our community that are where there's low income housing and the people who live in those buildings may not necessarily be low income, but the housing is affordable. And if that's the basis for replacement of affordable housing, I think that it can, given that, you know, we have some old houses in this community that are going to be coming down and being replaced, that actually might, you know, lead to a loss of affordable housing in the community. So yeah, that's a valid point to consider moving forward with future changes. Councilmember Watkins and Councilmember Matthews. I wanted to get a little bit more clarification about the bike pedestrian pathway.  So I don't know what the thought was around that in terms of the kind of Israel. While some people might prefer to, you know, go up to Seabright in that way or to head the other direction and visit the coast, then residents might not be, might not find that useful. That is part, it's helpful in the long term to provide that connection now while we have a development project where we can require it to be provided. And it would also just provide an alternative route for someone to get through at the end of summer rather than going all the way around. Jen presented at the 10 p.m. to 6 p.m. always or was that an additional kind of suggestion after there was concerned around sort of the thing? We recommended that along that pathway. Two days when I talked to the staff and part of the confusion, I think, is that the project began under one set of rules and ended up with both other rules and changed circumstances and the replacement housing is required, if Lee, correct me if I remember this rightly, all three of the, well, I think of all three who were occupied by low to moderate income residents. But the property owner had worked in section eight to get an income verification and one of the tenants did not meet that standard. So therefore, the units were occupied, only two of the three occupied by low to moderate income residents and therefore the replacement housing did not kick in. That's exactly correct, yes. Yeah. So the code allows the unit to basically assume that all of the units are low to moderate income households if they don't want to go through the process of verification through the housing authority, some reason why they can't. And so that's what the applicant did at the beginning of this project and then they ended up going through that process before the city council meeting. So that's one of the reasons why this item was continued so many times. Any further questions from council members at this time? Open it up to public comment. So if there are any members of the public who would like to comment on item number 19, which is 914916 Seabright Project, now is the time to call in. Once you've called in, you will need to press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and you will be given up to two minutes to speak to us on this item. This is John Swift. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. So I'm the applicant's representative and I assumed I have a few moments to make a short presentation. Yes, that's correct. And I'll just check with the city attorney. The applicant's representative gets, is it five minutes? The applicant's representative normally gets additional time. I'm not specifically how much, but it's generally five or ten minute presentation, right? Okay. Why don't we go ahead and have five minutes for the presentation? Yeah, my presentation should be very short. I want to thank you all for hearing this item today. It's been a long road, but we're glad to be here. And I really want to thank Samantha for her very thorough presentation. I think she covered many of the facts that I was going to have to spend some time doing, so I'm not going to do it in the interest of time. As she mentioned, the design is substantially changed from when it first went to the Planning Commission. And I think it's a vast improvement myself. I'm very pleased with the changes that were made. I think it's dropped from a 33 foot tall building to a 24 foot tall building and basically the two story structure with quite a bit of architectural design changes that are very attractive and distinguish it quite substantially from what it was before. It is an ideal and very appropriate infill development. There are many examples. I'm sure all of you are familiar with Seabright and the large, pretty large number of units and developments, both three and two story that have been developed in the recent past along Seabright. It being an arterial street, it's consistent with the city policies of infill development with a bus line on the street and that kind of thing, close proximity to school, commercial centers, et cetera, et cetera. So to cut it short, we do fully accept the staff recommendation, of course, and hope that you do as well. It's not only the staff, of course, the planning commission made a 7-0 vote of approval with the and they actually did not vote to approve the pedestrian easement. So we accept the recommendation except for that condition and that condition specifically carries out in three specific conditions in your staff report. They are condition 1322 and the second bullet point of condition number 22 and then condition number 30. So, you know, through the discussion of both the council and the staff, some of the issues that were raised, I hope that you have all seen the letter that Walter Woodlow submitted. It was signed by I think 10 other, roughly 10 other neighbors that live along Sumner Avenue and some other letters came in for the project, some against the project, but I think if I'm not mistaken, all of those letters were opposed to the establishment of this pedestrian easement. We're going to try to put up on the screen one of the exhibits that Mr. Ludlow submitted. And so he pointed out that the city has a plan to improve the intersection at Wyndham and Seabright Avenue. This is a significant factor. The blue arrow there represents where this connection would be made between the cul-de-sac at the end of Sumner and Seabright. And so really, if you look at the very end of Sumner, someone walking to that same point where this new pedestrian access with daylight would save about a thousand feet, right? But when they daylight there, they're entering onto a street without any clear crosswalk or traffic control to get across Seabright. Now that, you know, one can say, well, that's not such a bad deal. But if you have, I lived right off of Seabright for about 20 years, and I can tell you, Seabright is a high-speed, fast-travel street. And so I think the staff did look at some injury and accident counts, but my experience was that it was not exactly a particularly safe street. This Nets was acknowledged when the city took on this project on Wyndham and Seabright to design some circulation improvements there. So again, we would save about a thousand feet of walking for only a pretty limited number of people at the end of Sumner. And those people have said they don't need it. They're happy walking to Wyndham. Everyone north of Wyndham or to the east is going to use Wyndham to get to Seabright anyway. So the other thing is, if this was a wide enough property to delineate a pedestrian easement with a low fence or ballards, or in some way, in my opinion, make it a protected space, that's one thing. I use these all over Live Oak in town as I ride my own bike, but in this kind of situation, this is a private driveway. It's the people are to be backing up and turning in. Kids are playing in that driveway, yet you've got essentially strangers riding bikes, skateboarding, walking. I think Samantha and all due respect made this some analogy to a public sidewalk. I think that's a very different situation than a private drive in a private community. The feel is different. The sense of privacy, the sense of ownership is different. And I think this is kind of not a good thing for these tenants. It does raise insurance questions and expense. The insurance company we talked to said, yes, the HOA insurance. I guess that's by hearing a buzzer. So real quickly, I just want to emphasize condition 1322 and the second bullet point of 22 condition 30 would need to be, I think, stricken from the list of conditions. I also want to point out condition seven, because that is, I think a holdover from previous projects where gas lines were, you know, the use of gas in projects is allowed. Well, since the city, I believe, has adopted an ordinance to only allow electric, I just want to be clear that either that is being provided as an option in the event gas becomes possible, or I don't want it to be interpreted down the down the road that somehow we're in a conflict here with the ordinance. So I would suggest that that might need some rewarding as well. So I thank you very much for your time. I'll keep it short. And we're certainly here for any questions or elaboration that you may want. Thanks. Thank you very much. I'm going up to the public for public comment. Members of the public who would like to comment on this item. Again, now it's the time to call in on your phones. Please avoid calling the toll free numbers and call only the non toll free numbers. Once you've called in, you'll need to press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes to comment on this item. My name is Henry Hooker. And I'm calling in favor of this project to Bright Avenue on behalf of Santa Cruz Senior Housing. The project is appropriately sized and scaled to the neighborhood. And it makes a small but significant contribution to the amount of housing in town. Importantly, it provides one three bedroom unit at the low income level. It's not a large project, but it's exactly the kind of project that the city should encourage in existing residential neighborhoods. And a modest increase to the density in existing neighborhoods is appropriate to create more workforce housing. Most importantly, it increases cultural and economic integration of the neighborhoods and thus also equity throughout the city. Thank you for considering to move this project forward. Those comments the next speaker have two minutes. Coming Vice Mayor Meyers and members of the Santa Cruz City Council. My name is Paul Wontlow and I reside at 548 Sumner Street on the cul-de-sac section of Street adjacent to the proposed project. I must admit this is the first time I've had an applicant or another comment or actually use one of my figures from my comments to illustrate their points. I provided written comments with attachments yesterday for the council and I'll just briefly summarize those here. I'm commenting solely on the new proposed public access. I appreciate the applicants and city staff's efforts to reduce the massing of this project from its original design. My comments do not in any way affect the amount of potential new housing provided by this project. The council to eliminate the requirement for new pedestrian access for the following three reasons. The first is planning staff indicated that the proposed access would reduce walking cycling skateboarding distances to Seabright Beach in the neighborhood commercial uses by about a thousand feet for the quote immediate neighborhood. The immediate neighborhood here consists of about 30 total residents living on the lower half of the Sumner Street cul-de-sac. You will find attached to my comments a signed petition from a significant number of these residents indicating that they are opposed to the proposed walkway. Thus the very residents who supposedly could take advantage of this are actually opposed to it. Sighted in the staff report are largely theoretical and not real. My second point was already illustrated by the diagram which was just shared with you. I will note that if you look at that diagram it begs the question why would the city require a new access from the south end of Sumner Street which will force bicycles to cross busy Seabright Avenue mid-block without the benefit of an intersection in order to ride south to the beach or commercial area when the city has already committed to the construction on the lawn. Hi is this me? Yes good afternoon. I'm Walter's neighbor I'm at 527 Sumner Street. I live I own the property that will border on the development I think on the north side. I have several concerns I'll try to make it quick. I do find this project when you when she showed the the look the birds eye view I find this project to to be quite out of character with her neighborhood it is enormous. I am concerned that it the new design is a lot better I felt like Motel 6 was moving in next door. I am concerned about the description of these affordable units and then the third person not being someone who qualifies as lower income. I have been in these units so she may not qualify due to her income and I realize this is in the code but I want to say to the mayor that I appreciate your concern about revisiting this maybe not for this development but it's it's humorous living here and having been inside these buildings they're very old they're very rundown they're adorable from the outside but the you know it just happens to be that she makes more money than that so I appreciated your comment. On the shade study it showed an ADU that we have built on our property and it had a white square on the roof of our of our ADU which in winter I don't know why it was white we have that roof covered with solar panels that looks like through the winter days it will now be covered this is quite disturbing given how much money we just put into that this is my own personal problem I guess the city has no no reason to be involved in that but I'm just registering it because we are now quite in debt for this solar and Miss Hazard basically just said well it'd be cloudy in the winter anyway which was not actually appeasing my concerns. I do also as other people said I want to say that this walkway is unnecessary for us we walk all the time down down and it will not help us we have bad crime on our street as it is our cars are broken into on a regular basis we cannot leave anything unlocked so adding a walkway here is a terrible idea for those of us who live here and I understand I'm done so thank you thank you there's any other members of the public who would like to comment on this item please press star 9 on your phone otherwise we will be closing public comment and moving back to council for action and deliberation seeing no further hands raised from the public I'm going to close public comment bring it back to council for any questions or or motions to take action council member Matthews you're muted also there are any other questions I'm prepared to make a motion double checking with others I have I have a couple questions very briefly so I had a question for staff with regards to the comment regarding the blocking of solar on a neighbor's house I guess what if that were to happen where the shadow will be cast on the property adjacent property and impact their ability to have solar power guess what what remedies are there for that or you know just out of curiosity actually not out of curiosity because it just came up in the conversation so we do look at impact on adjacent properties in terms of shading and we do look at impacts to existing solar panels as well but there's nowhere in the code that requires somebody to not provide any shading on adjacent solar panels and if that was the case then solar panels on an adjacent property could limit development on the on the other property so we do look at the impact and we try to reduce them to the great extent possible in this case as I mentioned in the presentation the property the development is actually pushed as far back to the south property line as it can be and so while we acknowledge that there will be some limited shading in the winter months in the afternoons that that appears to be the extent of it based on the shading studies that were submitted thank you as you guys my next question then was with the representative of the developers on number seven the gas main question that was raised and given our the changes to our building electrification policy I was just wondering if this is in conflict with that and if it should be removed um in reading through that ordinance it looks like that policy kicks in based on the application date of the application and so this one would not be subject to that but we can add the term if applicable at the end of that condition and then it wouldn't preclude them from going all electric if they chose to do so okay um I think that's all the questions I have um again I think that to the comment that I made earlier and I just feel compelled to make it that you know part of what helps people um get to a point where they can afford to purchase housing is that they're able to save money um and live somewhere that's affordable and so I think that moving forward you know revisiting the code to you know allow for the replacement of housing based on the affordability of the units and potentially the the income of the people who are living in those units I think is critical for us to ensure that we're maintaining affordable housing stock in the city um so with that uh we have a motion by councilman Matthews and I seek counsel council member I said I was prepared to make it I didn't make it yet I asked her and um uh Sam if you want to just put up the solar thing I want to respond to that I took a look at the solar diagram and it is shaded uh somewhat in the winter but gets total sun in summer and I think um we'll see it in a minute so there there you get in the in the summer there's there's uh oh yeah the diagram there you know it's got it's a really total sun in the summer and uh it has the the whole development and push the south end and then there's the driveway is the buffer so um I'll just say we have solar on our house and you know we we draw on our credit a little bit in the winter but with great summer exposure you you build up a terrific credit as well so um and also some of the people who wrote in didn't want any big projects and I think most of the people understand we have relatively little judgment on this um project because of the recent state law I think all the council read the report and understand that so um I'll just make a few comments I think the um changes in the height the scale the breaking up of the building architectural style was given given that there will be a large replacement project here those were a big improvement and many of the neighbors expressed appreciation for those changes um I particularly like that the front unit faces on the sea bright as the house and I think that preserved kind of the rhythm of the of the houses along sea bright it really does the street in that little area of single family houses even though many of them are duplexes or have ADU in back or whatever um so I think that um redesign was successful um so just given those two comments I will go ahead and move that we um uh the recommendation that we acknowledge the resolution we adopt a resolution acknowledging environmental determination approving the tentative map design permit and residential demolition authorization permit to demolish three residential units and construct a nine-unit townhouse development based on the finding contained in the attached resolution and conditions of approval with the following exception deletion of the requirement for a pedestrian designated pedestrian pathway the length of the property and that's reflected in three separate conditions the clarification of item seven regarding the gas main does that give you enough direction there Sam and um adding um an optional eight foot fence along the driveway by mutual consent but that'd be my motion we have a motion by council member Matthews I see there are a number of hands up council member Brown were you gonna second the motion or was your hand raised for question no I was gonna second it okay I was gonna and it announced for that those conditions to be removed should the first uh the motion maker not do that so I'm happy to second the motion and if I could just make a couple of comments then like to do that right now sure that's clear you know I just first I want to really appreciate the the developer addressing those some of those concerns around building nothing and kind of architecture you know that it still means that there will be some some significant impact to the neighborhood and you know unfortunately SB 330 the housing accountability act doesn't really give us the latitude to reject projects and in this case I think that the the developer has done a good job of trying to address those some of those concerns and I think the pedestrian access piece is particularly important given that there is going to be a real impact here and you know council member golden I was first came on to the agenda and was pulled we went over and looked at and we walked around to try to figure out you know why the pedestrian access was so important and you know we just kind of I mean we looked at it we you know sort of and then it wasn't on the agenda so but I I do feel like that the potential community benefit there for having that kind of access is really not significant enough to balance with the impact on the on the neighbors so I'm I'm appreciate that council member Matthews you decided to move in that direction I just want to say on the the replacement housing I agree you with mayor Cummings that this case has caused me certainly to want to rethink our replacement housing policy given that projects like these are going to continue to come to us and given that we talk about the need to approve projects to get us affordable housing I mean let's let's not kid ourselves we're losing affordable housing here or at least you know housing that is it may be not deed restricted but that has been affordable to residents in our community you know I I'm just going to put it out there because I don't want to you know I don't want to be misunderstood in approving this that you know I continue to disagree with the staff interpretation about the density bonus rules and the intersection with our inclusionary ordinance and there is really not a body of case law there is one case and I you know there are multiple reasons that Napa is different but that case was different that are the communities are different and I think you know the case law is going to build and I'm not sure that that's the Napa case will be the the the final word and so I guess I think those are my comments I do you know I do appreciate you know the involvement that kind of the the motivation to kind of by the developers to make sure that the the project was kind of addressing those community concerns of neighbor concerns and so I'll I'll leave it there with my comments to be continued on inclusionary and replacement housing for a future date Council Member Byers and then Council Member Colbert I am disappointed about the path I wish we could go neighborhood by neighborhood and find ways to put paths in I think there's such an increase of people out walking and want to walk and there's such an it's better experience walking on a path versus walking on even though that area doesn't have a lot of traffic on Wyndham and Windsor and those streets however walking on a path versus walking on the street with cars zooming by it's black and white and I I just think we should be looking for more opportunities to have paths and the thought that you could walk down a path and you wouldn't notice stop when it came to the street I think our people are a little bit smarter so I will support the motion I am just disappointed that the path isn't part of it I think it it was a thanks to our planning department I think they looked at the right thing and I just hope they don't give up on finding other places to install paths I was going to speak to two things I want to respond to Council Member Byers and I'm curious now because to me it didn't look like a path like I was when you say that like I'm picturing the one along Bay Street or Miri Lagoon but what what I thought was just a driveway and it was just like you could like kind of just walk on the driveway there wasn't a sidewalk was there even no it was just but no cars oh there is cars it was a driveway yeah right so it was like walking yeah so it wasn't really a path though right right am I wrong no no I understood what it was but it was not designated now um and then I was just going to speak also I was thinking about what uh mayor Cummings and um Council Member Brown said and in my head it was I did did I see it anywhere in the report what's the current rent almost one bedroom and I forget if the other one was two bedroom units were currently no that was not provided in the report we just are required to look at the income level of the tenants so that's I just that just out of curiosity when one of the neighbors said that she's been inside of them and they're cute from the outside but dated and worn down and so then I think like sometimes landlords faced the rent on you know if they know that they're old appliances or this that any other and so they make the rent lower so would make it affordable for people but then you know every 30 years or whatever you have to do a major I don't even know how many years you do a major overhaul and a renovation that money has to come back somehow and so I would imagine that that would cause the landlords or the owners or whatever that they would need to raise the rent to recoup some of their costs for the improvements to the property and so when studying this further I just want to you know realize like that you know sometimes things are price lower just because they're not in the best shape and it's not brand new and that it would cost money to make things nicer if that makes sense Council Member Matt. I'll make just a couple more comments about the path I'm enormous fan of paths they put extra in this most of you know but this to me was not didn't feel like a designated path it's walking down someone's private driveway which is a little bit creepy and the other thing too in Seabright there's so many nice little pd plan developments of about this number of units that that were done maybe 20 years ago or so what's the minus on some of those big lots and the fact that that they are self-enclosed really creates a sense of neighborhood within those units so I think in the plant this isn't the plan development but it has that same similar feeling so I'm just adding those observations. There's no further questions or comments why don't we go ahead and take the roll call vote on time oh yeah I see it I do have some question who was the second Council Member Brown and then just for clarification for the minute since it was kind of broadly stated is it items and this might be for Sam is it items 13 the second bullet of 22 30 and 31 if that's where the reference to the path occurs I'm not turning to it right now but I think that's correct that's correct yeah those are the conditions that represent the path and then and then the other one where there was like ability was I think it was item number seven was regarding the gas mains and I leave it for the applicant and planning to figure out what does it do on that that's correct we'd like to build on that if I could have you clarify the fence condition also I that we would allow for a an eight foot fence yeah on the secret okay yes and that was by mutual by mutual agreement of the adjacent neighbors just because it sounded for the minutes part would I have my in my notes clarification of item seven that would be to include the term if applicable at the end of that condition to allow for them to yeah okay we'll count some member buyers Matthew hi Golder cruising along and thanks so thank you staff and thank you everyone for bringing that item before us and we'll look forward to seeing how it all turns out given that we're kind of moving along why don't we move on to the last item on our agenda item number 20 which is appeal of the transportation on public works commission decision on closed changes to the block of olive street and I'd also like to let people know that when the numbers are on your screen the non toll-free numbers are the numbers that you need to use to call in to comment on this item so if there are members of the public who would like to call in on this item the items that the numbers that you will use are the non toll free numbers that will be on your screen once you enter the the meeting you'll need to press star nine on your phone during public comment to comment on this item and you'll have up to two minutes and so with that I will turn it over to staff for presentation on item number 20 thank you mayor Cummings this is Brian Berguno parking program manager can you guys hear me okay and I'm going to share my screen can you guys see the screen okay I'm kind of recapping what was already provided in the agenda report and staff packet a majority of which was related to the transportation public works commission has already had a public hearing and rendered a decision on the parking proposed changes that I'm going to go through with you guys right now so this is affecting the 100 block of olive street at the cross street of mission street and on the other side of Toledo street overview just to provide some additional context the traffic engineering department received you know a number of different requests annually on average we receive three to four requests per month we work through those in chronological order and typically the turnaround time from the time someone initiates a request until we can kind of get to a point of completion averages about six months a majority of these requests remove you know we move forward with a work order unopposed especially when there's neighborhood consensus and I think that this context is important because sometimes we get to these points where council's reviewing something that you know has taken quite a bit of time to get in front of you for the first time but we've been spending a little bit of time on a number of these types of requests and we currently have about 17 in our backlog so this isn't isn't unique for us but it might be you know one of the first ones that you guys have had to look at in some time so the timeline for this particular parking change request began last August in 2019 we we got a request from a member of the public that asked us to take a look at parking regulations on the 100 block of Olive Street it took us until March to finish review of that request and determine what we were going to move forward and then of course you know at that time it was like the worst timing from the standpoint of trying to deliver a quicker turnaround on this particular request because the COVID pandemic hit and we were in a declared emergency we post to so the existing there are two ingress egress driveway access points to the businesses that's commercially zoned on two of the parcels that are against this block face and one vacant parcel that's zoned for residential that is currently not in use there's already an existing parking permit program with the two-hour parking limitation Monday through Friday and the only exception to that is to have a parking permit to park outside of that two-hour restriction we also have our zip car program has two designated spaces on this block and they are still in place and we have two fire hydrants one nearest Toledo and another one on the corner of Mission Street give you an example of some of the risks when we get these types of neighborhood requests we you know we ask these types of questions we consider safety we consider you know can we meet the requested by the neighborhood or is it something that we can't do for various reasons is it compatible use of the public right away you know making sure that the use of the street is being used for multiple uses for example bike friendly pedestrian friendly you know we had the the jump bike program too that added another layer of complexity where we had jump bike stations so you know these are the types of things we look at when we're making these determinations these were the four bullet points that are provided in the packet of what are changes encompassed and I'm going to jump to the map as I kind of explain those so what we were looking at doing is first and foremost providing a shuttle's location for the UCSC bike shuttle program they currently use this area as a drop-off point when school is in normal full session and they have been having difficulty finding parking and often having to double park or utilize the parking lot for their pickup and loading and unloading processes so during a review process they they asked us to provide an accommodation so that's one of the changes that we're making secondarily we're enhancing some of the the red curb areas at the corners of mission one because there's a fire hydrant located there and two to increase the sight line visibility when you're making turns left or right onto mission street off of all of and then secondarily there's another the second fire hydrant at the dead end was being obstructed often there was I think intent to provide parking because it kind of dead end in that unused space but what we have been seeing is queuing of cars that have been impacting the fire hydrant and then also through the process of our review we uncovered that there may be a potential development on the vacant lot that would be asking for a driveway rate adjacent to where some of that red curb is going to exist and then the last feature in the last piece that we added was the single space markings designating the number of stalls and organizing the parking in a particular layout that allows for a standard size vehicle to park the staff's recommendation was to satisfy the neighborhood request which focused on designating those single space markings while also enhancing safety looking for ways to expand the use and accommodate multiple modes of transportation including the bike shuttle to continue the existing limitations of encouraging turnover and existing restrictions and also ensuring compatibility of use with the adjacent neighborhood and businesses TPWC meeting in August they voted 5-2 against staff's recommendation I think one of the themes that was apparent as they kind of deliberated on the appeal that was presented to them was they were grappling with how to handle the displacement of some of the RV parking that's been occurring regularly there and asking for staff to provide additional information and feedback on safety parking programs for RV use they expressed during their discussion that they felt that they were limited in their role as a commission advisory only and would require City Council to weigh in on the context of the conversation between the appellants at the time and the neighborhood overall in conclusion you know we use these regulations for parking throughout the city we have a number of different examples where we've implemented enhancements for safety purposes compatibility of use or shared use of the street to accommodate transportation needs or neighborhood requests traffic engineering has limited tools to assist neighborhoods with parking and we feel that we have an obligation to use these tools to assist with the vitality and compatibility of the neighborhood we often feel that you know there's there's even more restrictions as we enter the coastal commission's jurisdiction and we struggle with you know trying to utilize these to the best of our ability um many of these parking regulations that we we receive again um when the neighborhood has consensus often we post these and submit a work order and it's not something that has to move through an appeals process but we get about one or two a year that we take the transportation public works and I guess with that that was again meant to be brief and just kind of summarize some things but I would like to open it up for any questions that you have great thank you for that presentation are there any um questions from council members at this time uh seeing none I'm going to open it up to the appellant the way this process works is that the appellant having the burden of proof will be permitted to present evidence in support of the appeal for 15 minutes and so um I was contacted um sorry give me one second can bring up by Dana who is the appellant of this she is called in and so I'm going to open up the line to the appellant for 15 minutes to respond and to present on this so you're on the line thank you hello mayor Justin Cummings and vice mayor Donna Myers uh city council members my name is Dana I live on the 200 block of olive street and I'm calling today to represent 76 of my immediate neighbors uh 26 of who signed the appeal I wanted to read that appeal to you now Dear Santa Cruz city council and city clerk this letter is to appeal the decision of the transportation and public works commission from 8 17 2020 regarding the parking changes in the 100 block of olive street the commission voted to uphold Alicia cool's appeal against the public work staff decision to install designated single space parking tees that designated UC shuttle drop off zone two zip car parking spaces and additional red curb markings on the 100 block of olive street between mission street and Toledo street for exit safety onto mission street and fire hydrant access at the end of the street property owners and residents of the neighborhood are appealing the transportation and public works commission decision to city council we ask that the concerns of the residents and homeowners to be taken into account in support of the parking regulations brought forward by the parking department staff our neighborhood has been adversely affected by the current unmanaged unservice RVs and van parking on olive street this short half block street is not an appropriate area for this homeless encampment the campers generate excessive excuse me excessive amounts of trash drug use noise and bad behavior and unsanitary conditions we believe that a decision to uphold the parking changes recommended will help solve some of these problems the vast majority of our neighborhood is an agreement on this issue we have been working on this change for over a year now and we ask that you consider our request and uphold the neighbor's appeal we will add that not only residents of our neighborhood are impacted by the current situation on olive but all customers and employees of cbs are also affected customers and employees of mathnasium tutoring on the corner of mission and all of are also negatively affected and genuinely concerned about the impact of their businesses the current conditions are unacceptable they create unsafe and hazardous conditions and a negative threat to our families we urge you to take to make the right decision and implement the parking changes proposed by public work that's the end of the appeal I just want to keep this simple clear and to the facts for you I'd like you to refer to the emails that came in to you the calls and upcoming public comments and we do have a slideshow for you please note that because of the hour of this I'm hoping that some people will get home from work and be able to join but that was um feedback that I got because they people didn't know if they'd be home on time thank you for your time and consideration thank you um I don't currently see um I'm working on it I'm going to share but um sorry um dana has a uh powerpoint um dana did you want that played now or later during your five minutes actually no it has to be played now hold up yeah and now please is it working or is it not moving it's not moving it's I don't know if you clicked it uh dana are there any further comments uh you'd like to make um please note there's one more screen that just popped up that's important because it shows um how it is now versus how it was before and it looks like we're also having more calls for service screens showing for everyone to review Bonnie we see the the presenters you know if you could switch it to presenter view of the the uh full screen view um I can't it's on the wrong screen and I can't figure out how to move it to the other one the presenter view it looks like I think we saw all the uh uh the slides that were in the show so I think we were able to see the calls for service further comments dana no I think it speaks for itself thank you thank you a rebuttal from the opponent however I don't um see there are a number the last four digits a bit of numbers so what I'll do is um I wonder if there's any questions from council before we open it up to uh public comment if there's any questions for staff dana oh talk to them around all right takes me a minute on this device uh so yeah I guess my question I have is um about the help me understand the appeals process here um because I as I understand it the appeal went about the decision by the department the transportation public works department went through a designated process um and then and now we're seeing that this is an appeal and just heard from dana thank you for um you know speaking up about this but I'm just I'm not clear was there an actual appeal is there what the what just help me understand the appeal process I guess overall I don't see it having gone through uh the same kind of process that the original appeal went through and so I just want to make sure that I'm clear on process if the city attorney could address that question or if there's someone from the city manager's office um there was an administrative process whereby this the staff initially approved the application um by the neighborhood uh that decision was appealed to the transportation public works commission and the transportation and public works commission um basically reversed uh or upheld the appeal and and rejected the staff's recommendation and then um um the appeal letters of which there were numerous um were inadvertently omitted from the agenda packet or rather um as a procedural matter um uh it's questionable whether or not it's required to include the the letter of appeal in the packet um I think a careful reading of the of the code uh state uh does not require that um but on on occasions there have been appeals filed where the actual letter of appeal is included in the packet and and others um it's not and this event it was not um it was however later distributed and is is a public record and on file city clerk's office for appeals under the municipal code was followed in this in this instance as far as the factual background I'm not as familiar um with that and so from a legal perspective it seems like the appropriate process was followed any questions or comments see that we have um one of our offices of our police department here and I was just wondering if you could comment on I know that the appellant had mentioned um you know increased calls for service in that area and and so I was just wondering if maybe you could speak to that yes mayor we have had I just kind of pulled the records for it was like you went back to 19 I just pulled the records from January and this year and we've had about 43 calls the parking to intoxicated people to people leaving trash leaking and I would see people causing disturbances so they are legit calls and that's kind of like to see the s and so the police department has ever been pushing for this change uh with parking and with Brian we've been working closely with them just to figure out what we can do what kind of changes we can make uh to make this more of a see brown it's your hands where it is again all right I do have a follow-up question uh thank you so in turn thank you um uh for the report about kind of calls for service I guess another question I have and this is just for anybody who has some uh something some kind of response I am wondering how restriping the um kind of what's really like a half a block is going to effectively address the concern that I'm hearing from the neighbors and um you know from the from our scpd um it's just I'm just I just I don't know that you know there are we have rules we have laws on the books about some of the behaviors you know dumping and things like that um you know public intoxication um and I guess I'm just not clear how changing the parking the size of the parking spaces there is going to make and impact that those challenges so I'd love to hear more about your thinking there design changes intend to disruption to the current use of the parking spaces that we believe will have the intended outcome that we hope um but like any parking regulation you know it isn't necessarily a crime solving problem um but we will we will want to try this um as a you know environmental design change that would have that outcome that we desire right thank you yeah I'm just I guess I I just am really I'm stuck on that because I I've heard the neighbor you know we've had a lot of communication about this and I completely understand the concerns and I'd like to find a way to address those and I'm just not um I'm just I guess I'm just still not clear how how that we're going to get there I feel like there may be other things to think about as you know whatever we do today that that if those concerns are real and I believe they are um we ought to be trying to figure out how to address those can I take a stab at answering that question as well please go ahead um we have used the single space marking as again as Brian said one of the few tools we have to deal with oversized vehicles in town and we've used this um the first location was Elton Avenue and um the bump outs on west coast drive and um we got immediate positive results from the neighbors in fact I hear very little from the neighbors out there anymore and so it actually has proven to be an effective tool it it it would not prohibit people from um say camping in their cars or short rvs but for the oversized vehicles it definitely changes the nature of what's allowed out there you have to park entirely within the space as marked or you can be cited so again it's just one of the few tools we have and it has proven at least from our point of view to be effective thanks councilmember golden this is a question for pdc so um writing a citation for a vehicle for you know say that that we do the striping and our rv comes in parks parks there they can get a citation is there any is that it so these parking spaces if an rv parks outside of the markings we can write a citation for that we do uh and every everywhere around the city parking citation for 48 dollars and it could escalate all the way to the impound in a vehicle if they continue to uh park there so we do have some some room in there and so i'm just curious because i i've also been out there too and is there anything else that these vehicles have been cited for yet i mean the ones that i've seen i've seen all of those things that showed up on the slideshow plus i've seen like uh rvs without a cap on their blackwater tank and i've seen um someone stepped in human waste and it's like pretty it's pretty unsanitary and and um inhumane the living condition conditions quite frankly and so i don't think it you know so i'm just wondering if there's some of these vehicles have already been cited absolutely there's several sections when we go out there they're technically supposed to move every two hours on it they sit in their vehicles and they wait for us when we come they move around the block and come right back so we have the two hour time limit a lot of the vehicles aren't aren't registered some of them register their vehicles we have cited vehicles for the dumping of waste we've towed vehicles out of there because of dumping of waste we have cited people for littering in the area so there are actually quite a few sections that we have cited uh during this past year the quality of life citations and some um and some d and b violations so that they're having quite a few and we will continue to do that thank you council members at this time we make a decision to deny the appeal do we uh or uphold it where does it go in effect maybe someone from our yeah i have i just have no idea but it is so critical and i i just you know some things are 30 days some are the the the tony this is brian we're gonna look in if i can help answer that maybe tony came from yeah there there is there there's no time certain implementation after after you guys make a decision we then can submit a work order the work order um can be delayed or paused or postponed due to the streets teams capacity or when we finalize submitting the work order based on the decision that you make so there is no no time certain um but once once the approval is done it gives us the authority to move forward with it um after that point great thank you just went to here thank you yeah questions or comments council members none i'm going to turn it over to the public um before we begin i'm going to just double check to see if the um checking the numbers does not appear that um the opponent to this has called in so we're going to go ahead with um opening up for public comment so if there are members of the public who would like to comment on this item now's the time to call in using the numbers on your screen after calling in you'll need to press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and you will be given two minutes to speak unless you've contacted us prior to the meeting to request additional time um if the opponent called in um i'd like for the opponents please announce themselves and they will have 15 minutes Paul Hamas again hi i'm speaking as a representative of the west side neighbors on behalf of the neighbors on all of street in support of the proposed parking regulations RV overnight parking is an ongoing issue in west side neighborhoods including all of street Delaware fair Miramar western swanton garfield park and others this issue predates the COVID pandemic a number of these RV residents have lived in our neighborhood streets for well over a year allowing RV parking overnight on neighborhood streets without sanitation or oversight is not fair to the neighborhoods parks or businesses that have to deal with related impacts and consequences those who live in RVs do need a safe place to park we already have the AFC safe spaces program to park free in the county and we need to get information out about these places and we need to develop more as the grand jury report also suggested but allowing overnight RV parking in residential neighborhood is not acceptable and it creates many problems the solution is to provide a legal place and then enforce existing regulations please support the request of the neighbors by approving the proposed parking changes on all of street thank you thank you thank you of homeless squatters rights where none exist the city can make parking changes as it sees fit respecting the local residents safety aesthetic and health concerns and the original appeal petitioner i hope can try her luck squatting elsewhere i suggest she make increase into RV campgrounds save spaces or look further away for RV accommodations CVS is open until midnight and an RV and capping across the street is surely not doing them any good i really don't know what goes on there at night but nothing of the residents to their say would surprise me we need a lot more of this approach on the west side and you can continue with garfield park delaware natural bridges please don't overthink this one implement the original approved parking changes on olive street thank you bye okay next speaker can you hear me yeah good evening hi my name is carolyn bowman and i'm the owner of mathnasium of santa cruise located in the beautiful brick building on the corner of olive in mission street and i'm calling you today to respectfully ask that you support the proposed parking changes on the 100 block of olive street and my two concerns mainly are trash um and safety i spend a disproportional amount of my time running my business um cleaning up um after a whole lot of people who um are not my customers and my bigger concern is really for the safety of our children that come here to do their math tutoring and um i arrived today um just a few hours ago to find a used needle in my parking lot and i just um really think that these changes would be in the best interest of our community thank you so much engaging in extremely loud and to be an rv park owner of a major rv park in the bay area and i can tell you uh this ain't the place where you want to be putting putting rvs from my professional standpoint from a safety very very busy and i hurry to get the errand done or whatever but they go zipping up that street living in rvs in my park so i i know that they're a a good way to do substitute housing and i'm certainly all in favor of it we gotta uh accept the staff units off that particularly uh particular street six months from now finding ourselves all on the ten o'clock news because we missed a call here and i would urge that the traffic engineer maybe the city attorney get on down there and just kind of looked at over and and think in those terms uh with that mindset anyway i appreciate the opportunity and uh and thank you very much for your time on this thank you very calling him hi this is robert from homeless united for friendship and freedom robert norris i believe the appellant is trying to call in that's what she's told me or i should say the responder she was occupied in another call so be alert for that uh the real issue here has to do with the lack of real logistics on this issue can i promise you for one second i just want to uh respect the fact that um robert norris is called in on behalf of huff and has requested uh additional time so robert you'll have up to four minutes thank you thank you justin um so what you need to make a really informed decision on this is to have input not simply from neighbors who have what may well be legitimate concerns but also have a very specific perspective and a specific aesthetic they're searching for they don't have the problem of having to sleep in a vehicle at night and having to find a place to park it's often nimby really a really profound part of santa cruz as well i'm really talk to service providers and find out just how many rv spaces are actually available is have service you should need to go out to service providers and homeless persons to get more indication the homeless uh the people in these vehicles you also haven't got any real stats for like to see the evidence and i think the city council should see if any criminal behavior in that neighborhood i don't mean anecdotal accounts and not being available maybe it's technically okay situation the public needs to see that in advance and so did the people concerned about this that was not a part of the agenda packet so to make a decision about that information the situation the staff also seems to be somewhat partisan as is the police department are implemented for providing some safe parking spaces there aren't that many in the needs of folks who are in their vehicles parking changes industry which is one block from the hundred block of all the street um i bought my house 16 years ago and i've lived in santa cruz for 33 years over the past several years there has been a large increase in the number of people camping at the end of all of street but there are no facilities to accommodate the campers there is no class trash collection there are no bathrooms there's no there are no picnic tables therefore the trash gets dumped outside people pee and poop in the bushes and personal items are placed on the sidewalks and in the streets it's not a healthy situation for anyone uh this includes the campers as well as the people that live nearby and the patrons of the businesses nearby i have also on occasion seen numerous drug deals and drug use people shooting up right next to the cvf at the end of all of street i have reported what i have seen to the police as a result of these activities i have reduced my use of the area reduced visits to cvf and i do not walk through the area to the other stores and restaurants anymore uh these problems are not constrained just to the end of all of street they spread out at my house which is one block away i've had camping near stolen i've had my tenant had their bike stolen um a car has been broken into numerous times and i've been stolen the end of all of street is not a suitable location for camping if the people want to camp in their vehicles they should do so where there are appropriate facilities such as the safe spaces parking program i urge you to adopt the proposed parking changes in an effort to reduce some of these problems thank you for your time thank you very much okay next speaker well this is abby samuels um i'm calling on behalf uh to support alicia cool's um appeal that the commission had voted five two on the commission commissioners 70 letters that were against the parking slots and now you're trying to reverse their decision um the thing is is that well i hope you don't less than a block away show that they were near any rvs it was a drug deal down there a lot every every single commissioner that voted five to two they went down there and they checked it out um i three rvs that part there mainly mainly alicia cool and the residents of the neighborhood in the rvs some of them have been living there for over a year the fact that they've chosen to live there indicates that it's a good place to live among the options available to them they could move if they wanted to could not possibly improve their quality of life or prevent the rvs from leaking fluids or being not registered with dmv uh i think that changing the parking to exclude rvs is the wrong city action to address the problems at all the street services from the city such as waste uh removal for rvs trash disposal storage uh social workers needle deposit uh need to be brought out to the site by the city to meet the needs of the residents there if you want to improve the community you have to actually improve the community not break it up and try and hide all of its members elsewhere in the city thank you hello good evening hi can you hear me yes thank you council for the opportunity to speak our family on a house on toledo street just a hundred feet from the olive rv encampment our house has been rented out since 2012 in 2018 we started facing problems with the rv encampment encampment next to our property our tenants a family of three reported excessive noise fights in the middle of the night clear evidence of drug use and drug dealing in short everything you would expect from an open campaign which is unmanaged and unregulated after suffering harassment by some of the rv dwellers our tenants left only a year after moving in instead of the six years they intended to live there i understand that san jose has a huge problem of lack of affordable housing and homelessness i am not anti-homeless and i would urge you to find such solutions for the rv dwellers however open camping in the midst of a neighborhood is not a good solution it has a negative impact on our neighborhood it is not safe for anyone not the neighbors not the businesses there and not the unhouse population living on that block it took our neighborhood over a year to try and address this issue we are not an anti-homeless coalition or any other organization and we're not trying to target home houseless people we are only dealing with our own neighborhood and i hope you will learn thank you very much yeah my name is kurtis galloway and i've lived in santa cruz for over 30 years my house is on king street a couple blocks away from all of the streets and i got involved about a year ago when i was noticing as i would walk down all of the street to get to mission streets a lot of vehicles camping there and increase in trash and that's that's how i came to talk to some of the other neighbors and hear about the problems that they had been experiencing too i think from my perspective it feels like this is a reasonable change and i i think that a lot of thought went in from the public works people and i appreciate the work of the commission and the city council and reviewing all of this and if we need more resources for RV parking in santa cruz i think that's great but i think we should be thoughtful about where we cite that and should go through a process of consulting the neighborhood other than just sort of grand father and yin places that have sprung up places spontaneously so i would urge the council to support the parking changes that were proposed originally thank you thank you i've noticed that the opponent into the application is called in and so before moving forward with the um the rest of public comment i'm going to allow the opponent to speak um they are allowed up to 15 minutes to provide their evidence against the appeal and so i'm going to allow the um the opponent to speak at this time about 15 minutes to uh provide your overall statement to the council thank you okay so i want to point out several things um number one i've been parking on all of street for approximately two years um it is a safe location i kind of consider myself a resident several of the nearby people living there consider um for me and a couple of the other individuals that park there like family um they welcome us there they say that we actually improve the neighborhood they say that they prefer to know the people that are parking there rather than to not know them uh we have provided many photographs to show that there is no collection of of um feces anything like that um there are a lot of police phone calls because in general there are a lot of police phone calls targeting people who are experiencing homelessness um removing the parking there isn't going to make a big difference as far as what's happening there because what's going to happen is people are going to have to move to nearby streets this is not a like a productive way of addressing this issue right now we have a growing number of people who are experiencing homelessness we have a lot of fire evacuees this specifically targets large rvs which kind of makes no sense if you're talking about health and safety concerns because larger rvs are the only ones with restrooms they're not the ones that being sewage or going to the restroom outside um I myself show a ticket every single month to show that I'm dumping my rv properly because people are constantly getting accused of that and so although many calls come in most are not substantiated um changing the parking would not help the the area at all there's plenty of parking in the cvs area for cars it's not going to open up any parking like for the ucsc shuttle or anything like that they frequently stop in the cvs area um large delivery trucks have no problem getting in and out of there um I would like to also point out that citing people who are experiencing homelessness in an effort to give them five or more tickets so that you can tow their home away is just a hateful horrible tactic it doesn't lean towards helpfulness or um improving people's lives whatsoever it it dehumanizes people um in their worst time in their worst crisis and makes their situation work if you take their rv or their home or their car away what does that put them that puts them on the street that would essentially if you did that to me take my bathroom away from my family that would put us in a tent that would force my daughter to have to use one of these disgusting porta-potties on the street that are hardly ever serviced and rarely ever open um you know the afc parking program is few and far between they're pretty much at capacity they do background checks you have to have fully registered vehicle you have to go through a lot of criteria to meet their program requirements it's not low barrier it leaves many many people out right now we need solutions not criminalization I find this to be like a horrible tactic to use like parking regulations to target people experiencing homelessness in general I think it's kind of an abuse of the process I don't think it's appropriate um like many people were saying we won the appeal fair and square if you were to go against what was already voted on five two you would be going against logic and just approving an anti-homeless hateful policy and that's basically all I have to say thank you for your time thank you for your comments okay we'll go back to public comment um next speaker he allows unmute yourself and next speaker gail michaela's out I don't live in the neighborhood I live on Highland Avenue but I along with my family own the property at 1700 mission street where the CVS is located and I'm calling to support the changes to the parking to support the appeal I've had several meetings with the neighborhood and I've also had several meetings with people from CVS Amy and Pagel who's the area district supervisor and the manager and because of the RV problem in the neighborhood employees and customers alike are being harassed by people who live there a lot of them want to just speak up today but they are afraid it's the same thing that everyone else has talked about there's trash there's needles there's urinated and deprecating on property there's a lot of harassment going on this is not COVID related as was talked about at the uh traffic commission these folks have been here as you heard this process started over a year ago it is really important that in Santa Cruz we find an appropriate spot for RV parking but that little block of olive street is not a safe or appropriate spot for this to happen so please um help protect this neighborhood and the businesses in the neighborhood and the residences and thank you for considering this matter tonight thank you the planning commission's decision number of people that have the safety of the people living in RVs I think if that is truly the concern that we need to bring on more services online before you talk about harassing people their vehicles will be impounded and that they will be on the street that is just straight up cruelty to obviously this is not an ideal situation in the neighborhood I live I also am dealing with trash and all the things that people mentioned nobody has offered any evidence just saying this stuff happens and there are people in RVs there's no way again a lot of these calling campaigns good afternoon my name is Amy Pagle I'm the district leader of the CBS pharmacy located at 1700 mission street um that's previously been mentioned a number of times um I appreciate you taking the time to listen to us tonight and I won't go into all the same details that many of the others have um in support of these changes um I just wanted to um say that I am too in support of these changes um these this particular group and people that have been living on the 100 block of olive street many of them were previously residing in our parking lot um it took us a lot of a lot of time and effort um but we were eventually able to get the right signs that prohibited that um they moved to olive during the time that they were in our parking lot um they were routinely harassing customers there was trash there was um needles there was drinking um and they were harassing my colleagues as well since they've moved um that haven't really stopped um I personally have received over 50 customer complaints this year alone um and many of these customers are neighbors saying they don't feel safe coming to my store um they won't be coming back until they can so um this has impacted my business this has impacted my colleagues um safety and and perception of safety and the customers as well and that's all I have thank you thank you very much hi um my name is Candice Brown I am a transportation and public works commissioner as I mentioned earlier um earlier I was not able to read the report by the way but that's a separate issue because there's an issue of downloading very large files that is probably problematic to other people which I have had a problem with so apologize I've not been able to read all the attachments but I can't speak to that particular meeting um and the issue that the commissioners had was that we were in the middle of the COVID pandemic and the appellant was asking to be able to shelter in place and we didn't feel there was no legal authority there to see whether we could um not honor that appeal otherwise and so I think that was a major influence the other thing was that the solution that the traffic engineering came up with the parking there actually the sign says 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. uh two hours so it's not 24 hour restricted number one and the solution for that was not to change that and it wasn't to change the parking around the surrounding area so it was felt like it would just move to another block or something that was one issue or the second issue um and also it was just targeted to the RVs and people were saying there was maybe one or two or three RVs there at any point in time but there's a lot of cars there's a lot of vans there there's a lot of trucks there and none of that would be restricted also the RVs in particular have bathrooms but all these other vehicles do not and so it just seemed like the solution that they came up with was not going to solve any of the problems that were of concerns and there were you know letters and there was some documentation by the tenant that then moved out um it also seemed from some of the documentation that became very personal between a couple people so it was hard to know if it was just a personal issue I just wanted to represent that because I think it's important and we felt that it needed to go to the city council because this is a much broader issue of homelessness and how to proceed forward so thank you okay next member of the public and how do people lose their housing that the government the churches and businesses open up places for them to park and camp and whatnot unhoused people this is for other reasons other than a fire are scorned upon and we must drive them away um this this is something that plays out nationwide not just here in Santa Cruz anything on olive street come up with a solution because if you have no solution for these people if you have no solution for them then what are you doing except playing whack-a-mole where you let say okay you move out of this area address this issue the way to address it is to come up with a solution uh I hear a lot of vague references to problems but no real reference to any problem that is caused by calling oversized vehicles the street when you're pulling out I'm fine with that or if they want to make a little buffer at the turnout out of the parking lot so that there's enough room for big big voted on by the planning commission with a 5-2 vote I live near this location and regularly go to the cbs for prescription drugs I never feel unsafe I never feel like the area is dirty or dangerous and I'm honestly astonished that during this moment of discussion regarding black lives matter and transformative justice that staff seems entirely unconcerned about the obvious bigotry and dehumanization of these kinds of regulatory changes this is the worst kind of nimbyism that is being supported by an anti-homeless reactionary coalition from next door this is honestly Trump-like has in addition of services even been considered are we as a city simply going to normalize this fish cleansing if a home alone would you suggest the city forcibly remove them from their home is this kind of thinking uh this kind of thinking is only ever acceptable when discussing people living in poverty because they have no rights city staff seems entirely unconcerned with human rights of people living in vehicles adding bathrooms a trash bin and a needle kiosk seemingly solves every problem put forward in a fair and simple way as others have stated this particular regulation is clearly more cruel than it is even thoughtful RVs have bathrooms RVs have space to store trash and meals and yet RVs are being explicitly targeted with these regulatory changes these proposed changes are not only cruel and inhumane they're downright stupid except the appeal okay thank you lower their hand so i'll call them next speaker last four digits ending in 0889 i'm going to be real quick on this i just want to say my name is lori i live on Toledo street i've lived here for 38 years and i'm really um appalled by everybody acting like the neighborhood is making these stories up i have two young grandchildren that visit me weekly eight and ten there are a lot of kids on the street um some just approaching high school some just approaching junior high um some that have never been exposed to some of the things that they are seeing that's happening on the block down there by cbs i'm a couple houses away but the it's not like people planted these things there they came a lisa cool she came two years ago and considers herself a resident what is she doing to give back to society what is she doing to get a job her place is a hub and her hub has brought more and more vehicles here small and large and the and this is when it all started i've been here for 38 years i watch this i see this i don't go to cbs anymore either i don't walk down that way unless i have my grandkids on the weekend we try to do it in the day never at night now just because of halloween just to look at things in the store but i i can't believe that that they are saying that people would in the neighborhood would plant these things and put these things these things never came the whippets the needles the feces none of this came before the motorhomes came and none of the smaller cars came before the motorhome came so all of this has been because of the hub she started as a hub and it brought more people to the area that's what i'd like to say and i'm appalled that she would say that the neighborhoods and and other people like robert norr said are planting things you know maybe these are planted they don't look like they're coming out of the motorhome well where the hell do they think they came from said i'm upset listening to this because like i said i am a homeowner and i lived here for 38 years and it's never been public comment after this we'll turn it back over to the appellant to make any um rebutting arguments short i have five minutes and then we'll bring it back to council for action and deliberation for digits 2789 hi thank you um i'm really glad to be going last and that we don't have to end on that absolutely insane speaker that is just spouting disgusting nonsense i am definitely here to vote that you to speak my opinion on that you should reject those changes you should definitely follow the five q planning commission ruling in favor of appealing the parking changes on olive street i myself am not a member of that neighborhood but i am a home them a homeowner in santa cruz i am disgusted at andy mills and officer west molly i cannot tell you how many times in the last four years i myself had to call the santa cruz police department to complain fraternities next door urinating in droves defecating barking i was told that they could not do anything probably because they were white bcsc students but now here is police here's the commission trying to do things to these rv dwellers if it's a quality of life whose life i you know following in numerous times to have the fraternities keep in check nothing is done until someone dies in one of them do something about the people that are entitled do something about the people that are actually causing a problem and not trying to do the best with what they have thank you thank you okay so i'm gonna um ask if uh the anna would like to speak um if so please press star nine on your phone you'll have five minutes to um to say any closing comments um in response to the opposition and the comments you heard and dana before you begin i'd just like to say that um just based on council policy you're able to rebut any of the things that you heard earlier but you can't bring up any new um arguments to be made so and you'll have a good five minutes thank you i just want to thank you for listening to the concerns of the neighbors and myself we are not next door we are not a coalition we are not anti-homeless um you have received in your emails over 83 emails in support of this change and as neighbors we represent families that were born and raised here immediate neighbors to the hundred block of olive all socioeconomical backgrounds teachers students homeowners renters immediate business owners managers landlords to that hundred block residents dating back to the 70s new homeowners and renters caretakers the elderly ucfc students taxpayers realtors customers to cbs and the close by businesses therapists volunteers and supporters of the homeless community including myself we the neighbors and the two immediate businesses of cbs and mathnasium support the proposed parking changes to the hundred block of olive street to address the issues of sanitation safety and parking we hope that the city council will help this homeless community to find a designated safe parking space with running water trash and bathroom facilities and the resources and support that they need again thank you for your time and consideration okay thank you we're going to bring it back to council um its actions and deliberation the council members who'd like to speak on this item council member Watkins and council member golder uh input from the community as well as the staff and our commission's time uh thinking this through i know it's really challenging and and and balancing neighborhood compatibility and these broader issues around those experiencing homelessness in our community as well as um illicit behaviors that are happening in neighborhoods and um you know given what i've heard in terms of the uh impact it's it's had to have some of these um efforts underway in certain areas where there's been a disproportion amount of illicit activity occurring uh i am supportive of uh of moving forward with uh and i want to make sure i'm saying this quickly but moving forward essentially with the implementation of some of these changes to our parking um i i believe that means then that would be to um uphold appeal so i'll go ahead and make that motion to meet where they are and certain RVs in that area and and i know that there's work happening with the county office of education and our safe sleeping program and looking at other locations that are more compatible for children and so i just invite uh you know our community and those who are in you know um sharing resources with our unhoused families that that be also a reference reference for those to consider a more compatible location for their children so with that i'll just go ahead and leave the motion on the floor okay so the motion on the floor um just in terms of lines of hands that are up council member gold are you prepared to second the motion okay so the motion made by council member walk and seconded by council member golder council member golder if you you have the floor and you're muted i i was just going to second the motion i don't have any further comments vice mayor mires yeah i just wanted to thank um all the folks who spoke tonight um i have talked with a number of folks over in the neighborhood there and obviously reviewed all of the correspondence we got um and you know we do have we do have extensive RV camping pretty much throughout the throughout the west side um i think that this street is problematic because of the commercial nature that's that's there the the shortness of the street um in the you know the commercial district is quite dense there there's a lot of use there's a lot of cars coming in off a mission street at high high levels it just this isn't i just don't agree that this is a place where we should have people living in their vehicles and um it's not you know um we we we do provide um safe parking programs we have three sites in our in our police department lot available every night not not very often are those used um but it's in my opinion that's just unfortunately it just is not a really good it's not a good location for for what's happening um i don't i don't know why the the residents who are there um would you know make accusations or try to i mean i i you know i've seen similar types of results in other places so i i think we are um you know we're dealing with a very difficult program problem we don't have um facilitated places except through the afc and i just think it's just very incompatible with the neighborhood and i'm i'm uh supportive of the motion it's just this is really not it's not really going to work in a residential area to do this and um so i'm going to be supporting the motion tonight thank you thank you talking about i do have another question which is explicitly about the appeal but i it's come up so i just want to ask where are we at with the afc uh parking we uh the the catch recommended to us that we expand um safe parking uh i believe the council has voted to um allow uh churches to increase the number of um campers and i i guess i'm i'm just going to leave the police department parking lot out of it because i think that's a bit of an anomaly and i understand it's maybe not as welcoming of the place for people who are living on the margin so um that aside where are we at with the afc um is there um you know are we expanding are there places that we could send people um and kind of what's the outlook there and i see Susie oh harris here thank you i had to i had to turn on my light good evening uh council members happy to answer that question for you council member brown so with regard to the afc safe parking program we do have the lot at pd um and also we opened um a 10 space lot um behind will work in lot 17 for the use of the afc program one of the catch recommendations as you mentioned council member brown was to continue to look into um expanding that program and as of now afc has 40 spots within their rotate i'm sorry not the rotating shelter within their safe parking program um during covid that moved to a 24 7 shelter in place program and i think the big distinction being is that um that program is a fully managed program um yes there are requirements in order to access that program um that this cool did mention and i think the afc needs to continue to provide um flexibility around some of those um perceived and actual barriers into the program we do have the ability to expand um from three to five spots at our faith-based organizations and the county's focus strategies work which is the system wide improvement for homelessness response is contemplating additional safe parking um across the county so i know that there will be potential for expansion um as the city continues to think about homelessness response programs the need for safe parking um is obviously paramount to continuing to meet the needs of our sheltered community um i would agree that this area is particularly challenged just for equity of use um for folks um that are accessing that area whether it be for business or residential or personal reasons and um really hosting a safe parking program needs to come with all of those service provisions to help people exit their homelessness and not just by virtue of providing parking so much more for the council to consider um but i appreciate the question and i do think there's opportunity um to continue continuing to move forward with afc as well fires and then i have a few comments i'd like to make two on this um good i'm glad you were here susie to update us uh because one of my uh i tried to get a hold of the social um faith communities this morning so i could get an update because i thought i understood that they had proposed another location in which they would manage but i don't whether you've heard that or not and i wasn't able to talk to anyone before we started 9 30 this morning by the way we've all got to encourage the churches because we've had a program might say we the city for on the books forever that churches can allow up to three um whether they're cars or rvs and often they have bathrooms and often they have water maybe they don't have but you know it it is a place and i think there's such a um there's so many out there that really could contribute to this problem no it on the city streets is not a good place you know my street i get rvs all the time but they're usually just here for an overnight they're more tourist than they are people who really have jobs and happen to be living in their rv so we must not um just we can't give up in finding a lot more and i think it just helped the whole community if we each one of us take it on to get your church to expand the program thank you susie too for all your work and and yet i'd certainly um and voting to uphold the appeal thank you for those comments um i just you know with respect to the issue around homelessness you know i think it's really important that the city remembers that not only um you know when we think about where the services and who who is in charge of operating services you know this really is a function that um falls under the purview of the county however the city has worked you know with the county of this year more than ever to stand up you know more services than we've ever had um i think susie just mentioned we had 40 um new a of c parking spaces i don't think that you know i don't think we had anywhere close to that last year at this time we have you know we have coral street we have the vfw halls we have at least seven hotels where we're um we're we're sheltering people at the moment in addition to the homeless services that we previously had um the benches the armory i mean we have set up unprecedented amounts of shelter for homeless people this year and we've expanded our parking programs and you know i think that we you know we really need to continue working with the county but i think we're trying to do as much as we can and we need to just respect the fact that we have to work within the amount of resources that we have i live over by a lot 17 and i often don't see that a lot at capacities so you know working with the a of c to do outreach to the people who are on this street i think would be great to see if some of those folks could you know become a part of this program um and you know i'll say that that safe parking program has not had any impacts on the community i we haven't received complaints um when i walk past there on the way downtown there's not garbage everywhere there's no you know needles and so there are programs that we've been standing up that have been working in our community and i think it's really important that we continue to use those models for providing um you know safe parking and sleeping programs for our uncheltered population and you know unfortunately um just based on the comments and the feedback we've received today it seems like what's happening on um on olive street is not very compatible with the residents in the neighborhood and so i'm going to also be voting to uphold this appeal and i just hope that moving forward and between you know now and when these um parking um these implementations for parking are put in that we can um provide some information to those folks about how they can get access to the services that we're currently offering throughout the county i also you know for the makers of the motion i think it would be great if we could maybe if the maker in the second of the motion would consider um approving that the mayor send the letter to the county expressing support of increasing capacity for safe parking programs in other parts of the county um that would be considered absolutely thank you and um yes i think that we really need to you know these times are very difficult and we have to balance the impacts on everyone in our community and i just think that you know with this um situation we really need to take the neighborhood concerns and the business concerns into account and try to find um other places where these folks can can sleep safely help remember brown i um excuse me i i agree um with uh much of what's been said i i um um you know i hear the concerns that are coming from neighbors um from the businesses there i will say it's not really i mean it is adjacent to residential street it is right there on mission street um but even now aside i um you know i hear the concerns and yet i have no you know for we we say a lot about making data-driven evidence-based decisions and i um i do not see any evidence um and if somebody has it please share it that um you know restricting large vehicles but continuing to allow smaller vehicles to is going to somehow change the dynamic there i i guess i just you know i that is one thing i just don't see this as uh a solution to the perceived problem um i i realize that making a decision like this is a politically expedient thing to do but it certainly does not do anything to address um the challenges that we have it does not do anything to address um the behavioral issues you know so so if that's our goal is to you know to deal with trash and and you know waste and needles it's hard for me to imagine that simply restriping uh that one block is going to is going to do anything about that and just you know kind of in on principle i don't think that i'm continuing to implement these kinds of changes in order to address a problem that just seems to it's continuing to grow is is going to get us anywhere so i can't support uh the motion that does not mean that i do not hear the neighbor's concerns i would be happy to um be involved in um you know efforts to try to address some of those issues um you know aside from just changing the the you know the parking the size of the parking spaces there it just it just does i just don't see how that's going to get us the relief um that people are asking for so i'll be voting no and um hope that there we can continue the conversation because i imagine that even with this change those issues aren't going to go away if there's no further questions or comments i'll turn it to the um city clerk to call the roll call vote the motion before us is that the council motion to uphold the appeal to uphold the appeal and move forward with the installation of parking of keys and designated shuttle drop-off in addition to red car markings on the 100 block of olive street between mission and tolato and and that's it and in addition to that uh direct the the mayor to write a letter on behalf of the council expressing their support for increasing capacity of safe parking programs um throughout the county council member buyers i matthew just unmuted i no council members matthew's buyers wackens golder vice mayor mires and myself voting in favor and council member brown voting opposed with that we will move on to the last item on our agenda which is oral communications or communications is an opportunity for members of the public to address the city council on items that were not on the agenda today if you would like to comment during oral communications please call in now numbers on your screen you will have two minutes to comment on items that were not on our agenda today and so after you call in please press star nine on your phone to raise your hands and you will have two minutes to speak Deming systemic police racism but instead it's the name of the progressive BLM made up of andy trumpers anti-factor solutionaries anarchist destructors looters arsonist vandals murderers the violently mentally disturbed criminals and yes the oh so virtuous leftists who condemn all white people and think black people are incapable of much of anything without their help using inflammatory hyperbolic dishonest rhetoric the hundreds of non-stop nightly videos of violent BLM provox officers and Compton and BLM filthy mouth celebrators shouting i hope you die in front of their hospital rooms even though fell mostly by press defa anti-fa BLM sympathizers that movement spizing america is still unmistakably on youtube every night any night will do to view war in america waged by useful idiots ranting lies of police racism between obscenities police are not perfect but do protect us from among other criminals the deceitful violent marxist anarchist anarchist groups hiding behind the first amendment like the BLM the BLM have done exactly nothing for black people it's not their real agenda the health crisis of BLM arson looting murder assault and rioting gets unfathomable official silence by the council racism as a health crisis and BLM endorsement by billboard plays local politics the BLM destroys everything it touches those who fund and endorse the BLM are not helping black people at all because the violent BLM poisons reality will rise masquerading as justice police racism doesn't make the list of real black crisis such as the pervasive no-responsibility black oppressive victim mentality or the alarming disproportionate ultraviolence of some black males who commit 50 percent of all violent crime overwhelmingly against other black people or the shocking 73 percent climbing percent of black children bored outside marriage to single mothers and to a more likely poverty or the shocking abortion and teen pregnancy rates or the boys without fathers lacking role models a vicious cycle repeats itself okay i can't believe i have four minutes only received in the same letter i requested both for item 20 and this item four minutes it was sent to you on friday i think mentioned item 20 we'll go ahead and give you four minutes for this item okay massive increase in unsupported homeless encampments which are survival spots you can see them all the way up and down highway one these are not places where people choose to live because it's a wonderful opportunity to be outdoors for a camping experience but this is a massive and in reality a real expansion of essentially the expression of need here in santa cruz along the levee along highway one and the pogan up and elsewhere it reflects impoverishment through a driveway up vehicles make it more likely that people are going to lose the place so that they actually have with a bathroom it's a great move on your part the shore projects that that mayor comings mentions that do provide real help but only for a relative few it's about the increase in parity of those outside and the point is not that it's up to the city to provide all the resources but it's up to the city not to criminalize people whose only resources are what they have themselves whether it's a vehicle or a tent there's a documentation that further available housing or shelter or camping spots as is posted up all along the pogan up and along the levee and is happening probably as this council meets uh missing and tower from the agenda is any discussion of that for these people rather instead you are concerned with the privileged people who are afraid that their children are going to be attacked gee you know it's interesting we didn't hear that one child was attacked walking past alisha cool's van sorry that just didn't show up and it's really kind of a form of really nasty bigotry to hear these things repeated again and again even though they are fears that people have black people too people will apparently that's what the council thinks the agenda you have is any redirection of the police budget to encourage an end to police violence and militarism black people which i'm sure mayor comings knows about particularly troubling is the sudden appearance of unnecessary large numbers of police to deal with small problems marty mirabelle also one charge after another dismissed in court but dragged over charging scenario that we've seen so blatantly and frequently happening in other cities often involving serious if not lethal violence by police we're lucky here and the victim didn't get to the hospital but he hasn't even offered medical treatment though he was bleeding as far as he tells it to matter on the street in front of city hall have the mayor and police chief kneel together but that means nothing if the same policies use of force taser use lack of transparency continue along highway one destroying camps and property they violate common decency as well as risk community health for all of the things likely in the future on these issues it's the community that brings these issues to the unwell in the city even if it disturbs the comfort of those happy with the status quo as others suffer or can't abide the reality of other people suffering i think listening if you were thank you the any other business section of the meeting i have two points i'd like to address uh the first is about police and policing and the police budget i still want to see the council investigate alternative approaches to public safety at reduced cost uh and i haven't really seen any motion on that and i'd like the council to make progress in that area uh my second point involves city manager martin vernal uh and his emergency policies on vending uh i don't think that those policies are justified in the prolonged nature of the pandemic health emergency i think the council should end the city manager's emergency powers and review those policies themselves thank you thank you let's ground again from um long time resident eastside i just want to bring up a few points um can you hear me okay um well first of all i mentioned in passing but i am having a serious technical problem in the fact that the city has changed the access to the agenda attachment and you have to download the entire thing it keeps timing out in my tablet in my other computer and so i have not been able to resolve that problem technically i've tried different viewers and different pdfs and all kinds of things so i just wanted to bring it to your attention because it really um requires people to upgrade their equipment which is kind of unusual in order to access the attachments and i think that again it's an issue of equity and that's certainly an issue for me as a commissioner um i also wanted to mention that as an accountant sometime the city council talks about issues that are very complex when it comes to accounting and fund accounting and um it you know for instance the enterprise fund includes debt service and cost allocation but if you for instance with the la viega you change that so that it doesn't it's not no longer an enterprise fund the debt service and the cost allocation has to go elsewhere so it does other budgets and it could impact the general front i just wanted to mention that in general but it's something that you need to be aware of so you need to have those levels of details in order to understand the full impact of major projects not being specific to any in particular other than the la viega and um and i also wanted to say black lives matter i'm a white woman i've been in this community for a long time and i personally find it very sensitive sometimes what garret says to the point where it makes me physically upset and i think that we are a compassionate community we're going through a lot right now i want to thank all those that protest in my name while i have to be the question place my with my partner that has medical issues and i want to thank you for that thank you very much black lives matter are any other people who would like numbers of the community would like to speak to us on items during oral communication that we're not on our agenda now's the time to call in and after you've called in please press star nine on your phone i don't see any other hands up except for one more speaker so if by the time that person's done we don't have any more callers we will move to adjourn meeting so next caller i think you mentioned maybe i heard you i heard it only once mentioned that the 800 numbers are not working a lot of people had probably tried to call in as myself i tried calling in on the 800 numbers for the first half an hour when i realized maybe i'll try the other numbers and i did not hear you mentioned except for one time and that was way previous to when i was trying to call in on the previous agenda item so i think we're losing some of our democracy that's one example the other example of losing our democracy is these fascist executive orders that are being that are being put out by martin burnall and i want to suggest to please fire martin burnall um thank you other members of the public who would like to speak to us uh that brings us to the conclusion of our meeting uh councilmember matthews i had the same kind of difficulty that kanda brown mentioned downloading and a single agenda item the whole agenda package just goes into a spin and i can't get it to work so something for it to troubleshoot maybe i'll talk with him okay that sounds good you can talk to me who's that funny funny okay thank you all right thank you um if there's no further are there any further comments from council members seeing none um have a good evening and i think our next regularly scheduled meeting is for october 13th and there might be a special meeting regarding the budget between now and then but uh thank you all councilmember golden last one fill out the doodles fill out the doodles so we can get those dates on the calendar and to everyone for the community please register to vote if you haven't already it's probably one of the most important things that all of us can do so thank you all have a good evening