 Is our speaker ready? Yes. Thank you. Welcome to the 10 30 AM public portion of the closed session of the March 22, 2022 meeting of the city council. If you would like to comment on a closed session item, now is the time to call in the instructions on your screen. In this part of the meeting, the council will receive public testimony. Thereafter, the public line will be closed and inaccessible. Please mute your television or streaming device once you call in and listen through the phone. Please note there is a delay in streaming. So if you continue to listen on your television or streaming device, you may miss your opportunity to speak. I would like to ask the parker to please call the roll. Mayor, council members, Callentary Jones. Currently at... Coming? Here. Vice mayor Watkins. Here. Mayor Brunner. Present. Thank you. At this time, are there any members of the public who would like to speak? Any items listed on the closed session agenda items one and two, please raise your hands either by dialing star nine on your phone or select the raise hand or in the webinar polls on your computer. When it's your time to speak, you will hear an announcement that you have been unmuted. The timer will then be set to a minute. You may hang up once you have commented on your item of interest. Okay, let's go out to attendees. I am not seeing any hands. Looks like there is no one on any of the closed session items. Seeing none, this meeting will be adjourned and council will go into the closed session. We are best about to begin our afternoon session. Just returning from closed session and it looks like the clerk, are you ready to begin? Okay, so let's begin. Good afternoon. Welcome to the 12th session of the March 22, 2020 meeting of the Santa Cruz City Council. I would like to ask the clerk to please call roll. I'm sorry, Johnston. Present. It's Mayor Watson. Here. I. Okay, thank you. Now we will end with presentations and the first one, presentation, mayoral proclamation declaring March, 2020, this red cross month, the city of Santa Cruz and our, have Anita, Clarice and Dan with us as well. Hi, I'm here. We're here. Welcome. Mayor, Anita's having. Okay. I will go ahead and present the proclamation. Whereas in times of crisis when Santa Cruz come together there for one another, this humanitarian spirit is part of the foundation of our community and it's exemplified by American Red Cross Volunteers and donors. And whereas in 1881 Clara Barton founded the American Red Cross running her step-fast dedication for helping others into a bold mission of preventing and alleviating suffering. And whereas day more than 140 years later we honor the kindness that are us Red Cross volunteers here in Santa Cruz who continue to carry out Clara Barton's life-saving legacy joining the millions of people across the United States who volunteer, give blood, donate financially or learn vital life-serving skills through the Red Cross. And whereas contributions of local Red Cross volunteers, 189 in the county give hope the most vulnerable their darkest hours, last year in Santa Cruz County volunteers helped 33 houses affected by 24 home fires by addressing their urgent like food and lodging as well as providing recovery support collecting over 3,900 blood donation provided first aid in our training to over 1,400 residents, helped families of over 500 students prepare for disasters through pillowcase project and assisted over 40 families of our armed forces. And whereas this work that it alleviates and suffering is vital thanks to our resilience. And he dedicated this month of March all those against the noble legacy of American Red Cross founder Clara Barton lived by her words, quote, you must never have anything except the need and how to meet it, quote, and ask others joining this commitment to give back to Park. Now, therefore, I, Sonia Brunner, Mayor of the city of Santa Cruz, hereby proclaim the month of March, 2020 as Red Cross Month, the city of Santa Cruz and encourage all citizens to reach out to the American Red Cross. And I'd like to invite and first year we'd like to say any words as a board member of the American Red Cross. Yes, good afternoon. I believe Ida's doing this as well. Hi, yes, good afternoon. Welcome, Anita. Well, go ahead and start, Anita. Yeah, I'll kick it off. Thank you for having us. So yeah, my name's Anita Clarice and I'm with the central post chapter of the American Red Cross. And as you see, joining me is Dan Ripley. I'm the vice chair of the chapter. So it's a great honor to accept this special promotion declaring March as Red Cross Month. Thank you very much. Our mission wouldn't be possible without community heroes who are Red Cross volunteers. During our annual Red Cross Month celebration in March, we honor their commitment to support individuals and families in need. And on someone's darkest day be that because this tradition began nearly 80 years ago when President Franklin Roosevelt issued the first National Red Cross Month proclamation. And each president has followed ever since. Today our work is powered by 90%, is powered 90% by volunteers along with generous financial and blood donors, community partners, people trained, vital, home, and people. And we are always looking to add additional volunteers. I'm incredibly, incredibly proud to share a few highlights of what we've accomplished together over the past year. We've responded to the worst fire disaster our area has ever experienced as door of blood is shorted and are now looking at how we can take care of climate change. I believe what may be at the top of our minds right now is the prices and you can, I would like to share an update with our Red Cross and National Red Cross support. International Red Cross teams are on the ground in Ukraine delivering urgent assistance. For the past eight years, the National Red Cross have provided food, fuel, feeding, medical supplies, support for housing those living close to or on the line contact, which is the Eastern border of Ukraine with. As conflict spreads, Red Cross teams are increasing their support across the country, providing first aid and medical supplies. When help can't wait during emergencies, American Red Cross volunteers and blood donors set up to ensure, step up to ensure people in need receive relief care. Your local Red Cross alongside county partners has provided sheltering, feeding, and recovery to those affected by the recent wildfires degree flow evacuees from Santa Cruz and Monterey County and those residents displaced after the Tongan tsunami that hit Santa Cruz. And for the recovery effort after the CZU, River Dolan and Carmel Fire Files 2020, the Red Cross have provided over 2.5 million in grant support to local organizations for assistance with recovery in the building. In terms of support directly to those residents affected by the 2020 wildfires, the Red Cross supported 17 cases for 55 people in Monterey County and 244,591 people in Santa Cruz County providing immediate assistance and resources for long-term recovery. Your Red Cross set up a shelter at Carmel Middle School in response to the Colorado fire in January, proving that our fire seasons have no quote, quote, season and we need for our communities to care for another cold, dry summer and high fire. Dan's gonna take over and share some more information on our services at Carmel Center. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Anita. And again, thank you, community for inviting us and for acknowledging Red Cross Month. Every two seconds, someone in the United States needs and one donation by you can help over three or help save up to three lives. Red Cross hold blood drives across the country today. We're volunteer blood donors, we'll obviously help those in need. Over the past year, our blood supply has been diminished to a critical level in the number of factors including COVID. And we ask you to please support the efforts to bring the capacity and support of the blood drive soon. It's simple to make an appointment at Red Cross, redcrossblood.org and redcrossblood.org and find a convenient drive. In addition, the Red Cross provides service to the armed forces and international services. The Red Cross volunteers provide 24-7 global support to help military families including many of who have experienced multiple deployments over the past year. In addition, as part of the world's largest humanitarian network, Red Cross workers respond to international disasters and help communities prepare for emergencies around the globe. Locally, we've assisted over 130 active service members and their families with their emergency situations including financial assistance and emergency communication services. We were also able to provide comfort kits, veterans and National Guard members and made masks for VA facilities. Training and service at Red Cross provides training service staff quickly adapting local communities to the COVID restrictions and continuing to trade and recertified people in a modified environment enabling our first responders to remain current by some extreme requirements and able to continue to do their work and interact. In response to climate change, Red Cross and Connecticut explained our part of the current humanitarian impact climate. We will build the resilience of our organization as well as the resilience of communities and the people we serve by adapting our mission delivery and growing our operational capacity to address the heightened impacts and quickening pace of disaster. We will further invest in the environmental sustainability to the reduction of our carbon footprint by providing our learnings through community climate education and advocacy for those who bear the disproportionate effects of climate change. Happy to share that our Santa Cruz office has just received certification as a green business and will be included on the National Green Business Direct. Volunteer position. Every day, people in our community rely on the Red Cross volunteers for support. There are many ways you can help neighbors in need who are most needed positions. That's the response volunteers needed. Every eight minutes, Red Cross responds to disasters across the United States. Most of these are in the form of local home fires. When a home fire leave, families stranded in the street, local Red Cross volunteers provide emergency financial assistance, emotional support, and recovery help in their next steps 24 hours. If you are interested in volunteering for, please visit redcross.org slash volunteer today for your most needed positions in local office. Again, let me reread that to you, redcross.org slash volunteer today. I like to use the quote, they decide tomorrow, you would like volunteer tomorrow, ask that please sign up for volunteer today. We do need to get you into our systems to be able to provide you with vital training. Again, redcross.org slash volunteer today. On behalf of the American Red Cross, we thank you for this proclamation. Most of all, we would like to thank you and the many of your city staff members who worked closely with the American Red Cross over the years to be a better prepared city for all types of emergency. Well, it's a good disaster. Thank you so much. We appreciate you sharing that information. Thank you. Any council members have any questions? Okay. Moving on to our next presentation, we have Bonnie Lipscomb Economic Development Department with a presentation and update on the library housing parking development. Thank you mayor and good afternoon council members. I'm Bonnie Lipscomb, director of economic development and I'm going to share my screen. So this is our regular quarterly update and it is on the downtown library project. We are planning a more robust update one month at those two council meetings now and I'll give you a little preview of what we'll talk about at the next meeting but really wanted to give you an update today and specifically just talk about some of our highlight efforts since our last, an update of where we are at a time progress talk a little bit about the grant we just did give you an update of our overall schedule and then talk briefly about it. Oh, recent efforts to date. So since our last council meeting and just for 14th our council approved the updated conceptual design and site programming. We've really gotten started on the overall we're not here, but site survey and we're getting the exact site for that as ready to be turned it's a applicant planning that everything is squared away that we actually know how we talented on the site. We also started the environmental analysis. We do have an arborist study that's underway and I'm hoping to be able to send that to you and at a second meeting in April. We also have underway of uncultured resources and regulatory report as well as Oracle evaluation and then we just submitted on Monday are submitted with a library at California building for the library and I'll give you a little bit more background on that. So just briefly an update on the time process you all will recognize by to this actually slide of where we started on the far left of what was a year and a half ago of project for that evolution of design that's gone since then to right here of what proved on this report. So as you can see push back push down size of the broad added housing on top really increased the square footage of the library on the ground or added the roof pop garden and roof pop space. I wanted to give you just a preview of where we are right now. These are definitely in progress. These are draft but these are as to what hopefully we'll be refining a little bit more throughout the rest of this month and be able to that fully fine at a kind level drawings concept both for a specific meeting next month as well as we'll come back. So this is a preview as I said this very much draft but this is really focused on what you saw and just the conceptual rendering in this slide earlier into actually more defined with some of the materials actually what it will look like place as it are standing in the Cedar Street parking lot today. You next I'll read for straight across to the mid block library. Where is it from a slightly angle just slightly more to the south still on and looking across the way. As we appear you start to see what it would like on the roof deck which is associated with the library that's 4,500, 5,000 quick. Now briefly I'm just gonna give you an update on the grants that our teams did on Monday. So this is a grant called the Building Forward Library Instruction Grant and it is through the California State Library. It's a credit of grant program. The max grant for library are applying for the maximum library grant of $1,000. For the library project based on the criteria we would like you will be edited for this grant. This will help us fund a number of this including the solar panels, modernized back system and accessibility features among others. The majority portion of the grant close to 8 million will be specifically for construction of the library. So we're pretty excited about this. This will, the warded enable us on these features with the solar panels and the green roof really to our goal of at zero sort of the library project. So we're pretty excited to have this opportunity. We hear there's a lot of interest in our project as far as grant and this grant program. So there's a fairly quick turnaround. We might get it on Monday with the library as well and our project here in economic development and are hoping for back within the next, I'd say within the next few months possibly even a little sooner. So we'll update you next month on if you hear anything back by that. Then just briefly a project schedule update where we are right now is last came forward to you in September. We had just finished the concept conceptual design phase. So that was those sketches that last time concept where we are now is kind of our next phase after probably a couple months ahead will be our line develop and so we'll be forward to that phase. The next step, we have quite a few. We are anticipating by the end of next week to be setting up a gap planning and this is a pre-application for our formal application and opportunity for back planning to the other departments about the project and opportunity to address those for formal application. I said for the end of next week. We're also planning for our next round of outreach and we're anticipating this will be on this attic design phase really focusing on the library at the library design, as well as the library. And so we're looking at mid month, mid April for that update full of having that outreach and coming to council with back from that outreach for the four pieces. We're also have been having ongoing meetings that are very productive with farmers market. We are right now focused on lot seven. This is a lot in the Del Mar that goes between city portion is one parcel in from Soquel and Kathart. So from behind the Del Mar all the way to Kathart and we're doing, we had done some preliminary designs and parking count and they were false overhead structures in design for the farmer's market. We're revisiting those, that's engaged in the and on Kathart as well and orient that on the parking lot and not the farmer's market, but also with the other development in the area that's now titled and going forward. So the idea of really being able to engage in Kathart and really link into that discussion that is planned and that next step to the river walk. So we have some really exciting concepts now with farmers market, we're in a really good place and we're working on a feasibility study of a couple of different layout right now. So that's something that hopefully in the near future in the next few months we can bring forward to you as well. We're also worked on the updated cost model. That's why the app is really important to us. We have some things in there that we need to change, get that into, out to our consultants, they can update and if there are any cost implications before we go forward. So that'll be ongoing rest of the static design phase. Once we get through static design and that first preliminary back on our pre-application really be able to really firm up some of our cost assessment and that information back to you as well. So as I said, our next meeting on 426, I think it's going to be a pretty robust update. It is an off cycle update rather than waiting months. We wanted to come to you here because we think we'll have quite a few things next month to give you updates on on the project. We'll also on 426 be asking you to approve a grant resolution related to the building forward grants medal. And then we are targeting for around May 23rd, give or take a few days, but towards the end of May for the full app. That concludes my update and I'm happy to answer your questions. Thank you so much for that update. Some of my questions for answering that update, I will bring it out for coming and we'll call in to your response. Thanks for that update, Bonnie. I just had a comment. I know, well, I've been talking with the community about this project. And one thing that people get excited about is not just potential for a green roof, but if there's a potential for that green roof space to be used for farming purposes by residents who live in the housing. So that's a very kind of, I don't know the word for it, but when you think about having full income housing with access to education, childcare, and then organic food production for families that people really get excited about that as a possibility. So there's something to consider when thinking about the green roof, it can be something that the residents can actually use for producing food that's a benefit that people have said that they would like. Great, we definitely, we've been talking about what opportunities we might have for that. There are some load issues on top of the library with some of the glass and sort of daylighting. However, we are at, could there be areas where we, that as well as quite a bit of space on the housing as well. And so in some of those, maybe spaces we have delineated areas, children, teens, then the community area, there might be areas for some raised beds as well. So we're looking at all those options. And I guess one other question slash comment I was thinking about within the context of solar is, has there also been considered to potentially put wind turbines on the top? Because I know that they have some that are smaller that can also produce electricity. And so it was just thinking about that. Yeah. I'll pass that on to the design team and those that are really looking at some of the sustainability. Thanks. Thank you, Council Member Cummings. Council Member Calantari-Johnson. Thanks so much for the presentation, Bonnie, that's really awesome to see all the work that's been done. I'm wondering if you could give an update on the discussions, the community engagement and discussions on the current library site and for use of that? Sure. So we completed that process back in June for the existing library site. And we do have, and I can highlight that with a link to the next presentation as well, but we do have recommendations that came out of that process which for the existing library site recommendations are to look at that as housing site, affordable housing site with the Plaza area that potentially could be a future home for the farmers market. So the farmer's market, I will say, is excited about that site. One of their concerns is just the timing. And looking at lot seven could either be an interim use, temporary use, or if they like it there, could end up being a permanent use. They really like to look at what is our next step in recognizing that they could go to that site, the library is completed, and the library moves into a new location. So we were going through a schedule over with them and sort of that need of, they're gonna need to have an interim place. What's the best place for them? It also gives them an opportunity to decide if they like it. So that's our plan with the farmer's market. And for current library site, we have those recommendations. And I do think that ultimately it would be a great site for the housing project and to have that element public Plaza as well. So we're focused on the current project or the new project now, but once we get past this point, we will go back and look on the current, on the current library site or planning for that next. Great, thank you. Do you have a sense of, I mean, I know it's, do you have a sense of like timing of when we would go revisit the recommendations for the current site? I mean, I know one step at a time and one project at a time, we've got our place full, but just a general sense. I think probably it would be some time, I guess would be next year. I think we want to get enough down the path for that, you know, have that plan and that we're entitled for the current proposed site. And then once we know that's on that path and that track, I think we'll go back and start looking at the site. But our current estimates just on the timeline that the move from current site one likely wouldn't happen until late 2025 or, so there is some time before that project couldn't actually start. Yeah, got it. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Next, I have Council Member Myers and then Council Member Brown. Member Myers, you're muted. Real quick question. You might have answered this, but I'm not sure. What is the projected construction plan in total? The whole thing. It's between 18 and 24 months. Okay. And right now we're looking at going out for tax credits probably January of 2020. So ideally it would bring them next summer before we would start. Okay. And if, so, okay, that makes sense. And we're still envisioning that the city would hold on to affordable, we would still be the manager of the affordable housing, correct? In terms of all the, I mean, we may work with a, with a private entity, but it would still be, we would be recording all those restrictions that are on to those conditions of the. Definitely have the, the covenant on site. And our vision similar to some of our other projects with our affordable housing partners had financial investment is that we have that long-term affordability. So for the grant each housing, they would be managing, managing the project which he involved on the housing monitor. And obviously, you know, we own the site and you know, the library building and the other. So most likely we're still working as a structure, but most likely it would be the developer and they would have air rights. We need to kind of get through that. That's something that will come forward to when we're a little further along in the meeting. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Council Member Myers-Brunner. Thank you Mayor Brunner. And thank you Bonnie for the update. And you know, as always, putting together a really clear presentation and giving us a lot of information. I have a couple of questions that are related to the big picture of the site, the building envelope. And I'm just wondering where you're at, discussions about determining what the plan size the library will be. So that's one question that I have too about, Bonnie. I'll just ask that first then. Thank you Council Member Brown. And first I want to acknowledge Brian Bergunno who is the project manager who has been working on this project. He definitely has been jumping in and going deep into the project more. So you will start seeing his face in the future and he's really doing, really getting up to speed and super engaged. So I did want to acknowledge him as well. As far as the library size, you mean the footage of the library? Yeah, we're holding the 35,000 for the indoor programmable space. We actually right now, and so they expanded track a little bit, we're actually larger than that. We're actually looking at putting some of the HVAC mechanical components of the library that typically would be in that footprint. We're actually putting that on the structure side. And while that takes more spaces from evaluating it, it gives us more efficient, more space for the library. So we're working through that right now. But we have committed internally and it is a project team that we don't want to go below the 35,000 if at all possible. And we've been holding to that. So then on top of that, have the library control the additional roof deck space. And we're trying to keep that as flexible as possible. But that is obviously the residential component. Could book that through the library and use that space. But you really are seeing that as controlled by the library, available for booking or community events, but really library programmable space on top of 5,000. Thank you. Okay, so questions on the overall financing. And I recognize that a lot of this is process and you mentioned this grant opportunity and that would be a significant contribution, a million dollars project. But I also am wondering, so what remind us or give us a current estimate on how much of measure S funding is available for the project. And then just more generally or holistically, I guess, the where we're at with the budget costs costing out on the various elements of the project. Sure. So we have 25.5 set aside for the downtown branch out of the total roughly 31.5 a million available for the Santa Cruz branches. They have not complete, I say they, the sort of library countens to work on this haven't completely closed out the branch authority the two other locations of our field. So there may be 100,000 that comes back that we program and increase that amount above the 5.5. But right now we're just that we have 5.5 of measure S. So stay tuned on that. I don't know if those will be closed out end of this fiscal year, but hopefully by July, we'll have better any additional money coming back. Last, last we've heard about a month ago, they weren't at the wimpy sum. They thought they'd be able to close out, but I don't know if we've gotten to all their functions. So to be determined on that where we are on project budget, you know, definitely, that's pretty why we're so excited is an opportunity because then we have a funding course to fund the roof deck to fund the solar panels on a lot of those that are over and beyond what sort of an apple to apples library. So if we get that grant, I think we're gonna really, that's for the 35,000 plus 5,000. The other thing that we're really zoning in on is just efficiency of this building and how we're actually being more public libraries based on this. So even though the library site, that was roughly 40,000, 1,000, give or take, there's about 14,000 that back of house space not open to public and it's pretty innovative. So when you're comparing the library to the previous library, we actually have a net gain of 100 to 2,000 and sort of growing of public space in the library, which is pretty exciting. We just didn't know beforehand how that was going to come out and tell are the library architects based on architecture to really get in there and look at and that's where the survey came in and it was really important. As far as the budget features, definitely as we get part defined, some of the facade features we have right now are full and amazing, but I will say all that glass work is pretty expensive. So right now we're holding to be strong on the budget, but that cost that comes in will be really important for us. There are some there that we can do some value in our budget. Right now we're hopeful that we get all those extra, you know, really stated, they are library there as far as we think we're on a really good track. This grant comes through, I think really good going forward and addition to that, we have those projects of the overall project foundation, sharing coltons, sharing construction management that really comes to and saves us, you know, quite a bit of an overall, the budget, the library, we're just been alone or doing it. So I think we're getting a much bigger, much more state of the art, nicer materials, library than we ever would have with the existing site, just because of all this stuff. So I'm pretty excited about that, but of course, you know, we need to get to this next phase, attic phase, so that we can really have our consultants go deep on the cost of materials, and then we'll be able to come back to the council and really share with you, okay, you know, here's the baseline, here's the cost of these first alternatives, and that's the level of detail that we're really hoping to do in the nut. It's great, it was really helpful when we were able to do that during the subcommittee process, yet how to turn on the features and turn them off and get a sense of what we're looking at. So thank you, get it. Number found, looks like that, it's our question and comments for that presentation. Thank you, Bonnie Lipscomb. Appreciate the update, look forward to the next one, April 26th. Okay, we will now move on to our next presentation item. This is a mayoral proclamation declaring March 22nd, 2020, is Jane Mio Day. Is Jane Mio present? Welcome, Jane. I will go ahead and read the proclamation and then hand it over to you if you have any comment. Jane Mio, a 50-year Santa Cruz president has volunteered with the San Lorenzo River Esquiry Revegetation Project, SLV Native Habitat Restoration Program, Valley Women's Club and served on the city of Santa Cruz, Parks and Recreation since 2008, including serving as vice chair in 2020 and chair in 2021. And whereas, Jane Mio has engaged 100 volunteers in ecological restoration work along the San Lorenzo River through the San Lorenzo River Esquiry Revegetation Project. And whereas, for the past five years, Jane Mio has led long-term efforts along the esquire and reach of the San Lorenzo River. Her efforts brought about the removal of large areas of invasive and the planting and care of hundreds of native plants. Jane has put in many days of hard labor herself and more importantly, has leveraged the source of other organisms. And in the process, that did hundreds of people with the river, the river rock, river walk and ecological restoration. And whereas, Jane has engaged with and brought in groups who work alongside her on the San Lorenzo River, including the Local Valley Women's Club, the AmeriCorps, California Conservation Corp, pool group, Girl Scouts and the Museum of Natural History. And whereas homeless sentiment have been a significant crisis in their impact has been acute along the San Lorenzo River. One of Jane's most notable collaboration has been with the Downtown's Nonprofit Organization that works with people experiencing homeless to provide a pathway to a better life. With them, Jane has run a program introducing speaking members of the San Lorenzo River's native plants and wildlife habitat and has provided training and skills on their maintenance care. And whereas, the Benchland, part of the San Lorenzo River floodplain and previous homeless encampments in the area have damaged riparian habitat at the river's edge and released waste and debris into the river itself. This has been an issue of great concern and with the help of staff, Jane created a program to engage camp residents during that area. Whereas in 2021, Jane Meo created Benchlands Environmental Worship Team, also known as the BEST, care for specific damaged areas of the San Lorenzo Benchland River bank adjacent to the encampments in lower San Lorenzo Park. This program has members of the housed and unhoused communities work side by side, protecting our beautiful riparian habitat of the San Lorenzo River and has better environment and the lives. And whereas, Jane Meo has been selected and newly recognized as champion of this community by California Parks and Recreation Society 2021 Awards Program. And whereas, Jane puts her heart and soul and unpaid work to improve the community and the environment. And now therefore, I, Sonia Brunner, Mayor of the City of Santa Fe declare March 22nd, 1022, as Jane Meo Day in the City of Santa Cruz in recognition of the past five years countless hours has volunteered her time while also engaging with numerous organizations and volunteers to improve the community and the habitat along the lower San Lorenzo River for her ongoing dedication for our environment, our people, and for her work as Parks and Recreation Commissioner and Chair in her special service creating the Benchland Fire Minerals is truly a champion of the community. Jane, welcome. Hi, Mayor. Sorry. I do notice that I received the proclamation of the Jane Meo Day. It's so great to accept the honor in the National Women's History Month by saluting present future women who follow their passion to often gauging their diverse communities, build inclusive environment next to the benefit of all. Also, incredibly proud. Oh God, I hope I don't have to cry. Who made this proclamation as a testimony of their work, support, and courage? I celebrate every single person with all my heart for their contribution, for making this state possible. Person who made the Fiesty Jane Meo Happen. And it looks like as Council Member Myers and Council Member Cummings have. I did. I did that. We have a day named after you this year. You and I have been together for 25 years on that river and we've planted plants and pulled weeds and done all kinds of crazy things. And Friday teaches many people about that river and how special it is as much as possible. And so you just carry this torch every single day when you walk on that river and single person that you teach about the birds and then you talk about the history river and you point out all the special grasses that we both know where they are and that they're natives and they've survived 20 years of pretty much just abuse. So I just, I can't thank the mayor more for recognizing you and you are Fiesty and you are a filmmaker and you do have one of the biggest hearts I've ever known. So congrats to you, my dear. Thank you. We have been added. I'm with that. I'm a member of my Air's Council member team. And I just want to thank you for countless years of work and love that you put into our river and the community. Living in the beach flats, probably don't know this, but I wrote with drive-by you kind of working on the river levee planting. Data plants would want to stop and say hello, but there's not, there's really no way you can stop a lot of it out of the street, but just wanted to recognize I see you out there and I've heard so many good things from people in the community who have gone down to work with you and with the homeless people who are in the benchlands to help, you know, clean up the area down there on the weekends and teach the people down there about the native plants. And I think it's through those kinds of efforts we can actually help, you know, show people there's, they can contribute something to our community and that they can make a difference and help up with people who are in really dark places. So thank you very much for everything you've done and continue to do. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that a lot. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you. Dane, what can I, what to say? I just, I'm just so thrilled happening today that we are recognizing your really remarkable contribution to our community, your commitments to environmental and social justice are just unwavering and to the big heart, you know, big vision and you have a vision, you work towards that vision every day and you bring other people in, next to our community, our environment. So that vision of, you know, sustainable, well cared for river and environment all around. I just, I love you, Jane. And I'm so glad to see you here and for all you two. Thank you. Thank you, Sandy. Your hand up. I can figure, I guess I'm unmuted. Yes. Okay. Very good. Thank you. I'm still figuring out Zoom. I really appreciate the opportunity to be celebrating Jane's wins over the last decade, primarily. Dane and I have known each other for about 20 years. Not only has she always been an environmentalist, where it has started out calling cutting trees, but over the last decade, Dane and I have built a huge friendship and contributed not only environmental benefit, but also social benefit. I've watched people fall in, also told me in-house they make those people of value for their projects, make them feel like full to really incorporate them in everything they're doing and teach them about important part of our environment on the river and on the... So, Jane and I, like best friends. So, congratulations, Dane. Such a great day for you. And all of your dedication to the environment. So, thank you so much for allowing me. Leslie, you're an arborist at the Arborist Parks Direct. Yes, she is. I'm the city's urban forest, for some of you, newer council members. I'm a work at Parks Direct under Travis. So much love for you. Oh, you're so welcome. Yeah, she's my lead in the estuary project, got me started. She's my wind under my wing. Wonderful. Well, Jane, it has been an honor to also get to know you and work alongside you. Christmas Day, you were out there with me along the river, just with us in the pouring rain. So, you're wonderful to be able to recognize what you've done so much. Just haven't been in a bin. You'll have a beautiful Jane Mio day. Council Member Calantari Johnson, you announced the proclamation issue honoring Persian New Year and to share with us a scheduled event celebration of the day. Great, thank you, Mayor. First, I wanna thank you, Mayor Brunner, for bringing this proclamation to our city. I think it's the first ever Persian New Year proclamation. So, thank you for your work. Persian New Year happened on Sunday and in Farsi, it's Nouruz, which means new day. It marks the beginning of spring and it's celebrated by over 300 million people around the world. It's really about spring, renewal, rebirth, guvination, celebration of the changing of the season and coming out of the darkness of winter and into the light and the beauty of spring. It's been celebrated for over 3,000 years across the world and I'm really excited. Our community here in Santa Cruz is now honoring and celebrating the Persian New Year. So, we are partnering with the Museum of Art and History and the Society of Iranian Literature and Art and we're hosting an event this Sunday, March 27th, from 12 to three o'clock at the Museum of Art and History. We'll have a half-scene, this table of the seven S's displayed and there'll be a presentation about the half-scene and we have a special, special honored guest that will be there. Her name is Samina Bakhtavan. She's turning 96 and she is gifting the maa a hand-silk woven rendition of the Cooper House, same day. So, there's gonna be lots to celebrate and I hope that all of you out there will be able to join us. Happy Persian New Year to all those out there. Nouruz, Nouruz, thanks a lot. Thank you for sharing that. Move on in the agenda and I have a few announcements for we move into our regular meeting. Today's meeting is being broadcast live on the Television Channel 25 and also streaming on the city's website, cityofsantacruz.com. If you wish to comment on an agenda item today, call in at the beginning of the item you are wanting to comment on using the instructions on your screen. Please mute your television or streaming device once you call in and listen through the phone. Please note there is a delay in streaming so if you continue to listen on your television or streaming device, you may miss your opportunity. When it's your time for public comment, raise your hand either by dialing star nine on your phone or selecting raise and webinar. Now, public comment is heard only on items council is acting on and not regular updates. The items that will be open for public comment bring today's meeting are numbers 32 on our agenda. And our agenda is that cityofsantacruz.com. I'd like to ask council members if there are any statements or just a call. I'd like to ask clerk who announced that there is no solution, none, I'd like to call on the attorney to provide a report on closed session. Yes, good afternoon, Airburner members of the city council this morning at 10 30 a.m. Council met in closed session via Zoom to discuss the following items. Item one was a conference with legal council surrounding liability claims, liability claims of Neil Bernardi, right? And the claim of Armand Joseph Tiano. Those are also listed this afternoon on your consent agenda as item number 18. Council also had a conference with its labor negotiators concerning all bargaining groups as listed on your post agenda. There was no reportable act. Thank you. Council will now review the meeting calendar attached to the agenda and revise it as necessary. I'll call on the city clerk to provide any updates on the calendar. There are no updates. None. Now the time for council members to report out on act at external board bitties and joint powers authority meetings that we have attended. For future meetings, please come prepared, provide an update on any meetings or actions that occurred in the last council meeting so that the council and public form. I will start my left council member, Brown. Mayor, I have a very short report today. First, I wanted to not report out on the County regional transiting if it can items at our last meeting or policy work up. Haven't met regular meetings in my last report, but I did want to highlight for folks who are listening and we all press release about this and I'm sure there will be more and more announcements coming about this, but the city of Santa Cruz along with the regional transmission will be hosting a virtual open house. Discuss segments eight and nine of the coastal rail trail and these are the segments heading east as you go past the boardwalk. So those that will be happening March 1st from five to six thirty PM and public dialogue is really vital. Welcome. Give us your thoughts on the design of rail trail segment. So I just wanted to highlight those. You can find that and it may be on the city's website, but it's announced at our website. And I also wanted to mention that at our last may pay area air resource district board meeting. He got an update about funding for this year's electric vehicle incentive programs for partner, public agents partners in Santa Cruz Monterey and San Benito. So this is funding for electric vehicles also for, I don't remember the technology. Sorry, I'm gonna look it up really quickly. I'm back on the air board, but I'm sort of still trying to go. The Clean Air Management Program. So in the city of Santa Cruz has received funding through the Clean Air Management Program in the past here, it's supporting our work at the main deed for the house parking and bathroom area. And Bill, I imagine our staff will get programs and trying to get some support for our transition to electric vehicles. So that, and that's about $1.6 million total for the reach. So it's not a lot of money, but it has supported our efforts in the past. So things like roundabout adaptive traffic, single controls and helping support public. We're trying to transition for light vehicles. So that was exciting news. And I think I will sit there for a second. Thank you for those updates. Okay, Council Member Meyer. Thank you, Mayor. Liz, let's see. A couple of things to note. We did have a Metro Board meeting last month and there will be some additional items moving forward this month concerning some of the capital investments that are programmed over the next years. Some of those being adding additional electrical buses as well as looking at actual hydrogen fuel cell buses as a possibility as well. There is a need for diversity in the as different carbon reduced types of vehicles come online. So the capital committee, which I sit on, did move a 10 year capital budget investment, excuse me, capital budget just in last week and that will be coming to the board on Friday. This, the Metro Board meeting is Friday at 9 a.m. So there'll be items moving ahead on that. And I believe also there'll be some announced at some time soon regarding the search for the new CEO for Metro as well. The other item that I, the other meeting that I attended this month was the Santa Cruz County Groundwater Agency that body has submitted the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the haptos property areas for drafted entry by seawater. Those plans have that plan was submitted in January and it adopted budget this past Wednesday evening and also is accepting a $7.6 million grant from the state of California and bringing up projects online for that. During the meeting this month also the, there was an announcement that there was a drought drought advisory that the county required to create and I've seen announcements in the newspaper but they are seeking folks to join that that advisory committee that does need to be convened by state law, state law that was passed in January. So any members of the public may be interested in participating in that. Should look on the website. Limited sites, limited on that committee. Let me, the only other thing I have is the call working group has not met recently but regarding the calls last year and also that will be planning their work at the 10th anniversary of the Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve, which is going to be hosted at Long Marine Lab. There'll be a community celebration at five to eight o'clock on Friday, 29th. And during the day period before the celebration there'll be a convening of various Marine and Coastal advocates, troopers and hosted by Save the Waves and they'll be doing additional work on creating a new 10 year kind of resource management plan for the World Surfing Reserve. So again, the public event is at five to eight and the celebration anniversary, Santa Cruz was named the fourth World Surfing Reserve. There's 11 now worldwide. And so that's a great celebration and the call working group with any information during that day time, nighttime work. Fortunately, Miss the Downtown Management Corporation meeting, that's my report. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Council Member Brown, did you have a question? I actually had one more announced and it's very timely announced, sorry, I forgot. Okay, let's switch back and have that announcement. Okay, I'll be real quick. So this week those of you, some of you I know have done this in the past, but Meals on Wheels has reopened at your dining site and we're celebrating this week and they are inviting elected officials to go support for these programs and point them for a delivery route or a dining site. And if there's a schedule that we all receive a mail about this, but if anybody is interested in this week, so you have a few days left, you're able to pass by the meal site at the Nelson or go on a ride along. They are welcoming our participants. I didn't contact them for info, I know. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Okay, Council Member Cummings. Thank you, Mayor. Mine is short. We approved a RFP for a special fire study to produce, sorry, we've approved an RFP for a special fire study that's gonna be related, eventually reorganizing fire protection countywide. At AMBAG, we had an information item that was graphed in 1845 about transportation plan such as sustainable community strategy. For our public safety meeting, there's a conflict that evening. It started a bit late, we didn't get materials. We got some materials kind of late as well and so we decided to postpone the meeting and we'll be meeting this Wednesday. So we'll have an update next time we meet on Public Safety Committee. And I had a conflict with the Climate Action Task Force and the Downtown Management Corp. So I wasn't able to make those, but I do believe we're gonna have a special meeting related to the Climate Action Plan in the next week. So that's my report and I'll pass it back on to you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Cummings. Council Member Callan-Tarrie-Johnson. Okay, the member hires gave the update for Metro. I'll just briefly add that we had a pretty extensive state and federal legislative update and discuss the governor's budget, including a significant amount of money that posing this rail, transit and rail infrastructure, zero emission vehicles and active projects and climate resilience and out of projects have all those dollar amounts, but take a long time. And then we talked a little bit about bipartisan infrastructure bill and the how much dollars that would translate to and how much we would get in our local communities. And we also discussed the Build Back Better bill, mainly that there wasn't a ton in there around and that the pieces that were in there, like HUD, affordable housing, 30% of the credit that Congressman Panetta's or would be like add to the Metro update. We met with Santa Cruz City Schools Committee just, hey, I think, yeah, yesterday and discuss the Children's Fund that this fiscal year we're trading a little over 200,000 and that doesn't take into account the additional increase of 12% to 20%. So we'll expect to see funding there and I'll let member or vice mayor, what can say more about that. And then we also got an update from City Schools where they're at their projects. We discussed the fencing of elementary schools due to health and safety concerns and our partnership with Parks and Rec Department schools to explore whether it's have some partially. So those were the main points to talk about in this meeting. Schools, let me see if it's here. We did not, we have not met with the community programs or health and safety studies our last meeting. I am now a representative community action board and had my first meeting with the organization. There were some highlights provided on the programs that implement that they're implementing. And I think the moves that are most relevant to our discussions are their work around rental assistance and just in general of the impacts that seeing on both renters and landlords in the lack of the state's response, writing rental support. And then we also talked about their youth homelessness program, youth homeless demonstration program as well as their transition age youth housing voucher program that's producing some really wonderful outcomes. Finally, the youth action network which I serve as the city representative met recently with all the jurisdictional representatives across the country. It was a youth led meeting, which is always wonderful and had the opportunity to sort of share their vision for this partnership with jurisdictional representatives. We're working directly with the youth action network steering committee to develop a youth liaison that'll work directly with the city and city issues. And I would like to just give a save the day for the city of Santa Cruz youth action network pop-up that'll in partnership with the teen center that happened April 27th at the London Nelson Center. So, lots happen. Thank you. Thank you, council member voluntary Johnson. Vice mayor Watkins. Yeah, thanks mayor. Gosh, I think coming towards the end everybody's pretty much covered a lot of the mutual meetings attended. The only thing I would really add is that, yes, in terms of just building on what Council Member Callentary Johnson brought up with our measure A successfully passed at this point, there's so much potential for a more integrated approach to how to make recommendations to the full council to really support specific populations, early childhood prevention and vulnerable youth and very exciting opportunity to help individuals in our community. So I'm really looking forward to the next iteration of what that looks like. Council Member Callentary Johnson brought up that the health and all policies committee has a meeting coming up soon. So we'll have something to report on there after that meeting. And then in regard to the two by two mayor I'll let you speak to that when I was unable to attend that meeting at this last one we had. And I think Bonnie brought up the farmer's market there is a real interest in wanting to have a permanent location and not be moved many times and just continuing to support the farmer's market any way you can. And lastly, I would say that we did have our orientation meeting for the new MUM of care which is the new iteration of the, it was the happen now it's the housing for health partnership. And really a lot of opportunity to move forward. A lot of ways think about how we're leveraging our various resources and community human services department, various projects underway, outreach as well as coalition buildings. So more to come there as really delve into what that new process will look like. And Council member Cummings brought up that tomorrow we have a public committee meeting that was and so we don't have any support at this point on that. In fact, first of my addition. Right, so let's see, I will add confirming that our visit Santa Cruz our next meeting is next week. So that is upcoming as well as our health and all policy committee meeting that meets every other month. So that will be on Monday. And for the last year, Council member Calentari Johnson and myself and a Council member Myers we've met with the AAPI community group several members and they are planning an event in May and also planned and we were able to support them with a memorial this past weekend at Harvey West Park. So let's see, we also had ad hoc revenue meeting and in that meeting that we followed up on revenue measure at our last Council meeting we had made the recommendation for a sales tax increase and we followed up on some of the action items around that. What next steps are lead up to the June ballot. And then so by two meeting this month there was discussion regarding the county staff that they previewed the report that they have going to their board today, the board of supervisors being the last six months in the next performance measures, COVID shelter and mobilization and rehousing wave update. And there was discussion on the gap between affordability and housing and connection to homelessness plus funding update, free or action plan. And I believe there's sales in their board memo okay and there's also, there was discussion on the city's three year action plan and some of the structural investment and those up as well as this in on the fiction moratorium that is coming up at the end of March and some of the residents of the county that have not have applied for housing is to be the state funding assistance and have not been funding assistance yet. So we spoke about leveraging resources on that. So I'd say that was that those updates I'd also just like announced that there are two public hearings coming up regarding just the election, March 29th, April 19th. And so I just wanted to really make sure that our public was aware March 29th at 4.30 p.m. We assume and or you can call in and that information is on this banner.com slash election website, so much for those that speak. Now we will move to the consent agenda item. These are items eight through 24 on our agenda. For members of the public who are streaming this meeting if you would like to comment on items eight through 24 now it's time to call in. There should be instructions on your screen. Please remember to mute your streaming device and raise your hand by dialing star nine on your phone or selecting raise hand in the webinar calls on your screen. All items will be acted upon in one motion unless an item is pulled by a council member for their decision. Are there any council members who wish to comment on or pull the item? Council member Cummings. Thank you, Mayor. I was gonna pull item number 12 and I comment 15, 16 and 19. Oh, down to 12. Sorry, sorry, 12, 12. Okay. Comment on 15. Okay. 16 and 19. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Brown. I have a. Nice, Mayor Watkins. I just wanted to make a brief comment on item six. Okay. So we have item number 12, hold and comments on 15, 15 and 19. So I will go ahead then and start with comment and we'll begin with item 15 and I will begin with council member Cummings. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank the members of the public and working on unionizing at Starbucks in particular union member named Joe Thompson who's leading the effort on 18 year old activists who's making significant progress with joining the unionization effort of the Starbucks workers. And so I wanted to give him a shout out to all the workers that are out there that are working on unionizing and I just want to thank you, Mayor. You and council member Brown for support bringing this forward and council member Brown for your leadership and taking the lead on this. Thank you. Council member Brown. Item number 15. Council member Cummings for your comment on this item. We're out there listening. I just wanted to say a couple of things. So this item is on our agenda today. It's a resolution of support for workers at Starbucks that are part of a growing wave of unionized efforts at Starbucks across the country. And so the union is Starbucks were reminded of data with SCIU conditioning to represent workers at over 100 locations across the US. So this is a growing national movement for workers who have a voice on the job, have a day in indicating what matters to them about work pages, improvements that need to be put in place with a corporation like this and to get made very far away from. So this is a way for workers really to have that voice. And Starbucks has responded by wave of unionization by engaging in really common best tactics firing into workers who are identified as organizers and taking actions nationally or by rail, this effort. And I think because of that, not really not unsurprising but very, very just unreasonable that I'm editorializing bonds on the part of management through this major, major pain. We thought it was important to communicate our support. So I just, and I want to thank Dr. Thompson as well for the efforts to bring this to us along with all of the work. I'll leave it there here in the comments to open. Thank you. Let's see, we had comments for item number six, Vice Mayor Watkins. Great, thank you so much. I just wanted to acknowledge and thank you, Mayor Burner as well as Councilor Cummings. What this item is is about sending our support to our legislators, letting them know that we support that they passed 80, 60, 90, which is the health place solution prevention act. And essentially what that's doing is transitioning California away from unnecessary, non-health affected, single use smoking product and phasing out, will use non rechargeable vaping devices as well as cigarette and cigar filters. The movement for tobacco and tobacco waste is slow and it's always often very responsive but California can move in this direction. I think it really moves the needle significantly within the nation and then beyond. So it starts here and this appreciation and support hopefully will help get this over the phone. Thank you for writing that. Vice Mayor Watkins, Council Member Cummings, I'd also comment on item number 16. Yeah, similarly, I just want to thank you, Mayor and Council Member Watkins for your support on this. And I really want to thank two community members, Taylor Lane and then Judkins. They've been doing a lot of activist work on trying to ban the bud banning cigarette butts and filtered cigarette products. Because what we've seen is that oftentimes when people at the beach if they're smoking these cigarette butts which are made of plastic, the ground and the ocean and are a huge contamination source environment and also costs a lot of money when it comes to trying to clean up cigarette butts whether they're in the ocean or whether they're sidewalks in the community. And so they've been putting forward a huge effort to try to get jurisdiction throughout the country to ban single use filtered tobacco product. And I look forward to continuing work with them as we move forward to see how Santa Cruz can be a leader in this effort as well. Thank you so much, Council Member. And then we had a comment on number 19. I just want to express my appreciation to the staff and the community for bringing this forward. This item is established as a city wide holiday and back in 2020 when after the murder of George Floyd I know that this had come up as a topic of discussion and although really difficult to kind of make it so at that point in time just trying to understand how we can continue to have operations function in the city and also provide people with holiday. This city has worked bringing this forward and I know we've gotten support by council members at previous meetings to move in this direction. And so I know it's just really exciting to see that Juneteenth will be a city holiday for city workers this year. And I hope that other businesses join in and other join in and making this a holiday for their work, paid holiday work as well. Thank you, Council Member. Okay, at this time we move on to public comment. And if there are any members of the public that would like to speak to any item on our consent agenda with the exception of item number 12, which has been pulled. Now is the time, so please raise your hand by dialing star nine or selecting raise hands in the webinar of your, the timer will then be set. Okay, so going out to attendees, I phone number ending in zero nine one. Go ahead and press star seven and meet yourself. Yes, this is Sibley Simon. Thank you. I just want to comment briefly on item 20, which relates to Evergreen Cemetery. I know Evergreen Cemetery was started in the 1850s and was very actively used as the first public cemetery in Santa Cruz for decades after that, but then fell into neglect and abandonment and is now owned by Museum of Art and History. While this is just a little encroachment permit, I'm excited to say this really represents the next phase in our decade long now effort by volunteers throughout the community to improve Evergreen Cemetery and not only make it a safe and beautiful place for people to visit, but even more so make it a place people learn about Santa Cruz history and the full diversity of Santa Cruz history from our Chinese immigrant community, Civil War veterans, London, Nelson, family started the first businesses in Santa Cruz and on and on. And really what this is, we got a state grant from the California Museum's grant program, doesn't usually give grants to cemeteries but because of this use by thousands of students who come out to learn local history, are used on D'Ailis Muerto, it's really seen as a cultural site. And so we got this grant to improve accessibility, which will just make it better for everyone visiting Evergreen Cemetery, not only for the older visitors who have trouble navigating our old trip paths, but all of us who have trip paths out there. And so I'm really excited that this is an infrastructure project that's gonna improve the cemetery for decades to come. And, but I also wanna say, I really wanna thank Parks Department because the only way to make this happen was to cooperate with Harvey West Park and to put some accessible parking, Harvey West Park and Tye Cemetery. So we really worked that out with the city. Not easy to figure this out and get permits for it, but Eric Marlitt was really helpful. The city arborist, Leslie Keady was really helpful. And so we're just thrilled to be at this point and really ready to start construction on this project. So I'm excited to see this on your agenda. Hey Simon, our next attendee is Joseph Thompson. Come meet yourself, there you go. Thank you so much. First of all, I'd just like to first off begin by thanking Andy Brown and Justin Cummings for introducing this wonderful resolution in support of the Starbucks workers organizing, not only at the Ocean and Water Street, but also on mission in Dufour. We have gone through a lot of most tactics ever since we launched our unique campaign going back January 21st, 2021 this year, 2022. And since then we've united together and really continuing our work struggle. Since then we've had about eight more source files throughout all of California that have been helping organize those stores. A recent story about this last Friday in Mill Valley where the lead organizer at that store is only 17 years old. And he's just showing that this movement is being yet led by young people who want change. And that's the biggest thing that resolution is fighting for and continuing to fight for is having young people and voices in power that can speak truth to power. So again, thank you for all the council members who decide to go for the resolution. It shows that you stand behind workers who are organizing against a multi-billion dollar corporation who has chosen to place profit over partner. And partners at these locations of workers are the ones who need the most support right now because we're in a fight not only to secure organizing rights for us, but to continue the worker movement and really branch out labor. We've been reaching out other local coffee shops, other national chains as well now and really starting to ignite movement to unionize doors. And we're not gonna back down, we're not gonna stop heading. And it's so great to have the support of union members and union leaders who want change in the world. So thank you all again. And I hope you do pass this resolution to show that Santa Cruz stands with our union strong and go get yourself a union strong cup of coffee. Thank you. Thank you, Joseph Johnson. Our next attendee calling in on consent agenda items except for item 12, I am watching you. Yeah, hi. As to item number 14, the taxpayer-funded leftist project proposal of indoctrination and marriage between radical social justice groups with climate activists, no, no, and blank, though, is not just a harmless gold bell, like Travis Ganz, an example of a gushing A to Z leftist budge's word, peace like climate justice. But it is also quite an alarming self-serving public monetary request intended to morph into a massive potential misappropriation of public monies installing an unelected bureaucrat drawing city salary to head a regional coalition leftist political social justice alliance types beyond the reach of the people focused on the full spectrum of leftist ideological conditioning, power of radical social justice wear agenda with the hope of attract more grants and power to a somewhat unknown, but clearly leftist purpose instead of the singular goal of enhanced regional sustainability. This proposed scope of so-called compensated justice groups and local climate practitioners falls partly outside the petitioners job and diagram. I fail to see how racism, justice, equity, diversity and inclusion training makes for one booger's worth of sustainability effect, but I never got infected by the university post-borderness neo-Marxist conditioning clearly some did. It's critically important to stop the shunting of public tax monies that fund left-wing radicals. My request is inappropriate slide of hands over our full radical leftist agenda request for funds by a massively overpaid SWC bureaucrat. He refused now and set back for a more limited scope rewrite with a sole focus on sustainability. I take sustainability issues seriously, but I don't hijack it to mean anything other than a focus on the depletion or damage of Earth's natural resources, which are simply cannot continue. That the climate change dollars that will mostly also be wasted to know certain just demonstrable climate effect is another aspect that also makes it less desirable. I oppose the controversial items like item 15 and 19, but unless you pull it, I don't have time to discuss it. Thank you. Are there any other items that would like on items 824 with the exception of item 12? Now it's time to raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone or selecting raised hand in the webinar. We'll then bring it back. Council on call for a vote on the remaining items of sent agenda for moving on to the old item number fund. I see Council Member Myers, Council Member Brown, commuted Council Member Myers. Sorry, I'll make a motion on the remaining. No motion by Council Member Myers. Second by Council Member Brown. I'd like to ask the clerk to take a roll call vote. I'm going to vote aye, but I just want to ask, sorry, I remember I just don't feel like there's enough time in it. So is that a no vote? I guess it's a no vote. I can't abstain. OK. Vice Mayor Watkins. Aye. Mayor Brunner. Aye. Let's see. Motion passes with six guesses, one on all items, one no on items 15, Council Member Golder. We will now come back to item number 12. Council Member Cummings, you pulled this item. Yeah, there was just one. Thank you, Mayor. There was one minor detail that was left out of the friendly amendment in the minutes regarding item number 17.1, homeless response programming, quarterly update, homeless response action plan, homeless staffing, and homeless response funding. And the friendly amendment that was made by the mayor was work with the county for 24-7 nonlaw enforcement alternative emergency response program for better and safe funding opportunities, which accepted in that. But somebody reached out to me because we had mentioned having the word prioritized support supposed to be in there at minute 29. In the video from the last meeting, I brought up whether we can include prioritized. Mayor said yes in a friendly amendment, which was accepted by them. And as a result, but then looking at the minutes of the last council meeting, the prioritized part was left out. So the only thing I was bringing up was just having sort of reflected in the minutes that it said prioritized support. Is that correction was made in an ICC clerk, Bonnie Bush, stand up? Yeah, thank you. Council Member Cummings, after you pointed it out, I've been guessing you maybe have it received email that I sent yesterday to let you guys know that it was made. We did verify in the video and prioritized is reflected in it. Thank you very much. OK, thank you, speaker. That means we will come to a vote on item 12 from the March 8,000 meeting. I don't think we have a motion. Please go to public comment. And we need to go out to vote. I'm keeping ahead of myself. For item 12, we'll bring it out to public comment. And if you would like to comment on item 12, the minute from the March 8 meeting, raise your hand by pressing star 9 on your phone. And I don't need hands raised, so now I will bring it back for a motion on item number 12. I have a motion by Council Member Meyers, seconded. I remember Brown. Now we can roll call vote. Council Member Co-entry Johnson. Aye. That's coming. I hear a motion. I hear a vote. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes, one absent, council member. Thank you. That concludes our event. Consent agenda item moving on into agenda. We will now begin public hearing. And next up is agenda number 25. 25 is a public hearing for 2022, 2023 US Department of Housing and Urban Development, so known as HUD Action Plan. For members of the public who are streaming this meeting, if this is an item you wish to comment on, now is the time to call in, using the instructions on your screen. The order for this item will be a presentation of the item by staff, followed by questions from Council. We will then take public comment, and then return to the Council for Liberation and Action. I would like to now present, I believe it's Tiffany Lake, our principal manager. Thank you. Go ahead and share my screen. This is the CDBG and Home Action Plan and Budget Public Hearing. I'm Tiffany Lake, Housing and Sustainable Management Analyst in Urban Development. Also here today is our Housing and Development Manager. Call today to get funding recommendation from. This will allow us to keep moving forward and hit our remaining fines, commit our annual action. This is the annual action timeline. We've already gone through a lot of steps in that process. Most recently, we brought in the Programs Committee and the initial Council approval will allow us to stay on this timeline and hit our remaining goals and bring it back to second public hearing where the HUD budget is finalized, then a commitment to HUD in May. The recommendations we're going to do today are all based on estimates. Our CDBG and Home Funds fluctuate a lot over the years. But for this upcoming program year, we're estimating we'll have 605,000 CDBG or Community Development Block Grants. And we're estimating 425,000. CDBG, we're also estimating program income or payments on loans made to CDBG funds of 55,000. And prior year funds available to be programming at 60,000, giving us a total available of 720,000. Administration is set by HUD formula, 132,000. We also have rehab administration for loan servicing grants made with CDBG funds of 5,000. So that gives us 583,000 available for programs and projects. This year, we received four applications for CDBG funding programs. Now these are all subject to a 15% HUD activities cap. But Nueva Vista is not subject to this cap because it's a community-based development organization, or CBTO, so the total requests are at 190. CAF is recommending to fund all of the programs last year's funding levels from the Teens Center to Historic Funding Level, lowering it to 35,000. We recommend to not increase funding levels for any of the programs until you know our actual award amounts from HUD to ensure that we don't exceed that 15% public services cap. That's a total of 185,000 for programs. We have some updates for some CDBG-funded programs for the first two quarters of current program year. So that's from July 2021 through December 2021. So the first one is for second harvest food bank. They have provided over 1.4 million pounds of food to Santa Cruz region. Some more updates from the Familia Center. They have provided a lot of valuable services to the community including 350 hours of advocacy work over 700 clients, as well as helping to give 340 households food distribution. For Beachflex Community Center, 36 youths were able to participate in the summer recreational activities and the lunch program. 50 youths had one-on-one homework tutoring for afternoons every week, and 18 parents were provided with clinical assistance to help with remote learning. California Rural Legal Assistance has helped pick three Santa Cruz residents, our 41 households in the first two quarters of the program year, and of those 24 households have received the request. Also received CDBG requests for funding for projects. The Depot Park renovation will be for bathroom renovations, renovations classroom part, the Depot Park building. We also received a request for the Santa Cruz AIDS Project for renovation of its affordable housing for those living with HIV or AIDS in Santa Cruz. And we also had a request for homeless infrastructure that will help support emergency encampment needs for the procurement hygiene units, elective cookups, and other site preparation. So our total requests here are a little over 505,000, but we only have 298,000 remaining of CDBG funding. The staff is recommending to fund the Santa Cruz AIDS Project request at their request of $95,000, the Depot Park renovation at $62,000, and that the majority of the funding goes to homeless infrastructure, or all of the remaining, the $242,000. If we do get more than we have estimated, we recommend that all of the remaining funding should all go to homeless infrastructure. That's a total of $398,000 project. On summary, it's 185,000 of the programmable CDBG funds for community programs, and 398,000. Similarly for home, again, we're working with estimates, and our estimate, the upcoming grant, 425,000. Estimating program income of 125,000. And again, administration is set by HUD formula, 5,000. We have a photo set aside for community housing development organizations, 15% of the grant must go to one of these organizations, and we have a new organization certified this year for community housing that will be eligible to use the funds. We have prior years funding of $1.5 million, and a total home budget of $1.5 million. This year we received two applications for home funding. Both are 100% affordable projects. The first natural project is a 20-unit single room occupancy, or SRO project. It just went to planning commission, and still needs to go to council for a plan development permit, to be getting its coastal permit and design permit in the spring. They requested $1.5 million, a little over 20% total project budget of $6.9 million. The other application is for the Metro Pacific Station North project, a 95-unit family project, a majority of two-in-bedroom, a little over 160 bedrooms in total. The project has already received its planning permit and got its state environmental and coastal permits last year. At least 23 of the 95 units will be set aside in designated homeless, and the requested $1.8 million of funding is a little under 2% of the total budget of $103 million. So at the recent CPC meeting in February, staff let CPC Committee know that the Metro Bridges project is still pending eligibility. Part of following up on that, we met with HUD field representatives who advised that we needed competitively ranked applications. And because both projects' organizations had significant development and property management experience, created a ranking matrix, being the main categories of project readiness, funding leveraging, community value, projects' ability to help the city, city, and consolidated projects. These were ranked by three external reviewers that all ranked the Natural Resources Project and the North Project loved the Natural Resources Project. But because there's not adequate funding to fund both projects, staffs were recommending funds that cooperated projects from the North at $1.8 million. It is a HUD-recommended best practice to fund fewer projects at higher levels so that projects can afford and are not stalled. That will leave $182,000 available for free housing. In addition, City staff is also working on the home area which will provide 1.2 million of funds to these unhoused populations. So we are seeking input to help us prioritize the best use of funds. Please feel free to forward surveys or read more of the community. That can be found at cityofsandercrews.com slash HUD programs. So again, based on the initial budget recommended by Council today, we'll be able to draft the 2022 action plan. We'll bring that again for a second public hearing where the HUD budget will be final. And then we will submit the annual action plan on May 15th. The funding will become available as early as my first programs later in the fall project. Now we have time for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Lake. Do Council members have any questions? Council member Cummings? I did have a question. Particularly related to the HUD funding with report homelessness. Knowing that we're putting $14 million towards that currently. And that oftentimes, you know, we fall short on being able to help support affordable housing project, which is, you know, interlinked with homelessness. I'm just wondering if you could point out specifically what it's supposed to go to. Because, you know, we have a lot of funds that we're putting towards this item. And we want to make sure that we're also putting funding towards, you know, other needs like affordable housing related to homelessness. Thank you for that question. The survey itself, first two questions, lists all of the available uses of the funds. So it is a little bit limited because it's home funds. So similar to the funds that we have every year. This funding has to go for either affordable housing that's specifically targeted for homelessness. It can go for tenant based rental assistance where it is paid directly to landlords. And there's some special housing counseling, housing targeted case management type of services that are allowed. But they all have to have a neck problem with housing and then there's a good amount of restrictions on exactly which types of services are allowed. So we'd love it, but for everyone that it's those four are being used. Can you list those off again? Yeah, so it is affordable housing development targeted specifically for the homeless, tenant based rental assistance, payments are made directly to landlords, specifically for those who are at risk of homelessness. Special housing counseling at homelessness and the housing with special HUD certification. And the other is case management. Thank you. I had a question for the attorney. Thank you. My question, one of the requests in the presentation is an item that came from the housing authority and I am a housing authority commissioner. So I would need to use myself from that. Yes. My recommendation would be that the action that takes on that separate and that as member of the housing authority board that you read. Thank you. So the item Home Funding Natural Bridges SRO from that's the housing authority development at natural bridges. It's an application from the housing authority in partnership on profit. Thank you. We'll take any action separately. Any questions from council members before I bring it out to public? Okay. I will now go out to public comment on this item. A member of the public and wanting to comment on item number 25 on our agenda, the 2022 to 2023 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Action. Now is the time. Please raise your hand and press R9 or raise hand in the webinar post of your computer and once you're time to speak, we'll hear an announcement that you've been unmuted and your approval will be set. And I'm not seeing any hands raised. I will bring it back to council for deliberation and emotion. The council member Meyers and council member Cummings. And they are on booth item. Second. Okay. So we have a motion by member Meyers attended by member Cummings and may we have a roll call vote? Thank you. Mayor Cummings. I'm sorry. Johnson. Coming. Mayor Watkins and Mayor Brunner. I would the exception of the application of the Natural Bridges SRO. I don't want to caution. Reusing myself from that item. Hopefully that's it. Thank you. Okay. So that classes unanimous deal with council member Golder absent. Thank you to any late. For that presentation. We will now vote next item on the agenda which is item number 26. Public hearing for second reading and final adoption of ordinance number thousand twenty dash. Small housing unit. General plan downtown plan. Local coastal plan and zoning ordinance update. For members of the public receiving this meeting if this is an item you would like comment on that was the time to call in use instructions on your screen. Okay. If you are interested. This is a second reading and final adoption of this item. I will bring it over to the attendees for any comment. Our night on your phone is your hand. And Mayor Brunner. Yes. I would just. Hi. The other director planning community development. We typically don't have presentations or second readings. However, we are prepared to make one if you would like one there were a lot of emails that came in. And we could clarify some of that information because not all the emails were hitting the mark. So we do have a few slides. If it pleases you in the council, we're happy to do that. Or if you're that it go out to public comment, we can do that. That would be helpful. So Lee Butler. I do have several questions that have come up. So if you're prepared answer some of those questions, that would be helpful. Absolutely. And then go to public comment. Okay. Great. Thank you for that opportunity. And I'll turn it over to Sarah Noisy, our senior planner. He has put together a few slides to reacquaint the council in the community with Sarah Noisy. As director Butler mentioned, I am a senior planner with the advanced planning division here at the city of Santa Cruz. So first off, I just want to say thank you to all of the community members that wrote in. I am just always so grateful to work for sending a community where the public is so engaged and so thoughtful in our commentary. We've got a lot of really thoughtful, carefully worded comments. And I really appreciate that are a little confusing. And I understand why they're confusing. But hopefully I can clarify those here pretty easily. So let me just share this PowerPoint. See that? Well, density units are going to increase density. We heard that no other cities in the nation do this thing. We heard that this proposal is going to increase the height of buildings that are built, or that this proposal should have full EIR of its own. We also heard concerns about water and not having enough for any new development. And we also just heard a lot of anxiety about the way that laws change and ease about understanding what's coming down the line. So I just want to be really clear that the SROs, which exist now and have existed, the current code was adopted in 1995. So at least those 25 years, we've had exactly SROs that we have them now today. And that remains the densest type of housing that we can allow. And there is no density established for SROs anywhere in the zoning code. And specifically in the general plan, they are exempted from any general density categories. Regarding no other cities, there are lots of places in the U.S. that use a fully space code, where this is very lightly regulated, and density is not considered, but they regulate its form of building on the outside, and then, of course, open space and parking requirements go along with residential development and those kind of push out of building space that can be available. So that is very, that is similar. This move towards flexible density units is sort of a halfway step, a more form-based code. Doing a fully form-based transition is a very big undertaking and something for another time. As far as changing height, this proposal is not doing anything to change that building envelope. We're not talking about increasing heights at all. We're not talking about increasing heights either for standard conforming projects or for density bonus projects. There is no change in height, change in setbacks, no change in the parking requirement, no change in the amount of open space that is required for any one of these units compared to what is allowed today for a small ownership unit. The general plan did contemplate SROs, again, as established as the densest, most intense form of housing that our policy allows when the EIR was conducted, the general plan. So it is our belief that this amount of density was contemplated, this amount of number of units was contemplated. What we're talking about is taking that existing plan capacity and shuffling the way it can be used within that envelope to improve feasibility of projects. So you have for us to say, we think this will increase housing production. We do believe that. We believe this will increase housing production. But this does not change is the total amount of housing capacity that it's planned for in our general plan and studied in the EIR. Relating to water for council had the opportunity to hear the presentation from our water department in November of last year about the urban water management plan and got to see all the numbers. I understand a lot of communities have the opportunity to see that presentation and I really recommend it because it does show that City of Santa Cruz is in a different position around water than a lot of other water districts in our county. We actually have seen dropping demand despite increasing population and the projections from our water department estimate that over the next 25 years through 2035 they're projecting about a 4% increase in demand but that's demanding an 18% increase in population and most of that development I'd say more than 95% of that development is contained within the existing general plan which goes to 2030. That's just another piece of context. People may not be aware of that so I just want to add that out there. And then in regards to this anxiety about changes from Sacramento I just want to say I share that in a very deep way and the reality of it is state legislator is not standing still about anything related to housing so we are going to see changes coming out of Sacramento there is no day in the next 25 or 30 or 40 years they're going to stand still about housing so if we wait for them to stop that means we stop planning for our city and there may be some folks that would prefer that and that's not what you're going to hear recommended from our department in this that is in front of you so we are proposing to change small ownership units to flexible density units this proposal was recommended by your commission the change would allow that these types of units can be rented or sold whereas small ownership units are only allowed for sale this would remove the current limit on bedrooms but currently small ownership units are limited to one bedroom and a whole sort of negotiation is based on a lounge office and they don't get built to the same safety standards requirements for egress they would have if they actually planned for them to be a bedroom so we're proposing to lift that while keeping that overall size standard in place at 600 feet we are proposing to lower the minimum unit size current standard of 400 square feet down to 220 square feet this kind of bridges the gap between what an SRO can do and what this SOE could do is this funny gap so proposing to lower the minimum size down to 220 so that it matches we are proposing to add, not remove we are adding this to be included in three zone districts in the downtown, the central business district the area south of Laurel, the CBBE district and the RTC which is our residential commercial which is the beach area currently there is no standard that requires residential development in those areas which is allowed to include a commercial use there is no requirement in our zoning that and we are proposing to add one in the BC zone district today you can do a 100% residential development we are not proposing to change that next use would be an option when we come through in a few like two-ish months with the objective standards in the new zone districts that are going to really create next use zones for the first time we are going to have places where you can't do residential only where you have to be incorporating a commercial use that's going to come from our zone districts and that would apply to any projects that want to use this type of unit but that's not something that's in place today and currently in that CC zone district we only allow mixing uses on larger sites that are over 8,000 square feet there are plenty of sites in those zone districts that are 5,000 square feet what we're recommending is that we not in those locations on those sites part of this project the last change that's proposed with this from current SOU ordinance to the proposed flexible density ordinance is this ability to mix with other types of housing this is the only point that your planning commission debated the rest of the ordinance they were on purpose and as you'll call also this was a point of contention among your council as well about whether these should remain in stand-alone structures and projects as currently required for small ownership units or whether they should be allowed to mix with other types of units we are recommending that they be allowed to mix because this was one of the primary impotences for looking at this ordinance was to say these small ownership units aren't really working, they're not being built we're not getting this benefit of having options for people who would prefer to spend buying fewer square feet of housing and allowing them to be mixed in with other unit types we think is a way to encourage and support the development of the small units if you're someone who doesn't believe that small units is the direction that our city should be going in you probably aren't going to like this and that's just where we are regarding single room occupancy there is no change happening there what we are proposing is to codify our existing policy we have three days to the current general plan we just went back and found it in our 1993 general plan and it probably dates back but everything else is not changing I won't redo this slide but basically nothing about height nothing about step back nothing about parking is supposed to change nothing about the inclusionary requirement is supposed to change with this I wanted to give another little example because we talked through this in response to a question last time we have the details of this but it really gets quite tedious quite quickly so I just want to sort of give an example if we look at sort of a 14,000 to 15,000 per foot site about a third of an acre let's talk about what we built there what could be built there today so if we have that site in a zone district that allows up to 30 falling units per acre which is the standard that applies to lots of our PC zone you could get about parking an open space and a three-story height limit you could get to about 10,000 square feet of building space in that building envelope there's some space for circulation and trash enclosures take out a thousand square feet and then you figure you could get at that density you're a third of the acre you can get 10 homes 10 divided by about 9,000 of the homes that could be built on that site would be 900 square homes reserved for low income how change that would come in these flexible density units, this is how we're envisioning it is that the flexible density units could be added on top of those 10 so your density limit is 10 that applies to everything that is over 650 square feet of size so you can get 10 units that are that larger size we're dealing with the same 10,000 square foot building with a thousand feet for circulation 9,000 square feet that we're now giving up among units you could get 10 homes at 700 square feet plus 5 more units in the flexible density unit category at smaller studio size so this would be a total of 15 homes with free low income homes and these projects would look identical on both sides you would see more mailboxes if they have to the extent they have ground floor entries you might see more entries but the form of the building is not changing it's still a three-story structure it still requires parking in fact you can see more parking compare that with an SRO project which is already allowed today in all of these same zone districts so instead of those 10 homes and low income homes with an SRO project so SROs require a little less parking so that building form could be a little bit bigger, that building envelope we're estimating you could fit if your home SRO homes are around 300 square feet you could fit 35 of them on the same parcel and of those seven would be reserved for very low income that's kind of the difference that you'll see between standard size development and an SRO development it's more housing not a more bigger building but it has more density inside of it and I've shown here a picture these are the St. George department on Pacific which is an SRO and now I know people are saying but you're not showing the maximum density so let's look at what you really do if you really wanted to max everything out so what's shown on the top here is what's allowed today so we have our SOUs but we're looking at that same sort of one third of an acre site same kind of building size we're estimating you could fit 22 homes on that site and four of those to be reserved for low income if you're looking at SROs and you really max it out so the smallest SRO that you're allowed to build is 150 square feet and when they're that small they share facilities so they share bathrooms share kitchen facilities then you could fit 70 of them on the same site so you can fit 17 of those to be reserved for very low income households or individuals for our FDU proposal if we look at taking that all the way to the maximum density and taking those units as small as possible we would allow those down to 120 square feet and so that on the same site would let you get to 40 homes of which eight are for low income so you can see that this is somewhere in between the existing SOU ordinance that we have and the existing SRO ordinance that we have and the SRO ordinance is going to provide housing for more households I want to address also this question about SB 35 mentioned in several of the emails that we got and I think this is a really important point I haven't heard of SB 35 just to summarize that SB 35 is a state bill that was passed a few years ago that essentially exempts certain types of development from our public to get exempt from SICO review and then it streamlines the public process that we're accustomed to going through on those the most recent example of that of everyone here may know folks listening may not is the proposal that came in at 831 Water Street currently the city any proposal that comes in and includes more than 50% or more of the units as dedicated affordable housing they're entitled to this streamlined standard review process we are working on objective residential design standards those are going to be coming before the council in the next two months those will help regain some of that design control but essentially when we're reviewing for SB 35 we're really limited in what we do only review for things that are objective standards that can be measured and verified and are available in advance so SB 35 applies to different jurisdictions in different ways based on their progress for meeting their regional housing needs allocation which is the number of housing units assigned to every jurisdiction in the state by the state as a goal for planning for new house construction to meet future needs we're in pretty good shape right now so right now Santa Cruz is only missing our Rina on one category so very low in category we have enough units in the pipeline to potentially meet goals by the end of the time period when we have to build them which is the end of 2023 cycle of Rina is significantly more aggressive this is true of all cycle housing elements across the state everyone is getting much more aggressive housing numbers that they have to plan for and what happens if we don't meet those numbers is that we are subject to SB 35 so market rate housing has an allocation under that regional housing needs allocation and our market rate allocation for the next cycle which starts the beginning of 2024 is that we have to produce by 2031 a minimum of 1600 over 1600 to market rate and they assess us in ways the housing cycle through that state period so we have to have half of that much housing entitled full building permit by the end of 2027 the 803 housing unit by the end of 2027 which is more than we have built in the last 7 years so in order to meet this goal we need to almost double this is if we are able to meet this if we are able to meet this for our market rate production then SB 35 can you supply as it does today and have suppliers and we have one application that provides 50% or more affordable housing if we miss that part we drop to a more stringent category where everything that we approve here in Santa Cruz would be done almost everything almost everything that we do multi-family housing would become eligible for SB 35 because we fall down to a tier where any project that provides 10% affordable housing qualifies for that streamlined review and our inclusionary percentage is 20% so there are a few exclusions but we are concerned about that we are interested in maintaining whatever local control the state allows us to have some of the ways that we do that is by finding ways where we can get units create the reason for bringing this forward and looking for ways that we can support production of these smaller units at least some of the questions you have this is our recommendation it's printed in your staff report I won't read it adopt the ordinance at the second reading and then also adopt the resolution for coming thank you so much Sarah for that clarification on some of those questions that was very helpful go ahead council member thank you and thank you for trying to address those questions that have been coming in because we have been receiving a lot of emails I do want to see if we can address the affordability because it doesn't seem like there's anything that's making these restricted affordable units and there's debate over the affordability by design kind of notion I'm one of the people who don't really agree with that because you have studios that are going $2,800 a month and they're constantly going up price over time shrinking the size of the unit doesn't care about affordability so I'm just wondering if the idea is that we're reducing the size but we're not affordability in terms of making it be restricted then what more could we do to make these units actually affordable and not just affordable concept that's a really good question guarantee affordability and we're talking about for dealing in a market where housing is there's not abundant housing it's not like you have poodles of choices whatever your budget is it's not like you have tons of choices that's the reality of our market so within that kind of constraint without a deep restriction we're always going to be looking at the market setting those prices and so really what we can do to lower cost for households is allow them to purchase what they really want to purchase do they want to purchase 800 square feet or do they only want to purchase 400 square feet do they want to pay for parking or do they not want to pay for parking because they don't have a car looking at the inclusionary component of this is certainly not wasted time an idea that we could dig into and SROs do have a different inclusionary requirement they have to be very low income rather than low income I think there are things that we could talk about but I don't know that there's a concession that we there are concessions we can give that will lower cost and comes to the possibility that lower rents will follow but it's no guarantee the market has always said that and our market has a lot of influences on it and is honestly constrained there's not a bunch of tricky ones please do have something you want to say you covered it with the inclusionary comments inclusionary is applicable to this for 20% at low income which is 80% of the area median income for SROs we do have a different threshold it's 50% of the area median income now that does provide that provides an automatic quality I believe it's a 35% state density bonus SROs qualify for a 50% density bonus out the gate and our other standard inclusionary qualify for a 35% great thank you for that thank you Council Member Brown Mayor to there for the presentation I'll clarify a very complex set of considerations here I guess I wanted to ask as a follow-up what we're hearing is that the inclusionary applies but my understanding is that inclusionary applies only to the base of any project so all of these FDUs with limitless density am I so I think again we're mixing density bonus with our base zoning so FDUs are part of our zoning but they would become part of that base space and inclusionary is absolutely required on those thank you for that I'm explaining them I didn't a scenario with density bonus like a density bonus project scenario with FDUs the scenarios just gave us which were very helpful and I think that is where I've heard the majority of because when you talk about a bonus project where you have essentially a base then that unlimited density the density bonus piece of it then there's nothing that would stop a developer applying for density bonus and then all of those height and setback regulations that you say are in the have the ability to regulate that disappear they're required to provide those so again I'm trying to figure out how we it's very hard to understand what that might so I think it's I guess I'm just trying to understand my understanding is yes we could actually have removal of setback if an FDUs project applies for density bonus so yes okay so how we do a density bonus application because I think this is where a lot of folks get used what we're talking about changing is the base zoning so essentially with an FDU you could get a bonus of density without any waste we would keep our height in place like that example that I showed you where you go from 10 units to 15 units when you add ADUs you're still meeting a three story height limit you know all of the setback providing all the parking that's in our base and so yes you take that and you apply the density bonus it's a 35% density bonus on that so let me just share my screen I have a couple examples that can kind of illustrate this because I just want to be clear that density that doesn't have a specific density limit is not infinite right there's still a constraint and that's exactly how we do FROs so let's look at an FRO project real quick and see how they did that so this one's not an FRO project but this is a project this is Front River Front proposal that went in this shows a 35% density bonus so moving from here this is a proposal that meets all of our zoning requirements this is a requirement for the density bonus application you have to submit a conforming project and then your density bonus proposal has to match that in terms of the unit size if FDUs were included they would be included here so this building would look the same but it would have this inside of it this building would look the same and it would have more units inside of it this is a density bonus application this is 130 Center Street this was an FRO developed so you can see FROs are done exactly the same way as what we're talking about with FDUs and they're more dense you can fit four FROs they have to be no bigger than 345 square feet on average so they're going to be and they can be smaller they could be 150 square feet on average so this has to meet all of the standards that are in the zoning code and in the area plan and we review this to make sure that it meets all of our standards that's the base case and then they apply for the density bonus and you go from this conforming plan to this density bonus proposal so because this is an FRO proposal they are providing 20% of the units at very low income state density bonus law says it entitles them 50% density bonus so this is 50% bonus so it went from 155 units to 233 units and so at this point when only when the density bonus is applied starts to have to waive flight standards like height and floor area ratio and but we do have that yeah I mean that's state law so there's nothing that we're doing here that would circumvent state law or that would prevent state law from applying and so the choice that you're making is about if we go back up to our scenario that we've looked at you put a density bonus on that for 35% you get 13 large homes select 2 that are reserved for low income houses or you can do 15 homes you do a 35% density bonus like calculator out yeah 20 yep so that gives you 5 more bonus units so you get up to 20 units and they still have to meet this like same average size and kind of distribution right so like they wouldn't all become studios right you wouldn't with the density bonus you wouldn't just suddenly all of them be 400 perfect units they still have to match that base state yeah I mean that's what you're looking at that's the reality of the 2 unit project so it's not going to be a fixed rate call right the 20 unit project might go to 4 Council Member Brown did you have any other questions or Council Member questions questions I guess I just from my understand you know we're doing now in the docket for a while definitely meet the housing but this is not required right now there's nothing that's forcing us to adopt this ordinance right now yep that's true but it is I mean your presentation was really helpful today and really what people hear people are afraid of having large developments for this for over 2 years now they're afraid and they have this you know this here and I all did I mean you live in a neighborhood for a long time and you know you kind of think it's all going to look the same over the years and then you know new laws properties that are sold or bought and don't want to make resources out of those investments and so you know you end up with an unexpected 5, 6, 7 building but so much of that expectation part of it part of state law how we are part of it is like SB 35 had we been doing building the kind of units would have been building we actually wouldn't be under and may be able to get out under that's bad law but that is in the community is something that really is creating much denser and taller and higher housing so I guess my question or my comment I guess both is this puts a tool in the toolbox that kind of basically takes the SRO and the SOUs and kind of divides this middle place but your overall design of the building is always going to be guided by those basic or area ratio all those things that we know that are on the books right now how does this where, how does the design how do the objective design standard sort of come to play here right I mean I think we all think objective design standards is a place for a community expression that people would like to see as a little bit more right and this that have any bearing on what we end up seeing in our neighborhoods or how does it relate to that but I'm kind of looking at that timeline of all the things that the planning department is you know and so now here's this other problem and then you don't have to go into a lot of detail but maybe just a few comments on the book we pass our objective standards we can use to move our broader planning set of tools I believe into a place where there's potentially more predictability more understanding around what things will look like in the future provides hopefully more guidance in regards to you know the kinds of standards that we want but we're still not quite there yet right so that true or not true I'm very I'm explaining this very opaquely but I'm hoping it's kind of I'm just trying to help the community understand you know that I'm not going to be 11 stories call buildings next to them you know in the next just trying to kind of put this in context of how you're sort of shifting further defining what aesthetic and any kind of zone in the city how long that will take there will be projects that get through between now and then sorry is that I mean that's okay so the objective standard is like rapid close excuse me we're planning to be at the planning commission on April whatever the second meeting in April 23rd or something like that the Thursday of that third week of April so 21st okay thanks April 21st market calendar what the standards will do is so I've talked a lot about how we have the building envelope and that this ordinance is changing the building envelope those objective standards can push on that building in ways that our zoning ordinance currently doesn't right so we can't reduce the overall like mass that can go in the building we can't reduce that you know the one that people are going to get excited about is the 2.75 per area ratio that's a couple that's in some places on Soquel and Water Street we can't reduce that total floor area ratio but we can dictate how it's positioned on the site and how that per footage is used so one of the things you're going to see are transition zones between taller buildings and you're going to see requirements for articulation on facades and materials and forms we get buildings that while they may be bigger they're going to be bigger I mean that's just the true matter these buildings are going to be bigger than what they're now because you know most of the city is really underbuilt compared to what it's allowed to build but they're going to be more attractive buildings than what we're able to regulate to now at this point so we're going to have and the density bonus can supersede some of those standards you know if there's a physical preclusion from fitting the amount of density bonus on the site then the standards have to be made and it's hard to make that argument for things about materials and articulation and roof form and quality of open space amount of open space you could make that argument parking you could make that argument in height for sure those things strain how much of buildings really get built it's going to make an improvement it's going to make you know we're going to have more control than we have today and the density bonus is a true fact of life and health you know it applies to every jurisdiction in the state in the same way so the piece that we have a little bit of a control over is how subject to SB35 are we right because that law that really really limits our ability to apply any kind of expression and so you know when we look at the objective standards I know that question is going to come up in the density bonus is here today if you're now these sites have this amount of building volume that they're allowed to build and they can come in with the density bonus project right now and we won't be eliminating that option for them we are going to be guiding them about how make that building look like it belongs here that's helpful okay thank you thank you Mayor Meyers I mean Council Member Meyers I just wanted to add one more thing Mayor yes I'm a principal planner for advanced planning I just wanted to add on to Sarah's points too and just reiterate that the small units before you now with the FPUs don't change any building form today that would be built under our current objective standards so in any look and feel of any residential building that was now wouldn't change under this FPU ordinance it's purely about adding density on the inside of that building so nowhere would there be something that would look or feel or be taller nothing would be different than today would just be what's on the inside and potentially just do more smaller thank you thank you Mayor thank you so much at this time I do see the hands raised I also had a request for extra time that was approved by Santa Cruz tomorrow for us at kidney so I will begin with you your hand is raised to go ahead Mayor this is I have just one question prior to the comment okay go ahead I think it was responded to but I just wanted to make sure that in regards to the policy shift that's being proposed there's understanding from staff that the applicability of SP35 would be mitigated potentially significantly and that we wouldn't be subject to SP35 being triggered that this could be maybe a tool for us to have in place in advance really in terms because we don't want to be in the position of having a number of SP35 projects for us how can you just reiterate that is that exactly is that how you see it and this could be a helpful policy shift to kind of avoid SP35 that I can talk about that a little more so SP35 as I mentioned applies to jurisdictions based on how well they're meeting that regional housing allocation and there are two different tiers so some jurisdictions in the state like Santa Cruz are meeting most of their categories of the arena and so in those jurisdictions SP35 only applies projects that provide more than 50% or more as a dedicated affordable unit for low and summer lower another tier for folks that are really not getting any housing built is 10% so in those jurisdictions right now anything that comes in that includes the 10% affordability component is entitled to that streamlined view and circumventing CEQA the slip between those two tiers is based on above moderate sales to meet even your above moderate house production from that 50% tier down to that 10% and in Santa Cruz because of our 20% inclusionary that would qualify every project that comes in almost every project that comes in for that this one ordinance is not going to prevent that from happening and we think this is one tool that we could have in the toolbox that could modestly increase housing production and get us closer to meeting that goal SD9 will help with that if we get SD9 applications I don't know that we've gotten any yet but potentially ADUs help with that anything that we can do to like keep housing production up is going to help us limit the effect of the number of projects that qualify for SD5 streamlines or just sort of more and I think that's consistent with a lot of what we heard when we did the housing tour and listening tour wanting sort of more ADU and smaller and less bigger development so I thank you if you are a member of the public interested in commenting on the second reading and final adoption of ordinance number 1022-02 small housing units general plan downtown plan local coastal plan and zoning zoning ordinance SD9 on your phone to ease your hand if you're trying to speak you will hear an announcement that you have been unmuted timer will be set to three minutes and I will start with our approved group Santa Cruz tomorrow Vera hi welcome thank you we are very concerned about the FDU ordinance and how it would affect our long-term sustainability including our carrying capacity and equitable access to affordable housing in the context of free market real estate I want to thank staff for the update to the housing element in today's agenda it shows remarkable strides in housing production we have more than fulfilled all of our arena permitting goals for the very low-income category which is what currently subjects us to SB35 notably we've permitted more than double the low-income units in our goal we've also permitted almost twice the amount of both our moderate and above moderate income goals there are still two more years left on this arena cycle and we are just starting to see some proposals use these new state housing laws the growth in our housing production will be greatly affected by the laws already enacted and more are being passed and proposed Santa Cruz is one small city among many cities and counties that new state laws were created to affect and we are doing much better than most of them in fulfilling our arena of note the state density bonus law has already increased from a possible 35% density bonus to a 50% density bonus and is set to rise yet again and those bonus units become market rate some of these laws already include tracking regulations for certain residential developments some do so based on proximity to public transit with this pattern it is not out of the question that other local regulations such as open space requirements could also be circulated by proximity to public parks I mention this to illustrate only that we do not know how these new laws will affect our development and ability to enforce our site standards in the coming years the only real control that we have is density maximums in zoning and use are applied this FDU proposal noticeably noticeably reduces the minimum square footage from 400 square foot so used down to 220 square foot FDU this would increase the base density potential used to then calculate these massive density bonuses we are just starting to understand if truly considered at this time the FDU ordinance should go to analyze how it would affect the elements of our sustainability it's important to recognize the hard work and creativity of staff in putting this ordinance together this could have been a really interesting for addressing our affordable housing needs if Santa Cruz were operating outside of the new state laws and this ordinance specifically helped build de-restricted very low income units while not creating the potential of intense density for market rate units which puts affordability even further for working class and students in our highly sought after location we have a very limited carrying capacity for all resources and infrastructure our usable land for housing is one such limitation it is of utmost importance that if we change our little control over land use regulations that we still have it be very specifically to incentivize only very low income this ordinance currently does not but we hope it may thank you thank you for your public comment and we'll now attend these and the first caller is Rafa Sonan Bell good afternoon council members I'm calling in in support of this ordinance I've spoken before I think to keep in mind one of the really useful tools that this ordinance will allow us to have is more option for people whether they're renters or looking to buy one of these smaller condos we already have our SRO code that allows more density than these apartments or condos would create but this is just about giving us more choices and more tools to have more homes for people in our community I also wanted to speak about the affordability aspect of this I've been low income basically my entire adult life and right now the housing authority waitlist get on a section 8 voucher is closed I think there's like 12 thousand people on that waitlist and when you don't have the option to get on section 8 you have limited options to find places that are affordable and even if these were deed restricted low income units which 20% of them will be anyway those units would have to go up on the lotteries and what happens to folks like me who don't get on the lottery who don't have access to those homes would be more for other homes in our community I think the way that it is it's going to provide more options for us we can look at other ways to increase affordability but it's actually counterproductive in terms of getting people who need affordable homes in to create these restrictions and barriers on these types of units that make them harder to pencil out for market rate developers who are building them when we already have other options for affordable housing developers coming to build more affordable units anyway this is not a panacea of affordability but it is about creating more options for market rate housing and creating more affordable market rate thank you our next caller is Bill Kelly thank you mayor, council and staff it was a great presentation I spoke during the first reading but since this came back again I wanted to speak and talk to all of you so these sizes obviously having this increase in sizes this provides a lot of options for people that really don't have much else many people can't afford the current detached homes but I will add have no affordability man we can do shake downs on apartments all we want but it looks really bad if we're shaking down the housing that working class people will live in so I'm at a family of five as a family of four we've lived in units that were as big as these ones four and they were the only options that were available we did not have generational wealth help us get into some other option we didn't have other options that would keep us you know be able to keep in one area we've gone through evictions through in San Jose we've had to move from apartment to apartment I have never lived in any place longer than three years until I got a place in Santa Korea and that's only through the fortunate having the job that I have but I want to create some more options for people where they can get a place they can build equity it doesn't have to be the same way that land appreciates because I don't know if anybody here has looked at how condos work they don't increase in value as much and they really should like you need to separate is this about housing as an investment or housing as a place for people to live and the reality is if you create more flats creating more places for people to live and focusing on creating housing affordability the housing unit itself bringing down the cost of housing not just in purchasing a detached home and that's what I really want people to analyze to look at because in this case for how far we're at now homelessness overcrowdedness commutes I know plenty of you are interested in the rail but it looks like it looks really poor you say people should be able to commute in but we're not going to create more options for them to live here we have to create more options for people to live here if we're going to say immigrants are welcome you need to expand options for them to come and live here so these are providing more options maybe it's not perfect what exactly you want but they'll provide options for a lot more family friends for ourselves for everyone else that we know so thank you for supporting this I really hope to continue to see innovative work out of the client your public comment the next public comment is Jonah Payton I'm Jonah Payton a long time west side Santa Cruz resident I strongly support the FDU proposal because fundamentally I want a place to live currently I study at a college out of town in the city with this own housing crisis which causes me to pay where more than I should for housing to come back to Santa Cruz after I graduate this proposal will make it easier to build smaller and affordable housing that I could live in I wouldn't need to have a lot of roommates as I do now and I wouldn't have to spend as much on rent it would mean more places for housing particularly for young people like me without meaning bigger buildings allowing FDUs would also mean that when people move to Santa Cruz or move out of their parent's house they won't have to displace a family who might be forced by high rents and lower quality of life in Santa Cruz and someone who might even be at risk of becoming homelessness being displaced our current policy of restrictive housing causes devastating crisis and we must address it with policies like FDUs overall a vote for this proposal would give the city more chance at living in a more equitable Santa Cruz and provide more opportunities and for that reason I strongly encourage your support, thank you and our next caller is Elizabeth from Pondland Hi, good afternoon I would like to thank staff Planning Commission Council for identifying a problem low use single occupancy unit and provides a proposal that really fits our community I thought it was so important that I'm taking a break from work right now and comment as a renter and as a young gift professional I think FDU it really gives me hope that once again I really love the idea of a building with different size homes in it some studios, some one bedroom some two bedrooms that fit people, families in different circumstances in life I think expanded ownership huge for stability as was mentioned nothing would improve stability for renters than actually having the opportunity to own their own home in Santa Cruz it would provide more options with middle class and expanded middle class being locked out of to own their own home in Santa Cruz it would provide investment in our community and really strengthen the ties to neighborhood here by being able to own a place in Santa Cruz I also really like innovation from the staff doing something that will form-based zoning because it provides more flexibility while fitting in with standards and regulations and I really like more exploration and studies in the form-based zoning because as we see from concerns about building neighborhoods often based on the size but if we're able to house more people within the same size building that would overall a huge benefit for so I'd like to thank the five council members for this measure in the first reading and I hope that you can move forward with the motion today. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next caller is M. Bepp. Thank you. Good afternoon mayor and council members Elizabeth Madrigals on behalf of the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership our housing initiative consists of a broad coalition of community members, local employers and organizations to advocate for and catalyze an increase in housing of all types and income levels in our region. In 2018 M. Bepp partnered with Envision Housing to publish our white paper about realistic policy changes to improve housing affordability in the Monterey Bay region where we outlined several ways local governments can easily increase housing production we are pleased that the city of Santa Cruz worked towards adopting our recommendations wherever possible. In line with our ninth recommendation to zone for density we support staff's recommendation to approve the flexible density density unit ordinance in order to contribute towards a production of a diverse mix of housing types within the city of Santa Cruz. We especially laud the FQ ordinance as it clears the way for more missing middle type homes in Santa Cruz that would be available for rent or purchase. Having more housing options with students, single individuals, families and peers and couples is an opportunity to live in our community. Thank you for your dedicated leadership and taking realistic steps to encourage much needed housing development at all types. Our next is phone number ending in five signs throughout. Go ahead and mute yourself press star six or unmute there you go Welcome Hi, I think the FQ is dense type that the FQ gets to build villages to build for you with the dense bonus that gets percent that's the base that's that for units below percent four it goes higher started with adding the more stories of bills it keeps the dense bonus going to go taller example stone of story building not quite a five that's what those bills get an increase in our both when are we going to build a road traffic cannot fit stories no road does transportation thank you for your time please vote thank you for your comment our next ending in four nine five go ahead and unmute yourself hi can you hear me yes welcome yes welcome thank you my name is Candace I've lived for forty seven years in this community and I'm inside Midtown Residence this whole topic is devoid of discussion of the reality that we're living in right now which is with the density bonus just brought it by the previous caller that was the heart of the discussion with the planning commission and why there was only a four to three vote it also is worth noting that inclusionary is only on the base not with the density bonus it dilutes the effect of affordable housing so that's why you're now seeing only five to eleven percent rather than twenty percent you can also because of the density bonus you can strip away the protection of setback parking requirements and height and open space the way the development standard it's also not understandable why you're attempting to approve this now before the objective standards and my understanding is that they want to increase the height even more on the base there's no mention about form factor policies and where those were were they also affected by the density bonus that really has exceeded the discussion and there's been no examples provided by events planning to show that if you look at 908 Ocean Street they originally proposed 396 units of SOUs at 460 to 648 if you look at it with 220 take account the parking take account tripping away commercial but adding the benefit of their parking you come up with 559 units you assume that by adding more density to an existing environment or form factor that you have no additional impact which would be ridiculous and in fact in that particular project I think last time I checked they added another 9% at 433 so you could go over 600 units in less than 3.5 acres these were dramatic changes and without a sequel without a further analysis without a true general plan amendment process which has not been done in this process we don't have a sense of a true impact on the community and also realize that the original border plan which was only at 55 units per acre versus 150 units plus you had thousands of people objecting to it. People do care there was I think about 2400 that signed that petition three or four years ago there was 300 people business people that signed a petition specifically business people that were on Oceans Sweetwater and Soquel knowing the impacts it would have on their businesses I think that you just simply can't say that this is a minor change in the code but this provides more options when it's never been showed to address the affordability and in fact it's diluted because of the high density bonus please postpone this project of this proposal if we're coming in this our next is phone number ending in 08 36 meet yourself hi there hello there can you hear me yes hello okay thank you my name is Ed Porter and you probably know that I was a member of the city council in 2008 and during that time I was part of conversations and associations regarding the university LRDP issues and especially about housing like you're talking about today and over the years UCSD has continually wanted to expand the number of students on the campus but attempts to develop the needed housing some other time always later always behind that has not changed at all in the last decade maybe forever and now with the avalanche of state laws and the push to build dorms all over Santa Cruz you're asked to support these changes that abandon all traditions all sense of place build these small square footbox all over our downtown so you really need to ask yourself why would you do this for students of these units at affordable prices of course they do I'm with them on that subject but what has happened to the idea that the university should build the housing using it's land and it's land use policy that you are proposing that we change our land use planning abandon our city's right to do it's own land use planning and lose our sense of place forever yes all these students need affordable and comfortable housing to tell the universe do their job produce that house please not adopt this measure we don't want all 8 to 10 stories of these boxes all over our downtown the literature that was mailed to the use yes no developers site to produce copies of the downtown Peters Village area no developers in sight to produce a copy of the St. George hotel but the pictures do imply that that's the case and you showed pictures of little development that you know they're planning in the pipeline 10 story building and so do not adopt this measure don't want 10 story balls back to these boxes all over our downtown they'll use just their job thank you for your comment our next caller is phone number ending in B 9 go ahead hi there can you hear me yes great thank you hi this is Ben and all 8 pro presidency student housing coalition calling to you I kind of jumped in here last moment here but I really want to reiterate our organization full support for this ordinance and the changes it brings and really going back to the biggest calls going about changing our character at the expense of university I think I kind of want to power through that narrative talk about how our residents right and so when we talk about building housing when we say the university should be building all the house city should build all the house our constituents of both and both have an obligation to abide for those constituents so I think the idea that we'll lose our community character by allowing people to live and approaching this problem of crisis from a crisis from a crisis from all sides actually make a dent so I think it's really important that we push and we go ahead and allow for these more types of living for people who are trying to downside just trying to down for families want to live in a smaller environment for eco-conscious for students for all sorts of groups take advantage of this smaller type of home so I really implore you guys go ahead and move forward with this and you guys for your comment like that comment I will bring it now back up we have one more hand that was raised I'll allow that four to seven have your hand up and go ahead and unmute yourself phone number ending in seven hello hi my name is Patrick Katie I'm just calling in to support flexible density I work as in the county and I think this type of housing helps other sort of service workers find a place to live here in the county I believe are you finished? okay next caller phone number ending in 888 hello can you hear me hi I can hear you thank you thanks for taking my call I just want to say please vote no on this ordinance 2022-2 the public correspondence for this item today was four to one again please listen to the voters of your city especially on an ordinance that would have such enormous and difficult to imagine effect on all of us I agree with the folks who have been speaking about the desperate needs for much more affordable housing there's no doubt about that but there are serious problems to dispose of at this time and the unintended consequences you'd be faced with mean we'd be worse off than we are now for decades to come I also appreciate and echo the important point that Candace Brown brought up this is no minor change please postpone or vote no on this ordinance thank you so much for your comment I'm going to get it out closing public comment and bring it back council for emotion and I see council member Brown would stand up council member coming then council member Brown thank you mayor I had one more question for staff so the there's this the single SROs doesn't produce SROs are being produced we're getting one or two every couple of years which we would kind of expect it's the SOUs the small ownership units we have two examples of those over 15 years and I guess I'm just wondering if you can speak a little bit more by those aren't being produced so we had this kind of same question being these units get built we held a focus group with developers and made sure that we invited the developers of the two existing projects to sort of talk to them about what they're seeing with their project and the consensus was that the biggest issue that developers cited was the requirement that they so a lot of developers really prefer to at least rent for some kind of time and build it and building their reasons for that but they really viewed that as a hindrance and it's a challenge for financing and especially the way the ordinance was written that it would allow up to half of the units to be rented could make it hard for individual purchasers to get financing and then you're in a situation where you can only sell to all cash buyers which is just really challenging like at any size of home and so they just had they just felt like there were a lot of constraints around that and if they wanted to build that housing type they would find a different location where they could build like CEOs or one bedroom under a different kind of density cap where they would go with SROs which are limited to rental housing and they're smaller and it's just a different it's kind of a different market does that answer your question? That answers my question I think what we were hearing from people is this idea of building smaller units for families to purchase but developers haven't been building these smaller units for purchase and I think a lot of it sounds like it's driven because of the fact that the returns will not be as great It's also because it's been exclusively SOU projects that's also an issue is that the SOU presents right now it can only build one type of unit within that so there's no like you can't like hedge your bets and build some larger units smaller units and like mix them it's really been that attractive but I see my colleagues just to note that the 50% limitation on rental so only 50% be rented was a big thing in the finance that we heard that has implications not only for development but also for a future purchase as well it can make it. Thank you I appreciate it and I'll just acknowledge this is a major change to our housing law obviously complex for community but just based on kind of what I've been hearing from seeing in emails and hearing from the community there's lots of housing laws forward that take away local control from local jurisdictions and it seems like it would make sense for us to understand how these state laws will impact moving forward with the local ordinance that could potentially exacerbate community impacts around things such as water traffic public safety also it doesn't appear that in this ordinance there's anything that ties the smaller units to them being each restricted affordable or the small units just be affordable in general and the rationale is that reducing the unit size will make affordable then this hasn't been addressed especially when we see market rate studios for $2800 a month for rent it would be in the best interest of the community to address preserving and increasing affordability if we're going to move in this direction if not then we'll be driving up the cost of housing by setting market rate standards for a very small living condition to some of the points we've brought up we have been building lots of housing in this community and we have been meeting greener goals currently because we have been approving the project with the exception of housing in the very low income category which suggests that what we need to address are the issues related to creating restricted affordable housing but given the concerns I've heard related to impact state law and affordability we should continue to see how the state laws impact housing in our community and figure out how to get affordability so I'm going to make the following motion which is to table this item further explore increasing inclusionary restricted affordability in these units and until we have a better understanding of the impacts of the new housing legislation related to density bonus our objective standard and other housing production measures that will impact neighborhood we have motion by council member Cummings is there a second yes I'll second that I don't want to lose the floor though okay let's just take a second read this motion first by Cummings seconded by Brown either for Sarah or Bea Butler with that motion is used to be any anticipated timeline with that motion and clarity with some of those items let's take a look and sort of Bonnie could you share it again because there are different timelines for each of those that I think would be helpful to speak to so let's start with inclusionary we can take a look at inclusionary that can be done subsequent to this ordinance being passed or that could be done separate from it typically we do a pretty deep dive with inclusionary because we want to make sure that we are doing something that is going to still be viable so ensure that projects can get built that said we have we have a standard for SROs and if we were looking at matching the SRO standard that is something that we come back to the council with in relatively short period of time it takes a few months minimum to do that plus there are workload implications and opportunity costs realistically it's probably five months or we are able to slot that in get the work done, get it noticed get it to Planning Commission get their recommendation and then to bring it to the council so that is part of the timeline related to that objective standards Sarah mentioned that previously we have been going to the Planning Commission on April 21st we will be proceeding to council soon thereafter we need to understand what the Planning Commission says make some adjustments but within a few months time we will be back with the objective standards and I just note that those objective standards they are allowing but is currently allowed right now under the general plan so where Sarah was talking about the 2.75 FAR we might have building height that don't accommodate a 2.75 FAR for area ratio the Housing Accountability Act does not allow us to apply the objective standards when we don't have when you can't achieve the full density allowed by our plan and so again as we mentioned multiple times this FDU proposal wouldn't change the massing or the scale and when we come back with the objective standard it will have implications for things like materials or roof forms the height are increasing as I mentioned but not pursuant to what they can do already because again even if the zoning ordinance says it's limited to 30 or 40 feet in height if the full density can't be achieved in that limit we have to allow higher under the Housing Accountability Act the Revised Corridor Plan I'm not sure exactly what's being referred to right there the zone districts so that is coupled with the objective standards we've got new zoning districts for most locations and with that it will again have the same things that I was talking about with the objective standard and a better understanding of the impacts of new housing legislation related to density bonus and other housing production housing production measures so with respect to legislation if we're waiting on legislation I mean Sarah pointedly before if we're waiting on legislation that's going to happen we've seen more housing legislation in the last five years than we saw in the previous 15 and that's going to continue to happen we've got to keep moving on our approach to creating housing including producing units at all income levels but if we're waiting on what happened with legislation the earliest we would be doing something is end of this year Governor signs things in the time frame of October of each year and often times we're scrambling to get those updates in place right and so we might not have the capacity to come back to this and right away and at that point we're in the next so I appreciate keeping a really close eye on what's happening at the state level and sometimes we do want to hold off on for doing that for example with our SB 9 regulations with subdivisions and multiple units because we know that housing and community development in the state they keep telling us that they're going to come out with regulation so we're anticipating that in the next month or two so for this particular issue I wouldn't recommend waiting for what's going to happen with the housing legislation because that state density bonus is going to apply regardless as we've heard from the number of that color looks like Matt might have one other thing that thanks Lee I just wanted to mention too in regard to understanding the impact of this proposal before you doesn't allow these FPUs anywhere that SROs aren't already allowed and so the SROs already have a higher density and intensity of development than the FPUs could ever have and so we can look to them already start understanding what is possible on those sites in terms of density I just wanted to make that point again that we're really not changing any of the impacts correctly in terms of in terms of density in reality thank you Council Member Brown and Council Member Myers Mayor so I do have some comments but a question just occurred as Lee as Director Butler was asking related to the question around increasing potential for increase for this density project and so I wanted to ask where that is at my understanding that Planning Commission had hoped to explore this and I believe weren't able to do that and so I'd like to know what the staff's position was on that what happened at that meeting where there was an attempt to begin to move a proposal like that forward from the planning directly to us so that was happening quite a while ago we're talking about urgency and we can't wait more months months but they haven't had an opportunity to have the conversation that I know at least some commissioners want to have so I'm just wondering where that's at sure, happy to speak to that so the Planning Commission did have a discussion on inclusionary and that recommendation has been forwarded to the Mayor the item has not been brought to the Council yet but will be at some point I haven't had a coordination with the Mayor with respect to win that will actually be a great okay so it is in the next but it's not been prioritized so I also want to be clear that the inclusionary recommendations for the that came from the Planning Commission were related to density bonus and not specifically related to FDUs there was a discussion about FDUs on a similar timeline however those and the Planning Commission recognized some of the issues associated with that because some of those recommendations would actually not encourage the production of very low income units that is going to take a lot of analysis that is going to be on a longer timeline then a simple change we wanted to just match FDUs to SRO with going to 20% very low instead of 20% low capture all that, that was a lot I do and I appreciate that I disagree to some extent with the level of complexity figuring it out I'll just say that for an offline conversation I do have some additional comments I want to make and I'm going to step back and I'm going to talk about what I'm going to forward and I see we're struggling I want us to think about for a moment we hear from members of the public we need options we know that nobody has really any choices right now we are we have an under supply of housing I recognize that and I'm not opposed to density but let's talk about somebody who might be mad and talk about this wonderful affordable by design notion let's talk about a Santa Cruz city who earns I'm just going to round it $18 more that part of the work and I'm going to say that part of the work and I'm a composite of experiences that I am aware of happening that worker lost their housing that worker is living in their being on friends at $18 per hour I'm going to put aside that this worker and again a composite could be working 20 hours a week as a permanent worker 20 hours a week as a permitem where they are then laid off and of $1,000 somewhere around $1,000 correctly on the tax $9.99 on that city that worker will be left to with that one job every hour available earn about $30 I'm going to round down because that temp position has a lower wage to it about $36,000 $3,000 a month in order for that attain affordable rent that would be around $925 for that worker not for rent Santa Cruz Lookout published an article that studio prices are up 112% over this past that is not because we didn't build enough housing in the past that's not because we didn't build enough housing over the past however many years that's because there is an influx of people with the ability to pay more friends and landlords who will charge it so the current average price of $24.95 which is pretty darn close the studio price new developments come online I've been on this and just approved how is something like this benefit that how is something like this benefit workers at the service industry workers who are we know this is a significant portion of our workforce how are they going to benefit from a change in housing to relatively yeah we all struggle I understand that but we talk about voice all of that I feel like there is this disconnect from the reality that low wage families face others have talked about the dramatic landscape our built environment I'm not going to criticize those but I will say I believe that further dialogue and should review and should consideration of how create this opportunity that we have here and this benefit for developers that would create more affordable so I'm going to leave it there no I'm not going to leave it there sorry it's frustrating conversation to have I just feel like nobody is really talking about there is one reality and that is our renown the need for housing but there's another reality of like gets to live here gets to the workers and the bathrooms and our park that's a conversation can't fix it our housing policy but we can certainly take it into account as has been noted today not required to revise our local laws to accommodate density by all the cluster about the state stepping in because we have not facilitated enough housing we have facilitated our rena this has been stated repeatedly again and we'll talk about that more later today I'm excited to have that conversation about the housing element we have met those allegations for all but the very low units and free we know very low unless they are required or subsidized given all of that it provides at a minimum talking about kinds of units that we know going can't produce enough of so if we are going to give to developers additional density opportunity as director Butler said can't change the size of the building but the proposal will use the return on investment opportunity available to developers so if that is the case then we absolutely should be talking about and create an inclusionary incentive for these kinds of projects that is why I think that having spending time on the proposal bringing it back with attention to affordability is important now councilmember Brown councilmember John thank you thanks for the work of the planning commission and staff and everyone who wrote letters I'm just going to pick up the thread that councilmember Brown just left I failed to understand how building less helps those housing the most I failed to understand how building less doesn't increase competition for the existing units that we have here I am really fortunate to have stable housing at stable housing for a number of years that wasn't always the situation that I found myself and my family in there was a letter that was sent in by Mr. Charlie Vast who talks about his mother and mother-in-law who came here recently and how it's difficult for immigrants to find housing that was me and that was my family the students who called in they're on spring break that's a reality it is all of our responsibilities and that was me as well I graduated from USC this is about building housing for everybody this is about building housing for kids for aging parents and for that city worker it's about building housing for him or her it's about building housing for our middle class what if 30,000 computers who come into our city to work how would that impact climate where's the intersectionality of decisions that we make around housing and land use if we're committed to climate that's just one area I know we all on this council are committed to addressing the challenges around our unhoused homeless population where's the commitment to that if we're not thinking proactively and putting forward innovative solutions if we look at the agenda item later on around the housing element update we'll see that councilmember brown is correct that have not yet met very low income units but we are going to projects that are in the queue and that we have new renails that are in the thousands for a range of housing that our community needs so if we want to grow in a way that is fitting for our community we want to grow sustainably let's be proactive and not get our hands slapped by the state let's not have high rises all over town and I think the way that we do that is we get in front of it there were a lot of questions and concerns that were brought forward in comment and in the letters and I think that staff did a really fantastic job of providing thorough information and I truly believe that we, again if we don't want to see monstrosities and we want to dictate how we grow we want to dictate the direction that we go in then we have to think outside the box and this is an attempt at doing that at the end of the day it's about being an inclusive and diverse community I think that's a value that we all share here on this council it's a value that we share as a community I'm talking to community members about something I hear over and over again our strategies and tactics so far have not been worked so why are we proposing to continue that hasn't been working it doesn't make any sense to me it's about providing housing it's about providing housing and growth in the way that we want dictating growth in the way that we want so I'll end my comments there I will not be supporting the motion thank you thank you council member Meyers and then like council member Meyers I also just want to state I won't support this motion and I just I guess I also just really want to point out since I've been on the city council there's just been efforts prior to just stop housing and projects that our market rate but maybe there's a benefit for example the whole taxation situation now we're going to have hundreds of units of very low income housing built we will have the same 25 units of very low income housing in our downtown library project we're seeing if with the tools available we're starting to see that we can take care of the people who are traveling down highway 1 to come into Santa Cruz and this idea that we just delaying so that we can somehow talk with another answer when actually developers are coming to Santa Cruz right now affordable housing I can name 5 affordable housing projects that are going on right now they're in the permitting process we've got the permanent supportive housing project and housing matters we've got the two at Pacific Station we have the one that's going to go into the red you know we have Jesse Street Marsh these developers are here they want to invest in Santa Cruz and they're building very low and low income housing I don't know why we just wanting to throw more obstacles at it let's just delay delay so we've heard from people particularly struck by the teacher who called in today need a place to live and it's a starter for them hopefully they get stabilized by having a home maybe maybe they can put together the financing to actually buy it this gives us the flexibility good tool let's test it always change an ordinance it's not going the way we want and there will be future city councils that will tweak this over time this is a tool in our land use toolkit and it's there to try to get us for housing not in six months, not in six years to actually start making things happen and we've seen that trajectory already started and you know I'm sorry but California is people love California they move California and then they tell us oh you shouldn't be building this but I mean it's ironic to me that a lot of this comes after people get settled in California then they're like well slow this down let's just try to take care of the people who are struggling here let's just try to help families individuals people and seniors and others who are just trying to make a home here in San Francisco so I'm not going to support this but I do I would be willing to make a motion to move for the staff thank you Mayor thank you Council Member Myers I see Council Member Cummings and Brown with your hands up for the sake of time do you have any additional comments you'd like to make I do okay go ahead you're coming and then Council Member Brown I just want to say that the intention of this is not about the production of housing in our community it's about ensuring that if we're going to move in this collection we're addressing the affordability issues and when people are talking about who are trying to get stabilized in the community that's me I do not own a home I'm a renter the decision that I'm in right now the fact that I was fortunate to find the landlord keeping their prices though and I hear constantly many of my friends in the community I've heard it we're going to be addressing this later in our agenda as well when we get to eviction protections but there are plenty of people in this community who are trying their hardest to stay here and when they receive 20% rent increases trying to find somewhere else where they can live is extremely difficult the issue here is to figure out how we can increase the amount of exclusionary de-restricted affordable housing that's going to come into new units because as our planning director said as our planning department said that the only way that you can keep affordable housing in the community is by making it de-restricted so if we're going to talk about building units in our community with the hopes that the size will make it affordable then they need to be de-restricted because that's the only way to ensure that it's permanently affordable in the long term that's what we're trying to do is keep affordable housing perpetuity so that's all I have to say that's a member brown thank you mayor I just want to say I failed to see how moving forward with a proposal that would essentially promote, facilitate more market rate housing any affordability any additional affordability going to benefit the working families and the people that you all are describing here I just give you a scenario of somebody who could never in a million years buy maybe rent if they had a roommate one of these units that we're talking about I'm hearing contradictions in what my colleagues are saying we're not doing a good job but what we've done hasn't worked and at the same time the same council member saying we've met our goals so that I hear contradictions around the timeliness of us back now when it comes to building market rate housing additional affordability requirements but when we talk about a small inclusionary percentage of inclusionary units we have to study it forever so I would just encourage folks to think about that when you decide what to read and what needs to be more careful and I would also urge us to think about the reality not the theory of housing supply matching from meeting the need of the people for action and I'm all for not waiting for it to actually make an effective time Thank you council member Brown I think you know this has been a good discussion and I appreciate everyone's input emails I think there were about seven emails with various concerns thank you to planning staff Sarah Noisy and Lee Butler for clarifying the questions that I had from those concerns around density and how this always strives their development those concerns were really answered in that it's not changing flexible density in it the size and the height setback inclusionary requirements those concerns have been answered we have to move forward meeting the needs of our community in the best way and this is something that we can move forward to support that with additional flexible unit that offer option I fully believe that and has you know what council member Cummings brought up continuing to work on ways to meet affordable deed-respected affordable housing in our city will be a priority with this change in flexible to go to flexible density unit this is just one piece that will get us so many people will need housing options so with that I'd like to take a vote on this current motion on the floor by council member Cummings and seconded by council member Brown and so we get a roll call vote for a commentary on no yes no sorry council member vice mayor no no see that motion passed with five against and two in favor you have one out for and four against in favor okay let's see council member Brown and then council member Meyers Mayor I have a motion and I prepared I sent it to Bonnie and I'm hoping you can put that up recognizing the urgent decision about this I so here's my motion I'll read it along rec staff council at the earliest possible meeting with one an amendment ordinance 2020 title 24 of the regulating small housing unit including replacing small ownership with and make minor clarifying amendments following increase the requirement 20 to 25 percent respected affordable unit and I this was before I realized that very low is required for that last and then to an amended resolution authorizing manager to submit ordinance number 2022 and changes to the downtown plan as local coastal and amendment for final certification increase percentages for and free any ordinary ordinance reflect for the newly established house second we have a motion on the floor council member Brown seconded by coming are you seeing that item section item one that no okay I your hand up I was just going to ask if comment thank you mayor I was just trying to make sure that I understand this and I think that I got it now you're suggesting that we come back to you so we would go to the planning commission with a revised ordinance that includes the same provisions of the FDUs and except we would also loop in inclusionary changes and you want those to go from the 20 percent that they currently are to 25 percent and and then when we bring those back that's when we would bring the amended resolution the amended resolution directing okay I understand what you're proposing and I wasn't quite sure that I got it the first time around so thank you question for you Lee Butler your staff to this 25 percent increase so we have not with respect to that I reiterate what I indicated before the SROs have the 20 percent at very low income a 50 percent area median income level small ownership unit and small ownership units match all other developments that's 20 percent at low income which is 80 percent very immediate I think given that consistency or the closeness of FDUs and SROs I would want to work with our economic development team who understands the financing of that more carefully as they develop some affordable housing projects in our community but I think that change if we switch FDUs from low to very low and kept it and shifted it to 50 percent AMI instead of 80 percent AMI because that analysis we got the SROs that have been developed that are being developed back I think is a simpler change and probably a faster change then if I would recommend that if we were going up to 25 percent that we do a market analysis and bring in a third party a consultant like Kaiser Marston who's done these pro forma analyses before we would work with our economic development department that would be my recommendation is making sure that projects are still viable we want to get the maximum amount of affordable housing and we want to make sure that those housing projects are built because we don't want to set that bar so high that nothing gets built that doesn't help us meet our arena our regional housing needs allocation targets nor does it provide housing for the community nor does it provide affordable housing if we're not getting any of the inclusionary units because projects aren't built so that's the balancing act that we need to strike and I think that's a little of my thoughts on it thank you Council Member Myers that's my quick question for Lee so the market study is that basically like a feasibility study basically you would look at the policy we're setting is actually going to become reality in a market correct? that's correct they'll evaluate will this result in projects still being able to be built or would lenders not provide financing for these projects because the return on investment is going to be too low or there's too much risk so that's what they would look at and make that determination and make those recommendations yeah I think that complexity that's hard for many people to understand is not just the unit count but actually whether or not someone can get the financing whether or not long term holding the property over time managing with that construction loan period and then hopefully filling the units is complicated so I think you keep raising the bar and people are going to go build houses in other places so thank you mayor Council Member Brown just a quick historical review here very recent history for those who are not on the council and some of us were and we'll remember this Previous City Council determined that the best way to get housing built was to respond to developers demands and reduce exclusionary that required project I did not support that community members we received a Kaiser-Mars study indicating that that was the sweet spot for penciling out a project and five members of the council collected that we were told through a study by Kaiser-Mars that that was the only way we were going to get housing community members sued the city they had no other recourse to try to ensure the will of the people by a vote of the people measure O was held that 15% exclusionary would be standard we had a moment where we had a council that thought application would come in and raised it and so we raised it we were told and then Kaiser-Marsden found a way to show us that it was done nothing had changed in the real world nothing had changed but we then got a study telling us we wanted to hear because we were supported that we had to do that increased it to 20% some of you said oh no we can't do that because nobody is going to build and we have had more applications than ever even after increasing our inclusion so Kaiser-Mars study could be done could also just try it what happens if nobody wants to build 25% then we can revisit it kind of what I said the first time around it ended up taking a lot longer than it did to get us to start now so I just think that again this is where we get into that question about oh if we want to make that take a long time it really doesn't have to take full will here we are member Myers we have to challenge a little bit about that history that we just the reason we're getting very low income and low income units passed entirely with the best part of the city on those units I'm talking about market units and the city is smartly using our own properties and working with our partners to actually bring those things to fruition and also use a new law that we were able to put certain projects right away that they got permitted right away just as a great example of that so the state leveraging this very low and low income housing it's not our inclusionary ordinance that's leveraging this state law then city wisely using leverage place inclusionary ratio right now is not producing these very low income units so I'm just going to push back on that and I really I've kind of done with the debate mayor I'd like to call the question on the current motion I don't think we're going to go anywhere we can debate this in the council office we're on the right track or not but I think we're almost two hours on this I would call the question on the current motion on the floor that's a that's a motion to call a question or motion to call a question yes okay we have a motion to call a second okay and then we have a roll call vote for member talentary John hi I'm done but I'm voting no on we are now motion passes vote on the motion to vote on the motion that's for us so let's do a roll call vote the motion by council member Brown member talentary John no motion by council member Brown for no yes council member Myers thank you mayor I'd like to make a motion to adopt number 22- title the minutes regulating small housing unit replacing small ownership flexible density minor kind amendment okay and adopt a resolution authorizing and track the city manager number cash downtown as local coastal amendment okay we have a motion by council member Myers okay okay can we have a roll call vote hi coming I that motion passes or in favor to against council member Boulder absent and I just want to say I think this item as council member Myers said has been a lot longer than we intended for a second hearing it was unusual in my history for a second hearing to have this much discussion but I think necessary and important we don't have the opportunity as a body to have these discussions and raise concerns on behalf of our constituents and we still have emails coming in and many in support as well and I would like to just say that there were some really good points brought up I'm hoping that our planning staff their ability to really dive into this has been very helpful and leave butler so I hope that a continued exploration into some of the discussion items especially in regard how we affordable housing and other recommendations around FPUs being affordable such as EMI EMI I look forward any of those recommendations going forward prioritizing continued path of meeting the needs in regards to housing with that being said to all for sharing that I would like to make a recommendation to continue items 27 which is amendments relating to small cell wireless and item 28 the review and final parks and recreation annual report I would like to see if there would be a motion to move those to April 12 the next so that we I have Vice Mayor Watson Callentary Johnson I'm happy to move those items and if that doesn't bring up any further staff I'd like to ask Manager Matt Huffer would that work with your staff for the sake of time we're happy to continue both of those items wonderful is there a second we have a Vice Mayor Watkins Council Member Callentary Johnson second we have a motion to continue items number 27 and 28 on the agenda to April 12th meeting we have a motion by Vice Mayor Watkins second Council Member Callentary Johnson we have a roll call vote oh I'm sorry Council Member Myers I'm sorry I was going to sorry Mayor my hand may we have a roll call vote Council Member Callentary Johnson aye Mayor Watkins motion toss four in favor and one absent and so that brings us item number 29 expiration of statewide evictions moratorium and before welcome Council Member Golder before we begin that item I will call a five minute file break sitting here so thank you we'll return for 23 thank you so now we will begin with our next agenda item number 29 for members of the public Council Member Golder who's just joining us items number 27 and 28 have been continued to the April 12th agenda so now we will begin with item number 29 expiration of statewide evictions the moratorium additional legal aid and support for tenants affected by COVID-19 for members of the public for spending this meeting if this is an item you wish to comment on now is time to call in seeing the instructions on your screen order will be presentation of the item by staff followed by questions from the Council we will then take public comment and then return to the Council for deliberation and action so now I will present it over to Tony yes good afternoon members of the City Council in your agenda packet is a status update with information about various resources that the City has made available in cooperation with the County Housing and Health Division for tenants who are experiencing hardship due to the COVID-19 emergency at your last meeting there was a request to put this item on the agenda at the urging of several individuals and organizations that are working with tenants that have been impacted by the COVID emergency the focus of that was for specific for specific requests one was to authorize a local moratorium on evictions if anyone waiting, housing is key payments until the end of 2022 or until their current out two was to identify sources of funds to keep tenants housed including ARPA the $14 million secured by Senator Laird for homelessness and or other resources and to build this into your fiscal year budget as a contingency for housing is key three was to inject funding shore up existing local legal agencies and collaborations that provide pre-tenant counseling and legal representation with special attention for the overrepresented undocumented and four require all procedures for agreements between landlords and tenants with the goal of avoiding and I would add that similar requests were submitted to the other cities in Santa Cruz County as well as County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors and I believe the County is also having an agenda item to discuss this afternoon as a result of that I was able to work with City Attorney and County Council colleagues analysis of the potential for further local moratorium as well as proposal to require eviction first work out agreements between landlords and tenants and we uniformly concluded that because of changes in the state law we were put into effect during the COVID emergency the city as well as the County and other cities are currently preempted from these these types of actions the eviction moratorium as well as the mandatory mediation of cases involving rent that became due between the end of September of 2001 and so therefore the recommendation is to focus on additional sources of funding and that is what the city has been has been endeavoring to and so believe Bonnie Lipscomb is prepared to address some of those efforts I'm not seeing her on thank you Bonnie Lipscomb I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have about the potential for an eviction moratorium or the mandatory mediation Council Member Brown Thank you Mayor I have one question about that my understanding is from materials that you've sent us the additional inquiries there are communities that are extending their eviction moratorium outside of the housing program during the period of extended COVID emergency declaration with those jurisdictions and given that we just voted to provide our COVID emergency for 60 more days would that give us similar cover something similar So there was a period of time before the passage of AB 832 which is referenced in your agenda report during which cities were able to adopt eviction moratorium ordinance specifically authorized by a provision of state law and the door to that shut city the city of Santa Cruz did in fact adopt an eviction moratorium ordinance that expired in September of 2020 as a new state law went in established another eviction moratorium that was statewide extended the moratorium to September 30th then with the passage of AB 832 there was an additional protections put in place for tenants and landlords that applied for state assistance to the housing program and that law specifically enabled cities that had those evictions protections in place to continue to have those in place but the law specifically states that any effort to extend or expand or act a measure that occurs between August 2020 and March 31st 2022 will have no effect before April 1st of 2022 then furthermore the statute says that a provision enacted or amended after August 1920 will not apply to rental that came due between March 1, 2020 and March 31st 2022 so the state law has expressly preempted the city's ability to adopt eviction protections that are for nonpayment of rent for that period August 2020 March 31st I would just add that based on our research we have not seen any city attempt to enact additional or further eviction protections since AB 832 went into effect in California the county of Los Angeles did adopt eviction protection measure that extended previously existing eviction in January of 2022 and they're currently defending that action that is in Los Angeles councilmember Cummings raise your hand please Mayor Tony I was curious I have two concerns here one is that you have people who have trusted the government to try to get them rental assistance and they're at risk of if this expires not only do they not get that well this expires they're susceptible to being evicted I guess my question is if someone waiting for rental assistance it's evicted to those landlords to get that rent but that assistance as well because this is something that's been worked out in landlord under the assumption that should the tenant be able to get the assistance then they won't be evicted but if they are evicted do the landlords then get that back rent well because it could be that they get evicted then they don't it's a lose-lose situation but I don't know or it could be a the landlord gets the assistance and the person gets kicked out I'm just curious about it I have to confess that I'm not as familiar with how those payments are processed through the housing agency program so I can't really give you a clear answer on that it stands to reason to me if an application is pending I don't know how that and a tenant is evicted unless the tenant or someone brings that attention of the state program there might be a situation where the application is processed late again I'm not positive about that the city does not directly deal with those applications so I'm not as familiar with that and it would seem as well if the person applied for it and then ended up getting evicted the likelihood they would go seek assistance is pretty low because most people by then will have lost trust in their government but I'm thanks for the clarification lost more trust thank you Council Member Myers just a question for staff I was just curious to know the county is very involved a couple questions I guess Bonnie I know that we were reporting as much as possible rental assistance but I wanted to understand a little bit more about what we've done and whether or not we are still provided whether it's I guess what kinds of assistance we are providing and then I guess for Matt do we know anything from either Assembly Member Stone or Senator Laird in terms of sort of efforts in Sacramento to try to address these payment fallout other things and whether or not there's any any legislation that reminds me of the ED fiasco whether or not there's movement at the state in terms of trying to get this cleaned up so people not sure who can answer those two but I'll throw those out thank you I can speak to Bonnie's at another meeting unfortunately so I'm going to for ED here but thank you all so as far as rental assistance the city has provided the housing authority around 200 today for security deposit so that's one piece of assistance that we're providing the city is also providing has provided cab around 238,000 I'm going to let Tiffany tell me if I'm giving the exact information but that those monies have actually been fully expended at this point right Tiffany the nod yes so and we do know that cab has been working with the county seeking more assistance for their programs so I hope that answers one of the questions yes then Council Member Myers just to add to this comment we're not aware of either Assembly Member Stone or Senator Laird at the point in time that there's any active legislative efforts at least that their offices are involved in there have been discussions in Sacramento around potential extensions or some other type of eviction protections that could be put in place as you might imagine given the concern we all share across the state that they're potentially being a flood of evictions as these protections expire but that work right now unclear what direction it might take if any and the governor's office has signaled as made commitment that current protections would sunset as they were currently planned into part having said that the other question I think you asked was what other work is underway for the regional front we have been in regular conversations with Robert Ratner the director of housing for the county on establishing a more formal partnership around continuing and expanding local support programs that are in place we found the area the most effective providing legal educational and mediation support to renters and the corporation that works with the president so in conversations with the county they were bringing in a proposal to the board of supervisors today to allocate $500,000 in the point and region effort what we would like to do assuming the provisors proves that proposal is in fact helpful at a meeting in the near future ask for a budget of preparation where does that well with the area focus being legal most effective boots on the ground that seems to be the direction it's going and it sounds like Watsonville and and our other partners great thank you yeah I would there's a motion I thought of hey and I'm not seeing that some of these actions being getting in touch with our state leaders also just to get a sense of what's happening very helpful thank you thank you councilmember Myers councilmember Callentari Johnson my question was just addressed right now mayor what mine was also in regards to financing and I was wondering if the board had already put their vote on that at this point that information but I don't know that so but I appreciate the regional approach where to work councilmember Cummings can you just get word mayor and council that the board is comprised of staffs for it thank you for that can not legally enact a victim or a that's my analysis as well as council that were preempted from enacting a further eviction more at this junction of course is available we did receive correspondence from community bridges that the Santa Cruz the number of applications for the housing is community bridges the lead organization for managing the housing process in the county but the city of Santa Cruz the number of applications is 132 applicants with only 300 funded so far and so you know it seemed that the natural next step would have been an extension to enact those applicants as they wait for funding for hearing from state level that disbursement is low so what I'm also hearing is that the that staff is recommending regional support systems to support those forms of funds that are needed to let's see tenant education legal assistance tenant education you see my notes here are there is that kind of sanctuary or conflict resolution center I know that Jessica Dewitt mentioned already deposit program housing authority and action board funding are all those current and valid resources available for anybody who is based on potential eviction April 1st yes those are ongoing programs and Mayor Verna would just add that there is some lengthy detail describing the today's agenda and there are links well staff report what we have envisioned on the regional partner expansion of what's described there again honing in on the areas that are going to be most effective and is there any timeline on that we're nearing the end of the month the timeline is immediate so it's good news that the Board of Supervisors approved that initial allocation of funding today and our plan will be follow suit and bring for the budget thank you and my last question for the attorney we had several community members regarding changing eviction notices 15 days or 90 days there were several requests for that can you those options yeah some council members might recall that in November of 2019 the council directed my office to prepare an ordinance that required 90 days notice for evictions and it was introduced but it never received a second reading because we received a letter from the apartment owners association that cited a case called apartment owners association of Santa Clara valley I think versus the city of mountain view that holds that the subject of the notice required to initiate eviction meetings is clearly spelled out in state law and therefore the city is preempted by the unlawful detainer statute enacting enacting an ordinance that would have a different notice period spelled out in the state law there is no way to narrowly focus an extension for those awaiting housing I can't say that there is no way to do it what I provide the council with is my assessment of what the likelihood of being challenged in court would be and the likelihood of that challenge being successful the council sometimes weighs a risk spectrum and gives direction with the understanding of the likelihood I would add though if a legal challenge is brought and the city is unsuccessful we are also likely responsible for the plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs so it's not an inexpensive gamble to take. Vice mayor Watkins and council member Myers. I appreciate the clarification just because I have the agenda and the recommendations include the sanctuary and the handbook and the security deposit program housing authority and so on so it's nice to know we have community partners who are working with us to support our residents. In the recommendation it doesn't include to have a budget of appropriation or to return with budget of appropriation in the recommendation I would add something that you're wanting more clarity and direction on. I figure as much thanks for the question council member Watkins I also can certainly clarify that that is the direction where staff are already working to identify the funding I would also just add that we have a meeting tomorrow that with our community partners around the county that the work is moving quickly and our hope would be to return back to normal. Great and it's my understanding that this mobilization of our region will be in place at the time of expiration even though our council member Myers who are muted sorry yeah I would be willing to after you take it out to public comment provide that direction and emotion clarify that thank you so you will now take this out to public comment if you are interested in commenting on expiration of statewide of citizens moratorium for additional legal aid and support for tenants affected by COVID-19 raise your hand either by dialing star 9 on your phone or selecting the raise hand on your webinar calls that's your turn to school hear an announcement that you have been unmuted and the timer will then be set to 3 minutes I did have one and I have been approved for extra time and that is Barbara Meister with COPA let's get out to attendees and I see Barbara Meister with her hand up go ahead and unmute yourself thank you welcome Mayor Bruner Council I would like to thank you for the presentation I would like to thank Barbara Meister for representing COPA 23 member institutions across Monterey and Santa Cruz County and many of you have been meeting with us over the last couple of weeks and receiving our letters and emails to state your attention to this looming crisis and your ability to access some of the resources you mentioned so Elizabeth's phone number is 605141 that and would you be able to unmute here and I will use whatever balance of time she has Barbara I am not seeing that number Elizabeth Munoz there we go hi good afternoon my name is Elizabeth and I am a member of Polycrus and the leader of COPA and I just wanted to talk a little bit about my experience with some of the programs that you just can and how I've been dealing with looking for helping my experience in homeless and other things that you have been talking for the last 40 minutes and first of all I want to start off by saying that I was affected by COVID-19 very hard me and my husband lost our job my husband lost two full time job I lost my full time job so after that we struggled we had to spend all of our savings we even had to ask for loans personal loans so I end up applying for house rentals which took me a long long time I applied back when the second round started and I didn't hear from then until November and so in November I landlord that paid and he also got his insurance and he decided that he wanted to sell this property so we had to start looking for a new place and that's when I looked for resources some of the resources just mentioned like PRLA I attended to them like they can only help citizens and people with permanent status here in United States they don't help immigrants or people that only have a work permit that's one I also been calling Housing Authority for security deposit help and when I talk to someone in the front office mentioned this program I got a pamphlet from Community Bridges saying that there was a program so when I called them and mentioned this program they didn't even know what I was talking about that such program didn't even exist or it wasn't valid anymore and from what I heard from someone who was talking just now it looks like programs are still valid so I don't know if that person was there that day was misinformed about the program the other thing is just navigating the property management the requirements that are out there just get a place like $9,000 for each person so each person has to be earning that much money each person has to qualify on their own making three times the rent each person has to have two years of employment which many of us don't currently have because we lost our job when the pandemic hit paying $45 to $50 credit you know just some of us don't even have that amount of money just to mobile like $11,000 $12,000 is way too much Elizabeth that time the timer has rang thank you for sharing your experience and Barbara thank you for allowing the time to talk about that comment from Kopa so thank you we have our next attendee public comment from Raymond Cansino go ahead good evening council good evening mayor thank you for your time today my name is Raymond Cansino and I'm the CEO of Community Bridges I'm calling in to ask that the council add some additional motions on to the table and move forward on a conversation that includes letters of writing both Senator Laird's office Assemblymember Stone and Rivas in relation to the housing program as well as a letter to the governor's office there is no reason why we all should get around the table afraid of tenants being at a opportunity and at a point in which it might occur when they had public interest of trying to use the state program to get the necessary resources and needs in order to pay rent and state current this isn't just a tenant in the landlord it's not just a renters issue this is also a landlord issue in the sense that a lot of these landlords are also waiting for funds to come in to ensure that they're able to pay their property taxes sure that they're able to comply with the law we really feel like mediation is a way forward to prevent unlawful containers from ruining renters future rental opportunities and an opportunity in which landlords can easily engage with tenants in a safe space that they're likely to get better outcomes than seeking unlawful containers. I think what's critically important today is that you consider additional funding and defense collaborative that was started because we saw the train about the hit car about a couple months ago we really hope that you continue to also look at other policy solutions because regardless of how much money you forward today you're not going to have as much as a significant impact as you would if you change your policies and look for other types of ways to minimize unlawful containers. One way is to write into the county court system to ask that they inform both parties before submitting an unlawful container about the opportunities to get free mediation through one of our services or through contracted services that we're going to be hoping to help support families in the near future with the support of the county. So I really hope that you also consider an extension of the moratorium in a way 90 days post. I understand that it does not impact the people that are impacted during the payment period of March 31st but frankly the legislation is not supposed to limit your role and your ability to have a policy that does do rental moving forward. An eviction cannot proceed if it's in reference to back payment of those dates that is absolutely true but the payments and what's going to trigger an eviction unlawful containers for people not paying rent in April. April 1st to whatever date is on their contract so if you do a rental moratorium for that time you're able to stop evictions and that's something that I think you should consider. Thank you for your public comment. Our next our next pending has the name I am watching you. Hi since you may not have read my submitted letters since they were uploaded it seems just before the meeting I'll kind of read the one about this item. I asked how do you figure your wisdom exceeded the states deciding when the eviction moratorium in. I remind the stay at home orders and eviction moratoriums will affect the long time and the stay at home ended last June which was also a long time ago now the freedom to move about and get one's affairs in order has then had a long time to play out there is also an explosion of job opportunities so I don't really give unemployment much thought is an excuse. I don't see any version of this idea of a blanket city moratorium extension or any mandatory mediation or any new contemplated mandatory restrictions on landlords being anything other than crashing landlord right if the state doesn't send out payments it didn't send out payments and that is hardly any landlords fault but you were and will are still possibly serving landlords somehow pay the price for government and attitude with an ill-considered one-sided act and I don't think you were told you can't do that. Here's the story in a nutshell. The leftist sound believe in state worship authoritarianism a big government welfare state handouts and victimhood to property rights and they lean socialist power comment. The rest of us believe in liberty limited government with independence property rights self-reliance personal responsibility capitalism in the free market. I wonder which of those the council would like to comment. I would admit the government really messed up the covid response and not make landlords panning more for government mistakes and return to normal. For your comment our next panel will go ahead and unmute. Welcome. Thank you so much. My name is Tony Switzer and I'm the community bridges family collective operation manager and the program manager for the housing system. I want to clarify that from an eviction prevention standpoint the issue current issue is related to the following. Once we enter into April landlords can leave eviction for nonpayment of rent even if funding is pending in the housing system. So we're like tenants being evicted while landlords will still in retrospect receive the eviction for eviction. The applicants that we work with for the housing system are experiencing a lot of issues. Our clients want to pay their rent but has been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. What we really need is a few months for the housing is key program to catch up with this. Thank you so much. Thank you for your comment. Are there any other attendees that would like to comment on this agenda item? Agenda item number 29. Seeing none I will close public comment and bring it back to council for discussion and deliberation and action. Council member Myers and council member Cummings. Council member Myers we have your hand up. Sorry about that. I'll go ahead and make a motion mayor. We just finished public comment so everybody's done there. I would make a motion to direct city manager to engage with the county on the regional efforts regarding maintaining hopefully maintaining people from being evicted especially with investment structures that county has put together financing for some of the services that we can use and then I would add to that that we also possibly also get an update for state legislators on if possible. I mean to the council and I think that one more time for clarity. Kind of long. I would make a motion to direct manager to engage the regional and section efforts of the county of San Francisco other jurisdictions including coming back to the council for approval of efforts and request manager to contact for state legislators to obtain an update on the efforts by our representatives in terms of our deadline and the home key the state funding that's current. So we have a motion by council member Meyers. Is there a second? Second. Okay council member Cummings seconded and council member Meyers have anything else to add or okay so council member Cummings had your hand raised and then council member Golder. Tony I have a question on this because I had motion language that was similar but also had another motion that I was going to make that would provide additional direction after we vote on this motion there is the opportunity to think another separate motion. Additional motion. Okay. Yeah so I'll support the motion which sounds like would provide direction I would just ask for a friendly amendment was in terms of directing whether that staff or the mayor to write letters to our representatives also urging them to do what's in their power take this up as an emergency item during their session to extend the eviction protections till applications have been complete and funds have been distributed so I don't know if that would be acceptable but the idea that the letter add that into the state election sure. I'll send the language maybe over to maybe I can I think we can just capture it along with getting an update from our state legislature legislators on efforts at state level to also request and explore whether there is efforts to um what was your language that's my I think the direction we're hearing is right there and letters for local elected delegation encouraging action on okay I'm fine with that I mean you can put up the language if I think that's fine. Council Member Colder I had my hand up second but I just want to and I'm not going to make a lot of comments here but I just want to say that I do know three people that have been kicked out for lack of payment of rent and all three of the people have been kicked out by master tenants so tenants that rent a place and then kick them out when they rent a room and so I'm just curious when the landlord's not necessarily involved but there's a landlord someone acting as a landlord that's they call like a master tenant I guess and so if there's a way to include in the language that there's protection for those people that are like sub letting places and just kind of being taken advantage of that are not clearly at least in a position of power does that make sense from a legal perspective a sub tenant is afforded the same protection as it has tenant rents directly from the owner so I believe but I believe it's um it's included thank you I think that's where the legal education and support necessary and why that's requested a lot of people don't really understand or know what rights they have council member brown sorry I think my question was Anne sorry council member Cummings your hand is still up I can put it down for now but I'm going to I'm prepared to make an additional motion after we move on okay let's take with this motion that's on the floor um so we have a motion by council member Myers a second by council member Cummings may we have a roll call vote um I just clarified there was a friendly amendment in the mayor write a letter legislatures um clearing emerge or urging emergency action starting housing is payment person I mean I think sorry I was just going to say that um I think it might be worth concluding those letters to take action to avoid evictions um during this time while people are awaiting their assistance this provides clarity it's not just about taking action really urge them to have this taken up by the assembly okay do you have that I have but that's in time we have um a motion to direct the manager to engage in a regional eviction effort with the county and other jurisdictions regarding people from being bring back on those state legislatures as soon as possible on efforts related March 31st friendly amendment Cummings direct the mayor to write a letter to assembly member Spone Senator Laird expressing the need to extend the COVID-19 eviction protection for individuals who have applied state rentals and urge them to do what is in their power to urge the state assembly and senate to take it up as an emergency item during session to extend eviction protection until the applicants have been completed and funds have been distributed there's a little bit more language too around writing the governor as well because the governor could take executive action and direct the mayor to write a letter to assembly member Spone Senator Laird and Governor Newsom expressing the need to extend the COVID-19 eviction protection for individuals at a state level okay okay is the maker of the motion amenable to that friendly amendment council member Myers okay okay can we have a roll call vote hi it's frozen that motion passes in favor one absolute okay council member Cummings thank you you know one thing I want to say is that this is a major government failure of the people during one of their times of greatest need many of these community members have applied for this assistance to follow the guidelines set by the state and our local community to help protect them during a time when our government told them not to work stay at home to create a good community these people have gone through the process to work with their landlords and our waiting payment the government's fault that they were not able to process the applications in a timely manner given that our state government is not willing to address the shortfalls currently we need to do something to help protect renters and some of our lowest income residents and landlords who have not received rent into this program the problem here is that people need time for their applications to be processed and I'm happy to support this funding for more legal services for tenants resources for tenants but if people have already submitted their application to our waiting payments we need to do what we can to give them more time this council has spoken about taking bold actions and moving forward with the threat of and risk of lawsuits in the past on other items and this is a situation where I believe we owe to a resident close to impact by COVID-19 to provide them with more time and so I've made I had a long motion and part of what council member Myers had just made was in that and so he's a part of the pieces that wouldn't get too complicated but have additional language that I would like to pose I know that a couple of these items likely not get as much support and so I'm happy to divide the motion but the first part of the motion would be bullets one and three direct staff bring back coordinates for emergency adoption to provide eviction protections for individuals who have applied for COVID-19 rental assistance and have not yet received their assistance on or before the first meeting in April they'll be retroactive to April 1st 2022 bring back an item determined whether an extension or sunset is necessary at the first meeting in August second part of this motion will be to also change fiction notice period from three to 15 days to allow more time and then submitted applications for COVID-19 rental assistance to learn their options and reduce mental stress and then I don't know if I can make two motions in a motion but the other part of the motion would be to direct mayor to write a letter to county courts district attorney's office and judges to promote and recommend mediation services prior to submitting unlawful detainer the goal of resolving disputes and avoiding evictions that was the middle bullet yeah that was just the second bullet the middle one that I read Tony the Tony I guess the question is this would be two potentially two separate motions if not I know we can't have more than three motions on the floor I would assume that your bullet number three folded into the first bullet that was the intent that seems like one motion second motion direct the mayor to write a letter I would recommend that that you address the letter if that's the direction of the council the presiding judge of the superior court and omit the district attorney's office who has really no involvement whatsoever in the function of the DA's office is to enforce criminal status civil unlawful if we could have that language updated then it sounded like the third bullet could just incorporate it into the first I have a question for Tony the eviction notice did from three days in days my understanding is that we were in my opinion I would say that the same analysis would apply to emergency protections for individuals who have pending applications under the housing program so I don't think I need to reiterate my advice on that I think councilmember Cummings understands it and that's the direction of the motion by council we'll bring that ordinance go ahead and second that I have another question we have a first a motion by councilmember Cummings a second councilmember Brown the timeline for this emergency ordinance stops I read the motion as directing that it be brought back at the first meeting in April and then it would be made retroactive to April 1st actually it says honor before the first meeting in April so if a special meeting was held then before April 1st it could come then too or it would come at the first meeting in April and be retroactively set for April 1st and then the idea would be that it would bring back item determine whether or not the first meeting in August or sunset would be necessary of that ordinance at the first meeting in August so given that we don't meet in July if by August first meeting in August everyone's received their applications and this is only protecting people who have submitted applications so if all the applications have been processed and people receive their funds by the first meeting in August we can set it if they haven't and their applications are still being processed so I guess if there is an opinion of no legal recourse for us to take this action I'm trying to understand your yeah so my rationale behind this is that this council and other council have made decisions that have put us in positions where we're legally susceptible is passing ordinances related to homelessness that may or may not violate Martin versus Boise moving in campments we've done plenty of things and we've been in losses with ACLU but this is a situation where we're talking about protecting some of the most impacted people who are housed who've been impacted by COVID-19 part of why there's building in this time period is to demonstrate where to go to the courts that we are trying to we're not trying to say that no one can be affected we're really trying to focus on people who have applied for assistance or awaiting that assistance I'm also trying to demonstrate with that time period that there is a sunset period on this and there's opportunities for reconsideration and we have that with many of our emergency ordinances related to CZU fire COVID-19 where we update every 60 days and so that's another opportunity for us to provide an update as well and again as I said this is really to protect those who have applied for assistance and are awaiting similar to what we heard earlier people are put out and they're currently awaiting assistance finding a new home is going to be difficult and it's not clear whether or not landlords will get the funding it sounds like yes that's the case but then those tenants have a home and might face many challenges to finding a home if they get put out so I think that we weigh a lot of risks and this is a situation where we're really trying to maintain the housing for hundreds of residents in our community who are facing eviction I'm going to move on to vice mayor if you have your hand raised and council member Myers yes thanks mayor I'll start my comments by just saying I think we all share our most important role who are subject to the impacts of this and I feel really given that we're partnering with the county and the region to provide what we can at the local level for people who are impacted and I think that coming from that place I think for me in terms of what we've heard from our city attorney as well as the county council that the risk associated with the first bullet in direction isn't necessarily I think worth but I think we can do it forcefully and knowing that L.A. is now tied up in the lawsuit in regards to this so for me I think in and in the interest of time knowing we have to put in two additional items and this is not part of the original motion that I think I suggest that we split the motion and then take the vote so I mean we have to take the vote on the first bullet and then is the motion maker amenable to that? The intent was to have it be two separate motions the mayor also has the authority okay the hands went down so yeah mayor I'm sorry I left my hand up I don't need anything else so we have two motions on the floor we have the first motion is a motion direct staff to bring back an ordinance for emergency adopters provide eviction protections for individuals who applied for COVID-19 rental assistance have not yet received on or before the first meeting in April that would be retroactive the first 22 and bring back an item to determine whether an extension or sunset is necessary at the first meeting in August you should have noticed that three days will allow more time dependent on COVID-19 rentals to learn their options and we have a roll call vote no and for the record it's due to the legal constraints that we heard from attorney early on holder and I just want to apologize for having my camera off I keep getting dropped and so I'm trying to stay in the meeting I'm sorry I'm sorry that we were voting on the second one my vote is a no no okay that motion does not pass I know and then the next motion direct mayor to write a letter to county court actually there was language not direct mayor to write a letter judges of the county court promote and recommend service prior to an unlawful container full of resolving edict we have a roll call vote could I suggest one minor edit to write a letter to the presiding judge presiding judge of the county court councilmember Cummings are you okay with that language okay do we have a roll call vote sorry John that motion passes unanimously okay I'd also if these staff and there was a caller who made a comment about new programs and I wonder if any councilmember might make the motion or we can direct staff to look at the effectiveness of the validity of the existing programs that are the resources and court programs that are in place and to make sure they're functioning as good the mayor in response to that the direction we've received the council to engage in this regional partnership will be part of that discussion with all of our partners to identify the most effective areas of assessment but I would argue that that's built in the pressure we've received of course the council wants to clarify that's our intent I wanted to make sure and call that out if something is not available or not working make sure that staff councilmember Cummings I was going to make that motion since you asked I don't need to help on my hand thank you councilmember Cummings okay forward to writing these letters and to an update from the staff after tomorrow's meeting and look forward to ideas of funding amounts that we can county's 500,000 these residents for funds so we continue sure okay so now we will move on I believe you're at the time of a closed session item and this is a conference with legal accounts for existing litigation don't work for the city of Santa Cruz at all Santa Cruz County court number 2620731 there are any members of the public who would like on the closed session item for 30 please raise your hand by dialing star nine on your phone or selecting please hand in the webinar polls for your when it is your time to hear an announcement that you have been unmuted the timer will then be set hang up once you've commented on your item for any attendees that wish to comment on this closed session item 30 on the agenda today none will bring it back and we will adjourn the closed session we will resume at 30 for oral city clerk ready that a yes good evening and welcome to our 30 p.m. session of the March 22nd 2022 meeting of the Santa Cruz City Council I would like to ask the clerk to call roll thank you mayor and members is it coming mayor Watkins and mayor for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if you want to call in during oral communications now is the time to call in instructions should be on your screen oral communications is an opportunity for members of the community's on items that are not listed on today's agenda you are interested in addressing the council raise your hand either by dialing star nine on your phone or selecting raise hand in the webinar on your you will have three minutes remember that this is the time for council to hear from the public we are not able to engage in dialogue with the public but when we are able we will address any questions raised after oral I will take it out who are attendees I see one hand raise the name I am Watkins yes hello without specific reference to any agenda items I would generally remind you again that workers have an equal right not to join unions and any one sided support for union formation coming from you is violating the equal right of those who do not want to join and you should always then stay out of the private business labor relations regarding union formation I would also remind you that the money allocated into the water departments budget should all come from users of water delivery and likewise no money should be reallocated out of the water budget for any other purpose than the delivery of water water budget revenue used for any other purpose than delivering water is a total misuse of your monopoly and it is a hidden pack and it needs a full stop when contemplating such it is unethical and abusive to do otherwise alchemic was a Marxist who believed quite strongly in violent retribution as a means to an end this and advocating the complete destruction of the criminal justice system was the thrust of black lives matter movement nearly from the inception managing to achieve eventually an overall massive increase in crime and violence including massive increases in black lives. That self admittedly Marxist organization is involved in a missing $60 million donation staff who Monica Grant of the BLM was charged for 18 counts of fraud just days ago and the BLM continues to inflict the harms by its anarchist supporter the ill-approved BLM billboard was vandalized but it is also almost completely worn out now regardless of the outcome of compensation for that vandalism could not permit it to be repainted as it is a glorification symbol of that violent Marxist anarchist and fraudulent national organization of the same name the badly needs of defunding itself and perhaps some other remembrance that George Floyd can be considered without the BLM stigma attached to it and not in front of city hall but perhaps over by the police station which would be better. Who else if anyone by now needs a remembrance of the lessons of excessive police support who also need to stop regurgitating the government COVID narrative for instance by endless emergency extensions and to get educated as to the harms COVID policy has caused including lockdowns the harm of coercively applied mandates indiscriminately applied to those with previously infected superior immunity to be forced to accept the risk of mRNA side effects or on near zero risk children the total ignorance displayed toward the age health risk differentials the joked in effectiveness of cloth masks really limited effectiveness of vaccines the denial of effective early stage drugs like ivermectin for profit and the indiscriminate violations of rights generally and show me your papers mandate the immoral and powerful policies need to change and never occur again I see no leadership coming from you but I do acknowledge the powerful forces taking vengeance at canceling those in the false government. Thank you. Are there any other attendees that wish to comment on the world which is items not on none we'll bring it back to the council and we have finished item early but I would like to call a break until the next item as we have not had a break so we will return at seven for our next item which is item number 31 annual housing element and general plan progress report. Thank you. We're returning from break if council members turn on their cameras welcome back. Okay next up on our next council agenda is item number 31 annual housing element and general plan progress report for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if this is an item you wish to comment on now is the time to call in using the instructions on your screen. Order will be a presentation of the item by staff followed by questions from council you will then take public comment and then return to council for deliberation and action this time I will now hand it over to that looks like have our Catherine Donovan senior planner and Matt Van Qua will be the next item. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening councilman airburner let me just bring up my PowerPoint so presentation tonight is for our general housing annual reports for last year oops technical difficulties you can see the screen but I can't seem to forward it Catherine okay let me stop sharing technical difficulties technical difficulties it worked out I can start speaking to this but we're getting the there we go okay go ahead next slide please okay so these by the state they're submitted to the housing and community development department and the governor's office of research and planning one is on the general plan and the progress we've made towards implementing the general plan that report has no specific layout requirements and is more a general report on changes to zoning general plan amendments interagency cooperation infill development and major project development in contrast the housing has a lengthy and complex Excel spreadsheet that is provided by the state that individual jurisdictions fill out and that report is relatively easy until about 2018 when new requirements came into play and then additional new requirements were added last year and that has made this report much more complex but it also gives us some really excellent data these reports used to only be required of non-charter cities but they're now required of all cities and they also if we do not file these reports we lose out on a lot of state grant funding much of which we actually use so it's really important for us and the process for the reports is that we present them to the city council council accepts the reports and recs that we submit them to HCD and OPR and the deadline for submitting the reports is a first slide and next slide the first section is on the general plan report and this is just an illustration of some of the major projects that we've worked on or are reporting updates for we've got the city station north jesse street project the city arts recovery design or cards program an update on the rail trail and the go to santa christ project an update on our objective standards work and on the resilient post work and the 130 center street project an update on the climate action plan and on the street smart program and then the last picture is 415 national bridges next slide please the housing element report this is a report on how the city is meeting its regional housing needs allocation for rena I'm sure we've been through this many times but the rena is comes down from the state to the local government agencies our is am bag and there's a report in a year reporting period this year it's 9 years because they are adjusting the cycle to match the transportation cycle and our total rena assignment for this 5th cycle is 747 units big excitement this past year has been they've been working on the rena totals for the 6th cycle and statewide those numbers have gone up about 4 times that's the average statewide number the latest draft number we've seen the total is 2736 units for the city of Santa Cruz so it's almost 5 times the size of our 5th cycle next slide and this table illustrates where we are at meeting our rena in this period so we have 2 years left with 2022 and 2023 and we have exceeded all of our housing needs except in the very low income category this year we had 1 very large 205 unit project that had no low income units because they had provided a property that was adjacent to our specific station project in lieu of providing the affordable housing unit so could get a lot more units by acquiring that property but it means that we don't see a large number of affordable units for this year next slide and this I was trying to give you kind of an overview of what the report is telling us and so this is an overall housing activity we had 709 planning applications submitted that includes not only building applications but building applications that did not require planning permit which a large number of people use no longer require planning permit so they were in that category also then for planning permits approved had a total of 445 building permits issued 11 and building permits final 78 and as you can see in the income categories as you go across in the planning applications submitted planning applications we're doing really well on the very low income projects and we're also doing well on low income since we've met our moderate and above moderate we need to look at those but it's interesting to see just the total numbers and I have to tell you these these are not additive some projects submitted their applications and had their applications approved or had their applications approved and applied for building permits so there's some overlap here so you can't just count up those gross totals next slide when we presented our report last year there was a lot of questions about how we calculated the costs that rents for the ADUs and at that time we had been using a survey that was done during the process of updating the ADU ordinance so the survey had created to get information for the ordinance not necessarily to use for the annual report so this year we prepared a new survey that was specifically to get the kind of information that we need for this report and the housing department in the housing division in the economic development department sends out annual reporting letters to ADU owners and piggyback on their letters and sent out a link to the survey also allowed people to print out the survey and submit a hard copy and the results of that survey showed that our rents both the mean and the medium rents the HCD low income rent limits so we were able to use to categorize the ADUs that had building permits this year as low income units the other interesting that we found from the ADU survey was that a large of units almost as many units as are being rented to of their household are being used by family members or friends at low or no rents so although those rents are not reflected in this population it means there's another I think it was 47 units out there that are basically being rented to either either rent to be or at significantly reduced rents and there were also I think it was around who's less than more than 5 units that were reported as being used for by friends and family or as guest housing so they would come for weekends but not pay for it like an Airbnb or something next slide in addition to the housing that is in the report there are some projects that were approved in one category or applied in one category in 2020 and did not progress to the next category in 2021 and so they didn't get counted in there and particularly important of those are the 119 Coral Street project which is a total of 121 units, 120 of them are very low income units and the 818 Pacific Avenue Pacific Station South that has a total of 70 units 59 are very low 10 are low income and those projects are in the process the Coral Street submitted its building application building permit application in December of 2021 and the building permits are expected to be issued for the 818 Pacific Avenue in April so just next month and then there's two other interesting projects the Cedar Street Apartments is 65 units 35 very low income and 29 low income and they submitted the application in February of this year so they weren't included in that last report and we've got the library mixed use project which the planning application is pending on that and the reason I bring these out is the thing that we're missing in our is the 123 units of very low income housing and this illustrates that in all likelihood we actually will be able to meet that that reading a target next slide which brings me to SB 35 SB 35 is a state legislation that requires that cities that have not met or are in progress towards meeting their needs be required to accept housing development projects on a streamlined review project processed with no secrets so if we have met our target by the end of the cycle then for the first four years of the next cycle we are not subject to SB 35 if we have met our of moderate bootles but not our low or very low then we're in the position that we're in now where if projects are submitted with 50% or more of lower income units anything for 80% AMI or less then they are eligible for that streamlining process if we have not met our above moderate goals or proportional share then would be subject to SB 35 for projects that as a state law reads that are at 10% are providing 10% lower income units for cities inclusionary requirement whichever is greater and since almost projects are required to meet the inclusionary requirement if we do not meet the above moderate totals by the next year of our next cycle all projects would have to go through this streamline process and this table below shows the difference between the sixth cycle which is on the top and the fifth cycle which is the lower cycle which is the one we're in right now so this cycle building 180 very low income units and next cycle we need to provide 847 and the other numbers are proportionally next slide so the next steps are providing work in our sixth cycle housing element it will be due in December of 2023 and we're in the process of preparing our RFP to go out for a consultant to help us with this work previous housing elements we paired in house but there are added environments now that we don't have the staff and we don't have the expertise so we will be looking for a consultant to help us with that the other thing we should be aware of is that because numbers on this sixth cycle arena are so high we may need to rezone properties in order to demonstrate that there are sufficient appropriately zoned properties to meet our arena it's possible that combination of SB 9 which allows second units on most single family parcels and our downtown expansion project which is likely to expand the allowed housing in the downtown area it's possible that that combination allows the expanded downtown housing allowance may we may be able to meet the arena without rezoning but we might not next slide and so the recommendation is for the city council to accept on general plan housing element progress reports and to direct staff to submit reports to the governor's office of planning and research and the California department of housing and community development and I'm happy to answer any questions thank you for that presentation let's see are any council members do you have any council member Brown thank you for the presentation thank you for all of your work try to make sense of the very challenging reporting requirement and provide us with really clear overview I have a couple of questions stated section and I appreciate explanation with the slide that provided us in how you made that decision and I am recalling that in the conversation we had about I can't remember was that 2 years 3 years ago now where ADUs ended up being put in the moderate category as a result of that your survey that it seemed like within that there was pretty wide lattice among the the rents charged for those and the survey questions that you gave that were really interesting and I'm just wondering if there's possibility of council members not sure if getting more information at a more granular level because you just look at for a lot of the areas but when you just look at the rent and the way that's calculated both the median and median rent that's low-income but it doesn't really tell us how many are actually rented at a low-income level doesn't tell us how many units rent for example low or above so that's the kind of information that I think had a better understanding of the character of that market it's just hard based on what I know and again it's total it's hard to believe based on what I know friends pay ADUs that they're really low-income and I think about it that just doesn't feel like it matches the experience so I guess that's why the survey data might be helpful I have to say the first thing that I found really shocking is what is considered low-income rent to be those are not low-income rents they're quite high and that's because it's based on the median income and our median income is pretty high here I can let me double check legally whether I can share the results of the individual surveys with you and if that's if there's no problem with that I can send you the spreadsheet it's pretty interesting and I didn't get as much I mean we've got 79 responses but we've probably got less than 40 of them included the rent so it wasn't as helpful as it could have been I recognize not necessarily representative but it was and it yeah and anonymized without the identifying and great Council Member Brown that was actually one of my questions as well around the ADUs the how many responses so that was very helpful and also I was curious if the if it was for family members that free or low rent that part of it I didn't include my definitions at all because that just skewed everything so personally I think yes have all those units that are being used either free or low income but that isn't representative of what somebody who's not related to somebody with an ADU is going to pay so they were not those were not included because I would think that that would for simply analyzing rent matter the relationship of the renter and that would be better in my opinion we that's use the rents I try to bend over backwards to make it kind of question proof for HCD so that if we were ever questioned about how we came up with the number and why we were doing it that way that I could test the straight face test and you can follow up one more quick one that I recalled and this is related to the the table I think it's a one target of the low income target of 118 only I'm just trying to understand restrictions it looks like 101 are deed restricted is that for those units that are going to go offline or the non deed restricted ones are I think almost exclusively or might be exclusively ADUs okay got it thank you council member coming I have a question I had one question related to that last statement council member Brown I'm just wondering what is the city doing track the non deed restricted units throughout time because right now it might be that it's in a low income category but since it's not deed restricted then there's nothing that's tying that unit to being left as a low income unit so I'm just wondering if the city is doing anything track those no we're not I see it as two different things one is what we have to do to satisfy HCD and the other is what's happening there on the ground and if it were not a question of HCD we didn't have to fill arena I wouldn't count those ADUs at all I wouldn't count anything that's not deed restricted because there's nothing holding it at that rent but because we do have arena and HCD does allow us to count non deed restricted units and they don't require us I go ahead and take advantage of that that's not to say not doing everything we can to get as many deed restricted low income units as we can and I have to say I'm thrilled at what's going on right now we have so much affordable housing in the pipeline it's really exciting I just wish I could claim it so that we would get just as 123 units we need and then the rest of the next cycle they won't let us save the next cycle so we just have to hope that the timing is right appreciate that answer thank you thank you are there any other council member questions before I take it out to public but this time I will take it out to public comment it's very interesting commenting on item number 31 annual housing element and general progress report raise your hand here by dialing star 9 on your phone or selecting raise hand on the webinar controls when it's your turn to still hear an announcement that you have been unmuted the timer will then be set three minutes and these and I'm not any hands raised I will give it another seconds and in none I will bring this item back for deliberation and emotion full no hands raised so member Cummings and vice mayor Watkins new mayor I'll move to accept that report and actually I should state that except the 2021 general plan and housing element annual progress report and the next staff submit the reports that was a planning and research California department of housing and development thank you I'll second that we have a motion by council member Cummings and a second by vice mayor Watkins for the comment otherwise we'll put the roll call vote and we have a roll call vote mayor Brunner hi motion passed is unanimous thank you so much for joining us and for your information progress okay on our agenda is item number 32 sidewalk vending ordinance program and course request for members of the public for this meeting if this item is one you wish to comment on now is the time to call in seeing the instructions on your order will be a presentation of the item by staff followed by council questions and then we will take public comment and return to council celebration hand over to staff presentation and it looks like we have Elizabeth Smith as welcome Elizabeth Smith thank you so much mayor Brunner we are here tonight to talk about sidewalk vending I have a presentation that I'll share so we can get started thanks for having us to talk about this really important issue for the city right now especially as we're moving into the busier tourist seasons we are here to talk about an issue that is pressing first I want to acknowledge Sarah de Leon who recently left the city and has been working on this issue over the past several months and I picked up the baton and am here with you today along with my colleagues who I also want to acknowledge in the departments across the city the city attorney's office the planning and community development department parks and recreation the police department and public works are the departments who are really working on this issue across the city as we bring it tonight so I'll start with some background of how we got very hard today we're here because of the law SB 946 and that was passed in 2018 and it says it was really focused on entrepreneurship and making sure that low income immigrant and entrepreneurs could build businesses and make a living through street vending and so the law was really focused on making it easier for those folks to do that work it specifies what cities can do and what they can't do so it says sidewalk vending based on public health safety and welfare concerns and so you'll see those things addressed as we talk through the ordinance with you this evening it says that we can't regulate based on perceived economic competition or not liking that a vendor is out on the street in front of a business and that we are there are very few cases where we can do complete vending prohibitions and so it makes for complicated ordinance and so we invite you to come on the sidewalk vending journey with us as we go through all of the elements that we're bringing to this evening to get a little bit more granular we are basically limited to the ways that we can regulate are based on time, place, and manner so how is a person vending when are they vending where are they vending and making sure that we're spelling out what those time, place, and manner restrictions are but we can't regulate specific area or making folks ask permission from another business or in public parks or the number of vendors unless it really directly relates back to that health, safety, and welfare so you'll hear that over and over again tonight safety and welfare as the core element of how we built the ordinance. Just a little bit of background on vending in Santa Cruz we've had two places where we've had significant sidewalk vending in the city in the past and as we think about the pre-SP 946 time and the post SP 946 time Pacific Avenue there is vending on Pacific Avenue today it is not regulated it is okay great in the pre before SP 946 we had permitted spaces on Pacific Avenue we had a four hour time limit and it was a first come first serve system so you had folks lining up to get the spaces that were there we've had a couple of pilot programs on Beach Street one in 2019 where we had permitted spaces and those were also first come first serve and then most recently in the summer of 2021 we assigned spaces on the ideal deck to allow for street vending and we're going to and Tony Elliot's going to talk about the experience that we had in the summer of 2021 next but I just want to say like all of these rubrics had problem and what we're hoping to do tonight is to bring forward some clear regulation so that individuals who want to bend and the city folks who are enforcing the law have a clear understanding and a clear focus on this is how we as a city or citywide we are managing issues so I'm going to turn it over to Park Director Tony Elliot and he's going to talk us through what we experienced last summer right thank you Elizabeth and yeah good afternoon or good evening council members appreciate the opportunity to talk about this with you all and appreciate your involvement in this we did our Mayor's cleanup program last year so I know you were all very involved hands on down on the beach aware of a lot of these issues last summer but I'll briefly cover just some of the issues that we face and really kind of on behalf of a few different departments here but definitely from the perks and recreation standpoint and the wharf and crew including some of our temporary seasonal staff and our real boots on the ground staff work across this last summer so next slide please alright so in terms of programming last year what did we do so last year we tried a new approach we had a lottery system where we selected six vendors for designated locations so those locations were located near Cal Beach kind of the deck above Cal Beach and then the ideal decks kind of a wooden deck there by the ideals six locations where permitted vending was allowed and we selected a lottery last spring what happened over the course of the summer that the council is aware of and the community is aware of well documented in local media and we got a lot of questions from the public last year we had a lot more than six vendors so we had vendors all up and down the boardwalk on some side streets and so those six vendors they were permitted actually ended up leaving their spot locations and kind of mixed in down closer to the boardwalk to get better locations so just dozens and dozens of vendors 30, 40 sometimes upwards of 50 vendors down there on some of the busy holiday weekends last year through the planning department we had a lot of compliance team work to educate and inform vendors last year on the permit and the policy that we had in place the parks and rec crew along with the public works department we started trash collection on and around in beach street area in fact spent well over $100,000 parks and recreation on overtime dumpsters and leveraged a lot of volunteers as well to assist with cleaning up and then a lot of enforcement so significant enforcement from the police department again focusing on health safety and welfare really beginning in July next slide please in terms of some of the impacts these are four and I want to highlight the second and third bullet points on here in particular but we did have a fair amount of aggressive behavior last year we had fights in terms of just you know over locations and kind of turf we we had dangerous road conditions and this in the next item were some of our biggest concerns in terms of public health and safety with the number of vendors that we had on the sidewalk the queuing effect lining up to go to a vendor for example those lines were creating basically no room on the sidewalk pushing all of the pedestrians into the bike lane bicycles were then going into the driving lane and in the driving lane you have both cars and a train so it's a very very congested area and then adding the vendors last year added a level of congestion that created significant health and safety concerns really dangerous road conditions that are really kind of the poor problem that we're trying to address with ordinance changes before council this evening the other item I'll mention is just the excessive trash I know the council was involved in that and doing cleanups but significant ref trash made its way onto the beach into the marine sanctuary and some of our storm drains there were scraps dumped down storm drains and oils and so forth so from an environmental health standpoint the amount of trash is really unmanageable and I want to mention to the council here I think it's relevant in terms of what we're looking at this summer is that the seaside company has continued to struggle with hiring a temporary and simple staff so communicated with the seaside company that they will not be able to resume their waste management efforts on main beat this summer and so they were not able to support that last summer either so the burden is put on parks and recreation staff out at the beach really in partnership with Public Works to maintain all of that trash on main beat so last year with a shortage of staff at seaside a shortage of staff in parks and rec and in the presence of dozens of vendors every weekend weekend the problem was really significant so we're trying to avoid that heading into the summer but that's a real concern for an environmental health quality and safety standpoint that we are struggling to hire parks and rec and the seaside has continued to struggle so how we manage this area is really critical to keep our environment clean on the last time here is vendor camping and goods stored on the beach so last year we had tents on the beach where food supplies were stored we had vans and so forth parked on side streets where food was being stored so again that sort of impromptu warehousing of different goods and foods was another impact last year next slide please in terms of the police department PD was doing nightly checks on the beach and beach street they had two at least two CSOs present more than that Lena and Lieutenant Croft that but CSOs present all day two officers on overtime every weekend PD was working directly with county environmental health department I'll speak to that on the following slide but a lot of coordination parking enforcement parks and rec as well so a lot of challenges with enforcement and who's responsible for enforcement but a lot of collaboration response to the issues that we faced last summer next slide alright and on this one this is related to county environmental health and county environmental health spent over $300,000 last year in staffing to be on site related to some of the food vending on street so they were out there to remove unpermitted and unsafe vendors maintain this 12 hour daily presence with this really the second half summer that time they scaled back seven hours a week days 12 hours on the weekends compounded 17 food parts and as you see on the screen here actually about almost $350,000 in personnel expenses from county environmental health so the impacts were significant and as we've worked through this both the presentation but this item for the council to consider we've really tried to focus on what is the problem, what is the problem that we're trying to resolve and I think fundamentally that problem is is based in public safety people getting you know pushed into the street result of the congestion the really really busy area lot going on bicycles, pedestrians crane very popular very busy area and obviously environmental impacts as well and so what we're trying to do here is try to find resolution to address those those core issues facing thank you and with that I will hand it off to the next speaker thank you good evening, I see councilman with Golder has her hand up I didn't know are we going to wait until the answer to questions or okay we'll wait right up good evening I'm really pleased to be here with you to talk about the draft sidewalk vending ordinance so let's get into it next slide please so before I dive into the specific it's important to just get some basic vocabulary concepts down from SB 946 one concept is that of the stationary vendor that somebody who vends from a fixed location a roaming vendor is somebody who moves the place and really only stops to the transaction the term roaming vendor is not to be confused with the term mobile vendor which is already regulated in SCMC 5.22 and those are food truck and those are not really impacted significantly by SCMC next slide please so section 5.8 to 030 is a section called sidewalk vending conduct and these are essentially good neighbor rules and so staff came up with about 22 basic parameters that we think are important to follow and vending on and all of these are closely associated with public health safety welfare which is exactly what SB 946 is trying to get at and the purpose of these rules is actually two fold first obviously this is a publicly available code of conduct that any vendor or police officer can read and know what it means and how you're safe but second and maybe even more importantly these rules are going to form the basis of the city's permitting decisions and when deciding whether or not group or reject sidewalk permit application so there's some transparency in what's going to be tolerated but not going to be so I don't need to read all these to you but they are in section 5.8 to 0.0 next slide okay so one of staff's major goals in putting this forward was establish a citywide permit program and that is what is included in the draft report all vendors need to obtain a sidewalk permit through the planning department and vendors who wish to operate in parks or beaches or other parks and record abilities they need to also get an additional parks permit which is going to take into consideration some of the things that are allowed by SB 946 really is the vending impacting the natural environment next slide please okay so location based restriction we drafted some location based restrictions in the ordinance they were drafted in a way that is ended to comply with SB 946 which really disfavors broad so what we've come up with and what's contemplated here is stationary vending would be prohibited year round on pacific avenue but only outside of the areas that are city demarcated vending and play zones so these are already set up for those little rectangles that are on pacific avenue set out by little copper circles brass circles there's a bunch of them where folks can go set up put out a table and engage with those types of stationary activities stationary vending is also not allowed to park or beach where there's already an inclusive professions agreement that's language taken straight from pacific it's also not allowed within 500 feet of a certified farmers market also areas that are excluded exclusively residential this is another language straight from SB 946 and we included within residentially zoned parks and that was some input from the park on that one and also within the city's open space natural and scenic areas such as iran, agulch, coconut morgue Dan Lorenz, a river walk west of the tribe again this was input from the parks administration and then so we have some areas both stationary and roaming are prohibited year round so on the municipal board this was an area that was important to the parks recreation department there's just not a lot of room out there to walk let alone that sort of commerce and so it was important to the parks department that prohibition be included also within the portion of the main beach over which the city has recreation the situation in main beach is a little bit complicated part of main beach it's not technically owned by the city but it's owned by the seaside company and the city has recreational easement only over it and per this easement it's not allowed to allow vending for this 1930s judgment and that would be vending by both people who traditionally consider sidewalk vendors and also what keeps the seaside comfort from selling in that area as well so that was important to include as well on the beach street from the deck and other area where park staff felt that it just got super super congested and there really is not a lot of area to be able to engage sales and then also just on a bike path to street including within on street parking spaces a driveway or public spot just clarifications and you know SB 946 really talked about vending from a sidewalk but we thought that it was important to also include some restrictions that are also contained within other cities and then okay and then it was and then the the proposal here is also basically established that in the summer season meaning April through October that there would no stationary or roaming vending allowed on the beach street sidewalk for war and it just gets very crowded there's not a lot of room that was but please okay and enforcement the ordinance contemplate administrative system which is required by SB 946 much of this section is 5.82110 and a lot of this is taken basically exactly from SB 946 there's also as required by SB 946 there's an ability a determination that is contemplated by the back for now alright failure to comply with a major concern staff had you know there was a major concern that we were writing the citation folks would pay the citation or they may get an ability to pay determination that would reduce them extremely low amount and that the citations themselves wouldn't be effective to accomplish what is set out to be accomplished so we made a few tweaks to express that one is to be specified that administrative citations can be issued on the same day so long that our has elapsed which administrative so again the fear here was that some individuals would really just take the citation and maybe they intended to pay maybe they didn't and they would just take it as a cost one provision that we added to address that we also added a limited employment section to be able to address the failure to comply as well this is something that is done in Santa Monica San Diego also just adopted an ordinance that contains employment section we tried to make it limited so that it's really just people who use to move their things so but we've got that and we thought it will be effective in order to actually achieve compliance and then I'm almost done but as we were going ordinance day something came up staff and we were like oh maybe this should be clarified so I thought we would add it in presentation as the last slide we are contemplating the parks vending permit and it was you know I think it was many of our understanding that a parks vending permit would be required for any vending that would be permitted on on the sidewalk there just because that sidewalk is really a part of the park there are benches people are watching volleyball it's really the entrance to the park and so we do feel that it's important to have the park permit requirement for that as well but it wasn't clear in how the ordinance would be required so we would suggest that you add underlying language here which is to specify that the park's vending would be required for sidewalk vendors who wish to operate a city park, beach or other facility with jurisdiction of the parks and recreation department including that portion of the beach street sidewalk operated recreation department so that's just to clarify what our understanding was and that would be our suggestion I think that's my whole presentation thank you I'm going to walk you through just the implementation of the ordinance the ordinance itself and making sure that it's sound and clear is the first part and then how we roll it out is going to be critical to the success for both vendors and the city staff who are charged with managing the implementation of the ordinance so you know we're really grounded in addressing the risks all of the ordinance and then how we'll be implementing are focused on public health and safety protecting the natural environment making sure that we're using our fiscal resources appropriately and that we are serving these diverse populations that we know are engaged in sidewalk vending and keeping with the spirit of SB 946 as we as we roll this ordinance out so to get grounded in what folks needed we put a lot of outreach and a lot of engagement Sarah before she left and then I picked up the baton as I said and did some more in the last weeks before we brought this ordinance and presentation to you tonight we talked with sidewalk vendors we talked with beach businesses and beach area businesses and downtown businesses community based organizations that are serving particularly the Latino and Latina populations in Santa Cruz we talked to our elected officials last year when we were in the midst of our 2021 all of the issues that we were having in 2021 some of our state elected and local elected got engaged and so we made sure to keep them in the loop went out to city employees and really asked their opinions about how we should be implementing this ordinance and we even spoke with the city of Santa Monica which is kind of going through a lot of the same things that we are around around vending and also as a historic here and you know a lot of similarities between here and there and so we wanted to learn from their experiences so different concerns what we've heard a lot of the same concerns from different constituencies everybody wants us to promote safety there the folks on all sides really want us to take a look at the impacts of bad behavior so you know like we see in other areas it's not there are many vendors who are doing exactly the right thing and so we want to make sure that what we are doing is supporting those vendors who are adhering to the good neighbor rules and then making sure that we have we have safeguards in place for those who maybe aren't following the rules as much we want to promote equity across businesses so sidewalk vending making sure that that is a feasible and supported business but also tax collection so that we're making sure that our bricks and mortar businesses are not are not unequally impacted by the ordinance and then making compliance easier I think you know it's complicated and so how can we come at this to make sure that we are communicating with folks on all sides of the issue in ways that they understand what's expected and and how to plug in so one of the things that that is contemplated in implementation is this notion of a one stop application for all sidewalk sidewalk so rather than the sidewalk vendor going to parks or going to planning or going to that we're going to help them with all of the city permits that we need them to get to be to be in in good stead to bend within the city and then making sure that those regulations are accessible and understandable so when we talk about the permits it's a low permit be there was an analysis done and I think this is in your pack this is in your packet of how we got to the $30 permit be to cover city costs it's valid for 12 months it will describe the intended time and or in place of vending on the permit so that as our enforcement officers go out and spend our working with folks to make sure that they're adhering to the rules that they have that easily accessible ID this also addresses the concerns about immigration status and the and the lack of interest in sharing and sharing an ID if we have a vendor ID then that really puts everybody on the same playing field and how they're interacting with code enforcement or CSO additional required permits depending on how you want to bend or what you want to bend you'll need a perhaps a parks permit as Cassie talked about for parks and beaches and parks and recreation facilities a food permit if you're if you're vending food that comes from county we would not issue that permit but we will guide people to the place that they need to go to get the permit if you're selling more than six days in the city you need a business license and if you're doing more than three transactions annually you need a California seller and so these will be depending on what person is doing will be required at the time of issuance of the sidewalk vending permit so we'll be checking off all of these permits that are required based on what they're bringing forward and wanting. We want to make compliance easy and easy on both sides both for city staff and for the vendors so making sure that we're doing a good outreach campaign ahead of time and I'll talk a little bit more about that in the next slide having a visible system a worn ID versus a tag that somebody puts in their pocket or in their wallet and then making sure that all of our conditions are bilingual and that they are both the education side of things are bilingual but also the citation issuance and tracking is that we're giving giving it in English and in Spanish for education and outreach we'll use the time presuming if we get your blessing on the ordinance this evening between now and when the ordinance goes into effect to begin communicating with folks in the primary vending areas creating those program materials bilingual program materials working on some outbound vendor communications I kind of walked and talked with some vendors down on beat street last week and got a sense of we have to really be multi-modal in the way that we're communicating so that we are reaching people in the way that they the text message is at a website how are we how do they interact with communications and really really clear in all of the places that have significant regulations we'll be taking a collaborative enforcement approach we thought this was really important the team came together and tried to problem solve and came to the notion came to the idea that doesn't belong in just one department the compliance officers really know about permit and they can talk with folks while police officers and community service officers can help with those public health safety and welfare impacts that we talked about making sure that there's access and egress and ADA compliance is being acknowledged in the congested areas that kind of thing and then of course county environmental health also has a role to play as it relates to food vendors in this sort of holistic enforcement approach of the ordinance we wanted to focus our initial targeted enforcement on those places where really know that behavior change needs to happen where it's where the ordinance will bring bring forward behavior change that is very different from where we are today so going back to the Pacific Avenue display zones will require a lot of education and and working with folks on the ground the beach street area and the street promenade prohibition that's a real big change so how are we making sure that folks know what they need to do and how do we also front load our resources so that we're helping to educate people and there is a present to help people do the right thing we also need to help people with getting their permits and verifying their permits and so these are all different behaviors than we have today so we have to be focused on that we have here a map these are the existing locations on Pacific Avenue that are the demarcated vending zones and as you can see there's quite a few up and down Pacific Avenue and these are the addresses as a part of the education we'll be working to really make these maps easily accessible and make all of the materials work for your consideration today we've kind of got some more low tech versions to look at and then if we look at beach street I wanted to point out where those restrictions that we talked about before so as you can see here along beach street that would be the prohibition during April October Owl Beach has a concession agreement and so it would roaming vending would be allowed but it would require a parks a parks permit and so it would be at the discretion of the parks and rec here in front of the seaside company is where the 1933 judgment rules that there's no vending from other folks but then there's this space here around ideal bar and grill and the volleyball court would require a parks permit there are different depending on if there's private property there are little fingers of really prohibited that are in there and we'll get those very clear as we go out folks and then of course the wharf is prohibited as a wooden structure and as a crowded structure we really felt like the prohibition on the wharf was in so we did talk to some of you ahead of time about this ordinance to get your back and so thank you all for those of you who engage with us we heard some concerns about about the prohibition on beach street I want to make clear that that is staff's recommendation because we believe that the behavior change is so great and the staffing needs are so great to make that behavior change happen that having any sort of having any sort of vending on beach street will make it very difficult however it is at the pleasure of the council of course and so if you are interested in pursuing some sort of limited vending on beach street the the rubric that we come up with together that seemed to be one that we could experiment with is is a focus on artisans so a focus on arts and crafts vendors and those folks that we know are out there like the person in this picture, Octavio his wife makes all the bracelets that are on his on his board there and so having that limited focus feel like they have a smaller footprint there's less crash and that we are if there was a limited vending spaces on that beach street area in between the seaside company and ideal bar and grill that we could still work to manage the health safety and welfare impacts that we experienced last summer however by not locking it down it does require by not locking it down completely we feel like that give and take will require more staffing to make it successful. Just a last bit we did do some legislative advocacy on this I've worked with our government relations folks put us in touch with the city of Santa Monica and their senator senator Allen was putting forward a bill it's in it's in process right now because SB 1290 our contributions actually made it in and I'm very excited to say and the things that we wanted to put in were stronger environmental protections because of the things that we were seeing on the ground with the discharge in fat oils and grease and pollution of protected habitat and then there's also the impoundment that you saw in the ordinance is added as a part of this bill so some edits to the existing state law on sidewalk vending that really we felt like were important to address the context of being a coastal city of being next to a national marine sanctuary and and having all of the impacts that we saw last. So you have a budget in your in the agenda packet as you can see that the collaborative approach to I want to walk you through the collaborative approach to enforcement as it relates to the budget that you have here we tried to make the distinction between what we could get up and running this year versus what is the appropriate staffing for the future so that's why you see these two models here in fiscal year 2022 that's where we are today. You're looking at a lot of contracts. So contract code that outreach as we roll out the ordinance and then also to work on the weekends primarily on the weekends and weekdays in the summer to ensure that folks have their permit make sure that folks know how to get their permits and really help us implement the ordinance. We recommend two officers for contract security support that would be eight hours a day seven days a week to really support those code compliance officers as they're bringing into compliance. We recommend a digital citation system so that we can track and get these citations going in the field and manage it more efficiently and then there's equipment that goes along with that. And then going forward we recommend a senior code compliance specialist who will oversee the entire program and that's important because there is an appeals process with these citations and we need someone to manage the appeals process to make sure that it is equitable and that we are taking into account all of these appeals and we imagine that there will be appeals that come from any citation new citation program and again augmenting that code compliance specialist with some code compliance support contract code compliance support in those six months in the April to October timeframe along with contract security and then in terms of CSOs we would augment all of this with hours from our current CSOs on staff as we did last summer. So as you saw in the packet we have some recommended actions for you. I'll quickly run through those. We're recommending that you introduce for publication an ordinance repealing the current municipal code and putting this new ordinance in its place adopting a resolution to create a new sidewalk vending permit fee or that sidewalk vending permit that we talked about that $30 and then allow for a budget investment around the enforcement staff that we need to make the ordinance successful and then direct human resources to build out a senior code compliance classification so that we can hire that person for the fiscal year 2020. Now, is there any of your questions? Thank you Elizabeth. I will take about the council member question and first hand raised Renee Golder, council member Golder and then council member Myers. First I just want to say thank you so much Elizabeth for picking up where Sarah left off and thanks to Cassie and Bernie and Tony and everybody else that had like a hand in creating this. I think you did a really amazing job of capturing the community concerns while addressing this statewide issue and so I am prepared to move this recommendation after we go out for public comment but I did have a couple of questions and and the first one that I was wondering was and I also want to say thank you for the stakeholder engagement too. I think that was really critical to making it a successful recommendation. I did have a question and this was something that came up last year and I'm just and I didn't see it addressed in here is that in your outreach with the vendors and I understand some of them are smaller artisanal type businesses but there was concerns on behalf of the council and other constituents in regards to some of these were maybe larger operations and we were wondering if there was working conditions for some of the people we were concerned that they weren't getting breaks or shade and there was ones where we saw children out there all day long and almost some of it like it's possibility that there could be human trafficking or other like you know nefarious behavior you know horrible working conditions and I'm wondering if during your outreach and I don't know who can answer this any of that was followed up on I can speak to what was handed to me and what I've done since then and that has not been a part of the scope of the outreach I think that that goes that goes beyond the scope of the ordinance as we imagined it to you know governing bending and the behaviors around bending but I do understand that concern and I think that that's something that we can explore between now and the the concerns that were several situations that we you know we looked at over the summer or the last few summers those are really difficult cases to prove and usually you have to put together a case over a period of time and I think you know we certainly look into those and some of them are concerning but I don't think anything grows to a level of criminal behavior you know and some of those cases are really hard to get potential victims if they are victims of the human trafficking to speak up and be in a situation where they're comfortable to share information with us but I think as you saw a lot of people saw that some of the children in these circumstances were very young and just you know around all day long every day all weekend so certainly something we can pay a little bit more attention to thank you and the only other the other thing I wanted to just kind of address was that I appreciate in this is that this idea of this equitable enforcement of some of the quality of life type things have found for example like our ordinances around our new ones around composting we've got ones about single use plastic bags and straws and cups and that and so just having that kind of equitable approach to these environmental concerns that we share and I appreciate that that was you know brought to this ordinance as well so thank you and then my last final thing I just want to say is I know that the flea market doesn't be coming back at the property out of the drive in as the city thought of as a way to maybe meet people halfway considered opening maybe a monthly flea market at like a parking lot or a park as a potential source of revenue I know used to pay like 30 bucks per spot not that I want to add something more to people's plate but maybe we could work out something like that. We'll talk to the team. I'll leave it there I'll leave it there I want to make your work. Thank you council member Golder council member Myers and then council member Kelly Johnson. Yeah I'd be I'd be willing to I'd be happy to find a second that motion to do that just a couple of questions um did we was there ever um last year um is there ever any follow up for example from parks from public works um you ever fight anyone for any of these storm drain dumping was there ever any citations issued under our code yards to storm basically storm drain you know illegal dumping into the storm drains I either um public I was just curious that I saw quite a bit of that when I was I am not aware of those citations but Nathan is going to tell us no you did not cite anyone um I think now that we have the ordinance it's all in one place and it gives us the ability to really be clear about what we're looking for and so um we have that opportunity going so that would cross over Cassie with regards to we have our storm water ordinance which prevents you know businesses and you know so those two things talk to each other that activity was happening um it would get there would be some citation or at least um hopefully more a softer approach to initially begin with which is you know any of these go to the ocean but is that kind of operating that storm water rule? yeah so I mean we tried to it's sort of difficult because we wanted to set out forth all the rules um in one thing however you know there are some rules that are still criminal and we didn't necessarily want to make administrative citations um and so we tried to make clear that the rules are the rules and if it's not related to the sidewalk bending then you will be attacked by it I think one of the major issues storm water dumping is really just like catching people I mean maybe they might do it in front of you as a person walking by to the beach but if they see Bernie or you know if they see a police police officer I think that's much less likely to actually like observe something yeah and I think I mean always a always a good approach is just making sure we've got materials Spanish and just a little bit of a lighter hand just potentially I know when I go down to the beach or try to talk with people um you know even just that lighter hand a little bit about just those resonates maybe not coming down super hard right away working on that and then um my other question Elizabeth there was a group of businesses that we met with that's probably I want to say three or four times last year um it was a big group 20 some odd business area um I would get these calls as the mayor and have to report down for a meeting um and those folks have been kept abreast of this I assume I know you know so that represented a lot of the ownership of a lot of the businesses on beach but also you know we got a letter from the dream in and um a little bit and uh a couple of others but but is that the group when you were saying businesses is that the group that you were referring to as some of those folks we met last summer we we have been working with seaside who is taking a leadership role with the with those beach area business and so um yes I think um we can we can confidently say by the letters coming in that the message is getting out on the ordnance that they are supportive to direct those are my questions now but yeah uh seconding if there is a motion by councilmember golden later thank you thank you councilmember calentari johnson and then councilmember thank you so much I did also reiterate thank this um did have sorry I'm like but I did have this comments and questions um Elizabeth you talked about the vendor ID what addresses the operations status hearing a little bit more about that what what is needed for a vendor ID and how can we those community members are documented that that they can be rest assured that they can have equal access so um Cassie might be able to speak to the very specific terms but I can speak generally that um we are asking for some identification but they do not have to be documented citizens that right Cassie that's correct that's not there so there is a requirement for some sort of identification in the application process but it is not related okay great thank you and I was really also happy to hear about the outreach that's been done so far that's great I'm I'm trying to connect organizations that are engaged with this with this community as well so I'm interested in staying engaged as you all do the work I'm curious about the implementation development of the implementation for the permit process I know this perception of us tonight but for us to consider really use use our health and all policies framework as a guiding framework to develop what implementations look like think about you know who we and I'm sure we're going to have to have some limitation for so in terms of prioritization and who we consider I hope that we can use the health and all policies framework to make those and then let me just note yeah I think all my other address so thank you thank you thank you for the presentation and the work being done on this I know it's been a few years and this you know initially started during COVID we were trying to there were a lot of people selling and spending each area and we saw a lot of issues as a result and trying to get people to not crowd and socially distance was really difficult under these circumstances but in addition to that in addition there's a lot of negative impacts we're seeing you know in terms of crash and still negative encounter so it's good that we're trying to figure out a way to work for everyone I did have a couple questions related to kind of IDs from its licensing so I guess my first question is was mentioned that the is going to be $30 I'm just curious because I thought I heard or maybe read somewhere that last year $100 and so I just wanted to see if we can get clarification on what the permit was for the vendors down the street last year it was for beach streets specifically so the $30 is for anyone who wants to bend on a sidewalk in the city of Santa Cruz so it's not specific to the beach area we talked a lot about the beach I think because of the impact that have been happening on the beach but the $30 is the sidewalk mending there are those other permits that might be required like the parks and recreation permit which that has not yet been and so Tony and his staff with the ok from council to move ahead with this ordinance will begin that process and Cassie indicated that that would come back for approval by resolution in terms of last year the permit if it was $200 but it had an insurance requirement and that is not something that we are concerned about in the current version of the ordinance is requiring the insurance for a sidewalk vendor so what I talked when I talked to one of the sidewalk vendors who did participate in the permit program last year when I was out on Beach Street he indicated that his insurance policy was $500 even though the permit fee was only $200 for his space and so I think that might be where you remember thank you the next question I had was you know I think the spirit of this is that we're at the state level is that communities are trying to allow for low income people to be able to vend Beach Street and gain some source of income I'm just curious with the other permits and licenses that were mentioned that are in addition to this permit I'm wondering if there's a sense of how much those costs are also in addition to what kind of identification requirements because although we might not be posing any kind of you know status in terms of nationality I just wonder if those state permits and licenses require any kind of disclosure of immigration status I am not certain about that one is a county sorry the business license Lee Butler can you help me with this one are you familiar with these permits I know the business license is with us it is and that's what I was going to jump on just a moment ago to just point out that yes there is a business license fee that's in addition I was actually just looking to see if I could track down that cost and so I'll get back to you in just a second on that cost to my knowledge there is not it says around $175 total so it could expect to be around $175 for the business license approximately $145 and sidewalk permit which is $30 so $175 total is the cost there and to my knowledge there is not a requirement for any it's essentially a tax right it is you want to operate a business in the city and so you are paying a tax and we then use that money for delivery of services similarly with the sellers the state sellers state licenses I don't think have an immigration generally have an immigration we can confirm that though and get back to you I've made a note to get back to you and then I guess the other question I have is I read correctly there's discussion about bringing on another service officer and I'm just there's no community service officer being brought on that was that was a part of the initial discussion what we decided and I can let Bernie speak to this but just our group our group decided that perhaps we can make it work with the current but I'm going to let the expert talk to it Bernie would you like to tell us about your staffing in your department we discuss this a lot and obviously we would prefer to approach it with community service officers versus officers number one number two we also realize that by the time we would be able to recruit and hire and train a community service officer the summers are long gone so we're going to address it with our existing staff now and as we mentioned with the collaboration with the other departments along with the county like and in addition to the private security vendor that layered approach was a better fit for this coming summer it sounds good I just I saw that in the staff report and just wanted to bring that up because I know that there are kind of training timelines it was just curious because I know that as well our police it's kind of a difficult time recruiting community safety officers so I was just wondering you know if that was going to be an issue moving this forward in the presentation so thank you and that includes my comments or my question I'll have comments our questions we'll then take it out to public comment at this time your interesting comment on sidewalk vending ordnance program and resource request raise your hand by dialing star nine on your phone or select raise hand in the webinar on your and it's your turn to speak you'll hear an announcement and the timer will then be set three minutes going out the one attendee with a hand raise Zachary Davis welcome hello alright just real quick I wanted to say as a business owner I support entrepreneurialism support the spirit of SB 946 and I also support regulation that allows both the sidewalk vendors to benefit business activity and I support the passage of this ordinance I think I do want to express a little bit of disappointment for businesses that have extension areas parklets even non-profit that use our street sidewalks for events they're all required to have insurance I'm a little disappointed that that won't be a requirement that one of the things about this is well I might not be super stoked if an ice cream cart pulled up in front of my ice cream shop and started selling ice cream competition just means that we have to do a better job in business but I do think that the playing field should be level and if one group is required to have insurance I think they all should that's my one comment thanks thank you for your comment I would like to comment on item number 32 sidewalks press star 9 to raise your hand let's see other attendees with their hands raised we'll bring it back to council for action and deliberation let's see council member Cummings and council member Boulder have your hands raised thank you mayor I want to express my appreciation because living down the beach area definitely seen an experience on the impacts from unregulated vending it's clear that something needs to be done to mitigate the community and environmental impacts I also agree that and I think it's great that we're not having the officers respond to this it's just one additional thing that we would have to do in the previous years or different times add to their plate and I think it's good that we're going in direction of moving this towards co-compliance and other people I don't like I think that vending in the area actually for a number of reasons could be of a benefit one because if we have a strip where no one's there's constantly going to be people going down there trying to rather than doing that I think that if we have designated spaces and we've had people and honestly in the summer having lived down there there's not a whole lot of people who are vending on the street during the weekdays it's usually just the weekend holidays when we have the most issues so allowing people to actually been down there and put the staff's point even if we want to make that just artisan could be a good way in the spirit of the state law to allow for further vending in that area and so I think that it would be good if we include some language around that and as a result I have provided language so in addition to the staff recommendation I have additional language which would be direct parks and rec departments to draft the resolution establishing a limited vending zone and or city market vending and display zone on the street between the municipal war and third street and provide parking permits vendors paid for those in the 2021 program failures then under the ordinance language for 58.80 080 I just wanted to clean up some language so that it's clear that this is related to restricted vending times and locations that under 5.82.080 mayor? council member golder had an intent to make a motion I'm a little confused on what's happening none of us can seem to beat you with your hand up things so sorry I had two council members who tried to express that they were going to make a motion and so anyways I just like to then ask what is the policy around making motion because in the past it was be waited until the end of public comment and then if people were paying attention they put their hands up and then today it's shifting making motion for items go out to public comment so this is obviously off topic conversation but it's happened in the past too that council members made expressions that they would like to make a motion before going to public comment and other council members have raised their hands and then were called upon made motion so I'm trying to do what was historical practice and so I waited until the person had made their comment and I raised my hand and additionally I had an additional language so that was part of the reason why I wanted to make this motion because I have additions to the staff recommendation go ahead and continue council member golder will call on council member golder I should continue council member Cummings then we will call on thank you so the ordinance language to clear it up that it's year round on public property in areas that are zoned exclusively residential including within residentially zoned part and this is under that bullet point 0.080 this is where vending could be located if you have a permit and then 582.080 adding in from April 1st till October 31st streets and sidewalks of street in the municipal war third street without a permit and outside demarcated areas and in display zones as set up by the parks and rec department 582.080 there will be four year round on the street promenade deck out of permit and outside demarcated areas and display zones as set up by the parks and rec department and then in 5.8 2.110 this is related to these or the the fines and citations it will be $100 for a first violation after a warning so again trying to ensure that we're making sure that people are educated and if they're coming in and making and they're trying to set up vending that they're at least provided a warning for their issue of citation that's under the motion. Sandy, council member. Okay we have a motion by council member Cummings and a second by council member Brown. Eric, can I get to really click on the second the highlight report. Yeah council member Cummings outside demarcated areas but motion language is set within so I so it's restricted vending times and locations restricted you know sorry my screens so it's restricted from April 1 October 31 on the streets and sidewalks between the minutes without a permit and without a permit outside sorry so people would be able to vend within those demarcated areas with a permit. Would it also be outside demarcated areas and that would you ask a clarifying question to Elizabeth Smith there was a slide about some alternative option towards the end is that what this is addressing? Yes I think it is offering the ability to allow for some vending the three to five spaces and our option correct there's less specificity here and that's something that the council put my hand on but I think the as that alternative option I will reiterate staff was interested in a full lockdown of the street and councilmember Cummings I have one more question to the underlying year round on common objects it also says oh sorry and in so just to clarify the underlying portion of what you have added not necessary so in the first two bullets yes in the oh can you scroll down bunny so first bullet yes, second bullet yes third bullet the additions are the addition starts without and then the fourth bullet it's after a warning and then that bottom bullet after resolution established on the street and sidewalk on the street and sidewalk each should just be sidewalk I would also add the Beat Street Promenade back and one more clarifying question for staff the common object that was one of the along with the wharf that was recommended for year round no bending correct correct it is the site the permitted program last year and we can speak to this council member Cummings you're putting that back in and so it was used last year and the idea of two years give staff flexibility so the idea would be that the parks and recreation department determine where these places these locations are these locations could be on Beat Street between the municipal war third street and include the Promenade should they determine that they don't want to do it on those locations or if there's only one location for example in the Promenade is that city property I think it's up to the parks and rec department to come back with recommendations so it's not really locking anything in it's just saying that these are areas that belong to the city where we've seen a beach bending before we recommend the beach bending before and leaving those open as up can you clarify the fee permit so last year there were and going back to 2020 there were members of the public who were engaging in the beach bending they when we when we stopped the bending in that area part of it part of the outreach was that we reached out to the beach vendors working with community bridges and having meetings to come up with a program for them to be able to bend in the area we then determined what that program was going to be as a city these people paid the fees and then last summer there was no enforcement so many of these people who thought they were going to be able to bend in a specific spot and they paid the fees up front where then their faces were encroached by other people in certain circumstances and these people didn't pay those and so it's not fair that these people went through the process helped the city create a lottery paid for the permit and then when it came time for them to be able to bend there was no enforcement and as a result it was just an unfair situation for them to be in so Great, I see Director Tony Elliott and Director Lee Butler with hands up and so I'd like to give they have input for comments on that and also ask if anybody has an idea of how many people that would apply to the permit who could bend how many vendors that Mayor Bruder this is Tony Elliott over at Parks Recreation he had six vendors last year that were permitted and paid at the beginning of the season as a result of the issues faced and that council member Cummings just identified we actually did reimburse all of those vendors at the end of the season last year because of the issues that they face so they've all been reimbursed at this time. Thank you for that input Director Lee Butler Thanks Mayor Bruder I was just going to go back to one of the questions that you asked about the slide that Elizabeth shared and actually I was thinking you were referring to the one that Cassie presented with the staff requested clarification which I don't think is captured in this but just wanted to call that out if the let's see 5.8 no it's 090 A is what Cassie had specified which was just that a permit would be required on the I just wanted to call that to your attention and if the council moves forward with whatever recommendation it is I didn't want that to get lost if the whole I'll just say it's the staff recommendation with those additions so that would be included. Thank you. Thank you for those clarifications Mayor sorry to clarify Director Lee just talked about is that not in here and I need to add it I don't think I got that I would like for it to be added just because here we are setting for specific amendments to the code and so I think it would be good to just that's a amendment as well so it would be nice to set that out you send it to me really quick or I'll send it to you again okay and then we have Jessica Lante you have your hand up yeah thank you Mayor I just wanted to comment about the addition of the warning I think that we appreciate the intent behind that we all I think all departments from Code Compliance to the county to the police department intend on the application first on this sort of thing there'll be plenty of signage but I do want to bring to your attention the difficulty with trying to track warnings amongst many different departments if the police department of a community service officer is issuing or talking to a vendor how close to track that maybe Code Compliance gave this individual a warning to stand before so that just is really complicated and again I appreciate the intent and purpose behind that but I think that's going to be the intent of all city staff from the get-go anyways so that addition adds some complications I'm happy to remove that if the intent and if it can be the education and outreach such that we're providing people with verbal warnings that's the intent then I'm happy to remove that Council Member Cummings are you also considering removing the three permits knowing the reimbursement for you as Bonnie Bush sounds like Council Member Cummings has deleted after warning and permit the bottom bullet and where is trying to find the three permit the bottom bullet towards the bottom roll down right there that last part of the sentence is the seconder of the motion Council Member Brown amenable to that I will take it out to Council Member Colder and then Council Member Meyers so I'd like to provide a sub motion and that's going to be the staff's recommendation and I just want to express how frustrated I am with you Council Member Cummings I feel like this is something that happens quite frequently where you roll the motion, battle this specific language that staff hasn't had time to review, we haven't had time to review and then you have us negotiate with you throughout the night we all had an opportunity to give input on this I know Elizabeth that with each and every one of us and you could have brought this forward before tonight at 9 o'clock at night, not only that it took us about 20 minutes to adjust it, no point of order, I'm calling the question point of order I'll second the motion I'm going to call point of order okay we have a point of order called that Trump the sub motion called what should have stopped all discussion once a point of order is called what's your point of order question before that point of order can be heard now there is a sub-substitute motion on the floor as well so I think you can hear Council Member Cummings point of order may proceed to the sub-substitute motion will be another 20 minutes point of order is that there are supposed to be following rules and part of those rules of decorum are that we speak to the items for us not attack each other as colleague council members and we're supposed to be represent we're supposed to be setting an example for the community and so when order is that we're supposed to be speaking to the item and I'll make further comment but thank you okay and now there is a sub-substitute motion before the council the vote would be sub-substitute and the sub-substitute motion council member Golder is made by council member Golder and it's staff recommendation with CASSI added with CASSI bronze language added and there's a second by council member what can I ask a clarifying question understanding we need to vote whether or not before we vote on the motion I just thought I'd say voting on the motion no you're correct council member Brown the sub-substitute motion is whether to accept the sub-substitute there's also a call to question out there as well so the question was called whether was the second question was called on whether to accept the sub-substitute vote on the sub-substitute okay we'll call vote on whether to accept the sub-substitute motion made by council member Golder and council member council member Johnson I'm sorry we're voting to accept we're voting on whether to accept the sub-substitute motion yes I a clarifying question no the sub-substitute motion passes and now we vote on the motion now we vote on the sub-substitute we'll call vote member Calentary Johnson sir and for the record I have been in conversation with staff about language it's our role as council members to hear from the public and to make recommendation or make changes to motion or staff recommendation when it's appropriate and the recommendations I provided based on input and comment from members of the community no and I'll save my for the record comment actually I'll say it now I just have to say this it's my understanding that the role of city council as a legislative body is legislate deliberate to our business in public that is what I did when I was elected office and so sometimes it's messy sometimes it takes a long time but deliberating and sometimes word nothing agenda items is common practice it has been common practice on this council but I started following it 30 years ago I have watched many different council members this and it has never been questioned that we have a right to this it's actually our responsibility I just had to say that for the record council member Myers I just want to make a comment staff I want to thank staff for all their work on this the last two years have been really really difficult down there everyone and I think the staff and Elizabeth and the whole team I'm appreciative that you guys really got together as every single aspect they're really strong you know way to approach this and I heard from a lot of business down there that they're very very so you know they went two years where it's really really hectic down there and heard from business owners down there staff people whose kids work at the boardwalk everyone is very very appreciative and everyone wants to see some work thank you for everybody's work on this and I'm in eye on this mayor hi and mayor no I really would like to thank the collaborative approach of all the staff however having some limited bending along I think when we talk about equity and we talk about you know some of the the spirit of SP 946 I heard several times entrepreneurship and full access I really after hearing from many different perspectives on this I do agree that limited work your way it will be a lift off the ground but you know as with everything we can continue to refine and look at this as we move forward so for all the staff fine let's see it looks like the substitute motion the staff recommendation Rossi Ronson's addition houses with a 4-3 vote I still have a couple hands up vice mayor Watkins looks like that concludes our meeting day this meeting will now be adjourned to everyone for being here with us