[3:26] The Santa Cruz City Council having completed its business and closed session is back in session. Clerk, would you call the roll to reestablish the quorum? Thank you, Mayor. Council member of Tregera. Present. Present. Present. Newstone. Present.

[3:39] Older. O'Hara. Yeah. Vice Mayor Kalentori Johnson. Present. Mayor Kiley. Present. The court haven't been established. We will proceed. We're on oral communication. This is the opportunity for anyone to address the council on a matter under our jurisdiction.

[3:54] but not on today's agenda for period, not to exceed two minutes.

[4:00] Anyone with us wish to do that?

[4:02] Mr. Ewing, good afternoon, welcome.

[4:07] No, my goodness.

[4:12] Would ever happen to you.

[4:13] I hope you get better soon.

[4:15] Mr. Keely, I totally appreciate that.

[4:18] I need two.

[4:19] Couchers are great.

[4:20] I've been on couchers many times in my life.

[4:23] Yeah.

[4:23] Oh, hi.

[4:24] I mean, James Ewing with minutes March 24th, 2026.

[4:28] It's interesting, you know, six years ago in one day I walked in to get a piece of paper

[4:34] about the itinerary for the next meeting on March 24th, 2020, and meeting was closed

[4:40] down.

[4:41] I got to witness public figure behaving like a panic child.

[4:47] So here we are six years later, and wow, so many different things are going on.

[4:51] if that situation reciprocated a bunch of regulations and control methods and a lot

[5:02] of people losing their freedom, their jobs that they've had for years and years.

[5:08] What happened about three weeks ago isn't that kind of similarly orchestrated and

[5:14] it might we not be having fuel shortages and food shortages and when I'm at so

[5:22] only 20% of the oil that goes through there but the larger percentage of the

[5:26] chemical fertilizers so we are headed for a natural cold spell so I was

[5:34] changing the subject slightly to solutions as much as I loved to my things like

[5:40] tomatoes and stuff that goes through the season and stuff there was a

[5:44] presentation on 10 perennial plants. Only one I can remember of the 10 of the

[5:49] Sparigus, but once they get established and take six months to two years, that's

[5:55] food for 20 to 50 years. So I'm certainly looking forward to being in a

[6:00] position to do a lot of guerrilla gardening. One of the plants in particular

[6:04] puts nitrogen back in the soil. So to be solutions oriented, why not? You can't

[6:12] always have so much fun being a killjoy. Thank you.

[6:16] Thank you, Mr. Ewing. Anyone on

[6:21] line? Good afternoon.

[6:23] Welcome to the city council member meeting.

[6:27] Yes, finally, yeah. Hey, thank you.

[6:29] outrageous utility taxes in Santa Cruz started with measure X in 2005

[6:35] for your information, partly courtesy of the co-signer,

[6:38] Fred, the tax maestro, O'Keeley,

[6:40] where the city fearmonger and public safety service cuts

[6:43] said no rate increases, said it would only cost two and a half million type tactics to

[6:47] get approved extra 3% water sewer, extra 12% refuse franchise tax to replace illegal

[6:53] franchise fees. Illegal franchise fees were made illegal because various abusive bus

[6:58] hogged backwater by you cities lack the leadership fairness principles of the PUC or other cities.

[7:05] Huntington Beach has a 4.9% utility tax and ours is 11 and a half and they have a zero tax

[7:10] on refugees and ours is 20 and a half tax, which makes SC the most excessively taxed anywhere.

[7:16] Yes, the fees were made legal taxes, but a name change doesn't remove the abuse of an essential

[7:21] health service monopoly. The racquet worsens, borrow hundreds of millions more and tax that too.

[7:28] Users will be paying one and a half million more tax on top of the about 14 million a year,

[7:32] just on utility debt payments alone for the next 40 years. Recent changes to the budget,

[7:37] reporting documents since 2024 now conveniently omit and hide the detailed budget fund balance projection tables and replace them with high level combined figures.

[7:48] So a public examination of any dirty laundry enterprise fund is no longer possible.

[7:53] Bring back those detailed fund balances and projections. Consider the now balanced invisible water rate stabilization fund.

[8:00] our rates sure aren't stable or that constant and they are taxed it's every year

[8:05] three plus million collected and then taxed and that fund reached its 10 million

[8:09] presumed reserve fund balance way back in 2023. I see no fund transfers out. What's

[8:15] going on got me only some people know and they ain't talking. Thanks. Thank you.

[8:23] Anyone else with us in chambers wish to make comments under or

[8:27] communication. Do we have anyone else online? We'll take the next person online.

[8:32] First online, good afternoon. Welcome to the City Council meeting.

[8:37] Good afternoon, Fred. Good afternoon, Council. Good afternoon.

[8:41] This is Rayleigh Snyder. I was downtown last Wednesday.

[8:48] I was in the mornings. I was over at Jaxx on Cedar Street.

[8:52] This is quite a bit of construction going on.

[8:54] And one thing I found kind of nowhere, I also am on crutches, I had a recent mishap where

[9:02] I've got a broken ankle and I'm in a cast and what I noticed which is kind of strange

[9:09] is just, you know, from that vantage on the diagonal across from all the construction,

[9:15] there are all these officers that were patrolling that area and they seem like they were just

[9:20] kind of reason through. But as soon as they saw me, like they stopped and they were like

[9:25] kind of suddenly startled that there was actually somebody there to witness what's going

[9:29] on there. So that happened twice. And then there was a group of other first responders.

[9:34] They seemed to be the fire department and they were across the street. And somehow I got

[9:38] the same exact reaction from them. And so I don't know. I don't know what it is about,

[9:43] you know, people are nervous about how much development is going on. And I'm one of the

[9:47] vocal critics of it as you know but for me it was just very off-putting that I

[9:54] was being treated in this way it kind of felt like they were considering

[9:57] scrutinizing me considering you know the idea of I don't know confronting me for

[10:03] the sake of confronting me I you know I had a unpleasant interaction with

[10:11] Chief Escalani because he felt like my opposition to the flock cameras was, you know, perhaps,

[10:20] you know, cursory or superficial.

[10:23] Well, I had the misfortune of meeting Palantir founder Peter Teal back in the 1990s.

[10:30] And I really am not a fan of the technology and the six-year price tag in the sort of

[10:35] name that's being over with that.

[10:37] Thanks.

[10:41] Thank you.

[10:41] Do we have anyone else online?

[10:44] We'll take the next person online.

[10:46] Good afternoon.

[10:46] Welcome to the City Council meeting.

[10:49] Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

[10:51] This is Rafa Sanemfeld.

[10:53] I think you all know me as a passionate housing advocate here in the county.

[10:58] I just wanted to bring to your attention concerning political development in the state of California

[11:07] regarding the Howard-Gervis Tax Payer Associations, potentially successful November voter initiative

[11:17] to, quote, unquote, save Prop 13, which would roll back transfer taxes and parcel taxes

[11:25] that have not been passed by a two-thirds majority.

[11:29] I was part of the campaign to help pass measure C in the city of Santa Cruz, which we're

[11:37] hoping is going to raise millions of dollars for affordable housing here in the city.

[11:41] And if this November measure is the pass, it would retroactively cancel the measure

[11:51] C and we would be stuck with where we were prior to the passage of that measure.

[11:55] So, I would urge the City Council to use everything in its power to get the word out, to educate voters about the

[12:04] problematic nature of this Howard-Jervis Taxpayer Association measure, and how it would cost the city

[12:11] especially for the housing and homeless services that we're hoping to provide with the passage of

[12:15] measure. Thank you very much. Thank you, Rafa. Anyone else?

[12:21] Okay. Last call for oral communication for folks here in council chambers.

[12:28] We are now on item, excuse me, we are now on item number four.

[12:33] Mr. Elliott will be making a presentation regarding the clam chowder cook-off and an update thereof and four.

[12:42] And I see Mr. Reyes lurking in the front row, the all-time favorite of ours from the boardwalk.

[12:55] Good to see you, sir.

[12:56] Mr. Elliott, what do we got to say?

[12:59] Thank you, Mayor.

[13:00] I'm here just to introduce this amazing team.

[13:03] Behind me, Tremaine, Head and Jones,

[13:05] are Superintendent of Recreation and Honolary Sprient,

[13:08] our supervisor for events and classes to lead,

[13:11] a presentation on this year's clam shout-out

[13:14] or cook-off another year of great success,

[13:17] and please be joined by Chris Reyes

[13:19] from the boardwalk as well.

[13:20] Thank you.

[13:22] Good afternoon, sir.

[13:23] Thank you, Mayor.

[13:24] Thank you, Council.

[13:25] I'm Mr. Archimane-Henjun, Superintendent of Recreation.

[13:28] I'm joined the Honolese Bryant Recreation Supervisor

[13:30] for the Department of Parks Recreation.

[13:32] And we're here to present our up-to-unclam chatter.

[13:35] I would be remiss if I didn't start this presentation

[13:37] with the jingle.

[13:39] So, chowder, clam chowder, chowder is a soup.

[13:43] We love the best.

[13:49] This has been, I'm not sure if we want to encourage a lot of that.

[13:54] Well, thank you.

[13:56] This is the long sending tradition in the city of Santa Cruz.

[14:00] And it is the longest running and continuously running

[14:02] climb charter event in all of North America.

[14:05] Just pretty amazing.

[14:07] We owe our sorry.

[14:14] So we owe a lot of respect to the net she maker,

[14:17] former Parks and Recreation Director.

[14:19] But then superintendents, sorry, supervisor of recreation back in 1982.

[14:24] to. She founded the Commissar to Cook Off in 1982, but it was based off an idea from

[14:29] the prior year on how to generate revenue for the department. She looked at a number

[14:34] of different events. In that year in 1981, she implemented a Chile Cook Off at Harvey West

[14:40] Park. While it was successful in some ends, it was not successful financially. She decided

[14:46] to pivot. She got this brilliant idea to pivot towards Commissar to do that event more

[14:53] the winter months. She reached out to the boardwalk and she's struck a partnership up with the boardwalk.

[15:00] I host the event, but at that time, the city would take on full responsibility for implementing event, including all the logistics, scouting out the chefs and working event itself.

[15:12] I'd like to say that there's a little bit of trivia here. So, clam chatter and myself are both the same age, but I will not let you know who's older. So back in 1985, the cook off a grown, an outgrown, nipped in kingdom. That was with the original space and location where the cook off took place.

[15:30] It grew outdoors. We had 30 teams that joined. It was a single day at that point in time.

[15:35] In 2015, we decided to split the event into two days, but the Saturday and the Sunday, because we had over 80 chef entries.

[15:44] Predominantly, those were amateur chefs, but we also had a serious number of professional chefs, because it's a very good competition for them to promote local business activity.

[15:52] During the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of skipping even altogether, we imagined the events and we continued to do more innovations as the years go forward.

[16:05] So in the suite of collaboration over the years, our roles and responsibilities between the CSI Company and the boardwalk and ourselves have shifted.

[16:12] But we've been nonetheless committed to producing the event because it is such a success, not just for Santa Cruz in terms of our revenue, but just for the community and the regional around.

[16:23] The boardwalk continues to offer general operations,

[16:27] booth assignments for the various

[16:29] tasting and shifts and entries.

[16:32] They offer security sponsorships,

[16:34] the recruit and manage judges,

[16:35] as well as handle the general marketing and promotions,

[16:39] and the chef contest movement.

[16:41] On the city side, we do overall event logistics.

[16:45] We also assemble all the tasting kits.

[16:47] We assemble over 12,000 kits every year,

[16:50] and it's a single person that does that.

[16:53] Judy Cobb is her name. She's amazing. She's also one of our seniors and at the senior center.

[16:58] We also handle the merchandise design, so that's including the event logo itself,

[17:05] price packages, sales in terms of day-of-sales as well as pre-sales, general promotions,

[17:11] and we also assist with chef recruitment.

[17:16] This past year alone, I already mentioned the 12,000 kits,

[17:18] That's including over 100 hours of event time just for that preparation.

[17:24] We had over 600 pre-orders that we both process assembled and then delivered on-site.

[17:30] We have 16 volunteers that contributed a total of 64 hours for the day for two days, I

[17:36] should say.

[17:37] And over 20 parts of recreation employees including our full-time and temporary staff contributed

[17:42] to the event.

[17:43] And total, they had over 215 hours of work hours.

[17:48] This is a significant event because it's a million dollar event in many ways.

[17:52] For the last 10 years, we generated over a million dollars in revenue, and in total

[17:56] lifetime, we have an estimate of over $3 million, that's 44 plus years.

[18:04] And it just continues to contribute to the local economy.

[18:08] This year, we did partner with a couple of hotels to increase the hotel stays, to promote

[18:13] the event as a multi-day event so that folks stay here for the entire weekend.

[18:19] Some of the visitation data from 2023 to 2026, you'll see that there's been some spikes and

[18:24] some jumps. There was definitely that post-COVID bump that we saw in 2024 and 2025, in terms of revenue

[18:31] raised. We've seen some market increases over the last four to five years. It used to be that on

[18:38] average we had about sales between $50 to $80,000, but the last few years have seen a market increase

[18:44] and that was partly in response to pre-sales and aggressive promotions.

[18:51] These are the 2026 winners

[18:52] for the amateur competition. I'll do a quick shout out to the people's twice. That was the match

[18:58] about Chowder for Boston and for Manhattan, it's four men in a clam. The best Boston overall was

[19:05] bloody brain chowder, the best Manhattan was also bloody brain chowder. On the most

[19:10] taste it was the silence of the clams and there are awards and prizes for those who come up with

[19:15] clever ideas for their names and their booths and Rosie the Riveter was that for the amateur.

[19:22] For the professionals, the point kitchen and bar took home for the Boston and the East Side

[19:28] eatery took it home for Manhattan. Best Boston overall was UCSE dining and to best Manhattan overall

[19:35] was the Dominican Oaks retirement community. So if you planted your retire, that's a good place.

[19:40] The most tasted was I feel bar and grill, a great partner as well with the wharf,

[19:45] and the best booth for the professional was Hick but Shatter.

[19:51] We thank all of our partners.

[19:53] I also would be remiss if I didn't give a great shout out to Julie Graf and Rita Dombana,

[19:58] our Recreation Coordinators in Events and Classes, as well as to Gladys Rodriguez and Cardi Pope,

[20:02] our wonderful partners over at the CSI company.

[20:06] And I believe Chris also had some words

[20:08] that he'd like to share with us today.

[20:11] Mr. Reyes, good afternoon, welcome to the council.

[20:13] Hi everybody, good to see you.

[20:14] It's nice to be here under such pleasant terms.

[20:17] I am Chris Reyes from the San Chris Beach Boardwalk,

[20:20] San Chris CSI company.

[20:21] I just want to say how much we love being part of this,

[20:24] how honored we are to be part of this.

[20:25] I know you get sort of the heat all the time

[20:28] and the city gets yelled at all the time for all kinds of things.

[20:31] This is one of the great positive examples of a public private partnership between our organization and the city.

[20:36] We're really grateful to the parks and rec staff and all the volunteers they bring.

[20:40] I think it works out perfectly because they kind of take on the pieces that we don't want to do.

[20:45] And I think we take on the pieces of maybe they don't want to do.

[20:48] And it's also the first weekend of the year where the boardwalk really comes to a life after a busy winter.

[20:54] When we're preparing new things and bringing new stuff online.

[20:57] So for us, it always feels like the first big fun weekend of the year.

[21:00] We wouldn't have it any other way.

[21:02] We were really grateful for this partnership

[21:03] and happy to continue it for many, many more years.

[21:06] So thank you all.

[21:07] Thank you and please pass on our thanks

[21:09] and appreciation to all of your colleagues

[21:11] at Bolton Boardwalk and this side company.

[21:15] Good.

[21:16] All right.

[21:17] Mr. Elliott, do you wish to anyone

[21:19] wish to make a final remarks here?

[21:22] We, we good to go.

[21:24] Wonderful.

[21:24] Well, thank you very, very much.

[21:26] We really appreciate all the good work.

[21:28] All right.

[21:29] How about a round of applause for this slide?

[21:38] And keep staying in the spirit of good things happening.

[21:42] Item 5 is a proclamation declaring February 13th, 2026 as meals on wheels in Santa Cruz County, which is a 50th anniversary.

[21:54] And it is a pleasure to acknowledge councilmember Gabriela Tregaro to make a presentation in that regard.

[22:02] Good afternoon.

[22:02] Thank you, Mayor, and I'd also like to welcome up Dana Wagner, who serves as a senior program director for Meals on Wheels.

[22:12] So I'll read it off. Whereas Meals on Wheels for Santa Cruz County provides approximately 164,000 home-delivered meals and 32,000 meals at four community dining sites each year through the support of nearby.

[22:29] by nearly 75 dedicated volunteers.

[22:34] And whereas meals on wheels for Santa Cruz County,

[22:37] dining sites located in Ben Lomond, live oak, Santa Cruz,

[22:40] and Watsonville offer more than meals

[22:43] by fostering community and connection

[22:45] while providing the daily meals to adults aged 60 and older.

[22:50] And whereas within the city of Santa Cruz,

[22:52] meals on wheels delivers approximately 62,000

[22:57] 1000 home-delivered meals and 9,000 meals at the London Nelson Center annually, ensuring

[23:02] that 566 older adults receive nutritious meals in the city of Santa Cruz, as well as

[23:08] the meaningful human connection and critical support.

[23:12] Whereas meals on wheels has never missed a meal, continuing uninterrupted service throughout

[23:18] the floods of 1982, the 1989 Loma preta earthquake, the CZU fire complex in complex fire of 2020,

[23:29] the COVID pandemic, and beyond, while providing emergency supplies, wellness checks, and information

[23:36] coordination as well. Whereas Mielsen Wiel serves some of our most vulnerable community members,

[23:44] supporting their ability to live independently in their own homes and helping

[23:49] prevent costly nursing care and hospitalization. And whereas this year, as

[23:54] the Armer said, Males and Wheels reaches its 50th year anniversary of serving

[24:00] older adults and is also celebrating the milestone with its 13th annual food

[24:06] from the Heart Luncheon, which is a fundraiser for their wellness programs, as

[24:12] As well as the achievement of delivering its 10 millionth meal, an extraordinary achievement

[24:21] reflecting five decades of compassion, service, commitment to ensuring that no senior goes hungry.

[24:28] Now, therefore, I, Gabriella Tregero, along with Marifred Keely and my colleagues on council,

[24:33] do hereby proclaim February 13th, 2026, as meal zone wheels for Santa Cruz County 50th anniversary day in the city of Santa Cruz.

[24:41] We encourage all citizens to join in honoring meals on wheels for enhancing the lives of older adults by providing nourishing meals, meaningful human connection, and dedicated service for 50 years.

[24:55] Thank you, Deena, to you and your volunteers.

[25:24] Mr. Wagner, the floor is yours.

[25:26] Thank you.

[25:26] Thank you so much, Mayor Keely, City Council.

[25:29] It is just an honor to accept this proclamation on behalf of the tens and thousands of older vulnerable adults that we have served over the last decade.

[25:37] last 50 years, and as Council member said, we can't believe we have delivered 10 million

[25:44] meals during this time, and so we're just so grateful for the partnership with the city

[25:49] and the county to be able to continue to serve our vulnerable populations and to provide

[25:55] them not only with food but with meaningful connection and wellness checks to ensure that

[25:59] they live with dignity.

[26:00] I'm honored to accept this.

[26:01] Thank you so much.

[26:02] Well, thank you very much, Chair.

[26:09] Wonderful.

[26:09] We are on item number six, rather than this a mayoral proclamation regarding arts, culture, and creativity, and Councilmember Bruner will be making this presentation.

[26:21] Thank you. I'd like to invite anybody who is here for this arts, culture, and creativity proclamation to please step forward.

[26:31] Thank you.

[26:32] so

[26:38] welcome. Whereas in April 2019 the California legislature established the

[26:48] first arts culture and creativity month and April 2026 will be the 8th annual

[26:55] statewide celebration. Add and this year's theme is joy action and power. Whereas

[27:05] As the city of Santa Cruz, California recognizes that arts, culture, and creativity are essential

[27:12] public goods, vital for the health and growth of thriving communities.

[27:18] And whereas arts, culture, and creativity brings joy by uniting communities, inspiring

[27:26] individuals, and celebrating the richness of our city's diversity.

[27:31] and whereas arts, culture, and creativity inspires action.

[27:38] Action that drives positive change and strengthens the social fabric of our communities.

[27:44] And whereas arts, culture, and creativity powers our city's capacity

[27:48] to address community challenges, including advancing equity, inclusion, and access.

[27:55] And whereas the City's Office of Economic Development, the City Arts Commission and the City Council in collaboration with Arts Council, Santa Cruz County, lead efforts to advance the arts that drive economic growth, stimulate business activity, attracts tourism, foster civic pride, and contribute to public safety and overall social well-being.

[28:24] Now, therefore, I, Sonia Brenner, on behalf of Fred Killie Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz

[28:31] and the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2026 as arts, culture, and

[28:39] creativity month in the City of Santa Cruz, and I encourage all citizens to support the arts

[28:45] and join in this celebration.

[28:47] Thank you.

[28:53] And then I will present this and then please will give you a couple minutes if you want

[28:58] to introduce yourself and say any few words.

[29:25] Good afternoon and welcome.

[29:26] Thank you for all your wonderful work.

[29:28] Please do hear it from you.

[29:30] Thank you.

[29:31] Council Member Brunner and thank you Mayor Keiley and the rest of the council.

[29:36] My name is Anna Elizabeth.

[29:37] I'm the board chair of the Arts Council of Santa Cruz County.

[29:42] And I want to thank you today for this honor, we're appreciative of being

[29:49] acknowledged for the work we've been doing for so many years, especially around

[29:53] equity in the county and the arts. And we look forward to further-

[30:00] The reading and really celebrating this year, this month in April. Thank you. Well, thank you very much. Either of you wish to make any remarks, please feel free to do so. Thank you, everybody. Yes, I'm Peter Wang, board member of the Arts Council. And again, thank you for the recognition and the support of the arts. And I just wanted to just call out also in the times that we're at right now. The arts are a form of allowing us to have

[30:29] hope and resist and enjoy our lives and think about ways to move forward so thank you again

[30:37] for all the support.

[30:38] Thank you, Mr. Wang.

[30:39] Good afternoon.

[30:40] Good afternoon.

[30:41] My name is Rebecca Escovedo.

[30:43] I am the Vice Chair for the Arts Commission here, the City of Santa Cruz.

[30:47] And I just want to say thank you all so much, Councilman Bruner, Mayor Healey.

[30:52] This is, Santa Cruz is very beautiful, it's very rich, and one of the things that makes

[30:56] so special is the arts, whether that be culinary arts, our murals, our exhibitions, our live

[31:03] music, everything. So it means a lot that you all are investing in them and investing in artists.

[31:08] So thank you. Thank you very much. Best wishes to you. Thank you. We are on presiding officer

[31:16] announcements. I will announce that March 31st in the city of Santa Cruz will be

[31:26] entitled Farm Worker Recognition Day, and that will be the case on enhanced fourth

[31:33] basis as well. Statement of Disqualifications, anybody on Disqualifications? All right,

[31:40] additions or deletions?

[31:44] Madam City Attorney. No. Thank you so much.

[31:47] City Attorney Report on Closed Session.

[31:49] Our council met in close session and discussed the liability claims as noted on your agenda.

[31:56] Those are the claims of Wayne Jose Shaffer, Adam Britewell, Deborah Kathleen Courier,

[32:02] and James Patrick Shea.

[32:04] The council also met to discuss real property negotiations, including an item concerning

[32:10] 121 SoCal Avenue and 1316 through 1320 Pacific Avenue, and I'll note that council member

[32:17] or Bruno recused herself during those discussions.

[32:21] The council also meant to discuss a real property item,

[32:24] concerning a property at 13.05 Eastcliff Drive.

[32:28] And last, the council met to discuss an item of existing litigation,

[32:32] and that was the case,

[32:33] Catherine Capaldo and Gabrielle de Koch versus the city of Santa Cruz.

[32:37] That includes my report.

[32:39] Thank you.

[32:42] That's a city clerk.

[32:44] If you would like to draw attention to anything,

[32:47] Thank you very much.

[32:50] We are on the consent agenda for those of you that might be unfamiliar with it.

[32:57] We will be taking up items 8 through 16 inclusive on one motion.

[33:03] Prior to doing that, we will, I will give the opportunity to council members to ask a question

[33:09] or pull an item or ask a question on it, and I'll give you that opportunity as well.

[33:15] If you wish to value yourself with the opportunity to come in on the Consent Agenda, comment on as many items as you wish, but you'll have a total of three minutes to do so on all items inclusive.

[33:29] I'm going to start on my left with the Council Member Golder on the Consent Agenda.

[33:35] Council Member O'Hara, Madam Vice Mayor, Council Member Newsom, Council Member Bruner.

[33:43] I have a comment on item 11.

[33:47] Please proceed.

[33:48] Thank you.

[33:49] Item 11 is the approval of an option agreement for site lease to support direct current

[33:55] fast charging infrastructure.

[33:58] And there are three public parking sites identified in this and I just wanted to add that one

[34:09] One of those sites is in district two, my district,

[34:13] and I've received positive feedback from that location.

[34:19] And I think that would be a great asset

[34:22] into the neighborhood, so thank you.

[34:24] Thank you, your councilmember to go on the consent agenda.

[34:28] All right. Anyone who is with us,

[34:30] we should come in on the consent agenda.

[34:32] This would be your opportunity to do so

[34:34] in the event that we have folks online and with us.

[34:36] because we'll talk about it back and forth and I'm going to recognize our city attorney prior to taking any further testimony.

[34:43] Thank you so much. I believe before we go to public comment, it may make sense for Bonnie Lipscomb to comment on one item on the consent agenda that has a slightly modified recommendation.

[34:56] Very good. We'll take that. Thank you, Mr. York. We'll take her first and we'll be right with you.

[35:02] That's why you get to sit down for a second.

[35:04] There you go.

[35:06] Ms. Lips, good afternoon.

[35:08] Good afternoon, Mayor.

[35:09] Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the council.

[35:12] We could, I could present and have the city clerk pull up the item with a recommendation coming out of closed session for your-

[35:20] I'm 15.

[35:22] Yes, for item 15 related to the Natural History Museum, at least.

[35:27] And coming out of closed session, we had resolved with a tenant, the maintenance issue

[35:32] prior to closed session, so we had recommended that change, and then in closed session, you

[35:36] directed us based on an overview of insurance options with the language that's before

[35:43] you now for your consideration.

[35:47] Thank you.

[35:49] And you're providing that to us, so when we get to making a motion, this would be the motion.

[35:55] Is that correct?

[35:56] That's right.

[35:57] Thank you.

[35:58] Now, further on the consent agenda, Mr. Ewing?

[36:13] Yeah.

[36:13] Thank you.

[36:14] My name is James Ewing.

[36:15] We've been on the consent agenda.

[36:18] Last meeting, the end of March, the minutes, the number 14, the e-bikes, and then on the bridges.

[36:26] This time, number 14, the two police motorcycles.

[36:30] vehicles. And I guess that's it for now. So starting with the police motorcycles, you

[36:39] certainly get what you pay for. And I know if they're like the city of Capitola, there's

[36:44] some pretty nice machines. Now going back to the minutes of the previous meeting with the

[36:51] e-bikes, I think there's a lot of slippery slope situations going on. I think that the

[36:59] I think people of all ages are extremely rude on their bicycles and their e-bikes, and

[37:05] it makes me glad I don't have a samurai sword with me to be blunt.

[37:13] People really need to be respectful.

[37:15] I have found that now that I'm on a e-bike a lot, it's really one of the most joyous experiences

[37:22] I've been able to do because you're dealing with eye contact with people, and it's really

[37:27] a lot of fun.

[37:30] So I think they're the big education thing that's necessary. I've engaged with a lot

[37:35] of youth about like three different ways. You can invalidate three different tickets, but

[37:42] three different ways you can invalidate 90% of tickets. But the bottom line is you're being stopped

[37:47] to get that ticket probably because you were rude. So don't just be respectful. So enough on that,

[37:54] Going to the Murray Street Bridge, I think it's amazing that one way traffic was open for a while.

[38:00] I think it was even more amazing that it was open for both directions.

[38:06] Now, everything is defaulting to artificial intelligence, which is no match for natural stupidity,

[38:15] except that a lot of the artificial intelligence is being trained by our

[38:20] at Dick Ostercy, which makes it kind of scary.

[38:23] So I do hope that the two-way traffic opens again,

[38:26] because I think that was quite useful.

[38:28] I know I found it useful, even though I take the gravel

[38:31] and the tracks a couple times a day,

[38:33] because I'm to live dangerously, I guess,

[38:38] and along the lines of being able to program things,

[38:41] we just really need to be careful about what we are assigning,

[38:46] supposed machine intelligence to make decisions for us

[38:49] because it is not doing a lot of positive things worldwide to stay on topic.

[38:55] So now for now, thank you very much.

[38:58] Thank you, sir.

[39:00] Do we have anyone online?

[39:02] We're going to take this person in line and then we'll take the first person online.

[39:07] Good afternoon and welcome.

[39:11] Hello again.

[39:11] Thank you so much for your consideration and direction on the Sanctuary Museum of Natural

[39:17] Histories.

[39:18] I have a few board members here in the audience with me today, and I really look forward to sharing your direction with our Board of Directors tomorrow night so that we can continue to celebrate our partnership with the city of Santa Cruz.

[39:31] And I wanted to kick off that celebration with the first public announcement of our accreditation, which means that we are now the only accredited museum in the county.

[39:40] and we as partners, historic partners with the city get to share in that accolade and we are so grateful for your continued support.

[39:49] Thanks.

[39:50] Well, thank you and congratulations on the accreditation.

[39:54] Thank you for being such good partners with the city.

[39:58] Anyone else with us will take the next person online?

[40:06] Yes, as regards item 11, my gut feeling is you will use this EV charging as a way to increase revenue.

[40:14] You didn't say how much parking is going to be in the garage, but I'm guessing your take from this item is going to be more.

[40:20] While simultaneously denying most people who will also be paying for the garage access to it, except for the privileged owners of pricey EVs.

[40:27] Who? Yes, we'll also get charged. No pun intended. The rest that I mentioned here is just a rant

[40:32] It seems you and perhaps other government entities didn't get the memo that subsidizing EVs is becoming an ineffective loser proposition

[40:40] The reality now is that AI alone is gobbling up electrical energy far faster than solar wind could ever make a dent into some estimate

[40:48] 100 gigawatt electric power plants will need to be built perhaps nuclear perhaps natural gas filled fire

[40:55] excuse me but definitely not so or when will be the solution finally to making this forever subsidy at joke

[41:01] It might be nice to have a few fast-charging locations, but if it made any economic sense

[41:06] We'd already see them in private parking lots all over by now. This won't make a

[41:11] Dent or excuse me. This won't make a dang lot or any environmental difference considering where the country on the world is going and the little

[41:19] Unreported into Nile facts like how actually not green EVs are from mining to disposal

[41:24] So the other affordable cost and there are power grids grinding to a halt, more power

[41:30] are ignored.

[41:31] How long exactly do you figure to promote EV subsidy, solar subsidy before economic and

[41:37] practical reality gives it a spanking?

[41:40] Is the lease payment going 100% to debt reduction in its fair share?

[41:45] I consider parking as a slush fund that pays for everything besides parking downtown.

[41:49] I suspect maybe the money will go elsewhere except debt, although it really should sense this garage is where the debt comes from

[41:58] While you're at it and come through the public again with another million dollar EV garbage truck that costs three times more than normal ones

[42:04] And then tax that cost and some more at 20 plus 5% refuse, right? The public will really appreciate that that

[42:13] We indicate no idea what the operator will well, excuse me. You're not indicating what idea of the opera

[42:19] Well, you're not indicating what the operator will charge what you will charge where the money goes, but of course you'll approve it anyway. Thanks.

[42:28] Thank you, sir. Anyone else online? We'll take the next person online. Good afternoon. Welcome.

[42:36] Good afternoon. Rafa Simon-Feldigan speaking on behalf of myself as a housing advocate. I'm commenting on a consent agenda item number nine,

[42:47] which is the city's acceptance of the regional housing needs allocation annual progress report.

[42:55] First I wanted to amend the city for its significant progress in getting low income and very low income housing

[43:06] across the finish line and under construction, but as you'll know in the report, the city has not made the climate

[43:17] to produce market market rate and moderate income housing feasible, and we're not on track

[43:25] to meet our moderate income and above moderate income housing goals that are assigned to us

[43:32] by the state and the association of moderate Bay Area governments.

[43:36] So, I would just take this opportunity to encourage the council to be thinking about what needs to happen in the city

[43:45] to reduce the barriers to moderate income and above moderate income housing

[43:51] construction. And that means reducing the costs and making it easier to build

[43:56] things like reducing fees and streamline those sort of housing. The state

[44:07] actually if we still are not on track to meet our housing needs for these

[44:12] categories will automatically allow the city of projects that have a minimal amount of affordable

[44:21] housing in them to be proposed and approved by right in the city of Santa Cruz. Starting,

[44:27] I believe in 2027, if we keep on the pace that we're going. So I'd actually encourage the city to

[44:34] jump start, get ahead of the curve and be thinking about some of the streamlining efforts that

[44:42] we'll be coming up in your discussion later this afternoon with regards to the object of

[44:47] standards and density bonus item that is coming before you. We really need to figure out what we can

[44:54] do to make housing at all levels of income feasible.

[45:00] And buildable in our community. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? We have, we do have one more. We'll take that person online. Good afternoon. Welcome to the city council meeting. Hello, again. It's brother Snyder. Thank you, Fred. Thank you, council.

[45:20] Yeah. Looking over the.

[45:25] One thing I wanted to mention a bit of dissent because these things are kind of lashed together.

[45:31] Most people don't really understand the procedural way.

[45:34] They can send a gender work, but the dismissing the lawsuit by Wayne Schaeffer to me after having heard what it's about.

[45:44] I'm in support of it just to put that out there.

[45:53] The issue, let's see, the police motorcycle issue, I think that's what Gavin Newsom did

[46:00] in Oakland when they were having kind of a rash of embarrassing criminal events.

[46:09] They sent in the CHP, they sent in just a great number of CHP officers, many of them, of

[46:15] course on motorcycles. Everybody remembers that TV show. You know, it's it it is actually a very

[46:22] efficient way to patrol. Capitol of course, you know, you know, that's you know, any beach

[46:31] community officers that back when they did predicted policing, I think it was right in front of or

[46:39] between the casino and the Boeing alley, which was the corner, the corner was, you know, considered

[46:44] to back then by the rudimentary, you know, artificial intelligence at that time,

[46:49] statistical processing, you know, that that was considered a hotspot and maybe it still is. But,

[46:57] you know, someone else touched on the electric garbage truck and that kind of relates to

[47:05] what the parking spaces that, with the charging stations, sort of illustrate, is that the pretty

[47:12] Maybe high maintenance, electric vehicles, like you have one, you want to go to LA, you're

[47:16] going to have to charge at least once to get down there on most TVs.

[47:21] I don't know.

[47:22] It'd take you all day instead of maybe half of a day if you were proceeding efficiently.

[47:34] Kind of unlike the way I speak at these meetings with lots of ums and pauses and whatnot.

[47:40] I'll tell you what, yeah, I feel like the electric vehicle stuff and the climate stuff kind

[47:50] of has intrinsic flaws in the logic so and it's very obviously a very partisan issue.

[47:57] So coming up in the next election there's going to be a lot of talk about exactly how much

[48:01] do we need to leverage ourselves to the hill with renewables and with electric vehicles

[48:09] and what not. I do think it's an important issue that Californians should be talking about,

[48:12] because right now gasoline is extremely, I think everybody moves.

[48:20] Thank you. Thank you. We have anyone else online?

[48:25] Last call. Matters back before the body, pleasure the body. I want to make sure before we make

[48:32] this motion that we are Madam City Attorney, I need your advice on this, that the slide that was

[48:41] presented earlier as it relates to the item on the agenda, that that is now the motion

[48:49] on the consent agenda relative to that item is that correct?

[48:54] Yes, and to even make it even more clear, you could make a motion to approve the consent

[48:58] agenda with the modifications as shown on the slide presented by Ms. Lipscomb.

[49:04] Thank you.

[49:06] It's going to move.

[49:07] Device Mayor Moves, Council Member Tugaro, seconds that motion under debate or discussion.

[49:14] A couple of very quick comments with regard to item 9, the annual housing element, general

[49:21] plan progress report, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[49:24] Mr. Van Waugh, thank you, as I understand it, this may be your last city council member,

[49:32] city council meeting, rather.

[49:33] And that you have been recognized and detected by the city of Sunnyvale that they need your services over there very badly.

[49:44] And we are very proud of you that you're going to go over there and help Sunnyvale become an even better place than it is now.

[49:52] But you have made Santa Cruz a better place.

[49:54] Your staff work is consistently exemplary, well thought out, well-reasoned, very well presented to us.

[50:05] Your accessibility, our ability to contact you, get thoughtful, advising council, we really appreciate it.

[50:13] Thank you for your service to this community.

[50:15] Very best wishes to you and a continued successful career.

[50:21] Thank you, sir.

[50:21] there.

[50:28] Slightly more not as happy perhaps, but I think this report is wonderful. It's a very

[50:35] thoughtful, serious report. I think it does in all of its complexity, which is plenty

[50:42] of complexity, it gives a very comprehensive picture of how this city has pivoted from one

[50:53] policy architecture to another motivated by and directed by the state legislature and

[50:58] the governor to do so.

[51:00] I do have my continuing question on this item and it is not about how we report to the

[51:09] state.

[51:10] This is more about how the state which doesn't show any signs of wanting to slow down its

[51:17] effort to, as they characterize it, tear down barriers to development. I have asked every

[51:24] single year and I get the same response from the state every single year, which is, could

[51:30] they quantify since their basic argument for, since 2017 has been, we need to tear down

[51:39] these barriers to development because they are two things. One, they are an impediment to

[51:44] development because of just the sheer presence of them and the other one is they are an

[51:50] impediment because of the time involved and therefore the legislature has sometimes

[51:55] with a scalpel and sometimes with a sledgehammer pass legislation to try to reduce those.

[52:02] Underline all of that is the assumption that if you do that, it will reduce the cost of

[52:08] the product.

[52:09] There's no other purpose in doing what they've been doing if it doesn't reduce the cost

[52:14] of the product, in my estimation, and I will ask again that when we send this to the state

[52:21] of California, I would appreciate it if we would ask them if they can quantify what

[52:27] these 125 to 150 bills have done to reduce the cost of construction of housing in California.

[52:37] Mr. Van Waugh, welcome to the microphone.

[52:46] Thanks again, Mayor, and thanks for your kind words.

[52:49] I really appreciate it.

[52:50] We will be a user.

[52:52] And I'll just speak to that point first.

[52:54] Thank you also, Council, for being such incredible partners and working with my team and planning

[53:00] and throughout the city to bring forward a number of just really incredible projects.

[53:05] And that the work we do isn't focused on immediate gratification.

[53:10] It's thinking 5, 10, 20, 50, hundreds of years from now, you know, generations and I think that's really commendable that we're always thinking in that way.

[53:20] So thank you again.

[53:21] Thank you, sir.

[53:23] Oh.

[53:24] As to back to your point, there are very few objective standards when it comes to this as far as the stakeholders.

[53:34] One of them is inclusionary housing.

[53:37] anything above 15% of the state deems as a potential impediment, and we do have to make additional findings in our annual progress report that speak to why ours, you know, the city of Santa Cruz can be higher than that and why it still works.

[53:54] Aside from that, I can't think of any other objective standards.

[53:57] It really depends a lot on how the state's feeling about a given impediment that's notified,

[54:06] you know, that's mentioned in the report, and also based on how an individual city is producing

[54:12] housing and moving their policy objectives forward.

[54:16] So on that standing, Santa Cruz is very strong, and we have a good relationship with HCD, which

[54:23] is great. And Mr. Van Waal, I want to make sure we're clear on this. I'm not opposing these,

[54:33] but when we've gone from 100% local authority to something around 15% local authority and all

[54:41] of that has been premised on the state arguing that because when we had 100% authority, what we did

[54:48] or didn't do, drove the price of housing up because of the time uncertainties, regulatory

[54:55] issues, report issues, whatever it may be.

[54:58] They pass, like I say, 140 bills in this regard and they apparently want to keep doing that.

[55:05] My objection isn't that they're doing that, is that their premise has always been, if

[55:10] you do this, the cost of housing and the pricing of the product will go down or at a minimum

[55:18] By having all of that in place before, it pushed the cost of housing up.

[55:24] So there is such a thing as the Joint Legislative Audit Committee in Sacramento, the bicameral

[55:31] body of the state legislature, which any legislator can ask for a programmatic audit on any

[55:39] topic they want.

[55:40] And the State Auditor allocates a number of person hours to those legislative requests.

[55:48] I happen to chair that body on two different tours of duty in Sacramento and I was in the

[55:53] legislature.

[55:54] They are very serious operation.

[55:57] I don't think it would be a bad idea at all for the city of Santa Cruz or the League of

[56:00] California cities or some other entity to simply ask them to do what they ask us to do.

[56:06] And that is to quantify the work that we're doing and provide results to them.

[56:11] I hope that's an unfair request back to the state because if they've done all of this required us to do all of this.

[56:20] And taken away 85% of our authority under the claim that by doing so we're going to get less expensive housing in the state of California, prove it.

[56:33] That's all a mask and prove it.

[56:36] We're nine years into this, we're going to keep going through it.

[56:41] You can tell by the dynamics of the legislature they're not finished with this.

[56:47] And again, my issue isn't that we shouldn't be doing it.

[56:51] It's we can't get away with making assertions without backing it up with data.

[56:56] And I simply would like them to do the same thing.

[56:59] They're not going to do it voluntarily.

[57:01] I would like to see if what we can do is request that when we send this that we also send a request to our legislative delegation asking them to examine the question of whether a request to the joint legislative audit committee to quantify the savings of these dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of bills.

[57:26] It may be that they can't or it may be that it's very difficult or it may be that it's inaccurate

[57:32] That's better than what we're hearing now

[57:34] Which is that we have to keep putting up with this and they don't have to quantify anything

[57:38] So again, none of that is directed to you all of what I'm directing you is a thanks for your good work

[57:44] Best wishes in the future. Thank you, sir. Thank you

[57:47] Further on the consent agenda

[57:53] Call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. That's a member gold. Oh

[58:01] I'm sorry.

[58:01] I call the motion.

[58:02] What's the need?

[58:03] We do have a motion.

[58:04] A second.

[58:05] I believe we do.

[58:06] We do.

[58:07] Yes.

[58:08] Here and here, I believe.

[58:11] I believe it's here and here.

[58:13] Very good.

[58:14] Thank you.

[58:14] Clerk will call the roll.

[58:17] Councilmember Tregaro.

[58:19] Aye.

[58:19] Runner.

[58:20] Aye.

[58:20] With a no vote on 15.

[58:23] Newsom.

[58:24] Aye.

[58:25] Boulder.

[58:26] Aye.

[58:27] O'Hara.

[58:28] Aye.

[58:28] by Smaire Kellentore Johnson.

[58:31] Aye.

[58:31] And Mary Keeley.

[58:33] Aye.

[58:34] Consent Gen is approved and so ordered.

[58:37] We are on items 17 through 20.

[58:40] This is a consent public hearing.

[58:43] What we will be doing is we will do one public hearing on item 17 through 20.

[58:50] So if you wish to make a comment on any of those items under the public hearing,

[58:54] and this will be the opportunity for you to do so.

[58:58] Let me start with the council members again.

[59:01] This time, council member Tragera,

[59:03] I'm gonna start over here and go this away on the consent.

[59:07] Nothing, thank you.

[59:08] Council member Renner.

[59:09] No.

[59:09] Council member, madam vice mayor, council member.

[59:13] Okay, very good.

[59:15] All right, this will be the opportunity for anyone.

[59:18] I am opening the public hearing at this point on items 17 through 20.

[59:23] This would be the opportunity for a comment on any of those items.

[59:28] Mr. Ewing was at your hand up.

[59:31] Okay.

[59:32] Good as you, if there's anyone else who wishes to testify on this item, please come forward,

[59:38] sir.

[59:39] And then Mr. Ewing, you'll be right after this gentleman, please come on now.

[59:45] Here we go.

[59:47] Good afternoon.

[59:48] Welcome again.

[59:49] Good to see you again, sir.

[59:50] Good afternoon.

[59:51] Thank you Mayor, City Councilmembers and staff.

[59:57] First of all, thank you Mayor for meeting with me last week.

[1:00:00] I want to speak to discuss the zoning overlay in the coral street area, and I appreciate that the additional language that was added into 24.10.440, that is kind of a disclaimer, notifying any potential renters or buyers in an area that is industrially zoned, that you might be subject to industry type elements.

[1:00:26] I do want to kind of call out some of the inconsistencies at least that I saw in some of

[1:00:35] the language between the industrial land preservation policy and the 2030 general

[1:00:41] plan language as it relates to inconsistent uses of industry and housing within the resolution

[1:00:53] that you guys have in front of you for the Industrial Land Preservation Policy.

[1:00:58] It calls out that the conversion of industrial land to non-employment uses

[1:01:02] can result in permanent loss of employment capacity, incompatibility of use,

[1:01:06] quality of life, impacts of for residents, limitations of industrial business viability,

[1:01:11] and a quote domino effect of additional conversions occurring all as further

[1:01:17] articulated in the associated September 10, 2024 City Council staff report.

[1:01:23] And then it also talks about the 2030 general plan industrial land use designation discourages

[1:01:31] residential development.

[1:01:33] So I just want to bring up some of these issues because when you really look at the face

[1:01:38] value of zoning laws, the idea of having zoning laws is so you don't have inconsistent uses

[1:01:48] immediately adjacent to each other.

[1:01:50] And whether there's impacts now or impacts later, eventually these things will surface.

[1:02:00] Grant Rock is an industrial user.

[1:02:03] We've been at that location for 60 plus years.

[1:02:06] We've been in business for 126 years.

[1:02:09] We look at our horizon in generations, not in decades.

[1:02:17] and being in a location that is situated so that we can easily access Highway 1, Highway 9,

[1:02:24] and be able to serve this community is critical. The product that we produce primarily at that

[1:02:30] location currently is concrete. Concrete actually has a life, meaning that once you put it in a truck,

[1:02:37] If you can't deliver it within about a 20-mile radius, it's going to set up in your truck and then you won't be able to serve the customer.

[1:02:47] So as we mentioned, when we talk mayor, you know, future things like traffic, regulation, or need.

[1:02:58] A couple extra seconds if you want to finish up there.

[1:03:00] Yeah, as we develop housing in that area, that doesn't accommodate parking.

[1:03:06] That means more people are going to be walking on the streets.

[1:03:09] All of our services are truck driven.

[1:03:13] They're mixer trucks, they're aggregate trucks, they're flatbed trucks.

[1:03:16] We need to be able to maneuver in and out of that area in a timely manner so that we don't

[1:03:22] have product that sets up in a truck.

[1:03:24] So I just want future impacts to be thought about as you're making that decision on this

[1:03:30] overlay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Young.

[1:03:43] Times like Grimmis, I meet

[1:03:46] other things. Hey, my name is James Ewing-Witman. I'd like to comment on

[1:03:51] for 17 the second and final adoption of ordinance number 2605 sidewalk

[1:03:58] vending ordinance updates and number 19 second reading and final adoption of

[1:04:03] ordinance number 26-08 to amend municipal co-trapper 24-16 related to affordable housing incentives

[1:04:11] and fees and adopt separate council policies related to development review fees, the furls,

[1:04:18] and waivers. So I suppose to start on the sidewalk vending. You know, most of these rules are here

[1:04:27] for public safety and I think they're important and I highly recommend walking down Pacific

[1:04:33] and getting some sidewalk vending food because it's really quite delicious.

[1:04:37] Now I'm moving to 19 as far as housing incentives.

[1:04:47] Yeah I'm reminded of I believe Michael Shaw put a presentation out in 2011 and as far as the agenda

[1:04:55] to 2030 stuff and how that relates to the affordable housing and the housing and such

[1:05:02] as there are guidelines as I recall that indemnify from liability for various construction

[1:05:09] defects.

[1:05:11] And I find myself spending some time in a pretty much a brand new building that was put into

[1:05:15] operation in final less than a year ago that has a tremendously huge amount of minor but

[1:05:23] But consistent defects, it's like, hey, every single toilet you install it, it doesn't

[1:05:28] mean code.

[1:05:28] How the heck did you guys get away with that?

[1:05:32] And easement stuff, which is beyond ridiculous as far as some stuff is going on.

[1:05:40] So I suppose I kind of, where this subject should be important to all of us, look at how this

[1:05:47] city has being changed with all of these, I don't know, stack them in pack them. I mean, to me,

[1:05:54] they're, they're, they're coffins. I mean, they're like that some of these units you get in with

[1:05:59] the key fob. You don't have a key to get in the door if the power's off. Not only can you not get in

[1:06:04] the door, but none of your utilities work. That could be a problem if we have some kind of a energy

[1:06:11] restructuring or something, which is currently what's going on. I don't think it's valid at all.

[1:06:18] But as far as, like, let's say low income housing, I believe this unit is, well, 314 Jesse Street,

[1:06:27] that's 53 units.

[1:06:29] And I think that the corporation that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

[1:06:35] I don't know why I'm not remembering the name of it right now.

[1:06:39] But Megan, at least $150,000 a week off.

[1:06:43] All

[1:06:48] right, those incentives are going to end at the end of 2026.

[1:06:53] Anyway, thank you very much for your time.

[1:06:55] Thank you, sir.

[1:06:57] Do you have anyone online?

[1:06:59] We'll take first person online regarding the consent public hearing.

[1:07:04] Good afternoon, welcome to the council meeting.

[1:07:07] Thank you, Fred.

[1:07:07] I'm Riley Snyder again.

[1:07:10] The sidewalk vending ordinance updates are very interested in seeing some flexibility

[1:07:16] with regards to the phenomenon that it maybe got a little bit out of hand because there are a lot of these vendors that make the bacon wrapped hot dogs, but happens to be kind of a favorite treat of mine.

[1:07:30] It's a great alternative to, you know, a fast food combo of a burger and fries in a soda.

[1:07:40] And yeah, I don't know why they kind of, because of the, I guess, the density of the

[1:07:46] vendors on Beach Street, they just had to exclude everybody.

[1:07:50] And it's a shame when the Warriors won the championship there in San Francisco, that

[1:07:56] was actually one of the things when I took a bunch of photos of that celebration.

[1:08:00] It was one of the kind of cherish memories from the celebration was simply these portable

[1:08:07] cards with the with odd dogs and your farmer's market they offer the pressed

[1:08:14] watermelon juice which you know you have to pay about ten bucks for if you go

[1:08:18] play poker in Vegas at the area and and there it is right on the right on the

[1:08:22] street I love it I mean I I'm fortunate to live up in unincorporated areas of the

[1:08:28] county where there's very few restrictions on doing that sort of thing when we

[1:08:32] had that heat wave in 2024. I just went out with a giant, a big, big giant,

[1:08:42] clueless full of ice cold gatorade and helped a lot of people out. You know,

[1:08:46] it's kind of fun to do it, but you know, asking a little bit of money for it to

[1:08:50] defray the costs would have been great. I'm looking at the overlay issue with the

[1:08:54] the area by the shelter. The general one I spoke before is absolutely correct. One of my,

[1:09:04] I guess, main points that makes it so glaringly obvious that there's motives involved beyond

[1:09:14] altruism with some of these developments is that parking is just absolutely almost completely

[1:09:23] and utterly neglected. Like the planning for the parking is, you know, what's going to happen

[1:09:28] when those people have no place to park? Well, they're going to eat up every other option available.

[1:09:35] It's a phenomenon that you see, you know, they've studied it, you know, academically, and there

[1:09:42] have been articles about it how the university does that. The university tends to eat up people's,

[1:09:48] you know, financial options. Their financial health suffers because they live near an institution

[1:09:52] like UCS, the real glaringly, you know, like the worst egregious example I think in the article

[1:10:01] was UCSB, but I definitely have experienced that with UCS. Thank you so much.

[1:10:09] Anyone else? Next person online? Good afternoon. Welcome to the City Council meeting.

[1:10:17] Yes, good afternoon. This was Robison and Feligan. This time I'm commenting on agenda item

[1:10:23] 18 on behalf of Santa Cruz MB. We previously sent in a letter of support for the staff recommendation to move this item forward.

[1:10:33] And we're happy to see that the city council did adopt most of those recommendations,

[1:10:41] conditions, except for the height limits and parking increases that the city council

[1:10:51] imposed or imposed that we're not consistent with the staff recommendation.

[1:10:55] But regardless, we're happy to see that this policy is moving forward and glad that it's

[1:11:04] coming up for a second vote.

[1:11:06] So I did want to comment on the comment that Councilmember O'Hara made at the last hearing

[1:11:15] regarding the quote-unquote ghettoization of the Coral Street area by allowing increased

[1:11:23] development of affordable housing and homeless services.

[1:11:28] I think it's important for this policy to move forward regardless.

[1:11:33] but I understand the interest in having other areas of the city be available to buy right development of shelter services.

[1:11:48] So I would encourage the council to in addition to moving the item forward, also bringing back a consideration of expanding this program to include other areas of the city.

[1:12:01] I think that would be a good way of potentially reducing the impact of any one particular area like Coral Street if there are multiple areas for almost service providers to consider establishing themselves, but I don't think it's appropriate to limit that in the meantime in the Coral Street area because we do need to move these services going forward.

[1:12:29] also wanted to mention that the city already has the power to regulate on-street

[1:12:34] parking that can come in the form of meters or parking permits and the city

[1:12:40] should use that power more often in order to regulate that on-street parking

[1:12:44] because that's the one of the major points of public advocacy that people make

[1:12:54] against having housing or other services and it is important to

[1:12:59] regulate the commons and charge for parking or regulate parking when it's

[1:13:04] appropriate. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Anyone else

[1:13:11] with us? Public hearing is closed matters back before the body pleasure of the

[1:13:15] body. Councilmember O'Hara. Thank you. I'd like to move the consent

[1:13:18] public hearing. As a motion is there a second? Second by Councilmember Newsom. Do you

[1:13:25] wish to open on your motion? Yeah, just a couple comments. Please do.

[1:13:29] I'm happy to move forward with all of the items in consent public hearing.

[1:13:33] I did want to stop for just a second and reflect on a couple of things with regards to item 18,

[1:13:38] which has largely been what's talked about in addition to the sidewalk vending ordinance.

[1:13:44] You know, I did struggle with the first reading to approve the first reading,

[1:13:50] and I'm happy to move forward with the second reading and move this forward.

[1:13:54] what has happened over the last couple of weeks since the first hearing on this and I think is really well characterized by the fellow who spoke from granite rock.

[1:14:08] We are really in IC is quite a pickle with Harvey West. It's an area where there's a tremendous amount of opportunity.

[1:14:17] It's an area where we have a confluence of many different types of uses.

[1:14:22] It's adjacent to a public, a huge public open space.

[1:14:26] We have our Harvey West Park, which is accessed by hundreds, if not thousands, of families

[1:14:33] a year, homeless services obviously, is very well concentrated there.

[1:14:38] And then all of the industrial and workforce, you know, zoning and the associated use is all

[1:14:48] concentrated in this area where there is very little access, one access basically out to highway one.

[1:14:55] So, I very much empathize with the consideration of the

[1:15:28] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:15:28] thought about the far west side. And so while I have, you know, I'm not interested in adding

[1:15:35] anything to the motion at this point, I just want to raise to our attention, our collective

[1:15:40] attention that I think Harvey West does need some focus over the next few years to make sure

[1:15:45] that we are not one and two in kind of these big development considerations and not thinking about

[1:15:51] about the impacts to the industrial use who are public spaces because housing is not

[1:15:58] going to slow down, I suspect, and I want to make sure that we're thinking about that.

[1:16:02] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:16:03] Thank you.

[1:16:05] Further on this, we have a motion and a second, all debate having ceased, the clerk will

[1:16:10] call the roll.

[1:16:11] Okay.

[1:16:13] Council Member Tregero?

[1:16:15] Aye.

[1:16:19] Vice Mayor Kellentore Johnson?

[1:16:21] Aye.

[1:16:22] Mayor Keeley?

[1:16:23] Aye.

[1:16:24] Motion passes.

[1:16:25] Thank all of you who staff these items, appreciate you, good work on that.

[1:16:29] We are on item 21.

[1:16:37] Hold on for just one second for me please.

[1:16:41] Thank you.

[1:16:41] Yes, we are an item. Hello, Miss Lecunbach. How are you?

[1:16:45] We are on item 21 in ordinance, pertaining to cross-connection control and backflow prevention. We have materials in our packet and we have our

[1:16:54] excellent water director in front of us. Good afternoon.

[1:16:58] afternoon mayor city council. Howdy looking back water director.

[1:17:02] This item it would amend the municipal code as it relates to cross-connection control and backflow protection, and I know we're all wondering what that is.

[1:17:11] in the city of Santa Cruz. I have just a few slides to show you what that is and kind of describe

[1:17:16] the importance and value and impact to staff in implementing this new regulation. So the

[1:17:24] device you see on the right hand side of this green is a backflow device and we put those in to

[1:17:29] protect our public water system from whatever happens private side. This particular one is a

[1:17:37] fire service, and I think you're going to recognize almost all of these as they're situated

[1:17:40] around City Hall and those surrounding blocks, and I suspect as you drive around, you're

[1:17:45] going to be seeing these all over the place now because they're going to be top of mine.

[1:17:49] They come in red, which are fire ones protecting, again, the city's water system from anything

[1:17:56] that happens on site, the main green, which protects us from irrigation kerfuffles that happen

[1:18:03] on the property side. They come in red and green on the left hand side and that was a little bit

[1:18:08] curious because it's for irrigation but I don't see anything to be irrigated in that particular

[1:18:13] property. And they come in blue which is for drinking water. And again, if you have a high rice

[1:18:20] building, we're going to put a blue one in so that nothing inside the building comes back into the

[1:18:25] water system. The water department like every water agency meets state and federal regulations with

[1:18:33] Managing back, we do on-site surveillance to understand what the use is, we put in the

[1:18:39] backflow device as required, we manage and test over 3,000 of them every year.

[1:18:45] We are in complete compliance until the new regulation came out, which gives us 10 years

[1:18:51] to address these, you will see these in the sidewalk.

[1:18:56] What this is is a fire service to a private residence, but the backflow device is about

[1:19:01] two feet underground. Based on risk assessment by the state, this was a standard practice for

[1:19:07] protecting the water system from private side. Contamination during a fire and now the state has

[1:19:13] decided that this does pose a risk. So within the next 10 years, we have to dig all of these out,

[1:19:19] which most of them are in sidewalks in our neighborhoods and replace them with an above-ground

[1:19:24] testable device. So going forward, the water department would be testing more than 6,000 of these

[1:19:30] devices. We're still trying to figure out where to put them because we can't have these

[1:19:35] all on the sidewalk so they likely be up at the building and we're trying to figure out

[1:19:39] how to fund them and resource them from a staff perspective. So what may come before you

[1:19:46] next is a request for a new position in the water department simply to address this new issue.

[1:19:52] But in the meantime we're outwearing compliance. We've been in compliance since 1983 and we have

[1:19:57] a very safe and secure water system because of devices like this.

[1:20:04] Happy with the recommendation.

[1:20:08] Questions or comments?

[1:20:11] Not everybody at once though.

[1:20:13] That is gripping.

[1:20:14] All right, here's, thank you.

[1:20:16] I'm going to, are there questions coming?

[1:20:20] Anybody who's with us have questions or comments?

[1:20:24] Matters back for the body, pleasure of the body.

[1:20:27] Excuse me.

[1:20:27] Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:20:29] Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

[1:20:30] which in person online, good afternoon.

[1:20:32] Welcome, comment on item 21.

[1:20:35] Well, I think that this item is not well explained

[1:20:40] because if you read the text of the item,

[1:20:42] it says the city intends to perform a system wide hazard

[1:20:46] assessment of every single water customer's property

[1:20:49] over 24,000 service connections.

[1:20:52] And it's my understanding this is not a requirement

[1:20:54] of the new CDCPH regulations.

[1:20:56] It's just your idea.

[1:20:58] if I understand those stated intentions.

[1:21:01] I would mention requiring physical inspection

[1:21:03] of every single connection manually or even once,

[1:21:05] is logistically impractical.

[1:21:07] And as far as I can tell, not mandated.

[1:21:11] I mean, I understand about the fire in big buildings

[1:21:14] and like that, but when you're talking residents,

[1:21:16] those are very low risk.

[1:21:18] And instead of what you propose,

[1:21:19] many public water systems use surveys,

[1:21:22] customer self-reporting, change of ownership triggers,

[1:21:25] high hazard prioritization, and random spot checks

[1:21:28] to manage the program efficiently. Again, local public water systems could adopt more stringent

[1:21:34] rules, but the statewide CCCPH standard, as far as I know, doesn't impose universal inspections

[1:21:39] of every single connection. If you're talking garden hoses, I mean, for the last time, a residential

[1:21:45] residence poisoned the water system for lack of a garden hose backlog device, specifics please.

[1:21:52] You know, oh, man, this is not too relevant, but I do note that the final

[1:21:56] clean ordinance document tax isn't the same as the black text remaining in the

[1:22:01] red light version for possibly the reason my understanding of the wise and

[1:22:04] logic of how the government works is insufficient. This all sounds costly

[1:22:08] versus actual benefit and I sure hope you aren't planning another unjustified

[1:22:12] useless fee windfall somehow with working into it as nobody needs that

[1:22:17] aggravation. Anyway I'll skip the rest of this said that's why I have to say thanks

[1:22:23] Well, thank you.

[1:22:24] Just looking back, if I could ask you to, on one of the core comments are sort of a

[1:22:30] requirement versus whether this was your idea.

[1:22:34] Maybe you could enlighten us in that regard.

[1:22:37] Yeah.

[1:22:37] The state developed a new handbook and they are addressing what they perceive to be the

[1:22:45] risk, which is the two-inch fire service for largely single-family homes.

[1:22:49] It is a requirement, a straight requirement, so we will have to go out in the next 10 years

[1:22:55] and demonstrate, and it's not even 10 years, I think it's 2034 at this point, and demonstrate

[1:23:00] that we have addressed all of those.

[1:23:03] And furthermore, with respect to the property by property surveillance, today we typically

[1:23:09] do that with change of occupancy and use for a property, and we can evaluate through

[1:23:16] their building permits what the activity is going to be and then assess the risk.

[1:23:20] And this new requirement is that we have to go property by property.

[1:23:24] I suspect it will be something a little bit more routine that all single family homes are

[1:23:29] chunked out and dismissed, but when you get to commercial and industrial, those will be

[1:23:36] a larger lift and a requirement of the state, the new sewer legislation.

[1:23:40] Thank you so much.

[1:23:41] So for the comment,

[1:23:46] we'll call the roll.

[1:23:52] I'm sorry, excuse me, I thought that we had that motion, but I'm happy to move the item,

[1:23:57] please.

[1:23:58] Motion is second by the vice mayor.

[1:24:03] Look, we'll call the roll.

[1:24:06] No, some members.

[1:24:06] Trigaro.

[1:24:07] Aye.

[1:24:08] Runner.

[1:24:08] Aye.

[1:24:09] Newsom.

[1:24:10] Aye.

[1:24:10] Holder.

[1:24:11] Aye.

[1:24:12] O'Hara.

[1:24:12] Aye.

[1:24:13] Vice Mayor Kellan Tarjonson.

[1:24:14] Aye.

[1:24:15] Mayor Kaylee.

[1:24:16] Aye.

[1:24:16] Motion passes ensorted.

[1:24:19] We are an item 22. This is Lighthouse Point Hazard and Engineering Analysis. We have our very talented public works department director and assistant public works director to present on this item and more than a little bit of paperwork in our agenda packets.

[1:24:36] I'm starting to win. Good afternoon. Thank you for your good work.

[1:24:40] Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council, Nathan Wynn, Director of Public Works.

[1:24:44] I just wanted to start off by thanking Council and the community for their patience as we've

[1:24:49] worked to bring forth a light house point study. It's taken some time to develop the scope of work

[1:24:55] as well as select a consultant team that we are excited with. Environmental Science Associates,

[1:25:03] specific cross-engineering as well as integral consulting, all with extensive local knowledge.

[1:25:09] They've done great work for us in the past and so we're happy to try to move them forward with

[1:25:13] this work. With the completion of the 50-year Westcliffe vision as well as the five-year road map,

[1:25:20] as well as the restoration of the 900 and 1000 block, we're moving now from a reactive process

[1:25:27] to a proactive effort on managing our coastline and so while studies have been performed in the

[1:25:33] pass, which will be utilized in this study.

[1:25:37] It's important that we collect current data.

[1:25:40] Again, we want to be able to utilize modernized tools

[1:25:43] on evaluating our coastline.

[1:25:45] And really ultimately, this study will allow us to work

[1:25:47] with our regulators, with our funding partners,

[1:25:51] and having that current information

[1:25:52] and so that we can seek regulatory permits

[1:25:55] as well as grant funding in the future.

[1:25:57] And so kind of with that, I'm going to hand it off

[1:25:59] to Kevin Cross, the city engineer,

[1:26:00] to dive more into the study.

[1:26:02] Thank you.

[1:26:05] Mr. Crossley, good afternoon.

[1:26:07] Thank you for your good work.

[1:26:09] Thank you.

[1:26:10] With the Mayor's blessing, I'd like to share a little personal anecdote before I get

[1:26:13] into the technical pieces of this, but again, it's given.

[1:26:18] So excuse me, got a frog in my throat.

[1:26:22] I had the rare opportunity a few months ago to go on a hike about myself.

[1:26:26] I have two kids, so that's a unique thing, and I was in San Luis Obispo, which is a

[1:26:32] beautiful community and so I found myself at the top of this this mountain with a 360 panoramic view

[1:26:38] the you know the area that San Luis of Israel sits in and I thought to myself what a boring place

[1:26:44] to be the city engineer there's no coastline there's no rivers there's no there's no landslides to deal

[1:26:50] with and not to be critical of them I'm sure they do lots of interesting work as well but I just want

[1:26:56] to say on a personal level this is the type of kind of work that it keeps me up at night but it also keeps

[1:27:01] to continue working and doing great things for our community.

[1:27:05] Thank you.

[1:27:05] Thank you for sharing that.

[1:27:09] So I think the modern story of Lighthouse Point for the purposes of this study,

[1:27:14] discussion today starts in the early 80s.

[1:27:17] These black and white photos, hard to tell when they were taken,

[1:27:20] but it was right after the large on the EU events that happened in the 82 and 83 winters

[1:27:25] that created a lot of damage at that area.

[1:27:28] Yeah.

[1:27:28] And so that precipitated the study that Nathan alluded to earlier put together by Rogers

[1:27:33] Johnson Associates.

[1:27:35] So that was the first sort of modern cut it, you know, what to do about erosion in this

[1:27:39] area and what are the options.

[1:27:41] And ultimately what the city elected to do was build the biggest seawall that we have

[1:27:46] along Westcliffe, which runs from its beach around the KVC in the second photo.

[1:27:52] That wasn't the end of our sort of investigation of this area.

[1:27:55] There's been a couple surveys that were completed over the years in response to ongoing erosion

[1:28:00] in the C-caves. And then, fast forward, this is a photo from late last year in the lower right corner,

[1:28:05] which gives a nice perspective of the ongoing C-cave erosion that looks like it's aimed right at

[1:28:12] the lighthouse, which is an obvious concern for us. And so, about a week ago, we did an open house

[1:28:19] for the public works department to talk about all the projects with the community. And I got to answer

[1:28:25] some questions about this study. And the number one question is, is this CKV going to swallow

[1:28:30] up that lighthouse? And the answer is not anytime soon. We resurveyed the area in 2026,

[1:28:39] beginning of the year. And key findings there were that the two caves were calling them the West

[1:28:45] Cave and the East Cave very creative. They are about 20 feet of separation bedrock material between

[1:28:52] them. So the caves are not going to connect in the immediate near term. We're going to investigate

[1:28:57] what that array of erosion looks like and when that potentially could happen. Most notably,

[1:29:03] the West C cave, which is shown on the left of this image, is about 40 feet away from the lighthouse

[1:29:10] foundation. So what that says to us is that while there is very evident erosion happening in this

[1:29:17] location, it's not going to present a near-term risk to the

[1:29:22] circuit museum, the lighthouse or the paths. So, that's the key findings there.

[1:29:28] The next, oh, this is my opportunity to dork out on the technology we used, which was

[1:29:34] a newer drone technology that allowed us to do a lot of really cool scanning of this area,

[1:29:40] create a 3D model that we'll be using as an input to this study. Incredible amount of

[1:29:44] data was collected in like a four-hour period.

[1:29:46] So just between the intervals of surveys,

[1:29:50] technology is advanced in really significant ways

[1:29:53] that's gonna help us leverage these tools

[1:29:55] for some additional modeling

[1:29:56] that I'll talk about a little bit later.

[1:30:02] So, the second set of questions I get started with a statement usually, which is, please install

[1:30:09] armoring, what's the plan? Or please don't install armoring, what's the plan? And so, my response

[1:30:18] to that was, I don't know what we're doing, that's the point of the study. And so, we're

[1:30:23] going to be looking at the different safety risks that are out there. We're going to talk

[1:30:28] focus on the bluffs and their dynamic failure modes and then help us figure

[1:30:34] out what some short-term long-term strategies could be for this area.

[1:30:41] The scope

[1:30:42] of work summarized is gather existing information, do some data collection

[1:30:47] through additional field collection with Pacific press engineering and other

[1:30:51] sub-consultants, define all the conditions and risk in an updated profile and

[1:30:56] then we'll get into the alternatives. What are we going to do? We think the

[1:31:00] The alternative step after we've sort of brainstormed and gotten those all written down

[1:31:04] would be an excellent touch point for the community to run an open house in the late summer

[1:31:09] early fall, share that information, gather some input, and then help use that to shortlist

[1:31:14] our alternatives that we would analyze for feasibility and potential recommendation.

[1:31:18] And that all gets buttoned up in a nice report that we would bring back to you in about

[1:31:22] a year.

[1:31:25] So these are the hope outcomes of this process.

[1:31:28] We want to identify some alternatives, figure out what those advantages, constraints and

[1:31:33] feasibilities are, help communicate what our thinking is to the public, provide a technical

[1:31:39] basis for potential actions.

[1:31:43] I think this graphic that I pulled out of the 50-year vision really speaks to the need to operate

[1:31:48] within the real-world constraints of the jurisdictional regulatory, financial, and environmental

[1:31:52] standards that we have to operate in.

[1:31:54] We don't get to do projects in a vacuum here, so there are these real world boundaries

[1:31:58] that we have to work with in.

[1:32:01] And then finally, that final report is intended to help inform our decision-making.

[1:32:05] So I went through that pretty quick.

[1:32:08] Here's the recommendation in front of you, and we have to take any questions.

[1:32:13] Comps, remember, goalers, recognize.

[1:32:16] Thank you so much.

[1:32:17] I appreciate the complexity around this issue, and I know Jebra and I have been out there several

[1:32:23] times.

[1:32:24] we've met with a number of community members. And so just to reiterate, do you know how many regulatory

[1:32:30] agencies we would have to go through in order to, if we got the finances, build a cave or do

[1:32:36] something with the cave? That's one that I've been trying to make clear.

[1:32:41] Oh, that's hard to answer off the shop on my head, but all of them.

[1:32:45] Thank you. Thank you. That is one that I just want everyone in the public to hear. And then I just

[1:32:49] just want to reiterate my gratitude for you bringing this forward and I think looking

[1:32:54] at this issue, I know it's an important place to everybody.

[1:32:56] We hear it wherever we go.

[1:32:59] So you know, I'm excited to see what comes up the study and what we decided to do next.

[1:33:04] Thank you.

[1:33:05] Thank you.

[1:33:06] Device mayors recognized.

[1:33:08] Yes.

[1:33:08] Thank you so much for the work so far.

[1:33:12] This has been, the community has been long time waiting and anticipation of what will come

[1:33:18] next.

[1:33:18] So I appreciate this action that's before us today.

[1:33:23] A couple of questions in the staff report.

[1:33:27] There's mentioned that there would be community engagement.

[1:33:32] Along with, I think the shoreline adaptation community engagement.

[1:33:36] Can you just say more about what that community engagement looks like?

[1:33:40] Do we have specific dates?

[1:33:42] How will that be communicated to the public?

[1:33:44] We don't have specific dates that I'm aware for the shoreline adaptation management plans.

[1:33:48] which is a parallel effort happening, being led by Dr. Tiffany Wise West.

[1:33:53] We're in regular coordination on the timing of the two efforts, and our hope is if the schedules

[1:33:57] will sync up in a way that provides for a common touch point. It's a little bit hard to say exactly

[1:34:05] if we'll make that happen, but our plan is to have something to share when she brings that information

[1:34:10] out for the shoreline adaptation and management plans, and then potentially a more focused

[1:34:15] open-house style setting for this particular set of work.

[1:34:20] Okay.

[1:34:22] What is our plan for outreach and communication to members of the community?

[1:34:27] In particular, there's Council Member Golder said, specific groups that have reached out

[1:34:31] to us and been in touch with us.

[1:34:33] Do we have a plan?

[1:34:35] Are we going to work with our communications team?

[1:34:37] Yes.

[1:34:37] We have an in coordination with our communications team, and for example, before this item was

[1:34:43] place on the agenda we sent out an email to the Westcliffe contact list that our communication

[1:34:48] teams have.

[1:34:48] Okay.

[1:34:49] Is the way to elevate awareness, the item was coming before you today?

[1:34:54] Okay.

[1:34:54] Great.

[1:34:55] So you'll come back to Council in about a year's time.

[1:35:00] Will there be other touch points with the Council before that final report is complete?

[1:35:07] That you know of right now?

[1:35:09] Other than the open house, no, we haven't identified any at this point.

[1:35:13] Then maybe myself and Councilmember Golder who have been working on this, we can not form

[1:35:20] an ad hoc committee as someone I'm saying, but we can stay in touch on a regular basis

[1:35:24] so that we're not hearing back about the progress and what the analysis shows in a year.

[1:35:32] So will reach out to you, you'll reach out to us, we'll stay connected that way.

[1:35:35] Okay. As part of the analysis, I know you said they will, the consultants will be looking

[1:35:42] at costs. As they're looking at costs, will they be providing any financial sort of modeling

[1:35:50] options for us or financing, not financial modeling, financing modeling options for us to consider

[1:35:59] as we look at what the solutions that were my question making sense?

[1:36:05] Yes. We're going to be looking at pretty high-level concepts.

[1:36:10] With that comes limitations on how specific and detailed you can get into the cost estimating.

[1:36:15] But our intention was to integrate costs in a way that helped us provide a meaningful comparison against different alternatives.

[1:36:22] So that became part of the decision process.

[1:36:25] and then we've been working with the city manager's office.

[1:36:28] They're currently working on a financing study for Westcliffe.

[1:36:32] And so the hope was that we would be far enough along

[1:36:34] in this study to use the information from this work

[1:36:37] as an input to their overall financial planning process.

[1:36:41] Great.

[1:36:43] And when we, when you come back to this

[1:36:45] in about a year's time, it's at that point

[1:36:48] that we will be given some options around

[1:36:50] like house point in the CKs,

[1:36:52] and we will be making some kind of a decision

[1:36:54] about what to move forward, how to move forward, okay, just want to be clear.

[1:36:58] And then I know you already said this, but I want to just have you say it again,

[1:37:03] because some members of the community groups that we've talked to have talked about how urgent

[1:37:08] this issue is, and it is an urgent issue. Part of the concern is that the lighthouse itself is

[1:37:15] going to fall into the ocean because there's so much erosion happening so quickly. I would like to hear

[1:37:20] from you again, that that is not the case in this moment. It is eroding, but we don't

[1:37:25] see an immediate threat, excuse me, of the lighthouse collapsing anytime in the next 12

[1:37:33] months.

[1:37:34] No, we don't foresee any risk to the lighthouse in the next 12 months, or even five or

[1:37:38] ten years.

[1:37:39] Okay. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you so much for the work, and I look forward to

[1:37:44] keeping the conversation going over the next 12 months.

[1:37:49] Councilmember here is recognized.

[1:37:51] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:37:52] Thank you, Kevin.

[1:37:53] I really appreciate the work on this, and I am in support of the direction.

[1:37:58] I do have one observation, and then probably very inarticulate question.

[1:38:04] I think what the Vice Mayor is getting to is an important thing to reiterate about the

[1:38:09] the risks associated with erosion right now,

[1:38:13] but I don't think we would have said 10 years ago

[1:38:15] that we would have seen West Cliff fall into the ocean.

[1:38:18] Right?

[1:38:18] So it's hard to know, you know?

[1:38:22] So I think we have a good sense of where the caves are

[1:38:26] and how much bedrock is between the two caves,

[1:38:31] I think it is hard to fully predict,

[1:38:33] just given where we're at with climate change

[1:38:36] and storm surges, what erosion is going to look like for the next five or 10 years, but I appreciate

[1:38:43] the comments on that. The alternative analysis or the assessment, I think you had in the slides

[1:38:50] wave dynamics, and I just wanted to kind of put on record, or at least maybe ask a question,

[1:38:56] how will the engineers be contemplating the quality of the wave at the lane? Because I imagine

[1:39:05] in that these alternatives that come forward

[1:39:08] will potentially impact the wave dynamics,

[1:39:12] but the subjective objective,

[1:39:15] whatever it falls within that spectrum,

[1:39:18] quality of this role-class wave,

[1:39:21] is also, I think, necessary to be part of the discussion.

[1:39:24] So how would that happen work?

[1:39:28] That's a really hard question to answer.

[1:39:32] I'll say this.

[1:39:32] Yes, we have quite a bit of our scope devoted to modeling.

[1:39:37] What happens if you change X, what happens to Y over here with the wave breaks, how the

[1:39:42] wave breaks, what the peel angle will be, accounting for a lot of other variables that don't

[1:39:47] have that much to do with erosion like sea level rise, for example.

[1:39:51] And so that's not an easy question to ask and answer, but I feel that we've assembled the

[1:39:57] best team possible to dig into that question.

[1:40:00] We were lucky enough with the USA to find that their project manager is a surfer from

[1:40:05] Half Moon Bay, so I feel like he's got a personal stake and investment in this project.

[1:40:11] So that's my best kind of non-answer to your question, but I do think that we're trying

[1:40:17] to really dig into those hard questions so that we bring forward a defensible and data-driven

[1:40:23] recommendation.

[1:40:24] Yeah, thanks. And I expected your answer to be exactly like that. And it's nearly an

[1:40:30] impossible consideration, but I just really want to make sure that we are keeping it top

[1:40:35] of mind. And I know that we are, but I wanted the community to understand that we understand

[1:40:39] we have a world-class surf break here. We understand that this erosion potentially could be impacting

[1:40:46] that surf break. I mean, it is a huge driver for our local economy. It is the cultural, one

[1:40:52] of the most important cultural aspects of our community, and so a lot rides on this work

[1:40:57] that we're doing, no pun intended on their surfboards. So I really appreciate the direction

[1:41:04] that we're going. I understand where we're at in terms of just the complexity of even if we have

[1:41:12] concepts of what we can do and we have funding to do it, the amount of bureaucratic hurdles that

[1:41:18] are going to be required to do this work is significant.

[1:41:22] So this is the first step, and I really

[1:41:24] look forward to the work that's coming forward.

[1:41:26] Thank you.

[1:41:26] Any

[1:41:30] comments from members?

[1:41:32] Anybody else on this?

[1:41:34] We'll go out to the public.

[1:41:35] Anybody out in public?

[1:41:36] Wish a comment on this item.

[1:41:37] Please come forward if you wish to do so.

[1:41:39] Do we have anyone online?

[1:41:41] We'll take you, sir.

[1:41:42] Good afternoon and welcome.

[1:41:44] We'll free up the microphone in just a moment.

[1:41:47] Did you wish to add to your answer, sir?

[1:41:50] Mr. Crossway. No, but maybe now's the time to point out that the slide that I showed you with

[1:41:56] the recommendation, I clipped out the key piece, but there was more language in the staff report.

[1:42:01] So just for the record, we would like you to approve the full recommendation, not just the version

[1:42:06] that was on screen. We'll get back to that. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Welcome to City Council.

[1:42:11] from meeting.

[1:42:15] Hi, Mayor Keeling, Councilmembers and public works.

[1:42:18] Thank you very much.

[1:42:19] I'm Sean Burns with Save the Waves and here just to say my support for this project

[1:42:24] and thank you for the city for investing in a community epicenter.

[1:42:29] Steam relaying as a world class wave, I love the question about the way of quality.

[1:42:34] So I was excited to see with integral consulting during some wave quality modeling with this

[1:42:39] project, which I think is very important.

[1:42:43] It's a community epicenter, it's not like the hill in San Luis Obispo, but it's a beautiful

[1:42:47] view that people come to check out.

[1:42:50] It's not just the surfers that go there, but it's the grass.

[1:42:52] It's the lighthouse.

[1:42:53] It's got all the surfing memorabilia in the lighthouse, so it's very cultural to our town.

[1:42:59] So, it's really appreciative of the city investing into a community epicenter like this.

[1:43:06] And yeah, just the wave modeling, I think, is a really important component to it.

[1:43:10] So thank you for adding that in.

[1:43:12] And then the last part is I'm sure everyone's kind of aware

[1:43:15] of like the Godzilla El Niño coming into the near future.

[1:43:20] It's good to hear that we're not in immediate danger

[1:43:23] with the erosion, but it's something to take into consideration

[1:43:26] and maybe looking forward to somehow modeling

[1:43:30] or looking at ways to just, I guess, with the erosion,

[1:43:34] like not managing, but managing it.

[1:43:36] I guess I don't know what I'm trying to say here, but making sure

[1:43:39] with El Nino and the Godzilla El Nino and all the effects of erosion make sure we're really looking

[1:43:46] into what's happening with erosion and so I think this project is a good step in the right

[1:43:50] direction. Thank you. Thank you and thanks for all the good work that Safe the Wave does not

[1:43:55] only hear but throughout the world. Thank you very much for that. Anyone else wish to come in?

[1:44:00] We have anybody online? We'll take person online. Good afternoon. Welcome to the City Council meeting.

[1:44:05] Thank

[1:44:08] you, Fred. Hi, Bradley Snyder. So, one of my required classes for my first degree

[1:44:14] was a laboratory geology class. And Sandstone's got a generally considered to have a most

[1:44:22] hardness rating of about 6.5. But the fact of the matter is that it's a silicacious rock that

[1:44:31] It has a kind of a glue component that holds it all together, which is calcium carbonate.

[1:44:37] So it's like limestone, and it's hardness is about three and a half.

[1:44:41] So what you have is a very hard matrix of silicate rock with a very soft, relatively soft,

[1:44:50] I should say limestone holding it together.

[1:44:52] And, you know, it's prone to erosion.

[1:44:56] Purisma sandstone, which, you know, you...

[1:45:00] We see it natural bridges, there used to be multiple bridges, and that's why it's called natural bridges. However, now there's a single bridge remaining. And with nature, I think often, the best course of action is if it's not broken, don't fix it. Maybe even if it is broken, don't fix it. The suggestion that it be armored is, I guess, the true point where, you know, maybe Mrs. County Johnson has to speak to.

[1:45:29] You hear constituents about how long it could last without armor, clothing it with armor.

[1:45:36] I don't know, a brake water, like they have at the lighthouse near the harbor or something

[1:45:42] like that, could perhaps preserve it for longer.

[1:45:45] I think a lot of surfers know that the frequency of waves and the amplitude of the wave and the

[1:45:57] the frequency of higher amplitude waves is a logarithmic calculation. And there are only so many

[1:46:04] huge waves, Godzilla waves, I guess, I don't know. But for me, I just think like this is kind

[1:46:11] of a really large expense. Kind of on the scale of the amount of money that I was complaining about

[1:46:18] the issue about the flock. Cameras are earlier that you spend about twice as much on something that

[1:46:23] later you just simply decided it wasn't worth having spent that money on and you know that's

[1:46:29] alarming to citizens. When the accounting comes down to, well okay we have to decide if or if not

[1:46:41] this purported problem is a problem. Well obviously with the flood cameras the police would have

[1:46:48] like to have their job be easier and obviously we'd like to believe that you know 50 years

[1:46:55] after we're gone that the lighthouse point is still there for people to enjoy it the fact

[1:47:00] is it's part of the landscape it's part of the scenery and I don't think we should mess with it

[1:47:05] I honestly don't thank you

[1:47:10] okay matters back before the body pleasure of the body council

[1:47:16] So the vice mayor is recognized.

[1:47:19] I'd like to move staff recommendation.

[1:47:21] There is a motion, is there a second?

[1:47:23] Second by council member Tregaro.

[1:47:25] You may open on your motion.

[1:47:27] I made my comments and no further your comments.

[1:47:30] Looking forward to the work.

[1:47:32] For the debate or discussion,

[1:47:33] seen here and none, the clerk will call the roll.

[1:47:37] Member Tregaro.

[1:47:38] Aye.

[1:47:38] Trudor.

[1:47:39] Aye.

[1:47:40] Newsom.

[1:47:41] Aye.

[1:47:41] Boulder.

[1:47:42] Aye.

[1:47:43] Vice Mayor Colin Targonson.

[1:47:44] Aye.

[1:47:47] Thank you very much. I hope you don't mind, Mr. Crosley, that you will never be the public

[1:47:54] works director of St. Louis Bisfield.

[1:47:59] We are item 23. This is a, I'm sorry, excuse me. Yes,

[1:48:08] it is. We are going to be taking, at this time, excuse me, we're going to take a 10 minute afternoon

[1:48:13] and break, we'll be back here at 2.35.

[1:48:20] Excuse me.

[1:48:22] Make sense.

[1:48:25] There we go.

[1:48:26] Thank you.

[1:48:34] Yeah, yeah.

[1:50:42] Senator

[1:59:16] Cruz City Council is back in session following our afternoon recess.

[1:59:21] A quorum continues to be present.

[1:59:24] We will be taking up item 23.

[1:59:26] This is a Council direction on objective design standards, expanding the concept of the

[1:59:33] downtown density bonuses and regulations for the removal of heritage trees.

[1:59:37] There is material in our packet and Ms. J. Wardina is going to be opening on this and

[1:59:46] there are other staff members as well.

[1:59:48] Good afternoon and welcome to the Council meeting.

[1:59:50] I'm

[1:59:53] Akanna Jarwadna, Senior Planet, with the Advanced Planning Team, and I'm here with my colleague Laras Dangan.

[2:00:01] We had to respond to council direction, we received in 2025 on three topics. Objective design standards, the downtown density bonus, expansion to other parts of the city, and objective standards for heritage tree removals. In response to this direction, we're here to present several approaches, and we'll talk through those in sync. I will begin with the staff approach direction on objective design.

[2:00:30] In 2025, the city updated its objective design standards.

[2:00:34] that were first adopted by the City Council, and two.

[2:00:39] In May of 2025, City Council directed staff to develop an objective design standards

[2:00:45] toolkit that ensures that the standards are readily accessible to developers and members

[2:00:50] of the public.

[2:00:53] When talking about objective design standards, a critical component to consider is that the

[2:00:57] state density bonus law grants incentives or concessions and waivers to developments

[2:01:02] that provide affordable housing.

[2:01:05] I'm going to ask you, thank you so much, move it even closer.

[2:01:09] Is that better?

[2:01:10] Close as possible. There you go.

[2:01:13] Now here's what you're doing.

[2:01:14] You're moving it and then you go like this.

[2:01:17] Nice and close, there you go.

[2:01:19] I'll get used to it.

[2:01:20] Thank you.

[2:01:22] When talking about objective design standards,

[2:01:25] a critical component to consider is that the state density bonus law

[2:01:28] grant incentives or concessions and waivers to developments that provide affordable housing.

[2:01:34] Developers use these provisions to deviate from local development and design standards.

[2:01:40] State and case law have determined that the city's inclusionary housing units count towards

[2:01:45] the state and city bonus requirements. Inclusionary housing is housing that is affordable to lower

[2:01:51] income households and is required to be provided within multifamily housing developments.

[2:01:57] The city has a 20% inclusionary housing requirement, and because of this, nearly all multi-family

[2:02:04] housing projects in Santa Cruz use the state density bonus in some form.

[2:02:09] Not always to add density, but sometimes just for the incentives, or concessions, and

[2:02:14] waivers that allow for deviation from design and development standards.

[2:02:20] The state density bonus allows deviation from these standards, which mean that, for example,

[2:02:25] projects can deviate from height limits, setback requirements, floor area ratio requirements and even architectural design requirements.

[2:02:35] In response, some dues sections are utilizing voluntary design guidelines.

[2:02:41] These are non-binding principles and recommendations that supplement objective standards and communicate design values and development goals.

[2:02:51] The current planning team has been developing and using a handout like document to communicate

[2:02:56] design priorities and desirable architectural examples with the development community.

[2:03:02] In some instances, this has led to productive conversations with developers.

[2:03:08] In response to console direction, staff proposed to further develop the handout that the current

[2:03:13] planning team has been using and developing and use this to better communicate the

[2:03:19] councils and communities design values.

[2:03:23] The document attached in your agenda report

[2:03:25] and the extracted pages you see here

[2:03:28] before you are purely a draft

[2:03:29] to provide a sense of what this document could look like.

[2:03:33] The objective today is to understand

[2:03:35] if this is an approach that council would like staff to pursue.

[2:03:39] And if so, staff would work with the council

[2:03:41] and the community to further develop this document.

[2:03:46] Specifically, staff will work with the council

[2:03:48] to develop a set of priorities and with design professionals in the community to create design

[2:03:53] guidelines. The intention is that these priorities and guidelines would reach developers

[2:03:59] before they begin designing a project to provide meaningful input in the development process.

[2:04:06] A handout will also include examples of encouraged and discouraged architecture intended to showcase

[2:04:12] the types of developments that the city might want to promote and to inspire creativity

[2:04:17] and variety in architectural design.

[2:04:22] As part of developing this document further,

[2:04:25] staff recommend creating incentives

[2:04:27] to further support achieving these design guidelines

[2:04:30] and priorities.

[2:04:32] Based on initial conversations with other jurisdictions,

[2:04:36] incentives would increase the efficacy of such a document.

[2:04:40] Incentives could include ministerial approvals,

[2:04:44] faster overall processing timelines, or reduced fees.

[2:04:48] Following the guidance of a document such as this could also provide indirect benefits

[2:04:54] to the development community, such as a smoother community engagement process, or greater

[2:04:59] decision-maker and community support for development projects.

[2:05:06] Switching gears now to the Downtown Density Bonus Expansion concept.

[2:05:11] In 2025, City Council directed staff to evaluate expanding the Downtown Density bonus to other

[2:05:18] parts of the city.

[2:05:20] Discussions with the Housing Subcommittee informed a hypothetical scenario with

[2:05:25] development with specific development priorities and potential incentives for

[2:05:30] complying with these priorities. The development priorities arrived at were

[2:05:35] regulated building heights and real property line setbacks. Potential incentives

[2:05:41] included a modified inclusionary housing requirement both in terms of changing

[2:05:45] the amount and the depth of the affordability provided and allowing off-site

[2:05:50] inclusionary housing. So this second incentive was ultimately determined to

[2:05:55] not be in line with the city's overall housing values and goals. When we

[2:06:01] presented this hypothetical scenario to the development community, we heard that

[2:06:05] it would not be an attractive alternative to the state density bonus and so

[2:06:10] ultimately infeasible.

[2:06:14] An expanded downtown density bonus must out-compete the

[2:06:17] state density bonus, which allows for up to 100% increase in density and a broad range

[2:06:23] of deviations from development and design standards as discussed previously in this presentation.

[2:06:30] So I have to not recommend further studying expanding the downtown density bonus to other

[2:06:35] parts of the city because avenues to possibly outcompete the state density bonus, such as

[2:06:41] allowing for inclusionary housing off site or reducing the inclusionary housing requirement

[2:06:46] all together would come at too high a cost to the city's values.

[2:06:52] Additionally, seeking to expand the downtown density bonus would require a costly environmental

[2:06:57] impact report. Further exploration of this potentially infeasible proposal would also redirect

[2:07:05] soft resources away from time sensitive work plan items.

[2:07:11] Instead, staff recommend further exploring

[2:07:13] an alternative approach which leverages the state density bonus and utilizes the design

[2:07:18] guidelines and priorities hand out to achieve similar council objectives.

[2:07:24] This alternative would allow ministerial approvals for projects that comply with a set number of

[2:07:29] council priorities.

[2:07:39] Ministerial approvals are perhaps the only incentive powerful enough to provide

[2:07:45] to encourage developers to comply with the development requirements, especially given the provisions

[2:07:51] granted by the state density bonus.

[2:07:54] Staff believe that this alternative approach will align with the city council's goals

[2:07:58] and be a feasible option for both the city and the development community.

[2:08:09] Shanger, good afternoon. Welcome.

[2:08:11] Good afternoon, Mayor and council members.

[2:08:13] I am going to talk about heritage trees.

[2:08:16] So in 2025, the city council gave staff direction to review options for heritage tree regulations

[2:08:23] related to multifamily housing projects that would align with state law from the city's

[2:08:28] environmental values and potentially include the creation of objective standards.

[2:08:33] The city's heritage tree ordinance currently allows removal of a heritage tree only under

[2:08:38] a few specific circumstances, including if the tree is in poor condition, if it is causing

[2:08:44] damage to a property, or if the construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate

[2:08:51] existing heritage trees or shrubs, and this is the big finding related to development projects.

[2:08:58] However, changes to state law over the last several years make this particular finding

[2:09:02] unenforceable for more multifamily residential development.

[2:09:08] When it comes to multifamily housing,

[2:09:10] the development of two or more new units of housing, state law says that the city cannot apply

[2:09:17] any subjective requirements. We can only apply objective standards to a proposed development.

[2:09:23] We cannot vaguely require projects to redesign, and we cannot require a project to reduce its

[2:09:30] residential density or impose a requirement that makes a project infeasible.

[2:09:35] The current heritage tree ordinance binding is subjective and therefore is unenforceable

[2:09:41] when it comes to multifamily housing development.

[2:09:44] The question of whether a project design cannot be altered would result in a subjective and

[2:09:50] very project specific conversation between a developer

[2:09:54] and the city about the project design

[2:09:56] and that's something that's just not allowed

[2:09:58] under state law anymore, excuse me.

[2:10:01] So what can we do to increase protections

[2:10:03] for heritage trees for these kinds of projects?

[2:10:07] Well, a couple things you can do is to create new objective

[2:10:10] standards or create incentives that would apply

[2:10:14] to heritage trees affected by multifamily housing projects.

[2:10:18] We could create objective standards, for example, for tree removal criteria, like professional

[2:10:25] arborist standards that would determine whether or not a tree would be able to survive construction

[2:10:32] impacts given standard tree protection measures.

[2:10:37] We could have objective standards for replacement trees, how many, what size, what species, etc.

[2:10:42] If a replacement tree is not feasible, we could have objective standards for in lieu fees and then standards for protection of retained trees and even more creative things like productive lumber reuse when a heritage tree must be taken down.

[2:11:01] So staff has already worked on all of these except for the lumber reuse in 2025 when drafting objective standards as they relate to affordable housing projects.

[2:11:11] Those standards could also be utilized for all multifamily housing developments.

[2:11:16] One note is that we cannot make objective standards that require projects to retain

[2:11:24] all trees or even specific trees.

[2:11:26] For example, we couldn't make an objective standard saying the project needs to retain any

[2:11:31] tree with a trunk over two feet in diameter.

[2:11:34] And the reason is because it could result in issues with the residential density of the

[2:11:39] project or even the project feasibility and that could play out differently on different

[2:11:45] projects in a very big project specific basis. And again, it would create that back-and-forth

[2:11:50] conversation between the applicant and the city that would make the review process subjective

[2:11:56] which is not allowed under state law. So while we can't objectively require the retention

[2:12:02] of specific trees, we can try to incentivize their retention. Potential ways to do this

[2:12:08] could be through deviation to development standards, such as reduced setbacks or increased

[2:12:13] height, etc., or allowance of bonus units, although that could be a bit more complex and could

[2:12:19] result in a more complicated environmental review under SEQUA.

[2:12:22] So,

[2:12:28] staff's proposed approach would lean on both objective standards and potential incentives

[2:12:33] for tree retention.

[2:12:35] Last year, staff completed work on developing draft objective standards related to heritage

[2:12:40] trees and 100% affordable housing projects. And that could be a starting point for this work ahead.

[2:12:46] In addition, staff would want to gather input from the community to further define the community's

[2:12:51] priorities and incentives in creating this updated policy.

[2:13:00] So wrapping up the presentation here,

[2:13:03] if Council directs staff to proceed with the recommendations as provided in the agenda report,

[2:13:08] We would proceed with the following next steps in response to Council direction on objective standards staff would conduct engagement with the community and industry professionals return to council in the fall to present updates and for a priority setting exercise and then update the handout to include these priorities and an incentive program in response to council direction on the downtown density bonus expansion staff would cease exploration of expanding the downtown density bonus to

[2:13:38] to other parts of the city and instead explore an alternative

[2:13:42] that leverages the state density bonus

[2:13:44] and the design guidelines and priorities handout.

[2:13:48] And finally, in response to council direction

[2:13:50] on heritage trees, staff would conduct further analysis

[2:13:53] and community outreach and develop a draft ordinance.

[2:13:58] So here's the staff recommendation

[2:14:00] as it appears in the agenda report.

[2:14:02] That concludes our presentation

[2:14:04] and staff is available to answer any questions.

[2:14:06] Thank you.

[2:14:08] Thank you.

[2:14:09] Let me see if there are questions, comments, as we begin this, Council Member O'Hara.

[2:14:18] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:14:19] I have a couple of questions about the Heritage Tree Ordinance Recommendation, and I think

[2:14:23] that the motion, the way it's currently drafted leaves it kind of wide open in terms of what

[2:14:30] you might be bringing back, but in the presentation, it seems as if you're talking about updating

[2:14:36] are ordinance to include objective standards.

[2:14:39] Would you also be, you know, in large scale,

[2:14:42] changing the ordinance, removing things

[2:14:44] that could be subjective or perceived as subjective?

[2:14:50] That's a good question.

[2:14:51] So we're looking specifically at the removal of trees

[2:14:56] as they relate to housing development projects,

[2:14:58] whereas the heritage tree ordinance.

[2:15:00] All different types of scenarios, all different types of development, including but beyond housing development, and then other types of scenarios as well, like two neighbors fighting over whether or not to keep a tree. There's no development going on at all. So we could, it could.

[2:15:21] The way that it would amend the heritage regulations would be specific to those multifamily housing standards, and the standards created would be objective.

[2:15:30] But there could be subjectivity remaining in the Heritage Reordinates given that it

[2:15:35] applies to so many other different things as well.

[2:15:37] Okay.

[2:15:38] That's really helpful.

[2:15:39] And I honestly wasn't even thinking about all of the other ones.

[2:15:41] I was really stuck in the multi-family.

[2:15:44] With regard to criteria one, C3, I think you had it up on the screen.

[2:15:49] I think there's a fair amount of engagement, and maybe it's only coming from a select

[2:15:54] few but I think that they, you know, are providing really good feedback on the spectrum

[2:16:01] of how we are considering objectivity versus subjectivity.

[2:16:06] And on that particular one, if you could go back a couple screens to that one, I would

[2:16:16] just encourage us to be thinking about even though projects and developers can get waivers

[2:16:27] and concessions granted, that doesn't mean that this could not be an objective criteria

[2:16:34] as it relates to, some projects can be altered, right?

[2:16:38] like in terms of if from my understanding the law, the state law requires these waivers

[2:16:49] to be and concessions to be available for developers to ensure that they are meeting the the

[2:16:55] density numbers or the unit, the number of units, right, at a cost, I think, you know, in

[2:17:01] a way that they can afford or pencil out or whatever.

[2:17:05] I would just want to make sure that whatever we're doing with regard to the ordinance that

[2:17:09] we are building in a process for which maybe it's 10% of the time.

[2:17:14] Maybe it's 5% of the time.

[2:17:17] Those designs that can be altered to save a tree, we are encouraging people to do that and

[2:17:22] not just completely foreclosing on that option, that makes sense.

[2:17:27] I was wondering if you could respond to that.

[2:17:29] I

[2:17:35] can, I also see Matt Vannegut, I'll start in Mac and Adon.

[2:17:41] So it is, that's a good question.

[2:17:45] That's something that has also been circling in my mind, you know, as I've thought about

[2:17:51] this over the months and talked to people.

[2:17:53] And there are times when projects could maybe be redesigned, it's

[2:18:02] still a very subjective

[2:18:03] question.

[2:18:04] And there's a lot of things that go into a project that, you know, a lot of things that

[2:18:12] a developer puts into a project that we don't really have to consider from the planning

[2:18:17] and the things and we're just looking at development standards because they have costs and they

[2:18:21] have how they arrange all of their different pieces of the project to make it fit all together.

[2:18:27] So there are times where it seems perfectly feasible from a planning perspective to move

[2:18:32] things around, but from a development perspective it's not feasible, maybe there are times where

[2:18:38] it is truly feasible to redesign.

[2:18:43] How do you objectively require that? It's very, I haven't

[2:18:48] thought of a way to do that. If it's possible, I'd love to hear about it.

[2:19:03] That would ultimately still be a subjective standard, so we couldn't require it, but it

[2:19:11] could potentially be your idea, and we already do this currently early in the development

[2:19:16] process when Samantha's team is reviewing plans and seeing where the trees are and where

[2:19:24] thinking about early in the development process

[2:19:26] with those development proposals.

[2:19:28] So that does happen, but it is kind of subjective,

[2:19:31] and it's just a discussion,

[2:19:33] and we provide guidance on that.

[2:19:35] And to that end, that kind of idea

[2:19:39] could be in our like our objective standards,

[2:19:42] like guidelines document, for instance,

[2:19:44] for development to get that early consideration

[2:19:48] and to have that be prioritized in some way in that document.

[2:19:52] but it's not something we could ultimately require of developers, and that could also be again kind of going to that incentive process as well, where we see incentives being the best way to get those outcomes that we desire.

[2:20:09] Thank you.

[2:20:11] Thank you.

[2:20:12] Others?

[2:20:13] Commissioner Cummings.

[2:20:15] If I might on a couple of points.

[2:20:18] Can we go to this issue for a moment of ministerial approvals?

[2:20:23] That's the topic I would like to discuss here.

[2:20:28] The proposal here would let's define the universe of ministerial approvals.

[2:20:35] Let's do that first.

[2:20:36] So

[2:20:48] we would be proposing it as an option both for I am still having a hard time hearing you please sorry is that better.

[2:21:00] We're proposing it as an incentive for pursuing the alternative to the density bonus expansion.

[2:21:13] So this proposed alternative would leverage the state density bonus and allow for ministerial approvals for projects that comply with a set.

[2:21:24] that number of council priorities.

[2:21:27] This is an alternative to the direction

[2:21:31] for exploring the density bonus expansion.

[2:21:37] So we are, if we were to move forward,

[2:21:44] in certain circumstances, a choice could be made

[2:21:50] to go to a ministerial approval

[2:21:53] as opposed to now finish that sentence for me.

[2:21:58] As opposed to pursuing the state density bonus and waiving,

[2:22:03] or using incentives and concessions to deviate from the city's objective design standards.

[2:22:13] I appreciate your answer.

[2:22:17] Let me try to rephrase my question.

[2:22:21] Right now,

[2:22:22] I'll hold

[2:22:28] for a second. Mr. Butler, let's see what's you and I engaged in this.

[2:22:33] Let me tell you what my concern is and then you can assuage it or not.

[2:22:37] And I think I can answer the primary question.

[2:22:38] Well, there we go.

[2:22:39] Are you trying to understand the distinction between a ministerial process and what happens now?

[2:22:47] I'll just say it in my words, so we're real clear about what it is.

[2:22:51] My concern generally speaking is the way the public can participate in developments among

[2:23:02] other things is that they have an opportunity either at one, two, or three different levels

[2:23:09] of this city government to express their hopes, desires, objections, happiness, etc., in

[2:23:20] assuming, and you can correct me on this, that by allowing ministerial approval, those

[2:23:28] options are not available to the public. Am I right?

[2:23:33] Partially.

[2:23:34] Okay.

[2:23:34] So, and potentially, that would be up to the discretion of the council. However, I will go

[2:23:42] back to the 100% affordable ministerial proposals that have gone to the planning commission, but

[2:23:48] not yet come to the council, for example, as part of that process, we were requiring that

[2:23:56] a community meeting be held early in the process. So in order to qualify, you would have to go out

[2:24:02] and engage with the community and get that feedback early in the process. So there wouldn't necessarily be

[2:24:09] a hearing in front of the hearing bodies, but there would be an opportunity for community engagement.

[2:24:15] And that same sort of framework could be established for an approach such as this should

[2:24:23] the council want to pursue this path.

[2:24:28] Does that, do you want me to rephrase that?

[2:24:32] The reason I'm hesitating is it does seem that if we didn't do anything, and there is

[2:24:44] a project proposed, and there's not a ministerial approval option.

[2:24:50] What there is is a process where planning commission, city council, neighborhood comes

[2:24:58] in, says at the planning commission, we're concerned about X, Y and Z. They hear at that

[2:25:04] meeting what we can do and not do under the laws that have been passed in the last eight

[2:25:10] nine years we can educate and inform them about what our jurisdiction is and

[2:25:17] what it isn't. I view that as an opportunity for what I'll continue in

[2:25:25] education of our public who may or may not understand the degree to which we

[2:25:31] have lost virtually all of our discretionary authority under the state law and

[2:25:38] And I am interested in focusing their concern, where they can get on the correct

[2:25:48] individuals or individuals generally, if that's their state legislators, because they

[2:25:54] don't like that they've lost the ability to come to the city council and get the kind of response

[2:26:01] the answer hoping for by doing ministerial approval were further in my judgment, were further eroding the public's ability to understand what's going on here.

[2:26:14] Whereas if we don't change that point and there are repeated opportunities, we then have the opportunity to have a more informed public project by project decision by decision.

[2:26:27] that's of interest to me. So the degree to which this changes that and eliminates a more robust public participation,

[2:26:40] I would need to be convinced that what we are getting for that is worth the offset of having less genuine public participation.

[2:26:54] I would suggest that the community meeting process does offer genuine participation and

[2:26:59] certainly that message is conveyed as part of that process.

[2:27:03] And I think that there is an opportunity there still, you know, this is really a decision,

[2:27:10] a policy level decision for the council.

[2:27:12] This is an opportunity if you want to encourage developers to follow certain priorities that

[2:27:19] you get to set, then this would be an option for you to do that. So this is a lever that you can use

[2:27:27] to encourage certain following certain approaches. You identify these approaches. If the developer

[2:27:36] follows those approaches, then they can pursue this path. We can still have that community meeting.

[2:27:42] we can still convey that policy issue and the lack of discretion that the City Council

[2:27:51] or the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator have, because there is very little discretion

[2:27:56] in those decisions at this point. And so that certainly can be conveyed, but really what this

[2:28:03] boils down to is whether as the Council, you want to make that trade off. And that's a policy.

[2:28:11] It's also something that you don't necessarily have to decide today.

[2:28:15] You could decide, let's say we go forward with those other recommendations, and after

[2:28:23] you develop those policy priorities, you could say, hey, it would be great if we had a

[2:28:31] little more leverage to encourage developers to proceed with one or more or all of those

[2:28:38] priorities, and then you can decide to go down that path at that point.

[2:28:45] Thank you.

[2:28:46] I think that's a serious answer to what I hope was a serious question.

[2:28:51] The, see if I, from your answer, it sounds like using your word the leverage, you know,

[2:29:02] creating the opportunity, giving a developer this opportunity.

[2:29:07] The ministerial approval, the way I heard that, is listen developer, if you'll go do this,

[2:29:16] which we want you to do, we will let you avoid City Council and Planning Commission meetings

[2:29:26] where the public may show up and raise issues about you to go.

[2:29:30] We will absolve you of that if you go over here and do something.

[2:29:35] Am I right on that?

[2:29:37] Correct.

[2:29:37] Follow certain procedures, like the community meeting, as well as follow certain priorities,

[2:29:44] say, you know, whether that's setbacks or heights or whatever it may be.

[2:29:48] And that's sort of the balancing act that the council would have to make, you know,

[2:29:51] put something out there that's more enticing than the state density bonus

[2:29:56] with that carrot of a ministerial process.

[2:29:59] you

[2:30:00] I understand these are trade-offs. I would observe that unless we were pretty careful on what these community meetings are, if they are going to substitute for a planning commission meeting and a city council meeting, and we're going to consolidate all of that in a community meeting, my guess is that that's very different than a hearing before the planning commission.

[2:30:29] are hearing before this body. That sounds to me as if that is much less formal.

[2:30:41] The community

[2:30:42] meeting can take a lot of forms. It can be a syrup. It can be a, here's four tables. Go around

[2:30:49] and look at the various things and ask questions or write things down on a three by five card or here's

[2:30:57] I'm going to show you how old I am, one of those things that squares with all the stuff

[2:31:02] on it.

[2:31:02] You know, do that and you know, you can provide your comments that way.

[2:31:07] That's very different in showing up at a council meeting or a planning commission meeting

[2:31:13] where especially a city council meeting where elected officials can be held responsible

[2:31:20] and accountable for their votes and their comments, then a community meeting is where none

[2:31:25] of that happens. And that's what it seems to me anyway. But I appreciate your response.

[2:31:32] I appreciate your comment. Thank you for that. There are other comments. Vice mayors

[2:31:36] recognize. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for the work on this so far. I see this

[2:31:45] direction and item as a step towards pushing back against development that our community

[2:31:52] has communicated to us electives as not what they want to see in our community.

[2:32:01] I understand that we may have to provide some trade-offs and some incentives

[2:32:05] and I think we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[2:32:08] You've given us some potential options for incentives

[2:32:11] and when you bring it back before us then we'll have some more deliberation.

[2:32:17] But I'm excited about this item because this is our opportunity

[2:32:21] as city leaders and city elected officials to respond to what I've been here and what

[2:32:29] we've been hearing from the community around yes to housing that can we do it our way.

[2:32:35] So those are my comments for now.

[2:32:38] Thank you.

[2:32:41] Thank you.

[2:32:42] Really debate or discussion comments.

[2:32:45] Let me go out to the public and see if there's anyone with us either in Chambers or on

[2:32:49] line who would wish to comment. I see no one in chambers does it do so. And we will take the

[2:32:56] first person online, person online. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Welcome to the council meeting.

[2:33:03] Good afternoon. This is Rob is on the field again. I'm speaking on behalf of Santa Christian B in

[2:33:08] strong support of the staff recommendations. I wanted to focus on one key point. The city should

[2:33:15] move forward with a local ministerial approval pathway for projects that can compete with

[2:33:23] the state density bonus that are tied to clear objective design priorities that the

[2:33:29] city council chooses. There's a tendency to think that ministerial approval is a loss

[2:33:35] of local control, but in this case, in this moment, the reality is the opposite is true.

[2:33:41] If the city is not on track to meet its rena obligations and particularly it's above moderate income targets, state law will be imposing SB 35 streamlining already.

[2:33:53] That process is fully ministerial but it comes with far less local flexibility.

[2:33:58] The city would be limited to applying only existing objective standards and very little ability to shape the outcome beyond that.

[2:34:05] and that includes not being able to modify projects that are proposed to use the state density bonus law.

[2:34:14] So the choice isn't really between discretionary review and ministerial approval.

[2:34:19] The choice should be between local structured ministerial approval designed by the city

[2:34:24] or state imposed ministerial approval with minimal local tailoring beyond the existing objective standards.

[2:34:31] The staff recommendation gives you more local control by incentivizing projects that use

[2:34:36] the local process instead of the state streamline process.

[2:34:41] By creating a local pathway where ministerial approval is tied to compliance with the city

[2:34:46] defined design priorities, you actually retain more influence over project outcomes.

[2:34:51] You can set those expectations early, align those incentives and guide design in a way that

[2:34:56] reflects community values.

[2:34:58] If we wait, we lose that opportunity.

[2:34:59] projects will be approved ministerially, but under a framework, we didn't design.

[2:35:04] Just as importantly, ministerial approval reduces delay on certainty and cost.

[2:35:09] Those are some of the biggest barriers to housing production.

[2:35:12] If we want more housing, especially at moderate income levels and above, we need faster and

[2:35:17] more predictable approvals.

[2:35:19] The staff report lays out a practical path forward.

[2:35:22] Don't try to out-compete state law, but instead leverage it and shape it to achieve local goals.

[2:35:27] This is about being proactive rather than reactive, and we strongly encourage you to

[2:35:32] adopt the recommendations and begin implementing a ministerial pathways as soon as possible.

[2:35:36] Thank you.

[2:35:38] Thank you.

[2:35:39] John Phil does.

[2:35:40] Very helpful.

[2:35:42] I appreciate your comments.

[2:35:43] We have anyone else online?

[2:35:44] We'll take the next person online.

[2:35:46] Good afternoon.

[2:35:46] Welcome to the Council meeting.

[2:35:51] Hello, Council.

[2:35:52] Hello, Mayor.

[2:35:53] This is Bradley Snyder.

[2:35:55] identity, development, a critic, and Sequoia climbing square. I think everybody has a really

[2:36:09] diverse view of exactly what kinds of heritage trees you're talking about. There were

[2:36:13] the heritage trees that Cynthia Matthews planted along one of the side streets downtown.

[2:36:20] there are all kinds of issues with the magnolias that were taken out to build this new development,

[2:36:28] the library, parking lot, retail, et cetera, or a building, certainly will be missed. But

[2:36:37] I think the ministerial approval, I think one thing to really think about very clearly is that

[2:36:43] But kind of almost predetermined candidate to be that head of this body, his family's

[2:36:56] commercial interests are housed in a building that was one of the redevelopment buildings

[2:36:59] that was built only by this process of heavily relying on public funding of these buildings.

[2:37:07] And one thing that does to the local economy is it makes it kind of just like you can't

[2:37:13] park in any buddy's backyard anymore because that purported backyard, which is public space,

[2:37:19] which is being projected as their backyard. There's no longer any interstitial space,

[2:37:25] and you have to take out trees to build anything new. And the money behind it, the motive behind it,

[2:37:33] while altruistic motives for affordable housing are really what pushes it through often the

[2:37:43] The amount of money that's being made is kind of obscene.

[2:37:46] Down in L.A., they criticize some of the gubernatorial candidates are criticizing the fact

[2:37:52] that they, you know, this is probably a huge exaggeration, but they're saying they spend

[2:37:56] a million dollars per homeless person to deal with homelessness down there.

[2:38:00] And in some ways, you know, this state is very interconnected and, you know, you're looking

[2:38:04] at, well, okay, you're spending, you know, something on that scale to just help each individual

[2:38:10] unit that ends up costing at market, you know, the market payment for those units are in

[2:38:17] the thousands per month, whereas the low-income fraction, you know, that money is being

[2:38:23] provided by taxes. And so it's a steam-rolling kind of effect, and I think ministerial approval,

[2:38:29] which will be passed on to Ryan, I mean, almost inevitably, I mean, I'll buy anybody

[2:38:35] lunch at Denny's who uh you know uh wants to bet you know that um yeah I mean you know I

[2:38:42] just foregone conclusion we don't we don't have it we don't have anybody uh that uh you know

[2:38:48] feasibly is gonna gonna win so you have four years of Ryan Coonerty who's gonna be

[2:38:52] rubber stamping all kinds of stuff I suppose I don't know that's just what it seems like from the

[2:38:57] public perspective thank you well thank you anyone else matters back before the money

[2:39:04] pleasure of the body. Councilmember O'Hara is recognized.

[2:39:08] Thank you. I have a motion mayor that I'm hoping the clerk will bring up.

[2:39:18] Before I start reading through it, I'll note that it is

[2:39:22] taken from staff's recommendation. What's in bold or I guess underlined is new and there's also

[2:39:29] a strikeout. So motion to direct staff to proceed with a proposed direction for the design guidelines

[2:39:34] and priorities handout. That remains the same. Further develop the handout for engagement with design

[2:39:40] professionals, the community, and the architectural review committee, including guidance on preferred

[2:39:45] design and architectural approaches, re-established a new housing ad hoc committee, comprised of

[2:39:51] Vice Mayor Colin Tarar Johnson, Council Member O'Hara and Council Member Newsom for no more than

[2:39:58] 12 months, with a specific focus and the only focus serve as a council liaison to this effort and

[2:40:06] and receive updates and help guide the development of recommendations related to the design guidelines and priorities and out for the county city council's consideration convene a council study session or regular city council meeting general business item and fall of 2026 to present the city that sorry to present council housing ad hoc committee recommendations and receive council policy direction on design priorities return to council following the fall 2026 council.

[2:40:36] discussion with recommendations for council priority setting coupled with incentives for

[2:40:41] complying with these priorities and with potential implementation options based on feedback

[2:40:46] from that council housing ad hoc committee. Number six remains the same as staff.

[2:40:53] It's a recommendation to not further explore the feasibility expanding the downtown density bonus

[2:41:00] this concept and other areas of the city strike the next one from explore to concept.

[2:41:07] And then the last one also remains the same prepared draft updates to the heritage tree

[2:41:12] regulations for housing development projects and direct staff to return to council with

[2:41:17] the proposed ordinance in fall of 2026.

[2:41:20] There's a motion is there a second?

[2:41:22] One second.

[2:41:22] There's a motion now a second.

[2:41:24] Councilmember Ohera, you may open on your motion.

[2:41:26] Thank you.

[2:41:27] And even though we've only had a couple people make comments today, I think Mayor, your

[2:41:34] questions about this pathway for ministerial approvals are very much in line with the

[2:41:40] catalyst of this recommendation.

[2:41:42] And I also think the comments from our Vice Mayor and the comments from Rafa were in a very

[2:41:50] interesting time here in terms of how do we continue to try to thread the needle of maintaining

[2:41:59] some level of influence on how our built environment is going to look when we have had almost

[2:42:07] everything stripped away, right?

[2:42:09] I think everything, all the motions that were included in 2025 that ended up being reported

[2:42:16] it on today came from me in some certain motion amendments and in large part what I have

[2:42:25] been trying to do over the last year is figure out if there are approaches that we can

[2:42:32] be taking to incentivize our local development community as well as others that are obviously

[2:42:41] not based on Santa Cruz that are building here to build what we want to see, and I realize

[2:42:48] we have very little influence, but is there a way for us to do a couple things?

[2:42:55] So I'm going to go kind of through what we're trying to do with these ads.

[2:43:02] One, be much more deliberate about this conversation and question about what is the character

[2:43:08] of Santa Cruz. I mean every time we have these conversations with our community members

[2:43:14] on singular development projects, the feedback that we got get is this is not in character

[2:43:20] with Santa Cruz. What does that mean? I don't, I can't say what that means but I do think

[2:43:26] we have subject matter experts in our community that can help us and that can guide that conversation.

[2:43:31] So the first ad for number two is really tightening up the process, it's not much different

[2:43:39] than what staff recommended, but leveraging the architectural review committee that was

[2:43:45] appointed after the downtown plan expansion, urban designers, other professionals, and

[2:43:51] working with the community to try to help take the next several months to get to this question

[2:43:57] of what do we want Santa Cruz to look like but from an architectural perspective, from

[2:44:03] an urban design perspective, from a built environment perspective.

[2:44:08] So that's step number one.

[2:44:10] Step number two really separates out what do we want to do in terms of our design priorities

[2:44:16] with what's the right process to leverage that, right?

[2:44:21] I don't think those should be coupled.

[2:44:22] I think we need to have a conversation with a community about what will make us get as far as we

[2:44:30] possibly can in the conversation around what our built environment should look like. And we should

[2:44:36] talk about that and we should decouple that from how to get there. Because I think that that creates

[2:44:41] a lot of the political challenges that we are experiencing. So that's that next step, that council

[2:44:46] study session or a robust general business item to get to what did that architecture review

[2:44:53] committee say, what did the community say, what did the urban design professionals say

[2:44:58] about all of the different...

[2:45:02] What should that built environment look like that preserves the character as much as we possibly can? So that's the study session. Then returned to council after that study session and staff has worked their magic to figure out and get to the point of what you're talking about mayor. Is the ministerial approach appropriate? Are there other approaches? What is the magic configuration that will get to what Rafa talked about?

[2:45:29] which I think is a really important argument, right?

[2:45:33] We have zero influence over these high density, you know, development projects.

[2:45:43] Can we have 10% influence?

[2:45:45] Can we have 20?

[2:45:46] Can we have 50?

[2:45:47] You know, I want to have that conversation and how do we get there?

[2:45:51] So that's the next one and then the rest of it is either remaining the same and the strike

[2:45:56] through is it's duplicative now because it's been replaced by a new one. Thank you.

[2:46:03] I have a clarifying question for this motion on number three.

[2:46:13] My understanding is that we

[2:46:15] have a current council housing ad hoc committee. It says to establishing new council ad hoc housing

[2:46:26] adding ad hoc committee.

[2:46:27] That's correct, Council Member Bruner, I appreciate the question.

[2:46:31] The intent here is to replace the existing ad hoc committee with this new ad hoc committee.

[2:46:37] By state law, ad hoc committees have to be limited in duration and specific in terms of

[2:46:42] scope.

[2:46:43] So the original ad hoc committee's work has been completed and what's being proposed here

[2:46:48] are the specific purposes that are outlined in the motion.

[2:46:53] Thank you.

[2:46:54] the questions comments

[2:47:01] anybody yes we look at me well I can understand how that

[2:47:09] would be a difficult thing to do I understand that we have a moment and a second

[2:47:14] let me see if there's anybody wish to comment on the item all right matter for

[2:47:20] the debate or discussion seen here and none clerk will call the bill.

[2:47:25] Councilmember Tugaro.

[2:47:26] Aye.

[2:47:27] Reiner.

[2:47:28] Aye.

[2:47:29] Houston.

[2:47:29] Aye.

[2:47:30] Older.

[2:47:31] Sahara.

[2:47:32] Aye.

[2:47:32] Vice Mayor Kalantar Johnson.

[2:47:33] Aye.

[2:47:34] Mary Peeley.

[2:47:34] Aye.

[2:47:35] Aye.

[2:47:36] Motion passes and scored.

[2:47:38] For the business.

[2:47:40] No.

[2:47:40] For the business.

[2:47:41] No.

[2:47:42] Motion adjourned by Councilmember Golder who is already out of her sheet and ready to leave.

[2:47:48] Let me see.

[2:47:49] Anybody else out of their seat and ready to leave?

[2:47:51] Well, Mr. Newsom is almost out of his seat and ready to leave.

[2:47:54] is the second non-debatable, those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion carries, and so what do we stand adjourned?

[2:48:02] Thank you.

[2:48:03] Thank you.

[2:48:11] We have such smart staff people.

[2:48:13] Thank you.

[2:48:13] Lord, their majestic Marty Banzos are so good for us.

03.24.26

Transcript