 It's not part of 14. Okay, Okidoki, we'll go ahead and get started if I could get your attention, please. All right, we'll go ahead and get started. I want to welcome you all to our 4PM session of the October 29th, 2019 special meeting of the Santa Cruz City Council. And I'd like to ask our clerk to please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Cron. Here. Cover is currently absent. Meyers? Here. Brown? Here. Matthews? Here. Vice Mayor Cummings? Here. And Mayor Walker? Here. So I have a few announcements and then we'll move on to our items and our presentations. So today's meeting is being broadcast live on Community Television Channel 25 and is streaming on the city's website at cityofsantacruz.com. The order for both items today will be the presentation of the item, followed by questions from the council, at which time we'll go ahead and open it up to public comment. And then return to the council for deliberation and action. And before we move on to our first item, we'll just go ahead and show a little appreciation and support for our first responders and our hearts go out to those who are impacted by the fires throughout our entire state. And also a brief announcement that October happens to be Dyslexia Awareness Month as well as National Disability Employee Awareness Month. And it had an opportunity to go to their recognition event today. It was quite lovely. So with that, we'll jump right into our first item, which is the urgency ordinance in response to AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. And I believe that our council members will be presenting the item. Is that correct? Okay. No, I'll turn it over to any of the council members who are bringing this item forward to present on it. I'd be happy to speak on this. Okay, thank you very much. So, as about a month ago, a number of folks began reaching out to us because they've been experiencing evictions. In particular, this was happening to a number of section eight tenants who were living in town and many of whom were elderly and also looking at becoming homeless as a result of their evictions. Other cities throughout the state, given that the governor has signed into law to go in effect, Assembly Bill 1482, the Tenant Protections Act of 2019. Many cities throughout the state have began passing emergency tenant protection ordinances so that tenants in this interim period aren't negatively impacted by the passing of this law. And so, given the fact that a number of tenants had approached us asking that the city council consider putting in emergency protections that would go back to September 1st when the bill was signed into the law, we brought this forward on their behalf. Other questions from the council or other presenters from the group that brought it forward? Councilor McCrone? Thank you. Yeah, I'm happy to go in with Justin Cummings and Sandy Brown on this. I think it just makes sense because there's a lot of threats going on out there and people are coming to council members and making their stories known and so it's a very difficult situation. And I think, what are we talking about? Maybe two months here to give some folks some security. And I think that's really what we're trying to give some tenants security that they will still have a place before January 1st. Okay, I had a question. There's three different options in the agenda report. So I was confused on what option was being recommended by the committee or were they open for discussion or if I could clarify. I can describe the options for you if you like. Sure, Mr. Cummings. So there are a couple of, you're right, there are three options and then each has an alternative at the effective date and expiration date for the council to discuss and potentially take action on. The first is being brought forward as an emergency ordinance. And the basis for that is that it would go into effect immediately upon its adoption. It has retroactivity language and so the impact of the ordinance would be generally the same as options two and three. The difference, however, is that based on our analysis, even though the ordinance has language making an applicable retroactive to September 1st, it would be difficult to enforce that provision against a tenant who is already subject to eviction proceedings. That result in a final judgment before the ordinance is adopted. Or to a tenant who has, based upon notice of termination, vacated a premises before the ordinance takes effect. And so, and the other significant distinction is that. The other significant distinction is that as an emergency ordinance, the charter requires that it obtain five votes of the council in order to pass. So, the thinking was that if there was not super majority support for an emergency ordinance, then another option would be for the council to adopt an ordinance in the ordinary course of business. It wouldn't have effective date until 30 days after the second reading, but it would still have that retroactivity language. So some tenants who are subject to eviction currently might slip through the cracks if it's adopted as an ordinary ordinance, but it would still protect most tenants who haven't been finally evicted before the effective date goes in. And then, as I said, all three ordinances have alternative language. One would be based upon the public comments that brought this to the council's attention, which indicated that it was necessary to get this in place until AB 1482 goes into effect. But there's also language that would allow the council to adopt this as an ordinance without an expiration date. Should the council wish to do so. Lastly, version three has language that would reach beyond the protections afforded by AB 1482 both with respect to the amount of relocation assistance or rent abatement that the ordinance would provide for. Which would be two months instead of one month provided for under AB 1482. And then it also adds language with respect to section eight tenants that would require either four months of rent abatement or four months of relocation assistance for those particular categories of tenants. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Any questions, Councilor Myers? Can you, I have a couple of questions. One is on the retroactivity. I'm just trying to figure out how this would work, especially in a case where potentially the unit has already has another lease on it. So how do we, I mean, what could we do if a unit had already been re-rented and a 12, you know, one year lease had been signed? Well, that kind of goes to my comment about not being able to protect tenants that are either evicted. In other words, that have an unlawful detainer judgment that's entered prior to the effective date. Or for tenants who voluntarily move out, and another tenant may move in prior to the effective date. So it wouldn't apply in those situations, even with the retroactivity clause. But this is similar to the, similar to the large rent increase ordinance that the council adopted in 2018, which had a retroactivity provision in it. And so in that case, if a rent increase had been implemented that exceeded the amount provided for in the large rent increase ordinance, then the tenant could seek a reduction in rent to make it consistent. So we had retroactivity language in that ordinance as well. And the law gives the city council the authority to adopt rules or ordinances retroactivity retroactively, but it places some limits on them. But the key is that you have to clearly express in the legislation the intent to make it apply retroactively. But these would be basically, these would be handled as a civil matter, correct? In general, right, the city would not be actively involved in enforcing it, right? So it would give a tenant the ability to go to court and say, this notice should be held invalid because it doesn't comply with the city council's ordinance. And a court should then take a look at the ordinance and if the notice was defective as defined in the ordinance, even if the notice was given before the ordinance was adopted. The court would say, this is invalid notice, you either have to do it over or the ordinance doesn't allow it. So the city would really have no enforcement other than just that the ordinance is on the books. And this would really be up to really falling into the tenant landlord relationship. Right, and that's exactly the way AB 1482 applies as well. Okay, and then I have one other question on, and I don't know if, I don't see any of our housing staff here. I know that we've been working hard to get more enrolled Section 8 housing into our system. And I know- What about this here? Was Lee here? Oh, there he is. So I know it's been a focus, and I believe we set up a program last year to actually increase the number of Section 8 Availability, available houses and rentals last year. I remember seeing something in the budget report outs from economic development that we had increased the supply through the provision of some sub-rentor assistance type of approach. I'm just wondering with one of the versions of the ordinance, specifically the, it's version three, which specifically applies to some of the Section 8, specifically Section 8. I'm just curious whether this kind of language will dissuade people from providing Section 8 housing with this kind of language. I know this is just an opinion, but I'm just curious about. So, on one end, we're trying to increase the supply of Section 8 so that we can, we're trying by incentivizing people to have their units become Section 8 units. But I'm just curious about what your thoughts are on the potential impact of this kind of language. If, for example, it was, it didn't have an expiration date of December 31st. Does that make sense? Yes. Sorry, it's a long question. Thank you. I'm Lee Butler. I'm the director of planning and community development. And thank you, mayor and council members. So yes, there is a recent program that our economic development department instituted to encourage landlords to take on more Section 8 renters. And we do that in our department as well and community development and encouraging developers to look at project-based vouchers or to take on Section 8 tenants. With respect to your question, there's certainly that potential that a, if there were four months of relocation assistance, which I believe is what version 3 provides, there would be more protections for existing tenants. Arguably, there may be some landlords who look at that and say, that's an additional potential burden, and they may choose not to pursue a Section 8 tenant. There are provisions, I believe, new provisions. And this isn't entirely in the development field that I specialize in. But I believe that there are new tenant protections that states landlords cannot discriminate against Section 8 tenants. And the enforcement of that, I think, will be challenging. And so someone could claim that bias, whether or not they could prove that, I think, is going to be another issue that would be settled in the court. So a landlord could be dissuaded. Some landlords may not be dissuaded. Certainly, it would offer more protections for existing Section 8 tenants that are in place. And so there's a balancing act there. And there are some laws that are in place to help protect against that. Their effectiveness, I think, is to be determined. I think those are my two, I guess I, well, no, I'll leave it. I'll leave it at that, yes. Council Member Brown and then Council Member Matthews. Yeah, so I have a question, Tony, regarding the inclusion of an expiration date. Effectively, there would not be a real difference from what, that's my sense. And I'm wondering about, I think that it's not unusual for the city to have some local ordinances on the books that generally just restate state law. And so I'm wondering if there's any reason to include an expiration date if the effect is the same. Well, first of all, I think that the legislature contemplated that there would be overlapping sort of just cause eviction protections for tenants and the state law also indicates that if the, essentially in a nutshell, if the city has just cause eviction protections that are less protective than AB 1482, then the state law would apply. And if the council were to reach beyond AB 1482, then the local regulations would also apply. But they don't, they don't both apply. So having language that simply mirrors 1482, I would question the necessity of that. But its legal effect would essentially be the same for an informed tenant who may hold up either the city ordinance or the state statute as a protection in the event of an eviction that violates the circumstances. Also, if the council is to add language with regard to Section 8 tenants or require relocation assistance or rent abatement that exceeds the requirements of the state law, then that would be the applicable regulation. And then I just have a quick comment about the additions that were proposed, which you all see in the third version highlighted. And so the reason that we, these do reach beyond AB 1482, I would argue limited reach to address concerns about some of the most vulnerable tenants in our community. And so that was the reason that we talked about when presented with proposal to provide, to include these extra protections that we decided we'd like to put that on the table for consideration by the full council. I would just like to point out with respect to talking about version three on page five, it's item 4D, excuse me, 4B2D3. It's on page five at the top, but it indicates that landlords who evict tenants from a unit with the intent to demolish or substantially remodel the residential real property for longer than 30 days are required to give tenants first right of refusal to occupy the unit after completion of remodeling and return the unit to, and return of the unit to safe and habitable condition. This raises in my mind the question of what the rent applicable would be to the tenant who moves out of a somewhat dilapidated unit and then moves back into a significantly rehabilitated one. Presumably the landlord would do so in the hopes of generating additional rent for the unit because it's a nicer unit. Just didn't occur to me when I first read it, but just this afternoon and going back through it, that was a question that sort of came to mind. So something to think about. And I haven't resolved in my mind how to what extent the rent restrictions of 1482 would be applicable in that situation. Any other questions, Councilor Mathews? Yeah, I'm trying to do my matrix of the provisions of 1482, version 1, 2, and 3, and still mapping them out. So can you explain, do you have a quick cheat sheet for that? I'm sorry. Just a matrix of the provisions, like the effective date for AB 1482 is January 1st, 2020. Version 1 is immediate, version 2 and 3 would be, assuming this is our first reading, we'd have a second reading at our next meeting and it'd be 30 days after that. So the effective date would be 1212, I mean something on this order, am I? The effective date would be 1212, but the retroactivity language should apply to a notice of termination that has not actually gone into effect, but a notice of termination that was given prior to the effective date. And that's what the retroactivity language is intended to do. AB 1482, the just cause eviction provisions of it, they don't go into effect until January 1 of 2020. The rent increase provisions apply to rent adjustments that are implemented on or after January 1st of 2019, so there's a retroactive effect of that. But it's to the rent, the rent restrictions not to the eviction provisions. And then I'm just reading these. The first right of refusal is only in version three. Is that correct? That's right. Relocation assistance, does that exist in AB 1482? AB 1482 requires that landlords provide either one month's relocation assistance or abatement of rent for one month prior to the effective date of termination. And it also states as do these ordinances that a tenant who refuses to vacate after having been provided notice and being given the relocation assistance, the landlord can essentially sue the tenant for recovery of the relocation assistance payments made. Just to point out again that there's an inconsistency in version three in that with respect to the waiver of payment for the final month of tenancy. And this is another issue that didn't jump out at me when I first reviewed it. So I apologize for not pointing this out previously. But on page five, section four, a Roman numeral lowercase two, states that the landlord shall either assist the tenant by providing relocation payments as described in paragraph E, or waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of tenancy prior to the rent becoming due. Paragraph E, however, says that the landlord shall either provide two months of relocation assistance. Or waive in writing the payment of rent for the final two months of tenancy, except for section eight tenants who are required to have four months of relocation assistance or rent abatement. So that should be cleaned up if the council wants to add that additional language in the version that you consider today. And that just ran right by me. I wasn't even sure what page you were on. So, but I do see- I just, like I said, I've read it several times and it didn't jump out at me until today. The relocation for rent waiver are one month under AB 1482, under version one and version two. They just mirror AB 1482. Okay, same. And under version three, it's two months under standard circumstances and four months under for section eight tenants, am I- Yes, except there's some internal inconsistency in version three and that it says in one place one month and it says in another place two months. I think those are my questions for now. Councilmember Meyers? Actually, I think I'll, I think I answered my question, so I'm good. I did have another one, when you're done. And one additional question with regards to the adoption of an emergency ordinance with no end date. Yes. Can you just explain how that works because, so if we were to adopt an emergency ordinance tonight without an end date, what does that mean in terms of what the city has adopted moving forward with that emergency ordinance? So the law is, we do this differently depending upon the type of ordinance that we're enacting. What we've done in the past is if we amend the zoning code, we've applied the state law rules that require that interim ordinances can only go into effect for, I believe, 45 days initially. And then the council can extend the ordinance for another one year and 10 and a half months. So, and then it has to expire. So for zoning ordinances, a moratorium can or an urgency ordinance that's adopted as sort of a moratorium has to have a limited duration. You would have to then go back and adopt an ordinance in the ordinary course of business in order for it to take effect permanently. That doesn't apply to an emergency ordinance that's adopted under our charter authority. And the charter specifies that an ordinance that's adopted as an emergency ordinance requires the affirmative votes of five council members. It requires findings that support the existence of an emergency. We've included those types of findings in this ordinance, but it does not require that it expire at a certain date. The intent of the expiration here, I suppose, was to address the concerns raised by members of the public and tenant advocates who were concerned about the unintended consequences of AB 1482 and its effective date without creating the alarm that was generated when the city council considered adopting a just cause eviction ordinance in the ordinary course of business back in early part of this year. That really did result in a significant landlord mounted opposition. So I suppose that was the thinking behind making this ordinance expire on December 31st, as opposed to having it extend in perpetuity. Any other questions, Councilor Myers? I just see that our economic development director is here. I just have a question about whether we're getting notification from tenants. I know we have a particular situation at 123 Bixby, which we've heard a number of folks, people who've come and spoke. So thank you for doing that. But I'm just wondering, are we getting a sense? I didn't get a chance to call the Housing Authority or just trying to get a sense of what's happening out there. I know I'm just trying to, if it's multiple units or if you're getting any other reports, I'm just trying to find out the kind of the scale of what we're looking at. I would actually refer to our housing manager and our housing team. They haven't specifically come forward to me with anything other than the 123 Bixby street that we were aware of at the last council meeting. So we haven't received any additional letters, although we have reviewed the information that was presented to council at that time. But I will confirm that with our housing manager. Okay. I'll just say I put in a couple of calls to Housing Authority to Jenny Panetta and receive a response back on it. Okay, any other questions? Okay, so my understanding is that the hope is to explore the first option. But in the case that there wouldn't necessarily be the majority, then the question would be having a conversation around the following too. That's the intent of the proposal, is that correct? Well, if I could. My hope would be that we could support as an urgency the early implementation of 1482, AB 1482 with the additional provisions provided in the third version. That would be my hope. However, we have the option to do that. Okay, well we'll reserve maybe that conversation for after we hear from the community. So at this time we'll go ahead and open it up to public comment. If you're interested in addressing the council on this item, please line up to my left. And I'll just remind everybody who's here in council chambers, it's important to respect your fellow citizens as you speak to us. We want to hear you and they deserve the opportunity to be heard as well without disruption or intimidation. I see anybody not following our rules of decorum and disrupting the council meeting I will give you a warning if it continues I will ask you to leave. I'm hopeful that that won't happen and we can hear opinions that may not be consistent with our own respectfully and allow this process to and to. So at this point we'll go ahead and open it up. You'll have two minutes and please come forward. Well, council members, I appreciate you agendizing this, especially not just on a regular agenda, but a special meeting that really shows the sense of urgency that you all are probably feeling. As you know, we passed a, it's not a perfect, but a something that at least steers us in the right direction, AB 1482. And I'm sure as you know this issue isn't just specific to Santa Cruz. It's happening all across the state. All the families all across the state are facing evictions in anticipation of this going into effect. So I really commend you for putting this on the agenda. I strongly urge you to support it and to protect our communities from the housing crisis that's already at a very, very high moment right now in our community. So I appreciate you having this discussion and I hope that you'll support this protection for attendance. Thank you. Hi, Garrett Phillips, Santa Cruz. I offer an alarming perspective of truth. Recent research shows the Flynn effect of rising IQs in the 20th century ended in those born after 1975 and have declined ever since. SAT scores have dropped every year after 2006 except two years when they were flat. There are many studies on the subject in a democratic society that requires an educated electorate. We are suffering from the dumbest generation which threatens public life. Only one third can name three branches of government, but they all know the Kardashians. They are millennial and Gen Z. They prefer, it's estimated they prefer socialism by about a 50% margin. None of this is speculation, only the causes are. The dumbest generation is more envious, more resentful, values compassion, feels victimized, feels entitled, is more accepting of socialism, and needs to any bears and safe spaces in universities. They are not relatively self-reliant, educated, and a self-determinant people. They threaten the American experiment in a free people of liberty by accepting ideas which savage American made of principles. They want government, mommy, to take care of them while removing individual sovereign rights from everyone else. And many unprincipled politicians are listening to them in some leftist states like California. For my entire life and up until just now, a rental contract was a deal, and a deal was a deal. Yes, there were until now also state laws that were equitable, where each party promised to give standard equitable notice to the other of contract termination, but this is different. This is one-sided. There is no equitable quid pro quo this time. Not only does this council think the people will buy this emergency declaration, based on a few people having been given proper notice to vacate who first thought was to mommy-wine to the council instead of looking for housing without researching the other side of their story, but also thinks their opinion of the effective date of new legislation is superior somehow to the California state. I don't understand the last question. It was like, have people been complaining about stuff, and the lady saying she hasn't heard something besides Bixby. What does that got to do with the question that we're here for, this ordinance? Because people get thrown out, it's chaos, it's madness, you're panicking, you ain't thinking, you ain't talking about, you don't even think about, somewhere to go to complain of the, what the heck? This ordinance is about protection, not about, well, has other people been complaining? Protection is protection, and that's what we need. That's what we should be talking about. So that question, I don't get it. Is it that you're trying to find a way, let me grab on to this so we won't have to do it. That question has no bearing here. We talking about protection, people get thrown out, you ain't chaos. Nobody thinks about, where can I go to, is that clear to anybody? It's chaos, and madness, and nothing humane. Afternoon, council members, my name's Kiernan, I'm a renter here in Santa Cruz, and I'm urging you to adopt AB 1482 as an emergency ordinance. Even if we can only help one family, no one should be homeless on the holidays. And so please do what you can to adopt this as emergency ordinance right away, thanks. Tenants need protection, whose vote blocked just eviction protections last January? Justin Cummings, who deserted the progressive majority, this special tenant protection session making it necessary and too late for those already evicted, Justin Cummings. Protecting tenants saves them from homelessness. In April, Ross Camp activists were driven away from adequate shelter as landlords are now threatening to do and doing. The elderly, the disabled, the vulnerable. Who promised no evictions without adequate shelter then obediently followed the false narrative of city manager Bernal and his homeless betraying assistant Suzy O'Hara, Justin Cummings. Whose vote delayed any meaningful data on landlord costs, evictions, and rents? Justin Cummings. Who's scorned the pleas of the Clearview Court residents fighting corporate developer greed last meeting? Justin Cummings. Who won't meet with activists on tenant and homeless emergency? Justin Cummings. Who won't hold regular office hours or answer emails? Justin Cummings. Will other tenants be driven out, deep into the Pogonip, made dangerous with high winds? Asked Justin, his vote withholds protection. Desiree Quintero is a former tenant. She took shelter at Ross Camp. Bernal and O'Hara threw her out with no shelter. She fought back in court. A few days later, a falling tree in the Pogonip killed her as she slept. Who drove her there? Justin Cummings. How many other displaced tenants will we lose from the community? Whose name should we etch on that fallen tree? If any vote and voice was key, it was Justin Cummings. Can tenants expect any real protections from the Watkins Cummings Council? Ask the question, but your words must somehow pierce the deadly silence of Justin Cummings. Before the next speaker, I'll just remind that our rules of decorum really reference having not personal attacks on individuals. That if you have an issue that you want to speak to on behalf of the council, I'd recommend that you try to orient your comments in that regard. So please. I think that his statement, sadly, is just talking about a reality that we face here. Much as I like Justin. So I don't think it was a smear or anything like what we get from Take Back Santa Cruz or Santa Cruz Unite or Santa Cruz Together or and then also the questioning was very interesting about Section 8. Apparently people have never applied for Section 8 and they've never received the letter from Section 8. So every time my friends get a letter saying they have an apartment, they, of course, rush to call to get that apartment. And of course, that apartment is already gone because there really isn't a system here. So in some cases, you could be the 100th person who called for three rooms in Watsonville and that is very common. And many of the people you see wandering around downtown are people who have Section 8 vouchers that cannot be filled. And Desiree herself complained about cockroaches in her Section 8 apartment and it was evicted and she was evicted into the streets and then found safety at Ross Camp. And then as was testified in federal court, which many of you were witness to, there would not be adequate shelter provided if Ross Camp was closed without a safe alternative. And that's exactly what happened. And Desiree may be the first of those killed by the actions of this council. And it's reverberating worldwide that the policies of this council are attacks against people who are tenants in our community, who are being forced out daily. The amount of new homeless people that eat at Food and Food Bombs now and their nice clean clothes is growing because of lack of protection from this council. Thank you very much. I'm Jessica, proud 90s kid. I just want to say thank you for considering this ordinance in a time of extreme displacement that state lawmakers have just left us here in a room of two months letting people fall through the cracks. And I'm sure you know my stance. I definitely support these ordinances. But specifically, I also very much support extra protections for Section 8 renters. I just found out about Desiree's passing today. And I think it's just important that we all remember that every ending had a beginning. And that Desiree used to, she was renting as a Section 8 renter and when she lost her housing, she took her Section 8 voucher and really couldn't find anything. And when you're looking for housing in Santa Cruz, time is so important every week, every day, and every single month. So I really hope you consider why Section 8 renters and all vulnerable tenants need just a little more help in this time. So thank you. So AB 1482 is coming, whether we like it or not. And it's not about Measure M and it's not about rent control activists and the movement for housing justice. It's not about Santa Cruz together. It's a state bill that was passed by our legislature and signed by the governor. And it's my understanding that it didn't even get much opposition from the California Apartment Association. And so the question is, I mean, if we know it's coming, how are we going to implement it? Because we can implement it in two ways. We can do it the right way, where we protect people from really serious evictions around the holiday season. Or we could wait for it to come into effect in January. And in that time, we're going to have a bunch of people who are being kicked out onto the streets. And so I urge you to pass this ordinance as an emergency ordinance. I encourage you to pass version three, which has increased protections for our most vulnerable renters. As I've mentioned in front of council before, I was recently evicted from my home of 11 years. I have a professional job of 14 years. My husband and I together made almost six figures last year, and I was evicted in January. And I looked for three months, and there was not even anything on Craigslist that I could follow up on. Like, there wasn't even anything there for me. And so now I'm living in an RV. It's a really nice RV, and I'm happy that I'm there. But I don't understand how our poorest, most vulnerable members of the society are expected to find a place to rent in January, when there's just not going to be anything on the market for them. And so I encourage you to pass version three as an emergency. I would also note that AB 1482 sunsets, I think it's sunsets in 2030. And so I encourage you to pass version three without an end date. Thanks. Hello, I'm Nancy Cruso, Santa Cruz resident. And I am also advocating that you pass section three of the ordinance. And a couple of things, as I found out about this, I wondered, could it be that our city doesn't have a program to protect section eight residents? And I know that you feel for them the way I do, but I was so amazed that we don't have anything in place, and we really need to protect the few who do have a place right now. Also, I wondered, it seems not to be a big cost to pass this ordinance aside from time here. It's not very painful to anyone, and it would be extraordinarily painful to the people who get kicked out. As we all know, there is not adequate shelter for homeless people this winter coming on. We don't want more homeless people in the community. Because then there would need to be an emergency there. So I think this is easier all around to take care of the people right now. Thanks. Hello, my name is Bradley Jinn, and I'm a renter in this community. And I know that I speak for all renters in saying that I am afraid. I'm afraid that my rent is going to get raised. I'm afraid that I'm going to get evicted. And that I'm going to have nowhere to live. I've spoken to so many others, both currently housed and not, who either are afraid they're going to get kicked out. Or have already been kicked out and can't find another place to live. The situation of renting in this town is so bad that I can't afford anywhere else. No one can afford to move anywhere else. They're either in the place they're in now, or they're on the streets. So I urge council to pass the third version of the ordinance in response to AB 1482. And give us protections now, so that the landlords as they try to evict us before this comes in, we're not homeless. Thank you. Hi, I'm Brennan, and I'm here this afternoon to follow up the people who just spoke to strongly support enacting this ordinance right away as an emergency item. So the state tenant protection legislation, AB 1482, is better than nothing. I mean, that's one thing you can say about it, but it doesn't go into effect until January 1st. And as you obviously know, unscrupulously landlords have taken advantage of that fact to evict our friends and neighbors who would impose extreme rent increases. In so many cases, this means that people are being forced into the Santa Cruz housing market or very much into homelessness right as winter is coming. I personally have had to find housing in Santa Cruz twice in December. It is an incredibly difficult experience. It's one that you have to be on the internet basically all day every day. You have to reply to a posting sometimes within an hour or two of when it's posted or else it's already taken. But you have to be willing to live, for instance, in a house with nine other people and one refrigerator. So what I would like to say is just that unless this ordinance is passed with an emergency provision, it's not going to go into effect until early December. That means that what's going on now, all the evictions and all the rent increases that are currently being proposed are going to happen. Or at least a lot of them are. So I would just strongly tell you that we're in an unprecedented housing crisis. We're throwing tenants into the housing market in the middle of winter. It cannot be the solution that Santa Cruz proposes. It cannot be the solution that we have anywhere in the state of California. So many other cities are passing exactly this right now. And when I say right now, I mean actually right now, because there are three other councils considering this afternoon. And we need to basically, we need to take leadership and adopt this measure that's going to come into effect in about two months anyway. This measure that so many other cities in the state are passing and pass this ordinance. Thank you. Okay, next speaker. Hello, council. My name is Charles Vasky and I would like to urge you to support emergency AB 1482 protections. I've been a renter for most of my life in Santa Cruz and I always just sort of accepted the chance of being kicked out. I should not have been idle. Too many families are at risk. Personally, I was fortunate enough when I was expecting a child. My partner got assistance from their employer for so we could buy a house to get security we needed or that families need and most families in Santa Cruz do not have that opportunity. They will have it in January and we need to protect those people living in multi-family units up until January. I would city just pass an ordinance, a daily city pass an ordinance. I urge Santa Cruz to to join their ranks. Thank you. Good afternoon. As my wife mentioned, we are people in the absence of tenant protections who were thrown out of our house just recently. This is what happens when tenants don't have any protections. You can get evicted on a whim. It's impossible to find housing almost. We're living in RV. There are a lot of people who have a lot less resources than we are who had a lot more risk of ending up homeless. Nowhere else to go. AB 1482, let's be honest, it's pretty minimal. The state, including Santa Cruz and many other cities, has already become impossibly expensive. And a lot of people have already been priced out of their homes and it allows 5% plus inflation. If you multiply that out over five years, you're talking about another 40% increase. And the just cause, not very much of a deterrent one month. If you raise your rent 20%, you make your money back in six months. If you raise it 10%, they're in ten months. In a year, you've made more money by kicking somebody out. So I would say the least you could do is help make sure that this pretty minimal protection for renters, which isn't even nearly good enough as what we need, is implemented properly. That doesn't let people fall through the cracks between the time that the state legislator decided to approve it and when it actually goes into effect. And I think it's essential to make it as strong as possible. Like I just mentioned, if the consequences of kicking someone out is one month relocation, with the amount of rent increases that some people are doing, that's just not enough. My next door neighbor, before I got kicked out of my house, had their rent go from 1,800 to 2,400 in one year. And the next year it went to 3,200. So IRG did pass it with what was being described as the third option. Thank you. A couple of things are distinctive about Santa Cruz City. One is that we are the, perhaps arguably the second most costly city in the United States for living. Secondly, we're distinctive in that we did not pass rent control when we could have as many other cities did and as the state now has. I urge you to pass effective ASAP, and I mean as immediately as you can. The legislation that's before you and provide the most strong protection for renters that is possible for you to protect. The issue that's before us, the decision that's before this city is whether we're going to live, whether we're going to use the land we have, the building resources that we have for the purposes of lining the pockets of those who can afford to invest in a very limited resource, housing, or if we're going to invest in homes for a community, adequate to serve as this community has historically served. I don't know where to begin, as far as the ordinances, it doesn't really matter. We don't really affect us Santa Cruz landlords. In fact, we currently have a more restrictive ordinance on relocation assistance two months rather than one month per 1482. Why would you want to change that? But let me talk about where's the emergency? And at the risk of pulling a Robert North, I'm going to ask the audience, does anybody here know of anyone receiving a evict termination after November 11th? Let me go ahead and pause your time. This is your opportunity to address the council. I'm sorry, does anybody here behind me know if anybody receives a termination notice after September 11th? This is your opportunity to address the council not to open up and end a dialogue with the community. My apologies, okay. So you can address the council at this time. So anyway, I've had an ad on Craigslist for about three weeks now for two section eight, two apartments, both in the title say section eight welcome. I've received numerous calls of course, but I've received only one from someone that seems to have been being terminated per the loophole. She's got two dogs, there might be other issues, who knows? I've received one. We have Jessica here from Tenant Sanctuary. Did she speak about any actual events where people are being evicted? No, and I'm on the front lines. I'm answering phone calls now from tenants looking for apartments. And I have section eight apartments, like I say, not only one potential affected by this rule. So where's the emergency, I ask? And what's needed really is more landlord-tenant cooperation. So guess what I do? I go to 123 Bixby Street. I want to see what's going on. There's massive renovations going on. And I reach out to two tenants who happen to be in the audience, Steve Case and John Ballisteri. I took Steve in my car on a tour of my available section eight apartment and I plan on renting to them once we get the proper paperwork. Thank you. Next speaker. The other tenants live there. Okay, this is an opportunity for us to listen to the members of the community that want to address the council and not to engage in dialogue with other members of the community who want to express their opinions. Please go forward. Tim, we'll be speaking for affordable housing now. We support this emergency stance by the council. It's very important to fill in that gap before the state law takes effect. And so we're very happy to support that something happens today. We want to have something that happens to protect tenants immediately, not later. And this may sound rather maybe an odd idea, but we support the first one for kind of a simple reason that it takes more people voting for it to pass. It would be wonderful for our community to pass item one with unanimous council support. Thank you. Good afternoon, council. My name is Elise Cosby and I'm up here to ask you to please pass the emergency ordinance for filling in the gap before January and do it today please for tenant protections. And I'm also asking you to pass the third version of the ordinance that council member Brown is urging you to do with the additional protections. I find the call to ask Ms. Lipscomb if you have heard as council members from any other tenants other than those at Bixby Street, extraordinarily disingenuous. That is a comment upon council member Myers. Actions that she just did. This is a democracy. You are our representatives. We absolutely need to hold you accountable. Because you put into action everything that shapes our society. One of the uncomfortable reasons that I am an activist and not earning a better living is because the politics of power shapes everything. Architecture, traffic, what happens to our water, animals, childcare. Everything. We have a long background, Steve McKay's studies showing moldy walls. The fact that Hispanic renters are less likely to complains and that hundreds and hundreds of people in Santa Cruz are at risk of being thrown out any second right now. So the fact that you did that is just amazing. Accountability is critical. The chill that's happening in our city government is reprehensible Ms. Watkins. And unfortunately the death that we have been informed of is largely because of your actions. Your time is up. Next speaker. If you can't handle the heat. Your time is up. Go where you can take the shade. Your time is up. Next speaker. Hello, Gail McNulty, county resident, landlord, person of privilege and mother. I speak to you today asking you to please support the emergency ordinance in the strongest form possible, which I guess is version three, although it's been confusing. The well funded no on M campaign succeeded in scaring the public and dividing the city. Keeping the masses fighting is one powerful tool for keeping the status quo intact. The recent recall campaign further solidified the right versus wrong, good versus bad dichotomy. Over simplifying complex issues and building even more paralyzing polarization. The people of Santa Cruz, along with people all over the world are trapped. Not just by these polarizing thoughts, but by the systems that breed these polarizing thoughts. We're all trapped in a web of worldwide structural white supremacy, which is at the roots of racism, classism, sexism, xenophobia, and the environmental crimes that are killing all of our collective futures. Within this web, some people are mostly suffering, while others are mostly benefiting. Many of us here today probably fall closer to the end of the web where people are mostly benefiting. Those of us at this end of the web, who have lived lives of privilege, need to step out of our comfort zones and get to know people in other places along this web. The climate crisis we currently face can help us to think about this web in an inverted form, in which it is basically the Titanic and we're looking at different decks. At this point, all of us are together on a burning ship. Only authentic community dialogue and bold collective action focused on an unprecedented. And I truly mean unprecedented. We have never accomplished this in our country or anywhere in the world since Western civilization came into being. We need to work together to form a truly unprecedented, just, sustainable future. Please. Before we have our next speaker, ma'am, in the back, I don't know if you were more comfortable sitting down. But if you were, I'm happy to acknowledge you. If you don't want to stand in line, I didn't know if you're comfortable. I saw you walking over. Go right ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Ernestina Saldana and I'm going to apologize because I have laryngitis and I cannot talk as usually I've been able to talk before. I'm here today because as the chair for the Commission on Disabilities for several years, in 2017 I had to help six of my peers moving out of Santa Cruz because they were not able to find anyone taking Section 8 for them. This people has to be enrouted for the community after years of living in here and having the support system around them because no one wanted to rent a housing even though they have the certificate. They got an extension and then another one and when the third one came to see the stress that it was growing in the family and growing in me as an advocate being completely unable to find anything for them. So the point is that already there is no one taking Section 8 or you can go and go with the gentleman that I rather prefer not to talk about him because remember he was the one who said that we were all criminals, people of color. So that's the guy who is right now offering a Section 8 in here. How would be very afraid to have to move with him just for the way how he has been dealing with his land with his tenants before. Right now this is the law and it's going to come into effect just in a couple months. I went to visit the families in Bixby and I had the opportunity together with a council member at Cummings to see that one of them had already accommodated one band to be the place of sleeping. And then when the circle goes again, you know, because there is no way that that person can park. Hey all, I just want to speak in favor of getting the gap closed here and making sure that we pass for the tenants. For those that have previously spoken to say where are all the people having problems like who's suffering right now, they probably can't be here because they're working and I just want everyone to think about that. Thank you. Good afternoon, council. I don't know if I'm a surgeon, Mr. Gundadi, but 1482 does have a rent cap rollback to March 15th of 2018. But as to the ordinances before you, I do support version number one, but it won't help the Bixby Street folks. The Bixby Street people are being terminated because the owner bought the property and he's renovating it and that is a just cause under 1482. Not only that, he's offered them up to $43,000 in relocation payments, which is, as I understand it, four times the amount that's required under 1482. So, and as Council Member Myers asked before, have there been any other reports of widespread terminations due to impending 1482? We haven't heard of any. So I think if this is all about helping those folks, which I think you should do or someone should do, you should be clear eyed about what you're doing today. Because as I see it, go ahead and pass version number one and I think that would be good in case there are landlords who are taking advantage of it, the gap. But it's not going to address why you're here today. Not only that, I think to pass it as an emergency, because there is no widespread termination due to this, your findings are defective because your findings say according to testimony provided by the City Council at the meetings of October 8th, 2019 and October 23rd, no false eviction notices and threats of evictions have surged and we haven't seen, you haven't presented any evidence that that's in fact the case. So please consider. Also, another thing about the version number three, I think there's another inconsistency that you guys didn't mention, which is it says the tenant should have the right of first refusal to move back in. But I was confused about how that works with the four months or two months relocation payments. I don't know that that's clear either. Hello, just want to speak in favor. I'm a lower ocean resident and I'm actually the person who found out that people were being evicted from Bixby Street just because it's in my neighborhood and I know my neighbors. I think it's very disingenuous for some of the same people who argued against having data collection about evictions and rent increases for those same people to come up and argue against adopting more protections for tenants because we don't know that there's been increased evictions. Our ignorance has been directed, I mean it's not neutral. We decided not to know about that. But however, tenants are getting organized. It's not dependent on who's on the city council or whatever. You're going to have to be hearing about tenants' rights and tenant protections no matter who you recall or don't recall. So I just wanted to state that and also that we need more protections for tenants so I'm in favor of version three. Greetings, I'm Jane Doyle and I just want to speak about something a little bit different and put a thought in the mind not only of all of you who are up here and struggling with how you're going to vote and what you'll do but also everyone in the audience and everyone who's watching us on television and may think about this later or see the show later. I've been part of a group for the last few weeks studying a book entitled White Fragility and it's pushing me deeply to think about white privilege and what that means and about racism and what that means. And what came to me as I listened to so many people and know the stories is I think we need to take on the concept of housing privileged. How many of the people who make our decisions at whatever level are housing privileged and may or may not have ever had to be in a position of not having housing or thinking pretty sure they could have housing and therefore can't take on the serious horrible pain that goes along not only with what happened up in the Pogonip the other day but not knowing if there's any place that will be warm and dry this winter or how many times they'll have to move and change jobs because there's nothing available. So think about how each of you and me I fit in this category. I'm housing privileged and I think we need to make that part of our thinking and our decision making. Thank you. I'm Carol Long. I've been a resident of Santa Cruz for 31 years. I've been speaking to city councils since I came. I would not be able to afford housing if it were not for Section 8 and being in an affordable housing complex. If I came here now I would not be able to stay because I would not be able to afford housing. Those who cannot afford housing are homeless in our country. Even though it's a right that was proclaimed by the United Nations way long ago after World War II when Eleanor Roosevelt got the United Nations to declare the universal rights of man and woman. So what you have is homeless people have a life expectancy of 50 whereas the average American has a life expectancy of about 80. Not only Desiree who is killed by a tree is killed by homelessness but many people are killed just by the roughness of the experience of not having shelter. I think this council ought to step up to it every one of you. And I urge you to pass the most protective version of this ordinance. And if it's not as protective as something that Darius mentioned where there's two months of compensation for evicted people make it better and make it as good as you can. Thank you. And I believe you'll be our last speaker. Good afternoon. I'm Scott Graham. People have been asking where's the emergency? The emergency started years ago. It's not like something that just happened. Ever since the city hasn't held the university responsible for housing the number of students they claim they would house, that emergency started happening. The city must insist that the university house the number that I think they claim they were going to house 60%. They're doing nothing even close to that. So they should either lower the number of students they're bringing on to campus each year until they can get that number up there or start providing that housing because that would do a lot to get rid of this emergency. As far as what's going on today, I would implore you to pass whatever you pass as an emergency ordinance so it would take place immediately and I'm in favor of you passing version three that would provide the the most amount of protection to section eight hold people that have section eight vouchers. And that's another thing that needs to happen in this town is that there needs to be more section eight housing either built or incentives to landlords to house section eight people. Thank you. Go ahead and return back to council for action. This time Mr. Condati, did you have something you wanted to say before we do based upon a couple of comments? I just wanted to make sure that one point was clear and that is that the relocation assistance or rent abatement provision would apply for what's called a no fault just cause eviction. So the ordinance and AB 1482 would not allow a landlord to evict a tenant without cause for the purpose of increasing the rent beyond what is allowed by 1482. So I just want to make that clear. The no fault just cause eviction provisions are for the intent to occupy the residential property by the owner for withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market from the effect of the owner complying with an order to vacate relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the residential property for the intent to demolish or substantially remodel the residential real property. So those are the no fault just cause eviction provisions provided by 1482 as well as the ordinance. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I'll go ahead. Before I acknowledge my colleague here, I'll just thank those who brought this to our attention as well as my colleagues who brought this before us now for consideration. I know that these are really complex social issues and I know before us now is this law that's going into place by the state and there is this window of time where that is not in effect and like other jurisdictions throughout California it really does make sense to me to have some temporary protections that are consistent with the state law to make sure that there's nobody who falls through the cracks. So I totally appreciate that and I appreciate you bringing this forward and getting this together in a short timeframe. Vice Mayor Cummings. I'm just going to go ahead and make a motion to adopt the emergency ordinance with alternative two for section four and incorporate language to protect section eight tenants and then I can pass these out to you. But in summary, to increase the relocation assistance and or rent waivers from one to four months for no fault just cause, provide relocation assistance within 15 days of serving notice and to provide right of first refusal to reoccupy a unit where no fault just cause eviction has been issued for a unit that is taken offline for 30 days or more for the purposes of demolishing and rebuild or substantial remodel. Second. So there's a motion by Vice Mayor Cummings seconded by Council Member Glover. I just wanted to point out that I did notice some of those, there's some discrepancies in the earlier report and so I highlighted those and passed out a document that has those changes incorporated so to clarify that some of the issues that were found in the previous document around two to four months versus one to four months and I've highlighted those for all the council members to see and those have just been incorporated into the language similar to where they were in version three. Questions? Do you want to hand, do we, do you have a copy of that motion? The motion is the same. Maybe we can put that up for the, for the public to see. Mr. Kandadi, do you have any response? I was wondering if we have any extra copies that we might be able to show members of the public or at least have something. We have, there's the, the motion language here. Yeah. Okay. So I have a question in regards to the agenda report. Alternative two is listed as a non-emergency ordinance. So you're suggesting, I'm sorry. I think if I understand you're moving the first version with the alternative two that would have no expiration date. Correct. And then with the, within the first, oh I see what you're saying. Got it? Yeah. Okay. You're incorporating the language of none. Okay. Number two. Because we have to choose one of those two. Okay. Any other questions? Yeah. So I'm trying to see the composite that we've got here is our choices are option one. Our choice is, which is the emergency ordinance, our choice is alternate two regarding expiration date. Section four. Correct. Our choice is language to protect section eight, which is bullet, bullet, bullet. Correct. Is that correct? I'm just trying to get clear on the motion here. And then do you want to restate? I was just getting clear personally on the components of the motion on the floor, which is the first recommendation, which is the emergency ordinance, and choosing in section four of the emergency ordinance alternative two, which calls for no expiration date. And then incorporating language from option three regarding protections for section eight tenants, which has to do with relocation, assistance or waivers, relocation assistance and right of first refusal. So that's the motion on the floor. Mr. Kennedy, did you have something you wanted to add? No, I've reviewed. I did correspond with a vice mayor Cummings before the meeting in response to a request for language. This is different from what I prepared, but I've reviewed it and it's perfectly consistent with the language that I prepared. It's the same, just reworded a little bit differently. So I understand the proposed changes. Other questions from the council? I'm needing a moment to review. And on bullet number two, provide relocation assistance within 15 days of serving notice. Do you want to point to me where that is? What page? Sure. And then is that provided in a lump sum or what are the details of that? So on page number. Page six. Number, letter I is originally from the state motion, which is the amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver shall be equal to one month of the tenants rent that was in effect when the owners issued the notice to terminate the tenancy. Any relocation assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar days of service of the notice. I just then use that same language when it applies to section eight tenants as well. So, but rather than it being equal to one month of the tenants rent, it will be equal to four months of the tenants rent and then use the same language to say that it will be provided within 15 calendar days, which is similar to what's found in AB 1482. I have a question maybe for you, Tony. In regards to the emergency action. Yes. And the findings for the emergency action. When you deviate from state law going into effect in January and start to incorporate other elements, is there any legal considerations with that in terms of the findings and applied and how applied? Or would that be a logical introduction of a first reading of an ordinance? Well, I mean the emergency findings have been drafted so that the council can take action that is inconsistent with state law in terms of the effective date of the ordinance. So I don't see any problem with that or put it a different way. I don't see any distinction from a legal perspective of the council adopting this as an urgency ordinance versus an ordinance in the ordinary course of business with respect. I guess the difference would be that you don't need to make those findings if the council were to adopt it in the ordinary course of business. In regards to the additional language for Section 8, you mean? That's the difference that I'm looking for clarification on. Because that would be a local modification from state law. I don't see or I don't have any concerns from a legal perspective with regard to the council adopting protections that are in addition to those provided for by state law as an emergency ordinance. Because the emergency findings are essentially quasi-legislative findings that if the ordinance were to be challenged, the court is generally required to defer to the legislative determination of the city council with respect to those findings. And then I have a question maybe for my colleagues. In regards to some of the potentially unforeseen kind of consequences of this, were you able to consult with the housing authority who manages Section 8 to address any of the potential unforeseen consequences of this type of policy going into effect before? Bringing this recommendation forward. I was not able to get in touch with anyone from housing authority before bringing this. I don't know if my other colleagues want to comment. I wasn't either. I do recall the conversation when we were discussing and adopting the temporary rent freeze. I did have a conversation with Ms. Panetta and heard those concerns. And I think those concerns probably remain the same about the potential disincentive. However, on balance, given the really precarious position that people are in, I feel that in this case, the benefit of those protections outweigh the potential disincentive. Vice Mayor Cummings? I have a question for the city attorney. My understanding is that with Section 8 in general, it's a one year lease that's renewed. I don't know if you have any experience or if maybe people from our housing department have any experience. But the intention of this is to protect Section 8 tenants who are facing on no fault, just cause rather than a termination of lease or what have you. So I don't know if anybody could speak to that. Based on the limited research I've done on Section 8, I believe that's correct. It's usually a one year lease, but I am by no means an expert on Section 8 housing. So I would defer to the Economic Development Department. Do you have anything? They don't have anything to add for that. Okay. I can clarify that the one year leases are offered under the Housing Choice Voucher Program. That is the case. There are other arrangements for Section 8 tenants in new development depending on what arrangements have been made. And so it's specific to the Housing Choice Voucher Program that one year leases are offered. Okay. Any other questions? Well, it's not a question or any other discussion. You know this was presented to us at our last meeting as really a stop gap until January. And that was certainly the frame of reference in which I supported it. I would prefer Alternate 1 to the emergency ordinance, which does have it expiring on the first of the year. That's how it was described to us, and I think that's the function. I am reluctant to include the enhanced protections for Section 8 tenants. I could see going to two months, but I can't support the right of first refusal. Getting landlords to sign up to accept Section 8 tenants has been such a struggle for years and years and years. And Housing Authority a year or two ago launched a pretty assertive program to reach out and create a whole series of programs to encourage landlords to sign up. But I do think as representative from Affordable Housing now said, this is going to serve as a disincentive. And particularly if we adopt Alternate 2, that these remain on the books into the future even after the first of the year. I think it's just going to set us back on the willingness of landlords in extremely tight rental market to open up to Section 8 tenants. So I see this as counterproductive. I'm willing to go some length on this, but those are sections that I'm not comfortable with. I guess what I'll say is I understand the stop gap too, and that makes sense to me. I don't have enough information for some of the other modifications to have a policy in place. So I prefer not to say that if we had some emergency action taken tonight or this evening in regards to the state law taking effect, that that would preclude us from having additional conversations about some of the other areas where we want to revisit potential protections. But for me, absent that information, I don't feel like I have enough information to make a sort of an educated policy decision. So I too will prefer option one, knowing that this could be revisited at a future time. Councillor Myers. Yeah, I'm just reflecting on trying to preserve as much of our rental stock as possible right now because there's great pressures. And so when we agreed to put the item on and call the special meeting, I was completely supportive in recognizing that we need to get these emergency provisions in place. And I am struggling with not having enough information and not having enough time to outreach to some of the Section 8 landlords. I completely understand that the other part of this language provides a huge distance. I mean, it provides, it's a big stick, and I understand sticks and I understand carrots. And so I'm a little worried that I don't know if this stick is going to scare people out of providing Section 8 housing. And that's I think the missing piece of information for me right now is that I hope we don't lose any units because of the stick. And I don't have any way to measure that right now. And so I want to protect all of our tenants, both those in Section 8 as well as others. And I want an emergency ordinance and I'd like to have that take place immediately. So I'm struggling with this new language and not having enough information really, I guess, similar to the mayor. I'd also appreciate the consideration of alternative one so that we have time to potentially look at additional provisions for Section 810. It's moving ahead, but not through this particular emergency action. So that's kind of where I'm at. Other comments? Well, I want to recognize the concern about not having enough information and feeling uncomfortable with making a decision about that. Tonight, I wonder if it would be possible to separate the question and move the emergency ordinance tonight. And refer to direct staff to bring back, I guess it would be the city attorney to bring back potential revisions for discussion at a later date, which I think hopefully sooner than later. I was thinking, I mean, it would be helpful to know kind of a little bit more about the nuances of that and to reach out to our partners who are experts in that. So having more information, I support that before making any type of policy decision, especially one that wouldn't have an expiration date. Councilor Matthews. So what I'm hearing is that you would suggest moving forward with recommendation one as written with alternate one for an expiration date. And then defer these other items. If that, in order to adopt this as an emergency tonight, yes. I support that. Do we want to take the Lord? Do you want to withdraw your motion at this time? Or how do you want to change it? I mean, I think the modification would be motion to adopt the emergency ordinance alternative one. And incorporate language and then to to direct staff to return. I'm November 12. Is that too quick of a turnaround? We already kind of have it together. In terms of I want to ask you all about your outreach, kind of where how much time you think that will take to get a little more comfortable with having that discussion, either the 12th or the 26th. In terms of preparing the ordinance, I don't see any problem with the 12th. But I, but I am not as sure about doing additional analysis and research that might take a little bit longer. So I guess what I would request is that the council provide us with a little bit of flexibility on that. But from a legal perspective, I don't see any problem with the council taking an urgency action tonight and directing the staff to come back for consideration of modifications. To address the section eight and this other provision about first right of refusal at a subsequent meeting. Okay. All right. Okay. Councilor Glover. Okay. So great to hear from the community. Thank you all for all of your input. There are some things that I just want to kind of question. So it seems that time is a big issue with us up here on City Council. Just a question to those involved in the development of this. Version one, how much language based off of the original language that was submitted at the previous council meeting, how much additional language was added to version one? So essentially section one of the, I guess the initial draft that was provided to my office was a cut and paste of the legislative council's digest that was incorporated into AB 1482. The emergency findings were modeled after the language that the council used in adopting the emergency rent freeze back in early 2018. So that was not a whole lot of additional work. Not a whole lot of additional work. So one could say not the need to for a week of time for there to be that work. But my point is, is that we could have had this conversation six days ago to where we could have addressed the issues of this small revision to version one. Now, I will agree with one of the speakers about this concept of concern about conflicting statements. Because we hear we want to protect all of our tenants, but we don't want to move forward on an emergency ordinance that will protect our section eight tenants in a much broader and greater sense than the original language. So it's hard for me to swallow or accept that we actually want to protect all of our tenants if we aren't willing to actually protect all of our tenants. And at the same time, what is the danger of passing this section eight version, talking with our other section eight folks and finding out, oh, well, maybe that was something that we don't need in there anymore and then coming back and removing it at another session instead of just doing it this way where we're going to leave people vulnerable for an unknown amount of time for whenever we may or may not be able to do the outreach and may or may not be able to come back and pass an emergency ordinance or in addition, they'll protect section eight people. I've been asking for this for three weeks. We've been ignoring this since January. And so now is the time to put up or shut up, in my opinion, with regards to wanting to protect tenants. Are we going to do it and include section eight, which are our most vulnerable? And as we've heard, there is no real stock of section eight housing anyway right now. And we're talking about dissuading potential landlords at some time in the future to come forward and volunteer their time for section eight. Now, if we're going to abandon those that are already in housing that have section eight housing right now and say we're not going to offer you additional protections because we don't want to risk the potential at some future point to not have a landlord that we don't even know take section eight housing. I think is incredibly problematic and indicative of this council's lack of action when it comes to addressing the real needs of tenants in a real timeline. So I would urge the maker of the motion not to withdraw it, to take it to a vote, we'll see up here who actually cares about renters. And then if we need to come back after that vote fails to pass a watered down version that isn't going to protect the most vulnerable people, then I say let's do it. But this is far too long of a situation for us to be talking about. And at this point it is getting rather ridiculous. And in some states, embarrassing for us to be up here talking about the statement of there's not enough data. Okay. So why did some of us up here vote against data collection? There's not enough time. Well, why didn't we start doing this months ago when we started when we were talking about just cause eviction. All of these are excuses in my opinion and there are weak ones. So I would really appreciate it if that we could move forward intentionally and actually make some change to protect our community instead of just more. Council Member Brown, ask that you please keep it down so we can hear from our colleagues here. Thank you. We've appreciated the opportunity to hear from you now. I would like to acknowledge Council Member. I'd like to ask that you please keep your voices down, Mr. McHenry. We're trying to have our time for deliberation. We've had an opportunity to hear from the community. I'll go ahead and acknowledge Council Member Brown. I appreciate the sentiment of Mr. Glover, Council Member Glover, in reminding us about the urgency of this and that we need to be talking about the most vulnerable tenants. I too am frustrated that it has taken quite a while to get here. I am concerned, however, that if we vote on the motion as prepared, it will not take effect until December 14th. It's based upon the comments that I've heard from my colleagues here. If we adopt this tonight and bring back the amendments for further discussion, we could actually get part of this enacted tonight and then potentially not have much delay on adopting the rest of the amendments, the proposed kind of amendments or items that reach beyond 1482. So I would really like to adopt this as an urgency measure tonight. And I think that that's the way to do it and then be willing to have the conversation on additional changes. I agree. Vice Mayor Cummings, give me that information. Yeah, no, and I think that's completely appropriate that we. I'm going to go ahead and, Mr. Norris, I'm going to ask that you respect our process. I'm going to go ahead and give you a warning. I heard you barking like a chicken and I don't appreciate that. This is a time for us now to hear from the council and for us to deliberate as policy makers. So you have a warning. If there is continual disruption, I'm going to go ahead and ask that you leave. Vice Mayor Cummings, why don't you go ahead and speak. I would say given that, you know, the willingness and the urge of the majority of the people up here to try to get something into effect immediately. That will help the majority of the people within our community and have a conversation about this later. I will withdraw my motion at this time. Okay, so we have a motion withdrawn. Council Member Myers. I'll second. Council Member Brown's motion. Do you want to turn your statement and modify version into a motion, Council Member Brown? So, the motion is to adopt as an emergency ordinance the first version with the first alternative with an expiration date. One, that's part one. And then two, to direct staff to bring back additional language regarding protections for section eight tenants. Including increased relocation assistance, provision and or rent waivers for one to four months for no fault just cause. Provide relocation assistance within 15 days of serving notice and provide right of first refusal to reoccupy a unit where a no fault just cause eviction has been issued. For a unit that has taken offline for 30 days or more for the purposes of demolishing and rebuilding or substantially remodeling. Okay, so that was a motion by Council Member Brown. Is that a second by Council Member Myers? My understanding is that the staff would also be reaching out to some of our partners to better understand some of the impacts or potential unversing consequences. Is that correct? And if I didn't include it to give some flexibility there to direct staff to bring this back in November. That was my understanding of the Council's direction, yes. Okay, any questions from the Council at this time? Seeing none, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. So we'll go ahead. Oh, Council Member Glover. Yeah, I will just also follow and say that it is continuously disappointing that we have to wait until there is an absolute emergency of dire critical nature for us to do anything of seemingly substance. It's really, really disappointing. Okay, we'll go ahead and have maybe a 10 minute break and we'll get started with the next item. So we'll take a short break before we start the next item. We'll have 10 minutes. Student Mayor, why do we need a break? Transition. And Mr. I'm going to go ahead and ask that you go this time. You're disrupting our council. The meeting is recessed. The meeting is. Okay, we're on. Okay, I'll go ahead and call our meeting back into session. We're on to item number two of our agenda and that is a public hearing for the introduction of an ordinance amending Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance Part 1 of Chapter 2416. Inclusionary housing requirements including sections 24-16-010 through 24-16-060. And we'll go ahead and hand it over to our presenters. Mayor, can I just ask a sense how much time staff needs for a presentation? We could probably do it in, I guess, five minutes. Maybe. For a presentation? Yeah, and if there are questions during it, it might take a little bit longer. Okay, thanks. Okay, go ahead. Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Bonnie Lipscomb, director of economic development. And with me today is Lee Butler, director of planning and community development. And so we're both available to answer any questions that you have. And we've prepared just a very brief staff presentation that relates to the staff report. Just as way of background and context for the item before you, in 2017 we began an 18 month review and revision of the city's inclusionary ordinance. And part of that related to the housing blueprint subcommittees recommended changes around the ordinance. In August of 2018, the planning commission approved these changes to the inclusionary ordinance for rental housing. And in 2018, the city council approved the changes recommended by the planning commission. And before I go forward, I'll just briefly say the inclusionary ordinance is the ordinance that specifies that 15%, that a certain percentage of new development, new units being developed will be built to be affordable either for sale or for rental. And specifically in 2018, two of the changes that were established in 2018 to the cities at that time, inclusionary ordinance, which required that 15% of all new development, both rental and ownership, be built to be affordable for those in our community at 80% of area median income. Two of the changes that were recommended that the planning commission and the council approved included having a different rental inclusionary requirement outside the downtown than in the downtown area. And the reason for that was based on an independent financial analysis prepared by Kaiser Marston that took into account that those developments within the downtown would be able to take advantage of existing density bonus ordinance. That particularly because of the higher development of downtown, you could take advantage of that and actually be able to spread those costs against the project. But the analysis recognized that outside the downtown most likely they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the density bonus ordinance. Therefore, the actual cost of providing more than 10% outside downtown would be prohibitive to a developer most likely would prevent the housing from being developed. Therefore, the recommendation was to establish two different rates, 15% in the downtown and 10% outside the downtown. So that was one of the changes that was approved by council at that time. Additionally, a change was addressing a certain set of circumstances that was created by statewide case law between the period of 2009 when the Palmer case was heard, which made across the state cities difficult to enforce their inclusionary ordinances on rental. And between that period 2009 and 2018 where this was addressed, we wanted to be able to imply an inclusionary ordinance for rental again. And however, we recognize that during that nine-year period there could be certain development that had purchased their property when the inclusionary ordinance for rental wasn't in effect, that this could be considered prohibitive for them to do development. So that's the rationale behind why we had those two changes during two of the main changes in the 2018 inclusionary amendments. In January of 2019, a lawsuit was filed against the city on the grounds that the changes were a violation of measure O. And this, again, measure O was approved by the voters in 1979 and the city's first inclusionary ordinance based on measure O was established in 1980. And then on September 25, 2019, city council approved and the city and the plaintiffs executed a settlement agreement settling the lawsuit and overturning the two main changes I just outlined of the 2018 ordinance. So that is the background that's leading up to today's recommendation. And I will say in your staff report, you have the specified amendments are the ones that I'll just highlight those in just a second, as well as you have a full red line and a matrix of background. So the recommendation before you today is to introduce for publication the specified amendments as identified in the settlement agreement and release between the parties on September 25 and take no further action on additional proposed changes. And I'll just very briefly mention what those specified amendments are. The first three which are included in your packet really relate to removing the designated separate inclusionary rates for downtown and outside downtown so that it goes back to what it was prior to 2018, which is just 15% citywide. So that was agreed to in the settlement agreement. It changes, reverts and separates these definitions for trying to create the downtown specific versus outside downtown. So all of those relate to that 15%. And then the final one relates to that second major change that I mentioned, which is removing that period between 2009 and 2018 where developer could bring forward a project and propose to have a lower inclusionary rate if they bought property to do a multi residential project during that time period. So this just removes that. We haven't actually had any projects that meet that criteria. So we feel comfortable with moving those in and in fact these are what was agreed to in the settlement agreement. And again, we recommend that you approve those specified amendments that I just highlighted in the settlement agreement and that you take no further action on additional proposed changes. I will just mention that the additional proposed changes there's 20 additionally 24 of them. We did go through those and met individually and in small groups with council members to go through them in a lot more detail. Just due to the nature of them being redlined, it's we don't recommend going through them individually today. And so we haven't prepared each of those, but they are in the packet with an analysis as far as explaining each one and why we don't recommend them. And so with that, I'll just close and say that Lee and I are both available to answer any questions that you have. Thank you for the presentation and thank you also for walking through those in advance of tonight's meeting for us to better understand the nuances of this. Are there any questions from the council for staff before we open it up to public comment? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and see are there members of the community that want to address us on this item? If yes, please step forward to my left and you'll have up to two minutes. Hi, my name is Micah Bosner. I was on the council when the huge loopholes in our measure O ordinance became glaringly apparent. And I'm proud of our community and the people involved in the lawsuit for finishing the process of getting the city to start closing those loopholes. I am honestly embarrassed that I didn't realize how many little loopholes they were. I mean, our measure O ordinance is kind of like a strainer for pasta. And I'm very happy that I guess the plaintiff forced the staff to identify those loopholes and put them on your agenda. And I mean, I'm not saying I'm sure about this because admittedly it's complicated, but my instinct is to think that you should close them all today. You know, I mean, I know that will create some chaos and the staff will have to back up and say, well, these are contradictory or this won't work or that won't work. But honestly, the city as an institution has been fighting to stop measure O now for like 20 years. So it's not really a surprise that in the staff report, the staff say, no, we should keep all these little loopholes. I mean, I'm actually landlord that might someday be subject to some of these things, like for having two to four units. But I think I should pay a 15% inclusionary fee if I do that much development. And then there's all these other smaller ones that I don't think make sense. I also don't think that having all these loopholes really serves developers. Because like I remember when I was in the council and developer came forward and I said, come on, dude, it was Doug Lay who's a pretty, you know, scrupulous guy. And I said, come on, dude, how could you be using these loopholes? And he said, look, my job is to make money and to follow the rules. And if you're going to create all these loopholes, then I'm going to make use of them. I actually think you should consider closing them today or close them temporarily or do something. Close them and then have the staff come back and say what the contradictions would be. And then I also have a question. So how does this affect this sinister last minute through the loophole thing with regard to the law or development on Pacific? I mean, is that land easement even useful anymore for the city? And is he going to get to build that thing without actually doing affordable housing? That's my question. Your time is up. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and council members. I mostly have questions. So does inclusionary mean that that's an amount that somebody pays? And whatever happened to Measure J? I'm confused if the 15% means that a developer when they develop a project, that 15% of them need to be affordable housing? Also, or is it just a fee? That's one question. And the second is affordable. We have people who now live here who have jobs over the hill that make $250,000 at Google. And so when we add that together and take 80% of that, that makes it so those of us who have lived here for 40 years and raised our families here and all of that and are now retired and have a very low income can't really consider that affordable. So I don't know. How can that be rectified? That people suddenly have these huge incomes and then taking 80% of that. That doesn't seem like affordable. A lot of people who I know are having to leave the area because they can't afford it. And they really have no place to go. They have no community. The community is here. The people they love, the things that they do, they're all here. And that could very well happen to me. So 80% of $250,000 or whatever. Anyway, that's a lot. So something affordable isn't really affordable. So there's low income. What about Measure J? I mean, was Measure J that to make that percentage? Anyway, thank you. Hello, Council. I've been generally observing staff and councils talk about these issues for a couple years now. And I want to say that one of the major problems that I see with city staff that have been entrenched for a long time is they are extremely reactionary. And what I mean by that is they are basically for the developers who are in it for profit. It's a kind of piracy. And that we are not doing what we could to really look into developers who are offering environmental friendly designs that are actually more suited to Santa Cruz. So I just want to use a case in point. The development that's being considered down there where India-Jose is. I went to the meeting this summer. I got the notice for that meeting months in advance. The meeting was actually on Monday, July 2nd. Who's in town on Monday, July 2nd? Not a lot of people. And if they are, they're thinking about what they're going to do if they're not already out of town for the 4th of July. The meeting was stacked with out-of-town developers, the downtown business people, et cetera, some of our staff, et cetera, et cetera. And their design is completely unsustainable. He said he's going to build a huge bathtub and put the building in it to protect. I mean, so what I'm really getting at, on the other hand, I've watched these Presti Digitation presentations. Presti Digitation is a fancy word for meeting sleight of hand. So I watched a consultant be brought in at one of the meetings that talked about the Lawler development. She wasn't even in the room, and she went on and on and put the entire audience to sleep. With all these ratios and presentations, it's too hard to understand because it's too tricky because it's not real. The reality is we need to keep a strong measure O. Do not go for all the loopholes that staff went because they are geared toward the privileged. Thank you. Hi, everybody. I want to echo a request that you close the loopholes and measure O. The reasoning sounded very solid to me. And about the 10 and 15% inclusionary. I think that 10 is so low when you think about how few units we have built as opposed to the requirements of the state. We are an abysmal failure at meeting that demand. And so we need to look in other directions, different developers as Ali says. Something needs to change so that we can have more units, not fewer units. Over 15, we need to do a giant step. That's what I'm encouraging today. Thank you. Good evening, council members, Rick Longinati. Well, the people in their wisdom past measure O some time ago, and we understand by the occasion today that it's been undermined in various ways in which it hasn't been enforced. So the lesson that I'm taking from that is when you have measure O with a lot of loopholes, we didn't get a lot of housing built. I forget what the number has been over the past years. But even with the loopholes, there's not been a lot of housing built. So I would suggest raising the minimum from 15% to 20 or 25% and then let's see what we do there. And if developers can build on the West Cliff project that you approved last week, and charge millions of dollars for their units, that indicates there's a large profit margin that could support more than a 15% affordability. I think in that project was something like 11% affordable units. So let's make it a higher goal, inclusive goal. And then if there's some exceptions that people, because they're located in a part of the town that doesn't have a beautiful view of the Monterey Bay, then maybe make some exceptions, but let's shoot for the higher goal. Thank you. Hi, as a mother, again, I'm extremely worried about my children's future and one that's been looking a lot at the climate crisis lately, the biodiversity crisis. Where we truly are in the state of humanity right now is incredibly scary, and I hope that you're all right here with me. And I believe it was Jane earlier mentioned a book club that she's been going to where she's reading White Fragility. And I hope that perhaps some of you are participating already in one of these book clubs. If you're not, I would highly recommend that the city council, the board of supervisors, every city council, the state government, everybody in the world. We need to reinvent everything right now from kindergarten to Congress if we're going to protect our children's shared future. So what we're talking about tonight with this percentage is really just a tiny drop in the bucket of what we need to do with reinventing everything. So please, invite the Racial Equity Trainers Network to come here. We all live in a racist society. This is not about shaming or blaming, it's purely a fact. Just as solid as the fact of the climate crisis right now. We live in a sexist society, we live in a classist society. It's not just Santa Cruz, it's the entire world, and we have to change it if we want to survive. And save some of this beautiful planet that we're all sharing right now. So this is just a drop in the bucket of what we need to do. I honestly wish there was a giant pause button where we could just stop the world. For a week or so and do all the data analysis and all the collecting and all the serious look at who we are, how we've been privileged, why we are where we are, and what we all need to change to get to the truly beautiful world that we can create if we can all start working together. Thank you. I encourage you to vote to close all the loopholes. We already have more than enough people living on the streets here in Santa Cruz. And I encourage you to read the book, Home Wrecker, and see just exactly, I don't know if some of our counselors have been using the playbook that's detailed in Home Wrecker. But it's pretty evident that our city can learn a lot about how that is done. If you are interested at all in ending homelessness and poverty in our city. Or maybe you will want to do as reported in Home Wrecker. Study the savings and loan crisis and how you can rip off more people than you already are. Thank you. And you'll be our last speaker, I believe. Good evening, I'm Scott Graham. I think that one of the things you should do tonight also is either end the in-loofies or bring the in-loofies up to what it would cost to actually build a unit. Because right now, you can't build a unit further what the in-loofies are. 20 years ago there was talk about increasing the in-loofies then to bring it up to what it would have cost 20 years ago to build a unit and that didn't happen. So we're 20, at least 20 years behind or even further on what that fee would build. And here's this list of the loopholes that were in the agenda packet. Staff couldn't find a single one that they would agree needed to be changed. They agree that all those loopholes should stay open. And I don't understand that whether they couldn't even find one that they would agree with. So I would encourage you to not only go along with the Hatch-Pomerance agreement that was reached, but also do these other items tonight too. Close those loopholes and like I said either rescind or increase the inclusionary fee or schedule that for another meeting where you can actually work on this inclusionary fee because right now it doesn't work for anybody except the developers. Okay, I think that will conclude public comment. We'll go ahead and return back to the council. Maybe before I acknowledge my colleagues here, I know that there were some questions posed. Did the staff have any response to some of those questions briefly before or were you able to? I know some of them are kind of nuanced and specific. Sure, there were some basic questions about what is the inclusionary ordinance and just to briefly reiterate some of the things that Director Lipscomb indicated. When development comes in, they're required to dedicate a portion of or to provide a portion of those units as affordable to residents making 80% of the median income. And so there was reference to the high earners and they're certainly on the top end. Measure O actually references the average wage of the community whereas we use the median which is substantially lower and we use 80% of the median in order to establish that affordability level. There were also some questions and many statements about loopholes and I do not see the items that were in the red line as loopholes. In fact, Bonnie and I have talked with many of you about how we believe many of those would actually frustrate the intent of providing affordable housing. They make it more challenging to provide off-site units for example and when you're providing off-site units instead of providing those on-site you're required to provide 30% more units. And so many of the rejections that we have are to actually make it easier to provide 30% more units than there would be. And so that is something that we would be able to review as staff and council would be able to approve but keeping that option out there and keeping the flexibility and the ability to potentially provide 30% more units is something that we would want to see. And so that was a big part of many of the changes that we had. Are there other questions? The Lawler Tampico project and Measure J were also referenced. Do you have any? So the settlement agreement would allow the Lawler project to move forward with the dedication of those properties that would then go towards... I would just say that the question that came up about the DEVCON or the Front Laurel Pacific project allows in our pre-existing pre-2018 inclusionary ordinance allowed for dedication of land as an alternative compliance method to our inclusionary ordinance and that in effect is what they chose to do in the city accepted. So it met our pre-existing prior to the changes inclusionary ordinance. There was also a question that came up about how our INLU fees are calculated. I would say actually our INLU fees is a calculation where you look at an appraised fair market value and you look at the difference basically between an affordable unit sales price and an appraised value sale price as part of the calculation. So the INLU fees actually when you look at ours in comparison other cities are actually most of them are quite larger here than other cities but that's something that we can bring back to you at a later time. It is a question that we frequently get is how do you calculate those? So we'd be happy to bring that back to you. Did you have something you wanted to add? Yeah, I just wanted to point out one thing that I would like the council to keep in mind as you look both at the specified amendments and the other proposed amendments that were included in the packet. It's important to keep in mind that the specified amendments restore language to the inclusionary ordinance that was in place when the council amended the ordinance in 2018. So essentially what was adopted by the council in 2018 was the planning commission's recommendations for modifying the inclusionary requirements and if you adopt the specified amendments this evening you will be basically putting back in place code provisions that were in existence before the council took action. The reason why that's significant is that under your zoning code if the council is going to make substantive amendments to the zoning code it first must refer those to the planning commission for a recommendation. So the specified amendments have already been reviewed by the planning commission and essentially by adopting the specified amendments you're rejecting the planning commission's prior recommendation. The other substantive changes however should be referred to the planning commission for recommendation before you take action on those. Okay, so I saw council member Brown, Matthews and then Glover. Yeah, so I want to thank staff for all of the work that you have done to help us understand this very complicated set of proposals and also the effort that you undertook with the community engagement effort for previous revisions which those of you who are around as you know I did not support all of those at the time. However, given that things have now changed with the agreements that we've made for the settlement I think that we're looking at the potential to get some additional affordable housing units out of the kind of likely new developments that are going to be coming our way in the coming years and so I'd like to make a motion that we introduce for publication the specified amendments as identified in the settlement agreement and release entered between the parties on September 25th, 2019 to give you this. We increase the inclusionary rate from 15 to 20% for rental and ownership units and three refer the additional proposed amendments to the planning commission for review and recommendation at their November 2019 meeting. Second. Okay, so we have a motion by council member Brown, seconded by council member Crown, council member Matthews. I was prepared to move the recommendation as originally proposed. Referring the additional proposed changes to the planning commission. I think particularly item number two is going to get us less. So I'm going to be opposing this. I'd be happy to introduce for publication the specified amendments. If you want to separate the items we could do it that way. Council member Glever and then Mr. Dottie, I see you have something you want to add. Oh, it was just a statement about the recommendations to the planning commission. I just wanted to point out that the membership of the planning commission has changed since 2018. So I would imagine there may be some different perspectives. Mr. Condating. I just wanted to ask a question for clarification as to whether the 20% would be referred to the planning commission or is that for introduction tonight? That was for introduction tonight. Council member Brown. Yeah. I was, could you, the member of the public also asked the difference between measure J and measure O because they use measure J as if it was interchangeable with measure O. Measure J is county. I think maybe there was going to be. Measure J is the county, I believe is what we're hearing in or deciding in this little conference. Measure O is the cities from 1979 and then we first introduced our inclusionary ordinance in 1980 based on measure O. And yeah, I just wanted to clarify that just so the person knows. The inclusionary means 15% need to be affordable and then she was asking about 80% of 250,000, which I don't think with 250,000 would be eligible for an affordable unit. Right. And then Director Butler addressed that a few minutes ago in that our ordinance is based on median. And we also look at the HCD, the HUD guidelines. And so for example, depending on the household size, so between two and four, the actual median income is between 68 and like 98,000. And then we take 80% of that for the 80%. When we're trying to get the low units, we take 60% of that. So we take 50% of that. So it's not based on 250,000. And that's all available on our housing web page of the city website. So if you want to go to that or reach out to any of our housing staff, we can get that schedule out to you. Okay. And the last, going over the INLU fee one more time, would it be fair to say that a conservative price for the new condos at 208 would be 600,000. At 208, 20. The 205 condos, isn't 208 Laurel Street? Well, for example, we just ran that. We haven't run them yet for the DEFCON project, but we did actually look at those for 190 Westcliff. And for the very low. No, no, I'm just speaking of a market rate unit. What would the market rate unit go for at 208 Laurel Street? Well, I don't know that off the top of my head. What would it be conservative to say 600,000 dollars? I mean, they could go for seven or eight, but I'm just going to say. Depending on the, depending on the unit size, sure. So would an affordable unit then if it was going for 600 be 400? It could be considerably lower than that. So what I was about to say is on our calculation for 190 Westcliff and looking at a average, you know, market price, fair market price of around 900,000. The very low units would be set in the mid 200s. So those 11, you know, very low units are actually incredibly affordable. But those are very low units. We're not getting any units at all in the Lawler project. So I don't, I'm just trying to, I'm trying to, if it was 80% of the median, would it be fair to say the low income units would go for 400 instead of 600? I would just go back to you to the first part of your question and say by getting that 15% dedication, we're getting an area that's 15% of their net developable area added to the city. So that the city will be able to create that 15% inclusion area, hopefully more so. And our goal is to have it be 100% affordable and we'll actually be producing some of those very low units because we really need to create those very low units to meet our regional housing needs assessment. So our priority and our recommendation to you, and it'll obviously, you'll make that decision, but will be to provide a high number of the very low units. What is, what did the property appraise that, that the Tampico sat on that we've been given instead of building affordable units? How much was that? I don't know that off the top of my head. If you had emailed me earlier, I could have gone back and looked at that because I didn't know that at one point. That was a low part, $5 million, $6 million? No, no, considerably less. I think it was not that far off from, from, well, I, you know, I don't remember the exact amount, but my guess would be right now or back then somewhere around, you know, two, two and a half million, maybe. So would it be fair to say that if those 32 units got built at 80% of the median, the 32 units that would be affordable in those apartments, that comes to $12.8 million they sold for $400,000 at 80% of the median. How is it that it's the same, it's a trade off to get a piece of property that's worth less than $3 million? This is what boggles my mind and I don't quite grasp yet. Why, why not the 32 units? I'm not sure. I know that that, that is specific project isn't agendized, but could be potentially having, you could get some of this information off. I'm happy to answer those questions, maybe outside the context of this meeting. I'm having our time understanding how that's related specifically to the item before us, but I'm happy to sit down with you and talk through that. It's the settlement agreement around the DevCon project at, isn't it 208 Laurel Street? I'm talking about something else, but if there's 32 units that go for $400,000, that's 12.8. Why wouldn't the city then get that much money compensated? This is not agendized for discussion. This is changing. I mean, I think it is a fair question in so far as, it is a fair question in so far as that is an issue that's addressed in the settlement agreement. In other words, the conditions of approval that were approved by the council were accepted by this council in approving the settlement agreement. But the council could decline to move forward on the specified amendments. And then what would happen is that the litigation would go back on calendar and we could ultimately resolve those questions in court. So I think that's the option before you, but I don't, it doesn't sound like staff is prepared to address those background questions that really were part of the council's consideration in approving the settlement agreement. Okay. I'm just, I was trying to get a fair market value. If we're getting apples to apples, if the piece of property is only worth less than $3 million, why wouldn't we want the 32 units built in the project? And why wouldn't we get compensated for the 32 units? That's all. Thank you. I'll just encourage my colleagues to reach out to staff in advance of the meeting so they can have the information necessary to lead us to a policy decision. Mr. Kandadi. I just, the council can choose to move forward however it will this evening, but I would point out that the 20% inclusionary was not based upon a recommendation that was reviewed by the Planning Commission. So there is some uncertainty as to how that direction can be implemented without potentially being subject to a legal challenge. Okay. Well, I'd be curious to hear the staff's perspective on the 20% recommendation. We would like to have some time to look at that. I think the recommendation to go to the Planning Commission would be good. One of the reasons we went with the 10 and the 15 wasn't just because we thought that was a good idea. It was based on an independent financial analysis by a very well respected consultant that is the go-to consultant. In fact, Kaiser Marston just put out a review of inclusionary ordinances across the state. And so we have a table of those. And those that do go above 15% typically will have that be at a higher percentage of area median income. So for example, if they go to 20%, almost all of those that are at 20% are at 120% of area median income. The existing analysis that we have makes the recommendation for 15 and 10%. With that said, looking at AB 1505, the recommendation I think is that we could go to 15% and that would be fine. Particularly just looking at how fluid market conditions are over the last year. So we did recommend the 15% citywide. I think if you go to 20%, we know that we have a financial analysis that says that that's not financially feasible. Therefore, that could be considered a takings. And so a developer is entitled to adjust and reasonable return. And there is some case law, actually the city of San Jose versus the California Building Association, which says that a developer is entitled to adjust and reasonable return. So I think our recommendation just looking from what will happen if we do that is there is the potential for some liability for the city. So we would recommend that we have a, we probably would need to get a different consultant. I know that our consultant wouldn't support a 20%. So maybe we need to get another independent financial analysis on that so that we could present that to you and the Planning Commission before making that recommendation. I think that would be our response to that. And if I could, I would also request that we, you know, the timing of going back on in November. We have one meeting that we could make and that would have to be noticed tomorrow for November. I know that at least one of the council members has reached out to the plaintiffs in this case and asked for justification as have our attorneys and we're yet to receive any information related to that. So having an opportunity to get justification from the plaintiffs as to why they believe any of these changes should be made would be helpful. And so in addition to having the study prepared, having that justification to understand that perspective and the reasoning would also, I believe, warrant some more time than going back to the Planning Commission in November. And I appreciate your perspective. I remember the presentation by the staff that there was data that went into these numbers. So I respect that process and that's why I can't support sort of just changing that at this time. Councilmember Brown and Councilmember Brown. Yeah, I thought I might add just a couple more comments about the proposal that I've made here. First of all, I think that the one big factor for me in reconsidering the 15% was because of the density bonus law and the experience including the experience we had at last week's meeting where with the density bonus we got 11% affordability. And essentially if we're allowing and we by right must allow the density bonus 35% additional units in projects, we essentially will be getting to 15% on those projects total if we raise the inclusionary rate to 20%. So that was kind of my one of my major motivations. Additionally, my understanding about the need for review by housing and community development at the state for ordinances that go above 15% was modified when I was kind of alerted to the fact and then rereading it. In fact, that's not the case for Santa Cruz County in Santa Cruz City because we have not met our very low income and low income housing goals, but we are above the required number of moderate and above moderate income. So we are not legally bound by that rule to get authorization from the state. One and two, we have the ability here to try to get 15% affordability, given the changes in the state law by going to 20% on the base units approved. Council Member Matthew. Getting back to the purpose of this on the agenda now, it's my understanding that the four items contained in Attachment A and that are referred to in the recommendation, the specified amendments. This is the last linchpin in the settlement agreement. Correct. That's right. And so I wonder if the maker of the motion would be willing to divide the motion. First, that we introduce for publication the specified amendments, etc. And then secondly, refer to the Planning Commission the possible increase in the inclusionary rate from 15 to 20% and the additional measures proposed. That is really separate those four items that are required to conclude the settlement agreement and refer the rest of these items to the Planning Commission. So we could separate the motion and take the vote and then have discussion. Well, yeah, number two says increase. I would suggest referring that to the Planning Commission, which is what the staff has said for their review and bringing it back. Are you making a friendly amendment to- I'm suggesting it as an alternative. If not, then I'll make it as a replacement motion. So I understand the interest in handling the first item as per the settlement agreement and so I'm willing to divide the motion. However, I am concerned about the potential delays of considering the inclusion and increasing the inclusionary rate from 15 to 20%. I'm concerned about the potential cost of additional consultant to tell us it's not doable. And so I'd like to move forward with that. I'm willing to refer it to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, both two and three, if we can do that in November and bring it back as quickly as possible. If I could offer some additional information. It says in 24.0670 subsection two, any substantive change proposed by the council must be referred back to the Planning Commission for public hearing. In this case, the commission shall report hack to the council within 40 days after the date of council referral. I assume that was intended to say back where action cannot be taken within 45 days by the commission. A longer period of time may be requested and the council may grant an extension. So the Planning Commission has a short window within which to report back unless the council grants it additional time. Given the potential legal question and the quick turnaround time, I would be willing to go that route. However, I am not interested in granting the Planning Commission any additional time, so I'd like to move that as per the recommendation here, the motion here. I guess I'll just add that I personally think that it is important to have the data to back up what the decision is being made. So if it's not going through that type of independent vetting, for me, even having it returned to the Planning Commission is still counter to what the data showed prior. So I can't reconcile that. So I am fine with exploring it, but I think that requires that we have that level of analysis, which I don't necessarily see in this motion at this time. Council Member Matthews and then Council Member Conn. I just want to raise again the issue that we all acknowledge theoretically but have a hard time in reality, and that's the workload expectations that we're putting on our staff. We're expecting them to turn around all this stuff for the Planning Commission's next meeting in November, even December. I don't know what else is on your plate, but I think the increase in the inclusionary rate from 15 to 20 percent, whatever time it would take to process that issue. My understanding is you're not having a ton of projects, great big projects come on. I mean, I think we have time to deal with that issue up or down and get a good job done by our planning staff and Planning Commission. And that's the way I would prefer to go is just respect the workload that we have already put upon them. And I know they're big issues. You just tell me what they are. So the economic development staff would be leading the preparation of that report. And I was just conferring when we heard the September or excuse me, November 21st would be the only option for November because we would have to notice that meeting for tomorrow. And then anything that they've got on their plate, they would have to drop to basically start working on that ordinance as well as coordinating. We would be looking to see if we could get a study prepared. I was just asking Director Lipscomb how much time that would be and I don't know if you want to respond to. Yeah, I mean, to get an additional analysis, we would get three bids. And so we would put it out there to the consultants that conduct these analysis. And I know a few of them offhand, they would need to respond and provide three bids. And we would choose one of those to respond to a question that came up, I think, by Council Member Brown or maybe it was a member of the public who brought this up as well. I think the perspective of having an independent analysis is that it's not led by staff, it is independent. But if there was some concern about staff's perspective or setting some directions, I think that could come to Council and Council could choose the consultant and go from there. So I think there is a way to guarantee and ensure that it is an independent analysis. And in fact, we would want it to be an independent analysis that you were able to verify. So I just wanted to address that, that if you wanted to have the Council select the consultant and provide the direction that we would recommend and support that as well. One thing I did want to mention on the number two above and it does address Council Member Brown's, a part of Council Member Brown's question about what happened with the density bonus is that there is a five-unit threshold for density bonus. And so if you were to approve this today or consider this, I would ask that you consider for those projects that are under five units, which can't take advantage of the density bonus to consider a lower percentage for those. Because particularly for rental, they're already overburdened because you can't spread those costs against small development projects that you can scale it against larger projects. So they have fixed costs per unit. And so we would recommend that you consider a lower percentage for those projects, rental projects. I'm not going to specify for ownership, but for rental projects specifically. Council Member Cronin and Council Member Brown. How long have we been talking about this, Sandy? A couple, three years since we've been here and we need more time now. I just don't, I don't get this. City Attorney, are you saying that this has to go back to the Planning Commission, that if we pass the 20% tonight, will be in violation of a certain, of a city rule or what kind of rule? The city ordinance 24-06-07-0 says any substantive change proposed by the City Council must be referred back to the Planning Commission for public hearing and a recommendation. So that's the rule. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of the Council having taken action to adopt a zoning ordinance amendment without referring it to the Planning Commission. So I don't have a great sense of what the legal implications of doing so are, but just given the importance of the issue and the tenacity of, you know, the applicants that come before you, I think it would be prudent to follow that step. Again, while I think having a consultant do the analysis required in order to make an informed decision about whether 20% is viable or what not, that would be very desirable. But what the code says is that you should, you shall refer it to the Planning Commission for a recommendation which has 40 days within which to provide its recommendation. So the code doesn't require that analysis. I think it would be beneficial, but the code doesn't specifically require it. So could you clarify the motion because I'd like to call the question because I think Council Member has to leave. So the motion is before us, and if you're calling the question, that's a motion to call the question. Is that what you're doing? Well, I'd like to clarification of the motion first. If we're going to refer this, I want to make sure that everything that was in the settlement agreement gets referred to the Planning Commission too, all the blue lined, at least mine blue lined. So you're not calling a question at this time. My understanding of the motion was to introduce the specified amendments and to refer items two and three to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to return to the City Council within 40 days. So the motion has been modified to have it returned? I'm not recalling specifically if that was accepted by the maker of the second. Was that accepted by the maker of the second? Under duress. But yes. I don't love it either. But I guess it'll be a sweet victory when it does happen. I'd like to call the question. Second. Okay, all those in favor of calling the question, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. So we'll go ahead and take the vote. Who was the vote? I think I was the only opposing vote to call the question. Before you actually. Oh, you voted no. Councilmember Meyers and myself voted no to not call the question at this time. Go ahead. The code says in such a case the commission shall report back to the council within 40 days after the date of council referral. Reading that differently. So that would go to Planning Commission, but it wouldn't necessarily come back. We'll have to look at the noticing deadlines because there are there's roughly a three week noticing deadline. So we've noticed tomorrow that would go to Planning Commission on the 21st. I'm not sure that we can make your second meet your first meeting in December. I'll have to look and see if we can make that which would put it in the first meeting in January. In which case the December Planning Commission meeting would allow for more time. I also recognize that the question has been called. So I want to be cognizant of that as well. We take the vote when the question is called on the motion before us. Unless the maker of the motion is going to withdraw or amend. I have to look at the timing. Is the maker of the motion going to withdraw or amend the motion? Okay. Seeing that as not the choice, then all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. So that passes with Council Member Brown, Vice Mayor Cummings, Council Member Cron and Glaver voting in support. I voted in support of the divided motion. It's not that it hasn't been divided. I thought it was. It was combined. But modified. Well, let me clarify. I thought you move the introduction. That's one thing and then the combination of two and three. That's correct. I support that. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I'll support that. Okay. So would you want to clarify? I want to make sure. Dividing one and two and three, which is now two. Yes. We make that all in one motion. I don't support two and three. I support one. Two and three is now just two. Combining two and three. Both elements. Okay. So then for the record, I support number one. All of it's going back to the planning. Okay. So it's that we need to vote on number two. So for clarification, I support number one of the motion. I don't support two or three going back to the Planning Commission at this time as the direction. So for the record. One is unanimous. Yes. Two and one except for her. Just me saying that. Is that correct? It's fine. Okay. It's fine. Okay. Mr. Konadi. No, I was conferring with the Planning Director and I wasn't. So basically we have the introduction. We're all in consensus for number one moving forward. Number two and three and the timeline and kind of the considerations brought forward. I'm not supportive. So I'm registering no and that and the majority of council voted in support of that. Okay. Are we good? Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at this time.