ntially what it's done. So, I just want to clarify where that, how that fits into this kind of general discussion about, well, we can have the residential parking permit program should have 60-ish percent of the residents want it. Yeah, I mean that's definitely a concern. Creating a parking district on a street segment is not, you know, something that neighborhoods undertake lightly, and each one is really tailored to the neighborhood and the impacts that they are seeing and feeling. Typically, up until now, the permit parking program has been focused on neighborhoods that are experiencing impacts from outside influences, so it's been, you know, areas that are around the boardwalk and areas that are near the university and areas that are near downtown, so it's not, as it's currently designed, it's, you know, it's not focused on regulating parking for residents in the neighborhood, it's really focused on regulating parking for folks that don't live in the neighborhood, and each, all of those standards are applied, you know, really uniquely. I could imagine that in these residential neighborhoods, should we, you know, should that become necessary to expand it into these residential neighborhoods as a result of one of these choices? Maybe the parking standard for visitors to that neighborhood in some places, maybe it would be that you're allowed to park for 24 hours instead of the standard 72, or maybe in some places, it's that you, you know, there's just no overnight parking, but you can park all day for however long, you know, there would just be a whole variety of solutions to that. Which, so just a quick follow-up question, which would be determined through the, through the permit application process, through the permit application process, and not come back to council. For the part, yeah, for, to establish the district, they would come up with the, you know, the, and I'm speaking a bit out of turn here because I have not, I mean, maybe Mark Dettel is here and he can speak to us. Okay, I'm going to invite Mark Dettel to speak to us. This isn't really a simple one, but I'm just trying to, they would come to the Public Works Commission and we would, they say they would request that, we'd give them an application, they'd fill it out. We would then do a survey of the neighborhoods and if we got two-thirds supported of that street segment for the permit parking and they're not in the coastal zone, then that would go into effect.  It could be two-hour parking. It could be no parking without a permit and we have a variety depending on what the need of the neighborhood is. So, and they would have to craft that before we went out and surveyed. So, there is some staff work involved in that, obviously. Absolutely. Okay, thank you. Right. The other thing to consider is on trash day and when we go to pick up, where do we put our trash cans as well as the trash amendment coming for the stormwater issue where we have to keep trash out of the stormwater. So, we may have to have no parking on your street sweeping day that may be coming down the road. Where do we put these cars then? So, that's the other consideration. Okay. Any final questions before we open it up to public comment? Yeah, just a few and then I promise it'll be over. So, just coming back really quickly to the short-term rentals. Is it feasible from the staff's perspective to offer instead of three years of short-term rental, one year of short-term rental or three years with the perpetuity of affordability?  Yeah. I mean, so if there's another threshold that the council agrees would be more appropriate, you're welcome to make that motion and make a change here. The three years is actually different than the initial staff proposal, which was two. The planning commission felt that three years would be actually result in some amount of cost recovery for project applicants. Using that in exchange for affordability, I mean, again, the thing is about balancing how are we enticing construction and then how are we meeting the needs of our affordable households and there are places because ADUs are built by novice homeowner builders, novice builders, homeowners who really this is going to be the biggest project they ever undertaken in their lives. Those same incentives and disincentives, they're just much more sensitive to disincentives. It's not, it's not the same as if you're, you know, building 100 apartment apartments and, you know, you can require that a certain threshold be affordable. It's just the sensitivity to cost is much more severe with homeowners. Thank you. Any final questions? Yeah, just that same kind of question for people that have enough capital to build a second ADU because when you build on property, it increases your property value as a whole, right? So for people that are building that second ADU from staff's perspective, is it feasible to mandate that second ADU be affordable? I mean, that one I think is a little bit more palatable to me. Again, you know, those units, let's remember where there would be two, they would be small, you know, based on the way that's written now, those would be small units. So, so the costs associated with construction are higher per square foot on smaller units. So, it's a little bit different, but you know, to me, that doesn't strike me as unreasonable. The only thing I would say is that it's important to be mindful that when people are trying to get traditional financing, often the traditional lenders will not consider the future rental income on an ADU as a part of what they're looking at when they're providing financing. So, that would be something to weigh when you're thinking about if people have capital or not. Again, that's something that we would love to see changed in the big picture, you know, but that's definitely far beyond the purview of this item. I don't know if you have anything else to add to that. Yeah. And then the last thing is, I know we had spoken previously about the authorization of ADU development and multi-family zoned areas. Yeah. Is there, and then I know you had responded with the concern of for future, if there wanted to be future development for more housing in those areas, is there a way that we could work an agreement process through the landowner in the city so that we would know what their plans for development were or if they were never planning on develop the property then, you know, because the next person can come and buy it and demolish the whole thing. Right. So, yeah, so it's not so much about regulating, it's about, you know, in terms of like, if they put in an ADU, we wouldn't let them build something else. It's more about like the cost and the investment that's been placed in the property. And as you mentioned, adding the ADU increases the property value.  Doing a major investment of installing an ADU raises the value of that property significantly. So, that property is now more difficult for a developer to purchase and combine with the neighboring parcel. So, we've just made that process harder for creating those units. And so, it's not really about, you know, having an agreement. You know, one thing I would say is that if we do pursue that, you know, allowing ADUs on parcels with existing multifamily, that we ensure that they are located on the site such that they don't preclude future development of that property to its maximum allowed density. You know, I think that's something we want to make sure at a minimum we preserve that on the property. So, on the ground we can see that there's enough space for both the future required units and any parking that would be required for those units. You know, just the other thing to sort of keep in mind is the reason that someone would prefer to build an ADU rather than build multifamily housing. I mean, let's think about that. Why can't we just make it easier to multifamily housing? You know, it's about the concessions they get with an ADU. They get reduced setbacks. They get a reduction in parking. You know, so there's all of that kind of things that we're considering. When you think about like our housing program overall, I mean, that's really the questions we should be asking ourselves is given that they are zoned for five units, why would they want to build an ADU instead of a triple X? So. Thank you. All right, thanks. I think at this point. I have to ask a follow-up question now. One final and then I really want to open it up to everyone. I'm sorry. I just I can't help myself. So, I mean, I all of that is understood, but I do want to ask the question. What why the city to make it difficult for private property owner to make that decision? I mean, in general, we leave it up to the property owner to make that decision. And my understanding is what we're kind of doing here is making it difficult for say we have a property owner who does want to do this as an alternative, who lives in a multi residential zone and now finds himself unable to do that because we think the multi unit is a higher best use for the land that is a private property owner who may not be turning it over and hopefully isn't who is prohibited from doing that. So why why not allow them to do that? So let's just let's recall that the purpose of an ADU, the reason they're created in state law and here locally is to add density to places where you cannot otherwise add density, right? So we're adding ADUs to single family neighborhoods because they're otherwise built out at one unit per parcel. And so that's just fundamentally different when you're talking about the parcels that are zoned for multi family use, you know, they already have the density. So why what does an ADU do for them? You know, sort of when you when you take a step back and think and you're not looking at all the details of why someone would want that because I do understand, you know, those concessions are real and cost effective for someone and I get it. But that's, you know, that's just that's part of the consideration. That's all. Thank you. Okay. So at this point I'd like to get a sense of how many people in the audience are interested in speaking to this item. Okay. So we'll allow up to 90 seconds per speaker. And if you can, please line up to my left. Okay. So if you're interested in speaking on this item specifically, the ADU item, you'd have up to 90 seconds. Are you are you interested in speaking? Okay, come right up. Hello, I'm Nate Alex Kennedy, gmail.com, 346-9888. What I got to say about this is everybody wants to live in Santa Cruz. This is such an awesome town, but nobody can afford to. And so what I think we really need to do more than just ADUs here, we need to let people build bigger. I think we should change the building code so that somebody can build at least 10 stories before they even have to come in here and get permission to build even bigger than that. The whole parking issue that's come up, what we need to do is make it so that probably the ground floor but also basement levels. We've put up a 10 building story and we have like two or three levels deep going down in the basement all for parking. That's how I think the parking can get taken care of. I got all that out really fast. Now I'm just trying to think what to say for the last 25 seconds. I'll just close with this. My email, my phone number is readily available. So Drew, Justin, and Sandy, and Chris, I would love to talk to all you guys. So please give me a call when you can. I understand you're really busy these days. That's that. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Council. I have a concern about the conversion ADUs and exempting them from any setbacks. And I understand there's, I wasn't sure about the state law consideration whether that was just for the fee exemption or whether that was for the setback. And I understand some policy issues. But for example, my neighbor has an existing garage that's about six inches from the side yard setback. In fact, his rafters are on my property. And I don't have any problem with them building an ADU there, but that's really too close. Like he has to come onto my property to do any maintenance or if he's going to rebuild it, he's going to basically have to come onto my property to build it. So I think you should take that into consideration and especially take that into consideration when you, if you're going to allow an additional 120 square foot expansion of that. So maybe you could have a minimum setback even if it isn't the five foot setback. If it's a two foot setback, at least they'd be able to maintain their property and build their property from their property rather than me having to give them an easement or me having to have my whole backyard exposed for the six months to a year that it takes them to build it. So just one minor concern. Thank you. Thank you. Tim Willoughby speaking for affordable housing now. Affordable housing now supports this package. We really like the package in fact. It's a great mix of incentives. And major reason is that ADUs can and have supplied a lot of new housing in our community that we desperately need, both affordable housing and workforce housing. And secondly, there's a usual package of things that ADUs offer that other kinds of construction don't. One is that they are affordable by design. They're going to be smaller. And even if you have two on the same lot, each of them together is going to have to be smaller in order to meet that requirement that's been listed. Secondly, it spreads out growth in our community into lots of different neighborhoods rather than fighting over battling over one particular big project in one area. So this makes every neighborhood contribute to the solution. And then important part is it doesn't require taxpayer subsidy in order to accomplish. And finally, what's really key here is that we have a lot of seniors in our community who would like to stay in the community, but they don't need a three-bedroom house. They can build an ADU, live in the ADU, and then a family can move into that house. And family housing is really in short supply. So we support it, but we do ask you for one thing. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. I try to keep it consistent for equity of voice. I appreciate you're welcome to submit your comments, but your time is up now. So we'll have the next speaker no more. I'm sorry. Thank you. You're welcome to submit your comments to our clerk and we can rotate them through. Thank you. Okay. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Micah Bosner. I'd like to build an ADU, but I'm in a duplex because the city won't let me build an ADU two years ago, so I had to make it into a duplex. And now I can't build an ADU because I'm no longer a single family home. So it's a bit odd. The reason that staff said that we have ADUs so that people in other zones can build units, I would disagree a little bit. It seems like the reason we create the ADU program as a county and as a state was to make it easier for small-time property owners like me to add housing. Ironically, in my zoning district, people don't have that many concerns about parking and setbacks and whatnot, but it's harder for me to build something in a multi-residential district where everyone expects there to be building than it is if I lived in a single family district. That's really weird, and it doesn't help the city because you're stopping people like me from building ADUs. I think there's two or three of us that might build an ADU if we could. I'd like the council to have that come back sooner than later. If it came back in four months, then some of us might build an ADU this year. If it came back in seven months, we'd have to wait for another 15 months because of the way you can't start in the winter when it's raining. So four months of work, but nine months would really mess me up. A lot of these rules are really Byzantine, and I hope you address this one. I also care a lot about the other stuff, and I think a lot of it's pretty good. Just to point out, 25% of people in Santa Cruz don't use cars to get around. When you require parking spots, you're penalizing people that don't drive, and that's bad for the environment. It's bad for our global warming policy. Okay, next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is Mark Promack. 90 seconds. I'll just offer a reality check. The city has not been innovative in ADUs since 2003. It's been regressive for the last 12 years. You've lost more safe ADUs in that time than you've built. So I think it's really important that you take the stance not that you're innovative and you want to add a few improvements, but that you're way behind the time and you need to catch up. So for instance, the state made it really clear that an ADU that was located within a half a mile of a bus stop did not have to have on-site parking. It's an embarrassment that the city has construed that as a half mile of a metro center. And the state, again, will remind you that probably within the year and get you into conformance. We really need to look at how we create affordable housing through ADUs. The city has lobbied to keep building codes strict and prohibitive for small units. You need to take the other approach and look at how you can streamline and ease those requirements. Green building requirements came into effect in Santa Cruz before we had Cal Green, before we had a state that was committed to net zero. And so what we have now is another layer of bureaucracy. It's a vanity piece the city has a rebuilding program that we don't need. Thank you. My name is Bill Cook. I live in Santa Cruz. I lived here for 40 years. I own a duplex. We added an art studio to the limits of the current regulations about 15 years ago. The intent is to increase density. I appreciate the work that's been done. I think we need to go further. We need to include multi-residential residences in consideration. In my case, I'm not able to make the art studio an ADU specifically because of density. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Darrell Darling, I just want to be sure that you're very cautious about living and lifting entirely the family requirements. The difference between Santa Cruz, gentlemen referred to this earlier, the difference between Santa Cruz and the Desert Island is that they're both confined. Nobody wants to live on a desert island. Everybody wants to live on our island. We're circumvented by or circumscribed by the ocean, the mountains, the hills, the forests, the agricultural land that we don't want to expand into. So we have to be selective about the purpose for each of our housing requirements and liberalizations. The ADU has an ideal application for keeping families in Santa Cruz intergenerational and family is an ever-evolving definition. So as the last gentleman or the an earlier gentleman said, it's primarily the need to keep families intact in Santa Cruz who are already here. Thank you. Next speaker. Dear Council members, Gillian Greensight, I've been to all of the hearings since 1983 and the five subsequent ones on this issue and at every one of those slew of public hearings, staff and council always stated that this program of ADUs had to balance the impact of ADUs on single family neighborhoods with the desire to build more housing. And this is the first iteration where that is barely mentioned. The balance has gone. The goal, staff said, was to provide the increase the production of ADUs. And I would say that the state has given you a direction and it would simplify everything if you just went with what the state is requiring. Going further than that is throwing the neighborhoods under the bus. Removing parking is just going to be a nightmare. Single, sorry, short-term rentals. Do you think somebody after they've got the big bucks from short-term rentals is going to rent at anything than the highest they can get? And the statement was made that affordability is a disincentive. ADUs are not affordable housing. If affordability is a disincentive, you should go cautious on this and not liberalize or change the requirements that throw the neighborhoods under the bus. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi, Robin Cunningham. I am an ADU owner and I agree with one of the statements that she just made, actually, that ADUs are not affordable housing. Anybody who's built one or who has purchased a residence that has one, it's pretty clear. And I guess the purpose of the study was to figure out how to incentivize people to build more housing. And you talked about how putting restrictions about affordable rents and whatnot were kind of deal killers. In addition to that, any serious restriction of rent control or just cause eviction will have the exact same effect. And if what you want is more housing, you have to really pay close attention to that and not be in the trees about that. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay, next speaker. Mara Kelsey. I live in the Seabright area and I really thank Sarah for her clear communication and writing up this ordinance. I have several concerns. One is about short-term rentals. It was a very casual conversation that jumped it from two to three years. I really have a lot of concern about that. I would say two is a max. That's my opinion. If you have short-term rentals, you really must have parking. There's no two ways about it. They're not riding their bikes. Two, parking, if you have two ADUs, parking at least one more space is important according to this, you have to do it according to the state law. But I would recommend keeping one more. Three, owner occupancy, I feel is very important, lived in Live Oak for 21 years on a corner. Five ADUs were built around us eventually. One was two were legal, one had an owner. It was a nightmare. Drugs, fights, cars, noise, prostitution. You name it in these five units around. I think owner occupancy is vital. Thank you. Okay, next speaker. Hi, Doug Putnam-Pyte. I live up on the west side. I've lived in Santa Cruz for decades and decades. We're actually in the process of trying to build an ADU. So I think the new rules that are coming out are, I think, really an incentive, particularly off-street parking is, for a lot of people that I've talked to about ADUs, that's a deal killer if you have to, like, tear up your front yard to take care of that. I think setbacks are helpful as well. I think just the whole process that the Housing Subcommittee went through was really helpful. I went to several of those meetings. I think you got a lot of the input from the community, and I think that input is representative of what people want to see in the city. So that kind of process for other housing activities I think would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next speaker. And before you begin, are there any additional speakers in the audience who want to address us on ADUs? Okay. Okay, so I'll have you at some certain point lineup on our left. Okay, go ahead. Congratulations, Mayor Watkins, for becoming mayor and our new council people. My name is William Kingsley. I'm a long-term resident of Santa Cruz. I just want to voice my opinion regarding ownership of ADUs. I think it's very important that we try to maintain ownership of the local people, and I do agree with some of the changes that have been made, allowing short-term rentals and allowing owners to move out for a while and then come back and still regain their property. The question I have about that is regarding how it interfaces with some of the just cause issues, and I don't know that is, I don't see that being resolved in this ordinance. Also, I had some questions that are more just related to understanding the standards. There's, Sarah and I explained my first question, which is I didn't understand how they defined the rear area of a yard, but I think you took care of that for me. And then in the zoning incentives, they explained that that was not going to apply. It says, in sections 24, 16, 140, number five does not apply if you are, limitations. Facing an alley? Yeah. Right. Facing an alley. I'm sorry. Yes. So I wondered what the constraints were. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Elise Casby. I just want to run through a couple of things. First of all, we're failing in our paradigms. We are absolutely not addressing the fact that we have 12 more years to address climate change in a very, very effective way so that climate change, and it will affect this community in a ferocious way, is we are not exposing our future children and youth and ourselves to just increased horrible effects, the worst effects of climate change. We do have an opportunity right now to address it. So ADUs are not affordable, and for the most part, they are not environmental. Not only are we going to have, if you reduce, if you take away what the state is requiring, the extra parking spot, you're going to have a lot of building traffic coming in, contractors, developers, plumbers, people bringing their cars in. What I'm trying to say is we need a paradigm shift, and if we don't have it from government, we are not going to get it. So government will be failing us. ADUs are not affordable, short-term rentals are more traffic coming in all the time.  And also, we need to really think about not only keeping families in the neighborhoods, but keeping all the singles who have been being pushed out, as our 2014 smart solution study showed, 70% of people born here are losing the ability to live here. We need single people housing. Thank you. Eminenton, Maine. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Hello, City Council. I'd just like to give credit. That was a good report and presentation. There's a lot to unpack in that. It's pretty dense. I just like, I could comment on a few things, but I just keep it brief to a few things, or a lot of things, a few things. The owner-occupied requirement, I actually own an ADU. I'm an ADU owner. And the owner-occupied requirement, I actually really believe strongly that it is a good thing for the ordinance. And to lift it entirely, I do not think would be advisable, essentially, for the cons that were listed on that slide. And of the other places where they have lifted it, I would consider only one of those would partially pique my interest in actually living in, just as a comparison. And the other thing with the parking, my ADU was actually built and actually has a garage plus one off-seat parking spot. And currently, there's tenants with two cars, and neither of them parked their cars in the parking spots. So just as one data point on that point. So essentially, if you do require these parking spots, you're turning over land that could be housing people for housing cars, essentially. Good afternoon, council members. My name is Jeffrey Smedberg. I really appreciate you're considering these ADU options. First, I want to say that in terms of allowing short-term rentals, I'm totally opposed to that. I think it's counterproductive to the goal of what kind of neighborhoods we're trying to build. I think we're trying to build neighborhoods that have more long-term residents. I am very appreciative of consideration of changing the owner-occupied requirement. Not all owners are the same who don't happen to live on the property. Perhaps the affordability requirement would be a good one to assure that a landlord who did not live there really cared about the community. In case in point, my son-in-law who grew up in Santa Cruz bought a home, built an ADU, had his mother live there for a number of years. Now he's living over the hill for a period of time. We'll come back at some point. The situation right now is there's two residences on his property, and one of them is vacant. One of them has to stay vacant, and that doesn't make any sense. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker. Hi, Trisha Davis. I live on the west side. I purchased a house two years ago. They had an ADU. My daughter will go to UCSE next year, and I thought it would be perfect. Then I received a letter from that the ADU was not permitted and have been dealing with the process for the last year and a half, and it's very unpleasant. I'm hoping that if you can make a decision, it would be quickly because I'm now trying to sell the house because I've done all of the plans and studies and thousands in and need to make a decision whether I can move forward or need to sell, and I'm going to take a huge loss, which is sad needing to put two daughters through school. I don't know what the time frame is. I've watched this issue get pushed out, meeting after meeting, and I'm just hoping that you can make a decision quickly. I want to live in the house. I want to not rent it. I want my daughter to live in it. It seems like there's a huge use case for people with parents that need to stay in that house, so I think that if it would be easier to legalize these ADUs, people would do it. I mean, it was a rental for 17 years before I bought it, so now I'm kind of stuck with this, and so I understand all of the pieces, but I wish that it could get easier. Thank you. Our next speaker, and are you also in line to speak to this item? Okay, so I have you as our last speaker then. Okay. Hello. I feel whoever thinks our council is a circus is extremely disrespectful. I am totally for ADUs because I have lived in places where landlords have relinquished by separating circumstances, going out with bare feet, trying to do laundry, stepping on stepping sons, getting shocked to the system or whatever, but at the same time, I also feel that the overlaying of properties should be more of a get to know your neighbor better than sitting there thinking about killing them. What kind of hypocrisy is that? I've had a lot of people around my land, and I'm a free spirit, so they all respect that. And yeah, I consciously told anybody if my dog came through, be nice to my dog, it's not a wolf, what it looks like, I don't care what circumstance you think it is, even if it was a wolf. So, same thing. We all respect the moon, we all get the same energies. Let's live in peace, please. Thank you. All right. Last speaker. Good afternoon. I'm Scott Graham. As I have said before, I think that the city should have a program similar to the counties where people would be able to either legalize an existing ADU or build a new one with no fees as long as there's an affordability attachment to it for 20 years. I mean, you can look up the county's program, and it's sort of like a loan that they don't have to pay back for the fees as long as they keep it affordable for 20 years. And at the end of the 20 years, if they've spent affordable that whole time, the loan is forgiven. I also think that having the owner occupancy provision is a disincentive to building, and that if people live locally and the adjoining neighbors have a way to contact them, that that should be good. Or if it's managed by a local company that also the neighbors have a way of contacting, that that should be good enough for anybody. The other thing is, I think there should be an outreach to units that have been closed down over the last eight or 10 years to those landowners so that they can legalize their units once again. Thank you. Okay, so that concludes public comment for this item. At this time, I'd like to bring it back to council for action and deliberation, and I see that you have the recommendation before us. So perhaps to manage the conversation, we'll start if it's fine for the council with going through the state site and then land type considerations. Okay, so that was different than what was up earlier. So this is the state law amendment? I see what you're saying. Okay, so we're going to start with the state. All right? I mean, don't let me jump ahead of you. No, no, I appreciate it. You're helping even drill down further into state law. So if we can, we'll start with that. Is that work for the council? Okay. Okay, so any comments, action, motion, et cetera? I would move that we approve the recommended amendments as per state law. Second. Okay. So motion to approve recommendations one through five for state law made by council member Brown, seconded by a council member Glover. Any further discussion? Just a quick question. So I'm looking at the ADU policy goal sheet, this one here, and that has four items that fall under state law directive and test five. Yes. The piece about the setbacks about garages was added. I apologize. I have an old sheet. Yeah, I mean, well, I didn't update it. I failed to update it. So this was added at a date after sometime after the first time I tried to come to council. You've answered my question. Okay. Any further discussion before we vote on state law? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. So now before us is discussion around some of the site standard amendments. You can see listed here one through five. So I'd like to open it up for action discussion. Just a couple of questions that folks asked. Like the minimum setback, like how often would that happen where somebody's in somebody's yard building their ADU or having to ask for access? And what if the access was denied, I guess, or are they going to charge an easement fee? So the gentleman's comment was about conversion ADUs and if we can require a different setback than the built, the existing structure. And the answer to that is no, the state preempts us in this way. We have different structural requirements. The building code is different when you're within, I believe it's five feet of a property line. You have to build a firewall there. We don't allow, you know, if that structure that the gentleman was referencing was within six inches of his property line, if they were to reconstruct it, we wouldn't allow the eaves to extend over the property line. They would have to be corrected. But we can't require that the structure be moved or rebuilt at a certain setback that's beyond our control.  You know, neighborhood conflicts are sort of inevitable, I think, in anything that we do here in land use arena. Rule number one is to be a good neighbor. And I think that's something that's just unfortunately beyond our control. And Mr. Kingsley asked about facing the alley. What are the constraints? So if an ADU faces an alley or the Monterey Bay Scenic Trail, it has to meet the required setback, which is three feet for a single story ADU, and otherwise it has no rear yard lock coverage requirement. We are not proposing any changes to that section. I guess also like, how can we get, you know, we're hearing about affordability. And somebody said, ADUs are not affordable housing. And is there a way of, you know, getting them to be affordable?  More or less, what's the ballpark of fees that we charge to build an ADU between what and what? Depending on, I know, square footage. Yeah, it depends on square footage. Depends if it's, you know, conversion versus not. But I'd say the ballpark is somewhere between the low end, probably $6,000 or $7,000 anywhere up to, depending on, you know, is it going to involve an alley? Is it going to involve a sidewalk? It could reach $15,000 to $20,000, you know, which is not insignificant. Typically, I think when you compare that to the cost of the construction, the sweet spot to land in, in my opinion, is between 5% and 10% of the total construction costs. And I think we're in that ballpark. I think obviously there are things that we could do to reduce those fee burdens and to reduce some of the, you know, conditions that we apply to some of these projects. And we're going to continue to work on that. And we welcome any specific ideas that you hear from constituents or that you generate on your own. We would love to hear them because we are working with all the departments to think about the best way to reduce costs and reduce fee burdens. And thanks. Do you know if any of the cities mentioned so far have any loan programs where you... Yeah, there are a few. There are I mean, so far the ones that I've read about have been kind of pilot programs. There are a couple different tools out there. So the county has, as the gentleman mentioned, a forgivable loan program. They have, that's currently in a pilot program phase. It's a, it's a loan of up to $40,000 that is offered in exchange for housing, a income qualified household at a reduced rent for a period of at least 20 years. If they want to buy out sooner than that, they pay back the loan with interest. If they see out the 20-year term, the loan is forgiven and they don't have to pay anything back. You know, the key with that is identifying the funding source. The county has a funding source for that through their affordable housing impact fee program. The city doesn't have a fee like that. The LA had a pilot program where they built, they built, the pilot program was to build two to three and rehab up to five, rehab legalize up to five existing ADUs in exchange for an agreement from the property owner that they would house a homeless individual or household. And they've closed applications for that. And so, you know, we'll have to wait and see kind of how that rolls out. But, you know, they got a grant from the Bloomberg Foundation to do that. And it's, you know, $75,000 grant to someone to build an ADU to house a homeless individual. You know, they had a million dollar grant and they could do three of those and then five of another program. You know, so it's, the thing about all these funding programs is that, you know, they don't create as many units as we wish they did. If I can, I'm just going to interject if I can, just in the interest of going through these items and then other areas where we can allow for further direction or exploration, I think we can have maybe that conversation. But for what is before us, I'm wondering if we can kind of tailor our action and deliberation in regards to the five before us. Is there any comments? Go ahead. Yes, I'm prepared to move the section of items that have to do with development standards. And I'll notice that a couple of those do have to do with reducing costs, eliminating the extra green building requirements and allowing modest expansions for fee exemptions. And then we'll do later with eliminating the general fund impact fee. So there are some things already actions we're taking that have to do with reducing costs. So just tell me the numbers on the information sheet that I should be talking about. Or I guess I'll use these right here. Yeah, I mean that would slide easier for me. Three, four, five, six. Just have that information sheet. Well, there's six items here. So again, I'm sorry. So this lumps together those two pieces about a conversion ADUs. So allowing, which are listed separately on the sheet. So allowing full reconstruction and allowing modest expansions. Okay. Given that, then I'll move the package of items that have to do with revisions on the development standards. I have moved by council member Matthews seconded by council. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I want to, I'd be willing to second with possible amendments. So I'm going to ask the maker of the motion. There's willingness to. Do you want to? Yes. So on for item one, rear yard lock coverage, the increase from 30 to 50% with affordability and perpetuity. And also with number four, the size allowing ADUs to be attached to use to be 10% of lot size in return for affordability. I'm at this point not willing to make that amendment. So is there a second for the motion as presented by council member, council member Matthews, which is to move forward with the recommendations before us. Okay, seconded by council member Myers. Okay, question? Yeah. So I just would encourage my fellow council members to really think about how we can work around the issue of affordability and ensuring affordability, whether it be if we are reducing the costs, as was pointed out by council member Matthews around the green building standards, then shouldn't there be some kind of handoff from the property owner to then ensure that the cost of that unit for rental will be in some way affordable, at least for some amount of time, and looking at some of the other ones too. Because we are not only in a housing crisis, I do want to emphasize that we are in an affordable housing crisis in Santa Cruz for working people to be able to stay here. So I just want to put that out there and see if there's any ideas from my peers. Okay. Why don't you respond? I'll just respond. There's a lot that we're doing in this action and it has taken a good deal of time if you go all the way back to the housing blueprint committee and all the outreach on the ADU issue specifically, the staff work and certainly there are issues of affordability, a lot of other issues that people have raised here and there will be continued staff work on this issue and by moving forward with this, I think we're doing something and the affordable issue can come back to us. This is not going to fill the all the potential for ADUs in the next year. This will be really an incremental change and my own instinct is to go with something that has been given, a great deal of thought and public review and ask that the affordability issue come back to us in the next iteration of studying recommendations that the staff is going to bring forward to us. So just to clarify what I'm hearing is to move forward with this knowing that there could be further direction to how the staff could look at increasing affordability and bringing that to us in the future time. Okay, vice mayor Cummings and then Brown and then Crown. I just want to say for the record that I agree very much with the fact that there's no affordability kind of built into this and that makes me a little bit concerned with moving forward on so many items. I think that there are definitely pieces of this that I think should be acted on today but then I also think there are pieces of it that may actually need more study in terms of affordability or thought on how we can keep some of these units affordable. I also was going to make a comment before because I was noticing that there's potential for conflict around allowing for like older buildings that would normally be expanded upon or built on and the idea that people may want to consider tearing those buildings down reconstructing because in doing so they'd then qualify for the short-term rental program to my knowledge and so I could also see a loss of units due to the fact that people might take older ADUs on their properties tear them down build new ones in order to qualify for the short-term rental and so that gives me concern around actually losing some of the housing that we currently have. And that when we get to that item we can discuss it. The reason why I brought it up is because it's in conjunction with what we're discussing right now. Oh yeah I mean I'll make a general comment as well. I again appreciate the work that staff has done and I so I have and I don't think it's these are insignificant changes. I don't think that suggesting that we wait and consider affordability in the future is an adequate response to the concerns so I would like to see the the decisions that we make today include affordability and perpetuity and for that reason I mean I mean really what we're essentially talking about here is providing opportunities for land owners to increase their property values and there is no public benefit being asked in return and that is just a principle that I'm and this is something that I you know this is not a surprise to those of you who were staffed to the housing blueprint subcommittee I made these I expressed these concerns at the time and I will continue to express them here and so I am not willing to I'm not going to vote in favor of the motion as is I'd like to offer this as an amendment and that we can vote on in advance. Maybe Mr. Condadi are you I just I want to just point out that a substantive change proposed by the council has to be referred back to the planning commission for a public hearing before the council takes action on so if you were to move forward tonight you could also direct that those provisions be referred back to the planning commission for a recommendation. Okay maybe I maybe if I could offer that we go through each individual item and if there's some that would you prefer that we don't reach consensus on that we refer them back to planning to incorporate consideration of your concerns and then just follow up on that is that the planning commission is required to report back within 40 days after the date of the council referral so it's it's not just kicking it off into outer space you would you would have a very fairly short window of time to get a report back from the planning commission. May I just ask a follow-up question then so procedurally that is our only option because I given the recommendation that's come before us at the planning commission I don't expect to see a different outcome even with changes being made to the planning commission so essentially we're just we're simply delaying the decision about that is that we don't have any other alternative to just yeah I just affordability requirements I'll just read this section of the municipal code it says that a substantive change proposed by the city council must be referred back to the planning commission for a public hearing in such a case the commission shall report back actually says shall report hack to the city council on the online within 40 days after the date of the council referral where action cannot be taken within 40 days by the commission a longer period of time may be requested the council may grant an extension. Another follow-up question given the complexity of this would the cleanest way to do this be for me to offer an alternative motion entirely rather than amendments so I mean I'll just propose an alternative motion now which we will vote to vote on and then come back to the before you do I just want to ask question which I don't know might be satisfactory. Oh I'm sorry I was I didn't recall if we had a second but I think we did have some. I wanted to ask the staff in terms of adding affordability to the shortlist of things to be brought back to us what you consider your timeline for on the other issues to be covered here. So the other things that we are you know currently working on and looking at you know fees and looking at junior ADUs and other other housing types that's in the six to nine months timeline so that's you know late summer to fall of this year and that would be going through planning and then yes yeah so community process so staff work internally working with departments community process planning commission public hearings. And I would like to add too that that is our current work plan we know some things that have been on the recent council agendas and that are coming up on future council agendas that may modify our work plan given the staffing resources we have specifically around the tenant and landlord protections that we've been talking about so that is falling to our team as well as at least it seems that that's the case now so we'll want to be mindful of that when we're thinking about workload and what's coming back when. I mean I would be happy to include direction to staff to include affordability considerations as they bring back the next iteration of housing possibilities to us. I don't know if that would be satisfactory to you. I offer a suggestion that might work for both of you. What you could do is find these points on which there is consensus and agreement and adopt those tonight and the points where your council believes there is we could legitimately analyze adding affordability we could put those off and analyze those for a future agenda to be combined with some kind of an affordability accommodation. I think that might be a clean way to do it because we could get some kind of ordinance passed tonight for folks that are in process and waiting for some of these things. I do know that you know I've been contacted by a number of people who are currently building ADUs and I do know that the 30 to 50 percent is significant for them in terms of their project so that's just information for your council. And again if I can just wrap up on this point I am concerned that without a little more work we don't know to what extent an affordability requirement becomes a disintent to do anything. So that's why I would like to have a little more work and we have another whole category of items the land use policy items which are also actions taken to I don't even agree with all of them but to make ADUs more buildable and that's another whole category of things that should have an affordability consideration applied to it I should think. So for all of those reasons I would like to go ahead with all of these are in some way a concession an agreement to make ADUs more attractive to build. So I'm just going to let my motion stay the way it is. Sorry okay councilmember Brown. I'd like to make an alternative motion that we approve the site standard amendments as recommended by staff with the exception of items one and four and that those be deferred for further discussion around the feasibility of affordability requirements for in perpetuity. So second. Second. Alternative motion was made by councilmember Brown and seconded by vice mayor Cummings. Any further discussion on is that. So you're moving approval of two three and five. Two three and five. Councilmember Cummings. Could you explain what by leaving those two out what would what that does. What it does or staff because you know. To explain that. Sure. So as I understand council member Brown's motion she would tonight recommend tonight that your council approve items two three and five. Those to be you know brought back for second reading and then approved into an ordinance and go into effect in 30 days and that direct staff to go back and do some more work on figuring out how to add an affordability covenant that is tied to items one and four. So that's figuring out you know what's the level of affordability. How do we operate affordability and perpetuity on private on specific and single family home property you know all sort of sorting out all of those issues and to come back at a future date rather than having those issues postponed the entire ordinance. Give them a dad. You. Good. Thank you. Just on number one with the increase from 30 to 50 percent that is a rear yard coverage coverage requirement and one of the things that we debated was whether or not we should make that increase. You know there are tradeoffs there with for example increasing impervious surface. However one of the concerns just excuse me one of the concerns that we heard from the community was the two story units looking down into a backyard for example. And so having the 30 percent requirement may actually encourage people to do that two story unit that has raised concerns from some of the neighbors. And they may choose to take that route rather than going with the affordability. There is some cost associated with two story construction that's more expensive than single story. But that would be something that the individuals would have to weigh as the cost of the two story construction versus the affordability requirement. So again just a point of consideration and a little bit more background as to why we got to that recommendation of going to the 50 percent is really to address some of those neighborhood concerns about two stories looming over their backyard. I just had a question about you said that some people are waiting on this like just past the state mandated. How does that change? How is I'm assuming that's pretty helpful also in this process. If we took a step back and you know I mean I don't see a lot of the hallmark of this ordinance for me should be about affordability. And it's not. And I just think that I appreciate Health Member Brown's motion because I think we're injecting you're seeing concern up here that it's really important that we achieve some affordability here. Sure. Not to you know inhibit the market but that people who live here and can't afford you know and I'm not very interested in short term vacation rentals either or short term rentals. Okay so I'm wondering if at this time we want did you have a I'd like to make a friendly amendment to to the substitute motion and that would be to include number three along with one and four to be a request for staff to come back with a feasibility report on the ability to include affordability covenants. I'll second that. I'll accept it. Make all the motion. You're the second on the motion. Okay so you agree you'll accept it. Can you repeat that one more time one and three? Yeah just to add three to Council Member Brown's one and four so it'll be one three and four from these set standards. Okay we'll do a clarification question then we'll vote on the substitute motion. So admittedly I'm new to the council I'm trying to catch up on sort of where this fits in the overall housing blueprint process as well as trying to acknowledge and achieve affordability as well. What I worry is that we are moving we are dependent on single family homeowners to take the step to try to build an ADU and many of these people are not going to have the resources to build the ADU and then also make that ADU an affordable unit. So I worry a little bit that we are using a program which was meant to actually increase our housing supply and by having more supply hopefully we would also realize some affordability benefits as well and we're now making it into an affordable housing program and I don't know that I'm not saying that's the intent but I think we're sort of mixing objectives and I think we have three objectives that came out of the out of the blueprint process. One is to protect our existing supply one is to get more supply into our system and a variety of housing types and one is to to deal with affordability issues. So I just want to make that comment I won't be able to support the motion because I feel like this is a very proactive way for us to put more supply into our system and we're gonna we may hamstring the results of that. So let's go ahead in the interest of moving the item along I think we'll go ahead and take a vote on the substitute motion which is to essentially remove items 1, 4, and 5. 1, 3, and 4. 1, 3, and 4 for further exploration for affordability and move forward with items 2 and 5 at this time. So all those in favor of the substitute motion please say aye. Aye. No. All those opposed? No. So that passes with Councilmember Crone, Glover, Brown, Vice Mayor Cummings in support and Matthews, myself, and Myers against. Okay. So let's move on to the okay this is the time now for us to take action and deliberation. Thank you. We'll go ahead and move on to the last section. Okay. Mayor this yeah can I ask really quick did you do a vote on the first motion? No. There was a substitute motion. That passed. I have another motion for the state law requirements. Oh now we did. We voted on that. Yes. That was unanimously. Yeah. No problem. Okay. So the final items for us for consideration include this is the final set, correct? Okay. Yes. I'm one through four. So now is an opportunity for action and deliberation. Councilmember Matthews. Do we just say how we feel about these? Yeah. Or some comments if that's okay. Time is clicking here. Are there any items maybe the better question or are there any that? I'm not in favor of two ADUs on large lots. I am adamantly opposed to short term rentals as an incentive for ADU. I think it absolutely goes against the intent of ADU legislation. I could entertain the eliminating of parking requirements. I'm ambivalent about that. And in terms of modifying definition of the owner occupant to include members of immediate family I'm in favor of that. Okay. I don't know how others are but I'm wondering if any of these items any of the just to get kind of a consensus on the council if the council feels at this time prepared to move any of these specifically one through four. And if not then. Or definitely. Okay. So do you want to make a motion to move? Make a motion to approve item four is listed on the PowerPoint. Second. Okay. Motion by councilmember Matthews. Seconded by councilmember Glover. Vice mayor. I have a few issues with the definition of owner occupant and the terms on which the owner shouldn't be living on the premise. I think that it would be good if there's clear language. Some of the concern that I've been hearing is that if someone you know maybe gets sick or has to take care of a sick relative that they may have to or they need to go out of town for whatever reason for work what have you and they need to leave that site that they would want to be able to continue renting that out without being on this being on site. The issue I have with that is that if that's an undetermined amount of time then people can say I'm leaving because of X, Y and Z and then they can leave for 20 years and there's no owner on site in terms of owner occupancy. So I feel that there should be language that's clear stating how long another person or if it's not the owner, how long the owner can be off site in order to rent it out without being there. I agree with you on that but I think that is not the issue in number four. Issue number four simply the definition of what an owner occupant is. It includes their immediate parents or children. That's my understanding. If I could offer just Vice Mayor Cummings, we do have a provision in the ordinance where if a property owner is going to be absent from the property just entirely they apply to the city. They submit an application. It's reviewed by city council. City council can approve an absence of up to two years and allow rental of both units. In that case one of the units must be rented to a low-income household and then there's a one-year extension that can be granted a staff level of that two-year approval. So we do have a program like that and then this what's here on the slide is about modifying the definition of owner occupant to allow family member to stand in. Okay so that's the motion if I understand is to move forward with number four made by council member Matthew seconded by council member Glover. Further discussion on that? Yeah I have you know I have some concerns about this because I believe it's a bit of a slippery slope and it does allow someone to be to be defined. It redefines owner occupant. I mean that we're talking about this as an insignificant change but I believe it actually is because it's allowing a non-owner and non- you know a property owner that's not the occupant that's not the actual owner to be on the site and so I think that is something that we ought to have further discussion about. My understanding is it's immediate family essentially it would only be immediate family who. Yeah so but this is I mean it's I guess I'm the point I'm trying to make is that it's it really provides an opening for some manipulation of the definition of owner. I can't support that. What if they put the person on the deed would that be a compromise if they put the family member on the deed? That's currently in the code. Anyone who's on deed at 50 percent is considered a property owner and part of the logic. Excuse me but would the family member have to be on the deed then or not? The way that the proposal is that they would not have to be on the deed the property owner would not be compelled to add someone to the deed to their property in order to allow them to occupy and manage the property in their stead. They would have to be related by you know marriage blood adoption step. What would be wrong with adding them to the deed? So there are some reasons that property owners may choose not to do that. There are some reasons that property owners may choose not to do that one example that we've had recently is a property owner elderly couple who owns the property one of their children lives on the property but they they have three children and their intention is for that property to stay in the family moving forward and to be equally distributed among their three children so they are not inclined to just simply add one child to the deed. So that's just one example that we've encountered but I think that there are similar reasons that folks. And it still doesn't get around the issue that Mr. Smedberg brought up about you know son-in-law nobody's occupying that place right yes exactly he's not allowed to rent both units. Okay so shall we move with the okay yeah okay I'd like to move with this so I think you know all those in favor with moving forward with number four please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Yeah yeah I seconded but I have after listening to the conversation. Okay so that fails with Councilmember Brown, Vice Mayor Cummings, Councilmember Glover, Councilmember Crone not supporting moving forward at this time on number four so I'm hearing that in general the Council is not prepared to take any action on items one and through three in addition to four at this point correct I'm not hearing a motion to move forward on any of this. Yeah I'd make a motion similar to the other ones to take items one through four of the land use amendments to find out if there are ways to incorporate affordability covenants in the two large ADUs the temporary short-term rental agreements or striking that completely and then looking at parking requirements and how we may be able to incorporate alternate forms of transportation benefits or incentives as opposed to requirements of a parking space like the owner may be required to provide a jump bike pass or a bus pass to the tenant for transportation. Is there a second? I'm not in favor of moving forward on the short-term rental thing period. Is there a consensus from the Council to not move forward with exploring any more into the short-term rental? Is that option of staff time? Okay yeah okay so we'll go ahead and remove that as an option to further kind of explore. So there's a motion by Glover seconded by Brown I'm sorry by Crone to further explore items one through one three and four. One and three and then yeah and four with regards to the concerns that were brought up by the Council about the issue of definition and slippery slippiness. Okay all right is there any further discussion at this time? I just want to clarify I thought four was pretty straightforward but in referring that for further discussion is that one also to be linked to affordability? No I don't see how that would be relevant. Yeah so I think that would be separate so one and three would be to look for affordability covenants that could be included in it as well as alternative forms of transportation incentives and then four to address the issues expressed around the definition of owner occupant and what that pertains. I do have a really quick suggestion if we could move forward on owner occupancy get information it may be that people's concerns are set aside between now and the second reading and then we could move forward so that's from anyone else out there is it are you offering that as an amendment to the motion I think that would have to you make a friendly moment to accept that a second motion or maybe the motion would be let me see referring what was it one and three for further work linking it to affordability and accepting forward with number four pending clarification prior to the second reading we can always delete it at the second reading I'm seeing nods fellow council members as I make I will I will accept that friendly amendment to my motion okay did you catch that I have some questions okay so I'll watch the video it's but no it was essentially we'll understand where we're going with this I well so I understand the motion you've just made what I don't understand is what you want on number four leave it leave it as he is just leave it as is and for those no no slickiness okay then we could get them the information they need between now and the second reading which and those questions have been asked tonight and I missed them or they're going to come to me in an email yeah for there I see I'll be in touch okay okay yes I understand thank you okay question where would the um the issue of the ad you in the multi-res where would that come into any of this like if we wanted staff if we wanted staff to speed up the you know getting back to the council within uh let's just no I'm just saying where we were to fit in we'll later let's finish up this one and we'll wrap this one up and then move forward with that okay so all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed okay that passes unanimously so then lastly is on direction these resolutions to adopt okay and I okay staff um previously on this and I think tell me if I've got the right language adopt the resolution to submit the ordinance amendments for coastal and adopt the resolution to approve oh and so number one would include the language additional language including the amendments made at this this this evening staff so you'll move that I will move adoption of the resolution to all these codes including the amendments made this evening and adopt a resolution etc reducing the general plan maintenance okay I'll second that any further discussions all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed no that passes unanimously so now before we close the item can we use this opportunity to right so this is now the opportunity for further direction so council marcon I'll turn to you because this would be the opportunity for you to yeah I mean if we could look at that issue of putting an ad you in a multi res because it doesn't on the face of it make sense that you can't I'd also like to have staff look into some incentives if we're if we're lifting green green building requirements is there ways that we can infuse and incentivize adu builders to build green such as installing even you know solar on the roof I mean that would be a start and or and also the third thing would be a loan program can we come back with a loan program and figure out how other places are doing it we heard one example tonight so so my understanding is that for the incentives for green building that was already delayed correct okay so that will be coming back with that consideration so you're asking for staff to explore the loan fee deferral type programs yeah how could we build that in and provide loans for folks okay and then and I'm sorry in the third multi res adu in a multi residential okay is there any other discussion well I'm just if I could clarify um councilmember crone is your request to I mean was that to ask staff to um report back to us on the pursuit of the county the county strategy that believe mr no not necessarily maybe to go a little wider than that and figure out if other places have have done something um through some sort of fee structure that created a pot for people to draw from who maybe make under the median income which we learned is 87 000 for a family of four okay is there any other input I just had one I'd like to add one of the things I was wondering if we can maybe find a way to track the applications coming in to identify which of the modifications was the incentive for them specifically so we can help identify what we're seeing the biggest movement in terms of production or interest in production so it could be I don't know a survey or some way to kind of get some data around how are we yielding the impact that we hope to see um I think we're more than able to do that uh any sense of the time frame you'd like us to look at considering that we're averaging somewhere between 35 and 50 a year is there a threshold or a number that you'd like to see as a statistical I think we could look at baseline data in terms of average and then once these modifications are in place we can look at who is now applying to have an adu and if we could even further ask why it was that they are seeking this at this time what was one of those modifications that actually made the difference for them it could be helpful for us to understand sure where we saw the biggest result from these types of policy changes I think for that to be valuable we'd want to look at it over a course of maybe six to twelve months okay no problem no rush on that um and then additionally I have one other and that's to um think about the age in place and the the incentive around trying to increase the opportunity for families to um rent and if somebody is thinking about building an adu um to age in place that we can incentivize them renting for families knowing that that's a huge need for our community and was identified as one in a previous report go ahead so so that actually dovetails with a program the city already has an existing program with um habitat for humanity called my house my home which the intention there is to serve low-income senior homeowners to be able to construct an adu on their property and the way that the financing for that is structured it's really tailored to seniors who are going to be owning their home for less than 30 years because of the way that the loan gets repaid so there is some work that's already being done on that to address that issue of aging in place and providing you know um living accommodations for caretakers right okay thank you are there any other council member i have another just clarifying question related to council member crone's comments um are in the so direction um to regarding the um the further eight housing blueprint subcommittee recommendations to be analyzed and returned to us within six to nine months as i believe the window that is being discussed here you're in wanting to include um clarification or um permission of adu's in multi-residential districts as part of that or you want that to come back more quickly i think it's pretty clear that you know we're gonna miss a season if i think it should come back to us sooner i just want to yeah i agree and i just want to make sure that we capture that in the recommendations made to staff now what's the reason we'll timeframe three months is that work or realistic about your work program yeah again it really does have to it depends on the workload program uh to be very candid with the council right now our team homie has two full-time staff um project managers and we do have a pretty intensive workload from the housing blueprint subcommittee about 65 percent of that workload 75 percent of that workload falls to this division as well as the new um stuff that we're talking about with our task force for tenant and renter protections and so while i want to be as proactive as possible and get things back to the council as soon as possible we have to be really realistic in terms of our staffing so i think some direction on expectations from you guys in terms of priority would be really helpful you just make a quick comment on that um you know i read all all of the public comment over the last um many many months and many many efforts to um and i know we did receive both uh oral comment today and also a letter regarding that but um i would prioritize that a little lower than some of the other things um that uh we're requesting of you i'm not completely clear exactly what we're requesting at this point but um based on everything that i've seen um as well as the comment i heard from the planning director um understanding how this fits into our larger housing strategy and not responding to just you know um a specific need i think again we are um we're missing the bigger picture and uh i'd like to see us kind of be thoughtful and um understand what our planning staff has said which is you know we need to look at our housing program as a whole and uh so i would i would rank that pretty low in our list of of new things to look at okay all right so comment um in terms of prioritization i mean i i completely understand that i um my understanding though is this is not um simply an individual request although it has been expressed to us by one um property owner so um with that i mean i'm not suggesting that we make this a high priority um in response to one property owner alone i'm looking at that situation that that type of case overall um is it possible to find out how many um i mean not in terms of interest but how many how many um parcels that might affect um i don't want to over complicate this but i it is a high priority for me um given that at least three ad use might get built if we don't delay on this so is this is your question specific to um wanting staff to research um ad the feasibility of ad use in multi residential districts that are not solely tied to a single family home i have a comment to add on this so um there is a chance that we could be preempted on this by state legislation there was legislation last year that failed to pass that would have created exactly this provision that same legislation has been reintroduced and is making its way through the legislature so what i'm cognizant of as as staff is not um doing a lot of work and a lot of outreach to put something in place that within six months is then super is then created by state law when we could have just waited for state law because we'll be back making those other changes that state law is doing so let's just take a broad view of what we're going to be doing on ad use over the next 18 months right so we have um stuff we're already working on junior ad use with the fees all of that we have a we have new direction now on um things to look at that were in this package to tie them to affordability in some way shape or fashion that makes sense right so we're going to be working on that and then also we're following the state legislation so far there's i'm aware of only one bill but i am sure there will be more so whatever passes at the end of this year we are going to be coming back in january to adopt so we're looking at a minimum of three amendments to this program over the next year which that that's a significant portion of like that's a significant amount of churn i guess is what i'm saying and i'm i'm hesitant to add another piece to that when it could be rolled that said that said though in the in the interest of transparency i do want counsel to understand that just like with any legislative bottle body there's no certainty or guarantee that any of that stuff will be passed at the state level so um you have to weigh does it make sense for us to do something that now that may already be passed or may this is the same quandary that we were in this time last year when we were talking with the housing blueprint subcommittee about bringing it how how swiftly do we move in advance of state legislation do we wait do we not these are these are things for for you guys to deliberate so in the interest of time do you want to make a motion this is just general direction is will this now require if should i need to make a motion about it i thought this was just staff direction it's not in terms of the the prioritization i would just make the point that if this is already something that is going to potentially be coming back to us um and preempt and preempted by state law what's the i'm just going to you know ask the question what's the harm in doing it in advance in this case i think it's a priority enough for when i'm asking myself that question it's enough of a priority to do that because it doesn't lead to additional work in the future if we've just already done it i'm just going to say that same thing i would tend to agree and i think that we should i think it we should pursue it okay councilmember matthews i'm really sensitive to what's being dumped on the staff to do and i think at the very least um you've heard the concerns the staff takes direction only from an action of the council as a whole so if that's to become a priority for staff work in the near future that should be adopted by a motion of the council as a whole i'm going to put the ball back in you guys's court you've heard a lot of things people want to work on and you have your work plan i'm sorry um so could we come back at a future meeting with with a report on all the stuff you've got maybe this is our goal session our retreat but let's see what you guys have on your calendar and we could do the and then we can do the prioritization and give direction makes as a council as a whole okay as i mean i think councilmember brown was asking about coming back to us with how many properties are affected by this i mean that that's something i would think that we could we could get that information i think you know if you're if you're asking for a data point that's something we can provide this week that's not a problem the data point a data point is not a problem to create a coming back with an ordinance amendment um there is just there is process and churn and hours of staff time that are associated with that regardless of how small or large that amendment may be it really that affects such a small portion of the work that we have to do to create it and bring it back to you which i know you understand that i just you know in in in light of we're going to be bringing back other recommendations um in the context of having you know other workload and other priorities we're just asking for some clarification do you want to be clear on what you're asking is it just on the data point or is it for the data point will affect my thinking about this so i think i'd like to get the data point okay so you could return with the data point or share that information i think we could i think we could do that if council is comfortable with that um via a informational memo or something of that nature that will give you more information um to give us future further direction on the other items however i think it's really important that we do do our due diligence we do do our outreach to the community and get a sense from them on how they're feeling about some of these things and that does take time especially with the other priorities so i just want to communicate please don't feel that we are um not interested in doing the work it's just that the resources are limited and all of this is so important that the clarity from the council on priorities is really really helpful thank you okay at this point i think we go ahead okay i think we're good we got it i think we're at a place of consensus at this time i thank you for your work and time and thank the community for being here and expressing their interest in the item at this point i'd like to move on to the next item um one more we do it one more well so from the staff perspective and please let us know if we miss this but i don't feel that we got clarity or closure on this particular item we really what we want to know from the staff perspective is is this something you'd like us to continue to pursue or is it a non-starter there are options with this uh there we we've reached out a little bit to the community but we did feel like we needed a little more um conversation with council on the direction so i think just a little clarity on this would be really helpful okay well in light of the conversation i think we just had as well as the other conversation around owner occupancy i think it'd be fine to postpone a major outreach around this at this time personally is there others that feel differently i feel like um this might be an item to consider if we're able to provide some you know guidelines for affordability around housing so you know allowing there to not be owner occupancy given different types of ownership and different types of like levels of affordability i think is worth discussing and bringing forward since that's such a big issue since affordability is a big issue okay that's what i was going to say okay so we'll tie it to the affordability okay great thank you okay definitely just on the record i feel really strongly about keeping the owner occupancy i think otherwise it's just cities just wide open for sure okay land land rush thank you i agree go on record thank you i'll say that thank you okay so um i will move us along to the next item which is item number 24 make a motion prior to i'm going to open it up to um when he's ready mr kandadi 24 item number 24 the second reading of the ordinance yes did you want to introduce that item or i'm sorry was it lee planning director has a brief uh powerpoint okay there we go good afternoon again mayor and council members leave out there the planning director and i'll go through this quickly but um for clarity with the public there were lots of changes last time at our last meeting and just wanted to go through those so uh the first reading of an interim just cause eviction ordinance was approved at the last meeting on the 8th of January there were various changes and there was also direction to bring back recommendations related to a community process and so that'll be at one of your upcoming meetings and um quickly going through the interim just cause eviction ordinance um and paraphrasing here uh sets forth reasons for allowing evictions as failure to pay rent breach of lease except for the end of the lease term or addition of specified replacement or additional tenants um that are meeting the criteria identified in the ordinance nuisance and criminal activity as well as failure to give access can result in an eviction also repairs requiring temporary vacancy um would um be a reason for allowing an eviction owner move in under certain limitations can do that withdrawal of the unit from the rental market permanently actually that's withdrawal of all the units on the property from the rental market and um there's some specifications there in the ordinance and then um one that was added at that last meeting was uh landlord reoccupancy within one year if that landlord had occupied the property for at least a year um preceding that there were a series of changes um from the ordinance that was presented on 1 8 and so I wanted to just call those to the public's attention and to the council's attention one was an exemption um for um properties where in on a property with a single-family residence a duplex or a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit if the landlord lives on site then that property would be exempted from the just cause eviction provisions the expiration was changed to um one year from the effective date of the ordinance or upon council's future action on the issue of um the just cause eviction and tenants uh other tenant protections and then um there were various changes to allowances for new tenants there were some provisions that referenced the word partner and that was changed to registered domestic partner um there were some references to the maximum number of occupants based on a housing code those were removed and then there was a requirement for um a new tenant who is not a family member or registered domestic partner to um submit an application to the landlord and the landlord um could not deny um based solely on the lack of credit worthiness and solely was added to the ordinance provisions um then um nuisance and criminal activity um there was uh language added to include um the the nuisance or criminal activity were affecting adjacent neighbors and then there was a provision that spoke to if a resident if a tenant had been living there for five years then there were additional protections for that tenant in terms of preventing evictions and that five-year resident criteria was removed from the ordinance so that's paraphrasing but it captures the um the categories of changes and that concludes the presentation we're available for any questions you may have so my understanding is that this is the second reading so with the second reading any major modifications to the proposed ordinance would constitute a first reading correct any substantive changes made this evening would require you to be brought back for second reading at a future meeting okay at a regular meeting at a regular meeting okay any uh any questions question for um lee um so it might have already you've already said this but the 62 and over and disabled was to also taken out right the 62 and over remained in the ordinance there was a provision so you had sent in a question um that came in from a member of the public and there is a provision that was added and I'll circle back up to that and it is it's it's here so landlord reoccupancy within one year following occupancy for at least a year so that partially addressed the the question that you were asking but the the provision related to um the additional protections afforded to individuals who are 62 or older who or who are qualifying as disabled that provision remained in the first reading and is presented to you this evening as part of the second reading any additional questions by council I have a question for Tony if we wanted to make um a separate motion would we be able to do so before public comment or make comments um about this before our direction forward prior to public comment really only a motion to table uh any substantive action that the council would take tonight or just or to schedule a another topic for discussion at a future meeting but any substantive action that you would take tonight on this ordinance would require public comment before you um before you take that action your motion so I'd like to make a motion to table with some comments kind of just like explaining that okay so you can move that I you're making a motion to table is there a second I'll suck in it okay there's a motion by by smear coming seconded by council member Myers to table the item and now discussion okay I don't think tabling has no discussion tabling has no discussion correct that correct um well why don't we do this why don't we have a discussion about specific actions that I anticipate uh council or vice mayor Glover is going to recommend be brought back for consideration at a subsequent meeting and then following that entertain the motion to table okay so for the second reading of this you're suggesting he express his interest in yeah as I yeah actually as I'm thinking this through the council could give further direction since calendar is the next item on your agenda I think that I feel more comfortable with that so so you could table this item and then the council could give direction to bring back for consideration at a future regular or special meeting uh a number of uh items that I think I anticipate council member vice mayor Glover will come I'm just curious because I know that there's just give me a couple of months and I'll item um that suffice to what your needs are if you could address I think that it'd be good for the public to understand why this item there's a suggestion for tabling item which is what I would like to do prior to tabling or have an opportunity when it's being tabled to express us because it doesn't seem like there'll be any space otherwise can I make a suggestion actually I'd like to hear really quickly before I think what um vice mayor Cummings could certainly introduce the concept of what he's proposing and then make the motion to table okay why don't you go ahead and introduce the concept that you're proposing without any substantive direction and then we can make just not to be a stickler but I think a motion to table has to be voted on that's that would be my understanding too but I'm hearing otherwise from our attorney yeah a motion to table has to be an up or down vote without debate correct so the motion could be withdrawn but then there you go so if I withdraw the motion then we can go through public comment and then we can okay we have to hear from the public if we aren't tabling with no we'll withdraw the motion to table I mean that sounds technical but I do think it's a good idea to adhere to these rules so that we yeah so I mean I actually appreciate councilmember Matthews pointing out that okay so you've withdrawn your motion to table the item at this time okay so are there any questions before we open it up to public comment okay who here is interested in speaking on this item okay I was just wondering if excuse me if council excuse me vice mayor Cummings wanted to explain where he was going with it so the public would know as they're addressing they could address those comments too or something would that be acceptable or that be appropriate Mr. Condating can you discuss it without it being agenda council can't have a substantive discussion about the item without it being agendized so the discussion of direction to staff to agendize for consideration at a future meeting has to be limited but I think that some discussion can be had to introduce the item you know the the idea or the reason for uh requesting it I'm not sure if I'm following that I'm sorry I was I wasn't clear what that first can we just deal with the tabling issue has the motion been withdrawn yes okay I don't see a problem with the vice mayor discussing what he's proposing at this point before we open it up to public comment okay feel free to go ahead and discuss what you're so having heard from a lot of members of the community those who were in favor of supporting measure M those who were opposed to measure M and then many people throughout the community who think that we need some form of tenant protections and rent control but thought that measure M wasn't the way many of these people have expressed wanting to come together and work to try to come to some form of consensus around how we should be moving forward with regards to any kind of temporary just cause ordinance at this time while we work on getting the task force in place I want to be respectful of the folks who of our community who've been you know really expressing concern around around the fact that the city council has been taking the lead on creating a temporary ordinance and the community has been wanting more of a process where they have an opportunity to work together and so that is some of the justification that I've had moving forward with considering tabling this for a later date additionally I just want to put out there that there are concerns coming in from members of the community who have been receiving eviction notices some of whom worked on the measure M campaign and see it as retaliation for their participation in the democratic process there are also members of our community who are facing higher rent increases as well in addition to that and I just want to put that out there because I think that if members of our community are very concerned and really want to work on kind of coming together to think about what we can craft as a whole that is going to help our community I would very much encourage members from MHJ a movement for housing justice and for Santa Cruz together to come together and work with members of the city council on actually trying to come up with something that will help our community I know that myself and Donna Myers have been working together and are interested in reaching out to members of those groups I've also been working with lover on some of these issues and other members of city council have been very much invested in working on these issues so that is the rationale moving forward with trying to table this to another moment in time and so I'd like to stop there and now he can make the motions now the options are to make a motion to table now and then during your discussion of the calendar discuss setting additional items for consideration at a future meeting we're here from the public now before you entertain a motion okay at all so I think it's important that we listen to the public who have been here and waiting for hours to speak and share their perspective on the issue also I totally respect and acknowledge the attempt of my colleagues and trying to find middle ground in what this ordinance should look like while it's commendable at the lengths they have gone especially over the last few days with back-to-back meetings with different groups I'm disappointed at the way that things have unfolded going into the weekend council member Myers vice mayor Cummings and myself came up with a compromise which we all agreed would potentially work a way to move forward that allowed for the protections of renters especially those experiencing retaliatory evictions while we're moving some of the most controversial parts of the readings which I've heard from the community members are the 62 years and older the restrictions of people being able to move into their homes the amount of people living in the houses with the sub-leasing agreements so all of these were taken into consideration but and also extending the application timeline so landlords would have 30 days instead of 14 days to be able to reject or accept a sub-leaser agreement in fact we were so united that we went and met with city attorney kandadi to ask him to craft the language so that we could tonight pass this language temporarily with instruction for the next meeting to have the agendized version of the alternative and amended ordinance to be voted on and then moved into a second reading so that would have appeased and dealt with the issues and the concerns of landlords and would have protected renters in the rental market that are facing evictions what's problematic is that through the threat of referendum and recall we have seen a pressure put on this council to make it so that those that were involved with that plan have completely abandoned it now to table the issue while I understand it's important to be able to build that consensus around the community if we table the issue now we're putting the people that received evictions from December 11th till now in dire circumstances where they will in reality lose their housing without any kind of recourse if we pass this tonight and move forward with goodwill assuming that we're going to be able to find the middle ground over the next couple of weeks while we wait for the task force to get put together then we'll have the opportunity not only to find middle ground not only to address the concerns of the community but also to protect renters which I think should be our most pertinent issue so I would encourage us to open it up for the community okay so what I what I like to do is that if there is a motion to table we'll go ahead and entertain that motion if it has a second vote if that it passes then we'll conclude this item and open it up for community discussion when it returns and if it doesn't then we'll open it up for community discussion so is there a motion to table this item I would make a motion to hear from the public I agree with what councilmember Glover said that the people came here you know we're their government we we have a duty to listen to them second is there a motion to make sure the folks in public get their voice or are able to speak okay if there's I don't hear a motion to table am I hearing a motion to table this item at this time I believe it was withdrawn and I'm admittedly a little confused on our process right now so Tony I yeah I like my as I understand the motion to table was withdrawn that's right so unless there's another motion to table after people have had a chance to speak which I heard was what we could do which you you could do that as well okay so if I'm not you have a motion on the floor now that's been seconded I'm gonna okay so we'll go ahead I'm gonna make another motion to table the item so you're making a substitute motion to table the item is there a second for that motion why don't we want to hear from the I'm sorry thank you do you have do we are you seconding to table it and we table after excuse me thank you not at this moment because I think that we should hear from the public if they're okay so okay so this is okay so we I don't know if we need to vote on that at this point there's no if there's no motion to table the item that doesn't really matter essentially we can we would open it up for public comment this is common on the second reading we've heard extensive comment on the first readings so we had about two and a half hours of comment I um did hear from um a few folks in advance I would like to offer them two minutes and then subsequently one minute and we'll hear it until 7 p.m. go ahead um the motion to hear from members of the public is debatable it's I think would the response to councilmember if you want to look yeah I mean called okay would you all those in favor of hearing from the public okay we need a motion you can make as well yeah so I made that decision we can go ahead and hear from the public excuse are you I heard from two organizations I'm from one of the organization what organization are you from I'm Casey Carlson from the Greater Santa Cruz Federation of Teachers we contacted Chris Monroe our superintendent and myself wrote a letter okay so you'll you'll be given two minutes um Santa Cruz together will be given two minutes and the tenants united will be given two minutes and then every additional uh speaker will be given one minute until 7 p.m. essentially okay go ahead hi thank you I'm Casey Carlson I'm the president of the Greater Santa Cruz Federation of Teachers so we represent the certificated employees in all the schools in our district which is the city and then harbour high and so Cal High so our superintendent and myself wrote an email this weekend when it became apparent that this ordinance you know we don't know the final version of it but it could make it impossible for us to go forward with our workforce housing so I'm not here to take a position on the ordinance we're just here to ask that whatever the ordinance is that's adopted that you would make an exemption for our workforce housing and I'll try to explain as obviously housing is a huge issue and it's really hard to attract and retain not just teachers but classified employees as well so our superintendent came up a couple years ago with the idea of looking into workforce housing and visited a number of workforce housing projects throughout California and we're still in the beginning phases but we've identified a site and we have you know kind of tentative plans and it looks like it could be 82 units but the way it would work for the way workforce housing works is it has to be temporary in nature because it's a project where you're trying to help teachers new to your district or you know there could be possibly someone who has some change of circumstance in their life and so you provide below market housing for them but it has a limited time period so at this point we're looking at seven years and they have to be an employee of the district and we're not at the point yet where we've worked out what happens if they resign in the middle of the year we don't want them to lose their housing but all of the bargaining units are going to be part of that process but so we're not there yet but we don't want to you know to be in a position where we can't go forward with this the other piece that's difficult for us is the relocation fee thank you thank you and we wouldn't have the money to be able to provide that thank you thanks time is up okay representing how no i'm sorry you're we're going through public comment you'd have to get back in line and we have a couple people who are speaking in advance at this time i'm gonna enact sovereignty not the time for you i'm sorry excuse me no no please please walk step away you have to get back and you'll be given one minute i'm totally with you you'll okay thank you okay so you have two minutes and then is oh is it olivia who's here okay you'll be given two minutes and then two minutes i have longer comments but i'll submit them for the record so council members my name is dan cofflin i'm a mom and pop landlord in the city and a co-founder of santa cruz together the grassroots campaign or organization comprised of homeowners small business owners community leaders renters and other property owners we formed one year ago in response to the council's late night emergency just caused eviction ordinance and then again to prevent measure m we spent last year gathering peer reviewed research analyzing case studies from other rent controlled municipalities consulting experts both state and local tracking rental property sales speaking with hundreds of property owners homeowners renters and ran an honest campaign to inform this body and santa cruz voters of the extreme pitfalls of measure m the measure was soundly for defeated in november by santa cruz voters your constituents and not because of any particular you know special political savvy by myself and my compatriots but because it was so fundamentally flawed that it was obvious that it would create huge disincentives to provide rentals or build new rental stock and would ultimately hurt the very tenants that you were trying to help through reduced supply increased rents and less maintained properties santa cruz property owners communicated to us that you that a rent cap was a reasonable solution but that the just caused provisions in the measure where minimum unsound and at most in the front the very foundation of property ownership and property rights despite the mountain of evidence otherwise the hundreds of letters you've received in the rental housing sell off displaced tenants in the november vote you continue to rely on anecdotal stories and dubious rental price data to justify shoving through an ordinance that contains the most contentious elements of measure m no reputable data no studies and no formal public input ensure we've lost faith in this council majority's ability to objectively lead in santa cruz housing policy and we're prepared to take actions and or matters in our own hands as a grassroots organization we're we're more than ample number of volunteers that ready to resist this ordinance and we're prepared to continue to resist similar policies until the day santa cruz voters can rebalance this body with forward thinking reasonable and facts driven members uh for audience members here that are interested in helping us keep the council line thank you and you're free please do feel free to submit the thank you the comments so i can't physically turn the microphone around but the statement is directed at the tenants behind me and those are you sitting in front of me my name is olivia fischer smith and i'm an organizer with students united with renters um last year a lot of our time and energy went into canvassing and voter registration for measure m and despite measure m's loss sir's work has always been grounded in the belief that the fight for housing justice is going to take more than just policy solutions right now the little power that tenants do hold in this city lies within the policies that we're able to pass through our supposed political democracy and the candidates before me who we believe hold our best interests in mind however with no regulation of campaign donations plus the financial power of groups like the california apartment association which individually spent somewhere around 350 to $2,000 on the campaign against rent control democracy can be bent dramatically to favor the interests of landlords and developers over more more vulnerable tenant voices while many hope that the task force being discussed right now results in a net positive for tenants our experiences with the opposition since november make this prospect less than hopeful last year many people who voted no one m insisted that they would support renter protections if it felt like there had been more of a community process involved in its writing however the minute tenant advocates try to pass even the most minimal temporary bare bones tenant protections we receive nothing but threats and promises to rescind no one m landlords have given many fellow organizers and outspoken tenants retaliatory evictions eviction notices for their political beliefs and city council members have had their seats threatened for doing exactly what they were voted in office to do the reason we're here today is because tenants don't have the money to buy an election tenants can hardly organize with the capacity of the opposition because most tenants work overtime to afford their rents look at us we're broke students and we're here because we have to be it's a shame that we did not have the financial means to send tens of thousands of dollars worth of mailers to pay for speakers public phone surveys large-scale canvassing operations money controlled the narrative but we will control the future so no matter what happens tonight sir and our allies are determined to organize for eviction protections thank you okay we'll be given one minute and i will you'll be given one minute no you're you're welcome to come you'll we have you'll have one minute um we will hear public testimony until seven p.m. at which time we will then move into oral communications so uh this is just a reminder the second reading of the just cause eviction ordinance specifically so you can tailor your comments to that okay i i hope that you do table it because i think we need to clear the air and all the misinformation about about landlords and how the economics of it works and i did look at the data at ucic about how much rents were increased and if the worst case was two bedroom apartment which went up about 30 percent in four-year period that they have data for the latest data and then you compare that to home prices which went up a lot more like 34 percent but if you look at all housing that on the ucic data it the rents went up about 25 percent 24 percent in that period so actually landlords are not keeping up with the price of housing that the wholesale price of housing they are retail providers of housing they must follow the wholesale price i don't think people understand that and it's not an outrageous it it's a perfect storm of inflation of home prices yeah which have a lot of reasons and the bad guys for that are up in washington thank you not the landlord okay next speaker thank you uh good evening council my name is fred antaki i'm a commercial property manager and real seed broker here in santa cruz for the last 25 years uh what is being proposed as a solution from someone the council i believe will definitely accomplish two things it'll make it harder to be a housing provider it'll make it harder to be a housing creator and i am confident it will not effectively address the problem of affordable housing rather than try to enforce affordability through a narrow mandate i would encourage you to embrace pragmatic incentives for creating both permanently affordable and market rate housing you will not get there by vilifying landlords or developers you will make real progress on the housing affordability issue or crisis in santa cruz when you take practical actions to create more supply this includes measures to incentivize sensible development like oh and lawler project on pacific avenue partner with and support ucsc in the creation of more student and employee housing and stand up to the vocal minority groups who do not represent the best interests of the overall community and through this measure are promoting a divisive and counterproductive strategy you're welcome to submit your comments if you'd like okay our next speaker good evening council my name is rose marie mcnear and one of the things that i really really hope for is that we can have the community back together and work together the divisiveness that has been created by the just cause ordinance has placed a lot of angst on property owners who are bearing the brunt of of the non-supply of housing which they did not cause they did not create and they are alone cannot cure but however they are the ones that are taking on the burden of having their properties um uh mandated to have certain rents and so on and so forth and just cause evictions and whatever the point i'm making is i've watched for 42 years as supply did not happen and now we're we've got to put the blame on somebody and it just happens to be the the property owner thank you thank you okay next speaker good evening again robin cunningham we those of us who actually provide housing need to have sure footing we're making serious investments of time and money many of us seniors who rely on the equation working so we can remain housed and will instead invest or build elsewhere if this council is going to behave in a way that can't be trusted if you can't enter into a contractual agreement with someone that's binding then what's the point what landlord would take that deal you can't take uh you cannot inflict these ridiculous restrictions on landlords and expect this to make sense it's not the way lives work i don't think anyone is on board with those who might raise rents beyond a reasonable limit believe the just cause eviction piece out of this if you want landlords to stay in the game putting a heavy hand on our properties will not increase supply actually read the data listen to the economist and if that doesn't work then try recounting the vote our city cast against it maybe some of you have good intentions but this law is not going to achieve thank you the stated goals you've claimed to have okay thank you all right next speaker good evening my name is alaina cohen and i've submitted my comments and writing um i'd like to just highlight the most important points which is that although the just cause eviction ordinance is better than the earlier jce versions i continue to believe that the ordinance ordinance is substance and process for adoption will seriously harm most of those whom the ordinance is designed to protect and will erode the voter's trust in the council's competence and good faith and most i'm i'm especially concerned about um exposing everybody to uh litigation costs and stress and i also noticed in the adu uh comments about how stressed the uh the planning staff was in trying to uh implement things competently i really like the idea of of what um uh coming said about doing the mediation with uh the groups and i really hope that that will happen thank you very much next speaker hello my name is marta gillard and i'm one of those tenants that received an eviction notice on December 12th with a eviction date of february 15th and uh today i had to make a decision on whether i'm going to accept a unit with a 275 dollar rent increase or risk losing my rental that i live in so i'm here to support you passing the just cause eviction ordinance with the understanding that there will be continued efforts to refine this to get a win-win because i think it's possible and it's going to take time and if any of you uh well i know you all know writing to perfection is is endless you can rewrite to death so why not protect your your people and continue to refine the ordinance it make i mean it's a win-win to me in that situation i think there is a win-win that's possible um if you don't if it's tabled then tenants like us will lose our housing next speaker um my name is elise kazzie i'm a long-time activist one of the things i've had to do as an activist is go through repeated sensitivity trading uh in terms of racial issues i think is a predominant white body in a predominantly white city is our duty to make sure that by this the end of tonight we know exactly who our mayor is and what his name is and what drew glever's name is and that he's not the vice mayor that's number one number two i am outraged to hear i am just so upset to hear about this recall effort after the uh the landlords were able to take gargantuan amounts of money uh to tilt this so-called democratic election in a time when we have so much inequality robber barons predominant and the middle class is sinking i think we need to see that the vulnerable people here are the tenants they are not commodities they are people and we must protect them with a just cause of issue i want to move forward with re uh drew's very generous uh thank you next speaker you'll be given one minute my name is ali shah Mirza i'm a citizen of santa cruz since 1981 and i just wanted to bring to your attention that i'm a foreigner i i'm from iran but you are well educated city council members lawyer staff that you have please take your time and understand what you are doing read the rental agreements that are in place there are a lot of rental agreements that are standard that we use like california association of realtors or others but by looking at it i don't think you can tell me if i if i'm 62 years old or 52 years old you are putting a discrimination into this place that if i'm going to go rent some place because of my looks if i'm 62 they're not going to rent it to me so think about your action of what you're doing here to the tenants okay you're not really protecting the landlords you are herding the tenants who are old okay thank you next speaker hi um my name is neil langholz excuse me this is his opportunity to speak yes you did so please yeah one person speaking before us you can stop the time then it's your opportunity to speak without distraction if she wants to talk first so thank you um these discussions ignore the elephant in the room the jc ordinance affects ordinary homeowners ability to freely go about their lives this isn't just a renter and housing provider issue an ordinance like the jc ordinance has the city regulating what people can and cannot do with their houses even after decades of paying mortgage and the high expense of living in this area for example if a homeowner rents to someone and they move in a family member who is over the age of 62 they may be blocked from living in their own house that's crazy does council think they are being generous by letting people lease their houses freely for less than a year but not after that they are gravely mistaken that is restrictive and not generous does council think that it is reasonable to create conditions thank you you're welcome to submit your your comments okay next speaker good evening my name is Alice first of all sincere thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight i wanted to touch on the one comment that i haven't really heard addressed which is there is there is some middle ground in this basically it's in the trade off between shrinking the existing rental supply and on the other hand providing no protection for tenants who legitimately need long-term housing your inboxes fully document both cases you've you've heard from many many tenants who will be long-term renters you've heard from many many landlords myself included who have no intention of remaining as providers of rental housing in a situation where every rental becomes open and at occupancy i would urge you to consider putting together two lists one is a list of all the landlords who would voluntarily be open to providing long-term housing either five-year leases or whatever draft lease you provide that there are such landlords if you provide incentives via the ad u program or whatever that list would grow secondly please put together a list of all tenants who actually legitimately need a long-term occupancy housing i've been renting in landlord or my wife i've been running okay thank you very much okay next speaker my unofficial tally of the 663 pages of letters to council shows the following opposed to jce 471 in favor of jce 17 neutral or indeterminate nine duplicate submissions not counted twice 99 i do not support the just cause eviction ordinance modification a special subcommittee has been proposed and this committee could be tasked at your direction with gathering robust and publicly shared data that would help inform the community discussion on jce this should happen before any permanent and difficult to reverse decisions are made presently we lack the foundational data required to understand the scope and extent of the problem and no time has been spent researching or reviewing best practices without benchmark data it would be impossible to gauge the subsequent success or failure of any changes of some unsubstantiated or anecdotal stories on either side are a poor substitute for empirical data instead in conjunction with the findings of a good faith diverse jce committee as proposed okay thank you feel free next speaker good evening my name is debora wallace and while i'm a local property manager this isn't just a landlord tenant issue that this just cause eviction ordinance affects ordinary homeowners ability to freely go about their lives this ordinance has the city telling people what they can and cannot do with their homes and if a homeowner rents to someone and that renter moves in a family member over the age of 62 the homeowner would not be able to move back into their own house it hardly seems right that they would be forced to invoke the ellis act in order to reclaim possession a whole year later it's one thing to regulate apartment buildings like a business it's quite another thing to tell people when they can live in their house and when they can't measure m was defeated by 62 percent homeowners as 60 percent of the voters the correlation isn't hard to see homeowners are also stakeholders thank you okay next speaker say hello council my name is rosanna bruny and i'm here to ask you tonight to please be consistent i've been here since 330 i've heard everything about the adu discussion that you just talked about and in based on that in my rental house right now this ordinance would require that i allow brothers and sisters grandparents kids spouses to move into my rental home however in my own house where i have an adu i can't have my kids be living there and then i can leave right that's what you guys are talking about tonight just in your frowning but i think i have this right right you don't you don't want my you think it's slippery slope slippery slope to allow kids to be out the home when the parents can leave and can't leave the parents can't leave the kids can't be in the house so i just don't see this as consistent thank you thank you hello council members my name is faz um i wanted to thank you again for bringing this up um this issue i think is very important in our community um throughout the campaign we had numerous discussions with people out in the community some of them may be here tonight but most of them the majority of them are out there in the community who said they support some form of tenant protection they support some form of rent control they just didn't support measure m despite the misleading propaganda i mean it's completely false this isn't measure m this isn't rent control this isn't a rent control board and the just cause eviction perfection provisions are significantly different than what was written to measure m um and if we're creating a task force to try to bring this community together right a recall isn't that solution you're going to only divide this community even further a referendum is not the solution i mean tenants need something to protect them in the interim right whether it's this meeting or whether it's next meeting if we have a task force that comes up with a proposal who are we going to make those proposals to protect if we don't have renters in this community anymore so please take action at this whether it's today or whether it's next meeting but please do something to protect renters and let's build this task force and bring people together thank you okay next meeting and before you start i'd like to get a sense of who's here to speak to us about oral communications items that are not on our agenda okay i'm seeing how many four these are for items that are not on the agenda so who um then i will be concluding um at 7 p.m. public testimony on this item so feel go go ahead ready hi everybody here i just want to uh let you know that i am very sorry and i'm very hurt that somebody is trying to um threaten with uh recalling and uh all these kind of things you know that's not the way to build community we all know that this is a problem and the 25 percent that the gentleman was saying before in a $1200 rent is $300 who has $300 extras to pay just like that no working family so i want to support this task force and i want to require from uh to request from the uh council that you send a postcard to all the households in the county and in the city and let them know that this is something going on and inviting to participate and i want justine or you donna or you drew to look at those postcard before it's being mailed okay that's to ensure unequal participation from everybody thank you okay we'll have one more speaker on this item recognizing we had over two hours with the first reading and then i will open it up to oral communications at 7 p.m. go ahead my name is Andy Caterie and i am both a renter here and i'm a property owner in another county and i would like to speak to anybody who is a landlord and who is making money on their property and i want to say that there is no requirement to turn a profit or to make money on your property at all my partner and i've had a piece of property since 1992 there's been a house on it we built it ourselves we have never charged rent to anybody we have always let people live there so when people come up and say that they're being forced to do this or they're not allowed to do that all that we're talking about is the activity of you as a landlord and you do not have to charge money much less exorbitant amount of money in order to survive thank you at this point i'm i am going to close public comment for the item on the just cause eviction ordinance and i'm going to open it up now for oral communications so we are no longer taking public comment on the second reading of the just cause after oral communications no no we're not wait what happened to the second reading this is the second reading we there was a previous action taken by the council to make 7 p.m oral communications at more of a time certain so i'm interrupting the item and i'm following through with what was taken clarifying question we will continue we will continue discussion but we will not be taking further public that's correct yes we will be voting on the item after oral communications i'm closing public comment on this item okay so oral community now is the time for oral communications okay so oral communications is an opportunity for members of the community to address the council on any items that are not listed on today's agenda that relate to the work of the council are there any members of the public who would like to address the council okay so if you're addressing the council on oral communications please stand to my left and you'll be given two minutes to speak uh Nicholas Whitehead before before you do Nicholas excuse me well actually is there a carol walker in the audience here okay carol you you approached me in advance so you will go first and you will be given three minutes and then it will be you and then and then you Nicholas okay go ahead carol okay good evening mayor walken's members of city council and fellow sanikers residents my name is carol walker and i'm a 30-year resident of felker street i'm speaking as a representative of the felker street okay i'm speaking as a representative okay you can go ahead and pause for a time sorry i'm sorry i have learned gytis too it doesn't help okay so if we could okay go ahead and pronounce and then we'll hear from you and if those that are in the audience could please keep your voices down while we hear from our speaker just go ahead so i'm speaking as a representative of the felker and price street neighborhoods as well as coastal watershed council regarding our concerns related to the homeless encampment at ross also known as the ross encampment and how it's impacting our neighborhoods and the river some of these concerns aren't new city council told us many years ago that the city had a tolerance policy and did nothing much to address our concerns at that time our tolerance level has now peaked and trying to tolerate the ross encampment is more than is even reasonable to ask of us so we're presenting to you six specific requests that we believe would provide immediately relief from some of the current issues and should be easy to implement it we've been working with coastal watershed council over the past year on projects that affect both the river and our neighborhoods we include coastal watershed council tonight as this encampment is having a negative impact on its efforts to rehabilitate and revitalize the river that helps our neighborhoods thrive coastal watershed council has been making great headway in educating the community and especially our neighborhoods along the river levy about the importance the river holds in our lives the ross encampment is challenging its efforts to support a thriving river ecosystem and create a river walk that is attractive and accessible to all of us we are hoping we won't lose ground on the progress we've made along the river walk and in our neighborhoods so please be thoughtful compassionate and very serious in considering our request to make positive changes that will benefit all of us so our six requests are to establish a clear boundary around the camp in order to keep the Santa Cruz river walk open and clear for public access to protect the river from the impacts of human activity move the entrance to the encampment away from the river walk and falker street to the opposite end of the site at river street move the porta potties away from the river walk to the river street end of the site increase police patrol and falker and price streets we suggest foot patrol versus drive buys as this allows for more attention to detail of illegal activities going on place gates at each end of the highway one pedestrian bridge to be locked at night thank you I have 30 more seconds I had an email that said I had three and a half minutes I timed it to three and a half minutes that's I'm sorry you can give us your your comments here okay thank you so yes all right well thank you thank you at two minutes all the next guy I'm next yeah okay typically the mayor says next that's what I was waiting for for so regarding the homeless side and it reminded me of a month ago maybe when a friend of mine spent well over eight hours cleaning up the remains of a homeless campsite at the south end of henry call state park that was where the fire occurred that was threatening paradise park if you already call that turned out the fire the ground zero was a homeless campsite again I spent eight hours with a friend of mine we took everything out to the highway I had to take it down the mountain cross tracks up a hillside to highway nine and take it to the dump we paid for the dump fee at our own expense and just so you know that was that fire was courtesy of homeless people that are allowed to infest our public lands which are the most beautiful in the world according to some all right now I want to get to me my main topic here which is the fact that Israel or there's overwhelming evidence that Israel is primarily responsible for 9 11 which has led us directly into these endless wars no more wars for Israel and further more christia for bolin if you simply go to this website bolin bolin dot com you will see telling evidence for what i'm saying israel did 9 11 christia for bolin is a highly respected investigative reporter right here from santa cruz ucsc christia for bolin you may never heard of him because when he was g