 Alright, we're going to call this meeting to order. Can we start with a roll call please? Council members Bertrand. Here. Brooks. Here. Story. Here. And Mayor Peterson. Here. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Mayor Brooks, you want to start us off? Sure. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Alright. Tonight's meeting is Cablecast Live on Charter Communications, Cable TV Channel 8, and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8 a.m. and on Saturday following the first broadcast at 1 p.m. on Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25. Meetings can also be viewed live from the city's website at cityofcapitola.org. Our technician tonight is Kingston Rivera. Thank you for being here. As a reminder, please turn off your cell phones during the meeting. And if you come for public comment, please feel free to sign your name on the sheet at the podium to confirm that we are spelling it correctly in the record. Alright, we're going to move on. The first item tonight, we have a couple presentations and we're going to start with a proclamation honoring Tony Castro upon her retirement. Hi Tony. We are so excited to honor you this evening, although sad to see you go in your retirement, but you have done so much for our community and I'd like to read a little bit of the proclamation we have for you. Whereas, Capitola resident Tony Castro has served as the chief executive officer of the Capitola Soquel Chamber of Commerce for more than three decades and will retire on March 1st, 2020. And whereas, she spent two years as president of the Chamber prior to her 32 year run as CEO, thereby serving the organization and community for much of her adult life. And whereas Chamber, all, all correction, we'll correct that. And whereas Chamber membership has doubled under her leadership in part due to the 2006 edition of Soquel to the group's jurisdiction. And whereas, Miss Castro has helped the Chamber grow the popular Art & Wine Festival to an event with at least 160 artists, 22 wineries, 15 entertainers, and more than 300 volunteers. Proceeds from the event help support local schools. And whereas, she has been instrumental in the creation of numerous chamber events including the Capitola Village Easter Egg Hunt and Halloween Parade, the Soquel Village Sip and Stroll and Surf and Santa. And whereas, she spearheaded a disaster fund to help displaced residents of the former Pacific Cove mobile home park when a storm drain pipe running under the park burst, flooding homes, and also aided impacted Capitola Village merchants. And now, therefore, I, Kristen Peterson, mayor of the city of Capitola, and on behalf of the city council, city staff, and the greater Capitola community, do hereby commend and thank you, Tony Castro, for your many years of service to Capitola. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. And thank you, mayor, for the proclamation, city council and city staff and everyone. It doesn't seem like it's been 32 years, but I guess it has. Time flies by quickly. I've had lots of experiences over the 32 years. I've met a lot of people. I made some really close friends. And as a Capitola resident, I feel very fortunate to be able to retire here. And so you'll see me around. I'm not going to disappear. And I'll be working with the chamber, too. But it's been a real positive experience for me. And I loved working with all the community groups. Capitola is a very special place. And I'm just so blessed to be able to live and work here. And so I thank you for this honor. And again, Capitola is a wonderful community. And my replacement is Carrie Arnone. And she will do an excellent job. She's about 10 years younger, has a lot more energy and new ideas. And she'll do really well in this position. So once again, thank you and thank you for all of you who are here tonight, too. I appreciate the support. And thanks again. All right. We are going to move to the next item in presentations, which is the 2019 officer of the year presentation of the Herbros Award. Good evening, Mayor Peterson, members of the council, staff and public. I'm honored to be here tonight to announce, recognize and honor one of our individuals on the Capitola Police Department who has been selected as the 2019 officer of the year and the recipient of the Herbros Community Achievement Award. As you know, several members are nominated for this award each year and one individual is selected based upon their performance, their commitment to the city and the police department, and especially their commitment to the community. And so I'm honored and I'm really happy tonight to announce that our 2019 recipient of the officer of the year, Herbros Community Achievement Award is parking enforcement officer Oscar Valdez. And I'd like to invite Oscar up here with me at the podium as I talk about a few more things about this award and his recognition. Come on up, Oscar. And we can applaud now. Worth mentioning and reminding many, this award, Officer of the Year Award, is an honor this year of Oscar for 2019, but also an honor of Herbros, one of our Capitola PD officers who committed himself for just under 30 years to the police department from 1973 until his retirement in 2001, retiring as a sergeant. Shortly after his passing away in 2007, the community and the police department came together and they decided to rename our officer of the year award to the Herbros Community Achievement Award for all of his, Herbs' contributions to the police department, the city, and especially his contributions to the community, his involvement with the community, and truly his desire and his application of community policing principles for many, many years for his entire career, in fact. And so I want to make sure that I mention that. And then also I want to mention, as many know, that our own mayor, Kristen Peterson, is the granddaughter of Herbros. And so, Mayor Peterson, I know that tonight is especially, or extra special for you to witness the presentation of this award to Oscar Valdez. And that's worth mentioning your family and you being the granddaughter of Herbros. And so let me talk about Oscar himself for just a couple of minutes. Oscar began his career with the Capitola PD in 1987. And throughout his 32-year career, he's demonstrated his commitment to the city, the police department, and the residents of Capitola. His expertise related to parking management and the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians has been instrumental to our success as a city and a police department in effectively managing the vehicles, pedestrians, and that parking enforcement program. And importantly, the safety that Oscar and others have introduced to everybody who visits our beautiful village and Oscalino on a daily basis. In addition to Oscar's commitment to his role as a parking enforcement officer for 32 years, he devotes much of his off-duty time to community programs such as Special Olympics, the law enforcement torch run to name a few, and then really important and unique earlier this year, Oscar in partnership with the Santa Cruz Department of Rehabilitation provided a life-changing opportunity to an individual who desired to learn more about Oscar's role with the police department and his role in the community. In an effort to overcome this individual's own challenges related to his disability. Through a modified ride-along program, Oscar was able to share positive experiences in mentoring, coaching, to a deserving individual to assist that gentleman and the Department of Rehabilitation with the formation of needed programs for an underserved population here in the county. And so that, in addition to many other skills and examples of commitment that Oscar has provided to us throughout his 32-year career, please join me in recognizing and congratulating Oscar Valdez as our 2019 Officer of the Year awardee. Congratulations, Oscar. I'd also... And I would also like to mention that just behind Oscar here is his daughter and his beautiful granddaughter who are here tonight to honor their family member and join in the celebration, and we welcome both of you. Congratulations, Oscar. Would you like to say a few things? I just want to thank everybody who had any part in the decision-making of this recognition. I am honored to have been selected to receive the Herb Bross Award. Thank you. Don't leave without the presentation of the actual award, Oscar. And then I'll invite Oscar's family. Mayor Peterson, if you could join us down here, we'll take a picture of Oscar with the audience behind us to make it a little bit easier, but I think that'd be a wonderful picture for the family. Linda, do you want to do that? Okay. We are going to move on now to a recognition of our local government academy participants. In January and February, 11 Capitola residents and business representatives attended the Capitola Local Government Academy, which is a series of informational presentations and discussions on the city's government, administration, programs, and partnerships with local agencies. So we would like to invite the participants who completed up to the stage here. Those that we know to be in the audience carry our known. Elizabeth Conlin, Katie Yurtburg, did I say that right? If not, you can correct me when you get up here. Gary Jensen and Brian Kirk, did I miss anybody else? If I missed you, come on up and you can tell me your name when you get here. All right. Jerry. No, Carrie. Carrie. My apologies. Carrie, hi. Carrie, our known. Thank you. Elizabeth Conlin. Hi. Congratulations. Katie. Jurtburg. My apologies. Originally correct. All right. Thank you. Jerry Jensen. Thank you. Who are we missing? One. Oh, no problem. It happened. And she's at a community meeting already using her. Oh, goodness. That's right. Brian Kirk. Wonderful. Here you go. Thank you so much, all of you, for your willingness to be engaged in the community in this way and learn more about our wonderful city. I'd be happy to pass the mic down if you each want to do just a quick couple of words on your experience and anything that you would like to say, or you can just say pass and move along, whatever you prefer. Thank you. I'm Carrie from the Capitola Soquel Chamber. It was a great experience and it's really, you know, to take advantage of learning more about how your city operates and, you know, all that the city does for our community. I encourage all of you to embrace it. And I'll add to that and just say thank you to everybody that participated in the class. It was very insightful, highly recommended. Yeah. Thank you for that. It was really eye-opening and any city, particularly Capitola, has a really great history and it was neat to hear about that. I just want to echo that I appreciate everyone's time and answering all my questions. Yeah, it was a great experience to go through. I also appreciate how the city interacted with some other local agencies to bring that knowledge into the whole leadership process. It was great. Thank you so much again. Congratulations and I'm sure we're going to see you out in the community doing great things, maybe up here on the dais with us at some point. Let's give a round of applause for those who have completed the academy. Congratulations. Oh, picture. Okay. We are now at item three on our agenda. Any additional materials? There are additional materials on item 8e regarding the carousel. Great. Thank you. Any additions or deletions to tonight's agenda? Staff has no changes. Great. Thank you. Now is the time for public comment. Oral communications allows time for members of the public to address the city council on any item not on tonight's agenda. You will have three minutes to speak. Please feel free to come forward to the podium if you'd like to speak to the council. Seeing none, we will move on to city council and staff comments. Does staff have any comments? I have a few brief comments I just want to make. I know that there's been a lot of concern and a lot of press about the coronavirus. I want to assure everybody that the city of Capitola has been engaged with the county. County health services agency is obviously the lead for any public health response in this county. We've been in communication with them and have been talking about getting, establishing sort of a briefing protocol as this issue and situation develops moving forward. In addition, on our website, we have been posting links to health services agencies, FAQs about coronavirus and CDC information. Those are two sources of information, which I would suggest people rely on in the future is the best place to get news about what's going on and what best practices are. And then lastly, department heads and I will be meeting later this week. We'll be talking later this week about what the city's operational plans might look like as the situation evolves in the future. I'm trying to develop some different contingencies so that we're prepared as well. Great. Thank you. Council comments? Comments? Comments? Okay. I will just say briefly that there is a letter here indicating that one of the, our residents of Capitola was the winner of the Suroptimus International of Capitola by the Seas 2020 Live Your Dream Award. And so I would just like to acknowledge Lorena Miller and say congratulations to her. I don't believe she's here tonight, but nonetheless, I would like to recognize our Capitola citizen for that award that she is receiving. Congratulations, Lorena. Moving on now to item seven is our consent calendar. These will be enacted by one motion in the form listed on the agenda, which is also at the back of the room, unless any member of the public or city council member would like to pull an item for separate review. Does any member of the public like to pull an item for us to review separately? Seeing none, any member of the council? I do. Yes. Pull item A, the city council for an edit. Okay. We're going to go ahead and vote on items B through F, and then we will return to item A. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second on the consent calendars. Items B through F, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries unanimously. Let's go ahead and address item A now. Sure. I just noticed in the item regarding, sorry, let me pull it. Item 10 doesn't have the numbers on it, regarding the community grant strategic plan. I was just missing the comment about ensuring that we implement the application changes immediately versus throughout the one to your process. That was part of the motion that I made, as well as looking at the question. There was a question on the application itself that there was some confusion about and whether it was being addressed in the application. And that part was missing also. That was part of my motion that I had made originally. Do you clarify the second correction? I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that. So we wanted staff to look at whether the question about if there was going to be any detriment to, if we were not to give that money any longer, if there was going to be any detriment to the city. It was an obscure question. And we got some feedback from the audience concerned that if we took that question off the original application, there was just some concerns about that. So we were going to look at that and whether it was actually being addressed in the new application that was presented. Okay, thank you. All right. So with that change, we will now entertain a motion to approve item A of the consent calendar as adjusted or amended. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? I'll abstain. Okay, one abstention. Motion carries with three approving and one abstention. Great. We're going to move on to item 8, general government public hearings. We will begin with 8A, a mid-year budget report. Do we have a staff report? Good evening, Mayor and Council. This is, again, our mid-year budget update that we do each year at this time. And so I'll start off by going over a couple of the financial highlights. So sales tax revenue, as you know, is our largest revenue source and it's relatively flat. We did see a decrease in actual cash receipts of 225,000, but that's related to, if you recall back in 2018 when the state changed their software, they fell way behind on making payments. So we actually caught up on those payments during the same kind of comparable period last year. So that was why the cash receipts dropped. But if you look at actual performance back to when we had a regular quarter, we're relatively flat since 2017. Property tax continues to grow at about 4.5% over the prior year. Our budget included a 4% increase, so I'll get into a slight adjustment to that in a little bit. TOT growth has leveled off and been consistent with budget projections. Really, the only increase we've seen in TOT over the last four or five years was related to the changing in the TOT rate from 10% to 12%. But as far as the number of visitors coming, it's relatively flat. I think we've kind of peaked out there based on our room inventory. Cannabis retail tax is the big one for this major budget. It's well below budget due to unforeseen delays for the two operators getting their stores opened when we originally thought. The good news, if there's good news around that, is this is really a one-time event. It's not based on poor performance. I'm getting them up and running. So when you compare this year's budget to last year's budget at the same time of the year, we're really tracking outside of the cannabis tax. We're tracking very close with our budget projections. As far as our revenue review, you can see we're relatively flat up there. I think that's about a $43,000 or $44,000 increase in revenues when we look back at the same time to the prior period. The cannabis tax didn't come in, but we didn't have anything from the prior year, so that's kind of a wash when looking year to year. The reduction in cash receipts related to sales tax has kind of been offset by some of the other revenues picking up the slack, so we've been able to stay relatively flat. So in summary, on the revenue side, staff's recommending increasing the revenue budget by a total of $135,000, and that includes $50,000 increase to property tax, $20,000 in investment earnings, $15,000 for police services related to special events, $30,000 in parking citation revenue, $10,000 in encroachment permits, and $10,000 in building plan checks. On the flip side, we're also recommending decreases to the revenue budget of $307,000, which include roughly 90% of what we had budgeted for the cannabis tax. We had originally budgeted $250,000. We're suggesting that we're recommending that we reduce that by $225,000. Also a $35,000 reduction in capitol fees, and $47,000 to the after-school program fees for a net decrease to the overall revenue budget of $157,000. On the expenditure side, you'll see we're about roughly $600,000, not quite $600,000 higher when we look back at the same period last year. A little over $500,000 of that is personnel, and a little over half of that change is just related to the PERS UAL payment. So we had an increase of right around $250,000 to the UAL payment, which we have really no control over. The other piece of that is just your normal step increases that people get as they move up and gain experience, and then cost of living adjustments. Everything else on the expenditure side is relatively flat. We have a little bit of increase in contract services, and that's related to plan checks that we have sending out, and we're going to kind of wean ourselves off of that, so that one will come back in line with what we've seen in prior years. So for a summary on the expenditure side, staff's recommending increases to the expenditure budget, totaling $57,000, and that's $25,000 for a parking pay station repair and maintenance, $10,000 to public works for just their general contracts, and $72,000 to community development for our housing program administration. And that one on the other side we're recommending decreases of $72,000, so that first one is the $50,000 for the ADA compliance, which we've budgeted. We just don't have anything scheduled to happen between now and June, so we're going to pull those resources back in. And then the community development, the building wages, the reason we bumped up the housing contract is because we have a vacancy, so we're just taking those salary savings and switching them over, so that's just kind of a wash there. So the net decrease is only $15,000 on the expenditure side. And then we also, on the capital improvement program, we recently received a grant from the RTC totaling $505,264, and so staff's recommending increasing the capital improvement program grant revenue by that amount, the $505,264, and then also increasing construction services for pavement management by $455,264, and engineering services for those projects by $50,000. So our recommended action is to receive the mid-year budget report and amend the fiscal year 19-20 budget based on the attached budget amendment request, and I have that summarized right there, which is really hard to see. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions from Council? Yes, Council Member Petrone. On the repair maintenance of the metering devices, whatever you want to call them. So, are our meters not performing, or we just never we haven't had adequate support, or why are we increasing that? We've incurred more repairs than we anticipated this year. It's kind of picked up. It's been picking up steadily over time. We've already gone through the budget, so we're adjusting it just to kind of give us a little bit of flexibility to do any repairs that we need for the rest of the year. We think we have the majority of them done, and the Chief can speak to this if he would like, but I believe Sergeant Evans is looking at all of the pay stations that we have out there, and kind of doing an analysis right now on how much are we spending to repair them, and when does it make sense to replace them, and kind of getting some data around that because that repair and maintenance budget continues to increase on an annual basis. Okay, so obviously it's offset by the revenue so it's fake. Correct. Okay, so the 30,000 we have increased revenue what was that because of? That's on the parking citations. So last year we were a little bit short staffed, and revenues were down, and we kind of used that number to develop the budget for this year. We're staffed fully again, and so we've kind of just bumped it back up to where it traditionally has been right around 400,000. Okay, thanks. I know we have a lot of ADA requirements because the report that was just submitted six months or whatever it go. So why are we waiting on, acting on those? Why do we not have things to do? Well, we have things to do. We just don't have anything that's going to happen between now and June 30th. Okay. With emergency repairs that's been going on and the other CIP projects that are going on, we just don't have any time that we've dedicated over there. To make them happen. Yeah, it's not that they're not going to happen. That's more of just a delay until... No, I thought they were going to happen. That's for sure. Okay, thanks. Any other questions? Yes, Council Member Story. Thank you, Mayor. The revenue reductions in camp capitol fees 35,000, 47,000 in after-school program fees was there an unexpected drop in enrollment? We missed it on a budget cycle or when we were preparing the budget was on our unexpected drop in enrollment. So on the camp capitol side we typically budget right around 135 or 140 and we put 175 in there this year and we're not going to hit 175. So really that reduction is just kind of getting us back to where and I know Niki's here if she wants to speak as well. We set that budget up. They have a capacity I believe of 40 students so we set everything up on the revenue and the expenditure side in anticipation of having full enrollment. At this point we're getting about I believe half running about half but anticipate it building up as the program continues so that one's just kind of bringing it down into what we're experiencing but once we hit the full 40 students per session we should be back up at the level that we had this year. Thank you. So now we will bring this item to public comment. If there's any member of the public that would like to address the council on this item now would be the time to do so. Seeing none we will bring it back to council for deliberation in a vote. Well I'm very willing to move staff recommendation and maybe I've just done that. But with that motion I think I would like to add I notice that it's being recommended that we leave our negative fund balance to be dealt with our general fund carry forward and I would hope that we would continue to try to reduce the usage of the carry forward as much as possible throughout the balance of the year and I think anticipating very difficult times next fiscal year so with that being the proposed approach to this year end budget I would hope that we don't paint too much of a rosy picture on it and that we're balancing this budget now but we're using carry forwards so we have to make sure that we don't continue to do that because that's not a sustainable approach so with that but I will make the motion I have made the motion. I'll second. Echo those comments. Any other motion in a second any further discussion? No. Motion in a second all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries unanimously. We're going to move on to item 8B introduce an ordinance amending chapter 17.74 on accessory dwelling units and chapter 17.15 or 17.16 outside the coastal zone for an R1 zoning district. Good evening council thank you this evening I'm going to briefly touch upon the state requirements for the ADUs presented in depth during your January meeting I will elaborate on two of the standards that are likely to have a very large impact on the capital then I will present the planning commission recommendation a new research done relative to the planning commission recommendation I want to preface this by saying that the new state law is extremely specific but not very easy to comprehend we've worked very closely Matt Orbach and myself with our city attorney thank you Sam and our consultant Ben Noble who's updated multiple ADU ordinances for other jurisdictions and to ensure that it complies with the state law while attempting to make it user friendly as user friendly as possible so I apologize for it is not easy to comprehend but we've made our best effort to try to break it down and create tiers and make it more easy than the state how the state wrote this there's very specific regulations within the state law that had to be followed on January 16th 2020 the city staff presented the new state ADU regulations to the planning commission the planning commission requested that city council provide general direction on the approach for the draft ordinance in terms of either matching the state law or making the recommendations more permissive than the state law on January 23rd we came to the city council and the city council provided direction to bring the code into compliance with the state regulations and not to incorporate any regulations that are more permissive than allowed by the state on February 6th the planning commission reviewed and unanimously gave a positive recommendation for the adoption of the ADU ordinance with modifications to the required parking within the coastal zone shortly the following two slides list the most significant changes required by the new state law these changes are outlined in the staff report in detail and were introduced during the January meeting I am not going to go through all of these requirements right now but I will elaborate on the two standards that will have a large impact on capitola I will start with the guaranteed allowance and then go into the opportunity to come back to any of these if you have questions within the general requirements for all ADUs there is a new guaranteed allowance for a property with a single family dwelling or a proposed single family dwelling to also be allowed an 800 square foot ADU up to 16 feet in height with 4 feet side and rear yard setbacks maximum building coverage floor area ratio private open space standards cannot prohibit the development of the ADU the guaranteed allowance of an 800 square foot floor area in addition to the maximum floor area of the property this is very different from our old code the previous secondary dwelling unit ordinance gave a floor area bonus for properties with an accessory dwelling unit the new state law is very permissive and allows property owners to exceed the maximum floor area of a property of up to 800 additional square feet therefore in our draft ordinance staff is suggesting removing the bonus tied to bonus floor area for ADUs in addition to removing it from the ADU chapter 17.74 staff is also proposing to remove the reference from the bonus of the bonus from chapter 17.16 which is single family residential outside the coastal zone and chapter 17.15 the single family residential district within the coastal zone this will completely eliminate the floor area ratio incentive for lots with ADUs from the zoning code any questions about that what yes sorry why would we why would staff recommend taking away the incentive because under the state code there's a new incentive of going beyond the floor area ratio the maximum floor area with an extra 800 square feet for an ADU so it's actually built into the state code here any other questions so far okay next I'm going to get into multifamily and the impacts from or how they will impact capitol the ADUs so within the new standards of the state law there are four specific scenarios called out in which the city can only apply the general standards which apply to all ADUs and limited standards defined by the state two of the two are applicable to multifamily housing if an application complies with the limited standards the city can only apply the very limited review standards and no permit and sorry and the permit must be issued ministerially through a building permit over the counter there's no required planning commission review for these next two examples so the next two examples are multifamily the first scenario for multifamily residential is the conversion of non-livable space in this scenario the existing multifamily structure may convert space that is not utilized as living space the state provides examples of non-livable space including storage rooms boiler rooms passageways, attics, basements or garages the property owner is allowed to convert a minimum of 180U and up to 25% of the total residential units on the property the conversion must comply with the state building code that's the limited criteria must comply with the building code and again this is a building permit issuance so this is the capitol of greens located on 42nd avenue and claire street it is a 52 unit multifamily development within the new state legislation up to 25 of the existing 52 units could convert non-livable space to 80U's that's 13 new 80U's on the site it appears from the view of 42nd avenue that some of the units have carports carports are considered non-livable that may be converted in this example the non-livable space within the carports have been converted to residential units there is no requirement to replace the displaced parking on site the permit would be approved ministerially over the counter through a building permit we do require that the HOA approve any conversions within multifamily developments that are subject to an HOA so we would have a letter from the HOA stating that the HOA is in support of an application such as this that means that the owners would have a vote and would likely hopefully want to mitigate some of the impacts for parking and design that could be proposed within one of these projects if I have a look of concern on my face I think it's one that's shared by many community development directors throughout the state of California that have multifamily residential within as much as we need housing it also for me to send out a Friday update that we're getting a 25% increase in density on a property would be a challenge and to approve that ministerially over the counter is a big change for the city of Capitola so I wanted to make sure you all are very aware of these changes so can we pause for questions between each item any questions on that one what standing does the HOA have when it's a state regulation they the HOA is they own the property and they can they have to have a vote in most circumstances they're going to have to follow their agreements but it's also a different it's like comparing apples and oranges because the state regulations restrict what local agencies can do to regulate ADUs but the HOA is a private entity so if there's a provision in the HOA agreement that says that speaks to ADUs or additional structures the HOA can enforce that agreement so the HOA could prevent this but we couldn't is that my understanding assuming there's something in the HOA agreement that speaks to it presumably or if there's another mechanism that the HOA has presumably they are not restricted in the same ways that we are but they also don't have as much authority as we do and our requirement that the HOA write a letter in support and means that they're going to have to have a majority support or whatever is outlined in their agreements so that a single condo owner couldn't come in if we didn't have that listed and a single condo owner came in and said I want to convert my garage we can say well you need to go back and get your letter of support from your HOA so that says to me if there's an association of some sort in a particular spot where people live that trumps state law that's what I'm having a problem understanding that's the case fine I just having a problem logically understanding it my suggestion would be to think about it like this the state law is on the city and what the city has to allow but it doesn't compel property owners to take certain actions so in other words the HOA which owns property that would be affected by this change would still have to want to do it okay so because there's multiple owners they all have to agree or 50 plus 1% whatever it is subject to their CC subject to their rules hmm thank you concerning the conversion of boiler rooms alleys hallways storage areas and closets are and well are there minimum standards that define those as habitable areas are there minimum square footage requirements for ADUs and and if those if those places were essential in order to have the project in compliance if they had a conditional use permit could they still eliminate it as they can with the parking so the requirement is that it must comply with the building code you asked about minimum sizes there's minimum sizes within our health and safety code of 150 square feet for an ADU the building code references 220 square feet which is what our building official feels more comfortable for health and for safety reasons and then would parking be required for these converted areas so any converted area needs to meet with the building code which should address health and safety I understood that they could eliminate the parking and we couldn't require that as a condition but these other areas that we were talking about being converted if those were necessary in order to have the project be in compliance with their conditional use permit in other words if they're required to have a boiler and it has to be of a certain size if they're closed is that now they can ignore that and go ahead and eliminate the boiler and put in an ADU that is a good question I want to think a little bit more about it I would bet that the condition would trump good okay well we'll see if we can get a test case I could very well be wrong about that my guess is the legislation has not contemplated that thank you so what control do we have if some of those areas are for garbage refuge things like that we've set aside areas where bicycles are permitted I know that so what happens there garbage is a main one for neighbors I know that you know the facilities where the garbage cans are they usually should be covered they have to be brought in from the street that kind of stuff so how do we deal with that so we do have standards for garbage to be out of sight on non-collection days so they would have to follow those standards again if there were conditions tied to the multifamily we would I think we'd have to look at this further tied to a conditional use permit but really what this legislation is saying is that if you have the non-livable space that it has we should be approving these conversions unless they don't comply with the building code I mean there's only four scenarios in which they outline the criteria which is specific to limited standards so these laws I don't know how many revisions to your ADU ordinance you've gone through in the last couple years but it's not uncommon for an agency to have gone through several by this point because these laws just keep coming fast and furious this year was a package last year was a package and so what that means is that they are not getting litigated as quickly as they are getting made and so we don't have we're not being obtuse we don't know some of the answers to these questions especially yours councilmember story because it isn't just not been tested it's not being litigated in a couple years if the legislature will slow down and let the courts shake some of this out we will have some better answers because some of these things are just going to be tested questions on this particular aspect move forward thank you the next the second scenario under the limited review standards is for detached ADUs multifamily parcels within this standard there's a maximum of two detached ADUs allowed per parcel within existing multifamily dwelling the maximum height can be up to 16 feet there's rear and side yard setback requirements of four feet this is a multifamily at 1910 46th avenue known as Chateau Capitola in this example there are no existing car ports and we will assume that there's very limited non-livable space available for a conversion the property owner may develop a maximum of two detached ADUs as long as they comply with the maximum height limit of 16 feet minimum rear and side yard setbacks of four feet and are built in compliance to the building code so under these two these are the two scenarios that apply to multifamily dwellings for the future within Capitola another question that came up is could they apply both at the same time so couldn't HOA say we're going to do 25% conversions and also two ADUs and there's no discussion in the legislation that says they could not so our take would be that yes you could convert up to 25% or you could have up to 25% additional units as well as two detached units any questions Katie how many how many multifamily how many scenarios are we talking about within the city limits like I'm going to take a guess about 25 to 30 I'm not I'd go more maybe 50 we've quite we've got such a great mix of housing and I know that half of our housing is through apartments and multifamily so I bet the numbers at least 50 so the carports at 600 Park could be converted yes 25% next we will discuss three topics in which the council has some discretion on how to apply within the ordinance you'll recall from our January discussion the city has the option to allow separate sale of ADUs to nonprofits and some abilities to allow some ability to allow ADUs to be utilized as vacation rentals the ordinance was drafted to prohibit separate sales and vacation rentals this is consistent with the council direction to not make the code more lenient than the state regulations I'll stop there for a minute is there any change of direction is that the one we would say we said we would come back in a year yeah we'll revisit we'll see how it's going in other jurisdictions just for one not for two and three right just for one separate sale of ADUs the third category parking was discussed during the January hearing since we last met new information has come to light on the city's ability to require parking within the coastal zone as you may recall the new state law mentions the ability of local jurisdictions to require parking but at the same time it exempts most ADUs from parking requirements no parking spaces can be required for internal junior or attached ADUs the only type of ADU required to have parking under the new state law is a detached ADU in addition there are other exemptions for ADUs that are listed on the slide the first one was a topic that we discussed during the last meeting which has great implications for the city of Capitola we showed this slide during the January meeting it shows the impact of the first exemption for ADUs for properties within one half mile walking distance of public transit this exempts most of the city from parking requirements as shown in yellow the area in gray is the only area within the city that could require parking for detached ADUs when we last met the city council provided direction to require on-site parking to the extent that we can so what has changed since we last met we have learned that we can apply the standards differently within the coastal zone in an effort to protect coastal resources the state ADU law specifies that it shall not be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of the application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 this gives the city the ability to maximize protection of coastal resources consistent with the city's local coastal program and the California Coastal Act staff has used this allowance in the draft ordinance to include specific standards within the coastal zone for parking which deviate from the parking standards in other areas of the city those standards are that there's one required on-site parking space for all ADUs within the coastal zone converted garages must provide replacement of parking on site and lastly during the planning commission review they recommended an exception to their required on-site parking within the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood specifically tied to single family homes this slide shows all the properties within the coastal zone the city council has the ability to require all ADUs within the coastal zone to have on-site parking as you can see the coastal zone is comprised of about two thirds of the city including the majority of residential neighborhoods when we took the new information to the planning commission we provided three new options for the commission to consider for the treatment of parking within the coastal zone the first was to require on-site parking within the coastal zone the second was to require parking within a certain distance of the coast the third option was to require parking within specific neighborhoods in the coastal zone due to existing on-site parking issues this option would have included neighborhoods such as the jewel box north forties and riverview terrace and existing large family large multi-family developments due to the high demand on on-site parking the final option was to not treat parking differently within the coastal zone the planning commission discussed the options and ultimately expressed concern that the majority of the neighborhoods in the coastal zone have extremely high demand for on-site parking they weighed the impacts on coastal access if more demand is placed on the on-site parking and the impacts to existing front yards if ADU parking was required on the property ultimately the planning commission recommended the parking be required in the coastal zone except within the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood the planning commission explained that they wanted to preserve the neighborhood front yards from impacts of expanded parking Cliffwood Heights is the one neighborhood they identified of having available street parking as well as on-site parking lots in Cliffwood Heights are much larger than the typical residential lots throughout Capitola so there's more street frontage for the wider lots staff has since studied the neighborhood to ensure the assumptions reflected reflect the actual conditions staff surveyed the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood we took random sample of 10% of the single family homes in the neighborhood and counted available parking spaces on two separate days the samples were taken at 7am and at 6pm peak hours for residential parking the survey concluded that driveways were less than 50% occupied during the four surveys this means that for a driveway with two parking space there was typically one space or two available on the site staff also surveyed the availability of street parking during the four visits the majority of the streets had more than 50% of the street parking available shown in yellow and green on the slide the streets that are impacted beyond 50% are those with large multifamily developments along Kennedy Drive and Balboa so from what we have learned there is available street and on-site parking in the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood I'll also mention that I've driven through many of the neighborhoods and walk the neighborhoods of and know the impacts that exist within the jewel box in the North 40s and feel confident that those neighborhoods are more impacted than the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood I included we included options within the staff report that are shown on the slide we'll come back to these options after discussing the impacts of requiring on-site parking in considering the requirements for on-site parking there is also aesthetic impacts to consider within the state law parking for ADUs is allowed within the front side and rear yard setbacks in Capitola's neighborhoods with compact lots such as the jewel box and Riverview neighborhoods new parking spaces within the front yard will be allowed and landscaping would be displaced to mitigate the impacts of parking in the front yard the draft ordinance requires parking spaces for ADUs to be limited to two parallel strips of pavement no wider than two and a half feet each that utilize permeable paving and have landscaped areas between the strips as shown in this example also of note is requiring on-site parking will mean that some residents will not be able to have an ADU properties with no front side or rear yards would not be able to provide parking and therefore could not convert interior space into an ADU within the coastal zone outside the coastal zone there is an exception to parking for internal ADUs and garages that make it so parking is not required not a question Katie could they have done that previously could those owners have previously built an ADU on the property so it's not like they're losing anything no exactly okay I just want to make sure that's clear you know I will elaborate on that during the last review of ADU updates we added the parking requirement of one space prior to that there was not a parking requirement for ADUs it was based on the floor area ratio of home and then we specifically added one parking space for ADUs in the last zoning code update can I just clarify that for those of you who aren't familiar who haven't done time on the planning commission we allow historically we've allowed a specific number of square feet per house and that is tied to then your parking requirement it goes all the way up to four parking spaces potentially for a single family home so our old code the way it was written if you wanted to cut your 4,000 square foot home up into an ADU and a home you'd still be required to do four parking spaces so why we didn't require parking specifically for the ADU it was built into the overall requirement if that makes sense I guess my thinking is that there isn't going to be there were some neighborhoods that still would not be able to build ADUs as just like they did in the past previously could not have so since the 2018 update there's no change okay I just wanted to clarify that even in the coastal zone the junior ADUs the internal ADUs are still exempt from the parking requirement as drafted yes I think because we have that flexibility within the coastal zone if you chose to require parking for the junior ADUs we could do that I think that's what I was trying to get to with this new finding concerning protecting of our coastal zone we could require for those junior ADUs internal ADUs to impose the parking requirement I would want to go back to the law and make sure that it's subject to the same allowances that it doesn't supersede the coastal act in any way but I believe that could be applied okay thank you just to clarify the coastal act says we need to have parking correct correct so but the law is not meant to supersede the coastal act so doesn't that mean that anything we do we still have to have parking because the coastal act says so so I think when there's multiple laws that are in conflict we have the ability to draft this to say that no parking is required in the coastal zone however we may get when we submit this to the coastal commission for feedback at this point the city of Santa Cruz submitted their LCP today so they haven't received feedback on theirs yet I did speak with somebody that works in the coastal for a coastal commission and at this point they haven't put out guidance specifically towards how they're going to treat parking of ADUs within the coastal zone but I think they'll be a practical approach hopefully the county is taking the approach that in their overburdened areas such as pleasure point neighborhood they are requiring the on-site parking as we would be doing here but in other areas that are not overburdened by parking they're not requiring the on-site parking they're following so they're they're divvying it up by what are existing conditions are but in those and the city of Santa Cruz is not requiring parking within the coastal zone so and it's really a matter of when you're looking at the housing law and then the coastal act and your LCP of how we weigh those and give priority so that's really and attached to the staff report where the references to parking within our LCP and within the coastal act and hopefully those help guide the conversation but again it's really a prioritization and understanding of what impacts exist within our city so may I follow up to that real quick so then why is it bringing being why is it bringing brought back to us today if there hasn't been any final finding that we haven't really seen what other coastal communities how they've been impacted on this why would we have to vote today or make a decision on now adjusting what we previously agreed upon so following the January meeting I actually met with a couple of other community development directors in the vicinity and when I learned about how the county is approaching this with setting different standards for different neighborhoods due to the proximity to the coast and the impact of people so I think that's a great exposure point is a great example of people looking for on street parking to go surfing on 38th Avenue right so in throughout that neighborhood so treating different neighborhoods based on the priority of coastal access so we have that so after learning that we can apply this appropriate after being given direction from the City Council to make our standards you know as strict as the state will allow at this point since the state has gone so permissive and so once I learned that we can treat parking differently within the coastal zone and knowing what a challenge parking is within the city of capitol I thought it would be appropriate to bring it back you will see as option number four is to not include separate standards for the coastal zone and that's also appropriate at this time if the Council doesn't think that parking for coastal activists should be on a more highly weighted than affordable housing I guess my concern is how do we know that the state with all the future litigation that will probably occur from this how do we know that the state wouldn't come back and say that it would be too restrictive that wasn't the intent of this passing of this new law now you're in trouble so I guess that's my concern within 60 days of Council adoption this needs to be submitted to the state and they'll give us their feedback I've actually sent off a draft of our code they have not given feedback as of yet but the adopted ordinance will submit the adopted version we may be coming back to you to say just that they think we're being too restrictive by placing it within the entire coastal zone and we'll have to relook at the standards and see what their recommendation is did I hear you correctly you've submitted something already to the state that included our previous decision is that what you just said so more recently we've been dealing with them about the process they said you can go ahead and submit and we'll try to get you comments based on what you have so far to give you expectations and they haven't given back any comments and what did you submit exactly what was submitted to just the ordinance that's before you this evening so you actually did submit this language to them already just for general feedback to start the conversation I feel like that's a bit short why wouldn't we wait to see what their feedback well the legislation says that has to be submitted it seems to indicate that it's supposed to be submitted after it's passed and so Katie was actually a super diligent because other jurisdictions are submitting after they've passed the ordinance and doing exactly what Katie said and what we may have to do here which is come back after they've gotten feedback back from the state but Katie actually kind of took the initiative that they would perhaps be available to give us comment before we brought it to you so we're trying it to see how that goes I will say you know these changes to the state law became effective January 1, 2020 and so all agencies are doing what Capitola is doing right now or they have all agencies in the state they are doing what Capitola is doing or they have already done it which is to update their ordinance to be consistent with state law because state law is so permissive there are provisions of your ordinance like every ordinance that were consistent with state law before but are no longer so we have no idea how long it will take the state to get back to us with feedback so I think it's advisable to go ahead now with this ordinance whatever you guys want it to look like and if we end up having to change it rather than wait for the state feedback it's arduous but again this is a new process I guess my biggest concern is that we may or may not have found a loophole to the state the new state law and that's my concern I don't think we found a loophole and if we are I would bet a lot of other agencies I guess what I'm saying is this new coastal act this being more permissive now is somewhat of a loophole now to make it to trumping the new state law and so the question kind of what Mayor Peterson was saying was which one should we follow and the response was we have to just choose one and that's an interesting position to be in and so what I'm hearing Katie say is that she's sent information to get more feedback on that and I would be interested in knowing what that feedback was before making a decision I'll back up that when I spoke to the state the end of last week and speaking to their staff there they said oh we're happy to review your ordinance at any point and just the requirement is that it come in within 60 days after 60 days of adoption but they've been working so closely with jurisdictions on questions and as questions come up we'll reach out and talk to them so I think I feel confident that the the parking requirement within the coastal zone I know it's being applied within the county's new regulations so it's not I don't think it's anything new to them of what they're seeing submitted by different cities but it was really I was hoping to get some comments back before this hearing that I could share but we will be based on the direction that's provided tonight there clear that we didn't have it was in a draft format and we'll be moving forward with adoption I also I I don't know by what mechanism the state would take any sort of punitive action against the city for making whatever the wrong interpretation is particularly when no one is quite sure with the wrong interpretation well that's not true we know there are multiple wrong interpretations but this particular question that we're trying to answer here there doesn't seem to be there seem to be doesn't seem to be an exact correct interpretation we're pretty confident confident in the legal interpretation that we've made but I just don't know how the state would build a case to come after this city I don't even know by what mechanism they would do that it seems like the more likely approach would be like Katie said they would tell us in response to the draft that we've submitted that this won't work and ask us to change it so I'm going to just move on to the next slide that gives a little more detail on what the next step is with the HCD so within the HCD once we submit our official draft the HCD has to submit written findings for compliance if they don't find that our ordinance is in compliance they will inform us and we can amend the ordinance the alternative to that is to adopt the ordinance without the changes including but we would have to rely on the state law so that's the outcome of that I just have a question so you've been in consult with other city planners and the idea came up and you're applying it here or taking advantage of the idea of having different scenarios like where there's high density or low density in terms of parking so in the past has the coastal commission when there's a lot of cities going in that direction trying to come up with a certain way to interpret the city excuse me the coastal commission's rules and regulations if there's a lot of coastal communities that do that does that hold weight or do they look at each individual city differently the fact that we're sort of following example Santa Cruz and maybe Santa Barbara does that hold weight with them we're trying to apply something that's meaningful to our community as opposed to you know a state overall regulation that may not be as particular to a community's needs so they'll apply they'll look at your adopted LCP and see how what you've proposed complies with your LCP so they do recognize each city as a separate entity and how we're going to draft our ordinance based on our unique circumstances and the LCP goes into great detail about preserving capital as neighborhoods and access to the coast so in that respect the I think the coastal commission will most likely support our if we were to require parking within the coastal zone areas it just may be the state that I don't know how closely they look at the specifics when at the state level of capital is different neighborhoods but if we have findings about specific neighborhoods that are impacted by parking because of our proximity to the coast I think it makes a strong argument especially where it's identified within the law that it in no way decreases our ability to apply our LCP locally also the fact in your attachment if I may say I mean you did some work to see how it in fact certain neighborhoods so I think that supports our argument which was good questions? Continue? Or is this at the end? Well there's more slides but this is the big item that I would like direction on is how we'd like to apply the parking standards first I'll go to number four is we really don't need to create separate standards within the coastal zone if that were the desire of the city council the first option is to adopt the ordinance and require parking for all properties within the coastal zone that's how it was originally drafted for the planning commission's review the second is to adopt an ordinance drafted with an exception for single family lots in the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood that reflects the planning commission recommendation third is to modify the draft ordinance to limit the exception to lots in the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood with existing single family homes excluding properties along Kennedy Drive and Balboa Avenue as shown in attachment nine and then lastly the option to just treat not treat the coastal zone any differently and of course if you have the ability to go with any of these recommendations or create a hybrid approach of something you think really meets the intent of the local coastal plan as well as the housing laws council member Bertrand had a question and I'll come to council member's story so I have a question that that might have some a little more experience with but you're not including capitol and nulls in this in terms of the Cliffwood Heights exception okay so you noted in your evaluation of parking density that along Kennedy there's just no parking especially after work and that is because of the overflow I believe from capitol and nulls I mean they need parking there's so much demand and that's why on Kennedy Avenue when I go there after work there's this complete cover of cars so your survey adequately to me points out a problem with not including capitol and nulls it's a matter of clarification about the planning commission's recommendation concerning Cliffwood Heights and what's the real difference between option 2 and option 3 they both prefer to single family lots yes they both refer to single family lots within option 3 the single family lots that are located directly across from the multifamily developments on both Balboa Avenue and Kennedy Drive would not be granted the exception because those streets are heavily impacted by on-street parking so the area shown in red and I can also in the packet there was a separate map but so the along Balboa Avenue so so that would prohibit the single family residents that are across the street from multifamily residents from they would be required to have on-site parking yes and why wouldn't the just applying the coastal zone if we were to go in that direction the requirement that there be parking covered that situation on Park Avenue and Kennedy or how far in is the coastal zone at that location to the freeway to the freeway the whole neighborhood is within the coastal zone to the freeway and all of Cliffwood Heights within that zone okay so you also asked if you were to adopt the ordinance and require parking for all properties within the coastal zone how would that impact those properties on that street on that street they would they would be required to have on-site parking so there would be the new strips within the front yard probably to provide the parking there's a maximum requirement of four on-site parking spaces so if they have the four on-site parking spaces they'd be in compliance if they were to convert the garage that's another story they'd have to create two more most likely two more on-site parking spaces to make up for the two spaces that are in the garage so most likely you would see a four parking for four cars in the front yard when a garage is converted thank you so I guess I'm getting a little confused and my earlier comments were I don't want to exclude the possibility for houses single-family homes on Kennedy across from Capitone knows of having the right or the ability to have ADUs I just I note that the parking like you found out from my perspective is because there's so many cars in at Cliffwood Heights I mean at Capitone knows so my concern was I don't want them to not lose that right they won't lose the right they'll just have to provide the parking on-site so they'll have to add more driveway parking if necessary so if they have the right to provide parking on their site it's almost status quo and you feel status quo should prohibit the other houses on Kennedy across from Capitone knows from having the right to do ADUs so they would have the right to do ADUs they would just have to because the basically I should take a step back on the Planning Commission recommendation they recommended this to preserve the front yards within Cliffwood Heights I felt that there was enough street parking available and driveway parking available that this is the one neighborhood where they could protect protect the front yards from being converted to driveway areas but any area that would not have this exemption would still have the right to ADU on the property they just have to provide the parking within the property so there may be the front yards on those properties that don't qualify for the exemption so and realistically speaking how many ADU applications have we seen in the last three to five years so we have not received that many I think last year it was about six and that's under the new regulations so I will say though the update to the state laws this year and people realizing before we had standards for minimum lot size there were many people that couldn't have an ADU we have an inquiry on ADUs daily so and since this update has passed we've had one that came in really fast an amendment to a previous application to allow them to take advantage of the state code should we require parking so we're having a lot more activity at the front counter I anticipate an increase in applications sure and I mean on the average it costs about $100,000 starting to build an ADU I'm just thinking the intent of the state law was to create more housing and we have an opportunity to do so and where for me I'm thinking about the regulations and now we found we had this additional or previous agreement to just say okay we're going to follow the state law now we found that there's an opportunity here to make it more prohibited because we can require parking again so it just it takes away those opportunities for many families who need to build these ADUs with for their families, for their kids to come back for their for their parents or whatever an interesting position to be in when you there's a definite there's a definite intent so my question is what are some of the areas that would not be what are some of the areas that could benefit from this like wouldn't have the most impact so are you just saying the Cliffwood Heights area would be the least impacted because we know Riverview and the other smaller areas there actually couldn't build an ADU on some of those more heavily trafficked areas and who we see a lot of parking issues over there in that area I'm just trying to think of those concerns from what I've heard from other people I think there's like portions of Depot Hill not right along the bluff or along the cliff there but as you get further back into the neighborhood I don't think they're as impacted by parking except for certain times of the year weekends during the summer but there are some and part of that is the second home ownership there and the fact that nobody's home a lot of the time and so but as you mentioned about 50% there's about 50 multi-family units apartment units different types that you know those if we changed it to require requiring parking each and every single one of those built would require parking which kind of defeats the whole purpose of the state law which is to create more housing housing stock in the communities correct? I think it definitely depends on the specifics of the location some of the multi-families have a lot of open space and could provide extra parking on the sites but it would just take more of an investment it would be more expensive if that area is available on the site but yes it does make another challenge Any other questions? Procedurally if you're looking for feedback on this particular aspect of this item I'm assuming we need to go to public comment before we can give any comments and deliberation you can do the whole thing at once you don't need to go to public comment are you asking if you need to go I'm saying if we're giving feedback just on the parking aspect of this and giving direction to council on how to move forward with just the parking aspect of this and then we're going to move on to another aspect then shouldn't we get public comment on the parking aspect of this before we you don't need to you can do the entire thing get public comment on the entire thing and then come back and give direction let's not give direction on this part yet I'm just about to wrap okay okay so under next steps after we have city council adoption then the amended ordinance must be sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development the HCD within 60 days and as I previously stated they can either send us written findings for compliance with the state regs or they may send us what needs to be amended in the ordinance and at that point we'd be coming back to you and talking about amending the ordinance and during the meantime the state law would still apply to our within the city of Capitola following that we would move forward for coastal commission certification may I ask about the second option if under if HCD finds local ordinances consistent we can just adopt the ordinance as it is and make our own findings of why it's in compliance that's how it's written in the state law I like it they did specify that they do not certify it's not a certification as it is under the coastal commission it is a required certification so our recommended action tonight is to approve the first reading waiving the reading of the text of the proposed ordinance is amending Title 17 to align with the recent state requirements for ADUs floor area ratio and single family residents with an accessory dwelling unit and that recommended action in regard to parking we can come back to the options after the public hearing okay any other questions no okay now is the time for public comment on this item if anyone would like to address the council on this item now would be the time any member of the public yes please hi welcome hi good evening my name is patrick katie I live in clipwood heights I'm here to speak in support of ADUs or that the idea of ADUs I guess I think they're like a really practical way our community can make a dent in the region wide housing crisis I spoke to one of my neighbors in clipwood heights who is really interested in constructing an ADU on his property and using it for himself to rent out his primary residence and I think that's like a good thing that the council should like encourage with the regulations and rules that that you're considering he was concerned about the like myriad like fines and regulations that he'd have to comply with to get an ADU built though I feel like you talked about tonight like these all the rules that you set with good intentions they all serve to disincentivize housing I feel like this this community should try to encourage more housing I absolutely love it in capitol but if I could afford to live in the place I grew up in in silicon valley I would also love to stay there and I feel like there's lots of families in my neighborhood in clipwood heights and I feel like their children would also love to stay in capitol and I feel like these ADU construction would help with that that's all I wanted to say thank you so much hi welcome thank you Jerry Jensen so I have an ADU and I went through the process about five years ago and I just wanted to have heard a lot about soquel waters interaction and maybe I missed those parts of part of it but for when I had an ADU I'd have a second water meter and so there you know when I went to that whole process you know it was the building moratorium days allowing water meters north of six months so I was wondering how that interaction is happening with water and if you go to soquel water district meeting they're talking about saltwater intrusion and they want to limit building in the area so there is no more construction it kind of defies what we're all talking about for having more housing but they're worried about more water uses in the area and having saltwater intrusion so I was wondering how that interaction was happening between this overlay because I went through the whole process it was very long okay thank you any other member of the public yes hello welcome my name is Noreen Kuber and I live at cathetola greens which was one of the places that you had up there just by chance I feel that it's already high density but I certainly share it because parking is already an issue it's it's it's difficult to find parking even on 42nd street we have residents parking on 42nd street because they can't find parking in our units because the parking in our units is limited because there are a lot of people sharing units and they have more cars than there are slots so I really encourage you to think about the unintended consequences of that kind of of allowing that kind of garage conversion into ADUs I think that would just be a big mistake thank you thank you any other member of the public that would like to address the council on this item saying none we'll bring it back to the council for further discussion any other comments or questions okay council member story go ahead thank you mayor just my comments concerning now this evolution concerning the ADUs and you know when it came to us before I take the position that we are a very dense community and we are very you know car traffic dense community and that's in the 40 years I've lived there it has always been an issue that we've attempted to grapple with and now we're being imposed upon with state regulations and it's not to take away with the issue of housing housing is very important however housing what comes along with it is traffic and I think that we have to balance and manage both of those issues at the same time seems to me the only way and what I would encourage us to do is to take a very limited approach I believe the state regulations are already very permissive and that we're going to see a great and greater proliferation of higher density within existing residential areas which are going to create more traffic and cars and I think that's going to deteriorate the quality of life in many of our neighborhoods it's already severely impacted I think that it will impact cultural access because all those available parking lots are going to be taken by the residents that live in those ADUs and in that housing that's going to take away from the businesses because people won't be able to come down and be able to go find a place to park to go shop and so I think that we should enter into this very gingerly with I think with as much wait and see approach as we can to see what the real impacts are and for that I would encourage the council to take the most restrictive approach and to require that if there's going to be an ADU in the coastal zone that they provide additional off-street parking and I think that that will give us an opportunity to assess how this is going I'm willing to allow the exception in Cliffwood Heights now that I understand the planning commission's reasons for it because they in essence didn't want to see a bunch cars parked in front yards and well on the actual lawn they parked in front of the houses but I think I get that approach and I think that that would apply as well to the single family houses on Kennedy and Balboa so I'm willing to limit it to just well the options one and options two that are listed up there but I would also like to look at us maybe do a study of the impacts of ADUs particularly well how many applications are we getting, how many have been approved, how many where are they in the area and maybe bring us back a report in a year so we can see the impacts of these, how successful we've been and at that point you know maybe we could provide more leniency but I just also want to recognize that we are now we have the most mobile homes we have the most multi-family apartments, condominiums in any square foot in this county so we are heavily impacted we are also looking at the mall and of adding 600 new residential units so there's going to be a lot coming on us and I think that we should just try to absorb and manage this as best we can so that's why I would propose that the council adopt items one and two is that a motion or just comment yes I'll make that a motion we adopt one and two yes it would have to be one or two well it's one then with the exception for cliffwood heights so that would be two it's one and two it's number two it's just two because their recommendation was for all properties within the coastal zone except the single family in cliffwood heights adopt the ordinance that's drafted and the ordinance that's drafted includes the required parking within the coastal zone that's what my motion is to adopt option number two we have a motion do we have a second okay we have a motion in a second we'll continue for discussion sure I just have the I'm sorry the so the motion also includes the waiver of full reading oh yes okay I I appreciate council member stories comments I too think it's really important that we look at our housing stock and I think that the city of capitol is going to be doing its due diligence in creating what we're looking to be close to over 600 and something apartments I do want to add though that those apartments will have their own parking included on the property and I just want to make sure that I say that publicly so that people aren't assuming that it's just going to be out randomly on the streets now I do have concerns of not implementing or not requiring parking in Cliffwood Heights and the reason for that is for the opposite for the opposite purpose and that's because it is the least impacted and it has it's important to maintain if it's important for us to maintain the quality of life as is Cliffwood Heights has already established a its own quality of life and it is not as impacted and is if you can see on during Halloween when people come on the streets hundreds of people come and are able to walk around freely in that community because of the fact that there are not a lot of folks that live on there. I myself live in that area and I'm able to see that on a daily basis so I wouldn't I would not agree with the motion on the table I would I would if you would accept my amendment to that all all areas in the coastal zone would require parking is what I'm thinking and to come back in a year with those numbers to see if where we're at similarly to what council member's saying and like we said last time what is this going to look like in a year what and in 60 days or whenever kitty you get the feedback we might be back here again talking about well we can't do that and we got to change it again so I think staying with status quo of how it has always been since we now have that as an option and then coming back to see what that feedback from the coastal commission is and so forth I have a comment but I'll go after you if we adopt number two and we could reassess this in a year I would like to see an addition in terms of coming back in a year and having our city planning looking at this as Yvette talked about how many applications have we had what is the state of the city moving forward in response to the change in the California regulations and I agree as you pointed out that the interest is going to increase one of the main issues was water was brought up by Jerry but another issue was parking, parking increases the cost of construction so that's been relaxed and so I think more people are going to be thinking of this as an option and also funding and there's a lot of construction needs that are actually focused on ADUs and so I think the options are going to increase for people to take advantage of this so if we take the opportunity to track this moving forward and if we see that there are some issues that are exasperated by this that we have some control over and I agree with Sam on this this is going to exasperate many problems in the city but if we have some data to show what is actually happening then we could respond to that this whole thing this whole item has been rather concerning to me because of this kind of fuzziness and confusion between what does the coastal act say and what does the state say and what we said and what do we say now and that all I just I feel very uncomfortable with that in general that being said it seems like we're just going to have to move forward with our little bit of discomfort until we get some more understanding from the state and so I will accept that when I think about some of these things I think about you know there could be a two bedroom house with a two car driveway and it's got a couple living in it and their adult children fall on hard times and all of a sudden you've got their adult children and their spouses and their children and now it's a family of nine in a two bedroom house and that's not unheard of especially in the place you know in our community where housing is so tight you see these places where people are crammed into housing and we don't ever consider in those kind of situations if those people need more parking because their residency has gone up we're always going by square footage and floor area ratio and lot size and understandably but it makes it makes it also concerning to me to think that well they could put that their adult children that needed to move in with them into this ADU now and not have to worry about it but we are requiring parking for them so that's concerning that being said the slide that you showed with the apartment complex suddenly having 25% of its car reports turned into units was really kind of shocking and surprised me and as someone who doesn't even have a carport let alone a parking space and drives around the village all day trying to find a parking space after work I would hate to see that even the carports that my neighbors do have are now studios and none of us have parking spaces so that is concerning so I can see how places like river view the village those kind of depot hill to a certain extent would be incredibly impacted by not requiring parking for these kind of situations I also can see how Cliffwood Heights is kind of less impacted so far and I guess in this line of thinking are we allowed to restrict the number of ADUs that we allow to do this and allow to do any kind of restrictions on it no no I mean like per year we can't restrict how many ADU permits we give out so if we say if I go with the motion and say we're going to require parking for all ADUs in the coastal zone with exception for Cliffwood Heights but we're going to review this in a year and then in a year the most we could do is say okay now parking is also required in Cliffwood Heights is that correct? assuming there are not a slate of additional changes that could come through who knows okay we have a motion and a second are we ready to call to question do you want to I remember Brooks had made what I believe it was a substitute yes I didn't know whether to call it a substitute motion or a friendly amendment can you say what it was again option one option one so I think that would need to be a substitute because it's different than the motion in the four viscerates my motion viscerates his motion it's an unfriendly amendment you can make an unfriendly amendment substitute motion substitute motion I would like to make that substitute motion that council adopt option one with the intent of coming back in a year and the other things that council member story mentioned we have a motion do we have a second so motion dies for lack of a second okay so then we don't vote on that we go back to the first motion that's right okay let's do a roll call vote on the first motion council member's story Brooks Bertrand and Mayor Peterson motion carries unanimously always full of surprises okay can I make a general comment about that item briefly before we wall the slides being pulled up I think we're in on charted area and I think the whole communities all the communities in California are going to be feeling a lot of angst about this issue and I don't know what's the future is going to be but I hope we struggle through it in a way to actually deal with the intent which is to provide adequate housing in our communities and figure out a way to deal with the subsequent problems that are sure going to happen thank you we're moving on good evening mayor council members I'm here to talk about our environmentally acceptable packing materials ordinance a little background in 2006 city added municipal code chapter 8.36 that's the environmental acceptable packing materials ordinance the primary goal of that ordinance was actually dealing with polystyrene foam styrofoam and it was actually very successful but there is a section part of that code that requires all food vendors to use biodegradable and compostable items for single use food service including straws the truth was at that time that we were way ahead of the curve there were no products out there in 2006 so it didn't get enforced very much there wasn't much done with it we again focused primarily on styrofoam piece of it but in the last four or five years we have been trying to get more and more businesses to move in this direction enforcement has been complaint based we have sent on multiple times communications explaining the ordinance to businesses we have even contracted with non-profits to go out and do outreach and education on this ordinance to varying degrees of success so what we have done is we have contacted other jurisdictions check on their enforcement programs because this is becoming more and more common like I said we put this on the books in 2006 I think the county was just ahead of us but no one else had this and again it was probably a little early for the compostable and biodegradable piece of it because the products were just not there so as other jurisdictions have come online I kind of checked to see where they are going a lot of these are coastal communities that is where the focus originally was all the programs are complaint based at this time the ones I have spoken to none have actually levied fines on businesses they are working with the kind of the kind of way we are trying to find solutions to this we are saying here is what the products you are not using that are incorrect so you are supposed to go to coming up in this county within the next year at least three jurisdictions I believe the county and the cities of Santa Cruz and the cities of Watsonville are going to start requiring a charge for to-go cups very similar to the way we do to-go bags at the store and in our code we talk about compostable and biodegradable products some jurisdictions are going a little step further and requiring fiber based as opposed to the plastic like products that look like plastic the clear ones that are made out of corn starch and other materials they are going straight to the fiber based ones because even with the biodegradable type plastic alternatives there are issues with composting and honestly what we found out is if they do get out in the city we have very similar properties to regular plastic commission on environment did review this they did give some feedbacks as far as enforcement but there were no formal recommendations so moving forward some of the options we have are to continue with our current program with complaint based enforcement we can perform additional outreach to the business community either through additional staff time devoted to the effort or maybe a new agreement with our non-profit to see if they can get out there and get more people involved we can modify the enforcement program we can also modify existing code this is one of the things that the one of the notes that the commission on environment had is to include more guidance for businesses in complying and more substantial penalties for those business that don't comply so as now I'm willing to answer any questions you have questions for staff yes councilmember patron you have a question I think the law changed recently that says you can bring a container and have it filled with like coffee or some other liquid that you know you're getting and one of the issues I've been doing this for about 10 years or more but one of the issues I find all the time is that some businesses don't want to do that they'll fill that up with whatever styrofoam container and you know you pour it in or you know that sort so is this a place to adopt the california code in this particular regard well I would I would guess if it is california code that you're discussing we already have to comply kind of like the straw ordinance about if you eat in a restaurant they you actually have to request the straw they don't talk the california code doesn't talk plastic or biodegradable they just said no straws unless you ask for I do know that as you're talking there are some businesses that believe it's a food safety issue filling other people's cups with their equipment so I know there's some conflict and I don't know where that stands but I mean we definitely if it's a california rule we're obligated to they're obligated to follow that so if it's a california rule would this our ordinance dealing with recyclables would that to include that I don't know I'd have to look and see what rule that is if there's anything specific in that I'd have to look to see what california code that is I'd be interested in that and also in regards to what we just talked about in terms of ADU the state's jumping in and telling us what to do in regards to that is there any movement to do that in regards to recycling and being a little more stringent and how we deal with these issues not specifically with the food products most of what's coming down from the state right now are diversions specifically with organics right now that's the biggest we are still obligated or we're still under requirement to move like if it is recyclable plastic it's supposed to be diverted we have those ratios but as far as the food ordinance nothing that I know of has been has come down that is from the state that would address this yes council member story Larry who's the nonprofit that we had hired to do outreach we did save our shores yes now is the time for public comment on this item if there's any member of the public that would like to address the council now would be the time going once oh alright hello welcome so I'm just curious as far as so you require the restaurant if there's any to go packaging or anything to be compostable or fiber based but the customer who takes it out and then sits at the seawall and eats it that's a problem because they either put it in the garbage I guess if they throw it on the ground it's better because it's not going to hurt the environment as much but if it goes they think oh this is compostable therefore I put it in the recycling I think we all know that the recycling now goes with the garbage in the village it's not it doesn't get picked up separately to go off and be sorted so are we making any progress on having a better system to capture the trash because it seems I still think it's probably I mean maybe it's still a good idea to force all the restaurants to use all the compostable fiber based materials but shouldn't we shouldn't the city then be doing their part to try and educate and help the public to put these in the right containers so that if there is something recyclable it can be recycled if there is something compostable it can be composted or if it's garbage it goes in the garbage I think we're you know there's a balance there the businesses have to do their share city has to do their share so the public can hopefully do their share thank you any other member of the public that would like to address the council on this item seeing none we'll bring it back to council comments comments I agree with Karin that would be nice if the public respected our recycle little containers and we make them available and we label them but I think in the rush on the weekends especially or when we have an event they just get stuffed irrespective of what they're made for I think there was a time we were thinking about getting a trash container that crushed the trash and used the sun it was a UV type thing you know to run this thing and so the volume would be much greater we could actually and there's some that are available that are actually you put them in the ground and they have the cavity in the ground and so they handle tons of garbage and even then I think people would put almost anything in it which is unfortunate so I think a lot of this depends on the public we do provide garbage cans that are adequately labeled I believe this is an embarrassing question because I live in the village but do we have recycling bins in the village? yes we do the blue ones and the brown ones are the trash often as Councillor Patron mentioned on a busy weekend you can't tell the difference it's whatever first option is available is the recycling picked up and sorted? the recycling bins if they are not if the contamination levels aren't excessive they take them to the greenways takes them to the their materials recycling facility in San Jose and runs through and separates and that sort of thing if they are to contaminated then they go to the landfill and marina that's what I was wondering because I remember someone came a couple months back and gave us a presentation about where things go and recycling bins and all that and I specifically asked him is it true that if you put too much non-recyclable stuff in a recycling bin that none of it can be recycled and he said no it's just more expensive so who determines I don't mean to get too far off track here I'm just trying to set a baseline for if what we're doing is going to make a difference so I think the answer you got to your question was technically correct it could be separated and recycled but it isn't why? well it has to do with where we take our recycling we take our recycling over the hill to the greenways facility we take our trash to the marina landfill and so in general I think that current hand is correct and that the recycling bins in the village generally end up going to the marina land waste facility and then don't go through that sorter doesn't that marina land waste facility have like a state-of-the-art recycling center? they do but currently that's part of the long-term agreement that we had been talking about is that not all of our stuff currently goes through their MRF as I call it eventually all of it will but it is still much as you point out much less expensive to keep the recycling in what they call the clean MRF and then the other stuff will get separated but just not to the same level if they go through the trash okay I'm going to try to get us back to the compostable stuff but I would like a future agenda item to discuss this whole green waste versus marina landfill recycling and all that stuff because I think I've been to that marina landfill and they've got like a state-of-the-art center and the guy stood here and told me yeah we'll sort that through for you so I I'd like to discuss that further another time I'm almost done I promise I know I kind of went on a side ramp there now I can't remember so I'll come back to it councilmember story thank you I just wanted to on that topic about educating the public trash versus recycling versus compostable the art and cultural commission had actually taken on a project several months back to look at putting more attractive receptacles of the various types in the village and and as a component of that it would have an educational message that would kind of encourage and help people put things in the right places you know however you know the arts commission actually had to abandon that project or we dropped it because our limited bandwidth concerning just the aesthetics of such a project weren't enough to tackle the engineering and the city equipment needs for a project like that or what the village merchants may need and want in that area and I think we just realized well this is a huge project and we don't necessarily have the capacity to carry something like that forward on our own so but there was that interest there maybe there's still a spark if the council was so inclined at maybe coming back to looking at that project maybe on a more city-wide and a collaborative basis so I just wanted to mention that Vice Mayor Brooks? Yeah so I think the intent of compostable is if it does not land in a recyclable container that it will compost in the trash much more quickly in the landfill much more quickly than say a plastic or whatever else that doesn't compost you know some items like straws take hundreds of years so I think for us to really create a process to utilize and I guess this will be my right area can I make? Yeah I already went to public okay so I think you guys were looking for some direction here and I was thinking that we can utilize our current staff or volunteers to implement a proactive annual sweep of how we're doing with throughout our businesses throughout our restaurants and I read in the staff report that there's some sort of training that can be involved and perhaps we can look at some of our volunteers maybe beginning with our environmental commission and giving them that sort of direction but I'll leave that to the discretion of staff but once that initial letter goes out to all businesses it would be great if we can have a fast turnaround say like in 90 days you do not comply with our ordinance or policy I can't remember which it is but then we will enforce and I think that's really important that we start enforcing you said it's been since 2016 was what? 2009? The ordinance was first written in 2006. 2006 so I think it's time that we can start enforcing this on a more annual basis and really taking the initiative there thanks to you Larry we were able to see some fast turnaround with one of our local restaurants busy restaurants and so kudos to you for really stepping up the game and making it happen because I think our restaurants are willing to make it happen they just haven't been asked more sternly recently so and in regards to non-profit I don't know that we need to but again if that this process doesn't work the environmental commission can't pick it up or we can't find one of our I'm looking at the chief because maybe our PTO our parking enforcement person can help take something on like this there's different routes to go through this but I think we can utilize our current volunteers and staff to actually enforce this I have a question which one of those options are you suggesting? um I don't have to go with one of those options no you don't but you're suggesting enforcement so I'm trying to figure out are you saying current complaint based enforcement the annual check up I think either way just to do an annual how are we doing in our community right because the complaint based enforcement has literally been me saying I've been to a restaurant and it's not working I mean that's not the process and you know we don't create policies here and you know not to be enforced or you know we really need to think think about the long-term impacts of the environmental impacts of plastics and that's why this policy was created in 2006 so I don't know when you want to annually start this process the sooner the better um and I think I would leave it to that to our staff to figure out who's going to actually implement the enforcement piece if it's going to be a volunteer that goes through the training process or a staff member that continues I don't know Larry if that's something you would it would go on you but um or perhaps you come back to us with more information on a process but so I just want to I'm sorry the current process is complaint based so if we were to do more active enforcement I believe we would have to come back with a modified code adjustment change I believe I don't know that it says that I don't think it says it I don't think it says a complaint based enforcement process I think if we're going to shift to an active enforcement model and actually be writing people tickets for this I think we have to have a real clear understanding about what that means um I think a one-time sweep through the existing businesses is something that we can arrange we can work it into the existing workload I think building that in the expectation that that's something that we're actively doing on an ongoing basis I think we would need to come back with either sort of a work plan implications or budget implications about how we can effectively do that yeah so it's here the city manager or designee will have primary responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter so I'm glad I made a recommendation for staff to come back with a plan on enforcement um I would suggest 90 days that businesses have 90 days to comply and then we start the enforcement process see you on the espinoff of the clipboard it says or it's designee um can I make a uh I don't know if it's an amendment or a friendly amendment um but I would ask that if we're going to move forward with some kind of enforcement um code that we and I hesitate to do this because I feel like we do this and then people don't want to get involved or we don't know how to get them involved but I think it would be important to have the business owners involved in this so that we understand how long reasonably they believe that they could be able to make these changes what kind of fiscal impacts it would have to their business um I just think that we should do it with with them in mind this is important it's clear that we need to make sure that we're doing what we can um to not use things like polystyrene foam um but I also I want to make sure that our businesses aren't put at at an undue burden our business owners in the village if we say you've got 90 days to do this and they say well I've got a 120 day supply of plastic cartons right now I just I can't think of every contingency I just want to make sure that our business community is involved in in this and not just talked at about it well what I would what I would say is that we look back in 2006 and what the process was when this policy went into place how long did businesses have to comply and I think that's important to look back on because I can't imagine that this was created without our business owners participating in the conversation um and so I'm guessing that there was some sort of conversation and some sort of you know you have until the first of the year to to do this so um maybe we can go back in the minutes and see how this was actually enforced originally because I mean I see your point Mayor Peterson um but it's I'm guessing it's probably you know that process happened and that they had um they had that that opportunity already well I'm also looking at definitions where it says affordable means purchasable by the food vendor for the same or less purchase cost than the non biodegradable non polystyrene foam alternative so if we're going to enforce they I mean they clearly have the option to show us that it wasn't affordable for them to do that right I believe these they can file for an exemption and city manager or designee can give a I don't want it to sound like I'm saying you know forget it we should all go back to using styrofoam but I am I just want to make sure that we're including all the parties involved here in a way that's fair and equitable yeah you know I agree with the general tenor of this discussion is it's going that we do have to involve others in the community especially the merchants that are going to be the ones to enforce or change their business habits um but I take note that some businesses are starting to like gales recently came out with a wonderful ad about the steps that they're taking in terms of green and sustainability efforts and I think other businesses are going to take note of these movements in general because this is what customers are going to we we have a store in town called zero right and you know this is their whole business thing in terms of responding to the public's desire to not waste and to find ways to still do things in terms of eating and etc etc that aren't wasteful and are sustainable so I think when this first came out um we were working your counterpart you know went to merchants and talked to them and figured out what would work and it was very much a an issue of how can we do this together it wasn't a cudgel of any sort even though the ordinance provides for that and my sense is that that is the most effective way and I think has taken advantage of the fact that merchants want to do this and how can they do it and maybe the council commission or the city can provide ways to make this a little easier for them or work with their suppliers so that they could come up with alternate support but give them time to do this I I don't want to see anything that forces people to do things I've had two businesses in the past and have the city come to me and force me to do something when it's truly costly and doesn't run in terms of my plan to run that business effectively would be really adaptor man so I support working with the merchants broaden our expo our outreach to the merchants that we need to work with in terms of these particular issues and you know I agree with you that you know if we have something on the you know if we have something one of our ordinances you know it sort of begs the question you know but there's a lot of things in this city I mean we're not supposed to have there's tons of things here that we sort of work around because we want the community to work and our part of this is to help facilitate time. We'll come back with a work plan for that and I mean I think I need I'd like a motion to vote to figure out where we're going because I'm hearing different council members say different things I think I've heard three different things at this point. Well let me just add that it states here what I'm getting at is that I'm not creating anything new. What I'd like to see is the implementation of this policy I would like for us to see this actually take effect in our community without without just this base enforcement that we've been going by. So it says here in our packet that there was a study one year after the effective date of this ordinance codified in this chapter the city manager will conduct a study on the effectiveness of this chapter. So perhaps we need to start there. Perhaps we need to look at and study the effectiveness of this and then that will help us gauge on whether this necessitates amendments or a different approach. So let me respond. So I'll go along with that as part of a motion and I would like to have a work plan as a second component to the motion and maybe we should approach this like we do in city planning. We have a green standard for building. Okay. And we don't have that necessarily for doing businesses. You know if we could come up with something in the work plan that is a positive push or a positive pull so that business would want to be identified as a green business or as a sustainable business and maybe we could provide the framework to do that and that would be incorporated perhaps in a work plan. And I think this would be an ongoing thing something that would evolve over time because I think we're all new in this and this is difficult because we don't really have adequate places to recycle. It's an imperfect system right now. So I supported that and in terms of doing the work plan and looking at this going forward and coming back in a year. Is that how you put it? I don't I wouldn't say come back in a year. I would like to see this work plan and study come back to us much sooner than a year. I would love to save our oceans as quickly as possible. Okay. Well if you make a motion I think I'm ready to second it with those general ideas. Can I make a comment beforehand before if I mean feel free to make motion anytime but I would like to make a comment also that the point that Karin brought up I think is also very important to consider is that we could have our merchants doing all this and then people are going to go down and throw it on the ground or in a garbage can and it won't matter. So if we're not doing outreach through Save Our Shores to our businesses and we're actually actively working with our businesses as a city I think it would be important to still use Save Our Shores to do some kind of community education in some way or another. I don't know what that means. I don't know if that means we get those three garbage cans where one of them is garbage, one is recycle and one is compost and it's all in one long thing. I don't know if that means stickers. I don't know if that means flyers, camping, I don't know. But I think that we could continue to work with Save Our Shores in a way that does community education and community outreach and if you believe that that would be important. Council Member Story, do you the Arts and Cultural Commission took that on for for the outside, for the the art component. Do you see that the aesthetics, thank you. Do you think this would be something that I know that the Environmental Commission hasn't recently been tasked with something, but perhaps this could be we could extend this to them to look at in terms of the the garbage and recycling components. We do direct the various commissions to do things. In that sense, I have no problem with that. I think that's workable. I recently discussed this. Can someone refresh my memory? Are we allowed to give this? I have to ask staff to look in can you please look into whether the Environmental Commission can take on the would want to take on the take a motion by majority? It would need to be a direction from the full council, but I do think that we've been doing some work on the trash cans internally at this point. Was that Steve or was that you Larry? We have talked about it both staff and we started with the Arts Commission. I just don't know where we are on that. We started looking at alternatives to what we have down there to help. What we found is the more uniform you make it, the more visually clear you make it, it works better. It's not a hundred percent. So staff has talked about that and now that the Arts Commission just felt it was a little beyond the scope of their mission, we're going to be talking again to see what we can do internally to find better solutions out there. Right, so we could take that conversation to Commission on the Environment if that's part of a motion and direction from Council. Was there a motion? I haven't heard a motion yet. I move that we take this issue of how to better facilitate our recycling in terms of whether it's the receptacles or a much wider brush in working with the merchants and work with staff to come up with a working plan to come back to City Council and that would like it a little sooner than later, so I don't know, 60 days or 90 days, something that would be not a year. I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Questions? No? Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. We're going to move on to item 8D. Receive a report on historic carousel. As they say, now for something completely different. So, this is a staff report and a presentation. Would you like me to take a recess? Two, three minute break and we will return. Thank you. Okay. All right, we're going to return to our meeting. Item 8D, excuse me, 8D report on historic carousel as seen in the painting behind us. Yes, that's that's all right. Mayor, council members, thank you. So this is a little different. So there's another initial image of the carousel we're actually talking about. This is in the fifties. This is not the first carousel but it was the last one we had. So we, the city of Capitola had a carousel running near the beach for off and on during the early part of the 20th century. The last one, the image we just saw ran from about 1955 to about 1965. One of the reasons they finally had to get rid of it had to do with the lack of capitol at the time because of the harbor. The waves were just hitting the carousel even in summertime. So they ended up taking it away. I think it was set up a couple more times after that. But never at that location. The carousel in question is about 35 feet in diameter. It is made of aluminum horses. They are not wood horses. Interestingly enough, they were originally built near Moffett field where they had expertise in building other sorts of aluminum things. They started a business right after World War II and decided to build aluminum horses. This carousel was designed to be installed and removed every year. It is similar to ones you see at some of the fares, the county fares where they set them up for a week, take them down. It is designed to be portable. A lot of them, they have they go in the back of semi-trucks and move around. I just want to set the expert. It is not like the boardwalk which is solid wood and that sort of thing. This was a very functional but didn't have the same statics at the time. Based on research and the best information we have, the carousel that was in Capitola was relocated to Casa de Fruta and then when they bought a new carousel they sold it to the market in Aromas. It was operating into at least early 2000s. This is the last picture of what it looked like. I don't know if you remember the last one of what it looked like here but it is significantly different. At some point they had a lot of aesthetic choices to it. This is actually kind of what it looks like right now. Apparently at least one other time in 1999 we attempted to purchase this carousel from the red barn and they had no interest in selling it at the time. However in 2016 the city was contacted by the operator of the red barn asking to see if we had interest in it. We had an expert go out there with myself and the museum curator looked at it. We couldn't determine exactly if it was the one that was out here because so much has been changed. It was definitely the right manufacturer, the right vintage, the right size, all that sort of thing so we're pretty comfortable with that. Unfortunately at the time there was just too big of a difference what we believed it was worth and what the operator of the red barn believed it was worth so nothing ever went forward to it. Currently the red barn is in escrow and there's a fiduciary person in charge of liquidating the assets. They got in touch with us a few months ago to see if we could follow it up to make sure that before they did anything at least they would contact us to see if we'd still had interest in it so I did take another trip out there and basically it hasn't changed. Some of the rehabilitation had been started 15 or so of the 20 horses have at least started to be repainted so someone was trying to get this up and running and just didn't get anywhere. There's some work that needs to be done to get it up and running but at least the horses are in good shape they've been inside so they haven't degraded a whole lot even the last few years. Some of the things we are not sure of and there's a lot of things with a carousel and we don't know what we need to do if we did what it would take to get up and running both as it is right now and then some of the California state requirements. We don't know the cost to restore I did talk to a professional restore and he had looked at him with me and he said the five remaining horses probably at 25 to 30 hours worth of work to get them back into the other ones he said just very little time because they're in pretty good shape. Again we would definitely need to store the carousel initially if that was the decision and we think we have a place to store the carousel. Liquor believes because this is being done by managed by fiduciary finance person as well as attorneys they would have to bring a number back to them for approval and he believes based on his appraisal information about $15,000 would probably be approved that is in line with what we had seen in 2016 as far as the city was and that unfortunately back then they thought there was basically half a million dollars is what they thought it was worth. So we just couldn't get anything done at that time. So this is an out of line with what we saw back in 2016. So with that I think I'm well here's some of the directions if you do wish to purchase it staff suggest that you authorize the city manager to purchase agreement to bring back for future council consideration. Thank you. Questions? Questions? Yes. I don't have a question but I do have a point I just want to add. I'm sorry. I want to make it clear that the city doesn't have on staff carousel experts. I want to set the expectations. Yes. I want to set the expectations very clear if they aren't already abundantly clear. I think if the direction is ultimately to pursue and purchase this I don't want everyone to think that we are immediately going to have a carousel up and running in Capitola. It would be I think buying it to have that option at some point in the future if there was either a private operator or there was a fundraising drive to restore it. Some of those things I think everybody is clear about the expectations that getting it may be the smallest part of the challenge. Getting an operational and running is probably a much larger challenge. With that I will stop interrupting. Okay. Thank you for that information. Where would we get the money from to purchase this? We just went over the budget, meant to your budget, right? That's a good question. We haven't looked at it because we weren't sure if that was the direction the council wanted to go. I'm not sure where we'd find the funding for it at this point. We could talk to the museum. We could talk to see if we were looking to fundraise for this at this point. One of the reasons is because they're on a short time frame at that location basically what they've told is that he will part it basically. He will sell it because he thinks the parts are worth more the motor and all the other things and the horses individually. So this is kind of a relatively short term offer. Do you know how short term? By the time escrow closes. Do you know? Six months is there. Six months. That's the outside. Okay. Sorry. And is the it's 15,000 approximately. Is it negotiable? I believe it is. Everything's negotiable. So what would you be approving today is up to 15,000? My recommendation wouldn't be to publicly establish a limit for the negotiation. More or four. Four or a ceiling. Thank you for that feedback. My understanding is we would only be to begin negotiations for a purchase agreement, right? And then it would have to come back to us before you actually sign it and go, great, we're buying this. So you're essentially just negotiating a contract to bring to us. That's kind of to avoid this issue of sort of publicly disclosing our negotiation position. Fair enough. Rather than you just writing a blank checks. I see you Sam. Jacques had raised his hand first to come back to you. So our storage area is this a pretty secure we don't have to pay a lot of rent something we have very dependable. Yes, we believe that's the case. I could think of a place to put it in right now to mention it. So definitely like the idea so is is there anyone that the owner has been able to identify you brought in an expert you know someone that you know that offers expertise that we could start working with. I'm sorry. We have to get this thing up and running. Oh, do I have any carrots? The initial I talked with someone who does the restoration of the actual horses. He was going to be looking into someone that could do that, but we do I don't have anybody at this time. But yes, we absolutely have to work with someone if that was the direction. There are people that do it like the carousel in San Francisco that's in the Golden Gate Park. There's a carousel on Pier 39 or 49 or whatever it is. All those had it. I knew people who did the restoration. So there's people even closer that at the boardwalk. Oh, yeah. Okay, there you go. Thank you. Larry said you were pretty well sure that this is the actual carousel that was in Capitola. That is just the person we brought out the original time was the son of the person who made these and he had been putting these things together since he was 14 years old. He was able to document that it came from basically the time period and it was this size. We have a kind of a chain of where it went and it follows that it went to the person who was running it in Capitola, took it to Oregon. We've confirmed that they sold it to Casa de Fruta and we've confirmed that Casa de Fruta sold it to the red barn. Is it 100% no, it isn't 100% because there's no serial numbers or anything on it. Okay, but there's documentation about this, the provenance that would indicate that this was the actual carousel. It is verbal. We don't have any paperwork. There's no paperwork. Okay, so it's a story. We've checked multiple, we've gone two different directions on it to look, but you're absolutely right, there is no paper provenance for this. Okay, and the staff report proves that it makes a reference to a trustee. Is this business and receivership? There's legal issues with that, with the business. With the entire business. And I don't know the details of it, but that's why the trustee is running this and that's why it would have to anything the city manager negotiates with them would have to go to their, whoever is in charge of their finance piece of the trustee ship. Thank you. Are there questions? Okay, with that we'll bring this item to public comment. Is there any member of the public that would like to address the council on this item? Good. Hello. Well, I'm probably the only person in the room who actually remembers the carousel. We brought it up at the BIA meeting the other day and everybody was like carousel? What carousel? What are you talking about? So, you know, I think I know one of the former council members was always pushing Dennis was always really pushing for bringing back the carousel I don't know that there's really a huge public outcry because I think the public for the most part doesn't have a recollection of it. I think the biggest challenge is, you know, where you're going to put it not not even where you're going to put it where it's going to be secure from vandalism, etc etc but where are you going to put it? But somebody at the meeting had a perfect idea I thought it was really brilliant so how about the new mall and let them fix it maybe we can find the money to buy it and then give it to them and make them find a place for it because it could be secure there we're talking about wanting to have a family friendly place and activities problem solved it ties the village and the mall together a little bit brings in a little bit of historical the real capitola to the mall so I think it makes I don't know, I mean honestly where are you going to put it and I think that changes how you're going to raise the money too if you can say oh well let's put it at jade street you know someplace where it's really accessible to the public which would be the mall or the village and the village is kind of tight right now I don't know that you know I don't know where are you going to put it thank you any other member of the public that would like to address the council on this item oh hi welcome hi I'm Glenn Hanna I happen to be Karen's husband I would say that before we do anything we find out I think Karen has a great idea if you can get the mall to run it and bear the cost that's terrific but for $15,000 I don't know how many triple trash cans we can buy but I know if we spend $15,000 on triple trash cans we have a place to use them I have no idea what you're going to do with a $15,000 carousel furthermore that's the first drop in the bucket you're going to have to move this thing you're going to have to pay somebody to operate it is either going to be a city employee or not I mean this could literally cost $100,000 a year easily you're shaking your head why wouldn't it cost $100,000 if it's owned by the city do you think the community is going to spend $100,000 the red barn had it they've had it since 2014 it hasn't spun one revolution this is crazy if the mall wants it I would the best I would offer would be to go to the mall and say hey if you want a carousel which we think is a great idea you can buy it for $15,000 and if they think that they can do it that's a terrific idea at least our time and money I don't buy gone dream is in my view nuts thanks anyone else saying none we will bring it back to the council for comment I have a question first and foremost is it possible for us to negotiate for the price of the carousel and potentially for pieces of it if we don't get or can't find a reasonable use for the whole carousel I could still see the use for some aluminum horses and some of those benches because I know it had two of the back to back benches the benches are not good forget the benches but the horses I could see as art pieces in town even if we can't determine that the whole carousel is worth it I am for one really stoked on the idea of the whole carousel and I think the mall would be a great place for it but is there any way for any kind of council action that would say yes please negotiate a purchase agreement and contingency for not the whole thing anything like that I'm giving you half a thought and asking you to give me the other half of it I would think it would be depending on what they're wanting to do I think the idea of they have a lot of stuff to dispose of out there and I think the ease of getting it all taken care of when one is probably a time valuable to them but if the money piece is also a big thing so I don't know if they'd be willing if they find someone that wants the whole thing other than say they may go that direction but I would think that any of the stuff out there is negotiable could you mention they were also talking about parting it out correct that was where they got some of the numbers that they're looking at is that they think they can get more by doing it that way but it takes a lot more time we could certainly make an offer we could try to acquire the whole thing we could make an offer on just the horses my assumption would be that they would try to sell the whole thing intact and then it would only be if they didn't find a buyer for that then would they turn back and look at our offer for the horses or half of the horses something along those lines I will note that we have spoken with them all we did bring this up with them and they they're interested in it you know they weren't ready to go it's been 15,000 to get it because they weren't clear about how it would fit with their plans in the future or not they think I think it's possible in the future it could be a home for it I think it's a pretty logical one given that they have the space and obviously the clientele to run it but at this point we did discuss it with them and they weren't prepared to leave at this time if you negotiated a purchase agreement would you come back to us with the price and where the money would come from or it was signed and done yes Council Vice Mayor Brooks? yeah so I so move then to have staff come back what what was the exact terms enter a purchase agreement a purchase agreement and then come back to council and where you would get the funds from I'm in agreement that there's no way we can operate a functioning carousel at $50,000 to $100,000 based off of the staff report it's nice to be able to house some of those and then possibly see them go up in our community but before we even get there we have to really see how much this is going to cost us so that would be my motion I'll second that I have a motion and a second for their discussion Council Member Story did you have something to say? yeah well one I mean it's fairly difficult to buy capital equipment when you have no idea what you're going to do with it and you I can't even I mean aside from them all to be a good idea but they may or may not accept it so it's hard for me to make that kind of approval and that kind of expenditure unless maybe you could use the horses as trash receptacles then that would meet the arts commission kind of guidelines for but well kidding aside I think one I wanted to ask if we store it where will it be stored in the yard and we have a location we think is correct but we're not quite sure I don't want to say where it is right now but we do have a pretty well I mean if some of the city spaces are occasionally subject to breaking entry and we really don't want to sort of talk too much about we believe we have a secure location it's an indoor location which would be out of the way public works won't be tripping over it every other day it's a safe place it would be indoors for sure okay well I mean I think instead of passing a motion to authorize staff to negotiate I think you should just tell the trustee that we're here ready to receive their piece of wide elephant equipment that they can't get rid of and we'll take it off their hands if they're so willing and leave it at that and seeing what they may do that could be part of the negotiation right well yeah negotiation there well but if you got a motion I don't think you're gonna get there with this kind of motion I mean that's just you're not gonna get there with that kind of motion when you say enter into a discussion on a purchase I mean when you started discussion on cost that's what I heard earlier that you guys were gonna there's nothing that says it's gonna be X amount but I heard the motion was a reference on a purchase agreement so I just I think that starts us off in a bad negotiating posture I think you should we could just direct the staff to see what they could do to acquire the carousel how about change the word and leave it at that is that wording necessary for yeah so my motion can stand and you can take what council member story is suggesting friendly amendment are you asking for a friendly amendment I think staff has agreed on yeah there's no magic in that language okay comments change the word to acquisition whichever way you want to do it alright there's a motion and a second all in favor aye any opposed any abstentions motion carries unanimously thank you alright almost there item 8e introduce an ordinance amending chapter 17.8 zero signs that's an old sign thank you council before you this evening is an amendment to our sign ordinance this is based on the recent supreme court decision on reed first the decision also set forth a rigid test for assessing content neutrality and mandated that strict scrutiny judicial review applies to laws that target speech based on communicative intent so our city attorney has reviewed our sign ordinance and in the review had recommended several changes to the sign ordinance the highlights are to first adding language allowing non-commercial content wherever commercial content is allowed second is adding definitions for commercial messages commercial signs and election period third is adding a section allowing a small temporary non-commercial signs on residential properties and fourth is adding functionality method substitution prohibited sign content and other government installed signs and signs in the coastal zones sections sorry about that so those are the four major changes within the code the last one when we talk about signs in the coastal zone this also incorporates the recommendations from the coastal commission when they reviewed our new sign ordinance we also have the recommendations from the city commission on the language for the LCP update with the ADUs that we could have the same sign ordinance applicable throughout the city which would be very nice for businesses so staff recommends city council approve the first reading and wave reading of the text of the proposed ordinance amending title 17 to align yes thank you my question is the sections 1780 330 C says that non-commercial signs will be allowed anywhere where commercial signs are permitted I guess I'm thinking of sometimes when I'm driving around town I see a sign in the middle of bay avenue on the island saying that there's church services down on the Esplanade is that a permitted location because we allow it or is it non permitted because it's actually not permittable it's not permittable so we wouldn't be grandfathering in those kinds of signage no the signs would be subject to the same standards and allowances of the sign code so if it was a sign that didn't comply and was never permitted it would not be a legal non-conforming sign we could still follow up does that make it more incumbent upon us with this change to enforce our sign permits so basically with our sign permits we typically we do follow up based on code enforcement complaints if we ever get a complaint so if there were a sign that was a non-commercial sign in which we received that complaint we would do a follow up and the first step is to make sure it was a sign that was permitted I see that sign there a lot so that's just why I bring that up and mostly on Sundays and I don't think anybody really minds I haven't noticed it because I'm attuned to these sorts of things but I wonder if this kind of ordinance or this kind of legislation makes it maybe more incumbent upon us to really restrict non-permitable signs I don't necessarily think that it does I think it's sort of the opposite it gives more grounds for complaints so given that our code enforcement is complaint driven which is pretty common it widens the bases for possible complaints so in theory that could increase the amount of enforcement that we do but I don't think this law and it certainly doesn't impose additional restrictions on communities to change their enforcement mechanism okay thank you and then also referring to that section non-commercials a lot of the anywhere where commercial signs are permitted but there's some kind of signs and in certain locations that don't require improvement so would these kind of non-commercial messages just be automatically approved if they fell into one of those categories my well I'm just going to take a minute to look at the signs that do not require permits because I believe those are typically government signs 1780 050 is the signs allowed without permits and they're very specific on-site directional signs I think real states in there we added one within there so we fixed one that was out of compliance number 5 one bulletin board on a parcel occupied by a non-commercial and before it said place of public assembly organization and took out the place of public assembly so non-commercial organization had a maximum area of 12 square feet we also modified we added number 7 constitutionally protected non-commercial message signs not to exceed 3 feet in height with a maximum of 6 feet per unit and 6 feet per non-residential property I was kind of when I was reading through that last tripping over murals on the exterior of a building that do not advertise a product somebody could put up a non-commercial message mural and that's it it's whatever they want to say okay there is a new section in 060 it's the next page of prohibited signs and it talks about obscene and indecent text and graphics certain signs that are now prohibited so I think the things that we definitely would not want to see we are protected under this section text or graphics that advertise unlawful activity and the list goes on but that was placed there even within the context neutrality to ensure that we don't have signs that we wouldn't want to have and I understood the goal and so one other question there was in a couple of places there was reference to signs advertising local non-profit or paternal organizations and that was marked out why was that excluded and I'm kind of thinking about the banner over Monterey avenue I believe it was because it was too specific because you're regulating a sign by content right? for specific to local non-profit, civic and paternal organizations without a permit you're allowing those signs to be posted without a permit but requiring a permit for other similar signs that don't have different content and what's the impact of that on like the banner that goes over Monterey a lot of organizations advertise there so we put a lot of thought into that one actually because it's still installed by the government agency we have control over what goes on the banner but we took out the requirements of for local non-profit, civic and paternal because that's too narrow and so we have a banner policy that talks about whether the banners are eligible for us to hang over the street and it limits it to these types of things or to notifications that are intended for a community purpose and not intended for a commercial purpose so in other words free parking this weekend isn't that content driven? well, our view I think is hanging we have certain policy about who and how we allow people to who we allow to hang a sign or sorry whose banners we will hang over our street rather than the content that people display on their own signs on their own property but if a private citizen came to us and said I want a banner I want to be on the banner over Monterey and I wanted to say happy birthday George so our position at this point would be that our banner policy the happy birthday George message isn't an eligible thing for us to hang over our city street from our city polls with our city crews whether that held up I don't know but that would be the position we would take right now so it's not in this ordinance this ordinance has been the target I think of some sort of preemptive lawsuits in a number of other cities in this region so this language is coming out our existing policy would remain and that governs whose banners we're willing to hang not so much the language on it but the purpose behind the banner that's really what we're focused on what's the purpose of the banner has to be to inform the community of something that's happening in town not about a private interest I don't say it's hard to talk about this without talking about content it is it's really hard I mean honestly that banner policy people try to test it this may be another area where we'll see some litigation in the next few years because maybe not hopefully not in capitol over that banner but most agencies are already have updating or have updated their sign codes in response to the Gilbert case alright thank you Council Member Bertrand so on the table 17.8-10 temporary sign standards so I was trying to read this in terms of realty signs you know house for sale down the block that kind of thing does that does this table apply for that you're talking about for sale, lease and rent but it says one for property so what do you do there I mean often a realty firm will put one at a corner and one halfway down the block or something that sort so when I first arrived in capitol I did hear a lot of history on this standard and the fact that this was it's unique to capitol there's only when there's an open house or a model home there's one sign allowed on the property and one other so we really limit the amount of open house signs because I think it was a problem in the past so that is the limitation that's been placed within the code and it's not a new change not a new change so I think the realty companies will still put them up but if there's a complaint you might hear about it we do get complaints and we do follow up on this and you do follow up on one that's sort of like this but it's more on an individual home owner or apartment owner apartment resident is garage sales I mean everyone does garage sales and putting up signs to tell everyone about it I don't see anything in here except for the special event so would that cover that it would okay I just want to make sure that people would still advertise their garage sales especially coming up spring right there's going to be a lot of garage sales yes and there's a city garage sale coming up so that's nice news okay that's my only question no questions I just have two quick questions I'll be brief one the the new information about what an election period entails in terms of political signs it says political signs can only be up during an election period which it looks like it's added now means 90 days within an election what was it before was it just any time anyone's campaigning for anything this is in reference to I believe another state regulation that's out there the election period so sorry no no worries I'm just I don't remember if that was the case four years ago but seeing as how I'm up for reelection I should probably know this so so this is something when we updated the can you reference this section yeah I'm sorry it's on packet page 156 it's section 17.80 0.0 that's the definition well the definition I on packet page 156 is election period the period beginning 90 days before any national state or local election in which city electors may vote up through the date of the election and then it's a little bit further down when it actually talks about it was under the allowed signs oh yeah packet page 159 and then it says political signs during an election period which had just been right it just wasn't defined before so we just added in a definition so it could have been that if someone who was getting elected November started campaigning in July they could put their signs up in July but now you can't until September exactly okay I can handle that okay other question I and forgive me but I'm just I can't help myself out of curiosity for what reason did we realize that we needed to prohibit signs that emitted odors gases or fluids I'm not I'm not saying we should take that out I just can't help but wonder why why we have to tell people that can you reference the yeah sorry packet page 159 prohibited signs section 17.80 0.6 0 number 4 signs emitting odors gases or fluids that was from the old code and I think that was the previous law firm required us to put that in okay fair enough all right any other questions can I on the election period so you guys just recommended in the 90 days could we make it 120 days I was there I don't actually know my I don't actually know my bet is there's a reason it's 90 I can see if I can check I'm closed out of my system right now but I can see if I can check right now I believe Sam it's a there's a certain amount if I recall when I ran the campaigns before that's my guess my guess is there's a reason it's 90 I do know that in conversations with our city clerk when we're updating the zoning code she had concerns that our regulations in our sign code didn't match the regulations for the elections so I think this is compliant with the election regulation and that's for anyone's yard or anything like that but the FPPs I know they they dictate when we can put up signs yeah I think we're both hanging out the FPPC website now I think the FPPC defines the period is 90 days cycle curiosity if someone's being voted on in the primary election and then again in the general election does that mean you have to take their sign down and then put it back up within 90 days of the general by play wow I can live with that some of these signs are almost permanent put it in the back seat of my car and drive around with it you can't put signs on cars okay bumper sticker okay we are we waiting for further clarification Sam were you requesting further clarification on the if we can make it 120 days there's a 90 day the FPPC defines a 90 day election cycle so my guess is that codes are modeling after that I'll leave it up to the will of the council that seems to me I know my experience in being involved with local politics a lot of times I see signs going up during the summer yeah it does seem like a short before and and I think that we should encourage that as much as we can and so if it's I would just request that whatever motion is approved here and I'll move the staff recommendation but that if we can possibly make that 120 days that we direct staff to do that but if they find that it's already preemptive and we can't then they leave it at 90 days leave it at that but that would just be I think we just found it shoot I thought if I talk longer I know that usually works the legally 90 days wait but is it legally 90 days that signs are allowed or is that just what the legal definition of an election period is because in that case we could change the wording to say that signs are allowed within 120 days and not signs are allowed within an election period but and that would be a solution but on the political signs it says during the election period that's what I'm saying is is if the fppc rules are just okay I see what you're saying so in other words they're only allowed during the election yeah I guess that was my question is are they only allowed during the election period because that's fppc rules or is that just what we're saying in which case we could just stop using the phrase election period from their standpoint it must be recording requirements you know when you get donations how you all that sort of stuff I seem to remember signs going up in summer though like yeah well I would maybe I would make the motion and the alternative and then staff still has the ability offline to verify the final results okay I'll second that thank you shah yes it was a well thought out motion and I have to agree to it I can't resist so we're gonna we're gonna vote we have a we have a motion in a second so I don't think we heard the motion we can't we we're trying to find this 90 days thing there's a statute that defines a temporary political sign as a sign that is placed no sooner than 90 days prior to the scheduled election there's some kind of wrinkles in the statute if you want us to look at this and see if we can extend it we can bring it back but we we can't do it from here yeah that and the motion was to prove staff recommendation but direct staff to look at whether we can make that election period where signs are allowed 120 days before the election but if you find that it's not possible you have the discretion to keep it at 90 for the second reading yes well it would be August not September if we're gonna change it to 120 days we'll need to do the first reading again sorry it's not a clerical officer no but we made the motion and the alternative so that it could be more I can't think of a way that you could do it and and proceed with the first reading so you could proceed with the first reading tonight at 90 days and you could if we come back you could tell us either come back with a second reading at 90 days or if you can extend it to 120 come back with a first reading at 120 back with a first yeah it sounds like the same difference it would be a second reading let's keep it at the 120 if the first reading tonight with 90 days if they come back to us with 90 days again it would be a second reading but if they come back if they find out we can extend it to 120 it would be a first reading okay but if we say 120 now the first decision we can't say 120 right now they have to do the research to see if that's legal or allowable yes that's what we just said that's what we've been saying that's what we've been saying that we need to look at whether we can extend it to 120 days we are we aren't going to be able I mean we could take a 30 minute break and do that but I don't know that that's the will of the council I think we heard a motion from from council member story if I'm not mistaken yeah I mean I mean is there a particular time urgency about whether we do another first reading or a second reading it's just it's only a second reading if it comes back at 90 days it's the first reading if it's changed to 120 because we hadn't read anything saying it would be 120 the only urgency around this is just that that we've seen there has been lawsuits people challenging local jurisdiction system we want to correct it I don't know that two weeks matters and we could just enforce consistent with the law regardless of what it says could the modification be to take out during an election period so political science these are constitutional issues that we're dealing with so I'm just really reluctant to give an opinion from the dais on it okay that's understandable I think that we should just one take the time leave it in the alternative and come back to us with another first reading okay what you may find okay so where I think there was a motion on the table to approve the first reading and wave and then if there's any changes right there was a second from yeah so if we if it's against federal law I mean it's a federal guideline if we're wrong I'm sure it will come back and amend it so okay so so the motion so the there's one motion to proceed with the first reading with the ordinance as written which is 90 days and does that motion include a request that staff look to see if we can extend to 120 days and if so bring it back with for another first reading that's my understanding and then it sounds like did council member story make a motion to continue that was your motion okay okay was there a second second okay any further discussion we have a motion to second all in favor aye any opposed any abstentions motion carries unanimously alright last but not least good evening mayor peters and council members we're here tonight to approve the bromers street complete street improvement project bid for construction this slide shows the limits of the project from 41st avenue west to the city limits with the intersection with the county boundary bids for the project will be broken into two sections the base bid will be addressing the the greatest the area of greatest need in green and option B will include will be included depending on pricing that's outlined in yellow the original scope of work included both a and the base base bid and section B however we have made be optional due to the expected pricing and because that section of the road is in much better condition and has sidewalks on both sides the section outlined in red was previously completed as another project and all the curb ramps and roadway was improved at that time looking at the schedule cost and funding with your approval tonight we will advertise bids for April 1st and begin construction this summer funding comes through the RTC rstpx exchange funding and measure D this slide shows a cross section of the project with new pavement down the middle of the roadway new sidewalks on both sides resulting in sidewalks on both sides with new sidewalks going in on the north side of the street new bike lanes on the north side of the street and parking will only be found on the south side of the street when the project is completed here we wanted to highlight two unique features of the project the first being an updated median that was designed to accommodate large vehicle traffic coming off of 41st and also preventing traffic cutting across westbound traffic cutting across towards the hotel creating dangerous roadway conditions the second unique feature is the green bike box which is this allows cyclists to filter to the front of the roadway and improves their safety as they travel through the intersection this feature was added after our coordination with the bicycle coalition we did want to highlight some of the collaboration we went through on this project with the community the residents in Fairfield Inn who provided space for the workshop on March 26th and a lot of the features from that we were able to incorporate from these from this input was something that we just appreciate the ability to interact with the public on that at this stage I'm ready to happy to answer any questions or move forward with the staff recommendation to approve the project to put out to bid for April 1st thank you any questions I just have one yes Vice Mayor Brooks is this a project from the 1819 or 1920 CAP projects so this has been on the books for longer than that but this is 1819 I believe and then we're bidding it now so we took a little bit longer to get completion of the design and everything okay and just as I recall I believe that was the intent of council's direction previously was to complete 1819 projects first as our what was it called our priorities at the base or beginning of the years that correct that sounds correct yeah okay so we we budgeted for this yes thank you Council Member Bertrand on the original grant to the RTC did that include the the stub extension so we included that in the original scope of the project just because it made sense to not leave a tail end of the you know the street the last 200 feet out of the project over the time that we've been working on the project you know our cost estimates has gone up but our funding didn't go up so we decided to put that as an option and depending on pricing we will or will not included in the project Council Member Bertrand on the optional section we seem to be short 76,400 to do that any ideas or where we may come up with so our intent is to in all likelihood that we wouldn't end up doing that section and we would just address the area of greatest need if you looked at the pavement condition on the section of Bromer the green area is in much worse condition than the yellow and we don't believe that we I think we're addressing the area of greatest need by doing that so there is no option there is you know potentially the bids that come in would come in under and we could incorporate the entire project area and so we don't know at this stage whether or not we would have a shortfall and I think in all likelihood our estimate is that it will be a little bit higher and that we will just include only the base bid section of the project once you did the bids and it came back to us if we were close then we can maybe look at funding that entire project since we're out there so the way we do this now the West Council gives the authority if the bids come in under the bid amounts Public Works Directors authorize to proceed with the project this is a little bit different because we do anticipate this funding shortfall the fall that we wouldn't be able to do option B so I think the question would be let's say for example the project came back and the total bid for everything was 5,000 more than we needed I think in that case we would be coming back to council and saying this looks like a good deal to get the full project done and we propose a strategy to bring 5,000 more into it 76,000 76,400 76,000 dollar deficit I think we would just proceed with the base bid unless we got direction this evening then just do the base project but council can give other direction this evening okay no thank you question? now is the time for any member of the public to address the council on this item saying none we'll bring it back to council comments? I've had a lot of feedback from various bicycle riders and I think they've come here many times and fixing this street would be great I've been to the public meetings I think that Steve and you have met with them and you've satisfied all their issues with driveway and all that sort of stuff which is pretty good I appreciate the department working with the residents on this I'm more in favor of just the plan to extend if we are under bid but go to 48th excuse me 41st to 38th that's for my section because the other section is fine for my standpoint discussion? I would just concur with council member I would make a motion that we move forward with just the base bid and if it comes under comes in under and we can afford through the optional section schedule then we should do so but otherwise just maintain at the base bid and the project that's included there and that's how we have it structured currently and I'll second that council member story any comments? no comments we have a motion and a second all in favor? any opposed? any abstentions? motion carries unanimously that concludes our meeting thank you to staff for hanging in there thank you Kingston our technician for hanging in there thank you all at home for watching take care of yourselves and take care of each other our meeting is adjourned