 and have a roll call, Ms. Council Member's Story. Here. Peterson. Here. Brooks. Here. Baddorf. Here. And Mayor Bertrand. Here. So the stamp for pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We have a report from closed session. With respect to the two litigation items, Council took no reportable action with respect to the city attorney performance evaluation Council directed to release the RFP and further to execute an interim city attorney contract, which will be on at the following meeting. We do have presentation from Monterey Bay Community Power. Welcome. So my name is Lena Williams, I'm the Manager of Energy Account Services for Monterey Bay Community Council. You need the microphone. There you go. So I'll repeat just in case. So my name is Lena Williams of Monterey Bay Community Power. I'm the Manager of Energy Account Services. So I'm here to provide you guys with the annual report of what we've achieved today as your community choice aggregator. So for anyone who is not aware, community choice energy aggregator actually sources are renewable and carbon free power sources and works in collaboration with the investor own utility, in our case PG&E, to provide you with your full energy services. So you receive the same billing and services through PG&E, but now you're receiving renewable energy at competitive rates. So who we are. The city of Capitola is one of 23 cities that makes up part of our JPAs, our Joint Powers Authority. And the goals, of course, are to maximize greenhouse gas reductions, to have competitive stable rates, and of course, to provide local energy projects and programs utilizing the revenue that's generated from our energy costs. So our accomplishments to date. So there's a lot of stuff on there. So I'm just going to focus on our two most important. So one, we've reinvested over $1 million into energy programs, and I'll give you a few details about the ones we've gotten started so far. We've also put $4.4 million in rebates back into the pockets of our customers. So they received those on their December bill for their 2018 usage. And then we've gathered or garnered about $7 million in electric vehicle infrastructure grants, and then we matched that with an additional million for Monterey Bay Community Power. So close to $8 million actually available for our electric vehicle infrastructure program. And then our financial stability. So we have over $58 million in revenues, and we've actually repaid all of the debt service and loans that we use to actually develop our infrastructure and get started. So our projects that are on the horizon. So in a joint partnership with Silicon Valley Clean Energy, we were able to actually procure two solar plus storage projects that are going to go online in 2021, and then one wind project out in New Mexico that also goes online in 2021. And our two PV plus storage projects actually represent the largest PV plus storage project in the entire state of California. So we're pretty proud of that. And then as I mentioned, the Monterey Bay Community Power rebates. So this is an annual program. Last year it was 3% going back to customers. We anticipate that's going to be higher going into this year, but so far $4.4 million has gone back to customers who are enrolled with Monterey Bay Community Power. And for the city of Capitola. So 5,950 currently enrolled customers. So that's 97.4% of the Capitola population actually enrolled. 67,490 was the amount that went back to in-community savings. So those are rebates both on the residential and the commercial side for 2018. And the commercial actually customers receive their rebates quarterly. So that's a little bit higher on their side. And then over 25 enrollments that have actually moved into our other program. So Monterey Bay Prime, which is our 100% renewable, and Be Share, which allows people to choose to reinvest their rebates into programs for low income and fixed income families. And then Monterey Bay Green, which allows people to reinvest their rebates specifically into projects that support renewables on the central coast. Our Energy Programs, one of our primary goals, of course, is the electrification of vehicles, of course, because the greenhouse gases are the largest emissions come from our vehicles currently. So we do invest heavily in those programs. And then we also are looking at programs that support renewable projects for residential customers as well. So our first project program to come online, Monterey Bay EVIP Incident Program. So this is a joint program with MBAR that actually is allowing us to provide not just rebates, but certificates that are accepted same as cash by participating dealers. That bi-local program is May 1st through July 31st. So we actually have information available on our site. And I also included it in the information package I left for you for individuals who like to purchase vehicles. But even beyond that, it also includes the purchase of fleet vehicles for public agencies, nonprofits, and educational institutions. So they can still apply to receive this with, of course, the goal to incentivize those to actually put electric vehicles more than on the road. And then your choice. So after August 1st, instead of having very specific vehicles and dealerships participating, it actually opens up to all dealerships, new and used, and also includes hybrids and motorcycles for those who want a motorcycle, electric motorcycle, and the program starting August 1st until all of the funding runs out. Smart Connect is our microgrid program. So we've taken our first round of applications, those closed on the 22nd. And we're currently reviewing sites for this program, which of course is allowing for businesses that are having challenges as they develop and grow with getting electricity out to their site. So this allows them to have island microgrids that are available and can be, of course, net metered once PG&E is actually able to build out there. But the time for PG&E to put in electric infrastructure, the timeline is really long. So it kind of prohibits the growth of new business, of course, and this allows them to come online sooner. So we're hoping to have some of our first projects actually move into the next round with the bids out into the open market before the end of the year. And then Cal EBIP, I mentioned that earlier. And you can see the breakdown by county. So those are the funds that are actually being set aside to increase electric vehicle charging station infrastructure. Of course, right now it's really cost prohibitive with a lot of challenges, both for property and business owners to identify not just where to put them, but how to fund them. And so the program actually provides financial support, whether the located site is going to be a purchase or a leased option. And then we're providing match funding to go into the project to help get it started. And then going forward, I mean, our objective is to actually continue to meet with our member agencies and city members putting together community surveys, putting together workshops and working groups with our public sector members so that we can actually identify other projects for the future. So that's the end of my report. And of course, I provided information for you there. I'm your direct point of contact with the city of Capitola for any additional questions that you may have. So thank you for giving me your time. Yeah, sorry. No, go ahead. Just real quick, you've mentioned that there was 97% enrollment out of an estimated 5,950 customers. Is that, can you tell me a little bit more about that, was that 5,000 previous PJ&E customers that moved over? So they're actually joint customers or shared customers. So PJ&E is still providing the power lines. If the power were to go out, PJ&E is still rolling the trucks out. Your bill still looks exactly the same. But we're actually sourcing the energy from renewable and carbon neutral sources. So we're providing the generation portion only. So through that enrollment, what that means is that a customer receives one bill that instead of concluding all of PJ&E's bundled services, the portion that was allocated to generation previously on the PJ&E side is now coming from Monterey Bay Community Power and then the customer is still paying in total the same bill that they were paying before. So when the postcards went out to the community, only 3% opted out. Correct. Is there an opportunity, are you gonna send it out again so folks can opt, not opt out? Yeah, technically they can opt out at any time. It's available to them on their website. There's information actually on the PJ&E bill. There's a separate page for Monterey Bay Community Power included in there that has the website and the phone number included for those who don't wanna participate or who have questions. That's great, thank you. Ed. I'm on a similar path. Okay, I was highlighted by the 97%, I was gonna, the 97.4 that you mentioned in Capitola, is that consistent with throughout the other agencies that are involved? So we're at 96.4% enrollment overall. Through the Tri-County. So some are down at 92 and some are as high as 98. And on top of that, the reason for the opting out, is there a reason given or when they do it, do they just opt out without a reason? So good question, so it depends. So we have about, in our last kind of survey of the opt out reasons, we had about 19% that declined to state, but then we do have some who for example, have an existing rate plan that we don't support and we find that with some of our commercial customers we tend to have really high usage. And then also we have some who just didn't want to participate for whatever reason. So I mean, we don't make them tell us why, but we do ask. And so for that, that's what it comes down to. Rate plan, decline to state. And then the most common one when the program first launched was there are people who didn't like the automatic enrollment. They weren't sure what it was and they wanted time to investigate further and participate later. Something new. Well, I think it's a fabulous program and it's been obviously by the numbers highly successful, the fact that you've paid off, we've already invested and money set aside for renewables. So it's just a great program and I guess 97% should be a number we should all be happy with. So great job, thank you. I have a question about the project. When you said projects, I was thinking Monterey Bay Community Power actually built something, but what you're really saying is that they contracted with an entity that is in wind, solar, et cetera to provide. Is that correct? Correct, so that's one of the sources of future generation. So actually participating down the line because of course you're purchasing power and acquiring these contracts sometimes for 20 to 30 years to provide the renewables from one particular area and so that was what we did. So that's part of our procurement side. Our projects really have more to do with what we've done to reinvest. So our project Sunshine where we completed installations or supported installations of solar on low income family homes, that was actually in partnership with grid alternatives. And so we didn't build the system, we didn't install the system, but we provided match funding so that family didn't have to actually pay out of pocket to make that switch. And the ones that are listed on slide six I guess, how long did those contracts go out? So it depends on what that particular contract states, so 20 to 30 years. You want something stable, so. Exactly, yes. So that we don't have to worry about fluctuations and the rates going down the line. One thing you didn't talk about, I know there's an advisory committee, could you expand on that and what they're doing? So depending on which committee it is, there's actually a couple. Depending on public sector, of course we have a community advisory committee that's made out of community members. And so what they'll do is of course we do report out on what the other projects are, but they help to support and participate and garner interest in our community, whether it's workshops or surveys so that we can get direct feedback on viable programs for each area. And since they all represent different portions of the tri-county, it allows us to get kind of broad feedback from the community. Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much for your presentation. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Thank you. Okay. Report in closed session, please. Oh, we already did that, excuse me. Okay, additional materials? We have one item of additional material and it's for item 10A regarding the Capitola Branch Library Project. Okay. So any additions and deletions to the agenda? Staff has no changes? Okay. Now it's time for public comment. Anyone in the audience here can make a presentation of three minutes or less on any item that's not on the agenda. Anyone would like to come forward? Yes, please do. Thank you. My name is Steve King and I'd just like to thank you all. I'm not sure who all voted for it, but somebody here voted and said that I could put my pictures up, so. Oh, those are yours. So I did. They're great pictures. They really are, yeah. So I just take a minute. People always say, well, how do you do that? So I just have a minute or so. So you have a telescope when you normally have your eyepiece, you take it out and you have an adapter and you can put on a digital camera. So then you can take a picture. But all of these pictures, they're all big enough. You would be able to see them with your naked eye, but they're too dim. They're very dim. So these are all like between three and eight or nine hour exposures in order to bring it up to where you can actually see it. And those are the actual colors that are out there that are just too dim to see. So if we could actually see that, the sky would be even more beautiful than it is. But sooner or later, that's what they are. There's information on them if anybody wants to know, but they're all taken from right over. I live in Antinelli Mobile Manor and I'm on Romer Street and they're all taken from the driveway of my mobile home. That's where they're taken from. Wow. Oh, that's pretty cool. Well, they look great in our chamber. Okay. Thank you. I hope you enjoy them. We do. We were talking about just before the meeting started earlier on before six o'clock. Well, somebody said, if you're looking out kind of spacey, you know, you've got a good reason for it now because. Well, okay. Sam? Yeah, Mr. King. These are quite impressive, but I did want to let you know that who approved these was the Art and Cultural Commission for the City of Capitola at their meeting last Tuesday. And so, you know, the Arts Commission has control of the walls here. And we'd like to, I think, display local artists, such as yourself, and to, you know, both inform and educate the community about, you know, what's in the greater universe. So thank you so much for taking these pictures and sharing them with us. You're most welcome. It's always nice. I'll never break even in this hobby. But it's just fun when other people enjoy them. It's fun to see people enjoy it. So. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Thank you. Great. So any comments from the City Council? Sam? Yeah, I'll continue on that theme about the Arts Commission. We met last Tuesday and approved the universe being brought into our chambers here. But there were a couple of other items that we discussed and made some actions to move forward with. One of them, and we actually had Steve Jesberg, our Public Works Director, attended the meeting and we had some discussions with him about public art. But one project in particular that I wanted to announce is starting to look at and preparing a call to artists for replacements for our trash receptacles on the Esplanade on the beach, trying to come up with something that's both more attractive, maybe more informative and motivational to encourage people to recycle when it's appropriate and also to be functional for our Public Works crew and for the public. We'll be studying that particular project, getting some specifications from Steve and then putting out a call of artists and we'll see what comes forth. And of course, any final selections by the Arts Commission will be coming to the Council for final approval. And the other item is we set up a committee to start planning for a youth battle of the bands. So we're very excited about that project and gonna be talking to the school district about locations, getting their participation, and we're looking forward to doing our very first battle of the youth bands. So look for that in the future. Where would you have that? Well, we haven't decided yet, but most likely the spot would be at the New Brighton Auditorium, seems the most suitable site. We were thinking about maybe doing it as a fundraiser for the music programs, maybe at New Brighton or at the other schools in the SoCal Union School District. So those were just some thoughts, but it hasn't been finalized yet. And one final point or request concerning items for the future agenda item. I would like to ask that the staff bring to us a report on Assembly Bill 857, which is the public banks proposal that's in Sacramento right now. I mean, just to educate the council and for the determine whether the council would like to give its support for that Assembly Bill. Thank you. Yeah, I just have two quick comments. One is that it is, this week is the 45th annual EMS week. And so I wanted to take this opportunity to say thank you to all of our community's Emergency Medical Service Providers for all that they do to keep our community safe. And I also just wanted to make a general announcement that with Memorial Day weekend coming up, I hope that we will take a moment to honor those who have sacrificed for our country, but also to remember to celebrate safely and responsibly this coming weekend. So, curiosity's getting to me because there are students that visit our meetings quite frequently. And I would love maybe in the future not to call any of you out today, unless you wanna tell us why you're here, but maybe at our next meeting, more students will, does anyone wanna tell us why you're here today? It's killing me. Please. If you'd like to. Thank you. We would encourage your complete participation, yeah. Especially if you're gonna one day aspire to be a slug there. Now you know who to ask to sign your certification. Yeah. Yes. So we're here for a public policy class at UCSC. It's taught by Don Lane and. Oh, Don, yeah. Mayor Lane. And Cynthia Smith. Cynthia Chase. Cynthia Chase. Yeah. And we have to do 10 hours of public meetings throughout the course of this quarter. We can do that all tonight. Shall we? I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with that. Do you need to get something signed? At some point, but not now. Council member Brooks would be happy to do that. I would be honored as an alum to sign off on your documents, yes. Any one of you planning to run for office? Okay, I'll do your elevator speech right now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, we had a fact meeting last night and two students came and they were definitely involved. They didn't say much, but you could tell they were very interested. And that's our finance advisory committee. And we did have a lot of discussion about all sorts of options, which will be reported on later. So I agree with you, Sam, the bank option, I definitely want that on a future agenda too. So, Saf, any comments? Excuse me, ma'am. Oh, I think that's right. I was just waiting for my turn. No, it was. Real quick, just want to make an announcement that I yesterday attended a RTC Regional Transportation Commission ribbon-cutting ceremony in Santa Cruz, which was a pretty big deal. It was the first, we opened the first segment of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, which someday hopefully will extend through all 32 miles of Santa Cruz County. But yesterday was the opening of the first segment, which was anybody that goes across the Santa Rosa River next to the boardwalk. There was a little bike path walking trail that was attached to the bridge. It used to be about three or four feet wide and it was pretty rickety. And I don't think you could get two people past it simultaneously without squeezing. And that was removed and about a $2 million 10 foot wide walkway has been replaced there. It has lighting, it's very stable and it is now operational. It was opened, but it was open about a week ago but the ribbon-cutting ceremony was yesterday. And it is, like I said, the first segment of that trail and there are two other segments that are planned and funded. So ahead moving forward with the trail that could someday encompass the entire Santa Cruz County. So yay for the RTC. That's it. Okay, any more? Okay, staff? Just a couple for you this evening. First, I just wanted to let the council know that staff is looking, council members, if anyone is interested in volunteering to help us out review proposals from consultants to help us review our community grant program to let me know offline. If I end up with more than two volunteers then we'll probably agendize it for a future meeting. So if you're really interested, let me know. I don't anticipate it taking too much time but this would just be to help us pick the consultant to help us review our community grant program. If you could let me know by next week and if I do get three or more requests then we'll put it on probably just a budget hearing so we can keep the process moving forward. I'll be glad to help on that. Okay, real quick, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to report that the lagoon grading and beach grading was delayed. I'm supposed to start this Monday. It's delayed due to the rain. We are on schedule right now. It looks like the flows are cooperating and we will be starting that the day after Memorial Day. So on Tuesday. And we will try and clean up our existing beach. We're gonna try and rake the kelp as best we can for the Memorial Day weekend but we will have a creek through the beach for Memorial Day weekend. But it's unfortunate but we can't control the weather yet. Thank you. I've gone out to watch rake the kelp. It's quite interesting that you guys go through. Steve, you're thinking you're gonna start the lagoon on the 4th of June, is that? No, the day after Memorial Day, I think it's the 28th. Okay. Tuesday the 28th. Yeah. And we hope to have it in place by the phone that next weekend. Got it. And then we'll do additional grading the first weekend, Jim. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. So let's move on to item eight. Boards, commissions and committee appointments. We do have some committee appointments. And who? Mr. Mayor, council members. So at the last art and cultural commission meeting, the commission recommended two applicants for commissioners. The first one's at large and it's Laura Aliotto who happens to be in the audience today. And for the artist represented, it was Kelly Mazunder. And so at this point, they both were recommended unanimously by the commission for approval. Yeah, I'm here answering questions. Any questions? Well, we do have someone in the audience that is going to be, do you want to make a comment? It's, you don't have to. I read your application that came out very strongly in what you wrote. Yes. So no question. Okay. Is there a motion list? I'll move. Oh, excuse me. You go ahead. I'll motion to appoint Laura Aliotto and Kelly Mazunder. I'll second. Second? All right. Good. Welcome aboard. Thank you for your service. Yes. So we have a consent agenda. All items on the consent agenda will be one vote. And are there any people in the audience that have any issues with their consent agenda would like to pull up for further discussion? Seeing none, bring it back to the city council. Any items on the consent agenda, you have a problem with. I'll move to approve consent of the agenda. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. Let's go on to general government public hearings. So we have an update on the library. Good evening, mayor and council. This is our every two month update on the library project. To go through what's been constructed and the cost to date. So looking at the recent completions, we, they have completed the water main relocation on the site just to refresh everybody. The existing water main that services the subdivision behind the property had actually run through the parking lot of the library and it need to be relocated still within our property to, because the new building would have gone over the top. So they completed that work. They've completed about 70% of the retaining wall footings. These are the footings that the walls go on and they've also completed about 35% of the retaining walls on top of that. The retaining walls are mainly along the Warf Road site. As you go in ground, we are transitioning to a slab on grade building. So that's part of the earthwork that they'll be doing. They also relocated the driveway along Warf Road. If you go to the site, you'll see the old driveways now closed and the new driveways is open, although there isn't much space to drive a car on the site right now. So I wouldn't recommend going there if you wanna go on the site, walk and let us know. So upcoming work, they're gonna complete the outer retaining walls. They're going to finish construction of the bio retention swales and they're gonna complete the earthwork for the remainder of the foundation so that they can move to the slab on grade foundation. Update on the cost. So there's been no change orders issued since we were last year in March. The value of the contract is still 11,588,559 dollars. That is still $55,000 short of our value engineering goals. And there's a $77,000 deduct change order is still in process. The reason it's being delayed is they need to get the trust designs in to make sure we can get the window design reductions that were in there part of it. So it's just part of the process of going through this. There's no issue that it's going to get approved. It's just getting the bids from the subcontractors to agree. And like I said, there's no, but no additive change orders added at this point. Expenses to date are been 1,384,527 dollars in change. We're about 12% of the cost complete on it. Right now there's 68 days of rain delays that have been added to the contract. So there's so many given so many working days to complete the project. We've added 68 days to that. So the projected completion right now, this is the construction would be April, 2020. We're looking probably at an opening in June of 2020 at this point. And the current construct contingency balance is 753,795 dollars. So the attachment that I passed out today is kind of an updated budget analysis. It shows the different line items, the contingencies and how much money we have. I will mention on the lower right, and there's a little box says open and pending, CORs, that's change order requests from the contractor, just items that they're kind of bringing to our attention. So we are looking at some additional costs. A lot of it is delay cost and some we've run into some dirty dirt that needed to be hauled off site and things like that. Certainly not final in any way, but those are change orders that they kind of brought to our attention as we meet weekly that are a potential. So I keep adding a picture here. So this is the first report in January when it was raining. And in March, we came back and we were see they were starting to construct footings and start construction. And this is where we are today. You can see we have quite a bit of the retaining wall foundation up. And you can see in the back of this picture, how far back the building is gonna extend. This is the far corner, far north corner of the building. So this whole frontage is building. It's also quite illuminating when you realize this is gonna be essentially the elevation of the first floor, the once floor building. But the floor of the building is gonna be at the elevation of the top of this retaining wall. So it's gonna be projected quite above Warf Road here and then it kind of blends into the site at this end. So this is kind of where I wish I could stop, but I can't. So do we. Yeah. You know, as we've let you guys know in the past, there is a conflict with the power lines on the site. The existing ease along Warf Road extend into a six foot buffer that defines a no build zone. And that's per the public utility code. In addition, the top of the roof and the ease encroach into a 10 foot working safety zone around the high voltage lines. And that's an ocean requirement. And it's easiest to see it in the attachment that was included in the agenda report. So you can see this is the corner, the north end of the corners up by where the driveway will be, you can see these dashed or the striped areas that six foot zone. You can see we extend the ease extended. It's about two and a half feet right here. And as you get up to this is toward Clare Street, it's a little bit less. And then these circles represent the 10 foot safety zone that they have to maintain. You can see it's pretty large conflict. So right now, where it is, it's pretty difficult to construct these corners of the building. So we've obviously been working on options. There's really been three options that have been looked at at this point. One is to underground the utilities around the site. I'm gonna talk about that one a little bit more in a minute. The other is to restructure the lines on new poles in the same location. Again, more details on that to come. The last option that was looked at was to relocate the poles across the street. So the wristband side and move the overhead wires over there. This option has been tabled for the time being. It does require a significant amount of tree removal or trimming on there. And as some of you may know, that most of the wristband properties covered in a conservation easement and removing or trimming those trees could be probably more time consuming to get it done. I'm guessing it'd probably take us a year to get all the required approvals just to trim and remove those trees. So I've kind of taken that one off on the table. Cost wise, it's not a great cost savings for some under grounding. So we decided we're not pursuing that one any further. So under grounding all the utilities. So kind of a benefits and status. This cleans up the entire site. It provides the cleanest final project. All the wires will be removed underground. And it also improves the wristband site. Right now we have an overhead service to the wristband. That would become an underground service allows to underground it all the way to the mansion. So it cleans up the library site and cleans up the wristband site. Like I said, all wires, that includes high voltage, low voltage, AT&T cable lines would be placed underground. The design would be completed by PG&E or consultant. Right now PG&E's indicating that they have the bandwidth to complete the design in a relatively quick timeframe. So that would most likely be our choice. But if they get delayed we could have a consultant design it. The costs are probably very similar. The construction and placement of the conduit. So you trench and put the pipes underground that they eventually will pull wires. That could be done by PG&E or a contractor. Here's where we would probably save time by going with the underground contractors on site who's a licensed PG&E contractor. But we could study that as we move forward. The wire pulling through the conduit so the actual undergrounding of the utilities is done by each utility company separately. These next two bullet points are my best estimates at this point. So it's six months to complete that six months from the day we say this is what we wanna do to them hopefully pulling lines. And at this time, I'm really sketchy about this one but that $200 to $300,000 estimate is the information I have at this point. PG&E will not give us an estimate until we pay them to do some engineering and then they'll start providing us better information. It's kind of like the chicken before the egg. We have to give them money before we can make a selection but that's the where we are. So here's a picture showing the overhead wires. This is obviously at the corner of Wharf and Clairs. You know, we have wires coming down Clairs. These wires here are the ones going to a pole over here in the service wires to risk and mansion. We also have wires running along Wharf Road. So under the under grounding option back at this pole, essentially the wires that go underground would wrap around the entire site and to the far corner of the project on the site would all be under grounded. All these wires continuing would be under grounded down Wharf Road to the next pole which is not in the picture and the wires going toward the risk and mansion would also be under grounded. So it would clean up the site obviously and provide long-term benefits in that way but it is expensive. Restructuring the high voltage lines is the other option we're still pursuing. So that moves all the power lines to one side of the power poles that are there. Have a picture, I'll show that in a minute. All the other utilities, the AT&T and the cable would stay basically as they're configured. They do not have the separation requirements that the power lines do. Basically they're low voltage lines and you can grab ahold of them and they're not gonna hurt you so that's why there's no separation. New poles would be installed to replace the existing poles. The stresses are on them are different and PG&E said they'd have to replace the poles. This one would be I think only designed and constructed by PG&E. They're proprietary on their overhead line. According to PG&E it's about the same timeframe about six months from initial start to go and once again, rough estimate's $100,000 to $150,000 about half the cost and most of that is PG&E's actually saying their costs are the same. It's the additional utilities that don't have to get touched under this where an undergrounding AT&T has to come in, redo all their services, same with the cable company. So that's the biggest difference there. So this is actually the next pull down beyond our property and you can see here, this is what's called an alley arm. All power lines are off to one side of the pole and this is the option that they would reconstruct the poles by the library to actually extend them out this way so they'd be out over the road and farther away from the building. I'm not certainly no expert on line design. I think it would take them redoing quite a bit of lines because they'd have to be longer than they are now and how they exactly go about that, I don't know but that is what we're talking about is an alley arm extending out one direction and you can see the other utilities down lower. This is phone, AT&T and cable would remain attached to the poles. So from a discussion standpoint, we have begun discussions with the project consultants concerning errors and emissions. Certainly, staff feels that this is something that should have been discovered during the design phases by whether it was the architect or the civil engineer or the electrical engineer all working on the project is something that should have come and we've begun those discussions. I really don't have an update then. I know they're talking with their insurance companies and we'll give you an update when we can on that. PG&E is waiting for a direction from the city. I think we can start anticipating delays because they won't be able to begin construction of that front wall of the project in July and August if we don't make a decision and PG&E has kind of indicated they're willing to help us come up with some workarounds insulating the voltage lines or other issues, depowering them while they're doing work once we kind of make a commitment to them that may help alleviate any delays. Just for you, a delay in this project that not a result of the contractor self is something that he gets reimbursed for. So there are costs associated to the contractor if we were in this case, something beyond their control delays to work. They are due compensation for those delays. So there's an additional cost and that would be part of if we, as we talk about errors of mission with the architect that we would discuss with them. So my recommendations tonight are to accept the report on the construction progress. And it would be great if the council had any input they wanted to give me on undergrounding versus the restructuring. And the final direction would be to direct staff to diligently pursue the final details on the options and return to the council with final considerations as soon as possible. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. You bet. I think Sam had his hand up first. Oh, I thought you, okay. Thank you. Whoever jumps first. Sam. All right. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, Steve, for updating us on that report. I wanted to start by, was the option also discussed about modifying the eaves? And is that a feasible option? It is an option. I'm sorry to include that. It's something that changes the looks of the building dramatically. And it's not something we've spent a lot of time looking at. We really think the building design needs those eaves to be complete. Something I could pursue further if you'd like me to. Doesn't that option also leave in place that 10-foot buffer so that the front of the building couldn't wash the windows? Yeah, it doesn't resolve all the construction issues with the 10-foot buffer. Can you go back to that slide that showed that place? There it is. Thank you. Yeah. So what was that about cleaning? So to order, if we cut the building off here and don't have the eaves, it's still so close. I mean, there's only like a foot in here. You really couldn't get in there and work very easily. So there are still some issues. You could probably construct it, right, not be easy, big stress, but there still could be maintenance issues because even though you're outside that 10 feet, there's not really a big enough room to work in there. Yeah, okay. On the undergrinding option and what you showed, by my account, it looked like that there would be maybe five poles that would be removed. Counting in my head here. So I think it would be... So there's two enclares. There's two enclares. And the three on war. Three on war for one on Brisbane. And the one across the street, that pole would actually come down as well. Yes, yeah. Okay. But let me just, to do that, there's most likely be a new pole added right here at this pole. What it is, is they can't underground the service from this pole because there's a transformer on it. So they have to have a down pole, as they call it. So there'd probably be another pole added 10 feet from this pole. Same thing at this end. And same thing with the one south on Warf Road. So we take down five, but we still have to put three back in. Three additional poles? Yes. Okay, so we net gain. To net gain to two poles. You get 750 feet of no wires above ground. Yeah, okay. Another, was it discussed? It's probably not ideal, but making the poles higher so that they are above the eaves. So I'll go back, that's one more time. So higher would resolve the working conflict, but it would not resolve the six foot setback. That setback requirement goes from the ground upward. So we'd still have the issue with the eaves if we were working here. Okay, okay. And I recall that PG&E used to have a beautification program where they made conscious efforts to underground poles and wiring. And I think that that's a great initiative. But do they still have any such program? And would be that they could contribute to this project? So PG&E does have a undergrounding program. It's called Rule 20A. And it is a, I'm not exactly sure how it's funded, but there's the city establishes and earns credits toward undergrounding projects. Unfortunately, it only can be applied in commercial area, on arterial streets in high commercial areas. And I've talked to PG&E, I've talked to three different people, PG&E, whether we could qualify this and this does not qualify under those regulations for Rule 20 funding. We're working on, that's the undergrounding project we're working on, on Bay Avenue and Cap Ave. So that is a Rule 20A project that does qualify. But unfortunately, I haven't been able to convince anybody to use our 28 money on this project. Yeah, okay. Well, if you have some ability to pursue that further with them, I would certainly encourage that. Also in your report, you mentioned that PG&E would need a down payment to begin work. How much? I don't have that figure yet. I think it depends what kind of, how we want to proceed. Most likely in the tens of thousands of dollars, less than $50,000. So if we, if we wanted to pursue undergrounding, I think it would be a, probably around a $30,000 deposit based on my experience. Yeah, 10 to 20%. Yeah, and if we, and that's just to pay for their design costs. That's what the purpose of that deposit is. If, and same thing if we pick the restructuring, it'd be the same thing. Okay. And one final question, Mayor. And if we did pursue the undergrounding, would that cost come out of the contingency balance? That and any possible quote awards we get from the Arizona emissions from the. Understood. Yes, yeah. I will say that on the Arizona emissions, it would most likely cover resolving the problem in the cheapest way, a less expensive way. So if we went, right, which may be the alley arm. So, but that doesn't mean we couldn't pursue and add our additional contingency funding if we wanted to the underground. Right. Understood. Thank you. Chris. So, if this means that we're, we can expect delays as of August and it's gonna take six months. Does that mean six months on to the anticipated opening of in June? So if we're anticipating it to open in June in 2020, but we're expecting delays as of August of 2019, are we adding that six months to the, when is that? If we have to shut down work, we shut down work in August. That's two months from now. So it'd be potential of four month delay if everything was worst case. You know, they have to shut down until we get the underground. We are very hopeful and PG has indicated that they'll find a way to help us work through the 10 foot conflict while they're designing and working on the other project. But at this point, yes. So we hope not, but there's a potential that it'll push our opening date to October. It could be. Of 2020. Okay. And then, so the actual cost of whatever we decide to do here comes out of the contingency fund, but it was mentioned that there's also costs to the, what, contractor for any delays that aren't of their own doing. Does that also come out of the contingency fund? Yes, it would. Okay. That might have been it. Yeah, that was it. Those are my questions. Thank you. I just have a couple. What's the timeline I'm figuring out how much we would potentially get through the errors in? I don't have a firm answer on that. I mean, we've opened those discussions. We hope to continue and try and resolve them in the next maybe a couple of weeks. What that final amount will be is obviously depending on what the final costs are and things like that. It couldn't be reversed so that we would have an idea of how much we would possibly get so then we can make a better decision on how we're using those dollars. Because it's like, we're... Yeah, it's tough. We could work on that when we come back, but a lot of it, we'll know more how the errors and omissions discussions are going by the next time we meet. That's probably the best answer. I don't know if I can give you anything more firm than that at this point. It would help me make a better decision on which of the choices. It could be it's $150,000 difference in the options. And then you mentioned PG&E or a contractor for the underground option. Do we have a difference in costs there? So it's a $300,000 project. Would a contractor be cheaper or... Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, it's all right. We anticipate the costs would be the same. Whether PG&E does the trenching or a contractor, contractor schedule is probably much quicker. Getting on a PG&E construction schedule is one of the longest lead times I've ever seen. So I think that's more of a way to expedite the construction than it is a cost savings. And you had mentioned that in, that it's not just PG&E lines, it's for underground, it's like AT&T. So we have to work with additional vendors to complete the underground project or would it just be PG&E or a contractor? So for the construction, it would be one person would construct the conduits whether it's PG&E or the contract. They would install the conduits for AT&T and for the cable company. Cable companies or the other utilities then come in and actually pull their wires, but the construction would be done by a single contractor. I'm just trying to imagine any unforeseen costs. Like AT&T comes out and says, oh, that's another 50,000 for us to come and plug things in. There will be AT&T costs that I've tried to estimate in here. I mean, they're gonna have costs, yeah. And then lastly, in terms of both options, have we thought about the impact on traffic? So six months of work being done. Have we thought about what that would look like and what that would look like? I don't like it's six months of work. It's six months includes their design time. And all that's probably to be closed? No, no, they'll be able to drive. The trenches can actually go behind the existing curb if we went underground or if they're working on the poles, they'll be able to work in the bike lane. I think they'll be able to certainly keep two lanes of traffic or flag traffic through there. There'll be some impacts, but I don't think they'll have to close the road. Okay, and I definitely would just add or agree with council member's story about looking at other options at PG&E. I know you mentioned their program or Monterey Community Power as a partner, any other things that may be out there that we haven't thought about. But for me, it's a challenge to think about making a choice when we don't know how much money we have to play with per se. I understand that. I just have a quick question. On the sheet handout that we got, the contingency was $954,000. You're showing $200,000. This is pending corrections. You kind of touched on it. That was some dirt removal costs and... No, that $200,000 is budget changes we've made millionly into the architectural engineering fees. We've had those have increased as we've gone through time. They may not... So that's the part where the original engineering fees are $1295,000 and they're now $1 million in five? Exactly, yeah. So it's a very fluid kind of budget at this point. But overall, the contingencies have gone down by $200,000 because we reduced the FF&E budget at the same time. Okay, so the remaining balance is $753,000, but there's pending here for $200,000, which means it's gonna reduce it down to $553,000. Is that how I'm reading that? Yeah, and there's also a $619,000 of the budget just remaining that's outside the contingency. So that's a remaining fund balance. So one way it is, there's $1.3 million unspoken for it at this point. Right, I'm just focusing on the contingency because that's how we started. And that $753,000 is due with the... That's the dirt removal and is it the rain delays that are adding to that? Actually, the rain delays don't have a cost associated with them. Okay, but other costs are gonna knock that from $753,000. The dirty dirt and all that is that $199,640 that we're... Which will take us down to $553,000. Yes. Okay. That was my question. Thanks for clarifying, that's all I have. When I did the walkthrough, you had an issue about location of the transformers. What's the status of that? So that will be resolved once we make a choice of how we're gonna move it right now. PG&E's, they've been giving us some sketches on alternatives where it's gonna be. It's monthly, but it's likely still gonna be on the Warf Road side. That's where PG&E really wants to be. That's the original site. Yeah. If it goes private, are we gonna have to an RFQ and then have that time lag? No, it'd be existing consultants on the job for design on the job. Okay, so the handle is already on the job too. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Any other questions? No. Okay. We just need to accept the report. Probably. No. I'm awfully sorry. Anyone in the public would like to ask a question. Makes your grade go higher. Okay. Any students have any recommendations for us? I'm nice to go with that one. You're definitely a political science. Okay, come to the dais if you have a question. Yeah. Please raise your hand. You raised your hand. Yeah, come on up. Okay. What'd you say? Oh, that's okay. So do we need to take action on this? Yes. I'm waiting for some. I mean, I think to the extent that we can get direction about which option, because I think fundamentally at the end of the day there's really two paths forward. We either go down the underground path and understand that it's probably a bit more expensive, but at the end of the day there's value because we have a better product or we try to resolve this at the lowest common price. I mean, I think to the extent that we're focused, I think it will help expedite this and avoid potential future delays. So hearing where the council is at, it doesn't mean that this is a firm commitment and we can't change courses down the road. We're really getting everybody focused and kind of rolling in one direction would help at this stage. Well, I have one question, Sam. So in that, we're gonna get some money from the contractor or someone, the Arizona Missions Act. That's gonna be down the line, okay? So we have to cover the cost right now, whatever it is, correct? What that would be is the architects and engineers we've hired have arrows and omissions insurance, and so whether this is an error and omission that would trigger their insurance coverage, and we may ultimately have a closed session item on that future. Okay, so we don't know. Okay, so I'm sort of referring to you, if that's the issue here, is that if we're gonna get some money out of that, I don't know how certain that is, that helps us in making our decision. So if we do get some money, we might go one way because it's gonna help us cover that option like the on-the-grounding. And whether we can give you that answer before we really need to make a decision, I can't promise you. You cannot, okay. So at this point, it's what we think would be the best. Ed. Thank you. I'm livid with where we are right now with this, okay? I've got on here a architect that has braised this price from one, two, nine, five to one, five. And as far as I'm concerned, by the drawing, it's clear in the drawing that the building is near the wires and the previous OSHA laws and safety laws existed. So this is definitely an error on the architect. So whatever we need to do, however we need to proceed, whether that's legally whatever, I think this council needs to reinstate to the architect that this is an error on their part. With that being said, that's gonna play out as it is. The next most important thing is, I don't wanna delay the progress of the library one bit. So, and what the situation we have here is, is had we have known that this was the situation and had we have possibly done what was suggested, at least by this council member here, reduce the size of this building so that it was in probably three feet to get out of that window, we would have saved probably a million dollars on the building and we would not be in this predicament right now with the existing wires. But that is what we call water into the bridge at this point. So the solution that I'm looking at here is, is that I'm seeing this as a $150,000 repair to move the wires or $300,000 repair to underground the wires. I doubt that we're gonna get them done for either one of those numbers, okay? My guess is it's probably gonna be a $400,000 repair to underground or $200,000 repair to do the wiring. I don't hold the architect responsible for the $400,000 fee because they should only be responsible for what the minimum number is to resolve the problem, which in my mind is the $150,000 to $200,000 for the sake of conversation, $150,000 argument. I think that we have a situation here where if we don't underground this, we would look at this as we are gonna build a $14 million, $13 million building and have these ugly wires adorning it. So it's not an issue at this point as to whether we should underground or not. I hate to take this money because all this money that I see that's either saved or in the contingency is money that comes out of our general fund, which is other projects that could be done in this city. But if the building was smaller and the wires were here, we would live with those wires, but to not underground at this point would be a huge mistake. So my recommendation and the motion I'm gonna make is that we pursue the heirs and omissions to the maximum extent and we move forward with PGD and get in a contract to underground the facilities as soon as possible. I'll second that motion. Come in. Thank you. It's unfortunate that this is an kind of after fact and just coming up now. And to me, the undergrinding of the wires should have been made part of the original project. When there's any other development in our community by property owners, we require them to underground their utilities. And I think that should have been thought of here. With that said, I think this is an opportunity to further beautify Capitola. And I mean, over the many years, whenever I drive around, I'm always looking at those telephone poles and those telephone wires and just wishing, oh God, I wish those weren't there because they're pretty ugly. And so I think this is an opportunity to make a good project better. We will be able to offset the expense of it to some extent. And I think that we should diligently pursue that. And it is a high cost, but if we're ever gonna do this, this is probably the cheapest time to be able to do this in that area. I think it will make up for a better-looking neighborhood there and a better project. And it also provides benefits for our park across the street, the Rispen, and making that a better project. So that's why I seconded the motion and will support it. Thank you. I do have one other question, Steve. So in terms of the underground going to Rispen, so I could see going to the pole and then beyond the pole, it goes to the house, I mean to be the Rispen mansion. To me, that's a separate project, is taking it from that pole to the mansion. Yeah, the actual service from the meter will be near Warf Road, and from that meter to the building would be part of the park project. Okay, that's my question. I didn't want this to be paid for out of that. Okay, great. So, any more comments? Yeah, I'll support this motion, but I just want to just comment that the pressing issue of time isn't really an issue of time when we're already pushing this project out potentially until October. That's with the delay. So waiting two weeks to see what the outcome of the, what was it called? The errors and omissions outcome, that doesn't really, waiting two weeks for that outcome isn't another, isn't a big deal to me to have to wait that much time, much more time. The other thing I just want to again add is that this isn't all five poles going underground, this is three poles going underground and there still would be two poles still left there. So I just want to be clear in that we understand what's really at, what we're really agreeing to tonight. One other question, potentially going underground we can move faster I think. Did you, excuse me? We have more control over that than. We do from the construction standpoint, yes. Right, okay. Might be able to utilize our existing underground contractor. Okay, great. So that's an added bonus. I definitely agree that's going to make the library a lot more desirable in terms of looking at and to the public itself. Okay, there is a motion and a second and it has another comment. I just want to clarify my motion. My motion is not to delay for the omissions and errors at all, the action we take tonight is to move forward as soon as possible. That action with the errors will play out however it does has nothing to do with our decision. And with regard to the poles, can we go back to the picture with the poles? I think it is, we are taking out five and I understand that the main thing that's going on here is that I'm not sure if it's clear to everybody else but there's a combination of high tension wires and low voltage wires. And that's the reason why the poles and the transformers and the transitional poles are going to have to be added here. But I still think we're going to take out five. Is that what the plan is? So we're taking out, so this pole right here will remain, this pole go, this pole go and two poles in this direction will go and plus one pole on the wristband will go. And we'll add back in three, the transitionals to a plan, they're the transformers, I understand that. But they'll be in closer proximity to the poles. They'll be within 10 feet of the existing poles at the end. They won't affect that appearance as Sam had mentioned about which is the main reason why we're doing this. Yeah, they will be at the outer limits. Just wanted to clarify the motion. Okay, I see no more questions. All those in favor? Aye. Okay, passes, five-zero. Thank you very much for the presentation. We have a new presentation on item B. Discussion of the revised zoning code for coastal commission certification. Good evening, mayor and city council. Back before you tonight with another update on the zoning code. Tonight I'm going to just present items that came up after the original adoption in 2018 of significant changes to the code. There are quite a few edits within that we found in reviewing the code since the adoption, such as in tables referencing items below it in other sections of the code. And I did not highlight all of those within tonight's discussion. I found those to be minor in nature. So tonight it's really those items that will change the regulations within the code. And points of clarification. These, the items I'm bringing you tonight have nothing to do with the coastal commission modifications. Those will be reviewed at the next, actually at the June 27th meeting. So with that, just a quick overview, 2018. We adopted a new zoning code. Right now it is only applicable in the area outside the coastal zone. And our 1975 code continues to apply within the coastal zone. For many communities, that's not a big deal. For capitol, it's two thirds of our city. So we're still working with the old code. I've got six topics I'm gonna run through and I'm happy to, as questions come up, if you'd like, we can stop after each topic and I can ask if you have questions on that topic and then continue on. So the first topic is mini bars and outdoor kitchens. Within the new code, we built in allowances within our setback regulations for outdoor kitchens. With, we transferred the old standards for mini bars and convenience areas and you'll see under D it says internal access to the area shall be maintained within the dwelling. With the allowance of an outdoor kitchen, we need to remove D. So that was, that's that change. Is there any questions regarding that? Okay. Okay, I'll move on. Second is density limits in the community commercial and regional commercial zoning districts. This I brought to you with the general plan update. We've had quite a few discussions on during the general plan going back to the way it's how density has been calculated within our commercial zones, not utilizing density as dwelling units per acre but always depending on floor area ratio, height, open space and setbacks. So with that, we're cleaning up the code to make it, go back to the way it's always been and not having a maximum density. And is there any questions on that? Sam. Would the density bonuses for low income housing increase that 20 units per acre? So the density bonus for under the state density bonus law would essentially, without having a density limit, they most likely a developer would not try to get a density bonus in an area without a density limit. As a reminder, this is consistency with some general plan amendment stuff that we looked at earlier this year. So this is just revising the code to be consistent with the general plan. And you'll recall that if you have a density, then you can get a density bonus under state density bonus law. And if we take that out, there really isn't a situation or at least a likely situation where a developer be requesting an increased density. So under the floor area ratio standards would not be affected by the state density bonus? No. You know, when that question came up before, I reached out to another land use attorney regarding that. And it really seemed like the incentive, the incentive with the density bonus is to increase the density of the zone. So once you've effectively removed the density, there's not, but under, you know, there's the standards for affordable housing or there's decreased parking requirements within the density bonus law. So that may be one avenue in which a developer would want to utilize the density bonus to achieve lower parking requirements. But that's really the only item that comes to mind that would influence that. Yeah, to Sam's point, are we just taking a path to circumvent the state's ability to have a density bonus? I'm confused by that. Within our multifamily zoning districts, anyone could come in, a developer could come in and utilize the density bonus. So on Clare Street recently, there was a project in which the developer was able to get an extra unit utilizing the density bonus law. And that would still hold true with any of our residential areas within capital. Only for commercial then is what we're talking about. Only for commercial. Got it. Okay. So not at the mall. There can't be an opportunity for the developer should there be housing. So they could apply for a density bonus, but where we're essentially removing the density limits, the dwelling units per acre, that incentive's not really there to apply for a density bonus because they can go as dense as they'd like as long as they provide the parking, the open space and the setbacks. If they however wanted to decrease their parking requirement and say bring in 35% of the project as affordable housing on top of what our affordable housing requirement is, then they could pursue a density bonus, but. And also not to be a dead horse here, but the mall is in that FAR incentive zone, the 41st. So if they provided they provide the community benefits, which can include affordable housing, they can actually move up to a higher FAR, not state bonus density law, that's our own internal zoning. Okay, any other questions? So we accept that. Okay, next is the vacation rental overlay and enforcement. This is an area where under our old code, that we used to call it the transient rental overlay. There was the regular, actually all the standards that made it into our new code and then our enforcement was under a special regulation section of the code and it didn't carry over. So it was just because it was divided in the old code and when we transferred it into the new code that wasn't caught, but it was in a separate area of the old code. So it's actually a really important piece of this code. It's for us to follow up on vacation rentals. This is very strong language for us to go after not only a property owner, but if there's a real estate representative, it says any person including, but not limited to property owners, property managers or real estate agents may do so in the following manner as long as they have a vacation rental permit. So otherwise, if they don't have a vacation rental permit, we've got the ability to enforce. So any questions with this one? Just to be clear, this was not brought to the planning commission. Correct. So this item as well as the kitchen, the outdoor kitchen items were not brought to the planning commission. When you do have a substantial change that after the planning commission has made a recommendation and it has come to city council, we will need to bring these items back to the planning commission because they have not reviewed them yet. So at the end of my presentation, I'll go over that in a little more detail. This is kind of related and kind of not, but if it's appropriate for me to ask at this time, can someone tell me when we're doing our next audit of the vacation rentals that are currently allowed and not? We'll have to cover this pretty briefly. Yes, yes, very. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Yes, right now I'm actually working with HDL, the consultant that we just brought on board recently and kind of developing the plan. So hopefully within the next 30 days, the program gets kicked off. Perfect, thank you. Sure. We're going, I should mention this, we're going through this item by item and if anyone in the public would like to speak on a particular item, please do come forward. Otherwise, I'm just going to be asking people on the city council if they're all in agreement because we're just trying to go through each one. But believe me, anyone in the public here would like to speak, including a particular city planning member, you're definitely able to speak. Thank you very much. Thank you. Maybe we'll get an interested intern out of this process as well. Interns involved too, believe me. So next is a topic for the garage floor area exception. So the planning commission did review this. Under the new code, they're actually during our way back before the code was adopted during issues and options. The member of the city council asked us to build in a garage floor area exception for smaller lots. So once you're, if you're on a small lot in Capitola, once you hit a certain size lot, you're required to provide covered parking. So that was requested and we put in for all lots under 3,000 square feet, a 250 square foot exception for a garage that wouldn't count torture floor area to incentivize covered parking. We had a gentleman from the public who's developing his home and he came in and said, what about the homes in this area where there's this gap after 3,000 feet, 3,000 square foot lots that lose out on this additional FAR, how can we make this fair? So I brought this to the planning commission and after reviewing what the member of the public was proposing, the planning commission, the blue line is the original line that I showed you and the planning commission asked us to go back, figure out why this exception was in there and like I said, it was because it was a request for exception on small lots and they, so we identified exactly what size lot in which you could achieve not having covered parking. So that's a 2,580 square, 87 square foot lot. This gets pretty technical, it's a lot of math and but essentially what we did is carried the green line across to make it fair. We got rid of the unfair zone that was shown in the previous slide. So there's a new section that states exactly when you're allowed to get the 250 square foot exception and that's for any lot under 2,586 square feet and then we also put in a new math equation for to cover those people that are in that in between. I have an example there of a 3,000 square foot lot and they would achieve a 40 square foot garage exception and with that, there's a second part to this but for the first part, does anyone have any questions? I think someone passed her out to her. Okay, yes, it was great. Okay, next there were a lot of discussions about how can we get people to utilize their garage more and garages become areas for putting all our toys. So within the garage, we typically under today's code we look at the square footage of a home and we decide how much parking you're required based on the floor area of the home. We don't subtract that area required for parking that's covered. So we built in two exceptions. One was for the area that's counted for parking no longer counts torture parking calculation and then the planning commission during this last update included up to 125 square feet for ancillary space so people can put a kayak, a couple of bikes in their garage and it's not gonna count towards their parking requirements. Those are the two changes regarding parking. So next, these are major changes. This came down from the state on accessory dwelling units and within the state regulations, you're required to have an administrative review process for secondary dwelling units. And we've had that but within the new code we built in we'd state what the administrative process was and then had a lot of however, if you wanna deviate for extra height or decrease setbacks, we had the processes built in. We've now separated, we've moved the deviations to any of the standards to the end of the chapter and so it's what's up front in the chapter is an administrative process and then at the very end are the deviations which require a conditional use permit and design permit by the planning commission. The new code treats ADUs three different ways. There's internal ADUs which are either within the existing home or an existing accessory structure. Attached ADUs which are attached to the exterior of the structure or a detached ADU which is detached from the single family home. In a future slide, I'll be showing you the changes to parking, the only ADU situation in which you're required to provide parking anymore is for a new detached ADUs, that would be under three but there are now parking exceptions for internal ADUs and detached ADUs. I have a question. Sure. The existing accessory structure, could that be an ADU in a garage? Yes. Okay. New, so one of the largest changes also is that within the single family zoning district, any single family home is allowed to have an ADU as long as it passes on fire requirements. So we had to remove our minimum lot size within the R1 district for ADUs. So there's no longer a minimum lot size in the R1. There are within the RM and excuse neighborhood zones. Any questions there? And that's only for internal ADUs, so only the ADUs that are within a home, they're allowed. And then for parking requirements, that many more exceptions were placed in if you're within a half a mile of public transit, if you're located within a national historic district or other like a city historic district. And number three is the big one, one part of the proposed or existing primary residence or accessory structure. So if you're within the existing building or it's an addition and part of the existing building, you're not required to provide parking for the ADUs. So again, it's only those detached new accessory dwelling units that don't meet any of the other criteria in the slide. So there's parking permit requirements if they're not offered to you or a car share that's close by. So really promoting ADUs and making it easier. This is really interesting. Currently, that's a single family home in the garage. Under the new standard, a garage or a carport can be transformed into an ADU. And so you can make your garage an ADU. You're parking, the only parking requirement, you're not required to park the new ADU but only park for the footage of the existing single family home. And the language I underlined in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory unit including but not limited to covered space, uncovered tandem or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts. So that really is, it's going in a whole new direction of just giving allowances of wherever you'd like to place parking on your lot. And that's really, they're major changes though. There's a lot of opportunities for more ADUs in capital now. This is mostly state mandated. This is state mandated. And if someone came to the counter today, I would have to issue permits under these regulations whether or not they've been adopted. So, any questions? One last time, any questions for the public? Okay, I think we've approved or can manage? See you to every single one as we go. One last one, single room occupancy. There was a definition that was in our old parking section of the code and I've now moved it into the definitions. It wasn't in our parking section and it wasn't in our definition. So it's a dwelling unit with a kitchen facility which is 400 square feet or less. So just adding that. And I'm gonna, at this point, I don't wanna bring any new items to the city council unless they're, you know, when the item came up with the vacation rentals, it's a really important item that impacts us on a regular basis, especially in the summer. So I thought it was essential for these last items that came up to bring, to include. But at this point, I can guarantee you that I'm gonna try my hardest not to add to the list and if hopefully any minor items will just tally off. Cause once we have this adopted, I'm expecting to do annual updates of cleanup items because of the whole new zoning code. I expect that to be part of the growing process. So next steps, city council review. So July 25th, the city attorney overview of the coastal commission edits. After that, we'll continue to whichever date certain you'd like. I was thinking at following that, any items that the city council would like to discuss if you can provide me with those ahead of time, we can have an agenda set for just the items that you'd like to discuss further and learn more about that are in the code. And then we can continue to have meetings based on what you'd like information on. Once we do have all of your comments and direction, we will publish an updated draft based on all the direction you've provided. I'll take it back to planning commission for a recommendation and then it'll come back to city council for adoption. After that, we'll submit to the coastal commission. Questions for Kitty? I do. Just to be clear, if we have a suggestion on an area that you may not be talking of reviewing like the community benefits is at the section, if there was an addition there, is there an opportunity, or when is the opportunity to bring that up? When would that be? I mean, right now would be an opportunity for you to email me a list of items you'd like placed on an agenda. Okay, so I would love to look at if there's an option to add to the list of community benefits childcare centers in the language. There's like affordable housing, all of those, if we could add that to the list or how we could do that. Okay, I'll bring that up at a future meeting. Good to do. Sam, just a clarification about the schedule. On the written staff report, it says the next steps that our June 27th meeting will be reviewing the coastal commission red lines. I assume that's still on the calendar. I'm sorry. And that we're not. I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. So June 27th and July 25th. Sorry, that was an error. So the next meeting is that we'll be reviewing the city attorney June 27th. I'll be June 27th and then I think the August date there will be July. So that was just a mistake. Right, so what's in the written staff report or the accurate next steps? Yes. And we'll ignore that unless we have the option of continuing it to maybe August 22nd. So that's a contingency. Okay, thank you. Sorry, thank you. Okay, with that meeting adjourned. Thank you.