'd actually access from the backside there. And then option four, which is, as we go into a little bit more detail on the next slide, our preferred option which combines three basic programmatic uses, programmable space in a general sense, a residential lobby and then would implement the navigation center here as a part of this for a potential shorter term solution. So this just expands on that option a little bit further. What we see here is that in order to reach approximately that kind of 15 to 20,000 square foot target for a navigation center, that would span the ground floor and the second floor in order to do that. Residential lobby in this case would be accessed from the internal portion of the site creating a little bit more of a community feel to that and how that's accessed. Also at grade kind of similar to Harvey West there would be access to some programmable space which could span to the second floor. And then we looked at an option where the third level would actually could be an entire floor plate of programmable space. There was a kind of a target number from HP HP that we heard about 15 to 20,000 square feet that they would desire in a single space for their use. So that's about what we're able to yield on a single floor plate. Again, the upper levels would be residential units and in this case there would be potentially four floors of residential units over the three floors of non-residential space. The future opportunity sites, the detail on those and what we did is considered is presented in the packets that you received. It's in the visioning report as noted there and as Sarah pointed out earlier, those are privately owned. There's no control over those. Everything we did, it was a visioning exercise and it was really encouraged in some of our interaction with the service providers when we had initially really tried to focus on those first key opportunity sites that they really encouraged us to look at the entire project area as a whole for longer term development in the future, what could potentially occur. We're not gonna go into more detail on this in the interest of time, but it was encouraged that we look at the entire site and I think that was about the extent that we wanted to mention those. And then I think finally, this was a few other items presented here that we just wanted to touch on that came from the community outreach and working with the service providers. Mostly from at the community level though, what we heard was, and this has kind of abstracted the building programs to look at the space between the buildings from kind of an urban design perspective, we heard a lot of things about again kind of creating community gathering spaces that could be formal or informal. Some relationship as we see on the north side of Coral Street there, potentially to a commercial space that could be inviting to the broader community at large. Again, provide some sort of a sense of a place to go, a place to gather. So that could be potentially a cafe with outdoor seating, creating some sort of a landmark that breaks up the length of Coral Street and identifies where the main entry to campus would be, is located sort of right in the center there near the mouth to campus. And it could be done very simply with, creating a well lit space there that could enhance safety, done simply with things like paint to just to kind of create a little bit of a landmark. And then at the east end of the, sorry, the west end of the street there, kind of just creating a soft space that might be like a little parklet. Again, kind of having a sort of semi-public, semi-private interface where it provides a functional use space to members of the community where they feel like they can gather and spend time. Thanks, Justin. So I just have a couple more slides. So just to talk a little bit about what it would take to implement pieces of this vision, kind of the pieces we would have to have in place. We understand that a navigation center is a priority for the council and for the community. So there are some state laws that would allow us to use a ministerial review process to create a navigation center in this area under its current designation. As we've been looking at it, we do think there are probably some advantages of re-designating 125 Coral for a commercial use. I think that we think that expands the options. And we'd like some direction on that from your council. So we've also already begun some work exploring grant funding for design development and resiliency in this area in terms of energy and climate change. And I just wanna emphasize that this location at 125 Coral Street, it provides a unique opportunity for expanding homeless services. There are not a lot of sites like this that are well located, that would be the appropriate size to create something like shelter space and navigation and additional service space. We do have other options for addressing parking needs. So I just wanna emphasize that for the council. So just on this point, we are looking for direction about development option 4.1. That's our recommendation, does the council agree? We'd like direction to go forward and begin researching and beginning work on the land use amendments that may be needed in that area. And then we'd also like your approval to just begin pursuing funding to go forward and implement this piece of the vision for 125 Coral Street. Relating to parking, parking is a significant challenge in this area today. And as we add more uses and users will continue to be a problem and a challenge for all of the users and visitors and local residents to grapple with business owners. So there are several things that can be done to start addressing these needs on the ground for parking. New developments can use transportation demand management programs. We can look for additional offsite parking agreements. Currently there's a parking agreement with the Portuguese Hall. It's maybe a little bit far away. So we could start pursuing other offsite agreements that might be closer to this campus and provide some parking for employees, staff members. We can partner with existing businesses to maybe build some new parking supply and then have some of that parking supply dedicated to staff and guests or visitors, clients of the site. Or lastly, we could acquire land for parking. So relating to parking, we are also looking for some council direction on ideally to pursue the first three strategies in sort of the immediate term, focusing primarily on identifying partners with existing available supply and then moving secondarily to other ways that we can incorporate TDM or can start to consider building out some new parking supply in the area. So just to finish up, this is the staff recommendation. I'm not gonna read it as we've just talked through it. It's printed in the packet. And we are available for any questions. We have some slides in reserve if there's other parts of the visioning document that we didn't touch on in the presentation that you'd like to look at in more detail. Ms. Noisy, thank you very much. Excellent presentation. Thank you for the gentleman that was on the line as well. Let me ask if council members have questions that you would like to ask. Let me look around here, Ms. Colantara-Johnson. Thank you so much for the work and the presentation. Couple of questions. In terms of folks who filled out the survey and the community meetings, was there any way for us to determine how many of those folks were neighbors or resided in the neighboring area? So I don't know that we tracked, we didn't track that numbers on that specifically and we did, in our online responses especially, I know we got several comments that said, I live on Fern Street, this is my address, I live on the next block. And these are the parking challenges I'm having. Or this is what's happening on my sidewalk that's really a problem. So we did noticing to a thousand foot radius, postcard noticing for each of these events. So we did have pretty good representation from neighbors. Okay, and then I have one more question for now. I can't find where this is in the report. It says if it is determined that the county cannot sufficiently contribute to or if sufficient grant funding is not secured to go towards the construction of integrated health services space, then staff would recommend that option four without the dedicated health services space be pursued rather than option 4.1. So it's whether option four or 4.1. And I can't remember where I read that, I just cut and pasted it in my notes. So the question is, so we are being asked today to give direction on one of those options. If we give direction on option 4.1, how do we determine if the county can support in the funding of that? I mean, that's gonna be in the future. So then how do we go backwards if we can't accommodate the resources to put forward a health services space? I'm gonna invite the planning director to come. Okay. About that. Mr. Butler, good afternoon. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. Thanks for that question. Council member Calantara Johnson, I'm Lee Butler, director of planning and community development. And we've already initiated conversations with the county and they've identified some potential funding opportunities that could be used. Of course, those need to be vetted with their county partners. And in some instances, there are competitive grants that they need to pursue. If we are unsuccessful in that, then we would be reporting back to the council and we can identify for you that we don't believe that we're able to incorporate that. Here are the reasons why here's what the county is offering in terms of potential other benefits. For example, long-term leases. Initially, we were talking about long-term leases of the space for HPHP, the homeless person's health project and or behavioral health services. And just having those could be helpful in terms of the approach that we take with respect to getting our financing lined up. But clearly, this is gonna be an expensive endeavor and to the extent we've got funds for the construction, that's gonna be a primary goal of ours. And then we'll be looking to partner with the county for the long-term operations and looking for community partners to operate that as well. That's actually, you made me think of my other question is that, so we're not proposing that we would fund the operations of whatever the services will be in these spaces. We're right now, we're focusing on the infrastructure. That's correct. We would be looking to the county, likely also to our Housing for Health partnership and to non-profit partners, to grant options. But our focus would be on the infrastructure and looking for partnerships with respect to the long-term operation. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you. So, I have two questions. One of them is related to what's laid out around option 4.1, which I generally, look, I'm glad that you've gone through this process and I'm glad to see that this is a possibility for us to consider today. But I am wondering about the mix of programmable space to housing on this site, given our affordable housing crisis, given that that's such a big priority and that there could potentially be funding to support a project like that if the housing, the numbers were significant enough to make it kind of pencil out as its own project. So, I'm just wondering if you looked at the possibility of more housing and less programmable space, for example, in the event that we don't end up filling that space with service providers. Sure, yeah, so we can just go back to that slide. So one of these other options could be pursued. So this one, option 2 has just this smaller amount of programmable space so that any kind of service provider or office space for service providers could be in there and then basically all the rest of the building for however tall it goes could be housing, right? So we did, we looked at all of these options and we do have a preferred option and we wanna keep these in the plan for exactly that reason that you mentioned because we don't know exactly what's gonna happen. Gotcha, thank you. And the other question was about, the other, I just lost it. Oh, this has happened twice today. The, it'll come to me, I'll pass for now, back around. Council member, the vice mayor is recognized. I don't have any questions, just a couple of comments that I wanna be mindful of that one, this is such a highly visible intersection for tourists coming into our town and so I hope that it would be attractive to look at whatever we build and I've heard that people taking the train, they have to open the gates right now. Like, and so the train is also another one. So I liked that idea of that garden space right there that's along the train tracks where people are coming into town from the train. I'm nervous about getting rid of the programmable space because the kind of people that will be living here really do need a lot of care and wraparound services. So having that on site I think would be paramount to their success and another concern I have is I think if we can all remember before we had anything there, the population of homeless people in Santa Cruz per capita was less than it is now. So a concern I have is that it's kind of a magnet and I know people say that all the people that are here from our community, I know that's not true. I've been in public education for 20 years and so many people come to us with the address 115 Coral Street and they bring their CUME folders which are legal documents and they are not from Santa Cruz County, they're from all over the state and so I just wanna be mindful that how much of our city's dollars we're investing in this kind of infrastructure and if any of it's reimbursable at the state or federal level given the disproportionate amount of homeless people we have in Santa Cruz compared to other places in the city and the state and with that we have a lot of shelters in the city and I have been woefully disappointed by housing matters over the years with their partnerships with Santa Cruz City Schools. There's three shelters in my attendance area alone so I would hope that whoever's managing these, we have some MOUs set up where parents that are coming in to use these facilities must attend parenting classes and must get their kids to school and we shouldn't have to be going through SARB for families that are living and using these services and so if we wanna stop homelessness we have to look at generational poverty and we have to focus on the youth that are experiencing this situation and so it's while I think this is all really ambitious and great work and I know it's taken years to develop I have reservations I just wanna just say that. Thank you. Council Member Brunner. Did you have a. After you're done I remembered it. Okay sorry when you're done. Thank you for this information. I, it's a huge report and a lot of reading but I appreciated seeing all of the comments and the community meeting, post-it notes all of that was really helpful and important and in considering the options and the recommendations before us today I just want to understand and ask since you know this has been many years in the development that from what I understand and some of these options have been explored and may happen and some are just kind of there in theory or potential and I think there's some really good components in here and it definitely addresses the direction of from Council for Navigation Center which was identified from previous work as a need and the parking component is one that I'm trying to wrap my head around because it is a huge concern and I remember in previous discussions we you know maybe we prematurely envisioned but parking potential even for oversized vehicles even I mean one of our previous items was on the waiting list for example at tier three parking and what a great site potential that could be for that as well people in their vehicles whether they're oversized or not but essentially their homes and kind of that tiny home concept and so in all of these I don't really see that that is an option and I'm wondering if that was explored. Yeah so we did talk a little bit about safe parking and it was something that the community brought up at the community meetings and we did some thinking about it and the configuration of these sites makes it difficult to really create a very efficient parking lot honestly so it's kind of hard to go out there and say like there's not really room but parking garages have like pretty specific dimensions that they need to hit and the way the parcel lines are out there right now we're not really hitting them so it's not really the greatest location for that specific kind of use and I know that parking is a major concern and as we add more uses here we're gonna increase demand for parking and so that's definitely an area where we need to be pursuing more options we need to be pursuing other ideas and we need to be doing that sort of in the immediate term yeah because part of it is also exacerbated because we've lost the on street parking on Coral Street currently so trying to think about if and when we could bring that back to sort of relieve some of the pressure kind of all in the mix right now. Thank you I mean I understand that this isn't the magic solution for everything and this site can't be everything that is needed that this is only part of that big picture so it sounds like as long as that was explored and really considering all the uses and that we can fit into this site best and I appreciate the diagrams and the thoroughness of that so but the parking too I know that I received a lot of emails from surrounding residents and businesses in the neighborhood too and that was a high concern as well that parking would it seems like it's already difficult and that it doesn't get taken away or get worse because of this like so do you feel is that your recommendation represented in 4.1 versus 4? So our recommendation in 4.1 does not dedicate a lot of space to parking. There are lots of places in the immediate area or within a quarter mile where we could augment the existing parking supply. You know one of our community members came and said why don't you work with Costco to put in parking stackers and then dedicate that to staff and we were like that's actually a really great idea. Why don't we think about that right like and I think there probably are other businesses in the area that probably have something similar maybe we could work together to think about ways to increase their parking supply and then have some portion of that be dedicated for staff or for long-term residents or people who aren't like in and out and then that can let the onsite parking be more available for people coming for an appointment or coming for a meeting and sort of just relieve some of the pressure in that area. So there are lots of other programmatic things that we can do that we can look at for that. There are it is harder to find programmatic solutions for services and for housing and for shelter space. Like that's really about the land and the dimensions and proportions of this piece of property and so that's why that's our recommendation. We feel like that's the highest and best use of that property and then you know the mix of housing to service to navigation center that's kind of for your council to really discuss and debate right. I think there are trade-offs and 4.1 is our recommendation. That helps to hear that why behind that. It is easier to find parking versus that programmable space. So thank you. And my last question is I just there's the vision report and there were also a lot of there was a lot of comments on certain properties wanting to be left out of the vision report. And you know I just I understand that this site is what this is about and you can't look at one site without looking at the whole and the whole neighborhood. So I get why that you know there was kind of looking out long term what could be potentials. But I think in that process those properties were feeling like that was the intention of this city. And I just wonder if going forward we can as we move forward I hope there's more community meetings and communications that really help the understanding that around that. Sure. Thank you. Council Member Watkins. Yes, thank you for the presentation. And I had a chance to meet with some of the staff in advance to get some of my questions asked. I agree with some of the concerns that my colleagues have brought up. I work in that area and I think that you know it is an industrial area right. So we do want to maintain its purpose for workforce. And we had Joe beam now moving in. And with this development I think parking and transportation demand management is essential. That is a very congested intersection is also one of the most dangerous intersections in our city. And so when you add people you add a lot more cars and a lot more activity to an already impacted area that for me is a big concern personally. And then you add housing on top of that and pedestrians walking around, et cetera. I think we just want to be really mindful about how we're factoring in safety and transportation demand management. So I recognize the trade off with the parking. I do give him sort of this now more robust use of the space with Costco, with Joe becoming in with other workforce development opportunities I am a little hesitant frankly to not have more parking available especially as we're thinking about bringing services and housing in. I think we just want to be realistic about that. There's also only one way and one way out really too. So I know that's already an issue for a lot of people who go to the Harvey West area. You know you have to leave before Kirby gets out right.  You have to factor that in. So I guess I just say all that to say is that I think we need to be really mindful of the entire area, not just the site planning and the impacts associated with adding more usage and more housing in that space. And then definitely around the pedestrian safety. I think that's gotta be essential. So those are just my comments. I don't know if I have any questions really. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you mayor. I will have comments. I was gonna save those for comment portion but I did remember my other question and it's kind of related to the line of questioning that we've had here or at least expression of concern about parking and traffic flow. But also the area in general. And I think I was talking to somebody who, we've had a lot of people talking to us about this project in particular, the private parcels, which I'll comment on later. But the getting over the creative hump of connecting the north side of river. There's a lot of space there and a lot of work going on and a lot of potential there. And they're not connected. There's no way to get there safely right across River Street, Highway nine. So I'm just wondering how, have you been thinking about, I mean, I know the visioning project was for this particular area but I'd just love to hear if there are conversations, as part of your conversations or with others or internally about how we do that, how we get over that creative hump and how we can actually make use of that space to connect people, right? I mean, there's gonna be affordable housing over there from what I understand. There's gonna be a lot of other things going on. Is there, you know, and the tanneries over there and people try to get across and it's not safe and we know there have been accidents. So there's like all of those questions kind of sort of lead into my question about how are we thinking about connecting the both Harvey West with across the street? Across the street, yeah. So great question, thank you. That was brought up often at our first community meeting. We were talking about transportation and mobility and circulation. And as your council is undoubtedly aware and I'm sure most of the community here is also aware, we are trying to purchase a piece of property there from Caltrans. The current vision for that area over there would be for affordable housing as well. And so we have been thinking about how are we gonna be handling circulation in this area and how do we need to be directing pedestrians up to the light at Ensignal and cyclists to turn to cross and come down so that there's a proper crosswalk or like how else can we manage this? So we did talk about several options and at this point in this vision we didn't feel like we had all the pieces to really be able to put something complete together. And I know that our Public Works team is gonna begin working on updating the active transportation plan sometime hopefully within this year. And we wanna focus on this intersection and on this part of town as a significant component of that because we do wanna be supporting alternative modes of transportation. We know we have a lot of folks that access this area on foot, on bike. And it's really challenging right now. And I mean it's really challenging in a car already. So we talked about different ways that we could like sort of amend the existing circulation on Coral Street and there were some sort of pros and cons of that and we ultimately ended up just recommending that we keep the circulation for automobiles as it is now for a variety of reasons. And this is gonna be an ongoing issue. I think when we get to the point of actually making a plan for the other side of the freeway this is gonna come up again. Are there ways to do an overpass or an underpass? Is that financially feasible? Is that physically feasible? How do we manage a space like that? It's all in the mix right now. And yeah, I wish we had like an immediate good answer for that, but just to say it's very much on our minds. Thank you. I just keep thinking about like Bill, we're gonna be engaged in these projects and we're gonna have islands, right? And with people frustrated trying to get to either side and so I appreciate the response. For the questions or comments at this point by council members, we're glad to recognize member of the public and while you're approaching let me ask Ms. Bush, do we have anyone online? We do, yes. How many? Currently two. Two, very good. Good afternoon, sir. Yeah, I lived there for six months. I got kind of placed there, kind of a special license to be there for a longer term than most people were there for like a month or two. But I lived at the River Street Shelter which is now decommissioned or defunct or however you wanna put that down. One thing that went away when they took out River Street Shelter, it's really more or less just a corner of that property right there at the intersection, it's behind it. There's like a house next to the small parking lot that there was a house and they had a laundry facility. That's one thing that's absolutely so critical. I'm not really impressed with them, them putting in greenery or like that seems less essential for a homeless people. Solar on the roofs, definitely, definitely, definitely important and useful so that they have an uninterrupted, endogenous utility access. Solar will be continuous power for them if it goes out for the city. Let me see, what else would I, I guess, suggest or recommend? I'm not the city, the county owns that rail, that rail area. The rail, I mean, it's quite, it's as wide as, almost as wide as this chamber and I feel like if you re-engineered things, you could run the train alongside some, maybe tiny homes, like going all the way out or I don't know, put a parking garage over the clearance of the train. That's the only one train that uses those tracks. I mean, that sounds kind of extravagant but you could have some kind of a parking structure that incorporated that space and then made it kind of a unitary, architecturally unitary kind of region or space. What else was I thinking? Oh yeah, you don't need to put a coffee place in. Java Junction is right around the corner. Chipotle is really the only restaurant. I think going to Chipotle and talking about it there, you're much closer to the exact reality of Coral Street in some ways, I wish it was closer to here. Coral Street, give people a little bit more convenience because there's now a four bus that goes there and it's once an hour. And yeah, access and underpass, wow, that's mind blowing. That would be incredible if there was some kind of access to Harvey West that would kind of circumvent all that traffic jam that's just trying to go to Costco and get their steamer trunks of toilet paper and get out, you know, like, that's how I view it. Yeah, I mean, it really is how I view, okay. Thanks folks, bye. Thank you, sir. We're going to hear from someone online and then we'll go with you next afterwards. Thank you. Good afternoon. And the person who is online, good afternoon. Five, four, three, two, one. Good afternoon, this is Ted Stack. You beat the clock. Way to go. And some of you know I'm the chief initiatives officer at Housing Matters and I'm here to express mine and our Housing Matters support for the visioning process for this report and specifically for the options 4.1 that includes a recommendation for navigation center expanded medical clinic as well as residential included. As Sarah pointed out, there's a great opportunity with 125 Coral and there are also the other properties that the city or Housing Matters currently own or lease, which are also opportunities for us to develop more services and some answers to issues that we've been hearing about all afternoon in the discussions regarding the Pogonip and other topics that we've heard today. And we're also pleased with the People Center design that is community oriented and pedestrian friendly. I was really thoughtful and incorporated a lot of the ideas that came out of the charrettes, which many of or several of us from Housing Matters attended alongside other community members. And just want to say that we're appreciative and committed to participating and planning for the future of Coral Street. Thank you. Thank you for calling in. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I just wanted to weigh in on the discussion as I was sitting in and listening to all the questions. And it sounds like that you admit that there are problems in this report, that there are way too many issues. I was listening to Council Member Brenner. I'm concerned about the lack of parking and I don't understand how you construct something.  The Costco parking lot is already impacted and usually full. So I'm very concerned about that. And crossing Highway One and River Street is already a highly congested area that can take you a half hour at the wrong time of day just to cross that area. So I don't think that you guys are really considering the huge vehicle impact. So it's just a part of reality. And so I really do think that this vision report needs a lot more work before it can be accepted. And that's just my opinion. Thank you. We have another person online, I believe. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Hey, can you hear me? Yes, Paul, we can hear you. Oh, great. I'm Paul Gallacher. I'm the owner of the Santa Cruz rehearsal studios with my wife, Jennifer, who is there city council chambers right now. I just wanted to say that since housing matters took over the lease at 112 through 116 Coral Street. The parking lot we now share with them at 118 Coral Street is now being used for purposes and forced to handle volume. It was never intended to accommodate. All the spaces on a daily level are maximized day and night. I'm looking at it right now. And it's just a real challenge and even a crisis for us here. And I'm just thinking that as soon as ground is broken on 125 Coral Street, where Seabird Metal is currently, this problem's only gonna get worse. And if you open up parking on Coral Street, it's gonna have to be managed 24 seven. I've been looking at Coral Street for the last 13 years, I'm here every day. And before the COVID-19 shutdown, it was a really bad situation with the parking on Coral Street. Everyone was living in their cars or living in a tent on the sidewalk or whatever reason. And you could give every one of those people a parking ticket and it would be very low on their priority list. Nobody was moving. And it was a pretty horrible deal out here. It put my neighbors out of business, polar radiator. They were a great shop. Nobody wanted to take their car down here because of that. And my other neighbor, Asher Rios, this lovely wife, Melissa, they've just been evicted. Housing matters recently gave them a notice to occupy. So they're out, it's another family business gone. And I really urge you to look at this parking situation in a realistic on the ground matter, because it's not gonna get any better, especially as I look at this option 4.1 on this great plan that got drawn up. It's gonna go nowhere with all the cars that everybody is connected to around here, the clients with housing matters and also the staff. And just being that this is my livelihood and I have everything invested in this shop, I could talk to you all day, but I won't. And I looked at this report and I appreciate your time and your patience. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time and your patience. Ms. McCoy, good afternoon. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here as an employee of Granite Rock, but also as a lifelong member of this community. So in terms of Granite Rock's position, our parcel is one of those that's within the project area that's currently envisioned as a parking lot. As was kind of discussed earlier slightly, there's been encroachment of industrial lands all across the Bay Area. And so we've been at this site for over 60 years as it stands, we would hope, we would like to stay there for another 60 years. And so to plan for, you know, parking is an issue and I'll go into that, but to plan for placing some of the much needed parking on sites other than those controlled by the city and housing matters, it creates some issues. And so my previous background, I come from working for the state as an analyst. And so I went through and kind of analyzed the projected build out of what's there currently, what's the number of units and all of that. So right now there's about 144 units that supports about 200 individuals. And that's what I was able to gather from public information. From what I can tell, there's about 10 off street parking spaces or so maybe dedicated to staff. And so under the projected build out, I was able to use essentially a conversion factor, which was the per square foot of residential, you're able to determine the approximately the number of units. And so I was able to project that right now, there's about 200 individuals there. In the future there would be about 420 units, housing 500 or more individuals with about 50 parking spaces. And that's not including 50,000 square feet of the homeless, this HP HP. So I wanna be clear that we completely commend the city for trying this, all the discussion that's occurred today. This is something that needs to be resolved, but I don't think that completely maximizing, pitting, providing services against parking is the answer. I really think that this report can and should not judge how much parking should be provided based on square footage or what's required by the state. How many staff members currently are there that need a place to park? How many residents approximately have cars? How many based on the clients that are coming to access services have cars and will need a place to park? Or else there will incur more impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. And so then it kind of leads into the fact that right now the focus has been potentially on expanding within this project area on parcels, not controlled or owned by housing matters and or the city. So we would like to highlight the fact that there's, you know, this has come up, you know, potentially slated for affordable housing directly in the other side of River Street from the project areas around four acres of land. Around two acres of it is owned by the city itself and it would require no acquisition cost and would thus start to minimize some of the costs to develop some of these facilities which is already so limited. And so as Granite Rock, we've discussed with our operations folks the topography itself from one side of River Street on the other, a perpendicular to coral, lends itself to an underpass. There's actually a steep, you just would suggest that opportunity or that be evaluated further. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Ms. Bush, anyone else online? Okay, we'll hear from that person then we'll hear from you. Good afternoon. Hey all, this is Kim Salisbury, resident of Santa Cruz and former social worker at County of Santa Cruz, working with a lot of these folks. I just wanna bring up a few things. I know Harvey West is supposed to be expanding their swim center coming soon and that will likely draw in a lot more people. And even as it is now, a lot of families and children go there for summer camps and throughout the year. So back to the traffic issue and also just making the area as safe as possible. I've taken my grandkids there before and it could be a little rough in that area. So whatever can be done to just consider that for the youngsters. And I was just thinking about, it is very difficult getting out, in there isn't as hard as getting out of there, but if there could be some way of a safe walking path along River Street, I don't know maybe with a little like a corridor or a fenced area, because I'm always terrified that I'm gonna hit somebody coming out of there making that right out from the shelter. And then especially if you're going right, no matter what you're doing, but just if there could be either some secure walking paths in there to make it safe for everyone. And yeah, I'm hoping that this will be good improvements, whichever decision is made and that it be an area that can help move people on to the next level and like it can be a rest stop and maybe not a permanent location so that people can move on to work and find housing outside of that area since it's already so congested. Thanks for listening. Thank you, Kim. Good afternoon. By prior arrangement, you're Ms. Gallacher, correct? And by prior arrangement in a timely manner, you have eight minutes rather than the shorter period of time. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I promise I won't use full eight, but I'm happy to not have the clock going. So my name is Jennifer Gallacher. I am the co-owner of Santa Cruz rehearsal studios with my husband, Paul, who you heard over Zoom, located at 118 Coral Street. If you're not familiar with our business, we're one of a kind, hourly band practice space, the only one that is operational in Santa Cruz and pays taxes. We're utilized by hundreds of local musicians every week and have been doing that for the past 13 years. Last year, the city launched the Coral Street master plan and I was personally shocked to see our private local business within the outline of the master plan to which at that point, we had no relationship or knowledge of. I attended the first community charrette on December 12th and was similarly shocked and pretty upset to see 118 Coral Street cheerfully presented as a future opportunity site within the housing matters campus. I watched slide after slide presenting all the different ways our building could be visioned out of existence. But at that meeting, what I did not hear was that they didn't own the sites. What I didn't hear at that meeting was that so much of the plan was based on property they had no control over. There was no mention of the impact on local businesses already well established in the area. In this plan, nobody talked about who would be displaced. I set this stage to remind you all of how this master plan launched because the city housing matters and the planning commission would have you believe that including us in their master plan is not affecting us. That rebranding into the softer visioning project will help people understand that it's just an imaginary thing that could happen in the future because that's what I've been told and that's what I've heard at every one of these community meetings that I have attended. And I'm here to tell you that it's not true. What I'm here to tell you loud and clear is that we are being negatively affected and impacted by this plan and being included in this plan today because we share a parking lot. Even before this plan, staff and clients of Housing Matters assumed that our building was under the control of the campus which it is not. We own our building. We are not associated with Housing Matters. And this plan has only exacerbated these assumptions which has led directly to increased entitlement to our private business. So, I just want to share with you a little bit of what entitlement looks like to us on a daily basis. It looks like Housing Matters clients parking in spots clearly marked Santa Cruz rehearsal studios and then being fully outraged when they're politely asked to move. My husband has been screamed at, threatened and defamed on social media because he has had the audacity to ask people not to park in bands designated for our business. It looks like contractors blocking our parking lot during business hours while dumping a pile of dirt from Housing Matters Victorian construction on our front lawn because, and I quote, they had no room for it. Since Housing Matters took over the parking lot, you heard from my husband about the volume and how it's not even able to accommodate it at this point. It's often impossible to discern which Housing Matters clients is using the parking lot to access services across the street and who is parking there to go by narcotics around the corner because often time, frankly, they're doing both. The result, this result in vehicles staying in the lot for extended periods of time, tying up parking spaces our customers and other staff can use for legitimate reasons and reasonable lengths of time. I commend Planning Commissioner Dawson and Commissioner Maxwell who made a motion to adjust the boundaries of the visioning project area to exclude the three parcels on the western boundary of this project area that are held by private property owners like myself, yet that motion failed to pass. I'm here to ask the city council to stop this plan from negatively affecting our essential local business and remove us from the planning area. Aside from my personal stake in the direction of this project, I also urge the council to force the city to not just give lip service to the need for increased onsite parking, but actually insist on a realistic solution. Seeking to maximize space dedicated to homeless services on the site at the expense of increased onsite parking is truly at the expense of the entire neighborhood and the businesses that I feel the council is supposed to be protecting. The city and housing matters have not been able to solve the parking problems of today, so I have very little faith in their current vision for solving them tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Bush, do we have anyone else online? One more. We'll take that person's testimony now. Good evening. Person online, good evening. Yes, hi, good evening. Yeah, a previous woman mentioned what I had been thinking of how not much has been spoken about as far as the parking impacts on Harvey West. Not just the parking impacts, but the impacts on Harvey West neighborhood, the park, the pool, the children's activities, sports teams, people are gonna park there and impact access to people who wanna use the park at sports fields, et cetera. And frankly, I just read the Santa Cruz local report on how badly managed the millions and millions of dollars have been for homeless services. And it's really shocking. So in a perfect world, you know, this would be a great project, but in reality, I have my doubts. So good luck. Thank you. Thank you very much for wishing us good luck. We appreciate that. Ms. Bush, anyone else online? There is one more. Two more. Good evening. Good evening, thank you for your time and thank you all for not just the council members, but everyone that contributed to all of this. I know it takes a lot of time and a lot of work. So thank you for all that went into it. I just wanted to speak and say, you know, homelessness is the result of policy choices. Our housing and homelessness crisis are the results of decades of intentional planning to exclude marginalized communities from housing and access to our economy and our services. And a problem that took decades to create is not going to go away overnight and it is not gonna go away without deliberate long-term planning and significant investments who address those decades of problems and those decades of discrimination. So while it is totally true that there are all of these problems that we've heard about today, these are problems that are not the result of the people that are being blamed for them, but rather the policy choices that predate many of us but that we have a responsibility to address. And while I hear a lot about parking, I just wanted to say parking should not come before people. It is absolutely true. We need to address impacts on the community. Doesn't mean that those impacts come before the wellness of people. And finally to say that this is a problem that isn't going away. It is not a problem that is the result of providing services. It is a problem that is the result of a failure to provide sufficient services and to get people back into housing. And so when programs are able to offer a pathway back to housing and we push back against those programs, we don't avoid the problems that people are talking about. We perpetuate them. We allow them to get worse. If people are parking where they shouldn't be parking, it's because they don't have a place to go. And that's not gonna change by denying them access to services. It is going to change if we expand services and we get those people back into housing. So I would just encourage everyone to recognize that these are problems but these are problems that can be solved by investing in homelessness services. And they're certainly not going to go away and are only going to get worse if we don't make those investments. Thank you all. Julian, thank you very much. Ms. Bush, we have one remaining, is that correct? Thank you. Good evening, Person Online. Welcome. Good evening Mayor Keighley and City Council members. I've been watching this City Council meeting for the last three and a half plus hours and I'm always really interested in how you guys debate very controversial issues, including this project. I'm the CEO of the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce, as many of you know, and this project puts us in a place between a rock and a hard spot. We have many, many members that are in the Harvey West Park area, including our team Watkins' employer, Grant Rock that spoke earlier, Joby Aviation that's moving in there and a number of other companies, including Costco. That area of the community has always been impacted. I must also mention that Housing Matters is a member of the Chamber of Commerce as well. We have over 400 members that represent 25,000 employees across the county. I've been through many charrettes and council meetings and programs come up with a really well-planned project. There's nothing that the city staff has done wrong. It's just, I think there's a missing queue and the public comment you've heard this afternoon has arisen that level of the queue. When you do a charrette and it's on a community meeting on a specific date, you get a certain group of people that it can. And that is a small percentage of actually the community that's being represented in that region. I would encourage the city staff to go back and pull through a survey, the businesses that are in there and their employees. You need to do a short survey, maybe six or seven questions that come out of this conversation to give you a better understanding of the impact that could happen, whether it's transportation, whether it's traffic congestion, whether it's safety on highway one, congestion getting in and out of Harvey West Park. All of those concerns are gonna be magnified by a very well-planned staff report. I'm not against this staff report. I'm not against creating more housing opportunities for the homeless population. We've been there for day one working on that problem for 15 years as a chamber. But I think the strategy is that you need the community input, but you need also the partnership of the community, including the business community when you make this decision. Thank you for your time and thank you for your hard work that you do for us. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Good afternoon on this item. Welcome. Thank you, Councillors. I'm very pleased with hearing all the information. It's very informative. I just want to applaud the most recent speaker, but one, for laying it on the line, we can't sacrifice people for parking. And all the problems it looks like, Coral Street Project may not be possible to really serve people and everyone else in the Coral area. So it's very important to consider whether that whole thing should be put aside. But if that done, then you have to find another place. And I don't know whether it's available, but my daughter and I were walking along out the west in the industrial estate, almost out. And there were these, there's huge fields along the way and you're walking out in that area. You know the town better than I do. There must be other places, but people are what we have to serve. And so far, I don't see myself a clear way that that's going to be achieved by what's been offered so far. But I hope you will diligently look for that really fundamental solution.  Thank you, sir. Ms. Bush, anyone else online? Anyone else wish to provide testimony? Last call on that. Matters back before the council. Ms. Brown is recognized. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion which I've shared with Bonnie, which hopefully she can put up. I'll read it before saying another word. So the motion is to accept and file the Coral Street Visioning Report and provide the following direction to staff. One to pursue option 4.1 as the preferred development option for the property at 125 Coral Street to initiate a process to more fully evaluate potential changes to the general plan and zoning of city owned property or properties, I think this should be housing matters as well on the south side of Coral Street to facilitate the preferred project, begin pursuing funding to support full design and construction of the preferred option for the site, including evaluating the funding for long-term operation in coordination with the county and other community partners, continue to work with neighboring businesses and other stakeholders to find ways to mitigate parking impacts and identify parking resources in proximity to the Coral Street neighborhood. As laid out on page four of the staff report, I didn't include it here, it's pretty long, but those three items that you've asked for to pursue and parcels, excuse me, and then five, this is the, I think the difference between the staff recommendation and what I've got here, adjust the boundaries of the visioning report project area to exclude the three parcels on the western boundary of the project area that are held by private property owners. There is a motion, is there a second? Second, under discussion, Ms. Brown. Thank you. So I just want to say a few words about the project area it is in ostensibly in my district, I live quite close, although I'm across the highway. And I believe that this area is an area that has experienced a very high impact and it's struggled and it is an industrial area and I want to make sure that we maintain those functions and workforce opportunities. I also believe that rationalizing this area will address some of the challenges that we see there where we don't have, it's limited kind of activity and monitoring and so having a fully built out campus there in a navigation center I think actually will help mitigate some of those behavioral issues. And so I think that it's really important that we move forward. I do support moving forward. I am very, very concerned about the potential impacts to business and the neighbors as well. And so I added a little, I tried to make the parking items add a little bit more there to suggest that we really need to focus on mitigating the parking impacts and identifying those possibilities for parking locations nearby. And then the final thing I'll say is that at least for now I may have a response if people have other things to say, but for me this question of including the private properties that are in this map, I've shared this. I recognize that the staff has a rationale and the consultants have a rationale for doing that, but I want to encourage people to think about what it feels like to be in, or just to think, imagine if you will, be listed as an opportunity site in a city that has pretty recently eminent domain a property across the street. And so the idea that this is a property that is in our sites is producing a lot of anxiety within the community. And I think it's unnecessary anxiety. We don't have site control.  And I would like to see those parcels removed. I'm happy to provide more rationale for that if I'm not persuasive, but that's just what I kind of wanted to try to get on the table for discussion. Mr. Collin Targ Johnson. Thank you. Thank you for presentation and all the speakers. We spent almost the majority of this afternoon hearing from community members around how our, the challenges in our community around on-house is just exponential and growing. And we heard a clear ask from the community that we need to respond. We are responding, but that's what I heard. I'll speak for myself. That's what I heard. The concerns that are being brought up by community members on this item are very real. Ms. Jennifer Gallagher who spoke about the issues around the behaviors and how her and her husband are being treated and people feeling entitled to park there. Those are really real. I'm unclear as to how removing this, the site from the plan will address those challenges. And I hope that I would like to follow up. I hope that we can follow up to address the challenges of Ms. Gallagher's business and other businesses around there because that's unacceptable for any of our businesses to be treated that way and to go to work in that kind of a working condition. But I don't see the two of them connected. Going back to what we heard earlier today that the issue is complex. The city has a role. We need to look at things holistically. And I think that's what this vision document brings forward to us. There isn't a commitment that we can't have a commitment that we would do anything in these opportunity sites because it's not ours to say that we will. But it's an opportunity for us to step back and see what's possible 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years down the line. So I absolutely hear what you're saying, Council Member Brown and the concerns of the community. But I do think especially given everything we talked about and heard earlier today, we have to look at the bigger picture. And so for that reason, I do support these parcels being included and perhaps something we can add to if you if. So I don't think I would support this motion as is with number five in it, but if maybe this is diverging too much, but I would be interested in adding something to the motion that looks at the problems that are happening right now with the businesses in that corridor and putting an action plan and supporting those businesses. But that's maybe diverging too much. So those are my thoughts on the motion that you've put before us. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Watkins. I have a question for the staff. So if these parcels were removed from the vision plan, could they be added at a future time or how could that impact the vision if you will for years to come? So the vision document isn't really a living document like our zoning code or our general plan. It's sort of like, we did this exercise, we have the vision and now we're gonna move forward understanding the partners and issues and concerns and goals. So I don't know that like, I kind of can't envision a way that we would amend it again in the future. So in terms of what it would mean for this, I actually was gonna ask for some clarification on like, so removing them, are we talking about like removing them from every map and then deleting the two pieces like that show how those sites might change in the future, like everywhere, okay. So yeah, so essentially what that would mean, we would remove page 40 and we would remove the top part of page 41 of the visioning report and just not show those parcels. So we'd essentially just have one site as a future opportunity site and it would be 803 River Street, which is currently leased and really only has sort of like one, it's a very small property. So there's really only one way to develop that. And yeah, I mean, we would eliminate some of the components that are called out as desired for the area but are only shown in those options, right? So we would lose the open space components, we would lose this piece of commercial property that could provide some connection to the broader community. You know, those would no longer be shown. Oh, sorry. This really becomes a guiding document that maybe it's looked at 10, 20, 30 years from now with a new council and new staff and certainly parcels could change over time but it's something that if those properties are all struck out now, this conversation around whether they're in or not. Matt, I see you. Matt took the words out of my mouth but just to put a finer point on it. You know, over time, given that this is a long range vision were the uses of those parcels to change or the appetite of those property owners to change with regards to what the site could holistically redevelop over time? Whether they're technically in this document or not with your approval tonight would not preclude exploring those opportunities in the future, so I wanna make that clear as well. I guess maybe a thought for the council or just in general, like if it could be shared that these are not areas that are targeted for incorporation, but at a future time, if say they want to move or there are circumstances that lead to that, or maybe that just over-complicates the situation. We would defer to the will of the council on that when it comes to the motion itself but it is sort of accurate to say that those properties are not currently being pursued. Yeah, okay, I don't know, I guess I mean, I'm trying to reconcile that what I do agree with and understanding the bigger picture and vision for the long term, so I don't know if there's something that can meet in the middle there. And then in regards to the neighboring businesses and other stakeholders to mitigate the parking impacts, there was a suggestion by the chamber to have a survey go out, and I was wondering if that's something that the staff is interested in pursuing or had pursued potentially prior? Mr. Butler. Good afternoon again, council. Yes, that's certainly something that we can do is coordinate with particularly the businesses in that immediate area, and we've continued to have conversations with Housing Matters. They recognize that particularly as the pandemic occurred and we moved people from inside of those buildings due to the social distancing requirements into the pallet shelters. Those pallet shelters took up parking. And so we have been in continuous conversations with the Housing Matters team about how they can approach that and those are gonna need to continue. But the implications for the parking on site there have implications for the immediate area and the broader area. And I think that's part of what we're seeing and hearing from the community is some of the challenges that we've had when we're trying to balance the real issues of are we housing people or are we providing the spaces for vehicles to park? Both of them are important. The businesses need that parking to survive and when we had the social distancing requirements, we did not wanna turn people out onto the street. And so we made the deliberate choice to put pallet shelters in those parking spaces and we're seeing some of those challenges bear out. But it's not just in this, it's not just on Coral Street, right? On Fern Street with Shanti Shack. And as you were mentioning, Council Member Watkins over by the County Office of Education, the larger area, I think we will need to look at it over the long term and even in the short term, how we can address some of those challenges. We've talked about the development at the Northeast corner of Highway one and nine. That is a real opportunity as we look to develop that to also provide additional shared parking resources and benefit from some of that economy of scale and working in the construction that's going to be happening there. But even that's not the most convenient location to get back and forth. And so with some of these options, we need to look at potential transportation to and from if we're looking at options that aren't in immediate proximity. So it's a challenging issue and something that we are happy to work with, both the immediate area and the broader Harvey West area on. Yeah, no, I appreciate that and I agree. The only other thing I'd say is that we're exploring offsite parking. I observe families and parents with strollers walking and it's not ideal environments for a lot of families in that area. And so if we're adding more people and then having them park away, I think we also just want to factor in their safety and how we're thinking about that overall environment. So I'm just saying that I think holistically depending on where we go with this, but I think safety in that area for those residing there, those driving there, biking there, I mean the incidental intersection is dangerous. Straight up is dangerous. And I've bikers and that right turn it's tight. I do it every day. So I think we, I appreciate the vision and I understand where we are limited and I totally get it. And we really need to think really broadly as we think about the just overall impacts to the area and the people that frequent it and live there. Thank you. Madam Vice Mayor. I'm really conflicted about this and I didn't think I'd be so conflicted at this point, but I think the community benefit of providing more services and homeless shelter spaces, obviously something that we need, but the community benefit of businesses and our industrial zone that also provide a tax base to support those other services and things we just talked about are also really important. I also think about a couple of weeks ago when we were talking about parking and we were saying that the market would correct itself and people wouldn't build things without parking because people need parking. And now here we are, we're the people, we're the developers or we're the potential developers and we're saying, well, we'll figure it out later, we'll put it somewhere else. And so I'm just, I'm really torn right now. And I don't, I don't know where I'm landing right now if I'm going to be honest. Mr. Newsom on this side, I'm sure. Yes, certainly. I'm conflicted as well. I'm really conflicted about, or number five, but I think there seems to be a good bit of community concern around these three parcels on the west part of the project being added or included in the site. And it seems like given that they can still be potentially included in the future, it seems like there's community concern around that. There's also concern around, and legitimate concern around issues around parking wasn't taking place in the sites too. So I'm not sure if this is possible or not, but a way to almost bridge Councilmember Brown's motion here, number five, action with Councilmember Calantari-Johnson's direction of wanting to give staff some direction to look at ways to address the issues around parking and the very legitimate parking issues that Ms. Gallagher brought up as well. But I don't know if that's possible or not, but some way to kind of bridge that. I just had one other thought. I think another concern is that by essentially doubling the population in that area, it's the behaviors that come with the population and then would it drive out the businesses? That was another concern. And we did just have Joe be moving to the neighborhood and all this stuff. And so it's just like, it's concerning. Mr. Calantari-Johnson. I'm having a hard time understanding how this item, the fifth piece of the motion solves for parking or solves for the impacts to businesses. That's, and it limits our long-term scope, so that's. Ms. Brunner. We'll get there. Ms. Brunner. Okay, so my understanding with excluding those parcels and I think I brought it up earlier is the understanding from those private parcels, the anxiety that was brought up of seeing that their parcels are in maps in a discussion around some ideas of this area. And really, I think going forward, it just, it needs to be clear. Apparently it's not clear that these are ideas if those businesses no longer own that property or were no longer located there, that there's potential ideas. And it is a little not clear right now. So I think, again, looking at the whole picture is important and I understand why those parcels were included in any discussion around this site and this area, but I think to make it very clear that they're not part of the recommendation that staff is asking for direction on, I mean, they're included in the community meetings and the maps and so, and that at some point if somebody, and I know you, Council Member Brown, probably want to clarify your intent on number five. But my question here is is there a timeline on this, do we have to vote on this tonight? Can we give direction to do the parking survey, come back after Public Works has looked at this more holistically, all these concerns are connected and really, I think we can make really good informed decisions with more data addressing all of this. So I didn't know if there was something driving this decision to be made tonight. So I will invite the Planning Director to come up because I can't hear him whisper through this barrier. And I will just say our timeline was mostly driven by potential funding deadlines. So we wanted to have this vision in place so should Project Home Key funds become available again, we would be positioned to be applying for those to start design of the 125 building. So that's kind of the timeline. Mr. Butler. That's correct, thank you, Sarah. The one thing I might add is that as we proceed, making a decision on the vision report here is not a final time that the Council would have an opportunity to look at this. And in fact, as we proceed, I would expect that we would be providing updates to the Council on here's what we are anticipating with respect to our ability to meet various grant opportunities and those grant opportunities could even shift some of the programming that we seek to include within the project. And so it's a balancing act of matching the funding with the project and then also the timing. So we do anticipate Home Key round three coming up in the next few months. And we don't know all the parameters around that, whether or not a project like this would fully qualify. But timing is an important consideration when we're looking to apply for those grants. And Council and Mayor, if I may add to these comments and also just speak to you the very valid concerns around the tremendous parking demands that are occurring as we zoom out and think of the Harvey West area more broadly, including being able to make connections to and move through this area in a safe manner in ways that I know we all experienced, whether we're making a visit to Costco or catching a little league game at Harvey West Park. So if I may just zoom out to respond to some of the parking concerns, we have serious parking challenges in this area. There's no question, no doubt about that. And we also have some really exciting opportunities to I think solve those challenges more holistically. We're not gonna solve those challenges with this project alone, as we're talking about today. And I think we all acknowledge that. But we are gonna be embarking on a Harvey West Park master plan aquatic study, as well as moving through the development of Highway 109, as well as looking at safety improvements in terms of how folks are visiting this area as they're traveling to downtown and back and the challenges we've had around safety concerns in the past as well. I think all of that needs to happen concurrently with this work we're doing on the vision and effort. And I would hate for the parking concerns alone to hold up what I think is a really exciting opportunity to leverage really kind of once in a generation state funding for these types of projects. So that's the time sensitivity around it, not wanting to diminish in any way that those parking concerns are valid and something we need to continue solving for on a parallel path. Thank you for, I'm glad you reminded me and us of even the bigger scope of Harvey West and that whole process and looking at that and how that all relates, it is concurrent work for sure. I think it's just a little more, it's just vague and I think the community is looking for some more concrete information. So as much as we can drill down on that, I think would be very helpful going forward and yeah, there's a lot here in this area. There's a lot here in this plan and thank you for all the work that you've done thus far to bring a navigation center plan and vision for this whole area. Does the city have a role in supporting that parking lot at that address and supporting the issues there or is that a private neighbor to neighbor issue, 118 Coral? No, the city is not involved with that. The city doesn't own it or lease it. So yeah, those are conflicts between the property owners. Okay, yeah, I just wonder if there's any way or any support that could be offered or direction for them? We can certainly engage with Housing Matters leadership regarding some of the issues that were raised today whether or not we have a direct involvement in the parking lot across the street. They're a major partner in this work. We certainly want to ensure that as the current operation continues as well as future plans, that we're able to do it with a healthy ecosystem with the adjacent businesses. Can I also ask in the future if there's any crisp reports for traffic concerns in that area to also or at least for staff to look at that as well, the community requests for service portal? Council Member Brown. Thank you. I don't know that I can remember the things that I was gonna, I haven't been typing them, but I'll just circle back to the initial question that was asked about how number five is gonna address the parking issue. It's not, that is not my intention with this item. My intention with number five is to make a move that helps existing businesses that are having the other issues that you, and I agree and I wanna work on those. So I'd be happy to include something else to address that, but I am gonna draw a line in the sand here for myself about removing these three parcels. I hear my colleagues saying, well, can we, how do we keep them in the maps and assure them that that means nothing, that there's no threat to their properties? But then we hear a response from a staff member saying, well, if we don't keep those in, we're gonna lose XYZ, we're gonna lose the amenities, which means we think we have them and we don't. So I really feel strongly that if for those who want to actually eliminate that anxiety, the only way to do that is to remove them from the map. And I just don't think it makes any really political sense to keep them feeling threatened by keeping them on these maps. So that is really where I'm gonna draw the line in terms of the question about how to work with neighbors, neighboring businesses, residents, others who are affected by what's going on in the area. I'd be absolutely love to see an additional direction about that and would support that, but I'm not willing to remove that number five. So I just wanna make sure I'm understanding. So the intent of number five, the problem we're trying to solve for number five is relieving these businesses, these valued businesses with the anxiety and stress that they're experiencing with it being in the plan. So I hope that that would accomplish it, but I think in order to actually solve for the stress that is upon them right in this moment, there needs to be further action and further movement. I mean, whether we are a facilitator of the parking site or not, we as a city can play a role in that. So what I'm saying is it's a yes and for me. If it's a yes and for you, then we could merge them. And if it's not, then- Let's do a yes and because I wanna support this. So let's do a yes and. I don't know what the friendly amendment looks like, but some direction to address the real concerns that were brought up by the businesses. The behaviors, the entitled parking, have them written in my notes. I'm not articulating it very well. Let me see what I wrote down. I gotta find my notes. But I think you get the gist of it, is that direct staff or the appropriate departments to work directly with the businesses within the Coral Street visioning area to address the current problems that are occurring. And then I wonder if there's another part. Hold on just a second. Let's make sure that Ms. Bush gets that and then we'll continue on. You got it? We got it. Ms. Calantari just- And I'm just wondering if there's another piece to it, like a good neighbor piece, a condition that we integrate somewhere either in the visioning plan or as we move forward, that services that are being provided there need to act as good neighbors. And we can define what that means. Acceptable. Accepted. Okay. Ms. Bush, captured that. Ms. Calantari Johnson, that's the extent of your amendments. Yes. Those are agreeable to the maker of the motion. It's agreeable to the second of the motion. I might make a couple of comments. First, I thank you very much for this. I think it is, I have some skepticism. I've expressed it to you before about the charrettes and so on, having more influence on this than they ought to have. I think that the charrettes are okay. I don't think they're terrific. I attended one. This has nothing to do with you folks. It has nothing to do with the consultant. It has to do with my sense that anything and everything that was brought up by anyone, including a five-year-old child, was written down on, literally, was written down on a put on post-it notes and written down and integrated into this. I'm not saying it's bad. It's okay. I don't wanna give it more weight than it deserves. I do think that what we see here is exactly what it says it is. It's a visioning process. It's a visioning document. In order to get the motion passed here, I understand the desire to go down a little deeper than perhaps we might customarily go on a visioning process and something we might take up in a rezoning or a general plan amendment process. But I think in the spirit of collegiality and moving this along, it makes good sense. I do think that any notion that we are going to, as the city in the next 10, 20, 30 years, going to have some place other than Coral Street where we locate our primary homeless services, whether that is shelter, navigation, housing, homeless people's health project, whatever it may be, it's going to happen at Coral Street. It is not going to happen someplace else. There may be a building someplace else that does something or a service provider or whatever, but by and large, this is going to happen at Coral Street. It's been established there. It's part of the fabric of that neighborhood. It's going to continue to be the case. I do think that it may be also helpful in this, somewhat similar to what we're doing South of Laurel, which is we're taking this 4,000 housing unit number from the state and we're saying some 40 to 45% of it's going to go in your district, Mr. Newsom, because that's what cities do, is that they grow up in their urban areas. I think that that's a similar approach we could make here, which is that there may be boundary issues going this way, there are not boundary issues going this way, which is to say going vertically. I do think that it would be quite helpful to have this be four stories, whatever they're doing over there, three stories of housing. We should maximize this site going up, going vertically, not going horizontally, is my sense of it. And I think there's a sense on the council, maybe that might agree with that, might agree with that. I'm fully supportive of taking out the two private property owners, and let me explain why. We have a local business, a husband and wife local business, very unique business, not something that a trinket shop that you can go two stores down and find another one. This is a rehearsal studio. There isn't another rehearsal studio. They've invested their time and their money and their belief in building their customer base and so on. I don't think this city or this council needs a very sympathetic small business owner to be opposed to this and to try to rally others to be opposed to what we're doing here. If at some future date, some future council wants to revisit this, that's fine, but I do think that it makes very good sense to take this out at this time and not to consider it, not considering putting it in any other time, but take it out. I think that on Granite, there's a separate reasoning, at least from my point of view. Granite has been there forever. That is an ideal site if you were going to locate a sand and gravel and cement plant and a whole bunch of cement trucks driving all over the place, you would do it right there. That's exactly where you do it. Highway one, highway nine, highway 17, access north, south, east, west, perfect site. They have an idea, they use their property the way they want to use their property and as best I understand it, they're in full compliance with air quality district emission issues. We don't have any zoning general plan issues.  That's where they belong also, it seems to me. And again, from a political point of view, given how much I know this council will want to put all kinds of things at Coral Street, let's not buy a problem with either a very large industrial use or a very small family use. Seems to me to make good sense, take them out now. This is a visioning document. I like the idea that our vision is constrained to essentially the city and the housing matters properties. That makes a very good sense to me. I think the motion is a good motion. I think the additions that you've made make it an even better motion. One that I would be glad to support and the clerk will call the roll. I can get one point of clarification before we call the roll. Certainly you can. I just want to make sure that within the outreach component of the motion is to have the staff further discuss and kind of connect with the businesses around some of their input with the plan. Okay, just making sure. Thank you. The clerk will call the roll. Council Member Newsome. Aye. Brown. Aye. Lutkins. Aye. Brunner. Aye. Calentary Johnson. Aye. Vice Mayor Golder. Aye. And Mayor Keely. Aye. Robinson Sirwater. Let me check with my colleagues now. We have two remaining items. They're likely to take a bit of time. I think we can perhaps do item 20 in hopefully 20 minutes or so. We'll see how that goes. Item 21, maybe not 20 minutes. A suggestion here would be let's take, let's make a rapid dinner break. Let's go for, yes. I think there are people who would be here. Maybe we'll take those before the dinner. Is that your suggestion? Okay, and then when we do, we'll take oral communication and then we'll take a, let's make it a half hour break for dinner. Is that all right with everybody? Are you okay? Everybody okay? Half an hour break. Okay, without objection we'll, no objection. Okay, without objection we'll, at this time we'll move to oral communications. Then we'll take a 30 minute break and come back on items 20 and 21. Anyone who wishes to address us or under oral communication, let me explain how that works for you. This would be, you can address the council on any item under our jurisdiction but not on today's agenda. Is there anyone online, Ms. Bush? Nobody with their hand up yet. Okay. Seeing and hearing, are you, let's go. You're certainly welcome. Hi, my name is Shelly Silva and I'm a homeowner. Let's pull that microphone just down, there we go. Now we can hear you. Okay. Thank you. I'm a homeowner on Frederick and Bromer Street and there's a notice out there that you guys are gonna be bringing in those jump bikes back there and I feel like it's not a safe location for us. I have pictures if anybody wants to. If you submit those to the clerk, we'll pass those around. And you have a very soft voice. Let me ask you to just pull that microphone a little closer to you. It's really just a high squeaky face. You're doing great. Okay, so what I'm trying to do here is safety. I live on the corner. It goes around Frederick and Broadway and what they did when we moved in in 2018, they had the bikes there. But what I noticed is there was a high level of crime, like our cars got broken into, my mail was stolen, there was a pipe in my son's window. But that's one issue. It's right out my kitchen window. I measured it's 20 feet and what I'm trying to do is on those pictures, you can see the bikes go right around Frederick which the street is at an angle like this and there's flooding.  So then it's flooding my yard and so it floods that whole Broadway street. So I talked to her name is Claire in Public Works and I told her about this issue in 2019 and she said, well, you have to call jump bikes directly but there's nothing that we can do with this. It's just not part of us. So anyways, what I did is I kept calling them, had them come out and do a cleanup of it but it still didn't fix the problem, so. I don't know, if you need to take couple more seconds, go ahead. Okay, I'm just trying to say a safety issue is when you're getting those bikes, you're going into the street on Broadway and people don't stop at that corner. I have a camera there. You can see that they just burn around those corners. And so I feel, as a parent, you're doing your phone to get the bike to work and their kids are like, doing, doing what, you know, they're not paying attention and they're pulling it right into the street. I feel like this is just not a safe location. So I told her about this and I said, can you just move it somewhere else? This is a residential, we need the parking. It's around the corner, nobody stops her and she's like, this is where the permit is. And so I said, I need to talk to your supervisor. She got mad on the phone. He's also in public works. He's an engineer. And so hopefully with your help, his help, you could just move it down to the park down there. There's that Frederick Park, the dog park. So at least it won't be high traffic. You have four corners there. Nobody, believe me, nobody stops her. Okay, thank you very much and let me, I don't know that you've appeared here before, but let me make sure you understand how this worked. So this particular part of the council meeting, what we can't do is, so take any action or commit anything to you because, well, but we sort of can, which is my guess is the city manager heard everything you had to say. My guess is you're gonna hear a follow up on that. I'll provide a really quick update, although we don't typically do this. I did receive a chat from our staff that they're already in process of relocating that station. That's what, thank you. Because it was just not smart, it was just like, I could hear people trash bottles out my window. And it was just like all night long, who wants that? Thank you, thank you. It's all good. Thank you very much. Did you keep my picture? Thanks for coming. That's okay, thank you. We appreciate it. Ms. Bush, anyone online? We're gonna take one online then we'll take you, sir. Good enough. A person online? Good evening. Hi. Mr. Meisler. Yep. I just wanted to really quickly just make a quick point about health and human services. About what? Say it again. Health and human services? Certainly. Yeah, so the health and human services while it is traditionally not a city department, there are some cities like Berkeley that do have a health and human services department. And one incredibly valuable reason to have not necessarily a fully functional county level health and human services department, but at least the smaller version is that when it comes time to open up emergency shelter, for instance, for the unhoused, we can have a dedicated staff member that can very quickly respond to such emergency service requests. Because that was the reason that was cited why we couldn't do the Civic Center during the last emergency shelters that we were sort of in a holding pattern with the county to provide staff for that. If we had a city health and human services, we would be able to rapidly respond to emergency health and human service needs. And I think that would be much more appropriate in trying to have some sort of rapid response coordination between multiple levels of government. So yeah, just something to think about there. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Meisler. Good evening, sir. Yeah, I'm kind of confused to hear that jump bikes are back. When they went away, I was like, okay, jump bikes are gone. I could have predicted this. So it's like the couch is dead along the couch. Okay, great, jump bikes.  Let's see. I've been reading a lot about the George Floyd. Let's see. The George Floyd Justice and Policing Act, which they were pushing for early in the year. January, February, you were hearing about in the news. I haven't heard much about it. And the articles that I've been able to just casually on cursory manner look up on the internet, you don't, I mean, you don't see that they've made progress with that. Which is too bad because yeah, I mean, the way we police our communities is pertinent to everybody's health and safety. It's one of the things off the White House.gov website says it's like criminal, like an interest in abating crime and an interest in social justice are not exclusive, they're mutually reinforcing goals. I like some of the things that you could really, you could really kind of apply some of these goals they have in the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. Like mobile, let me see, mobile crisis response, de-escalation training, anti-bias training. Let's see. Help prevent crimes from occurring in the first place, mental health and substance use disorder services. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else online, one more online? Good evening, person online. Yes, this is good. The last time the Westbrook Drive response plan was presented, many people felt the attitude was one of oh well, climate change, the road fell in, better make it one way, Laudita, cut and run retreat is the plan. I hope and sense that the attitude is changing to take a firm stand in assigning a first priority to protecting valuable homes and valuable public transport and recreational property by holding the erosion line at the most vulnerable Westbrook sites with additional and stronger revetments while considering traffic changes only if they constitute an improvement. Unless there is an engineering or unsolvable reason, I don't see why the line to hold shouldn't include the now missing pathway to allow the maximum use. Why give up anything? I attended the London Nelson Center Westbrook Drive event which was much needed, but I still didn't quite hear that commitment but almost. What I don't want to see or hear is some phony public engagement and a phony study where the decision as it seemed before has really already been made to do the least actually a retreat where it is made to look like all the public wants is a bike lane. It warmed my heart to see nobody was at the climate change table because nobody except the fringe wants to see Westcliffe drive fall anymore into the sea without doing 100% of whatever it takes to prevent that happening. The save Westcliffe leaders are pushing in my opinion and historical and false history lesson claiming 350 yards of Westcliffe has a road in the last 100 years citing aerial photos. Well, I looked at that evidence and that 1928 photos shows a fuzzy picture of cliff or factors of when taken over to Tide's time of year or whatever at a low sea level make accurate interpretation difficult but is real clear where the ocean is and we haven't lost more than 50 yards. Okay, since Delaware Plateau Alto all existed back then they're laid out on perfect hard yard intervals. My measurements indicate again about 50, 70 yards of woodrow has been lost in those 95 years, not 350. That's still 854 inches a year, not six feet and I wish I could say more but very precise measurements of erosion have been taken with high res LIDAR and the erosion's really one in two and a half inches a year, not two feet. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Good evening. Again, for listening, I wanted to read something from the Brown Act and that's in relation to the invitation that I'm benefiting from now of talking about something that is not on the agenda. The question is whether there should be that restriction of not allowing the agenda but that's the question I want to ask about doesn't the Brown Act really require the council to have an agenda which is open to the public to ask about the agenda? That is to focus on and understand the deliberation deliberations of the council when it's making all these decisions. I found that all the discussion here very interesting but let me read out, the Brown Act starts out by saying the legislature finds and declares that the public councils and agencies in the state exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business.  And it goes on later. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. Therefore, every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item that has been described in the notice for the meaning before or during consideration of that item. It seems to me like that's an explicit requirement under the Brown Act that the council be open to comment from the public about items on the agenda. And I, my personally, I hope will accept that and I would very much benefit from and I'm sure other people would as well if to, so that we can monitor, the public can monitor the debates and the discussions better. I would very much, I think it'd be very efficient if each meeting would start out with each member on a controversial issue giving their initial. A minute over your time, so wrap it up. Okay, I will make a suggestion that when there's a controversial issue on the table that each member say very briefly at the beginning of the debate why you are inclined currently to say yes or no to the motion on the table. Thank you so much. Thank you, appreciate your participation. Thank you, sir. Ms. Bush, anyone else online? No. No. We stand adjourned for one half hour. We will return at 730. The ticket could last year. Maybe that second pair of hugs was for you, Renee. She's being buffed. We'll see you on Wednesday. She's covered like that. It was a size six. Thanks for the money tonight. Oh my. 17. Santa Cruz City Council is back in session for its evening session. The hour of just after 730 p.m., we are on item number 20 on our agenda. This is an item related to a potential 2024 affordable workforce housing bond. If I might introduce this item. Council members, you hear when you were candidates and since you've been in office for years, some months and some years, we know that certainly housing and housing affordability across a range of incomes is if not the highest ranking issue among voters, it's certainly one and two with housing and homeless and the challenges around all that. And in listening to you folks, since December the 13th and hearing your priorities in many of these conversations on many issues, it seemed that perhaps it might make sense for the council to see if there is a way that the public might consider advancing a bond measure to the ballot with the assistance of the city government facilitating a process which could lead to that. Had meetings like you all have had during your time in office with the city manager, the city attorney, our bond council, our financial advisor, keeping it within the context of the Brown Act with some of you. I've had a direct conversation about this item with two of you and wanted to bring this forward. The thought is that the March ballot might be a good ballot to have housing bond on there. It's not a great ballot. You all run for office, you know what difference is between a March primary and a November general turned out. We're gonna have a lower turnout in March and a higher turnout in November. But in thinking about that, it appears as if maybe the city might wanna do something in November of next year, which like other jurisdictions may do that as well. So the March ballot might be a less cluttered ballot, but then the question is it's a lower turnout ballot. So is there a way to help the community move forward on a ballot measure? In discussing this with the city attorney, he will certainly speak for himself. I received at council that there is a path to approval of an Avalorum property tax bond measure on affordable housing, on workforce affordable housing. We'll discuss that issue this evening as well. If that arrives on the ballot by way of citizens gathering signatures, as opposed to the legislative body placing the measure on the ballot. So thinking that combination of March ballot might be good because it's less cluttered, but it's a lower turnout. Is there a legal path to look at a different voter threshold, the answer that I've received from council and which you will hear tonight as well as from our bond council and from our financial advisor is that that path is a worn path. And the bond council which certainly shall we say they are conservative in nature. And financial advisors are conservative in nature. We had a zoom call with them the other day in which they supported the city attorney's view and said that from their point of view in terms of the marketability of such a bond that would be put to the voters and the voters who pass on a majority vote that from bond council's point of view and the financial advisor's point of view, they're not concerned about that. They believe, in fact, they believe that that is a worn enough path that they would have no issue with a bond issue. There's some questions about when that should happen. We can get into that a little later. As to process, it, again, in listening to you all, it occurs to me that the voters of the city, if they are participating and they are the leaders of assembling a bond, they put it together. We help them in facilitating their work, but they are putting this bond together. And in effect, we hand it off to them, sometime probably around the end of this month, perhaps. We hand off the product that they have put together that we have helped facilitate. And then it's up to them, gather the signatures. That's a second test, I think, of the voter sentiment. First one is we'll do some public opinion polling and we'll have a public transparent process to facilitate the community putting together a bond. We have another opportunity then to test the voter mood through signature gathering. If there's a market for this, people will sign it. If there's not, they won't. And then the third test is obviously the election itself. In terms of the content, I think that it's been pretty clear, again, from things said by council members over the years and certainly since I've had the pleasure of serving with you, that there are a rather broad variety of needs. The reason I call it, have slapped the label of workforce housing and that doesn't have to stick. This is a characterization for tonight, for this item, is that I think we know that although there's probably not a legal definition yet of workforce housing, I think there's a practical definition. Some people would include in that definition some of our own employees. People who work in this government and have a hard time finding housing or they have to travel great distances. We certainly know that the makeup of our economy here has a very significant component for the service industry and those folks have a big challenge in living and working in the same community. I also, I don't think it's a stretch to say that there are folks, we know this to be true, who have jobs, are working, and are living in their cars. I've heard you all talk about that since I've been here. We also know that there are folks who are without homes who would like to work, but the instability of not having housing gets in the way of being able to move forward in that regard. So when I say workforce housing, I mean that broadly, very broadly, and leave it up to the community who will show up at these meetings if we do this to say how many buckets are there and how much goes in each bucket. Let them make that determination as we move along. I want to thank Council Member Newsom, Council Member Brown for agreeing to co-authored this. As it turns out, we also constitute the Budget and Revenue Committee for, subcommittee rather for this body. And it may, I'd like to at least put it out there as a possibility that if you want to move forward with this, that perhaps this subcommittee that you've already established, that we get portfolio to go conduct those meetings. So there's a context in which the meetings would happen. We would do it just like any other subcommittee of this body, we would be there and essentially be conveners or presiding members, and it would be taking input from the community. Let me pause at this point and see if Council Member Newsom, Council Member Brown would like to make comments on this and then certainly entertain that and then we will also entertain public comment on this. Mr. Newsom. And thank you, Mayor Keely. So housing is obviously a great issue in our community and especially lack of housing and especially affordable housing. And this item will direct staff to start a process of engaging the community on an affordable housing bond and affordable workforce housing bond and helping craft it as Mayor Keely said into a process of bringing about a bond. And so I'm happy to support this agenda item with Mayor Keely and thank Mayor Keely for his work on us so far. Thank you, sir. Yes, thank you. I'll just say I have been during my six and a half years on the city council and prior to that for many decades, really immersed in efforts to get affordable housing built in our community to ensure the preservation of affordable housing stock. And so the idea of a local funding source that can help close the gap on projects that can help us achieve our goals in getting housing built and getting housing built at a price point that is affordable to our workforce and low income people in our community. So I'm just thrilled about the possibility of exploring this with the community. I think it makes sense to really get out there and have a real community engagement in the process having been involved in citizen initiatives as well. It is a lot of work, but it is an opportunity, as you've said, to get a better sense of where the community is at. I think the polling, the idea of polling is really important. And with respect to this being a really open community process and the city's role in leading that, I think is really important.  And a lot of time goes into trying to use this process to, you know, for people to get good things they want. And this is an opportunity for us to get what we all want. And so I'm really happy to be signed on and to move forward. Thank you. Council Member Watkins, and then certainly Vice Mayor, we'll go around the table here, Ms. Watkins. Yeah, no, thank you for bringing this to us. I know that there's been talk about something like this coming forward. I guess my question is just more of a clarification question around what the motion is, which is to look at us placing an affordable house. Okay, so if I could get clarification, because what I heard was that we'll do the research, we'll direct staff to do the research and we'll invest in some polling. However, what I think I heard from you, Mayor, is that then that information will inform a community initiative. But I don't, so I'm very comfortable with getting research. I think we should really absolutely 100% try to get a poll set in our community in terms of where they're at with what they're wanting our funding or their funding to go towards in terms of priorities. But I just wanted to get a point of clarification on the recommendation. And we're going to do that as we move along here this evening. I see. Wrote that out at first. This is an evolving iterative conversation. I see. So you're exactly right. This will change the evening. Potentially, okay. And if I could, in terms of the outcomes associated with that, just knowing, especially with the work with children's funds, that if you have a petition ballot initiative, then you would only need 50 plus one really to get dedicated resources. Whereas if it was put on by a legislative body, you would need the two thirds majority, correct? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Others? Madam Vice Chair, excuse me, Vice Mayor. Thank you. It's no secret in this room that I don't not like taxes and especially property taxes, but I do think it's important to bring this item forward so that the community can weigh in on the issue. And so I think the polling is a really important component. And again, the signature gathering, if it comes to that, and then let the voters weigh in. And if that's where people want to spend their money, that's what the will of the community is, then that's where we should go. So I'm prepared to support this. Thank you very much. I know that that is not an easy issue philosophically for you. And thank you for seeing your way clear on that. Can we have one more question? Certainly. I did have one more question. Yeah, we will go around one first round and then we'll do another one. Ms. Brunner. Thank you. And actually, Council Member Watkins asked my question to you on what the motion was. I wasn't sure if it was, but investing, I think it's important. There were no attachments with this. And I had a couple people reach out to understand $35,000. What is that for? What is polling? And it costs that much. And so I think it's really important for folks who don't understand that process to know that polling is a randomized selection of voters that get a call usually. It's usually done via phone. And I just wanted to take a moment to explain that. And they have a chance to answer some questions that are put together by a polling firm. And they can weigh in. And if there's a great majority that in that polling says yes, we absolutely want to want the city to pursue an affordable workforce housing bond, then that helps inform the next steps. And so I just wanted to make sure that that was out there for those that reached out about that process. And it sounds like a lot of money, but I think that is the important step in us moving forward in this. And I know from being on that revenue and budget committee, it's your job to really find ways to fund needs of the city. And I think housing and workforce housing and affordable housing, all of these terms, like you said, like with workforce, no legal definition, but we can all identify that that is a need. So I think it's great to explore this further and see what the polling suggests. If I might, in response to that, provide a little more information. The thought with respect to the public opinion research work is that, and Mr. Huffaker and his staff have been working on this as well, it is that if we're going to have a very open, transparent public process, whoever wants to show up shows up and we publicize it broadly. When they get there, I think a way to put some sideboards on everybody's expectations is to show them the results of a public opinion research document, which says, well, they're inclined to do this, but not this, they go this far, but not this far, whatever it may be, the poll will help them, people sort of regulate their own appetites, I think, and see what is real. It's a great way. And based on that, plus what people want to advocate for, then hopefully a bond comes together. Ms. Contar, Johnson? Sure, yeah, I don't have questions, but I'll just make some comments. I really appreciate you, Mayor Keely, and Council Members Newsom and Brown, bringing this forward. I think this is absolutely the right process to gauge the community will and readiness for something like this. I personally know that there is a need, and again, we've talked about it all day today, and I think the Citizens Initiative, I love how you outline the first test is the poll, the second test is the signatures, the third is the votes. And I think that's the appropriate process. So I'm happy to support this, and that's it. Oh, I had one more thing. During this process, I think it will be important to define what we mean by workforce housing. Of course. And then, as you said, we'll see how the polls come out, but what will this pay for? So I know that'll be outlined clearly, but specifically defining workforce housing, because that term gets kind of thrown around. So, thank you. Certainly. So if I might just comment. Yeah, we're right with you. We're right with you. With regard to this public opinion research, so again, city manager and others have been working on this with FM3, there are several good polling firms around California that I believe you can rely very much on their research. It's not advocacy polling, it's genuine public opinion research polling. As to the questions that are being asked, how to construct that, we're going to be having another meeting tomorrow morning on that. But again, it is designed, let me say it this way, FM3, my experience with FM3 and the reason I like them a lot is some polling firms will cut the poll in the favor of the client, right? They'll cut it slightly. Not a lot, not that you can't rely on it, not that they're dishonest or something, but there's polling methodology and there's polling methodology. And what I like about FM3 is they slightly cut it against what your interest is. They make it harder for you, which I think is a very good thing. But anyway, Mr. Huffaker, would you like to talk about how the poll is being assembled at this point? I think you described it well, mayor. And I know Councilor Bruner was asking about process. I do want to just make clear that we collected quotes from several nationally recognized polling firms. FM3 is one of the top three firms that does this work. As the mayor described, it is statistically valid research, which means that they will be including a sample size that gives us a good read on how the community feels about a number of issues. We're approaching this work broadly as we will look at the range of options around our community's housing needs. And I think most importantly, we want to hear from the community in terms of what areas within the broader envelope of housing there's support for wanting to pursue revenue options. So that's really the intent of the poll and allowing the findings of the poll to inform where the council and where the community go from here on the issues. That's the first step. Eventually, depending on the findings of that and moving forward with the next step, there will be a handoff to a community coalition that would have the responsibility of then going out and doing the signature gathering and ultimately coming forward to the council for consideration of placing a measure on the ballot down the road this next year. So this is early days and that's where we're at in the process. Ms. Watkins. I appreciate that. And I did have a question about the polling and so I appreciate the fact that we're gonna have a really reputable firm working on this because I do feel like the framing of the question really matters. I guess my question is around the community handoff, essentially, is that necessarily the path that we're committing to this evening and okay, I'm seeing Tony Shaker's head no because I think there's two ways, right? You can put it on. You can either do the gathering, the signature gathering and or the legislative body could potentially put it on. And I read this originally as if we were gonna be potentially considering it for putting it on. Not that I'm opposed to a signature gathering process. I actually, I think that's a really great process to help educate and get a pulse from the community as well. But I'm just kind of curious where that shifted between the agenda report coming out and tonight kind of moving in that direction. Because it's a lot of work to put a ballot measure on. I mean, I know in terms of a lot of the research I've done, it's a lot of work to get something on the ballot that way. I'm sure the mayor and council member Brown and Newsom will have some thoughts on this as well. I'm obviously reaching the 50 plus one threshold as attractive in terms of voter support versus a two thirds threshold. Having said that, the path towards placing an item on the ballot by voter initiative is heavy left. And so I think, again, leaning on the findings of the poll to get a better sense of how strong the community support is for some of the elements we might consider will also influence what process makes the most sense. And if I could, I'd just say also if it's community initiated then the community also plays a role in crafting the language essentially. So we relinquish that responsibility or that choice essentially to be able to craft what we think would work for our city as well. So I'm not prepared necessarily to say without information and data, which direction to go at this moment, but I appreciate kind of the options essentially. A couple of other points. One is if I can go back to polling for just a moment. The way that these legit polling firms work in terms of who do they sample is that first of all, they are only sampling likely voters in next marches primary. That's what they're doing. The next thing they do is they then model what they predict that turnout to be. How many Democrats, how many Republicans, how many declined to state, how many women, how many men, how many homeowners, how many renters. What is that likely voter pool going to look like? They poll that group and they poll until they get that group. And that's how you can have some confidence in at least that snapshot at that moment of the electorate that might come to the polls in March. Secondly, at least it's my view of this having been the author of a couple of statewide bond measures that a poll is a snapshot. A poll and a couple of tracking polls is a movie. What you really wanna see is the movie. And so as we move along in this, likely part of the handoff is to hand off the tracking polls to the public as well, to some entity that will be for all intents of the campaign committee, if you will. One other comment on the signature gathering. The reason time is short here and we would like to do three of these meetings a week from Thursday, the next Thursday, and the next Wednesday in open public ways is so that we can get this and hand it off to them. They're probably only gonna have 85 to 90 days to gather the signatures when they typically have 180. That goes then directly to the question of this group of somebodies out there that's gonna participate in this, that we say here it is. They are going to have to have a very aggressive campaign because I think that volunteer signature gathering is only gonna get you part way there when you only have 85 days to gather them. I have a question about that. So if the timeline and the process that you're outlining doesn't play out and they aren't able to gather those signatures, then are you assuming that that could potentially come back to this legislative body for placing on the ballot if the polling is favorable? Yeah. I don't know what we would do. I really don't know what we would do. Yeah, yeah, okay, sure. I will tell you, my own political judgment would be if they can't get it done, I don't wanna place a ballot measure on March that we can't attain the threshold vote to approve it. And if the community is not favorable in terms of the polling and information you're receiving. Exactly. Okay, so we have other touch points where we'll meet as a council to be, okay. That's what I would, that's what I would, yeah. Great, thank you, because I wasn't reading that. Okay, let me ask you a question. I'd like to ask Mr. Kandadi, would you take a moment and share with the public and the council your opinion on this matter and then also report out the conversations with both the bond council and the financial advisor? Yes, happy to do that. Thank you. Mayor Keely, members of the council. So what we're talking about here is a tax measure that would be used to finance a bond issue where the proceeds of the tax would be designated for the purposes set forth in the measure. And that's called a special tax under California law. And so what this implicates is Proposition 218, which was enacted by California voters in 1996 and it amended the California constitution to add articles 13C and D. And what it essentially does is it places procedural and substantive restrictions on city's ability to raise various taxes and fees and assessments. And so in a very grossly oversimplified way, a special tax under Proposition 218 is required to obtain a two-thirds majority vote in order to pass. A general tax, on the other hand, only requires a simple majority under Prop 218. However, unless the tax is based upon a unanimous declaration by the city council of a fiscal emergency, that the tax has to be placed, the general tax has to be placed on the ballot to coincide with the city council election. Special taxes can be on any ballot. It was a case in 2017 decided by the California Supreme Court entitled the California Cannabis Coalition versus the City of Upland, in which the California Supreme Court essentially said that a general tax measure that qualified for the ballot by citizen initiative, it was a tax on cannabis gross receipts that Upland could use for any general revenue purpose, did not need to comply with the requirement that the election coincide with a city council election. Court essentially said those procedural and substantive requirements were not imposed on the voters, they were imposed on the city council, which led many people to speculate as to whether or not other requirements of Prop 218 were similarly not applicable to a citizen initiated measure. And the question as to the simple majority versus two-thirds majority vote was answered in a 2021 decision by the first Appellate District Court of Appeal involving the city and county of San Francisco where San Francisco voters placed on the ballot a tax on corporate gross receipts to fund among other things services for the homeless and other special purposes. And the first Appellate District relying on the California Supreme Court's decision in Upland concluded that also the two-thirds majority vote requirement is not applicable to a tax placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and it only requires a simple majority vote. That decision was subject to a petition for review before the California Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court declined to review it indicating essentially the Supreme Court's acknowledgement of the validity of that decision. So that really provides the legal framework for how a citizen initiative could be placed on the ballot and pass with a simple majority vote. My concern when this initially came to my attention is that I know that the bond markets are sometimes fickle. And so I was concerned that if we did this somewhat novel approach to a bond issue, would it spook the bond markets? And so I consulted with the bond council that we've used for many years, Jones Hall and we met just last week and the attorney from Jones Hall, his name is Chick Adams basically stated that his firm could write an unqualified legal opinion supporting the validity of the tax measure which is what the bond market would look at when bond investors are trying to make a decision about whether or not they're going to risk investing in a municipal bond. So an unqualified opinion from bond council is what bond investors would look at. We also have a financial advisor that we've used most recently in connection with the water department's issue of certificates of participation and the financial advisor likewise said that they thought that that was a viable path forward. One caveat is that there is a measure that has qualified for the November 2024 ballot put out by the California business round table that would close the loophole created by the upland and San Francisco cases. However, if we are successful with a measure in March, in other words, if a measure is placed by the voters on the March 2024 ballot and Garner's a simple majority but not a two thirds majority vote, the CBRT measure could undo that. However, if we've already gone to the bond market before the vote has taken place then under the contracts clause of the California constitution, those bonds would not be subject to a legal challenge even assuming that the CBRT measure passes. So that's the legal framework that we have sort of plotted out as one option for the council should you decide to move in that direction. The other option obviously would be a lot easier because it would just entail the council ordering by resolution a measure put on the ballot for the same purpose. That would however, again, require a two thirds majority vote to pass. I might add finally that the city of Oakland placed a general obligation bond measure on its November 2022 ballot sort of along the lines of what we're discussing and it got something like 75% voter approval. So it passed with a very comfortable super majority vote. So I think the intent with regard to the polling is to test voter sentiments here in Santa Cruz as to both the magnitude of the issue as well as the projects that the public wants to see the city pursue with the funding. Other questions or comments? Ms. Watkins. Thank you. Just because I've been tracking a lot of this especially as it related to a lot of the children spending. So I'm very familiar with these legal circumstances that were within. It's very interesting that the timing is of what it is in terms of the November potential threat to this. So, and then you answered my question in regards to the bond. So I appreciate the legal context because I think that really informs why you made your comments to what you did. There we go, all right. Let me see if there's anyone with this evening who would wish to comment on this item. Good evening. I've been in the trades 40 years. I've been a general contractor for 35 years and I'd like to invite you to get out of the weeds and look a little broader. Housing is a mathematical equation. Cost to the house and the ability to pay equals home ownership. This city has done nothing but focus on housing which lines the pockets of developers with cash. And you have totally left alone the ability of the citizens of this city to pay for that housing. You haven't tried to raise the minimum wage. You haven't offered a down payment program where the city floats a bond to make qualified buyers the advance of the down payment to establish a mortgage. You only worked on one side of the equation and as long as you do, it will be a big problem for the people in this city. For the people coming from over the hill, no problem. They're making lots of money. I defy you to get in any one of your social groups and ask how many of you are making $143,000 a year? The median income for this city. And I bet you you'll see very few hands raised. Thank you, Mr. Brokaw. Anyone else who's with us this evening wish to testify on this item? Good evening, sir. I suppose I have a couple of questions but this is about a bond measure to get funds for the city like the income of the city has somehow dropped. Well, when the personal businesses were destroyed due to dogmas of Brock Chisholm, what's really going on? Are you guys gonna take bonds from the BRICS currency? Because the US dollar is really not doing so good. I'm not quite sure what to say. I learned some things. I'm gonna probably just, I'm gonna leave it at that because there's other things to talk on but this is quite somewhat confusing but I wasn't kidding about the currency because what is coming in the next coming months to the United States? Thank you, sir. Good evening. Good evening. I got lost in your discussion. It seemed to bounce around all over the place. I'm just gonna address what I see which is the affordable workforce housing bond. I've lived in Santa Cruz my whole life, was born and raised here and when I was young, the way you bought a house is you saved up 20% down payment. You had a good reasonable job. You put your down payment down and you made payments and then somewhere in the late 90s the predatory lending schemes came out where they just gave everybody money and then suddenly everybody was getting into a bidding war because they had these all this fake access to funds and we saw the prices of housing jump significantly. We've been through several cycles of booms and busts and booms and busts as the gentleman before me indicated. People have lost their jobs through engineered shutdowns of small businesses which I don't think is fair. My biggest question is we've spent six hours here listening to a housing crisis which I think fits the problem reaction solution and I can see you all already have a solution in mind for everybody who's experiencing the reaction to the problem that was brought here in Santa Cruz. I'm not seeing any factual data and statistics on how many of the homeless people are actually native residents of Santa Cruz. People who grew up here went to school, the kids, everyone in my genre, a lot of people my age range grew up here, many were able to stay and a lot of people got priced out and had to leave and I've listened to the lamenting stories about kids who grew up here but can't afford to buy a home here. We had big tech move in during the COVID lockdowns and they jacked the prices up even more. Rentals of a home here are around $6,000 a month. That's untenable for most people but it's because all the Menlo Park and San Francisco kids came down here with their big tech money. Where is the data and the statistics and prioritizing native Santa Cruzans? Would things have been differently if say people who owned homes here didn't just sell out to the highest bidder but prioritize their community members? People who grew up here, we might not have such an overly inflated false pricing in the real estate market. These are my concerns. Thank you. Anyone else who's with us? We have two folks online. Is that correct, Ms. Bush? Certainly, let's take the first one. Good evening. Yes, hello. Well, what the double speak words, affordable workhouse housing bond really means is when control deed restricted, all property owners and other renters will subsidize government housing with zero benefit to them and will be forced to go into long-term debt in a move to destroy the free market and housing and make it a socialist-style government-controlled housing paid for with an end around Prop 13, ever higher property taxes, paying on a debt of principal plus interest for most of the rest of their lives. For everyone who pays, it is worse than your past socialist giveaway subsidies of public property building incentives because at least then no one goes into debt over those, they just lose public property access. It's not a tax on current income. It's not a tax on economic sales activity. It is placing the entire public an expensive long-term debt at a really bad time for that where a vast most will get less than nothing for it. As to the worker housing angle, occupants as easily may already be on welfare, which this is just more of. It's people who can't afford to live their housing and will increase government dependence and invite poverty to come and stay in the city, your specialty. Once dependent, they will be loathed to move beyond dependence just like welfare, which it is. But in this case, you don't have a legitimacy of the federal government to provide for the public welfare, you overstep and misdirect your mission. It's almost all the public paying forever for a few somebody else's subsidy or rent control. There are already plenty of housing projects underway that will greatly increase the vacancy rate worth waiting for evaluation. You ignore the risks of overbuilding and will population decline or housing bubble burst at expensive spy high interest rates, no less. And you know the vast majority of all extra housing built will at best only accommodate planned expansions of UCSC students and the staff when that happens. Students obtaining college degrees or staff aren't the sob story low income targets you're selling this on. I eat hot dogs and beans, work, took out loans in college, and I never thought anyone owed me anything. The mostly broke Bernie and cultural Marxists will be happy to fill out your biased expensive surveys and perhaps get signatures. They worship the government and do as told others think for themselves.  If this is a general tax, it's the same as voter rejected failed measure F but with a swap grab for property taxes instead with no insurance of any purpose except lining the city's budget. Do you know the meaning of no? That was like seven months ago. Did the people get their money's worth on the consultant surveys and cost to put measure F on the ballot? You could have lit a match to that money, no difference. If this is a special tax, it's a two thirds vote needed. Although you've got a sneaky way of trying to get around that. Let's not waste the money either, which is far more than 40,000 to put a housing bomb on the ballot that in the past has been a coin flip to approve. But in today's world, people have had it. Up to the Chrome Dome would ever hire. Today people tell the government, no, you've controlled and mismanaged enough of my money and my life is right here right now today. And is why the people voted measure F down because they've had enough. Thank you, sir. We have a second person. Is that correct? Two more now. Two mo