 Good afternoon, welcome to our 1 30 p.m. Session of the December 4th 2018 special meeting of the city council I'd now like to ask the city clerk to please call the roll. Thank you mayor council member is crone is absent Matthews your chase here brown is absent today. Oh, no after right now Naroyan is absent vice mayor Watkins here here and council member crone it's coming in now Today's meeting is being broadcast live on community television channel 25 and is streaming on the city's website at city of Santa Cruz calm Lynn Dunton is our technician this afternoon. He's in the back room recording the meeting and I'd like to thank him for his work today Before we begin I'd like to first call on the city attorney Tony condadi Yes, thank you mayor trousers members of city council We have a subsequent need item that I'm recommending that you add to the agenda and that is a closed session involving potential litigation the basis for the closed session is that The need to agendize this topic came to our attention after the agenda was posted and There is a necessity to potentially take action before the next regular meeting. So By motion I would recommend that you Add an item to the agenda and adjourn to closed session There are motion. I'll make them all seconded. So a motion by council member Matthews seconded by myself All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, I'm not sure what the issue is. That's why okay. Well before we vote. Do you have a question? It was in a Agnostic on it then I don't okay, but your vote you registered a no vote on that So council member crone voting no with council member Matthews Chase vice mayor Watkins and myself voting for the Adjournment to closed session. So at this point, we're going to adjourn to the closed session And then we'll resume after we have our discussions then for the meeting We at this point I can't but we'll give an update to the clerk and she can let let let you know Okay, thank you Before we start with the regular meeting, I'd like to have the city request the city attorney report out from our closed session Thank You Mayor, Turasas members of the city council the closed session that was called as an item of subsequent need this afternoon relates to item one on your agenda and it was And the need for the closed session was generated by a letter that was received yesterday dated December 3rd from the California apartment owners Association Essentially the letter takes the position that the matter of providing notice of termination For a tenancy is preempted by state law Specifically civil code section 1946 point one which as you know specifies a either a 30 or 60 day notice of termination period in order for a landlord to Terminate a lease you might recall from the discussion last Tuesday that when this subject came up and the council began discussing adding this item to the agenda I had Indicated that based on comments I'd received from a council member before the meeting I had an opportunity to do some preliminary research into that issue and I had not located an authority that Directly speaks to whether The city council has the legal ability to extend notice of termination beyond what the minimum required by state law is But I did interpret the language stating that the notice shall be at least 60 days or 30 days Indicates a floor, but not necessarily a ceiling The apartment owners Association letter cites a reporter to Pellet decision from 1987 Entitled the tri-county apartment association versus the city of Mountain View That case didn't directly deal with a notice of termination it dealt with an ordinance That required at least 60 days notice before a rent increase could go into effect And it was challenged by the tri-county apartment owners Association on the basis that a different section of the civil code not 1946 point one specifies that a Landlord cannot change the terms of a rental agreement of a month-to-month tenancy Without providing at least 30 days notice The association challenged that on the basis that again a different civil code section requires notice Before the terms of a rental agreement Can be implemented of at least 30 days and of course a rent increase is it is a change in the terms of a rental agreement? In that case the court of appeal for the 6th appellate district, which Santa Cruz is a part of concluded that with regard to matters of notice In landlord-tenant relationships the state has indeed occupied the entire field and therefore that the city is preempted From adopting an ordinance that requires notice in excess of what the state law provides I Think what occurred here is that during the time? I had preliminarily to research that issue before the last council meeting I had looked at all of the annotations and cases that cited civil code section 1946 point one. It did not come up Had I had additional time? It's very likely that I would have uncovered this case But the tri-county apartment Association or the California apartment owners Association has Cited the right case In this and also indicated that should the council move forward today It intends to file an immediate legal challenge to the validity of the ordinance which in my view given the authority cited Would be meritorious the apartment owners Association would likely in all likelihood prevail in that litigation and so Moving forward Exposes the city to in addition to the cost of defending that litigation A claim for attorneys fees and costs should the apartment owners Association prevail and for that reason It's my recommendation that the council table item one on this afternoon's agenda Taking action on an ordinance that would clearly Be vulnerable to illegal challenges is not a prudent measure at this time Thank You mr. Kandadi and one question might come up and be what type of liability or what level of liability might the city Have the challenge would be by way of a writ of mandate That would is is basically a standard lawsuit But it but it narrowly addresses the issue of the ordinance's validity, which is a matter of statutory construction but still certainly the city would be looking at Costs for defense in the probably the high five figures and an attorney's fees claim That's probably orders of magnitude greater than that. Thank you We at this point I will bring it back to the council for action I will tell you that if depending on you know the council action here members of the public are Certain that are here for this item item one are welcome to email the council regarding comments on this I think that we've had If you were here on last Tuesday several hours of discussion on variety about a variety of topics And I'd like to just first of all see what the council would like to do in regards to this matter council member Matthews Based on the advice of the attorney I'll move that we table this item I'll second that Okay, so we have a motion and a second is a further discussion council member crone. Yeah, I just wanted from the city attorney What would be the difference between tabling this item versus having the conversation? Letting council after the conversation after the public spoken have the discussion and vote Up or down on the advice given to us by the the council and I don't at all Think your advice is not well taken but I Do have a go ahead is that is that possible to that would be up to the discretion of the city council Okay, so we could have the conversation The motion on the floor. I'm not going to support because I think it's The reason that closed session is used and abused in the state of California And I think that going to closed session deciding something coming out of closed session And then we're going to table something is the wrong way to go you everything that we've heard and I heard If we have a discussion a public discussion over this issue Find the council votes up or down on the advice of its council as well as listening to the public And so I just think this is a bad use once again of closed session I just put everybody just be aware of the things that go into closed sessions in In this state and also in the city and you should be aware of this And we don't have to be in closed session to decide this issue if we're wrong We're wrong and we'll vote accordingly, but we don't have to decide that in closed session Well remind you we're an open session right now and we're discussing this matter So is there something you'd like to I mean I would like to hear from any member of the public who's here wants to speak to this item Okay, let me just like this the council to vote up or down Let me just ask is there any member of the public that's here to speak on item number one item number one One two three four five six, okay Seven people Sylvia over there. Do you count nine? Did you anyone else? Okay, so Council member Matthews. Let me just say my motion is not inconsistent with the ability to hear from the members of the public I will say regarding the Meeting the council's meeting in closed session one of the purposes of meeting in closed session is to discuss Confidentially the implications the ramifications the issues involved in litigation or threat of litigation It's entirely appropriate that we meet in closed session to hear from our attorney Confidentially what those issues are the action is taken in open session So and I'm quite comfortable hearing from the public even though I believe we should table this item I'm quite comfortable hearing from the public on the issues raised Council member crown just to push back a little bit the action to that We're taking came out of closed session to table it instead of let's have the discussion Let's put the item out there. Let's vote up or down You don't have to table it because it's still an item on the on the public agenda in front of us Yeah, that is correct So I think at this point just hearing from the council members I'm going to open up the opportunity for public comment for those that came here to hear this item So we have the opportunity to speak Councilman or city attorney kandadi. Yeah, I just council member Crohn's comment I would just like to it brought to mind that I did not report out of closed session that the council took no action in closed session, but did receive a report on the Tri-County apartment owners association case and the and the threat of litigation so but but no reportable action was taken So that's my report out of closed session. Thank you. That's correct Okay, again those that wish to speak to this item item number one I'd like you to line up those that that raised their hands wishing to speak to item number one About two and a half minutes or less if you'd like and if you'd line up you can come up and speak Yeah, whenever you are Wait, wait a second one moment went till we get the timer set Yes, ma'am Hello, my name is Elise Kazby and I live in Santa Cruz. I'm an activist and I just wanted to To say a couple of things about the vulnerability of renters right now I think we all know that right now renters are extremely vulnerable to having their rents raised eviction and other hardships coming out of a divisive campaign on measure M and I think that the only people who can really help right now our city council all of you sitting there and I think we've had a healthy discussion in the city as like a first attempt and just a couple of things The city of Santa Cruz actually Past measure H which failed statewide But it was a pro housing measure to to help people and renters in in their situations right now The city of Santa Cruz also put out a healthy showing for people who favored measure M Which I believe was around 40% Which is getting pretty close to the 50% mark. There's no doubt that it did fail but We were outspent Enormously, I think everybody knows that too and it wasn't really there for I don't I don't consider at least a really fair battle Because the message that that we were able to the pro measure on people were able to To wage was just we were outspent. I saw a lot of Incorrect and I'll truly go so far as to say things like lies on Huge signs over buildings like 40 people are going to live in this apartment and so forth So I just wanted to stress that I think many many people in Santa Cruz actually favored favored this This measure, but it did fail and at this point We need to look to city council to really help us help renters And in the next few weeks until the next council comes in basically in January We're in a situation where we just really have to ask Please this is a time of politics governed by enormous amounts of money It's a time of inequality and it was a really hard fought measure and we're looking to you to please extend the eviction deadline here and also Help help with some kind of rent freeze measure. Thank you. Thank you, Elise next week or please Greetings. I mean I'm here speaking on behalf of my mother who is not able to attend My name is Annabelle Britton born and raised in Santa Cruz 48 years old My parents purchased property here in the area in 1973 This is my mother's note to all of you that I will Attempt to read City council members. I'm seeing and she's speaking on behalf of myself our family as well I am speaking to you today as a senior low-income affordable rental rental provider First I would like to say I am in support of and I'm referring to you know What was going on before you guys had your little outside meeting thing? I Am in support of the 90-day eviction notice for renters who have rented for more than a year I think this is reasonable in most circumstances However, a minimum of a one-year notice may be difficult or impossible under many circumstances As a senior I can easily see that at some point I may urgently need to move a family member or caregiver into one of my two units or a family member may have urgent need to occupy one of my units and I would seriously ask all of you to take that into consideration You know the long-standing residents that have properties here that are aging that have been here for over 40 years 50 years have contributed to this community for so long And are aging and relying on their properties as their retirement and security and need care These are the senior citizens. We're talking about that have lived here for a really long time and contributed much I Am lucky to have lived successfully near my renters for many years on a very Small piece of property. However, I have worked for decades decades To pay for and maintain my property for my family and myself not having access to my own property could create More difficulty for me than for my renters There needs to be more flexibility and this is not in denial or lack of recognition that Housing is an issue here and affordable housing is a serious thing And it needs to happen in a more appropriate balanced way. Thank you Next speaker, please Hi, my name is Carol Lange my resident and have been for 30 years of Santa Cruz I don't see any need for closed sessions for this city council And I would urge that you do not have them unless it's absolutely necessary say in the case of Employee discussions And I don't see any need for this important issue particularly to be Considered in a closed session and I do have a question rent control is legal and Evictions protections are legal in other cities in California And I'm wondering With that in mind and the fact that our rent control campaign has been based on those other cities How it is that our eviction protections are now considered? by some court to have been Illegal and I would like the city Attorney to address that if it's at all possible here because it just seems out of whack with what I've heard and Really, I'm I'm astounded We can't have the eviction protections that we are looking for. Thank you Thank you next speaker, please Good morning, Mayor Therosys and council members. My name is Jeffrey Smedberg I've been active in the rent control campaign and I really appreciate your Your attempts to provide some sort of protection for renters in this upcoming period. I did really appreciate Mr. Condati's original analysis of the proposed ordinance and Unfortunately the The apartment association continues to with its massive resources Have an inordinate effect on our local politics And I would encourage you to continue looking for ways to provide Protections for renters In the city. Thank you very much. Thank you next speaker, please Hi, I'm Cynthia Berger. I Just wanted to share that the city of San Jose the way they did it was they made it optional for landlords to give their tenants a 90-day notice or if they didn't choose to do that Then the tenants would be protected by just cause and I think that's a great idea Next speaker, please Hi, my name is Mike opposing around with landlords for rent control and I think as activists We need to be careful and considerate about what's realistic and Doesn't sound like this idea is so I want to thank councilmember walk-ins for bringing it forward And I think you should just vote not to do it and move on to other types of protections for renters Thank you next speaker. I Stanley so go out just like that Quote something from the court case that was cited It says the extensive scheduling provided by the legislature in Numerous cases that were cited in this decision in numerous statutes Reveals that the timing of landlord tenant transactions is a matter of statewide concern Not amenable to local variations the ordinance directly conflicts with the legislative scheme So you have no choice. I mean it's spitting in the wind if you try to enact it You it's going to be overturned by the letter by a court So I urge you to follow your attorney's advice. Thank you next speaker, please Hi, my name Sylvia Karris The conversation so far has emphasized affordability But yesterday I went to the heap meeting and that that conversation Reminded me that one result of two high rents is homelessness So stopping tenants from losing their existing housing Will provide even more people with a stable place to live 14% of the 2017 point-in-time respondents were evicted and became homeless So what I was thinking was if eviction notices or pre eviction notices Were also copied to smart path. That's the county system And those situations were given immediate priority with rental assistance or dispute resolution or substance services Or whatever the cause of the eviction might have been That that would be a helpful step to take and I thought of this just this morning Or I would have emailed you and I thought maybe it would have been part of the Resolution that you're not going to pass so I just offer that to you for your consideration Thank you all for everything that you do Thank you Sylvia. Next speaker, please Good afternoon Mayor Terresas and to Vice Mayor Watkins members of the council I want to say that I completely agree with you that I would be afraid if the powerful as Apartment Owners Association will be threatening me with the lawsuit Okay, that's spooky just to hear and I'm pretty sure they are sitting right here with those today, but What I want to tell you is that exactly is the same feeling that we have when we receive a rent increase We are afraid of the powerful landlord who is giving us a rent increase or who is giving us a 30-day notice To evict that's the same power that they hold over us renters So I want to let you know that I am with you in this And I want to let you know that we went all the way to try to pass measure in because the situation was No longer been possible for us to hold This is what happened when we came and asked One over and over again to have the 15% inclusion Inclusionary clause to have more affordable housing to have more low income housing and not being here Today we are here to ask you please help us Please help all that people who is right now are ready receiving the 30 60 days notice increase effective in January and as I told you in my email one of the families in beach flats got a 400 dollar increase 240 year this year because they didn't got anyone and 240 next year, so please think about that and Remember that you are the elected officials that people vote for you to protect And to do what is right for the rest of us. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other member of the public that wish to speak to this item? Okay, we see three more So please here mr. Norse. You want to step up? You have a chance members of the community and audience and city council First of all, I want to note that for the first time that I remember Mayor Choraz is actually granted two and a half minutes per speaker rather than the usual rush two minutes Not the three minutes as traditional but the two and a half and so I have to acknowledge this Huff homeless United for Friendship and Freedom is a group I work with has to do of course with people outside And this is of course important to them Why isn't the rent freeze and just eviction protection ordinance on this agenda? But this isn't this particular item is an attempt to address this issue It needs to be a part of this measure Why because there's no legal support for tenants who need who will need to sue in court if the gentle landlords Violate this whole procedure Secondly in other words if there's a 90-day notice that's very nice But that's not going to stop them from giving lots of 90-day notices and ultimately rent raises and improper evictions This was attempted to be put on the agenda last Wednesday I attempted to do it by talking to Mayor Choraz's and by emailing Sandy Brown Neither of them apparently thought it was noteworthy enough to act on this neither of them responded Mayor Choraz's did say to me that he would do it if he got three members of the city council and a staff report Which is to me ridiculous and unprecedented because in the past members of the actual City council can get items on the agenda by simply asking him to do so then you leave it up to the public and the council to Vote this was blockaded and stopped. I Talked to Mayor Choraz's and asked him why he didn't respond to Councilmember Brown who announced at the last meeting that she had attempted to put this on the earlier agenda in November he told me he had received no such communication from her neither an email nor a letter Nor a phone call nor a personal contact Maybe he can clarify that this time or maybe councilmember Brown can clarify because somebody here is either forgetting or not telling the truth I don't know what the story is but it impacts all tenants that this was not put on the agenda for discussion and action at that time I have no illusions that it would necessarily have passed However, it was important that it be done because the community needs to see where this council stands clearly So don't wait until December 11th Organized now is my suggestion because on that date you are going to need to be Helping those tenants who are evicted for the next two or three months Thank you. Thank you Next speaker, please You've already spoke out you've already spoke on this you can speak only once sorry about that next speaker, please No, there's not good afternoon, I'm Scott Graham I Would suggest that you vote for this anyway and just see what happens you know the court different courts find differently and we have a fairly liberal court here in this county and The other thing whether or not you vote for this or not I would like to see that whatever rules are in place on evictions as far as The length of time a person has 3060 or 90 days also apply to the city that when the city read tags a house or You know says oh this unit is not legal That they also have to abide by these exact same rules that they don't get special Dispensation because of this government, you know, I'm hi. I'm from the government. I'm here to help you get get out of your house You got three days. I mean that doesn't make sense So if everybody else all the landlords have to live with a 30 60 or 90 day eviction the city should also Abide by that rule. Thank you Thank you Are there any other members of the public other than Eric who's here to speak to this item any other members of the public? Okay, you are our last speaker so you could step up if you'd like No, you could like to speak you just yeah, but I just had a procedural question I got a text that someone who can't make it here wanted to maybe do it by phone. Is that possible? No, okay? Thank you council. I don't want to speak to the substance of this want to speak to the procedure I think it's highly inappropriate that you are about to consider this as an emergency ordinance because there's nothing about this that is unanticipated I Mean the justifications given were things like it's winter Last time I checked it was always winter in December you guys everyone knew that it's not surprised another justification Measure M failed. We all knew that when measure M was introduced in February that there was a good chance it might fail Nothing's unanticipated. I think the thrust of this was that there are going to be all these unscrupulous landlords who would Terminate all these tendencies and there'd be masses of poor renters on the streets, and that's just not Realistic first of all as mr. Canadi explained at the September 11th meeting It's just not practical most tenants are on fixed-term leases learners don't have the right arbitrarily Terminate those tendencies Furthermore despite what we've seen in these chambers most tenants and landlords actually have good relationships It might be hard to believe that's true and most landlords don't want to evict their tenants And most most tenants don't want to leave their places and in most Relationships like that are actually quite harmonious Thirdly This is absolutely the worst time of the year from a landlord's perspective to have a vacancy You can check Craigslist right now. You'll see all kinds of listings with incentives Excuse me, please Please if you can if you let the speaker if you'd like to have conversation, please take it outside. Thank you, Mayor Tresas It's pause, please Thank you So that's my third point that there really this is the worst time of year It's a it's a best time of year as a as a renter to find a place finally every vacancy Costs the landlord money one way or another it's just a bad turnover is not a good thing for a landlord because you have to Fix the place up you have to paint it you have to repair things you have to replace things and you have downtime So that can vary from, you know, maybe a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars. So it's just not realistic I'm sure that if You know, there will be some Terminations and that's the normal course of things but there's not going to be a mass So I would say I felt like it was sort of an abuse of the process to consider. Thank you Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the and any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item? Yes, okay step right up you'll any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item You'll be our last speaker go right ahead if you speak into the mic My name is Sonny Lopez and right now I know that we have an issue with homelessness and housing with landlords and I know that the fact that Would you please speak into the mic just so yes, you can move it also. All right my name is Sonny Lopez and I'm a member here a citizen here of Santa Cruz Cleaning downtown street teams as well with the team members and I know that all the tenants and landlords are in budget right now and With having their homes being taken away and the timings on that This is not the season in the right time for it going back within five years How many loss of family members have passed away and have been deceased and going on with this year There have been several and I know that the fact that if we have our hearts in that fact on Tenants and landlords we could comply together on helping one another other than abandoning them and putting them out in the streets Like I said, this weather is very bad and severe and it's gonna only get worse Can we actually help each other out? Please? Landlords tenants families This is a family issue right here. We don't need another child going away Mine are yours. I have it Paper for housing a Lottery ticket Accept to give it to someone else who's been waiting on the list for a long time I'm okay to be out there in the field. Thank you. Thank you Kate again See no other members of the public that wish to speak to this side I'm gonna bring it back to the council and close the public comment period one thing I'll say is generally when people are speaking in public comment We won't respond to that but this is an opportunity now to discuss the matter I have any questions. We have a motion on the floor in a second further discussion council member Brown I just wanted to respond to communications report on communications between myself and mr. Norse and Mr. Norse and Mayor trousers. I Have been I think I've been pretty clear and I will clarify again. I Did tell mr. Norse last week that We when I say we that means me and myself as part of a group of people who would like to see the Rent freeze extended. I've stated that publicly. There's no surprise there Wanted it to be on last week's agenda. It was not agendized I made a request to the city manager asking whether or not it had happened. I was told no I know that there were members of the public who made that request without three council members To an agenda report from staff to get it on the agenda. That was not possible last week nor was it possible this week So it was I think it was pretty clear during our public meeting on November 27th That there were not three council members at this dais willing to put that on the agenda so that's why it's not on the agenda today and There's more work to be done. I look forward to that conversation. It's not our agenda item today We are simply talking about whether or not to table a Proposal that I believed was a compromise to try to buy some time for tenants Simply a 90-day eviction rather than 30 and 60 days. It's not possible Without facing a lawsuit and that is why I'm going to support the motion Thank you council member crone a couple questions came up Tony what one was um, how is there a miss long asked how is our eviction protection deemed illegal? This this doesn't really have to do with eviction protections this ordinance that's on the agenda for today Specifically deals with notice of termination. It does not address rent control or just cause eviction measures which many cities have but One thing you will not find in in any rent control ordinance that I'm familiar with is An extended notice of termination provision and that's specifically what the case that I mentioned at the outset Addresses not rent control and not just cause eviction and the other question from Miss Berger was nine There's an optional thing. She brought up a city that has an option of I guess voluntary On the part of the landlord to give 90 days or then just cover the tenant by just cause Do you are you familiar with what she was referring to? I'm not familiar with that ordinance That was not the direction that was given to me by council and if the council's interest interested in exploring that like I could Analyze that and and report back On the face of it. It seems to me like that likely conflicts with The the civil code provision but again I have not analyzed that specifically Thank you. I Want to appreciate council members for Delving into this conversation. I really appreciate it. I'm gonna support the motion because I think it does You know in the end it's going to hurt the city and I don't see a real win there although I agree with mr. Graham that testing sometimes Is Can yield different results? I think in this battle though for this particular one I think keeping our powder dry whatever that expression is is probably a better way to go, but thank you mr. Mayor, thank you So there's any further discussion on this item Okay, we have a motion by council member Matthews that was seconded by myself to table The first item on the agenda, which is the 90-day notice of termination of residential tenancy ordinance All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Hi be opposed that motion passes unanimously with council member Narayan absent Okay, that brings up item number two and we'll leave some time to transition and before we begin I'd just like to ask the city attorney because there may be At least two of us may need to leave a little early on this and I wanted to know Having a council of four that can constitute a quorum to take action a Council of four could take action it would require a unanimous vote, but yes, you could take action. Okay Thank you on that I would I would also like to Table this I would make a motion to table it until the second meeting in January So that the new council once it's seated can get up to speed on the adu ordinance because I think it's a bad important and They're going to be dealing with it for the next years to come and it would be I think expeditious So I would make a motion because I agree with you also if we're not going to have the time to discuss it appropriately council member Narayan is not here as well and I Well, that's my motion anyway second Okay, is there any further discussion on this? Yeah This was explicitly at the direction of the homeless viewpoint blueprint subcommittee of all three Members are here and we expressly said that we wanted this to come back to council as soon as possible And here we are so we have plenty of time to have a discussion And this was at our direction and three of us who were on that committee are here to represent it So I am not going to support the motion on the floor I just I'll say that I was one of the people that I didn't I gave some advanced notice I need to leave early on this so I'm not going to be here for the full Agenda item and I've already given advance notice to Vice mayor walk-in. So I'll be leaving early I mean, I'll just I'll you know say that I'm if we do continue Just know that I won't be here likely it to take action on it at the end of that of the matter I To will mean to be leaving I have I had given my availability unavailable earlier, but I have a personal emergency that's come up and I Just I'm not going to be able to stay I'm sorry that I won't be able to weigh in I've Participated in the housing blueprint subcommittee process and if the rest of the council wants to go ahead and you can maintain a quorum then that is Carry on and I apologize That's more chase. Is there room on the next agenda to hear this item? December 11th We had to schedule for the second read, but I don't think there's room on the agenda to hear the item now Don't remember Matthews When did the two of you need to leave I? Need to leave by I'd say three We really were going to schedule this for 11 and there was a conflict With that late that earlier start time I had when we originally just got I just had anticipated this being an evening item And I'm trying to arrange my day, but I do have some personal issues that I'm just I can't Be here for the whole time during the day I really thought it would be early in the day, and I just scrubbed my whole day, so This is disappointing because I think there are some issues to be resolved I think this is one thing with all the preliminary work that's gone on where we can move this forward and start to see some progress on the narrow field of increasing Housing supply I'd personally like to go forward, but given the time You're both leaving it three. I am I don't know what time Maybe we should do a straw poll There's a motion on the floor or you know for the record I want to say that you know seven o'clock is the appropriate time to be doing these discussions when the community can come the people after work can come the ADU ordinance spec it particularly has to do with homeowners and Many of them are working during the day, and so I don't understand why we do this in the afternoon, but Well, it was originally it was scheduled for an evening it got continued to a specific day Then we had there was a conflict scheduling for the evening And so we're going to schedule it in the morning, and that was So I would like I have not yet heard a definitive comment from either council members chase or Watkins What your preferences are under the circumstances? I mean I think given the fact that we delayed the item once before I Feel it's unfortunate to continue to delay it But if we're only going to have for at a certain point when we have to make a decision And we won't be able to move any of the items anyways, then I mean Sadly, I would say then that probably would be best to delay it, but I would prefer to hear it because I'm here And I'm ready to do it, but I Can't control schedules. Well, I'm I'm disappointed also at this is something that we worked really hard to get before this council and But there we can't logistically do it. I guess we have to move it so the anticipation, let me ask the question would be to move it to our Marathon meeting next week or bump to next next year. I Think this would require two readings. Yeah. Yeah, so we could start it in our next meeting I don't I don't think there's room on the next meeting It is a busy schedule you would probably need to start early really early How early? 10 In the morning. Yeah, I mean, yes So let's do that. I'm game frankly. I am too. It's fine Earlier you have to be earlier I'll support the motion on the floor if we're moving it to have the first reading in our December 11th meeting If not, I'll vote. I will oppose the motion The purpose of the motion is for the new council to hear about ADUs and about this ordinance. So I'm yeah, I wouldn't support that I understand the intention of it. We all we all take votes on things that The next council then picks up. We are subject to the same thing. That's how government works So moving it would be then the second reading would be in January. So the new council would be Okay, I'm amenable to that then and then the start time would need to be Tentatively I have it at 11 And this was slated to be about a two-hour item start at nine Start at nine So what is your design? I get up at six o'clock. So I'm okay, right six thirty seven I mean, it's not that this item would be at that time because there's other business There might be some other other work that would take place beforehand That's absolutely fine with me. And again, I as somebody who's Causing some of the disruption here. I really just didn't have a personal emergency and I can make if I plan for it I can make time to be here for longer on next Tuesday. That's fine What's the earliest interim? We've had budget meetings that have begun at like 8 30 8 o'clock So let's tentatively schedule this to begin at 8 30 a.m. And that's not when this particular item will be But I'm if if that's part of your motion council member crown No, I'm going to Withdrawal my motion because I again don't feel like we should be listening to stuff. That's of real interest outside of And you know hours, you know bankers hours they used to call them So I mean this is not what where people can come to meetings and be here. So I'll just withdraw the motion Okay, council member Matthews in that case case. I'll move that we continue this item to our next meeting and Schedule that meeting to begin at 8 30 Motion by council member Matthews seconded by council member chase. I'm any further discussion. I Just might be a few minutes late today you 30, but I will do my best And and as you know, this may not be the item that starts. This is not yet We'll have it scheduled after and I'll just say I make this motion in the interest of moving this forward after two and a half years or more of A very deep community engagement cute community outreach community input specifically on this particular topic These recommendations not all of which I agree with but they've been vetted they've brought forward and I think we have the opportunity to move on them. The new council will certainly have the opportunity to weigh in In all that all is many forms, but it's an opportunity to actually see something move Okay, we've got a motion and a second Apologize that we're delaying this vote and you know, it's not a good thing It's not good process that we're engaged in but this is reality because people have other lives outside of city council as well I'm sorry. I'm I guess one one One thought is anybody that's here that may not be able to attend the meeting on the 11th could provide comment at this point Obviously if it's continued to that next meeting, they wouldn't be speaking there if they did attend. Is that something that we could entertain? You could but it's not required for an item that's being tabled. Okay Yes, you have a motion and a second on the on the floor about Tabling this for the just to the December 11th meeting. I think I'll take public comment on that sole issue about moving this so Is there any member the public would like to speak in regards to just the idea of rescheduling this to the 11th meeting How many people if you'd raise your hand? Two people. Okay, go right ahead, sir You in two minutes Good afternoon. I'm Scott Graham. I came to the last meeting to address this issue Now I'm at this meeting to address this issue So like ever we're gonna be 15 meetings from now when I can actually address this issue Thank you next Sorry, I kind of feel the same way. I wanted to speak the last time I want to speak this time I can't come next time. There are two people behind me in the same boat So I agree that it would be nice to have it in the evening when people could come But some people took off time to come today and is there I don't know the process Is there a way to have partial public comment and then table? I don't know that's up to you But it would be nice. I thank you Next speaker Yeah, I would suggest that the council out of respect for the public who came here Essentially extend the public comment period so that it can at least they can say what they came to say. Thank you. Thank you Okay, is there any other member of the public who like to speak to the issue about Scheduling or scheduling the meeting out to December 11th count Micah I mean a few weeks here and there is no big deal But you know like I'm hoping to build an ADU at some point and the farther it gets pushed back Then it starts raining and whatnot. So if you push it back I hope that you know a lot of you will be on the new council that you'll act with some Decisiveness, you know, like I said, it's not a big deal to do five days or whatever But I think these most these proposals I think aren't really that controversial and I hope that you'll start acting on them sooner than later Thank you Okay, see no other public comment. I'll bring it back for discussion What about the idea of the having people that are here speak on public comment? I I think the Typical way of handling that is to correct me if I'm wrong open the public hearing those that can't come to the delayed Meeting make their comments here, but do not speak at the subsequent one I frankly think it'd be in people's best interests if they can to come back when we have a full council we have time We're giving it a full hearing For those who can't for those who can't if they want to say something right now, I'm fine with it, okay? Okay with the understanding that they won't speak at the upcoming meeting All right Then what I'll do is open up the public hearing at this point on this item item number two for the accessory dwelling unit ordinance Amendments for those of you that are unable to make it for the next meeting on December 11th Please you can come forward and speak and are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this time? Okay, you'll have three minutes I'm sorry. I thought they were gonna stay and speak and then they left so what can I say? Thank you, though. I'll be brief. I Just want to say thank you for being willing to address the whole issue of ad use I personally think adding ad use to the menu of housing possibilities in our city is one thing that will save us the people who Can build them will be the ones who bear the cost the city won't have to pay Like it would with affordable housing or measure each or any of the other ideas that we've contemplated This is one way that could be cost-effective that could allow people to build so Way to go kudos one thing I would like to say I built an ad you in 2003 as you know You've heard me at nauseam for my parents, but because I was an early adopter I've had a lot of people come to me and ask me about ad you questions And so I'm familiar with people who are building people are thinking about building so there are quite a few in the pipeline and There are two things I think that are missing in the proposal the rest of it. I think is great one So I have one friend who got her occupancy permit today and super stoked 600 square foot ad you Cost two hundred ninety thousand dollars to build. It's not that fancy, but it's that's what it costs I have a my neighbor across the street is finishing his he's In the last pages. It's under 500 square feet $270,000 these are very very expensive units to build so one thing that's missing from the proposal is Anything that you could do to reduce fees would be awesome because fees are really expensive and You know some of the building cost you can't help, but the fees you could help and that would be a great improvement Secondly, and I think something that's a little more subtle, but it's also connected to the whole just cause eviction rent control Measure M, etc. That you will undoubtedly be talked about for the next six months to a year is That there are people and I'll throw myself in the in the packet We have a proposal at the building department right now for an ad you on my son's property Which we won't build if there are stringent just cause evictions put in that are similar to what we're in measure M I think rent increase would be or ceiling fine But if you do anything that limits people's flexibility move their families in or to use their own property You're going to end up with fewer ad use so it's great on one hand to make it as easy as possible It's going to shoot you in the foot if you go ahead and make it Implexible or controlling over people who have ad use. Thank you. Thank you Okay next speaker Go ahead sir or Good afternoon council members First of all, thank you for all your hard work and dedication as city council members. It's got to be rough rough My husband and I have lived in Santa Cruz our whole lives our daughters of fourth generation Santa Cruz in and we've lived in our current home for 33 years on the west side of Santa Cruz on Alta Vista Drive. I Wrote a letter to the Planning Commission a month or so ago, which you've probably already read But I thought I would follow it up with coming to speak to you personally I'm not opposed to ad use grainy units as originally proposed We have one next to us and I understand the need for them The father lives in the ad you and takes care of the children now and again on the other side of us is a UCSC rental property with six students who have six cars and My opposition to the proposed changes are primarily two-fold Parking impacts and safety impacts Parking impacts if you remove the requirement for the ad you to have one off-street parking spot Then the occupants of the ad you will be parking on the street could be one two three cars To think that the occupants of the ad you will not have a car or several cars is not realistic The west side is already heavily impacted by the cars of UCSC students And this is only going to make the situation worse Safety impacts if you allow a new ad you to be a short-term rental for three years We will not have any we will not only have more parking impacts, but safety issues as well Single-family residential properties were intended for families So you'll be putting a short-term rental right next to a home with children without even knowing who the folks are Renting the ad you on a short-term basis Rotating rotating rotating scares a heck out of me The police have moved to a model of community policing which has the premise of getting to know your community police team assigned to your neighborhood your neighbors and Everybody looking out for one another The proposal of having ad use be short-term rentals goes completely against this model And it's a contradiction of what the city says it's trying to accomplish Seems to me that rather than trying to get ad use in every backyard to help with our housing crisis We should be focusing on major discussions with UC Regents on somehow Convincing them to provide housing for their students here in Santa Cruz. I know it's very Pollyanna, but They're a big part of our problem our housing problem I am hoping that these discussions are currently happening and we just haven't heard about them yet And I would suppose they are happening Please reject the proposed changes to ordinance for ad use and start to represent your Constituency that has worked all of our lives to build a home here in Santa Cruz. We raised our children here We paid taxes and we're good citizens Thank you. Thank you next speaker. Hi, my name is Elise Kazby and I'm an activist here So I'm afraid I have to admit once again that there there are many facets of the housing issue that I Just don't have any kind of expert knowledge about I have followed the discussions on the ad use and I'm trying Trying to learn as I go But the reason I'm speaking today. It has to do with Airbnb and it has to do with number of units The woman before me who just spoke I think raised a really valid issue about parking and I I just want to say that I really get the feeling that and And and I've been studying this as well. So it's not just a feeling. It's something that I've been studying in formal classes We're we're at a time when a lot of our paradigms are changing So the paradigm of for example a family home with a couple of cars in the driveway That was standard that was something that a lot of people could attain in post-world war two economics At this point we have many many many more people who are Traveling who are actually transient people in the sense that they go where they can get jobs. They're single They're often single parents with children. And so we still have a lot of people who are in family Traditional situations to parents and many maybe several children or whatever But the reason that I'm bringing this up is because the people that are really getting left out of this equation. I feel are The the not rich and the not even very middle-class people so students People who have worked in human services who just were not in really for-profit fields Poor people just a lot of poor people. I Mean I wish I could quote a lot of statistics and stuff right now But I think what what I want to say to this issue is just that I really feel like we really need to revisit the housing issue in terms of People in general single people and we also need to include environmental standards and I'll just go into this area I know y'all have heard this before so excuse me for a little bit of redundancy But I did go to the College of Environmental Design Which was looking at problems like this from a standpoint of trying to be open-minded and really solve problems There are designs in the world where people can live in situations that are maybe not as spacious situations where certain Functions such as eating or a common rooms they can have shared spaces and There's also even in LA. There was a healthy discussion a few years back about building Units for single people so I just really urge you to to give this Conversation it's full do and consider the entire community. Thank you. Thank you Okay, it's gotten we can speak is there any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item Afternoon, I'm Scott Graham There's a number of issues about this that I want to bring up One is I hope that you will comply with the new state laws Concerning the ad use that was passed and I believe in October another thing is the idea of these summertime You know Airbnb rentals and then you know during the the school year running to students I don't think we should be accommodating the university. They're not accommodating us So why should we make rules that accommodate them? Another issue is the Owner Needs to live on the property thing. I think if the owner lives within the county They should be allowed to have an ad you or if the property is managed by a local company and maybe there's some way of like Giving Adjoining properties phone numbers of people to call You know either the actual owner or the property property manager so that if there is a problem There's a way to address it instead of like, you know people not being able to address problems The other issue is the 80 use that are currently out there that are not Considered legal at the moment that they didn't have permits to build them that they were built years ago and people live in and I would Hope that people that the city would allow Landlords to try to make those units comply Rather than just kicking people out That there needs to be a vehicle so that compliance can happen and People aren't losing their housing Another issue is what's going on in the county right now where if the Owner of an ad you that wants to create one or legalize one Signs an agreement for 20 years of low income You know under the HUD guidelines That they don't have to pay any fees It's sort of like that. They're signing this agreement where it's basically a loan to pay the fees and if they go 20 years in Keep it low income at the end of the 20 years the loan is forgiven So I would like to see the city do something like what the county is doing as far as a fee free ad you compliance or creation ordinance Thank you you Okay, are there any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item? I'll bring it back to the council and again that that closes the Public comment period on this will continue the item while there's a motion on the floor to continue this item to the December 11th meeting Any further discussion? Seeing none all those in favor of the motion on the floor, please say aye aye those opposed Okay, that motion passes with councilmember crone voting. No and councilmember Naroyan absent all other council members voting. Yes meetings adjourned