se commitments even if they do make it binding right so there there's um you know there's a lot of unknowns there's there's a lot of challenge but i think that um that this work to try to really make clear how untenable it would be to just move ahead with a you know significant significant increase in the student population would not serve the students or the community and so again i just want to you know i just wanted to say thank you for all of your work and i encourage folks out there to uh you know get involved to you know voice those concerns it really helps us as your city representatives tasked with trying to uh uh you know speak up on behalf of the voters about this issue it really helps us to have more input and and feedback and um and so i guess i'll leave it there um i um chunk of never coming it looks like you have more to say and um um so thanks again for everything go ahead uh council member coming please thank you um and i just like to um morgan thank you again for all the work that you've done on this over the past year and a half it's been um a really um positive and collaborative effort that we've been leading pulling in the county and then also um all the members of the task the the community advisory group it's really been putting in a substantial amount of their time volunteering to you know help the city and the community address this issue of really trying to figure out that balance between university growth and community impacts and i just want um members of the community to understand too you know as we're faith you know we're faced with many issues this being just one that um i haven't started community but you know we're not alone in this effort um we last year as a task force were able to meet with the city of berkeley and they have been experiencing similar um impacts as it relates to the growth of uc berkeley and the impacts that that has on the berkeley community so i just want members of the public to know that um you know we are one of a number of cities throughout the state of california who are really trying to we're dealing with these issues and really trying to figure out a way for the regions to acknowledge um our concerns and really trying to work together to find a way that we can move forward um to make sure that um the growth is compatible with cities and so i just want to thank more than you and and all the folks over the years who've worked on this task force um to really try to get us to this point where we are today and to continue working on this as we move forward any questions from other council members at this point i guess i will before we open it up to public comment i um yeah i mean i think that um morgan's work is really helpful um there's an excellent website um obviously those um web addresses were given out um and uh morgan what is the what's the easiest way what's what some people search on if they're trying to find is that under measure you working group or what is what is our actual group name yeah the santa cruz city county task force on ucsc growth plans i've tested it you can just google task force on ucsc growth and it will direct you to our website um so you can get hold of us that's an easy way to get there um morgan's done a great job and um again we've been working um also with other as council member um Cummings mentioned other communities um and uh i just want also um folks to know that our planning department actually all city departments um are reviewing the environmental impact report and certainly will be the city will actually um from the sort of departmental internal perspective of um what what kinds of um concerns the city may have um there will be a letter transmitted from our planning director to the university of california on the on the l rdp er so i just want to make sure that that's clear um and that will be the city's communication um in terms of official comment or full comment um morgan i didn't know if you wanted to clarify anything anything more on that at this point the city council itself is not making formal comment but that comment will be coming through our departments and all departments have been asked to review the eir and those comments are being consolidated into uh an official submittal on the city's behalf and morgan i don't know if you have any comments on that yes i also will be submitting comments um on the eir great on behalf that will be in addition okay on behalf of the workforce so we have two vehicles that we're trying to express our um our comments through on the long-range development plan environmental impact report and uh certainly encourage the big big big huge thing for our family for our community so uh please get involved and morgan we really appreciate you being here today to update everybody i'm going to go ahead and take it out to public comments and um i see mr lon genotti's on go ahead rick city council members rick lon genotti um i um you know just being observing this process over the last couple years i realized that uh you know this the university's uh failure to commit to legally binding uh goals for housing new students um that's not an accident it's not an oversight um the chancellor convened a community advisory group a couple years ago and that was a goal of that community advisory group for the last couple years and and the university decided it was not going to make a legally binding commitment so that's what that says to me is that the university uh expects they won't have to make a commitment to add even a single dorm room for a an additional student unless they get sued and so this time period now before the close of the comment period of march eighth is important because it lays the ground for a lawsuit and uh i'm a little concerned that the council has not given any direction to the city staff about what to say in their comment letters uh i think the comments need to be tailored to prepare for an eventual lawsuit and i'm hoping that what you can do with this meeting today is certainly individually speak to staff and let them know uh to to to make a unified strategy not just you know one department here in one department they are making comments but a unified strategy that will lay the basis for a strong lawsuit thank you very much thank you are there any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item i see none uh we will go back to deliberation and uh comments or further comments or questions or um comments or or deliberation uh council member coming again thank you for uh that presentation morgan and for those members of the public or that member of the public who's able to chime in thank you as well um i had prepared um a motion to make um and in part through this motion just given that we're having this discussion today it's pretty to um provide some comments from this group on the l rdp and so i sent them message the the motion over to bonnie if she can display it so the motion would be to um one accept the report and then to direct the mayor to write a letter to the ucsc chancellor larive expressing the council's concerns with proposed campus development under the draft 2021 long-range development plan and to request the consideration of the following revisions to the plan one consistent with measure u include a legally defensible commitment to house all additional students beyond 19 500 on campus to tie the increase of campus population to new campus housing three designate the creation of housing and child care at 2800 Delaware to support off main campus housing as a high priority for legally designate the ucsc campus natural reserve as a permanent reserve ineligible for development in purpose duty for the purposes of environmental conservation scientific education research and recreation five prioritize areas with low endemic biodiversity for development to protect the most biodiverse habitats on the campus and areas that have undergone substantial regeneration six adhere to or exceed the strictest statewide regional and uc specific greenhouse gas emission targets and air quality standards and then seven given the increasing severity of wildfires due to climate change and the urban wildland interface it's imperative that the university adequately analyze and mitigate the increase in wildfire risk that the 2021 lrdp won't pose on the campus and by extension the community and you know a lot of this too is addressing some comments that we've received from members of the public who were wondering what stance we're going to take and I think largely you know really trying to express on behalf of the community the concerns around growth the concerns around environmental impact in the upper campus and really trying to you know encourage the university to develop in areas where they're going to have the least amount of impacts on the environment is really the intention behind the motion and the comments that I'm hoping we might be able to express on behalf of council today and so with that I'll close my comments out and turn it back over to the mayor councilmember brown yeah I will second that motion and you know appreciate your councilmember Cummings you're putting this together I think this reflects a lot of the kind of ongoing conversation that we've had at the task force also with members of the community the input that we receive and you know I think that that framing it in this way you know I mean we are recognizing that you know this is that we're requesting consideration of these things right so you know it really lays out some of the key concerns like in a in a clear way and it doesn't you know it doesn't get into any you know challenging areas around you know the commitments that well anyway just it does it makes it clear that we are asking them we are kind of really exploring them to think about these things and work with the community in a formal way and I think that that it would be it would really benefit us to get that in through this process get those comments in yeah I'll just maybe make a quick comment and then I've got councilmember Watkins yeah I'm on the committee so I'm I'm a little bit confused as to why we didn't bring this through the committee I guess is one of my questions so and that's the only procedural thing is that I think we so I I'm not sure why we didn't have a committee or try to figure out how to maybe do this with the three committee members but I appreciate definitely appreciate the intent behind it I'm just trying to figure out whether this should come be coming out of the committee and we not quite sure how we do this right now so I will go ahead and turn it back to so we have a motion by councilmember Cummings the second by councilmember Brown and I see councilmember Watkins you have your hand up and then councilmember Cummings come back to you I am I have a similar question but I think you just answered it as to whether this went through the committee and or if there is potential benefit to having it go through the committee to affirm and or add any additional language before sending these kind of priorities I don't know if there's and if there's a timeline if maybe I can understand the timeline or the urgency or if there's a willingness to kind of have this be just given another set of of eyes patient and or additions and I also want to thank Morgan for her presentation she was great job councilmember Cummings and then councilmember Brown great thank you mayor and just to answer some of the questions I know that the committee met earlier this month I will or early this month or late last month and I will say that I wasn't able to attend that meeting one of the concerns that came up was that all the comments have to be received on the LRDP by March 8th which meant that the only time that the city council would be able to meet before the deadline was today and so Morgan was able to pull together and we were able to bring forward this item that's on our agenda today but unfortunately given the timeline for being able to get this on the agenda we weren't able to meet to discuss any recommendations prior to this meeting um maybe one and so I think that what we were hoping to do is have an opportunity to get the council the way in in case we're able to put something forward on behalf of the council I do think that something that you know there's a concern around this needing to go back to the task force and the task force moving something forward you know one thing I think we could see happening is if the council members want to weigh in the direction could be that these recommendations go back to the task force and that the task force craft the letter and authorize the mayor to send that letter out on behalf of the city council after it's gone back to the task force for further input and bringing an input from the council today or the you know that the task force can write a letter on behalf of the council as well I think that the intention today was to get some kind of feedback from other council members so that we could provide a comment that's based on the sentiments of the city council and we were just really hoping to get that in before the deadline so um you know I'll leave my comments there if we were to meet again I would just ask that if the task force members if we could try to find a date early next week so that we would have enough time to be able to craft the letter you know get the appropriate signatures and then get it to the chancellor by March 8th I think that that's something we can we can do together so I'm all in my comments there and it looks like council member brown well I'll turn it back to the mayor to call on whoever's on staff uh council member brown and then council member Watkins and then I have uh lead Butler planning director yeah thank you so I just uh echoing uh in kind of building on uh council member coming to comments about this yeah I mean the so the urgency really was related to the the deadline for for comments and um and I guess I would say that you know the two things about uh you know the procedurally it coming to the council in this way at this time you know one I think uh all of these uh perhaps not with the the level of detail uh in some of the items have been discussed um at the task force and in other venues um you know we did not deliberate on them as a you know potential set of comments that uh the task force would recommend that the city submit or the city council submit but they have been talked about as you know important components uh over over time and the other being that uh we have not really had a venue at the city council a space in order to be able to have this conversation or put this kind of recommendation forward and so this is really the the space that has was created uh and so it part of that is just about the necessity of you know being able to you know conform to city council protocols and and do this in public um you know with an with an agendized item so um that's I think kind of where where I you know it made sense to me to go this route. Council Member Watkins and then Director Butler and we'll try to wrap up. Sure. You know I appreciate um what council member Cummings brought up in terms of having this sort of just another set of eyes and revisiting the city prior to sitting I think these are really important asks and big asks and I think we want and so since this group has been working really diligently on this and unfortunately wasn't able to have it be part of the conversation due to um the meeting schedule that um if they could have uh the time to revisit and really kind of affirm that this strategy um embraces all of our concerns and aligns additional um input the staff may be bringing um and then on behalf of the council moves there's no real harm in having that process ensue so I don't know if we want to make that some sort of friendly amendment or um uh sort of a just a motion to um have the committee read prior to sending it on behalf of the council. Um I'll see if Lee uh yeah I think I'll just make a comment I do I did attend the last meeting uh uh council member Brown and I were there and in in my understanding we had made a we had decided on a process um that was gonna so again I'm just I'm trying to understand exactly how we're working I would prefer and I think it's important to use the task force the full membership of the task force to try to try to craft I'm not I'm not disagreeing with the intent of what's here on the list but um uh you know it we I worked we worked hard to get this on the agenda and you know a lot of this is kind of been kind of coming a little bit disjointed so just trying to understand and make sure that the task force has the ability to um look through this and and move forward with it first time I've seen any of this and again as a member of the task force it's sort of a little bit broadside yeah so uh director Butler thank you mayor Myers I just wanted to um share one uh perspective on item number three um and council member Brown mentioned earlier the um vote that recently happened at the regional transportation commission about um the rail transportation and um one of the things that drives rail transit is employment um more so than um residential uses and with the 2,800 Delaware being in close proximity to potential future rail transit locations um we may just want to consider that an employment center there would have a higher um likelihood of driving um uh transit use than residential would um and so this is a comment that I shared when we talked about this at the committee advisory group and um so there are certainly other options to consider with this you know if um there is employment and then the housing that's associated there um is um uh prioritized for um people that are employed on site for example and so you know I just wanted to share that perspective and and consideration as part of this and I will also tell you one thing that the um a university uh group um commented on they uh at the time mentioned that um their preference was to have people on campus for residences so as to encourage them to participate in um after uh hours lectures and programs and so forth so um I just wanted to share that perspective with the council as they're uh considering uh these particular items thank you me of course more officially for this but I think the other thing that uh the other point here is that we are um the recommendation is just to get to ask the the city council to make these uh recommendations and so um you know to have the task force which is not entirely city centric work and then deliver it to the council um you know it I mean I could support um doing it in that way if we can get to the you know the the goal of getting some comments in on time but I also just want to remind us that this is about the the council as a body weighing in and the task force is also doing quite a bit of work uh and then um because Lee because you brought this up I um I hear you about the um the issues around uh industrial or business uses uh being more likely to uh generate uh you know passenger uh passenger demand uh with a potential rail service and I'm just I'm just wondering um I think part of the conversation that we've had around this site as a potential site for housing is um it's not entirely clear what the university's intentions are with that site um you know I hear kind of different things different moments and so I think you know I don't think that the goal was to suggest that make this kind of recommendation to preempt other use business uses right that generate employment uh it was more to uh you know think about how that site can you know potentially provide uh you know both or you know or other other uh uh functions as well so um anyway just wanted to to get that to because I totally I hear you I think that that's uh that's a concern and we you don't want to overstep um on something that we may not even want to see happen entirely. You're muted Mayor Myers. Council member Cummings and then uh Lee and then I'll put myself back in the queue. Mayor Myers yeah I was just um I wasn't trying to you know suggest that um we completely remove industrial I wouldn't say industrial but uh commercial slash office space use at this site I think that having it as mixed use would probably be obviously the most beneficial for the community um but wanted to express that I mean even hearing in the community that people have expressed you know the the desire to see housing going there because of the fact that we have so many students postdocs faculty staff that are working at the coastal campus additionally that are working at 2,800 Delaware and um you know this notion that you know providing more housing can also can one activate that area because we do know that um at night time there's obviously a lot of use of RVs in that area and so you know what can we do to activate that space and in addition that provide um you know additional housing off campus on the west side that could help support the functions of the coastal campus and um the operations at 2,800 Delaware so just wanted to clarify that the number three was not to um completely remove any kind of commercial use from that space but to consider the incorporation of housing within that space as well. Thanks um and I appreciate those clarifications as well I just wanted to add one additional point for consideration a number of these are directly related to the EIR and should adhere to that deadline of March 8th I think it is um whereas others are more broadly related to the LRDP itself and wouldn't necessarily have that same strict deadline and so you know there could be opportunities for further discussion of some of those policy items um and there there could be some additional time for that whereas we do want to get the um the EIR comments um in um fairly quickly so I just want to make that clarification. Thank you Lee um so I have a question for the maker of the motion um if the committee if the task force can be convened um and a letter communicated regarding this uh this is um are you amenable to convening the committee next week to try to actually run this through the task force I understand that the intent is to somehow have the city council weigh in but the task force is a city count county task force we actually are supposed to be working as a city county uh response space so I don't my understanding is that the the LRDP comments would be coming from as a representing the city county task force so I'm confused as to why the council would be taking action if I'm just confused so is there a friendly amendment or would the maker of the motion consider maybe convening the committee early next week I'll make myself available um otherwise I'm not going to I can't support the motion which is puts me in a very awkward position because as a member of the committee um I would like to discuss this but um a motion's been put on the floor that I actually had no idea that was going to happen and as a member a three-person member of a committee that's typically that it's just surprising to me that to have this be put on the floor right now so if there's a way that we can convene the committee and potentially work through um the strategy I would appreciate that as a member of the committee you know having the committee weigh in on this and taking into account the fact that we do have a supervisor that's on the task force um I would like to maybe hear from other council members their thoughts on you know if they'd have any comments or if they would be willing to provide the task force or the city members of the task force to um express um their concerns or their comments on behalf of the city council and that the letter that will be coming from the task force would also include the sentiments expressed by the city council of sanitary and because I think that the the point was to try to give the city council an opportunity to weigh in um and then you know because I think that the task force obviously is the community advisor group along with the county supervisor the three city members but as council member brown pointed out you know besides from that task force kind of working with our county supervisor and other representatives we haven't had a chance to allow for the city council members to weigh in on this and so I'm I'm totally up to um you know the if we can get direction from council to take this back to the task force and to draft the letter I'm happy to to make that as a friendly amendment but I think it'd be good to hear what other council members have to say and figure out what the appropriate direction will be from this body okay council member uh excuse me vice mayor bruner and then council member walkins and then council member con tarry johnson okay thank you um I wasn't aware that this would be an action item I was prepared for an update on the measure you implementation and the update on the concerns with the proposed development um so with that uh these seven items I have no um I'm not I wouldn't be prepared to uh uh without I'm just seeing this now and so you know we've had our packet since Thursday and there was a lot of information to go through already and so to comment or or vote on these specific points I I don't know I have sufficient information or understanding to do that um the the motion to direct the mayor to write a letter sounds straightforward but I also feel there is there there would be weight um to have uh force uh voice the the concerns coming from the working group that's been working on these issues um and concerns um so I think there is value to um uh direct this back to the task force you know Lee Butler did bring up that I don't know which items would be the March 8th deadline and which ones aren't can can anyone speak to the specifics on that I I could speak to the to that um generally um so uh and just taking a quick look at this um one two and three I think are more policy statements um certainly there could be an argument that too of tying the new campus housing to uh the campus population um but you know really the EIR is evaluating the the total build out um and so I think really four five six and seven are more tied to the EIR um and um understanding the concerns that you have Vice Mayor Brunner um you know the the council could if if the council chose to weigh in on uh collectively they could uh four and five are really speaking to um protection of biological resources and habitat and so forth and so the council could weigh in and say that uh make a statement about you know including comments on the EIR that um uh seek to uh strengthen the mitigation and ensure that uh biological resources are protected something general like that and then that can go back to Morgan and the crews working on those comments and then uh similarly I think six is a something that could just say yes thumbs up um and um that can go in as a comment um it's pretty broad um and something that I think um you know the council may not need additional information on and then seven of course the risks for wildfire um those are are pretty straightforward as well and also something that we would want to comment on on the EIR so if uh and so just my own perspective and something that you may want to consider is you know a general statement covering four and five um prior providing a direction to Morgan and then uh six and seven you could adopt and then the policy statements in one two and three could have additional options for consideration just an idea to throw it out there to as I'm trying to keep as I'm hearing the council debate these issues contrary Johnson council member Watkins and council member coming I'm excuse excuse me yeah council member yeah I share some of uh vice mayor brunner's um sentiments and concerns that I wasn't prepared to um this motion or or um take a vote on a detailed motion like this um I don't have very expensive knowledge in these areas they they on the surface they seem very much aligned with what we just saw in our presentation um I think if we have an opportunity to provide feedback um we want to make sure that we're thorough and we're not missing any pieces and there aren't any gaps so I think um having this go back to the committee and doing it in an efficient way so that we are able to not miss the march eight deadline would be my preference um and then in terms of um items one two and three I guess in particular three if we were to to move forward with this language I think some um further language and clarification that we're speaking to this as a mix potential mixed use um type of a project thank you council member uh council member Watkins I wonder for the purposes of trying to move this board given um I think where I'm sensing the council is with this and just um sort of echoing what my colleagues have stated um in particular to not sort of anticipating making a decision specifically on that that we move forward with having this committee um review this and um additional council members could potentially weigh in is by emailing the mayor who sits on this committee our input um after we have a chance to digest sort of the information um and we could get it to you uh ASAP for your deliberations as a committee given the short timeline if that's appropriate remember coming yeah I'm just if we can just get the language on the screen then see what the friendly amendment is sure obviously I don't know Tony I thought that you popped on here I don't know um the concern I have is that that would entail a quorum of council members working on a uh item of city business outside of a notice meeting so there's a brown act issue with regard to weighing in on uh some letter that the committee might be uh drafting because of the brown act issue right so just to have here because I know that we had an opportunity to weigh in um with the mayor on the letter to the governor as a as a council how is that different than this potentially with the process that was uh that was followed in drafting a letter to the governor so I'm not really prepared to comment on that that we could explore but given the input arc confusion of our C and 30 I it appears that that maybe isn't we just consensus on that these are areas that we are as a council supportive of the task force exploring in the letter to the chancellor including what was discussed in item number three which is essentially factoring and transportation but also prioritizing housing and childcare um and leave and we can leave it at that if unless others have additional comments is this a friendly amendment or I think what I mean the amendment would be to have this go to the back to the task force for review prior to submission at this point I think and leave it at that have the task great state that sure have the task force review the motion kind of letter being sent to the chancellor to play a letter from the mayor or a letter from the task force can I see the can I see the um this is where the confusion lies because essentially the task force is a agreement of process between the city and the council as a result of measure you for how to implement our advocacy efforts on behalf of measure you so I think when you have it from the task force it includes the council's concerns because the task force is representative of the council but almost could potentially have more strength because the task force is beyond just the council right so um so I guess it would be on on behalf of the task force essentially because I mean you know I defer to my colleagues to sit on this task force for clarification happening is that you know as the the amendment would be to have the task force review the comments proposed above with the other members of the task force and then submit a letter on behalf of the task force and the city council to the chancellor including comments that have been approved by the task force does that sound like it's a I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we've had this opportunity to discuss this and I will say there was a um you know recommendation that maybe we include the EIR LRDP but those documents are so big that there was no reason why you know it was discouraged to include that in the report but um you know part of what the recommendation was was for us to provide input as appropriate which is why these um suggestions have been made today but you know again I I don't have anything wrong with with us taking this back to the task force and um you know having the task force be the body that sends the letter I think that it would be good though to understand if that when sending this letter out on behalf of the task force if that also includes positions shared by the city council and the reason why was because prior to putting this on the agenda we were receiving emails from people who were asking whether the city would be willing to sign on for example to um you know whether it's a petition or if they would be willing to take a position on you know upper campus development what have you and so that's you know part of what motivated bringing this to council and really wanting the entire council to weigh in because while our individual opinions matter in these in these types of comments on the on the LRDP that having a position that the city is going to take also carry some weight to it um and you know if it's if it's most appropriate that that that those comments come from the task force I think it would just be good to know whether or not that will reflect the position of the city as well so we're able to act on behalf of the city council as a whole maybe that's the question for Tony but my understanding is that the task force is convened as and members of the city council sit on the on the task force as does members of the county and so I would assume that since there's members of the city council on the task force as is supervisor Coonerty's office that the task force would represent those two entities moving into any kind of communication from the task force but Tony please please Claire I think that's I think that's right is that the task force would be corresponding on behalf of the city and county and the council could give the task force that authorization so Bonnie I think the letter the so I just need somebody to state it from someone council member Watkins amendment top forward back to the task force for completion a letter from the task force regarding the it says up above Justin the draft long-range development plan but I'm thinking you're also wanting this to also be part of the EIR comments is that okay so it should say to complete a letter from the task force regarding the draft EIR and draft 2021 long-range development plan to be completed before March 8th does that work yeah let's um check the seven items brought forward to complete a letter from the task force regarding the draft EIR and draft 2021 LRDP to be completed and submitted before March 8th yeah and Bonnie you might want to put in the measure you task force just so it's clear what task force because that's the task force we're assigned to yeah I was I did fast we have a workable and then this is accepted by both council member coming and bro thank you for the conversation uh Bonnie will we do a roll call vote do you want me to you've got the motion right I did uh-huh talentary Johnson motion passes unanimously we will be back in about 40 minutes thank you everyone hey Donna or Renee can you guys hear me yep does it sound robotic or weird Justin and Martine if you guys are back if you could turn on your cameras and be great hey Donna I need permission to turn my video back on Bonnie can you help with that good evening everyone um welcome to our 530 session of the February 23rd 2021 21 meeting of the city council today's meeting is being broadcast live on community television channel 25 and streaming on the city's website at cityofsantries.com all council members are participating in this meeting remotely and I want to thank the public for staying home to view tonight today's city council meeting and I would like to ask the clerk to please call the roll thank you mayor council members Watkins here Helen Roy Johnson holders here vice mayor Brunner president and mayor Myers I'm here thank you we'll open the oral communications item now this is for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if you want to comment during oral communications now is the time to call in instructions are on your screen oral communications is an opportunity for members of the community to speak to us on items that are not listed on today's agenda if you're interested in addressing the council please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand you will have two minutes to speak but it is your time to speak you will hear an announcement that you have been unmuted we request that you clearly and slowly state your name before making your comment so that we can accurately capture it in the meeting minutes however it is not required that you state your name please remember that this is the time for council to hear from the public we are not able to engage in dialogue with each member of the public but when we are able we will address the questions raised after oral communications has been completed and again I just want to make sure everyone's clear because I know we have a lot of a lot of interest in in our next agenda item number 25 but this is oral communication so this is for items not on the agenda for this evening and I will open it up I see I've got a number of hands raised if you've raised your hand and you intend to speak for item number 25 please wait until we finish with oral communication so then you can get to back up oral communications I believe is ending in 4844 is it your intention to speak on oral communications tonight or are you here for item 25 so Robert Norris of Hof Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom the broader context of the situation is an unprecedented pandemic with mutating viruses still spreading a federal court decision criminalizing the city council sleeping band a local court decision slapping down city manager Bernal's assault on the vulnerable homeless in San Lorenzo and then recently at the house meeting we received a report that the city if it's not colluding with it's not doing anything about the presence of what's called a noise disrupting device placed at Wells Fargo bank and directed across the river at the San Lorenzo camper sleeper residence there it's called a mosquito device they were originally put in by Scott Collins assistant city manager about half a decade ago yesterday food not bombs was directed to relocated storage locker from lot 22 to lot 27 you know to make way for the council's luxury downtown development today the group was threatened again by the city to remove that same locker again from its new location in lot 27 somewhere else by Friday reports of regular harassment by chief mills rouse the RVs unit continue to reach us at Huff at a time when those in vehicles need help registering and repairing what are not just vehicles but if they're housing their their vehicular homes city council has shown itself hostile to this vehicular community overturning your own public works commission support of homeless vehicle dweller alisha cool president of the san jacuzzi homeless union up to the community you and i those of us listening who must do what house neighbors did on riverside street about a month and a half ago show up physically in numbers to challenge police bullying justice when city council allows a city manager and his staff to run while thank you mr north uh excuse me next person up is with the telephone number 1810 and again this is for items not on tonight's agenda people need want and are willing to pay for i suspect our people either don't agree with that or don't understand that economic wealth creation like no other system and not to be part of that will involve poverty and greater suffering there are things not many people could ever afford themselves such as libraries roads utilities police and fire so the people support a government to provide the land use authority of public property by government assures these public assets are available without discrimination and for the purposes as intended by the people for all the people some public assets are always free but if so cost the same without discrimination available for all to use a public golf course is a golf course a parking space is a parking space a road is a road a sidewalk is a sidewalk a park is a park and a beach is a beach in america most of us believe in god-given rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness but those rights must come with equal respect for those rights and others again the government attempts to preserve those individual rights and prevent others from interfering with others rights and public land use authority is part of that enforced by police in compliance with land use purpose the woke generation the woke generation's obsession with victimology the assignment of blame for all suffering has some people continuously believing they are victims which does not lead to prosperity but dependence resentment a false sense of entitlement and a willingness to try violence to fly law or embraced effective authoritarian political systems and can sacrifice everyone rights freedom and prosperity but we all suffer it's a human condition i'm having audio trouble here oh man naming oh okay the pursuit of net less suffering is one of life's more meaningful activities and that starts with one's self then others around you and finally the greater community but in the context of capitalism and respect for individual liberty and the rights of all welfare is the responsibility of the federal government by constitutional section eight declaration the purpose and authority of cities is limited more to providing the public services all the people need want and are willing to pay for similarly to what individuals do as well as enforcing that mutual respect of individual rights between people there you have sissy worthington this is again just for oral communications not on item number 25 go ahead please can i just ask is i am i am 25 it has to do with the overnight sleeping uh say i i don't want to speak out of turn is going to make sure that i'm not okay so i'm i want to speak on that so i'll i'll wait till it's appropriate yeah just stay on the line but you can raise your hand when that item comes up and wait but i'll i'll be taking public comment during that time thanks so much and kb foster is next again this is just for item number 20 uh oral communication thank you for info my name is brice foster i'm an advocate for anyone who wants one and i see an unusual opportunity here for people to take a walk and someone else's shoes to see eye to eye with someone you never thought you could i'm talking about my body my choice your body your choice yes this is about math and yes let's protect our at-risk loved ones but not at the expense of our frontline workers as seen in the video of what happened at trader joe santa cruise on youtube it's not right to leave them out there as pawns in a battle that's between citizens and the city and state officials these trader joe's workers and others i'm sure are being abused and emotionally slaughtered by frustrated people i won't stand for it and you shouldn't either regardless of what side you're on it's time for a middle pass because it takes all kinds for this world to go around let's move on from our linear thinking that favors one extreme versus the next let's go up like a tree with branches that come together in the middle question to wear a math or not to wear a math happy hour systemism in relation to public um this is not for item number 25 but uh items not on tonight's agenda and i just see a galaxy a 11 phone go ahead please if you're not i'll move on to um phone number ending in 2279 if you are here to speak on oral communications i think we may have reached the end of to speak for item uh 25 okay well we're gonna be getting to that next um yep yep i'll wait hang on great thank you i think we have reached the end of oral communication am i unmuted you are unmuted yeah are you thank you i i am not it this is not about item 25 i i live in harvey west and i'm hoping there's some way that we can just slow down the traffic in here that's all i'd like to offer and and i'll end it there okay thanks so much thank you um if you're here to just do oral communications but not uh item 25 you're welcome to speak um i'm gonna wait for item number 25 communications or item 25 excuse me okay go ahead yeah i want to talk about the uh action that took place at uh trader jones and i think it should be considered a terrorist act that is a dozen people or so uh went into the store and knowingly infected uh all of the patrons and the workers there i'm a shopper there and i now do not feel safe in my own grocery store now i'm told that there is some action going on on the 28th everywhere this is what happens when you allow terrorists unfettered or punished and i'm asking the city council to consider some sort of ordinance maybe called santa cruz a plague-free zone it can be done in a life-hearted manner it doesn't have to be done seriously but there definitely needs to be some action and trader jones workers are also suffering they're getting calls of harassment of people threatening them they've had to unplug the phones from that particular store so please you know do we all have to stay inside on the 28th because a dozen people in santa cruz and they're all known they're not unknown they all make themselves fully known so i'm urging the city council to take action on this thank you very much thank you mr make and one more uh and again this is oral communication it's not item 25 we're on yes i spoke with you earlier i just wanted to fill in i know i came i kind of strong uh two minutes isn't much time but uh uh first i wanted to make sure you're aware the the fact that the coastal commission has recently uh indicated a 3.5 slr rise by the year 2050 in the next 30 years for their planning purposes this is uh i don't know if you have been reported to that by your different water agencies that's an astounding amount but i'd like you also to do uh please uh i left some websites i'd also please like you to review the 12-minute advice video from 2015 that let's go real before we jump in and i know when things are brought up during oral communications we can't necessarily take action on those um as they haven't been agendized but i'm wondering if either our city attorney or city manager could return with some sort of update on uh this group who uh storms trader joes and what we as the city could do to uh police department on this and we can certainly send the council nothing okay thank you very much we will go ahead and move on to coming did you have a question or yeah i just wanted to follow up with that to see if uh city might be able to take in terms of the implementation whether it's an ordinance or different laws um around that kind of behavior i know that that was one of a number of events there was another instance that happened uh at the farmers market where uh a member of the public who i personally know was someone tried to rip their face mask off and it's happened multiple times on west cliff where people have tried ripping off the masks of individuals who are walking and i know that that in and of itself is assault but given the circumstances that we're under with there being a pandemic and the potential for exposure um if there are um laws or penalties that we can put in place that would not only discourage that kind of behavior but um you know there will be consequences for people who engage in those actions that think will be uh beneficial for our community as a whole so thank you thank you um and i don't know chief mills is here he is here i know he did some discussions um um with our da following the trader joe's incident we have been exploring our options and we are um assessing uh actual action by council um i'm sorry council member colder i missed your hand up so um if you have a comment and then i i'd love to have chief mills uh speak a little bit to the community as well on this in addition to the the incidents um with the no masks out and about there's this other group and i don't know if it's the same group that have been giving out free hugs and a number of people have reported that they're super aggressive with the hugs and um even outside of a pandemic that makes a lot of people really uncomfortable and it seems really inappropriate so i don't know if that's the same group or different but if not they maybe could tie them in together chief mills if you wouldn't mind maybe just give a very brief update as long as this is appropriate um mr kandadi uh the incident just for the public's knowledge the uh the incident did occur after our ability to agendize anything from this meeting so um just to let everybody know but chief mills please make any comments to you we can we can briefly respond to questions or comments from council members that arise um during the oral communication good evening mayor and council members this is andy mills your police chief and uh we are very we also are very concerned and upset about the events that have taken place in our community we have reached out and talked with the management at trader joes both at troll level and i went in there as well and talked with the management we also sent them correspondence via email when questions arose over what to do and how they can best protect themselves for the trespassing part the corporation needs to get permission to the local store and so we've asked for them to get that clarification ahead ahead of time so that when we go in there we can make those arrests and we absolutely will make those arrests our officers have been instructed that this is zero tolerance for this type of behavior and then uh there also is the possibility that the we also can cite under the executive order given by the emergency manager which is the city manager to be able to cite people for not wearing a mask for events such as the free hubs and so forth which are not really free there's a cost to them in terms of public health and this is this is unacceptable behavior in our in our community the 28th allegedly there's supposed to be a event that's nationwide concerning giving out protesting wearing masks and we are actually staffing up for that to make sure we have adequate resources in place and again our position is this is zero tolerance and we will make the necessary law enforcement contacts and arrests as needed thank you chief mill okay we will move on to our next item tonight which is item number 25 and for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if this is an item you want to comment on now is the time to call in using the instructions on your screen the order of this item tonight well we will we receive a presentation by staff and then following we will have questions from council we will then take public comment and then return to the council for deliberation and action we have a lot of interest in this agenda item tonight we've had hundreds of email communications on the item and I do want to allow the council to have time and the energy frankly to make our way through a very complicated ordinance that is obviously of great interest to our community and is of great importance to get right is to the extent that we can so I just want to let everybody know there's going to be a few things a few changes I have received requests from 12 individuals for extra time I have granted those those folks are going to be going first and they will be getting three minutes after that this is when we open the public comment after that I will take public comment at one and a half minutes each until 9 p.m. at which time I will close public comment and to provide time for council deliberation this is an attempt so that we can deliberate and get through this tonight without working into the wee hours of the morning so I appreciate I'm seeing the numbers climb on the number of attendees here tonight it is not my intent to try to cut people short on communicating with us we are still receiving emails you can still communicate with us we do all see our emails live but in the interest of trying to get through and deliberate on this I am going to restrict public comment after the extended time to a minute and a half and I will be stopping public comment at 9 p.m. tonight now turn it over to Lee Butler the director of planning and community development to start the presentation tonight for city council and again we will have questions from the council following the presentation and then I would like to go to public comment after that so thank you Lee thank you mayor Myers and vice mayor and council members I'm Lee Butler I'm the director of planning and community development and the homeless response director for the city and I'm going to share my screen here are you seeing the note pages or the full screen we see the we see the full screen thank you all right thank you all right um with me this evening and participating in the presentation will also be Tony Elliott our parks and recreation director as well as Andy Mills our police chief and we also have Cassie Bronson and Tony Condati from our city attorney's office who are also here to assist I just want to let you know what we're going to cover I'm going to start with some local statistics and Tony and Tony Elliot and I will speak to recent issues that the city team and the community have had to address I'm going to talk about how we got to the ordinance with community feedback through the community advisory committee on homelessness as well as council direction and we'll also provide some background related to the Martin versus Boise case and then I'll go through the specifics of the ordinance with chief Mills providing information on the enforcement and I will also let you know that we've had hundreds of pages of comments as mayor Myers mentioned and we have a number of potential changes that the council may want to consider that have resulted or are potential results of the community comments so before jumping into the presentation I'll just start by saying that we are not alone up and down the west coast in particular but across the nation cities are struggling with how to help unhoused individuals it's really the most challenging issue that many cities are facing and it's a multifaceted problem with roots in economic factors mental health issues substance abuse and addiction affordable housing individuals loss of connections with others and inadequate federal and state resources to name just a few I want to acknowledge the complaints that we receive literally on a daily basis about quality of life impacts and environmental concerns related to our unhoused population these are real and legitimate concerns and and we hear those I also want to acknowledge the voices calling for additional homeless support and resources we have systemic funding and resource gaps at the federal state and local levels and we're actively lobbying our state and federal representatives for additional financial assistance the city is not going to solve this issue on its own nor is it equipped to many of the factors are outside of the city's control and purview I'll speak briefly to some of the distinctions between the cities and the county's role later and I'll also talk about many of the things that we as a city are doing to support unhoused individuals in our community to really address the problem systemic changes are needed in the way we as a nation and as a state view and treat the unhoused and I'll note here that Santa Cruz County is taking significant steps in setting goals and its six months and three years strategic plan for addressing homelessness and that'll be going to the board of supervisors early next month so I encourage you to review those materials while we are working closely with the county on many issues related to helping the unhoused population our community experiences impact from the impacts from the unhoused on a daily basis and in response to that the council has directed staff to update the counting the the camping ordinance and so I'll jump into the rest of the presentation here 1200 homeless individuals in a cruise with about 865 of those being unsheltered as a city represent about 24 percent of the county's population but we have about 55 percent of the county's homeless population and so many ask why is there a concentration here and there are really many factors that contribute to this as the county seat we have the county's jails we have the county's courts and many of the county's services like their health services within the city's limits and we're relatively compact so if you don't have a vehicle it is easier to get to goods and services in the city as compared to areas of the county where goods and services are more spread out given this challenge that everyone's aware of what are we doing well we're doing quite a bit as a city to help homeless individuals here this year we'll be spending about four million dollars for services homeless prevention and cleanup not to mention a substantial percentage of police and fire calls that address the issue of homelessness and that's in a year when we have slash budgets and mandatory furloughs so a few of those things that the four million dollars goes to two mental health liaisons from the county behavioral health services team are out in the field with our city police officers we contribute to the county's hopes program the downtown outreach worker program and the county sheltering programs we support mobile showers and fund a variety of nonprofits providing services for people experiencing homelessness such as downtown streets housing matters encompass community services and the community action board of Santa Cruz county among others we dedicate a significant percentage of our community development block grants our cdbg funding towards addressing homelessness approximately one point two million dollars in 2021 and typically hundreds of thousands of dollars each year we got additional funding this year due to covid the funds the cdbg funds go to homeless prevention activities like security deposit assistance and rental payments they also go to infrastructure investments like nearly five hundred thousand dollars that we're spending to support a new hygiene bay at housing matters so that unsheltered individuals have a place where they can shower and use the restroom we also have significant costs related to cleanup efforts before the most recent storms in late january our teams walked through flood-grown areas along san lorenzo river they asked campers to move to higher ground and they after those individuals moved they removed four and a half tons of trash and debris from the area preventing it from washing into the Monterey Bay we had another cleanup and restoration effort earlier last year that had a 200 000 dollar price tag just on its own and i'll share some photos that depict some of those cleanups in just a bit in addition to the four million dollars the city offers rents at well below market rate to housing matters to encompass and to the homeless garden project as a means to support the great work that these service providers do each and every day and of course to address homelessness we need housing just since november of last year the city has approved or authorized construction of up to 425 affordable units and 184 of those are expected to be supportive housing units that homeless individuals would qualify for the five separate projects that the city has approved so we really are trying to step up and do our part there are affordable housing projects that have recently been completed and others that are recently that are under construction right now and we're looking forward very much looking forward to getting these additional units online as well we've also increased the number of beds that we have for the homeless and we work closely with the county on this and these are estimations but we had approximately 155 beds pre-covid between the poly loft the armory and the laurel street shelters and we now have a little over 400 beds and that includes the vets hall the armory poly loft and 144 rooms and four motels across the city and this excuse me the county has worked to expand shelter facilities in other parts of the county as well and we have more beds now both in the city and within the county than ever before but of course we still have a great need while i'm mentioning the county i want to remind the viewers here some of the varying roles between the city and the county one of the things we regularly hear as the city is that we need to provide mental and physical health services as well as addiction and substance abuse treatment and those are absolutely needed and the county is the one that provides those services the city does not have a public health department those services are provided by the county and i'll note here that the city and county are working collaboratively on a wide range of issues such as temporary shelter long-term supportive housing options outreach to people on the streets and hygiene services for those individuals and the city and county are actively lobbying state and federal officials for additional resources and despite all of these efforts and despite the highest number of beds we've ever had in the county the situation remains increasingly challenging i'm going to share with you some slides of recent situations that our teams here in the city and us our community have been dealing with you can see here some of the the grading that's occurred and some of the issues associated with restrooms that occur in our open spaces and you can see in these photos some of the trash accumulation that occurs that our teams need to come in and pick up here's some more photos of that you know really significant costs that we bear to haul all of these things out oftentimes in areas where it's really challenging to get mechanical equipment and in the midst of this of course you know we hear often from the community not only about the the trash and debris but also very real and very significant concerns about needles you can see here some of the effects or the outcomes after some of the cleanups have occurred where people have either city and employees or volunteers have collected needles and we appreciate the work of people who are out there and helping with all the cleanup efforts that we have and then you know there are quality of life issues associated as well and there are instances of bicycle tests where bicycles and it's it's the quality of life that it affects people's ability to have you know a kid ride their bike over to someone's house and leave the bike in the front yard I don't think many people would advise of that here because you know we do have challenging situations related to bike chop shops and this and you can see a large number of bicycles and and also went out and helped clear from people about and an inability to use that we hear we also hear that the people can still occupy parks and people can still go to parks and that ability there are also challenges though depending on the users you know if if someone is planning to throw a frisbee or kick a soccer ball you know the presence of a large number of tents does impact people's abilities to use all the ways that they they could potentially be used and so we we do hear those complaints on a regular basis with that I'm going to turn it over to our parks director Tony Elliott to speak a little bit more about the parks system and thank you mayor and city council for the chance to share some perspective from the parks and rec department so I just want to briefly share with the council the context to which this ordinance outdoor living ordinance applies to the parks master plan and also some recent work done by the city's parks and recreation commission so to start and just to be really clear parks are just not good places for people to live they prevent present harsh environmental conditions for an individual experiencing homelessness and ultimately the effects of people living in parks has negative consequences on our habitat protected species public safety and it creates increased risks for wildfire and contamination to our drinking water and as you can see from the photographs that Lee shared and as many have experienced firsthand across the park system unregulated camping our city parks and open spaces poses significant impacts and threats to our national environment and to our community's ability to safely access and enjoy public spaces the parks and recreation department hears concerns similar to what Lee was alluding to we hear concerns on a near daily basis from park users about safety cleanliness and accessibility of parks as a result of widespread camping and we'll go into great detail just in the spirit of time here but I wanted to share an example a recent example from mountain bikers of Santa Cruz County that recently conducted a survey to gain feedback on whether or not homelessness has affected trail riding in Santa Cruz and based on the survey 52% of respondents said it has affected how they use the parks yeah thankfully on the on the graph there uh so 52% said it affects how they use the parks 15% of all of the respondents to the survey specifically called out the Emma McCrary trail and Pogona as one they simply won't use uh and female riders in particular expressed significant concerns about being fearful not being able to ride alone and not willing to take their young families to certain trails and want to acknowledge that 15% well that seems like a small number to to many to me that's alarming if if uh if 1% of our community says that they're not willing to go to a city park or a trail because of fear that that's alarming to me so that 15% to me uh feels like a big a big number and a significant issue talking about the parks master plan here a little bit the 2030 parks master plan it states the heritage of the park system reflects a community that deeply cares about providing and preserving the quality and diversity of the recreational natural and urban environments and among the master plans for overarching goals two that are especially relevant um as it relates to the outdoor living ordinance are uh one to provide ample accessible safe and well-maintained parks open space and active recreation facilities and the second is to provide well-managed clean and convenient public access to open space lands and coastline the current conditions as you saw from some of the photographs across many of our parks open spaces in our city park system are in conflict with these goals set by the parks master plan so I want to shift gears and talk about uh sort of an operational viewpoint and so what it says the city departments including parks recreation are subject to wide-ranging regulatory mandates sequa we had to go through a long sequel process with our parks rec master plan the city parks rec department in particular as a regulatory body to some degree requires a variety of permits excuse me and agreements for things like special events use agreement and leases and from my perspective the outdoor living ordinance will provide clarity on the city's rules and the city's conditions under which camping may occur and ideally it will help us to avoid costly remediation of large camps in the future as lee mentioned a little bit ago cleanup um and pogunov last year cost the city around 200 000 to clean up and the eventual cleanup of samarindo park will also be very expensive so this proposed ordinance is before the council today is in my opinion an important step to clarify the rules and use conditions across the park system and ultimately help preserve our natural environment and finally I just would like to briefly summarize an important body of work that the city parks recreation commission completed in 2020 related to parks and staff safety in january 2020 the parks rec commission initiated an ad hoc subcommittee to address concerns about the health and safety of parks and recreation staff and park users over the course of six meetings stretching from February to September of 2020 a commission subcommittee met with employees of police department and other staff to hear about challenges as well as methods involved in addressing negative experiences of staff and parks users parks and rec staff have experienced cases of assault vandalism to vehicles staffs of supplies break-ins destruction of park grounds and facilities and frequent aggressive behavior from individuals living in the park system the parks and recreation commission voted unanimously to provide a four pronged recommendation to the city council and what is most relevant as it relates to the outdoor living ordinance is recommendation number two that came from the parks and rec commission and that is that the city needs to address regulatory and operational uncertainty regarding its camping ordinances and interpretation of court decisions related to encampments these inconsistencies are driving the lack of enforcement against behaviors that threaten staff and system users as well as leading to facility damage and environmental degradation and open spaces and natural habitat areas and so from my perspective the proposed outdoor living ordinance night is an effective mechanism in response to the work and recommendations put forth by the city's parks and recreation commission and the last thing i'll say here is just from the parks and recreation department viewpoint we understand that this proposed ordinance won't solve homelessness however what it does is establish clarity for the community and for park users and for individuals residing throughout the park system it gives us an opportunity to match our operations with the goal set for us by our master plan and the parks and recreation commission's recommendations so i really appreciate the opportunity here to share a bit of perspective from parks and rec and with that i'll send it back over to we thanks tony um to our unhoused who are camping in our community that um are doing so in a manner that um are not creating um many of those challenges that we saw in those photos there are individuals in our community that are um you know cleaning up after themselves that are that are employed that are productive members of our um of our society and there are also individuals that um have uh that can create some of these challenges in the photos that we saw and that can particularly become exacerbated when there are large groups when there are large encampments um and when those become entrenched when you start to see the environmental degradation and you see the um large amounts of debris and trash um that is typically not always but it's typically associated with larger encampments and so um that was part of the focus of um the work that was done and um that's a little bit of background and a little bit of the situation that our teams have experienced and i'm going to jump back uh a couple of years going from recent to a couple of years ago when um the camping ordinance that we have on our books right now was suspended and so um we do right now we have a a ban a camping ban um and um that camping ban on our books we have direction from the council to not uh implement that and that is because it is inconsistent with the martin v. Boise case and what the martin v. Boise case says is that if there that essentially you cannot criminalize the act of sleeping if there aren't adequate shelter beds available for the unhoused individuals in the community so sleeping in and of itself cannot be criminalized now cities can can regulate the time place and manner of where sleeping can be allowed but it cannot be banned outright as is the case with our current ordinance and i'll just say you know the current ordinance um on the books also um you know has been on the books for quite some time and you know there were unhoused individuals in our community that were camping before that and so um as tony mentioned you know an ordinance in and of itself is not going to solve homelessness that is a much bigger issue and it involves many of the social supports that i talked about earlier so following the martin v. Boise case and the camping ordinance suspension the council put together a committee a community advisory committee on homelessness the cash and the cash met 16 times between 2019 and 2020 it came up with a whole series of recommendations and those recommendations many of them were presented to the city council back in february of 2020 and those became the basis for that that was became the foundation of the ordinance um that um is before you this evening and the agenda report you can take a look it it evaluates each of the recommendations and says um you know why things were included or if they weren't included why they weren't and and if other things were why that was the case and so um again a lot of that focused on these large encampments and how to address the large encampments and entrenchment um we also have related to equity public health and sustainability as the pillars of our health and all policies consideration and that's another lens that we use in considering policy the ordinance that is under consideration by the council this evening includes a number of things that address the health and all policies pillars includes things like a daytime storage program for the unhoused so that they can safely store their belongings while going to jobs or medical appointments so it contains behavioral expectations and locational criteria that protect the environment thereby contributing sustainability provisions that enforcement until covid vaccines are available to the unhoused and on an ongoing basis includes provisions that uh preclude enforcement during inclement weather and it provides additional allowances for disabled individuals and as you'll hear in just a little bit um we're also recommending um some changes for families and also uh disabled individuals caretakers um that came about as a result of some of the public comments that we received and it has provisions that help ensure that all Santa Cruzans will have access to park resources that contribute to their health and well-being so with all that background i'm going to jump into the ordinance here so i'm going to talk to you about private property prohibited areas acceptable areas behavioral requirements and then i'll invite chief mills up to talk about the enforcement so starting off on the private property right now um there are opportunities for religious institutions to host uh recreational vehicles up to three recreational vehicles and we're proposing that this um goes to and for businesses that is proposed to go from sorry i didn't fill in that number there but from up to three um that's that's what the proposed ordinance is in front of you uh this evening there also there's a minor change that came in as a result of public comment and i'll get to that um and in just a little bit when we get to the um prohibited areas should not be able to block first responders or access to city equipment they also um would be prohibited from um areas that are dangerous to oxpens or first responders or to special status species so first responders that includes fire or flood prone areas during seasons when those issues could create hazards and then special status species we depicted those um as um are mapped sensitive habitat areas however not all of those areas may be off-limits at all times um so um we would uh if the council chooses to um support this provision of the ordinance then staff would come back and identify here are the areas of the sensitive habitat where camping is off limits and here's where they could still occur continuing with prohibited areas inside path between either side of the uh river there um in the water department director's source water protection zone we do get a lot of our drinking water from san lorenzo river and there's a map that identifies areas that um where we're camping would be prohibited and enclosed areas and there are um a number of areas that the uh city could or a number of reasons why the city could deem an area closed such as um repetitive cleanups being necessary or um significant issues with the police as it relates to um one change here we we cited the neighborhood and community parks as a prohibited area and um for clarification we wanted to make sure that we were also including um the regional parks and the single amenity parks as part of that and so um those are considered as as parks but uh we're we're just making a language clarification so that um all of the parks are included that does not include the open spaces we'll get to that when we're talking about areas where camping could be allowed um and we'll show you the text of of those changes uh and just a little bit here as well and then city owned beaches and identified oceanfront areas we talked about the uh the various parks here and then um continuance of prohibited prohibited areas um downtown there uh would be a prohibition in downtown um there would also be a prohibition on city-owned parking lots inside open spaces so neary lagoon jesse street marsh and a royal seco canyon would be prohibited and then within 75 feet of trails in other open spaces and so um any areas um spaces and that are not in the three identified camping would be prohibited those would be areas that that could uh where camping could occur so what areas are those you can see here um more creek could potentially um have individuals in pogoninth um dale viega wilderness area and arana gulch so um we talked about the prohibited areas so the potential encampment areas side of the prohibited areas so the city manager or the parks director concerns about sidewalks in residential areas in particular and a key issue here is that we are individuals can sleep that was one of the key considerations in um including sidewalks throughout the city as areas um and um we'll talk about the options related to that in just a little bit um i want to go back to the specifically designated areas and clarify and we have some additional texts that would clarify additional areas may be authorized on all like or private properties and any zoning districts and in areas that would otherwise prohibit such uses so a downtown parking lot for example downtown has a prohibition and parking lots have a prohibition however specifically identified areas or outdoor living encampments um if they are designated as such and only you can see here is a map of the prohibited areas so you can see the 75 feet of either side of trails as shown in these sort of linear paths that go through our open spaces and then downtown some of the identified prohibited open spaces and um then some of the other prohibited areas like the wharf and the beach areas and so forth um we also have a map of potentially prohibited areas and yes this looks like a a large portion of the city and it is a large portion of the city um what this includes is um the wildland urban interface in the yellow hatch that area would not be closed it's not anticipated that that would be closed year around um only during um fire hazards and um that would be up to the discretion of the and those areas could be on a seasonal basis or in advance of storms subject to the public works directors discretion the sensitive species areas that we talked about again um we would be doing an evaluation of those areas and uh determining whether or not um camping in the manner authorized by the ordinance could be done um in in a way that would not harm sensitive species and then here are those two maps overlaid and you can see that there is um you know quite a bit of overlap between the prohibited areas and some of the um potentially prohibited areas as well so moving on to the behavioral requirements um one of the um big issues again is the number of visuals in an area and the um entrenchment associated with that that can create environmental uh challenges and so the ordinance before you would prohibit tents between the hours of 8 a.m and 8 p.m except there are a number of exceptions there are exceptions for disabled individuals for inclement weather and um we've added as you'll see in a little bit some exceptions for families and also for a caregiver for an individual who may be disabled um and these would only be enforced after a daytime storage program is in effect and only after COVID-19 vaccines are available to the on-house community so we did hear a lot of concerns about um you know the the daytime prohibition and the effects that that could have during a talk to address many of those concerns through the fact that these provisions would not be enforced until vaccines are available and then the daytime storage program would provide an opportunity for individuals to store their belongings so that they can go to their job so they can go to their medical appointment so that they can um go and uh get the services that they need and not have to worry about whether or not their belongings are going to be there when they get back here um that we're proposing to change and that is um a deletion of the reference to vehicles in the outdoor living facilities definition and that is because that this ordinance is not specifically intended to address uh the uh individuals who are residing in vehicles um that would be addressed through um uh different uh regulations and so we wanted to clarify that here and when we go on through these and some additional um uh text changes in just a bit. Continuing with um sorry no fires um I skipped over that one fires would not be allowed trash and litter standards this is another one that we heard some um good suggestions from the community and so we'll have um some additional updates related to that in a moment and these include things like um staying clear of um not having improperly disposed of needles um and then we have a uh 12 foot by 12 foot per person on uh not uh creating environmental damage we are on to the enforcement section here and I will to speak to this. Well thank you Director Butler for that uh thorough briefing on on what the ordinance looks like I think the main thing to understand is that uh Santa Cruz Police Department is fully prepared to enforce uh the ordinance as you implement it should you choose to do so and uh the goal certainly is not to criminalize the homeless but to gain voluntary compliance when possible and so there's three tiers that have been set up in the ordinance to gain that compliance uh the first tier is to warn and uh this is what we have been doing for some time is warning people try to talk with them helping them move trying to prevent some of the problems that come with a significant size encampment the second uh level up would be to cite people and it would be a maximum of a $20 fine and as you are aware if they get cited multiple times uh it can go to collections and that's the most that we could possibly do however it could be diverted to community service should that person decide to do that instead and then the third level up would be a misdemeanor charge if a person refuses to leave or we have to warn the person and cite the person multiple times within a 30 day period this would be the leverage that we would need to actually gain some level of compliance and we felt that that was uh important from the standpoint of going forward there are a certain percentage of the community who just doesn't want to go with uh the norms and standards uh that this community is studying forward and so there has to be some kind of consequence uh for that we have to remember that a vast majority of the citations are they don't appear on and so if there's no consequence to it that becomes difficult to manage the population one things I'd like for you to know is that this is about addressing the harms associated with unlawful camping and and because it allows us to prevent a build-up of large encampments by making sure that people are taking down their tents at during the daytime and and and not getting entrenched and collecting all sorts of other items that sometimes these encampments collect and then the third thing is we want to make sure that we're activating the space for the entire community to use uh because right now certain spaces in our community because of camping people are prohibited from going there and and our focus initially would be on the beach the downtown area and the city parks as our enforcement and and then move on to the other areas of the city as we get the opportunity this will take some cost and some time and some effort we have to put people out there and probably in overtime a couple times a week to just get out there and educate first warn and then start the enforcement process when we can leave you get an answer the property removal and storage is obviously as an important piece this would give us a 24 hour notice unless it's exigent and some of the camps that we come across are pretty exigent I mean they're large they're environmental hazard they're a public health hazard and those those could be abated fairly quickly and then the second piece would be a misdemeanor so if there's personal property available in those tents that might be stolen and we're going to arrest somebody then we would collect that those personal items and store those personal items for the individual to come back and get later rather than having them be having them stolen or wind up missing we also have and we'll continue to post encampments and then that will allow us to go in and abate those encampments after a week without get people are not having to have it moved by that time and it also give us a little bit more flexibility in the storage rather than going to an encampment where there's an enormous amount of things to be impounded we could impound it and store it all in a locked facility and allow them to come and get their stuff without having to itemize every detail would be it would be an enormous effort when some of these encampments have so many different pieces the bottom line for us is we want to make sure that we're using interpersonal skills citations and then arrests to gain compliance for our community that's the direction that you should choose to go and we'll stand by for questions a little bit later thank you chief mills mentioned and as our parks director mentioned as well this is not a ordinance that is going to end homelessness but it does provide some tools to address some of the problems particularly those problems that arise with large groups and entrenchment moving on to the last section thanks for hanging in there we've got a big last section here because we had many many public comments hundreds of pages of public comments as you all know and some of the things that we heard were residential sidewalks should not allow camping and one thing that we would recommend is that if the council is considering taking residential sidewalks off of the table for a place where unhoused individuals can go we would recommend that the council simultaneously provide recommendations on alternative identified locations so whether that's parks or parking lots or closed portions of the right away and we've got some draft language in case you are interested in doing any of that you can consider that draft language hours of camping we heard some people say more some people say less and we started building in all the changes and we could not actually get them all into the PowerPoint so I'm going to shift for a moment and go to a google doc here can you all see this document great I'm going to just see if I can make it larger here maybe it's a little too big okay so we have a series of potential changes for the council to consider based on a wide range of comments that came in I'm going to try to go through them quickly and we can go back at the end if we can go back after the presentation if anyone has questions we'll have opportunities so we talked about removing the vehicles in vehicular camping here it's a clarification that if items do remain in this is part of the outdoor living encampment definition if items do remain in the same location for 12 hours and it's considered and outdoor living encampment other comments this is part of the this is the only change other than that the numbers going from three to six and from two to three in private property there were some suggestions that the private property should also not be used for trafficking and illegal drugs or in a manner that creates a public or private nuisance and those seems like reasonable items for the council to consider and then this is the change related to eliminating neighborhood and community parks just all parks but not including open spaces and then we still have the no outdoor living allowed in the identified open spaces I've just highlighted these we don't have anything to speak about unless the council wants to make unique edits related to that this is where I talked with you about the the additional allowances for families with one or more children under the age of 18 years old and for a single caregiver for a person with a qualifying disability so this section speaks to both of those allowing for members of a family unit or for a caregiver to remain in a location you recall down here that this would allow for individuals to occupy space for 96 hours instead of all of the the daily 8 a.m to 8 p.m prohibitions and then there is one additional addition here which is just that a physician's verification is evidence but isn't necessarily binding evidence in all instances as it relates to a qualifying disability this section right here this is if the council wanted to eliminate residential sidewalks this could be some language that could be used so right here this is the section that allows for camping on sidewalks and the the ordinance could be modified to eliminate these residential sections limiting the incidence or frequency of the sale of unlawful drugs limited control in crime limiting domestic violence or other violence accumulation of debris and syringe waste amount duration and effect of urination or defecation on public and private property and limiting adverse effects on surrounding area so some additional clarification for why the city manager could close public or private properties in any zoning district and in areas that would otherwise prohibit such uses and then if the council wanted to eliminate the residential sidewalks this is a piece that the council could include to expand allowances so if you're saying no residential sidewalk the council should also consider alternative areas and this would say all of a city-owned parking lot closed portion of a public right away on private property or in an alternative space or area designated by the city manager for safe sleeping and this says that the city manager or his or her designee shall establish a program for overnight use of no fewer than 150 safe sleeping spaces in such areas subject to all the criteria contained in the section I'm sure if the council is interested in the residential portion we'll be back at this and we'll have opportunities to discuss it at length the council can provide direction to be very specific or very general you could say you know keep this language but focus on areas so it's up to the council's discretion on how they might want to treat this but we wanted to have a starting point for some language in case the council did want to make modifications to that section as we heard from many of the people who were writing in this one was some clarification language that we received that I thought was good so electrical connections we had we had previously just said electrical taps and so that clarifies electrical connections or taps and then there's some clarification about fires that they may be allowed in a lawfully created fire pit or other permanent receptacle provided for by the city and then I mentioned some of the litter and debris there were some suggestions from the community so the encampments shall be maintained reasonably safe tidy and healthy free from various debris and with food with the debris contained in a bag or container and then this just states that it will be contained and it shall be cleared of personal belongings as the occupants continuing on to the item with relation to the person with a qualifying disability is allowed to occupy a 12 foot by 12 foot space and this said that that if you've got 20 people at a camp with a qualifying disability that you know if you don't you don't get the 20 people having a 12 by 12 area we actually got a comment we got some comments with some confusion about that and so we thought we thought to clarify that here and we also wanted to say that your caretaker can also have their own 12 by 12 area and so that's the language that's included right here and we're happy to I'm happy to spend more time on the language here if if you all have questions about it and I believe that is the last yes that is the last so I'm going to go back to the PowerPoint here thank you for hanging in there with me I know this was a long presentation and we are on the last slide so we are available for questions there will be public comment and then following that there will be council deliberation including the edits and options and these are a few of those but we're happy to answer any questions that you may have and we look forward to hearing the direction from the council and Mayor Myers you're muted okay yeah what I'd like to do if we are amenable to it because I have the feeling that our questions might go into wanting to start to work on the language but I'm happy to have council members if you have specific questions of clarity maybe we could at least limit that now and then we can allow the public to weigh in and then we can come back for for additional questions and comments because I have a feeling with this language all the language we've looked at and then Lee I guess I would request that as we start to get closer if you could maybe put that language up just so that we can look at it live pretty hard to see in the PowerPoint so I will go with council questions council member I believe councillor Johnson was first but I'm not sure because I have been managing different things coming my way so I'll call council member callantary Johnson council member Cummings council member Golder council member Watkins and then vice mayor Bruder and again if you just hate the questions sort of two specifics and try to so please go ahead thank you thank you I have a number of them so I'm trying to organize them in my shed but the first one is if you can clarify around Lee this is a question for Lee the piece around adding allowing for members of the family unit or caregivers to remain during daytime hours and then there was a piece around 96 hours I just it was moving really fast so I wanted to understand where that fits and what that exactly means sure thanks for that and sorry I was moving fast there the provision and I'll pull this back up here so that you all can see it um that's what we're called that we had included a with a qualifying disability to remain in a location for 96 hours and and let me just first ask can you all see the screen okay here do should I enlarge it I can I can see it better what we did is we added so that was already in there and it said that individuals with a qualifying disability can remain in a location for 96 hours and they between the 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. and we subsequently heard from individuals who who said um you know what about families you know that could be really challenging for a family with young children um who is having to move and so we said hey that should be uh as a fair comment that should be something we'll put out there for consideration I just want to be very clear that you know all of these things are for the council's consideration and um you know we we kind of picked things many comments that were received to say hey council may want to weigh in on this um so this adds to both the families with one or more children under 18 as well as the single caregiver um so you know before if there were two people a person with a qualifying disability what we heard from uh a comment or was it many times people with disabilities actually have someone who um is caring for them that lives with them and we said okay well let's put that out there for the council to consider maybe that individual will also be exempted okay thank you um my my next question is also for you Lee around the um uh storage program um has has staff considered where the locations of storage program would be and how um individuals would access the storage program and sort of connected to that if we would be um if the transportation piece um has been considered we have had some very initial brainstorming sessions surrounding this um we um have not identified specific locations we we brainstormed potential locations but we haven't said yes who would be here we've said you know where is it going to be convenient and where is it going to be most likely to be utilized and I think what we would be looking to do is maximize the utilization and if we're um we're finding that uh specific um location isn't being utilized asking individuals why it's not being utilized and seeing you know all right well where can we move this such that it is um more readily utilized so um you know I think we still have a lot of work to do in that respect we um want to make sure that um that is in place um before we are um enforcing any other daytime camping um restrictions and so that was one of the reasons why the ordinance came to you as it was just um we would we would not necessarily have that storage program up and running right away how about the transportation piece so that would be dependent on where that actually occurs you know we've talked about you know should it be multiple places in close proximity to the locations where campers are um ideally that would be the case um if um if that can't happen then we may need to um uh organize some uh transportation but um I will say you know our initial brainstorming session was you know where is this going to be conveniently located such that people can access it without needing transportation but that's it'll be determined thank you my next question for clarity is for um she smells and um Mayor Meyer this is more than a question for clarity we can hold it off until the deliberations um but it's around the um uh enforcement piece and the warning piece um and if there is consideration of integrating outreach and engagement as part of that that warning effort but we certainly would welcome the county or any other NGO or social service agency to assist with reaching out to people who are challenged and outside to enable them to access services and resources so that would be a positive step that we could certainly utilize we currently do not have that resource other than our mental health liaisons who do a fabulous job that they're mostly focused on just mental health um even though there's a significant overlap but uh we would certainly welcome that if the county decided to give us extra people or we find a grant or something else that we could hire those those bodies with thank you and then the my last piece is um you know you I think you were saying that this this piece around the 8am 8pm I don't know if it was you or Lee um is really to um in some ways manage the the large the the growing encampments and the large number of tents um I wonder if you could just expand on that a little bit um as as that being a tool from uh keeping large encampments from popping up yeah so I view it as a way to manage the entrenchment and once people get entrenched they tend to grow in numbers we have seen that in multiple places around the city so if people can't get entrenched because they have to pick up their property every day it's harder to collect more and more pieces of property for instance when people leave stuff out on the curves that winds up oftentimes in our homeless camps and so building that collection of of things and in entrenching themselves in those locations that's what becomes difficult that's what becomes costly and that becomes very difficult to undo for us so by having them lower their tents every day packing it up storing it and then going out to whether it's appointments for medical or or jobs that would be the opportunity for them to store that that property and then avoid any conflict with the rest of the city staff okay thank you those are my questions for now not any muted councilmember coming to snick please thank you thank you um and thank you staff for the presentation I have um a bunch of questions and so I'm going to try to be we're going to try to not repeat the same ones for now um and I just want to you know make sure it's clear to the public that you know I think there's a lot of areas of alignment and I totally understand why this is important because you know we really need to try to keep people from camping in some of our very environmentally very sensitive areas um also the fact that we need to mitigate some of the behaviors that are negatively impacting neighborhoods um and to the point of you know trying to keep these large encampments from getting entrenched um I think that that is something that it's really important that we try to focus on um and at the same time figure out you know what are some compassionate solutions to homelessness and to providing opportunities for people who are experiencing homelessness but you know overall what I the sense that I get is a big part of this is trying to mitigate some of the negative environmental impacts and the negative interactions between community members and people who are experiencing homelessness or housed in unhoused I should say um but at the same time there's a lot of concerns and um I out of curiosity I'm just wanting to understand really how this came forward because this item last year came before us as part of a quality of life ordinance package where there were seven um ordinances that were being proposed for the council to consider we because of the pandemic and because of COVID-19 work was stopped on these ordinances in part because the CDC was saying you know we don't need to disturb encampments um if there aren't people who are experiencing homelessness they need to stay where they are to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and not have these people get impacted and so you know given that even although there is the light at the end of the tunnel um we're not out of the pandemic yet and so I'm just wanting to understand you know why this is coming to us now um because it also seems like there's a lot of factors that are going to inhibit us from enforcing this and for this to actually be implemented and I don't think we should be providing this false sense of you know security to the public that you know if this gets passed that we're going to start putting something through it and enforcing anytime soon because there's a lot of restrictions um that will prevent us from doing this so I don't know if it's council members or staff who may want to comment on um this is coming forward but I think it would be good to get some clarity around you know why now for those ordinance Martin Bernal I don't know if you would like to take a shot at that yes I'd be happy to try to answer that I think it's a combination of factors one was there was previous direction about a year ago when the when the council considered the cash recommendations and one of those was to amend our ordinance to comply with Martin versus Boise another another was the fact that we have the multitude of as you saw in the presentation of complaints and just the need to respond to the ongoing situation and then I think others were interested on the part of council members to try to bring something forward so I think there's a variety of reasons again both the combination of council direction the need to try to address situations and conditions on the ground and interests of council members to bring something forward just during the time because we have a we have you know 150 people waiting I'd like to make a question very clarifying in nature right now I think we will be degrading for quite some time on some of these other but if there's maybe clarifying questions on the ordinance that would be helpful just in this point in time helpful for just kind of the under for me to understand you know how this came about given that there was seven quality of life ordinances ordinance recommendations so that was helpful I would say that you know one if we're going to talk about the ordinance in and of itself I would like to understand you know we're not out of the pandemic and we just we just found ourselves in a lawsuit because there was an attempt to try to clear the homeless encampment at San Lorenzo and so I'm just wondering if this ordinance were to move forward it seems like um we might find ourselves in additional legal you know troubles with telling people that they can't set their tents during the daytime and so I'm just trying to understand under the current laws how this ordinance um whether or not this ordinance would put us into legal trouble not I'm not clear I was hoping to get questions on the ordinance right now the contents of the ordinance um I'll look to Mr. Kundati to I'm just trying to trying to get questions on the on the ordinance contents but and I understand there's a lot of deliberation types of comments that and questions people have but I'll look to Mr. Kundati I don't I'm not sure well I think the answer to the reality of something we haven't even adopted yet or I'm not quite clear on how we manage this particular question I think the answer to councilmember Cummings questions yes but in the context of uh there's a significant deal of uncertainty in uh these issues the martin versus boy the decision was not a model of clarity it did suggest some reasonable time place and manner restrictions that would be permissible in lieu of a citywide ban on camping and that's what has been prepared for the council's consideration tonight um did we hit the mark uh perfectly probably not um but but this is a good faith effort to draft an ordinance that uh that tries to strike a balance between a lot of competing and compelling interests in a way that um though that we believe uh is intended to be consistent with the the decision in martin versus boy and and other cases that have interpreted it uh since thank you Mr. Kundati and I guess along those lines um you know we're I saw within the ordinance that under 6.36.040 D that it says that this wouldn't be enforced until homelessness and sheltered have access to vaccines however we're being sued currently because we tried to remove an encampment and the CDC has outlined that we are not to disrupt encampments during the pandemic so I'm concerned with that language that's in the ordinance as to you know whether or not that will stand up in court because if we get sued because we're trying to move people who are camping and our excuse for doing so is that well there's enough vaccines but yet that does not that's still in violation of the CDC I'm wondering you know how we'll we'll reconcile that because I do feel that um I I have a lot of concerns with what's before us all the changes that have been made that we haven't had a chance to look at and some of the provisions within this that I think and I believe that people in our community will sue us over and we are in a financial deficit we try to avoid lawsuits under certain circumstances and I think this is one of the ones where we absolutely need to be trying to avoid this since we're already being sued for trying to disrupt homeless encampments so it'd be good to understand um the situation as well since it's written into the ordinance yeah so you're right that the the CDC guidance is um uh is is to not dismantle encampments to avoid the risk of the spread of COVID-19 but we're not operating per se under the CDC guidance we are operating under a federal district court judge's order that among other reasons concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted to uh to bar the city from dismantling the Seminole Park encampment um at this time and I don't think there's any intention of moving forward uh in contravention of the district court judge's order and so that is an ongoing discussion that will be had in court and um and unless and until the judge provides the city with a viable uh mechanism for dismantling uh these encampments uh we cannot do so so I'm not concerned about um the city being in violation of the district court judge's order in this case because we intend to comply with it I'm gonna I'm gonna I'll hold off on the rest of my comments until later councilmember boulder councilmember Watkins for my questions for later okay thank you um vice mayor bruner okay my clarifying ordinance questions are uh the first one being on private property 6.36.030 a1 um would that be uh tony kandadi with consent of owner or occupant shouldn't it be both or uh I how does that work it could be both um this is um reflective of existing text the council certainly has the ability to modify that as part of this we we made very few changes to that section but it's within the council's purview to um make that modification should you see fit okay uh my next question was on that same section a3 um can you speak to the number of vehicles and um where that context comes from in terms of not being site specific for example some sites may be larger to uh maybe accommodate four vehicles another site might be smaller to accommodate less vehicles where does that number come from sure so um this is where um and four members of the public who are listening this is um related to um going for RVs inside uh so allowing for camping inside a licensed and registered motor vehicle in the parking lot on the site of a business institution in a non-residential district with a written consent of both the business institution and property owner um with some various other provisions so currently that's allowed at two um we um included it increases that to three now the council certainly can increase that uh to a greater number um and that uh or you could you could provide some direction and tell us you know come up with an idea of of how that relates to you know no you could say for example no fewer than uh three but um it could be one fifth of the parking spaces up to a maximum of eight you know so it's certainly within your purview this evening to um make some modifications related to that should you see fit and uh Vice Mayor Bruner I might just for the public in case so we're we're uh discussing section through 6.36.030 private property just so that everyone's clear is that that's the section right correct thank you thank you see my next uh I'm moving to the next section I'll try and be don't worry at all no okay 6.36.0403 was one of the questions I'm pulling that up if it helps to read it yeah I've got it right here in front of me um in fact if it's if it's helpful I could share my screen so members of the public can see maybe that would be helpful thank you at risk areas you prohibited was asking about subsection three here and whether or not the sleep foreseeable danger to occupants and first responders and special status species um have been identified and uh you got it Liz we yeah larger uh prohibited areas have been identified the hashed areas here this is all the wildland urban interface and our our fire chief would actually determine which areas and specific portions of those areas um would be off limits during certain times of the year you know an area might be fine to camp in right now but um come late August the fire chief could say hey you know it's really dry and the fire risk is too high similarly um there are flood areas again um during the winter maybe that uh those some of those areas are off limits um and then um the sensitive species areas are sensitive habitat areas um we would need to do a further analysis of those areas and um identify um whether or not throughout the year you know so if there's a migratory species for example um perhaps um camping is allowed there when that migratory species is not there but when it is expected to be present um the uh the camping could be prohibited so um I don't have a clear yes and no answer for you it is um but what we would do at this point yeah yeah so so right now all we've got is is the maps that are there um now the the ordinance actually requires us to maintain a website and keep that current with respect to the areas that are prohibited so if the fire chief comes in and says hey this wooey area is um off limits right now um then we would update that map our fire chief has said this is off limits and the same thing would happen with um the sensitive species we would we would need to specifically identify those areas um in advance of the ordinance um uh being enforced okay uh my next question is uh the same section side and the in the word side and would there be signage is that so that is um essentially between so this is uh the San Lorenzo river and maybe I'll um all right I think I can explain this one without pulling that out that's the San Lorenzo river path and it's in between the two on either side of the river so the inward side of that there are a number of signs out there we can we can look at that again we want to make sure that it's clear for um everyone for um those who are looking for a place to sleep that they have a good understanding um as well as the community members um who are um wondering where folks may or may not be allowed just from a five to a seven sorry typo okay we've gone through we've gone through a lot of versions I bet okay uh where is there a list of city-owned beaches the parks and master plan actually identifies the city-owned beaches and I can pull that up here um beaches include Mitchell's Cove dog beach okay it does not include uh or sea bright those are state-owned beaches and for state-owned as we as we identified in the agenda report for state-owned properties if they're conducting state-owned businesses business the city has limited land use authority over them and so um we have uh explicitly limited this to the city on beaches but I think it's important to note Lee that the California State Parks does not allow camping on any of those sites thank you it's within the boundary of the city's downtown plan can you talk about that boundary in relation to the bid the BID district to the business improvement district off the top of my head but um I think probably the easiest way all this out is to just pull up the map and it is it's going to be um and I guess that's my question are where is are there differences so there are differences um and some of those we captured as part of the language here in that you know the uh the downtown plan actually covers a little bit east of the river and a little bit north of water and um in some of those areas we excluded as part of this text let me open up I'm going to open up um here I'll just councilmember our vice mayor brewner how many more questions do you have I'm just curious I have four more questions okay here and that will give you an idea from the downtown uh perspective and I'll zoom in on that so this will give you an idea again it's at a fairly large scale but zooming in you can get an idea so water on the north side um capturing um down to basically over to city hall and then down around the um center and then looping over to and then including parks so you've got um you know san lorenzo park over here as a park that would be excluded okay thank you um point three six point zero six zero and that is the water dumping sites currently the closest one that off the northeast corner of highway one and hospital on the side where choice are used to be that gas station right there I believe is the closest one I will also say that the city has been um working on um looking into whether or not an additional one can be provided locally as as a resource for um individuals who are living in RVs and so um we're hopeful that we'll be able to to bring something else online that's um more convenient because we recognize that is you know it's not super far away but um it is also a burden to drive all the way across town particularly if you've got a limited amount of funds okay um and then in that same section what is the definition of unreasonable amount of litter so that was um that was one of the areas where we had um community comments come in and we're actually recommending removing the unreasonable amount of litter and just saying free from we're putting this out as a recommendation for the council to consider we thought that that was a good language but you know this is this is all as to the council's uh her view needs me to mention that we currently have and address the the destructive and criminal behavior and activity already and um so in terms of the litter and and debris and all of that we have that currently we have um possession of stolen property we currently have um you know legal drives intoxicated in public open container urinating in public um uh sidewalk obstruction laws I I'm um I'm trying to understand why it would need to be additional in addition to when I was just wondering if if maybe that might fall into the deliberation section because I I think maybe many council members might and I'm just trying to um is that a deliberation type of question Tony that we could get into with much more discussion versus just sort of answering questions specific questions at this time I can take a brief crack at it go for it sorry I mean to interrupt maybe okay um and uh and the chief has uh chief mill has discussed this on multiple occasions that in order to cite someone for littering you either have to observe them throwing a piece of litter on the ground or have a witness to that sign a citizen's arrest complaint and this this ordinance specifically addresses maintaining an encampment with those conditions present so there's a distinction um you're right we have some tools to deal with these types of sort of nuisance behaviors but in the context of an encampment they're difficult to enforce unless you actually observe the person um you know discarding needles uh littering relieving themselves at a location so that's what this is intended to address thank you that's it for now okay thank you council members um and I'm sorry to to be the uh time police but I just want to make sure we can get as much public comment in as we can um so I will go ahead and uh start the public comment period as I mentioned um there were 12 groups that requested these are organizations that requested additional time which I was able to provide each of you with three minutes if you don't need that three minutes um then please feel free to give back your time to anyone behind you so I'm going to ask J.M. Brown um with the parks and recreation committee ad hoc safety committee to please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand up um J.M. Brown uh Bonnie are you ready with the timer uh you'll have three minutes Mr. Brown for nine to unmute can you hear me yes we can thank you the council I'm J.M. Brown and I've served for the past two years as chair of your parks and recreation commission I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to address you this evening on behalf of commissioners who served on the safety committee mentioned by Mr. Elliott earlier those members are vice chair Jane Mio commissioner Gillian greensight and myself let me begin by saying how appreciative we are for the parks and recreation employees who shared stories with us about the impacts of dangerous and threatening behaviors they experience while working in our parks open spaces and facilities because some of that behavior has been exhibited by people living in encampments within our city parks and because one of our key recommendations that was passed unanimously by the full commission called for greater clarity about rules pertaining to people living outside we felt it was important to provide input this evening on the ordinance under consideration members of the committee support the purpose and intent of this ordinance is outlined in the resolution and specifically the ordinance's efforts to prohibit camping in our neighborhood and community parks we believe it is a good first step as Mr. Elliott said toward providing more access for all users of our parks improving the safety of our employees and providing more protection for our natural resources we believe more work can and should be done in the future to support those goals outlined in our parks master's plan namely to better protect our environment including vital waterways and sensitive habitat areas from destruction as we have seen happen over and over again in places where folks have camped should the council be interested in expanding areas within our park system more camping would be regulated including more of our open spaces that would be prohibited for camping the commission could certainly be a good venue for exploring recommendations to bring back to you in the future lastly we recognize that any successful effort to address healthy outdoor living will include securing more low barrier sheltering options in our community as is being addressed in the city's collaboration with the county we appreciate that this ordinance tries to achieve a balance of providing places for people to sleep safely outside with places that remain accessible for all members of the community thank you for your time tonight and for your service to our city thank you mr. brown next up i have carol polhamas with the west side neighbors and then following carol uh reggie mysler with the santa cruz democratic socialists of america will be uh right after carol so if you guys can chew up and um mayor if we could just have everyone not i'm lowering everyone's hand if they could just not raise their hand at all okay their name is bald please don't raise your hand until your name is called carol polhamas there she is okay carol just star nine and then you can unmute please uh put your hand down if you're not the person speaking right now can you hear me yes we can go ahead okay great i was on the phone and him because i wasn't sure i'm sorry so i shut the phone off mayor and city council members and staff my name is carol polhamas i'm a retired educator and 40 year resident of the lower west side thank you for letting me speak on behalf of the west side neighbors west side neighbors was established three years ago in response to a proposal for rb camping in the delaware neighborhood our thousand-plus members live primarily on the lower west side our membership is fairly evenly split between young parents of school age children and seniors with businesses students and others rounding out our group parents are very concerned about safety issues in our city parks and wants their kids to be able to walk or buy to school safely the ends of seniors boys concerns about not feeling safe to walk in their neighborhood our neighborhood is plagued with bike thefts break-ins drug dealing a recent shooting at garfield park a recent meth busts of someone living at the end of delaware to name a few neighborhood safety is definitely a priority parents want parks and rec programs for their kids and are concerned about recreation budget cuts and seniors are concerned about budget cuts to city services the lower west side has been significantly impacted by people living outside resulting in environmental degradation of our open spaces and parks negative impacts include garbage human waste discarded drug paraphernalia etc a recent example was this weekend cleanup of a chop shop in the shaper road area which yielded many stolen bikes and parks this past summer there were four camping related fires which caused serious concern Santa Cruz has a greater per capita homeless population than san francisco or la we know that many of our homeless suffer from chronic mental illness or drug addiction or both our governor describes our mental health system as a massive failure what we have been trying to do clearly isn't working we know the city has neither the legal mandate nor the funding for homeless services mental health or addiction treatment all are the responsibility of the county which receives the funding to provide them we're really happy to hear progress is being made in working with the county and asking for help from the state we encourage the city council to insist that the county provide managed shelter and safe RV parking on county property with much needed services particularly for those with chronic mental illness we don't want tent or vehicle camping allowed in residential neighborhoods we want our parks open for everyone's use we can't spend our limited budget on the repeated cleanup of unsanctioned homeless encampments we want an equitable approach so that the needs of the 2000 homeless are balanced fairly against the needs of the 63 000 other residents in our city we support this ordinance as a step forward toward restoring that balance thank you all for listening and for all the work you and the staff have done on this challenging issue thank you harrell next up is reggie mysler and again just please press star nine to raise your hand and then we will you'll you'll be ready to speak anyone else please keep your hands down i'm just going to call the people who are scheduled to speak now go ahead reggie thank you for being here hi uh this is reggie mysler i'm speaking on behalf of the santa cruz chapter of the democratic socialist of america we vociferously opposed this ordinance and let's really be real and re sort of frame how this is going just two months ago while city council was on break city manager bernal with the support of city staff tried forcing through an executive order to sweep hundreds of people from san lorenzo park despite knowing the conditions of frigid wind and rains uh that they were throwing people into despite knowing that there was no alternative shelter available despite knowing that we were in a coded lockdown and despite knowing that the icus were full make no mistake city staff knowingly delivered a death sentence to the campers at san lorenzo park and it was only thanks to a coalition of activists throughout the county known as stop the sweeps with the intervention of a district court judge susan van cuen that city staff was finally forced to abandon their plan this city staff who so callously and recklessly worked to displace houseless people this past holiday season are the same city staff who are now trying to draft this set of policies to reinforce their ability to do that same thing again and while this ordinance claims to be informed by the more thoughtful work of the community advisory committee on homelessness cash we have spoken to former members of cash who do not approve of city staff using their