 Good morning and welcome to the 10.30 a.m. public session of May 12, 2020 meeting of the City Council. Required a meeting of the Council to receive public testimony there after the public line of enclosed and inaccessible. All council members are participating in this meeting remotely. I want to thank the public for staying home to view today and City Council meeting. Please note if you wish to comment on a closed session item, call one of the following numbers. One six six nine nine zero zero nine one two eight one three four six two four eight seven seven nine nine one three zero one seven one five eight five nine two one six four six six five six one two five three two one five eight seven eight two. All you need to enter the meeting ID number which is nine five seven five one one eight zero four six three and when prompted for a participant ID press out. Please mute your television or streaming device once you call in and listen through the phone. Please note there is a delay in streaming so if you continue to listen on your television or streaming device you may miss your opportunity to speak. Call in at the beginning of the item you're wanting to comment on. When it is time for public comment, press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. When it's time, when it's your time to speak and public comment, you'll hear an announcement that you have been unmuted. The time will be set to two minutes and you may hang up once you've commented on your item of interest. I'd like to ask the clerk please call the roll. Thank you Mayor. Council members Byers, Matthews, Boulder, Vice Mayor Myers, and Mayor Cummings. Members of the public would like to speak to an item on a closed session agenda. Now is the time to call in. Seeing no members of the public calling in for this item we will move into closed session. After you've called you'll need to enter the following reading ID number. 9, 5, 7, 5, 1, 1, 8, 0, 4, 6, 3. When prompted for a participant ID press pound. Please mute your television or streaming device once you call in and listen through the phone. Please note there's a delay in streaming so if you continue to listen on your phone on your television or streaming device you may miss your opportunity to speak. Calling at the beginning of an item you are walking to comment on. When it is time for public comment press star 9 on your phone to raise your hand. When it is your time to speak during public comment you'll hear an announcement that you have been unmuted. The time will then be set to two minutes. You may hang up once you have commented on your item of interest. If you wish to speak on another item two things may occur. One, if the number of callers waiting exceeds capacity you'll be disconnected and you will need to call back closer to when the item you wish to comment on will be heard or you will be placed back in the queue and should press star 9 to raise your hand when you wish to comment on a new item. You may also send an email to city clerk at city of Santa Cruz dot com. The comments will be shared with the council members that they are received and will be entered into public record and they'll like to ask the clerk to please call the roll. Council Member Byers. Here. Matthews. She's older. Here. We begin our meeting. I'd like to acknowledge that the land upon which we gather is the unceded territory of the Oahuasua-speaking Yuvichirac. The homeless and tribal band comprised of the descendants of Indigenous people taken to Mission Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista during Spanish colonization of the Central Coast. They working hard to restore traditional stewardship practices on these lands and to restore trauma. To begin our meeting today we have a number of proclamations and the first of which is proclaiming weeks of May 3rd 2020 as professional municipal clerks. We work really hard in our city and we are very appreciative of all the work that they do so I'll read a few of the whereas whereas the office of the municipal clerk is time-honored and vital part of local government exists throughout the world and whereas the office of the municipal clerk provides a professional link between the citizens and local government bodies and agencies of government at other levels and whereas the municipal clerk serves as an information center on functional, on function of local government and community and whereas this year marks the 51st anniversary of the municipal clerk's week which is celebrated and endorsed throughout the United States, Canada and 15 other countries and whereas it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the office of the municipal clerk now therefore I just in time Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz do hereby proclaim the week of May 3rd to May 9th 2020 as professional municipal clerk we thank the City of Santa Cruz in recognition of the exemplary dedication to public service and extend appreciation to our City Clerk Bonnie Bush, Deputy City Clerk Julie Wood and the amazing staff of the City of Santa Cruz Cruz Clerk's office. Thank you all for your amazing work that you do to help support our members, the members of our community. It's proclaiming and declaring the week of May 17th as public works week and I'd like to invite Mark Duddle if he's on the line he'd like to say a few words before the rock mentioned. Thank you Mayor although this has been a very strange eight weeks public works continues to deliver core services keeping our residents safe. Well much has been accomplished many challenges still lie ahead and I'm confident the passion and talent of our public work staff is ready to meet those challenges. We take great pride in our service as a community and we look forward to continuing to serve and improve our city this next fiscal year. I'd like to thank every employee in the department for their commitment to customer service and their professionalism and dedicate this proclamation to them. And I'll read a few of the words as to honor the work that our public works workers do for our community whereas public works professionals focus on infrastructure facilities and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to the public health quality of life and well-being of the people of the city of Santa Cruz and whereas these services cannot be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals who are engineers managers supervisors and employees from state and local governments and the private sector and whereas public works personnel provide essential services and thus are continuing to work hard each and every day to keep our communities functioning with various responsibilities related to the COVID-19 pandemic and whereas the city of Santa Cruz public works department has been frequently recognized as a regional leader in innovative and forward-thinking projects and services that include active transportation infrastructure wastewater treatment and refuse solid waste energy efficiency and sustainability. Now therefore I, Justin Cummings, Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz, do hereby proclaim the week of May 17th to 23rd 2020 as National Public Works Week in the City of Santa Cruz and urge all citizens to join me in celebrating the important projects and daily services of public works professionals and recognizing the substantial contributions that they make in protecting our health, safety and quality of life now in these challenging days of the COVID-19 pandemic and always. Thank you all for your hard work. I want to thank you again. We really appreciate it. The commission is declaring May the month of May as the affordable housing month and before I move on to the proclamation the city has created a webpage to a list of the affordable housing loans events. I'm just going to see if I can share my screen with members of the community and resources for the community. Do their own self-guided walking and biking affordable housing tour as well as YouTube video link for affordable housing finance class the city hosted last fall. There will be more hosted events posted soon including a democratic women's club event and moderate bay economic partnership event. So again you can find out where these events are located and you can also find information about the tour by going to cityofsantacruz.com affordable housing. We're going to try to find ways that we can increase the amount of affordable housing. We'd like to proclaim May as affordable housing month and whereas quality affordable housing is vital to the health safety vibrant and diverse communities a fact highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic and whereas affordable homes are the solution to homelessness and provide support to seniors families youth veterans people recovering from illness and people with disabilities and whereas creating new permanently affordable homes and preserving and improving existing housing makes for stable vibrant communities helping residents maintain community roots and fostering racial and economic diversity for generations and whereas non-profit organizations local jurisdictions community organizations faith-based groups and many others continue to build inclusive communities supporting low-income people and those with special needs. Now therefore I just incoming Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz to cure our proclaim the month of May 2020 and the affordable housing month in the City of Santa Cruz along with other local leaders in the Greater San Francisco and moderate bay area region. Finally we have one last proclamation proclaiming May the week of May 10th to 16th 2020 as police appreciation week in the City of Santa Cruz and May 15th 2020 as peace officers memorial day in honor of those law enforcement officials who do the courageous deeds have made the ultimate sacrifice to serve the community. I'd like to see if Chief Andrew Mills is on and could speak to this item. Thank you Mr. Mayor but we'd like to really thank yourself and council for recognizing the sacrifice that many of our folks have made nationwide even during the COVID crisis more than 35 officers have lost their lives to COVID-19 because they're out in the field contacting people every day all around the nation even here in Santa Cruz as we well know we have lost two officers in the past to the gunfire and this is a remarkable way for all of us to pause and remember the sacrifice that many people make not only in losing their lives but daily in missing families and birthdays they work around the clock and take extreme risks in terms of contacting people so we thank you for this recognition and we appreciate the support that the Santa Cruz community has offered to us over the years and so thank you very much thank you and thank you all for your hard work and so this Appreciation Week and Peace Officers Memorial Day I'd like to read a few of the whereas of the proclamation to where the police officers of Santa Cruz have worked devotedly and unselfishly on behalf of the people of this community including intentionally de-escalating violent incidents in spite of personal peril or hazards to themselves and whereas Santa Cruz police officers have consciously worked towards inclusivity by purposefully seeking community engagement and whereas by their service and their dedicated efforts these men and women have earned the gratitude of the city of Santa Cruz and whereas the presidential proclamation also designated that each year the calendar week in which may 15th occurs or proceeds shall be proclaimed as police appreciation week in recognition of the service given by the men and women day and night stand guard in our communities now therefore I Justin Cummings mayor of the city of Santa Cruz the year by proclaim the week of May 10th to 16th 2020 as police appreciation week in the city of Santa Cruz and encourage all citizens to observe the week with law enforcement officers past and present by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities and proclaim May 15th 2020 as peace officer's memorial day in honor of those law enforcement officers who through their courageous deeds have made the ultimate sacrifice and service to the community who have become disabled from the performance bringing the items related to police appreciation week to my attention so that we can conclude it on our agenda move on to our regular meetings today's meeting is being broadcast live on community television channel 25 and streaming on the city's website city of Santa Cruz dot com if you wish to comment on an agenda item today instructions are provided on your screen we will provide these instructions throughout the meeting whenever we need to move into an agenda item they'll be open for public comment there are none there's an opportunity for members of the public to speak to us on items that are not on the agenda all communications will occur on or around 6 p.m. session yes thank you mayor Cummings members of the city council this morning the council convened enclosed session via teleconference at 10 30 a.m. to discuss the following matters item a was a conference with labor negotiators police the the council received a report from its chief negotiator Lisa Murphy on all bargaining groups including police officers association firefighter IAFF local 1716 fire management police management OE3 mid managers and supervisors SEIU local 521 and unrepresented employees item B involves real property negotiations in which the council received a report from its chief negotiator Bonnie Lipscomb concerning properties at 920 Pacific Avenue and 333 front street parties to that negotiation are the city and metropolitan transit district the Santa Cruz County item C was a conference with legal council involving existing litigation the matter of save our big trees versus city of Santa Cruz filed in 2019 in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court item D was an item of anticipated litigation specifically related to a notice of intent to file legal action against the city under the California Voting Rights Act I also reported this out of closed session at the May 10th meeting there was no further action taken by the council at this time and likewise there was no reportable action in closed session thank you attorney condado I'd like to call the city manager to report and provide updates on the city's response to COVID-19 I don't have a report at this time but we'll be updating you when we get to the veterinarians yeah thank you very much provide any updates to the calendar there are no updates our consent agenda these are items 5 through 13 who are streaming this meeting now the time is calling you'd like to comment on items 5 through 15 instructions are on your screen please remember to mute your streaming device press star 9 to raise your hand and listen for the cue saying that you've been unmuted on one motion unless an item is pulled by council member for further discussion are there any council members who'd like to pull an item from consent but with Donas before you start can we take a one minute break I need to hang up and Ray try calling because you guys are all garbled and we can't hear what you're saying one one one minute oh we're back for the customers that have taken you know easily pull up and and do commerce and if it's having pick up items that they've ordered or take out food and that type of thing so that's what we're doing right now we're continuing to monitor the situation and we'll just as the demand for parking increases thanks my second question is related to parking passes there are some folks in the beach area given that at the end of may this parking parking enforcement supposed to go into effect with the parking passes in those areas and some folks were concerned about you know not having employment and potentially having to buy parking passes is there the potential for extension of the 2019 summer parking passes in those areas or is there any I guess like where's that at currently yeah that's again that we're still evaluating it that's at this point just because of how the demand changes I think the permit program takes up that at the end of May and we want people to go ahead and apply by mail it's a pretty inexpensive parking permit and if they have that opportunity to do that that would be great we will be as you know understanding as we can as this starts to get closer to the summer season what happens if if the parking permit program if there isn't for enforcement then we have visitors parking in the neighborhood and then there's no room for the residents to park so right now we would just encourage everyone to go ahead and apply for that parking permit program if they if they had it last year it's pretty simple they can just re-apply for nine I was just curious if you could speak to you know we've been family members and people in our community are really conscious about the cycling and trying to minimize waste and I was just wondering has our cycling had an impact on the rate at which the landfills are the filling the rate of these landfills increasing right that's a really good question arrived here 19 years ago we had about a 20 year 25 year expected life of our landfill and right now like through the activity the public to recycle and first we started with picking green waste out and now we're looking at organics we've extended the life of the landfill 2054 so that's an additional 24 years from today so I um he's done a great job with our recycling and trying to keep material out of the landfill staff has also looked at how we process the material historically there would be a foot of soil put over each lift and we don't do that anymore we use tarps so we really value the airspace of our landfill and we um in partnership with the public we've been doing a great job in extending the life to landfill well again you know great work that public work is doing to make sure that we're so thanks for all the work on that you're welcome thank you I'll move the consent agenda council members buyers Matthews I'm still absent right brown I colder vice mayor Myers I and mayor Cummings Matthews absent this is an item that you want to comment on now is the time to call in using the instructions on your screen are there any council members who would like to pull items 14 or 15 which there are none so if you could call and so that you've been unmuted and the time will be set for two minutes it's going to go ahead and uh make a motion for item number 14 motion for the second I don't know if you want me to yeah second reading and final adoption of ordinance number 2020-08 amending sections 3.08 0.03 and 3.08 0.100 then adding sections 3.08 0.091 to the Santa Cruz municipal code establishing regulations for the youth award and evaluation of best value project delivery methods for construction projects and I'd just like to thank the water department and the public works department for bringing this this resolution and this process forward for our approval I apologize for the interjection but the council may take action on both items in a single motion should you okay I'll also move the item number 15 second reading and final adoption of ordinance number 2020-09 amending Santa Cruz municipal code section 4.02 0.021 which identifies various city positions to operate issues certain sort of certain citations. Mayor Myers um council member Watkins to see your hand as raised is that a second motion? It's a second. Items 14 and 15 motion by Vice Mayor Myers seconded by council member Watkins I'll turn it over to the clerk to do a roll call. Council member is Byers. Matthews is currently absent Brown. Vice Mayor Myers and Mayor Cummings. COVID-19 or CDBG coronavirus are via phone the five days under emergency CDBG-CB of approximately $350,000 20% by HUD formula is administration so we have about 282,000 available for allocation from April 24th to May 4th we received applications for CDBG-CB funding full of the regular action plan budget as well as the new funding CDBG budget that we saw at the March 10th hearing is that we have administration by the HUD formula. We're continuing with the rehab for community programs we're keeping funding consistent with last year for the teen center we have a VISTA with services and we had two capital improvement projects for the senior center on Market Street and for homeless infrastructure projects so the bulk of that will go to the hygiene renovation on Coral Street COVID-19 to the home budget program administration is updated by HUD due to pandemic response and we're um it's suggesting to increase the security deposit program from 100,000 to 125,000 this is a program that's administered by the housing authority and we're also seeking to launch a pilot TVRA which is tenant-based rental assistance eviction program with a partner agency community action board we're modeling this after a program Watsonville is attempting to launch uh which will fund their program with 100,000 so this funding from home will extend the program to low-income residents of Santa Cruz County it'll be split evenly uh roughly between extremely low very low and low-income residents of Santa Cruz and for CDBG CV applications we've received some really excellent applications from organizations across the community that are providing response services to COVID-19 community bridges submitted three applications one for expanded meals on wheel services which are experiencing a greater demand as a result of the pandemic and they're also seeking to create for their elder day center enrichment activities that will decrease isolation caused by the pandemic and whether this the community resources is seeking to expand their food pantry options and provide direct rental assistance to clients with vouchers of up to five hundred dollars the Santa Cruz community farmers market is seeking to expand a match program so it'll make additional snap dollars available to those with snap benefits and also benefit farmers and hope services is hoping to provide internet connectivity for clients and staff to make client support available during the pandemic and community action board we mentioned we're hoping to launch a pilot tenant based rental assistance program which would provide eviction prevention funds we're still seeking a HUD waiver that will allow those home funds to go to pass due rent that's not a normal situation for home funds but we're anticipating that a waiver will come out we've had a number of waivers and we're in discussion with HUD on a regular basis the NTAs is requesting support for enhanced screening protocols that are necessary for emergency dental procedures and Second Harvest Food Bank has seen a tripling of people using their services in Santa Cruz so this funding would help to continue making healthy food options available to City of Santa Cruz residents and partner agencies and Santa Cruz Community Health Center is seeking to make essential supplies and food available to extremely low income clients requested is over 500,000 but we only have 282,000 available for allocation just because they do a lot in the community but with the total requested at 512,000 we're not able to fund all of the programs as we're oversubscribed we have a couple funding options up for discussion just to generate discussion one of the proposals we're suggesting to fund organizations one through six at the requested amount and that would allow us to use the remaining funds split evenly between the community bridges meals on wheels program in Second Harvest Food Bank and then another proposal proposal B would fund all of the organizations one through seven at the requested amount and less would be available for meals and wheels and Second Harvest Food Bank staff prefers proposal A it would be fewer contracts for us to administer and it allows us to award additional funds for Second Harvest and Community Bridges and then another consideration is that we are already awarding 100,000 community bridges from the normal CBBG grant your funding for Nuevo Vista so again the goals today we're seeking approval of the 2020-21 action plan budget and also the budget approvals for the new CBBG CBB funding so that we can submit our consolidated plan to HUD is a full budget and a summary view is shown here for CBBG with the new COVID funding we have 1.2 million dollars approximately to allocate and for the home program we have 430,000 to allocate and a lot of the CBBG CBB applications are all new so these proposals for the budget are other options that can be considered today we'll probably take a lot of our time and be coming back to this after public comment able to draft and update the 2020-25 consolidated plan and make that available June 1st for public review then we'll submit to HUD the week of June 8th funding won't become available until July 1st but we'll be able to retroactively repay pandemic related expenses with CBBG CBB funds once we do get that funding and then in case we do not get the waiver for the addiction prevention program for TBRA we might need to bring that item back to council so that we can update the program and still help those in their groups and if you have any questions about any of these goals I'd like to thank you for your time and I'm ready for questions thank you for that presentation are there any questions from council members at this point in time the option slide for a second sure thank you and thank you for your work on this it's a really quick turnaround and under really on in uncertain time so I much appreciated that you have worked to come up with these two options for us I guess I'm wondering in that conversation if the if you had any discussion about and I understand the rationale for having fewer contracts but was there any discussion about you know funding all of the programs and distributing those across the nine rather than providing full funding to the first six and then I guess I'm just not sure why community bridges why Meals on Wheels and Second Harvest would be the ones that were it was determined to do a reduced funding amount if we fund yeah so yeah so a lot of the rationale is just that those asks are so much higher than all the others if we fund those at higher levels we wouldn't really be funding the others at adequate levels the other asks are much more moderate we're trying to help as many organizations as possible but that definitely is a consideration when we reduce the amount available for all of the other programs then we cut into their ask a lot more while not necessarily being able to raise the amount for community bridges Meals on Wheels and Second Harvest we think that much but we definitely the need is so great that we could consider you know putting the majority of the funding to just those two and not funding any of the others it's a very it's a very hard decision to make thank you and down to your video I had a quick question regarding the the Tenant-Based Eviction Protection funding can you speak to that a little bit more like what are some of the constraints and how will that be rolled out as the yeah so there are a number of home waivers that we've requested to try to make a Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program easier in this time that's providing them so that in pandemic conditions some of the regulations are loosened so some of the loosening includes things such as allowing for a self-certification of income by the clients not having to inspect the units it being okay for a lease to already be in place you know allowing it to be available to all of income persons and even those having trouble documenting their income these are federal funds I'm also wondering do with people who's be able to apply for these funds would there be waivers potentially for those people too yeah so that would not be something that would be necessary to submit for this assistance it's not part of the required documentation required by these programs we like to call in the numbers should be displayed on your screen you will hear an announcement that you are online and you'll have two minutes speak on this item my name is James Julian Whitman the special considerations based on this pandemic I just started making notes when this is done so here I go many use these available funds such as necessities of food stamps so that they can survive in particular feeding their children stipulations that will go into effect on July 31st my understanding is that all funding will be cut from these cow or food stamps also unemployment unless those citizens receiving that aid and it's my understanding that some of those instructions for these tests are really quite deadly and controlling and this is leading to fascism so I'm going to make note of the 1902 biological control act which greatly made it easier for vaccines to be put forth into the market so I'm just concerned and I'm hoping that other citizens are concerned about these actions thank you very much I'm done thank you this is Helen you and story assistant director of the community action board hi and this is fast pavilla health team program developer category for a cab we're grateful to be included in the cdbg cv home proposal for pilot rental assistance funding during this critical time we have seen a 50% increase in calls for rental assistance since the COVID-19 crisis began we are seeing those who have lost employment or reduced hours at work such as service workers health keeners etc calling as in distress meeting assistance and paying the rent during this challenging time this funding is critically needed at this time and will ensure it's distributed toward the greatest need in the city if granted the funding we anticipate we'll be able to serve approximately 100 households with this funding we thank you and your staff for your leadership and partnership in dealing with this crisis and supporting housing stability in our community thank you my name is jocelyn brady i'm a grant writer for hope services uh just like to start by digging the city of data cruise economic development department for their uh funding recommendation for cdbg cv funding as well as the city council in there for your time and consideration um hope services is the largest provider of services to individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities in santa cruz county um over 130 of our clients across our programs are santa cruz residents like most organizations our programs are currently being impacted by the shelter in place orders all of our programs being non-essential are currently shut down this funding would allow us to transition our non-essential programs to home-based remote service delivery uh our distance learning because many of our clients are medically vulnerable we expect this model of service delivery to have to continue beyond the listing of state and county shelter in place orders possibly going as long as six to 12 months or even until vaccine is widely disseminated this proposal would allow us to expand service to 57 santa cruz clients that are currently out of program due to the shelter in place orders uh these are clients that uh attended our state programs but also people that have been furloughed from their jobs in the community uh and are now isolated in their homes uh we uh humbly request you accept the recommendation of the economic economic development department staff uh to fund this request um and we thank you for your time and consideration thank you very much you're welcome just speak on this item please request to counsel for action and deliberation hi this is dean elogious calling from santa cruz community health and i want to thank you for your time and consideration on this matter um as you know covid has had a huge impact on our community and in fact at our our east cliff clinic site we've always done a few distance food distribution but we've gone from distributing 1500 pounds of food per month to 15 000 and it's not enough so we have patients showing up who need food we're doing our best they also need other supplies personal hygiene diapers maxi pads you know all the like critical supplies that quite frankly cost a lot of money um i i have one story here in front of me that there's one of many it just happens to be the one in front of me it's about a family newly arrived from central america they didn't know how to navigate santa cruz but they knew how to get to our clinic and they trust us and trust as you know is really big as soon as covid began the mom lost her job and all resources the food that they get from the clinic is literally keeping the mom and her two kids fed every week so we see many many stories like this and again i just want to thank you oh so to back up a little bit what we don't have and we don't have the ability is to have the same level of service at the women's health center site downtown santa cruz so we don't have the you know 15 000 pounds of food at east cliff means that we've converted to a drive through distribution and we just can't do that downtown and we don't want people congregating so what we would like to do is do a food pantry where we have non-perishable food supplies that we can provide to those patients okay i could keep going but i'm going to stop i want to again thank you for your time well and thank you for sharing your stories 15 but you didn't allow sufficient time to jump through all the hoops um which i think you should probably give more time for the first caller when there's only one caller anyway i'm going to modify my comments to that try to apply it to this although it's that's hard to do i will say this the government was initially misled and overreacted to the threat of covid before the facts were better known mortality rates are now coming down but still the government cannot admit it went too far destroyed the economy and will cost many lives in deaths of despair and isolation strategies without a cure will only delay infection not stop it this strategy may in fact not be saving any lives at all compared for example to the sweetest approach time will tell perhaps the opposite is true most people are well aware and in fact made to panic foreign excess so they're now better understood actual threat to the majority of the population not so much at risk of death who is to cooperate and already widespread highly infectious covid is not going away no matter with the isolation strategy barring a treatment miracle it is with this in mind that i urge a rethink of the authorities to deputize so many people that may be enforcing punitive measures for covid social distancing violations or for that matter anything else to do with covid and suggest a firm stated policy for all such city employees that the policy should be first to educate then warn and only then if violators refuse to obey should be issued a citation and there's some more to this but i'll skip that so that's all i have to say bye here you on the line hi there my name is chris glenn i'm the development manager at the interest community dental care i just want to say we're so grateful to be considered for cdb gcb funding as you may know covid-19 is radically changing how health care is delivered and dentistry is one of the highest risk industries due to the close proximity of our patients and aerosols that are produced during treatment and there are several new important infection control protocols that are labor-intensive and necessary for the safety of our staff and our patients and the funding would make a huge difference for the health and safety of 2800 city of stanak whose residents who are dnt patients and so i just wanted to thank you for your partnership and for your consideration thank you very much as well public would like to speak on this item i'd like to bring it back to council for action of deliberation councilman redgolder you had your hand up and i apologize if the question got answered while i got knocked off the meeting and um came back but my question was for tiffany and i was just wondering about that 200 000 that was for eviction protection or eviction assistance i was wondering if you could speak a little more to what that that was yes so in partnership with community action board we would be extending on a program that is an existence in washingtonville it would pay up to two months of past due rent for those who are not able to pay that past due rent normally home funds cannot pay rent that is past due it can only pay rent moving forward but in this situation pandemic conditions a lot of people are going to be soon facing with the eviction moratorium um about to expire that they will need to pay past due rent so we're hoping to um help keep keep people in their house and put a dent in a lot of that past due rent um so that would be home funding paying for direct rental assistance to the landlords and can i ask them a follow-up question to that yeah would people that aren't necessarily um um in compliance with immigration status like still be able to uh apply or qualify for that yes they would so the requirements would be um the same for everybody regardless of citizenship status they would need to have the economic need due to the pandemic they would need to have the certification from their landlord that their rent is past due and they would have to be willing to sign self-certification documents but they wouldn't be prohibited so they'd be open to everybody thank you thank you for all yeah thanks everybody um these these decisions are always hard in general and i think just even extra hard now given how um our safety net providers have been fighting so many critical services at this time and um and just sort of the thought of food insecurity and those that are impacted by it is is still troubling so i appreciate the interest in wanting to boost those funding amounts and also just encourage everyday citizens to give what they can't even if it's just a little to contribute to those organizations at this time um i'm wondering if tizmy you could re uh share your screen i guess uh with us so that we can see the two options that are presented before us in terms of being able to move this item forward see that now yes okay and then i have um it's needed i can switch the view to excel if you'd like to if anyone would like to propose other options i'm comfortable with the funding as as presented in terms of the recommended amounts of proposal a but happy to have a conversation with my colleagues if there's interest in trying to take with the funding a bit so with that i'm i'm prepared to make a motion to kind of get it started to move forward with the recommendation of um as presented in the agenda report and then as represented here on our screen for proposal a i'll second that uh so we have a motion by council member walkins seconded by the mayor for proposal a um vice madam mayors you're muted by the way thank you kiffney for this uh for all your work on this um this is always a hard decision to make every year but this year obviously just an immense amount of need kiffney i'm trying to i'm looking at attachment c which is entitled home waiver some summary and the third page of that is the summary of the cdbg cb applications and i'm just trying to direct the file yeah the rest requested honey go ahead um yeah so after we had to so we had a very tight window for applications being open and we had the staff report before we had all the applications in so we had some updates uh so the the main updates is that second harvest food bank was able to turn in its application after we submitted the staff report so that was an additional 70 000 requests so that we had to adjust recommended funding a bit um and then sanders community farmers markets increased their asked from 15 000 to 30 000 after we submitted the staff report okay great yeah i was just i had i had looked at that page before and i just wanted to make sure i was matching up but i thought that's what you said in your report but i just wanted to double check thank you yeah yeah so they definitely don't match right great thank you you know so much funding to these various organizations that are doing a lot of really good work supporting our community during uh COVID-19 and so i'd like to thank the staff for putting this together so quickly and getting us these funds and then um helping us allocate these funds to the appropriate organizations and for folks who might have gotten the agenda report there's a breakdown of how many people these different programs can help and and it's just good to see that there's a lot of support and hopefully as we continue moving through this process there'll be more support for families and members of our community as we continue to deal with COVID-19 and while um you know as mentioned before uh while community bridges in this round of funding um isn't receiving any of the dollars they are receiving an additional 100,000 dollars um through the cbdo grant and so i think that it's because that we're going to be able to you know expand the number of people we're able to fund um and so i want to thank everyone for their work on this i'll turn over to councilmember brown thanks uh so yeah i um i don't really have uh much more to add on my comments uh i really appreciate all the work that's been done here and i'm uh i'll support the motion i do want to say though about the community bridges they are receiving funding through as a chotto uh through uh our regular cdbg allocation but they aren't actually getting additional funds there this is uh pretty much flat funding for a lot of these organizations which really essentially need to cut because of cost of living increases so just to be clear that that's what we're doing we're not really giving them extra funding and they do have increased needs so i i'm hoping that uh when we begin to talk about some of the the homeless services category for example that is not yet allocated that we we think about that and also just want to remind my colleagues that as tiffany mentioned we are running up against the lifting of an eviction moratorium and um it doesn't sound like at least anecdotally from what we're hearing uh folks are going to be in a position to pay those rents um you know and the back rent so i'm really glad that we can make a contribution at least for some uh very uh very low-income households and um hopefully we can find other ways to be supportive moving forward increase in calls for rental assistance really kind of highlights the fact that as time goes on people are really um getting you know further and further impacted and that these funds are going to be available till july we can only anticipate that these calls are going to increase um if there's no further comments from council members i'll turn it over to uh the city clerk made by council member walk-in seconded by mayor commings to move staff recommendation a for the allocation of cdbg funds council member is buyers matthews is still absent yeah brown hi golder looks like council member golder might have gotten kicked off um do we want to wait mayor or yeah let's wait a second i think she's been having some trouble with uh our internet and state connected so oh wait hold on i need to put her as a so golder i wattkins council member wattkins council member wattkins did you say i i got kicked off and then i'm back to i vice mayor mires i and mayor coming that's unanimously with council member matthews absent gain on the city council agenda this is the city council ad hoc revenue committee update um presenter sui era assistant to the city manager i actually had not intended to present but i can do a quick um let me put my council put my video on um sorry about that so i was actually going to punt it over to Cynthia and sandy and they're coming um give a very brief update on the revenues of committee ad hoc work um obviously as you noted it council member report um after several months of consideration of a to t um first in march and then moving forward into november obviously moving into the this current crisis with the covet 19 pandemic um taking a seat back and looking at possibilities for focused on recovery and really the support of our hotel years moving forward it's really incumbent upon um the city to work on that recovery effort within the context of our budget and how best to support our tourism industry and so the recommendation from the council members on the committee was to formally suspend the consideration for uh the this to t increase at this time so i will um punt it over to mayor comings or council member brown for further discussion on this i didn't realize that Cynthia was not going to be here um so let me know if you want me to add anything or answer any questions i'm happy to do so and i think Cheryl is probably on the phone as well as well as uh bonnie who can also provide the answers to questions thank you uh thank you susie for jumping in to uh give us that introduction i would just add that um just so folks are aware out in the public and other council members um that you know this was a the process that we were going through to try to determine the the care uh the process for putting the tot on the november 2020 ballot and we spent a lot of time uh working through that and reaching out to stakeholders and so it is not without some uh you know some uh a little bit of grieving on my part that after the work that we did and i put you know the hope that we were going to actually be able to to move in this direction that um it's not likely to happen this year um you know i just i think that um it's just an indication of how deep this crisis is and you know so we wanted to make sure that uh our you know our stakeholders in the tourism industry were um comfortable with the um direction that we were going and um hopefully that will um cause them to be more willing to uh pick up that conversation when the circumstances allow you know we've been meeting uh regularly with many of the folks in the hotel industry we've been um provided giving sitting out surveys and taking in feedback on what would be um you know the program is a result of COVID-19 um we understand the impacts that the hotel industry is taking we're going to see pretty big impacts to our TOT and um and to account to try to do you know to ensure that we were we're working in good faith with our community partners and so we thought that at this time um maybe there's an opportunity for other revenue measures but the consideration of TOT is probably um not the best one to consider at this time i would i know how much um outreach you need to do before we get something on the ballot and i didn't i think you answered or you were well into that process of were you close to done uh and bringing people on board the conversation but we uh felt pretty confident that moving forward we would be crafting the the final proposal in uh collaboration mentality industry letting us to um move in that direction i mean it's not it you know they're not a universal body with one mind of course and more work was going to be done to connect with some of the other uh smaller motels and hotels as well um so we weren't near done but we were definitely on the right path that answers it a lot of work anyone let the comment please call one of the numbers that you see on your strength accounting council meeting my comments have to do with the recovery of the economy and i actually enjoy being trying to be proved wrong so here are my comments if the citizens do their homework they will learn that indemnification for any of the tests which are up to 80 in accurate or the vaccines the companies are indemnified from this but they are going to be required to get financial help to to follow certain stipulations um i think that's kind of quite strong arming maybe it's totalitarian maybe it's fascism um my observation is many small businesses will not open again i know that i certainly miss the 10 businesses i frequented at least some you know at least once a week and all the beaches i'm sure i'm not the only citizen that's worried about that there are much greater and bigger issues going on that have to do with the world food supply with its cultivation transportation and distribution and if that is not solved in the next 30 days there will be dire consequences not just for the citizens of satin cruise but the whole united states and the whole world um so i suppose that's enough for now i'll save my other comments if i can make them later thank you very much mayor you're muted does any member of the public who would like to speak on this item please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes to speak saying none i'll bring it back council want to if someone wants to raise their hand and move the item or set the report and uh motion to sunset the revenue committee council member brown i'll go ahead and move the recommendation that we uh sunset the council ad hoc revenue committee and um sorry i can only read half of the what it's on my screen sunset the ad hoc revenue committee and focus uh council work on the fiscal year 2021 budget via the budget committee uh that's been formed as well well and i think we should add just include the the um the rest of the recommendation as it's printed there about uh efforts to for recovery of the local economy and uh assistance to individuals and businesses so let's see your hands raise i just wanted to second the motion and also just thank the committee for all the work you did and um just that you're my appreciation for the work and knowing that this was moving in a direction that this is unfortunate at this time but really respect you coming to this place as well so with that i second the motion so we have a motion by council member brown seconded by council member council member vice mayor mires yeah i just wanted to thank the committee also and for your work um i know especially um reaching out to the hospitality uh industry and just working with them directly as well as um sending them the letter to let them know that this was going to be put on hold um i know that communication was really valued and um really made that industry understand uh you know our recognition of of the times ahead so thank you for taking that extra step and um retaining that positive relationship and um working with the uh with the hospitality folks here in town so thank you thank you just and on this idle turn it over to the city clerk just go over on item number 17 thank you mayor council members buyers council member mires hi Matthew Matthews is still absent um brown boulder hi Watkins vice mayor mires and mayor Cummings unanimously with council member Matthews absent she's okay okay but take us to our next item which is item number 18 waste water treatment facility uv disinfection system replacement project bid protest and award of contract and the presenter today is Steve Wolfman associate civil engineer this is mark deddle director of public works i think steve's trying to get on the call right now so we should be there uh momentarily i can give a little bit of background um we had a bid for the uv protection equipment at the good bye so steve i'll turn it over to you yes steve wolfman senior civil engineer with the public works department uh we're doing um and uh a replacement of the existing uv disinfection system at the treatment plant that system was put in about 25 30 years ago and um it's very difficult to maintain it's inefficient at this point and it's nothing of generating the uh ultraviolet light so we are replacing that system and all of the controls and the electrical uh work associated with it and uh we did that project about a month ago we got four good bids unfortunately the low bid uh was deemed by the city as uh non responsive and i think um it's explained in detail in the staff report uh legal department is here today and they could answer any specific questions but um instead we attempt to award to the second low bidder gse and uh that's what's before you today is um to award that contract to uh the low responsible bidder gse enterprises thank you are there any questions from council members at this time on this item none i'll uh open this item up to public counter agenda um if you'd like to comment on this item you should see a number of numbers that you can call in on on your screen once you call then please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand when it's your time to speak you'll hear an announcement that you've been unmuted and again this item is wastewater treatment facility uv disinfection system replacement project c401504 bid protests an award for contract raised and so i'm going to open up the line uh you are now on the call yes good afternoon my name is william kaufman i am an attorney for pacific infrastructure and i want to thank the city council and the mayor for taking the time to consider pacific infrastructures bid protests i'm myself i'm a civic improvement commissioner in the city of camel collaborate with the city council on several items so i know how seriously you take these and that you're volunteers and how much work goes into this uh first item is i wanted to uh make three important points given the limited time i have here as to why the city would be acting improperly if it awards the bid to gsc or frankly pacific infrastructure corporation the crux of the issue outlined in our bid protest that hopefully you have before you dated april 24 was in response to mr wolfman's letter of april 6 indicating that pacific infrastructure was the lowest bidder it was not found to be an irresponsible bidder but yet this the letter stated it submitted a non responsive bid that failed to follow the bid specifications in allotting at least three percent of the contract sum for startup commissioning and testing costs and three percent of the contract sum for demobilization costs i want to emphasize that language here is important allotment is nowhere in the bid specifications or the bid form and pacific infrastructures bid was the lowest bid they are a responsible bidder it was also a lump sum bid for three million one hundred and eighty two thousand three hundred dollars and it was rejected as non responsive non responsive by mr wolfman due to technical non-compliance but because it was rejected to the technical non-compliance i think it's important that the council consider the potential protracted litigation that may ensue because of ambiguous terms in the specification itself in the absence of any requirement of allotment in the bid form the analysis should be whether the bid was responsive in terms of technical application and regarding whether it complies with the bid documents if you look at the actual bid form it is silent as to any requirement in terms of three percent allocation any item in terms of what those dollar values should be for bid items one h which are startup commissioning and testing and one j which is demobilization the issue really is the specification section that is ambiguous unclear confusing whatever you want to call it under section zero one two two zero entitled measurement and payment so the reference that mr wolfman makes to the three percent and i think part of the confusion is there in those bid specs under the commissioning line item d or demobilization line item e there's two paragraphs there one says measurement and one says payment for both under the heading payment it states it shall not be less than three percent of the contract price but does not say allocation it does not say value so if the reading of mr wolfman was correct it should have said in the specification the value of the contract should be not less than three percent of the overall contract price the way it is stated in the specification and part of the confusion is that this requirement under payment simply impacts how much of the payment can be withheld or released when it's eventually do not the value of the line item for work so the city is attempting to justify the rejection of a responsive bid on a technicality due to an ambiguous specification section that i think needs to be put out for rebid because the i'm sorry your time's up never asked that um that we move on but thank you for your comments and we will take those into consideration as we move forward members the public would like to comment on this item we're going to bring it back to council for action and deliberation mayor meyers i see your hands up thank you all the members of questions for comments on this item that's before us today that were made by the member public around the legalities of moving forward with this i'd like to ask um my associate tory thompson to address this she's she's worked with me on it and it's familiar with the issues and and the circumstances yes i'm happy to do so um mr coughman raised a couple of issues um first and foremost i think he raised a question of ambiguity with the bid specifications if there were any if there was any confusion or ambiguities within the bid specifications uh pacific infrastructure had the ability to to write to mr wolfman to public works and ask for specification or ask for clarification and they did not do so i'd also point out that of the four bidders for this project the three other bidders all provided for at least three percent for the uh the commissioning in the demobilization cost so this did not appear to be confusing for those for those bidders um mr coughman also raised the issue um that if this is a variation it is an immaterial variation under the law um and if there's a price impact or an unfair advantage the variation in the bid is considered to be material uh here the impact from um from pacific infrastructure not including that three percent does have a price impact and they only included point three percent for commissioning cost point two percent for demobilization cost well below the three percent that was required this had at least a hundred seventy two thousand dollar impact on the on their bid as far as unfair advantage pacific infrastructure was alerted that this was an issue before the the bid was uh the notice of intent to award the bid went out uh pacific infrastructure could have revised um could have revised its mistake or withdrawn its bid and chose not to do so um that opportunity to either withdraw or to amend is an opportunity that wasn't available to the other bidders and so this also would provide an unfair advantage to uh to pacific infrastructure and if there's any other questions i'm happy to answer um answer those questions okay thank you very much um are there any further questions from council members on item number 18 at the moment in time saying none i'd like to ask if there's a council member who'd like to move this item i'm happy to move the uh foundation in the agenda report on this item okay it's a motion made by council member walkins count vice mayor meyers to see your hands raised i'll go ahead and second that okay so we have a motion by council member walkins seconded by vice mayor meyers to move the staff recommendations i'll turn it over to uh city clerk follow a little call vote thank you mayor council members buyers hi matthews is still currently absent brown hi boulder walkins vice mayor meyers hi and mayor comings hi the past was unanimously with council member matthews absent item number 19 which are presentations uh and a bunch of presentations and this week we'll start with an overview from the city manager for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if this is an item you want to comment on that was the time to call in using the instructions on your stream the order will be a presentation of the item by staff followed by questions from the council we will then take public comment and then return to council for deliberation action if you were over to the city manager to kick off presentations great thank you mayor city council i'll be providing a brief introduction and presentation to kick off the fiscal year 2021 budget hearings i first want to start by saying that these budget hearings are being held under unprecedented circumstances which is obviously the COVID-19 pandemic and this crisis is affecting all of our work and personal lives and the level of change and uncertainty has been truly extraordinary and as a city organization our focus has been on responding to this crisis the demands on city staff to serve as the emergency management team while implementing a host of an array of services in ensuring the safety of the public and our employees has been pretty extraordinary and exhausting and it has challenged our bandwidth and stretched us to many of us to be on capacity but i'd like to express my heartfelt appreciation to all of our city staff who are doing really incredible work and how proud i am of each and every one of them as i said the pandemic presents major disruptions and uncertainty and has necessitated dramatic changes to our daily lives of our residents and businesses and while these changes have far reaching negative impacts on the economy the ultimate extent and severity of the impacts remain unclear for some time and might so depend on the trajectory of the public health crisis and there are a number of questions that need to be answered how long will social distancing measures be necessary how long until an effective treatment or vaccine is widely available and how long until people feel comfortable resuming prior levels and being an economic activity and these questions are impossible to answer with certainty at this time but are crucial important to the path of our economy going forward what we do know is that the economy is in a recession and and we can be fairly confident of that since the beginning of march three or four million californians have appeared have lost their jobs households have curtailed spending significantly nationally and locally spending at restaurants was down pretty significantly 25 percent nationally in march new car purchases were down almost half in april home sales have been impacted significantly in major markets and so these declined in economic activity surpassed the worst of the great recession in many cases so how long will the recession last that while economic activity has declined sharply the severity of the recession and the impact on californians will depend really on the how on the depth of the downturn but also how long it will last by way of example I'm anticipating the length of the downturn extremely it's extremely difficult and because of this in light of this uncertainty it is very difficult to arrange your scenarios and you've formed a budget committee to help with that and by way of example the state school legislative office recently published a couple of scenarios for the state of california one which predicted a u-shaped recession and another which looked at an l-shaped recession the u-shaped recession predicted an 18 billion dollar state deficit next next fiscal year while the u-shaped forecast predicts a 31 billion state deficit you can see the wide range there just the in one fiscal year for the state of california so this is the larger fiscal environment that we are operating under so now what i'll do is i'll share my screen and just go through some some slides to kind of set the context for getting more specific information with respect to our budget and then the outline of our meeting today martin could i ask a question you mentioned an l-shaped and that's the 31 billion that that state project projected correct yes yes okay yeah and the u-shaped is a 18 billion 18 billion thank you figure this out my screen might be handling it hard i have to have uh laura help me with getting the uh presentation up here we go yeah okay thank you laura sorry about that i'm using my ipad today instead of my regular computer this was the first time so um to start off with i've got a few slides to go through here um moving on to the next slide please so the outline today of the presentation just to give you an overview i've done a kind of overview and introduction um and i'll go over kind of our foundation um our working status quo budget that will be uh putting before you it's been uh issued before you um talking about the adjustments and triggers that we'll have to go through in light of the situation we're in the timeline and then the departmental presentations and how those will work up during the budget hearings some of it will which will be held today and the rest tomorrow so uh next slides please um so one of the things that we're fortunate to have done is to to really have been in a in a pretty strong financial uh position uh starting off but with this crisis we had done a lot of work to put us in this place uh we had uh dealt with uh making some difficult decisions to put us uh put us in a place where we had adopted uh balance budgets uh and had uh been a place to really project uh uh surpluses in years to come and and again had done a significant amount of work to put us in a position uh to uh really make progress particularly in the area of capital that again has all changed but we are fortunate that at least we started in a fairly good position the the change is is pretty dramatic um if you can go to the next slide please laura uh we were at one time projecting uh next fiscal year uh that we would uh this fiscal year i'm sorry that we would end with a surplus small surplus we went from that to uh a projected deficit of now 10.4 percent which is pretty significant for that to occur in just a matter of a few months and then moving forward into the next following fiscal years so deficits have really uh increased pretty significantly i will note that the the six million dollar deficit that we are projecting for next year has a number of assumptions uh that impact uh uh the significance of that the level of deficit and more over how that relates to the uh proposed budget before you uh we had with with respect to the six million dollar deficit we estimate that the revenue reductions next fiscal year will be around eight point five million dollars overall and the general fund um and in addition we are assuming that we would save about a little over five million dollars as well so if we don't achieve the five million dollar savings then we will be facing a eleven million dollar budget deficit so the the forecast for next year is from the level of savings as well as uh a level of much reduced uh uh revenue which also could could get could worsen uh so you can see here how those deficits uh increase and will move uh uh forward again depending on the level of recovery that happens which as i noted is necessarily predictable at this time next next uh slide so this just gives you the next slide just gives you a sense of our um the impact to our uh fund balances and this is actually to our uh undesignated the fund balances we have fund balances that are designated for uh pension obligations uh for a variety of abuses and this is only our uh undesignated which at this point was at two point seven million dollars obviously we will draw down that down draw that down by ten point four million which it just is a two seven point seven and then if we continue to grow down it becomes more significant and it's not sustainable obviously so we can't uh continue to operate under deficits so this is really the intent of what the slide is that we're supposed to show moving on to the next slide so we'll need to so this gives you a sense of the um the revenue uh and and how it uh we were projecting that prior to uh COVID-19 uh and and what has happened in this the school year and uh what again may happen uh and this is more of a d u shape but again it could be l shape uh and and and so therefore it could be uh much more significant um we'll have to uh look look ahead and and i'll talk next about how we're going to try to do that so next slide please yes one of the numbers on the left side of this graph represents the fifty fifty five sixty sixty five of those percentages or no that's the i think that's millions of dollars is that millions okay thank you moving on to the next slide obviously to to move forward we will need to um uh institute a process and and collect information and data to to help us move forward and uh we will need to look at that really at everything because the the the level of uh impact is pretty significant as i noted and so we'll have to look at what we can do to address the major deficits next slide please and and so therefore what we put before you is the is a working budget uh that will have adjustments to be made so essentially in a normal year we would have uh plugged in all the data into our budget model we would have held a full series of of meetings with departments and then brought before you a budget that has been refined and adjusted but given the level of response that we have to do for the COVID-19 uh we really were not able to to do that whole process so what's before you is what would have come come before you um or we would have gone through our own internal process and you'll note that it uh predicts a deficit of about three million dollars but again once we factor in the loss of eight point five million dollars in revenues and then the fact that we're assuming we're going to continue to try to achieve budget savings that adjust to the six million dollar deficit which again can and will likely change and therefore we will need to make adjustments and so to do that um uh next slide please uh we'll have to look at a variety of things as I noted uh and the app triggers uh and collect data uh obviously the shelter in place duration as I noted earlier we'll have to look at the revenue sources that may or may not be available to us whether stimulus or schema funding grants uh those sorts of uh uh of possibilities we'll look at expenditures uh again to the extent that we can preserve and conserve funding we should do that and we'll continue to look at the options there there's a variety of economic models as I noted that are available that we can look at and we'll be uh uh accessing those and looking at those and seeing what makes sense for us and what we should consider um and as well as other city and other financial data that will be coming in over the months from our tax receipts to then the process again it's really a process of adjusting uh first of all we have developed a staff committee budget SWAT team we're calling that will help prepare for this and and provide assistance to the city council and the the council budget committee um the committee is comprised of budget leads department heads and the budget staff and the council will will consider the this process part of the strategic uh recommendations and then the budget committee will and then those strategic recommendations will then translate into uh operational cuts so we'll look at the strategically what is the what is it that we want to achieve how do we want to maximize and preserve existing services minimize impacts to services and to employees and then what is the strategic approach and then how that will then again formulate into operational cuts and what budget packages will be available and again we'll have to look at a variety of options depending on on the various scenarios that that well we'll have to look at at least a couple of scenarios looking at what the various levels of revenue reduction that we might see these budget packages back to the city council um yet the during the next fiscal year and we've identified several timing dates for this and those would be September December um and then at mid-year which is typically in February so that is the uh really the the process that we're proposing uh again this would be work with the budget committee uh the city council budget committee to bring forward those additional recommendations and adjustments as necessary um so with that I'll know now turn over to uh the purposes of uh the the hearings today and in tomorrow and uh uh what we'll be doing is having a department again it's a very different process than we've had in years past we've got a working budget before you we don't really uh know exactly what it's going to turn out to be at this point and so um it's very uh different than in other years uh because those that data and that information will come to you subsequently so for the purposes of uh of trying to provide you with the updates on the budget and on departments we've developed some uh outlines for the departments to present to you today obviously feel free to ask any questions that you might be and we have and so we've asked the departments to to do the following to provide you with a department overview to to give you a sense of the top uh achievements in the last fiscal year to go over uh core services uh and to discuss the working status core budget uh and uh also to identify unavailable non-statistical aspects of our budget that they should be considered we also recognize we have new council members and so we want to make sure and try to update them and inform them on the department's issues and perspectives um so with that um the order of the presentations today we'll start with the administrative services departments and then we'll move on to the operational departments land use departments and then the city manager's office and city council and then public safety and library that'll be the order um so with that happen to answer any questions on this overview um I know the other staff is here Cheryl if you have any any questions uh uh to be available also to answer questions thank you very much thank you for the opening presentation for the any um comments from council members or questions from council members at the time our points for these just so we don't have to be taking a lot of notes yeah yeah we'll go ahead and email them to you yes great thank you questions for the city manager at the time seeing none if there are any uh now is the time to call in there should be um just on your screen please dial in and follow the instructions and uh once you're on the line press star nine on your phone to raise your hand when it's your time to speak to your hearing announcement that you've been unmuted and the time will be set to two minutes no members of public um joining us for this item I'll bring it back uh to council and on to the next item the next presentation yes yes yes the next the next one is uh it's final so turn it over to uh Cheryl so are you there okay thank you okay I was wondering if Laura could put it on screen uh presentation I'm working on it right now yes can you guys see it now who's uh thank you thank you thank you okay so this is for uh the finance department next screen please agenda but uh provide a department overview our three top 2020 fiscal year 2020 achievements explain some of our core services and then present the working status quo budget next slide please this is our organizational chart um uh the finance department's primary objective is to support the development of fiscal strategies and to ensure that sufficient fiscal resources are available to meet the city's goals and objectives uh objectives the department is organized into um three functional units that would be operations which includes disbursements and payroll and vendor payments purchasing and revenue uh compliance reporting and analysis which includes audit budgets and finance reporting and risk and safety and collections um one of our go ahead yes thanks for the next screen yes next screen please all right one of our achievements this year um our accounting division manager Lisa Saldana established a dedicated accountant support for all city departments um under this program each city department can contact their assigned accountant to help them with their financial needs and this is uh this has been very successful and we've gotten a lot of uh good replies about this next screen please uh this year we actually um budget principal management analyst Tracy Cole introduced to the city and the advanced the even advanced budgeting software and that's for the preparation of city's annual budget Tracy worked diligently with the Eden software consultants and our ip department to roll out the new software she also developed and held training classes for all city departments it was a major undertaking and but Tracy had it up and running already for the fiscal year 2021 budget preparation next slide please uh this is uh the finance department again received the government finance officers distinguished budget presentation award for the city's fiscal year 2020 annual budget and the certificate of achievement for excellence and financial reporting the city received the distinguished budget award upon first submission in fiscal year 2014 and has received it each consecutive year since the city has consecutively received the award for excellence in financial reporting since fiscal year 2006 next slide please some of the department's core services uh this is operations and operations includes accounts payable which is our vendor payments payroll which pays all city workers the purchasing division which uh makes procurement available and the revenue division they uh our primary core services of the operations are the foundation of the department and if they aren't working functioning properly it affects all the divisions with in the department and the city so the operations are our foundation and i'm thankful for everyone that um that works in those divisions next slide please we have our um our audits budget and financial reporting um this is included within our compliance reporting and analysis function unit and the audits division is currently responsible for auditing hotels and short term rentals but will soon be expanding into cannabis tax auditing our newly established budget division which has uh uh uh staff of three is responsible for working with departments to produce the city's annual budget and of course they produce the fiscal year 2021 budget the county division is responsible for producing the cip facilitating the city's external financial audit and producing the year-end financial statements the division also supports the city department's accounting needs next slide please really important is the department's risk safety and collections division this division is responsible for handling handling all the city's liability claims and administering the city's safety program the collection unit which was established in fiscal year 2006 is responsible for chasing down all the city's delinquencies and it's quite successful next slide please this is our status quo budget we're submitting a status quo budget and we have no additional request it's supported by the general fund and the liability internal service fund next slide with that i'm open to any questions that you might have a presentation for that present any council members who have questions at this point in time have one question which would be um so the i guess where are we anticipating seeing um potential uh reduction of cost savings supplies it relates to the finance department or those that don't have any been taken into consideration yet well we haven't yet we're we're working on that we'll be working on that with the budget slot team thank you so with respect to the you know one of the things that we do as part of every budget process and again we didn't have a chance to do it in in great detail this year in the budget process is to do an analysis of the savings that we can achieve in each budget we always have a certain level of savings in our budgets however this year we want to try to achieve even even more so as part of the directive to even try to reduce the deficit this fiscal year so in general what that is included in those savings are vacancies we always have vacancies throughout the city organization as well as uh to the extent possible uh deferring contracts uh as well and uh putting off projects or purchases uh equipment or supplies and services so that's that's in in general terms are some of the initiatives that departments are undertaking to try to achieve budget savings members of the public comment on this item so if you're interested in commenting on the finance budget presentation there should be a list of phone numbers on your screen that you can use to call in please follow the instructions and once you have gotten on the call press star nine on your phone to raise your hand then when is your time to speak you'll hear an announcement that you've been unmuted it's time will be set to two minutes i'll give a couple minutes in case anyone wants to call in on this item we'd like to speak to us on this item i'll bring back the council to see if anybody has any further questions i'll just say uh thank you Cheryl for the presentation and thank you in advance for all of the work that your department will be doing as we move forward in these uncertain times i i guess i have one question and i it's probably a longer term question but obviously and the same could be said for kind of multiple the all the departments and uh you know functions of our local government but given the need for these reductions and the fact that your department your departmental staff are clearly going to have additional pressures which will likely mean additional workload um i'm just wondering how you're thinking about that uh moving forward i know we're uh kind of at the beginning of this process but i'd like to know how you're thinking about that um yeah we've been experiencing pressure uh during this uh crisis uh but uh this is a real strong uh and that was a new budget committee uh we'll be able to be able to uh provide the service that we in general i think that uh you know there's no way also of uh having some level of impact to services when you reduce uh resources and uh when you reduce the amount of staff time that's allocated to services so there will be some impacts it'll be felt and obviously we'll be quantifying those and describing those for the public as we move forward uh but if that's unavoidable there will be some impacts we'll obviously work to to make those this is one that is possible. As soon as you're comments done, Cheryl thank you for the presentation. Thank you mayor. Next presentation is from Human Resources and so I'll invite Lisa Murphy director of Human Resources to provide us with presentation on her department. Good afternoon mayor, council members and if you can hear me could I have a thumbs up so I can see. Thank you okay well I'm here to present the Human Resources uh FY 21 budget just a brief overview our mission that our employees have developed is as a resource entrusted advisor we strive to cultivate an inspiring and fulfilling work environment that attracts and engages a talented workforce and obviously as we move through this time this is going to be a very big challenge for us and never before uh has my staff in tap from so many different areas to to be that trusted advisor to be the resource that our employees need from benefit administration um to employee assistance uh you name it we we have been I think my team at the front and center of this uh pandemic of trying to support our employees. I'm going to just give a little brief overview of our department and you are well aware of the the challenges and the the functions that we perform that we do of course total compensation where we administer salaries health care pension and other benefits. We have employee and labor relations where we provide guidance to managers employees to enhance performance and create a positive work environment we problem solvers solving complaints grievances and of course facilitating labor contract negotiations of particular areas of um very proud of is our organizational and employee development and of course as we go through these tough times when we try to reduce our budgets oftentimes this is one of the first places we look to and I'm hoping to find other ways to not do the my reductions in this area because employee development particularly in this this trying time and supporting our employees skills is going to be very vital um to get us through this time in terms of talent management we recruit and select and we onboard our employees who all of them you can see are the passion for public service and excellent skills uh and to take on the ability for increasing complex roles in their city career our training programs are incredible which I will cover briefly is our our succession planning our our efforts to enrich our employees time while they're here and in their future is we put a lot of a lot of time and money and effort into that finding workers compensation we manage all the citywide programs and we support the workplace safety and actively help to work reduce injuries and other potential liabilities to reduce employee claims. Just a brief overview of our department we're 11 and a half employees myself I have three principal analysts that work in in the leadership of the areas of recruitment classification employee labor relations and workers comp and admission all of our benefits for over 800 employees and nearly 400 temps at any one time so you can imagine our workload is enormous um now some supported by five additional uh analysts in the various areas to text in uh one and a half admin staff just a few of the achievements I just wanted to cover and of course I actually had a huge long list and they told me keep it keep it simple but I think mostly last year we spent our entire year negotiating employee contracts and that was a year long a year and a half long process that took up a lot of myself resources we did get seven contracts another very big area of pride is our play engagement survey and our work plan that we've created to surround that to continue to enhance and enrich our organizational culture organizational culture is really the personality of your organization and what is it like and I think the employees here have put a lot of effort in working on our subcommittees to to create that and as we go forward in this time it's going to get very difficult and now more than ever we're uh as a team my team is going to have to pull together to uh to support uh employees through these difficult times in our success and development and planning again another push that we put on for that program I just want to give you a statistic last year we promoted 38 temporary employees into permanent positions and we internally promoted over 60 of our regular employees so we have made a huge leaps and bounds improvement in our internal process and our development of our our employees to get them ready for those next steps and and that's a very a great source of pride for us and our we have our training our leadership development I'd like to remind people that we're a leader in that area we offer over 65 training classes and we keep adding more to and we change them out whatever what's needed and where's the where's the desire to place those training dollars is very important to us and and that's a program that I will strive to to hold on to with with multiple hands of another really great thing that we just in a process almost completed that I want to shout out to our recruitment team and that we have started to almost completed the process of moving all of our recruitment processes from internal beginnings of putting a requisition in all the way to the very completion to put it all online and what better timing than now to have that have been the huge undertaking and to be almost completed with that and finally I can't tell you since you know March 19th or 17th the COVID-19 has just taken up every inch of our our brain power and our space of trying to administer all of the new leave laws and navigate the extremely difficult waters that we were experiencing daily from our you know federal government the state government the county and the requirements and then trying to achieve safety for our employees as they start to return to work so it is a all-consuming as I can I can tell you just in terms of an overview of our budget we are a very small budget here in HR this is a total our total budget composed of my five divisions and as you can see although this looks like weeks and bounds it's really only the difference between last year and this year is approximately $109,000 and that is all within our personnel administration it lies with our per payment that we also incorporate our fees for per and health benefits and the growth of some of our salaries so it is a status quo there's nothing new it's purely in our required fees from per which centers out of a lot of out of HR this is just a quick look for you to see for our budget again we're five divisions administration is the first column unemployment we administer unemployment fees I I can envision that's going to go very high I don't know what it's going to be so and still we start seeing some of those claims come in we're going to see a spike in that we also have we administer workers comp and that's the largest of the bars there and we also administer the medical insurance programs and we also have housed the volunteer program within this department again it's a very static static budget there's there's not much change although like I said foreseen into the future in my magic eight ball that unemployment amount is going to increase just I want you to see how we're funded HR is less than a million dollars is from the general fund the majority of our funding comes from the workers comp fund group health insurance and unemployment insurance those are separate funds so when we talk about how are we going to do implement cost reduction it's going to be from that general fund piece of that 632,000 and you can see for for us that that's actually a big hit when you think of five or ten percent to for us it will be significant but we are planning for it and we're we're looking for the least impactful ways that that might impact us going forward oh that didn't show up oh there I just want to go over to our HR priorities I have not changed them from last year because I think they're they're they're monumental they're significant and they're worthy of continuing on and and not just packing the way as if we've accomplished these these are ongoing and there's always new and exciting ways that we can continue to enhance employee development professionally and their personal development as well again I want to continue our focus on our succession planning without continuing to strike assignments or over hiring or coaching or mentoring how we're able to work people out of class so they can learn new skills and be prepared to move up within the organization and finally we're going to continue to improve our organizational culture through our engagement program and several other programs because like I said it's I don't think there's any more important time now than to start really focusing on intelligence what our employees needs are going to be in the mix next year they're going to face difficulties here and they're going to face difficulties at home and we as a department want to be here and to be able to support them in in this really difficult time and that really concludes my presentation just a final note that human resources we serve the people who serve the community it really is all about the employees that that look for the city of Santa Cruz and how we can be of service to them with that that's my conclusion and I'm happy to answer any questions you might talk thank you for that presentation are there any council members who have questions for Lisa murphy our human resources director at this time council member walkins thank you Lisa for the presentation in terms of kind of the last point that you made of supporting the employees is the city moving forward are you anticipating that being linking them to the resources in the community and providing resources for them here or mental health services what what kind of spectrum are you thinking or is it all they love actually that state it is all of the above we have our eap program that we I have been in contact with and and need to push out that that service what the availability is so people are reminded that it's free it's confidential to take advantage of it there's legal planning personal planning things for your children this is a difficult time for children and our our employees who have obviously folks that they're taking care of and their children it's weighing and taxing on them as well so those services are available and in addition unemployment insurance is also available we have all that up on our our intranet and our internet and I think one of the things I don't know how we'll be able to make it available but we're trying to figure out how to help bring along mental health services here but in what shape form or manner is a challenge we need to figure out thank you I you know what I at least say you I just wanted to say thank you for the report and the background on the department and just also just express some thank my thanks on a really hard time I know your your department especially is the go-between with so many people's lives and their family's lives so thank you for the for the overview and you answered several of my questions when you answered councilmember Watkins so thank you thank you very much I appreciate that further questions uh at this time I will turn it over to the members of the public who like to ask questions about the human resources budget presentation so on your screen you should see a list of phone numbers please follow the instructions for dialing in and once you have joined on the call please press star 9 on your phone to raise your hand and when it's time to speak you will hear an announcement that you've been on mute it in the time when we set for two minutes we'll give folks a minute to join should they choose to do so again if you are joining us and you would like to speak on the human resources budget presentation once you've joined please press star 9 on your phone to raise your hand and once you're time to speak you'll hear an announcement that you're unmuted and you'll have two minutes um further questions now it's the time to raise your hand thank you no further questions Lisa I'd like to thank you again for that presentation and um thank you for all your hard work and look forward to working with you on this budget as we're moving forward thank you very much Brenda is a budget presentation from our information technology department and again for members of the public who are streaming this meeting this is an item you want to comment on now it's time to call in using the instructions on your screen the order will be a presentation of the item by staff and from the council we will then take public comment and return to council for deliberation and action turn the meeting over to information technology interim director Ken Morgan good afternoon are you seeing my presentation we can see you can see me now we can see the presentation thank you okay great good afternoon mayor and city council uh Ken Morgan acting IT director I am here of course to give you a brief overview of IT status quo working budget for the upcoming fiscal year uh similar to the other departments the agenda is going to be a department overview three of our top four achievements summary of our core services and then a quick overview of our working status quo budget these great people here make up the city's IT department when we are fully staffed the IT department is about 21 full-time equivalent employees three of those folks are funded by enterprise funds and as you can see we are organized into four functional groups we have our strategic and admin services group client services and sysadmin infrastructure services and then the process and application solutions team strategic and admin services is really responsible for the overarching departmental functions like the development and execution of a strategic roadmap special projects and of course we have our budget planning and execution the client services division is uh they're the folks that are really our frontline customer service division and they are responsible for staffing the city's help desk and supporting our endpoint infrastructure whether it be pcs or laptops or mobile devices uh they also support the productivity software that runs on top of that applications you're familiar with like uh microsoft office word and excel our infrastructure services division uh a number of critical critical roles including maintaining secure high-speed connectivity to more than 25 city offices and asset locations uh spread throughout the city uh additionally they manage four data centers uh and in those data centers we house hundreds of virtual and physical servers uh voice over at the telephonic equipment and other infrastructure that really delivers network services throughout our enterprise uh last we have our process and application solutions themes and these are really the folks that provide support for our over 95 city-wide and departmental applications and uh as the name kind of states there is much focus on process improvement and helping to enable services for our employees and the community that are using these applications so fun fact about it as i was looking at our org chart it dawned on me that i've been working with a few of these folks for almost half of my life uh so i got curious as to what the collective experience was of the it team uh turns out of the 18 currently filled positions we have about 195 years experience working for the city uh and on average the uh average it employee has an 11 years experience working here and with one third of those folks having been here for 15 years or more so a lot of collective experience for the team with regards to some of our notable accomplishments of the last fiscal year i'd begin by highlighting uh really the continued excellence of our our client services and sift admin group uh this team not only epitomizes our excellent customer service but they come with a wealth of experience and really collectively this team kind of sets the tempo for our can do attitude that really embodies the spirit of our our team here this current fiscal year to date we've completed completed close to 6 000 tickets we've directly assisted close to 600 of our roughly 800 employees and on average we're completing these work orders somewhere between two and a half to three days and the number of tickets that have to be reopened because an issue is reoccurred is less than two percent also with uh 600 plus personal computers and laptops the city each year we conduct an annual pc replacement uh so that that pc fleet can stay current so on top of all the other support work this team is responsible for they are also replaced about 160 pcs in the fiscal year 1819 they're on target to meet that goal this year too so lots of hard work in this division that really deserves some recognition next up i want to talk about an enterprise application that it is currently in the process of upgrading sire is an application that you may or may not be familiar with by name but behind the scenes it plays a really a predominant role in how you all are interacting with the community for the last decade sire has not only been our document management system citywide in which we've archived close to two and a quarter million documents but it's also responsible for the behind the scenes workflow that ultimately generates council and commission meeting agendas and also captures the the video feeds for these public meetings so in conjunction with sire approaching an end of life status which means it would no longer be supported it was also purchased by a company named highland whose on-base product has really been a best and brief content management and agenda workflow application for some time so we went through the process of vetting a number of other industry standard equipment solutions but ultimately chose and council approved implementing on base which came at a substantial discount given our long-standing business with sire so even with covid we've been doing our best to keep the traction and the momentum of this project moving forward the back end infrastructure has been put in place and we're now working on converting those millions of files getting staff familiar with the platform and making sure that our process is in place to meet those meeting agendas and videos being published and posted particularly like to recognize michelle foley in our department who's been the project manager and bonnie bush and julia wood who are with the city clerks they've not only been juggling their regular clerk duties but also helping to lead this conversion so big thanks to them we're hoping to be live on the platform sometime around the return to council session after the july recess as a final accomplishment i wanted to recap some of the details that i shared with you during previous departmental updates but really in my opinion i think it's worth repeating you know on march 16th and 17th when the city quickly responded to the covid 19 pandemic and sent much of our office staff home it immediately received an influx of requests to arrive for remote access for these essential workers our existing infrastructure at the time was engineered to only satisfy about 25 maybe 50 workers at most at any given moment but within two weeks we were able to develop and sustain an infrastructure that could withstand 50 percent of our office-based workforce which equates to about 200 plus users connecting to city resources all day we did this as well as deployed over 60 laptops we onboarded and trained employees in person over the phone in zoom sessions and all the while the team was able to maintain that same time to closure for for work orders received so a really proud moment for our department and our folks this slide on core services is really just an opportunity to kind of memorialize what much of what i've already kind of shared with you you know i tease a service department that's focused on supporting and enabling our colleagues in the community our can do customer service attitude begins with our client services division supporting all those endpoints throughout the city infrastructure team manages the sustainability and life cycle literally thousands of devices and data centers and offices throughout the city the process and apps team are working to enable departments and the community to be effective and and more efficient with the applications we provide and then admin services focus on strategy our special projects and and also making sure that our department's efforts are really congruent with the the goals and objectives of the city and the community so that brings us to our budget overview slide as with the other departments the focus was on adopting a status quo budget which is what you see before you our personal services are about 3.2 million our services applies and other charges at 2 million you know an inherent challenge for it when it comes to a status quo budget that within the services gl we have these unavoidable annual obligations to pay for our it hardware and software support contracts and not only do these contracts individually often increased by somewhere between 2 and 3 percent as we complete projects throughout the year we have to add those services to the support costs kind of profile another thing worth mentioning is as part of a franchise agreement that the city and county have participated in with comcast since 1989 the city was receiving fiber connectivity to our courtyard our police department our louden elson center and fire station two for a dollar a year which is a pretty good deal comcast for some reason has chosen not to renew that contract and as a result the city will have to move to cost and solution so this is going to greatly increase the delta on our telecommunications and service costs despite that we were able to do some juggling with equipment software purchases and overall the numbers that you are seeing are similar to last year's and as i mentioned at the beginning you know we are focused on adopting a status quo budget knowing that subsequently we'll be getting direction in the upcoming months on some strategic approaches to make some modifications moving forward that's what i had open to questions thank you ken for that presentation and i just want to say thanks to all folks in the it department for helping us have transition on to online based platforms so quickly as it relates public to cobit 19 i know other communities struggled transitioning to online meetings and services and we've done a really great job of transitioning so thank you all for all your help with that and keeping everything moving forward thank you are there any questions from council members at this time i see health number matthews see every kind of the um convergence online has been spectacular and you guys are always fantastic it seems like every year um and this this moves over into capital expenditure somewhat too so maybe um martin or someone you can explain how we're going to deal with that side of the equation we seem to be doing operations now but it seems like particularly it some of the other works there are investments we'd like to make that will save money or be so much more efficient and we really are only able to tackle some of those it's a frustration and so a lot of it has been like these i'm just saying the online plan review the piece of work the planning department um other efficiency in it so i'm just wondering what's the status of those right now you feel like you're making some good progress some things hanging out there that hope to continue this some things are going to jettison maybe this is the time to go into detail but um it's a good question i can give you a little bit of feedback on some of the the online aggregation that we're working on we have a number of payment portals throughout the city and we've made a concerted effort over the last year to work on an interfile to develop an aggregate payment portal that will also include some efficiencies on on business flow in the back end of our initial phase one which include utility billing our business licenses our personal inspections our payments we definitely now understand the need to shape our services so that we can better serve the community and take that as something you'll see in information soon we're also working with the planning department to continue to look at how we can take some of their permit and project requests online so there's there's still an effort from both those departments to make that happen as well are there any other questions from council members at this time seeing none if members of the public are interested in commenting on the information technology budget presentation the number that you can call in on should be on your screen after you follow the instructions to call in you'll want to press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and when it's your time to speak you'll hear an announcement that you've been unmuted the time will be set to two minutes so i'll give members of the public for not above a few minutes to log on should they want to comment on this item if members of the public who would like to speak to us on this item i'll bring it back to council if there's no further comments or questions on this item then we will adjourn our item to 6 p.m where we will have we'll call all communications and then we will have our evening item at 6 30 which will be the public hearing on 111 error circle seeing that there are no further comments it looks like we will adjourn until all communications at 6 p.m all the department heads for the presentation that we received today and i look forward to seeing everyone this evening for all communications on May 12 2020 meeting of the city council i would like to ask the clerk please call the roll thank you mayor council member as buyers matthews golder council member golder she's here latkins vice mayor mires here and mayor connings here first of the public who are streaming this meeting we're about to begin oral communications if you want to comment on oral communications now is the time to call in and instructions should be on your screen oral communications is an opportunity for the public to speak to us on items that are not listed on today's agenda if you're interested in addressing the council please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and you will have two minutes to speak when it's your time to speak you'll hear an announcement that you've been on mute it we request that you clearly and slowly state your name before making your comments so we can accurately capture it in the meeting however it is not required this is the end of oral communication oral communications please please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and i will invite you to speak to the council to allow a couple minutes in case people are still joining us on your phone to raise your hand to be acknowledged don't have any members of the public currently calling in um given that we have an item that's time is certain for 6 30 to start i don't think it would be in our best interest to start that item early so um i think what we can do is maybe wait another couple minutes and if there are no members of the public who like to um address for oral communications then we can just break and then reconvene at 6 30 it does look like there's one person who's just joined us we'll have two minutes for oral communications you're on the line okay this is carol philip the government co-vid response melds the absolute worst in global and american political problems into a nightmare of false narrative propaganda unwillingness to admit phenomenal policy mistakes are being made censorship is everywhere civil liberties are crushed and a public being conned like never before using fear and intimidation reality check isolation measures will never eradicate a highly infectious and already widespread virus like cobit 19 but will only slow down the inevitable spread only to reappear over and over as shutdowns and relaxations yo yo back and forth the strategy is praying for a miracle cure or cobit goes away by itself big pharma will never see a word against them on the news they own the news big pharma will never see a word against them in a a i d they own the congress and the n i a i d 79 year old fouchi needs to be fired and 39 years as the head of n i a i d just bred good old boy corruption i don't trust the monopolist gates who said we don't want a lot of recoveries ask yourself if another virus like this appears as it will in the future would this response be repeated no that would probably be really stupid the who covered china's tracks on cobit and continued to issue advice against closing border travel until march 11th after more than 100 000 cases in dozens of countries worldwide before finally declaring a pandemic so who is a globalist entity made up of nations who are not democracies and enemy communist countries like the ccp or less than transparent are now funding them corruption greed unethical behavior immorality globalist ambitions and political maneuvering didn't take a time out because of cobit full throttle instead and it is up to the people to hold their government accountable for their actions including this council now combine that with the totalitarian totalitarian collectivist movements of socialism communism and leftism who believe if we only give up our individual rights and hand them over to some all-wise beneficent central authority all suffering and dissent not be allowed and non-existent safe spaces where we all should live our lives will be present we are in what i call the deep bullshed which is what you get when combining the bolsheviks with sheddah okay i see my my minor two minutes is up bye wow hello my name is james ealing whitman um secret health club six months ago many psychological operations continue to be ignored in this tiny maritime courtroom in santa cruz california like the subject of various civic elected leaders creating situations to make other civic elected leaders look bad leading to a great deal of questions about both the integrity in this room and on whose side of the court railing is being served the individual citizen or the corporate personhood what an election is there no shame that's all i wrote and that's enough thank you very much for the public who'd like to address the council during oral communication please press star nine on your phone at this time and you'll have two minutes name is robert norris i'm with huff homeless united for friendship and freedom uh on the last during the last two council meetings i've asked a number of questions as well as sent in those questions by email to mayor comings and various other city officials they have to do with the governor newson's room key project which really is uh an attempt to stop the contagion in the covet nine situation from spreading among the homeless population here in santa cruz the questions i've asked is how broadly how much money has actually been spent from that fund how many rooms have actually been made available to people who are disabled and vulnerable and on the streets who are homeless and while that situation has improved somewhat in certain small numbers i can't get the exact information and i would encourage the community to demand this because if you go through the city you will find disabled people outside and that isn't a good place for them to be generally but in this situation it isn't a good place for them to be at all considering the entire community's interests here so i'm just requesting some straight answers from the city council which i'm hoping well that's a little strong but i would demand that they give these answers to the community tonight um we've gotten some sort of vague reports from susie o'hara and martin burnell but the real issue is how much money do they have from the room key uh how much have they spent and how many people have actually been housed when how many people are not being housed who need to be housed these are my questions and i invite the community to demand that those in authority provide answers thanks for listening immediate justin if there's any thanks if there's any uh other member of the community who would like to speak to us during world communications please press star nine on your phone at this time and we will you'll be recognized okay you're on the line hello my name is hillary and i just want to second on the very first caller who talked about uh the quarantine covet and i agree with him 100 percent um i feel that we've really really been conned on this one and that uh when you're sick you're quarantined when you're healthy you're not quarantining the entire city county state nation world i i really feel it's it's wrong and i and our our bill of rights and all of our rights are at stake here and when they get away with this we're going to see more of this and i'd like to say recall Gavin Newsom immediately i hope everybody will do that that's all i have to say thank you number of the public who's joined us uh you can if you'd like to speak during world communication please press star nine on your phone so that you can be recognized hi my name is Eric Garcia and i am a resident of the circles neighborhood and just wanted to make a comment about the two proposals regarding the property at 111 Eric circle Eric i'm going to stop you uh briefly because that's the next item on our agenda and when that item comes forward you'll have the opportunity to speak during public comment but right now it's world communications and all communications is the time for people to address us on items that are not on our agenda okay thank you i will save my comment for later okay thank you vacation if there's anyone who uh has called in who would like to address us on items that are not on tonight's agenda please press star nine on your phone and we will and you will be recognized and that no one has called in um i wanted to see if maybe we could take a moment in response to uh robert norris's question regarding the city funding for homeless services i just want to let him know that the county has been taking the lead on um you know dealing with the homeless outreach and the approach to dealing with homeless under COVID-19 we have the city has been assisting the county but the county it is the entity that's been issued with funding and so if you have any questions regarding project room key funding that's come through from project room key we encourage you to contact the county the human services agency on their website you can find information about all the different options related to homeless outreach homeless services that are being provided under COVID-19 so please visit their website to find out more information and please contact them if you'd like to know any specific details if you're just joining us um if you'd like to speak during oral communications which is a time to adjust the council on items not on the agenda please press star nine on your phone is this comment time this is oral communications to adjust the council on items that are not on the agenda so if you're going in about uh the circle church item uh we're going to have public comment later but right now if there's anything that you'd like to discuss on items but not on the agenda you can go ahead and do so um no i'm going to wait for the public comment time for circle church okay thank you all right thank you i'm just going to say that why don't we take a we can reconvene uh for the last item on our agenda we're all set over here too okay all right next item on our agenda is item number one public hearing for 111 eric circle for members of the public who are streaming this meeting and this is an item you want to comment on now is the time to call in using the instructions on your screen the order will be a presentation of the item i staff followed by questions from council we'll then take public comment and then return to council for deliberation and action uh before we get started on this item i also want to recognize that uh councilmember mathews was able to be present by phone for items number five through 17 but was unable to vote due to technical difficulties and so i just wanted to state for the record that she was in favor of um items numbers five through 17 in addition to that before we get started i know that this is there's been some questions um in the past regarding um council members making motions uh before the uh before public comment and i just wanted to reset to the city attorney because i know this is a quasi-judicial matter and i've there's been um some concern around making motions before hearing from the public so i was wondering if you could speak to that as it relates to this item yes happy to do so uh good evening mayor members city council um that's correct this is a quasi-judicial proceeding in which the council team has to evaluate a development project against uh objectives uh standards contained in your zoning ordinance and excuse me general plan plan new policy and uh as a coincide judicial proceeding the council's task is to evaluate the evidence and the information that's presented to you against the city uh land use decision-making standards and to apply those standards in uh regard to the evidence and so while not technically um prohibited under principles of due process um it's certainly preferable for the council to evaluate the evidence including public testimony before a motion is placed on the floor simply so that the public can be assured that the council is making its decision in light of all of the information presented including testimony from members of the public before it has rendered its decision so hopefully that answers your question thank you i also want to add that um the the applicants have reached out to me and asked for additional time uh similar to at the planning commission meeting and so i've granted them 10 minutes to speak and so i think what might be good is if we hear from the presentation and then the developers so we get a clear sense of what we're going to be evaluating and then we can ask questions followed by uh public comment and then we can return for actions of liberation and so with that uh i will turn this item over to ryan bane senior planner and uh lee butler from the uh lee butler planning director thank you mayor comings and council members good evening i'm lee butler the director of planning and community development for the city and tonight we're pleased to be presenting this project to you for the redevelopment of the circle church you'll be considering the applicants for the project which is a 12 last subdivision and uh staff preferred alternative to that project that would modify the 12 unit subdivision to combine two of the lots into one lot that would have um six condominium units and four accessory dwelling units and you will hear later from the applicant that they are now actually seeking approval of both alternatives um leaving it to their discretion as to which they choose to implement so that's something that um is uh expected from the applicant as part of their presentation um this is a challenging site um for many reasons um obviously it's a circular shape we don't deal with circular shaped lots too often but beyond that the site represents a lot to many people um its geographic location is literally at the center of the circle's neighborhood and it's got very significant view corridors that terminate at the site um it's visible from mission along young love from west cliff up woodrow and then um for quite a ways along california as well and the community has some very strong emotional ties to the site and that's understandable it's been a church community center a gathering place for generation and we've heard those feelings of connection expressed by many in the area and i'm sure you'll hear some of that this evening the general plan provides guiding principles for the development of the site one of which is to encourage development of the top end of the density range and as discussed at length in the staff report given the objective standards from the general plan particularly the one uh that specifies we should develop at the top end of the density range and given the sites proximity to commercial job centers transit as well as its walkability and bikeability staff believes that it's important to develop the site at the high end of the density range which would be um alternative to um not only is that the more sustainable option but it also provides more socioeconomic diversity given that condominiums are inherently more affordable than single family detached lots um i should also point out and ryan will go into this a little bit that the higher density option is actually significantly less dense than the properties across the street on the other side of arid circle and actually less dense than the properties throughout the circle's neighborhood as well the stated that approving alternative to in and of itself would not be consistent with housing accountability act um you saw that in their letter to you um i'll refer to the housing accountability act to the haa here um it's certainly up to interpretation um whether alternative to in and of itself would be consistent with the haa however we believe that it would be consistent if you just approve alternative to nothing in the haa expressly precludes the city from increasing the number of units in a project and the haa states that it's the policy of the state that the section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible way to the interest of and the approval and provision of housing and alternative to would certainly provide more housing um we recognize that the applicants have indicated that the multifamily project um may be difficult to finance and while we haven't seen information that expressly um supports that we certainly understand that stands and um the applicants have indicated that um they would potentially be interested in modifying alternative to such that it could be a project which is individually financed what that could entail is um detached condominium units on that property um there so we've actually added some conditions that allow for some flexibility and ryan will talk about those um we are supportive of the alternative um while it hasn't been presented um we would support an alternative approach to making that more financially viable for the applicants and the condition would provide for that that um condition we also believe um would provide additional consistency with the haa in that it would um promote the ability of that um alternative to be financed but again um that haa consistency is up for debate up for debate and certainly the the applicants are arguing in favor of having um both um projects uh kind of maintain that flexibility and staff would if the council is leaning towards approving alternative one staff would encourage the council to also uh so that there would be an option for the developers to pursue that more sustainable and more socioeconomically diverse project um before turning it over to ryan there have been a lot of really great comments um that have come out of the public engagement here we heard a lot of uh great thoughts at the planning commission as well and um i'm sure you'll hear some of that this evening so with that i'll turn it over to ryan ryan you're muted i'm not muted on there there you go uh so no one can hear me lee you can hear me okay you guys are good okay i'm going to go ahead and share my screen yes um thank you senior plan senior planner ryan dane i'm presenting the 111 eric circle project most everyone knows where this is located um the significant um part of the west side of santa cruz at the 1.62 acre circular parcel located at the center of the garfield park circle neighborhood um the property contains a u-shaped church currently the church was constructed over a period of years from 58 to 61 and the site is surrounded primarily by single family residential but there is one local market and a convenience store adjacent to the parcel to the southwest a little background so prior to submitting um a formal application applicants held a community outreach meeting uh at the onsite church in december of 2018 the owners also held weekly meetings at the site through the summer of 2019 to hear from interested neighbors um there were several neighbors that expressed concerns with the project specifically the demolition of the church uh which some felt as has historic significance and should be added to the city's historic building survey um historic evaluation was prepared by a city approved historic consultant that determined that the property does not meet the criteria for historic listing uh in addition a peer review of the historic report was repaired by a city consultant dudek who agreed with that report in response to concerned neighbors the city council directed staff to refer the historic report um through the historic preservation commission for review and to make a formal recommendation to the council as to whether the site should be listed on the historic building survey or the historic landmark um on january 30th the hbc held the public hearing to consider the report and the commission recommended the council on a 5011 vote that the property not be listed um and they also added some additional advisory recommendations regarding the pending project and we'll go into that a little later um on february 25th the city council held a hearing to consider whether the project or property should be listed on a historic building survey and the council heard testimony from the public and then on a 601 vote upheld the recommendation um of the hbc that it not be listed on april 16th the planning commission held a public hearing for the project um the commission recommended on 70 votes that the city council approve alternative one so that included acknowledgement of the environmental determination the residential commercial demolition authorization permit and a tentative map was what they recommended approval to the council in addition to that as far as that recommendation they also included revisions to condition regarding the inclusionary requirements um the the amendment basically was was they wanted the applicants to provide evidence that the project meets a co-housing definition um as defined in our inclusionary ordinance also that the common area building be constructed prior to or concurrent with the first um dwelling unit out there and also they wanted ccnr ccnr includes language um that basically confirmed as co-housing so such as congregate meals resident community management a non-hierarchical decision-making um and and this development does not meet the co-housing definition they were recommending that to the council that the two affordable parcels be provided on site so we have two two alternatives here um the proposed project originally consisted of two alternatives site plans that involve demolition of the grippian church and subdividing the site alternative one um the original proposal and alternatively preferred by the applicants consists of subdividing the parcel into 12 individual single family parcels surrounding a common ownership uh parcel in the center this option requires an honor of the dental demolition authorization permit to demo the church and a tentative map uh individual property owners would develop each lot separately with a single family home following the approval of the final map alternative two um was developed by the applicants in response to the planning department's recommendations to maximize the density on the site consistent with certain general plan policies um pursuant to the l or low density residential general plan designation the maximum 16 units can be constructed on the property alternative to um the the alternative that's preferred by the planning department consists of subdividing the parcel into 10 individual single family parcels and one lot with uh six condominium units all surrounding a common ownership parcel in the center this option requires a demo permit plan development permit to allow the multifamily and the r15 single family zone district um with concurrent multifamily and adu construction as well as lot size lot width and setback reduction that also requires a design permit and also a tentative map so just prior to the planning commission meeting the applicants withdrew this alternative two option from their proposal but staff continues to believe that alternative two is more in keeping with the general plan policies aimed at promoting maximum densities filter diversity and sustainability um as I mentioned the general plan designation is low density residential it allows for a one to one one point one to ten dwelling units per acre so based on the 1.62 acre site it would allow a range from two to 16 units on the parcel therefore both alternatives are consistent with that designation as I mentioned there are several general plan policies that speak to maximizing density um the lu lu 3.7 talks about encouraging higher intensity residential uses and maximum densities uh another policy talks to allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the general plan land use designation density um also policies about foster land use patterns that balance economic housing community and environmental needs um also talks to using plan development for clustering of units um and then also land use patterns street design parking and access solutions that facilitate multiple transportation options so that's one of the these are some of the reasons that we are supporting um the alternative two which with the higher density so while alternative one meets a requirement of our one five zone district in regards to proposed single family uses which is five thousand square foot lot sizes minimum 50 foot lot width um only 12 lots are possible under these development standards um alternative two the project would maximize the density and number of units allowed on the site provide varied housing types to promote social diversity encourage a sustainable and healthy lifestyle given the project bikeable walkable nature due to both proximity to commercial uses job centers such as the west side industrial area the downtown as well as the recreational amenities that um such as west cliff and uh surrounding parks the site is also in close proximity to public transit stops thereby further promoting sustainable transportation by the residents going through some of the proposal um as I mentioned there's a non-residential demolition authorization permit we've already talked about the church um and determined that it's not not did not qualify dork also we have a tentative map for both as involved as part of alternative one and two alternative one would include the subdivision the project into 12 5 000 square foot single family detached residential lots with the one ownership lot in the middle they'd be roughly pie shaped and arranged around the central common area lot alternative two would include subdivision the project into 10 4 933 square foot lots little smaller than 5 000 required under the r1 district as well as a almost 11 000 square foot lot which would house the six condos and four to use and then also the common area lot in the center the plan development would be required um and the intent of the plan development permits is basically to allow creative and an innovative design to meet the public interest in general plan goals more really than through just conventional zoning regulations so in this case alternative two would require a variation to the r1 standards to allow the six unit multiple family condominium development and 4 to use allows the lot less than 5 000 square feet less than 50 so width would allow for reduced front setbacks for the single family residences as well as a reduced front and reset back for multi-family the part of this is a design permit for the multi-family there would be two separate two-story structures that would house the units as well as eight garage spaces the both side design is fairly simple and balanced with a shared interior driveway that separates the structures and four of the units are oriented toward or in circle with two of the lower floor units having front porches facing the street so the building designs have a kind of a simple contemporary architecture with sufficient articulation and compatibility with the surrounding single family neighborhood they include architectural features such as porches and balconies dormer windows and belly bands to really balance the height and mass of the buildings for them to be compatible with the surrounding single family homes and approximately 25 feet in height they fall within the 30 foot height limit allowed in that single family zone district as I mentioned there are some reduced setbacks for the front and rear as Leah mentioned this isn't kind of the the circle neighborhood isn't kind of your standard r1 district in terms of minimum 5 000 square foot lots it's made up of a lot of small substandard lots averaging approximately 2,800 square feet in size so this really translates to a higher density than most r1 districts within the city and in comparison if this project were to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of density the site would probably would accommodate approximately 25 units and potentially 50 if you included 80 used with that wanted to mention that in recent conversations with the applicants they expressed some concerns with the ability to finance and develop the multifamily portion of the project as it currently is designed this especially is a concern in the midst of the current COVID crisis and so it was therefore requested that we allow some flexibility with the design of the multifamily so they wanted to be able to allow a detached or townhome style design staff is supportive of that and wants to allow them some flexibility for them to to be successful and so we've crafted a new condition that does allow some flexibility in the design of multifamily for the alternative to project it basically would allow for them to submit for a minor modification that would that would allow for them to redesign the common infrastructure and site layout so staff would review that as a formal application and also as part of that we've implemented in the condition some flexibility in terms of construction timing that is laid out in some of the other conditions so this is something that's fairly new that was discussed just recently and we wanted to recommend this as part of the project as mentioned part of the view there was a historic termination of the site um included three advisory recommendations regarding the project and the city council also supported that when it went through that review process for the historic designation and those three were that the project design includes some type of open space of the focal point of the Woodrow Avenue view shed that the project includes historic interpretive plaques and that the street pattern be retained so um an open space has been designed into the subdivision at the focal point of Woodrow as you can see here also the open space includes a garden botchy court and then access to that central common area and also a condition of approval has been included that requires a four historic interpretive plaques being displayed around the site for the public to view the plaques would provide information regarding the history of the circled neighborhood including origins of the concentric design of the area the original tavernacal church and the historic development of the Garfield Park neighborhood so the design and content of those plaques would be coordinated with historic preservation commission and as you can see as proposed the street pattern is is remaining unaltered the general plan is a variety of policies that support quality designs such as the following that are directly applicable to this project the subject parcel is very unique in its shape and surroundings and so located at the center of the neighborhood it's a visually significant location with four intersecting streets the design standards have been included in the conditions of approval that address the inclusion of front porches um conditions that call to diminish the visual impact of the garages as well as address proportions and massing of homes at each of the street terminal a total of 18 trees are located on the site of which nine are identified as heritage trees five of the trees to erude our heritage trees that are in fairly poor condition with severe structural defects the city arborist has reviewed the arborist report and agrees with all of the findings regarding true removal also in terms of site improvements there's new curb gutter and sidewalk proposed with a relatively large five foot planting strip located between the gutter and generous seven foot sidewalk the applicants the application was deemed complete prior to the current inclusionary ordinance taking effect so therefore both alternatives require a 15 percent inclusionary requirement for sale to low and moderate income households so based on the 15 both alternatives calculate to require two affordable units for alternative one um providing two lots as inclusionary is fairly impractical as eligible households would likely not be able to afford both the purchase of the inclusionary lot in addition to securing a construction loan to build a house on the parcel so given the uncertainty of the sale and development of two parcels coupled with the fact that in lieu fees could be leveraged to achieve significantly more than two single family detached units the payment of in lieu fees would be a preferred option for alternative one for alternative two an onsite option could be accomplished through a for sale de-restriction on two two-bedroom multi-family units coupled with the rental deed restriction on two of the associated ADUs so this could be a good option for the city to consider since it provides four units including two de-restricted rental units however the arrangement with a de-restricted purchase and a de-restricted rental included within that purchase is fairly complicated and the city is actively pursuing several affordable housing development proposals and contributions to the affordable housing trust fund in lieu fee payments in the short term could be leveraged to create a more affordable unit than what could be provided onsite so there are some timing issues with leveraging those funds as described in the staff report so there's there would be a need for an accelerated payment um but the in lieu fee option may be preferred for alternative two speaking also in terms of inclusionary um sorry for all of the writing on here but I just thought I would get it down here um certainly not going to be able to read all of that but we've this is a uh a revised inclusionary condition um that we've included it involves both alternative one and alternative two I know there's different conditions there's uh both alternative ones you have different um numbering in terms of some of their conditions but uh this is a inclusionary condition that we're recommending that we've changed up a little bit um in negotiations and discussions with the applicants to address some of the inclusionary requirements and I was just going to mention that we uh both uh Jessica DeWitt with our economic development department who is available for any questions regarding inclusionary if you have any after the presentation Ryan if I could just jump in for a second on this revised inclusionary condition I think one of the important uh distinctions between this and the prior version was that our economic development staff found out actually yesterday afternoon that the grant that we are able to utilize to match the funds that we have in our affordable housing trust fund that grant um we previously thought that we had to have the monies actually deposited um before the grant deadline and what our economic development department found as of yesterday was that we don't actually need the funds deposited instead we need a formal agreement that says here's how much the funds are going to be here's when they will be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund and here's what happens if those funds are not deposited and so based on that we revised this condition to reflect that we can still get the matching grant funds in alternative one or alternative two if that agreement is in place with a specified timeframe so that's really the the essence of what we wanted to capture here um and then one other thing that I would point out here is under alternative two we also specify here that if the applicant wants to do independent individually financed airspace units on the multifamily property so this is where Ryan and I were both talking about if they go to say for example detached units six detached units along with four accessory dwelling units on the multifamily property those could actually be sold as lots and in that instance this condition would say if they don't and this is at the bottom of this under alternative two it says if they don't provide the in lieu fees then they could dedicate three of those airspace areas to Habitat for Humanity or an alternative um non-profit developer and then they would develop that property and we we've heard from the developer that Habitat is not interested in purchasing properties so if they they put properties up for sale Habitat isn't in the position to purchase those but if they were given properties then they may be interested in that they would be interested and that's something you can confirm with the applicant that's a conversation that they've had so I just wanted to provide a little bit of context for why that changed I know there's a lot of text there and we're happy to leave it up there either now or later if the council would like to go back that to go back and dive into that and read that but those that was the intent behind the change there in terms of environmental review an environmental checklist was prepared by due deck to analyze the project and determine consistency with CEQA based on the checklist and pursuant to public resources code 218 3.3 and state CEQA guideline 15183 no further environmental analysis is required in addition to those assessor exemptions the project can also be considered to be exempt from CEQA under a category of exemption 15332 as an infill development as I mentioned both alternatives are consistent with the L low density residential designation there are many general plan policies that directly support alternative two over alternative one because it maximizes the density at the high end of the general plan designation it promotes social diversity by offering lower priced housing options and achieves a higher degree of sustainability by more efficiently using land and by providing more housing options in area where healthier and more environmentally friendly transportation options such as pedestrian bike and transit are convenient particularly given the central location of the site in close proximity to various amenities so these policies are really the basis for the community development department's support of alternative two and it is recommended that the council approve the project consistent with the plans for alternative two subject to the recommended conditions of approvals and findings and that concludes my recommendation my presentation and mayor if I could just add one additional thing and that is you know we talked about consistency with the housing accountability act before and I just want to and that is in your report but I want to be clear because some of the members of the public may be listening or watching and may not have the benefit of having read our report and that is that the housing accountability act actually specifies the ability of councils to approve or deny projects and they specify specific criteria under which a council may deny a project and while we have debated over whether or not alternative two in and of itself would violate the housing accountability act it is clear that if the council were to deny both projects that would be inconsistent with the housing accountability act and so we are looking for the council to not take that action this evening which would be inconsistent with the housing accountability act so we're happy to answer any questions that you have about that or the project itself that was a pretty lengthy conversation and to develop the applicant will additionally have 10 minutes to speak and I just want to make sure that if there's any questions right now that can be addressed before we hear from the applicant I just think it would be good to provide you all with an opportunity so with that I'll turn it over to council member Matthews and your meeting. I'm unmuting here thank you. Many questions but most immediately Lee could you go back to that very last PowerPoint that I asked you in the council meeting. Sorry yeah let me uh sorry let me bring that up again. Here you go. The very last one. The very last slide or which which slide are you looking for? I think it was the one you just showed last. The recommendation? Yeah yeah okay that one. So I know that the staff preference is for alternative two. The applicants have asked for alternative one and two and I believe the staff has said they uh they can make the findings they can live with that so my question would be if we were going in that direction. The things that would be in common would be acknowledging the environmental determination, approving the non-representation, authorization permits, they'd be different tentative maps, etc. So at one at what point are they in common at what point do we have to you know alter the language to reflect both alternatives? I need to know that right now but that that'll be a question to come up as we move down the line here. Lee you're not in your head you see where I'm going with that right? Yeah absolutely and to approve alternative one it would just be the non-residential demolition, authorization permit and tentative map you could say associated with alternative one and then all of the items that are shown on the screen here associated with alternative two. Yeah thank you. I have a question about the renderings for the proposed multi-unit projects. Who created those? How did those come about? Were they from the circle of friends in consultation with the planning department or elsewhere? Those were prepared by the applicants, circle of friends as part of the alternative two and so they hired architects to prepare those site plans and elevations and floor plans. Okay thank you. I have lots of questions but I think I want to hear from the applicants first. Okay yeah Ryan could you go to this slide the new slide on the inclusionary? The condition? Yeah on the condition yeah so down at the bottom it discusses the airspace option that could be sold or developed and so the number of those are is still at the six correct? As is in the original alt two or is alt two okay six condos and four 80s so okay so there would still be you would still retain those 10 units and then in the very last sense it says in an in-loop fee is not you if an in-loop fee is not used for alternative two and a single project is developed as is contemplated in the current alternative to multi-family project design then two two-bedroom condo units each with an associated ADU shall be sold so that those two two-bedroom units and the associated ADUs would come out of the six. I'm just trying to make sure I'm following the math here so that in the bottom the last sentence reflects back on the original six units but two of which would be sold to of the condo and two of the 80s would be sold at affordable rate is that correct am I reading that right? I believe that is correct Lee did you get all that is that do you agree with that? Yeah Jessica DeWitt and the applicants and I were going back and forth on this today and yes that is correct councilmember Myers and we have the the applicants have agreed to that I think you know they are thinking that if they move forward with the multi-family option whether it's approved in alternative two by itself or if they choose to as part of an option that they would go with an alternative means by which units are individually financed they they this is what the current condition what you previously had I should say this is consistent with the previous condition so so based on the alternative two that we saw before that last sentence is what we were contemplating and the condos it is tricky because the condos would be sold with an ADU and then the ADU would be rented with an affordability would be rented okay okay so that life last sentence really reflects the proposal that has been moving with with the project all along it's it's the sentence before that lays out these individual units you got it what is what what is the number is is the inclusionary condition still number whatever the number is on that number doesn't change the number would not change okay thank you you all have a slot up um thing allowing and encouraging uh higher density I think it was I'm not sure which slide probably consistency with general plans yeah here's some of the general plan policies that encourage uh maximizing density so I have a question with regards to and I might need uh city attorney weigh in on this as well with regards to just this whole application process because it sounded like the way that this is gone was that there was an initial application staff worked with the group to have a second application over time the applicants felt like they couldn't you know afford to do what was in the alternative in the second application so they withdrew their application and so technically there's only one application currently on file even though we've kind of gone through the steps of developing that application that application technically is not on file and so I'm just kind of curious around our ability to take action on an application that is not on file with the city currently and so I was wondering maybe if the city attorney could speak to that or um if somebody from the planning group could speak to that yeah I'm happy to weigh in and then Lee um I had some views about that too potentially you're right the applicant at the 11th hour decided to withdraw the application for alternative two which was the application that was favored by the by the planning staff and so you're right technically application number two is not before you and so the recommended action although the terminology has been sort of tossed um around a little bit would be to approve the application with modifications as recommended by staff and so um I think that's the distinction and so you know with a lengthy letter submitted on behalf of the applicants that addressed that issue I think Lee did a good job of summarizing the city's arguments in favor of the approach that's recommended by the staff obviously there is a little bit of uncertainty there given some slightly inconsistent language but that's that's how I look at it is that really what's being proposed by the staff is the approval of the project with conditions that modify the project density and the number of units and whatnot to further the policies inherent in the general plan with regard to um desirability of increasing the housing stock in the city and then I'm sure Lee would like to collaborate on that so I would I would just say thank you Tony that that's that's accurate the the applicants submitted we had talked with the applicants early and so their initial submittal included both alternatives and I would say you know um you know we'll hear we'll hear from the applicants it's a little odd now that they're asking for for both alternatives so it's it's even unclear now is that second alternative technically uh no longer withdrawn um I I think you know as Tony explained um from our perspective the way that we're approaching this uh of um not denying the project that they have presented but rather approving that project and um having a condition of approval that um modifies it to be consistent with um the second alternative with the multifamily lots I think that's the the distinction that um that we believe puts us in a consistent approach with the housing accountability act whether or not that second application is technically on file which I think is is debatable one way or the other right now um given that the applicants do want to get approval of of both of those okay we think either way though what we would be doing today is if we were to be moving forward we would be approving the application that's on file and there's the potential so that's technically the first alternative but then also um including that the applicants would be able to modify that application so that it matches the second alternative that was included in our packet that you all had discussed at a point in time that is one of the alternatives I would say the council tonight has three outcomes that would would give a final approval to the application tonight the first could be simple approval of alternative one the second could be alternative sorry approval of alternative one with the condition that it matches um alternative two so it is essentially approving alternative two with the applicant having the discretion to pursue whichever one they see fit and I think as I'm expecting we're going to hear from the applicant that's what they would like to have that maximum amount of flexibility to um to pursue the the mix with single family and lot with um six condominium units and four ad use weigh it on this because um you know we have a letter from their attorney where um you know they even have one stated how that application is consistent with uh planning codes neighborhood characters supported by the neighbors and they mentioned in this letter from the attorney that the approval of two would violate the housing accountability act to expose the city's liability it sounds like they're kind of moving uh towards you know potentially having us uh approve both alternative one and two but my concern is is whether or not the community um given that there's only one application on file might also file a lawsuit against either the city or the applicant in violation of the housing accountability act and so is there any exposure to liability on that end I'm quite sure uh under the city does not approve alternative two I'm not I don't quite understand your question if the city does approve alternative two right with that potentially because you know their attorney is laying out that we could violate the housing accountability act and put us at legal liability they might not want I mean it sounds like they want us to go in that direction but then could the community technically say that um by approving alternative two the city actually violated the housing accountability act because that wasn't what was in the application and as a result put us in a situation where we're facing lawsuit or potentially the applicants there is a there's language in the housing accountability act that uh that gives some uh causes of action to individuals who might um have benefited from the housing development that's proposed that's consistent with a local zoning code but as to your specific question I would need to give that a little bit further thought and I'm happy to work on that as the discussion carries forward and hopefully I can provide you with a more thought out response before the end of this meeting um so that's something that hadn't occurred to me and I we haven't discussed it internally either but let me take a look at that and I'm happy to follow up as the meeting progresses thank you building building on Tony's comments there I would say that you know if if someone were able to argue that they were adversely affected because of a lack of housing supply that would be provided that's actually the opposite of what would be happening in the situation here alternative two would be providing more housing and a more socioeconomically diverse base of housing and so I think that's part of the challenge here is what we're trying to do is actually what is the intent of the housing accountability act the housing accountability act specifically says that cities cannot reduce the number of housing units if the project is meeting the objective standards of the general plan and zoning it does not say that the city can't increase it and so you know the the act is structured in a manner to to prevent cities from having less housing and we're kind of doing the opposite of saying you know we should have more housing here so I don't know if that helps your thought process there Tony but I thought I would share that would you put the slide up that talks about the environmental impact I think it was getting was environment I'm not yeah environmental review everything fine with alternative one if I look at alternative two it seems to me we have to change the zoning because it's our one and and with the idea of a multiple unit changes that and the design also creates a lot of several substandard lots which I think in our general plan or maybe I'm I'm so been away from from the general plan of some of our ordinance but clearly we are not I think it's an ordinance and we are not oh subdivision may not create substandard lots so there's two things with alternative two that to me kick in looking at sequel because they are unusual and I think if they're unusual things that it's just a regular subdivision there's two major zoning and planning is zoning I guess I should say that we'll think that they want to kick in to do number two so I need an add you know I want you to think about does that now and should it require us to really look at the secret impact because that neighborhood does not have any multi unit housing none this is really a change and it will have an impact and somebody's got to look at that impact and and of course the other one creating all these substandard lots which clearly says that we are all new subdivision should not create a substandard lot so I think this is the question for our people and I'm anxious for the applicant to get to speak but I think this goes to the heart of what we are saying or our people are planning department people are saying and so I mean I can and I can answer that question for you so yeah I mentioned earlier the plan the plan development permit that's part of the alternative to proposal I'll only go back to it so the plan development section of our zoning ordinance does allow for variations to our zoning development standards and so that that's where that is the function that's the tool we're using to allow the lots less than 5,000 square feet to allow lots less than 50 foot in width and to allow for the multi-family within the R1 district so the the plan development section of our zoning ordinance allows for all of this so it would not require zone change or any of that and and I should mention that the the checklist the secret checklist that was prepared by our environmental consultant basically did a review for both alternatives it includes both so it was the sequel review was covered for everything so now alternative two is called the P is called the plan development correct you know we we all concentrated on one and not two because the applicant doesn't want to but through it so I guess everything's out of balance with our paying attention and looking at it carefully I did not know that we were predicting a TUD on that because we're just getting it tonight the I think that that's the only one I have right now I believe yeah my only questions I can wait till after the applicant thank you thank you mayor I think my questions were sort of in line with your line of questioning in terms of the process and so my interpretation of the agenda report and the housing accountability act is that we can't deny the project and in terms of being in compliance with that act so at minimum alternative one needs to be approved but what I'm hearing in terms of the options at this point is that we at minimum approve alternative one or else we would be held liable but we could potentially have additional alternative two aspects included and then as my understanding correct is correct from you Lee is that then alternative three would be that we don't mandate alternative two but essentially that there's discretion between that minimum one and two is that still because I don't think I've I've seen a an application like this come through with just sort of the two alternatives that's correct you outlined it correctly the alternative one could be approved alternative two as a function of alternative one could be approved and then the third alternative would be to approve both okay and then but both and to my understanding to sort of those line of questioning that that council member fires was was that alternative one and two had both been sort of vetted if you will to kind of meet our standards at this time that's correct so the the two applications sorry the two alternatives were submitted together and then they were considered concurrently up until you know roughly a week before the planning commission hearing and so both of them were were lined up and ready to go and then in terms of the community outreach in regards to both alternatives they were in play intelligence recently is that accurate that's correct you can Ryan do you want to speak to that I didn't quite understand the question was it that alternative two was was that considered that first community meeting oh the first the community meeting that happened in December of 2018 yeah I think if I may maybe just for a little bit of clarification I think my I'm just trying to get is has so both alternatives have been part of this kind of conversation that's evolving conversation over the past several years is that I mean that that feel accurate in terms of how it's been vetted by our city department but also as it's been kind of vetted through our community engagement process well I think for the first community meeting they actually had a community meeting prior to them submitting the application formally and so they they basically introduced themselves and introduced you know I think just at that point it was just the 12 lot concepts alternative one and then through converse further conversations with planning staff and encouraging them to maximize density they came up with and develop the alternative to to maximize the density and then that's what was formally submitted both both alternatives as part of a formal application and then I know they had meetings through the summer of 2019 where they invited I think they had a weekly Wednesday night meeting or something like that where they invited people to come and speak and I I think that that they presented both alternatives to people during that time period and then obviously it went to HBC and Planning Commission so the two alternatives you know have been around you know since I think the original application which I think was in the early 2019 thank you we go back to the mayor's question from just a minute ago because I identified the language that I was referring to Brian if I could share my if you could stop sharing your screen for just a second while I show it yeah language that I was referring to council I'm going to show on screen here is part of SB 330 and that is not it um is my screen showing now with the highlighted language yep yep so SB 330 at subsection K18 Roman numeral lowercase 1 says the applicant or a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or a housing organization they bring an action to enforce this section and if in any action to enforce the section of court finds that any of the following are met the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause 2 and um Roman numeral uppercase 2 below that says the local agency in violation of subdivision j disapproves a housing development project complying with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria or impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density and the argument that's been propounded by that's been put forth by staff here is that it's not recommending that you disprove the project and it's not recommending that you develop the project at a lower density it is in fact recommending that you develop the project at a higher density um and so then that calls into question the the issue of feasibility and so the applicant has made an argument that alternative 2 is not economically feasible but has yet to provide any objective um evidence upon which debate that assertion so that's where we stand if there is a possibility although it's very I'd say it's very unlikely but there's a possibility that a third party who um feels agreed by the decision could try to mount the challenge based on this one yeah thank you brother okay just to add a wrinkle yeah i'll turn it back to uh another map use thank you uh in the discussions of density in alternative one there's just been consistently talked about the 12 single family homes but not where the abu's associated with those homes come into the figure so i'm wondering if you can assess that it's been part of the discussion all along um how those might be um built into the plan if there's a way to do that and then secondly so the two questions in alternative two um there's the version that has been going through the the pipeline at home but now the applicants are proposing a variation which would be either colleges or townhouses on individual small lots which appear to be an acceptable variation um through the department staff so i just want to make sure that uh variations are alternative to um kept alive in the discussions as we go forward thank you uh council member wacken thank you mayor i i apologize um tony i i wasn't really clear on what your determination or sort of um assumption was there but if i'm reading the housing accountability act directly based on what we have in our agenda report it would be more so around us not approving ultimate infill as opposed to the alternative of approving infill right i mean it's basically trying to promote more it's saying that we can't go again more infill so i i um question i don't follow your i don't think i follow what you're going to in terms of legal liability if we improve well if you think about the letter that was sent by the applicant attorney on friday they did take the position that if city were to approve alternative two and not alternative one as they proposed that that would violate the housing accountability act and i don't want to repeat the arguments that are made in that but uh essentially that's their argument and so if you give that argument credence then um it's theoretically possible that a third party not the applicants themselves but another person who uh wants to potentially buy or live in one of the one of the units that maybe eventually constructed there could take a shot at a claim under the housing accountability act based on the language that i just um read in read for the count all right uh calcuma brown yeah i i i really do want to hear from the applicants before we carry on too much more but i just wanted to follow up and and try to clarify um the question about the housing accountability act to me is i mean it's unlikely that we would get a lawsuit of that kind but um i think it's important to recognize that there may there's a possibility there but i think really the the issue was related to the feasibility of the project getting done so if we put you know if we if we're requiring alternative two and it's not feasible financially for the applicant then that means no housing is getting built and that is a problem so i just wanted to make sure that we're clear about that um and i guess there'll be more discussion about that later um but so the so the issue to me is not about um you know getting in trouble for trying to create lower density but um getting in trouble for creating conditions that make it financially infeasible for the applicant um mayor if i may thank you councillor brown that's i think where i was trying to understand the logic behind that is that what you're saying tony essentially is that we would be creating conditions for it to be a non feasible project by adding this additional that is the applicant's argument okay expressed by their letter okay thank you councillor brown that's sort of where i was trying to go i think where i was kind of coming from was understanding that they removed that they pulled that application the second application specifically because if we had two applications before us one with higher density that's not feasible and we approved it then we put them in a position where they couldn't build a housing and that's exactly why they removed it but it sounds like now we can alter that first application and please correct me or maybe tony you can speak to what is true or not but i guess that's the overarching question can't with the current application that's before us it's on file it sounds like we can increase the density to some point to maximize it to the greatest extent possible alterations to that application since that's what is before us today and that is the that is the crux of the question that's before you tonight and the applicant attorney as expressed by their letter has taken a position that if you condition the project or that if you take action on the project other than the way it is proposed by the applicant that that would in and of itself violate the housing accountability act and that's the point of disagreement um bomb you know as i said before there are certainly ambiguities in the statute uh and and so there is some uncertainty with respect to that um that's their argument is that if you don't approve the project as it is uh submitted it's uh assuming that it otherwise complies with all objective zoning and general plan policies that are that are applicable that that would violate the housing accountability act and maybe that argument in their list and then just to follow up with that you know even if the applicants were okay with what's laid out in option number two would there be any possibility for community members to say there's not an application on file for what we'd like if we were to pass option two that application application is currently not on file of the city would there be potential for us to get in trouble for applying an application or for approving an application that isn't technically on file i think the question is whether or not a member of the public could fairly say that they were not unnoticed that the issue was for the council and you know in so far as the staff recommended it is included uh both in the um in in the agenda description and in the agenda report i don't think that's a fair statement and for the council to approve alternative two um it would be the same thing as if the council uh considered a project and approved of a made modifications to it in the members of the public are unnoticed that this is the topic before the council but not um not required to notify the public as to every nuance that the council might add as a condition or a minor modification to what's proposed thank you that that clarified council member walkins um thank you thank you mayor am i so i i guess i sort of to sort of sum it all up it seems like alternative three which is essentially approving alternative one allowing discretion to alternative two would be that um sort of sweet spot if you will in terms of um the ability to not be held uh liable for the accountability act but also to leave room for a potential uh expansion but not demanding potential expansion at this time that bill accurate is that the recommendation of the planning department given the conversations you've had today our recommendation we would still like to see the additional units for all the reasons that we've outlined related to socioeconomic diversity and um the sustainability aspects however i would say that unequivocally approval of both options without a requirement that they do one or the other leaving it to the applicant's discretion that is unequivocally consistent with the housing accountability act okay thank you and i agree with that plan director on that point i'm going to go ahead and take my hand down i my question was just answered thank you um councilor matthews and to clarify again what marquine referred to as alternative three the uh additional lot for smaller units also fulfills the planning department's interest in greater variety of types and density is that a correct statement in so far as the applicants choose that alternative they would still have an option to just develop 12 single-family homes and nothing else i would say that if the i reiterate you know if the council is leaning towards option one and we would prefer to keep the option open for the additional units so we would prefer option three to option one again uh as i talked to you earlier today option did you say option three i know three he had martin he's a council member walk-ins was referencing which was basically option two with variations on how those additional density density units are produced is that correct we still would like to include those potential variations in option two so alternative two which has the multi-family we see that it's absolutely fine if the applicant wants to provide those in an alternative manner and if they believe that it's more financially feasible for them to do that then absolutely let's include that so we we fully support that condition regardless of which stance the council takes i appreciate you asking for clarification so just for simplicity sake the alternative three would be approval of both options and letting the applicant choose that's that's how i'm seeing alternative three um as the third thing the the council could could approve tonight that that flexibility in alternative two or alternative three this time i'm going to see if we can oh council vice mayor miter sorry that's okay um i think i do want to go back and revisit alternative one um and director butler i believe you just stated that under alternative one um they can certainly build the they could certainly build the single family homes but there's no requirement under alternative one that they provide the ad use per se correct in the way that the project is now um proposed um as we have listed the condition we um require that they include a uh uh they show us on their design permit a plan that would accommodate an additional ad you that's an easy thing for them to do it can be you know an area that's converted it could be a new detached area it could be an attached area um but um under the tentative map um the requirement for adding ad use is questionable and so um we didn't we didn't go there the applicants have also expressed some concerns about um the ability of each one of those individual homeowners to be able to construct both the unit and the accessory dwelling unit at the same time and we recognized that didn't want to preclude them from doing uh from from having you know one unit developed um by virtue of them needing to develop to um certainly it's uh there's an economy of scale to develop them at the same time but if if the finances aren't there um that could be problematic for um moving construction forward on the individual unit so for all those reasons we structured the condition as we did thank you i have one additional question regarding um the communal building uh i know that they have the this group is um through their meetings with the community you know they advertise this as this co-housing project and it doesn't seem like there's a condition on when that building needs to be built and so i was wanting to see if you could speak to that because it seems like it should be if this if they've advertised this to the community as as co-housing um and one of the conditions of that is that there is a building or space or communal cooking gathering um you know meals things like that i think that it's important that we include that somewhere and and then it's and it's also supposed to be you know uh building for community space and so i'm just wondering you know what we're going to do is actually you know hold um just an accountable for you know making sure that that building gets built at some point bad ryan or would you like me to you're sorry you're you're up there i go for four we had this conversation following there was a lot of focus on this at the planning commission meeting and so we actually had some internal conversations about this um amongst our team and then we opened it up and we had uh some conversations with the applicant about this and um we don't believe that the provision of a communal building is a necessary component of a co-housing you know if they have the the center lot and if they're using that as um as common area you know there maybe it's got a bachi court maybe it has a community garden area for their residents and maybe it's got you know a common lawn area where people are picnicking together um we didn't see the um the the presence of a building itself as a uh requirement there is a provision in the code that says that co-housing typically has a common area it doesn't say that it does in um uh that it is required to have that and so that's that's sort of where our conversation went we also in talking with the applicants about that you know they weren't sure about the timing um whether or not they they want that and again we we fell back on if that common area is indeed um being used as such then we feel that that meets the intent of the the co-housing that they have um that they have advocated as you know their their component what we did as a response to that though is we recognized the the planning commission actually helped us recognize that we did need to strengthen our conditions surrounding um what the ultimate disposition of that center area is and so we added some things into the ctnr condition that spoke to that were actually pulled directly from some of the planning commission's comments and that spoke to um that functioning as a uh a co-housing space and a communal space in the center area there we just did not include the um planning commission's recommendation regarding the timing of the building you do have the option of doing that and we can uh that uh planning commission recommendation is in your agenda report and so um you can um tie that um that timing um of a communal building to um a date or to a number of permits that are issued it's it's within your purview um and I think the applicants may want to speak to that as well. Now if there's no further questions I think it'll be good we turn it over to the applicants um do a presentation I'm not sure it's nine five four four are you one of the applicants? I'm waiting to speak during public comment. Okay thank you I'll just put you back in the queue. Do I need to hit star nine again or? No I'll take care of it thank you Mel. Thank you. I believe it's a 650 number. Mayor I think it is um the one that you last named Packer. Hello, this is Caitlin can you all hear me? Caitlin are you giving the presentation on behalf of the uh Circle of Friends or is that someone else? Yep that's me. Okay, the applicants have requested 10 minutes that was something that they also received the planning commission and so uh we'll be providing them with the same and then there was another member of the public um Mr. Reeves who reached out and we will also be providing her with an opportunity to speak on this item as well and she'll also be giving 10 minutes um for purposes of acting so uh Caitlin I will turn the um turn the discussion over to you. Thank you thank you Mayor Cummings and thank you council members for listening to our presentation and for helping us out through this very nuanced project um I'm hoping that our slide is up on the screen. Okay great so um yeah my name is Caitlin Wilde and I'm one of the Circle of Friends and we purchased this property two and a half years ago um with the intention of creating a communal green co-housing community and our vision from the very beginning was to buy together and build together and create together what we couldn't do individually. Next slide please. So this is us so Circle of Friends um locals uh that's me on the left this is normally in the presentation where we would introduce ourselves but this is the best we can do um I've been in Santa Cruz for 20 years I own a local business and out there in the company um Mark Thomas there up on the upper left um local teacher um raised us three kids here um serves on the board of the Save the Waves coalition Alex up top is a retired businessman lives down in Big Sur Joe Combs raised here in Santa Cruz small business owner and Brett Packer who's six feet away from me right now has been here what 40 years um owns a local construction business and Dwight on the bottom here is a former firefighter and Jenny Born and Raised in Santa Cruz is a local business owner. Next slide please. So this is our original plan plan A this is a plan that we prefer this is a plan that we feel like provides us with the most flexibility um it's zoned for well actually sorry next slide please. As you can see here the the zoning all of the yellow is for R-15 so our project is compliant with the R-15 zoning um next slide please and we are we are a co-housing community so there's been a lot of questions I know um about what is co-housing and really what co-housing is is it allows people to develop affordable housing and risks within with an abundance of social capital so like I said in the beginning buy together build together be together this is something that we couldn't do as individuals so by working together and investing together we plan on through sweat equity and being a grassroots bootstrap group we can build homes on the west side that we wouldn't be able to afford to do otherwise. During this COVID crisis it's really reminded us of how important community is and we want to stay close to our friends and family and share meals and gardens and we intend on doing all of that. We recently had a Zoom meeting for folks interested in buying and to buying a share of our co-housing community and we really believe in stewarding the legacy of the circles and keeping with community building and inclusion. Next slide please. We also plan on building green so we plan on meeting and exceeding um lead standards for building we plan on having solar winds we're considering 100 electrical power. Next slide please. We also are we're all going to be building our own unique homes and fitting with the style of the neighborhood and we're also going to be working together throughout the design process to ensure our homes and site layout is compliant with each other in the neighborhood. We're all planning on having front porches and a continuity of design throughout all of our homes. I'm going to pass the phone over to Brett here and he's going to talk about alternative one and alternative two so can you go to the next slide please. Hello council members and community thanks for this opportunity. We came together to purchase the property and prior to purchasing it we met with the city staff to determine the viability of a housing project here and with the R15 zoning it was clear that we could build homes here single family homes. We proceeded with this plan for 12 single family lots with an open area in the middle and presented that to the city staff early on and they um suggested that they wouldn't support that plan and um so they would requested more density and a variation in size of the units. So we went back to the drawing board and created what is now alternative two with 10 lots and six condominiums with the open area in the middle. We've also we've always been committed to building ADUs along with our homes. It's good for us and important to the community to maximize the housing potential. So with 12 homes you have 12 homes and 12 ADUs which would give us 20 40 units and I'm sure some of us would build junior ADUs as well to raise those housing opportunities. In alternative two with 10 single family homes and six condos we were you know we were willing to go along with this plan because we wanted the support of the city staff in going before planning commission in the city council and we were willing to live with it. It was fine. It wasn't our preferred preference because we're not developers and it's going to be challenging for us to build those big units and the neighborhood prefers the single family homes. Community groups have expressed that and it was going to be financially challenging for us to do alternative two. We did bring both alternative one and alternative two. I just want to correct Ryan on this to the community meeting back in November. We had both plans fully developed at that time and presented them to the community at that community meeting. We then continued through the summer with a series of meetings held at the church weekly to share our plans with the community and take their feedback. So we were carrying through with both these plans until as noted just before the planning commission meeting we took out our application for alternative two and the reason we did this was because we're all being seriously affected by the COVID-19 crisis. It's hit all of ourselves personally, our businesses, our work and we're seeing it starts a devastating economy and we are pretty sure this devastation is going to keep going and due to the conditions applied to alternative two by the staff in terms of when the units would get built as well as our own ability just to finance those units. We're not in a strong position to borrow the large chunk of money it would require to build those units and therefore we would have if had that been approved we would be stuck it wouldn't be able to go forward with either our single-family homes or the multi-family so we pulled it off the table and we're proceeding with just alternative one. As has been noted just in the last couple days we've been working closely with the planning staff and because and you know we are interested in maximizing the housing on the site we always have been hence the ADUs and the junior ADUs and we feel like we've kind of come up with an idea a plan that would allow us to be able to afford to build those smaller units if they're in a more detached form where we can do them one at one at a time rather than the block of six units all at once and so that's why we are now open to moving forward with alternative two as well as alternative one. It is very important to us that alternative one is approved tonight no matter what and we feel that state law is behind us on that and that the council is in a position where they have to approve it. We also feel that it's okay and we would very much appreciate if they would approve alternative two as well and we can continue to work with staff to fine-tune possible alternative of minor variation on alternative two and then we could proceed with that to maximize the housing on the site and provide those variation in the units. I also wanted to address our co-housing situation. We have worked together from the very beginning as a group of local people. We meet once a week at least sometimes twice a week for the last two and a half years. We work on consensus. All our decisions are worked on till he agree with them. It's been a long road for us two and a half years and three different city councils had a change in the PC. We've gone through an HPC meeting. It's been very challenging and we stay together. We continue to work together. We solve problems together and that alone is a heck of a start to co-housing. Is that the end or just close to the end? Anyways, we will be meeting in that center circle and if we have to eat on picnic tables and barbecues and use the ups until we're able to build the building we will still be co-housing whether we have a building or not. Is our intention to build a building? We want to have space for people to gather and for our people to gather. We want to share that space with the community as well. Do I need to stop? Yes, thank you. Thank you. At this time, I don't know if council members have any questions specific for the developer, the applicants. I do have a question for the city attorney. Just understanding that I mean I'm just trying to make some sense out of the actually no I'll say my question. I'm not going to ask it right now. I think at this time what we'll do is there is a member of the public who asked to speak on this item, Jess Reeves. And so I will allow you an opportunity to respond on behalf of your group and given that at the planning commission they were allowing for groups to have 10 minutes, I will also allow 10 minutes to speak and we'll pull you on the line right now. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Good evening. Okay, great. Hi. Thanks everyone for taking the time today and giving me me and my group 10 minutes to talk. I don't envy your position having to make all these decisions tonight but I'm sure you'll all do really, really good job. And yeah, so I'm Jess Reeves. I live at 260 Walk Circle and I'm blessed you. And I'm part of a group called Save the Heart of the Circles. Next slide. And our goal, our overarching goal as a group is to bribe the property at 111 Errant Circle and preserve it as a community space. And we just wanted to let the council members know something that we recently learned that there are now two potential buyers for the property. There's our group and we recently learned that the church that's currently there leasing the sanctuary is also interested in buying the property and have actually made an offer to the developers. So however, today I'm going to talk a little bit more about specifics. If the property is developed, we want it to provide the most and sufficient public benefit. So next slide. I just want to apologize before I get started because a lot of the conditions that I'm going to refer to here are based on the conditions that were put forward by the planning commission. So I had to put my presentation in last Thursday. So I didn't really know what the new conditions would be put forward by the planning department. But what you can understand is that any of the conditions that we talk about here can be applied to alternative one, alternative two, or now this alternative three. So, okay, so we really like the city council to consider keeping the amended condition 35, where there's only in lieu fees if the group is indeed showing that they are co-housing. We'd like to add a condition requiring that the ADUs be built within a certain time frame, which is something that I think councilmember Matthews kind of queued in on. We'd also like to add a condition that the public be able to rent a community building or the community space a certain number of times a year. And we'd also like the council to consider a holding the condition 48, where the demolition permit is only approved with the building permit. So next slide. So I went through and did some data analysis on all the letters and online form submissions and hand petition signatories that were done for this project. And I sort of coded them in a number of ways, but I mean we coded them versus against the demolition and for the demolition. And within the city of Santa Cruz, there's actually 268, so 85% are against the demolition and 47 or 15% are for the demolition. And that against number is actually not even including over 400 online submissions that we got from our online petition page. And all those 400, there was 2000 total, but 400 also were from the city of Santa Cruz. So next slide. And so just looking at the people who are for the demolition, so these are people that are really wanting the development, only 24% of those people were from the west side. And that's 17 people. So 59% of those who are for the demolition want co-housing on the property. 38% want ABUs on the property. And four letters included the idea of a community facility that could be rented out by the greater public. So I'm going to go into a little bit more details on these ones in the next slide. So next slide. So condition 35, as the planning commission had it written for approval, really looks at the fact that 60% of the people who are for the project want co-housing. And that's why a lot of the neighbors bought in. We're going to ask that the community building be built concurrent with the issuance of the first building permit. And if we, as the owners are saying today that it's too hard to be asked it to be built with the first building permit, well, I think Andy Schifrin really clued in on it is if we don't put a condition on it at all, then it might never happen. And so whether it's the first building permit, the fixed building permit, we really ask the city council sit down and think today, what is a reasonable thing that we ask of these people that are claiming that they're co-housing? Like what can we ask of them? And we also ask the development if it functions as a subdivision, so it's not considered co-housing, but the two affordable parcels be set aside on the site so that we can have a mixture of affordable units in our neighborhood. So if in-loop fees are recommended, it's not clear when any affordable units might be finalized by the city. So just to go into a little bit more detail on this, if we go to the next slide, this is a map on the right hand side of the map of the revised density bonus, so 100% affordable. So this is a new zoning that just came into effect this year. And if we have those two inclusionary parcels concurrent with either lot 8, 9, or 10, they would fall within that new zoning, which means that if an affordable housing developer could buy these lots or if the city could buy these lots and give them to an affordable housing developer, then no density limits would apply, which is really cool because we could have a lot of great housing right in our neighborhood. Next slide. So something that the ADU condition that we're going to ask for, so 38% of people who are for the project want ADUs so that there will be more affordable housing in our neighborhood. At the planning commission meeting, the owners mentioned that they would be open to adding the ADUs to the conditions of approval. So we're going to ask that a condition be added that requires each parcel to build their ADU within two years of the single family home permit issuance. This way, they can build their single family home, have time to get the property reappraised at a higher price point, and then build their ADU, sort of like it's a win-win for everybody. We know that the ADU is going to get built and the owners get their property reappeased at a higher value. So next slide. So this community building condition, so it was really cool because I saw four letters for the project that included an idea of a community facility which could be open to the public. At the planning commission meeting, the owners mentioned that the group was open to such an idea, which is really cool because it's the first time that we've actually heard that from the owners. This is really common in multi-family developments, which is the idea of the common room sort of in HOAs that can be rented out by the public for events. We asked that that condition be added that grants public access to the community building on a rental basis 29 per year for functions and public events. And you know, this is once again this idea of having community gathering spaces is very well supported in the general plan. Next slide. So onto our last thing is condition 48. We asked that the demolition permit only be given once the first building permit is approved. The planning department has set it right now with the grading permit, but that's not what the planning commission originally approved. We do not want a huge empty lot sitting vacant in our neighborhood, possibly for one year or more. As the owners have said, their financial situation may be precarious and who knows what could happen to their funding. And you know, the church is currently being used. The offices are being used by businesses and once the shelter and place orders are lifted, there's a good chance that kids will be in the gymnasium once again. So next and final slide. This is a final remark. I think our group really feels like it's not the job of City Council to help developers with their poor real estate decisions. It's really the job of City Council to make sure that the developments that do occur benefit both the owners and the greater community. And I put links in there for each so you can access the data I analyzed in the Google Drive file. And also the bottom link is for the map of the new zoning permit that would hit the top part of the circle. Thanks very much for your time today. And I really appreciate all the work you're doing on this. Thank you very much. At this point in time, we're going to move into public comments. If you're interested in commenting on the 111 Eric Circle, if you've called in, please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. When it's your time to speak, you'll hear an announcement that you've been unmuted and the time will be set to two minutes. And also there should be a number of lists of phone numbers on your screen. So if you haven't already dialed in, please follow the instructions and again press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and you'll be acknowledged by the City Council. Okay, thank you. Hi, Mayor Cummings and Council Members. My name is Sue Powell. I have lived on Wilk Circle for 37 years and that's a block away from Eric Circle. I've been working with residents of the Circles neighborhood since November 2018 in efforts to protect the Eric Circle Church from demolition. We do not want to lose this significant community asset that has provided decades of great community benefit. I emailed the City Council petitions with a total of 2,484 signatures from people requesting protection for this iconic site. 655 of those signatures were collected from Santa Cruz City residents, 243 on paper and 412 online. The great majority of these 655 signatures are from neighbors closest to the proposed demolition subdivision and development. I also attached a document with a map of the Circles neighborhood and listing of the paper petition signers organized by street names. So I think that's a pretty impressive way to understand the opposition to this project. I have two issues to bring to the attention of the City Council. My first concern is about the zoning exemptions that would be required for the higher density multi-family units proposed in alternative 2. From my understanding these exemptions would cause significant environmental impact by fundamentally changing the physical character of our single family neighborhood and we believe it would not be legal under sequel law. The second concern is one that Jess already touched on. It's about the timing of the demolition permit application approval. When the City Planning Commission reviewed the development project in April several commissioners mentioned that they doubted that the developers would be able to secure construction financing during the current economic downturn. It is important for the City Council to know that our neighborhood group has initiated fundraising with the intention of offering to buy the property and manage it as a community center. Because of the possibility that the owners may sell the property in the near future, the Circles neighbors would like to request that the City Council delay the approval of the demolition permit application approval for the project until the first building permits are issued. This would leave a window of opportunity for the Circle Church to be purchased for the good of the community. Okay, thank you for considering our concerns. All right, thank you. And again if you just joined us, if you can press star nine on your phone that will allow you to raise your hand and then we can acknowledge you for public comment. Patricia Combs, I'm a Felton resident. I'm the mother of Joseph Combs and I raised my kids here in Santa Cruz. I lived in Santa Cruz for 91 through 2008 and now I'm in Felton. But I'm really, I support the Circle of Friends, I support the current choice they have which gives them the most financial flexibility and planning flexibility which the Planning Commission is in favor of and the planners and you know I think that all these changes is because of the you know rigidity about the community housing building and requiring like the some are mentioning that they have daycare this and this and this a co-housing does not depend on a building it's the people they can meet on grass if they wanted to or in somebody's home and have meals communal meals it doesn't have to be in a building so demanding the building be built by a certain timeline deadline may not be feasible because saying that half the units have to be built before and then the communal building what would if they don't want to communicate and you know it's private property and so these oppositional save the circle it's like they can accept that it's private property they have new neighbors now that they're not obligated to have events especially 20 events that's two months and you know they have to consider this is private property they have the right to peace and quiet enjoyment of their own property it's not going to be a park it's not a community center they have the library there can be library space they understand that carfield park library is going to be rebuilt they can put a communal room there and rent space they're not obligated to rent space the community and the only thing i can see about the save the circle is that they're trying to derail this project and stop it so i do support local friends current choice for plan three which is a maximum flexibility my name is Freya Sands i live on woke circle please there's been a lot of new information tonight but taken to consideration not only the recommendations of the commission for planning staff and owners but all the seven 2000 plus of us who prefer that this place be revitalized as a community and spiritual center please take time to consider whether it's best for the city to support a relatively relatively small number of people over the hopes of a large community there is no going back if the heart of our neighbor who's gone that's forever thank you very much and thank you for your service good night thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this is carolin romzano and i've lived in the circles for 20 years and i too would like to request that condition 48 is upheld so that the demolition permit from 111 Eric circle not be issued until the first building permit is approved there may be still many hurdles that could cause significant delays like what had happened with the 908 ocean street project specific for this project COVID-19 financial and procedural issues potential lawsuits could cause significant delays you've heard that they're having finance problems and even the plan commission has doubt they can get funding so why demolish it to have it sit as an empty nuisance slot even after the original tabernacle burned the city took steps to prevent a nuisance slot by a dozen names and as a part another point is that the circle church is still providing public benefit with active tenants in there today so why not just let that public benefit continue for as long as possible so one final point i want to make on this is that there are groups interested in purchasing the property and maintaining it as it is to continue serving the community so if the owners would like to you know maybe take the solution it becomes impossible if the buildings are demolished so there's really no outside or justification to demolish any sooner than when the building permit is approved and i just want to touch about the community building because that has been on their drawings for the last year and a half it's something that's been promised committed to the community to the public they have been promoting providing housing for over 30 families to garner support and now they're kind of pulling the rug out from the community so i would just like to have the council members sort of consider that when making their decision thank you for all your leadership during this crazy time and so i have to say tonight my name is Steve Clay wish i live on the circle and i agree with the last callers that the plans aren't truly what they are what they were touted to be that they have been morphing to less and less interaction with the community i think a group that is trying to be co-housing and about community coming into another community and really dividing it i don't see how that is a co-housing a community oriented situation there's a block of land there's a piece of land a block away that's absolutely vacant has been for 30 years and i don't understand why they didn't develop that rather than destroying the center of our community if you do vote to go ahead with this project i would like to see the benefit since the the benefit to the community is being taken away the center of our neighborhood is being taken away it should be maximum benefit to our neighborhood by providing the maximum density housing possible and ideally that would include a green space for the public also but i know that's not possible and i know the planning department's idea of compensating the neighborhood for the loss of this property is to put plaques around the circle denoting its rich history and to me that's nothing more than a headstone pointing to the loss of the heart of this neighborhood and i i also want to thank you all for working so hard on this project and these kind of challenging times and i appreciate all the work that you're doing thanks good evening uh mayor council members just matt worked a housing program manager with monnery bay economic partnership and you saw our support letter thank you for for confirming you see of that that really does demonstrate a pretty large coalition of stakeholders business leaders residents organizations and in your community that really support this kind of development really represents where the city has decided time and time again that it wants to go in terms of in-sale smart growth and development and we encourage you to stay on that path and that the state is behind you 100 with the housing accountability act is another blanket that we can all wrap ourselves around and certainly want to comply with that both letter and spirit and i also want to say that it's been a pleasure to work with the circle of friends who requested our endorsement and have worked with us diligently to try to achieve their development in in in line with our mission and goals and i think largely have so we support them in their efforts to try to make feasible alternative to and with the baseline of alternative one so i guess now we're headed towards alternative three as council member what can just mention so that's certainly something that that we encourage and we appreciate your leadership in approving their development this evening thank you melan young i live on eric circle across from the church i just like to mention a few things regarding the the alternatives we're really in support of alternative one i think it's very characteristic of the neighborhood we're all even though we're tiny tiny lots tiny homes we're all single family homes and that's different than apartments and multi-family housing and that's why we're here i think living on eric is different than living on one of the other circles we've been right across from the church that property and seen it's ups and downs for almost 30 years i think that one thing to note is that this group and the circle of friends have been put through the ringer i mean they hit opposition every time and it seems like it's primarily just a way to delay the project in the hope that some angel is going to swoop down and buy the property back from them and i think it's just disingenuous to say that that it should be denied or delayed in order for the community to somehow do something different there and we're certainly not interested in having it the whole site purchased and being developed with much denser housing so i i think that you know we should just support the local community and what they're trying to do in these folks and and let them move for building their homes and then we'll have some new neighbors across the street thank you parts of the circle church development have done just about everything possible to avoid the property rights of the new buyers of the property they have lost in this endeavor over and over for very good reasons it's not historic and it doesn't belong to them they have zero rights and the developers plans are reasonable and consistent with zoning laws redevelopment would be an asset to the community and neighbors should be grateful for the increased improvement to a lot with an old building they could have bought it if they wanted to but they didn't it's private property and if they wish to redevelop their own circle properties in the future i hope the similar opposition to their plans equals this as that would be most fair i support plan number three and i live with a few blocks of the property thank you i live two blocks from the circle church and i'm listening to all of this there's some new information that's coming out here there are many uncertainties around surrounding this development proper project that's what i hear i hear a lot of uncertainties i hear money issues and my goodness how many alternatives are there gee i think i heard several development alternatives let me count them first there's a alternative one then there's alternative two and then there's this one where you almost have to be a twisted pretzel to get which is called alternative three and even when i heard a lady say alternative a what's a seems like there's a lot of favors being requested here they want a maybe they want three alternative three gee whiz i'm in favor of alternative leave the heart of our neighborhood as it is it's our neighborhood we get to say something about what gets developed in the neighborhood the city council is there to listen not just to one side but to everyone and the people in this neighborhood are gathering their funds together and uh hopefully the church will buy it because they're a great church and i love having a church in the heart of the west side thank you thank you very much again if you would like to address the councilman's item and you called in please make sure to press star nine on your phone so your hand is raised and so that we can acknowledge you and allow you to speak to the councilman's idol thank you very much my name is eric garcia and i am a resident of the circles neighborhood and my partner and i are both actually in favor of preservation of the church however i realized tonight is about considering two options for development we both feel that if a development is going to happen that the alternative one with the 12 units and no condominiums is preferable as it better matches with the character of the neighborhood currently there are no condominiums presently and we feel that adding condominiums would change the character of the neighborhood greatly we do recognize that there's definitely a need for increased affordable housing in the city and county of santa cruz however we feel that in the heart of the west side in the circles neighborhood is not the appropriate location for that development we yes i'm gonna ask my partner do you have anything to add nope that is uh those are our comments thank you very much for your consideration hi thank you i'm brett packer son and uh one of the developers the big scary ones and i'm a resident of the circles community i was born here i live at 326 wilk circle in the old rundown farmhouse and um i i really just wanted to talk about how amidst this coronavirus pandemic and ethanol economic collapse what we really need is options and we're considering three rule three really plans here and option three is just clearly what we need to approve because a it it allows for the ability if they have the funds which they may not because think about it the economy is collapsing so it allows for the option for both the 12 single family homes and for the option of a higher density housing which is also needed in santa cruz um and also uh for the renting it out thing it's private property i don't know if that's even legal really and just yes private property private property rights all that jazz thank you sorry about that no worries thank you speaker left so if you've called in and you'd like to speak to us on this item please press star nine on your phone um and it looks like a couple more people will join us hello all right you have uh two minutes welcome hi uh are am i on yes you are hi my name is barbara vanish i'm at the end of wood drill i'm left um i am supporting to keep uh the circles church it's been a part of this community as you know you've heard the arguments for 130 years um i wanted to speak tonight for the people who are not able to speak out um as you know it's been very antagonistic um uh dialogue between the two groups for two years now i invited everyone over to my place in the beginning we tried to talk it out um there are many elderly and um disenfranchised people in our neighborhood um that's why it's so diverse it's so great that cannot um don't even know how to work the internet so they are not able to speak up so i would like to put out a voice for them for the people who really want to keep the church it is part of this community um we have a plan we we want to keep it as a community space it will be privatized we will never get a park back in the center of the circles we will never have uh civic society in the center of the circles with this group who's moving in and we will never have all the the benefits and and the intangible greatness that has brought the community of the west side together um for over a hundred years if we lose this space so we we we ask you to please investigate how this sale happened in the beginning we're not sure it was the culture and um all the steps that have gone into it to make this happen um are a little bit um wobbly so we question that thank you my name is john sears and i have lived in the circles for over 43 years i'm not given much thought to either of these proposals because the crux of the problem for the neighborhood and community is the proposed demolition of the circle church the garfield park circles neighborhood was designed over 130 years ago to invite and facilitate gathering at the center it was an amazingly successful designer served the uh that invitation even as placeholders uses uses came and went the victorian tabernacle of city park in the current church the proposed development will signal the end of that successful design the community design sections of the general plan list a number of relevant goals that are absent in the staff report cd415 states maintain the visual prominence of important city landmarks and destinations as viewed from major circulation routes and public viewpoints when possible the circle church is the most visible church in the city next to holy cross and the only one anchoring a grand boulevard visible from west clift despite having been built by a relatively poor neighborhood its relationship with the width and alignment of woodrow its vernacular adaption of a design obviously inspired by the city hall its great sphinx like gaze along woodrow beholding land sea and sky speak of a sophistication not addressed in pronouncements of its worth or worthiness in the application or planning report the church is self evidently a monumental structure scaled to a neighborhood of small lots consistent with general plan design goals no matter how sensitively design the proposed housing the monument and the invitation to freely gather in harmony with the church and as many amenities will be lost forever please whatever the council's choice is as the favorite plan let's give further thought to the demolition itself cd416 from the city code encourages rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of architecturally significant buildings rather than demolition first let's do no harm thank you so if there's anyone else who's on the line who would like to speak on this item please press star nine on your phone now to raise your hand and then we and we'll go to the next caller okay you're online we can good evening okay my name is joseph combs i'm part of the circle friends and i grew up here and i'm pretty excited to make this happen uh one of the things that i want to address so i'm talking about the co-housing community and it being tied to us building our houses uh co-housing is not determined by a building we are setting aside a 10 000 square foot area where we can meet and have barbecues and have community there um i think that by tying that to our building permits it potentially hinder us from building housing in a timely manner um the covid is a real thing and we don't know how that's going to affect us so we just want the most flexibility we want the building and we're a hundred percent going to build it like this is our plan um but to tie it to our building permits just could potentially be a problem in the future um and we also have a plan for sharing that with community um and the plan is to have uh anybody in our co-housing community can have people come to them and if it's sponsored by one of us we'll have events so and that's not limited 20 years it can be as many as we want but um we plan to open this up to the people and have a good time there we've been talking with Will Bance and Santa Cruz yoga already we plan to have classes we plan to have community events this is a real thing um the other thing that i want to talk about is one of the conditions about garage setbacks we've been talking with staff for two years about positioning our garages away from the viewsheds because those are very important uh Woodrow, California and Young Love but the condition that sets garages 20 feet back from the street there it wouldn't really be a problem with a square shaped lot but with our pie shaped lots it bottle necks our housing and it creates a really bad design problem and uh am i am i done or you have a minute still that time's up sound so okay thank you great comments thank you guys for listening i appreciate you guys all right hey is there any other member of the public who would like to speak to us on this item if so please press star nine on your phone the members of the public who would like to address us on this item going to bring it back to council for action and deliberation um and i just wanted to start by who have come out to speak to us on this item this item has been before us a number of times and uh we've been trying to do our best to ensure that the members of the public have had an opportunity for their voices to be heard the city council has sent this to the historic preservation commission for a view it's come back to council when we were able to allow the public to speak on that as well as the planning commission and now it's here before us today um and you know the unfortunate thing is that there's a lot of obviously there's a lot of emotion around this project and i think many of us could see this in a lot of different ways personally uh when i heard that this um building at Seoul and the project was being proposed i very much was hoping you know to see this as a community center and maintain the sort of the community space that it's represented for a lot of people for a long time but um the reality is that this was private property that was sold from one person to a group of people who now are going to be in a position to decide which way it's going forward it's unfortunate the city wasn't in a position to purchase this building we definitely aren't now as we're in uh going into a really bad recession and while this is a very difficult decision we're trying to do our best to weigh what's the best option that we can provide for our community and also for the group who has purchased the property and has their application before us today and so with that i'll turn it over to uh council members and so currently we have council member brown all the council member mafios hi thank you um thanks to everybody who has been working very diligently to try to figure out how to move this project forward also to community members who have been working really hard to figure out how to maintain community benefit uh with attached to the site and i really appreciate the the effort that the applicants have made to move the project forward and i totally understand the challenges that you're faced with and the additional challenges now um that uncertainty has got to be very very difficult to to kind of think about moving forward and and i'm i'm not opposed to the request to consider an alternative way of thinking about how to achieve those additional units that makes it more financially feasible in fact i would support that because i think that looking at six smaller lots rather than one uh lot with multi-family housing with the condos that it would be more compatible with the neighborhood and so you know i'm inclined to support that but i also have you know i feel uncomfortable about making a decision uh based on uh you know kind of a last minute change material that you know we're not really looking at that plan um although it sounds great um so i have a couple of questions that i want to um just see if i can it might help me uh figure out you know get a little more comfortable with how to proceed here so um tony um i wanted to ask you um and maybe uh for li as well um we've we've heard kind of this the sense that um we must approve something tonight um and i don't believe that's the case i i and i'm not saying this because i want to delay i'm just asking the question um my understanding is we do not need to approve something tonight we do need to approve something um and so if you could clarify that that would be helpful yes uh under the housing accountability act um there are there are a limited number of hearings that the council can have in order to meet the requirements of moving projects forward as the as the statute is intended to do with intended to constrain a city's ability to indefinitely delay taking action on a project so that's part a part b is that if it meets all of the objective standards that are set forth in our regulations then the project is similarly constrained um i will turn it over to the plan director but i do not believe that we have um used up the number of hearings that were in eighths that were allowed to have in order to meet the requirements of the housing accountability act that's correct the uh housing accountability act specifies that no more than five public hearings can occur um on a project that includes the planning commission that's actually after a project is deemed complete arguably the council's December excuse me uh February meeting um while it wasn't directly on the project it did happen after the application was complete and so arguably that could be even considering that the council could continue the project should they see fit obviously the applicant is interested in in getting an approval now um for um something um that is that is their goal and they've they've stated that um so uh you do have the discretion to continue it um this evening should you choose to do so thank you my second question is for uh the circle of friends uh regarding uh a couple of things uh first i'm i'm you know i'm wondering uh because i you know i'm inclined to support and i was you know had studied up and was uh you know had read the record and listened to the planning commission um and so i was you know really focused on alternative one and i because the other application was withdrawn um so my sense was that that was what you really wanted um and now that we've received this additional information and suggestion um i'm just wondering if um you are and i know that there is the possibility of looking at administrative uh approval for the for the changes the potential modifications but i really feel like this is the council's responsibility to make that decision and so i'm wondering if um do you have an interest in trying to work through uh with the planning department uh the kind of more detail on this alternative to alternative to this variation which um council member mathie said she didn't want to get lost i don't want it to get lost either um is there a way to kind of sort some of that out and come back to us at the next council meeting you know but again i i have no interest in delaying this i think you know you've waited for a long time you've jumped through many many hoops but i do feel like the council has um a responsibility to uh you know to really consider that to deliberate you know very very deliberate about our deliberations and it's hard to do that when you just see something on a slide right before um so i i guess i'm wondering for that's one question like would it be okay to um bring this back to council for approval in two weeks would you feel better about us just approving alternative one um you know it's a little unusual to be asked to you know approve two so i'm gonna i think this is kind of an unusual question to ask you to say what your preference would be approving if the choices were approving alternative one tonight or um uh continuing this to our next meeting uh to see uh the uh tentative map and uh plan development application that reflects the changes that you've suggested for the increased density so that's one question and then the second is uh related to the construction of a community building um i understand the the time that's a building permit or the timing could make this make it very difficult and i understand the financial challenges you're facing but you also have said that you fully intend to build a community building and i'm just wondering if there's something that you can think of that you would support to provide us the city with some assurance that that will happen um because right now um good intentions but you know there's there's nothing to to tie anything to um that's actually happening and so it very well might not um so those are my two kind of uh questions for the the developers for circle of friends sorry to put you on the spot i'm going to unmute the circle of friends representatives so they can weigh in are you on the line hi this is Brett Packard uh thanks for those questions sandy so in terms of the timing you know we've been at this diligently for two and a half years now works very closely with planning staff been through many many meetings uh with staff three different council city councils um and down a historical rabbit hole that cost us three months and tens of thousands of dollars and right now we're facing that covid-19 crisis we're facing a housing crisis and um the changes that were asking for us as part of um alternative two from a six unit condo to six unit um airspace condo are very minor and actually um will impact the neighborhood less they're they're they're broken up into small bits instead of mass buildings so we we very much request that you approve we need the flexibility right now these are really challenging times and the challenging project without a covid-19 situation and with it it's extremely challenging um and we don't know what the future lies and things are happening very quickly um we're kind of we're at the end of our spring online um so we would request that you approve um definitely alternative one tonight and we think it's good for the city and the um the overall community to approve both so that we have more flexibility so that we can move on to create what's best for the city and that that two weeks makes a huge difference to us I can't get into the depth of that but it's very important to us um on the second question of the center building um you know this is about this is about our community building and um that building very important to us we're all very active in the community there's a lot of um things that we do that we want to bring to this circle into the center and a building will make it um even better but if we have to do it on a depth or a lawn for a couple years till we can get there to a building while we build our homes that's what we'll do and when we have the means to build the building we will um this is a long-term project this place is going to be here at the co-housing community for another 130 years so if we were to put conditions on us building that building I'd like to see something like five years for us to get that built and we all I guess we intend to build it I believe with the residents around it that are all part of the coa I'm not coa sorry I've been doing this a lot the HOA there eventually will be the resources that we can pool together to get it built but off the bat right now we're challenged to build houses and we want to get ourselves and our families into these houses as soon as we can and then recover from that try to get some ad use built so it's not just the building in the center it's the houses the ad use um and then we can start thinking about getting the building built and but not having a building will not keep us from reaching out to the community and having community events happen here and keeping our co-housing group from meeting in the center space thank you so I if I could just follow up with one more question about that the center parcel there because I'm as I read the conditions for alternative one in um condition 19 there is a provision that um the center lot um the development shall um you'll share equal ownership um between the single family parcels and that it shall not be sold separately or developed with the single family house and um in our conversation it sounded like you um were you know had tossed around the idea of um of selling those lots for continued community use if needed and so I'm just wondering if leaving that in um I haven't heard anything about it so I just wanted to ask you to weigh in on that um I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of selling those lots to continued community use so it so well you I think you said something about the you know potentially the gym if somebody else wanted to operate the gym um and so I I'm just I think I thought I heard that maybe I've heard you wrong um yeah um we're talking that that is that is something we've considered and as we move forward um it's it's unlikely it's it's challenging from a planning perspective um and there's many problems associated with it around parking and um so at this point we're not considering that we we are very interested in providing a space for the community to gather in our center space and we'll do that um based on like we said you know sponsorship or groups that we're already involved with or even if neighbors want to ask us for um to do something on the site or totally open to that and support over that um but at this point we're not trying to do anything with the gym as it is or the church so just to be clear then the the bullet point in condition 19 that prohibits that lot from being sold separately is is okay from your perspective absolutely because that refers to the center circle okay thank you so um I think those are all my questions I I you know I just want to while I have the uh floor I I want to just say again that I have some really serious concerns I just do not feel comfortable approving uh alternative two so uh you know option three which would include both of those alternatives um with kind of the vague notion that it may be a condos or it may end up being something else it just doesn't you know I just I can't I can't support that tonight I um am prepared to support um the you know alternative one and um I am I'd be prepared to support alternative two if we could if we can get that if something could come back to us for the council to approve rather than leaving it in the hands I mean we're essentially abdicating our responsibility here and delegating authority to the planning staff and I know that they are very familiar with the project and you know much closer to it but it is the council's responsibility to make those land use decisions and we're it's our responsibility to do that based upon uh you know the general plan and zoning on the law and the our interpretation of the law so I I just feel really uncomfortable with that I would make a motion that we approve alternative one I'm just going to go through here um with uh change which is um the the planning staff have the language um this is to take out the um July 24th date that's being acceptable um to the language that staff provided uh regarding a an agreement to pay the in-lo fee by a certain date and so I don't know if you want to pull that up um Lee or Ryan whoever has control of that um Ryan you should be able to pull that up and mayor if I could um in response to your comments uh councilmember brown you know we've got in this uh draft condition that a minor modification would be required to redesign the common infrastructure and site layout you know that could be changed to a design permit that goes to a zoning administrator hearing um you know we have quite a few uh multi-family projects throughout the city that go through that process some are approved administratively um some go to a public hearing if it's desirous of the council you could say a design permit that goes to a zoning administrator hearing that would then have the appeal ability to the planning commission and the council the minor modification um also is appealable to the planning commission and the council however um it's not publicly noticed and so there is that distinction there so um it just as an option for you to consider I thought I would mention that thank you okay so if I could um so uh requiring a design permit for um the minor modification to alternative to um we could say that that must go to the zoning administrator and so we couldn't say that that must come to the council for approval of those modifications say you could because these original approvals have gone through the council um that could be something that you um that you include okay so um if we could just look at the um thank you that's that's helpful so if we could look at the uh language um to substitute for the inlufi deadline of July 24th I think that was the last slide you had on inclusionary can you see that yeah it's yeah it's really small yeah I can open it you can make it bigger um okay hold hold up um so if I had a magnifying glass um okay so an inlufi so the applicant shall enter into an agreement whereby the total inlufi amount due date and remedies are specified in accordance with the state local housing trust fund program lines and the inclusionary housing sorry I'm having a really hard time reading this it's like so small um anyway so you so this language here um subbing that the July 24th deadline with this uh language um and then and a couple of members of the public mentioned this but and said that it was condition 48 but I believe it's condition 47 um uh uh changing the condition number 47 to read a demolition permit to demolish the church shall be issued no earlier than concurrently with the issuance of the first building permit um rather than the um grading permit so that's the first part in terms of uh alternative one and then I guess part two of the motion would be to um so it would be um directing staff to return with the details of a minor modification to alternative to at the next council meeting uh for uh for consideration by the council I would just say that the applicants aren't going to have it ready by the next council meeting you know that's going to take a substantial amount of design work I would call that out as a um a future council meeting just to provide flexibility for them um if if that pleases the council in the maker of the motion okay yeah sure at a future council meeting um I guess I just want to make sure that we get to see the because they don't sound so minor to me I understand that technically they could be categorized that way but um you know it would be nice to be able to see that before we um agree to final approval so yes instead of the next council meeting uh at a future council meeting see I'm going to see if I capture that okay so we have a motion by council member brown it's just to approve one with changes to condition 24 30 24 to take out the July 24th I think it's 34 yeah to take out the July 24th date sorry yeah 34 uh utilize the staff's language for paying in loopies for alternative one here's where you get to look confusing um design permit review is that is that for is that part of part two because we'll have the the alternative one changes the conditions starting to work to take out the July 24th date utilize the staff language for paying the in loopies condition the permit demolition condition the demolition permit you concurrent with the first building permit and then for part two to direct staff to work with the developers on the minor modifications for alternative two to return to the council at a future meeting for consideration usually I'm not sure any one of those yeah find this up Matthew's headers up before there's there's three for command I guess anyone who has a second I'd be happy to second this item um but other council members with their hands up so is there a second does anyone who have the hand up want to make a second to the motion I'd like to make a comment I appreciate this as far as it goes I think it needs more work I personally feel strongly that I would like to proceed with approving both options before us um and I'm not sure I can support this uh now because I think it's uh too limited I'd like to make other comments as well but I would like other council members to consider whether they do want to look forward with approving alternative one and to each of their own refinements that is the direction I'd like to go tonight there are other comments before before there's someone I'd like as I mentioned before I'm happy to second this but seeing the other hands up I'll move over to council vice mayor Myers yeah I'd I'd also like to um you know the staff I believe made a compelling argument both that the planning commission agenda report and uh and materials and um also has uh really I think convinced me of the importance of alternative two um I'm glad to hear that the um applicants are also willing to look at alternative two and the flexibility that could be built into that um for maximizing the potential for um additional affordable housing as part of that I feel um that the applicants have worked really hard to get where we are um delaying the decision um with the intent um to see especially without even a a scheduled return date feels very problematic I think that the applicants um have designed the project according to our codes and I feel like we really need to um think think about supporting them in making um coming back with uh you know something that's going to work um to build housing on the site and get affordable housing on the site and um yeah I really I'd really like to um basically intending to make a motion to support um just to support getting alternative one and alternative two approved tonight so that the project can move forward so um I feel like we're losing an opportunity frankly right now in uh causing further delay thank you customer buyers and then myself and then customer what um I may need to uh bread up but uh if I for me item two if we just change from condominiums to that idea of the little houses which would be more affordable I could just approve them both tonight but uh if I have to you know the idea of a condominium project is what's stumbling me and um actually what Brett would you get on the phone or however you talk I can talk to you can you do that Eric who was it that you wanted on the phone captain the applicant the applicant hi this is Brett hi hi where I stumble on two to me two is like one except a major thing which is that condominium project and I know you at least more than once and I think you even mentioned tonight that uh you were looking at having these much smaller maybe attached maybe not attached that would make all the difference to me rather than a condominium project to approve alternative two because then it would be um one and two would be a life I mean it would be the same thing uh with ad used in those old small houses that I think you showed or I saw drawing them so I I don't know uh and maybe planning staff could weigh in on that whether that if you're thinking of doing that could somehow that be done tonight so we have a second motion to instruct you to only get rid of the condos and do that if there are votes for there may not be votes for it I don't know but I think that would really move this whole project along much faster yeah so I'll answer that I'm not sure about the um protocol for saying approve alternative to this but have it approved the company little single mini lot townhouses so our intention if we go ahead with alternative two is to try to work something out with staff and through design and to do those mini lot townhomes we're not interested in building the six unit condos at all period no interest in that that's why we took it off the table but we're very interested in building the small townhomes on the mini lots and think it could be good for the city and the community and provide more housing and meet the goals that I think everybody's trying to achieve here um we just can't deal with the financial uh resources required to build the condos as a chunk right now right um the other thing I want to address is um wow that's it that's my answer to that thank you um I need Lee maybe Lee and Tony both the two of them to guide we've just heard from the applicants they won't you know they prefer not to do they probably won't do condos but they'd like to do these little houses how can we get there so the condition that we have provided actually offers that um the question is um not necessarily it doesn't sound like you're actually opposed to condominiums even though that's what you said specifically if they are small yes even though they if they're small single-family detached those can still be condominium air spaces and in fact oh I understand yes that's my design yeah yeah so so they they may be small single-family detached units with accessory dwelling units but the way that they're actually subdivided from a sales point of view is um it would be um through air space condominium air space divisions it just wouldn't be within an individual building they would be separate now I guess the question would become and um I could ask this of our legal counsel Tony um would we have the ability would we have the ability to put in the actual additional lot lines here I think that arguably we could but nevertheless if we did that we would then be putting ourselves in a position where we would also through the plan development permit have to be approving a substantial number of setback deviations and because we don't have that plan in front of us we actually don't know what those setback deviations would be. Council could say we got zero lot lines you know if you divide that one parcel into six lots you could just say well we're okay with zero lot lines throughout but that would be approving the PD without actually seeing the changes and that's why in the conversation with the applicant that actually happened this morning we suggested that well you could keep that single lot go to the detached units and then sell off those airspace subdivisions allowing for the the individual financing of those units and allowing for them to be detached or potentially it's functionally zero lot line they could have for example exclusive use easement areas that are the functional equivalent of lot there just wouldn't be an actual lot line on the ground and that gets us around the setback. Okay I think that make a back to that my only other thing I want to comment should should the vote speed there to bring this back into in the future the one thing we may be able to do is if well this is for Tony again if we just bring the design back a very modest what they're going to do so we can see it at the next meeting or as soon as possible can we do without a public hearing it would cut the meeting cut the time we simply get the report back and I remember doing this if we've had a big public hearing on a project and we just shorten the meeting enormously by just having the new design come back for that they're talking about I believe council I believe you could but what if that if that's the direction the inclination of the council what I would recommend is that you give that direction subject to my follow-up analysis and when the meeting comes back you know if I if I have to backtrack on that opinion then you would have to consider additional public comment I did not believe you would have to hear the same commentary from members of the public who've already spoken to council but I want to research that that's not a big deal I just would be more efficient if we're only talking about a little piece of this major project that's all I'm saying right understood for the purpose of the process I'm just going to second the motion that's on the floor I am just concerned back but it says like I think what we're doing right now is we're actually putting from what seems to me as well some strict conditions but saying you can do alternative one or two because there's really no flexibility in you know if we're saying it's this application or it's this alternative those are two things that you can do and I think what we're trying to get to is a place where we can have that flexibility to move away from these multi-story condos and move into these you know single either adjacently attached homes or detached homes but what it sounds like is that although that can be conceptually explained as a minor change what we are learning right now is that be due to setbacks and all sorts of other conditions we actually don't know what that can look like and that seems like it's something that is a little complicated and for the public I think that one of the things that are important is that we see these maps of how these buildings are going to be laid out in space we don't have that in front of us today so my concern is that we're going to really constrain the developers by just saying you can do either this option or this option and anything in between we really don't have a sense of what they can do and obviously they've already mentioned that they have financial constraints so it seems like if we can find a way to build in that flexibility for them to bring something back of what they can financially do that we wouldn't be stuck with one or the other or them just coming off a bunch of pieces of the second one because they couldn't afford it so that's the rationale behind why I'm going to support alternative number two and we in the room on here second I don't know if you want to comment on anything okay but I'm available to answer any questions or provide any comments if you want me to weigh in on anything okay okay Browns and Matthews and Weissman Myers um yeah so I just I want to try to clarify here because I feel a little dismayed that the response to the motion I made was suggesting that this is a real setback for affordable housing because I think what I'm trying to do here along the lines of what council member Byers and Mayor Cummings is talking about is to provide the potential for that higher density to happen in the way that the develop the circle of friends have suggested they they could see a way forward financially and kind of just for themselves for their for their own interests so I'm that's what I'm trying to get to but in making this motion and I feel like um if they have if there is the flexibility to either just take you we've approved alternative one with a couple of conditions well 47 or maybe 48 depending on how the discussion goes the votes go but um that that's that will we're willing to approve that we've we've made it clear that that is acceptable that's what many members of the community have suggested they wanted it's what the developer suggested they wanted until this morning or last night I guess and so it's not really taking away the potential to do that and then the flexibility part I think you know I want to I want to be able to provide that too but I just don't want to say well we're going to approve the plans both of those plans and that basically leaves open the possibility that they will become multi-unit condominiums I want to try to find a way to um have some assurance that a different configuration will indeed be coming so I'm okay with doing that tonight but as we suggest that that does seem to require more than kind of minor sorting it out so I'm at this point I'm a little perplexed about review the plans when we submit them as part of designer review sorry what's up Brett yeah Brett what did you can you repeat what you just said well I'm sorry I thought I commuted I said can council review the plans once we submit them if we're going to approve one and two tonight and then put in the conditions that council will have the opportunity to design review to review the plans before they're approved but go ahead and approve alternative one and two tonight and then council can review those plans before they're approved okay thank you that's that's helpful I could amend my motion or um you know start over but um either way I think that allowing the council to be involved in um approving a potential uh higher density project is important Matthews Bisoner Myers and then Council Member Watkins I'm glad to hear Sandy that you're open to modifying your motion um as I see it it's the design of the um condo component now right the um conceptual designs that we've seen already really read more like the single-family house I mean you go down and you see something that looks like the single-family house it's got four to six units in it so you know it's the outside form doesn't necessarily define but that seems to be not appealing to some people and that's the preference which I understand particularly given the pattern in the circle would be for a number of smaller houses to kind of balance out the larger single-family homes so it seems to me it's the design rather than the dividing up that's a larger parcel that's the issue and I do believe Lee correct me if I'm wrong that uh we could build in flexibility in a single motion now with the designs to come back for uh design permission set a future time we don't have to have finished designs tonight we rarely we're something like this you know we don't necessarily so Lee tell me if I'm wrong that one you're you're absolutely correct and I think we could change the language um that we propose for that alternative condition just in a very minor way to accomplish that um and I could I could email that to Bonnie and she could put that up on the screen if you'd like I think if that could get us to the point of approving one and two excepting certainly our preference for the exclusive we we talked about that and um also the option for um in the event that there's a an airspace development for individual units that that's the um our preference is that that be for smaller units to come back for design review I think that's kind of where we're heading okay I'll I'll put something together okay Justin sorry may or coming see you're muted um and I'm also hearing that the applicants would be interested in weighing in on the uh timing of the demolition as well so I'd like your opinion on that as well sure the reason why we changed it um one of the reasons why we changed it was that um you know most projects the typical condition is um at a building permit um you know we do not want sites sitting vacant um this particular project is different in that the financing is going to occur in a different manner um the financing is you know for a large project it could fall through it could take some time before we um actually see a a building get built in this instance you know there's an expectation that some of those single family homes there will be an ability to get financing for some of the single at least one of the single family homes and there are series of steps that that uh we need to go through um in terms of surveying and so forth um in advance of the construction of the single family homes actually occurring um I'd like to see Eric our assistant director Eric Marlatt if he wants to weigh in any more on that as well but that that was part of the reasoning why we had shifted that there you go you're good okay good evening mayor council members um the other concern with the uh the condition is worded and tying it to the building permit is that there's a certain sequencing that needs to happen to get the map recorded so um lots need to be surveyed um utilities need to be installed and it'd be very difficult to um do all that work with the building in place so um our thought is that by tying it to a grading permit the applicants are far enough along to where um we have pretty good insurance that that lot's not going to sit vacant for an extended period of time um they've invested in the grading and and the infrastructure and so that's why we ended up changing the condition the way we did yeah I I'm I'm encouraged by our conversation now I I feel like we're we're heading heading towards a good I had a question Lee regarding me um so if we are looking at revising the language on the alternative to for the motion um where would the where would the review of those additional we can call cottages or what would they be whatever they may be um would that come back during the design permit I you mentioned going to the zoning administrator I'm just trying to figure out do we need to put that sequencing into the motion um I might have some additions potentially for sandy to consider or council member brown to consider it if um I'm just not quite sure on the sequencing um and how to make the motion reflect that intent in terms of having potential for council review of that I could structure it at the pleasure of the council um if the council would like to see that as a design permit that comes back as a public hearing then I could do that if they would like to see that um that comes with where it comes back to the council and the council um I considers that outside of a public hearing that was the question that tony had weighed in on earlier saying you know we could potentially do that um you know there's there is a small amount of time savings in terms of the um potential noticing associated with that um and then you know that that's sort of one into the spectrum we could also go back you know it could be administrative it could be uh zoning administrator it could be planning commission or it could be council and um I can structure the the condition at the the council's pleasure so my understanding um council member brown would be that if we if we were able to work on the language on alternative to which right now um just working from the staff report would be to include a residential slash commercial demolition demolition authorization permit to demolish a church um to complete a plan development permit to allow variations such as multi-family housing in the r1 zone district and I would take out I would strike out the language referring to the six condominium units unless that's required um me I would change that to end with minor modifications as allowable under the code um the next thing would be the design permit um so I'm just yeah and and let me ask this question um with this sequence of events approval tonight would the applicants continue to to be able to keep moving rather than having to come back I know they might have to come back if we do this as a council decision for that final design but can they keep moving through for example to the design permit have that might be the place um council member brown that maybe we do have them come back I just hate to see them continue down too far and um you know have to meet a meet an issue at the at the at the last minute so I'm just trying to see where you might have um and and uh council member buyers I think I think you're thinking the same way so I'm just trying to put this into the sure about that in a place right yeah council member brown do you have thoughts on that I'm just working off of the description on the top of the of the agenda report which is um details out this sequence I typed it for myself that's why I'm looking up so yeah I so I um I agree I guess a couple of comments before we um and then I'll let other people weigh in you know I I think that that makes sense in terms of the so there's this challenge then and I'd love to hear um Lee if you want to weigh in on on the timing and sequencing because if the next time that we the council weighs in on it should the um my colleagues agree that's important if that's a design review then they the applicants have made it pretty far down the road so um with the potential for the council to um then continue to tinker with it so I I mean I guess if that's acceptable um then I'm I'm fine with doing it that way I just feel like um leaving it leaving the possibility that it would it would just be the condos is uh and multi sorry not condos multi family uh rather than the um smaller cottages is you know I just don't want to leave that I'm totally um up in the air and so the other thing that I'm um I'm just trying to kind of wrap my mind around the um the process for that because I know Lee said that it doesn't it could it could happen with one lot it doesn't need to be subdivided but what I've heard what I heard from the developers was um or the circle of friends that keep saying developers but the um the applicants um that they want the the flexibility would be in the ability to sell off those parcels and um and then uh gift the potentially up three of them to Habitat for Humanity so um I guess that so I just want to get clarification on that because um if if leaving it as one lot is not going to achieve that with their goal it would um and it's atypical it's certainly atypical to usually you would see those ground lots um but they could proceed with the sale of um of airspace rights and say all right we're going to sell you the airspace rights for lot one or or airspace one excuse me I don't want to call them a lot for airspace one um or airspace two or airspace three on that lot or four or five or six and then they could come forward with that now the one thing that um is somewhat challenging related to this is the uh the developer you know we we could for example say um come forward with the um design permits showing the new uh site layout and it could have building envelopes I think in conversations with the developer they wanted to kind of preserve their ability to have individuals design their own homes on those lots and so that could be done with subsequent design permits similar to what we're doing with the design permits for the um the single family homes in on the single family detach lots um so that could have the same thing and then the council could review and approve just the site layout um and um take that into consideration okay so um I'll leave it there for now but yes um count vice mayor mires my I'm trying to move forward with the along with you there so um we'll come back around uh we have uh we have mafios brown I think we forgot to lower people's hands oh yes um no we're at um council member walk-in inspires and then I have a couple of comments as well well I'd like to ask the um maker and second year's motion are you moving now to being inclusive uh both uh ultimate one and two direction mark now yeah I'm I'm open to that uh assuming we can add in the language uh that the this would return to council wit for design review and um Lee just said something that who's now and um looking at um uh site site plan site so site plan and design review back to the council personal feeling is that um probably the council doesn't need to do the design review for every single one that that could be done at the CA level otherwise oh my god every single one and we've seen the aesthetic that the circle of friends are aiming for um both in um the uh draft images that they present their discussion of the project even the images that they showed of what were to be the condos were a traditional look and so um I think you know they are hearing this discussion planning staff is hearing this discussion and um I think we could have the review happen at uh the lower level I don't think about every single structure has to come to the city council so Lee has said that could occur at at any level I think it's probably appropriate that it occur at a level that has public noticing but not a lot of necessarily high drama so see this each one that would be my suggestion of it like the time as well it sounds like the site plan what would be to come back to council and the design review could potentially go to planning commission because it's at the individual structure as well or even even CA yeah I would comment that the the current conditions of approval require administrative design permits for the larger single-family homes so it's obviously it's the council's discretion I just wanted to make sure that you're aware that the conditions are currently structured that it's administrative review for the family homes I'm drafting something up I'll get it to you shortly yeah I'm going to send a I'm going to send something to I'm just sending something right now to sorry to interrupt mayor and I'm I just want to add one additional condition it sounds like it came up which I think it would be helpful for the community and it sounds like the the applicants brought it up but with respect to the community building the applicant mentioned that they could potentially have that up in five years and so one of the conditions I think that may be amenable to the community and to the applicants is that we build in that they construct the community building within five years with the possibility of a one-time extension not to exceed three years and further extension would need to be approved by city council you can include that in the language as well so that if they can build it within between now and in five years that'd be great if they can't they can apply for an extension and then if they need more time than that then they have to come back to city council I think that um okay I'll keep going down the list so we have councilmember Watkins is next and then councilmember Byers okay thank you I keep raising my hand lowering my hand because my questions keep getting answered but I do want to see if possibly and I know that you've been working on what the motion would look like about how to reconcile this so for me I feel like I need to see sort of visually where we're at in terms of our options and what the next steps could be to reconcile the two sure I am just about done with the specific condition I'll email that over to Bonnie and we can get that put up on the screen for you and I'm specifically working on the additional condition that was added in relation to going to a detached condominium or some other alternative configuration so I'll get that to you momentarily and then you can wordsmith that as you see fit thank you and I think just send a draft of the motion I don't know Leah those should think up I sent it to you and Bonnie and and councilmember Brown do you do you guys want me to put it up now and then next up is councilmember Byers followed by Matthews mine is real quick I think it as I get it fine department's going to do a site plan that we will see and approve and then the design of all the units will be approved by the planning staff will come to us as the big houses are going to be so I think we already covered that I'm sure it's in your motion Donna Bonnie I just sent you the additional thing so you may want to take a look at that Bonnie I don't know if you can edit this for us hard to do on zoom that's for sure um so the site map um we would be the tentative map I'm not seeing the word site map I'm just trying to translate into some of the terminology in the motion for the doctor in the design permit sorry go ahead couple well I think uh Lisa be able to frame that motion I mean edit I think as he said we the applicant needs to do a site visit or a site map if I could just while we're waiting it I think it may make more sense to just withdraw my motion and kind of work off of this other one because they're so different now that it's going to get more confusing so if you're if my second is okay with that we'll just withdraw it and get a new motion to work off of outside of me so all right now for the record motion was withdrawn by um councilmember brown and counten mayor coming does that mean that vice mayor mires is now proposing this motion yes there's no motion on the floor so someone is willing to make a motion I would I would like to make that motion sorry I didn't have my hand up so sorry this is very hard to do with with all the hand raising but I'm happy to make the motion or or mayor I think mayor Watkins is understanding where we're heading to she has a floor so sorry oh yeah I didn't mean to take the floor I just I just to get clarity on the process because I know that you send this motion over if you do want to make the motion I'm happy to second that okay I will make the motion um that was just previously put up which basically monuments what or reflects the language in the recommendation with the changes that I'm sorry Lee I just don't know how to write into the motion what we need to be doing that's where I'm struggling um where to put that in so I'm looking at your language here um is this language here Lee what you would propose that we put into the motion for alternative to this is a condition this was a condition of approval that I was aiming to I was aiming to capture the essence of what the council was talking about with this so sounded like you did not want to have the the current design um and so I changed the may from shall you wanted to have a review of the common infrastructure and site layout at the council so that was the second change and then the third change there is identifying that design administratively approved design permit shall be required individual condominium units if that was your intent captain too yeah yeah that was fine the that's saying the planning department will approve the design right but we'll look at the we'll look at the assignment the layout the infrastructure the common area so here's where the the common driveway would be here's where we would expect the building footprints for each of these condominium units and uh I think could I just rest sorry go ahead I think uh Erin here I think that the second sentence my understanding was that the site plan shall be considered and approved by the council at a later date that layout and administrative approved design permit so I think that we would need to strike design and that second sentence and that will be a site plan yeah yeah can you read that continues to say that the site layout so essentially the site plan um you could do that through a minor modification a minor modification shall be considered and approved by the council um if you don't want to do a a full design permit that would be another option well I think we decide not to do council would do the design we would look at the site planning to fight plan so a design permit could approve the site layout or you could have a minor modification approve the site layout which is the would just change design permit to minor modification Yeah, there you go. That can stay as a design permit. Yes, that would be consistent with what we have for the other single-family homes on this site. My understanding then is that where we're at, this is one piece of a bigger motion. Tell us a number of Matthews. I want to get back since the original motion has been withdrawn, I'd like to get back to the poorer motion, the big original motion. I think what we're talking about where people seem to be headed is the resolution acknowledging the environmental determination and approving, alternative one and alternative two. Am I headed in the right direction there, Lee? So far so good. Which includes a residential commercial demolition authorization permit that has to happen in either case. And then this is where I would like language to differentiate alternative one and alternative two. Can you help me with that? And I'll just say a little bit more then I'll shut up and you can help me. But Justin made a suggestion about a time sequence for construction of the central building. In my own feelings, I'd like to hear from the applicants on that. I anticipate it will happen. My own feeling is that they made a very good case and it's consistent from what I know of co-housing projects. There's a whole lot of variation and it could be as simple as the whole clubhouse with all sorts of facilities or it could just be kind of a pop-up thing practically. We're not defining the nature of what that central state has to be. So I suspect the five years and three year extension, something's going to happen. But we don't need to dictate what form it takes. The applicants want to weigh in. So I'm happy to include that language. I think it would happen anyway. And then the other thing that I wanted to bring up was I would like to keep the language about the timing of the demolition permit. I think a case was made that it's hard to even survey the locks until you can do the grading. And this is a project that seems always to move forward. So anyway, I started a motion and then I kind of bifurcated it because the conditions, as I understand it, are a bit different for alternative one and alternative two. Am I correct in that? Yes, the conditions are a little bit different. I think that for the demo permit you wouldn't have to make any changes to what's in your agenda report because that, based on your comments, it seems like you're wanting to go back to or stay with what's in the agenda report. We would need to make a change to the conditions of approval in both alternative one and alternative two for the sequence of construction of the central building. Should you want to do that, we could easily put that language in. So maybe the... Can I interject for a sec? Sorry, we have to pause. Apparently the microphones in the chambers are cutting in and out. And so we're going to have to reset the mics in the chamber and pause the meeting for a sec. May I make a suggestion as we do pause that? If Lee, you want to take a moment to integrate the recommendation, the modification, so that we have a comprehensive motion to work from while we make that change? And if I can just before you sign off, we would say approval of... Oh, there we go. Nobody needs to sign off either. We just need to turn the mics off and turn them back on. Would you be interested in including that as part of your motion, the changes to the inclusionary condition? Yeah. Thank you. What I'm trying to do is say which are the things that would be universal to both alternatives and which... And then we could say and subject to the conditions of approval, alternative A and alternative B. That's the clean way to do it. Yes. Council members are on. We just turned your videos back on so we know that you're here. Council member Matthews is about to return to the floor to you. Thanks. And I'm waiting on Lee to... Are you typing something up? I'm typing. Sorry. While Lee is typing that up, Council member Brown, did you have a comment that you want to make in the meantime? No. I can't remember why my hand was up so no. Did you have a comment that you can make while we're typing this up? I did. Yeah, I had a question. And Lee, I hate to bother you about this because you're doing that, but I don't know. Ryan, maybe you could take this one. The applicant also brought forward a letter from their architect and designer regarding me of the garage setbacks and requesting the potential for a double driveway and Deena will have that flexibility of a minimum of about five foot setbacks just based on the shape of the lot. And I don't believe that was accepted as a condition. And I'm just trying to understand a little bit more about why just knowing the site and being someone who has a single driveway and how problematic that is to basically function. I'm just curious. It does seem like the width is there to do that, to be able to have two cars. I'm just a little bit curious as to why that is not accepted and that condition potentially changed. So the reasoning behind the single driveway approach versus a double driveway approach, I think it all comes down to just and a lot of those conditions revolved around diminishing the impacts of the garage on the street. And also some concerns that we had about with the possibility of cars stretching out over when they're parked and stretching out over the sidewalk and blocking the sidewalk. And so when you have either a single car or have it coming down to one driveway approach, I think that was some of the reasonings behind that condition. I don't know if Lee or Eric had any other thing to add to that, but that was kind of my understanding of that condition. I can jump in a little bit as well. In the architect's letter, it's that the street frontage is around 74 feet, but those are pie shaped lots. So when you get past the required front yard setback, those lots get much narrower. And there's a real concern that because of that narrowness, the garage may be a little more prominent on the streetscape. And so as Ryan said, we're trying to deemphasize the appearance of the garage. There was also some concern by staff that given the nature of the community that they're creating, there was some concern that the dwellings might be oriented towards the center common space with less attention given to the street frontage. And deemphasizing the garage is something that's required of all the substandard lots in the neighborhood. So we prefer the condition to remain as ordered. Thank you, muted, Justin. Thank you. It was related to the building. So while we're continuing to get a draft of the motion up, I'm going to see if the applicant seen their hand raised like the comment. Thank you. Thank you. In terms of the timing on the common house, we're okay with that, the five and the three years. That seems reasonable. Thank you. I would like to speak to the garage is a little bit by May. So what happens is you push those garages back on a pie shaped lot. It's a bottle next to house and kind of makes for poor house design. It also cuts you off on the back of the lot. And while Eric was concerned that we might orientate the houses towards the rear center, we've already said we're including front porches. And that's because we want to accent the front of the house in order to encourage community interaction with not just ourselves, but with the outside neighborhood. The front of the houses are important to us. And also on those the 75 foot wide frontages, you have quite a wide house frontage. They're much wider than most houses, so that the most houses in the neighborhood, I should say, so that a garage door five foot set back from the front face of the house will be in a the proportions will be good because of the width there along the front with that five foot setback. And the other aspect of this is that planning is suggesting a single car curb cut to what could be a two car wide driveway. What will happen there is you pull one car in and because there's only a single car curb cut, if you pull another car in, you can't get one of them out. So therefore you're going to park on the street. So that single wide curb cut is going to effectively force people to park on the street that's causing. So the double wide curb cut is crucial to getting cars off the street. And the setbacks on the garage more than five feet will negatively impact the house design. And I think if you read, you know, Matthew Thompson has been designing this town for something like 50 years has a tremendous amount of experience. In this sort of thing. And I encourage council to consider his letter closely. I think he makes some very strong points on this. Thank you. Okay. So I'm not sure if there is we if we're getting close, we are getting close. The only thing that I would add in relation to that is that, you know, this is a pretty unique site in terms of the terminus of these really major view corridors. And so having those additional setbacks does really reduce the prominence of those garage doors along the frontages. And that's something that, you know, we really want to make sure that we are deemphasizing at the terminus of these important view corridors, you know, all the way from Woodrow, all the way from Mission along California. And so that's why we had the additional setbacks included from those view corridors. And then the single car driveway actually some of the lengths of the single car curb code, I should say, some of the links of those driveways are not conducive to having tandem spaces. And having a single car length would help discourage that. If you get into a 25, so you got a 15 foot setback, for example, for the house, if you go 10 feet back from that, that puts you at 25 feet. If you look at two cars trying to stack there, what's going to happen is you'll end up having a car hanging out over the sidewalk, which is something we want to avoid. You're less likely if you go in and you have a single car width at the street, and then you widen that out. At that particular distance at 25 feet, it's actually better to have the single car because it's going to discourage even a mini is 14 feet in length. So now you got 28 feet in two car lengths, and that's going to be hanging out, you know, three feet over the 25 foot driveway. So those are some of the things that we considered. And, you know, as you start looking at the angles for the lots, the houses themselves aren't going to be the full 74 feet in width. You know, once you step back, that lot's going to be narrower. And then when you start looking at the right angles for the homes, it's actually going to be narrower. So that's one of the reasons why we wanted to de-emphasize that. It's more important at the ends of the view terminuses, the view termini, than it is at those other areas. The inner lot there, you know, there are only, I think, two car garages on the other side of the street there. So consistency with the neighborhood as well is one of the things that we were looking for. Recommendations for both. Recommendations are at the view terminus, the other locations. Every location has a five foot setback from the front of the house, and that's going to be required anyway. Because the houses themselves are at 15 feet, so you have to have a 20 foot driveway. So that puts those five feet back. So that's a standard. But that only allows for one car garage under these conditions. It would, if you want to go up to a two car garage, then you would have additional setbacks. And the one car garage, the applicants had concerns about getting things in and out. We said, you can have a 10 foot wide one car garage to facilitate getting things in and out, or you can have a tandem garage. We just didn't want a wide expanse of garage doors along the housing, along that circle, particularly at the view terminite. Yeah, I just, maybe for the applicant, it's hard because I'm trying to picture all of this, but the applicant just mentioned though, Lee, that the intent is to have the houses facing the outwards towards the community, that they're the driveways. So in other words, the houses aren't going to be towards the middle of the circle. They are intending that the design would bring their houses facing their neighbors across the street, basically. So that's how the circle is now. Everybody's looking out. Nobody's parcel. Most homes in that neighborhood are on the street frontage with either the garages tucked to the side, typically. I don't even know if they're sharing that. I can't picture right now a two car garage on the circle, but I'm sure there's a couple. So with the applicant's intent to try to mimic or to basically be consistent with the neighborhood in terms of having the houses at the front, I guess I'm just confused why we are, why we're restricting the garages in this way, if they are going to be consistent, you know, along the side of the house or but with the width, we could potentially pull in two cars. I'm just worried that you're going to end up with all cars on the street and you do have the curb width. So I'm just trying to understand a little bit more why this is, why we're holding them to this. I would say that the garage setbacks are more important than the width. What it does is it provides more landscaping out of the street and more landscaping right behind the sidewalk, where that driveway curves out a little bit. So there's a small increase in landscaping there. There's also a small increase in the available parking on the street. So those are some of the considerations. There's certainly, if the council's desirous of finding a middle ground on this particular issue, I can include that as you could say, for example, you could find a middle ground on the setbacks, you know, in between what the applicant is proposing and what we're proposing could be an option for the council to consider if you're struggling with this issue. When we looked at the site planning exercise, keeping a five foot setback and having a substantial setback for the two car garage width that is consistent with the view termini that are at the that is consistent with the current conditions. It does it left about 17 or 18 feet of developable area as an estimate for the remaining area outside of the garage. So it's a breadth point. It does, if you wanted to put in a two car garage at those view termini, it does leave, ample space, but 17 or 18 feet is going to constrain you some. And that would be a decision that they need to make. They could still do 10 feet. They could still do a two car tandem garage under these conditions. So it's just a little bit more information for the council to consider based on the sketches that we did here in considering the conditions. Okay. I'm kind of inclined to split the baby. Can you tell me what's the width of a single curb cut and a double curb cut? Probably not double. Ryan, you want to chime in on that? Because I would tell you estimates, but they may not be accurate. What was the question again? What's the width of a single and a two curb cut and a double curb cut? I'm not sure if someone from Public Works is on the line. They would probably know right after that. I'm looking to see. Oh, a curb cut. I think a single is 10, but a double I'm not exactly sure. 16 or so would be my estimate. Yeah, I was going to guess 16 as well. Not exactly double. Actually fine with just the foot set back from the wall of the house. I'm going to just float this out there. I'm thinking how people live. Limit the garages to one car garage that a wider curb cut. I do notice in your language not lost, but there's Oh, it's in item. Yeah, I think it talks about special attention should be paid during the design permit to ensuring the design materials and screening of the garage enhance to do not attract individual character. Enhanced garage door materials orientation garage doors on the site screening trellises or other architectural features can be used to accomplish this goal. And I think what you're envisioning in the design process here is it's not like the Chippo 60s version, you know, that the the whole thought of the house will be well designed. So I think that can be achieved giving a little bit more flexibility there. So are you staying consistent? Are we staying consistent then with the wording in the condition condition number 34? No, going down 35. 35 going down to E. Garage shall be limited in width to one car garage door. And then I would allow curb cuts shall be allowed up to a double curb cut. Suggestions think the point that makes on the paper loss that they want to not push more of the garage towards the usable part of the backyard. I would support those changes as part of the motion. Council Member Matthews, could you repeat that? So on 35 E? The uniform should be set back on a minimum of five feet from the front wall of the house. So no additional setback for the view termini? I think with all the other criteria you've got in for design, I think that answers these concerns. And then garage is limited in width to one car garage door. It means that the whole double garage door thing doesn't have much to do but allows a broader curb cut. So F would stay the same, G would be deleted. Tracking with you guys now and have the motions with the changes for each alternative on my iPad for the video and I'm on my computer for my work here. Oh, Lee, you can go ahead and send it to me then. All right. Thank you. Council Member Matthews, was the seconder of the motion? Council Member Myers? I was the maker of the motion. Yeah, sorry, go ahead, Justin. No, I think I said that you were the maker of the motion. That was seconded by Council Member Watkins, I believe. Okay, I will send it to you. Oh, Donna was the maker. Questioning that one phrase and I said let's make sure that I didn't miss anything. One, get some clarity here because I think, you know, kind of backtracking in the conversation earlier, Council Member Brown withdrew her motion along with the mayor. The vice mayor said that she was prepared to make the motion and Council Member Watkins said that she was prepared to second the motion. And I think what we're at right now is that we're unclear who's actually making the motion. So I think as we're kind of getting things on the screen, because a lot of languages were moved around, we should get some clarity around who's going to be making the motion and so forth. If I may recall, I think I recall Vice Mayor Meyers sending the motion to make the motion and then I was willing to second the motion and then we left it with Lee. They're refining the motion at that point. That's sort of kind of, for record, I'd say that's sort of how I recall it going. Yeah, that sounds. I'm not seeing anything coming to all of you. Yeah, that'd be cool. Yeah. I can, Meyers, once you receive that, would you be willing to read the motion? I'd like to move approval of both alternative one and alternative two, including findings and conditions of approval and acknowledge the environmental determination for the proposed project at 111 Errett Circle. Alternative one will include a residential slash commercial demolition authorization permit to demolish a church and a tentative map to subdivide the parcel into 12 single family locks with changes to conditions as noted below. Conditions for alternative one include changes to the inclusionary condition number 34 as follows. The applicant shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements set forth at the Santa Cruz Municipal Charter section 24.16 Part 1 and shall enter into and record an affordable housing development agreement prior to or concurrently with the final parcel map or final subdivision approval or prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure in the residential development, whichever occurs first. The affordable housing development agreement shall run with the land and bind all future owners and successors and interests. If an in-loop fee is used for alternative one, the applicant shall enter into an agreement whereby the total and in-loop fee amount due date and remedies are specified in accordance with the state local housing trust fund program guidelines and the inclusionary housing requirements set forth at Santa Cruz Municipal Chapter 24.16 Part 1. If an in-loop fee is not used for alternative one, the applicant shall enter into an agreement and offer up for sale two of the land locks at an affordable sale price in accordance with the inclusionary housing requirements set forth in Santa Cruz Municipal Charter Chapter 24.16 Part 1. New conditions. Pull a building permit and begin construction for the common building within five years. The applicant can have a three-year extension approved administratively through a minor modification. Subsequent extensions would require council approval of a minor modification. Council, no. Condition number 35E shall read, garages shall be set back in minimum of five feet from the front wall of the house. Condition number 35G would be deleted. Alternative two will include a residential commercial demolition authorization permit to demolish a church. Plan development permit to allow variations such as multi-family housing in the R1 zone district and with minor modifications as specified in the agenda report and plan. Design permit and tentative map to subdivide the parcel into 10 single-family parcels, a common central lot, and an additional common parcel that can accommodate six condominium parcels that include 480U subject to the conditions. Condition revisions noted below. Conditions for alternative two. Changes to the inclusionary condition number 34 as followed. Lee, is this the same? I'm sorry, it is different. The applicant shall comply with the inclusionary. The first paragraph is the same. The second is different. Okay. The applicant shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements set forth in Santa Cruz Municipal Chapter 24.16 Part 1 and shall enter into and record an affordable housing development agreement prior to or currently with the final parcel map or final subdivision map approval or prior to issuance of a building permit for any structure in the residential development, whichever occurs first. The affordable housing development agreement shall run with the land and bind all future owners and successors in interest. If an in-loop fee is used for alternative two, the applicant shall enter into an agreement whereby the total in-loop fee amount due date and remedies are specified in accordance with the state local housing trust fund program guidelines and the inclusionary housing requirements set forth in Santa Cruz Municipal Charter Chapter 24.16 Part 1. If an in-loop fee is not used for alternative two and individually financed airspace units are sold slash developed, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to donate three of the six air rights condominium spaces to Habitat for Humanity or a similar affordable housing developer for the purposes of providing affordable housing. The affordable housing airspace areas must be adequate to provide three affordable units and associated parking. If an in-loop fee is not used for alternative two and a single project is developed as is contemplated in the current alternative to multi-family project design, then two two-bedroom condominium units each with an associated ADU shall be sold at an affordable rate in accordance with Santa Cruz Municipal Charter Chapter 24.16 Part 1. A new condition is attached to alternative two, pull a building permit and begin construction for the common building within five years. The applicant can have a three-year extension approved administratively through a minor modification. Subsequent extensions would require council approval of a minor modification. And Council Member Myers, for that condition in both scenarios, I think it would be good to say within five years of a specific time and so how about within five years of the issuance of the initial building permit? Sounds good. Is that okay with you, Mayor, coming? Okay. That sounds good. A new condition for alternative two. Sorry really quickly within five years of what? The issuance of the initial building permit. Thank you. Another new condition for alternative two is that the six units and four ADU shown in an attached configuration shall be provided in detached or another alternative condominium airspace configuration with four attached or detached ADU. A minor modification, we changed that to minor modification and I didn't catch that. Right. A minor modification shall be considered and approved by the council at a later date to redesign common infrastructure and site layout and administratively approved design permit shall be required for the individual condominium unit. Should an alternative approach that allows for individually financed units be pursued, condition number 36 herein pertaining to the construction timing for the condominium structure shall be revised as part of the minor modification such that only the construction of common infrastructure elements or in water, sewer, driveway, et cetera, parentheses are tied to the construction timing for the other single family units. Condition number 35E shall read garages shall be set back in minimum of five feet from the front wall of the house and condition number 35G would be deleted. That's the end of the motion. The motion by Vice Mayor Myers. I still second that long motion. All right. We have a second. I'm on this item. I'm hearing none. Wait. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I didn't hear it. There you go. Council Member Matthews. So I'm wondering why the first alternative one was to the residential commercial demo organization to demolish the church and tentative map to subdivide the parcel. The 12th single family lot changes the condition, but it does the reference the common lot in the middle of the second alternative stuff that I'm saying. Alternative two includes the demolition and tentative map to subdivide the parcel and the 10th single family parcel, common central lot, and I do see the common central parcel. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. 12 single family lots and a common central parcel. Yeah. I'm at that location. It's the nub of the whole issue, including that. Yeah. Do we have comments on this item? We have the same timing change in alternative one that we had in alternative two, Bonnie, for the construction of the common building from issuance of initial building permit. You were there a second ago. Yeah. Full of point. It's the first full of point out of the three. Yes. Right there. New condition within five years from issuance of the initial building permit. Questions or comments on this item? Question. I just wanted to go back and double check in the slides. When you had presented the inclusionary, could you just bring that slide back up? I just wanted to double check on some language that was taken earlier. Clear screen. Thank you. Was it this one or was it another slide? That was this one. I just wanted to double check. I think in the presentation, someone might have said three, two, but condominium units each within associated ADU. And so I just wanted to double check the language to make sure that it was two and not three. The condominium air spaces would be three if they develop the project, which actually, we could even delete that now because the council has directed that the project not be developed as contemplated in alternative two. So we could delete the end of that one. We could go back. We could pull that up. So under alternative two, the last sentence for the inclusionary conditions. If an in-loop fee is not used and a single project is developed as contemplated in the current alternative two. Yep. That whole sentence could be deleted because the council has just down below said attached configuration shall an alternative shall be provided by the school down to that new condition. I just want to read the language then be that would account for if the in-loop fee is not used for alternative two. So if you if you go up just a little bit, Bonnie, it's right here. So it's the second sentence here. If an in-loop fee is not used for alternative two and individually financed airspace units are sold or developed. I'm wondering if there's a way to incorporate both of those so that there's options because it seems like the only option currently is donating the sites to for humanity or similar affordable housing developer. However, if project was developed and they wanted to sell units at affordable rate, would that be something that we could also keep in so that their option? Yes, we could build something in to that effect. It could come back to council for approval. If that's something that the council is desirous of. But I'm just kind of trying to look at this and see, you know, if in-loop fees are not used for this alternative, if there are options, it seems like the way that it was quoted with alternative two is that there's these two options. One is if the in-loop fee is not used, then the applicant can challenge an agreement to donate the condominium spaces to have that for humanity. Of course, they'll live in affordable rate. I would add in accordance with SEMC Chapter 24. Yes. Jessica is on the line here. Yes, she is. Jessica, does that look okay to you? Jessica Dewitt, our housing manager and economic development. Yeah, that looks fine. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Brown and then Council Member Matthews. Yeah, thank you. So I guess I'm not entirely the purpose of including that language would be because or sold at an affordable rate, there's a big step missing there, it seems, which would be development of those parcels, right? So I'm just not sure what that gets us or gets them for flexibility. It would be or developed and sold at an affordable rate. And I think Council Member Brown, they would likely, you know, they may look at that and say, hey, you know, from an economy of scale perspective, we could develop this, sell it at an affordable rate and actually make a little bit of money on it. So that could provide some more flexibility for them. Okay. Yeah, I think what's developed in there is that it makes more sense to me. Thank you. We'll finish this. I'm searching and searching. I know we're not requiring the ADUs be mapped initially, but there's one language somewhere about ensuring that all the plans can accommodate an ADU. Where is that in here? I'm searching and I can't find it. You know what I'm talking about, don't you? Yes. It's under condition number 19 under the CCNRs. It says language shall be included sufficiently insured that residents within the site, whether living in single-handedly detached home, oh, excuse me, that's the wrong one. Yeah. Let me find the next one. Design permit plans for each home shall show a conceptual design confirming how and where an accessory dwelling unit could be accommodated on site in conjunction with proposed home design. That's it. And I'd just like to make a comment. Sure. I think now's a good time for that. Okay. Well, I just want to say I think co-housing really is a very beneficial model. And I have many, many friends that live in different co-housing projects to have for many years, serving different kinds of demographics and lifestyles. And it's really, it's a wonderful model. And I think this group has come together and worked really hard with changing conditions and meeting with staff, trying to meet the guidelines. And what we see here is, and they're facing some real utterly unforeseen conditions right now. But it does, to my mind, fully meet the intention and description of a co-housing project. It meets all our general plans and zoning standards. It can provide housing variety. It provides, in one form or another, it meets our inclusionary requirements. And I am pleased that we're building in particularly right now some flexibility. So I know this has been an important site to the neighborhood for years and years in different ways. But I do think that this can be a real asset to the neighborhood as well going forward. Thank you for those comments. Councilmember Brown. Yeah. Just really quickly, I want to say, just say thank you to everyone for kind of hashing this out here. I guess y'all were more ambitious than I was. I'm feeling ambitious enough to figure this all out tonight, which is why I originally thought maybe coming back in two weeks, this could all, this could get worked out. But I'm happy to support this. As I think you all know by now, my biggest concern when we're looking at a housing project is maximizing the potential for affordable housing. And I think that the conditions that we've set up here will do that for us. So I'm pleased that we were able to include this and wordsmith it tonight. I also just like to echo the sentiments of my colleagues and I'd also like to thank the community and yeah, because this has been as the applicants have mentioned, it's been a long process and a lot of people have been involved in a lot of emotions. And I think that we did, we tried to do our best to make sure that we heard from the entire community to incorporate those concerns into our decision making this evening as we're moving into some of the final phases of the approval of this project. And I really hope that the applicants as they're moving through their various stages of development can really reach out to the folks in the community and build stronger relationships with them, given that they will be your new neighbors. And so with that, I will turn it over to City Clerk so that we can have a roll call vote on this item, which was a motion which I cannot read all the way through. Can I just clarify, there's nothing in the motion that says to adopt the resolution. So I just want to make sure the resolution encompasses that motion. Okay. So I'll just add that. Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. Councilmember Byers? Aye. Matthews? Oh, aye. Brown? Aye. Golder? Watkins? Aye. Vice Mayor Myers? Aye. And Mayor Cummings? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you all for your hard work, patience and diligence on this item. And with that, we will adjourn our City Council meeting and we will see you all in two weeks. And thank you for all your work here. Thank you all. Thank you everyone. Good night. Have a great night. Have a great night. Thank you. We'll see you some of you tomorrow.