one space and we're suggesting that we remove that requirement and just allow all ADUs to be built without requiring any additional off street parking be created. Public Works Department has raised some concerns about that, about overcrowding in certain areas. And specifically during street cleaning and trash removal days, that this might be a challenge for them. We also have obviously heard from a number of members of the community about concerns. Specific parking concerns in their neighborhoods, and obviously this is the kind of policy that would not hit every neighborhood in the same way. And there would be varying impacts in different places. We do, the city does have a residential permit parking program that might be appropriate in some of these neighborhoods. And that program is available to any neighborhood that wants to opt in. They need to get 67% of the neighbors to opt in on a street segment. And then they can enter into the permit parking program. So the last land use policy that we're going to discuss today is about modifying the definition of owner occupant. So all the proposals that I've discussed before this one are really focused on increasing the production of ADUs. I want to be very transparent that it is our goal to increase production of ADUs, increase production of housing in general, and this set of proposals is very focused specifically on increasing production of ADUs. This policy I don't really see as focused on increasing the production. This is more about providing an accommodation to our existing ADU owners who went through the process of get it to get a permit and are now bound by their land use agreement. And required to basically live on the property in perpetuity, should they want to maintain the ADU. The concerns that we hear from folks are these homeowners, they built the ADU and they have one of their children living in it. And then the homeowner has to enter assisted living for some unknown amount of time. We have an allowance in our code that gives them up to three years to waive the owner occupancy requirement. And then we do monitoring on that. And we have the city councils just a few months ago adopted an affordable rent requirement associated with that program. But it gives them only three years to sort of resolve whatever may be going on and have either the family member that's still living on the property be added to the deed or have the property owner move back on to the property or then they have to, or there are other two options are to sell the property to another owner occupant or to remove the ADU from the property, which is not an outcome that I think anyone wants to see happen. So changing the definition of owner occupant to allow immediate family members. So parents, siblings, spouses, adult children, to take the place of an owner occupant and maintain that same level of property management because really this owner occupancy provision is about property management and about maintaining responsible tenants in a neighborhood of single family homes. We think that is a reasonable step to take. It's a cautious step. We're not suggesting at this point that we allow grandchildren and cousins. Second cousins, we really want to keep this narrow and focused as a first step into this arena. But we do think it creates some flexibility and will allow properties to be held by local families for a longer period of time and potentially create more stability for any tenants that might be living on those properties. If the property owner can move out and have one of their adult children move in, the tenant can stay in place. So that's our reasoning behind this proposal. So right, and I have this animation. So for example, if Maria here owns the home, then all of these folks are potential eligible owner occupants under this proposed definition. These two guys would be eligible in eight to ten years when they're adults legally, they would be able to take over that responsibility. So those are all, that's all the stuff that's in the proposed ordinance today. And then we have a couple of other sort of informational items that I'll just go through kind of quickly. So some cost savings. We did have some direction in the housing blueprint to consider ways to create cost savings for property owners. Several of the policy changes would create some cost savings for people building ADUs. Removing the parking requirement lowers construction costs. I have one applicant who calls me frequently to talk about this. And her quote to add one parking space to her property was $25,000. So she has to move part of a retaining wall, she has to repay, she has to widen her curb cut. There's permits associated with each of those pieces, it's not a small thing to add a parking space. So changing that standard would relieve her of that cost. We made some sort of internal changes to the way that fire sprinklers requirements are regulated. That will also lower construction costs that comes from the state law. And we've just applied it in a little bit more of a broad way recently through policy change. Expanding the definition of conversion ADUs will allow more ADUs to qualify for those fee waivers which is the savings of about between $82,000 and $84,000. I'm sorry, $82,000 and $8,400. Pardon me. Don't get that excited. And then finally, also removing that use permit in public hearing requirements will lower the cost and the timeline for folks, the public hearing application I think is about $2,300, $2,400 to cover staff time and noticing. So that would be another savings for some folks. And then also finally included with your package today is a resolution that would lower the general plan maintenance fee by 50% for ADU permits. And just to offer some perspective, that's not a huge savings. It's something we're able to do right now, but it's between $450 and $750 for a typical ADU applicant. There would be a resulting reduction in contributions to the city's general fund. But we think it's a worthwhile contribution. It's between $15,000 and $35,000, depending on how many ADUs are constructed in a given year. So lastly, we're hoping to get some discussion and direction from your council about the question of lifting owner occupancy. Either in exchange for an affordability commitment from the property owner or simply lifting the requirement wholesale. We were, again, this comes out of the Housing Blueprint Subcommittee recommendations was to explore this. And we explored it and we came up with a proposal which we then took to the public workshop in September. And what we heard back from folks who had recently built ADUs or were in the process or were considering building ADUs is that the proposal we had come up with was not at all going to create any affordable housing. What we were recommending was that we require that the unit be rented at the very low income rate at 50%. And the rents that you're allowed to receive for that are so low that no one would be able to cover their cost of construction because cost of construction are high, as we've mentioned. So it just became clear that we weren't going to be able to solve that issue in addition to solving all the other issues that we think did solve pretty well at the same time. So we sort of set that aside. We made this a discussion item. And I do think this is an issue. There are pros and cons to changing the owner occupancy requirement. Pros, it keeps rentals on the market. It eliminates the incentive to build without permits. I mean this is something that I heard from a few folks who had permits is that they wouldn't recommend that people get them. Because we have this legalization program that allows you to be non-owner occupied and allows you to accept a Section 8 housing voucher, which allows you to collect essentially fair market rent. So you could get 18, I think I put the number in the staff report, it's like 1850 about for a one bedroom apartment, whereas the affordable rent that we would require people charge was like $750. It's a very, I mean it's a big difference. So I was talking to one gentleman who has his ADU, he's had it for 15 years, and he was just adamant that he would not recommend people get permits. Because we always come back and give leniency to people who haven't gotten permits because we're so interested in keeping housing on the market. So we're trying to create some parity there. I think that's a reason, that's a worthy goal to try to create parity between people who got the permits we want them to get. And people who are providing housing but not getting permits. So we want all of those housing units on the market. So another pro, increase this number of units rented because you could allow both the house and the ADU to be rented if the owner wanted to move out of town for a while. It could increase the production of housing units and create flexibility for owners. Again, this is about allowing people to be able to move off site, continue to hold the property, things like that. So that said, obviously there are cons to this. One of the primary ones that I was concerned about was about creating speculation in our already tight and competitive single family home market. Particularly at that lower end single family homes that might be available to for buyers. If we just wholesale lift our occupancy with no conditions, I mean those could just all be purchased by corporations. They put it in ADU, they rent it with a Section 8 voucher and it just becomes impossible to buy into the housing market. So I am very concerned about that. We're also obviously for neighbors property management concerns and then implications for the stability of a neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. That said, I think there are solutions to many of those challenges and I think it's a conversation the community would like to have. So what we're requesting at this point is simply direction from the city council. Should we pursue this with the community? Should we do our research and look at these other cities who don't have own a rocket and see requirements and see how it's going for them and discuss that with the community and come up with some kind of recommendation? I mean there are options we could pursue. Maybe there's a period of owner occupancy required, maybe we require it for five or ten years. And then after that point then we allow people to move off the property and rent both units. Maybe there are a whole host of solutions I think we could explore and so that's really what we're hoping to hear from you today. Should we continue exploring that or is it just a complete on starter and we should save our efforts for other things? So after today's city council meeting, next steps, what's not shown here is there will be a second reading. Should something get approved today? There would be a second reading of that ordinance following that second reading. We would take it, oh I didn't update the dates on this, sorry. We'll take it to the first available meeting of the Coastal Commission after February of 2019. And then mid to late 2019 we'll be back with some policy items about junior ADUs and other sort of small alternative housing types. Sort of trying to make sure we have the right mix of options in our code. We're also going to be doing further work on lowering fees and costs. So both lowering costs through looking at what is required when you're building an ADU and then lowering fees specifically. Maybe on certain types of ADUs, certain fees aren't required. Things like that, and then if directed we would then also be looking to bring back the owner occupancy research and item. So this is our formal recommendation. You can read it on your staff report, I won't reiterate it. And then this is more of a suggestion than a recommendation, but for ease of discussion your council may wish to break the motion into separate sections. The planning commission did this and it worked pretty well. So look at the state law amendments and make a motion and take a vote. Think at the site standard amendments, take a vote, land use amendments, take a vote. And then do the resolutions at the end and then the discussion of owner occupancy at the end. Just that's our suggestion in terms of how you might frame your conversation this afternoon. So, that took a long time, we're ready for any questions. Well thank you for your presentation and for your patience with this item along with the community members who've been tracking it. I think this is the fourth time it's been brought before us. So I just want to thank you for your patience with us and for being here today. At this time, I'd like to ask the council if there are any questions. I know this is a very dense item with a lot of components. So I will open it up to questions and then after we conclude the questions, I will open it up to public comment and then back to the council for deliberation and action. Questions from council members? I just have a couple. Is anybody else have any? I do, but after you. You might have mentioned this, but I'm just curious how many ADUs do we have right now in the city? We currently have just over 450, I'd say between 450 and 475 that are existing with permits. We also, based on assessor's use data and our code enforcement database, we have around another 400 that exist without permits that are currently on deck to work their way through our legalization program. And you mentioned one of the state laws that we would need to come into compliance was the garage on the second story setback. But I'm not seeing that in our materials. Is that, did I capture that correctly? I just, I'm quite. So let me just. All of that when you. So let me ask you, did you pull the staff report from a prior agenda or did you pull it from today's agenda? It was whatever was in our binder as of last Friday. So, okay, then it's somehow paid to numbers got lost on this. I apologize, but it's at the bottom of page three under state law requirements. And then it says E, allow all the ADUs built above garages to reduce side and rear stuff. That's all I need. I just wanted to, I'll read it. Thank you. Those are, yeah, those are the ones I had for clarification. Thank you. Excuse me. No questions, Council Member Brown? Okay, my question is actually about something that is not in these recommendations, so I'll just wait until. Council Member Glover? Just a clarifying question with the development of ADUs. Do they count towards our rena development goals? Yes. And then, is there a difference in the market rate ADU development to the affordable rate development of ADUs and pertaining to the rena goals? Yes, so if an ADU is developed and it carries a deed restriction for affordability, currently the only way that happens is via our fee waiver program, which requires that those units be restricted to low or very low income. Which is, so low income for the city's definition is set at 60%, a household earning 60% of the area median income. And very low is set at a household earning 30% or 30%? I believe it's 50. Okay, earning 50%, let's go with 50. And so those are counted in those categories as per their deed restriction. Otherwise, other ADUs that are created based on the size are either counted as market rate or moderate income housing. Just simply based on being smaller, we know that they rent for just a little less than, I mean less than a single family home would rent for, so. And then just with, I really appreciate the slide that you showed about the Portland switch when that development really took an increase. The question there is, were there any other policies associated with that allowance of the short term rentals that required affordability? Or was that just, because I'm also concerned with just allowing short term rentals that it would then restrict for three years potential housing and then they would go back on the market rate instead of affordable? So Portland doesn't restrict them based on affordability. They actually have a really just liberal wide open policy right now. So the one difference between if you're building it as a short term rental versus building it for long term housing is that fee waiver program. They have that SDC fee waiver. That fee waiver only applies if you're building for long term housing. And if you're building for stated purpose of doing a short term rental, you have to pay the fees. So that's sort of the only distinction they make. I imagine there's some way that they capture folks that do one and then the other and want to maintain both. But I don't know all the details of their program, but they don't have any restriction on affordability. So the development standard be on the staff report, but specifically talking about the green building requirements. So just for people that may not be familiar with it, can you explain the point system? Because it's my understanding that it would make up a 15 point difference as opposed to what's currently required. It would reduce that by 15 points. So just what does that look like with regards to green building requirements? Does that mean less solar panels, less water conservation? Yeah, so the way that points are assigned through the green building program is based on the size, based on the square footage of development, they generate a point total. And the numbers that I have given you about a single family home is required to get 20, an ADU, conversion ADU has to get 35, and new construction has to get 45, those are the minimums. So based on square footage size, those numbers would scale up. But there's a whole catalog of green building actions that someone could add to their property. They could build a greenhouse with recycled windows. They could choose an extremely efficient water heater, they could put on solar panels, they could put on more solar panels. They could insulate to a higher degree, they could put in different windows, they could replace windows in the main house. There's just a whole bunch of stuff that goes into that. And what we're recommending is that the already high standard that applies to single family homes is sufficient for ADUs. And that the additional point value that was being required of ADUs was inhibiting construction. So that's really what we're talking about. We're still going to be building really green buildings. Everything new that is built is going to be greener than anything that was built 20 years ago, which our install base, our existing housing stock is much older than that. So we felt like this was a fair place to land to sort of balance those goals of ecological consciousness and the need to create housing. As you might know, I'm a big sticker for the environment, but also for affordable housing. So do you think it's feasible to provide that 15 point exemption for green building standards with the requirement of affordability on the unit? I mean, we always need to sort of think about balancing these different standards. I mean, I think that it would depend on the level of affordability that we require. There are costs associated with green building sometimes, and there are foregone income opportunities associated with choosing to rent at an affordable rate. That's something your council is going to have to balance in terms of what are the values and what's the priority. Anything to add? No, I would agree with that. It really is going to, I think a big impact will be if you do decide to go in that direction where you set that affordability level. Because as we heard before in some instances, that affordability level has been a disincentive when tied to other things for people who are looking to build. And if they can't make it pencil, then they're probably not going to build the unit. So we have to ask ourselves, or the council has to ask ourselves what we have to ask ourselves as a city, where do our values lie in terms of making that decision? Good choice of words. Other questions? Thank you for the presentation, Sarah. And also for the patience, because this is the third time around, I guess, or maybe more. I like that last one, where do our values lie? And I just want to say, I think keeping families intact and keeping them in Santa Cruz are really important in all of this. And giving people better opportunities, more opportunities to stay here. And I just would like council to reflect on what we're doing here. This is amazingly complex stuff. Looking through all these, I mean, I've seen a lot of issues come before council before. There's a lot in this document, and I just, my hat's off to you for taking it on. My main issues are about parking, owner occupancy, fees and fee waivers, like the conversion ADUs that you're talking about. And, again, giving folks a hand up a loan program, if you know. And you put up that one slide, we've had about 12 cities who currently have lifted the, or maybe it was eight cities, the owner occupancy. I'm just wondering if you've done any other homework or investigation into parking, because it just seems like there's parts of this that could really set up a nightmare in a lot of neighborhoods for parking. I'm just thinking like, okay, a two bedroom, you might get five students in there. That's five cars. I know that offline, I asked you if there's any chance of, can we limit parking? Can you deed restrict the number of cars a unit can have? I know you said maybe the city attorney would have an idea about that. But how would we, in your experience, like what places are handling, how are the parking handled in a lot of these places? I mean, especially a beach town like ours, I don't know if there's a Pacific Grove maybe, or is on that list, Marina? So I haven't done any research specifically related to ADUs in parking. Quite frankly, the state preempts us in most cases. We just have this one opportunity where we can still require parking. What I will say is that in general, parking for residential development varies widely between jurisdictions. It's very site specific. I mean, in some jurisdictions it varies between neighborhoods, depending on what's there and how large the lots are. I think it's hard to make just a general statement about how different places handle parking specifically around ADUs. I mean, I guess the part of my response is parking is a much bigger issue than just ADUs. Today, we're talking about what are the parking standards that we're going to continue to require for ADUs. And we know that there are certain neighborhoods that are highly impacted when we don't have the right type of housing built with the right kind of infrastructure and parking. Then we get these impacts, like you mentioned, with students in a two bedroom. And that it's a two-pronged issue. We have the issue about parking. And we also have the issue that students are living in a two bedroom ADU because there aren't other housing options available for them that might work. So we want to be careful about, again, balancing the production of housing and the cost that's associated with creating off-street parking. As you guys make this decision, that's the balance that you're going to have to strike. So specifically to your question about can we deed restrict the number of cars that can be associated with a specific address. I would like to consult with our city attorney on what his opinion is on that. Yes, and that question was posed to me late this morning in between a bunch of meetings with you all. My initial reaction was that even assuming that we could write a deed restriction to say only a certain number of vehicles can be owned by the occupants of the unit as a practical matter. I don't know how that's enforceable. On the other hand, you could restrict the number of parking permits issued to a specific address. And that might be one way to try to get at the topic. We do do that through our permit parking program. We limit the number of permits that are issued to an address and we issue the same number of permits regardless of how many units exist on that property. It looks like we haven't- Yeah, I'm Mark Dettel, Director of Public Works. I was just going to say that one same point, but the areas where we don't have a permit program like we're in the coastal zone, we can't get a permit. I mean that's pretty difficult to get a permit program. So areas where there's already ones existed, we do have that limitation of five permits that are issued. Three residential and two guest permits that we allow or parcel. Do you know if any of those cities you put up have zones for ADUs? Like this area is pretty good for ADUs, maybe this area is not. Like we talked about with short term vacation rentals, the same thing. We didn't go that route, but that was talked about. So the state law requires that anywhere you allow a single family home to be built, you have to allow an ADU to be built. Unless there's some extreme limitation on water or fire hazard. So the ability for a jurisdiction to limit the places where ADUs can be built is very limited. So this is a list that I was able, this is not an exhaustive list also of cities where owner occupancy requirements don't exist. But each one of them is probably going to have a different set of standards, a different set of requirements. I'm not aware of any of them that tie it to affordability. But they do handle it in a number of different ways. And then I will also add there are some of these places where they simply don't build a lot of ADUs. Because they have other types of housing that they're building instead. And there isn't that same push and demand on the market. So we want to look to other places and gather that data. But then we also need to have our local lens on Santa Cruz being the unique snowflake that it is. And really thinking about what's going to work here. A couple more quick questions. 35 to 45 are built per year. Is that steady over a certain amount of year? Or do you expect 35 to 45 to be built a year after? Typically that's been our experience in the past. A really high production year has been 50. We're expecting that our production will increase as we continue to make these changes. And then especially if we can figure out ways to lower costs for folks. And the sprinkler thing is over now. If the house had a sprinkler then the ADU wouldn't have to have a sprinkler. But now in neither the house nor the ADU has to have a sprinkler? So the thing that changed was we had, the state law says that if there's no sprinklers existing or required for the primary home. You don't have to put any sprinklers in the ADU. We had previously had a policy that stated that unless, yes that was the case. You don't have to install sprinklers unless the ADU is attached to a garage. And then if it's attached to a garage you still have to install the sprinklers. It's the opinion of the city attorney that that does not comply with the state law as it's written. So we have changed our policy and we'll be back. This fire will be back to change the ordinance in the future. There are different construction standards that then apply to those spaces that are attached to non-habitable space without a sprinkler system. But the sprinkler system is a costly endeavor to install. And so it's now not required unless it's already existing or required in the main home. Last question is, you had up there, quote, expanding definition of conversion ADUs lowers fee costs for more properties. Could you explain that? And when I go out into neighborhoods people would like to convert their ADU but with which they already have it and it's maybe it's not permitted currently. And they're wondering what kind of permit relief they could get if they want to pursue the garage conversion or some other structure that they might have built over time or was built before they even got there. Right. So our legalization program does require to folks to get permits. So if we have structures that should have gotten a permit and circumvented that process, they are required to meet the standards that will allow them to be issued permits. What this would allow us to do, this change in the definition of a conversion is that it would allow those structures to be more easily brought fully into compliance with our building code because as it is now they're trying to limit and only change 50% of the structure. And there are cases where you just, you know, in order to really bring it up to code, you have to change 65% of it. And all of a sudden you're triggering these fees and so now it's like not only did I get busted for having an illegal ADU, now I have to do all this really expensive construction and I got hit with this big extra fee. So we're just trying to find ways to expand that to like balance again, balance those needs. Like we want to create housing that's safe and adequate and durable over time. A lot of that is contained in the building code and bringing things up to building code and that's why we require permits and people to get building permits. And at the same time we understand that some of these things that are required are burdensome and costly and so we're trying to find the right way to kind of balance those effects and impacts on all parties. Thank you, Mayor. And then I'd like to just add one thing just to for the sake of clarity. So conversion ADUs currently are also exempt from the water and sewer connection fees that Sarah referenced earlier and that's about 82 to $8400 per unit. And so when you expand the definition of conversion ADUs to allow full reconstruction within the footprint, what that does and with small expansions for mechanical water heater, things like that, that allows more of those conversion ADUs to qualify for that fee exemption as well. I thought the state already exempted them, the water. Is that only for attached or detached? What Sarah is saying is that it will allow more projects to qualify for those fee exemptions. That's right. Yeah. Because you're changing the definition. Changing that definition locally. So Council Member Myers has a quick follow-up question with fees and then Vice Mayor Cummings will have a question and then Council Member Brown. With the reduction in fees, with the conversion units, that could add up pretty fast in terms of an impact. What does that do to the other fees that may be put on new construction? Are those going to go up? So I'm just aware of, if we're removing a certain type of housing or giving that exemption, it still costs X amount of dollars to maintain or provide service and keep pipes clean and things. So I'm curious if we're just sort of moving the, if we're going to have to move that requirement to new construction, which could include affordable housing as well. So I'm just kind of curious how we handle that. I have an answer, but okay. And you'll fill it. Okay, great. So yes, that's, I mean, that absolutely is one of, and that's one of the things that we're thinking about in terms of, you know, further fee reductions and potential cost savings for applicants is that that's something we're really thinking about. Or like, you know, what are the impacts and how will that, you know, sort of shortfall or change in the way the fee structure is applied? How will that affect other types of development? And so that's definitely something we're conscious of. In speaking with the water department and public works related to sewer, the way that fees are applied, so let's talk about water because they actually have a really robust fee study. So the way that fees are applied is based on, you know, a fee study that has, you know, three tiers of housing types for which they apply connection fees. And they're actually looking, considering changing the structure of the way they do fees to go to like a unit, a fixture count model rather than a per unit count. And I think part of that will result in cost savings for many different types of projects, not just ADUs, but also homes that may be single family homes that may be smaller or more water efficient. And so I think that that's something that they are thinking about and considering. And I don't think that given our current level of ADU production at, you know, 50 or fewer units per year, that it's an outsize impact that would be felt by other types of development. But Lee, do you have anything to add? Oh, you summed it up really well. I would, thank you. I would just reiterate that we have been coordinating with the water department on this. And the changes, the future changes that Sarah was referencing are things that we may be bringing back with the later set of changes that were referenced in Sarah's earlier presentation when we're revisiting those fees. And I would certainly agree that given the budget of the water department and the costs associated with this, not to mention that many of the ADUs that are already going through the process, they take the steps to qualify for the conversion. This would just qualify additional properties. So even the 35 or 45 ADUs that we produce, you know, some percentage of those are already qualifying for those fee reductions. This would just offer additional opportunities for that. And so in the scheme of the overall budget, it isn't something that would likely have a significant effect on any other projects. Thank you. Vice Mayor. So I have a couple just concerns around, and I know that councilmember Glover brought this up before, but just around. Are these questions or just overall statements? It's a mix. So I can maybe just direct questions, then we'll open up to public comment, and then we'll come back for deliberation and statements. So if you have any specific questions for staff, this would be the best. Okay. What defines new construction in terms of ADUs? So the way the ordinance is drafted now, new construction is basically anything that can't qualify as a conversion. So it's basically your one or the other. You're either, you know, creating new square footage where no structure existed, or you're using primarily some kind of existing structure, and you're either using it as it stands, rebuilding it to some degree, expanding it very slightly by no more than 120 square feet, or you're not, you know, or you're building new square footage where there was no structure and no lock coverage prior to that. So that's the. So does there have to be an increase in square footage in order for it to be considered new construction, or could someone just renovate and like remodel the entire interior, and that be considered new construction? That's no, that wouldn't be considered new construction. That's a conversion, what you just described. Yeah. As long as it's within the existing footprint, with the modest expansions that are allowed of 120 square feet and two feet in height. Yeah. So if you exceed those thresholds, like you're someone's converting their garage. Here's an example. So there's a 400 square foot garage that's on a 600 square foot parcel, or 6,000 square foot parcel, and they start designing their project and they're like, this is great. I'm going to convert my garage. It's going to be so convenient and so affordable. And then they start designing it and they realize, you know what, it would be really great if I could add a bathroom here. It would be really great if I could pop out, you know, if I could add a, maybe I could even fit in a second bedroom or like a private bedroom instead of building a studio. And all of a sudden they've designed a 600 square foot. So they've taken that 400 square foot and expanded it by 200 square feet. We would call that whole thing new construction under the way the code is written. If they could keep that expansion under 120 square feet and so build something that's, you know, 520 or less, then they would qualify under the code as conversion. And again, that's as written. However, it is within the purview of council. If you feel that those numbers should be potentially modified, that's, you know, a point of discussion for council to have if that's something you're interested in. Council Member Brown? So I'm trying to squeeze out my concerns versus questions. And so I'll just, I guess I'll just ask the question. One is a question about the for further consideration portion of this agenda report and the expression of a timeline for coming back to us with some of those. I'm just wondering, and I appreciate really all the work that's been done and the patients, I want to reiterate that because I think it's really important you have been, you know, very, very patient in showing up and then in preparing all of this. But I'm wondering, there is one area that I am wondering about actually coming back to us more quickly. And that's the ability to build ADUs. And we're talking about production and incentivizing production. And I am wondering, because I don't really see this being a major concern. So I'm at the question is why not bring us a proposal to allow ADU to be constructed in zones that have multi resident permits. So, you know, I mean, those areas where you could build, you could technically build a multi unit construction rather than an ADU. It seems like a simple thing to, in the scheme of incentivizing ADUs, I'd like to see it here. We don't see it here. And so I'm just wondering if you could talk about that. Sure. So, you know, it's not here because it wasn't in the HBS report. I mean, it wasn't something that came up early enough in the process to be included, unfortunately. So, I mean, it's just, it's a matter of balancing our workload. You know, we have a number of other things that are falling to our section shortly. And that, you know, adding the ability for, so let me just clarify, I believe what Council Member Brown is referring to is that currently our code does not allow the creation of an ADU on a parcel that has a duplex or a triplex or multi-family housing. That is something that's allowed in some places in the state. The state law gives us sort of the leeway to allow that. It doesn't meet the traditional definition of an ADU. But, you know, given that we're considering allowing two ADUs on a parcel with a single family home, it becomes a bit of a semantic argument. And, you know, fair enough, let's consider it. So, it's a matter of balancing, you know, in terms of our workload and preparing for that. That is an issue we would need to go, we would need to do public outreach and have a meeting with the public. We need to go back to the Planning Commission and discuss it with them, and then bring a recommendation forward to your City Council. So, I think the shortest timeline possible to achieve that would be three to four months. And what we're talking about instead is packaging should the rest of the Council agree to make that part of our direction. Packaging that with some of these other items that we're already planning to come back with on more of a six to nine month timeline. And then maybe a few final questions then we'll open it to public comment. Sure. In terms of how might that affect the workload to bring that back more quickly as a separate item given that it seems to be a simple. Things that seem simple are never simple. I'll just add that, you know, in the land use arena, there are always consequences and tradeoffs and balances to strike. So, it may be that it's very simple. To be quite honest, some of these policy changes that we're suggesting today I thought would be very controversial and haven't been. So, we could be surprised. I mean, there are also some things here that I thought were, you know, slam dunks and they've been very controversial. So, I just, it's hard to say. So, maybe it would be faster. You know, maybe it would be on the shorter end of that timeline. But, you know, there's, there's scheduling and there's, you know, getting folks to come to the meeting. Lee, do you have thoughts on that? Go ahead. Hi, thanks. I just wanted to clarify a couple things. One, we are adding that in multifamily districts, if there's a single family residence and ADU could be added. And so, I wanted to clarify that for the audience just in case there was some misunderstanding there. And I believe what you're talking about is if they're multifamily, like a duplex, for example, could they add an ADU? And one of the things that we want to explore with that, and certainly we don't think that that's a bad idea, but we also want to explore in some instances, it may actually prolong a less, fewer units on the property, let's say. So, a property may be ready for redevelopment, right for redevelopment, ready to combine with an adjacent parcel. And, you know, between those two parcels, you maybe could get 10 units, for example. But if that property were to invest that duplex that may be, you know, heading towards the end of its lifespan and ready to redevelop where to invest in an ADU, that could prolong three units on a property where we would be hoping to get substantially more. And so, that's one of the things that we want to discuss with the community and potentially come up with some ordinance language that would recognize that situation and acknowledge the equivalency of an ADU in terms of some of the benefits that ADUs provide with regards to whether it be parking or the connection fees, but also perhaps reference the benefits of the ADU, but not call it an ADU, such that there could be some discretion from a decision-making body as to whether or not this is really the right place to invest in just an ADU or if really we should be doing a more substantial redevelopment in that property. So, that's one of the things that we want to explore and we're happy to do that. And that's one of the things that we're hoping to do as part of this next phase. Thank you. I have another quick question related to the land use policy C, which I'm sure will in gender lively, robust discussion later but in comments, but I just have a quick question related to the parking requirements. My understanding, so we are being asked to eliminate all parking requirements for ADUs, which is different than what the state law requires we do and I get that part, but I'm wondering, given that the recommendation here, the discussion suggests residential parking permit programs as a way to kind of address those concerns. If I can get clear about the ability, so this has come, I'm trying to not express the concern, but we're essentially privatizing streets for allowing residential permits to be distributed for residential zones, but there is some, you know, I'm just not entirely clear if there's some ability for the general public to continue to park for two hours, so some zones have two hours, so we've got Washington Street that now has no public parking essentially. We can talk about that in terms of semantics, but that's really essentially what it's done. So, I just want to clarify where that, how that fits into this kind of general discussion about, well, we can have the residential parking permit program should have 60-ish percent of the residents want it. Yeah, I mean that's definitely a concern. Creating a parking district on a street segment is not, you know, something that neighborhoods undertake lightly, and each one is really tailored to the neighborhood and the impacts that they are seeing and feeling. Typically, up until now, the permit parking program has been focused on neighborhoods that are experiencing impacts from outside influences, so it's been, you know, areas that are around the boardwalk and areas that are near the university and areas that are near downtown, so it's not, as it's currently designed, it's, you know, it's not focused on regulating parking for residents in the neighborhood, it's really focused on regulating parking for folks that don't live in the neighborhood, and each, all of those standards are applied, you know, really uniquely. I could imagine that in these residential neighborhoods, should we, you know, should that become necessary to expand it into these residential neighborhoods as a result of one of these choices? Maybe the parking standard for visitors to that neighborhood in some places, maybe it would be that you're allowed to park for 24 hours instead of the standard 72, or maybe in some places, it's that you, you know, there's just no overnight parking, but you can park all day for however long, you know, there would just be a whole variety of solutions to that. Which, so just a quick follow-up question, which would be determined through the, through the permit application process, through the permit application process, and not come back to council. For the part, yeah, for, to establish the district, they would come up with the, you know, the, and I'm speaking a bit out of turn here because I have not, I mean, maybe Mark Dettel is here and he can speak to us. Okay, I'm going to invite Mark Dettel to speak to us. This isn't really a simple one, but I'm just trying to, they would come to the Public Works Commission and we would, they say they would request that, we'd give them an application, they'd fill it out. We would then do a survey of the neighborhoods and if we got two-thirds supported of that street segment for the permit parking and they're not in the coastal zone, then that would go into effect. Now, it depends, like you say, there's a variety, what does it look like, right? It could be two-hour parking. It could be no parking without a permit and we have a variety depending on what the need of the neighborhood is. So, and they would have to craft that before we went out and surveyed. So, there is some staff work involved in that, obviously. Absolutely. Okay, thank you. Right. The other thing to consider is on trash day and when we go to pick up, where do we put our trash cans as well as the trash amendment coming for the stormwater issue where we have to keep trash out of the stormwater. So, we may have to have no parking on your street sweeping day that may be coming down the road. Where do we put these cars then? So, that's the other consideration. Okay. Any final questions before we open it up to public comment? Yeah, just a few and then I promise it'll be over. So, just coming back really quickly to the short-term rentals. Is it feasible from the staff's perspective to offer instead of three years of short-term rental, one year of short-term rental or three years with the perpetuity of affordability? I mean, just because if we're, I mean, three years before we even get a one-bedroom on the market so that they can recoup their costs, three years of short-term rentals might. Yeah. I mean, so if there's another threshold that the council agrees would be more appropriate, you're welcome to make that motion and make a change here. The three years is actually different than the initial staff proposal, which was two. The planning commission felt that three years would be actually result in some amount of cost recovery for project applicants. Using that in exchange for affordability, I mean, again, the thing is about balancing how are we enticing construction and then how are we meeting the needs of our affordable households and there are places because ADUs are built by novice homeowner builders, novice builders, homeowners who really this is going to be the biggest project they ever undertaken in their lives. Those same incentives and disincentives, they're just much more sensitive to disincentives. It's not, it's not the same as if you're, you know, building 100 apartment apartments and, you know, you can require that a certain threshold be affordable. It's just the sensitivity to cost is much more severe with homeowners. Thank you. Any final questions? Yeah, just that same kind of question for people that have enough capital to build a second ADU because when you build on property, it increases your property value as a whole, right? So for people that are building that second ADU from staff's perspective, is it feasible to mandate that second ADU be affordable? I mean, that one I think is a little bit more palatable to me. Again, you know, those units, let's remember where there would be two, they would be small, you know, based on the way that's written now, those would be small units. So, so the costs associated with construction are higher per square foot on smaller units. So, it's a little bit different, but you know, to me, that doesn't strike me as unreasonable. The only thing I would say is that it's important to be mindful that when people are trying to get traditional financing, often the traditional lenders will not consider the future rental income on an ADU as a part of what they're looking at when they're providing financing. So, that would be something to weigh when you're thinking about if people have capital or not. Again, that's something that we would love to see changed in the big picture, you know, but that's definitely far beyond the purview of this item. I don't know if you have anything else to add to that. Yeah. And then the last thing is, I know we had spoken previously about the authorization of ADU development and multi-family zoned areas. Yeah. Is there, and then I know you had responded with the concern of for future, if there wanted to be future development for more housing in those areas, is there a way that we could work an agreement process through the landowner in the city so that we would know what their plans for development were or if they were never planning on develop the property then, you know, because the next person can come and buy it and demolish the whole thing. Right. So, yeah, so it's not so much about regulating, it's about, you know, in terms of like, if they put in an ADU, we wouldn't let them build something else. It's more about like the cost and the investment that's been placed in the property. And as you mentioned, adding the ADU increases the property value. So, this is the issue that Mr. Butler was just speaking to about, you know, if we add investment into a use that maybe has, you know, is functionally obsolete, you know, it's, you know, a 150-year-old duplex and really it's ripe for turning over and joining with the neighborhood parcel and building 10 units. Doing a major investment of installing an ADU raises the value of that property significantly. So, that property is now more difficult for a developer to purchase and combine with the neighboring parcel. So, we've just made that process harder for creating those units. And so, it's not really about, you know, having an agreement. You know, one thing I would say is that if we do pursue that, you know, allowing ADUs on parcels with existing multifamily, that we ensure that they are located on the site such that they don't preclude future development of that property to its maximum allowed density. You know, I think that's something we want to make sure at a minimum we preserve that on the property. So, on the ground we can see that there's enough space for both the future required units and any parking that would be required for those units. You know, just the other thing to sort of keep in mind is the reason that someone would prefer to build an ADU rather than build multifamily housing. I mean, let's think about that. Why can't we just make it easier to multifamily housing? You know, it's about the concessions they get with an ADU. They get reduced setbacks. They get a reduction in parking. You know, so there's all of that kind of things that we're considering. When you think about like our housing program overall, I mean, that's really the questions we should be asking ourselves is given that they are zoned for five units, why would they want to build an ADU instead of a triple X? So. Thank you. All right, thanks. I think at this point. I have to ask a follow-up question now. One final and then I really want to open it up to everyone. I'm sorry. I just I can't help myself. So, I mean, I all of that is understood, but I do want to ask the question. What why the city to make it difficult for private property owner to make that decision? I mean, in general, we leave it up to the property owner to make that decision. And my understanding is what we're kind of doing here is making it difficult for say we have a property owner who does want to do this as an alternative, who lives in a multi residential zone and now finds himself unable to do that because we think the multi unit is a higher best use for the land that is a private property owner who may not be turning it over and hopefully isn't who is prohibited from doing that. So why why not allow them to do that? So let's just let's recall that the purpose of an ADU, the reason they're created in state law and here locally is to add density to places where you cannot otherwise add density, right? So we're adding ADUs to single family neighborhoods because they're otherwise built out at one unit per parcel. And so that's just fundamentally different when you're talking about the parcels that are zoned for multi family use, you know, they already have the density. So why what does an ADU do for them? You know, sort of when you when you take a step back and think and you're not looking at all the details of why someone would want that because I do understand, you know, those concessions are real and cost effective for someone and I get it. But that's, you know, that's just that's part of the consideration. That's all. Thank you. Okay. So at this point I'd like to get a sense of how many people in the audience are interested in speaking to this item. Okay. So we'll allow up to 90 seconds per speaker. And if you can, please line up to my left. Okay. So if you're interested in speaking on this item specifically, the ADU item, you'd have up to 90 seconds. Are you are you interested in speaking? Okay, come right up. Hello, I'm Nate Alex Kennedy, gmail.com, 346-9888. What I got to say about this is everybody wants to live in Santa Cruz. This is such an awesome town, but nobody can afford to. And so what I think we really need to do more than just ADUs here, we need to let people build bigger. I think we should change the building code so that somebody can build at least 10 stories before they even have to come in here and get permission to build even bigger than that. The whole parking issue that's come up, what we need to do is make it so that probably the ground floor but also basement levels. We've put up a 10 building story and we have like two or three levels deep going down in the basement all for parking. That's how I think the parking can get taken care of. I got all that out really fast. Now I'm just trying to think what to say for the last 25 seconds. I'll just close with this. My email, my phone number is readily available. So Drew, Justin, and Sandy, and Chris, I would love to talk to all you guys. So please give me a call when you can. I understand you're really busy these days. That's that. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Council. I have a concern about the conversion ADUs and exempting them from any setbacks. And I understand there's, I wasn't sure about the state law consideration whether that was just for the fee exemption or whether that was for the setback. And I understand some policy issues. But for example, my neighbor has an existing garage that's about six inches from the side yard setback. In fact, his rafters are on my property. And I don't have any problem with them building an ADU there, but that's really too close. Like he has to come onto my property to do any maintenance or if he's going to rebuild it, he's going to basically have to come onto my property to build it. So I think you should take that into consideration and especially take that into consideration when you, if you're going to allow an additional 120 square foot expansion of that. So maybe you could have a minimum setback even if it isn't the five foot setback. If it's a two foot setback, at least they'd be able to maintain their property and build their property from their property rather than me having to give them an easement or me having to have my whole backyard exposed for the six months to a year that it takes them to build it. So just one minor concern. Thank you. Thank you. Tim Willoughby speaking for affordable housing now. Affordable housing now supports this package. We really like the package in fact. It's a great mix of incentives. And major reason is that ADUs can and have supplied a lot of new housing in our community that we desperately need, both affordable housing and workforce housing. And secondly, there's a usual package of things that ADUs offer that other kinds of construction don't. One is that they are affordable by design. They're going to be smaller. And even if you have two on the same lot, each of them together is going to have to be smaller in order to meet that requirement that's been listed. Secondly, it spreads out growth in our community into lots of different neighborhoods rather than fighting over battling over one particular big project in one area. So this makes every neighborhood contribute to the solution. And then important part is it doesn't require taxpayer subsidy in order to accomplish. And finally, what's really key here is that we have a lot of seniors in our community who would like to stay in the community, but they don't need a three-bedroom house. They can build an ADU, live in the ADU, and then a family can move into that house. And family housing is really in short supply. So we support it, but we do ask you for one thing. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. I try to keep it consistent for equity of voice. I appreciate you're welcome to submit your comments, but your time is up now. So we'll have the next speaker no more. I'm sorry. Thank you. You're welcome to submit your comments to our clerk and we can rotate them through. Thank you. Okay. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Micah Bosner. I'd like to build an ADU, but I'm in a duplex because the city won't let me build an ADU two years ago, so I had to make it into a duplex. And now I can't build an ADU because I'm no longer a single family home. So it's a bit odd. The reason that staff said that we have ADUs so that people in other zones can build units, I would disagree a little bit. It seems like the reason we create the ADU program as a county and as a state was to make it easier for small-time property owners like me to add housing. Ironically, in my zoning district, people don't have that many concerns about parking and setbacks and whatnot, but it's harder for me to build something in a multi-residential district where everyone expects there to be building than it is if I lived in a single family district. That's really weird, and it doesn't help the city because you're stopping people like me from building ADUs. I think there's two or three of us that might build an ADU if we could. I'd like the council to have that come back sooner than later. If it came back in four months, then some of us might build an ADU this year. If it came back in seven months, we'd have to wait for another 15 months because of the way you can't start in the winter when it's raining. So four months of work, but nine months would really mess me up. A lot of these rules are really Byzantine, and I hope you address this one. I also care a lot about the other stuff, and I think a lot of it's pretty good. Just to point out, 25% of people in Santa Cruz don't use cars to get around. When you require parking spots, you're penalizing people that don't drive, and that's bad for the environment. It's bad for our global warming policy. Okay, next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is Mark Promack. 90 seconds. I'll just offer a reality check. The city has not been innovative in ADUs since 2003. It's been regressive for the last 12 years. You've lost more safe ADUs in that time than you've built. So I think it's really important that you take the stance not that you're innovative and you want to add a few improvements, but that you're way behind the time and you need to catch up. So for instance, the state made it really clear that an ADU that was located within a half a mile of a bus stop did not have to have on-site parking. It's an embarrassment that the city has construed that as a half mile of a metro center. And the state, again, will remind you that probably within the year and get you into conformance. We really need to look at how we create affordable housing through ADUs. The city has lobbied to keep building codes strict and prohibitive for small units. You need to take the other approach and look at how you can streamline and ease those requirements. Green building requirements came into effect in Santa Cruz before we had Cal Green, before we had a state that was committed to net zero. And so what we have now is another layer of bureaucracy. It's a vanity piece the city has a rebuilding program that we don't need. Thank you. My name is Bill Cook. I live in Santa Cruz. I lived here for 40 years. I own a duplex. We added an art studio to the limits of the current regulations about 15 years ago. The intent is to increase density. I appreciate the work that's been done. I think we need to go further. We need to include multi-residential residences in consideration. In my case, I'm not able to make the art studio an ADU specifically because of density. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Darrell Darling, I just want to be sure that you're very cautious about living and lifting entirely the family requirements. The difference between Santa Cruz, gentlemen referred to this earlier, the difference between Santa Cruz and the Desert Island is that they're both confined. Nobody wants to live on a desert island. Everybody wants to live on our island. We're circumvented by or circumscribed by the ocean, the mountains, the hills, the forests, the agricultural land that we don't want to expand into. So we have to be selective about the purpose for each of our housing requirements and liberalizations. The ADU has an ideal application for keeping families in Santa Cruz intergenerational and family is an ever-evolving definition. So as the last gentleman or the an earlier gentleman said, it's primarily the need to keep families intact in Santa Cruz who are already here. Thank you. Next speaker. Dear Council members, Gillian Greensight, I've been to all of the hearings since 1983 and the five subsequent ones on this issue and at every one of those slew of public hearings, staff and council always stated that this program of ADUs had to balance the impact of ADUs on single family neighborhoods with the desire to build more housing. And this is the first iteration where that is barely mentioned. The balance has gone. The goal, staff said, was to provide the increase the production of ADUs. And I would say that the state has given you a direction and it would simplify everything if you just went with what the state is requiring. Going further than that is throwing the neighborhoods under the bus. Removing parking is just going to be a nightmare. Single, sorry, short-term rentals. Do you think somebody after they've got the big bucks from short-term rentals is going to rent at anything than the highest they can get? And the statement was made that affordability is a disincentive. ADUs are not affordable housing. If affordability is a disincentive, you should go cautious on this and not liberalize or change the requirements that throw the neighborhoods under the bus. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi, Robin Cunningham. I am an ADU owner and I agree with one of the statements that she just made, actually, that ADUs are not affordable housing. Anybody who's built one or who has purchased a residence that has one, it's pretty clear. And I guess the purpose of the study was to figure out how to incentivize people to build more housing. And you talked about how putting restrictions about affordable rents and whatnot were kind of deal killers. In addition to that, any serious restriction of rent control or just cause eviction will have the exact same effect. And if what you want is more housing, you have to really pay close attention to that and not be in the trees about that. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay, next speaker. Mara Kelsey. I live in the Seabright area and I really thank Sarah for her clear communication and writing up this ordinance. I have several concerns. One is about short-term rentals. It was a very casual conversation that jumped it from two to three years. I really have a lot of concern about that. I would say two is a max. That's my opinion. If you have short-term rentals, you really must have parking. There's no two ways about it. They're not riding their bikes. Two, parking, if you have two ADUs, parking at least one more space is important according to this, you have to do it according to the state law. But I would recommend keeping one more. Three, owner occupancy, I feel is very important, lived in Live Oak for 21 years on a corner. Five ADUs were built around us eventually. One was two were legal, one had an owner. It was a nightmare. Drugs, fights, cars, noise, prostitution. You name it in these five units around. I think owner occupancy is vital. Thank you. Okay, next speaker. Hi, Doug Putnam-Pyte. I live up on the west side. I've lived in Santa Cruz for decades and decades. We're actually in the process of trying to build an ADU. So I think the new rules that are coming out are, I think, really an incentive, particularly off-street parking is, for a lot of people that I've talked to about ADUs, that's a deal killer if you have to, like, tear up your front yard to take care of that. I think setbacks are helpful as well. I think just the whole process that the Housing Subcommittee went through was really helpful. I went to several of those meetings. I think you got a lot of the input from the community, and I think that input is representative of what people want to see in the city. So that kind of process for other housing activities I think would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next speaker. And before you begin, are there any additional speakers in the audience who want to address us on ADUs? Okay. Okay, so I'll have you at some certain point lineup on our left. Okay, go ahead. Congratulations, Mayor Watkins, for becoming mayor and our new council people. My name is William Kingsley. I'm a long-term resident of Santa Cruz. I just want to voice my opinion regarding ownership of ADUs. I think it's very important that we try to maintain ownership of the local people, and I do agree with some of the changes that have been made, allowing short-term rentals and allowing owners to move out for a while and then come back and still regain their property. The question I have about that is regarding how it interfaces with some of the just cause issues, and I don't know that is, I don't see that being resolved in this ordinance. Also, I had some questions that are more just related to understanding the standards. There's, Sarah and I explained my first question, which is I didn't understand how they defined the rear area of a yard, but I think you took care of that for me. And then in the zoning incentives, they explained that that was not going to apply. It says, in sections 24, 16, 140, number five does not apply if you are, limitations. Facing an alley? Yeah. Right. Facing an alley. I'm sorry. Yes. So I wondered what the constraints were. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Elise Casby. I just want to run through a couple of things. First of all, we're failing in our paradigms. We are absolutely not addressing the fact that we have 12 more years to address climate change in a very, very effective way so that climate change, and it will affect this community in a ferocious way, is we are not exposing our future children and youth and ourselves to just increased horrible effects, the worst effects of climate change. We do have an opportunity right now to address it. So ADUs are not affordable, and for the most part, they are not environmental. Not only are we going to have, if you reduce, if you take away what the state is requiring, the extra parking spot, you're going to have a lot of building traffic coming in, contractors, developers, plumbers, people bringing their cars in. What I'm trying to say is we need a paradigm shift, and if we don't have it from government, we are not going to get it. So government will be failing us. ADUs are not affordable, short-term rentals are more traffic coming in all the time. These people who are making gargantuan profits from their un-rent-controlled apartments should be able to afford the parking spot. And also, we need to really think about not only keeping families in the neighborhoods, but keeping all the singles who have been being pushed out, as our 2014 smart solution study showed, 70% of people born here are losing the ability to live here. We need single people housing. Thank you. Eminenton, Maine. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Hello, City Council. I'd just like to give credit. That was a good report and presentation. There's a lot to unpack in that. It's pretty dense. I just like, I could comment on a few things, but I just keep it brief to a few things, or a lot of things, a few things. The owner-occupied requirement, I actually own an ADU. I'm an ADU owner. And the owner-occupied requirement, I actually really believe strongly that it is a good thing for the ordinance. And to lift it entirely, I do not think would be advisable, essentially, for the cons that were listed on that slide. And of the other places where they have lifted it, I would consider only one of those would partially pique my interest in actually living in, just as a comparison. And the other thing with the parking, my ADU was actually built and actually has a garage plus one off-seat parking spot. And currently, there's tenants with two cars, and neither of them parked their cars in the parking spots. So just as one data point on that point. So essentially, if you do require these parking spots, you're turning over land that could be housing people for housing cars, essentially. Good afternoon, council members. My name is Jeffrey Smedberg. I really appreciate you're considering these ADU options. First, I want to say that in terms of allowing short-term rentals, I'm totally opposed to that. I think it's counterproductive to the goal of what kind of neighborhoods we're trying to build. I think we're trying to build neighborhoods that have more long-term residents. I am very appreciative of consideration of changing the owner-occupied requirement. Not all owners are the same who don't happen to live on the property. Perhaps the affordability requirement would be a good one to assure that a landlord who did not live there really cared about the community. In case in point, my son-in-law who grew up in Santa Cruz bought a home, built an ADU, had his mother live there for a number of years. Now he's living over the hill for a period of time. We'll come back at some point. The situation right now is there's two residences on his property, and one of them is vacant. One of them has to stay vacant, and that doesn't make any sense. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker. Hi, Trisha Davis. I live on the west side. I purchased a house two years ago. They had an ADU. My daughter will go to UCSE next year, and I thought it would be perfect. Then I received a letter from that the ADU was not permitted and have been dealing with the process for the last year and a half, and it's very unpleasant. I'm hoping that if you can make a decision, it would be quickly because I'm now trying to sell the house because I've done all of the plans and studies and thousands in and need to make a decision whether I can move forward or need to sell, and I'm going to take a huge loss, which is sad needing to put two daughters through school. I don't know what the time frame is. I've watched this issue get pushed out, meeting after meeting, and I'm just hoping that you can make a decision quickly. I want to live in the house. I want to not rent it. I want my daughter to live in it. It seems like there's a huge use case for people with parents that need to stay in that house, so I think that if it would be easier to legalize these ADUs, people would do it. I mean, it was a rental for 17 years before I bought it, so now I'm kind of stuck with this, and so I understand all of the pieces, but I wish that it could get easier. Thank you. Our next speaker, and are you also in line to speak to this item? Okay, so I have you as our last speaker then. Okay. Hello. I feel whoever thinks our council is a circus is extremely disrespectful. I am totally for ADUs because I have lived in places where landlords have relinquished by separating circumstances, going out with bare feet, trying to do laundry, stepping on stepping sons, getting shocked to the system or whatever, but at the same time, I also feel that the overlaying of properties should be more of a get to know your neighbor better than sitting there thinking about killing them. What kind of hypocrisy is that? I've had a lot of people around my land, and I'm a free spirit, so they all respect that. And yeah, I consciously told anybody if my dog came through, be nice to my dog, it's not a wolf, what it looks like, I don't care what circumstance you think it is, even if it was a wolf. So, same thing. We all respect the moon, we all get the same energies. Let's live in peace, please. Thank you. All right. Last speaker. Good afternoon. I'm Scott Graham. As I have said before, I think that the city should have a program similar to the counties where people would be able to either legalize an existing ADU or build a new one with no fees as long as there's an affordability attachment to it for 20 years. I mean, you can look up the county's program, and it's sort of like a loan that they don't have to pay back for the fees as long as they keep it affordable for 20 years. And at the end of the 20 years, if they've spent affordable that whole time, the loan is forgiven. I also think that having the owner occupancy provision is a disincentive to building, and that if people live locally and the adjoining neighbors have a way to contact them, that that should be good. Or if it's managed by a local company that also the neighbors have a way of contacting, that that should be good enough for anybody. The other thing is, I think there should be an outreach to units that have been closed down over the last eight or 10 years to those landowners so that they can legalize their units once again. Thank you. Okay, so that concludes public comment for this item. At this time, I'd like to bring it back to council for action and deliberation, and I see that you have the recommendation before us. So perhaps to manage the conversation, we'll start if it's fine for the council with going through the state site and then land type considerations. Okay, so that was different than what was up earlier. So this is the state law amendment? I see what you're saying. Okay, so we're going to start with the state. All right? I mean, don't let me jump ahead of you. No, no, I appreciate it. You're helping even drill down further into state law. So if we can, we'll start with that. Is that work for the council? Okay. Okay, so any comments, action, motion, et cetera? I would move that we approve the recommended amendments as per state law. Second. Okay. So motion to approve recommendations one through five for state law made by council member Brown, seconded by a council member Glover. Any further discussion? Just a quick question. So I'm looking at the ADU policy goal sheet, this one here, and that has four items that fall under state law directive and test five. Yes. The piece about the setbacks about garages was added. I apologize. I have an old sheet. Yeah, I mean, well, I didn't update it. I failed to update it. So this was added at a date after sometime after the first time I tried to come to council. You've answered my question. Okay. Any further discussion before we vote on state law? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. So now before us is discussion around some of the site standard amendments. You can see listed here one through five. So I'd like to open it up for action discussion. Just a couple of questions that folks asked. Like the minimum setback, like how often would that happen where somebody's in somebody's yard building their ADU or having to ask for access? And what if the access was denied, I guess, or are they going to charge an easement fee? So the gentleman's comment was about conversion ADUs and if we can require a different setback than the built, the existing structure. And the answer to that is no, the state preempts us in this way. We have different structural requirements. The building code is different when you're within, I believe it's five feet of a property line. You have to build a firewall there. We don't allow, you know, if that structure that the gentleman was referencing was within six inches of his property line, if they were to reconstruct it, we wouldn't allow the eaves to extend over the property line. They would have to be corrected. But we can't require that the structure be moved or rebuilt at a certain setback that's beyond our control. But you don't foresee like these sort of neighborhood battles where people are going at it, you know, because I'm not going to give you access to my driveway because, you know, I don't want your ADU built. You know, neighborhood conflicts are sort of inevitable, I think, in anything that we do here in land use arena. Rule number one is to be a good neighbor. And I think that's something that's just unfortunately beyond our control. And Mr. Kingsley asked about facing the alley. What are the constraints? So if an ADU faces an alley or the Monterey Bay Scenic Trail, it has to meet the required setback, which is three feet for a single story ADU, and otherwise it has no rear yard lock coverage requirement. We are not proposing any changes to that section. I guess also like, how can we get, you know, we're hearing about affordability. And somebody said, ADUs are not affordable housing. And is there a way of, you know, getting them to be affordable? Somebody brought up the 20 years, you pay a loan back. More or less, what's the ballpark of fees that we charge to build an ADU between what and what? Depending on, I know, square footage. Yeah, it depends on square footage. Depends if it's, you know, conversion versus not. But I'd say the ballpark is somewhere between the low end, probably $6,000 or $7,000 anywhere up to, depending on, you know, is it going to involve an alley? Is it going to involve a sidewalk? It could reach $15,000 to $20,000, you know, which is not insignificant. Typically, I think when you compare that to the cost of the construction, the sweet spot to land in, in my opinion, is between 5% and 10% of the total construction costs. And I think we're in that ballpark. I think obviously there are things that we could do to reduce those fee burdens and to reduce some of the, you know, conditions that we apply to some of these projects. And we're going to continue to work on that. And we welcome any specific ideas that you hear from constituents or that you generate on your own. We would love to hear them because we are working with all the departments to think about the best way to reduce costs and reduce fee burdens. And thanks. Do you know if any of the cities mentioned so far have any loan programs where you... Yeah, there are a few. There are I mean, so far the ones that I've read about have been kind of pilot programs. There are a couple different tools out there. So the county has, as the gentleman mentioned, a forgivable loan program. They have, that's currently in a pilot program phase. It's a, it's a loan of up to $40,000 that is offered in exchange for housing, a income qualified household at a reduced rent for a period of at least 20 years. If they want to buy out sooner than that, they pay back the loan with interest. If they see out the 20-year term, the loan is forgiven and they don't have to pay anything back. You know, the key with that is identifying the funding source. The county has a funding source for that through their affordable housing impact fee program. The city doesn't have a fee like that. The LA had a pilot program where they built, they built, the pilot program was to build two to three and rehab up to five, rehab legalize up to five existing ADUs in exchange for an agreement from the property owner that they would house a homeless individual or household. And they've closed applications for that. And so, you know, we'll have to wait and see kind of how that rolls out. But, you know, they got a grant from the Bloomberg Foundation to do that. And it's, you know, $75,000 grant to someone to build an ADU to house a homeless individual. You know, they had a million dollar grant and they could do three of those and then five of another program. You know, so it's, the thing about all these funding programs is that, you know, they don't create as many units as we wish they did. If I can, I'm just going to interject if I can, just in the interest of going through these items and then other areas where we can allow for further direction or exploration, I think we can have maybe that conversation. But for what is before us, I'm wondering if we can kind of tailor our action and deliberation in regards to the five before us. Is there any comments? Go ahead. Yes, I'm prepared to move the section of items that have to do with development standards. And I'll notice that a couple of those do have to do with reducing costs, eliminating the extra green building requirements and allowing modest expansions for fee exemptions. And then we'll do later with eliminating the general fund impact fee. So there are some things already actions we're taking that have to do with reducing costs. So just tell me the numbers on the information sheet that I should be talking about. Or I guess I'll use these right here. Yeah, I mean that would slide easier for me. Three, four, five, six. Just have that information sheet. Well, there's six items here. So again, I'm sorry. So this lumps together those two pieces about a conversion ADUs. So allowing, which are listed separately on the sheet. So allowing full reconstruction and allowing modest expansions. Okay. Given that, then I'll move the package of items that have to do with revisions on the development standards. I have moved by council member Matthews seconded by council. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I want to, I'd be willing to second with possible amendments. So I'm going to ask the maker of the motion. There's willingness to. Do you want to? Yes. So on for item one, rear yard lock coverage, the increase from 30 to 50% with affordability and perpetuity. And also with number four, the size allowing ADUs to be attached to use to be 10% of lot size in return for affordability. I'm at this point not willing to make that amendment. So is there a second for the motion as presented by council member, council member Matthews, which is to move forward with the recommendations before us. Okay, seconded by council member Myers. Okay, question? Yeah. So I just would encourage my fellow council members to really think about how we can work around the issue of affordability and ensuring affordability, whether it be if we are reducing the costs, as was pointed out by council member Matthews around the green building standards, then shouldn't there be some kind of handoff from the property owner to then ensure that the cost of that unit for rental will be in some way affordable, at least for some amount of time, and looking at some of the other ones too. Because we are not only in a housing crisis, I do want to emphasize that we are in an affordable housing crisis in Santa Cruz for working people to be able to stay here. So I just want to put that out there and see if there's any ideas from my peers. Okay. Why don't you respond? I'll just respond. There's a lot that we're doing in this action and it has taken a good deal of time if you go all the way back to the housing blueprint committee and all the outreach on the ADU issue specifically, the staff work and certainly there are issues of affordability, a lot of other issues that people have raised here and there will be continued staff work on this issue and by moving forward with this, I think we're doing something and the affordable issue can come back to us. This is not going to fill the all the potential for ADUs in the next year. This will be really an incremental change and my own instinct is to go with something that has been given, a great deal of thought and public review and ask that the affordability issue come back to us in the next iteration of studying recommendations that the staff is going to bring forward to us. So just to clarify what I'm hearing is to move forward with this knowing that there could be further direction to how the staff could look at increasing affordability and bringing that to us in the future time. Okay, vice mayor Cummings and then Brown and then Crown. I just want to say for the record that I agree very much with the fact that there's no affordability kind of built into this and that makes me a little bit concerned with moving forward on so many items. I think that there are definitely pieces of this that I think should be acted on today but then I also think there are pieces of it that may actually need more study in terms of affordability or thought on how we can keep some of these units affordable. I also was going to make a comment before because I was noticing that there's potential for conflict around allowing for like older buildings that would normally be expanded upon or built on and the idea that people may want to consider tearing those buildings down reconstructing because in doing so they'd then qualify for the short-term rental program to my knowledge and so I could also see a loss of units due to the fact that people might take older ADUs on their properties tear them down build new ones in order to qualify for the short-term rental and so that gives me concern around actually losing some of the housing that we currently have. And that when we get to that item we can discuss it. The reason why I brought it up is because it's in conjunction with what we're discussing right now. Oh yeah I mean I'll make a general comment as well. I again appreciate the work that staff has done and I so I have and I don't think it's these are insignificant changes. I don't think that suggesting that we wait and consider affordability in the future is an adequate response to the concerns so I would like to see the the decisions that we make today include affordability and perpetuity and for that reason I mean I mean really what we're essentially talking about here is providing opportunities for land owners to increase their property values and there is no public benefit being asked in return and that is just a principle that I'm and this is something that I you know this is not a surprise to those of you who were staffed to the housing blueprint subcommittee I made these I expressed these concerns at the time and I will continue to express them here and so I am not willing to I'm not going to vote in favor of the motion as is I'd like to offer this as an amendment and that we can vote on in advance. Maybe Mr. Condadi are you I just I want to just point out that a substantive change proposed by the council has to be referred back to the planning commission for a public hearing before the council takes action on so if you were to move forward tonight you could also direct that those provisions be referred back to the planning commission for a recommendation. Okay maybe I maybe if I could offer that we go through each individual item and if there's some that would you prefer that we don't reach consensus on that we refer them back to planning to incorporate consideration of your concerns and then just follow up on that is that the planning commission is required to report back within 40 days after the date of the council referral so it's it's not just kicking it off into outer space you would you would have a very fairly short window of time to get a report back from the planning commission. May I just ask a follow-up question then so procedurally that is our only option because I given the recommendation that's come before us at the planning commission I don't expect to see a different outcome even with changes being made to the planning commission so essentially we're just we're simply delaying the decision about that is that we don't have any other alternative to just yeah I just affordability requirements I'll just read this section of the municipal code it says that a substantive change proposed by the city council must be referred back to the planning commission for a public hearing in such a case the commission shall report back actually says shall report hack to the city council on the online within 40 days after the date of the council referral where action cannot be taken within 40 days by the commission a longer period of time may be requested the council may grant an extension. Another follow-up question given the complexity of this would the cleanest way to do this be for me to offer an alternative motion entirely rather than amendments so I mean I'll just propose an alternative motion now which we will vote to vote on and then come back to the before you do I just want to ask question which I don't know might be satisfactory. Oh I'm sorry I was I didn't recall if we had a second but I think we did have some. I wanted to ask the staff in terms of adding affordability to the shortlist of things to be brought back to us what you consider your timeline for on the other issues to be covered here. So the other things that we are you know currently working on and looking at you know fees and looking at junior ADUs and other other housing types that's in the six to nine months timeline so that's you know late summer to fall of this year and that would be going through planning and then yes yeah so community process so staff work internally working with departments community process planning commission public hearings. And I would like to add too that that is our current work plan we know some things that have been on the recent council agendas and that are coming up on future council agendas that may modify our work plan given the staffing resources we have specifically around the tenant and landlord protections that we've been talking about so that is falling to our team as well as at least it seems that that's the case now so we'll want to be mindful of that when we're thinking about workload and what's coming back when. I mean I would be happy to include direction to staff to include affordability considerations as they bring back the next iteration of housing possibilities to us. I don't know if that would be satisfactory to you. I offer a suggestion that might work for both of you. What you could do is find these points on which there is consensus and agreement and adopt those tonight and the points where your council believes there is we could legitimately analyze adding affordability we could put those off and analyze those for a future agenda to be combined with some kind of an affordability accommodation. I think that might be a clean way to do it because we could get some kind of ordinance passed tonight for folks that are in process and waiting for some of these things. I do know that you know I've been contacted by a number of people who are currently building ADUs and I do know that the 30 to 50 percent is significant for them in terms of their project so that's just information for your council. And again if I can just wrap up on this point I am concerned that without a little more work we don't know to what extent an affordability requirement becomes a disintent to do anything. So that's why I would like to have a little more work and we have another whole category of items the land use policy items which are also actions taken to I don't even agree with all of them but to make ADUs more buildable and that's another whole category of things that should have an affordability consideration applied to it I should think. So for all of those reasons I would like to go ahead with all of these are in some way a concession an agreement to make ADUs more attractive to build. So I'm just going to let my motion stay the way it is. Sorry okay councilmember Brown. I'd like to make an alternative motion that we approve the site standard amendments as recommended by staff with the exception of items one and four and that those be deferred for further discussion around the feasibility of affordability requirements for in perpetuity. So second. Second. Alternative motion was made by councilmember Brown and seconded by vice mayor Cummings. Any further discussion on is that. So you're moving approval of two three and five. Two three and five. Councilmember Cummings. Could you explain what by leaving those two out what would what that does. What it does or staff because you know. To explain that. Sure. So as I understand council member Brown's motion she would tonight recommend tonight that your council approve items two three and five. Those to be you know brought back for second reading and then approved into an ordinance and go into effect in 30 days and that direct staff to go back and do some more work on figuring out how to add an affordability covenant that is tied to items one and four. So that's figuring out you know what's the level of affordability. How do we operate affordability and perpetuity on private on specific and single family home property you know all sort of sorting out all of those issues and to come back at a future date rather than having those issues postponed the entire ordinance. Give them a dad. You. Good. Thank you. Just on number one with the increase from 30 to 50 percent that is a rear yard coverage coverage requirement and one of the things that we debated was whether or not we should make that increase. You know there are tradeoffs there with for example increasing impervious surface. However one of the concerns just excuse me one of the concerns that we heard from the community was the two story units looking down into a backyard for example. And so having the 30 percent requirement may actually encourage people to do that two story unit that has raised concerns from some of the neighbors. And they may choose to take that route rather than going with the affordability. There is some cost associated with two story construction that's more expensive than single story. But that would be something that the individuals would have to weigh as the cost of the two story construction versus the affordability requirement. So again just a point of consideration and a little bit more background as to why we got to that recommendation of going to the 50 percent is really to address some of those neighborhood concerns about two stories looming over their backyard. I just had a question about you said that some people are waiting on this like just past the state mandated. How does that change? How is I'm assuming that's pretty helpful also in this process. If we took a step back and you know I mean I don't see a lot of the hallmark of this ordinance for me should be about affordability. And it's not. And I just think that I appreciate Health Member Brown's motion because I think we're injecting you're seeing concern up here that it's really important that we achieve some affordability here. Sure. Not to you know inhibit the market but that people who live here and can't afford you know and I'm not very interested in short term vacation rentals either or short term rentals. Okay so I'm wondering if at this time we want did you have a I'd like to make a friendly amendment to to the substitute motion and that would be to include number three along with one and four to be a request for staff to come back with a feasibility report on the ability to include affordability covenants. I'll second that. I'll accept it. Make all the motion. You're the second on the motion. Okay so you agree you'll accept it. Can you repeat that one more time one and three? Yeah just to add three to Council Member Brown's one and four so it'll be one three and four from these set standards. Okay we'll do a clarification question then we'll vote on the substitute motion. So admittedly I'm new to the council I'm trying to catch up on sort of where this fits in the overall housing blueprint process as well as trying to acknowledge and achieve affordability as well. What I worry is that we are moving we are dependent on single family homeowners to take the step to try to build an ADU and many of these people are not going to have the resources to build the ADU and then also make that ADU an affordable unit. So I worry a little bit that we are using a program which was meant to actually increase our housing supply and by having more supply hopefully we would also realize some affordability benefits as well and we're now making it into an affordable housing program and I don't know that I'm not saying that's the intent but I think we're sort of mixing objectives and I think we have three objectives that came out of the out of the blueprint process. One is to protect our existing supply one is to get more supply into our system and a variety of housing types and one is to to deal with affordability issues. So I just want to make that comment I won't be able to support the motion because I feel like this is a very proactive way for us to put more supply into our system and we're gonna we may hamstring the results of that. So let's go ahead in the interest of moving the item along I think we'll go ahead and take a vote on the substitute motion which is to essentially remove items 1, 4, and 5. 1, 3, and 4. 1, 3, and 4 for further exploration for affordability and move forward with items 2 and 5 at this time. So all those in favor of the substitute motion please say aye. Aye. No. All those opposed? No. So that passes with Councilmember Crone, Glover, Brown, Vice Mayor Cummings in support and Matthews, myself, and Myers against. Okay. So let's move on to the okay this is the time now for us to take action and deliberation. Thank you. We'll go ahead and move on to the last section. Okay. Mayor this yeah can I ask really quick did you do a vote on the first motion? No. There was a substitute motion. That passed. I have another motion for the state law requirements. Oh now we did. We voted on that. Yes. That was unanimously. Yeah. No problem. Okay. So the final items for us for consideration include this is the final set, correct? Okay. Yes. I'm one through four. So now is an opportunity for action and deliberation. Councilmember Matthews. Do we just say how we feel about these? Yeah. Or some comments if that's okay. Time is clicking here. Are there any items maybe the better question or are there any that? I'm not in favor of two ADUs on large lots. I am adamantly opposed to short term rentals as an incentive for ADU. I think it absolutely goes against the intent of ADU legislation. I could entertain the eliminating of parking requirements. I'm ambivalent about that. And in terms of modifying definition of the owner occupant to include members of immediate family I'm in favor of that. Okay. I don't know how others are but I'm wondering if any of these items any of the just to get kind of a consensus on the council if the council feels at this time prepared to move any of these specifically one through four. And if not then. Or definitely. Okay. So do you want to make a motion to move? Make a motion to approve item four is listed on the PowerPoint. Second. Okay. Motion by councilmember Matthews. Seconded by councilmember Glover. Vice mayor. I have a few issues with the definition of owner occupant and the terms on which the owner shouldn't be living on the premise. I think that it would be good if there's clear language. Some of the concern that I've been hearing is that if someone you know maybe gets sick or has to take care of a sick relative that they may have to or they need to go out of town for whatever reason for work what have you and they need to leave that site that they would want to be able to continue renting that out without being on this being on site. The issue I have with that is that if that's an undetermined amount of time then people can say I'm leaving because of X, Y and Z and then they can leave for 20 years and there's no owner on site in terms of owner occupancy. So I feel that there should be language that's clear stating how long another person or if it's not the owner, how long the owner can be off site in order to rent it out without being there. I agree with you on that but I think that is not the issue in number four. Issue number four simply the definition of what an owner occupant is. It includes their immediate parents or children. That's my understanding. If I could offer just Vice Mayor Cummings, we do have a provision in the ordinance where if a property owner is going to be absent from the property just entirely they apply to the city. They submit an application. It's reviewed by city council. City council can approve an absence of up to two years and allow rental of both units. In that case one of the units must be rented to a low-income household and then there's a one-year extension that can be granted a staff level of that two-year approval. So we do have a program like that and then this what's here on the slide is about modifying the definition of owner occupant to allow family member to stand in. Okay so that's the motion if I understand is to move forward with number four made by council member Matthew seconded by council member Glover. Further discussion on that? Yeah I have you know I have some concerns about this because I believe it's a bit of a slippery slope and it does allow someone to be to be defined. It redefines owner occupant. I mean that we're talking about this as an insignificant change but I believe it actually is because it's allowing a non-owner and non- you know a property owner that's not the occupant that's not the actual owner to be on the site and so I think that is something that we ought to have further discussion about. My understanding is it's immediate family essentially it would only be immediate family who. Yeah so but this is I mean it's I guess I'm the point I'm trying to make is that it's it really provides an opening for some manipulation of the definition of owner. I can't support that. What if they put the person on the deed would that be a compromise if they put the family member on the deed? That's currently in the code. Anyone who's on deed at 50 percent is considered a property owner and part of the logic. Excuse me but would the family member have to be on the deed then or not? The way that the proposal is that they would not have to be on the deed the property owner would not be compelled to add someone to the deed to their property in order to allow them to occupy and manage the property in their stead. They would have to be related by you know marriage blood adoption step. What would be wrong with adding them to the deed? So there are some reasons that property owners may choose not to do that. There are some reasons that property owners may choose not to do that one example that we've had recently is a property owner elderly couple who owns the property one of their children lives on the property but they they have three children and their intention is for that property to stay in the family moving forward and to be equally distributed among their three children so they are not inclined to just simply add one child to the deed. So that's just one example that we've encountered but I think that there are similar reasons that folks. And it still doesn't get around the issue that Mr. Smedberg brought up about you know son-in-law nobody's occupying that place right yes exactly he's not allowed to rent both units. Okay so shall we move with the okay yeah okay I'd like to move with this so I think you know all those in favor with moving forward with number four please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Yeah yeah I seconded but I have after listening to the conversation. Okay so that fails with Councilmember Brown, Vice Mayor Cummings, Councilmember Glover, Councilmember Crone not supporting moving forward at this time on number four so I'm hearing that in general the Council is not prepared to take any action on items one and through three in addition to four at this point correct I'm not hearing a motion to move forward on any of this. Yeah I'd make a motion similar to the other ones to take items one through four of the land use amendments to find out if there are ways to incorporate affordability covenants in the two large ADUs the temporary short-term rental agreements or striking that completely and then looking at parking requirements and how we may be able to incorporate alternate forms of transportation benefits or incentives as opposed to requirements of a parking space like the owner may be required to provide a jump bike pass or a bus pass to the tenant for transportation. Is there a second? I'm not in favor of moving forward on the short-term rental thing period. Is there a consensus from the Council to not move forward with exploring any more into the short-term rental? Is that option of staff time? Okay yeah okay so we'll go ahead and remove that as an option to further kind of explore. So there's a motion by Glover seconded by Brown I'm sorry by Crone to further explore items one through one three and four. One and three and then yeah and four with regards to the concerns that were brought up by the Council about the issue of definition and slippery slippiness. Okay all right is there any further discussion at this time? I just want to clarify I thought four was pretty straightforward but in referring that for further discussion is that one also to be linked to affordability? No I don't see how that would be relevant. Yeah so I think that would be separate so one and three would be to look for affordability covenants that could be included in it as well as alternative forms of transportation incentives and then four to address the issues expressed around the definition of owner occupant and what that pertains. I do have a really quick suggestion if we could move forward on owner occupancy get information it may be that people's concerns are set aside between now and the second reading and then we could move forward so that's from anyone else out there is it are you offering that as an amendment to the motion I think that would have to you make a friendly moment to accept that a second motion or maybe the motion would be let me see referring what was it one and three for further work linking it to affordability and accepting forward with number four pending clarification prior to the second reading we can always delete it at the second reading I'm seeing nods fellow council members as I make I will I will accept that friendly amendment to my motion okay did you catch that I have some questions okay so I'll watch the video it's but no it was essentially we'll understand where we're going with this I well so I understand the motion you've just made what I don't understand is what you want on number four leave it leave it as he is just leave it as is and for those no no slickiness okay then we could get them the information they need between now and the second reading which and those questions have been asked tonight and I missed them or they're going to come to me in an email yeah for there I see I'll be in touch okay okay yes I understand thank you okay question where would the um the issue of the ad you in the multi-res where would that come into any of this like if we wanted staff if we wanted staff to speed up the you know getting back to the council within uh let's just no I'm just saying where we were to fit in we'll later let's finish up this one and we'll wrap this one up and then move forward with that okay so all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed okay that passes unanimously so then lastly is on direction these resolutions to adopt okay and I okay staff um previously on this and I think tell me if I've got the right language adopt the resolution to submit the ordinance amendments for coastal and adopt the resolution to approve oh and so number one would include the language additional language including the amendments made at this this this evening staff so you'll move that I will move adoption of the resolution to all these codes including the amendments made this evening and adopt a resolution etc reducing the general plan maintenance okay I'll second that any further discussions all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed no that passes unanimously so now before we close the item can we use this opportunity to right so this is now the opportunity for further direction so council marcon I'll turn to you because this would be the opportunity for you to yeah I mean if we could look at that issue of putting an ad you in a multi res because it doesn't on the face of it make sense that you can't I'd also like to have staff look into some incentives if we're if we're lifting green green building requirements is there ways that we can infuse and incentivize adu builders to build green such as installing even you know solar on the roof I mean that would be a start and or and also the third thing would be a loan program can we come back with a loan program and figure out how other places are doing it we heard one example tonight so so my understanding is that for the incentives for green building that was already delayed correct okay so that will be coming back with that consideration so you're asking for staff to explore the loan fee deferral type programs yeah how could we build that in and provide loans for folks okay and then and I'm sorry in the third multi res adu in a multi residential okay is there any other discussion well I'm just if I could clarify um councilmember crone is your request to I mean was that to ask staff to um report back to us on the pursuit of the county the county strategy that believe mr no not necessarily maybe to go a little wider than that and figure out if other places have have done something um through some sort of fee structure that created a pot for people to draw from who maybe make under the median income which we learned is 87 000 for a family of four okay is there any other input I just had one I'd like to add one of the things I was wondering if we can maybe find a way to track the applications coming in to identify which of the modifications was the incentive for them specifically so we can help identify what we're seeing the biggest movement in terms of production or interest in production so it could be I don't know a survey or some way to kind of get some data around how are we yielding the impact that we hope to see um I think we're more than able to do that uh any sense of the time frame you'd like us to look at considering that we're averaging somewhere between 35 and 50 a year is there a threshold or a number that you'd like to see as a statistical I think we could look at baseline data in terms of average and then once these modifications are in place we can look at who is now applying to have an adu and if we could even further ask why it was that they are seeking this at this time what was one of those modifications that actually made the difference for them it could be helpful for us to understand sure where we saw the biggest result from these types of policy changes I think for that to be valuable we'd want to look at it over a course of maybe six to twelve months okay no problem no rush on that um and then additionally I have one other and that's to um think about the age in place and the the incentive around trying to increase the opportunity for families to um rent and if somebody is thinking about building an adu um to age in place that we can incentivize them renting for families knowing that that's a huge need for our community and was identified as one in a previous report go ahead so so that actually dovetails with a program the city already has an existing program with um habitat for humanity called my house my home which the intention there is to serve low-income senior homeowners to be able to construct an adu on their property and the way that the financing for that is structured it's really tailored to seniors who are going to be owning their home for less than 30 years because of the way that the loan gets repaid so there is some work that's already being done on that to address that issue of aging in place and providing you know um living accommodations for caretakers right okay thank you are there any other council member i have another just clarifying question related to council member crone's comments um are in the so direction um to regarding the um the further eight housing blueprint subcommittee recommendations to be analyzed and returned to us within six to nine months as i believe the window that is being discussed here you're in wanting to include um clarification or um permission of adu's in multi-residential districts as part of that or you want that to come back more quickly i think it's pretty clear that you know we're gonna miss a season if i think it should come back to us sooner i just want to yeah i agree and i just want to make sure that we capture that in the recommendations made to staff now what's the reason we'll timeframe three months is that work or realistic about your work program yeah again it really does have to it depends on the workload program uh to be very candid with the council right now our team homie has two full-time staff um project managers and we do have a pretty intensive workload from the housing blueprint subcommittee about 65 percent of that workload 75 percent of that workload falls to this division as well as the new um stuff that we're talking about with our task force for tenant and renter protections and so while i want to be as proactive as possible and get things back to the council as soon as possible we have to be really realistic in terms of our staffing so i think some direction on expectations from you guys in terms of priority would be really helpful you just make a quick comment on that um you know i read all all of the public comment over the last um many many months and many many efforts to um and i know we did receive both uh oral comment today and also a letter regarding that but um i would prioritize that a little lower than some of the other things um that uh we're requesting of you i'm not completely clear exactly what we're requesting at this point but um based on everything that i've seen um as well as the comment i heard from the planning director um understanding how this fits into our larger housing strategy and not responding to just you know um a specific need i think again we are um we're missing the bigger picture and uh i'd like to see us kind of be thoughtful and um understand what our planning staff has said which is you know we need to look at our housing program as a whole and uh so i would i would rank that pretty low in our list of of new things to look at okay all right so comment um in terms of prioritization i mean i i completely understand that i um my understanding though is this is not um simply an individual request although it has been expressed to us by one um property owner so um with that i mean i'm not suggesting that we make this a high priority um in response to one property owner alone i'm looking at that situation that that type of case overall um is it possible to find out how many um i mean not in terms of interest but how many how many um parcels that might affect um i don't want to over complicate this but i it is a high priority for me um given that at least three ad use might get built if we don't delay on this so is this is your question specific to um wanting staff to research um ad the feasibility of ad use in multi residential districts that are not solely tied to a single family home i have a comment to add on this so um there is a chance that we could be preempted on this by state legislation there was legislation last year that failed to pass that would have created exactly this provision that same legislation has been reintroduced and is making its way through the legislature so what i'm cognizant of as as staff is not um doing a lot of work and a lot of outreach to put something in place that within six months is then super is then created by state law when we could have just waited for state law because we'll be back making those other changes that state law is doing so let's just take a broad view of what we're going to be doing on ad use over the next 18 months right so we have um stuff we're already working on junior ad use with the fees all of that we have a we have new direction now on um things to look at that were in this package to tie them to affordability in some way shape or fashion that makes sense right so we're going to be working on that and then also we're following the state legislation so far there's i'm aware of only one bill but i am sure there will be more so whatever passes at the end of this year we are going to be coming back in january to adopt so we're looking at a minimum of three amendments to this program over the next year which that that's a significant portion of like that's a significant amount of churn i guess is what i'm saying and i'm i'm hesitant to add another piece to that when it could be rolled that said that said though in the in the interest of transparency i do want counsel to understand that just like with any legislative bottle body there's no certainty or guarantee that any of that stuff will be passed at the state level so um you have to weigh does it make sense for us to do something that now that may already be passed or may this is the same quandary that we were in this time last year when we were talking with the housing blueprint subcommittee about bringing it how how swiftly do we move in advance of state legislation do we wait do we not these are these are things for for you guys to deliberate so in the interest of time do you want to make a motion this is just general direction is will this now require if should i need to make a motion about it i thought this was just staff direction it's not in terms of the the prioritization i would just make the point that if this is already something that is going to potentially be coming back to us um and preempt and preempted by state law what's the i'm just going to you know ask the question what's the harm in doing it in advance in this case i think it's a priority enough for when i'm asking myself that question it's enough of a priority to do that because it doesn't lead to additional work in the future if we've just already done it i'm just going to say that same thing i would tend to agree and i think that we should i think it we should pursue it okay councilmember matthews i'm really sensitive to what's being dumped on the staff to do and i think at the very least um you've heard the concerns the staff takes direction only from an action of the council as a whole so if that's to become a priority for staff work in the near future that should be adopted by a motion of the council as a whole i'm going to put the ball back in you guys's court you've heard a lot of things people want to work on and you have your work plan i'm sorry um so could we come back at a future meeting with with a report on all the stuff you've got maybe this is our goal session our retreat but let's see what you guys have on your calendar and we could do the and then we can do the prioritization and give direction makes as a council as a whole okay as i mean i think councilmember brown was asking about coming back to us with how many properties are affected by this i mean that that's something i would think that we could we could get that information i think you know if you're if you're asking for a data point that's something we can provide this week that's not a problem the data point a data point is not a problem to create a coming back with an ordinance amendment um there is just there is process and churn and hours of staff time that are associated with that regardless of how small or large that amendment may be it really that affects such a small portion of the work that we have to do to create it and bring it back to you which i know you understand that i just you know in in in light of we're going to be bringing back other recommendations um in the context of having you know other workload and other priorities we're just asking for some clarification do you want to be clear on what you're asking is it just on the data point or is it for the data point will affect my thinking about this so i think i'd like to get the data point okay so you could return with the data point or share that information i think we could i think we could do that if council is comfortable with that um via a informational memo or something of that nature that will give you more information um to give us future further direction on the other items however i think it's really important that we do do our due diligence we do do our outreach to the community and get a sense from them on how they're feeling about some of these things and that does take time especially with the other priorities so i just want to communicate please don't feel that we are um not interested in doing the work it's just that the resources are limited and all of this is so important that the clarity from the council on priorities is really really helpful thank you okay at this point i think we go ahead okay i think we're good we got it i think we're at a place of consensus at this time i thank you for your work and time and thank the community for being here and expressing their interest in the item at this point i'd like to move on to the next item um one more we do it one more well so from the staff perspective and please let us know if we miss this but i don't feel that we got clarity or closure on this particular item we really what we want to know from the staff perspective is is this something you'd like us to continue to pursue or is it a non-starter there are options with this uh there we we've reached out a little bit to the community but we did feel like we needed a little more um conversation with council on the direction so i think just a little clarity on this would be really helpful okay well in light of the conversation i think we just had as well as the other conversation around owner occupancy i think it'd be fine to postpone a major outreach around this at this time personally is there others that feel differently i feel like um this might be an item to consider if we're able to provide some you know guidelines for affordability around housing so you know allowing there to not be owner occupancy given different types of ownership and different types of like levels of affordability i think is worth discussing and bringing forward since that's such a big issue since affordability is a big issue okay that's what i was going to say okay so we'll tie it to the affordability okay great thank you okay definitely just on the record i feel really strongly about keeping the owner occupancy i think otherwise it's just cities just wide open for sure okay land land rush thank you i agree go on record thank you i'll say that thank you okay so um i will move us along to the next item which is item number 24 make a motion prior to i'm going to open it up to um when he's ready mr kandadi 24 item number 24 the second reading of the ordinance yes did you want to introduce that item or i'm sorry was it lee planning director has a brief uh powerpoint okay there we go good afternoon again mayor and council members leave out there the planning director and i'll go through this quickly but um for clarity with the public there were lots of changes last time at our last meeting and just wanted to go through those so uh the first reading of an interim just cause eviction ordinance was approved at the last meeting on the 8th of January there were various changes and there was also direction to bring back recommendations related to a community process and so that'll be at one of your upcoming meetings and um quickly going through the interim just cause eviction ordinance um and paraphrasing here uh sets forth reasons for allowing evictions as failure to pay rent breach of lease except for the end of the lease term or addition of specified replacement or additional tenants um that are meeting the criteria identified in the ordinance nuisance and criminal activity as well as failure to give access can result in an eviction also repairs requiring temporary vacancy um would um be a reason for allowing an eviction owner move in under certain limitations can do that withdrawal of the unit from the rental market permanently actually that's withdrawal of all the units on the property from the rental market and um there's some specifications there in the ordinance and then um one that was added at that last meeting was uh landlord reoccupancy within one year if that landlord had occupied the property for at least a year um preceding that there were a series of changes um from the ordinance that was presented on 1 8 and so I wanted to just call those to the public's attention and to the council's attention one was an exemption um for um properties where in on a property with a single-family residence a duplex or a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit if the landlord lives on site then that property would be exempted from the just cause eviction provisions the expiration was changed to um one year from the effective date of the ordinance or upon council's future action on the issue of um the just cause eviction and tenants uh other tenant protections and then um there were various changes to allowances for new tenants there were some provisions that referenced the word partner and that was changed to registered domestic partner um there were some references to the maximum number of occupants based on a housing code those were removed and then there was a requirement for um a new tenant who is not a family member or registered domestic partner to um submit an application to the landlord and the landlord um could not deny um based solely on the lack of credit worthiness and solely was added to the ordinance provisions um then um nuisance and criminal activity um there was uh language added to include um the the nuisance or criminal activity were affecting adjacent neighbors and then there was a provision that spoke to if a resident if a tenant had been living there for five years then there were additional protections for that tenant in terms of preventing evictions and that five-year resident criteria was removed from the ordinance so that's paraphrasing but it captures the um the categories of changes and that concludes the presentation we're available for any questions you may have so my understanding is that this is the second reading so with the second reading any major modifications to the proposed ordinance would constitute a first reading correct any substantive changes made this evening would require you to be brought back for second reading at a future meeting okay at a regular meeting at a regular meeting okay any uh any questions question for um lee um so it might have already you've already said this but the 62 and over and disabled was to also taken out right the 62 and over remained in the ordinance there was a provision so you had sent in a question um that came in from a member of the public and there is a provision that was added and I'll circle back up to that and it is it's it's here so landlord reoccupancy within one year following occupancy for at least a year so that partially addressed the the question that you were asking but the the provision related to um the additional protections afforded to individuals who are 62 or older who or who are qualifying as disabled that provision remained in the first reading and is presented to you this evening as part of the second reading any additional questions by council I have a question for Tony if we wanted to make um a separate motion would we be able to do so before public comment or make comments um about this before our direction forward prior to public comment really only a motion to table uh any substantive action that the council would take tonight or just or to schedule a another topic for discussion at a future meeting but any substantive action that you would take tonight on this ordinance would require public comment before you um before you take that action your motion so I'd like to make a motion to table with some comments kind of just like explaining that okay so you can move that I you're making a motion to table is there a second I'll suck in it okay there's a motion by by smear coming seconded by council member Myers to table the item and now discussion okay I don't think tabling has no discussion tabling has no discussion correct that correct um well why don't we do this why don't we have a discussion about specific actions that I anticipate uh council or vice mayor Glover is going to recommend be brought back for consideration at a subsequent meeting and then following that entertain the motion to table okay so for the second reading of this you're suggesting he express his interest in yeah as I yeah actually as I'm thinking this through the council could give further direction since calendar is the next item on your agenda I think that I feel more comfortable with that so so you could table this item and then the council could give direction to bring back for consideration at a future regular or special meeting uh a number of uh items that I think I anticipate council member vice mayor Glover will come I'm just curious because I know that there's just give me a couple of months and I'll item um that suffice to what your needs are if you could address I think that it'd be good for the public to understand why this item there's a suggestion for tabling item which is what I would like to do prior to tabling or have an opportunity when it's being tabled to express us because it doesn't seem like there'll be any space otherwise can I make a suggestion actually I'd like to hear really quickly before I think what um vice mayor Cummings could certainly introduce the concept of what he's proposing and then make the motion to table okay why don't you go ahead and introduce the concept that you're proposing without any substantive direction and then we can make just not to be a stickler but I think a motion to table has to be voted on that's that would be my understanding too but I'm hearing otherwise from our attorney yeah a motion to table has to be an up or down vote without debate correct so the motion could be withdrawn but then there you go so if I withdraw the motion then we can go through public comment and then we can okay we have to hear from the public if we aren't tabling with no we'll withdraw the motion to table I mean that sounds technical but I do think it's a good idea to adhere to these rules so that we yeah so I mean I actually appreciate councilmember Matthews pointing out that okay so you've withdrawn your motion to table the item at this time okay so are there any questions before we open it up to public comment okay who here is interested in speaking on this item okay I was just wondering if excuse me if council excuse me vice mayor Cummings wanted to explain where he was going with it so the public would know as they're addressing they could address those comments too or something would that be acceptable or that be appropriate Mr. Condating can you discuss it without it being agenda council can't have a substantive discussion about the item without it being agendized so the discussion of direction to staff to agendize for consideration at a future meeting has to be limited but I think that some discussion can be had to introduce the item you know the the idea or the reason for uh requesting it I'm not sure if I'm following that I'm sorry I was I wasn't clear what that first can we just deal with the tabling issue has the motion been withdrawn yes okay I don't see a problem with the vice mayor discussing what he's proposing at this point before we open it up to public comment okay feel free to go ahead and discuss what you're so having heard from a lot of members of the community those who were in favor of supporting measure M those who were opposed to measure M and then many people throughout the community who think that we need some form of tenant protections and rent control but thought that measure M wasn't the way many of these people have expressed wanting to come together and work to try to come to some form of consensus around how we should be moving forward with regards to any kind of temporary just cause ordinance at this time while we work on getting the task force in place I want to be respectful of the folks who of our community who've been you know really expressing concern around around the fact that the city council has been taking the lead on creating a temporary ordinance and the community has been wanting more of a process where they have an opportunity to work together and so that is some of the justification that I've had moving forward with considering tabling this for a later date additionally I just want to put out there that there are concerns coming in from members of the community who have been receiving eviction notices some of whom worked on the measure M campaign and see it as retaliation for their participation in the democratic process there are also members of our community who are facing higher rent increases as well in addition to that and I just want to put that out there because I think that if members of our community are very concerned and really want to work on kind of coming together to think about what we can craft as a whole that is going to help our community I would very much encourage members from MHJ a movement for housing justice and for Santa Cruz together to come together and work with members of the city council on actually trying to come up with something that will help our community I know that myself and Donna Myers have been working together and are interested in reaching out to members of those groups I've also been working with lover on some of these issues and other members of city council have been very much invested in working on these issues so that is the rationale moving forward with trying to table this to another moment in time and so I'd like to stop there and now he can make the motions now the options are to make a motion to table now and then during your discussion of the calendar discuss setting additional items for consideration at a future meeting we're here from the public now before you entertain a motion okay at all so I think it's important that we listen to the public who have been here and waiting for hours to speak and share their perspective on the issue also I totally respect and acknowledge the attempt of my colleagues and trying to find middle ground in what this ordinance should look like while it's commendable at the lengths they have gone especially over the last few days with back-to-back meetings with different groups I'm disappointed at the way that things have unfolded going into the weekend council member Myers vice mayor Cummings and myself came up with a compromise which we all agreed would potentially work a way to move forward that allowed for the protections of renters especially those experiencing retaliatory evictions while we're moving some of the most controversial parts of the readings which I've heard from the community members are the 62 years and older the restrictions of people being able to move into their homes the amount of people living in the houses with the sub-leasing agreements so all of these were taken into consideration but and also extending the application timeline so landlords would have 30 days instead of 14 days to be able to reject or accept a sub-leaser agreement in fact we were so united that we went and met with city attorney kandadi to ask him to craft the language so that we could tonight pass this language temporarily with instruction for the next meeting to have the agendized version of the alternative and amended ordinance to be voted on and then moved into a second reading so that would have appeased and dealt with the issues and the concerns of landlords and would have protected renters in the rental market that are facing evictions what's problematic is that through the threat of referendum and recall we have seen a pressure put on this council to make it so that those that were involved with that plan have completely abandoned it now to table the issue while I understand it's important to be able to build that consensus around the community if we table the issue now we're putting the people that received evictions from December 11th till now in dire circumstances where they will in reality lose their housing without any kind of recourse if we pass this tonight and move forward with goodwill assuming that we're going to be able to find the middle ground over the next couple of weeks while we wait for the task force to get put together then we'll have the opportunity not only to find middle ground not only to address the concerns of the community but also to protect renters which I think should be our most pertinent issue so I would encourage us to open it up for the community okay so what I what I like to do is that if there is a motion to table we'll go ahead and entertain that motion if it has a second vote if that it passes then we'll conclude this item and open it up for community discussion when it returns and if it doesn't then we'll open it up for community discussion so is there a motion to table this item I would make a motion to hear from the public I agree with what councilmember Glover said that the people came here you know we're their government we we have a duty to listen to them second is there a motion to make sure the folks in public get their voice or are able to speak okay if there's I don't hear a motion to table am I hearing a motion to table this item at this time I believe it was withdrawn and I'm admittedly a little confused on our process right now so Tony I yeah I like my as I understand the motion to table was withdrawn that's right so unless there's another motion to table after people have had a chance to speak which I heard was what we could do which you you could do that as well okay so if I'm not you have a motion on the floor now that's been seconded I'm gonna okay so we'll go ahead I'm gonna make another motion to table the item so you're making a substitute motion to table the item is there a second for that motion why don't we want to hear from the I'm sorry thank you do you have do we are you seconding to table it and we table after excuse me thank you not at this moment because I think that we should hear from the public if they're okay so okay so this is okay so we I don't know if we need to vote on that at this point there's no if there's no motion to table the item that doesn't really matter essentially we can we would open it up for public comment this is common on the second reading we've heard extensive comment on the first readings so we had about two and a half hours of comment I um did hear from um a few folks in advance I would like to offer them two minutes and then subsequently one minute and we'll hear it until 7 p.m. go ahead um the motion to hear from members of the public is debatable it's I think would the response to councilmember if you want to look yeah I mean called okay would you all those in favor of hearing from the public okay we need a motion you can make as well yeah so I made that decision we can go ahead and hear from the public excuse are you I heard from two organizations I'm from one of the organization what organization are you from I'm Casey Carlson from the Greater Santa Cruz Federation of Teachers we contacted Chris Monroe our superintendent and myself wrote a letter okay so you'll you'll be given two minutes um Santa Cruz together will be given two minutes and the tenants united will be given two minutes and then every additional uh speaker will be given one minute until 7 p.m. essentially okay go ahead hi thank you I'm Casey Carlson I'm the president of the Greater Santa Cruz Federation of Teachers so we represent the certificated employees in all the schools in our district which is the city and then harbour high and so Cal High so our superintendent and myself wrote an email this weekend when it became apparent that this ordinance you know we don't know the final version of it but it could make it impossible for us to go forward with our workforce housing so I'm not here to take a position on the ordinance we're just here to ask that whatever the ordinance is that's adopted that you would make an exemption for our workforce housing and I'll try to explain as obviously housing is a huge issue and it's really hard to attract and retain not just teachers but classified employees as well so our superintendent came up a couple years ago with the idea of looking into workforce housing and visited a number of workforce housing projects throughout California and we're still in the beginning phases but we've identified a site and we have you know kind of tentative plans and it looks like it could be 82 units but the way it would work for the way workforce housing works is it has to be temporary in nature because it's a project where you're trying to help teachers new to your district or you know there could be possibly someone who has some change of circumstance in their life and so you provide below market housing for them but it has a limited time period so at this point we're looking at seven years and they have to be an employee of the district and we're not at the point yet where we've worked out what happens if they resign in the middle of the year we don't want them to lose their housing but all of the bargaining units are going to be part of that process but so we're not there yet but we don't want to you know to be in a position where we can't go forward with this the other piece that's difficult for us is the relocation fee thank you thank you and we wouldn't have the money to be able to provide that thank you thanks time is up okay representing how no i'm sorry you're we're going through public comment you'd have to get back in line and we have a couple people who are speaking in advance at this time i'm gonna enact sovereignty not the time for you i'm sorry excuse me no no please please walk step away you have to get back and you'll be given one minute i'm totally with you you'll okay thank you okay so you have two minutes and then is oh is it olivia who's here okay you'll be given two minutes and then two minutes i have longer comments but i'll submit them for the record so council members my name is dan cofflin i'm a mom and pop landlord in the city and a co-founder of santa cruz together the grassroots campaign or organization comprised of homeowners small business owners community leaders renters and other property owners we formed one year ago in response to the council's late night emergency just caused eviction ordinance and then again to prevent measure m we spent last year gathering peer reviewed research analyzing case studies from other rent controlled municipalities consulting experts both state and local tracking rental property sales speaking with hundreds of property owners homeowners renters and ran an honest campaign to inform this body and santa cruz voters of the extreme pitfalls of measure m the measure was soundly for defeated in november by santa cruz voters your constituents and not because of any particular you know special political savvy by myself and my compatriots but because it was so fundamentally flawed that it was obvious that it would create huge disincentives to provide rentals or build new rental stock and would ultimately hurt the very tenants that you were trying to help through reduced supply increased rents and less maintained properties santa cruz property owners communicated to us that you that a rent cap was a reasonable solution but that the just caused provisions in the measure where minimum unsound and at most in the front the very foundation of property ownership and property rights despite the mountain of evidence otherwise the hundreds of letters you've received in the rental housing sell off displaced tenants in the november vote you continue to rely on anecdotal stories and dubious rental price data to justify shoving through an ordinance that contains the most contentious elements of measure m no reputable data no studies and no formal public input ensure we've lost faith in this council majority's ability to objectively lead in santa cruz housing policy and we're prepared to take actions and or matters in our own hands as a grassroots organization we're we're more than ample number of volunteers that ready to resist this ordinance and we're prepared to continue to resist similar policies until the day santa cruz voters can rebalance this body with forward thinking reasonable and facts driven members uh for audience members here that are interested in helping us keep the council line thank you and you're free please do feel free to submit the thank you the comments so i can't physically turn the microphone around but the statement is directed at the tenants behind me and those are you sitting in front of me my name is olivia fischer smith and i'm an organizer with students united with renters um last year a lot of our time and energy went into canvassing and voter registration for measure m and despite measure m's loss sir's work has always been grounded in the belief that the fight for housing justice is going to take more than just policy solutions right now the little power that tenants do hold in this city lies within the policies that we're able to pass through our supposed political democracy and the candidates before me who we believe hold our best interests in mind however with no regulation of campaign donations plus the financial power of groups like the california apartment association which individually spent somewhere around 350 to $2,000 on the campaign against rent control democracy can be bent dramatically to favor the interests of landlords and developers over more more vulnerable tenant voices while many hope that the task force being discussed right now results in a net positive for tenants our experiences with the opposition since november make this prospect less than hopeful last year many people who voted no one m insisted that they would support renter protections if it felt like there had been more of a community process involved in its writing however the minute tenant advocates try to pass even the most minimal temporary bare bones tenant protections we receive nothing but threats and promises to rescind no one m landlords have given many fellow organizers and outspoken tenants retaliatory evictions eviction notices for their political beliefs and city council members have had their seats threatened for doing exactly what they were voted in office to do the reason we're here today is because tenants don't have the money to buy an election tenants can hardly organize with the capacity of the opposition because most tenants work overtime to afford their rents look at us we're broke students and we're here because we have to be it's a shame that we did not have the financial means to send tens of thousands of dollars worth of mailers to pay for speakers public phone surveys large-scale canvassing operations money controlled the narrative but we will control the future so no matter what happens tonight sir and our allies are determined to organize for eviction protections thank you okay we'll be given one minute and i will you'll be given one minute no you're you're welcome to come you'll we have you'll have one minute um we will hear public testimony until seven p.m. at which time we will then move into oral communications so uh this is just a reminder the second reading of the just cause eviction ordinance specifically so you can tailor your comments to that okay i i hope that you do table it because i think we need to clear the air and all the misinformation about about landlords and how the economics of it works and i did look at the data at ucic about how much rents were increased and if the worst case was two bedroom apartment which went up about 30 percent in four-year period that they have data for the latest data and then you compare that to home prices which went up a lot more like 34 percent but if you look at all housing that on the ucic data it the rents went up about 25 percent 24 percent in that period so actually landlords are not keeping up with the price of housing that the wholesale price of housing they are retail providers of housing they must follow the wholesale price i don't think people understand that and it's not an outrageous it it's a perfect storm of inflation of home prices yeah which have a lot of reasons and the bad guys for that are up in washington thank you not the landlord okay next speaker thank you uh good evening council my name is fred antaki i'm a commercial property manager and real seed broker here in santa cruz for the last 25 years uh what is being proposed as a solution from someone the council i believe will definitely accomplish two things it'll make it harder to be a housing provider it'll make it harder to be a housing creator and i am confident it will not effectively address the problem of affordable housing rather than try to enforce affordability through a narrow mandate i would encourage you to embrace pragmatic incentives for creating both permanently affordable and market rate housing you will not get there by vilifying landlords or developers you will make real progress on the housing affordability issue or crisis in santa cruz when you take practical actions to create more supply this includes measures to incentivize sensible development like oh and lawler project on pacific avenue partner with and support ucsc in the creation of more student and employee housing and stand up to the vocal minority groups who do not represent the best interests of the overall community and through this measure are promoting a divisive and counterproductive strategy you're welcome to submit your comments if you'd like okay our next speaker good evening council my name is rose marie mcnear and one of the things that i really really hope for is that we can have the community back together and work together the divisiveness that has been created by the just cause ordinance has placed a lot of angst on property owners who are bearing the brunt of of the non-supply of housing which they did not cause they did not create and they are alone cannot cure but however they are the ones that are taking on the burden of having their properties um uh mandated to have certain rents and so on and so forth and just cause evictions and whatever the point i'm making is i've watched for 42 years as supply did not happen and now we're we've got to put the blame on somebody and it just happens to be the the property owner thank you thank you okay next speaker good evening again robin cunningham we those of us who actually provide housing need to have sure footing we're making serious investments of time and money many of us seniors who rely on the equation working so we can remain housed and will instead invest or build elsewhere if this council is going to behave in a way that can't be trusted if you can't enter into a contractual agreement with someone that's binding then what's the point what landlord would take that deal you can't take uh you cannot inflict these ridiculous restrictions on landlords and expect this to make sense it's not the way lives work i don't think anyone is on board with those who might raise rents beyond a reasonable limit believe the just cause eviction piece out of this if you want landlords to stay in the game putting a heavy hand on our properties will not increase supply actually read the data listen to the economist and if that doesn't work then try recounting the vote our city cast against it maybe some of you have good intentions but this law is not going to achieve thank you the stated goals you've claimed to have okay thank you all right next speaker good evening my name is alaina cohen and i've submitted my comments and writing um i'd like to just highlight the most important points which is that although the just cause eviction ordinance is better than the earlier jce versions i continue to believe that the ordinance ordinance is substance and process for adoption will seriously harm most of those whom the ordinance is designed to protect and will erode the voter's trust in the council's competence and good faith and most i'm i'm especially concerned about um exposing everybody to uh litigation costs and stress and i also noticed in the adu uh comments about how stressed the uh the planning staff was in trying to uh implement things competently i really like the idea of of what um uh coming said about doing the mediation with uh the groups and i really hope that that will happen thank you very much next speaker hello my name is marta gillard and i'm one of those tenants that received an eviction notice on December 12th with a eviction date of february 15th and uh today i had to make a decision on whether i'm going to accept a unit with a 275 dollar rent increase or risk losing my rental that i live in so i'm here to support you passing the just cause eviction ordinance with the understanding that there will be continued efforts to refine this to get a win-win because i think it's possible and it's going to take time and if any of you uh well i know you all know writing to perfection is is endless you can rewrite to death so why not protect your your people and continue to refine the ordinance it make i mean it's a win-win to me in that situation i think there is a win-win that's possible um if you don't if it's tabled then tenants like us will lose our housing next speaker um my name is elise kazzie i'm a long-time activist one of the things i've had to do as an activist is go through repeated sensitivity trading uh in terms of racial issues i think is a predominant white body in a predominantly white city is our duty to make sure that by this the end of tonight we know exactly who our mayor is and what his name is and what drew glever's name is and that he's not the vice mayor that's number one number two i am outraged to hear i am just so upset to hear about this recall effort after the uh the landlords were able to take gargantuan amounts of money uh to tilt this so-called democratic election in a time when we have so much inequality robber barons predominant and the middle class is sinking i think we need to see that the vulnerable people here are the tenants they are not commodities they are people and we must protect them with a just cause of issue i want to move forward with re uh drew's very generous uh thank you next speaker you'll be given one minute my name is ali shah Mirza i'm a citizen of santa cruz since 1981 and i just wanted to bring to your attention that i'm a foreigner i i'm from iran but you are well educated city council members lawyer staff that you have please take your time and understand what you are doing read the rental agreements that are in place there are a lot of rental agreements that are standard that we use like california association of realtors or others but by looking at it i don't think you can tell me if i if i'm 62 years old or 52 years old you are putting a discrimination into this place that if i'm going to go rent some place because of my looks if i'm 62 they're not going to rent it to me so think about your action of what you're doing here to the tenants okay you're not really protecting the landlords you are herding the tenants who are old okay thank you next speaker hi um my name is neil langholz excuse me this is his opportunity to speak yes you did so please yeah one person speaking before us you can stop the time then it's your opportunity to speak without distraction if she wants to talk first so thank you um these discussions ignore the elephant in the room the jc ordinance affects ordinary homeowners ability to freely go about their lives this isn't just a renter and housing provider issue an ordinance like the jc ordinance has the city regulating what people can and cannot do with their houses even after decades of paying mortgage and the high expense of living in this area for example if a homeowner rents to someone and they move in a family member who is over the age of 62 they may be blocked from living in their own house that's crazy does council think they are being generous by letting people lease their houses freely for less than a year but not after that they are gravely mistaken that is restrictive and not generous does council think that it is reasonable to create conditions thank you you're welcome to submit your your comments okay next speaker good evening my name is Alice first of all sincere thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight i wanted to touch on the one comment that i haven't really heard addressed which is there is there is some middle ground in this basically it's in the trade off between shrinking the existing rental supply and on the other hand providing no protection for tenants who legitimately need long-term housing your inboxes fully document both cases you've you've heard from many many tenants who will be long-term renters you've heard from many many landlords myself included who have no intention of remaining as providers of rental housing in a situation where every rental becomes open and at occupancy i would urge you to consider putting together two lists one is a list of all the landlords who would voluntarily be open to providing long-term housing either five-year leases or whatever draft lease you provide that there are such landlords if you provide incentives via the ad u program or whatever that list would grow secondly please put together a list of all tenants who actually legitimately need a long-term occupancy housing i've been renting in landlord or my wife i've been running okay thank you very much okay next speaker my unofficial tally of the 663 pages of letters to council shows the following opposed to jce 471 in favor of jce 17 neutral or indeterminate nine duplicate submissions not counted twice 99 i do not support the just cause eviction ordinance modification a special subcommittee has been proposed and this committee could be tasked at your direction with gathering robust and publicly shared data that would help inform the community discussion on jce this should happen before any permanent and difficult to reverse decisions are made presently we lack the foundational data required to understand the scope and extent of the problem and no time has been spent researching or reviewing best practices without benchmark data it would be impossible to gauge the subsequent success or failure of any changes of some unsubstantiated or anecdotal stories on either side are a poor substitute for empirical data instead in conjunction with the findings of a good faith diverse jce committee as proposed okay thank you feel free next speaker good evening my name is debora wallace and while i'm a local property manager this isn't just a landlord tenant issue that this just cause eviction ordinance affects ordinary homeowners ability to freely go about their lives this ordinance has the city telling people what they can and cannot do with their homes and if a homeowner rents to someone and that renter moves in a family member over the age of 62 the homeowner would not be able to move back into their own house it hardly seems right that they would be forced to invoke the ellis act in order to reclaim possession a whole year later it's one thing to regulate apartment buildings like a business it's quite another thing to tell people when they can live in their house and when they can't measure m was defeated by 62 percent homeowners as 60 percent of the voters the correlation isn't hard to see homeowners are also stakeholders thank you okay next speaker say hello council my name is rosanna bruny and i'm here to ask you tonight to please be consistent i've been here since 330 i've heard everything about the adu discussion that you just talked about and in based on that in my rental house right now this ordinance would require that i allow brothers and sisters grandparents kids spouses to move into my rental home however in my own house where i have an adu i can't have my kids be living there and then i can leave right that's what you guys are talking about tonight just in your frowning but i think i have this right right you don't you don't want my you think it's slippery slope slippery slope to allow kids to be out the home when the parents can leave and can't leave the parents can't leave the kids can't be in the house so i just don't see this as consistent thank you thank you hello council members my name is faz um i wanted to thank you again for bringing this up um this issue i think is very important in our community um throughout the campaign we had numerous discussions with people out in the community some of them may be here tonight but most of them the majority of them are out there in the community who said they support some form of tenant protection they support some form of rent control they just didn't support measure m despite the misleading propaganda i mean it's completely false this isn't measure m this isn't rent control this isn't a rent control board and the just cause eviction perfection provisions are significantly different than what was written to measure m um and if we're creating a task force to try to bring this community together right a recall isn't that solution you're going to only divide this community even further a referendum is not the solution i mean tenants need something to protect them in the interim right whether it's this meeting or whether it's next meeting if we have a task force that comes up with a proposal who are we going to make those proposals to protect if we don't have renters in this community anymore so please take action at this whether it's today or whether it's next meeting but please do something to protect renters and let's build this task force and bring people together thank you okay next meeting and before you start i'd like to get a sense of who's here to speak to us about oral communications items that are not on our agenda okay i'm seeing how many four these are for items that are not on the agenda so who um then i will be concluding um at 7 p.m. public testimony on this item so feel go go ahead ready hi everybody here i just want to uh let you know that i am very sorry and i'm very hurt that somebody is trying to um threaten with uh recalling and uh all these kind of things you know that's not the way to build community we all know that this is a problem and the 25 percent that the gentleman was saying before in a $1200 rent is $300 who has $300 extras to pay just like that no working family so i want to support this task force and i want to require from uh to request from the uh council that you send a postcard to all the households in the county and in the city and let them know that this is something going on and inviting to participate and i want justine or you donna or you drew to look at those postcard before it's being mailed okay that's to ensure unequal participation from everybody thank you okay we'll have one more speaker on this item recognizing we had over two hours with the first reading and then i will open it up to oral communications at 7 p.m. go ahead my name is Andy Caterie and i am both a renter here and i'm a property owner in another county and i would like to speak to anybody who is a landlord and who is making money on their property and i want to say that there is no requirement to turn a profit or to make money on your property at all my partner and i've had a piece of property since 1992 there's been a house on it we built it ourselves we have never charged rent to anybody we have always let people live there so when people come up and say that they're being forced to do this or they're not allowed to do that all that we're talking about is the activity of you as a landlord and you do not have to charge money much less exorbitant amount of money in order to survive thank you at this point i'm i am going to close public comment for the item on the just cause eviction ordinance and i'm going to open it up now for oral communications so we are no longer taking public comment on the second reading of the just cause after oral communications no no we're not wait what happened to the second reading this is the second reading we there was a previous action taken by the council to make 7 p.m oral communications at more of a time certain so i'm interrupting the item and i'm following through with what was taken clarifying question we will continue we will continue discussion but we will not be taking further public that's correct yes we will be voting on the item after oral communications i'm closing public comment on this item okay so oral community now is the time for oral communications okay so oral communications is an opportunity for members of the community to address the council on any items that are not listed on today's agenda that relate to the work of the council are there any members of the public who would like to address the council okay so if you're addressing the council on oral communications please stand to my left and you'll be given two minutes to speak uh Nicholas Whitehead before before you do Nicholas excuse me well actually is there a carol walker in the audience here okay carol you you approached me in advance so you will go first and you will be given three minutes and then it will be you and then and then you Nicholas okay go ahead carol okay good evening mayor walken's members of city council and fellow sanikers residents my name is carol walker and i'm a 30-year resident of felker street i'm speaking as a representative of the felker street okay i'm speaking as a representative okay you can go ahead and pause for a time sorry i'm sorry i have learned gytis too it doesn't help okay so if we could okay go ahead and pronounce and then we'll hear from you and if those that are in the audience could please keep your voices down while we hear from our speaker just go ahead so i'm speaking as a representative of the felker and price street neighborhoods as well as coastal watershed council regarding our concerns related to the homeless encampment at ross also known as the ross encampment and how it's impacting our neighborhoods and the river some of these concerns aren't new city council told us many years ago that the city had a tolerance policy and did nothing much to address our concerns at that time our tolerance level has now peaked and trying to tolerate the ross encampment is more than is even reasonable to ask of us so we're presenting to you six specific requests that we believe would provide immediately relief from some of the current issues and should be easy to implement it we've been working with coastal watershed council over the past year on projects that affect both the river and our neighborhoods we include coastal watershed council tonight as this encampment is having a negative impact on its efforts to rehabilitate and revitalize the river that helps our neighborhoods thrive coastal watershed council has been making great headway in educating the community and especially our neighborhoods along the river levy about the importance the river holds in our lives the ross encampment is challenging its efforts to support a thriving river ecosystem and create a river walk that is attractive and accessible to all of us we are hoping we won't lose ground on the progress we've made along the river walk and in our neighborhoods so please be thoughtful compassionate and very serious in considering our request to make positive changes that will benefit all of us so our six requests are to establish a clear boundary around the camp in order to keep the Santa Cruz river walk open and clear for public access to protect the river from the impacts of human activity move the entrance to the encampment away from the river walk and falker street to the opposite end of the site at river street move the porta potties away from the river walk to the river street end of the site increase police patrol and falker and price streets we suggest foot patrol versus drive buys as this allows for more attention to detail of illegal activities going on place gates at each end of the highway one pedestrian bridge to be locked at night thank you I have 30 more seconds I had an email that said I had three and a half minutes I timed it to three and a half minutes that's I'm sorry you can give us your your comments here okay thank you so yes all right well thank you thank you at two minutes all the next guy I'm next yeah okay typically the mayor says next that's what I was waiting for for so regarding the homeless side and it reminded me of a month ago maybe when a friend of mine spent well over eight hours cleaning up the remains of a homeless campsite at the south end of henry call state park that was where the fire occurred that was threatening paradise park if you already call that turned out the fire the ground zero was a homeless campsite again I spent eight hours with a friend of mine we took everything out to the highway I had to take it down the mountain cross tracks up a hillside to highway nine and take it to the dump we paid for the dump fee at our own expense and just so you know that was that fire was courtesy of homeless people that are allowed to infest our public lands which are the most beautiful in the world according to some all right now I want to get to me my main topic here which is the fact that Israel or there's overwhelming evidence that Israel is primarily responsible for 9 11 which has led us directly into these endless wars no more wars for Israel and further more christia for bolin if you simply go to this website bolin bolin dot com you will see telling evidence for what i'm saying israel did 9 11 christia for bolin is a highly respected investigative reporter right here from santa cruz ucsc christia for bolin you may never heard of him because when he was going to speak locally the adl which is a basically a jewish group vested interest in promoting israeli aggression against the rest of the people in the midst anyway the adl prevented christia for speaking bolin dot com thanks thank you next oh nickle's whitehead uh i wish to thank you madam mayor for your well well conceived and well received remarks at the martin luther king she's not here well anyway i want to thank her but find words that she gave must be followed by determined action we must as a city declare that critical human needs for survival are our top priority unless we act the health of the destitute their physical and mental health will affect the overall health of our communities in particular we must act to house and shelter women and children to grant housing stability to teenage foster kids not forcing them on to the streets at 18 finally more shelter or house all disabled people including mentally disabled and the very oldest among our homeless population i thank all those who work daily to secure the needs and provide hope to our homeless we need to augment their efforts with priority funding to open shelter space and transitional housing countywide we also need more public health workers and a huge increase in social workers to intercept poverty at its very roots without the intervention we can't adequately redirect the lives of those struggling to survive moms with kids living in cars alienated military veterans distressed young people they are members of our human family hello i'm henry joseph lopez i enacted sovereignty earlier respect the 72 hour parking law i think officers actually save lives when they knock on people's windows and there's oxygen deprivation and the you know condensations going on so i could care less for someone actually wanting to kill themselves in their car subconsciously but um about communication i have amazing communication skills because i see in algorithms and as a contributor to making sure that renters hearts are feeling a little bit more safe i think that all of you now that i have sealed your hearts with our new committee because i knew that the last one was you know putting off so that newer um visionist can actually you know perceive how they're actually trying to compensate with everybody because it's not easy to um um you know expand like the universe is trying to when it's so condensed in santa cruz so it is i'm gonna pause your time here this is an opportunity for you to speak to items that are not on our agenda that have uh an impact that the council can influence oh okay so if it's not related then i would like to so this is for the council okay so you hit like a hit like a huge you know wave you you realized you had to go use the restroom real quick come back or whatever it was you know you had a big jolt in your system and this is like the algorithms of the world right now and then you came back and checked me you know i mean psychologically um which was another spike well right now the top scientists which i go to ucsc and i um and am incorporated with the three top schools in california and i consult and talk to the smartest people okay they're studying the peaks and all i'm saying okay okay so just a reminder that this is an opportunity for oral communications an opportunity to address the council on items that are not on the agenda and if you're sitting to my left then you're in line for oral communications is that correct and these are all for items that are not on today's agenda correct who you as well who additionally is here or you could you could stand if you'd like would you like to go first okay what okay you you do you want not want to be the last speaker you could go next if you're not the last speaker he'll be the last speaker okay just a quick question man okay one second please why don't you go next and then in the blue you will be our last speaker and okay go ahead uh watch scott ram well hang on hang on just a second buddy go ahead yeah hey uh i'm just a quick question just a quick question uh for uh the city attorney did it's my understanding that public comment is a time when people can speak about anything not on the agenda but is there a line stipulating it has to be something that the council can control or is it their opportunity to be able to express themselves with however they want for two minutes the brown act requires the council to provide at each meeting an opportunity for any member of the public to speak on any item that they wish that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city council so it does not require um topics uh or the council to entertain topics on foreign affairs or um you know things that are unrelated to city business thank you for clarifying it doesn't require that yeah and then i you know i will note noting that we have a 730 delegation from our sister city outside waiting i will go ahead and change the time to um one minute what i don't get my two minutes go ahead you get one minute anyway okay go ahead i would i would move to uh to increase the time back to the original two minutes to allow people to have their full time to speak you can go ahead and pause it second okay we have a motion in the floor to allow for two minutes to speak go ahead i'm speaking against that oral communications is an optional time to hear from the members of the public which we are trying diligently to do but we do have a group that has just arrived visiting from japan that is uh has a time certain to be introduced to us at 730 and we're trying to accommodate multiple needs so uh one minute will allow it should allow everyone standing in line to have their say and almost everyone standing in line knows that you can communicate with us by email written letter and so forth so um i respect the mayor's efforts to try and juggle multiple needs thank you for that but i would also say that it's not impossible to just pause at 730 i'd like as mayor i'd like to take the floor please and we have a motion in a second although all those in favor please say aye aye opposed no okay that fails with the lack of votes we'll go ahead and move on to public comment you'll be given one minute do i get a full minute i'm okay thank you uh good evening i'm scott ram back in the 70s the city council which was made up of mostly republicans made a huge mistake they tore down a beautiful library the Carnegie library and built what they consider the modern library now we're looking at tearing that library down or doing something else with that library and sticking the library in a parking garage i would implore you not to make the same mistake that they made back in the 70s when they tore down the Carnegie library i wish it was still there they could have added on to it they didn't need to tear it down so leave the library where it is if it has problems fix those problems but don't stick the library in a parking garage thank you hi i'm synthia berger with Santa Cruz tenants you have the power to take less controversial measures and one of them is to create a solid governmental base for sorely needed tenant services by establishing an office of tenant services the office of tenant services would provide a centralized physical office from which to offer essential services to Santa Cruz's large renter population it's not a rent board but it could really help oversee data collection on the tenant condition which is needed in order to apply for and win grants and then submit well written grants in a timely way fund bilingual tenant counseling and rights hotline allocate an administrator rent payment assistant assistance other protections of the renter residential population to be determined by people who know what they're talking about a departmental manager director whose job description should be composed with the health of tenant advocates the holder of this position should have the powers of a high ranking staff member rather than a mid-level administrator and should have the attending qualifications and to provide oversight for the programs for first time homeowners yeah okay next next speaker okay this is second time i only had a minute to speak so i'm a business owner at the gateway plaza next to their ross encampment so my business as i spoke to you guys 60 days ago is like a thoroughfare for everybody going to that homeless camp the city manager and a police chief offered to put up a fence for us to fence that off and all it is actual gate the fence is only up there for about 20 minutes a day and then they take it down i have you guys i don't know when the last time any of the city council members have been down there to see that encampment but it's just people shouldn't be living in that you guys need to find something else somewhere else for these people to go i mean there's four bathrooms there there's no way i could get a permit to build a restaurant with only four bathrooms for 100 people right let alone 200 people a day that thing needs to be moved it needs to be somewhere else so my customers don't need to see on a daily basis guns drawn for drug deals and ambulances taking od people away i mean it needs to move somewhere else thank you thank you for being my name is gary ingram i'm a tannery resident an artist i was going to talk about the ross camp but i'm just going to speak a little bit about what happened today uh we get a lot of people walking through through to the ross camp and back again this morning a woman was walking her dog i was watching my out my window and she was for no reason just this guy uh with his bicycle and his guitar and everything just started to rail at her with obscenities he said you um he told her she was a real bitch that he was going to kill her and she's sneaking over to the sides she can be as intrusive as possible and i'm sure she was scared to death we get this stuff all the time walking through there and he did it all the way to the other to the theater and i'm talking about from the mall to the theater and then another felt okay thank you next speaker and i'm uh i'm sorry we'll go ahead and pause you reminder uh you and the blue will be our last speaker okay you will be our last speaker and the advisor okay go ahead i'm a new business owner actually at the tannery i also am a homeowner in santa cruz county i'm a paul that you all whether you're conservative or liberal can watch and i drive by that ross and camp in every day it's you have a you have an opportunity to be leaders in this country this is a nationwide problem we all know it is we all know it's difficult why don't you stand up pull together public private funds and make make make us make a name for yourselves this is it's a disgrace and i think you guys can do a lot better i will help you there are many people in this community that will help you it i'm just appalled and i think you all know that you all are too thank you thanks to the two council members who tried to restore two minutes of oral communication to the community we deserve better we have the right when we come to this meeting to speak at least for three minutes that includes excuse me can i continue go ahead and pause the time this is an opportunity for you to address the council and i am addressing the council who would like back to the council disrespectfully okay you understand what i'm saying is this what we want this council to do is establish new rules that don't allow this mayor or subsequent mayors to cut off the communication for people have been standing in line waiting people i don't always agree with but they should have the right to speak here and not be interrupted in the midst of their speeches as as this mayor has been doing she has to be held in check we have four so-called progressives on the council why don't they do this thank you next speaker thank you my name is elise casby and i am going to address the ten million dollars that's um that the uh city staff is in charge of dispersing for homeless services my understanding about this money is that it will be uh there will be a meeting coming up very soon perhaps this week i've heard uh which will address how to uh make proposals for this money and so forth and i just want to say that in Santa Cruz we have a history of absolutely refusing to build emergency shelters i'm not going to talk about what i know about the shelters that are existent such as apollae lee loft that leave empty beds all the time in the grand jury report and investigation of 2014 to 2015 there is a very excellent summary given about the causes of homelessness and what they recommend is suitable emergency shelters if you don't want ross camp and the problems there make sure this 10 million goes into building emergency shelters in Santa Cruz thank you my name is alicia cool and i would just like to say that currently we have no protection for tenants if we had any protection for tenants at all i might not have lost my rental i'm going to put this is on items that are not on the agenda certainly or i would just like to second what synthia requested and i would also like to see her time for the homeless um i've heard a lot of negative comments they don't infest things they don't need to be locked in the gate um we need to address the issues of our homeless population in a way that allows them to also have dignity um currently the ross camp needs potable water they need wood chips to keep the ground dry uh they need immediate laundry vouchers and i would just like to say that we need to address the issues of the ross camp any respectful way while keeping their dignity the homeless do not infest the community they are also part of this community thank you thank you i had other things that i wanted to speak about but i i think that this takes priority to take away someone's right to talk for two minutes because someone was unable to express themselves clearly or was talking possibly off subject is denying that human being their own right and their own voice you may not think that they're speaking clearly clearly or coherently but if you listen carefully you can often hear wisdom from someone that you do not think counts and i'm through oh good for you good evening city council my name is isaac um i'm a recording artist go by lyrical eye i've been in sand crews for 14 years and i just wanted to talk about supporting the arts and giving more arts and opportunity for diversity people as myself because i think it's very important especially with all these issues going on i think it's really important for us to have more diversity with the arts and supporting the people that are actually doing the work myself i've been performing in sand crews for over 14 years on the streets and doing positive work in the community and i think it's important to support those artists is they're doing positive work because that solves a lot of solutions when you got people that are actually doing the work and giving something to the youth and i'm speaking for the youth because i think it's very important because they need opportunities to their house lives and it's important for us to come together to solve those issues as well as all these other issues but to support the local artists is that's myself that is putting in the work to make Santa Cruz better and do something positive thank you thank you i had no plan to speak to you tonight i thought i'd give you all a break and then i heard an example of free speech that was incredibly offensive to me watching that person in the front of this room with that neon sign if that sign had addressed any other minority group people of color people of a different sexual orientation people of another country with that have been allowed to go on that's almost an abuse of free speech and i just have to share with you that my heart is jumping out of my chest i am incredibly upset that all of you sat there impassively watching that go on and allowed that to happen in front of this audience that's not the Santa Cruz that i love i'm sorry oh hi my name is a bird a quarter i live on price street and we had a meeting last night for falker in price the captain millis was there representative for mcpherson's office and we had talked the neighborhood got together and we talked and what we what carol walker was saying and i will reiterate we understand that you're watching out for the homeless and watching out for the camp but we want to raise our hand and say watch out for us too we need help right now and we've been assured the camp will not be here for many many months more but right now we are citizens we are suffering we are being every day people running up down our driveway stealing our things we need you to help us right now and she gave you some ways that you could help us i'm asking for help for it right now until the camp can be the issues can be fixed and i know there's giant issues but please help us on price and falker street please thank you before you get started i want to just remind that we have closed public comment after oral communications after that the one with the advisor so we will not be hearing any additional members no but you're welcome to email us at any time okay go ahead no you do you do you get to speak you were the last one go ahead uh so i'm hearing okay from the owner of one of the stores in the gateway center and from people on falker street that um believe it or not um the camp there is is problematic um i noticed uh christier raised his hand when when he said you know have any actually been there and it is it is kind of too high density right now it's it's it's squalid um and i think you should consider the possibility of um drawing people away from their incentivizing you know more responsible behavior from some of the people that they're they're in that camp area because right now it's in a polarized um uh condition just like the camp was on the um the lower uh part of uh what do they call it the bench lands um you know this is kind of a this is kind of an impossible suggestion um but i i i know that um bernie center supporters are are into impossible things um but i just i just wanted to say um okay thank you maybe they could have half the people go to the bench lands okay go ahead you're the next speaker here susan worth i've lived i've lived here about 12 years myself in this county but i actually live in soquel but um my main concern is is the library and the fact that i have a feeling that maybe they decided to put up a parking garage and move that beautiful library because so many people that you know have their things and their belongings all around them and stuff and they're smoking and whatnot are hanging around that library and it's like do they want to bury them in the bottom of that the basement of that parking garage i'm not sure and you know it all just doesn't feel right to me and i the people that are living by by the ross store i i went through there too about a week ago and everything seemed pretty good you know but where are these people to go thank you okay so at this time i want to acknowledge that at 7 30 we had already identified that we would be having um our sister city's business delegation from shingu japan um to be introduced to our city and i um want to pause the item that we had before oral communications to um go ahead and move forward with that and i'd like to see if carol or lynda is here and we're ready to get going with um welcoming them into our community wait you're postponing a vote after a second we have a we have a we have a 10 minute item to hear at 7 30 prior to this and this is an opportunity for us to leave okay you're doing the right thing okay that's weird de-ordnance okay we'll go ahead and welcome in our delegates in your phone this is unbelievable everybody okay okay thank you carol are we all are we all here okay well i want to just start by saying um welcome and uh this is our official welcome for the business delegation in adult interns from our sister city of shingu japan and on behalf of the city of santa cruz i would like to welcome our illustrious visitors from shingu for our business delegates for our business delegates i wish you a full week of economic and cultural exchanges and of course continue to good weather so welcome also to the shingu interns this is the first time we have hosted interns for two months i hope this will be an amazing experience for you and just for the first of many more business internships so at this time i'd like to now introduce linda snook chair of the santa cruz sister cities committee we are truly honored to have nine members of the shingu business community and two adult interns from our sister city shingu japan i would like i would ask that mayor watkins join me at the podium to officially welcome each one of our delegates and issue them honorary citizens of santa cruz certificates which entitles them to all the wonderful benefits of santa cruz including good weather we also have some gifts for you in the city council from the city council mayor watkins please join me to make the presentations delegates as i call your name please come forward to shake the mayor's hand and accept your certificate please allow staff time to take a quick photo and remain standing off to my to my right i would like to invite iwa sawa san chair of the shingu sister cities committee and i would like to invite you to address the city council so this is a single photo of the town of the shingu from the view of the top of the hill and this photo was taken by the mayor of the shingu city and the head president sends the legend always to take permission and we have some memorial park and that memorial park they made some of the doors things this so this is a present for you thank you for keeping the doors sold for relations between the shingu and santa cruz i visited first time 1987 in santa cruz use the microphone okay and so i've been uh surprised of the how you arbitre the community uh even if the uh sometimes committee has some facing the crisis but uh you go beyond uh that make a solution and so or in shingu city more than 2000 history we have but uh we are facing the uh less population and the aging here it's all of japan happening so uh we hope some kind of the key to uh but uh restoring the community uh we hope to find out in santa cruz this time thank you that was a swag but none of us get i would like to continue introducing our delegates masaki inoki mario kamiura and noriko kamiura is sashi motodate missa morimoto noriko nami kura that we already have we already have i'm sorry and now i would like to introduce our adult interns madoka saika madoka would you like to address the council council i appreciate or for your warm welcome thank you so much you are receiving handmade gifts from shingu right now as you know japan is a very gift-giving culture i would like to take the opportunity to thank the san santa cruz sister cities committee and shingu subcommittee for all their hard work in putting together the agenda for the delegates thank you to the mayor and the city council thank you thank you all so much thank you very much and i'll i'll just say on the behalf of the city council we appreciate so much the work of the sister cities committee and we welcome with open arms our delegates from shingu we really appreciate that also i just want to give a shout out to um andrea rosenthal she's been um right here she's been really doing a lot of work a business delegation to show the best parts of our city she's been doing so much work to show these delegates a fantastic time and all the beautiful gems of san cruz they do that for us when we go um and also just so you know there are host families people that are housing these delegates just really generously opening their homes to all these delegates so thank you for very much for for all that you're doing for this program also thank you thank you so much for taking this hand yes okay all right i want to thank the community for uh letting us uh take a pause and welcoming those who've traveled very far to be here from our sister city of shingu japan at this time i will bring our council back to um item number 24 um for action and deliberation and that is the second reading of the just cause um ordinance so that's an opportunity for the council to take action or deliberation is there a motion or any type of uh conversation to ensue i'm going to motion the table the um just cause to a later date i'll second it okay so there's a motion by uh council member and vice mayor coming seconded by a council member mires to table the just cause second reading ordinance um to a future date um any further discussion i just want to get here from the city attorney um what does the future date mean and does it mean it will never come back or does it mean um well what could it mean it means a date uncertain though it does not specifically require that it be brought back and it's at a specific time i anticipate however that when the council considers its um calendar that there may be further direction asked um by the council okay okay council member gladner i just want to take a second to appreciate even though it was during public comment mr whitehead's uh acknowledgement of dr king we just came out of the mlk weekend and had a parade in santa cruz with speakers talking about dr king's vision and mission and goals but i find it really hard to believe that he would allow the pressure from a affluent group of people in the community to force his hand in uh avoiding protecting the people that are the most vulnerable while we can continue moving through the thing i'm sorry to interrupt but a motion to table is not debatable motion i know okay motion i'm not making a debatable motion i am making a counter motion because regardless of the pressure or threats that i feel i think that i need to stand by my principles for fighting for those people who are left without power for such a long time in santa cruz so i would make the counter motion to pass this language and uh instruct the city attorney as well as uh requested the mayor to agendize the item of the revised language which removes the issue of the 62 years and older redefines the sub leasing timeline and addresses many of the other concerns brought up by some of the people that came during public comment about the issues that they feel so that we can protect renters and at the same time move forward into a uniform consensus between renters and landlords yeah i think that's an inappropriate action may i quote the handbook um if adopted motion requires that all discussion of the item under consideration at the time of the motion be halted immediately without further discussion okay okay we'll ask him pardon me that's if it's adopted so i think a substitute motion could be made so you just make sure i'm clear we have a motion on the floor to table the item and you're suggesting that we don't have to take an immediate vote on that and that a substitute motion can be entertained just reading the rule that says if adopted the motion requires that all discussion of the item under consideration at the time of the motion be halted immediately so so we can we can essentially entertain i'm sorry i'm not sure if i'm i know i know what if you can please and go ahead if adopted all discussion of the item shall be halted that's what it says but would not preclude the council from directing further action at a future meeting so if i'm hearing you correctly it's i need to call the we need to call the question in terms of the first motion reading this as saying that a that a substitute motion could be made because it only applies if it's adopted okay so we have a substitute motion to if i'm hearing you correctly councilmember glover it's to adopt this or to make changes to have a first reading adopt the second reading of the current just cause eviction ordinance as is with the language that's been prepared by attorney kandadi to that takes out many of the controversial issues that were brought up by homeowners especially during public comment so that we would have this in place to protect renters and then come back on February 12th with the revised language for first reading to remove all of the controversial things that have been brought up by the community is there a second i'm yeah i'm gonna second it for a discussion okay is there discussion on the motion i think there are really two things one was to adopt the second reading as as distributed and published and the other is to bring back additional language which none well i shouldn't say none of us have seen some of us have not seen so that seems like an inappropriate motion i think the it could be a separate motion to schedule an item for a future hearing with language to be prepared along a certain line but is that what you're trying to it's it's more to ensure the public that there is the intention and the desire to remove the controversial issues that are present that you brought up but at the same time and a good faith mode to accept that we're moving forward with this to protect the renters because of the uh the ramia the term no when retroactive activity date so you're moving the you're moving the second reading of the just cause but you're saying at a future time at the next meeting specifically that's why i wanted it on the record and in the motion so at the next meeting that this language which will be distributed throughout the to the rest of the council members will be able to review them and then come back for the first reading of the suggested changes around and then mr kandadi i have a question for you i'm trying to understand exactly where we're at here but my um my comment was going to be that i would entertain the motion to table if there was some time certain report back at which time and i won't i won't even go any further than that um sometime certain report back i get what um my colleagues are trying to to get at i i understand that but i want to be clear that i am willing to support the motion if we have time certain to achieve that purpose okay so we have two motions on the floor i think we should i don't want to speak out of turn here but i think that um based on our discussions what vice mayor comings has in mind is to bring a follow-up motion during your consideration of the calendar to schedule specific items for consideration by the council in relatively short order um that would address the concerns that you're expressing that was not clear to me for until now thank you so right now we have a vote on the substitute motion essentially okay one point of discussion just want to make it clear that um this is an issue that i deeply care about and that i know is affecting the community but what i've been hearing from the community um which has informed my decision is the idea that we can provide an opportunity rather than the city council being the ones who are making the decisions that we allow for members of the moving for housing justice and um Santa Cruz together to come together and to craft or take some of what has been proposed into consideration and then work with um potentially if they would like the assistance of myself and Donna we could facilitate a meeting where we could work with them on some of the language so that whatever we propose has been coming from the the citizens of Santa Cruz rather than just from the city council itself okay and so i view this as an opportunity to allow these groups to come together in a meaningful way which is why i'm moving forward with the motion to table okay and i just want to point out that if that this is actually to do something constructive so um we're not trying to just delay this with no action to be taken in the future this is for meaningful action to take place um that's going to be led by members of the community uh councilmember mayors i just yeah i'd like to just make clear that um the intent to in this uh tabling the item is is absolutely not to obstruct any forward progress and uh i just want to acknowledge councilmember Glover's comments earlier this evening we did work hard um up until Friday we had some language i continued to meet with constituents um through the weekend um and as i learned more and more uh i realize our community is is continuing just to fracture more and more and more um so despite the fact that we got some uh i think viable language that we all talked about openly and creatively and constructively uh i'm i worry about the efficacy of the task force process um i was provided information this weekend that based on the mls um listings i think data that can be verifiable by pretty much anybody that would want to dive into this um it looks like we've lost close to 100 rental units um in the past year so we are seeing conversion of rental units to owner occupied and we are in an unstable environment with regards to policy and we our community deserves the time and the effort by us to sit down conduct you know and conduct ourselves in a way that helps us move forward and that's really the intent i think that um councilmember Cummings and i are both recognizing that uh constructive work with the task force may not succeed with the starting point that we are right now so we need we need to just take a little bit of time and we will be moving things forward but we just both felt that this was an effort to sort of to sort of reset a little bit um so i just wanted to explain that and appreciate that thank you okay i'd like to see if we can now at this time take a vote on the substitute motion as proposed by councilmember Glover and seconded by councilmember crone um i like where it's going i i but i was i wasn't understanding what you're saying about your doubtful of the efficacy of the task force isn't that what we may end up with or are are moving towards or we've given staff some direction i think no i i i believe we've we've started to give staff that direction i worry about how the task force um setting is beginning and uh so i i just i we're a very divided and fractured community right now and to expect to put people in a room for a year with the starting point that we are at right now i just i think we need to to take a take a break and try to do some work and see if we can can get us to a better starting point for the task force i look forward to providing more comment on the task force hopefully at the february 12th meeting which i think was originally where we were shooting for okay so just to make sure excuse me for just one second just to make sure we're are you um do we i'd like to take a vote on the on the substitute motion at this time unless that is being withdrawing withdrawing my motion i wanted to see what the the maker of the motion thought would you like to withdraw the motion well uh it's i understand where people are coming from um as i mentioned before we're just coming out of the dr king weekend and there's a quote from him the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy we are in a time of challenge and controversy right now but instead of abandoning renters because if we do not pass this tonight there's the very good rea they're very strong reality that those people will be displaced many of whom or some of whom are direct causal effects of their participation in measure m advocacy so to say oh we're going to lose a couple people so that we can make people feel better about the process is problematic for me because i one person being displaced unjustly is too many for me personally so i am going to hold with my motion okay and we'll see how the vote turns out do you have a second are you are you holding to the second of the motion at the same i i'm going to withdraw the second okay is there a second for the substitute motion see none okay so now we'll move on to the original motion to table the item um unless there's any further discussion about that all those in favor please say aye aye aye any opposed nay that passes with council member crone mires brown matthews vice mayor comings and myself in support um and councilmember glover voting no okay so that then concludes the item and that will lead us to the next item which is the calendar oh the calendar right yeah okay okay all right we'll wait just a second and we'll get started with the calendar okay all right you can then if you if you wouldn't mind taking your conversations outside we still have one more item the motion would be to direct staff okay okay we could take the thank you all right okay so now we're on to item number 25 which is the city council review of the meeting calendar attached to our agenda are there any changes not by me are there any changes suggested by the council member glover so i noticed uh i was really dismayed uh to not see anything regarding homelessness on the agenda to be discussed at this meeting especially because of the severe weather we've been experiencing and all of the realities of what's going on with the Ross camp the surrounding issues with the neighborhoods and the humanitarian crisis that were in in Santa Cruz so i would urge that the council prioritize the topic of the Ross camp and solutions uh at the next city council meeting on February 12th at the latest is that the anticipated time uh if the council wants we can certainly do an update with respect to the uh we are having meetings with the county staff on a weekly basis to look at mitigation measures as well as uh to develop recommendations for you and the board of supervisors with respect to uh what happens next so those are being prepared but we can at a minimum do an update if we have if we're ready to to have specific recommendations we can bring them forward okay one second i think vice mayor i wanted to um make a motion i've just distributed to um members of the city council and staff some recommendations i know that at the last um city council meeting there wasn't um very clear direction to staff with regards to the um what i've named in this item the rental housing task force and so i just wanted to um bring a few items to the attention of um the city and some proposals um for staff which would be to direct staff at the next council meeting with the proposal to establish a rental housing task force and which would consist of creating an application for appointment to the affordable rental task force recommendations on the composition of the task force uh the char and the charge of the task force the second item is to direct staff to return at the next meeting with information leading to a proposal and budget for conducting a community poll so that the public can provide information on the possible the problems with the rental housing market and some possible responses in addition to that number three direct staff to return at the next meeting with information leading to a proposal for the city council to collect data on rent increases and evictions occurring in the city and then finally direct staff to return at the next meeting with an example flyer to be sent to every city resident an absentee rental property owner that would describe the city's action to create a citizen's rental housing task force um in addition to these main points i've made some recommendations i know that the staff has been receiving recommendations about the the composition and many things i mentioned before and so i just wanted this to be included in addition to what staff is considering and also provide a little bit clearer direction with regards to how we should move forward with the task force so that's a motion motion yes and so this is not a time for substantive discussion around any of the items proposed it's essentially a time for the council to weigh in on making this the february 12th uh the february 12th agenda item correct okay so is there a second second it i want to make one comment that it's not substantive um as i'm seconding it for the purposes of getting us to uh formation of a task force as quickly as possible i do have some additional i'm with the acknowledgement that there will be um you know some tweaking of this um at that date but i do i would like to see that happen as quickly as possible so i i'll second that um any discussion on having this item come back to the council on february 12th for discussion would it make any sense to come back on february 5th we do not have items a meeting scheduled at this time and had previously polled the council for a meeting at that day for a different thing so it wasn't going to work so this would be on the 12th this was being proposed okay is there any other discussion about having this as the item that comes back on february 12th um yeah sorry um so are we committing to this work program here we're directing this we're directing to agendize this for february 12th for discussion fine thank you is there any question about agendizing this for february 12th for discussion the only one i wanted to mention was uh we will do our very best to get you all this information so there might be some things that we might you might take a little longer but hopefully hopefully we can get everything into respond as best you can but it seems like it's doable yeah i was just going to mention for some of the i understand that the constraints that staff is on is under and so so for some of the items um where it had you know specifically asked for a proposal um i've discussed this with with tina prior to this and some of those items seem like they were doable and then for items that seem like they might take longer uh specifically put in language in saying that the staff would return to the next meeting with information leading to a proposal so just to make sure that that's clear for certain items great that's helpful thank you you're fine okay is there any further discussion okay all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed that passes unanimously i want to follow up on the calendar item that um councilmember glover was speaking of i2 um uh really dismayed and disappointed that we didn't have anything to talk about uh what's going on with respect to uh homeless services and it is a crisis i i would make a motion to that it that we do have a special meeting on february 5th i didn't understand what the i don't know if i missed your your memo about um that's that not being an available day um but a study session of that that evening so there's a motion we had we had conducted a poll of council members uh with respect to this is uh in the context of the team building session and uh when we did the polling to find dates for that it was not uh a time that was available for all the council members so would february 5th the evening work for folks to have it to really talk about our homeless you know that will be a minimum discussed on the 12th and there's a so a minimum will have that updated on the 12th and the absence of being able to consult calendars i don't think anybody can accurately answer that question so there's a motion to are you withdrawing your motion are you uh no i think we should be having a special meeting on homelessness uh you know i just think that we should be going forward and figuring out a work plan right second so we there there will be an agenda item coming up on homelessness i'm making a motion that it be on the evening of february so there's a motion to special meeting on the 5th um i don't know if i can make that work personally on that date so i won't be able to support that i don't know if that could be but i'm happy to put that to a vote i i think it's most i i guess my comment is i think it's most important and i and i would actually like to see maybe more than just an update on the 12th i think we need an actual per a set of policy proposals that we need to actually um that we're able to make to take action on um and i appreciate but i think if we if we're really trying to push something to the 5th and and staff just isn't ready then i think we're going to end up not being able to really help and so i would rather wait to the 12th and have substantive um questions that can be answered and and we can make make policy i'm just wondering like i agree totally thank you um i'm just thinking that on the 5th we could gather input from the city council and give staff some direction at that time rather than waiting to the 12th for something being placed before us how about just have a frank discussion and see a priority list i think we all have these ideas of what might work i i just don't i'm just getting i get frustrated because like the but seeing a priority list and what we're going to deal with first second third and i and i've spoke to the city manager too and he would like i i think he would like that i want to speak for himself but giving staff some direction on these issues okay so what i'm hearing is that we'd like to have as an earliest if i can't do the 5th i don't think i can do the 5th so i earliest convenience an item on homelessness for us to be able to have input and direction and so that if that's what i'm hearing is direction is that accurate or are you sticking to the 5th as the has to be the day um well respect for the mayor if you can't make it i think it's really important that you're there right okay so i don't know if there's another day outside i'm just thinking of tuesdays being a day that um council sets aside for uh you know council business um that's why i was thinking of that day certainly for the discussion about well i i know the staff is working on this hard with the county and the other partners and that takes time to do that work so i too would like a substantive update and if there are if there's guidance or input we can give at that time let's do it but um i know you're working hard on it and everyone's eager to see the results of that and it's frustrating so okay exactly okay hearing it's a priority for for discussion and action which i think we all very much so share we'll make that a priority when setting the agenda okay okay can we take a vote on the 5th if you like well not on the 5th but if is it coming back on the 12th and we're gonna have something substantive um that we really want to move forward and not just have a discussion if council wishes to put it on the 12th it'll be on the 12th okay 12th then yeah okay so are you withdrawing your motion for the 5th uh yeah making it for the 12th just to make sure it's on there second okay so there's a motion for agendizing uh homeless item for the 12th made by council member crone seconded by council member Glover in general direction yeah the only thing maybe i would request if there are particular questions that you have and issues that you think are important for us to address to just shoot me an email and then that way we can make sure and to the extent that we can cover any particular questions or issues but we definitely will bring back to you where we're at with the entire process and all the various recommendations that will be before you with respect because there's two pieces to this there's the the uh ross encampment issue and then there's the the more longer term on what happens next with respect to potentially uh manage encampments as well as the the whole uh estate funding process as well so those will be the various there's no public comment on this no so there this um just also as an fyi there's been a several two by two meetings so there is absolutely going to be information and action um coming forward at a forthcoming date um as as an fyi in terms of county city partnership go ahead i'm just trying to prior to motion making i thought i was walking away with the understanding that this would be coming to us on the 12th yeah right so okay so minimum of an update but i think the motion now reflects that there has to be something further than that correct well i came away from two meetings right sorry media as well okay i yes i'm right you want to restate your motion uh that we have a um homeless uh update as well as um you know sort of an action action items on that um on that agenda as part of the agenda item and i would hope since we're not going to have a study session that we take the city manager up on what he just said about sending him email and how you would like to what you would like to see happen on the 12th seconded by council member levin any further discussion i'm sorry i just have to i'm just still a little bit unclear because my understanding is if this is agendized then we are able to take action so do we need a motion for this or no okay but what i'm saying is um council member round is that i was told twice it was going to be on this um agenda today uh january 22nd and so i just trying to get a good feeling like it's going to be on the agenda okay well if it if in order to make my preference no or my interest known in this being agendized for the 12th that then i'll support that motion i just thought it was happening yeah it was okay okay all right okay we'll take a vote do you have a vote on that yeah okay all those in favor please say hi hi hi your post um i just passed out also to you um something about a uh transportation demand management study session for february 19th and it's a motion to schedule a session on on february 19th to discuss parking pricing reform of parking requirements uh in new development and transportation demand management and leveraging parking funds for affordable housing downtown uh inviting the following people to make presentations adam miller bald on pricing policy to optimize availability of parking to visitors downtown patrick sigmund of transportation demand management measures and reform of parking requirements barrow emerson to present the metro proposal for bus passes for all employees in the downtown parking district and sibley simon to talk about ways of using parking funds to leverage affordable housing uh in the downtown all these folks said they were available on that date uh february 19th and i think um it would be wonderful if we could take them up on the opportunity to really have um again a study session and and ask the questions before we proceed with some of the stuff that were you know is being talked about okay hang on just a second okay so this is a motion to agendize february 19th this item at 7 p.m. yes is there a second second can i make a comment i i signed on to this agenda report because i understand that our staff is working on our transportation demand management program i would like to and i i do believe that given the conversations that we've had with folks in the community um there is a broader interest in having some discussion about this a broader study session inviting people in from the community to discuss it with us in addition to staff and i think that um that i mean i so i support that i don't see these as mutually exclusive or competing with each other i would just i think that there is a place for having this kind of broader discussion so that's why i think we should do it and this is a date that they're available and so there it is i'm really uncomfortable with the way that this has been presented to us uh without i don't know has it been has there been consultation with our staff uh what's the role of our transportation and public works commission on this um i i have the feeling it's being to be honest an agenda-driven program that's being laid upon us take it or leave it on a certain date and honestly that makes me uncomfortable okay i'm just going to comment um it's been a real fire hose in the first three meetings yeah as a new council member um and i understand that um we all have goals that we want to accomplish for the community and i think we all have a personal set of goals and but it is our job to have a collective set of goals uh and my understanding was we were going to be having a council retreat on february 19th in the morning till 2 p.m. while i while i am very interested in this topic i i feel like there is just a constant barrage of un uh i i can't figure out what are what we're doing right now and so if if i can't figure that out i um i just i'm uh i'm hoping that this is an important thing to talk about but i really hope that we can honor the process of having to retreat together and understanding how to communicate and how to potentially even set some goals for for the year and that's why i i well wouldn't support having something like this right now okay i'm not wedded to the date of february 19th at this point i'm just supporting this because um there are council members who have been trying to make something like this happen for quite a while now and um have have been um unable to do that we have it's been well yeah we'll get to it sometime you know we'll hear about this at some point and so this is um an attempt to kind of to to move that issue um it's not the priority that you know it absolutely must happen on february 19th i just want to see it happen and if we don't apparently if we don't have a majority of the council um support it it's not going to happen so that's why we're here with the motion okay so i'll just say um that you know one of the things that we all know is there's tons of issues happening within the city and there's a lot of items that need to be agendized there's things that are coming back to us that we've taken action on prior there's um the balance of mayor and um with the inclusion of the vice mayor and staff to look at the uh onset of potential items that will be coming before us and that's what i try to do and have um uh discussed about this specific item and also light of the remarks that were made that we have not yet had the retreat um so for me this seems to be uh um premature and if the majority of the council wants to circumvent that process and agendize it then that's the property of the of the council but i won't be supporting it at this time okay um just with regards to the with regards to the comments about the the retreat process uh my understanding that we're going to come together to determine issues that we feel are priority or that we all feel are important to work on the issues addressed in this document are transportation and affordable housing so i don't believe that it will be in conflict with i mean this is my assumption of what's coming out from the retreat but i know that transportation and affordable housing are some of the top issues that i hear it from people both when i was canvassing during the campaign and now as an elected official these are the two top issues that people have contacted me to speak about or to meet about so they're pertinent they're relevant and especially you know with figuring out how we can leverage parking friends for affordable housing in downtown i have no problem personally with doing this and uh just with regards to the agendizing process it appears that there are council members that feel that the agendizing process as traditional as it may be is failing in making sure that the issues that they feel need to be spoken about are brought to the public's attention so if there is this need just like with this homeless issue where there hasn't been on the last two agendas but it is a humanitarian crisis we need to circumvent the process and force it on the agenda if necessary okay well you have that right and so here we are and where you call the question can i just ask a question for my colleagues um would the um those of you who expect those council members who have expressed concern um be willing to vote in favor of such a thing if we were to agendize it for a different date i mean i don't i don't want to just say that the date is going to make or break us on this because if there is some interest in in or amenity to doing it at a later date um but knowing that we have some date schedule and this is not just going to go into the ether i'd be willing to um if the maker of the motion was willing to amend it for to for a different date if it's if that is not um if you are not inclined to do that then i say we just move it i just before we get into substantive conversation i do understand that there's going to be stuff coming back from staff that would naturally be an on ramp for this type of conversation so i don't feel comfortable i do know that this will be forthcoming and so i'm comfortable with that i i don't know what else to add other than unless and there's being a specific date offered i don't that would be my position on it essentially just to make one comment i do know for example and for me the council retreat was you know thought up as an opportunity for us to really start critically thinking about scheduling and making sure that we can be effective with our time that we can respect the public's time um and i know that that was expressed at the last at the very first city council meeting that went until midnight and many folks were a little upset about the fact that we were making deliberations during a time when most people were either too tired to make comment or um the city council was also very tired at that moment as well i do remember that um based on the last agenda that we were setting there were also um there was also um an item around the 15% inclusionary housing that was supposed to come back as well on the 12th which means that we'll have inclusionary housing we have the task force we have homelessness all of which are issues that are going to take a lot of time to go through and so um my position is that we utilize the time on the 19th to really start thinking about how we want to schedule out these things so that we don't have meetings where we try to address very large issues with not a lot enough time dedicated towards each of those issues okay so um there's a motion to agendize this for the 19th a process um response i i agree with you and part of my thinking in this study sessions sessions are generally two hours and it allows you without having the pressure of maybe having to make a motion and decisions it gets you into the issue and and kind of like allows you to ask some questions without going in midnight or you know and it's it's just that it's the study up on it ask those questions in public with the public present with people who are very interested in this um item and then you know we agendize it or not for a city council meeting that that's only my purpose here and today you know right i i would like to see a study session on the homeless issue too because i think we're going to come back and some stuff is going to be put on us and we might not be ready to make those decisions yet but if we had some time to really talk these issues through and i hope during our retreat we we also get to talk about these kinds of issues as well i mean maybe not the specific policy but you know how we deal with them there's new shortage of items that i think could go and be warranted for a study session and i'm sure there's very particular specific items that every one of us could say that we'd like to have a study session on so i'll just add that as my comments did you have something you want to tell me i don't want to keep a laboring this but the way that the motion is written um and and and i i respect that i think we have very common probably high level topics that we need to be looking at as a council this is a very to me this is a very specific use of a fund um this is not this is not a study session this is a study session to look at using a specific fund for a specific purpose now if we want to back up and talk about affordable housing as a whole set a study session around that and funding of affordable housing then that to me that's a worthwhile study session but again i would like to have us have the retreat so we can kind of understand how at these big picture things we're going to kind of frame things up what are our questions around it that's my only that's my only concern and diving into something like this as a study session right now and that would be the purpose of the retreat okay i'm a big fan of study sessions but to do a good job you need to give them enough time for the staff to pull together you know if there are going to be other speakers as well but also um there has been good work done on a lot of this that the new council members aren't familiar with but uh on um we're on the cusp of some very exciting new TDM stuff it's built on pricing policy there was a huge amount of effort gone gone into that in some of the previous decisions that we made so um i think probably a a study session an update or an extensive report on our TDM program is warranted but let's acknowledge the good work that has been done that's been a foundation of many of the decisions that we've been making so far bring them some new ideas if appropriate but um i think certainly the 19th is really pushing it and um perhaps one of the ideas at the retreat would be what are the things that we do want some focus study sessions on i i can remember uh in some council cycles this year we have labor negotiations so we're i think we have set aside one Tuesday um a month to discuss that but there have been uh some years when there was a study session almost every month on big topics if i recall on this so there's plenty of stuff to study um but let's be purposeful about it and give ourselves time to do a good job and the retreat and acknowledge the previous work that's been done and the retreat is set to help us guide on maybe call the question it's a great okay we have a question to call the question um all those in favor of supporting agendizing this item for February 19th please say aye aye no no no i i again i was trying to see if there was an alternative date that we could get at and so the question was called so i believe it was yeah when the question is called so we have um council member crone were you i'm sorry i didn't catch your vote say no oh no okay so council member crone voting in favor and council member glover brown matthew spice mayor Cummings myself and mires voting against so that concludes this meeting oh good job everyone i'm not going to use him yeah try to see