 Okay, well, great. Thank you so much. Welcome, everyone, to the Capital City Council member for September 9th, and we are returning from a closed session. Let's go ahead and begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, everyone. And Chloe, would you like to share a few words? I haven't been in trouble seeing you, Chloe. Where are you? Oh, there you are. Okay. I'm here. Hi. Thank you, Mayor Brooks. Yes. Hello. Welcome to the Capital City Council meeting in accordance with the California Governor's Executive Order N2920. This meeting is not physically open to the public. Council and staff are meeting via Zoom, and there are several ways for the public to watch and participate. Information on how to join the meeting using Zoom or a landline or mobile phone, along with how to submit public comment during the meeting tonight, is available on our website, cityofcapitola.org, and on the published meeting agenda. The public can also live stream the meeting on the city's website. As always, the meeting is cablecast live on Charter Communications Cable TV Channel 8, and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8 a.m., and on Saturday following the first rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25. Our technician tonight is Kingston. Thank you so much, Mayor Brooks. Thank you, Chloe, and thank you, Kingston. We're now going to move on to Item 2. This is Presentation, and 2A is Monarch Services on Domestic Violence and Community Resources presentation from Laura Segura and Caitlin Foster. I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to the 2 of you. Welcome. Wonderful. Thank you so much for having us, councilmembers. My name is Caitlin Foster-Renda, and I am a co-executive director at Monarch Services, and we thank you for providing space for us to share with you some alarming trends that we have been seeing with domestic violence in Santa Cruz County really since the onset of COVID and seems to be exacerbating as the months take by. Laura, would you mind going to the next screen? One back. Perfect. So our numbers here that we'll share with you for our fiscal year, last year, July 1st, 2020 through June 30th, 2021. The number of clients that we serve was about 1,500, and the number of services we provided was 27,448, which was an increase of 75%. The number of crisis line calls that we received was an increase of 250%, and the number of shelter clients seeking services and seeking shelter was 150%. These numbers are significant, especially the shelter clients, because during the shelter in place orders, it was so difficult and during COVID to go into a shelter space, and so for clients to come forward and say, I need to leave and find shelter and know it's in community shelter, it's significant for sure. And really the most tragic number that I have to share with you today is that there have been five fantasies in our county in less than one year. I've been with Monarch Services for 11 years, and in those 11 years, we hadn't had fantasies in our county. Next slide, please. There we go. Thanks so much. So it's important for us to understand the dynamics of domestic violence before we move on to what do we do about this. Abusers seek power and control over the people they abuse, and it's very important to note that it's not always about abuse. It's financial abuse, it's verbal abuse, it's emotional abuse. If there is a silver lining to any of this, it's that violence is a learned behavior, and it can be unlearned. So having support and education for people who do harm does work, and it can be a remedy to these issues that we're facing. And something that's very important for all of us to know is that the most dangerous time for a victim is immediately after they leave a violent relationship. So even if a restraining order is in place, when somebody leaves a relationship, the increase in violence and genocide increases exponentially, and it's very important during that time that the person that has left the relationship has some kind of a safety plan so that they know if they have a bag with a cell phone, with money, with clothes, they know their community's resources and have phone numbers that are handy should they need help. And now I will turn it over to Laura Segura, our other Executive Director. Thank you everyone for having us. So Kailin has given you a glimpse in terms of this pandemic that we're having around domestic violence in our community, and you're probably wondering, well, what is going on? What is causing all this? And I wanted to just share some insights in terms of why. We're not only seeing domestic violence, but we're seeing all forms of violence in our county. And one of the biggest causes of that is that when people are harming others, those people are folks that have had a history of trauma in their lives. Whether it is growing up in a family, being abused, witnessing violence as a child, facing racism, being homeless, poverty, that's a form of trauma. And so you see this layer upon layer upon layer of trauma and the body cannot handle this kind of what they call weathering effect. And it creates a breakdown and in people's behaviors. So that has a lot to do with why we're seeing this. People are unhealed. And then on top of that, we have the pandemic, the trauma of going through this pandemic that most of us have experienced as well. And that's just an added layer of trauma. The other thing that we know is that poverty is a big driver of violence. So folks are dealing with poverty. They're an unstable financial situation, especially during the pandemic. People have lost their jobs or there's job insecurity, etc. So that's another big driver for that. There's also some victims are very dependent upon their partner financially. And so there's that power and control that Kaylin was talking about as well. And when they don't have that, or that's a way for them to have control over their partner. There's also a lack of access to resources such as child care and mental health. I think we, what, sorry. I think it's sorry about that. Oh, shoot. I it's very it's safe to say that we are dealing with a mental health crisis right now. People as I mentioned earlier with this historical trauma and people not being healed. Mental health, the access to mental health services is more important than ever during this time. So that's a really important piece. People are during the pandemic were isolated from friends, family and coworkers. And as victims of violence, they really rely on those support systems to be able to navigate through those violent relationships and be able to seek support, seek help. But the pandemic did not lend itself to that because folks everybody was sheltered in place. And that and being sheltered at home was not a is not a safe place for many victims of violence overcrowded housing conditions. People are living in in these conditions which create additional stressors for them. So all these different stresses layer upon layer of stress are really the main roots causes of violence. And what we're asking for our community, we're calling for a call to action and help folks can help to support victims of violence. And one of the first things we ask is that listen and believe. So when victims come forward, being able to believe them, I think the me to movement came came and people were able to report a lot of what had happened to them. But this was just very recent. This has been happening for many, many generations. And it's very, very shame. It's a lot of victims feel ashamed. And they feel like there's a reason why this is happening to them. So it's really important that we not blame them or shame them. And being able to check in on our loved ones and neighbors making sure that they have support systems, especially now, we're still not completely out of the pandemic, but being able to check in on them and ensuring that they have resources and connections as well and helping with safety planning, making sure that if you know that there is someone out there that is facing violence, that they have a plan B, being able to have things in their car so that if they need to flee their home, that they have those things, their license, their money, and any legal documents that are going to help them and being able to know where to go and who to call. So that's about around safety planning and using social media to raise awareness and provide resources. That's a really powerful platform that we see as a resource for many looking to get out of these violent relationships. And of course, as I mentioned earlier, the increased access to mental health service, that is something that we as a community really are urging our jurisdictions to really help support, especially funding. You have the ability to fund programs and being able to support these kinds of programs is important. And then speaking of that, being able to support critical community services for people with highest rates of trauma. And really when you look at the different layers of trauma and people that are not healed, it's really important. And there's a lot of research that is coming that has recently come out around trauma and that weathering effect and why it's so important to really be able to support and fund these programs that provide healing and address, provide mental health services to those. So that concludes our presentation. Here is additional information about us with our website and our 24 hour support and crisis line. People can call this number if they have questions around what to do, if they have questions about a family member, a neighbor, don't know what to do, don't know how to support them, or someone is in crisis and wants to flee, they can also call this 24 hour support and crisis line. And we have bilingual staff on 24 hours a day. So that concludes our presentation and we'd like to open it up for any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you Vice Mayor Story for bringing this very important issue to light this this evening. Council members, do you have any questions for our guests this evening? Council member Bertrand. Council member, you're muted. Okay. Yeah, I was really taken back about the issue of after a breakup and there's a possibility of violence that initial period is really dangerous for the people involved for the lays in this particular case mostly. So that I believe calls for a lot of education in the community. It's pretty obvious you hear it in newspaper articles and stuff. So my first question is, is that an education opportunity for this organization? I assume it isn't. I was wondering how you do it. My second question is it seems to me that when someone needs to reach out, there's a lot of hesitancy for a variety of reasons. Maybe they feel a stigma might be attached to them. I don't know. I was just wondering if you could comment about that because that has to be overcome. And if that's not the case, let me know. But it seems to me that has to be overcome. And I was wondering how the organization does this. Great. Thank you for the question. I can address the, when we do safety planning, when we know somebody's going to be leading a relationship, we do extensive work with our clients. We have safe, confidential shelter. If that is something that needs to happen, we have partnerships with sister agencies throughout the state. So we can always house folks if it seems like it's going to be a very violent situation, if they should leave just based on historical information from that relationship. So there's a number of things that we do with our clients, but certainly we let them know that that is a fact and that happens so that there is awareness around that. And we also work very closely with law enforcement so that when restraining orders are made, we have our clients keep those orders with them at all times. They have photos on their phones so that they're able to get that information should there be an altercation that happens. So it's a lot of education with our existing clients. And we do use our social media platforms in our newsletters extensively to share this critical information. If I can add, people often ask the question, why doesn't she just leave? And it's really important that when that person leaves a relationship, again, it's a very dangerous time. And that's why we're providing this information is because it is very oversimplified. It sounds easy to do, but it's actually a very, very dangerous time. And many of the femicides, most of the femicides that we have had in our county are a direct result of the women trying to get out of those relationships. Thank you so much, Laura, for sharing that. And as you had mentioned, there is huge stigma in the past around somebody that has experienced domestic violence. Women have historically been blamed and shamed for what did you do to bring this on, you know, before the 70s and into the early 80s. It wasn't even a crime on the books. And so, you know, the person was like had a cool down period where they were taken around the blocks that wasn't taken seriously. And it's not been until recent times that there has been a lot of education around that women have the right to leave a relationship that they should not be ever blamed for that. But there's a lot of stigma. And it's so difficult when children are involved, when women are financially dependent on the partner that's causing harm. So there are so many factors, you know, with family relationships, with all of these, the web of a relationship, but any relationship is, it just is very complex. Thank you. And I'm sorry, I see one mother question from Vice Mayor's story. I just want to pop in Vice Mayor's story. Oh, thank you. And one, I just want to, I want to thank Cailin and Laura for giving us this presentation on a very sobering topic. It was shocking to me that here that we've had five fantasies here in our Santa Cruz County. I, you know, I just find that so hard to believe. And I guess what I wanted to ask, I know that Monad Services provides resources, a hotline, and a shelter. But are there low costs or no costs counseling or therapy or anger management? Therapies for perpetrators domestic violence? Because it seems to me that those are the people that we really need to reach out to and to reach and intercede with. Thank you. That's a great question. And thank you, Council Member Story for inviting us to be part of this. Yes, we have recently shifted to provide services to the entire family. Victims have been asking us for many, many years to be able to provide that for their families, including their partner, who is also the person that has harmed them. And so we are now providing those sessions. We just launched it earlier this year. It's called Positive Solutions Program. And we provide a more holistic type of approach to addressing violence in the home, including we provide counseling for children. We provide counseling for the victim. And of course, the person that has harmed them as well. So hopefully being able to address and support the entire family holistically, which then extends out to a safer, healthier community as well. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Kaiser. Thank you. Yes, Kayla and Laura, thank you so much. That's super encouraging to hear about the taking on more of the family counseling aspect, because obviously kids are sponges and they absorb all these things that they see in here and whatnot, and that only perpetuates and continues on for a lifetime. So that getting to the root of it is where I think, yeah, that the most effort needs to be put. And thank you for providing these services that are much needed. And I look forward to sharing your posts and things like that on social media as well, because you never know who it might reach and who it could help. So thank you very much. Thank you, too. Well, thank you again to the two of you for all that you're doing for it, for the advocacy of our community and for women across the county. Thanks again for coming this evening. Thank you so much for having us. All right, everyone, we're going to now move on to item three. This is a report out on closed session. Samantha, have a report. Good evening, Mayor and health members. A direction was given staff on both the items on the closed session agenda. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Samantha. Item four, additional materials. Do we have any additional materials to be added? Yes, Mayor Brooks, there were two public comment emails received regarding item eight, excuse me, item nine a, which is the 720 Hill Street Hotel Conceptual Review. Okay, thank you. And now on to item five, any additions or deletions to the agenda? Staff has no changes this evening. Great. And item six, oral communications. What is that? So this is public comment, which is the opportunity for the public to address us on items that are not listed on the agenda or are listed on the consent calendar. Thank you, Jamie. So we'll go ahead and open this up to the public. Do we have any items, or excuse me, do we have anyone who has a hand is raised or any emails for items not on tonight's agenda? Mayor Brooks, I see one person wishing to talk on this item. It's Lisa Berkowitz. Okay, Lisa. And this is for items. And tonight's agenda, you have three minutes to welcome. Yes, good evening, Mayor and City Council members, Lisa Berkowitz, Community Bridges. I'm the Program Director of Meals on Wheels. And I was glad to see that on the consent agenda for this evening's meeting, there is the recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution to accept the CDBG grant. Your consideration of the grant will impart important food services for Capitol residents. So thank you in advance to secure additional funding to address the important issues of food insecurity and invest in the nutritional well-being of Capitol residents. Thank you. Thank you so much, Lisa. All right. Now moving on, any other hands, Larry, or emails? Mayor Brooks, I do not see any other hands raised for oral communication, and I do not have any emails on this item. Okay, great. Now move on to item seven. This is an opportunity for Council comments or staff comments. We'll begin with staff. Mayor Brooks, I have one announcement this evening. Yesterday, I received word that a public health department believes that the county has moved into the substantial tier, that's one better than the highest tier of high, according to the CDC in terms of their tracking and how much community spread of COVID there is in Santa Cruz County. The decrease to substantial represents a 52% decrease in cases over the last seven days and reduced hospital admissions. The next move that the CDC would make for the county if they were to move us down to the tier in the next lower tier would take us away from having the indoor masking requirements. So everyone's probably focused on that. I will note that the CDC website still lists us in the high tier, but I do have confirmation from the county that they believe that we have been moved down to this substantial tier. Thank you, Council Member Bertrand. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to report out on a RTC meeting of September 2nd. We dealt with the capitol at Tressel. We did an update on the conceptual study to repurpose the bridges. There's five of them to a multi-purpose, multi-use trail. So I'll read the recommendations that the RTC agreed to. So two recommendations. We'll proceed with the prioritization of the pre-construction activities needed to rehabilitate the existing timber and wrought iron bridges. Number two, we'll work with the county public work staff to consider including the deck conversion work in the environmental analysis for the coastal rail trail segments 10 and 11. So you could go to the meeting minutes and find out more about this, but at this point, the only thing that is actually able to take any load up to the E80, which is the recommended load, are the concrete sections of segment A and segment E. There's no rating on the timber Tressels, as you can imagine, so a lot of this work to figure out the condition of the bridge of our Tressel is going to be focused on that. And also the iron deck truss is at an E29 way below the E80. So you can imagine it's not really capable of carrying a heavy load, but more will come out of this with the study. And the idea here with this study is can a sufficient amount of work be done so that it could be turned into a trail segment at this initial stage, and we'll find out more at the next meetings. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Peterson. Thank you. Can you hear me? I can. Okay. Thanks. Sorry, you're going to hear me say that a lot tonight as I'm dealing with this new kind of audio dialing in instead of using my computer, so I apologize in advance. I just have two things that I wanted to touch on. The first is that this weekend is the exciting return of the Art & Wine Festival. I will be working the Glass and Token booth number one at the end of the Esplanade and Stockton Avenue on Saturday from 1.30 to 6. But the last sales will be at 5.30. Those of us that are working in booths will be wearing masks. And while masks aren't required outdoors at this time, I would definitely encourage anyone who is going to be participating to consider wearing a mask when you're not sampling the wine during the event, because as mentioned, it would be really great if we could move into a tier in which we could get rid of our indoor masking requirements. So stay safe out there. The other thing that I wanted to touch on and you'll be hearing from me about this quite a lot in the coming years and probably from AMBAG staff and likely even our staff. Last night at the AMBAG meeting, we had a presentation, AMBAG for those listening and who aren't aware is the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government. And we received a presentation last night from a senior policy analyst at the California Department of Housing and Community Development to share with us some information about rena allocations and our regional housing needs assessment. And I just wanted to kind of share this because I think it's really important that we all prepare for what's coming. We're in cycle six of rena allocations. In cycle four, the region that includes Santa Cruz and Monterey County indicated we needed about 15,000 new housing units between the two counties. Cycle five four years ago was a little over 10,000. They're estimating that in this sixth cycle, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties are going to need 33,274 new units, which is about three times more than we had in the last cycle. And one of the things that I really want to point out here is that they're looking at some new allocation methodology that they hadn't in previous cycles. One of the considerations they're using is the number of overcrowded households, which I think is something that we really need to pay attention to because as we just heard from Monarch Services, overcrowded housing is one of the causes of violence. So this isn't just about ensuring that we have enough housing units. This is also about preventing violence, etc. So that's one of the new things they're considering. Another thing that they're considering is cost burdened households and ensuring that we have a balance of household income distribution. So these are things that hadn't been considered previously when allocating rena numbers to our region and eventually it will be allocated by city as well. Just based on the overcrowding aspect of it alone, the two counties need 11,410 new units just to alleviate the overcrowding issue that we have. And so I'm bringing this up now and you'll hear more about it as we move on through the process. But I think this is really important for us to be aware of as we move forward because I'm sure that in the coming years as we have opportunities to create new housing stock in our area, there will be some who are concerned about the density or about the height or about other issues that ultimately we are going to have to face in order to address the fact that we need to diversify not only the income level of those housing units but also they're looking at not only just a job housing balance anymore, but a job housing fit. So does the kind of housing that we're building match the kind of jobs in our region? And so I just am kind of throwing that out there now and I'll speak to it probably a little bit later on another item in the agenda. But you're going to be hearing a lot from me about this in in the coming years quite frankly because this is this is a significant significantly higher number of housing needs that we have in our region than we never seen before. So I just wanted to share that and that's all for me. Thank you councilmember Peterson. Any other council comments? Okay. I just have a couple on September 26th. Our art height frames are going to be taken down here in Capitola as well as throughout the county and they will be available for auction at Anna Jean's coming park. I believe it's at one o'clock and all proceeds will go to the Santa Cruz County Parks and Friends Organization. Also if you have not checked your mail recently you might have gotten something, oh my background's up, that was came from PG Nee with the logo from Central Coast Community Energy and it has to do about the peak pricing cost and cost to you as residents regarding how and when you use your energy and you have a few options available to you as consumers and so I think it's really important for everyone to take a look at that. You should have gotten that in the mail in the last week. Also in addition to that I'm going to be part of a virtual forum called Women in Leadership. It's a nonpartisan group or excuse me a nonpartisan event to get more women involved in leadership and hopefully in government and that will be taking place in on October 7th and so I hope that everyone can sign up for that and then lastly on a more somber note I just want to recognize the loss of life here in Aptos of our student from Aptos High. It was an unfortunate circumstance that took place and my my condolences go out to the family and the students affected and the entire community. This was a loss that absolutely affected us all and so my heart is with all of with all of them at this really really trying time. In addition to for all of us to keep our our ears out for how we can support those families also who are affected by the fires and South in Tahoe. So there's just a lot of that going on and for someone like myself who is an advocate for public service and social services along with my fellow council members here I know that our support is much needed. So thank you so much and we are going to now move on to I have one more question. I have a comment. Yes, thank you very much. It's free. So the other day I went by and talked to our museum director our new museum director and you know the introduction was great at our meeting but I decided to talk with her. It's very impressed with her programs and her background and her familiarity with the area of course. So I have a first and we have a second. Go ahead and do a roll call please. Yes, council member Bertrand, council member Kaiser, council member Peterson, vice mayor Story, mayor Brooks. We're going to move to item 9A that is the 720 Hill Street hotel conceptual review and tonight's recommended recommended action is just to review the proposed hotel plans and design review memo from our SCAN design group and provide the applicant or council to provide the applicant with guidance for future development of a hotel at 720 Hill Street. And who am I turning this over to? Mayor Brooks, this is director Cherokee that you're turning it over to. Wonderful, thank you so much. Okay, can you see my slides? You can. Okay, great. This evening for you is a conceptual review application for 720 Hill Street. The conceptual review provides an opportunity for an applicant to come before the planning submission of the city council and get initial feedback on a project before going through the expense of doing the environmental review and bringing in their my life application, especially with larger projects. We usually recommend the applicants come in for conceptual review, get feedback, and bring back an application that works with the initial direction given the city council. So tonight, the applicant will be seeking direction from the city council for recommendations on the concept that they've come up with at our 42 room hotel at 720 Hill Street. It's located in a community commercial zone. The property owner does own the quality end that's right behind this entry parcel that was proposed to develop. One thing to be aware of is this is a transition area for zoning. As you can see in the aerial on the left and then I have the zoning map to the right. The property is in the community commercial zone and there are three other zoning districts that are that touch the better adjacent properties to this property. And another item to note is that the property itself is also in our affordable housing overlay that's the black stripes that you see on top of this property. And within the affordable housing overlay was identified as an opportunity site within our housing element and it projected that to 61 units could be developed on this site as affordable housing. So and next to it, there's a mixed-use site, a multi-family family, a community site, a single family home. So then it is part of the community commercial zoning district. A lot's going on in that little corner of the world. But this is the site plan of the existing quality end you see towards the back of the parcel. The design places the hotel towards the front along Crossroads Loop towards the street. The parking is located in the back and acts as top of the private drive that's being used in the private drive to the quality end. And then circulation is off of Crossroads Loop and through the first-story lobby drop-off. Again, just noting here the post proximity of the grocery resplans that in very small quantities of our long single-family housing district, there's five homes that are adjacent to this property. The planning commission needs to be back during their review and it should be noted that the proposal, they've definitely taken into consideration these five homes next door and tried to make the plan. The plan is the view from Crossroads Loop, the front of the hotel. You can see that the lobby is on the first-story and then two stories of rooms above that. And then you see the trees on top of the rooftop and that is part of their rooftop deck. This is the back of the building, the view from the rear parking lot. From the back of the parking lot it will look like a two-story building. And you can note there's also an exterior staircase that leads up to that rooftop deck. And this is the south elevation that would be towards Hill Street and those single-family homes. The centerpiece here is an enclosed staircase so no windows so it really protects the privacy of the neighboring homes. In the back portion, this is stepped back significantly, about two-thirds back from this wall here. So it's really stepped back and away from the farthest reaching wall on this side. And then there are these two windows here for a hallway and then the two hotel rooms. But the architect went to really try to minimize the impact and protect the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. And on the south, this is the north elevation of what would be viewed from the private drive. So you can see that drop-off area for the lobby and the rooftop deck and that staircase and then hotel rooms. We'll quickly go over the floor plans. On the first floor will be the lobbies. There will be a dining area for buffet and the morning breakfast, a small gym and a small meeting room. Again, the drop-off area circulates through that first level. The second level, there's just rooms for guests. You can see the enclosed stairs that are close to those single-family homes and then the open stairs towards the back. The third level is very much the same as the second. And then here we are on the top, the roof, the rooftop deck. You can see the rooftop deck was oriented as far away as possible from the single-family homes and neighboring residential and really towards the view of the existing hotel and as well as looking down on the commercial area. So there were a couple items within this application or the concept that do not comply with the zoning code and the applicant will have to fix these prior to coming back in. One is the daylight plan that's required when you're in a residential transition area. And there's the section of the staircase on the side of the property. It exceeds the height limit within the daylight plan so that that's one modification that will have to be addressed before the future application is submitted. And also there's within that transition area a landscaping requirement that there must be a 10-foot landscape area and also a specific requirement for trees every 15 feet. So that was not in their landscape plan but that's something that will have to be included in the future application. And next I'm going to jump into the design review for commercial developments and multi-family development specificity requires under a new code a consultant to perform a design review and architectural firm. So we hired RRM design group and they reviewed this project. I'm going to provide you with some slides with some of the highlights. They first off I should say they gave the architect a lot of credit for a really well-designed project and they thought the placement was great. The rooftop patio location was really thoughtful and also agreed with how the hotel was really cited and oriented towards that crossroads road. They did make some recommendations for landscaping along the side which we talked about and then also possibly screening those doors and egress that are on that far-around closest to the residential. Other recommendations was that the existing sidewalk at the north side of the probe drive they noted that. They really talked about really improving the pedestrian experience so providing adequate signage from the parking in the back through the hotel down to the lobby and also incorporating a unique paving and pedestrian lighting enhancing the landscaping in the front of the hotel. Also comments on like not just having a simple sidewalk but really having landscaping and softening that experience from the resort down and you know from the hotel along the street. In terms of articulation they are suggested they expand the vertical massing elements within the design to create more balance between the horizontal and vertical elements. So suggesting that there could be a little more massing in some areas and more design elements. They also talked about the proposed roofline variation is that it's lacking a very flat so looking for an opportunity to vary the height of the roof to enhance the visual interest of the overall project. So that helps break down the massing and make it appear a little smaller when you have more articulation in the building and some more design comments were to enhance the primary entry. So right now the entry is under the roof overhang and there's a lot of glass and different materials. RM was suggesting enhancing this more with primary entries through an awning or an overhang possibly with sawsets or an architectural feature changing up the windows or the color of materials but really creating that sense of arrival when you get to the hotel and possibly integrating some coastal elements. I think that was the wood material as you can see an example on the bottom of a hotel that has a really nice look for when you arrive at the hotel the experience you're going to have with the access. And then they also suggested not only to do this in the front of the building at the lobbies but where the majority of people coming to the hotel will be parking behind it and entering the hotel from the back to also include some of those defining moments as you enter that back door. So creating that sense of arrival on the back and more examples of coastal character throughout the proposal. So when it comes in we're suggesting that a lot of those accent details that really make a place be shown in those future plans. On the north and east elevation there are areas that were highlighted in the report that are more blank elevations and they were suggesting to add more detail there possibly windows changing color of materials or even vertical landscaping. On the back of the building where there's an exterior staircase we are suggested either enclosing that or utilizing decorative panels rather than the picket railing that's shown and they provided some examples of what decorative panels could look like in screening. There's also a suggestion about the windows there's a lot of windows on hotels as a repeated pattern and there wasn't a close-up window detail so definitely in the future application getting more detail on those was on those windows and then consider using a higher end window system with casements or operable windows to enhance the visual interest. There are AC units within each of that that's what they've highlighted in the blue and just making sure that those AC units are of high quality and it really connects with the overall building architecture. Some items that are raised as concerns are things that should be included in the future the middle is the site and building light fixtures to understand how the light is going to enhance the building as well as protect the neighbors. Mechanical equipment trash receptables and utilities should all be screened include a sign program because I'm sure signage will be on the building and how it sits in with the architecture and also what will the modifications to the existing monument sign be and then addressing project sustainability and they also mentioned in their report really thinking about the future buildout of the site there's an existing hotel behind the site and whether in a couple decades when they're ready to update or the future hotel in the back they've really thought through what are the impacts of this hotel in the front and how they can ensure that that can be updated adequately and fit into the space and the city council the planning commission also made comments to that extent the planning commission in reviewing this application said that visitor serving land use is appropriate for the site and that more they'd like to see more mitigation for the adjacent neighbors so looking at the wall the lighting the noise possibly connected having hours of operation for that rooftop deck they suggested incorporating some of the design suggestions overall they like the design and they thought some of the design suggestions should be added they one comment that several of the main was really they should integrate the existing hotel with the new hotel and they could do that through landscaping and pathways also freshening up the existing hotel to complement the new paint maybe some of those accent materials we talked about previously and then to consider the pedestrian connectivity to town and to the beach shuttle so when people arrive at the hotel having providing them with options of how to get down to the beach we all know how backed up the Esplanade can get and to have a shuttle would be helpful in that area they suggested enclosing the stairs on the back of the hotel and a comment from me about the windows being high quality and needing to understand how the individual AC units looks within that sign this evening the guidance for looking for is the input on the recommendations made by our design group also any recommendations regarding potential impacts to adjacent properties or the public because this will require a conditional use permit in front of the planning mission additional recommendations for the applicant prior to applications in the middle just any any recommendations you'd like to make at this time would be appropriate and then do you support the removal of this site from the affordable housing element site inventory list and to do so we would have to at the time of the application review make findings of no net loss and we would have in to make findings of no net loss we would have to identify that there are other areas in town in which those 61 units could be developed and I've done some preliminary work on that and I feel confident that there's adequate sites out there which 61 the 61 units could be developed in making those findings we do not have to update the housing element at that time or the we would we would wait until our next rena cycle and our next housing cycle so at that time when we I think it's in two more years we would provide I could provide the initial analysis for finding but then when we go through updating our rena numbers in our site analysis we would update the affordable housing overlay to include those additional sites so that's about two years out so with that I'm available for questions thank you Katie nice mayor story thank you mayor Brooks and thank you Katie for that presentation my question goes to the I guess last time you made about the rena numbers and finding alternative replacements and so if this project submits its application before 2023 we would only need to find 61 replacement units however I mean and based on the report that councilwoman Peterson gave us if it's after 2023 we may need to find three times our current number and so then that task becomes just I would I would think you know much greater three times harder at that time so is that a fair statement about um if we're looking at the application or you're doing this analysis before 2023 the target 61 and you feel that we could meet that we don't have to anticipate that the rena numbers are going to probably go up three times or if not more than three times our current numbers so you've definitely identified and councilman Peterson did earlier we have a challenge ahead of us in our next housing cycle so we are anticipating the numbers to go up and that that will we will be looking for more sites throughout capitol even if this project were not to move forward however for this project we would have to make those no net lost findings and those findings would be tied to this first step of being able to identify different areas in which the units could be accommodated and because we allow so much mixed we allow mixed use throughout our community commercial and our regional commercial I feel confident that we could make those findings but it does not mean that it's making that task easier in a couple years but we're going to go through the arena and and re-identifying sites it will be a challenge so thank you council member Bertrand you're muted council member yeah I'm so used to not being muted when we're in closed sessions I forget so it's good to note that Mr Patel is working with the neighbors and I just wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about that it seemed that many of the issues have been resolved some of the the plantings maybe along the land border between the hotel and the neighbors have to be addressed so I agree with that you could comment about that and then I have another question about car circulation okay so I should mention that Dan Patel the owner is on the zoo meeting as well as Gwen Jerrick is the architect so any questions that you'd like to ask them that would be appropriate they are here as far as any revisions that have happened since this application the conceptual review came in there have been no revisions just during the planning commission discussion there were really positive talks when Mr Patel addressed the planning commission you know has consistently worked with his neighbors and plans to consistently work with his neighbors and so if you'd like to hear from him we when appropriate they are available okay so I think one of the concerns is the noise from the outside deck on the roof and so the first thing I know notice is that it's far away from the neighbor I don't know and you know the sound is going to go up and out but not necessary up and down and so the issue of how much that neighbor was here maybe a potential resolution could be you know sound checks I mean just to try to get an idea once the thing's built I have no problem with the closing and opening depending on that sound issue so maybe sound checks could be part of it because I know it's part of our code anyway so I don't know if that's going to be talked about the other thing is there's that little narrow alley that leads away from the post office so in terms of cars going in and out I think there was something about signage we're going to try to take them away from all those interior roads and just focus on hill that's sort of a question to maybe Steve or Katie I don't know but we didn't receive a sign package with this application so that's something we'll look at later on as well as noise will be evaluated as part of the environmental impact okay um those are my main questions at this point thank you any other questions council member kaiser thank you thanks katie as well um so the landscaping um was that along the front like a long hill street that um putting trees every 15 feet or is that actually budding up against their residential part it is adjacent to the residential okay that requirement yes and then I feel like there was like mention of a pool but that's not they're not putting a pool in it looks like a pool and you look at the site plan but that's really part of their storm water plan and the drainage so okay just trying to make that grade change work within the hill okay awesome thank you okay I have just um a question about um uh and I I saw it on the slide that's just like how well they expect this hotel to do and I know mr patel is on the line um I'm just curious about what how the hotel behind it has done and what they anticipate or how they anticipate this additional hotel will be utilized and if they you know what what the vision there is um in terms of building another hotel right next to it I'm just curious mr patel are you on the line and I see your hand raised so I think you can unmute yourself hello um miss brooks can you hear me I can sorry what was the question again sure so I'm curious what's in in tights due to build an additional hotel right next to the other one just as a basic question and I haven't recently looked at the numbers of how this hotel so that's already built has been doing and I'm just curious do you or is the vision that building this other one will make more people come I'm just wondering about the necessity of another hotel and in within the city and what your thoughts were on that um yes ma'am um so when we took over the it was actually a capital and when we took over the quality and um the revenue on that property was only $650,000 when we took over um in 2019 we took that to $1.8 million so that was roughly about $200,000 to the city of capitol in a year um that will bring people to capitol and we're giving them two options basically there's an option for a lower you know like a mid-scale property and this will be a little bit of a higher end property there will be a boutique hotel so basically like a higher end it'll just bring in more people it's a win-win for city of capitol a lot of talking to I guess Doug who owns the the Lomax the office building and the restaurant and all that they're very anxious um the old owner the original owner was supposed to put 72 units on that property on the on those two lots right there um so I think it's it's feasible it'll it'll bring in people um the shadowbrook owner called me yesterday he was he thought it was a very good idea to bring in the hotel with a meeting space over there so a lot a lot of good feedback from from my neighbors thank you so much we'll go ahead and move to um unless council has any other questions for mr patel or anyone else at this time we'll move on to public comment so I'll open this up to public comment if you'd like to make a comment send an email now to public comments at ci dot capitol dot ca dot us or to speak please raise your hand now but by clicking on reactions then clicking raise hand in your zoom application or by dialing chloe is it star nine or star six did we find out to be honest with you mayor I think it depends on the the version of the app that the person is using okay so try all right so either all right so try both if you have called in council um or to our public if you've called in that's dialing star nine or star six our moderator will unmute you and you will have up to three minutes to speak there brooks we have gwen jarik asking to speak when you can go ahead and unmute yourself and you have three minutes it's so tricky I'm guessing you are attempting to try we'll give you a second to try to figure it out space work works sorry can you hear me now we can okay I apologize I was hitting the wrong button it's okay good evening everybody we are brooks like me your story um and council members of Bertrand Kaiser and Peterson I'm gwen jarik I'm the architect on the project um and also representing the owner this evening I just wanted to thank you for bringing this to a preliminary review which helps us in our planning phase um obviously to make it a little more efficient moving forward with all the comments um the project I think overall at the planning commission was received quite positively the feedback um and the support was positive um we received a few comments um from um a few neighbors and um there were some minor issues and we look forward to working with the neighborhood and had planned to do our own outreach independently um and we you know the ownership is very interested in being a good neighbor so you want to do the right thing um the concerns of light pollution and privacy from the parking lot which was brought up in the meeting will be addressed a lighting design and wall design meets the neighbor's needs as well as the city and the hotel will be presented to all stakeholders for feedback um also uh pertaining to the two hotels um and landscape and also the question about upgrading the other hotel the ownership is actively looking he's already done some interior uh renovations to the hotel just recently it's just finishing up and has planned to upgrade the landscaping as well as um the exterior with new paint scheme and things like that so it will be upgraded um to kind of enhance the overall property you know in a pleasant way for all of the all the ownership the neighbors and also for will be staying there and um do you have any questions any other questions happy to answer them thank you so much okay so we'll bring this back to council um this evening is our opportunity to provide feedback and guidance to staff and to the uh and um um anyone would like to start here council member Kaiser and then to council member peterson thank you mayor um yeah i am really interested in this project moving forward um i did like a lot of the recommendations that were brought on by rm um in closing the stairways i think would also kind of help with the noise aspect as well um definitely trying to work with the neighbors and making sure that there's at least some type of agreement um and commonality between either a wall or landscaping that would help minimize sound and then i really like the idea of either a shuttle or some type of um bike transportation provided by the hotel itself just to minimize the in and out um it from the parking lot noise wise and everything like that and just the traffic wise on that little loop um hill street as we know can be people like to speed up it it's not awesome all the time but yeah just working um with the neighborhood is um what i would like to see happen but i'm kind of excited about it i think i think mr patel's right i think that this would add um obviously to our to t tax income which is great but along with more opportunities for guests and um maybe enhance that area a little bit as well so thank you thank you council member council member peterson thank you mayor brooks thank you for the presentation today and um everything that that i'm about to uh speak to was was already mentioned in the presentation so i just want to briefly um emphasize the things that i i think are our good ideas here and and one that i saw was the consideration of public art at the crossroads loop i think there's always um it's always great to have opportunities for public art um additionally the landscaping additions the enhanced softening at the sidewalk i think that's going to be really important um and then finally uh or or additionally the idea of um i'd really like to encourage the owners to continue with considerations for future buildout plans for an update of the existing hotel or freshening the existing hotel in the in the meantime and then also just uh echoing what council member kaiser said regarding uh the importance of either a bike share or a shuttle or something of that sort to get people down into the village um but otherwise i'm looking forward to seeing how this project progresses thank you thank you vice mayor story yeah thank you mayor brooks um you know i i want to start by saying um there there's a lot to like about this project um you know the the property it's partly zoned for this use it's consistent with the current use and i think potentially it could be a great um asset to the community um but with that said and because i have limited time i'm going to focus on what i consider you know the issues and and try to give the feedback um as requested in the staff report um and i'll start by um saying that um uh of course all the um you know the community commercial zoning um development standards need to be met um most of them are but the issues with the staircase and the daylight plane need to be resolved um and the landscape buffer um um jason to the r1 zone needs to be established i i don't know that a variance would be or um this project would be eligible for variance on those issues so i would encourage you to um try to redesign to meet those development standards um concerning the design review criteria um and that's section 17.120.070 um i just you know in reviewing it i want to emphasize that you use this language like shall evaluate applications to ensure criteria are satisfied um that the city would do that and and it and these criteria must be satisfied where they're applicable um and to the extent that the rrm design group recommendations those are based upon the section 17.120.070 design review criteria um and to that extent i endorse them wholeheartedly there are a few of them that i want to particularly uh speak to and one it's concerning um the um overall design of the building itself um one of the design criteria are several of them um that um the design must uh comply with um the community character would be consistent with um our neighborhood compatibility uh it'd be consistent with the historical character of new structures and the massing and scaling to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods um um and the architectural style um and the architectural and visual interest and um you know i i just do not feel that this particular design uh as it's presented in a two-dimensional way meet those criteria um in my view it's it's not compatible even with the existing hotel that is there um and especially not with the uh the rest of the neighborhood or the other structures that are uh in that neighborhood they're the commercial structures that are in that neighborhood um and um you know capitola um in this general plan you know our goal is to maintain our small town feel um and our coastal village um a feel in our community um and i just don't feel that this particular design at this day um meet those design review criteria and i would like to maybe point and i know mr patel's probably uh very familiar with the fair fill in on 41st avenue uh but um you know i would like to put that out and i think as an example of an architectural design um that um fits in with our community um you know specifically i you know where our m identifies that there's just too much horizontal uh flat lines along the roof line um and um no architectural interests along the roof line so i would encourage you to um go back and and look at that um and maybe bring us back a design that would be more in keeping with um um those uh criteria um on some of the other elements um um there's um the lack of a sustainability features of the project and hopefully when it comes back there will be those will be addressed um and a conceptual landscape plan um for you in in both properties um so that it would tie them together um and um concerning um the circulation traffic circulation um i would like to see um the traffic being directed uh either coming in or going out um toward bay avenue and hopefully avoiding the fill street uh where um as we know already know we already have issues with speeding on fill street and you know and uh people tend to speed um as they go down or up and um and concerning oh there's been several comments made about the beach shuttle but um and providing or having you know electric scooters or bikes i think would be a great idea uh we may be implementing uh such a plan you know the city runs a beach shuttle so hopefully um um the um the hotel can you know work with us partner with the city uh to try to share the cost of the shuttle from the hotel and to the village and to the beach um and maybe and potentially the mall um on the um um i i guess process um i was very pleased to hear um when mr i mentioned that you're going to be doing your own outreach to the neighborhoods i think that is a great and an important step in order to get in front of you know the neighbors and address their concerns um you know there's been you know some requests for a higher wall um uh at um adjacent to the r1 property uh to have no truck parking near the r1 property uh and a limit on hours of the deaf use and so but i think if you do reach out and work with the neighbors you can sort out those issues um and i think finally on the um we've been asked whether we um would accept um the removing of the portable housing overlay and i would say that i would because i think currently we could probably find alternatives but i think that that's a function of how quickly you get the application in um it's after 2023 i think you could get uh much more problematic um and let me just quickly check my notes before i sign off and um but i think i've covered it all um so thank you i do appreciate you've given us this opportunity to uh comment on the project and i think we all very much look forward to working with you for the thank you thank you vice mayor councilmember vertrand thank you mayor um i have a few notes um first of all i i like to look in general right now on the project and i also like the fact that the owner um wants to take input from the neighbors and he's obviously at this meeting to take input from us so i appreciate that time that you're giving to this project which i assume you want to be the best it can be so i'm not an architect i'm not a designer but these recommendations from our consultant got me thinking and the whole idea of articulation bulk management and giving few features that make the front interesting strikes me as something very worthwhile because this will be a permanent structure and you want it to be appealing so i don't know necessarily how to use different materials and different um aspects of how you make the features fit together but i was very pleased with our library and i learned a lot about how the material on the outside adds a lot to the interest of the building how the roof line adds a lot to the interest that the public takes in the building and obviously it's not a library but i could see how these are very important considerations and right now it's sort of you know my job marketing manager and all that travel to see many different hotels and you know sometimes the fronts look all the same and i would hope that um this hotel takes into account that we'd like something that looks unique and as sam story mentioned sort of reminds folks that this is a small town on the coast of california the first resort town in california as i've been told by reading history books there's a history here so if this building could remind people that this is a sea facing town we take a lot of pride that we're on the monorail bay and the issues there with animal life you know the whole host of aspects that could be probably tied into what you present to the public when you design the outside of the building so art's really important to me um i think um chris mentioned the art at the entrance i agree that this is an important thing to consider maybe even art on the outside um i don't mean big huge murals but aspects that um have an artistic touch on the front and sides of the building i think one side is a lot more planar than the other but obviously the one facing hill that you would see from bay for instance has more importance to me um we have local meetings here on economic development in monorail bay and i've gone to a number of them and one thing that keeps coming up is the lack of meeting space and um one reason why i bring this up is not because we don't have much meeting space in our hotels of various large sizes but um it also means that during non-summer times you would probably be able to draw more people because you can offer meeting space and sometimes that is of consideration if you want to balance out the number rentals excuse me of customers all over the year the back stair case um that's an issue you're going to be working out because it is non-conforming but i agree that it has to be done uh i think the consultant offered about um covering it on the outside maybe matching the vertical striping and the wood that's used for that um it was mentioned about the shuttle um one thing i'd like to add is one of our concerns when the discussion about a hotel downtown at a former theater site came up is the fact that um we don't want a lot of cars going in and out and affecting the normal people that come through the village because it's really a freeway at certain times of the year so a shuttle might help another reason why it might help is because um people are kind of far away from the beach and they may want to go down the beach instead of walking the seminary blocks i haven't counted so that might be a bonus to you and we do have a shuttle program and you can participate in that and um that might be a benefit to your customers um i brought up earlier the need to do signage and such on hill street um i agree with margo hill street is is a dangerous street people just it's a roller coaster they want to go down that as fast as they can to get the bay and there's been a number of problems um so i think that's an important consideration um i don't know how to handle that but um going directly to bay uh in that little alleyway so to speak that goes in front of um the post office but that's on private property so i don't know how that could be affected those are my comments in general i like the plan um i think there's suggestions of our consultant will be reviewed by you and consulting with our plan department and a lot there that meets um the level of good consideration thank you very much thank you council member for trans i'm just gonna wait for you to mute yourself so it doesn't echo thank you um okay so the guidance requested requested this evening is this uh do i agree with the recommendations made by rs r r m design group i do i humbly disagree with council vice mayor story i actually really like the design i think it's fresh and um and it does tie in to to our community in a in a fresh way and a relevant way uh do i have any comments or recommendations regarding potential impacts to the adjacent properties or the public i do there's just a couple here we have for the most part at least for as long as i've been elected received multiple um emails and about concerns about the speed and uh the drivers on hill street and um i think this is something that's important for actually the city to really focus on in partnership with the hotel property managers and i hope that we can remedy that um as soon as possible even before we break ground and to come up with the plan so i'd like to see that happen um i do want to stress the importance i know it's been said by all council members is to trust the need to tie in the other property to this property um i know that you uh that it's it's a good idea to make them look different but also um maybe not so different that it looks sticks out like a sore thumb so um i really liked the recommendations in terms of landscaping and just the fresh fresh paint and really just making the other one not look so uh sad compared to the new one in a easier way to say things um safety is a really big concern of mine you mentioned these outside stairways and i think it was person of the the commission um that suggested closing that gate or doing something i don't know if that's a need an necessity to have these outside stairs and what some other options may be does it make sense to have people go to the rooftop deck from the outside maybe it's about going in and going up as a different way of accessing the rooftop deck the last thing i would add is about that i would hope that the hotel adopts eco-friendly initiatives that's really important to me things such as um the cleaning products they use the the water alternatives the energy conservation water conservation um all of these things and to introduce all these sustainable hotel practices are really important to me as well and i hope that they look at that as they redesign or take all of our our comments into consideration um the third question was does do we have additional recommendations for applicants i think i've said that and do i generally uh support the removal of the site from the affordable housing element i do at this time thanks to um katie you saying that there are alternative uh sites i don't know looks like um if when we can discuss that further or maybe we can take that offline but um i'd like to learn a little bit more about that just as a as an aside so um i believe everyone has gotten what they needed from council tonight and if there are no other staff comments or questions or council comments i think we can move on to our next item everyone looks good katie you have what you need yes thank you very much very helpful okay wonderful so now we're going to move on to our next item uh see here and that's affordable housing nexus and feasibility study and again tonight is to accept the presentation on the affordable housing nexus study and feasibility study and again to direct staff to utilize information from the studies to do the three following things to revise the onsite inclusionary requirements in the iho update to update the in lieu housing fees and to establish affordable housing impact fee levels so we have our work cut out for us tonight katie and is this your item it is thank you very much um this evening i have uh jake craner and darin smith of ets and they are the ones that put together our great uh nexus study and feasibility analysis and they're going to lead the presentation um we also have megan berke from our attorney's office who's been very instrumental in helping with the conversation and guiding us through the process legally um and she'll be presenting a couple slides and then i'll be uh wrapping it up at the end option so um welcome darin and jake and megan thank you very much i go ahead and share my screen yes please thank you jake uh again my name is darin smith i am a managing principal with the consulting firm of economic and planning systems and we have been working on affordable housing policies throughout california for nearly 40 years the firm was founded in 1983 and we've done lots of these kind of studies all over the state and really all over the country and are pleased to be here with you this evening to talk about our findings and what it might mean for your community the work that we were retained to do uh was to look at the relationship between housing growth uh the the construction of new market rate housing both on the ownership side and the rental side and also the expansion of existing homes because we know that's been a trend in capitol and understand how uh how the economics of new construction uh affects the demand for affordable housing in your community um by and large the homes being built are market rate and for upper income households and that has effects that ripple through your community and so we were talking a little bit about the nexa study that we've done we've also looked at what other comparable jurisdictions around you have in terms of their inclusionary housing requirements and other ways that they're addressing affordable housing and finally we wanted to test the feasibility of various fees and inclusionary requirements understanding that these things tend to whether it's requiring affordable units in a new project or requiring a fee to be paid by those projects it does affect the economics of such projects and we want to understand the the level of impact that such requirements would have on new construction as a reminder the city's current policy is that on the for sale side one out of every seven units um if it had if it is a project with at least seven units one out of every seven units must be provided at a at what's called the median income level that said at the county level 100 of that median income and if you have a project that is supposed to provide for example 2.3 affordable units um then they must require must provide the two units and then pay a fee for the additional 0.3 fractional units and that fee as currently adopted by the city is that the rental developments of well on the for sale side the the fee is ten dollars a square foot and if it is a rental development there is no actual on-site requirement that they provide units but rather rental developments are asked to pay a fee of six dollars per square foot and if it's an addition to an existing home um that addition as long as it increases the home size by at least 50 percent um the additional square feet are asked to pay two dollars and fifty cents per square foot so that's your existing policy and just to set context here we always like to show a slide that uh shows the income levels that we're talking about these are set by the state by hcd and they are set county by county throughout the state based on locally prevailing income levels so the median income here we're showing it for a household of three people and it does vary by household size but the median income in the next to last uh row here is ninety nine thousand dollars per year uh that's the the middle um and low income uh is set at ninety five thousand six hundred and moderate income is set at a hundred eighteen eight very low income is still sixty thousand dollars a year so um even the very low income folks that we are talking about um to reach that level of income requires essentially two plus uh full-time jobs making minimum wage so these are working households that we're talking about the way that we do a nexus study uh and we've done these and firms like ours have done these throughout the state um the first thing that we look at is how much it costs to build affordable housing versus how much a household can afford to pay and so we estimated the costs of acquiring land and doing construction and so forth uh for a rental apartment in capitolah and we compared those costs which are in excess of half a million dollars to construct a new apartment building or a new apartment unit um in capitolah but we compare those to what folks can afford to pay at various income levels to determine if there's a subsidy required for the construction of such units and we did determine that uh that certainly at very low and low income levels there is a subsidy required to produce affordable units um the next thing we look at is the demand for affordable housing and here we uh the idea is that as new households come to town into market rate housing units um they are bringing with them spending and that spending creates new jobs in the community and many of those new jobs that are serving the growing population are in retail and services and uh make lower income wages and thus are increasing demand for affordable housing um and so then we look at for any given housing type and price because it is affected by the price of those units um with higher income or higher priced housing having higher income households that spend more money and thus create more jobs we look at the uh the number of jobs that they are generating through their spending and how many of those jobs would require affordable housing and what the overall financial gap is to provide that affordable housing to come up with an overall cost of uh housing demand and then we divide that essentially by the size of the units that are creating that demand to come up with a fee per square foot so it's a little complicated and I'll be happy to take any number of questions that you may have but hopefully you've each had an opportunity to review the uh nexus study and other materials that we've provided and it spells it out a little bit more the results of our analysis on the rental side um we looked at studios one bedrooms two bedrooms and three bedrooms and estimated the value that each of those units would have the rents that they would command in them in the marketplace the incomes of the households that would be occupying those develop those rental units if they are built and again through the spending that they would do in your community estimated the number of jobs that they would create and the amount of subsidies that would be required to provide housing for those jobs we estimated that the total fees per square foot do vary based on the size of the units but range in excess of 45 dollars a square foot and we also estimated the number of jobs as I mentioned that are generated um so you know for example 100 unit uh project um of all studio apartments 100 unit project would generate demand for 14 additional affordable units 100 unit one bedroom uh project would generate demand for 20 affordable units and so on and so you see these relationships here but the upshot again for that one was we're looking at a nexus based fee that is the maximum that could be supported legally in excess of 45 dollars a square foot we did the same kind of analysis on the for sale side looking here at different prices of units because again the price of the unit determines the income of the household that would occupy it and that income generates the spending that generates the jobs and here uh we estimate that the fee per square foot would be in excess of 40 dollars so around 43 dollars is the minimum and it actually goes up from there and again we've estimated that there's essentially a minimum of 13 and a half percent of inclusionary requirement if you wanted to draw that parallel that would be substantiated by the nexus analysis now that is different than the feasibility analysis that we will be speaking to a little later but again on a nexus basis we are estimating that you could legally justify a fee in excess of 43 dollars a square foot on new for sale construction we also looked at what other communities around you have in terms of their inclusionary housing requirements this is a table or a slide of rental requirements capitol is on the left hand side and because you don't actually require the construction of rental inclusionary units your rental developments we show you as a zero there as a reminder we did indicate that you have a fee set at six dollars per square foot that is essentially in lieu of providing units within projects but you see from these other communities in your county and others surrounding you that it's typical that the community will have anywhere from in this case of 12 to 20 percent inclusionary requirement with some mix of incomes associated with that we have any anywhere from units that are to be provided to holders of section eight vouchers as in the case of Watsonville up through very low income low income and in some cases median and moderate income households so again the kind of the going rate is in that 15 to 20 percent range and often with a mix of household incomes associated with it but again that is what the standards are but it doesn't necessarily mean that those standards are in fact feasible and so we'll be speaking of that in a moment as well on the for sale side we see a similar relationship capitol has a 15 percent requirement the one in seven is your current requirement at median income it's a little bit different than 15 percent but we're showing it here in that way and again the range from other communities tends to be in that 15 to 20 percent range with in many cases a mix of incomes at low and moderate incomes for the for sale requirements of inclusionary housing so again you see that there's a number of communities around you that have these policies and you are sort of in the in the sweet spot in terms of that 10 percent all right so now we're going to take a look at the feasibility analysis just a quick reminder there and already touched on this the nexus results indicate the maximum fee or inclusionary requirement that can be adopted however these results typically cannot reasonably be absorbed by new development fees of that magnitude but most likely kill kill a project so our feasibility analysis seeks to determine what level of fee or inclusionary requirement can reasonably be absorbed by developers while still allowing them to achieve a reasonable return and we'll get into what that return is here in a little bit on the rental side we looked at four scenarios the current ordinance so six dollars a square foot we looked at if there was to be no fee or inclusionary requirements so just all market rate units no fee then we took a look at the maximum nexus base fee so that's about fifty five dollars to square foot um i should should mention uh this uh this analysis looked at a development that is assumed to be an average of two bedroom units so at that number of bedrooms it's about fifty five dollars per square foot and then we also looked at the nexus base inclusionary requirement which comes out to about 20 percent most of which are priced at levels affordable to very low income households um so the necessary return we estimate the developers would require in order to undertake such a project is about we believe 5.25 percent yield on costs so that's their annual net operating income over the cost to build the units um really i mean all you really need to look at here is it's there were to be no inclusionary requirement or fee they still don't even make five percent so it's going to be very tough um for developers undertake uh such such a project in capitol and other jurisdictions uh the development economics may be a little bit different or you might find a developer for whatever reason is willing to take on the risk of such a project uh for a lower return but this is uh based on our conversations with developers um in in the wider area this this return is pretty typical so if you can't make the project work with no inclusionary or fee it is obviously difficult to make it work even with the inclusionary ordinance of six dollars a square foot and certainly very difficult with the results of the nexus study so on the four sale unit side we took a look at a few additional scenarios obviously the current ordinance so about 15 percent of units being affordable to households at the median median area income we looked at if the project the projects were charged the existing fee with no inclusionary requirement so all units were charged to ten dollar fee per square foot again we looked at no inclusionary fee uh no inclusionary requirement or fee and then the maximum access space fee which is about 44 dollars a square foot in this case again i should mention the average household size here is assumed to be about 1800 square feet and capital uh recent sales indicate that single family four sale units sell for about 800 dollars a square foot so this these units were assumed to cost around 1.4 million so this 44 dollar per square foot fee is the maximum allowable charge and is loaded on those 1800 square feet we also looked at the maximum uh nexus space inclusionary requirement which is again around 20 percent and then um a bit of a spoiler here these other um at least well the existing fee does allow for um a an achievable return so if that's the case then uh there is a maximum feasible fee or um an inclusionary requirement that can be um supported by existing development economics uh however um the existing requirement of 15 percent we do not believe um to be uh feasible generally it comes out to about uh 12.3 percent whereas we see um developers in the area and uh statewide really uh require a profit margin of about 18 percent so that's um 18 percent of cost uh yeah so the amount they sell for um is 18 percent higher than uh the cost of the unit um so the existing fee uh in addition to the no inclusionary requirement or fee uh are both feasible they allow for profit margins of above 20 percent so that's a very healthy return we believe the maximum nexus fee and nexus space inclusionary requirements uh are not feasible we believe though the maximum nexus space fee is actually a bit above uh the current ordinance and we took a look at these four scenarios where um the fee is feasible so that comes out so a little under 25 per square foot and then we looked at inclusionary requirements that would be affordable to um moderate or median or a low income so at the inclusionary requirement was 8 percent moderate we believe the developer would be able to achieve about an 18 percent profit margin um that's a little bit lower for um household area median and done because that's a little bit less um than moderate and again low income is less than median so uh the maximum feasible inclusionary requirement for low income is just 6 percent so two broad policy implications of the feasibility analysis um as we discussed earlier the maximum fees and inclusionary requirements reported by the nexus studies appear to be infeasible however increasing for sale uh fee from 10 dollars per square foot to 25 dollars per square foot does appear to allow developers to achieve the required return uh while the existing um for sale inclusionary requirement of 15 percent does not appear to be feasible um inclusionary requirement of 6 percent for low income 7 percent for median income or 8 percent for moderate income they do appear to be feasible um again red soil developments appear to face feasibility challenges even uh with the current six dollars per square foot fee or even with no fee and uh fees on home additions uh are borne by homeowners with different financial objectives than developers um so we we don't see any any real need for an increase over the current two dollars and 50 cents per square foot fee for home additions over 50 percent so now i'm going to pass it over to megan berth to talk a little bit about the legal considerations yeah good evening so under recent housing legislation the city cannot adopt new affordable housing inclusionary requirements or affordable housing fees unless they are feasible so what that means for the city here is that you could increase your current fee per square foot up to 25 dollars because that's what is shown to be feasible under the study um you could also retain your existing 15 percent inclusionary requirement for projects of seven units or more or you could reduce that requirement any um below the 15 percent down to the amount that is feasible or wherever you would like to put it um and as part of that inclusionary requirement you could also give developers the option of either dedicating the affordable units or paying an in loopy and that in loopy could go up to the 25 dollars per square foot that's shown to be feasible um for rental developments that means that you can retain the six dollars per square foot fee that you currently have or you could reduce or eliminate that fee um and but you could not adopt a new rental housing inclusionary requirement because that would be a new more restrictive requirement and the feasibility study shows that um those inclusionary requirements would not be feasible for rental housing okay and so now i'll jump in and talk about um kind of combine this with an example of scenarios and these are the scenarios that you're going to see me present are the three options that really the city could incorporate into our um inclusionary housing ordinance so the first scenario is our current IHO where there's an inclusionary requirement of one per seven which in this example i cut i based it on terra commons up to 38 those units were about 1500 square feet in size there were i think maybe 11 units but i bumped it up to 20 so you could see how many units under these three scenarios that capital we get so um 20 units 1500 square feet under our current IHO we get two inclusionary units and then with the fee at $10 a square foot for the remaining six units we the city would collect $90,000 if we took this scenario and increased the fee so went from the $10 to the $25 um you keep the inclusionary at one per seven or we keep referring to that as 15 percent it's a little bit less than 15 percent but the one per seven you'd still get your two inclusionary units and then the fee collected by the city would go up to $225,000 next slide um to make this scenario feasible the the $25 fee we've already learned that the one per seven the current ordinance isn't quite feasible so the way in which we could make this feasible is we could also add an option to scenario two saying one per seven and $25 or they can pay an in lieu fee for all towards that would go towards the 20 units and that would bring in $750,000 so that's really making this option feasible it would fit within our feasibility study um and then the third scenario is um that last item that Jake had talked about that uh we could produce if we could require um low income onsite and it could be up to six percent which means one unit out of every 17 so that's a major difference from our one from one per every seven and in that scenario we'd get one unit as well as three units that would pay a fee at $25 per foot bringing in $112,000 so those are really the three scenarios if you could go forward one more time um I also want to mention under this scenario two Megan just stated that we also have some flexibility there that if the city didn't want to continue with our one per seven requirement based on the um the facts that came out of the feasibility analysis you could um make that less restrictive so it could be one per eight one per nine one per ten knowing that um scenario two are our current inclusionary really that is not to not be feasible so those are your three options next slide please and then I'll talk about rental so uh Jake had explained how under the rental scenario none of the options we have are more feasible the current ordinance doesn't have a the correct amount of return so the rental options is we could keep our rental assets at six dollars square foot um and no inclusionary or we could lower the requirement and go decrease it from six dollars a square foot to say five dollars a square foot or we could eliminate the fee all together and those are the options next slide please so I've got two slides on recommendations the first slide is to the recommendation for an in lieu and impact fees so based on the study um we believe that the in lieu and impact fee should be 25 dollars a square foot it's showing that at 25 dollars a square foot that's feasible for a developer to get their return on investment um we're we're also recommending that you keep the two dollars and 50 square foot fee for home additions over 50 percent we found that that also is feasible and in terms of the rental housing we um this is more of a soft recommendation i'm giving you options within a recommendation but we should either keep it as is today or consider lowering it to bring in some funding um and then you of course have the other option of eliminating it all together but so this is the those recommendations and next i'll talk about the recommendation for the inclusionary requirement so for inclusionary um I would suggest keeping our inclusionary at 15 percent but and and have the 25 dollar fee applied but then include that option where they could fee out so within the scenario that with 20 units they could say no on-site units and then the city would collect the 700 three quarters of a million dollars which could then go towards a project for development so um that is the recommendation the other option you have is to reduce the inclusionary requirements um to the feasibility levels and that is supported by the feasibility analysis so including um you could create options that the developer can either produce moderate on-site or low and moderate would come in at eight percent or one unit for 12 or low at six percent at one unit per 17 so those are the recommendations and we're all here for any questions that was great katie thanks so much everyone for your presentation we'll take this to council for questioned vice mayor's story thank you mayor um katie on your recommendations the same we could have um and this is the um in lieu of a 15 percent inclusionary fee would be an example 750 000 and you said that we could use that money for another project but i mean you don't have a lot of options for projects in capitol um i'm just wondering what what is the feasibility of us being able to use those funds for other projects and i guess my other i mean i have an overall question of of our affordable housing funding it sounds like we can be building up a funding bank what are the kinds of of projects that are how could we use it to produce more affordable housing so um you're absolutely correct that land is limited in capitol so in taking that into consideration um as project three develops there could be opportunities for for a developer to possibly provide the city with a portion of their land and and then we would work with a nonprofit housing developer to produce housing on the site and take advantage of grant opportunities are out there but also typically the city would come to the project with some money in the bank so um i um so utilizing those funds and also uh redevelopment projects could also you know bay avenue senior center we are the senior housing that was i think at first a redevelopment project and then um and which the city part brought money forward as well as utilizing home funds but um on some of our larger projects it would be nice it would be ideal to almost get a land dedication so say at the mall if they were to give us a small land dedication that we could partner with a nonprofit and produce some affordable housing on the site and there's quite a few larger parcels along 41st avenue we are limited we are two square mile city but um there's some possibly some opportunity sites out there so if i may have a follow-up um ad if we had a um a housing fund and um could we buy into an exclusionary ordinance can i just like yeah let me um if um let's say we wanted to um have an exclusionary ordinance where um it was moderate at eight percent um but if we came in with a housing fund did we supplement that and say well we're going to chip in but we want you to build a unit that's low income um is that feasible yeah our our housing fund allows us to assist with housing projects and build units so i do think that is feasible if if there was a developer that came in and you wanted um knowing the infusibility is what what you're the kidding on could the city be a partner in that and utilize some of that those funds to make yeah produce more housing on a site and i think we could i don't think if we have an inclusionary ordinance um they would be required if they're if they're opting into the inclusionary ordinance they would be required to produce what's in the inclusionary but if if we wanted them to make it more affordable i think we could fill that gap to get there that goes beyond the inclusionary ordinance and just one other example for you also is like 600 park avenue that's on our our site inventory it's a very large parcel with some housing already on it if they were to come in and redevelop that's when that we could utilize if we had um a couple million dollars in the bank uh we could partner with a nonprofit and the property owner and help redevelop that site and get more affordable housing on that site so there's another example yeah one final i promise this is my last question could we compel that or would that just need to be an ordinance and thank you no because so there's a couple a couple points sam you raised i think i might be able to shed a little bit of light on um and i'll come back to that help me remember that question because that maybe is the trickiest one but one of the things i want to remind everybody of is until about 10 years ago the city had a very active affordable housing program we were engaged in a number of different very large loans for grants that we were making to mobile home parks to help purchase them to secure them as affordable housing for the long term we put a million dollars into the bay avenue senior project to help get 108 units so there's a lot of projects that are out there in the community but what happened was we lost our redevelopment agency funding and we just haven't had that kind of money to be able to significantly engage in these affordable housing projects really since 2011 so you remember we just got the two million dollars of rda loan by that two million dollar rda loan repaid to the city so we're sort of back in this game for the first time in more than a decade right now so i think that there will be more opportunities and really it's incumbent upon the city to start putting out the word to the nonprofits that we have funding and we're looking to partner on projects and that's a really a great way then to make our money go further so for example you know the million dollars got us 108 units at bay avenue senior um it but but it does take time to develop these projects and your next question was about the um can we um can we buy into projects absolutely you know absolutely with the mall that's been something that i thought a lot about is you know over would we want to buy in and get extra affordability in the project that's definitely the kind of thing i've seen on multiple projects over time maybe they're required or they're proposing 10 moderate we come back and say well let's you know throw some money in here let's get 15 percent you know 10 of them is now low in low level and then i think the last question you ask was a sort of compelling a development project that is really difficult technically the city does have the power of eminent domain it could theoretically be used for an affordable housing project but that's a very aggressive approach and i haven't seen um very many cities take and probably would really only be considered if we had multiple parcels and just one of them wouldn't play ball or something yeah no and jamey that's one thanks thanks for that reminder about the history that's very helpful then and i wasn't thinking in terms of eminent domain but whether our inclusionary ordinance um could you know allow us to insert ourselves and our money into create more affordable housing that that's what i think the answer there is is it would really be part of a negotiated agreement um that we could but we probably can't force our way in yeah okay thank you so i'm gonna just piggyback off of what vice mayor's story and push back a little bit um about your original question vice mayor um so my concern is that there is there will not be not enough money this is kind of a game of cat and mouse right if we would be move it to 25 dollars a square foot and the developers are able to pay out that we actually end up with too much money that when we look at our zoning for affordable housing like in the the hotel um plans that was presented katie you know how much affordable housing do we have zoned in our community is my question and this is kind of like a mathematical question right and i know you don't have the answer but my point is like how much do we have zoned for affordable housing in the city of capitol and ultimately how much would that cost to build to actually build if we were one day to reach all of our new rena members the thousands and thousands of new projects you know how much would that cost us and you know is that so extraordinary that yes indeed we need to uh that it's okay that developers pay out the 25 dollars a square foot so katie have you guys looked at as i'm processing this all i'm putting this together have you looked at how much zoning we have for affordable housing in the city of capitol how much property and i know there's a better way to to say that but i hope you're following what i'm saying yeah um so you know we have very specific the affordable housing overlay that i could quantify for you and it's very well uh you know it it it can within our affordable housing overlay we can meet our rena numbers so we could get to that um during this cycle i think it's 143 units that were required for you know where our assigned rena numbers um so i i know that we produced one unit this cycle and we're in our sixth year and all together we've produced 51 units in capitolah because and i think about half of those are just shy of half are adu so the adu the state legislation has been affected the last couple of years but um so we definitely have affordable housing overlay sites for up to 143 units that could be developed and where we could utilize this money to partner and beyond that there's no limitation to our residential and mixed use areas for producing affordable housing projects and it's actually incentivized by the state that you can take advantage of certain programs to uh you know the density bonus programs and to get additional height and less parking requirements so it's there's really we have those identified sites within our housing element but then it really is wide open in terms of the overall availability for on larger sites within capitolah to do some projects and so ultimately what we're seeing is that it becomes the business of the city to start building the affordable housing the the task the baton is ultimately past the city and it's our responsibility to to start to build the affordable housing no longer relying on the developers is that what what what we're seeing as a i would say this shift is that the city becomes you know we've become part of the bank we can invest and partner with nonprofits and like they have a new uh senior housing the amount of administration that is ongoing for the city we don't own it it's managed by a third you know an independent nonprofit so it's really we assist in the deal making and produce funds for it but after that we just make sure that they're doing the reporting and and my last question then is um about our our ultimate uh break up you know with the housing authority so we were partnering with them to support us and it's not within this our city's bandwidth to kind of to to take on such a large um responsibility of building new and more affordable housing by making these changes what would we have to see within the city what would we have to change if we were to move to 25 dollars a square foot starting to get all this money is it within the city's bandwidth to actually make these projects come to fruition i think so um there's so i think you you're referencing a cdbg grant opportunity we had in the past that was really to update existing units for people who had needs to improve their the heaters and hot water systems so that that was different and we do work with the housing authority on other matters um but in terms of our bandwidth i think this is actually it would actually be easier for us if we were to move into this model of collecting more fees because the administration that goes into our inclusionary units the smaller units that at terra terra court we got one unit out of the 11 in until that as long as that remains affordable we have to check we have to work every time that unit takes new ownership and goes up for sale so it really does take staff time and I reached out to our housing consultant that's been happening to has been helping us with this for years and she estimated probably close to like 250 hours a year maybe a little bit less on her work for inclusionary because it is it's a lot of work for the 21 inclusionary units so anytime they go up to sale or their refinance there's paperwork associated with those whereas the Bay Avenue project we get they send us a report to say how they're in compliance so it's really less administration in the long run and less of almost a burden on the city's like costs in the long run but there is quite a bit of work that would go into that partnership in getting the deal done thank you councilmember peterson thank you mayor I just wanted to to clarify um something and Katie correct me if I'm wrong because I know this is all really complicated stuff and and this is just based on what I believe I understand from our our conversation and back last night um but one is that um arena numbers it is our responsibility as as a city to ensure that we are planning to meet those correct like it's not on developers it's not on anyone else it's on us as a city to make sure that these numbers get met right and then my other understanding is that if we don't do that we will be held responsible in a way that makes us no longer eligible for um participating in the kind of streamlined approval for affordable housing under sp35 so we are kind of this is a responsibility of us as a city to ensure that we're finding ways to um produce uh affordable housing um and so if I'm understanding correctly and and I just want to make sure that I'm I'm fully aware of what I'm voting on here I'm understanding correctly we could keep the 15 percent uh requirement that we have now but even though that's infeasible it would become feasible if we say if you don't build this 15 percent um affordable housing you can instead pay $25 a square feet for uh a square foot for the for sale units and then we would take that money add it to our former rda funds and then could build an entirely 100 percent affordable complex is that correct that would give us you know all the units or a majority of the units would be affordable which we could get much quicker in that one project than we could over a long period of time with projects that give us one or two affordable units here and there am I understanding this all correctly you you are yep we do have an obligation through the state and we could utilize that money to help us get there so and it would go into our affordable housing trust some okay this is this is a very complicated issue so I got it though you've got it would it be helpful remember to apply it again or no I I'm I'm sorry to council member Bertrand and councilmember you're muted there we go um thank you mayor um I just have a question of staff are we monitoring ad use as potentially affordable housing units we are um so what are we saying what are we seeing at this point so what we are seeing we actually sent out a letter regarding this this year to all the ad use uh that ad units that have been produced if we get documentation um of what income levels the first rental goes to we can actually get credit for that income level within our arena numbers so once I learned that we sent out letters and we're seeing actually um that they would classify in the lower income levels only because people seem to be renting them at no cost to family or close friends or very low cost and then there have been a few that are the exception that are at moderate or off moderate but many of the um the feedback of of the of the like maybe 10 letters that we've gotten back the majority of them are at at lower levels because they're renting them at low rates for friends or not charging them at all well this this sounds very encouraging I can see they're not doing market rate but they're doing something that provides housing which is ultimately what we thought of the ad u program is doing maybe for family and close friends so that makes sense so in general I'm all for this form of collecting money whether we go from up to $25 or not we need to decide but if it goes into a fund to build housing on any level that provides resources to people yeah um so I know the question for our consultants in capitol we have a lot of second homes which by and large from my perception takes away from the availability of housing for residents and people that live here so I'm saying second home someone that lives somewhere afield and they come here once a year maybe once a weekend I don't know but not very often so is this part of your nexus study or the purposes of our nexus study we assumed that the homes would be full-time occupied um and I know I totally understand what you're talking about that that that is a common practice in capitol as it is in Sonoma county and other places where we have worked on these kinds of things before um from a nexus standpoint though we feel that the the strongest way to establish that relationship is by assuming that a home is a home and could be occupied there is no legal prohibition saying that folks can't be there all the time um and so the assumption is that they would um and in so doing they they have a greater impact on the the nexus-based need for affordable housing and as we talked about the nexus analysis that we've done um is ultimately not how we're recommending that you reconsider your current program it is a background document at this point and instead what we are talking about is making adjustments that are below the levels that are justified by the nexus because the feasibility kind of prevails over the the nexus findings so that's perhaps a longer way than I needed to of saying um yes second homes are a way of uh of affecting the availability of affordable housing or housing period um but from a legal perspective we've addressed this in the most straightforward way that we could rather than saying we will charge folks extra for the fact that they are removing that home from the full-time circulation of housing stock there are communities that have adopted or are considering adopted uh considering adopting vacant unit taxes um and what that might do is push more of those units into short-term rentals unless you have a corresponding limitation on that um but for instance Vancouver uh in British Columbia has a tax on vacant units that is meant to make sure that that any unit in town is in fact occupied um but there may be unintended consequences of taking that particular approach thank you very much Darren yeah I'm familiar with the one in Vancouver and um because I was looking on the web trying to do uh come up with some examples how Caps told him I deal with this so um the reason I asked the question is because part of your calculation um basically says that if the house is occupied um there's people spending money in the community um this is in turn um you know there's a whole snowball effect because a house is occupied and um that's not happening with houses that are second homes so you know including those homes I think changes the results of the NEXUS study I I don't think second homes should be part of your NEXUS study at all because it doesn't fit into your logic that your whole study is based on so I think that that throws a big ball in front of the car that's trying to go down the street so I don't know how you look at that but you know if we have a a sizable number of rental excuse me of second homes there yeah that that is absolutely a true statement I think perhaps an analog would be a school fee or a park's fee um the presumption is when a unit is being built uh that it will be occupied the same for sewer hookups you know you you are assuming that that toilet will flush a certain number of times um and if somebody doesn't just just because the person who is originally building it doesn't intend to be there all of the time doesn't mean that the second owner the third owner and so on won't be there all of the time and so the the standard practice is to assume that it's a full-time unit um and as a reminder the type of fee or requirement that we're talking about is for new construction it is not for existing units that may convert to a second home at some point or what have you um so again that's sort of the analogous situation is other impact fees in general transportation whatever it may be the assumption is that a home is occupied rather than not occupied okay well I take your point about new construction although some new construction here is for second homes so I think that's a good point um other fees are because we have to provide a service and we can't make exclusions uh whoever claims they don't use garbage that doesn't make any sense when you have to provide a sewer you know a pickup service for everyone so those are my two questions it's unfortunate that um according to your analysis the high-end homes generate more uh less fees than you know something in terms of your graph at 500 000 so um I hate the way it's skewed because it seems to me okay and I'm going to jump in real quick I just want a council member Richan I want you to save those comments just for our comments part I want us to go to public um public comment do you have any other questions at this time I will finish my question later if you if it's a question please I just want to make sure we give our public an opportunity and then we'll come back for more um discussion I'll finish it later and get the public opportunity to talk right now okay um any other questions at this time so we're going to move to um open public comment for this item if you'd like to make a comment send an email now to public comment at ci.capitola.ca.us or to speak please raise your hand now by clicking on reactions then clicking raise hand in your zoom application or by dialing star nine or six on your landline mobile phone or mobile phone our moderator will unmute you you will have up to three minutes to speak Mayor Brooks I do not see any attendees wishing to speak on this item and I do not have any emails on this item okay we'll just wait one more second for our participants our attendees to raise their hand okay all right council member Bertrand we're going to come back and start with you for further comments and um discussion I'll have my comments later I just want to answer my ask my question so in terms of the fees that are received in terms here in nexus study I'm trying to understand the logic uh it just is counter logic to me that a house that is in two million dollars in terms of your table generates less fees and a house that is five hundred thousand generates more fees and it seems to me that it's counter to logic you know the the guy that's going to be able to 200 uh two million dollar house can pay a lot more for that so explain that logic I just want to understand it yes katie you're running the show at this point is that correct um you've got the screen yeah go back to the table or something I could could you go to page six please thank you so um council member I understand your confusion because we were focused on the fee per square foot which does does have sort of a I guess regressive uh aspect to it but if you look in the second column here the fee per unit you will see that this smaller less expensive units the fee on those units would be lower they do scale up with the size and value of the unit it's just that it's not a linear relationship um and so you'd have a 35 000 fee on a half million dollar house and a 60 000 fee on a million dollar house okay so you're thinking of square feet as part of this okay got it thank you very much you're welcome council member peterson thank you can we go back to the slide yeah there we go I'm ready to make a motion uh to recommend sorry I'm trying to get through all this this detail again because it's super complicated I just want to make sure that I'm saying the right thing so I want to recommend that we make a mode I'm going to make a motion that recommends we increase the in lieu and impact fee to 25 dollars per square feet square foot actually it's all three right I can I can make a motion that includes all three of these things because they're all for different things one of them for new development ones for additions and ones for rental is that correct Katie it is it you'll want to clarify on number three if you want to keep the rental housing be at six dollars and square foot lower it or remove it perfect okay so then I will make a motion um to adopt the recommendations for one and two and to keep rental housing fee at six dollars per square feet but the for number three um and then make a motion for option number one under the inclusionary requirement did that was that clear Chloe I know I wasn't very uh eloquent in that motion I think I have it I think so thank you today that was that point enough for me I'll second it I heard councilmember trans second that motion so um just for clarification before we go to a roll call um I'm hearing that the uh the motion on the table is to um adopt or to adopt the recommendation for items one uh recommendation for in lieu and impact fee for item one increasing in lieu and impact fee to 25 square feet and number two keep $2.50 square feet for home additions over 50 percent and item three to keep the rental housing fee at six dollars per square foot and in addition to uh adopt the recommended options for inclusionary requirement option one which is to keep inclusionary requirement at 15 percent and include a 25 square foot fee out option to maintain feasibility is that correct yeah so we have a motion on the table from councilmember peterson and a second from councilmember for trans but there would be anyone any other council members like to make any further comments or deliberation at this time yeah councilmember for trans yeah thank you very much um christen I just want some clarification not from you but maybe from the staff that presented the study and I remember some comments earlier when we first had this subject the mayor said basically excuse me the city manager said basically we haven't done any rental housing at all and so I want to ask the uh consultants wasn't um if you don't mind the issue of affordability in terms of rental housing didn't seem to meet the 5.25 percent is that correct it turns to your study that is correct okay and I was wondering christen if we could consider lowering this so that even no fee just to partially encourage rental housing development if we don't have any right now we're charging fee fees potentially for a project that's not even feasible in terms of the next study maybe be wise for us to try to encourage rental housing by lowering that fee you're referring to the uh the rental housing fee at six dollars per square foot yes I am christen I was just thinking maybe we can do something to encourage it that's all if I remember correctly from the presentation even without a fee it's still considered infeasible is that correct even if we have zero fee it's considered not feasible to build um so I I don't really feel comfortable lowering it or removing it because if it's going to be infeasible either way I would prefer that we are able to collect funds to put towards uh an affordable housing development if anyone who creates rental housing chooses not to put affordable units in in their complex because otherwise if there's no fee there's no reason for them to build affordable units anyway and so if I understand it correctly then if there's no fee or a lower fee you know I just I just see it as if there's no fee there's no reason for them to build affordable units whatsoever and if there is one at least we get the funds if they're not going to build the units at least we get the funds to put towards the units that we would build if I'm understanding this correctly so I hear what you're saying christen and um I think that a developer who wants to build rental housing will be doing it irrespective because first of all it's according to the nexus fee maybe not feasible they're willing to take less of a a profit margin so if they're willing to take less of a profit margin to build rental housing I would like to encourage them so that's why I'm asking if you could adjust the motion and I would agree if you adjust it to lower are you asking for an amendment or making one or or if you're asking me to amend my motion I'm gonna have to quietly decline okay well that's that's the impression I got so um okay so you are the seconder on that motion that's on the table any other comments from council before I have a roll call vote councilmember vertrand I agree councilmember keiser I councilmember peterson I vice mayor story I mayor brooks I okay baron and jake and katie thank you so much for this really thorough um study and presentation tonight it was actually very clear at the end of it all so I appreciate your time and staying up so 9 36 p.m. tonight with us we're gonna move on to our yeah thank you okay we're going to move on to our next item and I should say that last item passed unanimously um next item we're going to move on to is item c which is the capitol of branch library project in consideration of contract change orders Steve thanks for sticking with us this is your item good evening mayor and council thank you for giving us a chance here to put one more item in front of you I share my screen I hope you're now seeing so this is a report on the library I'm hoping and planning that this is the penultimate report we should have one more report coming to you when we will approve a contract or a notice of completion for the project the item before each night is approving change orders number 17 1 and 17.2 so you have your quick project status as you are well aware the project has been open and joined enjoyed by the public since June 15th and lots of rave reviews about it I think everybody is appreciative of the efforts that have gone in from the city the architect the contractor to build a beautiful building the construction contract is 99 percent complete we just have some minor fencing to continue to add it's uh we've been going through quite a few design changes on that and I think the uh the final fencing is now being fabricated there's some bookshelving modifications that the library district required we had and the equipment came the shelling came with some shelving that didn't quite work quite it's a rather minor expense to put in the different type of shelling we're just waiting for that to be delivered and then there's some painting the letters on the monument sign to make them pop out a little bit more it was in the original contract and hasn't been completed so those work items there's closeout documentation and training uh the contractor needs to have the building official issue final certificate of occupancy they need to provide us with asbook drawings and warranties and certifications and conduct one last staff training uh for the library staff we anticipate the project being completed in october just to bring you current with the change order history so this is through change order 16 which has have all been approved in accordance with the change order policy adopted for this project um there's been 847,724 dollars in past reductions approved through change orders that results from vial engineering efforts which uh took part of the beginning of the project through change order 16 there's been $1,255,000 in increases for costs for work and delays not included in the contract of those $1,255,000 about $750,000 of that is from changes caused by the conflict with the power lines remember that's just through 16 we're now looking at 17.1 and 17.2 change orders change order one is all related to the conflict with the power line it's for $250,000 in change it's for compensable delays to your auto construction as they were delayed and completing the project due to the uh conflict temporary it's for temporary modifications to the wall systems and moisture control systems they put in last winter to dry out the building while we're waiting to get the power lines relocated to allow this actually dry it in and start heating up the building and doing interior work there's also a minor amount of additional costs for delays to subcontractors change order 17.2 has all extra work this is typically what we see it close out of a project there's 20 items of work that are detailed in the change order in the agenda packet the largest is about $31,000 change order for changes required by the fire marshal to put in and involve the the fire sprinkler system and the ease that the overhangs you see we didn't want to put sprinklers in the overhangs because they would be inaccessible so we had to modify the building for that and it also includes you know it's down to an $800 change we had to do to get the book drop to work it does include reducing the retention the amount of the contract we retain to make sure all the contracts subcontractors are paid from four percent to three percent so give you a quick contract summary the original contract uh that was a word was for $12,325,000 the net change order and now this includes 17.1 and 17.2 is $857,000 so the current construction contract is for $13,182,000 one final change order is anticipated that scheme of things is $30,000 i don't want to say that's small but smaller than we've been looking at recently and it will be brought to the council with the notice of completion so give you a project update looking at the revenue this hasn't changed in a while we will update this and give you the final investment earnings i think all the other the measure as successor agency general fund the friends donations and the county library funds are all accurate investment earnings there may be some additional funding that we will true up when we give this final report on the project but with the total revenue is $15,800,000 looking at our projected expenses through contract change or 17.2 we have the contract amount of $13,182,000 and you can see the other fees here for engineering services permits and special inspections project management miscellaneous uh furniture and PG and E cost for actually moving the wires so our expenses are projecting at $15,573,000 dollars so looking at a summary we have a project budget of $15,800,000 projected expenses of $15,5 through $17,172 that gives us the remaining balance of $230,000 of course we have another but one more change order $30,000 which we are anticipating so we now have a $200,000 balance if they close out a project i know this is less than we had i think last projected um the the cost of just continue to grow on this project uh due to i think it was the finalizing 17.2 is actually finalizing the cost there um was probably a little higher than we anticipated and then the delays have continued as we've been waiting for the contractor to be complete we're pretty confident that $200,000 closed out at this point of the project and we may have some additional uh savings or earnings investment earnings turning our way so with that the recommended action tonight is to prove contract change order 17.1 and sorry about the title 17.2 in the amounts of $250,776 and $198,921 respectively and with that uh be happy to answer any questions and we also have our project manager Dave Tanza with Bogart Construction who is uh here tonight with us is available to answer any specific questions you may have about the change orders thank you thank you Steve Dave did you need to add anything before we go to comment or questions from council no thanks Steve did a great thing good evening everyone thanks to you the project turned out really well excellent okay so council members any questions for David or Steve council member for Trent no thank you mayor um i can only imagine what the training is but Steve can you sort of give me an idea what the staff training is and then i have a follow-up question i think when we were first talking about traffic and all that um going in and out of the parking lot there was some mention of a pedestrian walkway after the final design had been decided upon and all that so those are my two questions about those areas so the training is just going through all the systems one more time with the staff the heating system the lighting systems they're all very modern shall I say and that they're a computer generated and and not just switches anymore to meet energy efficiency requirements so it's just going over making sure the staff is aware and the people are maintaining it what the systems are what different things are you know how the drainage works and things and items of those nature so it's it's one last chance for the library staff and county who are going to maintain it to get to all the information they need going forward as far as the pedestrian pathway i'm not i can't recollect exactly what you're referring to did you elaborate a little on your second question well i remember asking about that and you know i just made aware that that was going to be considered at some point in the future and so i was just bringing it up now if it's on your agenda a pedestrian pathway from where to where um from the parking lot exit to the corner and possibly up to the crosswalk that you know there's that little ramp that goes up to um morphe road at the end of the wall i think so i didn't know the extent of the crosswalk because it wasn't defined but it was definitely go the corner from some point and i thought you had a sidewalk on work road yeah the side from the driveway yeah to the intersection yeah it wasn't closed designed because we really want people to access the library from claire street um okay the driveway we could put the drive the sidewalk in there um we there's there's room in the design between the bioswale and the existing curve but the access to the library for pedestrians especially coming from that intersection is uh to direct them up through club claire street and then through the top button into the building that way we really don't want them walking up the driveway thank you any other questions from council okay seeing none we'll go ahead and take uh open public comments if you'd like to make a um comment you can send an email now to public comment at ci.capitola.state.us or to speak please raise your hand now by clicking on reactions then clicking raise hand in your zoom application or by dialing star nine or star six depending what kind of phone you have on your landline or your mobile phone or moderator will unmute you you will have three minutes to speak mayor brooks i do not see any attendees with their hands raised for this item and i do not have any emails on this item okay council members you're looking sharp i think this is the latest we might have ever gone all right let's bring this back for further comments and a vote any comments from council okay i'm going to jump in then steve i have um just in regards to the project itself i have some concerns still around safety and those who are exiting the driveway i'm going left onto work and um i wanted to bring that to your attention there's a lot of students uh walking around and myself i have almost been t-boned um two times now coming out of that library um it is a major major concern of mine and i hope that you and david can go back and look at how we can mitigate that as an issue i recognize it's 25 miles per hour on warfrode i tested that and had three cars behind me really upset that i was going 25 miles an hour um so i really would like for you to think about that i know we have another change order coming up and i don't know if that needs to be part of that when it returns but i'd like to see that um any other comments from council okay um so would someone like to make a motion i accept the order i'll make a motion to accept the order change order excuse me okay we have a motion to approve the contract change order 17 1 and 2 in the amounts of 250 000 and 198 000 respectively i can second that and council member keiser seconded may have a roll held open council member pertrand i approve council member keiser i council member peterson i vice mayor story i mayor brooks i okay item the administrative policy update we're going to receive a report this evening yes mayor and council i have a brief power point i will share with you and try to keep it relatively succinct okay so as council will recall that during our goal setting and budget prioritization process this last spring we identified updates to our administrative policies as one of the goals for this budget calendar year uh as a reminder the city of capital has 93 current policies may not be a reminder for you actually since i didn't know that until we got into this uh administrative policies are intended to regulate kind of day-to-day activities establish programs they will oftentimes expand upon the muni code um we have the examples of that would be like the surf school permits where we have a muni code that says we have surf school permits but then we have a policy that expands upon an outline the process by which we issue surf school permits so you know there's um several um admin policies about social media some that pertain to how staff engage with social media and then you'll remember a council adopted policies that dealt with our city officials in their as being city officials would engage with social media there's two basic kinds of policies there's the policies that are more internal or administrative and those are approved by me as the city manager so examples would be we have a policy about um you know employees using the that they're first using personal mail at city hall using the city hall for to receive personal mail and about offering notary public services to the community at large so those are policies that are approved by the city manager and then there's policies that are approved by the city council and those usually have a financial component to them or more of an external phase so the impact community so the memorial grant program would be an example of a council approved administrative policy and I mentioned the surf school permits and then the social media policy that pertains to city officials or some examples um as part of our review of the administrative policy I asked all the department heads to look at the different policies that relate to the their department's activities and really just told them to give me the answer to one of three questions either update the policy keep it as it is or it's time to revoke the policy and so department heads have gone through and reviewed all the policies and identified those that need updating those and our plan is to bring those to the city council as time allows or if they're under the city staff jurisdiction update them internally as we have the resources available to do so we've also identified four policies that really should just be revoked again these are actually under the staff's jurisdiction to be manager jurisdiction so there's a policy about how the city's digital camera was supposed to be used how city-owned mobile homes could be rented to city employees we no longer have any city-owned mobile homes over time accumulation and bilingual pay or internal policies that are actually been subsequently incorporated into the mo use with the groups so they're really they're not relevant anymore so that's kind of the update we have sorry those are the ones that we want to repeal right now we have updates that are in process right now on the policies that are listed here uh council is well aware of the village parking the parklet program that's something we've been working on a lot recently uh we're plan to be bringing actually a film permit ordinance and then we'll need to update our film permit policy as well and then there's a couple other policies that we've identified that will need to be updated here in the near term in addition these are all the other policies that staff has identified as as requiring updates so it's going to take a little bit of time to get through these really we're going to try to work on them as we have resources you'll see whatever it says cc after it on here that means it's the city council policy and then the policies that are don't have the cc our staff so that really is my update i don't think we have any action that's required this evening but i'm available to answer any questions council we gotta at least make it till 10 o'clock so any questions no no okay so councilmember kaiser yes what jimmy thank you for that is the um filming ordinance all about oh so i've learned a lot about filming ordinances interestingly enough we have had a film permit that we've issued ever since i've been here but it turns out that film permits are actually very special things under california law and we don't really have a film film permit we have a business license that we issue to people that want to film so we need to correct that uh the good attorneys at berk have been working hard with our staff to come up with a film permit ordinance that we actually have to have viewed by the california film commission and then subsequently we can bring it to the city council for your consideration so that's the update with the film permit thank you sure uh councilmember betranz you're muted margo thanks for leading oh councilmember betranz you're frozen okay well we will wait a second any other questions um jamie just for clarification if council wants to review these policies all 93 of them are they available on our website or do we have access to them that was actually something that i meant to talk to city clerk about before the meeting so i'd be ready for this question and i didn't talk to her um chloe yes do the council members have these all in their uh binders so in the council handbook so to my knowledge uh kind of at the beginning of a term and when we've done onboarding the you know extremely relevant policies have been sent to council uh not all 93 that would be a lot i do know they're available on a drill box so i can make everyone um have access to that all of council if they want to review all 93 they are not on our city website does that answer the question yeah so i think council would love to read all 93 of them and or at least have them available to them if you want to share that with us um and and jamie the one last thought i had was in regards to our um youth i'm gonna forget the name of it for our um we all get can get a stipend for for i think it's a tablet or something like that um and i don't know if that was on your list at you you kind of skimmed through it but i'd like for that to be looked at again um and to get some council input in the future on um on how much we get and if that's realistic um as a possible stipend and if that language is even updated quite honestly i haven't looked since we have not had access to all 93 policies i wasn't prepared to give any all that input yet and i'm i know it's going to come back but i think that's important for council to to look at at the uh at a next meeting yeah we can certainly add that it's the digital e-reader policy uh we can yeah i don't know for update with you okay great uh council member trendy you back and go ahead and unmute yourself i was just wondering what happened and how far i got if i pushed the wrong button or something you were thanking margo for her comments yeah that's right okay um so another policy um i was just wondering so you have the little um airplanes that people fly around the you know four little tellers and they zone yeah little drones whatever people call them i think we have a policy on that like it's illegal to fly them in capital and in record is that true so would you not have a drone i think it typically um drones would be dealt with by ordinance okay policy samantha might be able to try more light on but we don't have a drone policy okay because i know there's someone that came to me and said i took this and i know it's illegal and i said i have no clue go ask someone at city hall now it's the last i heard so that's the basis of my question thank you there are fae rules and moderate bay area sanctuary rules about commercial use of drones um that may have been what the person was referring to great okay well since there's no action required we can now move on to item 10 at exactly 10 p.m that was my goal four hours in i appreciate all of your time everyone we are at adjournment i will see you next time please remember to be kind to yourselves and to everybody else during all of these challenging times thank you for all that you do staff we'll see you next time good night thank you good night goodbye