 staff are you ready? Ready? Oh, we have no city manager. Okay. I am. I knew that. I knew that. Yeah. Linda, you're good. We'll call the meeting of the capital city council to order. May I have a roll call please? Council Member Harlan? Here. Council Member Bertrand? Here. Council Member Peterson? Here. Council Member Bottorff? Here. Mayor Termini? Here. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Tonight's meeting is being cable cast live on charter communications. Cable TV Channel 8. It's also rebroadcast on AT&T, U-Verse, and Comcast Channel 25. Our technician tonight is Lynn Dutton. Please turn your phones, cell phones off. And when you come up to speak to the council, please sign in. Let's see. I believe we have a presentation tonight. Good evening, Mayor Termini. Council members and staff and guests, I'm here before you this evening. It gives me great pleasure to introduce our newly promoted police sergeant, Sergeant Sarah Ryan. Sarah is a 12-year veteran of the Capitola Police Department. She was promoted to police sergeant on May 20th, just about a month ago. Sarah was selected from a pool of six highly qualified candidates. She will be assigned to the patrol division with many ancillary duties that include management of the city's police department volunteers, the reserves program, our explorer program. In addition, Sergeant Ryan will oversee the entertainment permit and alcohol beverage control ABC regulatory process throughout the city. And she just acquired another ancillary duty. Sarah has taken the lead in managing our recruiting program. I have displayed here for everyone to see. Some of you were here in attendance earlier this afternoon for our swearing-in ceremony here in the council chambers and thanks to everyone who attended. I thought it was important that I put this picture up because it's a clear indication of all the support that Sarah has throughout the entire county and other counties. We had law enforcement representatives from San Jose, from the Monterey County and many, as you can see, law enforcement officials, other chiefs from the Santa Cruz area. It was very impressive to see all those in attendance this afternoon for Sarah's swearing-in. So please join me in congratulating Sergeant Sarah Ryan on her promotion to police sergeant. Thank you. I didn't prepare anything official to really to say. This has been an amazing experience for me. And 13 years ago, I started as a community service officer here in Capitola and was fortunate enough to be sent to the police academy and my heart and soul has been here all my entire life growing up as a kid here and raising my family here. So I am just, I elated with the experience and happy that I get to just continue on and rise as a leader. We have a young agency and it's exciting. It's always really exciting to see and to be a part of bringing everyone up. So thank you. Sergeant, on behalf of the city council, you're one of the reasons why we're proud to represent Capitola, the entire department and certainly you. Thank you. And it was a well-placed promotion. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, chief. We now have a presentation from the community action board. Good evening council members, staff and guests. I'm Helen Ewan Story and I'm the assistant director of the community action board of Santa Cruz County. I want to thank you all for the time tonight and the space on the agenda to talk to you about CAB, what's new with our services and how we work in partnership with you to benefit this community. So I'm joined this evening with some members of the community action board team including our executive director, Maria Elena de la Garza and our rental assistance program or RAP program. We have some staff including Loris Arena Perez who is our program coordinator and Irene Martin who is one of our newer members at RAP who is our north and mid-county eligibility worker and case manager. So and they'll be speaking a little bit later. But I want to start out again by saying thank you very much for the time and your partnership. And just by saying again that CAB's mission as you all know is to partner with the community to eliminate poverty and to create social change through advocacy and essential services. And we did that by providing services and doing that work with nearly 10,000. Oh you are not seeing the presentation are you? Let's see. There it is. Okay. What is that? Yeah, I did that. Okay, well we'll see. We'll see. So we did that by providing services to a little over 9,900 individuals. So nearly 10,000 individuals last year in 2017. And our service provision is kind of concentrated in four different areas. So we focus on community building and youth services which include things like after school programming, mentoring, violence prevention, youth and adult employment and reentry services and support, immigration legal assistance and citizenship services and homelessness prevention work that we'll talk about a little bit more in depth soon. We also, every time we present about CAB we like to talk about what makes CAB different as a nonprofit. And there's some distinct things that make us different. As you know we've been around in the community for over 50 years. We were born as part of the war on poverty process. And by design and by mandate we have a tripartite board. And so we have three equal parts, low income representatives from the community. We have private sector representatives including the financial sector. We have the CEO from the Santa Cruz Community Credit Union. We have a new health care seat and we have a new member representing that sector. And we also have a public government sector. And so honestly we're doubly blessed at CAB because in terms of representation from Capitola because Kristen Peterson of course on your council is also on our board. Your appointment to our board is our current one of our co-chairs for the board. And we really thank her for her really engaged and amazing service on our board. And we're also blessed by having Leo Moreno who's one of your detectives here also representing the criminal justice as part of the sectors. So Capitola is well represented and we're very appreciative for that. The other way that we're very distinctly different than other nonprofits, again by design by federal mandate, is that we're mandated to have a biennial community action plan. And that means we go out and many of you have been part of this process and seen it over the years but we go out to the community and we talk to them and hear from them about what their needs are. What are the top issues and challenges they're facing to help inform our programming and our services. And this last year when we undertook this process in 2017 to guide our work in 2018, 2019 we had a very robust process. We went out and spoke to members of the community that are very rarely engaged with when we're talking about needs and also assets. So looking at taking a really deeper dive in terms of what people's needs are about opportunity and poverty in this community. So there's a lot of information there and we'll probably come back to your council at a later time to give you a real deep dive into that community action process. We'll be producing a report that we're very excited about in terms of carrying the work forward and we'll be having an event in the fall as well. But I just want to summarize really quickly that some of the top needs that were identified in the community this year, some of them are fairly expected I think in terms of jobs, the need for more jobs, more living wages, more consistent employment, very high rent burden in the community, barriers to accessing resources in the community, needs for additional health support including mental health. And one of the areas that came out that hadn't come out before in our process and I think it really spoke to the level of engagement that we had with community members who aren't usually engaged in this is really the impact of discrimination on community members opportunity. So again we'll talk more about that when we roll that out in the future and just to say we also ask them about assets. What are assets, what are strengths that they rely on to help them in this community? And some of the top assets that came out were family support, community support around that, cultural programming and legal services. That worked. So our six programs, so in those four areas of service provision we have six programs and one new special project. So the programs are our Alcance program which does the youth and adult employment services, our CalWorks emergency payment program that helps folks transition from welfare to work, stay housed and get the supplies and resources they need to pursue education, career, start their own businesses for example. The Day Workers Center which is located in Live Oak but serves all the county and helps day workers find employment and provide services for homeowners primarily in the community that need work done. We have our Davenport Resource Service Center up on the north coast which is a full service family resource center. Our Santa Cruz County Immigration Project which provides citizenship, DACA services, many different things. And the newest project is our Thriving Immigrants Collaborative Special Project which is really helping support families who are at risk of impact for deportation. Our sixth program is our Rental Assistance Program and that one is in particular what your council supports in terms of both community services, social services programming and the emergency rental assistance and mortgage contract that we have with you. And as I said it's staffed, we have about three staff members. Like I said two of them are here today and we'll speak with you a little bit more soon. So the Rental Assistance Program has been a program at CAB for over 30 years and been really a support for folks to avoid homelessness and eviction in the community for that time. And we've changed our services a little bit over time. Our focus really is on rental assistance to avoid eviction now. In companion with case management, financial literacy, and capability support, we try to really provide wraparound services to help support people stay housed in this community. We want to avoid the trauma, the stress, you know, both financial and emotional that comes with homelessness. So you can see that in this fiscal year to date which is almost over, but as of the end of May we had served 78 low-income households, composite seniors, disabled folks, families that had received rental assistance to avoid eviction. In Capitola, so year to date, we've served six households with rental assistance. And let me just say one is pending. So we're hopeful that that would be seven. We have typically, when I looked back at the numbers, we've typically served between seven, eight or nine families each year in Capitola through the emergency program. And, you know, we know that some of the impact this year, it's been a little bit harder and that's frankly county-wide has been some of the kind of fear, the climate of fear in the community in terms of accessing benefits. So that's definitely had some impact on the services. But we are very happy to report that we have a wonderful retention rate. This is one of the ways we benchmark our success. And so the Capitola assistance that we provided so far, 100% of those families that we served this year are still in housing. And, you know, we started serving folks in August, I believe it is. So between that three to nine-month retention rate, they're still housed. And so we feel wonderful about that. I want to just give a moment or two to Lourdes and to Irene to talk about some of those success stories. Good evening to all of you. My name is Lourdes, and I'm sure you hear me very well without that. And thank you. I'd like to thank you for your time and the opportunity to be able to be here too. Thank you all for the support that you have provided us. Due to that support, we're able to relate to you. For example, a situation that comes to mind is a Capitola resident. He's a single father of a nine and a 12-year-old who works in construction. And when we assisted him due to the weather, unfortunately, was unable to work, which led to him falling behind in his rent. Considering the trauma that his children had been experiencing with them when he became a single father, you can imagine his stress when he received the eviction notice. The last thing he wanted was to have his children continue to go through more emotional trauma. Needless to say, he too was very stressed at the thought of being at risk of losing his children due to not having a proper home for them. So it was a very stressful time for him when he came in seeking support. And thanks to your support, we were able to assist him. And when we touched base with him, we were very happy to learn that he still remains housed. He's working. The children are doing very well and was very grateful and asked that we extend that. So it is my pleasure to thank you in his name. And once again, for the opportunity to be able to thank you personally. Thank you. Irene? Good evening. My name is Irene Martin. Irene, we can hear you, but our thousands of television viewers cannot. I'm being optimistic. Before I tell you a short story that I have, I'd like to thank you so much for your time and your generosity. One of the cases that I assisted this year in Capitola really struck me. It was from a senior citizen. This lady came into our office. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer at the beginning of the year. And so she had to pay some of the medical expenses out of her pocket. And so that forced her to be behind on her rent payments. So she came to our office with a three days eviction notice and she was in tears. So we were able to spit out the application process in order to assist her with the rent payment. And we were able to pay for the two months that she was behind. So we do follow-up calls, okay, after we serve the citizen, we do follow-up calls. And I talked to her about a week ago and she shared with me that she was doing very well from the surgery and the cancer treatment. But she also emphasized on how thankful she was for the, you know, the assistance that we provide her with. So not only as a cab employee, I'd like to really thank you for your generosity, but also as a Capitola resident. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Helen. Folks, I have to tell you that the smart money stops homelessness before it occurs. And we're glad to be part of the smart money. Thank you. We'll move on to report on closed session. Thank you, Mayor Termini. The Council had three items in closed session that they discussed tonight. We started at about 6.15 and ended about 7 o'clock. The first item was labor negotiations. Our labor negotiator, Larry Laurent, reported to the Council on the ACE, mid-management, confidential employees, management employees, and city manager contracts negotiations. No reportable action was taken in closed session. However, the Council is scheduled to take action this evening at agenda item 10E. Larry also reported the Council with regard to ongoing negotiations with the Peace Officers Association. There was no reportable action taken in closed session, and the Council instructed our negotiator with regard to those ongoing negotiations. The Council had to consider one item of initiation of litigation they received a report from the City Attorney Anthony Kandadi and gave direction to Mr. Kandadi with regard to that matter, but took no other reportable action in closed session. And finally, Mr. Kandadi reported to the Council on the progress in the litigation, City of Capitola versus Water Rock, which is the Pacific Cove paving construction claim case. And there's claims and counter claims in that case. That case went to arbitration last week, and we expect a decision from the arbitrator at the end of July. And when that decision comes out, it'll be a matter of public record. Thank you. And I can welcome you back, our former long-time City Attorney John Barrisoni filling in for Tony Kandadi. It's nice to see you. Nice to be here. Thank you. Are there any additional materials? They were distributed previously and are available in the back. We had for item 10D one item of public comment and for item 10E, post-agenda, we distributed the track change versions of the actual memoranda of understanding. Wonderful. Are there any additions to the agenda or deletions? Staff has no changes. Very good. We'll move on to public comments. This is a time when anyone from the public can address the Council on items that are not on this evening's agenda. If it's an agenda item, wait for that agenda item. If not, come and talk to us. Welcome. My name is John Libram. I live at Brookville Terrace Mobile Home Park in Capitola. I've been there 21 years. I recently replaced my old mobile home with a brand new unit in December. I feel really good about that. I also had solar panels put on at the first one in my park. My most recent bill was for $3.45. I'm concerned about global warming. I've been concerned about global warming for a long time. For a long time it seemed like there was just nothing to be done about it. Then I came across a YouTube video by a guy by the name of Dan Miller did this video talking about carbon fee and dividend. I got really excited. It seemed like this is something that could really make a difference. After watching that video, I went on to Google and entered carbon fee and dividend. A group called Citizens Climate Lobby popped up. They're working to get legislation passed to do that very thing, this carbon fee and dividend. They're a national group and they also have a local chapter. I joined the local chapter. There's not enough time to explain what carbon fee and dividend is right here, but I thought I'd send you guys a link. In that link, Dan Miller link, he explains what it's all about. Some friends of mine from Citizens Climate Lobby are here with me to talk about this some more and also explain why we're here talking to you about this. So that's what I had. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Linda Marin and like John, I am a member of Citizens Climate Lobby, Santa Cruz Chapter. I want to give a little context for what John just reported on. We are an organization aiming to create the political will for a livable planet and we have a single solution, we're nonpartisan, we're organized around lobbying for the single solution, which is carbon fee and dividend. And to be very short on that, it has three components. One, put a steadily rising price on carbon, return all of the revenue to households equally. Everybody gets the same and put a border adjustment to not disadvantage business and also to discourage offshoring. So you might wonder, well, what does this have to do with the city of Capitola? And in the void of our federal, the United States having removed itself from the Paris climate agreement, cities and municipalities all over the United States are stepping up and I want to acknowledge that Capitola has a climate action plan and that's laudable. And while that is wonderful and necessary, we still need to keep pressuring our federal government for a national solution to climate change and to global greenhouse gas emissions. So what we do is get endorsements wherever we can. We're very pleased that the city of Santa Cruz and the county of Santa Cruz have signed a carbon fee and dividend resolution and we're hoping for more of those because as you can imagine, I'm sure you know, our legislator Jimmy Panetta, the first thing he wants to know when we talk with him is, well, who's supporting this? So the more support we can show, the more wind under his wings he has to propose and or support or cosponsor this kind of legislation. And even though that might sound like, oh, it'll never happen now, actually, we're closer to that than ever. It's a bipartisan solution and it has a tremendous amount of support from scientists, from economists, and from both parties. So that's an unusual kind of benefit of this solution. So I am here tonight with packets for you if you would like. Our normal approach is to talk with each council member individually and go through the packet and make sure that we answer any of the questions that might come up for you. But I'm happy to leave you with these packets and follow up. We can meet a little later after you've had a chance to read them or even if you don't get a chance to read them, we can walk through them with you. Thank you. If you can give the packets to the city clerk. Okay. And she'll distribute them. Okay. Thank you. Pardon me? Oh, you have one. All right. All right. We can take Thank you, but all of you. Greetings, Ray. How are you doing? Hey, you know my name. Interesting. Oh, I think I see a CEO for the for the thousands of people on TV. We all know you're going to have that. You're a part of pop culture. Well, I actually just wanted to come up here, take the opportunity, since you are all here, and there isn't an event happening in Capitola, but there's two events happening this weekend that we're involved with, which is the families together belong together, marches, which is a national wide movement. And we're going to be having two in this community, one in Watsonville and one in Santa Cruz from 10am to 12pm. Even though there's an injunction from a great judge down in San Diego, stopping the separation of families at this point in time, there's still about 2,500 families that are still separated and there is no action to reunify. You know, this is a cause that anyone who has a child can relate to, and anyone that can really understand comparing criminalization of someone crossing an imaginary line to someone breaking a law is a little irrational. So as our organization, we're really hoping that at least people come and show solidarity for more compassionate resolution. An opportunity for us to discuss immigration policy at a more empathetic way. And we hope that if you have an opportunity between 10 and 12 that you join us in a walk in a march across either one of your selected jurisdictions. So thank you so much. Thank you. Next. Good evening, honorable members of the City Council. Thank you for what you do for this community and be happy you're not on the Santa Cruz City Council. Oh, we are. If you drive through Deepo Hill, the jewel box right after sunset, you can kind of get a reading to what's happening in those communities up there. I would say that Deepo Hill today is probably two thirds empty. And just by looking at the lights on the neighborhood, you get a pretty good idea of which houses are vacant and what's happening. It's not those aren't the only areas anywhere that surrounds the village. Whereas in walking distance, the beach, it seems to be happening that way. And we're seeing a major shift in population in our community. And it's come that people that live in Capitol or Santa Cruz County cannot afford to compete in the housing market in this area. Everything that comes on the market today is bought from someone from out of town. I'm not saying those are bad people, not at all. But what happens is, is our town is becoming a second home community for Silicon Valley. Again, they're good people. There's nothing wrong with them. The difference is, is most of them are wealthy enough not to have to rent their house out. This is changing complexity because the second homes before were all homes that they had rent out to people and create rentals. Today, they're not renting them out. They're staying vacant. So they're only here part of the year. And what happens with that is they don't pay into local sales taxes. They're very little. They don't participate in local government or a community. And say that the neighborhoods are actually less safe because the safest neighborhoods are neighborhoods where you have eyes on the street and add clues knowing and seeing in your neighbors looking down on your community. And so we have a change in demography, but also a change in culture within Capitola. And I would, I would be, I think I would be safe to say that the voter rolls in Capitola are 10% less this year than they were two years ago because those aren't registered voters. Those are people that are coming in buying and keeping homes. You know, I've always liked the idea that people have come before this council with problems also have solutions to those problems when they come up here. I don't. Honestly, I don't have a solution to this. It's just something that we have as a community have to be aware of. And so it brings me a little more discussion about affordable housing in this community. And the only answer that we have to affordable housing is ADUs or accessory units. There's very little opportunity for multiples, some along the commercial corridors. There's no more vacant lots in Capitola, or very few. We are way too restrictive for our land use policies regarding ADUs. It's too expensive, too time consuming, and too restrictive. It's time for the city to find a path for affordable housing in our community. And many jurisdictions are in this process, including the county and city of Santa Cruz, who are actively taking on ADUs as a secondary home issue. This issue should be taken up by the council and your council on the issue with the water department in service in these people. They're harming our community by their policy of requiring separate water meters for ADUs. It wasn't done before, it had hurt a none, and it can go back to that. Hopefully, if you can't take action with the State of California will. If the city really cares about this community's affordability and keeping Capitola people here, now's a good time. This year would be a good time to requisition a study on housing needs and solutions, including ADUs. Look at all the avenues, but you need professional people to look into demographics and what is happening, and what are the changes happening here. And believe me, it would be a great investment for this city. And some examples of what's happening out there is some jurisdictions are going down to 3,000 square foot for allowing for ADU lot. And think about Capitola, only probably one quarter of the lots in this whole city are over 4,000 square feet, which is your requirement. You've already restricted it to only one quarter of the one quarter of the city. I just think that it's time for the city to be proactive on this. Another thing that could be looked at along with this is look at the idea of giving amnesty to people who have secondary units behind their house. Now, I would bet there's 40 of them in Riverview Terrace, and they're living there. The problem is they can't fix it up. They can't clean them up. They're not to code. The code for this is because you don't make issue of it. People are living there. Give them amnesty if they'll create a unit that's livable, and the fact that they need one of the process, they would bring it up to code and make it safer for the people who are living there. Thank you, Dennis. That's it. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, we'll move on to staff comments. Mr. Treasurer, do you have anything for us? There's just one item that I thought was interesting in terms of a major expense. Our Caterpillar 926M wheel loader with the front end shovel cost $190,000. What a bargain. That's a bargain. And I guess that means that maintaining a beach paradise ain't cheap. No, it ain't. And we don't buy one of those every day, fortunately. Staff, any comments? Just two very quick notes. First, I will let you know that today, the CBRT measure that you recall was the measure that we've opposed as a city, which was going to put on the November ballot in an effort to increase the threshold for local taxes to pass, was removed through a compromise with the legislature, which effectively outlaws soda taxes for the next 10 years. But that measure won't be on the ballot November. Secondarily, just wanted to announce, as you've heard many times from me before, Monterey Bay Community Power is going to be delivering carbon-free power to residents in our fair city on July 2nd. And we did a lights on ceremony today down at the courthouse, and so everyone's very excited about that. Thank you. And two other items. Last night, we held in conjunction with the City Clerk, along with the county, held a candidate's night for both City Council and other districts. We had about a dozen people in attendance, about four of whom were interested in running for City Council, so we're pleased. And nomination period begins July 16th, so the 16th through August 10th is the time to pull nomination papers. The second item is that at that same meeting, I received notice from the red star of voters that the initiative, the citizens initiative has been certified. There are ample signatures from voters on the petition, so we will be bringing that item forth at the July 26th meeting. Thank you. Well, now we'll go on to City Council. Comments? Stephanie, you have anything for us? Nothing? Thank you. Jock. I'd like to comment on what I thought was a very well-run community meeting. Last night, Steve Jasper put it on in conjunction with our consultant, and it was well attended at the community center off of Jade Street. A lot of really good comments. I think the neighbors really did put a lot of thought into how to solve the problems. I also noticed that people were very respectful of each other's comments. Got excited because, you know, they're really involved, but I just felt great to be in a community that had that kind of response to a common problem. I'd also like to say that I appreciate the Citizens Climate Group coming. I think it's definitely an issue that I hope we can put on the agenda. And Dennis Norton's comments I fully subscribe to. This community of Capitola, in a way, has to think about our future. If it is going to go the way of vacant homes, the police chief will tell you that this is not safe. I know from my neighbors they don't know who lives there, they don't know when they're there, and so it's not safe for the people who immediately live around it. ADUs is a partial solution. A lot of my neighbors have people living in their homes already for a whole variety of reasons, and I don't question what those reasons are, but in a sense it's infill. ADUs is a way that you could do incremental infill. The people who put ADUs on their property are your neighbors already, and they want, if they're going to rent to someone else. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Point of order. ADUs is not on an agenda. I know these are council comments, and I'm going to give councilmember Bertrand another minute to wrap this up. Okay, so okay, I'll respect that and just cut it. I'm not arguing about it one way or the other, but I just want to give, I want people to start thinking about what ADUs would mean to you in your own community, if a neighbor had one. Okay, so what I'm trying to suggest is that when your neighbor rents to someone, if it's an ADU, or they do a reverse because the one who owns the property now goes in the back like a granny or that kind of thing, and then rents to someone else for their larger house, these are people that are going to be your neighbors that you're going to feel comfortable with more than likely because someone owns that property is making that decision with you in mind. Thank you, councilmember Bertrand. Yes, just quickly. I also would like to thank Dennis Norton for your comments about affordable housing. I think it's incredibly important, and we need to put some time and effort into thinking about that as we move forward. And I will also quickly say that I attended the League of California City's executive forums yesterday and today, and one of the forums that I was in this afternoon was called Cannabis in Your City, so I will touch on what I learned there later on in our agenda tonight, and that's all I have. Great, thank you. I have nothing. Nothing. I have nothing either. So what a moment. We'll go on to boards, commissions, and committee appointments. I believe we have a regional transportation commission bicycle advisory committee appointment. Yes, we do. The applicant was unable to attend this evening, but you have his information in the packet. It is Michael Moore. He has represented us in years past. He is the manager of the bicycle trip, and I believe our RTC representative is supporting this nomination. So it is a recommendation to the RTC to make this appointment. Is there a motion? I so move. I also like to mention that I did talk with him. He's very enthusiastic about being on this. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Mr. Moore is on. We'll now go on to the consent calendar. These are all items taken as a single vote, unless there is an item on the consent calendar someone would like to pull. The question about 9G. G. Maybe clarify with the city clerk. Yes. In the language it says that the election is to coincide with the presidential election in 2018. I just wonder why the language says presidential election. Again, we can adjust it is the statewide election. So we can make that adjustment. Yeah, it's mentioned a few times in the resolution and in the document. It says presidential election. I just didn't understand what that was in there. Was that just wishful thinking? I think it was reusing a template. Okay, good. Thank you. Just want to make that correct. We'll correct that. We will correct. Anyone else like to pull on the items? Move approval. Wait one moment. Anyone from the public see an item on consent they'd like to pull and discuss? Seeing none, Stephanie. Move approval of the consent calendar. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That is unanimous. We'll move on to general government hearings. First item is consideration of the budget and capital improvement program for the city of Capitola fiscal year 2018-19. Staff. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, council members. So as you mentioned, this is the third public hearing that we've had for this. In addition, the finance advisory committee has met three times as well to go over the budget. And I'm just going to give a brief summary of how we got to where we are today. So as you've heard before, the local economy is pretty stable, but our major revenue sources are starting to slow down. The budget that's before you today is status quo. There's no real major changes, no new positions, no new revenue sources. Our CalPERS costs still are the biggest threat to our city resources. And in addition, we have a heavy reliance on sales tax and our sales tax numbers. The last two quarters have been a little bit low, which has caused us through these budget hearings to reduce our revenue projections going forward. The budget also is balanced. We're estimating a ending fund balance of fiscal year 19 of 990,000, a little bit higher than what we had at the last hearing, and I'll go through how that got there. Also, the reserves are fully funded. Both the contingency and emergency reserves are funded, and we're actually not even contributing to those because they're completely funded. And this will be our first full year of measure F revenue, as well as SB1, the transportation revenue coming in. So some changes. Our last budget hearing was on May 30th, so I have a list of changes up there. The first two items up there are really just kind of true ups to tying back to audited numbers in prior years. They impacted our fund balance a little bit. Also, in the finance department staff, we went through all of the year in estimates. We have more data now than the first time I went through this, and we were able to cut our estimates by about 127,000, which helps out the fund balance. Changes to the budget that you're considering today is an increase in expenditures of just under 12,000. The majority of that is tied to our animal services contract. So we had a preliminary budget that came out earlier in the year. They've now adopted their budget, and that was where they landed. The other minor change was to our liability insurance. Again, that was a draft number that we had earlier, and that's the adopted budget. Those changes will carry into next year and be offset by we found one calculation error in our personnel costs in 1920. So from a general fund from the summary standpoint, again, it's a balanced budget. Revenues are exceeding expenditures by roughly $11,000. Our estimated year in fund balance for this year that we're in this week is now $979,000, so a little bit higher than our last budget hearing. And our projected year in fund balance and the general fund for this budget that you're considering tonight is $990,000. So capital projects, we have the first three up there are measure F funded projects, the Wharf, Flume, and Jetty projects, those are all funded with measure F revenues. And then we also have the Brummer Street project, which is funded with some grant money that we received just a little bit or got authorized for a few weeks ago. And then the RTC Measure D money is also going to be contributing to that project. And then on the SB1 money, we're going to put that money towards 42nd and Diamond Neighborhood Paving. So those are our new projects. I don't have the library up there, as you're all well aware, the construction bids came in way over budget, and there's going to be an update on that in a couple items after this. Ongoing projects, so you can see our capital project program is really busy this year. There's a number of projects up there in various states of completion that our public works crews and everybody will be working on this year. So that's really busy still on the capital project side. Just to bring this back up again to our proposed budget work plan, so we have five items that were kind of key that we wanted to look at. The first one obviously being the PERS costs and staff developing some options for council consideration. We have the cannabis item on the agenda as well tonight, so completing that regulatory framework. Police Department is going to be working on implementing that new neighborhood watch program. And then we also have getting certification of the zoning code from the Coastal Commission and continue working with the mall ownership on redevelopment of the mall. So recommended action tonight is to approve the resolution adopting the fiscal year 1819 City budget and capital improvement program, and that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions of staff? Seeing none, I'll open this up to the public. Anyone who would like to comment on this item, please step forward. Ray Cancino, Community Bridges, CEO. So I think you hit the nail on the head. Pension costs are a rising issue, and so what I'm here is just making sure that we all work together and we support Jamie to go up to the state and really talk about pension reform, really talk about pension costs and send letters as a city to ensure that we're trying to address it. I've talked to some of you about these issues. When we start climbing 50% of people that are receiving pensions are taking up the majority of the general fund, and you only have 50% left to do the rest of the city services, it becomes really, really difficult and challenging. And so I think there needs to be a conversation about what to do moving forward. We know that one side of it is increased revenues, increased sales tax, increased marijuana framework, and that component, that's going to get you only so far. So I know that this is a little bit off topic in the sense of what you're funding, but I wanted to make sure that this continues beyond today's action and then moves forward in any way possible. And as always, thank you so much City Capitola for your investment in social services and upstream investments in prevention. You guys are really leading the charge and really understand how those investments really pay off in the long term. So services continue across the county. So thank you. Thank you, Ray. I'll bring it back to the council. Start with Ed. I'm ready to make a motion to approve staff recommendation. We're ready to hear it. A motion to approve staff recommendation on the budget. Is there a second? Under discussion. Anyone have any comments? Seeing none. I'll have roll call vote on this. Council Member Harlan. Aye. Council Member Petrand. Aye. Council Member Peterson. Aye. Council Member Bautour. Aye. And Mayor Termini. Aye. It's unanimous. Thank you. We'll move on to a review options for potential ballot measures for November 2018 general election. Our action tonight is to provide direction to staff regarding which items to put on the November 18 general election ballot. Staff. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. So as you recall earlier this spring, we talked about a community polling contract to potentially test community sentiment about some potential items for the November ballot. At that time, council decided not to proceed with the poll, but directed staff to return for further discussion about potential ballot items, specifically cannabis tax, a possible TOT measure, and potential measure to transition the treasure from an elected position to an appointed position. As we've discussed several times, cannabis tax have been approved by both voters in the city of Santa Cruz and the city of the county. They are both set at a not to exceed 10% amount, which is established by ordinance currently in the county at seven and in the city of Santa Cruz at 8%. Based on rough estimates, depending obviously on the scale of the operation and on the ultimate tax, should we put one on the ballot and have it approved by voters, staff estimates that each retail establishment could generate approximately two to $300,000. It's probably a conservative estimate, but it's probably our best number that we can put out there right now. Obviously, a tax would require voter approval, and then there's a separate item on tonight's agenda to talk about the other regulatory pieces associated with cannabis, which would be the changes in land use and zoning, and the licensing protocol that our community development director will be presenting for us. TOT, I think everyone knows our TOT is currently, this is our hotel tax, is currently at 10%. The county, the city of Santa Cruz, and Watsonville are all at 11%. Scotts Valley is at 10% right now, and they're going to be considering a ballot item this November, I believe, to go to 11%. Watsonville will be discussing at the city council level in July, whether they're going to put a TOT measure on their ballot. By way of reference, each 1% of TOT currently generates about $155,000, and obviously a change in TOT would require voter approval. At the last time this came up, councilmember Batur have indicated that he was speaking with some representatives from the BIA. Ed, do you want, how many details do you want before we sort of dive into what you've given me? Sure, just a little background, just for the council. Most of us were here in 2014, the history was we made an appeal to raise TOT tax, believed to 11%. And at that time, we did polling, which I think pulled out at 82%. Felt that it was favorable. We met with strong opposition, and it ended up being a non-memorable election for all of us. So this time, TOT still continues to be a major source of income for us, and one that we all look at. So I went back to the drawing board. I've been meeting with local business members in the BIA, members of the lodging community, and other businessmen and restaurant owners to try to come up with some kind of compromise or bargain or way that we can get to a raise in TOT tax without having a less than favorable campaign. And at this point, I had a meeting, final meeting with them yesterday, and reached a tentative agreement, and I've given the city manager the details of that agreement, and I'm hopeful that the city council will embrace that decision, and maybe we can move forward with putting a TOT measure on the ballot, so if the city manager wants to deal with those details. So these are the details of the negotiation with the BIA. Essentially, it's a 2% increase to the TOT to take it from 10% to 12%. As proposed, it would be a 66% measure, so it would be a restricted tax. So of the 2%, 0.4% of the TOT increase would be dedicated to local business groups. The proposal currently is that it would be split evenly between the BIA and the Chamber. Based on the current TOT level, that's about $31,000 a year for each. The Chamber funding in the general fund would be eliminated, which is currently $30,000 and has been in the budget for a number of years. The Chamber would use the funding to increase city marketing efforts, and the BIA would use their funding to increase marketing and village enhancements. In addition, 0.35% of the TOT increase would be dedicated to youth early childhood education type programs. Based on the current TOT level, that would take it, that would be about $54,000, and the thought behind this is it would replace the community grant youth program funding, which is currently just under $50,000 in the most recent grant cycle. And then the remaining 1.25% of the TOT increase would go to the general fund, which is currently $194,000. So that's a lot on one slide. And before I pivot off TOT, Mr. Mayor, can any council members want to ask any questions on this? Just to be clear, not only does this bring almost $200,000 into the general fund, it also funds two programs we fund already, but it gives them the ability to increase with the inevitable increase of TOT in our city. So should our overall TOT increase by 10%, we could see early childhood education going up by another $5,000 or $8,000. And the same would go to the BIA and the Chamber, so they would be self-regulating. That's correct. It would be then tied to the TOT, so they would be receiving 0.35% and 0.4% of the TOT. So if we had a new hotel, if our existing hotels were more successful, they would share in that benefit. So the marketing effort of both the Chamber and the BIA would be self-enhancing, creating more tourism, creating more TOT, thereby giving them more money ultimately to do the same thing. Just wanted to be clear. Any questions of staff? Let's move on to the next one. Okay. The next item is the city treasure. And this one, our treasure has prepared a presentation for you tonight that I will manage for him. You're good from right there. You're right there. You're speaking as a city treasurer, so... That's the first line. Oh, sorry, okay. Okay, so now next line. Oh, really? It's going to be like that, isn't it? Okay. So I wanted to talk to you about this in detail, because I think it's important that you're all behind this, because if I can't convince everybody in the city council that this is a good idea, I think it's going to be difficult to get this thing to pass, because if you, having all the details in front of you, you don't think it's a good idea. Maybe we shouldn't even ask the public to go for this, but... So I think it is a good idea. I think it's clear it's a good idea. So let's get into those details. So two reasons why it's a good idea to get rid of the elected position of treasure. And the first is it's unnecessary. I think you kind of know that we already have plenty of checks and balances, and we already have a finance director to handle the day-to-day things. But I think most importantly, and the thing that's convinced me was that it's a dangerous position, because of the notion that we have conflicting charters that the state says one thing, and our city says something a little bit different, and that gives you an opportunity to create some confusion, create some chaos and potential power struggle. So let me go through both of those items in detail. First of all, I'm sorry, next slide. Are we on an unnecessary? Yes. Okay. So there's multiple avenues of financial oversight that already exist. All right. We already have an accounting department. I mean, I come up here and talk about invoices. Well, we already have lots of people looking at all those invoices. You know, the department heads, we've got the accountants, we've got the city manager signing off on all these. And the notion of having a treasure give it a cursory look is not that beneficial. The Financial Advisory Committee already has elected officials on it. So if you're thinking of a treasure as, oh, well, let's have an elected official looking at or responsible for our finances, we already have two elected officials. They're the Financial Advisory Committee City Council members. In addition, we have the three citizen appointees. So there's plenty of opportunity for independent oversight by the City Council and the citizens at large to review our finances. Oh, one of the things I didn't mention here is, of course, we have open government. So all of our finances, and that's a software program. So our finances are available online. So if anybody wants to review where our budget is, what's going on, all they need to do is go on to our website and just, you know, plow down through the financial website. And all that information is there. So we're very open. There's no secrets here. In addition, obviously, we have professional auditors. VTK is our auditor. I just saw their invoice the other day. And they are chartered to look for irregularities and fraud, basically. And they report out twice a year, not to the City Manager, but to the City Council. So they are another independent check. So one of the things they do is they specifically look at our procedures to make sure that we have internal controls or cross checks on all of our finances. So, you know, if we're thinking that the treasure is an added benefit because we need the extra checks and balances, we've got lots of checks and balances. Next slide. With regards to the other thing you would think a treasure would do, which was provide the daily tasks of running the City finances, well, obviously, we have a financial director who does that. In addition, he performs, puts out the quarterly reports. He supervises the accounting staff, and he's a professional with a professional resume, not someone who just on a lark decided to run for an office and suddenly is potentially in charge of your finances. So the point is, is that why should we have an elected treasure when you already have five elected council members available for financial oversight and two, specifically assigned to the FAC and a professional appointee already on the job? So it's unnecessary. Next slide. It's dangerous. So let's go into this conflicting charter issue. The Capitola is a general law city governed by California government code. And section 41001 says the city treasurer shall receive and safely keep all money the treasurer receives. Well, we don't have the treasurer receive any money. So does that mean the treasurer has no responsibilities? Or, as some have interpreted it, does that mean that the treasurer is responsible for all the city money? And so that the treasurer is, in fact, the one who is responsible for all of your city finances? Well, I know that's not your intent, but it can be interpreted that way. Section 4106, next slide. The treasurer, city treasurer, may appoint deputies. Well, this can easily be interpreted as that the finance director reports not to the city manager, but to the treasurer. So you have an elected treasurer who says, well, I'm not all that up on all those finances. Let me hire a deputy. I've got the finance director. He reports to me. So what does the Capitola code say? Well, the Capitola code defines the city manager as the administrative head of the government. And it's silent on the duties of treasurer. Why do we elect a treasurer when there is no assigned duties? Does that mean that treasurer has no responsibilities? Or does it, in fact, mean that the responsibility is default to the state code? In which case, as we've gone over, the treasurer has lots of responsibilities. So finally, next slide. A liberal interpretation of the powers of the treasurer can and has been made. I'm not just making this up. This is a real conflict that has, in fact, happened in the past. It leads to the potential of an activist treasurer who, regardless of whether their cause is just or their crusade is mighty, creates conflicts that you don't want. Conflicts with the city manager, the daily operations, and what the city council has in mind, and is detrimental to the operation of the city. So let's get rid of this potential conflict that is dangerous to our operations. Next slide, accountability. So someone in the role who is potentially legal accountable, legally accountable, but yet, in fact, who has no authority in practice leads to legal risks and the lack of transparency. So if a problem should arise, it needs to be clear, a financial problem, it needs to be clear that the city manager's office is responsible and accountable, and not the selected position of treasurer. We need to make that clear, and we need a well-defined chain of command. Finally, it's dangerous because it gives unqualified applicants. I mean, the salary for the treasurer is not, $3,000 is not going to attract qualified professionals to run your finances for you. In fact, there are few, if any, applicants when this office comes up for election. Why? What are the incentives? It's not a voting position, and it has no official authority. There's no financial background required to be a treasurer. So what is expected of the treasurer? Why do we insist on having one? It seems to be an unwanted stepchild, a vestigial tail. It's not a good idea. So finally, with no authority, what would happen if there was a lawsuit involving financial irregularities? Would that ensnare the treasurer? You would think so. So perhaps that's why no one wants to run for this office, because with no authority in all the responsibility, you've got nothing but trouble. So this office is just not structured to provide meaningful service. So next slide. So if we were to get rid of it, what's the precedent for doing such a thing? Well, it turns out we've done this already with the city clerk's office. So the city clerk's office, once upon a time, was an elected position, but there was an effort to turn it into an appointed position because you need a highly qualified professional to run that position. And the treasurer needs the same treatment for the same reason. So are we breaking any new ground here? No. Most local cities have no elected treasure. We're one of the few that does. Santa Cruz has no elected treasure. Neither does Scott's Valley, Watsonville, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Carmel, Salinas, Gilroy. No treasures in all those cities. So let's eliminate the waste of a salary, small as it is, benefits, and most importantly, valuable staff time babysitting the treasure, and get rid of it. So final chart, I think, and this is why I want you to all be behind this, because I think the electorate is naturally suspicious of the government. And they're not going to want to remove this office because they're unaware of these details, and they're going to easily see this as a cheap insurance. Sure, why not? Let's just have it. But you know now why it's unnecessary and dangerous. So I think it's important that the entire city council get behind this initiative and eliminate any controversy, and then we have a good chance of getting this thing passed. Thank you. How would you propose that we eliminate the position of treasurer entirely? It becomes an appointed position, as opposed to an elected position, just like the city clerk. And who makes that appointment? It could be the city manager. It could be the city manager, it could be the city council. You could also, if the council wanted flexibility, noting that the number of cities don't have treasurers, you could give the council the authorization, but not the obligation to appoint a treasurer. So circumstances demanded it. You know, you could get together and appoint a city treasurer, but if things were running smoothly and you don't think circumstances warranted having one more person in the city's bureaucracy. So you'd say, for example, city council may appoint a city treasurer in its sole discretion or something in that nature. Any other, yes. Could the city council appoint the finance director as treasurer? I think so. That's, that's, I think that happens. I think when, in Santa Cruz, where there are requirements that a treasurer sign off on something, the city finance director does that. Any other questions of staff? No, thank you for that presentation. We'll open this up to the public. Would anyone like to speak on this subject? Seeing none. Oh, Ray. Well, you kind of went over the other topics that I don't know. No, no, this is, I'm asking. We're going to circle. I'm sorry. I need to circle back. My apologies. I wanted, we had a robust discussion. I was just going to normal. Let's go to the next item, please. Okay. So at this point, I would actually, I think the city treasurer went through these points, so I'm not going to excuse me. This was just the polling that we did four years ago on it. So I think the city treasurer's points are well taken, is that it's going to be tough to pass. It's going to require a united front in the campaign, because even after people that were subject to the poll were read information, it was about, you know, 43 in favor, 44 again. So it would really be contingent, I think, on strong support and strong campaign education effort. Thank you. So really quickly, I'm just going to talk about the process moving forward. So the final date to submit ballot measures to the county for inclusion in the November ballot is August 10th. So what I'm hoping for tonight is we get direction and we'll put them all up on the screen for the items to place on the ballot on July 26th. And at that point, you could appoint a subcommittee potentially to author arguments in favor and then review those arguments on August 9th and authorize signers for those argument arguments. So that would be the suggested process moving forward. So the recommendation is number one, determine and not to exceed level for the cannabis tax between 8 and 10 percent, establish an initial cannabis tax in the six to eight range, and apply the cannabis tax to any cannabis business citywide, understanding that the current ordinance is only about retail sales in the CR zoning. And then direct staff to proceed with the TOT measure supported by the BIA. And then determine if placing a treasurer on the ballot, the treasurer item on the ballot is appropriate at this time. When we got, I'm available for questions. Any questions? When we bring this back to the council and we can, we can put the not to exceed level for cannabis tax anywhere we wish. That's correct. Okay. When this comes back after public comment, I would like to take these one at a time. We can discuss and vote on one at a time because a lot of complex issues. Anyone from the public? Ray, come on up. It's your time. Sorry to make you go back and forth. Just a little confused that there was going to be so many, but Ray Cansino, CEO of Community Bridges, I'm glad I stayed or else I wouldn't have seen the proposal for TOT and the impacts that it has. I think it sends a really chilling and inappropriate message when we are subsidizing the business community more than we are looking at, you know, early childhood education. I think that business councils are important. They're going to be helpful in moving forward with sales tax, but I think it sends a really wrong message when you're supporting at a higher rate traditional things that are for business at the expense or at a cost to your needs that are in your general fund for public safety issues or your things that you might be considering like prevention and early childhood education. So I just would be really looking at how do we make that a little bit more equitable, because there's just something for me, you know, subsidizing private businesses and private enterprise seems a little bit off. So those are my comments. Thanks, Ray. Anyone else? Khalil, welcome. Hi, Khalil Mutawakil. I'm a CEO for Kind Peoples Collective, we're a cannabis dispensary in both the city of Santa Cruz and unincorporated Santa Cruz. I'm also a community member. I've been here my whole life, born and raised, family man as well, got two children, raised my family here. So it's a pleasure to meet all of your acquaintance. I'd like to speak hopefully twice tonight once on the ordinance that we'll hopefully be discussing after this and now on the tax issues. So yes, cannabis businesses are a sustainable funding source for the city of Capitola. I'm happy to see the city taking the sleep of faith along with the county and city that have had successful programs for many years now. Recently in the cannabis industry, there have been some major changes as you might know. January 1st of this year, adult use cannabis passed in the state of California and there are a lot of upstream costs for both businesses and consumers and what that eventually means is a higher price to the consumer. And when you've got a higher price to the consumer competing with the black market, you've got an issue. We've got folks showing up to our locations every day saying, can you give me a discount? I can call a delivery service online and have the same product delivered to my door for far cheaper. They're not taxed, they're very difficult to regulate. So we're hoping to keep that tax rate at an appropriate level that can scale over time. State regulations are very expensive. There's child proof packaging, there's new labeling requirements, there's manufacturing guidelines, there's a new 15% excise tax that gets charged at the register, and then there's licensing fees which for our business are $120,000 annually each location. A couple recommendations I'd like to make in this final minute. In both the city and the county in recent years, they've looked at the cannabis tax and said, hey, maybe we could use a portion of these proceeds towards some type of deficient program that may be beneficial for the community. And I'd like the council to consider that now because later on that will be much more difficult to pull off. The trend statewide is a reduction of taxes. Oakland recently reduced their tax from 10% to 5%. Monterey just reduced theirs from 6% to 4%. Other jurisdictions around the state, Santa Rosa 3%, Sonoma 2%, Berkeley Stockton 5%, and in San Jose, they're at 10%. The case in San Jose is a bit different. They have 16 dispensaries for much larger population. Santa Cruz County has the highest density per capita of retailers of anywhere in the state of California. We have additional dispensaries coming down the pipe in Watsonville. We've got three more dispensaries coming down in the city of Santa Cruz. I'd also like to make the recommendation to be allowed to pass the tax through to the consumer. Currently in both the city and the county, we're not allowed to do that. So essentially what that creates is double taxation. You get a tax on the tax. So we'd like to be able to subtotal a customer's products and then pass that tax through. That'll make it a lot easier for us to accommodate that over time. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council on any of these three items? Then I'd like to take the treasurer item first. Discussion and vote. Yeah, I'll start. First of all, I really appreciate that you took this position on for two years, attended every meeting, fulfilled the duties of a treasurer, and came up with such a rational analysis of your position. I think that the position I felt last time we did this, that it had exceeded its... There's no longer useful to the city to have that component. And I think that the fact that you served in this position, as well as you did, sometimes as treasurer and sixth council person, it was really good to get an analysis. And I support your position to remove that. And I no longer see a need for it. So I'd make a motion to put it on the ballot to remove the position of treasurer. Is there a second for the purpose of discussion? Just to clarify, to remove it altogether, correct? Not as an elected? Yeah, I'll second that. Okay. For under discussion, Stephanie. Good ideas and then good points. Very good presentation. Thank you very much. Jock, anything to say about this? Yeah, I don't like it. And I've been pretty vocal about that. It's not part of the staff presentation, so it should have been in the docket as part of the staff presentation so that we would have been able to prepare comments in reference to what was presented by yourself. It was a good presentation. So one thing that I found out, I was treasurer here for four years. And I found out that people really liked the idea that there was an elected person who was a treasurer overlooking what was going on behind the scenes. It has nothing to do with the fact that we do or don't have qualified people who run our finance department. We do. We have excellent qualified people. In fact, another thing that comes to mind for a while, we didn't have an actual treasurer. I mean, excuse me, we didn't have an actual finance director. And I ran the fact and I ran a lot of those meeting minutes and kept them and put them on file and stuff like that. So I jumped in where it was needed. I think the main reason why an elected official is important, it is truly a figurehead position. You're absolutely right. But the public knows that they have a member of the public inside City Hall, which we don't normally have. Okay. We have five City Council people, but someone who's actually focused on the individual invoices, the individual payments, and that's what I did. I worked with the different people in the finance department, and I checked every single thing that came in and out. And sometimes I wouldn't actually sign the treasurer's report because I didn't agree with them. I followed the individual credit card reports. And I talked to the people who actually made those payment, I mean, made those purchases. And that's what I did. And when people talked to me about what it was a treasure like, I told them that's what I did. And if you want to know that someone's there and you have a disagreement with what's happening because you read it in the meeting minutes, you can ask me and I'll trace it down for you. And actually I did that multiple times. So pursuant to what Kristen brought up, so implications, excuse me, implied, I have no problem with relooking at the treasurer's position and making it consistent with maybe the realities of the position. But I definitely think that having an elected person from the city of Capitola that the citizens could actually talk to and who has the authority to drill down behind the scenes is a worthwhile position. Hey, and I am fully in favor of your proposal. I've felt that way for a long time. And I feel that we just don't get enough candidates running for election to treasurer. And we are the public is not given a selection. They're given a single choice, almost every election cycle. So we have a motion in a second. I'd like to bring this to a roll call vote. Stephanie. Oh, sorry, that's your no line. Council Member Harlan. Hi. Council Member Patran. No. Council Member Peterson. Hi. Council Member Batur. All right. And Mayor Termini. All right. Well done. Let's move on to the TOT measure as supported by the BIA. And Stephanie, you want to start? What do you think of that? I'm in favor of it. I think it's, I understand the point about giving money to businesses, but we've always given the Chamber money every year we're giving money. And we haven't been giving the BIA money. They just get, they just have their dues from their members. And I might add that that the 49,000 in grants that we give to youth programs is by far not the sum total of what we contribute to youth in this community. It is many times that. That is just single line items to organizations outside the city. So I will, I do not put business ahead of the children sincerely. I'm thinking of this as more of a stable funding that cannot get touched by voter approval. And it's solid and it grows with the community and we do more and more each here. So, and I respect Ray's opinions on all matters of this type. So I just wanted to respond to that. Anybody interested in get, Ed, you go next. I have a comment. Yeah. I just want to respond to that comment because I want to make it clear that the city of Capitola gives $275,000 to community grants. The money that we gave to the chamber was $30,000. And the new money to the the BIA is another $30,000. Keep in mind that this measure was put on the ballot two years ago and it failed. If it fails, that means there's no additional revenue. The fact that we're in agreement with the business owners and the lodging owners that this could generate it approximately $310,000 annually for the city of Capitola. And to give 10% each one of those businesses. And when I say give, I use that word term loosely because we're not giving it to them. We're investing in them because they're going to use this money to market their lodging, their hotels, their facilities. And if that means that they can increase their occupancy rate from low 80s to maybe high 90s, and that would increase our TOT from an annual of $155,000 for every 1% to maybe a higher number. So I don't want to look at it as giving them money. I'm investing in them and investing in the city of Capitola. And the one thing that's here that's never been within any organization in community grants is that the first time education is going to be part of TOT, which over the past five years has shown a year over year growth of 5%. And so to tie our educational fund, I'm pretty proud of the fact that we stand for education. We've included it in this program and it's going to continue to grow along with the investments for business. And in the words of the business committee, I thought this was totally a win-win situation. So I stand behind this 100%. I support going to 12% also. But if we're going to do this, let's just not do it for 1%. Oh, it's for 12. Yeah. Anyone else have a comment on this item? Then I'd like to say I wish this was part of the staff report that was included in our agenda because I did not get this. So this is the first time I've heard it. I have to apologize, Jacques. This meeting was yesterday afternoon. And I got the information to the city manager as soon as possible. I'd given some kind of a preclude that I would be trying to make a presentation tonight. City manager rapidly took this information, assembled it into a slide, which was better than me giving you handouts. So there was no deceit in that. It was just the meeting. To get these people together, the meeting was yesterday. I'm not saying there's deceit, but I had no chance to prepare for this. I see why it was done and I understand that it probably took quite a bit of work to do it. So I'll support it. But I do have some issues with it and I just didn't have proper time to prepare for it. Is there a motion? Motion to approve putting the TOT on the ballot at 12%. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. Now, on to cannabis. I live to say that at a meeting as an elected official. Go ahead. Let's get into cannabis now. Discussion? Anyone? Was there a decision we need to make here? Well, the decision is... Is it sufficient to leave it in the 6-8 range? Are you looking for a number? So as written by the City of Santa Cruz and the county is the ordinance that the voters approved set the ceiling and then the Council, the City Council of the Board of Supervisors established the actual level below that ceiling. So what we would like to know at this stage would be what is the ceiling and what would be setting it out initially just so we can prepare the ordinance and the resolution for the July 26th meeting. So put it on the ballot. This is just a movement to put it on the ballot and so we're going to set the ceiling and we're going to set the initial rate. Yeah, and you don't have to set the initial rate right now. But we have to set the ceiling. We, I mean, we could punt and we could have it on the 26th with sort of a placeholder for that, but my recommendation is... No, let's do it now. And I just like to make a pitch for making it lower than we might feel just because we know that's the trend. And I would say the ceiling being somewhere between 6 and 8 rather than 8 and 10. 10 is not working for anybody. We don't want to kill the golden goose. And we also don't want to drive it into black market. And at the same time, I would rather not give future councils the ability to drive all cannabis retail out of the city by virtue of increasing the tax to an inordinate percentage. And I think that's a very valid point. And that's why my reservation is that the existing rate in the county, if I'm not mistaken, I'm jumping to the number two item is 7%. And the existing rate in Santa Cruz is 7% with their 1% educational addition. So to, I don't feel like I want to get into a bidding war with the county in Santa Cruz over the location. So I understand the appreciation of the point that was made about what the percentage is. But because it's been determined at 7%, I would be willing to say that I would like to see an initial range of 7% only to be consistent with those other agencies. What you set the upper limit at could be the same as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it could be the top could be 7 and it could be at 7 if that's legal to do that. But right now for me to say interpret the language about this going lower, if I set this at 3%. And what I'm bringing is all that traffic, all that congestion, all that incident in the capital. And we start this bidding war in the county, which I would not like to be part of. Agreed. And is that a motion for 7 and 7? A motion would be to set the upper limit. Can I do them at both the same number? Is that legal to do that? I would set the upper limit at 7% and the current range at 7%. Current rate. Is there a second? Second. Several seconds. Any further discussion? Many jurisdictions are looking at lowering in their fees. We can do that. So I would almost start at 6. Well, I think 7 is a good, I feel 7 is a good compromise and it keeps it from going to 10, which would kill it. And it also allows us to go to four or three future councils, depending on what the market is showing. Just for clarification, the city council can change this number at any time to lower it. Right, you just can't go above. Stephanie, I agree with you. And if the trend is that this is not working and it's handcuffing it and it's influencing the black market and we learn that, we can come back here and modify that instantly. But right now, I think being consistent with our fellow cities and counties is what's important. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. Thank you very much. And I think we've moved through all three valid items and we'll move on to update on the capitol branch library construction bids and we are only receiving a report tonight. We are not, we're doing nothing else, correct? That is correct. No council action. Then Steve, report on. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I do apologize for sounding like a Berkman record. I think you're going to, same report you got last week, but our last council meeting. As quick background, we got a little bit of $12.35 million was received on June 8th. And as you all know, our current construction budget is $9.9 million, putting us slightly over budget here on the construction project. Currently on the cost side, we've gone through some value engineering exercises with the team and we've identified estimated $1.5 million in savings that we can make. These aren't just random savings. They're meaningful changes to the design and way things are getting built, electrical, HVAC, but they will not impact the programs and the library itself. This estimate is still being verified. We're trying to work with the architect and the other team members to verify these cost savings and we're also looking for additional savings, trying to keep going. On the funding side, there has been additional measure S revenue has exceeded its original estimates at this point. So the library JPA has formed a subcommittee to evaluate what to do with this funding. I think the city manager is going to provide us an update on that. So as Steve mentioned, the JPA formed a subcommittee comprised of myself and the county CAO to look into the excess measure S revenues. So by way of explanation, what that means is there's a measure S was a $49 of parcel tax and there was an estimate of how much that was going to generate each year and then this also associated with that was an assumption of how much bonding we were going to do under measure S to build the libraries and what the interest rates were going to be, where we beat the interest rate on the first bond issuance and on top of that, the $49 your tax generates more than was anticipated. And so when CAO Palacio and myself met this morning, we took a look at how much additional funding measure S may have and what it would take to release it to the projects and I will say that the CAO appreciates the conundrum we're in that we need to move quite quickly and also appreciates the fact that if there's additional measure S revenue that can be brought to bear to help projects that it should be done rather than leaving money on the table and not building the projects that you could, it's going to be a timing question and at the end of the day, the amount that each jurisdiction gets is specified in the JPA document that each jurisdiction adopted. So if there is additional measure S revenue, very likely it would be distributed through that JPA through that same formula and it would require ratification by all the city councils. So I'm encouraged by the conversation. It'll probably take a little time to fully develop and by July 26, I think we'll have a much better feeling for where that's going when we bring this back to you next time. Questions of staff? Anyone? I will open this up to the public. Anyone who would like to come up and speak on this item? Everybody's welcome. Sure. Do I sign in? I guess I do. You can speak first and then sign in or sign in and then speak. It's all yours. My name is Joe Palandrani. I'm with my wife, Mara, and we live in Capitola, which is there since 2001. And in 2006, we moved our business here so we could help Capitola grow with our tax income, et cetera. And I'm puzzled why I'm here right now to be honest with you because with the pressing issues you have with your budget and the 15-minute presentation I heard about all the tax, all the budget overviews and checks and balances, why are we building such a large library? It's over budget and I think it's a burden on the city. And I think that the city should rethink it, come up with a proposal within the budget that would meet the community's needs. That's all I have to say. That's good. Thanks, Joe. TJ? TJ Welch and Joe kind of touched on a lot of the subjects, but hey, I want to build a library. I'm excited about building a new library. I just want it to be realistic and I want us as a group to be responsible in doing that. I got to tell you, sitting through listening to individuals talk about saving money from pensions in order to give more to social programs doesn't set real easy with me. In fact, I'd like to talk to you some interview. They want to talk about PERS, unfunded liability, OPEP. I'd be born happy to sit down and talk to you. But the reason why we have unfunded liability and OPEP issues is because primarily politicians kick the can down the road and they didn't pay upfront when they needed to pay and they've waited and do costs increase? Yeah, we just saw this with the library. So we've put all these employer-employee expenses down the road and they've increased over the years and we find ourselves in debt. In fact, to help support fund this library, you as City Council members have approved one of your $480,000 PERS reimbursement checks to go towards that. To me, I think this is just let's just rethink this thing. Let's make an appropriate sized library, a beautiful library that fits within our knees. I'm glad to hear Jamie talk about Major S. Yeah, if more money comes back, then that's great for us and maybe we can help fund some of the staffing and some other things at the library. But take the money out of the general fund, take the money from, especially from our PERS, which is already, what are we like, 20 million plus in debt to PERS? And we're taking PERS checks and putting it towards the library, which maybe serves a portion of our public, is a little bit beyond, I think, anything that's responsible. So let's redesign it, make it an appropriate size, make it within the budget, not spend this extra general fund money, not spend our PERS money. And if we have that kind of money, then we can pay off our PERS debt and get out of this black cloud. Thank you. Next. Welcome. My name is Mark Kane, I'm a resident of Capitola and thank you council, Mr. Mayor, staff. I'm here to talk about the library and I mirror what, echo what these other two speakers said in that I think it's irresponsible the way things are going now to continue. I'm currently in a construction job in the city and prices are unbelievable. And I think that the over, the over price on this stuff is, the library is going to go higher and higher. And then you mentioned in your budget about the revenue sources slowing. I don't know, I was taught that if I don't have the money, don't spend it. If you don't have it. There's revenue sources that can be, you mentioned the mall at 41st Avenue. There's the, where the theater was downtown here in Capitola. There could be annexation at the end of 41st Avenue. And then you're, then you can spend money on these projects. How about taking the city hall and the police department and putting it on the side of the library? I think there's a, there's a bluff on a depot hill. I don't know why you need to study a foot falls off every year. I talked to a person who's currently in the permit process here and the city is requiring him, anybody within 200 feet of the bluff to come up with a 50 year geological plan. I mean, the city doesn't even have a plan for the bluff and that the wharf unbelievable what that's going to cost and overruns. Numbers make liars and liars make numbers. I think this is all come down to either got the money or you don't. And there's a place for us to get the money. And I know there's some work on trying to access that and maybe speed up development. But man, I think that's where the focus should be. Thank you. Anyone else? I'll bring it back to the council. And if I can jump ahead, because I've been in more meetings than I care to talk about with regarding the library to make it clear to everyone. And I respect everyone who spoke tonight. Let me clarify a few points. Three quarters of this county voted for measure s. And the only thing we can use that money for is to build libraries. That's what the bond is for. That's what they voted on. Well over two thirds, almost three quarters of the county residents voted to do that. We are doing just that. We are also not letting out a contract that's over budget, but rather coming back many times to make the library be within the budget. So we are doing that exact thing. We can't take the $9 million to the library and give it to purrs. We cannot. Despite the fine retired people that I know and love, who might be in favor of that? We are going as cautiously and as responsibly as we can. With regard to the right size library, the studies that were done say that our library is 2,000 square feet undersized. We didn't go there. We went with one. We felt we could budget and afford. And we're still moving in that direction. Nobody here is going to take any more money out of the general fund to fund an over budgeted library. Or I should say an under funded library. We have taken money out of the general fund to meet this budget. One time cost. Purrs goes on forever. And every time we pay off an unfunded liability, we get another $30 million bill from the state. We are not the problem on that one. Someone needs to talk to purrs and find out why they can only return 2% on your investment when any half-baked financial advisor can get you $8. So this is a bigger problem that we can solve here. But believe me, this is not an irresponsible action. It's not an irresponsible counsel. Anybody? And this is just a receipt or report. So anybody can vent on this on the counsel. And I'll put it to my favorite vendor, Ed Botorf. Thank you. I think the council knows my feelings on this issue. I've been very vocal since the beginning of this process. And I appreciate the community speaking out. And the thing I have to realize is ultimately, you know, this is not a purrs versus a library conversation. But what I'm keenly aware of as I sit here is that the buck does stop here. This is the body that approved every dime that's spent in this city. Whether it's a raise for our employees, whether it's a building, it's here. Whether we make decisions about how we're going to try to increase revenue, we also make decisions about our expenditures. And after being hopeful and being optimistic and looking at all the drawings and the plans and the architecture in this fabulous library, because the fact of the matter is we don't build anything in Capitola. The last structure built here was a bandstand. I want to thank Mike Termini and all the people that personally went out of their way and made superhuman efforts because there probably wasn't a lot of money and just made it happen. So building something here is something that doesn't take place. So embarking on this library excited everybody. It was a great concept. Definitely something we need. It was portable. It was portable trailers that were put over there. And it was not what anybody would want, but it worked. And it worked at 4,000 square feet. And we sat here and we passed Measure S and we were optimistic and we raised the money. And the bottom line was we were told that we had a certain amount of dollars and we had saved $3 million from RDA and we had a number. And we purposely set out and we approved to build a library that exceeded our number, which was, I'm sorry, if the buck stops here it was just bad practice. And then unfortunately we're not building in a recession. We're building as one of the speakers mentioned in a boom. Houses are exploding. Contractors are bidding jobs 20, 30% over the top. And so we worked. We scrambled. I complained, but we still managed to dig up $2.1 million to what we thought was fund the library. And then the shock came in and now it's $2.4 million over because contractors are charging that. So we're sitting here actually having a conversation about trying to do something that's $4.5 million over budget. And the money that we took to dig up did come out of the general funds. And I personally know that there's no bathroom at Monterey Park and there's no wall on the brand new beautiful architecture we have in front of Bellaroma. There's lots of things that are not being done in the city because everything went into that library. And I appreciate that Measure S might come out as a city manager. The city manager is definitely working overtime trying to find money. I recognize that and with the finance director. But the thing is we're squeezing all of our other funds for one thing. It's tunnel vision. And if Measure S does come back with some additional funds, I say it goes back to replenishing the 2.1 that we squeezed out of every other feature that we are not going to be doing to enhance our city. The bottom line is we're building too big of a library. And I think that even at the last meeting the people that were behind that made a comment. It's even in the minutes of last meeting that we need to maybe redesign this library. And I remember asking the architect in the beginning, can you build me a library a thousand square foot smaller? And I'm not sure of the exact numbers because I've lost track. I do know the original library is 4,000 square feet. And the one that we could afford is probably 10,000 and we're up at 11,000. I just can't seem to manage to fathom why going from 4,000 to 10,000 wasn't a great thing and why it had to be 11,000. As I sit here in this small town with an annual budget of $14 million, $16 million and this huge expenditure that we're moving forward. And I as one famous parking commissioner always mentions, we always tend to kick the can down the road. And I don't want to kick the can down the road. And this is the second meeting. Steve, I love you as our public works director. But you know, you want to come back and do something. I want you to come back and say, we're going to redraw this library. We're going to build a weekend of Ford. And if we get the money, because it's going to cost more. And if we stripped this thing down and we take all the features that you wanted to put in there to make it a great library, we're going to end up with another trailer shack over there. We're all going to be disappointed. So I say, why not make the goal to build it smaller, build it quality, build it something we're proud of, but quit trying to build the plan that we have right now because it doesn't work. And so my recommendation in this discussion, because it's just a discussion, is that I hope when you come back to us that part of what you're coming back with is maybe some conversation that we can have about making it smaller, making it something we can afford, but making it quality, which is what people expect. And I would also be willing, if this council would be willing, to also lower the amount of the money that someone could donate to put their name in that library, because if somebody were to donate a million dollars instead of the 2 million ridiculous price tag we put on it, I'd take it. Does that mean you'd donate it? I wouldn't donate it, but I might go encourage somebody to donate it. I'm just trying to... I don't think they'd want my name on it, but I could think of a couple people. Oh, for a million dollars, I'd put your name on it right now. Thank you. Jacques, go ahead. Okay. So I appreciate your comment, said. And I appreciate the fact that you did tell us that we should have stuck with a smaller footprint early on. And I also like Mike to tell us a little bit about the costing that went into this because one reason why I voted, and I'll say this to the community, that I knew the costing was going to be very careful. And I think Mike's closer to those issues than I am, so I'd like you to go over that for the benefit of the public. Because of that process, it seemed to me that we were going to be pretty close to getting what we thought would be a price consistent with what the architect said it cost. There's something about Capitola's library. Remember when I first came here, there was a little storefront across the street, I think. And I took my daughter there and she had a great time. And then we did the mobile home, or the mobiles are, you know, up there by Rispin. And for some reason, when Capitola does a library, everyone says this is like one of the best places that we could go to for a library. I don't know why, but they do. And it's not a major building. It's basically a mobile home that's been repurposed. There's something about doing something here that really gets people motivated. So I think that's why this city council said we really do want a library that the community is going to really feel proud of. And it's true, like Ed said, we haven't built much in the recent past. We've tried. So the library in a way will represent Capitola coming into its own, moving forward and doing things that matter to the community. The library is just a small thing relative to many of the other things we need to do, like them all working with the new owners of the ball and making that happen. But one thing I've realized is this, I can't speak for the whole city council here, but I don't think that we're going to pay for a library that we can't afford. I certainly won't vote for that. So right now I'm waiting for new cost estimates and maybe redrawing the plans so that we do get something we can afford. And the thing that keeps me happy about this whole process is I know when the library is built, even if it's a little bit smaller, it'll still be a wonderful place for Capitola. So right now we're on a journey to get there. We're trying to do something that's good for the community. We're trying to do something that I know the community will love when it ultimately gets built. Thank you. Stephanie, anything? No, I agree with Ed's comments. Okay, we'll move on and Steve, come back and let's all note. You have anything? Sorry. You know. I was going to say just that. No, really. That's the way I'm feeling right now. This is my thinking on this. When we budgeted for this, we knew, as you said, Ed, that we were going to have to come up with a way to fill that gap. And it looked like in just recent past meeting that we were, what, within $200,000 of filling that gap, something along those lines, and it was really exciting. And then the bids came out, and we were way, you know, the bids themselves were a lot higher than what we expected we were going to need to come up with. So then we had all these options. What do we do? Do we move forward? Do we try to get money come out of it? Do we totally redesign? And that's some of what I keep hearing from people is why don't we just redesign and make it cheaper? And here's my thought. So if we tried to redesign a building at $8,000, then in the six months that it takes to redesign, to go back and plan all this stuff, it's not like the construction costs are going to stop skyrocketing in those six months that we're replanning our library. So we could go back and design an $8,000, excuse me, $8 million library, and then say, great, we're within budget now. And then by the time we put it out to bid, we're getting bids for $11 million. So we could still be back in the exact same place that we're in right now. And that was one of my biggest concerns about spending another six months redesigning, only to find ourselves that we're still outside of budget and now have a much smaller library than we ever wanted. I think that we can move forward. I'm hopeful that we can move forward in getting back into budget. And with regard to budget, it was carefully estimated by four different estimating agencies. I know I've been in construction for 45 years. You can't trust any of them. But we looked at it, we put a 2% per month escalator on it, that's 24% increase over the year that we started to design this. Believe me, this was picked over carefully, estimated and re-estimated, and brought through a lot of different consultants. So we did the due diligence. And for me, I'm not prepared to spend another dollar out of the general fund. We've done our part. We've stepped forward. If it can be value engineered to have the same quality building with some fewer amenities, and believe me, this was architect to death. And anybody in construction knows that story. And we're just trying to bring it down to reality now. It's not going to be a mobile home without the wheels. It's still a quality building. A million and a half off the top on the first pass of VE is promising. And I won't vote for the contract unless we're not committing any money out of the general fund. If there's more measure S funds, and believe me, there are three other libraries doing the same thing and looking forward to those measure S funds in filling the gap between what you can design and what you can actually build. Everyone's in the same position. And anyone who thinks that waiting a year for construction to slow down so prices go down, ain't going to happen. And it may level out, but there's no bargains to be had a year from now, guaranteed. So we'll receive the report. Thank you very much. Mr. City Manager. Just a couple points to the council, I think that may be helpful for you. One is, is that the bids are good for 90 days. So it's going to be Fisher cut bait on July 26th. So realistically, what we're trying to do at a staff level is do all the staff work necessary for you to make the best possible decision, which is identify all the VE opportunities. And if there's any additional revenue, we can bring in reason reasonably. And that'll be on July 26th. And it'll be the opportunity that we have to either say yes or no. And if we say no, then we're off on a path of looking at how are we going to scale the building back, redesign and go back out to bid. So this isn't, I know it may have felt like deja vu here. Two weeks later, we're doing the same thing we did last time. Council have asked us to come back and give another update, but July 26th is a firm date for us to make that decision. And thank you for the public for your comments. We'll move on to introducing an ordinance pertaining to the cannabis retail licensing. Katie. Good evening, mayor and council members. This evening I have before you a retail cannabis establishment ordinance and license ordinance. So this evening we're going to discuss a new ordinance that would allow retail cannabis licenses in the city of Capitola, as well as an amendment to the zoning code to allow retail cannabis establishments in the regional commercial zone. We're also going to look at a resolution for authorizing criminal history of licensing for licensing purposes. And then at the July 26th meeting, you'll be reviewing the tax considerations that will go to ballot. So the proposal, the planning commission looked at the proposal during their last meeting for the zoning code update. So I'm going to first bring you the change, go over the changes for the regional commercial zone. So within the regional commercial zone, where there'd be an update to the land use table to add retail cannabis establishments into the land use table as a conditional use permit and tied to that conditional use permit are several requirements. One being that anyone pursuing a conditional use permit would first have to have a cannabis retail, have to have been selected for a cannabis retail license. The second is that the distance from schools and churches, there'd be a 1000 foot travel buffer. Also a 500 foot buffer between retailers. And they'd be required to have independent access. So establishments like the mall could not sell retail cannabis establishments. And then also specific sign standards. So what does this look like? On this image, I've got example locations in the darker blue with a 500 foot buffer. So between Capitola Road and Clare Street, there could be approximately three retail establishments. John, I got a postcard. So do I have to recuse myself? Are you within? I forgot to look at the map. But if I got a postcard. You're within 500 feet of any location. Of the Clare's location, perhaps. Yeah. I got a postcard, so. Yeah, you should recuse yourself. I'm going to recuse myself because I live close to that. I'm sorry. Did you say how convenient? No, it is convenient. She's adjacent to the CR zone. I'm going to move. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission asked also that that we bring forth the idea to the city council of establishing a 100 foot residential buffer. So the area in yellow is the residential zones within Capitola. And then the blue buffer, and I apologize. I should use a different color. It's kind of hard to see on the slide, is the 100 foot buffer that they asked that the city council consider. If a 100 foot residential buffer were adopted or put into the ordinance, the Browns Ranch would no longer be able to have retail sales. Also the area north along 41st between just north towards the highway, north of Clare Street, would also not be allowed to have retail sales. And then the establishments that are set a little bit further back along the east side of 41st where the Whole Foods Market is, that's too close to residential as well. And to add to this, with the no shared entry requirements, that would also take away them all. So it would be very limiting and where these retail establishments could occur if you were to adopt a 100 foot buffer from residential. Also during Planning Commission, we looked at signs and the Planning Commission meeting, we proposed three different options. One being following under the current sign regulations and then intermediate sign regulations, then a more conservative. The Planning Commission recommended the more conservative ordinance that signs be limited to the business name and one green cross, 15 square feet maximum. They can only be illuminated while the establishment is open and operating. They require Planning Commission approval and that there can be no reference to cannabis through symbols or language other than the green cross. So with that, that concludes the zoning portion of the cannabis retail establishments and now I'll move on to the cannabis retail licensing. And this I've worked very closely with the chief of police on and the city manager in the drafting of this ordinance. So the cannabis retail licensing will establish a maximum number of licenses. This evening we'll be looking for direction on what the council would like that maximum number of licenses to be before we discuss between one and three. The cannabis license will be based on a competitive merit based selection. So some of the criteria included in the ordinance are areas of not to be in an area of high crime, that there be a background check required, experience with legal cannabis sales and performance record, residency in local enterprise within the region, and then of course looking at the site planning, operations plan and security plan which would be thoroughly reviewed. This for the selection process, there would be a panel of a minimum of three non-complicated individuals selected by the city manager. The applicant would be determined based on who meets the merits. The issuance of a license, once a license is issued, the applicant who was issued the license would be required to get a conditional use permit from the planning commission within six months of issuance and they'd also be required to get a state license within six months. If they were unable to get a conditional use permit or the state license within six months it would become void and then another permit, another license would open up for the public process. As we worked through this at first in learning the best practices for licenses, we worked with a separate entity called HDL who was done more than 50% of the ordinances to date in California and they suggested that the license be transferable to a new owner and it would have oversight by the chief of police. They'll go through the same background check and make sure that they've got very strong plans for safety and protection built into their operating plans and also looking at transferring to new locations also would have to have a referral from the chief of police require a conditional use permit from the planning commission and approval by the state licensing. And within the license as you see our ordinance is actually very brief compared to most ordinances that are out there and the operation and safety requirements will be established by the chief of police. The ordinance further states that the city manager and chief of police are authorized to establish additional rules regulations and standards governed for a cannabis license. They must be published on the website and they become effective upon publication. So the real ongoing with the license staying in compliance and when they're when somebody is awarded a license they'll have to follow all these rules and regulations that are published on the website that are administered by the chief of police rather than putting them all in the ordinance this time because best practices continue to evolve. And then of course there's regulations for suspension and revocation and this evening or actually leading up to this meeting we did have a meeting that the chief and I with a local group that cannabis initiative and they worked they actually brought to us first the amendments that they wanted to see for the sign regulations and their focus has really been to make sure that there's limited advertising towards our youth and another request that was brought was for for printing publishing and advertising to make sure that other than by way of a dedicated business internet website in which people log in and they verify your age limiting the advertisement for cannabis products and sale. So I believe you'll hear from them this evening but that was one request from the public to add to this ordinance that in speaking with our attorney we could modify for the second draft should I be directed this evening. So this evening for we're asking the city council for direction on residential setbacks whether or not you'd like us to add a setback and in my slides I had the 100 feet shown and also the maximum number of license that you'd like to establish and with that I have the recommendation of approval of the first reading of the ordinance as well as an adoption for a resolution to allow background checks for the license. I have a question for you with regarding our sign ordinance what rules about the sign ordinance do liquor stores adhere to. They do not have specific. So it's our standard sign ordinance. Standard sign ordinance yes. Okay questions staff open it up to the public anyone like to come up and speak to us welcome. Hello good evening council members my name is Tara Leonard and I'm the project coordinator for the Santa Cruz County tobacco control program and I sit on the cannabis coalition which is staffed by community prevention partners which you will hear from in a minute. I'm here tonight because I want to share with you some of what we've learned about tobacco retail licensing and tobacco advertising to inform the decisions you have to make about cannabis. There's no question that exposure to tobacco marketing increases tobacco experimentation and use by youth. This has been proven by multiple studies therefore advertising restrictions including store signage are key strategies for youth prevention research has shown that youth are three times more likely to be influenced by tobacco ads than adults and this advertising is more powerful than peer pressure or even family smoking rates in determining youth use of tobacco. And now a study was just released in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence that finds that adolescent adolescents who viewed advertising for medical marijuana were more likely to use marijuana to express intentions to use marijuana and to have a positive expectation about marijuana. Indeed the study's lead author concluded quote as more states legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use we must think carefully about the best ways to regulate marijuana advertising so we can decrease the chances of harm occurring particularly to adolescents. In Santa Cruz County we have used tobacco retail licensing currently in four of our five jurisdictions to address where and how tobacco products are sold and advertised and that includes the number the type the location and the density of tobacco retailers. We also have state laws directing the placement of tobacco products and the number and placement of both interior and exterior tobacco advertising. Nonetheless it takes constant vigilance to police an industry that looks to youth as its future market. In response to decreasing smoking rates for traditional cigarettes we have seen a huge surge in flavored tobacco products such as e-cigarettes or jewels or vapes that target youth with candy fruit flavors colorful child friendly packaging and in fact recent studies have shown that 80 percent of young people who have ever used tobacco started with the flavored product most likely a product that didn't even exist 10 years ago. So now policy makers are having to play catch up and working to reduce youth exposure to these products through additional restrictions. You probably know that just a few weeks ago San Francisco voters supported a complete ban on the sale of flavored products in their city and we are currently in discussion about flavored tobacco restrictions with several jurisdictions in Santa Cruz County. So I just hope you will take this information into account as you deliberate about the important issues before you tonight and think strategically in advance as much as possible about how you will protect youth from premature cannabis initiation. Thank you. Thank you. Come on up. Good evening. My name is Jenna Shankman and I'm a community organizer in a way of Santa Cruz County and a member of community prevention partners. So to introduce community prevention partners Santa Cruz County community prevention partners which is more well known by the acronym CPP is a coalition of committed youth parents businesses media youth serving organizations law enforcement faith-based organizations civic and volunteer groups health care agencies substance misuse prevention organizations senior students and community members who are dedicated to positively impacting thriving and well-being in Santa Cruz County. We provide information on best practices for substance misuse prevention and implement evidence-based environmental strategies that specifically limit access and promotion of substances to young people. One of the most effective strategies to prevent youth use is to prevent youth exposure to advertising and to stop cannabis advertising that's aimed directly at you research as Tara said shows the tobacco alcohol and cannabis advertising increase youth use and decrease their perception of harm. In fact in a recent RAND study which followed over 6000 youth over seven years they found the adolescents who report a greater exposure to cannabis advertising were more likely to have used cannabis in the previous 30 days and were more likely to report that they expected to use cannabis in the next six months and they had positive views about cannabis. Youth who were exposed to more advertising were also more likely to report negative consequences including missing school having trouble concentrating on task and doing something they felt sorry for later or getting in trouble. Although there are some state-level restrictions on alcohol tobacco and cannabis advertising industry finds loopholes and we are all too familiar with the proliferation of advertising that ensues. In fact another interesting finding I am in the RAND study is the proportion of youth who reported seeing cannabis advertising had increased sharply in those seven years from 2010 to last year in 2017 from 25 to 70 percent. So local advertising restrictions are a best practice in public health to foster a healthier environment for our youth and we talked previously about signs since that can contribute kind of a visible culture of advertising and appreciate the recommendations that the planning commission put forward but we generally would just like to thank the council and city staff for all your research on this issue thinking about security thinking about what products have specific youth appeal that we know kind of come out as mentioned again with tobacco without that foresight and really kind of thinking about how to put that public health safety and youth youth prevention into this ordinance. Thank you. Okay step up. I know you're all friends you can get closer. Okay. Good. Good evening. My name is Les Forster and Mary and I live over in Oak Drive here in Capitola. We had the pleasure several months ago of taking part of the Capitola Government Academy which was very beneficial and one of the highlights of that session was a presentation by Scott Turnbull who as you all know is a superintendent here in the Soquel Union Elementary School District. Clearly as has been said by a number of folks in the room tonight Capitola has a focus on supporting and maintaining healthy youth in this community parks and recreation junior lifeguards a variety of other programs that sustain youth and promote them regardless of anybody in the room's feelings about cannabis and there are many I'm just urging you to put your educator hats on we're all educators here for this conversation. I'm a retired principal I worked in education for a number of years mostly at the high school level so I would just urge you as you continue to consider where this conversation is going is to look at this conversation especially around advertising who is the target market who needs to get what messages when how and to what extent and where and please keep in mind that the impact of certain messages on youth carries more weight than you might sometimes realize. So thanks again for your focus on kids especially adolescents in our community. Thank you. Next. Good evening I'm Mary Gockel Forster community resident for over nine years educator for over 30 years and the majority of that time with middle school and high school students. You've heard information from all the previous speakers about how impactful advertising can be. I want to encourage you to think about that right now and instead of correcting or having to come back and tightening any regulations or realizing the impact of the advertising on the youth to think about it ahead of time to put the safety of our youth and development of our youth to make that primary. I am so impressed with a group called Friday Night Live. These young people train about the laws about the amount of advertising that can be placed in the windows of businesses selling alcohol and they will go and they will see that if that percentage is exceeded and they will go in and talk they as teenagers will go in and talk to the business people and help them be aware of that the ordinances and where they may be exceeding that. So our young people want to be safe they want to be healthy they want to be part of our community they want to be part of the decisions. So I would encourage you to keep them in mind and keep them at the center and do that before you complete the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back Khalil. Thank you Mr. Termini. Thank you council. I just want to express my gratitude again for you guys even being willing to put this on the agenda today and I want to thank the community and also CPP and and and less I couldn't agree more with all the previous speakers today. So once again my name is Khalil Mutawakil. I'm CEO and co-founder for kind peoples. We've been around for nearly five years in the county of Santa Cruz. We have two locations to serve. We started out in 2013 with nine employees. We currently have nearly a hundred and we're looking to continue to expand. I spent many years prior to 2013 and when we opened our business crafting ordinances with both the county of Santa Cruz and the city of Santa Cruz and we've come to a pretty good ecosystem I would say and I also want to congratulate staff on putting together the ordinance that we have before us today. I really don't have a lot of complaints or feedback there. A couple things I do want to mention in my time the advertising portion the state has just mandated that cannabis advertisement must be limited in the same way the alcohol is limited so we can only advertise if the the medium in which we're advertising can be shown to have a 71.6 percent 21 years of age an older rate of not finding my word there but you get the picture. Number two I also want to point out in Colorado youth access and youth use plummeted and it continues to plummet in Colorado post legalization every single year it's fallen currently it's at the lowest that it's ever been so the advertising restrictions do work. We are satisfied with an age gate portal to be able to conduct advertising for pricing images of product so on and so forth and I just want to paint you a little picture if you walk into kind of people's dispensary it's a very welcoming atmosphere it's a very normalized retail experience they're not all that way but there are a lot of professional actors out there and I think my main message to the council tonight is really to choose your partners wisely because they are partners they'll be here for a long time. The last thing I want to mention is the 100 foot setback for for for residences so in the city of Santa Cruz they do not have a setback for residences at all however they do provide opportunities for exceptions so for the setbacks that they do have for other businesses for parks and schools and those types of things they offer the ability to have an exception because there's not always a one size fits all approach that works so that's all I've got I don't know if it's appropriate I'd surely love to have any conversations with you be able to answer any questions if I can leave a card may I do that sure thank you see clerk I'll take it next hey Vic Morani I wore this special Hawaiian shirt in your honor tonight we wouldn't let you in if you didn't have it on I bought it at the Capitola mall when the Aptos shoes and apparel were going out of business so I got a really good deal if anyone they still had some left by the way you guys want to do that I'm Vic Morani former coach high school teacher obviously knows folks really well I also have the privilege of serving as your elected member on the county school board for several years and eventually as the board president about 10 years ago on something like this I always think it's important because it is such a tight knit community that you check in with your other elected officials and you've got a great school board here just up the street and I don't know if this has really been sunshineed with these folks you also have a member of the county school board who's been appointed in and she's a Capitola resident and used to have went back in the day there was another guy bud Winslow who is a great guy I remember him quite well and George and I get together and talk about stuff but I just think it's a really good idea to check in with people especially they might view this as like hey you're kind of slipping us in at summertime where kids are out or whatever you know it's good to have dialogue with people I'm not saying you shouldn't do it I'm just saying it would be really smart to use this whole next month between now and July 26 to do that I was privileged a few years back a group called Power Valley Community Alliance came to me they knew I was kind of a bridge guy who did a lot of dialogue with people in the business community as well as education and a Watson was wanting to be on the front end of a lot of this cannabis stuff not to admit I had a certain attitude going into it and now I have a completely different attitude about it and I think a lot of the state has sort of reflected that thinking I'm gonna share a couple things with you that Watsonville learned and if it helps you it helps you and maybe it works for you number one you said one to three possible you know applicants Watsonville throughout the idea of one because if you do one it looks like you're giving a monopoly to somebody and then you got lawsuits and you know all kinds of stuff like mr. Barrison he comes out of retirement decides this isn't so smart financially so I'd say two or three if you're looking at something like that second thing you talked about these six month intervals and perform or not well the state kind of makes things up whenever they want and changes things so I think if you have some sort of artificial six month deal with them you might find out that's not a good idea so you might want to leave that a little open ended and then the last one is these residential setbacks it's great the thousand foot thing is a state requirement with schools got it child care facilities a lot kind of good stuff but that hundred foot one is a real nasty one because there could be a ten foot wall with barbed wire and just on the other side is a housing development and it's like no one's going to climb over that to get to you know what I mean I mean kind of like some of these places were bunkers in Watson there's no way they were going to get in but just on the other side of the wall there was some old house that had been there forever so looking at those maps and those circles and poor Stephanie having to leave you know I'd say 86 that hundred foot deal but other than that good dialogue with people I'm glad you're having the conversation and you know I stand by if you ever need any assistance with just some ideas thanks we appreciate it no problem anyone else seeing no one will bring it back to the council a lot of decision points here can I make a point of clarification please do okay so just to be clear I had underlined a portion of this just to highlight the fact that within the request the whole the whole paragraph is the requested language that would be added under the grounds for license revocation and I had underlined the one section to just specify that the at the very end of the sentence it says pricing of cannabis details regarding specific cannabis products cannabis photography and graphics related to the cannabis plant or cannabis products they would only be accessible to the public by way of a dedicated business internet website that you'd have to be age verified so they are asking for the whole paragraph I underlined I didn't want you to think the underline was a red line to it right something that's in there and and this was a request by the organization exactly spoke to us this did not come from I see nothing wrong with it but it came from just to just to clarify we all read the letter thank you very much and this is their suggestion with regard to advertising exactly yeah perfect and so I will clarify that the first reading would be an amended that the first reading would incorporate this language it could give us direction and when it comes back for final adoption it would have this language and the council could finally adopt to this next meeting let me run down my points real quick I can you put up the map that shows 100% okay yeah I do that the advertising I agree with the language nice and easy I hear a responsible retailer who you know also supports it that's enough for me and and there's a rationale behind it I like it and I think that it's been years since we ever saw anybody you know smoking a cigarette or consuming alcohol on television so there's there's precedent for this this is the this is the path we take to ensure that we don't subliminally you know incite our youth I think that the 100 foot setback should not happen it's too articulated it there's the sound wall example that Vic brought up is all the way behind the Claire street strip mall so I'm in favor of no 100 foot setback obviously the 1000 foot setback state law and makes sense and we're we restrict ourselves enough just by the small zone that we allow it in and if you take the mall out of that zone it gets even smaller I believe that the the sign ordinance I think that restricting what can go on the sign makes sense from an advertising standpoint I cannot in good conscience restrict the size of a business's sign because of the business they are so if a liquor store has 15 square feet a cannabis retailer should have 15 square feet I do understand that sign symbols are a form of advertising that's perfectly within you know and I think that's a rational way to go I wouldn't want to see a an animated liquor store sign showing somebody drinking you know bourbon from a bottle you know it's a throwback kind of a thing don't need to see that it's a liquor store okay good enough that's what it is same thing here same square footage as any other retail establishment it's a cannabis retailer plain and simple those are my only points and I'll pass on to Kristen and and I'm not locked into the green cross thing because you know it could be a green leaf for all I care or no symbology my my mind was changed on the green cross it was it was I was I was adamantly against the green cross and you know my mind was my mind was changed because I felt that there was valid reason for having it there being known as it is now as what it is I felt that it's better than having like a leaf you know or a plant other than that I will say I agree with the hundred foot with what you said about the hundred foot setback for residential zones I don't think we should have that there was a couple comments about us not making too many decisions now or keeping in mind that we should make decisions now and when I was at the league of cities conference today they had a whole hour and a half forum called cannabis and your city and the panelists were the legislate a legislative rep the bureau of cannabis control cannabis policy enforcement for the city of sacramento and the legislative analyst for the california police chief association so it was people that are really looking into this issue closely and working on it and one of the things they did say is that they are anticipating more regulatory changes in the next couple years that's from the bureau of cannabis control and so I think that it's important that we start what we're doing now and just keeping in mind that as regulations change on the state level we're going to have to continue to adjust our regulations potentially on the local level and one of the other things that I highlighted here was the city of sacramento's cannabis policy and enforcement guy was saying that he's been working in policy for 20 years and that cannabis is the single most complicated public policy matter he's ever worked on so I think that that's an interesting comment from someone who's been 20 years in public policy and I've been here for a year and a half and I'm still kind of trying to wrap my head around public policy and this is you know a very complicated one indeed um I'd say I agree not just one shop I'm okay with two or three um what else was it was that it the shops the number of shops the signage the buffer signage signage yeah I was saying I'm okay with the cross and the size of the sign should we restrict the size of the sign you know I um I hadn't really given any thought to that but I agree with you if it's going to be a sign it might as well be within the same size as the rest of the sign ordinance I agree with that so in the regional commercial um establishments can have a sign that's one square foot per linear foot of frontage up to 50 square feet right so the signs would be no bigger smaller than we have for the dock in the box or the Japanese restaurant or what have you that's correct yeah there's a couple of examples of larger signs out there that got special approvals but under the new side and ordinance there's a maximum of 50 they'd have to have ample frontage to qualify for that though they would they'd have to have 50 feet of 50 feet yeah okay and the other part of the sign ordinance is that their cannabis signs are required to go to planning commission so if the direction is to treat them as all as all other signs are treated then they if they comply they should not have to go to planning commission or I'll take direction on that but there are we have restrictions regarding the content of the sign would that be vetted by the police department it seems like the planning commission is a logical place or is it would be done by your department over the counter so what I'm hearing is possibly a change to the size of the sign no not the size of the sign we're talking about the content that we're letting it be you know name of the business only green cross is the only kind of symbology and that's pretty much it so if someone came to you and the sign were covered in green cannabis leaves that would be a violation of this but it wouldn't necessarily have to go to the planning commission but where I want to know where the choke point is where do we control that the design of the sign so it depends on how we draft the ordinance right now the design of the sign would be limited to the business name and a green cross right only and 15 square feet so the only change I'm hearing so far is in the square footage of the sign according to our regular sign ordinance so the question I have is who reviews the design of the sign so mr. mayor I think I can answer that easily I think the the dub is not right now it requires a use permit so the planning commission is going to be looking at the use permit and so normally we would take a sign permit along with the use permit and so it would be part of parcel so I think it's probably at this stage not terribly important if you want to have a ministerial like the other cr zone signed or you want to leave it with the planning commission no if you're saying the planning commission gets to review it I see no reason why they shouldn't have to review the sign as well and that's the way it's drafted the only I mean I honestly the only thing I can imagine is is 10 years from now if the business were to change and it would be go through the approval process with the chief of police and they want to change the sign that means they have to go back to the planning commission which frankly you know I think we can cross that bridge when we get to it yes okay very clear thank you Jacques anything yeah any history behind the hundred feet limit no you know the the history of it was um a few residents making comment to the planning commissioners and them just asking that there was no direction or recommendation for a hundred foot buffer they just wanted to wanted the city council to be aware of the the neighbor's concern and they thought it would be a good discussion for the city council to have okay but they did not recommend including that in the ordinance comments I thought it mostly referred to manufacturing and stuff like that and smell you know odors and stuff so you didn't want to be too close so you had that issue somewhat mitigated by distance and we don't allow that here anyway so we don't allow that here anyway so I'm not necessary in favor of it um Ed can you back to the drawing of the uh so if I'm I'm reading this right um if I'm looking at Browns Ranch is it pretty much that because the blue line goes through those businesses none of those are eligible for an occupancy that's correct and if I look on 41st Avenue on the it's going to be on the right hand side of the of the picture those all those in the front are eligible or not are they precluded because of property lines or in the front um they could be eligible as long as the there's a hundred foot buffer between the property line and the building yeah I guess when I'm asking about the hundred feet because some of the lots like let's say for example McDonald's you know the back of the lot line goes all the way to the fence so is it a hundred feet from the property line or is it a hundred feet from the location of the business and it would be we could draft it it's not drafted yet but the way I was thinking about it would under this scenario it's be from the property line to a hundred feet so if the structure was not that would would be enclosing the retail establishment was not within that 100 foot buffer then it could be on that property but outside the 100 foot buffer okay and that's what I'm trying to interpret here but under the hundred foot buffer the bevmo site and those would be too close yeah so if that blue line goes through any building that building is off the table right so that arrow is intended to signify the places that would be out so browns ranch would be out yeah the bevmo cvs center out here's the logic I'll go back I mean I think I have enough you can go and leave that up just for now just for for conversation because you know I'm not a big proponent of this as I think I've made clear in the past it's kind of like it's a necessary evil that we're going to deal with and uh I still believe there's going to be impactful on our police department we're making no allowances for that but um I am concerned about the fact that there was a three two vote on the planning commission just tells me there was some not planning commission has been pretty good lately about agreeing on things and try to be supportive when they send something to us when I get something from them that's three two I'm not sure why it's three two I don't know if it's because of the whole concept of it because of a sign if it's because of a hundred feet I know that we killed a drive through at McDonald's because one neighbor complained about it so you know I think there is some sensitivity about when neighbors weigh in on something I think we put this in a pretty good area the only reason that we might be concerned about the hundred foot setback is because we're trying to cram too many places into there so we want to make these so they don't overlap so I'm not big on the number I can understand I mean if I gotta live with this necessary evil which you know um I'm hoping that we can get this council to come up with a reasonable number one's probably not a good number because I understand the monopoly thing I would love if we could end up on land on two I think it's plenty I think if there was two then the spacing would probably allow that in that configuration we'd be able to find two places where people could sell this commodity they could still maintain a hundred foot buffer which would satisfy the neighbors I think I read in the in the in the uh in the notes Watsonville has a six foot sign limit six square feet one's at six one's at 12 yeah I like smaller I I don't think these need to be big I don't see the reason for 15 I'm I'm looking for something 10 or less nine's a good number uh I'm okay with what the criteria are that says uh you know the address and the and the green sign I think if you know it's kind of like you know we there's branding that goes on you know I'm pretty good now I can find a Starbucks from half a mile away because I'm looking for their little branding logo and if I was looking for this green uh just like an emergency room you know with a red cross in front I always find it so if it had the green cross in front I think you would find it um trying to be sensitive to the advertising you know the advertising is in a sign it's in so many different ways um I think christen made a good point that the people are having trouble writing this these initiatives the most difficult one to write because people are so divided on it because it's just not sure how it's going to work in their community um obviously there's revenue here you know and I should be putting on my republican hat and seizing all revenue available you know but I'm I'm I'm just concerned about the impact on our town um can is it okay a good point now to make a motion for the number of of store I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we uh allow two uh dispensaries uh include the 100 foot setback and limit the sign to nine feet not here in a second I I love it maybe it was just one maybe it was just too many things in one place and why don't we try okay one at a time one at a time one at a time okay let's just say that uh I make a recommendation that we allow two dispensaries is there a second second any further discussion all in favor I to you can you wow it can you feel good now oh don't get too comfortable where's the groove though yeah I realized to savor the maybe savor anything for the moment savor the moment I can let somebody else make a motion but you can go forward carry on um I'll make a motion that we retain the 100 foot setback is there a second clarification it's not retain it would be to establish I'm sorry established a 100 foot setback from residents I feel it failing for lack of a second you want to go to your next item make a motion that we limit the size of the sign to 10 feet 10 square feet two feet by five feet or three foot by three foot including the green or in addition to the green cross no it's it's total total square I'm thinking of it as like a planning commissioner okay total square footage would including the green cross 10 square feet and and with the same criteria I think Katie said it was limited to add name of the business and a green cross how big is that cross I would estimate that that's about 15 square feet the cross and then the treehouse sign is maybe four square feet or more oh no it's definitely more yeah so maybe 10 by two I think it's good that we're getting a sense of what because we're just looking at numbers if we're looking at this and what are we looking at about we're looking at about 20 square feet of signage right here total 15 total so I think like the treehouse sign might be eight square feet but this monument sign up front is you know I'm a little confused because I'm talking about one sign now if you're talking about a total cumulative it would be like a oh then I would let me redo that that's why I was leading towards the side I would limit the motion to sign total not to exceed 15 square feet with one sign not to be bigger than 10 square feet correct is there a second okay any further discussion I think that's okay 15 nothing bigger than five or bigger than 10 and I'm looking here at at the at least 20 square feet so even this is too big in my mind in your mind in my motion now we have a second yeah okay anybody else any comments on the sign portion can we get clarification on what the sizes are on our current sign ordinance currently the sign ordinance allows you to have multiple signs that have a maximum limit when added together of 50 square feet or one square foot per linear foot of frontage so if this building will just say it's 40 feet wide they would have a maximum total signage for square footage for 40 square feet so could they use that all in one sign could they make one huge 40 square foot sign no because I think our wall signs are limited to 36 square feet and then we've got other regulations for monument signs not to be larger than a certain size so there's added layers of limitations for the type that's kind of where I was going with the our own our resisting sign ordinance because it's been carefully crafted and if you look around our town the signs are modest our new ordinance is more conservative the new sign code and it allows administrative permitting of signs so we really decreased the amount of square footage you could have in a location with an administrative permit you can always ask for extra and go to planning commission but so it is more modest further comments on signs yeah to me this is a different kind of sign than like a doctor's office or a grocery store or something like that you know we've heard a lot of testimony here that you know we don't want to splash this out I'm just paraphrasing to you know youth basically right and I actually agree with Ed I know where every single green sign is within 41st across the highway so small is fine I think people find it's there and if you look at the tree house sign right it's normal no absolutely agreed but but if you look at this the green cross right abnormal it's predominant or it's predominant I mean in comparison I see nothing wrong with the tree house sign and the tree house sign is probably no taller than two feet and it's probably it could it could be eight eight or nine square feet okay it's probably two by ten it's probably two by ten it's about 20 square what I'm saying is your your motion the numbers the door the doors are three feet wide okay there's two doors there okay so it's probably six feet at the most 36 inch door there's two doors tree house is probably six feet are we counting just the words or the whole thing that's on the whole dimension what I'm saying is I think we're confusing numbers with appearance and that appearance right there I guarantee you that tree house sign is bigger than six feet but be that as it may let's say it's six feet and there's and it's two feet tall and it's 12 square feet that alone eliminates the ability to put the green cross out so I'm I'm comfortable letting our sign ordinance handle this and that's saying especially with stores that you know these stores the if I'm correct are going to be well off the roadway and not you know this kind of a thing if this were on the edge of capitol road or on 41st I'm there with you but we have specific sign or it is about monuments and about wall signs even though they're 80 feet from the wall from the roadway so along 41st avenue within our sign code you can have either a monument sign or a wall sign unless you're a certain amount back then you can have then you can get additional privileges for being limitedly visible but if you're right up on 41st avenue so if it were Bank of America that became this establishment they would be able to have a sign right along the road under this ordinance up to 15 square feet or two signs that don't exceed 15 square feet in total so that's two feet by six feet and that sign is bigger but I will I will call for a vote if we're ready unless you want to go up there and measure that tree outside just remember you know we we haven't got to the hundred foot setback yet no no agreed keep in mind that you know once the hundred foot setback fails the incentive would be to to to have the building back and have the monument signed if there's an allowance to have more advertising any business will have more advertising and what Katie just said was is that if there are certain distance back they'll get the monument sign and the wall sign do we have instances I don't I can't think of anything except for a master sign bro you know I really feel awkward because normally we get a recommendation from the planning commission right you know and they are more astute at making these recommendations so for us this I'm struggling with with you know this was their recommendation um this was the third most conservative option they added the green cross to it originally it just allowed the business name so this is the planning commission's recommendation we gave them three options at planning commission and what you're seeing here was they went for the most conservative approach I'm seeing the 15 square foot and I'm thinking is that for just the building sign or is that for the building then they get another 15 for the monument sign it's total they get 15 square foot max yeah so between a monument sign and a wall sign it's 15 square feet and either one of those signs either the green cross or the treehouse covers that 15 square feet in in my the monument sign definitely exceeds the 15 so just either of those so let me let me amend the motion amend the motion to accept planning commission recommendation as stated on the board here you already have a second for your motion I'll second it I know that but but it wasn't clear but we resolved the language if this is what the planning commission is recommending and this limits the total available signage they can advertise this meets what I was trying to accomplish this is the same thing that you just motioned but you just added the word planning commission I did well I I put an exclusion there for one sign not to exceed 10 feet total of 15 one not to see that I didn't I would drop that he parsed it out get 15 square feet they can divvy it up any way they want I put a restriction on the other one how about a roll call vote councilmember Bertrand hi councilmember Peterson no councilmember Bob dwarf all right and Mayor Termini no fails at a tie let's try again I I can understand everyone's reluctance to go to the up to was it 40 feet 50 feet yeah up to 50 feet 50 feet's a lot I got that even though I'm reluctant to you know equal treatment under the law we're basically doing the scarlet letter on cannabis locations because of what they sell right I can ask a question should maybe add the the chief and I went to many of the three establishments we asked for feedback on from the different people that were there of what did we're under the county established regulations did they were they frustrated with the sign regulations and how restrictive they are and the feedback I got was we're not that worried about it people know where we are we've got our green cross the county I want to say is 12 square feet I think it was recently amended the county but that was the the feedback I got from at three establishments that we visited when I asked that question granted it may not it was workers that were there it wasn't the owners this in the county yeah this is these regulations are larger than the county's regulations question yeah if you could indulge me there's two planning commissioners in the room and if either one of them could come up here and just shed some light on whether the planning commission was in agreement with this agreement on the on the square footage was unanimous with the split vote I'm not seeing either planning commissioners rushing to the podium oh there we go well I am well you have to be patient it's 10 minutes to 10 nobody's rushing anywhere hi Sam good evening everyone I wasn't planning on coming up but I am the chair of the planning commission and I can tell you yeah we had a I think a very robust discussion about the size of the sign and what you see in the split vote was a reflection of the majority wanting to have a minimal sign signage because even though it is legal I mean it was still recognized that it's under federal law it's still a schedule one a legal substance and because we're going through a period of transition we wanted to start with a bit of discretion and some controls in the community and seeing where it was going to go before we opened it up some of the other discussion is very similar to what you're having this evening it's a legal substance why should it be treated any differently that was part of our discussion as well and and I think that there were a couple of planning commissioners who didn't see the need to put any restrictions on the on the size of the sign and and then also we brought up and recommended the 100 foot buffer from the residents and so that's I hope that answers your question about you know how we arrived and why there was a split vote I think that we did want to keep it modest understood understood thank you thank you TJ chairman story did a great job of explaining I would agree with the only thing I would mention I didn't come up before because I you had kind of our recommendations there but this hundred foot setback we had some dialogue with people in the Clairs Avenue area who have a real strong concern about the amount of traffic that comes through their their neighborhood to get to that the mall area so the hundred foot setback was something that we you know we kind of went around and came up with the hundred some people wanted more some people maybe didn't want that but we felt real strongly about having that set setback because of that and I'll tell you I was one of the sending votes against having this I for me were 1.7 square miles I think you've got well I think our proponents here said there's more the highest density and in the state of Santa Cruz County and how many can you really fit I don't care about monopolies I think one would be great but you know you are the commission that is going to approve this so that was some of the feedback that we discussion we had on the plan what were the other levels of sign sizing that the planning commission were offered I'm going to bring up a slide for you that I so the first one is according to the sign ordinance is it not the first one's according to the sign ordinance so that first line one square foot per one linear foot so 50 square feet number of signs you can have multiple logo you can have a logo and or a green cross illumination is what would be allowed reference to cannabis would be allowed under option two it was a maximum of 20 square feet it was a maximum of one sign logo or a green cross and then illumination is allowed and reference to cannabis would be allowed and I'm going to go back and check I I thought we allowed multiple signs under our option three but I'm going to check the ordinance now because I'm seeing in my table it says that's okay for me I mean I I have to tell you it I'm I'm beginning to drink the Kool-Aid on the I'm not the 50 foot sign ordinance I'm but like I said the 15 feet is smaller than you would think the only thing that bothers me about option two is I think that illumination during business hours is plenty during operating hours that was something that we had from the letter from our our friends and that made good sense I don't know you want to give it another shot at yeah please just to clarify so it looks like the slide that we had before was saying that there was allowed to have a green cross but no other kind of symbols or whatever pertaining to cannabis but the first two are saying you could have a logo and or a green cross which sounds like you could have a plant a leaf or something like that and option three says neither but the one that we were just looking at only had the cross so which one of those options that was the change they made they they added the green cross so right and I and I should clarify within the ordinance it is drafted um that they shall be limited to one exterior building sign so if you want the option of letting them have multiple we should modify that but so right now it's limited to one sign um regardless of setback because you brought up that other the monuments I'm concerned about regardless of setback okay I think I'm against monuments at the baseline being this the sign Nazi and the planning commission for many years so yeah I don't like monuments at all because I think that there's probably I sense that there's agreement on option three with maybe just not the size of the sign yeah yeah go up a little bit you know the illumination I'm fine with you just during narrow's operation the prohibited I don't have a problem with the green cross being included you know I'm fine with that because I that's why I'm willing to make the sign smaller because one little thing says a thousand words you notice I think green crosses this is what I'm looking for okay and I that's why I'm reducing it down in size because they can put the cross keep it small they're going to know where it's at it isn't going to be like it's a mystery or they're going to find it okay so I I I didn't we tried fifth we tried option three and it just it's stalled right so I'm going to try option three but I'm going to change it to 20 square feet and let's go through it so they can have the cross they can have the cross everything that's on option three illuminated during business hours only the size will go to 20 square feet but it'll include the cross option single sign single sign is there a second roll call vote council member Bertrand hi council member Peterson hi council member botorf hi may termini hi we have a consensus all right number three number three what other decisions are you looking for from us because I think we're a hundred foot setback we got oh the hundred foot setback I think that died over lack of a second well it was a joint it was a it was no there was no second at all okay there's nothing so someone want to make a motion about we don't need to make a motion about eliminating it we just don't need to include it right you just don't need to include it the last motion or the last decision would be the advertising well no oh including the language for advertising good then let's let's someone make a motion regarding the advertising and bring that advertising slide up there it is that sounds good to me is that a motion if that's a motion yes sounds good to me motion by a second and a second by Kristen roll call vote council member Bertrand hi council member Peterson hi council member botorf hi and may termini hi I'd like to say thank you for the community group that came up with the good yes I appreciate that participation what else you got for us we need to approve the first reading of the ordinance as amended for chapter 5.36 and amending municipal code chapter 17.24 is that so moved second all in favor aye opposed unanimous and adopt a resolution approving the background checks so moved so moved second all in favor aye what else you got that's it all contingent on the vote that's all you got so I want have one more question how long have you been working on this yeah yeah it's rich left oh geez been an accelerated schedule okay okay well thank you um we had a five minute recess here before we go into the mo use for the labor groups okay we're going to move on to consider approval of memorandum of understanding with labor groups and adopt salary schedule and I believe this is where I read a statement into the record yes before the city council this evening as part of a agenda item 10e is a recommendation to approve salary and benefit packages for the following employee groups association of capitol employees confidential mid-management and at will management employees the at will management employees consist of department heads and the city manager the benefit packages before the city council include a two and a quarter percent salary increase july 1st 2018 for the listed groups including at will management and the city manager a fifteen hundred dollar one time bonus will be provided for the listed groups including at will management however at the city manager's request he will not receive the one time bonus he has declined it the city health care contribution for ace and confidential groups will be adjusted pursuant to the attached mo you and described in staff's presentation for at will management and the city manager employees with dependence the city health care contribution will increase by up to four hundred and eighty seven dollars per month but the health insurance opt out for those with other coverage will decrease by five hundred and twenty three dollars a month and now we'll have a staff report barry good evening mr. mayor council members um so i'll be brief what we um the mayor read the oral report um major provisions of the agreement with the groups are the two-year agreement there's going to be a two point two five percent cost of living adjustment on july 1st 2018 and 2019 um employees will continue to pay thirteen point three nine two percent of their salary toward retirement costs and included in their in july one of 2018 is a fifteen hundred dollar one time bonus for all employees in covered except the except for the city manager the major difference between a couple of the groups is the cash in lieu um the confidential mid management and management employees agreed to reduce their cash in lieu immediately from seven hundred and seventy three dollars to two hundred and fifty dollars per month for those who have um group coverage from other other sources the association of capital employees um wanted to grandfather the employees that are currently using the cash in lieu and agreed to um reduce the cash in lieu to two hundred and fifty for all new employees or current employees who go take the city's health care at that point they have to they would go back to two hundred and fifty dollars as well and the differences are um the contribution rates are higher for those groups that got rid of the cash in lieu or reduced to two hundred and fifty dollars immediately the associate cap capital employees um because they wanted to keep the employees that are using the cash in lieu at that level the annual contributions from the city to health care are are less in order to um accommodate those costs um so tonight um the recommended actions are to authorize the city manager execute successor agreements um with negotiated changes from july 1st through july june 30th 2020 with the association of capital employees mid management employees bargaining unit the confidential employees management unit bargaining unit excuse me approve the changes to the management compensation plan approve changes to city managers um employer employee contract and adopt a resolution approving salary schedule from 71 2018 to 6 30 2019 if i'm here to answer questions one just a procedural question can that can um moving the recommended actions as a single motion work or do we need each of these items motion separately you can do it as a single one good council members if they had any uh concerns could ask you to break them out but are there any questions of staff is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to us connie did you let him drink like three cups of coffee today i thought we could wear him out by now yeah well i made a commitment to you uh when you first started this endeavor with the library and being generous with uh that and our special interest groups that i would be back during negotiations and so i'm back good and i'm i'm happy to see that you've come a long ways in settling some contracts it's never an easier fun time but i see that we haven't quite settled with our uh public safety group so uh and then and considering this whole cannabis deal which is one of my big concerns about having cannabis it's it's an impact uh you don't have to look too far talk to anybody well you could talk to your police chief i'm sure what you already have but uh colorado washington they're seeing a huge problem with black market uh the increase they can't keep up with uh the permit processing because of the black market they're seeing uh 23 percent um increase in homelessness in colorado springs because since the more uh recreational marijuana sales so um it's going to be an impact on our officers my i would hope that you would try to come to a resolution with them i'm not saying i'm not asking and because i came out of public safety i understand the process and i'm not saying we have to give them the world but uh it's a process and and we're having issues we can't hire police officers it's a burden on them we're a small town we're a small community huge influx of tourism that impacts their job this cannabis is going to impact their job uh i would say you know maybe consider taking a portion of your the only reason to have cannabis sales is tax revenue that's the only reason to have it so hey give part of that to public safety let's dedicate part of that but let's take care of our employees let's take care of our public safety people and uh i love all you guys don't i may come off a little gruff sometimes because i'm passionate about capitol i'm passionate about uh how we take care of capitol and uh but i also am passionate about taking care of our staff it's a big service we provide so thank you for your time thanks tj we love you too we'll have a group hug after the meeting seeing no one else coming up i'll bring it back to the council move staff recommendation is there second by jocbert rand all in favor i opposed it is unanimous yes one absence yes yes one absence consider fee schedule fiscal year 2018-19 well again mayor and council uh i don't have a power point for this one i figured we'd power pointed out by now pretty much amen thank you so a 30-slide item is the fiscal year 2018-19 fee schedule state law requires that the city conduct a public hearing anytime that we're making changes to the fee schedule that either increases fees or adds new additional fees just as a way of reminder the city completed a fee study back in november of 2015 and one of the recommendations out of that study was to review the fees annually and include a cpi increase so the fee schedule that is there before you all the fees have been increased by the bay area cpi of 3.2 percent which was what the calendar year was january through december with the following exceptions recreation fees we did not increase at all they're still at the same level as last year and then we have a couple of fees three different fees that are established by the state notice of intent to circulate an initiative petition is $200 it's been $200 so there's no change to that one notary service fees the state has increased that from 10 to 15 dollars i believe it's been 10 dollars for probably 20 plus years um and then the business license disability access and education fee is going from one dollar to four dollars um that one i bring up because in the past we have not charged that one dollar fee the city has basically taken $1,300 out of the general fund to cover that fee so the recommendation the staff's recommendation is to increase it to four dollars to establish it and set it at four um if we do not then that $1,300 out of the general fund turns into five thousand dollars annually according to the state can take this with a grain of salt the fee is going to be raised from one dollar to four dollars for through 2023 and then go back to one dollar i'll believe that when i see it go back to one dollar um oh and and those fees so those fees have to be spent on disability access and programs and construction um so the recommended action is to conduct the public hearing on the proposed fee schedule and adopt the proposed resolution repealing resolution number 4077 and adopting the new fee schedule and i'd be happy to answer questions to staff seeing none anyone from the public then we'll bring it back to the council what is your will move staff recommendation second second by council member peterson all in favor aye opposed so we are now at the end of the city council meeting don't put your papers away yet boys and girls because the city council meeting is now adjourned and we will now open the meeting for the city of capitol as successor agency to the former capitol redevelopment agency meeting of thursday june 20 eight and i will need a a board uh agency board roll call please uh whenever you're ready no rush do you want i would just note that the members uh okay council member per tram not council members here council member okay commissioner bertrand is a board member board member peterson here board member vato here and chair termini here and uh board member harlan is absent um let's see are there any additional materials no additions deletions to the agenda staff with no changes public comments there's one consent calendar item that is considered the may 30th 2018 joint budget workshop minutes so moved second all in favor aye opposed none it's unanimous the government's a marvelous thing uh general government hearings adopt fiscal year budget 2018-19 approve the resolution adopting fiscal year successor agency budget is there any public comment on this is there a staff report uh the only thing i would say is that this is really just kind of the the ross payment so it's revenue in revenue out right same thing that we do each year it's included in the budget document that you've seen before questions of staff hearing none and seeing no public comment is there a motion move staff recommendation all in favor aye opposed it's unanimous with the exception of council member harlan and now this successor agency to the former redevelopment agency meeting is adjourned well done