Can I have a roll call, please? Council Member Brooks. Here. Council Member Bator. Here. And Vice Mayor Peterson. Here. Please rise and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Thank you so much. Tonight's meeting is being cable cast live on Charter Communications Cable TV Channel 8 and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8 AM. And on Saturday following the first rebroadcast at 1 PM on Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25. Meetings can also be viewed live from our city's website, cityofcapitola.org. Our technician tonight is Kingston Rivera. Thank you for being here. As a reminder, please turn off your cell phones during the meeting. And if you come for public comment, please sign your name on the sheet at the podium to confirm spelling for the record. We are going to start with some presentations. The first one, an item 2A, is a recognition of some outgoing board members from the Historical Museum Board. I don't believe they were able to attend tonight. Is that correct? That is. That is correct? All right. But we do want to say thank you and honor Rebecca Hobson and Georgette Neal for their service on our Capitola Historical Museum Board. And we will make sure that they receive their recognition for the work that they've done for our city and for our museum. Another presentation tonight is a proclamation honoring Roberta Bristol on her 95th birthday. Hi, Roberta. It's a pleasure to meet you. It's so good you came down because I can't hear well. Oh, sure. Sure, absolutely. Well, we are here to honor you tonight on your 95th birthday. And I was reading through the proclamation, and I'm so impressed with everything that you have accomplished. And I can only hope to have that kind of lifelong resume when I turn 95. To hear that you were a founding faculty member at Cabrillo Community College, a counselor and dean of students there, that you mentored and nurtured dance instructors, performers, literally thousands of students and successfully lobbied for yoga to be included in the curriculum, it's just incredible. And so I want to read to you part of the proclamation honoring you here on your 95th birthday tonight. So it reads in part, whereas 26 year Capitola resident Roberta Bristol will celebrate her 95th birthday on June 29, 2019, marking another milestone in a life that has left its mark on our community. And whereas Ms. Bristol planted the seeds of creativity in so many area residents, modeling a joie de vivre, how to live a creative life, and to build community. Now, therefore, I, Kristen Peterson, vice mayor of the city of Capitola, on behalf of the city council, city staff, and the entire Capitola community, do hereby honor and congratulate Roberta Bristol on her 95 years. Congratulations. Do you want to say a few words? Would you like to say a few words? Well, I have asked my friend Tandy to read this poem I wrote. It says a lot about how I've been blessed to be Capitola and to work at Tablil and the community. Thank you. The poem is titled, I didn't know I would fall in love again by Roberta. What I didn't know when I moved to Santa Cruz in September 1959 was that I would find a home where I would live the rest of my life. I didn't know I would find my life work and be totally happy, creatively engaged in the adventure of living openly, accepting what comes. Each day, I find an adventure with ordinary things like exercise, meditating, writing, reading, and taking nature walks. I didn't know when I slowed down and did one thing at a time, I would give up stress and begin to see that everything begins and ends in its own time. I've learned to stop and take a nap when my energy fades. I didn't know that when I gave up opinions and judgments, I would feel liberated from attitudes of wrong and right. I now feel free to enjoy others, making them where they are, meeting them where they are. I didn't know when I began to lose my hearing, I would learn to be more attentive to others and what they are saying. In a way, I've begun to grow back my ears by caring more to listening carefully to what others have to say. I didn't know I would find a dynamic zest for life itself in knowing I could solve difficulties and problems and I trust my own intelligence. Sometimes this means I need to ask for help from others or talk it over with loyal friends. What I didn't know has made me fall in love again, not with romance and one person or one idea, but rather with the power of life itself which blooms each day when good seeds are planted. Thank you, Roberta. Wonderful. All right, we're going to move right along. Can we get a report on closed session? Yes, the city council met and discussed one existing litigation item and one significant exposure item. No reportable action was taken. Thank you. Item four, are there any additional materials for tonight's agenda? Quite a few. We have for item 10A, we received three items of public comment. For item 10B, we have one item of a formal assessment letter contesting the assessments. For item 10C, we have a memo which includes two new additional material items related to the zoning code and the coastal commission update. For item 10D, we have a revised policy. And for item 10E, we have the revised salary schedule. All right, thank you. Item five, are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Madam Mayor, staff has one suggested change. For item 10B this evening, consider a resolution for the levy of the BIA assessment. Due to a noticing error, staff would recommend continuing this item to the July City Council meeting. OK, and do you need us to vote on that or is a consensus? That would be best to vote. OK, we'll entertain a motion. I'll move to postpone item 10B to our next meeting. Second. There's been a motion and a second, all in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. Item 10B will be continued. All right, we're moving on to item 6, public comment. Now is the time for members of the public to address the council on any items not on tonight's agenda. Please come on up to the podium. Sign your name if you'd like it spelled correctly in the minutes. Good evening, Vice Mayor and Council Members. My name is Susan Westman, and I live in the Riverview Historical District. And my request tonight is that when the city has projects that come to you for approval that are within that district that could have an impact on whether or not the district is continued, I would like to see you notice all the people who live within that historic district so that we have an opportunity to look at what's being considered in comment on it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Good evening, Council Members. Pam Greninger. And I'm coming just because I wanted to, in case you weren't aware, we lost Noel Smith. Noel Smith was the editor for the Capitola Soquel Times and a good friend. And I'm getting a little emotional, but I just wanted to see if maybe tonight you could adjourn tonight's meeting in his memory. He served as editor with the Times Publishing Group. And I have to tell you, when I was a city clerk and also in my capacity as a secretary for the museum, Noel was always willing and wanting to get articles in the paper to promote either the opening of the museum or candidates that were running for office. And anyway, we're going to miss him. But I just thought I'd make you aware of that. And perhaps, if you could adjourn in his memory, that would be wonderful. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Any further public comment? Seeing none, we will move along to city council and staff comments. Council Member Batour, do you have any comments tonight? I have nothing tonight. Nope. Councilwoman Brooks? I do. I would just like to ask staff if they can check in with our environmental commission to see if they can possibly take on looking at where we are with our plastics policy. Maybe ask them to meet and discuss that. OK. Thanks. All right. And I have no comments tonight. Staff, any comments? I just want to take a quick moment to thank Assembly Member Mark Stone and Governor Newsom, who today signed the state budget, which solidifies their $2 million for the Capitola Wharf. So really great day. Happy to see. I know we announced at the last meeting, but today it got finalized, and it's a done deal. So it's a good day for Capitola. All right. Great news. Thank you. All right. Moving right along, item eight, boards, commissions, and committees appointments. We've got some consideration of historical museum board appointments. Do we have a staff report? Yes, Madam Vice Mayor.  Two of those are for reappointment of Nells Kisling and Gordon Van Seyden. And we also, by recommendation of the trustees, have Emmy Lynn Mitchell for her first, we would hope, three-year term. The fourth position remained open, although they have a new applicant, and we'll be interviewing for that position at their meeting next week, and it will come to you in July.  Great. Thank you. Any council questions? No, seeing none. Any members of the public like to comment on this item?  I've read the application's motion to approve a reappointment. I'll second. There's a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. Congratulations to those continuing. Welcome to those new to the museum board. Thank you for what you do for the museum. We appreciate it. All right. We're moving on to item nine, our consent calendar. These items are all enacted by one motion. Members of the public and city council members can pull an item for separate discussion. Is there any member of the public that would like to pull an item from the consent agenda? Seeing none, is there any members of the council that would like to pull an item from the consent agenda? I'd just like to make a comment about consent item nine D that there was a error on page 88. It states that Anthony Condati is our city attorney at this time, but we have somebody else in his place. So I'd like to make a motion with that amendment. I'll second that. The paperwork has already been corrected. Thank you. I've read it. All right, motion and second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. Fantastic. Moving right along. We are on to item 10, general government public hearings. 10A, introducing an ordinance pertaining to prohibiting sales of flavored tobacco products. Staff report. Hello, chief. Good evening, vice mayor Peterson, council members. The ad before you this evening is the introduction of an ordinance amending title aid of the Capitolo municipal code and adding chapter 538, a tobacco retail license program, in addition to a prohibition on the sale of flavored tobacco and flavored tobacco products. Captain Andy Daly, Daly who's sitting at the staff table, is going to do a presentation by way of a PowerPoint series of slides and a PowerPoint. At the conclusion of the presentation, both Captain Daly and myself will be available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, vice mayor and council. We're here tonight. And let me just provide some background. On March 28, council gave us direction to research options banning flavored e-cigarettes and vaping products in Capitola. We produced a report and on April 25, council directed staff to do these three things. Prepare an ordinance creating Capitola Municode 5.30, which is a tobacco retail license. And what that does is regulates the sales of tobacco in Capitola, including banning the sale of all flavored tobacco and flavored tobacco products. The second item was a recommending moving language from the Municode 8.30.120, which was actually a part of the ban on smoking. And that was not the appropriate area for that and moving it into chapter 5. And then the final update was regarding just some of the language as far as the age limits moving it from it was 18 years old to the new lobby in 21 and also changing some of the language as far as from minor to the youth. And some of the information was provided at that. April meeting was from the 2016 Santa Cruz County survey. And this information was from the 2016 Healthy Stores for Healthy Community Store Observations. And it focused on how the flavored tobacco gets basically the advertising is focused towards the youth. And so the availability of e-cigarettes has increased in Santa Cruz County from 34% of stores in 2013 to 57% in 2016. 63% of those stores sell flavored non-cigarette products, which often have a kid appealing flavor, such as grape, watermelon, gummy bear. And 84% of those stores also sell menthol cigarettes, which would be a part of the flavored tobacco. 60% of the stores sell flavored non-cigarette tobacco products. And 16% of the stores place tobacco ads in kid-friendly locations, much as they do with candy products. Just as far as for the city of Capitola, we currently have 16 cigarette and tobacco retailers in Capitola. They're highlighted with red dots, primarily on the 41st Avenue Corridor. All of those tobacco retailers I actually personally drove and handed them a copy of the proposed ordinance along with the information repealing the stuff out of the 8.30. They'd also contain a cover letter explaining that public hearing was going to be here tonight. So the purpose of the Tobacco Retail License Program is to gain compliance with tobacco retailers. Section 5.38.010 contains specific language that's in your packet regarding what a tobacco retailer is, exactly what flavored tobacco products are, and tobacco paraphernalia. License are issued on an annual basis, so it would be from January 1 all the way through December 31st, and they would have to be renewed. And then I wanted to point out that section 5.38.030 subsection C states that it shall be a violation of this chapter for any tobacco retailer agent or employees to sell or offer to sell or to possess with intent to sell or offer to sell any flavored tobacco or any flavored tobacco products. So essentially it would be a ban on all flavored tobacco and flavored tobacco products. With regards to the fee schedule in Santa Cruz County, it's kind of a varying. We have the low end at about $98 to the high end of about $450. We have to do some internal process to determine exactly what the rate would be, but we think it's gonna be within 100 or $200 for the retail license. And part of that will be to evaluate what time it'll take for staff to manage the program. And then we're also asking that this law would take place, effective January 1, 2020, and what that does is that gives the retailers enough notice if they do have product to either not order more or to relocate it in another store or to sell off what merchandise that they have. And this is pretty standard in the other ordinances that have happened throughout the county to give them that notice. So as we move forward tonight, the staff recommends that we approve the first reading of the ordinance as presented, and that would be to add capital immunity code CMT chapter 5.38, which is a tobacco retail license. The second thing would be to repeal capital immunity code section 8.38.120 and then to amend the language in the capital immunity code 8.38 to comply with the current law. And with that, I'm open for any questions. Thank you. Any questions from council? I do. When you say flavored tobacco, does that absolutely include menthol as well, or do we need to state that in the ordinance? No, menthol would be included. Okay, thank you. Any questions? I have none. All right, seeing no more council questions, we will open this up for public comment. Is there any members of the public that would like to address the council on this item? Please come on up to the podium. Hello, welcome. Sign your name if you'd like it spelled correctly for the minutes. Good evening. So I'm here mostly because I understand the idea of the flavor ban, but the thing that doesn't go well with it is it's going to take away from harm and prevention and lead more towards fear. It's not going to keep these devices, these juices, these flavors out of the hands of minors. You can go on the internet, anybody can. You could ask somebody to do it for you. Basically, my idea is that whole proposition is just going to take away the one option for harm reduction that people like. That doesn't give them an odor and honestly doesn't make them feel as bad. The other big thing, though, that I would consider probably the biggest detriment of passing that whole proposition is the tax revenue that's going to be associated with it. You mentioned yourself that there's, what, 16 stores in Capitola? That's 16 stores that probably generate over $100,000 in revenue a month. Maybe even closer. Let me take that back. $100,000 every six months to $200,000 a year and probably even then some. Taxes off of that you could use towards education and actually informing the people instead of taking it away from them. Just my idea. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the council this evening on this item? Seeing none. Oh, okay. Hello, welcome. Good evening, honorable council members. My name is Rachel Kippen and I'm the chair of the Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition. I'm grateful for your attention to this important public health issue and I want to particularly thank council member Yvette Brooks for initiating this effort. We're here tonight because California is facing a disturbing crisis of teen tobacco use. We've seen the rapid growth of electronic smoking devices and candy-flavored tobacco products that appeal to youth. These flavors such as chocolate, mint and gummy bear make it easier for youth to start smoking and stay with it until they're hooked. In other words, they come for the flavors but get trapped by the nicotine. We are learning more every day about the unique dangers of e-cigs and other flavored products. Enough to state with certainty that e-cigs are not a healthy alternative to traditional cigarettes. They are simply a new and different nicotine delivery device. Nicotine is a neurotoxin that harms the developing brain and primes youth for addiction to traditional cigarettes and other substances. This increases their risk of cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious health problems. The tobacco industry knows the vast majority of smokers start before age 18 so they need to get them young. This generation, Capitola's youth, are lab rats in a flavor experiment being run by big tobacco. Let's not wait until it's too late to fight back. I encourage the city of Capitola to join the city and county of Santa Cruz in banning the sale of flavored tobacco products. The city of Watsonville has also expressed interest in doing so, joining dozens of other California jurisdictions. It is inspiring to see our local policymakers working together and telling big tobacco that our children's health is not for sale. Thank you so much. Thank you. Hello, welcome. Hi, good evening, council. My name is Tara Leonard and I'm a health educator with the county's Tobacco Education Prevention Program. And I want to just clarify a comment that we just heard because this is a common misconception about what happens with flavored tobacco that people will argue that it's a valuable quit device or a harm reduction tool. And I'm sympathetic, I really am, because nicotine is a nasty addictive drug. However, e-cigarettes have not been endorsed by the FDA as a quit device, as numerous other products have. And while personal stories are compelling, good public health policy needs to be based on data. And almost weekly, new studies are coming out that are confirming our very worst fears about these products. One found that 90% of those using e-cigs to quit were in fact still using them a year later. So basically all they're doing is changing, you know, trading one nicotine delivery vice for another. Now they will say that it's healthier, right? Well, in fact, more and more studies are showing that they are not healthier. And in fact, just last week on June 18th, a study was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association. And I'd like to read what they said, because it determined that e-cigarette use is associated with an increased risk of heart attack. Quote, both e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes are independently associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction. Switching from combustible cigarettes to e-cigarettes is not associated with lower risk of myocardial infarction than continuing to smoke. Complete cessation is the only way to reduce risk of myocardial infarction. Another study on May 27th out of Stanford University School of Medicine showed that flavored e-liquids may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease even in the absence of nicotine. This is really important, because it shows that the flavoring agents themselves are the ones that cause damage to the blood vessels. While the severity of the damage varied among flavors, quote, cinnamon and menthol were found to be particularly harmful. And that's important because it speaks to your question about the need to include menthol in a flavored van. Nobody wants people to quit smoking or reduce their harm from these products more than those of us who spend our professional lives as tobacco education and prevention experts. The best way to quit smoking is to never start. And for every person who claims to use a flavored product as a harm reduction tool to quit smoking, there are countless numbers of young people who are using them to start. So I thank you tonight for considering ways to protect the young people of Capitola from ever starting this terrible habit. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, welcome. Thank you. Thank you for hearing our thoughts on this issue. My name is Marina Mays, and I have been a local educator for nonprofits in Santa Cruz County for a very long time. I worked a lot with the New Brighton Middle School, and I took a lot of kids to Capitola Beach for beach cleanups, and one of the easiest ways to connect children to really big issues was through cigarette butts. And as an environmental educator, one thing that's really challenging is not only are we introducing kids to really complex ideas like climate change and plastic pollution that can feel overwhelming for an adult who understands it, introducing that to children can be really challenging and can feel very much dream-killing in a way of all these issues that these children are going to have to face. And adding other things like predatory ads from tobacco is only adding to the stuff that young children have to deal with that we never really faced, such as social media or the financial crisis or economic instability. All of these things are going to add up and just taking away this predatory nature of the tobacco industry is just going to be one way we can help kids be able to maintain a little bit of happiness in all of the changes that we're facing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public that would like to address the council on this item? Hello. Welcome. Hello. I just wanted to make a couple of comments about my story about this whole tobacco industry. I started, unfortunately, when I was young, roughly probably in high school, as far as I can remember, started with tobacco. Eventually, throughout my age, I went from 16 to 18, started smoking over a pack a day of, what was it, American spirit yellow. And before the age restriction went up, I switched over to vaping because I knew what exactly would be in it because they tell you on the bottle, you can look it up. You can do your own research for it where it's just three different products. And long story short, it's helped me out tremendously. It's, I know there are risks to it and so is with everything in life. There's risk in drinking, there's risk in other things. You just need to know how to regulate it. I don't think regulating it this way will be good for the mass public solely because then people are going to try to go to sketchy sites or people are going to try to find ways around it, unfortunately, just because when people want it that badly, they're going to find a way. And I'm just asking to look it over and I'm not saying change it all completely. I'm just saying maybe it can be regulated more like a dispensary because people can buy it online too and you can just easily take your parents' social or your parents' IDs and your credit cards and they can just use them. And that is a sad fact of life that just happens. So just a standard guide from Santa Cruz just asking please look it over just because I understand where y'all are coming from but the consequences of taking it completely away is it can be drastic if you don't learn from the past history of when you remove something from a society in the past and looking at it back then like prohibition or any other parts of history where you just remove something completely. So thank you for your time. I just want to give a suggestion maybe instead of banning it completely maybe you regulate it a little bit more like a dispensary. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional comments? Okay, saying none, we're going to bring it back to the council for further discussion. Councilmember Vator, let's start with you. Okay. This wasn't my proposal. This was brought by a councilwoman Brooks and I'm glad she did. It's a confusing topic for me because one thing I like and one thing I was really glad to hear tonight was I believe strongly in democracy and I believe we should hear from all sides and it doesn't mean that there's good and bad it just means we're having a discussion about how things impact us. So I do acknowledge that. And I think it's no mystery that my history and my position is I'm a big fan of revenue any kind of revenue that I can provide for this city. So when it comes to selling items and we take something off the market there's no doubt that there's additional revenue that we're going to lose. But on that vein, when we came to legalize the sale of marijuana in this city I voted against it strongly because I wanted nothing to do with that source of revenue in this city. The problem is that 67% of the voters in Santa Cruz County approved voting for marijuana. So it's called the will of the people. So it's hard for us to come up here and to make decisions and you always have to remember that there is a will of the people. When it comes to this source of revenue it's one I choose not to tap into and I'm hopeful that this council chooses not to do that also. We did make a decision to do marijuana dispensaries and like I said I would rather not have anything to do with that funding whatsoever. But for the other example one thing we also decide not to do is we decide not to sell fireworks in this city. Fireworks are a tremendous source of revenue. When there would be taxes on the revenue it would be beneficial to this city. But what we do in this country is we make choices about what we want to have that surrounds us. And so in this effort I make a choice not to sell this product in this town. If someone else wants to get the product they'll have to figure out a way to do it but it's just something that I would rather isolate and insulate myself from and the residents of this city and say we say no to this product and I believe it's beneficial to kids not to be exposed to it. So I'm going to vote no on or I'd say we're going to vote yes to initiate this measure. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Brooks. I too appreciate everyone coming tonight to speak about this topic. I think that really stood out to me was the comment about revenue and this revenue stream and the loss of it. But what's more excuse me what's more important to me is our kids and our community. As a parent myself I have a responsibility as a mom to go above and beyond to ensure that there's things around my daughter or there are not things around my daughter that she can have access to. And so not just for my own kid but for the rest of our children and the community this is really important. We have an opportunity, a unique opportunity to hold ourselves accountable for protecting our kids. So with that may I make a motion to pass this ordinance to I think that's all I have to say. I would like to approve the first reading of the ordinance. I think that's all I have to say right. I'll second that motion. All right. We have a motion and a second just for continuation of discussion I have a couple of comments I'd like to say myself. I think this is interesting because of course we all know that there are matters of personal liberty when it comes to deciding what kind of risks we want to take. But for this particular issue I think of it something similar to the way there are dry counties that choose not to sell alcohol. And I think that what we're doing here is something similar in saying that yes we do have the right to take that risk but we as a city don't want to offer that risk to you. And so I am also in support of the motion so we have a motion and a second. And all in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. We have as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting we've moved item 10B for a future meeting so we're going to move on to item 10C which is one of the revised zoning code. Do we have a staff report? Good evening council. Read the logo here. The interim city attorney discussed with you some of our legal comments and observations having reviewed the chapter 17.44. I'll use as I flip to it to join you all. My goal this evening is to explain to you from our perspective or from the legal perspective if there are any inconsistencies or suggested revisions that could be problematic for the city as it continues to grow, evolve and flourish as the city of Capitola does. Starting off is 1744. This is the coastal overlay zone so the entire chapter 17.44 deals with the regulations of the coastal issues and the coastal act as its implementation. There's many other chapters of our zoning title. I've talked about a couple of them at the very end and there are some additional chapters that have minor tweaks that are affected by what has been done in 1744. I know that this evening we only have three council members present. We'll be coming back as you know later in July and again in September to continue discussions on this topic so this is our primer if you will to get everyone grounded as to the major changes that are facing the city potentially and what our thoughts are from the legal side. And so I'm starting here at chapter 1744 section 010B which is purpose and I've got a slide for each one of these. Now my comment here is pretty straight forward. There was additional language suggested by the coastal commission staff to the effect as you can see up on the slide that the chapter shall be given the broadest possible interpretation or interpretation possible so as to protect restore and enhance the coastal resources as you can see in some of our comments in my attachment. That's not necessarily consistent with the language of the coastal act which does include a very important caveat of protect, maintain and wear feasible enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone. And what you should be aware of is that although this language was not included because the city staff and I believe the planning commission rejected that proposed language when the city followed up with coastal staff they indicated that they would if this topic was not injected into the zoning ordinance it would make a recommendation to the coastal commission to not approve the city's local coastal plan update unless the language was put back in. So I think this is an item that's going to potentially cause some continuing tension. I think it should be identified as an area that staff and the coastal staff, city staff and coastal staff should work collaboratively to see if we can strike an appropriate middle ground. The balance is the, I think, objective desire that we all share to protect our environment but also maintains our local control and consistency with state law. Next section is 17-44030. Not showing up on the slides, but the next section is showing my attachment to section I. This is a definition section. So 17-44030 is the definition section. There's several words that were redefined. The first one is they defined a new energy facility term and as written it's arguable that a private party that put a solar panel on their roof would constitute an energy facility under the coastal development permit. I don't think that was anyone's intention to prohibit somebody from putting solar panels on their roof but I believe that there could be an argument made based on the text of the language that that would be an argument. So I believe staff could work with the coastal commission to clarify that. The next section is section Q, which is a slide up on the screen, which is a pretty significant change. The red language was stricken. The green language was added by coastal staff. Now that means that they redefined the word structure to read as follows. As used in this chapter, structure includes but is not limited to any building, road, pipe, flume, et cetera. Prior to that, the zoning ordinance had had a modification and the first sentence that struck in red was an element permanently attached to the ground. By removing that limitation or that additional element to define a structure, it greatly broadened potentially the definition of structure. It might encompass something as simple as an umbrella placed on the beach. Again, I don't think anyone has an intent to regulate tents that are put out on the beach but it is arguable and it certainly opens the door for a individual who's aggrieved or an appellant who wants to shut down an event or stop something from happening and argument that an erection of any structure or this type of work would constitute development and therefore would require a coastal development permit. I don't believe that's what the parties who are negotiating the staff as coastal or city intend but I believe that should be revisited and discussed as well because it does create some potential for future argument which can lead to cost for the city in the forms of appeals and litigation. Next item is 1744060 Development Standards. Now coastal staff, again, this is one of those items that the city staff and the city planning commission declined to include in their recommendations to council but coastal staff indicated as with the prior item the purpose that they would not support the city's proposal to the coastal commission if that language were not introduced back in. Coastal staff have suggested in their correspondence they believe this just reiterates and expounds on the tenants of the Coastal Act but the language is fairly broader than what the Coastal Act would require and what it does is tie the hands of our local agency officials, planning commission and city council with respect to interpreting and using the discretionary authority that's supposed to be vested with the city when the Coastal Commission vests us with the powers of our own local coastal plan. So this is something that I believe staff both sides need to come back to the table on for future discussion because this is a logger heads if you will and if we were to go to Coastal Commission the two parties would not be on the same page and that's never beneficial to getting things accomplished. The next item that I have identified is Chapter 1744 sorry, Section 1744 070B5 Review Authority Development again blue language as shown on the screen is the new language added by Coastal staff and the red language is what had been stricken. What this change does is suggests that if development is under a coastal development permit that the Coastal Commission issued that the city should be the one to review any proposed amendments to it that's how the local coastal plan currently read. As modified the last sentence is what's important or would be in the context of whether or not the city can rule on an amendment to such a Coastal Commission issued permit but it says unless it would be more appropriately processed through a Coastal Commission authorization that's very ambiguous language it doesn't really leave any local authority and discretion or understanding for an applicant of what might happen if they were to propose to make any change or to further develop even in a positive manner their property. So I would recommend reconsidering this final sentence because it appears to open the door to a little bit more argument about again what is more appropriately processed through a Coastal Commission authorization than through city authorizations which is what the purpose of the local coastal plan is to allow the local agency to have decision making authority we have it except if it would be more appropriately processed through a Commission authorization there's no standard guiding that without some sort of standard to guide that you're just opening a door for argument and objectively I think people would have a different opinion and they would be fighting about whether or not the city had jurisdiction or the Coastal Commission had jurisdiction that's one of the things that you don't want to have any ambiguity over is whose jurisdiction is what so I recommend taking a closer look at that and working to try and clean up that language so that there is a little bit of an objective standard or that jurisdictional lines or standards exist in a clear way so that the city and applicants and the public understand what their rules and obligations are 17 44070D legal development permitting process is this slide and the next slide is functionally equivalent so this is a two for one we'll go quickly but essentially there's legal development and then there's illegal development and as you may imagine when we have illegal development we have to get rid of it that's pretty standard that's what we expect in most settings but what we have written in here is if you look at the red language which was stricken and the blue language which was added specifically in the middle there's red language that says improvements repair modification or additions to suggesting that is taken out and now what it says is in order to continue as it legally existed prior to those dates that's going to create a lot of room for disagreement as to how it existed prior to those dates not many great records exist that's not true plenty of people keep great records but not everybody and when individuals lose records suddenly there's a ambiguity in our code and finally the last sentence there was stricken the coastal permit may be approved if the proposed development is consistent with the policies or standards of the city's LCP I think that language is pretty standard and didn't need to be stricken it didn't have to be taken out but what you're looking at is increasing the scope of development over which the coastal staff would claim authority potentially under the coastal act again leaving ambiguity in terms of who has jurisdiction over a development process a CDP issuance so if we skip to the next slide which is just subsection E illegal development the same thing here the proposed amendment increases the potential for arguments about the legality of prior development this one's really dense so I won't try and point you to any particular sentence you'd have to read the whole thing as a holistic reading but it's the same concept as with what's permitted what's illegal when do we determine that the big issue with this is adding the language of the illegal development must be abated in any affected areas restored to at least the condition before the unpermitted but unpermitted development was undertaken if not better again these are vague ambiguous words in our zoning ordinance we can use broad policy language in our general plans but we don't put them into our zoning ordinances so again trying to tie down the language if there's a desire to set a standard for how things must be restored I think there should be a consideration for a more objective viewpoint because one man's garbage is another man's treasure and here we have the potential for one person to think that it's not what it should have been beforehand I don't think that this is a this isn't adding any clarity to our code it's adding more murkiness to the code so that's why I'm always I'm always averse to seeing zoning ordinances are a little vague the next section is a long string site but it's an important one it's repair and maintenance activities no coastal development permit shall be required for repair and maintenance activities this exemption does not include and I want you to look at the last sentence here the following extraordinary methods of repair maintenance shall require coastal development permit because they involve a risk of a substantial adverse environmental impact what they're saying is that you don't need a coastal development permit unless there's a substantial risk of substantial adverse environmental impact I don't think anybody disagrees that we don't want development occurring when there's substantial adverse environmental impact but what qualifies as substantial adverse environmental impact is going to be subject to a debate between people on the spectrum of ocean protectionism I'm very involved in protecting the oceans and I might believe that what is a substantial adverse environmental risk is one thing whereas an environmental consultant might believe a different thing so having a bit of a more objective standard some actual measurable criteria these are the things that are flagged for the city because these are areas where an appellant or where an applicant is going to potentially argue and there's not going to be any clarity in the code and when we have no clarity in the code you can end up before the coastal commission or we hope not but in litigation and those are never desirable outcomes for anything. 080G emergency work again the red language is stricken the blue language remains this changes what the city's ability to use emergency work this changes the city's ability to use emergency development permits to conduct emergency work apologies for the tongue tying here I'm looking at this and the red and the blue make it difficult for me to read it sometimes as well however such this is the last sentence however such work must be authorized by an emergency coastal development permit and a follow-up regular CDP pursuant to section 1744170 emergency coastal development permits I flag this one because what they're saying is emergency work is going to be subject to the emergency coastal development permit chapter that chapter has been substantially modified these are important things because when we do emergency work we're trying to protect something we're trying to repair something we want to have a clear understanding of how it works these two things are interrelated so the next one that we'll touch on we'll deal with that but first we have 1744100B challenges to coastal development permit determination and this is where coastal commission staff requested to include the executive director of the coastal commission which for all intents and purposes is the coastal commission staff of the local jurisdiction office to those who have the basis to challenge determinations made by the city so it's not just an interested party it's not just an applicant it's now the executive director of the coastal commission and that's not typical it's not what's in the city's code now and it would represent an incursion into our local discretionary authority and the community development director's discretionary authority to make such determinations now granted the coastal commission has jurisdiction over final decisions not interim decisions and this would allow them to inject themselves midway through our processes when normally they have to wait till the end that represents an encroachment on our local control and so I flag that for the city because typically speaking you want your local decisions made locally you want permits finalized and if somebody does want to take an appeal they can do so but ultimately allowing coastal staff to stop a process midway through doesn't seem like a fair shake for the applicant or for the city in terms of discharging what's supposed to be a local discretionary authority given to us by the coastal commission this is another one that coastal staff added but city staff had rejected in the planning commission I should say had rejected they added an extensive list of what submittal requirements were for applications staff indicated in the planning commission indicated a preference why don't we allow the city's community development director to continue to set the parameters for what needs to be submitted depending on what kind of project it is and what the city staff believe they need in order to do their jobs best there's going to be some individuals who might submit for an application and amongst all the bullet points that were included by staff most of them would be overkill for the project I think allowing local discretion here is probably appropriate coastal staff has not indicated whether or not they have a problem with this yet so I think we should circle back with them to see whether we can retain our local discretion on what we believe and we need to see when we are contemplating an application appeal fees and this is an item that I discussed with our community community development director coastal staff have proposed bypassing the appeals process if there's any fees including design permit or conditional use permit fees charged as part of an appeal as you can see in the attachment that is with the late additional materials any appeal that's submitted in conjunction with another permit requires a fee to do the cost the city has a lot of costs associated with conducting the appeal and so prohibiting coastal development permit appeal fees seems reasonable but telling the city it can't charge a fee for these very substantial appeals that involve a lot of staff time and involve a lot of public money to go through doesn't seem appropriate. One more time Jamie I see that that was a duplicate slide apologies for that there is a section that is 160A2 that should have been in here oh there it is thank you again the language is internally inconsistent there's a first first blue sentence the second blue sentence if you will says of coastal commission receipt of a complete notice of final action the final sentence says the 10 day working appeal period shall start the day after coastal commission receives adequate notice of the city's final local action those are different standards within the statute it should be a similar standard typically speaking receipt is not the standard for when a receipt of a complete notice certainly would be a reasonable standard but when it's coupled with the requirement that the city the coastal commission receive adequate notice opens the door to argument that there was no adequate notice even if they actually received a complete notice we recommended and I believe I talked this over with the community development director we would recommend that they work with coastal commission staff to bring those two in line to read the same to say simply receipt of or notice of the city's final local action but not have both terms interchangeably used within the same subsection of the statute. 170D coastal commission staff you'll see right there the first sentence in red they are removing or other designated local official which would basically mean that the only person who could preside over an emergency CDP issuance would be the community development director well God forbid Katie wants to go on vacation sometime because typically speaking that's what people do or they get sick or they have family affairs that they have to attend to we would prefer to have the same language that we have always had and what the coastal commissions staff has indicated is a change to that and it's not consistent with the coastal act because the coastal act provides for appropriate local official the city should have the authority to designate that official not be constrained to symbol one individual with one figurehead title while important they're not always available for a variety of good reasons and if there was an emergency we wouldn't want to not be able to act because that person wasn't around the remaining language there is generally not objectionable to the city I would note the final sentence says that the coastal community development director shall consult with the coastal commission as time allows and determining whether to issue an emergency CDP that's not ever been required beforehand it's not typically a requirement you know particularly with emergency CDP is the point of having a local coastal plan is that the local city can take action and the local city can make determinations of that nature it doesn't prohibit the city from doing that it simply says they shall consult but it is an additional burden and additional obligation that's never been there and it's inconsistent with generally what we expect which is once we have a local coastal plan updated and certified that the city can discharge it without having to continually check in with the mother ship so to speak 170 F this was an interesting one new criteria for granting an emergency permit that was added the proposed work is the minimum amount of temporary development necessary to obey the emergency in the least environmentally damaging manner that again who's going to disagree and agree about what the minimum amount of work is I think you can appreciate depending on where somebody sits what their particular motives are if you propose to put up something they don't think it's just the minimum right and you're going to have an argument about that and if you have jurisdictional ambiguity the city staff believes that the proposed work is the minimum amount but the coastal staff disagrees or another appellant or another interested party disagrees and they want to challenge it this language could be used to create confusion and to sell debate and it would essentially make a lot more difficult for everybody to have a clear understanding of what their obligations are under our local coastal plan we want our zoning ordinance to read clear we want everyone to pick up the book with consulting with a lawyer to know what they have to do this does not allow that to happen so I would suggest that this item be considered to be removed but I think that you know for the the thrust of it which is to protect the environment do the least amount of work in the least damaging manner that makes sense but I believe that should be a discretionary decision that the community development director the local enforcement official should have the discretion to rule on I'm not finding that language I'm not if I'm on a different page 44-25 44-170 yes I'm talking about when it says criteria for granting permit yes it's the very so if you go to subsection G below it okay got it that thank you for that since I've got you on G we'll slip right there which is the conditions for granting an emergency CDP the emergency development authorized is only temporary and can only be allowed to remain provided a regular CDP is obtained to recognize it I don't think anyone disagrees that if you get an emergency CDP you're supposed to finalize it that's what the Coastal Act calls for but the Coastal Act says you can do that later what it says here is absent a regular CDP the development shall be removed in the affected area restored to pre-emergency conditions are better again I'm not quite sure what that means but within six months of an emergency CDP issuance meaning that if there was a disagreement between say the applicant in the city about the scope of the work that they there's a really ticking clock that pushes people to make decisions in a short time frame it doesn't allow the members of the community who might have been impacted by the development to take you know appropriate response it'll be in a rushed position the Coastal Act permits it to be done later I think that the city could talk to coastal staff and see about returning to our prior iteration of the code where we have the discretion to take enforcement actions if somebody's sitting on their hands and refusing to play ball we can take appropriate enforcement action that's what our ordinance is called for however putting a running shot clock on somebody doesn't necessarily appreciate the realities of trying to work through repairs in the coastal zone and the time it takes the studies that are necessary the biological consults meeting with all of the involved agencies including state and federal as applicable the next subsection is F limitations this one just concerned to me because this is a big change they struck the word structure and changed it to infrastructure again I don't disagree that we shouldn't be doing emergency work on non-essential items but an essential public structure is different than an essential public infrastructure infrastructure might arguably be limited to sewer water maybe roads but I can tell you some people disagree about whether roads are essential public infrastructure particularly in the coastal zone especially when it comes to the managed retreat policies that are being discussed at the state level so I would recommend not changing that language essentially an essential public structure is different from an essential public infrastructure and it's a matter of opinion as to what the difference is but structure is broader than infrastructure and again they redefined the term structure so I don't like when a definition word changes you have to think about the ripple impact that will have throughout the code and so a lot of these things I'm flagging you'll hear me harken back to because the impact here for example is the wharf an essential public infrastructure it's not infrastructure in the traditional sense but it's an essential public structure it has a lot of value it's important to the city and to the community we should look at these kind of considerations when we determine what the limitations of where we can do emergency CDP work are can you make sure we add that it's missing from the report that came to us item H for limitations we don't have H double G second G I apologize there's a lot of letters and numbers in here there's a lot yes that's why we're doing this in many phases we'll be back again to talk more the next subsection is I application for regular CDP again the last section here all the new language says that is considered temporary all emergency development work and again the six month shot clock that I talked about earlier now it does say here unless the community development director authorizes an extension of time for good cause but it doesn't say that in the prior section so again you have inconsistency in your code and again you're putting a shot clock on somebody when that might not be appropriate there might take a lot longer it might take a lot longer time to get all the parties including all the biologists and the affected agencies with jurisdiction on the same page this one is outside of chapter 44 but as I just mentioned to you the ripple effect that occurs so we'll be talking about this one in a future hearing in more detail but I wanted to flag it for discussion tonight as well there's a section of the code that deals with encroachments if somebody wants to do encroachment work in the right way and for the uninitiated encroachment work is when you have to go dig a trench in the street to run a new sewer line or if you need to block the sidewalk to tear it up to run a new sewer line or if you're doing some sort of repairs that require you to encroach in the public right of way the final additional sentence here is the with the final additional sorry with the additional findings so again encroachment permits are required and they can only be approved with additional findings that the encroachment does not restrict lateral and vertical public coastal access does not obstruct public coastal views does not impact what I will tell you is that if somebody went out in the street and was doing encroachment work out in capital of village and they block the sidewalk that would be restricting lateral public coastal access you couldn't make the finding as it's written here or this is a very good argument you can't make the finding if you were to make the finding somebody could appeal it and argue that's a restriction on lateral public access you can't grant that encroachment permit work I think we identified this with staff that there are some scenarios that we recognize would be appropriate to have a requirement that encroachment work not restrict lateral and vertical public access or obstruct public coastal views specifically a neighborhood up on Depot Hill but this breadth of this language would sweep up the scenario I just described which is anything in the capital village or other on Stockton Bridge that would restrict lateral coastal access you couldn't make a finding to do encroachment work under that scenario so I think this should be revisited with coastal staff I think the parties are on the same page but I think the language needs to be fine tuned to reflect what the intent is behind the proposed amendment which I think in this instance although written with probably the best intentions it swept in some work that we would not want to have an additional finding of that nature the final section of my comments for this evening is in the visitor serving parking subsection of our code and where it is half way through the paragraph you'll see it says the city shall ensure existing levels of public access are at least maintained as possible enhanced including by providing alternative access so when there's a potential impact on a public coastal access the city has to maintain public parking opportunities I'm not sure that the city can in good faith make that commitment sea level rise storm surges there may be loss of parking with development we're encouraging alternative usage of transportation like e-vehicles e-bikes ride sharing for the purposes of reducing carbon emissions and hopefully reducing sea level rise or mitigating it to some extent requiring the city to ensure existing parking exists at all places is a bit troublesome and I don't know that the city wants to make that commitment so I think that maybe discussing this again with coastal staff to see if we can strike middle ground would be advisable but it does also you'll see it in the middle of it it restricts the city's ability to adjust parking fees, timing and availability it's typically a municipal affair it's something that falls squarely within the city's jurisdiction to deal with its own parking issues I know it's become a matter of statewide concern and unfortunately the coastal commission is various local regional offices haven't taken a statewide consistent approach to that issue so I would suggest that the city work with them to make sure that we all are on the same page and understand what we're being obligated to do I know that I might be you know I was just in Hawaii and I was told by the boat captain because of their tectonic plate location and sea level rise they're losing half of a foot a year the harbor is going to be gone in five years that he works out of I don't know what 15 years and 20 years of sea level rise will do to the city of Capitola but what I do know is that if we're obligated to maintain parking at the Esplanade and it's underwater that's going to be an awkward thing and I look to the way future when we update our zoning codes because these things stick around for about 30 years at a time and so that's the kind of mentality we have to have when we look at this kind of language so those are my comments for this evening if you have specific questions please raise them now I'm also happy to meet with you further to talk about these impacts and strategies for addressing a collaborative approach to getting the city's zoning code which is in desperate need of an update to get updated but at the same time the city needs to protect itself against binding itself to commitments that it can't really make or it can't really discharge down the line just because of the pragmatic realities and also recognizing that we are a city and if we're giving a LCP it's because we're supposed to discharge it so we should be in control of it to the most reasonable extent possible and I know that the council is of the same mindset in terms of we do want to protect our environment so the question is how do we get there without losing local control and without making promises that we ultimately may not be able to keep thank you quite a mouthful I know any questions from council council member Brooks I don't have any specific questions about what was what you reported on I'm more curious about next steps you've mentioned that we have the opportunity to meet one on one but if you don't mind I'll let the community thank you I have one slide on next steps so our August we were planning on continuing this to the August meeting but our August meeting is quite full due to the decrease in meetings over the summer so we're going to suggest tonight to continue this to the September 12th meeting in which we're going to begin first we can come back with an updated draft based on the guidance we've been given by the city attorney tonight so a clean draft of those modifications also starting to discuss the policy item so the first two during the September 12th meeting that I'd like to bring forward is a discussion on village parking and also a discussion on the village hotel height and then followed by a meeting on September 26th to discuss the monarch and we'll notice these appropriately since they're highly sensitive items that the public has been interested in and then any additional council item discussion items that you would like on the September 26th meeting so that's where we're headed and that's different from what was in the staff report originally and tonight we're recommending a continuation on the discussion of the zoning code update for the September 12th meeting thank you can we have that e-mail or can I have that e-mail to me thank you do you have any additional questions I have no questions at this time Council Member Batur no questions no questions alright we will bring it to public comment then is there any member of the public that would like to address the council on this item hello good evening again first I would like to thank the city attorney for his work it's clear and easy to understand and it's very helpful in trying to go through this kind of process I would also like to encourage the council this it's an interesting process our staff working with the coastal commission staff and as in all cases you know sort of staff working with staff staff people change the interpretations change and as council members you've often had staff bring you an idea a proposal or a project where the city council decided that they had a better approach to it than what the staff was offering you and I'm saying that because I encourage you to adopt your final ordinance that represents what the city of Capitola wants and to not be intimidated by the coastal commission staff saying well we're not going to recommend approval of it because we've all seen even the coastal commission approve things differently from what their staff has recommended so I urge you to do what is best for the city of Capitola and Capitola's residents and I compliment Katie because I know this is a very difficult position that she's in thank you any other members of the public alright hello welcome hello TJ Welch I really don't have anything new to add other than I do want to commit a read for his work and diligence and it gets so convoluted between the edit sometimes trying to figure out where we go with this but I think you did a great job I appreciate Katie and the staff working through this and I would also jump on the bandwagon saying let's not be intimidated by the coastal commission they're an agency that's out there but other than the coastal act they just have policies and what we're seeing if you follow any of the stuff going to the supreme court on other agencies regulatory type agencies is they're losing right now on overreaching and overstepping so let's just hang in there I think Reed's doing a great job and I think our staff so thanks for your time and effort thank you any additional comment from members of the public seeing none we will bring it back for council discussion council member Brooks sure so I would just encourage staff to continue working collaboratively with the coastal commission on these edits I know that it's important I appreciate the hard work that Reed and you have put into this Katie so that's the only encouragement that I have to just make sure we find a good balance with and how we move forward with all of this thank you council member Boutorf my question is are you looking for direction for us or some kind of consensus or some kind of way to proceed because I'm willing to initiate some kind of action like that if it's my intention after hearing all the I could have 21 different items and they all seem to be valid make sense and protect our position and I think they're inconsistent with the will of the people of Capitola I don't know how this is going to go back seem to me like this is into a negotiation method and so what I'm leaning towards here is I'd like to get consensus of the council and pass that on to you to direct you to proceed with your continued negotiations to the items to us to carry that position on and continue I don't want you to feel like you have to wait for us to come back in September to start discussing these items I think they're all valid and I'm willing to make a recommendation that we proceed with consensus on those items so I'll feel that which is I think the direction that you could give would be just as you said to continue working with our collaborative efforts with the coastal staff to try and reach that middle ground that we believe exists recognizing shared interests that everybody has in addition I think you know we only have three out of five council members here and in respect for the two who aren't here we won't take any extreme hard line positions that won't be able to be negotiated in the course of our discussions because I think it'd be fair to have their input as well I don't know we had mentioned I think earlier about coming back in July but that's not happening so we're going to keep it to September in which case we will consult with the other two council members if they have the opportunity to read these materials and have questions I'll answer those questions for them as well but I think giving direction for staff tonight to continue working with the coastal staff building off of these comments and with the if you're in general consensus here that the comments are ones that you generally understand and support where we're coming from with our concerns with the coastal staff to alleviate those and then return to you with a product that to the extent that we can negotiate it we'll negotiate it and to the extent that it's not negotiable we'll present you with options option A which is our way or option B which is their way and City Council can make its final determination at that point some of these may be low hanging fruit I don't know and in other words may be more complicated but I hate to see it just waste time you know wait time and you could have in the conversation there's 21 items so you know at least some of me may come back and then the full council would be able to if we wanted to really dig in on those that would be a different discussion that would be my recommendation so are you looking for a vote from us or were there a consensus device I think a consensus approach is fine this evening okay does the council have sure with one addition so if I if I may reiterate so to continue the record continue discussion the zoning code on September 12th with the draft it would be in draft form with the modifications you've suggested today the only addition that I'd be interested in seeing and maybe that's us meeting offline read but is to see what how those modifications would potentially change or change the rest of the LCP if there's anything because we just reviewed chapter 17.44 but I'd be interested in seeing what the outcome of these or what the effects of these changes would be on for the rest of the code absolutely I'll make sure to flag any of that ripple effect in the other chapter 7 title 17 has you know I don't know 60 80 chapters 90 chapters to it I can't wait to read it this is only one chapter and the rest of them are very detail oriented and there's you know little comments I've seen here there I didn't bring them today because they're more of the ripple effect right you can talk about the symptom but I talk about what the problem is and if it's more at least excuse me I'm sorry at least the two areas that you've mentioned in your report that we didn't get absolutely and I'll be sure to bring any additional ones that we identify as we continue to work with coastal staff to try and reach that middle ground thank you all right do we have a consensus among the council for our direction for staff moving forward I'm in yes thank you thank you moving on item D considering an administrative policy on social media use by city council and advisory board members hello good evening council and vice mayor thank you one second okay so this presentation is about the proposed policy for social media use by elected and appointed officials and staff believed that this was a good idea to establish best practices for social media to provide guidance for people such as yourselves to ensure that your online behavior still allows you to participate in city decisions and decision making that's about city business but also keeps everyone out of trouble which is always a good thing so we are not here to try to revoke anyone's rights we're not taking anything away we want to encourage that the constitution's first amendment does protect freedom of speech which includes your freedom of speech on social media but the policy is designed to just acknowledge that complications can arise with problematic social media use so we're going to kind of go over what that might be in order to nip that in the bud rather than have to react to any problematic behavior online so we're going to talk a little bit about the policy because any appointed official any council member any committee member that is regulated by California's Brown Act is who this policy is written for so we're all pretty familiar but the Brown Act is a California law that discusses how to conduct public meetings and is designed to promote open and transparent government we can all agree that's a positive thing we want to keep that going and it talks about how actions should be taken openly deliberations should be made in open meetings so those are the people covered by this policy what is this policy covering well social media obviously so the policy is defining social media as any online forum or community that allows individuals to post information and to receive information so right now that might be Facebook and Instagram we don't know what that's going to be in a few years from now it also still covers MySpace, Snapchat Nextdoor anything like that is covered that's all social media in the eyes of this policy and another important point is that whether or not you have an account on that social media that directly links you back to the city and your alias is Mayor Jane Doe or you're having a private family based account and you go by Janey both of those accounts really should follow these same guidelines so just to keep that in mind all social media and all different types of accounts are covered so that's who and what we're talking about but what is the content of the policy itself there are different types of city hearings as I'm sure you're aware we have quasi-judicial and legislative the different type of hearing affects the way you should talk about it online so quasi-judicial really apply rules to one individual one project or one circumstance whereas legislative discusses public policy rules that apply to groups or lots of different people so if you're confused or you're having you're not sure which is which you can think to yourself does my decision right now affect one or many so this chart is really the meat of the policy itself and I'm not going to read it to you but it's set up as a visual representation to show you know going from the left to the right what is acceptable what's encouraged what might be okay what's probably not a great idea and what's completely against the policy and then the second row really talks about okay so you've made this action what do you now further have to do if you've made that decision and you've done this online and we're going to talk I have some examples here so encouraged engagement we're not trying to get you off social media social media can be great so there are things that we're excited about you doing online these are two examples taken from from real local people not local but different jurisdictions one is discussing a monsoon warning so information that's pertinent to the public sharing that's fantastic definitely go for it another is discussing city budgets in Arizona sharing an article that was written again not a problem you know liking sharing reposting this type of content that's more about that legislative type of hearing isn't an issue when you get to commenting you can run into a problem again bringing it back to the brown act you don't want to accidentally start a serial meeting you don't want multiple council members commenting about something that really should be discussed in a public forum and not online outside of a public meeting so that brings us to some discouraged engagement these are examples these were made up so no one no one's in trouble this isn't something that someone actually posted the first example I don't know if you can see that is discussing a potential a new public park so something that you would be discussing at a meeting in this example a council member is discussing with the public what do you think about this new idea off the top of your head it's probably not that big of a problem it's great to get to get the public to tell you what they want that's why you're here but any one of those comments in this example is considered ex parte communication and should really be provided in the public meeting for everybody to be on the same page to then discuss and make a decision about that item so the content and the intention of that post isn't a problem it's just again you've made the post now what is your extra action to make sure everything is presented in a public way the second example is a lot more problematic is a clearly biased mayor commenting on a quasi-judicial hearing an upcoming vote that's already made up their mind they're discussing their decision ahead of the meeting and is soliciting again public opinion on that decision and has garnered a lot of likes and comments that again are considered ex parte communication so a lot of the public is being biased on a quasi-judicial decision is absolutely against the policy and would consequently that mayor would need to recuse themselves from that vote which ultimately this policy is designed to protect members of these boards and councils because you're here because you want to make those decisions you want to represent the public you don't want to have to recuse yourself and no longer participate in any of these discussions so I'm going to go through a list of more of that problematic engagement again highlighting if multiple council members are having online conversation you could create a serial meeting and violate the brown act something you don't want to do it's a pretty common thing and can happen accidentally but is still can be an issue and then again showing bias posting content regarding that you have an idea of why and what the policy pertains to our recommendation is to approve the policy elected and appointed officials use of social media and at the same time revoke a policy from 2007 which really only focused on council members and blogging so this is a much more comprehensive social media policy thank you any questions from council members I have I do have one can you just what is an administrative what's the difference between an administrative policy and one of our other policies so we have a series of administrative policies that govern all kinds of things in some cases it's a policy that helps guide the issuance of a permit that's outlined in the municipal code in other cases it's a purchasing policy in other cases we maybe travel to conferences and staff so all of these we have this whole series of administrative policies there's really two classes of administrative policies one that are approved by council and those really are sort of higher level things in this case this would be a council approved policy because you're really imposing a policy on yourselves and your other appointed bodies additionally we have administratively our city manager staff approved policies that are really discovering our internal operations so those are sort of the two categories of administrative policies we have okay thank you any questions? alright with no more council questions we will bring it to the public are there any members of the public that would like to address the council on this item seeing none we will bring it back for further discussion council member Bautourf? I think it's a great idea long overdue I appreciate the effort put into dividing this we were having a couple of incidents on the edge I don't think we crossed that line but I think we got out in front of this so I'm going to support this council member Brooks? what an interesting time that we've come to to have to create such a policy it's really interesting and there's such new verbiage with social media I appreciate this coming forward I do ask that since this is the first reading if we can have it is not the first reading administrative policies are approved without a second reading so Reed were you able to look at this? yes I did I worked with Chloe regarding the limitations we talked about the rights of free speech I had the chance to read it I didn't see any legal issues with it we're trying to provide a framework and this actually helps provide that framework the major concern here is having a decision of the council or the planning commission fill in the blank overturned because we got a bunch of expert communications in the form of social media they weren't shared an applicant who's aggrieved or a party who didn't like the granting of that is aggrieved and decides to allege that there's been inappropriate behavior and violation whether or not that gets up hell or not it could slow the process down doesn't look good for anybody involved so having at least some parameters some car rails around the road to keep us from careening into a ditch of social media in and of itself do we need to add anything in the policy that states that we revisit it annually or anything like that I mean since it tomorrow could be a new Facebook you could just at that next meeting say you'd like to add an item for agenda which is to talk about the implications of blank book to our new social media policy that we just might not be aware of a year from now I'm just concerned that this is a this can always be this can always be tweaked I think one of the things to keep in mind about this is interestingly we went out looking whenever you're writing an administrative policy in the city you always go and look for other ones that other cities have done you know that's just sort of what we do and we went looking for a policy about that did this sort of thing in other cities and we couldn't find one throughout the state it was really interesting everyone's administrative policy said don't violate the Brown Act or they looked like our old policy about blogs so your point is well taken that was one of the things when we were writing this we were trying to think about it like is it evergreen language like okay we're talking about everything here it's like online forums where people create communities and communicate and hopefully we've done it in a way that's going to be resilient for a little bit of time but I think you're right I think that this is going to be language we're going to have to revisit because it could be different next door could be called something different right or maybe it's all virtual reality great yeah let it be sure of thank you all right any further discussion from the council I'm going to make a motion that we I appreciate the effort of this and I think the fact that we didn't take it from somebody else and we created ourselves is a compliment so people are going to copy ours now well that's what I'm saying this could be that so I'll make a motion that we approve staff recommendation I'll second we have a motion in a second all in favor motion carries unanimously all right we're going to move on to item ten e consideration of the nineteen twenty excuse me twenty nineteen twenty twenty salary schedule and before we get into this item I have a statement that needs to be read before the city council this evening as part of agenda item ten e is a recommendation to approve adjustments to the city of capitol a salary schedule for all employee groups including the association of capitol employees confidential mid management capitol a police officers association police captain and at will management employees the at will management employees consist of department heads and the city manager the salary schedule before the city council include a two point two five percent salary increase July first twenty nineteen for the listed groups including all at will management the city health care contribution for employees will be adjusted as well at will management adjusted by up to fifty one dollars per month and with that if we could get a staff report thank you vice mayor Pearson I just want to reiterate the what was early reported this is a new requirement since two thousand seventeen that anytime there's any change in salary benefit to management employees has to be early reported and be part of the general government in two thousand eighteen city employees agreed on MOUs those MOUs included a two point two five percent salary adjustment in July this year it also included health care contributions from the city to be increased management employees at will will receive the same salary adjustments the two point two five is the other employees and will receive health care contribution increases up to fifty one dollars a month depending off its employee play plus one or play plus two and I'm here to answer any questions all right any questions from the council have none no questions all right any member of the public that would like to address the council on this item saying no we'll bring it back for council discussion motion to approve staff recommendation second motion a second all in favor motion passes unanimously before we adjourn I would like to request a quick moment of silence and memory of Noel Smith thank you we will adjourn in the memory of Noel Smith have a good night take care of yourselves take care of each other


OK. I think I'm going to get started. I am aware that this is the last talk before lunch, but if it helps, I'm doing three talks at this conference, and this is my favourite one that I'm giving before lunch today. So get ready. It's going to go quick. There are a lot of slides, and I'm going to go really, really fast. In my head, if I apologise, then that makes it OK. We'll see what happens. So I want to talk about basically three things. I want to talk about simplicity and abstractions. That's going to count as one thing. I want to talk about PAS versus containers versus serverless. That also counts as one thing. And then I want to talk about what I call containerless development, right? Like a way of actually understanding these ideas together that I'm going to argue is actually the direction that things should go. So basically, though, what it all comes down to is state, right? State is bad, right? That's what this talk is going to be about. And there are various ways of dealing. I love anything with a political joke. There's no more politics in this talk. So state is bad. Most of the problems that we have with distributed systems, most of the times when it becomes difficult, is when we have states. And most of the successful ways we've had for making things easy come down to removing states. Whether it's serverless or map-produce or cloud foundry, the trick is getting rid of states. But there is another way of dealing with it that we should talk about as well, right? It's what I call trying to make states great again, right? And the idea is maybe we can have some tooling that's so good at managing really complex distributed systems that we can still make everything really complex, but make that easy enough that it will be a good idea. I don't actually think that's a good idea, right? I actually think we need to focus on CF push, right? We need to focus on just push code, right? Simplicity, abstractions, things that make it easy for me to just push code to the cloud and have it work. Because I don't want to care about patching and packaging and building and orchestrating and all of those things. I want the platform to take care of that so I can focus on just the things that I care about. And getting rid of states is what lets me do these things. The simpler system is the one where there are the minimum levers, right? The minimum things for me to control makes the simpler system. And that's actually the most operable system. Because actually if I know that every application in my system is pushed the same way, that new versions have rolled out the same way, that when they break I fix them the same way, that's how I can build something that actually scales. The analogy for me is a driverless car, right? The point of a driverless car isn't to make driving easier, right? The point is I don't want to drive, I want to be places. That's what we're trying to build, right? But can't we just build it ourselves? Maybe we can just build the driverless car from parts, right? We'll just create some tools that make it really good to build a driverless car, and then we'll just all build our own specific custom driverless cars, right? Who here uses Java as a programming language? Go as a programming language? JavaScript or Node? Okay, who wants to replace that programming language with a custom programming language that you design just for yourself and your company is going to be perfectly tailored to your needs? All right, we've got three, and I taught three, and I knew one of you would say that. Why don't we do that? Firstly because it's actually... Why don't we do that? Firstly because it's really difficult to design a really good programming language and a really good platform, right? There's actually lots of hurdles in getting it right, but it's actually more than that. It's also that even if you build the perfect custom programming language, it will be a custom programming language. What we want is something that looks like a Macbook, right? We want something where good choices have been made, and when I go to it, it will be the same choices each time, right? If I'm developing for the Mac, it's the same each time in a way that if you build your own computer from scratch, even with brilliant components, right, it won't be a Mac or Windows, like that sort of thing, right? Generic things aren't simple, right? There can sometimes be an elegance to generic things, right? There can be an elegance, but genericness and simplicity are often in conflict, right? Because standardisation makes things simpler. So CF push, it's about I don't want to drive, I want to be places, right? But there's an elephant in the room that we have to talk about, right? Because we've had this conversation about CF push, we've had this conversation about just push code, and people might remember how it goes, right? Containers, and I probably don't mean containers, right? Let's be honest, I mean Docker, right? Docker has popularised this other model of containers and building your own platforms on top of them, right? And it looks really good, right? Docker build, Docker run. This is a really great abstraction. So it looks like this, right? This is how it would be architecturally, right? You see you've got code, you've got this Docker file that converts it into an image which you can put in a registry. Now you've got that image in a registry, you can put it to all sorts of platforms and tell them how to orchestrate it and wire it together and do all that stuff. This is actually a really good way of writing a platform, right? This is a good architecture. I mean, Cloud Foundry looks like this for what it's worth, right? You've got code that has a build pack instead and it converts that into a dropler which scales up and down. I'll be honest, I think the Docker model might be better, right? It's simpler, there's a nice elegance to it. But I don't think it's important because this is what a user sees, right? This is the Cloud Foundry model, right? It's code to cloud, right? In Onzi's words, here's my code, run out on the cloud for me and I don't care how, right? We might well want to iterate how some of those things work in the platform and you can come to my talk at 2.30 to hear about some of those things, right? But that should be hidden from a user. It doesn't matter to a user. Users should just be able to push and have it work. So just push code, right? But what do people say next? Containers, right? And we would say, okay, but can't I just push code, right? And you might remember how that conversation goes next, right? Containers, a bit louder. And we would be like, okay, but can't I just push code? That sounds nice. And then containers but really loud, right? Containers are cool, right? I really would like to just push code. And that's where the conversation was for a second. Does anyone remember what happened next in that ongoing industry conversation, right? Serverless, right? Remember, just push code, right? No servers. It's great. What, but, right? It isn't that what we were. Okay, so serverless. Let's talk about servers, right? Serverless, here's my function. Run it on the cloud. I don't care how. And we can invoke some more functions, right? That's what it looks like basically, right? Invoke a function. Cloud's going to scale it up and down. Can invoke more functions, right? Going to scale those functions up and down. There's quite a lot like PaaS, right? So far so good, right? This is great. There's always a but, right? Because we're at a Cloud Foundry conference and I like Cloud Foundry. Aren't most things apps not functions, right? Most of the things we actually build aren't functions. They might have functions. We might have apps that have functions, but actually aren't most things apps. Can't we do the same trick for most of this stuff? Let's come back to CF push. So wouldn't it be nice if we could say not just here is my code and not just here is my function, but here is my whatever. Run it on the cloud for me. I don't care how. How would that work, right? I don't care how. Here's how, right? So how? Abstractions. It's all about well-chosen abstractions. And abstractions are all about states, right? State is bad. Why is state bad, right? Because as soon as I've got states, it's hard to scale, it's hard to upgrade, it's hard to patch, it's hard to deploy, right? All of those things are because of states. What's the answer? Stateless apps, right? Things that are stateless. What do they look like? I can scale them by replicating them. The hard bits, the persistence of states, happens by services. I can expose my services, they have confidence in their rhyme, and that means I can scale them up and down in response to triggers, right? So I know how to create new instances and when to create new instances in the platform with isolated dependencies, right? It looks a lot like 12-factor, but it's not quite 12-factor. But it's the core idea that's at the heart of 12-factor and serverless and all of these things. It's about abstractions and good abstractions are actually specific, right? They don't try to solve all problems, right? Why is MapReduce a good abstraction?  I think most of these abstractions that we're talking about in distributed systems look a bit like this. They're a stateless piece of code, they're a way to trigger that code, and they're a way to know when to scale that code and how to scale that code. I'll give you some examples, right? Here are some abstractions that have been quite successful. Apps, functions, MapReduce. Let's be more generic and call functions events and MapReduce batch, right? And let's think about what these mean, right? So apps, apps are stateless, right? That's the whole trick, right? Cloud Foundry can throw away one instance of your app, start up another, it never has to worry about it. That's how we can patch it and roll it and upgrade it. It's bound to a web URL. We know how to trigger it, right? We know how to invoke that piece of code. We know how to scale it up, right? We can scale it by response time or CPU usage. We know how to build for it. So functions, are they very different from this? I'd argue they're not. It's really the same thing. Functions are stateless pieces of code. They're triggered by messages on a queue instead of by routes in a router. And we can auto scale them by queue length, right? And we have a way to build for them. Batch is the same, right? Schedule or time or data, right? But you're going to give me status code. Services. Services are not like the others, right? The things that we bind to our apps, they're not stateless, right? They're not something that we can auto scale. I have to do custom things to make these work.  It's not going to act like all of these other things. And it turns out that's fine, right? And I'll argue why that's fine in a second. So the abstractions really look like this. CF push, right? And I just bind a route, right? Here's the stateless code. Here's how to trigger it. So what would events look like? It's the same thing, right? CF push, but now bind an event instead, right? Bind the way to trigger it. Batch is the same. It can be bind, schedule, bind, whatever. Services are not, right? Services aren't a push. Don't push services. Bind services, because services are the hard bit, but there's not that many of them. And this is the aside that I want to talk about. Pushing services is a lie, right? Every time you see one of these demos, a Docker demo or a Kubernetes demo, you see there's this composite app, and it's got a web app and a Redis and a Mongo in it, right? Don't do that. Who is doing this? Stop, right? Do not push Mongo to the cloud. Don't push Mongo to the cloud, right? Services aren't pushing there for binding. If you've got a Mongo, you want to bind it. One team wants to maintain that. You want to make it highly available. It's a hard problem, right? Do not push Mongo to the cloud, right? If you do push it, it's not going to be the same Mongo that you run locally, right? It's, oh, I've got my composite app, and it works the same locally as remotely. No, right? You don't have a highly available Mongo locally on your machine, right? It's a different Mongo. It must be a different Mongo, right? So don't push Mongo, right? Friends don't let friends, right? So, containerless, right? What are we talking about? There are some good problems that you want to focus on that we should be letting people focus on, right? Your user experience, that's a good problem, right? Your actual functionality, how it works, making it work fast and slick and smooth, that's a good problem. How do you get someone to sign up and start using your app, right? The sign-up flow of your app, that's a good problem. Brosing lots of data, that's a good problem, right? Doing DSP and all sorts of that. That's a brilliant problem, right? Bad problems. Backing up Mongo, right? Quorum, OSs, patching, right? Service discovery, all of these aren't good problems, right? If we are still worrying about operating systems and patching at orchestration and containers in five years, we will have failed, right? That's what I would call the containerless manifesto, right? That's what we should be trying to do. So, containerless, I think past stop meaning just push code and it should be about meaning just push code. Containers revolutionise a lot of things. They're an amazing tool to use to build these systems, but they're not a UX, right? They're not a high-level abstraction. We need to build those high-level abstractions. Serverless proves that we can actually do that in a way that makes sense and it's proved it for functions. We should prove that for apps as well. So maybe we need a new word and I've joked that it should be containerless, right? Like, I never want to see the container. In the same way as serverless, there's servers everywhere. Containerless, there's containers everywhere. They're incredibly important technology and I don't want to be out of a job, right? My other job is running the container team for Cloud Foundry. So I really think containers are great, right? I just don't think there are UX. So we need a new word. I think it's containerless. And the idea is I just want to push apps and code and functions, right, and batch jobs, but not Mongo, right? Never Mongo. And I would actually like a consistent UX for all of it, right? I actually think there's something we can do with Cloud Foundry and that would give us a consistent user experience for all of these things that we want, right? Which is important, right? We want one good end-to-end experience where my log-streaming works the same way. Or if I need a persistent service, I can bind it in the same way, right? Where my workflow is the same, whether I'm pushing an app or whether I'm pushing a function. And we have a demo of this. We did it at Hackday yesterday. We did a demo of this based on this talk. You can CF map events in the same way that is CF map routes. Your app will get scaled up and scaled down and process the messages. I think it's really interesting. You should check it out. So basically have 99 good problems. Don't let containers be one. And with that, it's question time and then lunch time. So you can all feel free to go to lunch and come see me after if you want to discuss anything.


You know what yeah, he's out. How's it going? You want to come up here? Come on Then maybe maybe maybe our understanding Of things is not what we thought. Hi. What is it? Are you doing good? Yeah There you go, that's right Fun fun