 There we go, the hour of one o'clock having arrived. Santa Cruz City Council will come into session for its meeting of October 10th, 2023. And the clerk will call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. Council member is Newsom. Present. Brown. Here. Votkins. Here. Brunner. Present. Calentari Johnson. Present. Vice Mayor Golder. Here. Mayor Keely. Here. Quorum having been established, we will ask for any public comment on our closed session. What will happen for those of you unfamiliar? We will be going into closed session after any comment we have on any of our items in closed session. Those are enumerated on our agenda made public to you. Let me ask Ms. Bush, is there anyone online who may want to comment? We have nobody online. Anyone who's with us in chambers this afternoon wish to make comment? Seeing and hearing none, we will stand adjourned into closed session. Santa Cruz City Council is back in session following our closed session meeting. We are going before our regular council meeting today. What we are going to do is have an annual meeting of the board of directors of the Industrial Development Authority and the Santa Cruz Public Improvement financing Corporation. City council members serve as the board of directors on both of these entities, which are created for the purpose of providing the city with an instrumentality that we can use for issuing of bonds and other forms of indebtedness annually while the bonds are in existence. And we have sold some of those bonds. The board members are legally required to hold a meeting of the IDA and the SC-PIFC. The meetings are procedural in nature and the purpose is to approve minutes and elect new board members. What we will do is at this point we will call the role of the authority. Council Member Newsom. Present. Brown. Here. Watkins. Here. Brunner. Present. Calentari-Johnson. Present. Vice Mayor Golder. Here. Mayor Keely. Here. Having established a quorum, I am going to ask if the city clerk would step us through another of the two or three steps that we need to engage in. Madam Clerk, good afternoon. And thank you, Mayor. So the first will be the election of the officers and they're kind of set with the treasurer, vice president, president, CFO, and the executive director. So we would just need a motion to appoint people to those roles. Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. Motion by Ms. Watkins. Second by Ms. Brown. Is there debate or discussion? Anyone in the public wish to comment on this item? Seeing and hearing none, the clerk will call the roll. Director Newsom. Aye. Brown. Aye. Watkins. Aye. Brunner. Aye. Calentari-Johnson. Aye. Vice Chair Golder. Aye. And Chair Keely. Aye. I will note for the record I didn't think I'd ever be elected president. So here we go. Thank you. Appreciate that. We're on item three. These are the minutes of the October 11, 2022 meeting of these bodies. These are in our packet. Let me ask if anyone who is with us today or online wishes to make comment. Seeing and hearing none, let me ask for a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. I'll make a motion. Newsom, second by Ms. Brunner. Is there a debate or discussion? Seeing and hearing none, the clerk will call the roll. Director Newsom. Aye. Brown. Aye. Watkins. Aye. Brunner. Aye. Calentari-Johnson. Aye. Vice Chair Golder. Aye. Chair Keely. Aye. Motion approving is awarded. The meeting of the Board of Directors of the Industrial Development Authority is now adjourned. We are now on our meeting as Board of Directors of the Santa Cruz Public Improvement Financing Authority. Clerk will call the roll. Council Member Newsom. Present. Brown. Here. Watkins. Here. Brunner. Present. Calentari-Johnson. Present. Vice Mayor Golder. Present. Mayor Keely. Present. Quorum having been established. I'll turn this over to the City Clerk for the purpose of the election of officers to this entity. Same as before, we just need a motion to appoint the rolls of the move. Motion to move the roll. Second by Ms. Watkins. Debate or discussion? Comments from the public. Seeing and hearing none, the Clerk will call the roll. Director Newsom. Aye. Brown. Aye. Watkins. Aye. Brunner. Aye. Calentari-Johnson. Aye. Vice President Golder. Aye. And President Keely. Could I hear that again? Oh, all right, all right, all right. We are on item five. This is approval of the minutes of that entity. They are in our packet. Motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Newsom, second by Ms. Calentari-Johnson. Public comment on the minutes on the motion. Public comment. Anyone online? Seeing and hearing none. Motion second has been made. Debate or discussion? Seeing and hearing none. Clerk will call the roll. Director Newsom. Aye. Brown. Aye. Watkins. Aye. Brunner. Aye. Calentari-Johnson. Aye. Vice President Golder. Aye. And President Keely. Aye. Motion approved. That body is now in adjournment. We are now back operating as the city council for our meeting of October 12th. We will take up oral communication. This is the opportunity for anyone who wishes to address the city council on a matter under our jurisdiction, but not on today's agenda to do so. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Lee Brokaw Pacheco Avenue. I would like to call to the council's attention that the farmer's market is losing money basically due to parking problems. Some of my vendor friends are not showing up every week. They're coming every other week because they're not making their necessary funding to be there. And if you guys could do something about parking like tokens to be given to patrons that they can use for parking, setting up the parking garage for a farmer's market, parking customers that would be free, I think it would help. Secondly, I'd like to say that oral communication at this hour leaves out at least half of the population of the city. They're over the hill working. It really is inconvenient to be speaking at this hour where it used to be around 7 o'clock, which was kind of a reasonable hour for people who actually hold down real jobs. And then I sent all of you documentation about the water department wanting to charge me $65 to read my meter, which was broken. And I would like to have this council explain to the public at what point you voted to allow the water department to charge $65 to read a meter. That is a fee. That is a tax. And it is nuts. The issue has been resolved. I have a new meter. But the fact is the water department thinks that they can charge $65 to read a meter. And that's bogus. Anyone online, Ms. Bush? We'll hear from the person online. Good afternoon. Yeah, this is Garrett. I don't know if I really should be saying this, but I guess I feel better saying it. The heinous and evil Hamas has let loose their worst terror. We may never know everything, but for sure, one side wants Israel dead and gone forever using evil atrocities, and Israel hates them for it. At this point, and it has probably come to this, the path forward seems to be an immediate scorched earth and rubble for Hamas and the so-called Palestinians can go wherever some nation will take them. And that's just too bad. No Arab countries really want them. In our elections, you must remember that DSA and others have come out on the side of the terrorists. Remember then, any DSA candidate or anyone condoning Hamas owns the terror and death. They don't get to sprinkle themselves with the imaginary fairy dust of righteous, virtuous, sprouting ancient legitimacy claims of some fabricated nation. State and apartheid, it's a package deal. They own the evil, they own the torture, they own the death, and they own the genocidal motives. OK, on a little lighter note, as far as that Walnut Street nuisance redwood tree issue, no one seems to be respecting private property rights. And I mentioned nobody cuts down big trees, lacking any good reason, because it's very expensive to do so. I have full sympathy for the property owner. You have put them in a very difficult position of having to jump through every hope imaginable. You have devised and public spectacle and are preventing them from resolving their liability and nuisance problems, because you, in a parade of tree hunters, value a tree more than a human's rights. Consideration of the potential lifespan of the tree is the property owner's considerations to ponder alone. As to this development of the 50-year Westcliffe vision process, I have concerns about similar worldwide 50-year plans that are in development by the UN, the WEF, Infernoism, the Davos crowd, all manner of muni, regional authorities, nonprofit activists, that also weld the socialist DSA, and the cultural Marxists who all connive to produce visions of a very different, more authoritarian, very non-American-valued world. I saw efforts to expand the very narrow question, how do we address Westcliffe erosion? A question not yet answered, now is being replaced and expanded all over with leading suggestions, talk of regional and state-fed, non-local process intervention, using a very strange series of meetings that are a cattle call for activists of all kinds to stuff the ballot box to a future vision. 100% consensus vision would be fine, but we need effective erosion plans, vision or not. Thanks. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. My name is James Ewing Whitman. I would certainly prefer to be talking on other subjects than what I'm gonna be talking about today. I do like most of the mayor's proclamations about what can we do to help each other, and respecting and helping and working with older people. Now the 29th Lost Boys Day, that's a bad joke. So I have some questions on the county as far as something that came out on their Facebook on June, September 26th, 731 p.m., about Lisa Hernandez, the new health person. There's some stuff I wrote very accurately about Gail Newell more than two years ago. Excuse me for just a second. Of course. I'm sorry, I need to ask a question. I thought, are you speaking to something under our jurisdiction as the city? Yes, whether you choose to put it under your jurisdiction is up to you. I'm sorry, I thought you made reference to something at the county government. Oh, it's all connected. I'll give you some time to make the connection, but this matters under our jurisdiction, not on our agenda today. So I'll give you some leeway here, go ahead. Okay, thank you. I'm going to see if this is more of a constitutional republic than the county, because I believe that individuals less than magistrates can pull items off the consent agenda. I'm going to be pulling off four. And let's see, what else? Excuse me, are you now requesting that an item be removed? I'm just making note of it so if it happens, it happens, if it doesn't, it doesn't. That's a matter on our agenda today. Our oral communication is for the opportunity to address us on a matter, any matters under our jurisdiction, but not on the agenda. Yes. Go ahead. I didn't mention the names. So, I'll probably leave it at that. It's just nice to see all you and see what's going to happen today. It's nice to see you, thank you. Do we have anyone else online? No one with their hand right. No, not. Do you wish to address us under oral communication? I'm looking at you. Do you wish to address us under oral communication? We'll then please do so. My name is Rachel Sodos and I'd like to elaborate on my request that the city of Santa Cruz established something like a COVID truth commission after the manner of South Africa. Establishing such a commission need not be cost prohibitive. There would be no need to hire an expensive consulting firm. As the first task is simply to create spaces for public testimony, perhaps the city could provide space and guidance about civil dialogue. The general aim would be truth, but here I don't mean truth in the sense of truth that comes down as the absolute from on high, but pluralistic truth which appears in dialogue among neighbors and citizens in a community. I've mentioned before that appropriate attitude is skepticism, and I think that the skepticism that's required is found in the common sense of the ordinary people, and that's a kind of skepticism which is also consistent with scientific inquiry and ongoing dialogue. Finally, I'd like to suggest something that perhaps sounds paradoxical at first, but creating a space with skepticism and common sense is necessary to nurturing the trust that is required for democracy. There's a lot of recent events that inspire me to suggest that nurturing such trust is necessary at this time, but one really stands out, and that is Hillary Clinton's recent statement last week to Christiane Anempour on CNN, where she said that Trump supporters would have to be at some point, and I quote, formally deprogrammed. Now, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I feel obligated to defend the rights of my fellow citizens and neighbors, and I find that the suggestion of formal deprogramming is absolutely the opposite of truth and reconciliation and open dialogue. Thank you. Anyone else wish to address us? Do we have anyone else online? We do, yes. We do, let's go to that person now. Good afternoon. Person online, good afternoon. Three, two, one. Is there anyone else who's with us who wishes to make comment on overall communication? Seeing, hearing none. We are going to move to item six, which is a presentation from our fire chief, and this is Fire Prevention Week, October 8th through the 14th. Chief, good afternoon. Welcome to your colleagues and associates. Thank you for a wonderful push-in ceremony yesterday morning at the fire station. Yes, thank you, mayor and council, for this opportunity and of course, for the support yesterday for our inaugural event, and hope to have many more with the addition of newer vehicles in the future. So today I'm just here to speak a little bit about Fire Prevention Week presentation. I'll go into a little bit of the history, we can go to the next slide. We'll talk about Fire Prevention Week for this year and the theme, as well as reminding everybody, I know we're in October, and emergency preparedness month was September, but I think it's always good, given the fact that we're approaching the anniversary of the earthquake to remind everybody about emergency preparedness. Next slide, please. So Fire Prevention Week, it always involves the date of the eighth, and it's the Sunday through Saturday that encompasses the eighth, and that is due to the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Next slide. Like I mentioned, it marks this anniversary, the anniversary of a pretty tragic event, and we can sort of all equate the level of loss to say 9-11, but given this time period, I think it's important to note that during this fire in Chicago, they lost over 17,000 buildings in a three square mile area and lost 300 lives. And I think from this event, it left an indelible mark, not only in the community of Chicago, but on the country and of course the fire service, and from that has come a number of different fire codes that have, as a result, saved tremendous amount of lives. So since 1922, the National Fire Protection Agency, the NFPA, sponsored some public observance of this week, and then formally in 1925, President Calvin Coolidge declared it an official national observance. And again, we like to take this opportunity to remind folks of particular topics that are of great significance and concern when it comes to fire safety in the community. Next slide. And so again, we talked a little bit about this. We can go on to the next slide. There we go. So this year's theme is about cooking safety, and I think it's important to note, here's some of the material that the NFPA has provided, both in English and Spanish. These are documents that you can see on our social media, as well as other fire agencies, and also available on our website. Next slide. So the cooking safety starts with you campaign, again, is the theme for this year. And I think it's really important to note sort of the reason behind this, and I think many people don't realize that 49% of all fires, home fires in the US are caused by cooking fires. And the number one cause for this is leaving the stove unattended. And you'd be surprised how many calls we respond to in the city where someone leaves something on the stove, not just leaving the room, but leaving their home. So I think, again, it's very appropriate to have this reminder. And I think we have about 170,000 fires a year in the country due to cooking fires. So again, another reason why this is on our, should be paid attention to. So again, when they talk about cooking with caution, you wanna be alert, like I mentioned, stay in the kitchen while you're frying, boiling, or grilling. If you're simmering, baking, or roasting, you gotta check it regularly. Use a timer. Again, that's why we all have these cell phones now. We don't use the egg timer anymore, but we all have cell phones, so set those timers and keep anything away from that stove that can catch fire, anything combustible. Next slide. For those of us that have children, you wanna make sure, oh, that's the next slide, but this one here talks a little bit about grease cooking fire. So for those that may have a fire that develops on the stove top, we wanna remind folks to slide the lid over the pan and turn off the burner and then leave it, don't touch it until it's cool. We, of course, don't wanna burn down someone's house, but we don't wanna have people get burns and end up in the burn unit. If you have an oven fire, we wanna turn off the heat, keep the door closed. That's the safest place, that's where the cooking actually occurs. You don't wanna open it up and then have it communicate into your kitchen itself. And of course, we're always there if you need us, so just get out of the house if in doubt and call 911 and we'll be there to mitigate any hazards. And like I mentioned with kids, kids in the kitchen, we wanna also remind folks to have a kid-free zone in the kitchen, and that's about three feet around the stove where hot food and drinks are prepared to prevent burns. And then I think another reminder, too, about electrical appliances, since we all are making that transition to electrical use in the future. We wanna make sure that your equipment is qualified under the Underwriters Laboratory or another similar organization. You wanna follow your manufacturer's instructions. And then, of course, unplug them when not in use and then regularly check those cords for damage because as we unplug and store those equipment, sometimes those cords become damaged and that can be a cause of fire as well. Next slide. And again, here's just some of that material I referenced that is on our website, on our social media platforms, and again, for reference at the National Fire Protection Association.org website. Next slide. The last thing I wanna cover, again, is just emergency preparedness. I wanna make sure that you all and your associated families are prepared for anything, whether it's a fire, an earthquake, or anything, flood as we're approaching the winter season. So next slide. I just wanna remind everybody, we've worked really hard as a department to develop our own emergency preparedness flyer. This is just an example of the flyer that we have. We recommend everybody has one with every one of their go bags, and I'm sure all of you have a go bag in every vehicle and in your home. And so with those go bags, you should have one of these plans because they allow you to sort of fill it out with your family, designate a meeting place, designate someone to call who doesn't live in the area so that you guys can sort of coordinate and make sure everybody's okay, as well as a whole host of tips of what to prepare in that go bag and other amenities to make sure that you are prepared for emergency. Next slide. I think the next one is just the same, different pages of that same flyer. Talks about response routes and of course where to get information. We all rely so heavily now on phones and the internet, but remember, we have radios. And a lot of the radio communications were set up during World War II and for disaster purposes. So make sure you know what radio station you can tune into locally. KSEO is one of those great resources. Next slide. This one here was just an example of we have these flyers also in Spanish as well. So we want to make sure that we're representing our community well. And so we have these resources available both at our fire admin that people can pick up. And again, I recommend not just one, but multiple for every household and make sure they're filled out and everybody has one. Next slide. Last but not least, when it comes to emergency preparedness, we want to make the pitch for those folks in the Wildland Urban Interface area to either join or create their own Firewise Group to make sure their neighborhood is wildfire safe. You can also create or join a community emergency response team, commonly referred to as CERT. Another thing I want to talk about and I'll talk about the next slide is make sure that you sign up for an available notification service. Locally, the service we're currently using is cruise aware, develop an evacuation plan, and of course utilize our flyer that we provide to have that. And it will include that family communication plan, that single point of contact outside the area. And then of course constantly evaluate your home and property for hazards. And then of course, like we mentioned, but everybody has one, the go bag. So have one for your home, office, and every car. Next slide. And then last but not least, we've all, I think over the years I've heard myself and my constituents reference Code Red. Thank you. When we have now switched over with the county to cruise aware, it's everybody that was pre-registered on Code Red has now been automatically transferred to cruise aware. But if you are unsure and you wanna register multiple devices, home phone, landlines and cell phones, you can follow this link here. Of course, go to our website and we have a direct access to signing up for that service. But that's how we're gonna make sure everybody is well aware of any significant incidents in our area. Next slide and I think that's about it. Again, just another reminder of our partnership with our fire-wise communities in our neighborhood. These are just some photos this year of our partnership with the Prospect Heights neighborhood and their yard cleanup, as well as a neighborhood party on the west side on that center photo is taken at the tip of our 100 foot ladder and you can look down on that neighborhood. So again, just another representation of our cooperation with the community. And I believe that's it. Unless you guys have any questions, thank you for your time. Chief, thank you so very much. Questions or comments? I would just like to. Advice, Mayor. I would just like to thank you and the whole fire department for everything you do day in, day out, nights, weekends, holidays to keep everybody in the city saved. And we just really appreciate you and support you. Thank you for bringing this for us today. Other comments, Ms. Brown. I would echo the appreciation. It's great to get to hear from you. We hear evidence of your activities all the time, but it's nice to see you here. I wanted to just, so thank you. And I wanted to highlight on the cruise alert. I don't really have a question, but since you brought it up, I would just take this opportunity to say to folks out there who are listening, please do check. If you have not received any test messages through cruise alert, you did not get rolled over because maybe there was not a landline or there were glitches. So really do check in and make sure you're on that list because it's very effective and we're excited about it rolling out. That's a great point, Council Member. And I think one of the things they're trying to do is in addition to the rollover was look at voter records to make sure that we're getting everybody. But of course we can't assume that that's the case. And so we want to make sure everybody at least goes to that link. And of course, if they have any issues, there's the frequently asked questions section and they can get assistance there. Questions, comments? Ms. Brunner. Thank you so much for always bringing this every year front and center as a reminder. And I just want to add that it's really important to remember in the workplace as well, not just your vehicle or your home, but that you have emergency plans and that emergency preparedness sheet is great. I use it, but that everybody in all our residents and everybody also consider having some type of go bag or emergency preparedness sheet at their place of employment work job site and that everybody there knows what the plan is and has access. Absolutely. And you're hired if you're still looking for some more employment. But I think my counterpart Chief Shields pointed out that we have a link to that preparedness flyer on our website as well so they can print out their own. And of course we recommend multiple copies for everybody. And of course things change, phone numbers, contacts and that sort of thing. So we want to make sure that's why we're here every year to remind everybody is that those things change and we just want to make sure we're having that conversation with our loved ones. So thank you for the opportunity. I just wanted to also add there are a bunch of copies anybody can pick up at the downtown information kiosk on Pacific Avenue in front of New Leaf Community Market. Thank you for your support. I appreciate that. And again, you're hired. The questions or comments. Chief, one of those early slides on the Chicago fire, I was wondering if it's true. I'd heard that you might be bringing an amendment to the fire code to prohibit cows and lanterns from being in the same room. Is that correct? That's what I thought. Your historical knowledge is impressive. But there's still some, there's some debate as to whether it was the cow or it was someone running from a card game. But yes, we are looking at that. You're correct. Thank you. Let's go to attention in detail. Chief, I'm serious enough, thank you very, very much. This is a very helpful to our community when we're all participating in being fire-wise and paying attention. Thank you to the women and men of the fire service. Thank you so much for your work. Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. I appreciate it. Thank you. We are on presiding officer announcements and I am going to defer to the vice mayor. I would just like to take an opportunity to, if we could, to do a moment of silence in honor of the innocent civilians that have lost their lives in Israel and just acknowledge that anti-Semitism is something that many Jewish people face around the world. And I would just like to take a brief moment of silence before we start the meeting. Thank you. I appreciate that. It's hard when the last survivors of the Holocaust are passing away and we just need to remember that that is something that people face not only in Israel but here in Santa Cruz as well. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor. Thank you. Statement of disqualification. Any council member have a disqualification and I need to announce this would be the opportunity for you to do so. Seeing and hearing none additions and deletions to the agenda. I am not sure whether this fits under deletion but when we get to item 19, if I could do that now without objection, we will continue this item for 30 days. Come back in 30 days. Seems like this item needs to be cooked a little bit more and prepared somewhat more prior to council action. So without objection, we'll continue that for Ms. Bush. Can you give me a date a month from now that we would? Yeah, we have it for the November 14th. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Any other additions or deletions? City attorneys report on closed session. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon, Mayor Keely, members of the city council. The council met in closed session at 1 p.m. This afternoon in the courtyard conference room to discuss one item involving significant exposure to litigation, council received a report from the city attorney's office on that one item and there was no reportable action. Thank you, sir. Ms. Bush, back to you. Any items on our calendar that you would like to draw to our attention? No changes, no. Thank you so much. We're on the consent agenda. Those of you unfamiliar, this is the opportunity to comment on items one through, excuse me, eight through 17. We would be taking those up as one vote. This is the consent agenda. So if you would like to make comment on any items on the consent agenda, this would be your opportunity to do so. I will then ask if there are members on the council who wish to pull an item from the consent agenda or comment on it or ask a question. First, let's go to the public and see if anyone has comments they wish to make on our consent agenda. Good afternoon. Okay, that's fine. We'll get to you in a minute then. Let me see. Sir, consent agenda, please come forward. Good afternoon again. Good afternoon. Seems like I've slightly flustered, busy. I missed some things I wanted to say during public comments. It's just the way it is. So I wanted to pull items eight, 10, 12, and 16 off the consent agenda, but maybe I could just talk about. I wanna hear them again, eight. Eight, 10, 12, and 16. 16, eight, 10, 12, and 16. Yeah. I believe 16, yes, 16, very good. Okay, but. Do you wish to make comments on each item? I do. Because we can do that right now. I can do that with one of them. Okay. So why don't we start with number eight. Okay. And that is the extension of the emergency for the winter storms. I guess I'm just questioning that all of you were elected, but the city manager wasn't elected. And I don't seem to have my piece of paper on city managers, but the city manager, it's my understanding controls all of the city council members. And the city manager's in charge of the emergency response. So I would kinda like to know more about the various qualifications and we'll leave that and we can pull number eight off. So it's number 10, 12, and 16. I'd like to talk for three minutes on. Well, your time on item eight is right now. And I'm done with that. The piece of paperwork I had, I left where I was sitting. Okay. So I can't be particular. How would you like to do that? You want to be glad to give you a chance to go retrieve and then we can get to it. It's enough that I'm questioning why an unelected official, a city or county manager is in complete control of the city and county council since before 1915. Okay. I'd be glad to re to, since we're on item eight at this moment. We are. You've asked that question. I'll attempt to provide an answer. Okay. But I mean, I have a piece of paperwork that, oh, here it is your government, city managers and such, but I'd be happy to hear your explanation. Just in California, the council manic form of government is the form of government we use at the local level. And in that regard, there are two options. You can be a general law city or a charter city or a charter city in that we have to comply with the state law, but we can enumerate some ways that we want to do things differently than general law cities that are permitted under charters. The city manager is selected, selected by the city council. City manager is as to how the city council and the mayor are as to what? So the city manager works for and serves at the pleasure of the city council and the mayor. That was excellent. Thank you. It's very similar to stuff that's in here. Oh, thank you. No, thank you. We'll come back to you on the other items. Let me ask anyone else who wishes to make a comment on any item on our consent agenda. This would be your opportunity to do so. Anyone online? I do have someone with their hand raised. Let's, one person? So far, yes. We'll take that person. Good afternoon. Three, two, one. Hi. Hi. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Candice Brown. I'm on the act of, I'm on the transportation public works commission. And I just wanted to bring to your attention on item number 15, that the city of Santa Cruz has taken a different approach to vision zero. Other municipalities that are in coordination with the community traffic safety coalition have participated in grants focused on setting up and implementing vision zero with a action plan and a task force and Watsonville, for instance, is far ahead of us in doing so and has enjoyed the benefit in conjunction with the county in receiving grants specifically for vision zero. So the active transportation plan with the emphasis on vision zero is not implementing and executing a vision zero. And we're also missing the opportunity for grants that can focus on safety. Vision zero is extremely important for our community because we're one of the highest for pedestrians and bicycle accidents and fatalities for a town of our size. Vision zero says that human life and health are prioritized about speed and convenience with all aspects of transportation system and that people have the right to move about the community safely. That traffic death and severe injuries are preventable and that speed is the fundamental factor in crash severity. Safety work should focus on system level changes, particularly the build environment policies and technologies. And responsibly for safety is shared by transportation system designers and road users. And the focus is on education, engineering, enforcement, encouragement, evaluation, equity and engagement. I participate on these calls both at the county and with Watsonville and they're amazing. And the fact that we're not doing this when we've implemented vision zero in 2019 is a really sad thing for me to report. So the city is, like I said, taking a different approach. They're not really fully implementing vision zero and they're missing opportunities for grant funding and active transportation. While it is a planning process, there is a special need focused on safety in our community because of the statistics of our town. And I hope that the city council will be more supportive of the efforts that are being done throughout the rest of our county. It's really in this opportunity. Quietly behind the scenes, the county has expressed to people that they're sad that this is happening. They are a great county partner. They help the city in getting grants whatever the city wants, they'll participate in. But again, the city is missing opportunity and the focus needs to be on safety. There was a letter in your packet of specifically about my neighborhood East Morrissey. I totally agree with that letter writer. The safety issues are extreme. There's speeding, even though there's high levels of traffic, there's no sidewalks and now we're building along the corridors and now we're driving cut through traffic throughout the neighborhoods and we will see increased issues, especially we saw recently with Nick who was mowed down in a lighted crosswalk on Morrissey. We have other incidents. Many of these are being reported on social media and I'm making sure those statistics that are heading are going to the county. Otherwise they're not being captured because in many cases police reports are not even being filed. They're being discouraged from filing police reports. So until vision zero is fully implemented until the city fully adopts it, you will continue to have the expectation of high numbers of serious accidents and fatalities in our town. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you for making comment today. Anyone else with us on a consent agenda item? Sir, the gentleman who asked that we continue 10, 12 and 16, I'm gonna ask you to make your comments now. Good afternoon again, sir. Yeah, thank you. You know what? I'm gonna skip 10 because enough was covered in eight. Okay. Now I was kind of questioning the jurisdictional powers of who has control over the FEMA stuff, which is they're kind of, they overlap. So number 12, open my notes. Thanks for this opportunity. Thank you. You know, the traffic signals and the independent fiber optics that are going in as a redundancy, you know, all the stuff going through with the wireless and stuff. I was an observation in the last three years of all the utility work and underground wells that have been done. This is just kind of a redundancy. Now it's not just areas that are in Santa Cruz. If you look on, what is it? In section 12, page 43 and 44, this is extending all the way to past State Park Drive on Soquel. This subject has come up many times in the County Council and what's not really being talked about is kind of what brought me into this room more than four years ago, is why are we allowing military frequency weapons in civilian locations? And there is extensive information about that actually. And I've spoken in this room about various things. And so this is a overlapping independent hardwired that goes from here, goes to the County building and is doing all this stuff. Now I've done some independent research. It used to be easier to go into public works and look at sets of plans. Now it's just not as easy. But there's things going on that I've brought to the public motion like the commercial street lights. 90% are owned and operated by PG&E and that's Rothschild's company. I pointed out to the guy, what's the blue wire for? So residential is usually just 120 or 220 single phase and then the commercial is three phase. But there's an independent power system. So when the regular residential goes down and the commercial goes down, the blue wires is activating the weapons. And I am referring to them as weapons. So I'm just kind of questioning some stuff. And I mean, I took the notes that I could and it seems like if things are gonna come up later in court, there's 60 or 90 to days, whether or not it's a zoning or another issue. And what is that number? I wrote it down, give me a second. And while you're looking at it. Civil procedure 1094.6, 60 days for zoning and 90 days for all others. So maybe some other people will be interested in asking questions about this. Now, I would like to talk on item 16 now. 16? Yeah, that was 12. I just get to do it right now. Which one did you want? I would like three minutes on 16. One moment, just give me a second. Give me a second and then we can do that. Just one moment please. Yes, please proceed on item 16. Thank you. So, oh, no, I'm fine. Of course. Yeah, I just, you know, I don't, I want to, you know, I just want to be as polite as possible. I mean, I have a tear. Oh, I am not. So, I am not, but I appreciate that. So, this whole situation with what's going on with our water and I've been inherent several times. I just can't question the safety enough of government regulatory agencies like the EPA in the FDA. Now, this location is very fortunate to have the San Lorenzo watershed. It's my understanding that's a billion dollar. That's worth a billion dollars. And this city has taken a loan for like 167 million three years ago when the budget was 197 million. And just this in the last six months from the Environmental Protection Agency Bank for between 123 and 127 million where there are countless issues where the EPA is doing incredible harm. And if I just focus on the train derailment on February 5th, where half a million gallons of some specific chemicals were decided to be burned, they tested for those chemicals, not what they turned into. And those are forever chemicals that are toxic at several parts per billion. They can't be remedied and stuff. But my concerns are the different options that the, I only have a minute, that the city and county have. And to pump sewage, treated sewage, and I'm totally questioning the standards. Back into the water table is an issue. Because this is a really wonderful time to be on planet Earth. This winter may be biblical, only to be greater by next winter. And there are reasons for that. I would much prefer to be talking about other things that I realize that there's literally hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into all this stuff. And if there are actually faults, it could be billions of dollars in fines. That's just in this city and the county of Santa Cruz. But there's 3,100 counties. That's trillions of dollars. So I'm questioning safety and I would welcome public debate on that. So thanks a lot. And of course, there's something that I gave you guys a memo on. And I forgot to bring that up during public comments. Remedies, it was a gold piece of paper. Is this the new normal? Or of course, that hasn't gone away. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Anyone else online? On any of our items? We were, let me ask if the council has items. Let me go around. Ms. Brunner, do you have any items on consent? Ms. Contari-Johnson. Yes, I would like to comment on 14. Please go ahead and do that. Okay, so this is Bay Drive Protected Bike Lanes and Pedestrian Hath. And the recommendation is to reject all bids. You're doing fine. I'm really disappointed to see that our bids came in too high and that we are in this position that we are to reject the bids and this could delay the project two to four years is what the staff report says. This is a really important street for our families and our children. We've got Bayview Elementary. We've got Mission Hill. We've got Santa Cruz High. It's one of the main roads that children use to take their bikes. In fact, my son got in a bike crash last week. He's okay, minor concussion, had nothing to do with our bike lanes. But the point is that these bike lanes are really important and improving them and doing it immediately is really important. So I don't know if there is an answer or a workaround of how we can prioritize certain areas of our community, those in particular that are routes to school, how we can make sure that we have safe routes to school so that kids and families are getting to schools safely. So I guess the question is, are there any other alternatives? Can we expedite this? I don't see public works here. What we're going to do is they, there's Mr. Nguyen online. Good afternoon, sir. Would you care to respond to Ms. Contari-Johnson's inquiry? Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. Nathan Lynn, Director of Public Works. Appreciate the comment with regards to the Bay Street protected bike lanes project. Staff has been actively working on that now for probably well over a year and trying to implement protected bike lanes on that segment between Escalona and Nobel. It is unfortunate that the bids came in nearly double, even triple over our original estimate. But we are hopeful that getting some additional improvements on Bay Street corridor is a part of a affordable housing, sustainable communities grant in the coming years is going to help make some big strides as far as improvements along the corridor. And in addition to that, we are also looking at paving a section of Bay Street between California and Mission Street sometime next year. And if so, we'll be making some additional improvements in regards to the bicycle experience on that section of roadway. So some improvements are coming. The protected bike lanes on this particular segment will likely lag, but we are actively still working on that corridor and we'll be doing projects beyond just this protected bike lane in the future. Thank you, Ms. Contari-Johnson further. Thank you, I appreciate all the work that staff has done and is continuing to do. And maybe we'll circle back with each other to just to think about how we prioritize the certain areas of our community that are used frequently used by our children and youth who are encouraging them to ride their bikes to school so that we wanna make sure that those areas are prioritized. Thank you so much for your work. Further on consent. Madam Vice Mayor, items on consent. Ms. Watkins, Ms. Brown. I have a quick comment on item 15. Please proceed. And I think it really connects with the comments that Council Member Calentari-Johnson was making related to item 14. This is the Active Transportation Plan Grant. I just wanted to respond to the person who called in and suggest that this is a planning grant and out of this I think that there are a lot of great ideas that have come up both in those comments in communications we've received from the public about what folks wanna see prioritized and there are particular locations within the, in particular safe routes to schools framework that I think we, you know, I would like to highlight as priorities here today as part of that planning. And I would like to, I'm not sure when we'll hear about the work associated with that grant, but it would be great to get some kind of update from the staff, you know, maybe not a agenda item, but just a memo or something about where that's headed. And so we know when those community conversations are gonna be happening, who the consultant will be, et cetera, and how to engage through the process. Thank you. Mr. Newsome. Ms. Bush, did you say there was someone who had called in online on our consent agenda? Let me, we were here from that person. Good afternoon, person online. Yeah, so hello, this is Garrett again. I'm pretty confused on what you're doing there because normally when an item is pulled, it's a separate vote, a separate public comment. I don't really get it. I was skipped before when my hand was raised. I don't know, that's because you were only allowing that one person to address whatever they felt like. I'm all confused. So I take it we're on all the consent except for those numbers of items. Is that where we are? I don't know. And anyway, if we are, then I guess 17 is in that list of who you're voting on and I don't have too much to say other than it's just the usual jacking fees up unbelievably, you know, large amounts over and over and over. You do it all the time, almost every meeting. I don't know how justified it is that we don't have the details of that, but, you know, you apparently made some agreement to provide these services as part of the watershed for voting and so forth. And then you charge, you knowingly charge some smaller amount than that and you decide, well, let's just double it in some cases. It's kind of shocking. And then where the money goes, water operations that fund 7-11, it seems like, I mean, does that fund just, fund the Boat House, I don't know. So I'm confused there, but I really wanted rather to speak to the water items, which we just pulled. I assume maybe you're going to bring that up for a separate vote and comment later, or should I speak to that now or do you want to do? Is the opportunity to comment on the consent agenda if you wish to extend your remarks? Go ahead. Okay, well, then on that item, I mean, nobody knows what the water future pulls. I didn't attend or listen to water department meetings or commission meetings. So I'm not really up to date, but from my listening to the council, which I do follow very closely, it seems to me originally all this money that was authorized was sold on the idea of filling these wells with San Lorenzo water and not, and it was a mention of treated water, but I don't know, wasn't that clear? So, and, you know, even though the, while the Water Advisory Committee is citizens of the land, so to speak, but they're appointed by the council, and I just don't think you have any idea whether the citizens of Santa Cruz actually approve the idea of drinking recycled effluent, and that's, that's, sorry to say. Thank you, sir. Further on the consent agenda, seeing and hearing none. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion by Ms. Contar Johnson, second by the vice mayor. Click or call the roll. Council member Newsom. Aye. Brown. Aye. Watkins. Aye. Brunner. Aye. Calentari Johnson. Aye. Vice mayor Golder. Aye. And Mayor Cooley. Aye. Consent agenda is approved. We're on item 18, and I suspect there's more than one person here on this, so let me take a moment and tell you how it is we will proceed on this item. First, we will hear a staff report from our planning staff from Ms. Concepcion, who then there is an appellant here. This is an appeals hearing. We'll hear from the appellant. The appellant in this case is Mr. Ferrell. Mr. Ferrell will have up to 20 minutes to make his opening remarks and to present evidence of the city council to support his appeal. Then there are the applicants. The applicants are Hart and Justin Walsh, and they will have up to 15 minutes to provide testimony and evidence in support of their position. Council will then have an opportunity to make comments, to ask questions. We will then have an opportunity for the public to comment. Any member of the public, except for the appellant and the applicant, will have up to three minutes. Following that, which we will alternate if there are comments both from folks in the chambers and folks who are online, we will hear from all of them. At that point, Mr. Ferrell will be permitted five more minutes to provide rebuttal or new information then the matter is back before the city council. We will take actions on the item at that point. I wanna emphasize so that we're clear for the folks who are the applicant. The applicant gets one 15 minute opportunity to speak. There is not an opportunity for rebuttal so that we're clear on how that works. So if you're gonna wanna get everything if you are the applicant, you will wanna get everything into your 15 minutes. Let me see if they have any questions but I understand how we're going to proceed. Fair enough. I will then recognize Ms. Concepcion for initial staff report. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor, council members, members of the public. See, this is a project that involves 925 Windsor Street. You have a soft voice. I want you to make sure you bring that microphone nice and close. Thank you. Apologize for that. Okay. I'm Nancy Concepcion from the planning department. So 925 Windsor is an appeal of both the planning commission and the zoning administrator's approval. And the two permits that were reviewed is a demolition authorization permit and a design permit for a large house. So briefly I'm gonna go over the project details, concerns that were raised at the public hearings. There are three. And then also the staff's recommendation. So the project location, project site, and this is 925 Windsor Street. It's on the east side. It's between Darwin and Frederick Street. This property is zoned R-15. It stands for single family residential, 5,000 square feet is the middle lot area. But the lots actually on this block are much larger. They're about 7,500 square feet in size. Going to the site. So the property currently has about a 940 square foot, one-story single family dwelling. That's two bedrooms. I'm at the back is about a 240 square foot shed. And those two buildings will be demolished. And then at the very, very back is a two-story accessory dwelling unit. And there's no change to that. Just honing in on the site plan, basically where the existing houses and the shed, those are kind of shown in yellow. The proposed house that will replace that, those two buildings are essentially in the screen area. So as noted, there's a demolition authorization permit because the proposed house is over 3,000 square feet. The R-15 zone district requires that the project be reviewed at a design permit with a public hearing and that's what has occurred. I should note if this project was at 2,999 square feet, it would essentially just be a building permit. By exceeding the 3,000 square feet, it actually is not a variance which had been brought up. It's basically just a standard and just a threshold in the R-15 district which places us at this public hearing. So it's gonna go over the floor plans. Basically it's a two-story house. The first on the left, it has the main living areas towards the street. There's family room, center, kitchen, dining area, and then a master bedroom suite that's intended for the owner's parents. And on the upper floor, there is a family room that's towards Windsor Street and then there's four bedrooms. And this is what is being proposed, this family of five. Going through the elevations, again it is proposed as a two-story to how staff measures that it's 24 feet to the midpoint but actually at the ridge it's 27 feet and this is allowed in this district. You can go two and a half stories and 30 feet in height and part of the rationale behind going to two stories instead of two and a half was because this neighborhood, this area, this block actually is predominantly single story. So it's known in the staff report this item has gone through three public hearings. I thought in terms of just going through the transitions that occurred and the concerns raised and how the design was reviewed and changed to address these concerns. So starting off the top, this is the initial submittal by the applicants. Staff reviewed it and indicated to the applicants that needed to have some articulation to kind of break up some of this fairly blocky, large form. And so we encourage them to do some additional architectural detailing. The second slide or the second area here, the applicants came back and they revised the plans. They now included both horizontal and vertical siding. They included some bays to help project and create some insets. There's also a wood belly band to help define the floors and then with varying gables just to help break up the form. So we took this to the public hearing with the zoning administrator and it was reviewed. At that here, and we had quite a bit of correspondence and comments. When the zoning administrator reviewed it, there were two items that appeared to be outstanding and those items were basically, and this is the eastern wall, was essentially, as you can see on this upper slide, it was a very long continuous wall and also that what was raised was privacy concerns. So the applicant redesigned it. They inset about a third of this eastern wall, about two feet to create a seven foot setback. Also in the upper area, there is bedrooms. They inset that. They did have to keep two larger windows because it's a bedroom, but they did reduce the other bedrooms, excuse me, other windows. And at the far bedroom, which is at the very back, they actually moved the emergency egress window to face, which would be called the north setback area. So with that, that project was approved and then it was appealed. So in terms of the final design, this is shown on the very, very bottom, this was appealed to the planning commission and even though there was quite a bit of discussion, this ended up being the final design and there were no design changes requested. So this was appealed to yourselves, the council, and there were several items that were brought up. I'm just gonna quickly go through those. One of the things that was requested was essentially looking at a panoramic or a photo simulation. And what we require in the ordinance essentially is a survey. It's not actually a survey by a surveyor, but just to get an idea of what kinds of houses are there, the size, architectural style, and placement setbacks in the street. And so the owner applicants, excuse me, did provide that. In terms of further design changes, she could see that there were several changes that the applicants did to address a lot of the concerns that were brought up, but there were still concerns by the community, the neighborhood. So why the planning commission did ultimately approve this design? They did struggle with basically the subjective standards. Currently the city has objective standards where it's much clearer for the applicants, the neighborhood, and even staff as to what could be approved. So that was something, even though they did not change the design, they did have concern about what we currently have in the ordinance. And so they did talk about creating a committee. The city just recently received a grant to help create those objective standards for a single family dwelling development. So based on what we currently have, the planning commission reviewed what the changes had occurred, the current findings that we have to make, and ended up approving the project as you'll see tonight. So staff looked at the findings and the commission was also able to make these same findings. And so tonight we're, or excuse me, this afternoon we're requesting to deny the appeal, uphold the planning commission, the zoning administrator's approval, and for this, and authorize this demolition authorization permit and the design permit for now what had been originally about a 3,700 square foot single family dwelling to 3,564 square foot. That's the end of my staff report. I'm available for any questions. Thank you very much, Ms. Concepcion. This is the opportunity for Mr. Farrell, for you are the appellant. This was your opportunity to speak up to 20 minutes. And as a reminder, you will have a second chance of following the public comment to make five minutes of rebuttal comments. We will start though with a 20 minute time limit. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you very much, Mayor Keely and council members. I'm Matt Farrell and I live at 922 Windsor street. I'm representing my neighbors and we'll try and represent the feedback from the many people who have, you see represented on the map in our, and I'd ask the people who are here today in support of this appeal. Our presentation says that 87 residents have submitted letters in support of this appeal. And as of this morning, it's more than 90 letters. I want to also say that as neighbors, we would prefer not to be here. We offered two times to meet with the applicants and to try to work out a solution that addressed our concerns and met their needs. The first time after the first zoning administrator hearing, where we went directly to their house, and then the second time at the planning commission, where the commission asked us if we would be willing to meet with the applicants. We said, absolutely. The applicants declined both these offers. We also want to state that we believe the neighborhood is more than a half mile radius line drawn around a specific property. It is all the people who meet and live in those homes in that neighborhood and on those blocks. Mr. Farrell, do me a favor. Make sure you pull that microphone a little closer. Today you're using a very nice soft voice, so I want to make sure we can hear you. Is this better? Staff's reference to the apartments on Broadway don't reflect the character of the architecture and building massing in the single family neighborhood of Seabright. At no time did planning staff present any proposed or constructed buildings in the neighborhood which match this home. Instead, they have referred to apartment buildings on an arterial corridor. Next slide, please. We are not opposed to a large house. We are here because of this particular design. A large house needs to be done with the same level of care and thought that went into the large home design guidelines. In the red box, you see a paraphrase of the very first sentence of these guidelines. It's followed by several well-written design criteria. Unfortunately, this project, as it currently stands, does not meet the guidelines. There is significant missing and inaccurate information in the report. Most significantly, the project mass and design is incompatible with the human scale, character, and identity of the existing homes in the neighborhood. This project will be here for a long time and will set a standard that matters to us as neighbors, to this council, and to the community as a whole. We urge you to direct the planning office to implement changes to the project. Next slide, please. The text in the red box is pulled from item 10 in the universal land use application that all projects need to complete and item 10 requires a photo simulation or rendering of the proposed home's impact on adjacent homes. The standards it refers to are shown in the table at the right. The staff reported only the standards that the application did meet and avoided any mention of the key provision that was not met, which is provision I as shown in the lower right corner of the table. It is quite clear. R1-5 developments greater than 3,000 square feet do not meet the standard without a design permit and are required to submit the simulation. Why is this important? Because item 10 provides the neighborhood context for the project. It is clearly required and it is not evident how reasonable determination of design suitability could be determined without it. Next slide, please. Item 10 of the land use application calls for an accurate rendering of the streetscape in the context. It is especially important given the misrepresentations that were provided by the applicant and used by planning staff in their findings and the public hearing. What was not provided by the applicant is shown here. This diagram is misleading and lends a false sense of compatibility to their design. Next slide, please. As shown in red on the left, the proposed house is 24 feet tall right at the 20 foot setback. With a high point a bit further back. But when you compare it to the actual dimensions of the house next door shown in blue, it's obvious that this diagram does not reflect reality. The existing house is less than 22 feet tall. When viewed in perspective from the street, it is so much further back on the lot that the high point barely rises above the first story. According to the staff report, the house on the right, 929 Windsor, is the tallest of all the neighborhood dwellings they evaluated. They identified it as 25 feet tall when it is in fact only 22 feet tall. Taken in isolation, this may not seem huge, but the staff report provided for public review showed no less than three of these inaccurate comparisons. We think it is called for what is called for is what this very sensibly requires, which is an accurate rendering of the building height and mass in relationship to both structures on either side of the applicant's property. I also wanna mention that it's not clear from our reading of the plans, whether the roof line elevation is met from the ground level or from the first floor mudsill. And this is important because it could be that there's a two and a half foot difference in that elevation. So we would like clarification on that. Next slide, please. The next part of our presentation speaks directly to the large home design guidelines, intense statement I quoted on slide one, namely the size and scale of the project in front of you just doesn't fit the scale of anything else nearby. It's not even close. I understand some of you have driven the neighborhood and we appreciate you seeing it firsthand because this view is just one of the many that reflect the human scale and character of our street. And this photo shows 921 on the left, 925 in the middle and 929 on the right. Next slide, please. This rendering was done by one of our neighbors using the previous panoramic photo. We have retained one vehicle parked on the street to show scale. The presentation demonstrates the scale difference between the new proposed home and surrounding residences. We have done our best to maintain scale and perspective in this image, but the design guidelines require the applicant, not the appellant to provide this information. The proposed new design clearly dominates the neighboring structure on the west, the left hand side, and does not step back at the second story. As stated in this slide, the size and scale of the proposed home are 50%, almost 50% larger than the current largest home, 2,400 square feet. We request that Council Direct Planning staff to require the applicant to provide the missing information and that staff require this important information as part of all future large home design permit applications. We do not believe this is an undo economic burden on applicants. What is also disturbing is that staff's explanation for not requiring this rendering as part of the application has changed as the process has unfolded. At the beginning, they said they did not require it because it was too much of a burden on the applicant. And yet in the presentation to Council, they said it was not required because the applicant had met all the project requirements. We find that change in position hard to understand. Next slide, please. The second story of this house is out of character with the neighborhood. It is three times bigger than any second story in the neighborhood and is virtually no meaningful setback from the first story on the East, South, and West elevations. We also believe that the current design offers very weak articulation on its southern street face. And a hip roof design is not preferred for two-story single homes. And I refer you to the large home design guidelines because there are roof articulations shown in the guidelines that do not show hip roofs. The front elevations of the second story should be setback from the first story and include more articulation. Next slide. This is the most serious issue regarding the house. The design guidelines specifically call out large uninterrupted walls. The home's eastern wall is a perfect demonstration of why such structures are discouraged in the guidelines. They cast shadows on neighboring solar panels, shade neighboring property, and black light access. Next slide, please. The staff report attempts to compare the proposed 60-foot eastern wall for 925 Windsor Street with the existing 56-foot eastern wall on 929 Windsor and uses this as justification that it is compatible with the current neighborhood mass and scale. In fact, the two elevations are dramatically different as shown in the table. The proposed home is much taller, the two-story position, the two-story portion is much longer, and the wall is much closer to the neighbor property line which I think it's five feet on their side and then six feet, 10 inches on the inset, and it's 18 feet on the 929 Windsor Street property. As I said, the proposed step-back is only one feet, 10 inches, which is not big enough in our opinion to visually break up such a massive wall. Increasing this to a full three-foot inset would improve the design aesthetics and reduce shading on the neighboring property. Next slide, please. The text in the red box is pulled from item 10 in the land. Oh, I'm sorry, just a second. We as neighbors have been discouraged by this process. We feel that given this experience, we wanna ensure that there are at least minimal modifications to improve the street face of this building and the western and eastern elevations impact on neighboring homes. We are especially concerned that the applicant has raised the ceiling height on the first floor from eight to nine feet during the review process. This was done between, I think, the first and second zoning administrator hearings. Given that this was never discussed as a change during the hearing process, we request the council direct that the first floor ceiling height be reduced to eight feet. Also, if council will not require a rendering for this application and a redesign, the measures listed on this page should be approved as a minimum step toward improving the design. Next slide, please. We have listed our specific requests for change. Increase the setback on the southwest and southeast corners to two feet, which was suggested in the staff report as an option that council could take this afternoon. And they say they have language that you can add to the conditions to make those changes. We encourage you to do that. Increase the eastern stepback from one foot, 10 inches to three feet and reduce the first floor ceiling height to eight feet. Finally, we urge you to direct staff to move forward with developing large home design guidelines that have objective standards within three to six months. There are communities such as Cupertino that could serve as an example for interim guidelines until the full process is completed. There is clearly concern in our neighborhood about this issue. Last slide, please. Finally, I would like to share. This is a table from Cupertino's second story standards. For single families in the R15 zone, second stories have front, rear and side yard setbacks. We have called them stepbacks in our presentation of an additional five feet. We support adopting such a standard as soon as possible. And we feel like what we've requested all through this of stepbacks on all elevations is supported by Cupertino's standard. Cupertino also has a second to first floor threshold ratio of 66%. So the second floor can only be two thirds of the ground floor. And if an applicant wants to have more, then they need to go through design review. We think this is also a good objective standard and urge the council to adopt it. That concludes my report. I wanna thank you for your time and we're happy to answer any question. Mr. Ferrell, thank you very much for your presentation. This would be the opportunity for Heart and Justin Walsh to provide up to 15 minutes to make a presentation as the applicant. Good afternoon. Is that good? Good afternoon. Today you will be deciding a case of importance for homeowners in Santa Cruz. The questions we believe you will have to answer are who gets to decide who can build and what is built in Santa Cruz. I don't know if this is a policy or a political issue for the council or both. But I wanna start by thanking you for taking the time to listen to this case as our home is an issue of great importance for our life and family. I also wanna thank Nancy and the planning department for all their work throughout this process. As we all know, the city planning department has established policies and regulations, some of which are seemingly subjective. We know they are working on making objective standards for single-family homes. Your decision today may help determine the answers to some of the questions, like should homes over 3,000 square feet be allowed? What is the definition of a neighborhood? Who determines the acceptable look of a neighborhood or a particular home? What rules should there be about massing for two-story homes? What determines R17 versus R15 and how should properties be dealt with that are larger than their zoning designation? Because of current wording, there's been confusion on our block and neighbors have been emboldened to fight against our proposed project. In this fight, they've made inconsistent and unreasonable demands. We have had to go through two zoning appeals meetings, the first of which was an extremely traumatic experience and a planning commission review, all with very few, if any, discussions around the actual design of the house, which is ostensibly the whole basis of the appeal process. Throughout this ordeal, we made numerous concessions, but the appellants keep coming up with new demands. We're not asking for any exemptions or variances and we have followed all Santa Cruz City design codes. We hope you will once again, for the fourth time, approve our home design. We're fairly certain you were previously contacted by those who have appealed the planning commission's decision, but I'm not sure how aware you are of the details of our case. If you looked at the paperwork from the planning department, the zoning administrator and the planning commission, or if you have read the letters written in opposition to our project, or have seen the next door posts, or letters to the editor about us. Our neighbors have canvassed the neighborhood and gained support online with inflammatory and defamatory language. I reached out to you to see if you had any questions from us, but I didn't hear back. I assume that is because one single family house is not that big of a deal compared to the very important issues you usually have to address in the running of the city. Also, our minds may be elsewhere on real horrors happening in our country and around the world. If that is the case, I fully agree. This should not be an issue taking up time at a city council meeting. However, we are here now and your decision is important to us. What you decide about our house may set a precedent for future building of single family homes in Santa Cruz, and I believe it would be best for you to do that after being fully informed. So I'm going to tell you a little bit about us and our project from our perspective. We are from Santa Cruz. We love Santa Cruz. This is our home. I moved here when I was a teenager. Justin was born at Community Hospital and he was raised here. We both attended Brant's Forty Middle School and Harbor High. We got married in Santa Cruz. Our kids were born at Dominican and I'm a middle school teacher in Santa Cruz City School District. We both grew up with instability. So we know how extremely fortunate we were to be able to buy our home on Windsor Street in 2000 to achieve the dream of home ownership and the possibility of creating stability for our family. It's a bungalow, two bedroom, one bath, about 900 square feet. From the get go, we knew we wanted to eventually expand the house because of its size, but it has taken a long time to get to the point of being able to build. After starting the process three years ago, we realized that there are issues with the foundation and structure that will require a rebuild instead of an addition. That has led us to our current home design. We want to create a home that is comfortable for our whole family. A couple of our kids are in college and the third is already in high school. We know how hard it is for young people to make a start these days and our kids feel the same connection to Santa Cruz that we do. They have asked for space in the new home. We also have aging parents and we would like to make sure we have space for those who may rely on us. Over two years ago, we told our immediate neighbors that we were planning to build a two-story home. Nobody raised any concerns at that time. Then once our plans were already well through the city process, they let us know they were not happy. At first, we tried working with neighbors to come to an arrangement, but each had a different concern and demand. We tried to take their concerns into consideration, but some were unreasonable and there was no way to satisfy everyone and still have a design that we liked. At that time, I would describe the two biggest concerns as those of privacy and size. Over the course of the past six months, as our plans have been approved and appealed over and over, the appellants' demands have changed. There's not much on the agenda I really get care about. Just a moment here. We'll be with you in just seconds. Just hold on that. We're good. Thank you very much. That won't be subtracted from your talk. Okay. Once they realize that 3,000 square feet is not the maximum size allowed and that trying to stop us from building two stories wouldn't work, they brought up issues of drainage, setbacks, windows, wall articulation, et cetera. Anything to slow us down or wear us down. We've been working closely with Nancy in the planning department. Every time we've made a change, they come up with a new, another detail to oppose. Through this process, we have changed the look of the front facade of the house and the roofline. We have made adjustments to the east side, including an inset to break up a long second-story wall and reduce the number of windows to add to the privacy of the neighbors on that side. Other demands we've heard over the course of this time are move the entire home back six to 12 inches. This to us is nitpicky and will not make a difference in the look or feel of the home. We've also been asked to make the front of the house resemble our neighbors by creating a design that looks like an add-on, one story in the front and two stories in the back. That is not a look that appeals to us, nor is it a logical or cost-effective design for a new build. Most recently, appellants demanded that we inset the upper floor by three feet and today I heard five feet on all sides. This to us is a ridiculous ask that would completely change the look of the home in a way we wouldn't like and also would require a major costly redesign of the upstairs. Obviously today, you've heard many more demands. Neighbors have argued that there are many families that will be directly and substantially affected if we build our home and their needs outweigh the benefit to us. We do not believe that our home design needs to be a collaborative community effort. They may live nearby, but we are the ones who will be living in this home, not to mention putting in the labor and money to build it. This entire process has been an invasion of our privacy and has left me feeling vulnerable. I hope future homeowners do not have to go through this. One's experience should be determined by rules and regulations, not by how vocal their neighbors are. It is difficult enough to build a home, but we've had to jump through so many extra hoops, making multiple design changes, having to get a substitute teacher to take time off of work every time we have one of these meetings, going to local businesses to request supplies to create a materials board and endless trips to the planning department. We've also had to deal with the opposition, nastiness, and lies that were told about us. It is because of our neighbors' actions and tactics that we have not been communicating directly with any of them for months. We're already far behind our hope for schedule. We will have to endure another winter in our current not watertight house, and our neighborhood relationships have pretty much all been destroyed. Though there are only two-story homes on our particular block, there are many more in the neighborhood. There's no one character or style that we or the planners have been able to identify. If you walk through the Seabright Central neighborhood, you'll see the variety of home shapes and sizes, and the normalcy of a two-story home next to a one-story home. Because of this, we had no idea that our plans would cause such an uproar, nor that it would impact any remote neighbors in any way. I still don't understand how it impacts people who don't live right near us, besides the fact that allowing our home to be built could start a domino effect of large houses. From the letters I've read, I do think this is a major concern of the appellants and their supporters. They're fighting against change. One neighbor down the street bragged to me that the neighborhood had banded together to stop development on this street before. At least two people on our street owned the houses next to them, their way of controlling development. A different neighbor offered to buy our house at a low rate to perpetuate this model. These neighbors are comfortable with their homes and neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change. Their goal is to control development in this neighborhood but only during their lifetimes. When it was suggested that they protect the so-called style of the neighborhood that they love so much by putting a deed restriction on their own home that would prevent a large home from being built in the future, there was no action taken. I'm telling you all of this because I think it makes sense for you to understand where we are coming from emotionally and needs-wise. We want to build a family home. We're owner builders and plan to do all the work that we are legally allowed to do on our own. We are not multimillionaires. We do not own any other homes. We're not strangers in this neighborhood. We're not developers. We have gone through many iterations of our house plans including plans that were under 3,000 square feet which our neighbors also did not like. Based on our needs and the costs and benefits involved we settled on a larger home. This perhaps was our biggest mistake because it set off a flurry of concerns. We do not live in an HOA community but the appellants have banded together to make demands regarding our home. While we've been busy working and taking care of our family, neighbors have had ample time to study the city codes, consult with professionals, make PowerPoint presentations, write letters to the editor and canvas the neighborhood on multiple occasions. They've gathered a lot of support for their cause. Of course, those they've talked with have only heard one side of the story. How dare we try to build a large house? What we would like for our block and Santa Cruz in general is to be vibrant. With plenty of housing all over town and welcoming to all people. My guess is that most people who say they oppose our project would agree with us on that vision. There is a housing crisis and we are in support of building more housing in Santa Cruz. Our proposed project is not going to solve that problem for the city but it will provide a space for our three kids and also if needed for our aging parents. We feel so fortunate to be in a position where we have the opportunity to provide a stable home for ourselves and our family. We're also at a point in life where we would like the power to make decisions for ourselves. Since we are following the zoning codes and laws of Santa Cruz, we're not asking for any variances or special exceptions and we have already made numerous changes and accommodations to our plans. I hope you will see that our project should be approved once again. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony here today. Appreciate your presence. The matter is now we're at the step where the council may have questions of the staff. Let me just start around and see if we have questions. I want to move around the dais here. Be glad to. Questions, questions, questions. Questions got back to you pretty quickly there, Ms. Brunner. So at this point, we're asking questions from staff. Is that what you're? Yes. Okay, so I think there's some, let me get back to my notes. I just want to be clear on some of the concerns that were raised in terms of the design, the design, the diagram not reflecting accurately and there was a question of whether the height, there needed to be clarification if it was measured from ground level or first floor mud self. So I'm going to start there with that question. In terms of when staff measures plans, we take it from the grade. So it's from where they show where the grade is to the midpoint. And so the midpoint, even though that ordinance says two and a half stories, 30 feet, that 30 feet is actually at the midpoint, not the ridge. So in terms of whether or not the plans that the applicants submitted is incorrect, that's what we go with. We actually do a measuring from the plans they submitted to figure out what the height is. So we were presented from the appellant with a slide that depicted a conflict there. And so is that not accurate or is that accurate? I don't know, because I don't know the plans or who prepared the plans with scale to take a measurement from their plans. I can only do the plans that are submitted to the city. And the ones submitted to the city are within the height there that is in our staff report. Correct, okay. The other question I had was regarding the eastern wall. Let me go back to that. I think you showed the kind of progress of different diagrams where that eastern wall, there were some changes made in terms of the windows. And then in the middle, it looked like a little setback. And so in the appellant is, let me get to where I wrote what they're asking for an increase in setback to the eastern wall to three feet. Can you remind me what that current setback? So I double checked with the applicant and I confirmed it's actually two feet. It's two feet. Or about a third of that wall on these. And I think that was all of my questions right now. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Brunner. Couple of questions if I could. And some of these, I suspect Ms. Concepcion are to you. Some of them may be to our city attorney. So generally speaking, we have some discretion. We don't have unlimited discretion in these cases. I imagine that there is a, if I understand it correctly, there's a set of rules adopted through ordinance and through regulation and so on that are on our books, set of standards, if you will. And the applicant comes in, makes an application and they are either consistent or inconsistent with those. If I understand it correctly, we don't have, as I indicated earlier, unfettered jurisdiction here to say, well, you can't have a second story or you can only build 300 square feet or whatever it might be. We don't have unlimited discretion here if I understand it correctly. We have very limited discretion here. So my question then grows out of that understanding. Is there anything in this application that is not consistent with any of our regulations or guidelines? No, there are not. In terms of our current standards that we have on the books, this is a standard lot. So we do have properties that are what we call a substandard. It does not meet the district square footage, the lot area. And so we actually do have a floor area ratio for those types of lots. When this district or for the R-1 district, those are thresholds. So the table that was pointed out, it indicates it doesn't mean that you cannot go over 3000 square feet. It just indicates if you do wanna go over 3000 square feet in the R-1-5 zone, you have to apply and go through a design permit with a public hearing, which is what we're doing and which has been appealed. So there's no cap saying you cannot go beyond 3000. Mr. Condotti, my similar question to you, which is it would be helpful at least to me before we get into the rebuttals, before we get into the public testimony and so on to understand the degree to which we have any discretion here. Yes, thank you for that question. And first of all, I would concur with your assessment that the council does have some discretion here. It's not unfettered discretion. And in regard to this project, I would turn your attention to the resolution that was prepared by the staff in support of approval, which contains certain findings and which also contain staff's recommendations as to whether or not this project is consistent with those findings, and that's the area where your discretion lies. You have to apply the standards that are presented. You have more discretion for a project that is over that 3000-foot square foot threshold than you do for a project that otherwise is within the 3000-foot square foot envelope. I would turn your attention specifically to findings four and five, which are on pages four. Give us just a moment to get to that if you'd be kind enough to do that. That is where are you referring in our packet? To the draft resolution numbered pages three and four, just for the sake of the public, I will read those findings. There are other findings, but these are the ones that are most pertinent in my view to the questions that are before you. Number four says the exterior design and appearance of buildings and structures and the design of site plan shall be compatible with the design and appearance of other existing buildings and structures in neighborhoods which have established architectural character worth of preservation. As I heard the appellant, they took issue with some of the staff information concerning whether or not buildings nearby, particularly multi-family residential buildings, should be taken into account in making a determination as to whether or not this finding can be made. That's sort of a judgment call for the council to consider as you weigh the evidence that's presented to you here this afternoon. Second, number five states design of the site plan respects design principles in terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form, and proportion using design components which are harmonious and materials and colors which blend with elements of the site plan and surrounding areas. Location of structures takes into account maintenance of public views, rooftop mechanical equipment is incorporated into roof design or screened from public right of way to the extent possible. Utility installations such as trash, enclosures, et cetera are accessible and screened. So those, primarily number four is what you're looking at here. Number eight also says the site plan ensures that the scaled bulk and setbacks of new development reserves important public views along the ocean and designates scenic coastal areas. That is not really applicable here. So essentially it boils down to whether or not the council believes that you can make adequate findings that the design and the appearance of the building are compatible with the design and appearance of other existing buildings and structures in the neighborhood. That is not an objective information. It is subjective to some extent but it has to be supported by at least some findings. Thank you very much. Let me ask if there are other questions before we go to public comment and then we will give Mr. Ferrell an opportunity to provide his rebuttal. Any other questions? Ms. Watkins is recognized. Thank you for the clarification for the presentation. Also, I saw some images of the ADU and I apologize that it's probably in the packet and I just can't seem to find it. But in the pictures of the different, the project design changes from initial submittal to review at hearings. In the back it shows an ADU or it shows like a building that looks like an ADU. Is that, what, how tall is that? I mean, it looks from the renderings at least subtly there, it looks big. So can you explain that? It was approved as a two-story and I believe it was 21 feet. It's 21 feet. This is a two-story accessory dwelling unit that was approved in 2004. And the one that's being proposed is how tall again? So it's in terms of the midpoint, I believe it's 26 to the ridge, the very top that was at 28. Okay. Well, I'll just say, I think that's a little deceiving. To me personally, it looked like that was bigger based on the picture, so I don't know. Oh, from the perspective view. From the perspective view, it looks like it's a really huge ADU on top of, like so it doesn't seem to fit what you're describing in terms of the actual measurements, but I wanted to sort of double-check on that. Okay, that was my clarifying question. Questions, for the questions, comments before we hear public testimony, we'll have an opportunity here at the council to debate and discussion motion at some point. This would be the opportunity for anyone who wishes to address the council on this appeal to do so. And Ms. Bush, while folks are coming forward, we have folks online. Let me tell you how we handle this particular. We have folks who are observing online or listening online, and what we will do is we'll alternate. I'll take someone here in council chambers, then we'll go online, back to council, back online. That's how we'll do this. Let's start with whoever's online. Good afternoon. If you are online, this is your opportunity. Okay, yeah, this is Garrett. Geez, I didn't know I raised my hand, but I'm just curious what that's called. But well, whatever, the only thing I have to say is, hey, what's the difference between this big house or these 10 unit subdivisions that you're considered in previous meetings? I mean, it's just gonna, you know, those are gonna be even bigger. So, you know, I don't see the difference. And so I'd say approve it. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon, ma'am. Please come forward. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Anina Van Alstine, and I live at 943 Windsor Street. I have a 1,300 square foot one-story house with a 500 square foot ADU. I bought my property in 2007 from the people who originally built it. And I really value the fact that I can offer housing to people like grandparents who come to visit their grandchildren, all that. So I have a couple of things to say as a human, a neighbor, and a real estate broker. The first thing is that as a neighbor, although Hart portrays themselves as victims and that they came and talked to us, I never heard anything about this project until somebody noticed that the sign for the first zoning administration hearing was placed where we couldn't really see it. No one came to talk to me or wrote me a letter. The applicants did not. What was particularly moving to me at the zoning administration hearing, the first one, is that immediately before their project, there were some neighbors in Carbonara who came to speak in favor of a four-lot subdivision where the people who had inherited the big lot had gone door to door and spent over two years getting the neighbors to give their input and what they wanted and ask for what they wanted. We did not have that on Windsor Street and we're not a bunch of bad people and most of my neighbors are retired and we have spent a lot of money and time working on trying to figure out how to make this project fit in in a way that wouldn't be disruptive to the immediate neighbors. Having said that, I now want to talk about some practical details. I am a real estate broker. I bought my first house in 1976 and it changed my life. I had $10,000 to put down and I had to assume a $17,000 loan because I was a woman who could have babies and banks wouldn't make loans to people like me. I was an artist and a calligrapher and I became passionate about helping my friends to buy their first homes because I felt like people would have to leave Santa Cruz if they couldn't get their name on a piece of property here. Okay, so first I want to tell you that I live in Seabright and I track property values in Seabright and Sally DeGirolamo's grandson is a client of mine for those of you who remember her. I helped him buy his first house. Since the SB9 and the pressure and I know we're not governed by SB9 here but the pressure for housing has increased so intensively that ADUs and many ADUs are allowed. I've seen the average sales price of a 700 to 900 square foot single family home on a five to 7,000 square foot lot in Seabright blossom from around a million 250 or a million three to a million seven to a million eight. That's because the land value is the biggest value that you get on a piece of property. So when you talk about putting a 3,570 square foot house on a lot in a single family residence area, you are increasing the value of that land for speculation. If you approve this type of gigantic home which by the way, the way it's designed could account for 12 tenants if somebody rented it at an income of between two and $3,000 a month. What you're doing is increasing the land value because it supports income and what you're gonna do is you're gonna tip the scales even more against people who somehow have figured out how to try their first home by their first home. So they're not gonna be able to afford to live in these neighborhoods. It's going to have an effect contrary to what at least I wish for, which is that normal people can buy homes in Santa Cruz. And by the way, just last thing, that house is gonna cost as far as I can tell and I'm the daughter of an architect and I was married to a builder, it's gonna cost about $2.5 million to build. Maybe it might cost only 2 million but it is going to really, really change the neighborhoods if you approve this because it's gonna become a precedent. I really urge you, I don't wanna make a political stir with my neighbors. There's some neighbors who have a 3,000 square foot house with their parents living in there in an ADU at the corner of Frederick and Windsor. And that's a big house. 3,000 square feet is a big house. I sell big houses. That's a very big house. Thank you. Thank you. Someone online? No one with their hand. No one else online. Good afternoon, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Ironically, I live next door to the house that Anita just referenced on Windsor and Frederick there but the thing I wanted to highlight for all of you as you consider this today is the reason we're here, the reason there was an ability for an appeal and the reason there's a requirement of public hearing here is because this build is outside what the city has decided is okay in our particular area. And if you wanna go forward with something like this, you need public comment. That public comment is supposed to come from the neighbors and the neighborhood who are the protecting class under that zoning. And what you've heard overwhelmingly from them is they're not okay with the project as designed. So it urge you to please consider their feedback, restrictions and improvements to the projects that can both proceed but also take into account the protected folks that rely on that zoning to preserve their neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Kennedy, good afternoon. Nice to see you, sir. Good afternoon. I'm here not as chair of the planning commission but just as a neighbor. This one really got me. I'm here to support the home. I think they should be allowed to build it. It meets all the guidelines. The large home ordinance was built, was written in 1993, I researched when I was a junior in high school. And I think that we are all in the same boat. You all, me, these neighbors, those neighbors, the applicants, the applicants, we're all in this boat with a terrible law. The reason this law is terrible, in my opinion, is that it's subjective. What I feel the character of my neighborhood is, is a lot different than the person who lives next to me. So I really object, like, and again, I want beautiful neighborhoods. I respect all these neighbors. I don't want a huge house next to mine either. But we need to nuke this ordinance. It's terrible. I just read it. It's very short. There's just all sorts of weird stuff in it. I know staff has had on their lists for a long time and they're very busy, but I wanted to suggest letting these poor folks build their home and solve the problem, which is get rid of the large home ordinance. Not to speak for the commission, but I'm pretty sure we get that done pretty quick and avoid conflict if the rules are clear. Everyone knows, done. So that's what I'm here to say. Thank you, sir. Thanks for your time. Thank you for your service. Ms. Bush, anyone online? Good afternoon. Ms. Dory Melville, I am the adjacent neighbor on the east side of the plan development. So what I'm going to need you to do is get real close to that microphone. Thank you. My name is Dory Melville. I am, my husband, Chris and I are the adjacent neighbors on the eastern side of 925 Windsor. Thank you for hearing the appeal today, all of you. I'd like to make it clear that the appeal is not personal against Justin and Hart building a five-bedroom, five-bathroom home or a home over 3,000 square feet. We embrace that. People in our neighborhood should be able to. R1, there is the large home design permit that allows for it. We should be following the process and the rules that it takes us to, including these public hearings, is all. As we've communicated to Justin and Hart when they first came to our house and told us about this after we saw the sign outside their house. So from the beginning of this process, we were confident they could build a home with five ample-sized bedrooms and bathrooms that also meets the large home design guidelines. Our problem is that they failed to do so and that the city planning commission and the city planning department have not held them to it. They have taken measurements that Justin and Hart gave them that are inaccurate about how far our house sits from the road, resulting in us having to say, hey, wait a minute, you've got that house too close to the street compared to the ones next to it. They had the wrong size of our house by what four feet or more in height. We had to tell them about the 62 foot, I think it is, wall that was continuous before we said anything. It looks into our living room. It looks down on our yard. We're five feet from the property line. The zoning map, I wanna show you where we are. We are right here. I'm in after hurry. We're right here. Don't feel that you have to hurry. You're doing fine. Thank you, okay. You're doing fine. Well, this is the zoning map that shows our R1 single family neighborhood. It's a quiet human scale four block by three block bordered area. It borders the ironic old to the east and multifamily zoned areas on all other sides. And those multifamily zoned areas are important and they allow for the more relatively urban size and dwellings. Those are what are shown in here. Still, in Santa Cruz, single family home R15, whatever. Oh gosh. Can I extend my time? You're fine. Take a few more seconds. You were setting up your deal. Okay. Another 30 seconds or so. Okay, so the large home permit guidelines do not apply to multifamily neighborhood zones where the relatively more urban scale developments are expected. The large home guidelines were put in place by the city to protect the human scale nature of the single family home dwellings throughout Santa Cruz neighborhoods to prevent the development of visually oppressive dwellings out of character and size and scale with existing family neighborhoods. The city master plan calls for the preservation of our R1 five single family dwelling left in place. I looked ahead at the planned ones going forward over 10 years or however they go forward too. And unless that master plans changed, it's important that we follow the large home design permit glide clients and enforce them in the same way as other zoned codes are expected to be enforced. I feel that the city planning department and city commission planning commission let us down. They've allowed the appellant, they've allowed the applicant to provide information and they've taken it as law. If you look around our neighborhood, you'll see that the two story homes while they're over 3000 square feet, perhaps they're not anything like the one being proposed. They're very different in nature like ours. 500 square feet at the top and set way back. You're good. Is that which one? Well actually there was one more thing I wanted to read. It's the last paragraph of the letter that almost 90 people signed to approval of this dwelling with this exceptionally large scale and size, it's oppressive visual presence. It's largely under-interrupted walls and urban architectural style. Lack of respect for Skyview and privacy for the neighbors will set a precedent that will further erode adherence to these guidelines in the future. Once this is in there, other people are gonna say, look, there's already one in the neighborhood. Thank you. All right, okay. Now, for those of you going forward, as you can tell, I try to accommodate you. You knew how much time you had walking in here. Don't double and triple it. If you wanna go on for 10 or 15 seconds, I'm not gonna stop you. You do what just happened, I'm gonna stop you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. First off, I just wanna say thank you for all your patience. It's really, it's just wonderful to see people who are patient and just conduct business the way it should be done. My name's Jerry Spodak. I live four houses down from the applicant. I'm also a downtown businessman, a downtown property owner. So I'm gonna reiterate something that actually Tony Condati said and Nancy Concepcion said, which is on page 42 of the Zoning Administrator Agenda Report. This is dated May 17th. It says here under section 2408-450 requires a design permit to construct any house in excess of 3,000 square feet in the R-15 zone district. The purpose of this review is to protect existing neighborhood, character and identify by promoting a variable landscape, maintaining existing neighborhood patterns and limiting obtrusive visual impacts on nearby properties. So they both admitted that those objective metrics do not exist, that the metrics don't exist. So how can you judge something from the planner's point of view if they don't have something that they can look at and say this applies or doesn't apply, the whole thing is moot. So I, and it's not the applicant's fault that they didn't know. They just didn't have anything to go by. What fits into a neighborhood? So I'm saying, I think they should go back and be redesigned to fit into the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We have anyone online, Ms. Bush. Anyone else who wishes to provide comment or testimony? Last call. Matter is, this would be the opportunity for Mr. Farrell to provide your rebuttal you have as the appellant up to five minutes, sir. Good afternoon again. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mayor Keely and council members. First of all, I'd like to clarify that as part of this appeal, we are not lobbying or stating that the applicants can't build a house bigger than 3,000 square feet. We have said that in our presentation and that's our position. Individual people may have different opinions in our group, but here speaking for the appeal on behalf of the neighbors, we're saying that they have a right to house over 3,000 square feet. What we're asking is that they comply with the requirement in the large home design guidelines of doing representation of the impact on the adjacent properties as we showed in our presentation. Now people say, well, it's academic, but I think it's a matter of principle. If this is what should be required for a large home as part of completing their application, they should complete it. So it's part of the record. And I also, and we also feel that this should be clearly required for any new large home design permit applications. Secondly, or thirdly, we support the compromise 20 foot six inch setback that was included in staff's report and that the applicants have agreed to. We thank the applicants for agreeing to that. And we also wanna encourage you to increase the step back or setback at the southeast corner of the second story to two feet. Staff has offered a potential for you to approve that and say that they could include a setback of one to two feet. We think two will have more benefit to the adjacent property at 921 Windsor Street. And at the other side, other corner of the building on the second, on the second story where the room vault is, the vault room is. Again, we would like to see that pulled back two feet from the second story so that the front of the second story is all in one line. We think that will reduce impacts on the house, on the right hand east side of the property. Finally, we wanna reduce, we want to stick with the original ceiling height that was submitted by the applicant, which was eight feet and which only changed during the review process and wasn't revealed as part of public discussion. I presented the Cupertino standards as a sample of what could be considered by council. We are not suggesting that the step back or setback on the second story for this house be five feet. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. For your information, typically the council would have taken an afternoon break a few minutes ago. What we're going to do is give you all a break for a few minutes. We're going to take a brief break. Why don't we come back here? We'll take a 15 minute recess and then we will come back. So we'll be back here at 4 p.m. Can I see you? Yes. The hour of four o'clock, having arrived the city council returns from its afternoon recess, we will resume our deliberations on item 18 and appeal from the planning commission. This matter is now back before the council, having heard all of the required testimony, we're back before the council. Are there any questions or if we have a motion? Council Member Brunner is recognized. I have, I'd like to make a motion and I emailed it to you, Bonnie. And then can we have discussion after I, as a starting point? So I put a lot in there. I was able to confer with the city. Let's do this. Make your motion first, then we can. Okay, I make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold staff's recommendation and approve the proposed single family home with the following modifications. At the second floor, Southwest corner area, provide a step back on the second floor, front, south elevation of at least two feet from the first floor for the primary bedroom three. This step back shall extend for the length of the bedroom approximately 19 feet and would not need to extend into the connected bathroom. On the gable ends facing Windsor Street, a separate material or detailing to the first floor. This is the first floor for the primary bedroom three. This step back shall extend for the length of the bedroom approximately 19 feet and would not need to extend into the connected bathroom. The material or detailing to be incorporated to improve the street facing aesthetics. And even though they're meeting the required height, have the height reduced from nine feet to eight feet to help with, oh, I didn't finish there, to helped with the perceived, let me look at my notes. I will continue reading in a second. I just want to make sure I get that right. Basically the perceived massing from the street, if you want to just put that. Massing, M-A-S-S-I-N-G. And I would, after I make this motion, ask if there's anything technical that I need to correct from city staff. I hope I got everything right in my language here. And then prior to submittal of the building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit, revised floor plans and revised elevation drawings articulating the proposed changes for administrative approval by staff. And staff, I think it's really important that staff shall retain discretion to require varied reforms on the front elevation and may exercise some discretion in achieving the intent of this motion through slight modification of the standards. So long as the intent, which is to further reduce the massing of the second story, front elevation and to improve the aesthetics is retained. There's a motion by Council Member Bruner. Is there a second? I will second for purpose of discussion. Motion is second. Council Member, you may open on your motion. Thank you. That was probably the longest motion I've ever made. And looking out at all of the community here and the neighbors, I know that there was a lot of materials to read through and to consider and your emails were read. All of your input was deeply appreciated. Your testimonies, thank you to the applicant for sharing your story. Thank you to all the neighbors. And for me, I'll just say a couple of points that led me to this. I think to me, this is a way forward with balancing what some of the concerns are and the needs of the family there. And seeing that the project was revised several times shows to me that they're working to, the applicant is working to make improvements. And while we talk about neighborhood compatibility and all of that, it's kind of a fine line in what we require of our neighbors. Privacy, definitely an understandable concern for folks. Nobody wants a large window looking into a bathroom, for example. Some people like to walk around without clothes on, for instance. But I think that knowing that they could have easily constructed a house below this 3,000 square foot threshold that we have, it could have resulted in something nobody would have liked and with no privacy, no visible step backs or aesthetics that some neighbors consider compatible with the neighborhood. So I think that this is a way forward for working to really meet the needs of the family and thank you for providing a multi-generational home for your aging parents, your kids coming back from college, whatever that may be, I think that's really important. I know that more and more seniors have been reaching out to us as we work to be an age-friendly city, to have places for seniors to be and live and living with family is the most healthy way and well-being, so while this is a single-family home and doesn't necessarily provide complete public benefit, it does provide public benefit in that way for providing space for these generations of this family. And I really thank the staff in the city attorney for talking through and really going through all of these points because it's helped all of us understand a little better the nuances here in this situation and I think that I'm attempting to strike a balance for the massing concerns that the neighbors have expressed and not ending up with a worse project where no discretionary permit would have been needed and I think that's something that we have to consider. So I hope these proposed changes can really meet that balance and I will open it up for discussion. Sir, for the debate or discussion. Council member, excuse me, the vice mayor is recognized. I have a question for the director. My question is, if this wasn't a single-family home because I know we were here the other night, if I bought the house next door, what could I build without, what's available now to me? Thanks for that question, vice mayor Golder. So I see that as two separate questions. If it wasn't a single-family home is different than what you could build on the adjacent properties and so I'll address both of them. So then I guess my question is, because of the zoning, could you build something other than a single-family home next door? Right now, under the current zoning and what could that look like? So just about every single-family property in the city can utilize SB9 for, I don't wanna say just about, but there are opportunities to utilize SB9 to create four units on many single-family properties. There are provisions that need to be met. If you're doing a subdivision, for example, it needs to be a 60-40 split in the lot area and so not all existing development can accommodate that. So I stand corrected on just about all, but many properties can actually build four. You can typically, I will say just about all properties can build three units being a single-family residence, a accessory dwelling unit and a junior accessory dwelling unit and then of course, if it were as a single-family, this or other properties could go up to 3,000 square feet without having a design review process. So just a building permit, no discretion. So an adjacent property may be single-story now. It could come in, demolish that single-story and come in with a 2,999 square foot home with no discretionary process under our current regulations. The last thing that I'll say is if they were exercising their right to say put in a duplex under SB9, which they could do without doing a subdivision, then a property would then have the Housing Accountability Act protections. As a single unit, this is not subject to the Housing Accountability Act. And so once the Housing Accountability Act kicks in with two units, the council's discretion is very limited in what they can do. Whomever the decision-making body is cannot reduce the square footage or reduce the number of units beyond what is proposed if they are meeting the objective standards. So in those instances, there's much less discretion. So the state has put a lot of different changes in recently and the world of single-family zoning is really no more. And for good reason because of the historical issues that have occurred surrounding segregation associated with single-family zoning. Can I ask one follow-up question to that? Vice Mayor is required. So if we were to not, if we were to, I lost my thought here. If, I'm getting confused about deny and uphold the appeal. So if we were to tell the builders we're not, we're gonna not let them build this project as presented to us today. And they went back to their architect and said, fine, we'll put a little kitchen in one of the bedrooms. Then what, like, could they just build it? Because then they'd have a junior ADU, they have the ADU of the house, like, Do you want to ask me? Yeah, so. Then it's a junior ADU, one of the bedrooms. Good question. Am I wrong? Good question. So they could build up to a 3000 square foot, or 2,999 square feet. And I will actually consult with the team here for a junior ADU they can do an addition or does that have to be a conversion? Sorry. Sorry. So I'm not sure about that off the top of my head. I'd have to, you know, we'd have to look and see, but I believe that that would still trigger the large home over 3000 square feet. But I'll give Eric, our assistant director, a moment to look that up. Yeah, maybe if the council can continue. Yeah, thank you. I just was remembering our discussions the other night and that made me think of this. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the council. A junior ADU can either be a conversion within an existing single family or it can be proposed as an addition, in which case it would not count towards the 3000 square feet design review threshold. Thank you. Thank you for the questions and comments. Ms. Brown, you have your microphone up. Are you seeking recognition? I was and I think I'm not at this point. Thanks. Others, others who Ms. Watkins is recognized. For, thank you for working to try to strike a balance. I appreciate that. In terms of the term set step back and is that interchangeable with set back? I'm just trying, I'm just trying to understand it because set back is what I'm used to, but then I'm getting hung up on that. Hi. Thank you, council member Watkins. So they can be used interchangeably at times typically when we're talking about step back, we're talking about a difference between one floor and the next floor versus a set back would be from a property line. That's the typical distinction. So you could say, all right, the first floor is at a 20 foot set back and the second floor is a 22 foot set back or you could say a 20 foot set back for first floor and a two foot step back for the second floor. I see. Can be used interchangeably. Okay. Okay, thank you. You should have clarification. I was trying to catch that. Oh, go ahead. I mean, do you? Council member, please. Then the other, and then maybe we could revisit it. The other is these, Tony, in terms of what you were describing with the resolution for number four, does this fall into the number four category for our discretion? I believe that the conditions proposed by council member Bruner are consistent with the discretion afforded the council under that specific criterion. And then the other question, I think I had just more generally was in regards to revisiting the policy and where we are with that process and that was referenced in comments, but also in general. Sure, thanks for that question, council member Watkins. Is this something that is an important endeavor for our planning division and really for the city as a whole? Your council gave us direction back in August to pursue a competitive grant with the REAP 2.0 process. We requested $750,000 and completed that application in late August. And we haven't heard back on that yet. We do intend to pursue these changes one way or another in the coming years, but that process will be expedited if we are able to get that grant. This is not the only thing that's included with the grant, but the single family design guidelines as well as looking at the additional units on a site through SB9 and design standards associated with those. There's a whole package of design updates that we included with the REAP 2.0 grant, single family objective design standards being won. Great, I just appreciate that. I think that's gonna be really important, particularly with SB9 and I think also within the values of the community, wanting to see more density in the downtown so that we can preserve the neighborhood feel and experience in our neighborhoods. And so having some standards and guidelines around that, I think it's gonna be really important, especially considering the question and the answer that we received by the vice mayor as well in terms of what some of the workarounds could be. So I think that concludes my questions at this time. Ms. Brown. Don't think I have questions at this point. I do have a couple of comments. So, and I appreciate the effort to identify some ways that we can have a player role in some redesign to address neighbor's concerns. I think this is really critical. I think given the fact that the state has essentially eviscerated local government's authority over land use and planning in a lot of cases, where we continue to have discretion, I think is really important. And so I wanna exercise that here. I appreciate your efforts to try to respond to the neighbors while also finding a way forward for the applicant. And I personally don't feel that given what we've seen and I wanna refer back to council member Watkins question about the renderings and the sort of deceptiveness of those and I'm not saying that's intentional. That's a feature of the way architects provide those drawings, those renderings to make things look less impactful than they're going to be. And that's just part of, I've asked architects, why did you use this particular angle or view and they tell me that's because we want it to look good. So I understand that's part of it. But what that given the reality on the ground in this case, it doesn't feel to me that the representation reflects, gives us a sense of what that impact is gonna be. And so I feel that I'm hard pressed to be able to make those findings with what we have. And I don't, and if we do move forward with the direction with the motion on which I'm inclined to support, it means that the staff will then be able to take a look at that and determine what those changes mean visually. And so I feel a little nervous about that, but I do, I don't wanna be too contrarian here just because I have the same feelings about the project. And so I guess I'll leave it there. I'd love to hear what others are thinking as we head towards a vote here. I'm sorry, Johnson is recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Bruner for the motion and your work on the motion. And thank you everyone who has come up today to speak. I do have a question. There was a comment made by I believe Ms. Melville that we had incorrect information about the measurements of their property and as such then that skewed whether they met the guidelines or not. And I wonder if you could just speak to that. And I know we can't measure their property. And I don't know which property number, actually Ms. Melville, what was it? 929 Windsor. 929 Windsor. So I don't know if anyone can speak to the mis-measurement of an adjacent property that would then impact how we look at the property that is the applicant. Is my question clear? I am. Mr. Butler. Thank you. Are you referring to the front setback? We have a condition in the report that specifies that, so there's a provision in the code that speaks to having a front setback averaging. And so depending on where those front setbacks are, that could have implications for this particular property in terms of where that setback would be. There is a condition of approval that addresses that. I will pull that up for you if you give me just a moment or Nancy, if you get that ahead of me. If I could just further clarify, so when we were determining the property, the applicant can either do an average or they can do a median for the front setback. And so staff looked at the properties 921 Windsor, which has a 20 foot setback, and then utilized the building plans that were submitted for 929 Windsor. And that was what was included in the packet. And so based on the building plans that were submitted by 929 Windsor, that's how we derived 20 feet, six inches as the required front setback. And that's, we had indicated that to the applicants and they were fine with that. And Nancy, is my recollection correct that we had a condition of approval to address that, the potential difference? But we indicated it so for, unless their building plans are incorrect for 929 Windsor, that's what we use. And they had indicated they were having a survey done. And if that does show that it's a 22 foot setback versus the 21 that's shown other building plans, we would honor that. But given what we have on record for the property and we're utilizing city records, that's how we arrived 20 feet, six inches. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. And I'll just make some brief comments. This is a really difficult agenda item. You know, I think that as my colleagues have said, we have very little discretion now when it comes to housing. And I don't think that's a surprise. We've denied housing for so long in so many communities across the state. And that's why the state's coming down hard. And we have to take all the opportunities that we can to shape our local policies. So I hope we get the grant. And if we don't get the grant, I will be advocating for revising our large home ordinance and making it such that we can have even more discretion. As my colleague here said, this project doesn't address our housing crisis in the way that we envision and move forward with other projects like the housing that we have, affordable low-income housing downtown, and the plans that we have to build downtown. And it does provide multi-generational housing. And I appreciate that. And I appreciate hearing that story. So I am inclined to support the motion as it's presented. I do think it does strike a balance. I think it addresses many of the neighbors' conditions that were put before us while moving ahead. Because I'm afraid that if we support the appeal, which would stop the project, we would be right back here in a few months. And or the applicants can present something that's 2,999 square feet. And it would give us less discretion about what that block in that neighborhood will look like. So for those reasons, I am inclined to support the motion as written. Thank you for your work on it. For the debate or discussion, the vice mayor is recognized. I am, while I agree with the spirit of the motion, I'm inclined to, and I like all the appellants, and I think you all brought good points, I'm inclined to deny the appeal and just go with the plans as presented. I think reducing the height of the interior ceilings from nine feet to eight feet seems a little capricious. I think that standard height has changed over the decades and nine feet is kind of the new standard. And if you even look at old homes, Victorian homes, sometimes they were 10 to 12 feet. I lived in Seabright for many years. I think that the design does go with the character of the neighborhood and things change over time. Having gone through a very similar process myself in the past few years, I would have been so frustrated if I had gotten to this point. I did not go over the 3,000 square feet, but I also didn't talk to any of my neighbors, except for my next-door neighbor who happened to be our architect. And I think it's well within, and I was comparing your plans to my plans. ours is 72 feet of uninterrupted link wall that my architect did that faces his house. And so I think to the extent, and that was the existing footprint of the house already. So it's not like I made it bigger, it was that was it, that's what there is there. Ours was a remodel, I'm just, to me, this seems like kind of far reaching to make these really specific demands. And I'm looking at their plans and trying to make heads or tails. And so I think if you move that one wall on the primary bedroom upstairs back, it would make, they already have some, they have ju-ju-ju-ju, it would just make it, and so it looks like there'd be less architectural detail if they did, if you did the first bullet point from what I can see looking at the plans. And so I'm not an architect, it's not my house. This seems like a lot of really specific details and I feel super uncomfortable supporting, knowing how much time and money the homeowners have invested to get to this point and the stress level. So while I respect the intent and I appreciate the neighbors and I really like the appellants, I can't support this and that's where I'm at. And I think that I'm in the same position with the same age kids and the same age old parents and it does contribute to our housing problems and that I hope that my kids, I haven't even given my kids a chance to go to way to college, they're living at home for college. When they get out of college, I hope they stay there until they can save up enough money for their own down payment. I think it's really judgmental of us to assume that this isn't contributing to the housing affordability crisis because for this family, this is making it affordable to live here and stay here and I think they are normal people and so I appreciate that. So I can't support this as it's written, sorry. For the debate or discussion, seeing and hearing none, the clerk will call the roll. Council Member Newsom. Aye. Brown. Aye. Watkins. Aye. Brunner. Aye. Calentary Johnson. Aye. Vice Mayor Golder. No. And Mayor Keely. Aye. Motion passes and subordinated. We, item 19, the last item on our agenda has been continued for 30 days time. Is it for the business to come before the council? There's it for the business to come before the council. Seeing and hearing none, motion to adjourn would be in order. The vice mayor moves. Ms. Watkins seconds, non-debatable. Those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? We stand adjourned.