 Okay, thank you councilmember story here councilmember Peterson here councilmember Brooks here and member trend here Any additions any materials that are received late yes, we have two items for 7a public comment items, and then for 7b We have information from the business improvement association Committee that has been working on a proposal for the lights. Thank you any deletions and additions to the agenda Staff has no changes. Okay seeing none Public comments this is a time to give public comments for any item that is not on the agenda that you'd like to speak to Seeing none back to city council for staff and city council comments staff comments, okay No comments from city staff or city council. I will just very quickly note that tomorrow night the planning commission will hear the conceptual review for the mall redevelopment program and The following Thursday the 14th it will be presented to the city council public is Encouraged to attend learn about the plans for the mall and provide any input before a formal application is presented Thank You Linda Okay, we're on to city council's consent calendar So is anyone on the city council or anyone in the public wanting to? Bring for consideration an item on the consent counter Sam. I don't necessarily want to pull an item But I did have a question from a on item 6b Okay Proceed public works Steve. Well, thank you Yeah, Steve My particular question was I noticed the intersections that they adapted signaling is proposed for and we're just wondering why 41st and gross Was not also included in that series So 41st and gross is actually controlled by Caltrans So it's one of their signals and that's actually part of the grant that we got in the previous year We're referred to the off ramps, right, right? Included 40% gross as well Yes, so those will be connected and all in a comprehensive system on 41st to Broma. Yes, wonderful. Thank you so much Thank you, Steve So Sir emotion on the city's consent calendar I'll move the consent calendar Second all those in favor. Hi, okay This move on Onto general government and public hearings We have seven a consider adopting an urgency and ordinance and temporary prohibiting no fault evictions So there's staff report. Yes, there is. Thank you. Good evening There we go Okay, so as you likely know in early October or October governor Newsom signed into law Assembly bill 1482 which essentially It's it's called the tenant protection act it governs rent gouging and Eviction control and there are two primary components of the bill There's other inclusions relating to notice but for our purposes the truth two primary components are eviction control and rent control and the rent control provision Says that there can be no limits all annual rent increases for covered units to five percent per year Plus the CPI or ten percent whichever is lower and the eviction control provisions Limit evictions of covered units to those that have Just cause which is defined in the statute and essentially the just cause provisions in the statute are Things like violating the lease Using the unit for any legal purposes using the unit to cause a nuisance and then there's another section of Evictions which are allowed for things like the owner wishing to move into the unit The owner wishing to remove the unit from the markets called an Ellis Act eviction, but it's a pretty limited Number of reasons for which an owner can evict the tenant Thank you the statute is applicable to Units in which all of the tenants have lived there for 12 months or in which one of the tenant has lived there for 24 months I Imagine this provision was created to capture tendencies in cities that are very crowded like San Francisco or tendencies That have large families where there are multiple tenants who live in a unit and it also does not there are several carve-outs from The statute it does not apply to single-family homes affordable housing units or condos unless the condos are governed by Are owned by a corporation or a real estate trust? There are lots of other carve-outs, but those are the ones that I think will probably be most impactful The current law but the AB 1482 becomes effective January 1st 2020 Currently there is no just cause or State-wide rent no just cause eviction or statewide rent control various cities multiple cities have rent control provisions themselves already in place But there are no statewide requirements for just cause to evict a tenant and there are no statewide limitations on rent increases Also currently under state law. There are however Um requirements for notice for evicting tenants and the requirements are 30 days of the tenants have lived in the unit for a Year of for less than a year and 60 days of the tenants have lived in the unit for more than a year At the last meeting Council requested that staff bring back an urgency ordinance that would essentially bridge the gap between the Governor's signature of AB 1482 and the effective date of AB 1482, which is January 1 2020 Multiple other jurisdictions in the state have passed such ordinances Those ordinance look pretty much what like what we're bringing to you tonight various jurisdictions have tweaked them, but not much they pretty much look the same and those ordinances essentially prohibit evictions between now whenever the urgency ordinance has passed and January 1 2020 and then they In various ways go away after January 1 2020 whatever the mechanism is the eviction one thing to note too is Evictions become effective on the date on which the tenant requires is required to relinquish possession of the unit So regardless of whether a tenant has already received an eviction notice that eviction is not Effective unless the tenant has actually vacated So if a tenant has received an eviction notice and the council adopts this ordinance this evening Since it's an urgency ordinance It will be effective immediately and so those tenants would be captured by the protections and the urgency ordinance Even if they've already received a notice Was there anything else Okay. Oh The very last thing since this is an urgency ordinance It requires a super majority of the council, which is a fourth this vote since there are only four of you That will be all four of you Okay There are a couple changes that we're suggesting to you before Of the ordinance that's before you one is an expiration date. You'll see that already in the ordinance. We say that the Eviction controls would be in effect until December 31st 2019 That's the day before AB 1482 becomes effective We suggest an expiration date of the ordinance a few months out to give the city time to complete any Enforcement actions that might be in effect at the time that AB 1482 becomes effective It's really a sort of I'm belt and suspenders approach if we are in the midst of an enforcement action on June 15th 2020 we can certainly come back to the council and suggest that the ordinance be extended The other change that we're suggesting is a little more it seems a little more complicated, but sexually not I In drafting the urgency ordinance I made an attempt to clarify some unclear language in the statute and I think that in doing that I actually made the language even more unclear and so I am suggesting to the council that you simply I Use the language in the statute, which is not incredibly clear. I will admit however Rather than come up with our own unclear language We might as well just use the unclear language that the state is using because then the state will interpret it and every jurisdiction will be subject to the same interpretation and so the language is in it's in the ordinance the urgency ordinance itself on if you have your packet it's on packets page 33 and It's in section C8 and it's talking about units that are excluded from the provisions of 1482 and I think the goal of this language from The state legislation was to say that condos are excluded because all single-family homes are excluded from 1482 and so I think it was trying to say that condos are excluded and it used this somewhat confusing language about an Any unit that is alienable separate from the title? I don't know that most people know what that means alienable separate It means an individual unit and so I tried to clarify by noting By calling out some units that might be considered alienable separate mobile homes condos single-family homes, and I think I just Made it more confusing. So our suggestion is that we simply substitute the language in section C8 with the language from the state legislation Any questions Would this have to be as an amendment than to To the action item today. Yes, and so what I would recommend the council do is when you are if you Would like to make a motion to adopt when you do that I'm Just give me a signal or I could even jump in and I will read the changes into the record for you So that you can adopt if you would like to adopt these changes you can adopt with the changes as read into the record Should the council pass this how do the citizens use this to their benefit? Do they just bring the ordinance to their property owner to their landlord and say This is the role now. I'm not no longer being evicted or how would they move forward with Action on their part to ensure that they receive benefit from this Well, they certainly could Probably the best approach frankly for tenants perhaps if they've already received an eviction notice would likely be to work with an attorney They could probably even retain an attorney through legal aid work with an attorney and have their attorney Write a letter to the landlord citing this ordinance and noting that the ordinance is effective Now and so that it would essentially Move any eviction notice. They could also write that letter on their own. It's probably not a terribly difficult letter to write If the landlord refused the city could take action using its code enforcement powers to enforce the ordinance so Follow-up question wouldn't a letter from the city just stating this as a fact We certainly could I Mean it's pretty direct now. They know they'd have to do the code enforcement thing. Sure We certainly could do that as well. Okay Yeah, and thank you I just wanted to clarify that just cause eviction does not include a landlord wishing to remodel Appremises And for the purposes of selling those premises Sort of so there's a carve-out in the state legislation as well as in the Urgency ordinance allowing a landlord to evict for I don't know what the what is the verb is substantial Rehabilitation Substantial repairs to bring the property into compliance with governing codes So a landlord with with health and safety codes So if a landlord needed to do major updates to come into compliance with the code the landlord could evict But the landlord could not you are correct evict tenants because the landlord wanted to remodel the property Sell it for an increased rate empty and then rent to tenants at a higher rent. Thank you. That would be unlawful Yeah, okay, can you speak to the difference how this is different than the rent control? Issue that's been brought up and what how this is different sure sure so Like I said 1482 has two primary provisions. One is rent control, but the state actually calls it anti-rent gouging And one is eviction controls The jurisdictions that we've been monitoring that are passing urgency ordinances to bridge these gaps are only addressing The eviction control issue. They're prohibiting evictions between now and the effective date of the ordinance Jurisdictions don't seem to be touching the rent control issue and there's a variety of reasons. I think that The one that I think is most compelling to the city attorneys Is that there's a question about notice for the rent control provisions about whether or not the landlord has had effective notice if the Landlord it's difficult for us to stop rent increases that were already noticed We could if the council wished we we could we could do that and if the council wished to do that and We might have some concerns legally with that approach or If the council wished to include rent control provisions the council could do it prospectively So the council could say any rent control any rent increases between now between now the date of the urgency ordinance and January 1 2020 cannot exceed whatever is in the statute 5% plus CPI Like I said other jurisdictions are not do not seem to be doing that and I think the reason is that The statute Includes a retroactive provision for rent increases The statute requires as of January 1 2020 all rents be Rolled back to the what whatever the rent was as of March 15th 2019 So I think cities figure that that that is sufficient to cover any rent increases Thank you So I take it though. There's no clock ticking in terms of eviction We pass this even though some people did get an eviction notice That's an all-in-void if they're if they are still in possession of the units Oh, they still have to be there They still have to be in possession of the unit if they have already evicted this like if they have already moved this likely would not Capture them and if they are still within the notice period on the eviction notice So if they got the eviction if they've been in the unit for two years or more and are subject to a 60 days If this if November 6th is with the if they got the nose within 60 days They are covered by this permit by this ordinance. Okay boys had a question about the provision of moving in family members What kind of restrictions are put on that? I mean family member moves in and moves out a month later I mean yeah dealt with yeah So the ordinary the statute addresses that and and the ordinance that we're suggesting mirrors the statute and I think it's that the family member It has to be the owner or a family member and they have to live there for a year Parents Right parent when word when words parents or children they have to move in within three months And they have to occupy the unit as their primary residence, so they can't live somewhere else and just keep it vacant for at least a year Do they have to like change their registration voter wise or DMV or I mean do they have to actually exercise something that indicates that it's actually a primary residence We don't delve that deeply here in the ordinance And I could check your code to see if there's a definition of primary residence and that would apply This would really be an enforcement issue by the city So the city would need if if a landward evicted someone and it would probably be relatively easy to Monitor because there are probably only so many evictions that could occur between now in December 31st The city would need to follow up and we would probably rely on some assistance from the tenants who got evicted Okay, so we need notice from them. We're not going to monitor on own they'd have tell us and then we would follow up We could do whichever works we could do whatever the city has capacity and interest to do so Okay, certainly monitor on our own I know in San Francisco Non-profits help the city does some monitoring San Francisco has its own right control ordinance that I think requires that For owner move in evictions the owners lived there for three years in San Francisco The city will on will not do some monitoring They obviously don't have capacity to do much and so some local nonprofits will do monitoring as well. Okay, Jimmy Do we have any? Capacity to do this. Do we have any groups that we work with on this particular issue? Or has it not come up before and so we really haven't been there? I think yeah, I think the latter is the answer to the question with city certainly hasn't monitored occupancies of units in the past but You know if there was a situation where we had an eviction and someone was asserting that they were moving in pursuit to this residency I think we would I think as the city attorney suggested primarily try to work with the tenant And potentially try to work with some nonprofit partners to make sure that the monitoring Took place and that someone was compliant with the provisions of our ordinance Okay, with our city's attorneys help. I'm sure we can do it. Okay. Thank you At this point are there any questions from those who are here for this item? Please come forward These are questions Comments, please. Yes. My name is Rachel Ellis and I have a comment on the interim emergency ordinance and I want to advocate for Capitalist city to move forward on getting this ordinance Due to the fact that Watsonville is experiencing the same thing through CNC property management And we've already been in collaboration with clra, which will answer your question Mrs. Peterson that if we move forward on this they will take action on helping the no fault eviction residents that have already been working with them and they will Remove the eviction notices because they found just cause That these eviction notices do not stand in the court of law That CNC had already issued capital residents and City of Watsonville residents We are also moving forward to try to push this for City of Watsonville as well next week. It's on an agenda item City Council in Santa Cruz had already pushed this interim emergency ordinance and I really would like to vouch for these residents because it's prevention of homelessness and Displacement and it's devastating to them at this moment they're trying to find placement for their families around Christmas time Thanksgiving time and we have gotten no no repercussion from CNC property management no callback and Not this time It's been a community effort to try to pull together all the resources we can to keep them in interim housing However, there's been a couple folks that have been spooked already that had already vacated their units Due to unknowing what will happen and if they will get an eviction if they're not putting in there's 30-day notice and how it will follow them We want to support our community members in feeling safe feeling secure. So I thank you for your time. Thank you Good evening. I'm Gretchen Reganhardt. I'm with California Rural Legal Assistance. I just wanted to say hello And let you know that we stand ready to help anybody who needs help in forcing their rights under the law How can someone get a hold of California legal assistance? Well, we are located in we're located in Watsonville. We also have a satellite office in Santa Cruz People can call us at 831-724-2253 and we'll Figure out how to help. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Thanks for coming Any other comments from people that have come here to this meeting? Okay, bring it back to city council for comments in a motion. Mr. Mayor. Yes, if I may respond to one of the comments Please one of the speakers the this ordinance captures all tenants who live in covered proper covered units that For which they still legally Retain the right to live there So if for instance a tenant has gotten a 60-day eviction notice and the notice expires November 30th and The tenant got spooked and moved out October 10th But the notice the eviction notice still has not expired if and I don't It's possible that the tenant has some arrangement with the Wang order to move out early Who knows but if not and the unit is simply sitting vacant and the tenant still has a legal right to that unit The eviction notice has not expired. This ordinance would cover that tenant So if a tenant has moved out and is concerned about whether or not this ordinance would cover the tenant I would encourage the tenant to speak with someone to help them perhaps the woman from legal aid who just spoke How about in a situation where they got their refund on last month's rent and in that case They have probably surrendered their tenants. Okay Thanks for that comment So I have a comment if there's no comments from city council members before we get a motion so one thing that's important to me and It's the reason why I'm up here, and I'm pretty sure that's why a lot of us up here including those who work for the city is Section 8 which details the urgency clause And this is one thing we're going to vote on So I'll just read it the city council finds and declares That this ordinance is required for immediate protection of the public peace health and safety That's everyone that lives in this city Without a city capital the residents would suffer potentially irreversible displacement of tenants Resulting from no fault evictions prior to the effective date of AB 1482 So This is one reason why we have city government, and this is one reason why you choose carefully who you elect Our job is to make sure the city is a good place for its residents And we want the security of this city for all the people that live here, and that's why we're considering this So is there a motion? I'd like to move approval with the Changes recommended by our city attorney And now the second great if it's okay with the council I'll read those changes into the record Please so the changes to the ordinance there are two of them one is on page 29 of the packet section 2 Will now read effective date period this ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately The ordinance shall expire June 15th 2020 The second change Is on page 33 of the packet section C 8 of the ordinance and the revised language Is on the screen would the clerk like me to read it or would you? Okay, great. Thank you. You have these changes Would you please do a roll call Councilmember story Mayor if I may before we take the vote may I One I just want to thank the tenants who came out to our meeting and alerted us to this situation So that we could be in a position to do something about it, and I'm really pleased that I'm on the city council to be able to You know help not only these tenants, but other tenants in Capitola who may be facing this situation And I really think it's unconscionable that a property manager and a property owner would take such steps In view of the state legislation Simply for the reason of trying to upscale and upmarket their property but putting so many families Potentially at risk and out into the streets During the holidays. I just think it's an awful thing to do And so I just wanted to state that and with that I vote yes Councilmember Peterson Councilmember Brooks and Mayor Bertrand. I Passes unanimously. Thank you very much so Back to another issue. We have Christmas tree lights and Item 7b and I don't know that everyone's gonna want to change not to say for this but It's important for the residents and the businesses of Capitola to have this right. So that's why it's on the agenda Staff report, please Steve An evening mayor and council Yeah, we're here to talk about the village tree lights as we headed into the holiday season here Some quick background earlier this year the city council held two hearings regarding the LED rope lights that were provided by the business improvement area district To decorate the palm trees Primarily along Capitola Avenue, but also in front of the restaurants on the Esplanade and also in on San Jose Avenue in May the council directed staff to leave the existing rope lights in place For the city to abide install some alternative colored rope lights, which was done and for the Bia to develop plans to replace the rope lights by the end of October, which was last week And ad ad hoc palm tree lighting committee was formed and has been working on this issue for several months In September, they began working with the Christmas light pros Which is a company from over the hill that does exactly that Christmas light decorating They have lots of ideas and they recommended that low-voltage LED lights replace the existing rope lights so some LED test lights were installed in early October at the intersection of Capab and San Jose, so this is just a picture. These are the LED low-voltage lights that were installed by Christmas light pros. These are the rope lights in the background here I'm going to come back to this picture in a minute to explain part of what we're going to consider tonight so the lighting subcommittee met this past Monday to discuss the low-voltage LEDs and seem to support them and then a couple days over yesterday they provided a Proposal to the city There's a lot to the proposal, but the highlights of the plan Include removing the existing Right-white LED rope lights and replacing them with low-voltage LEDs Procure the low-voltage LEDs from Christmas light pros Complete the switch over in January or February of 2020 of next year They estimate the cost to be between ten thousand and seventeen thousand dollars and the reason for such a large variation is kind of dependent on whether public works crews install the New lights or if the Christmas light pro company comes in and do it It's about two hundred dollars a tree to have them installed by the company It was clear that I think they probably do a better job than public works So that's where they're trying to do that. So the lighting subcommittee is going to seek partners in funding They're going to talk to several their groups around the village and see if they can raise enough funding day by the lights and be have the Christmas light pros and install them So I want to go back to this picture real quick The lights you see here are wrapped with a spacing between each row between two and three inches That gives us and that's a hundred feet of light there, which gives you approximately five feet of lighted area five to six feet it all depends on the circumference of the tree obviously height of the tree and so what the Christmas light pro person call recommends is they actually go out and and try and Measure the circumference of each tree Figuring out a good spacing that would probably get a higher or more complete coverage of the tree He recommended going from two to three to four to six inches in the spacing Which would effectively double the length of lit area on the tree, but they're going to go through and I think their goal is to establish a Width of the tree or height of the tree that will be lighted and it'll be uniformed on the street So every tree will be lighted up to 20 feet as long as it's a 20-foot tree and will stop at five feet And then they can vary the actual length of each light strand of lights for each tree So they're going to work on that after the holidays and then come back with a They'll refine the costs at that point and come back so You know tonight We were the agenda report talks about We were supposed to remove the lights at the end of October obviously the past that date and we wanted to give the council chance to consider extending that through the holidays so with the Proposal that the ad hoc committee has presented your options tonight or to extend the existing rope lights to February that gives the committee a chance to finalize their proposal and See what kind of fundraising they're able to do if we do leave the lights in place through February They've requested and I recommended this to them that we remove the test lights that are there's three lights Trees with different colored lights on them out there right now I think it'd be best if to have some uniformity through the village and through the season and so remove all the warm white lights and put up strands of the white bright lights It's actually only what two trees have both lights on them right now And the one tree will require us to actually hang new lights but that's not a big deal and then As part of this it'd be to direct staff to continue working with the lighting subcommittee in the BIA to develop the transition pan from the low voltage LEDs and Then we would return to council So that's one option the other option Frankly is to direct me to have the room lights removed at this time And that's my report and I'd be happy to answer any questions any questions of Steve sin Yeah, and well and this may be more for the city attorney just as a point of order on The agenda the agenda's item is whether to remove the lights or to give grand a continuance And then we've now received this detailed proposal Is it appropriate for us to comment on the proposal or? make It says one of the options is to accept the ad hoc committee recommendations I'll take a stab at this so I think what staff is asking for is either an extension as requested by the ad hoc subcommittee with some of these other provisos that are identified here or to take them down at this time Staff's understanding is that if there is ultimately an application to do something different that the BIA or some component of the BIA would work with staff pursuant to the third bullet there and develop something for council approval So you'd not be Approving a new light strategy tonight Okay, thank you. Yeah, okay I don't have any questions, but I have comments when Okay, and at this time people in the audience who would like to speak on this and Likely suspects pretty much how I feel Karen Hannah likely suspect So I just wanted to I'm really really glad that you asked that question because First of all, we didn't get very much notice that this was going to be on the agenda And then to see in the staff report that accept the recommendations from the committee was kind of a shocker because this committee is not a committee of the BIA and That needs to be made really clear This is a committee that Gary Wetzel and Ed Botorff Came up with all by themselves two people who are very much against the current lights They selected the people who were going to be on this committee They held it in a location where they did not allow the public to attend Did not allow the public to attend anybody who said I'd like to come and just sit in on the meeting There they weren't allowed. So this has not been a transparent Process and So we saw I believe it was yesterday that the additional materials came out That's the first time anybody on the BIA has seen this recommendation. So It was always our understanding that when this this Committee came up with their recommendation that The there would be then a period to discuss it where the BIA could pull their members Discuss it with the board vote on the recommendations of this Outside committee and that they that the city council would take the recommendation of the BIA and this committee both into consideration and This is not didn't feel like what's happening tonight. So hopefully They'll just be at this point an extension and then the committee. I mean the committee's report just It has a lot of it still has a lot of gaps And I think they kind of felt like they had to get something together for this meeting in order for you to Make a decision whether you were going to extend this this period Going forward So hopefully the they'll just be an extension of this time and at the BIA will have an opportunity to look at the report for more than two days Thank you. So you need time Basically Well, yes, we have to call our board together. We have to pull our membership You know, it's a busy season right now. We all work full-time It's you know, we can't just stop drop everything and go out and start pulling people plus Honestly, I don't think we have a complete. I don't think you have a complete report It's certainly from what I saw it's not it's not complete a lot of discussion Still needs to go on about what it's ultimately going to look like I mean if if you really think that that little section, which is what they're recommending five feet off the ground up to 20 feet is What we're hoping for maybe I Don't know. I think y'all look at it again. Thank you So I was working with the committee as well as the BIA on some of this stuff and We are seeking a continuance because putting the report together was rushed because we didn't know we actually had a city council meeting within two days And agreed everybody on the committee agreed from the residents and a few merchants that are on there that we're not ready There's a lot of spacing issues some of the lighting the contracting that was going with the city We also need to you know bid it out. We can't just go with one bid We actually have to put out three bids to see the right pricing this the right contractor It's not ready for the holidays and all the merchants and the residents agreed that we should keep the lights up Lights for the holidays and then when we find the right solution then we can you know Present something to the BIA and present something to city council But at this time I don't think There's any lighting that we have right now that would work and appease everybody because if we were to rush something We're gonna be back here in a year from now with the same issues that we did the first time You know, there's a lot of steps that needed to take involved and we're just not there So we'd like to get a continuance into January to re you know Resurface this and kind of see where we're at and to be honest I would say we're looking at more like March April for an actual full-out proposal of time to Put something up by spring, but even in January February the committee will meet again Doesn't mean they're gonna have the right solution There's still a couple more trials that we have to do with those lights that are up there. I just have a question So you're really not sure the timeline. I mean we can tell you January February because that's you know We're gonna get us to that point You know, but there's still some more trials that we have to do which we can't do during the holiday season without having The lights look differently So from what you saw we need to still decide are we gonna start the lights at the bottom of the tree and go all The way up. Do we start five feet up or three feet up to present from bikes and in people breaking the lights, right? What's the space and we doing three to four inches or we doing 68 inches if we do six to eight inches now The length of the rope lights is now longer to go all the way up the tree that cost more money So that we stop to reevaluate what the total cost would be we're estimating between 10 and 17,000 based on three To four inches and a hundred feet of light per tree But if we do this increase the spacing of the lights and go farther down and up the tree Then you might look at 200 feet or 150 feet, which then that changes all the numbers So as of now, I mean this is a a plan and a progress, but this isn't a definite proposal It's more of here's what we're working on. We've consulted outside contractor We have some trials in place, but this is just showing you that we have a plan and a progress But we don't have a definite answer to this right now Okay Any other questions Please come forward My name is Jamie McVicker good to be back here in Capitola for my fourth winter I come from kind of a different perspective Maybe the only one in the room, but I come from the perspective as a resident But as a resident that actually lives right in the village with these lights I live at 208 Monterey Avenue above the store As I understand it there's been some debate about the brightness of the lights and about the aesthetics But where I come at it is from safety and security and and I would urge the council to to let this from almost all other considerations Wall Street Journal reported this week that the number of Pedestrian fatalities up is up 53 percent. It's very dramatic Bicycle bicycles hit by cars are open or up over 30 percent Living there every morning between 6 30 and 7 I walked down Monterey Avenue over Capitola to get my newspaper There's already cars streaming by and it's dark. It's already dark out there at 5 30 When I'm out in the morning, I'm not alone. There's single women that are out jogging on the streets There's some people that are already out there with their dogs This isn't like a quiet residential street. These are cars Streaming up Capitola from both directions So also not a quiet residential street in terms of what to expect this morning I knocked on the window of a person sleeping in their car homeless who had left their cars on I thought his battery might die That person was there last year I called the police because somebody was meeting up the girlfriend on the street that I could see clearly Point I'm trying to make is that the lights that exist today are bright We feel more safe. The residents that actually live there being able to cross these streets Aesthetically that's subjective but in terms of safety I hope you'll put the the bra I see nothing wrong with what you have now in Making the residents that that actually lived there feeling more safe and secure and not getting hit by cars as we cross those streets in the dark Any other comments from people in attendance? Thank you Good evening. How are we doing tonight? Good? Good? We're doing fine So also as a resident down here and business owner and board member in the BIA the capital of foundation and the chamber of commerce I supported the original lights that we have up currently but since there's so much issues with the way they look and To take them down or change them, whatever may be I would strongly encourage at least leaving them up until January or February so we can continue to Evaluate the situation but again like this other gentleman said I also agree. I live right on Stockton Avenue in Central Village It's very dark and when if the thought of taking these lights down, especially before the holiday season I think is foolish as well as It would take away from the charm again as he said as well. Some people don't like the color That's neither here nor now that the main point is much safer and it is bright and it does add some festivity to the to the area At least let's leave them up for the time being and we can come to a new Resolution in the in the near future, but again leet taking them down would be simply foolish in my opinion For safety and for just the look of the town in general Thank you. Thank you Okay, see no one else coming bring it back to city council for comments Sure, yes Well, so it was my sense. I thought the question before us is whether to grant an extension or to have them removed I certainly Don't want to have them remove it at this point because we're not prepared to put anything else up And for all the reasons that are stated. We need to have something better than nothing But that said I think that we can Satisfy all those interests of safety and aesthetics at the same time So I would like to support granting an extension until February of 2020 To allow time for the committee and the BIA to do its work to get together and have a more detailed Plan and with a cost and a budget associated with it And to work with staff to develop that plan and bring it back to the council in February. So If I may I'd like to make that motion. Oh Well, and maybe to add one other thing just that that Rick comment or request to have them all be uniform I think that makes sense Just for consistency for the holidays and so I would like to include that in the motion as well With all that said, I'm one of those that don't care for the light. So but I get it. Thank you Can I make a friendly request a friendly amendment to the motion? Well, if somebody seconds it first I believe it and then I will otherwise you don't need to make a second now Can I second it and then ask for a friendly amendment? Okay? I will second it and ask for a friendly amendment if I am understanding correctly the motion is to keep them up until February I'm gonna request an amendment to say to keep them up through February at which time it will come back to the council So that we don't find ourselves in a similar situation where all of a sudden on February 1st We're going. Oh, I guess we're gonna have to take them down now and Instead to have them return to us in February to provide an update with an understanding that we're expecting the update to be Here's what we're gonna do now. Is that? Well, if it's implicit in there that that the proposal is gonna come to us then at least by March of 2020 No later than March of 2021 I think maybe maybe there's a better way for me to word what I'm trying to suggest my suggestion is that I want to I want to Suggest an amendment to the motion that says that Come this deadline. We will expect another presentation not come this deadline We're turning everything off. Oh sure understood. Yeah, that's fine Okay, so there's a motion in second I just want some clarification that the BIA feels confident in This March deadline if this is realistic, I don't want to waste any more Anyone's time doing this back and forth if you feel as a board or maybe we can get some clarification on that from on Let's talk about real real timelines real deadlines if I heard April. I mean so Considering that's an ad hoc committee. They have to present that to the BIA and the BIA board would have so really It's not up to the BIA to bring it to you until the committee has actually finished the plan and that's a committee of Some merchants, but a lot of residents are on how often do you meet once a month? If that okay, and a lot of the residents that are on there are Not always there. So we haven't actually had a meeting. I could say that everybody that was on the committee's been there It's made four or five people seven three So that's kind of the issue is as we get to the holidays and whatnot a lot of the residents aren't making the meetings And neither are some of the merchants so we haven't had like a cohesive meeting sure so without That committee coming up with a plan to present to the BIA and to be able to present to you I can't give you a hard deadline and the BIA can't give you a hard deadline until the committee actually is ad hoc committee actually Finishes the proposal and has a hard number to present And that might be something that needs to be discussed with Ed as he was kind of put the with Gary and they're kind of Running this committee or at least Gary is well, I think that's besides the point I think what we need to do here is just make sure that we don't go back and forth Like Chris miss vice mayor Peterson was was saying that when you come to us It would be nice to just have it all finalized versus, you know Things being brought up over and over again. I ideally would love to see something in April or You know, it's a fair timeline. Yeah, and have something that's tangible and then make a decision at that point If I can comment also I'm I am the council's representative to the BIA and also on the lighting committee I acknowledge that I missed the last meeting due to work. I wasn't able to attend However, I will would be glad to make it very clear to the lighting committee members that there is The time is of the essence. I will say that I Have expressed that throughout this process and we had some hiccups in the first couple months. I'm confident that the Lights that we had on trial will not face Cause us to say face the same hiccups as we did in the first couple months of the committee But I'm happy to express to the committee that in order to Continue to move forward that the council is expecting them to bring a proposal to the BIA so that the BIA membership Can approve it as well And if I may just as a word of caution I think it's going to be important for for us as a body moving forward to Reconsider things like ad hoc committees that don't have budgets or or voting power or whatnot You know a couple years back we had the ad hoc committee on the bluff And we had some great ideas and no money to do anything about it So I think that this is kind of a another sign as we move forward that a lot of people want to do a lot of Good things, but we need to ensure that we're not creating committees that don't have the capacity to do what we're asking them to do so but but to your point I would be happy to You know if it is the the general consensus of the of the council to bring it forward to the lighting committee that we're expecting them to Bring their proposal to the BIA and allow the BIA time to vote and that all of that needs to be considered and brought back to us By the end of February For further consideration. Can I I can't recall? Did we request that the committee bring back the proposal or that the BIA bring it back to us? I? Don't believe that the city formed the ad hoc committee. I believe that that was done independent of the city, okay? That's my recollection. Yeah, the minutes did not reflect the request for any Great, that's what so that's actually a BIA ad hoc committee It may be a volunteer committee. They formed on their own is my understanding, right? So I just want to make I just want to be clear that it's the BIA that comes back as a body with the recommendation to council in May or whatever month you said I can't remember what you I think it would be I'd like to can I can weeks I Would suggest we extend that to give them time to kind of get everything together and figure that out With plenty of time and that the BIA returns as a body with with what you all as a body would would like to do I've heard it extended to win I Don't think that they'll have enough time by February or March to be honest I mean we had a few folks already mentioned that and so well I believe there was one vote that mentioned made that statement And I believed that he was speaking on behalf of the BIA so that that was That's from what I understand somebody from the BIA come speak to this question Again about how much time the BIA needs to From when we get the committee report at least one one board meeting one to two board meetings to go over it One for them to read look through it and pull the membership and then the second to vote on it What date Once when do you expect to get the committee report it sounds like there's the committee is not a formal committee It has no particular timeline. It has no particular budget. It has no particular mandate And so that's what I'm concerned about and I think the BIA should take control of this process and either adopt and accept these preliminary recommendations or revamp them and Start that process so you can have some better controls over the time of this So I guess to speaking to the question and thank you for for bring that to us I mean, I'm willing to compromise to March But I don't want to see this continually being You know extended out into the future At that point if the BIA feels that they need more time they can come back to us then and Ask for another extension. I'd rather do that Then just have a lengthy deadline on this topic Can I have some clarity on the motion? I think it might be helpful. I'm hearing him hearing March And can we just say that by the first meeting in March that we are either bringing an item just to update the council What's happened that we either have or have not gotten a proposal from the BIA and and just say that that's that first meeting In March is the date when we're going to be making a decision Well, I mean the original motion was by the end of February and so the first meeting March It doesn't seem like it give us maybe we could say by the second meeting in March that gives them some additional time To develop work this out and then bring us something so we'll say the second by our second meeting in the in March 2020 Yes, that it will return to us. Not that that's a hard deadline to take lights down, correct Well, well the goal is that a proposal will return to us. Yes, but if they're not ready Yeah, you know come back and ask for another extension it but tell us why so yeah So I'll make a comment. So I think it's really important that the BIA I totally agree with the event that BIA takes charge of this process But more importantly, it's important to have a transparent process that includes the businesses and the residences in the amount of time That you feel that you can get to a solution You know something that everyone feels comfortable with because after all it does affect these two areas the businesses And how they're going to do well in the seasons and also the residents that live there And a little recount the first time this came up I do recall a lot of letters from residents and maybe other people are just visiting here about safety So, you know, I hope that's a component people do feel That's a very big issue especially when it's dark at night and as Jamie mentioned I don't know if you talked about this last year But Jamie just mentioned that has come up multiple times and now it's coming up again So I think that's really something we should focus on So with that We have a motion a second roll call vote again, please Councilmember story. Yes, councilmember Peterson councilmember Brooks. I am mayor Hi, so passes. Thank you very much. Thanks for everyone coming and the comments were great It helped us understand the situation a lot better appreciate that So with that this meeting is adjourned. Thank you