Okay. Hello, everybody. Apologies for the technical difficulties. I'd like to call the March 3rd meeting of the City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission to order. Clerk, could we please have a long call? Commissioner Conway? Here. Greenberg? Here. We'll keep an eye out for Commissioner Maxwell if he was here. So we just had some internet issues. Are there, well, I think Commissioner Maxwell would be the only absent key. So we move along. Are there any statements of disqualification for many of the commissioners this evening? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move to the next item. The next item is oral communications. This is a time for members of the public to address the commission for items not on the agenda tonight. So items that are not agendized on this evening's agenda but are in the purview of the commission. If you would like to speak on an item, not on the agenda tonight, now is the time to raise your hand and you will have three minutes. Clerk, are you seeing any handraids for non-agenda items? Yes, please. Please identify yourself and you will have three minutes. You'll hear a beep at the end of those three minutes and please wrap up your comments at that time. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Okay. My name is Robert Norris and I am a worker with a group called Huff, Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom. I recently received a phone call this morning actually from a woman living in her van. This has nothing to do with the OVO law. It has to do with a 72-hour parking problem that seems to be improperly enforced by the police. And I'm concerned that the Planning Commission, which may have some jurisdiction over or at least impact on the whole issue of permit parking elsewhere in the city, which has nothing to do again with banning RVs or anything per se. But it has to do rather with the use of the 72-hour law, I should say the misuse of the 72-hour law to essentially deny people whose shelter is their vehicles in all parts of the city from actually being able to survive outside without being harassed. This concerns a particular police officer, Joe Habe, who has been reported to me time and time again as being a very active participant in giving what individuals who are suffering this kind of harassment claim are bogus citations. I think he feels it is his obligation to try to move along vehicles in neighborhoods. Now, I don't know what kind of action the Planning Commission can take on this kind of behavior, but it's a particular concern to a woman, Alicia Kool, who has been to you before and you actually have supported her in the past, although City Council turned you down when the attempt was made to appeal a restrictive ordinance on parking. This time it's simply straightforward writing on her tires, we're going to tow banging on her door at 4.30 at night, ignoring the fact that she has paid all her citations. I'm concerned about this more broadly, not just for her. Now, she's an activist with a group called the Santa Cruz Homeless Union. And as such, maybe I'm not saying she necessarily is, but she may be a target because of her outspoken opposition to Police Department policy generally on this issue. There is a legitimate use for the 72-hour storage law if people are abandoning their vehicles or parking beyond that period of time. But if they're not, the question arises, how can the public be protected from over-eager enforcers, of which there are many. The Police Department has at least 35 volunteer parking sort of para-police who are empowered to go about in green stickers. So, into this issue, thank you for hearing this. Thank you for your comments. Okay, moving on to the next caller reminder to attendees that this is a time for non-agenda items. So we'll go ahead and move to the next caller. Clerk, go ahead and unmute. Good evening. This is Ralph Alcana. I just wanted to ask the commission to consider a work plan or, and maybe this is already in the works, but coming up with a schedule or policy areas that the commission is interested in. Including in the housing element update that the city will be undertaking over the next couple of years. I think there's opportunities for the commission to, you know, potentially suggest certain types of programs that can affirmatively, further for housing, create opportunities for more affordable housing and incentivize affordable housing development. And, you know, this could be a really transformative time for our community. So I just hope that you all are thinking proactively about, you know, working with the planning department staff and consultants, as well as, you know, the public and facilitating the public engagement process on the housing element update. So thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. I think we have one more can. Please identify yourself in three minutes. Hi, Reggie Meisler here. I'm about to talk in a second anyways, but I just wanted to piggyback off of what Robert was saying. As a Santa Cruz CARES member who's Canvas vehicles in the sort of natural bridges delivery area, we've had people say that they are participants in the AFC program, but they still receive parking tickets as though they had parked overnight or for three days. So the police are not making any sort of like attempt to keep track of who is participating and registered in programs like AFC, which I find problematic on top of obviously the very, let's say, ideological folks who operate in the volunteer police program, which things with ECLU has shut down for the time being. And then the last thing is I want to piggyback off of what Rafa was mentioning, which is that the city general plan discourages dilapidated or sort of like older motels and hotels from being turned into lodging, which is antithetical to what the county is doing and what the state overall is doing with Project Home Key, which is a very successful program. There's a UCLA study that says that Project Home Key and just they sort of acquisition and transformation of hotels and motels into permanent supportive housing and affordable housing is the fastest, most cost effective approach during this crisis. So I'll just leave it at that. Okay, thank you. Any more hands or communications. Just give it one more second for the lag and then we'll move on to the next agenda item. Okay. Moving on to the next agenda item, which is the approval of the minutes for the February 17 meeting. Does anyone, is there any discussion or questions from the commissioners that also entertain a motion for approval of the minutes? I'll move the minutes. One second. Okay. Moved by commissioner Schifrin, seconded by commissioner Kennedy. Clerk, please have a roll call. Mr. Conway. Hi. Greenberg. Hi. Okay. Minutes are approved for the February 17 meeting. Okay. Moving on to our one and only public hearing item tonight. The city wide project. CP one zero one seventy three. Approve appeal of the zoning administrator approval of the. Coastal and design permits to authorize development. Associated with the oversized vehicle ordinance. So before we launch into this agenda item. I just want to take a moment to clarify for all of us in attendance. What is before the commission and sort of the process moving forward. You're going to hear more about this in the staff presentation, but I just wanted to take a moment to kind of ground us all as we move into this agenda item. And so. What is before the commission is, is the approval. Of the permits were required to implement the oversized vehicle ordinance, which was adopted by the council last year. So that is what is being considered. And it's being considered in a fashion called the. The appeal will be used by the commissioners. In addition to the staff report and the testimony given by the public to inform the decision about issuing the permit. So I just want to make it really clear that again, we're not going to make a finding on the appeals, but we are going to hear the appeals to help inform our decision. And the order of events will be, we'll go ahead and get a staff report. There are two appeals. Each appellant will have up to 10 minutes. So that, so we'll hear a staff report. We'll get any clarifying questions from the commissioners. Each appellant will have 10 minutes. And then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and hear testimony from the public.  And I also just want to talk briefly and again, you'll hear about this from staff. The process once a decision is made here tonight. So again, what's in consideration is for the issuance of the required permit to implement the ordinance. And then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and hear testimony from the commissioners. So again, there are permits to implement the ordinance. If those are accepted, those will be processed and that, that decision is appealable to the coastal commission. If the permits were not issued by the commission tonight, that that decision of the planning commission is appealable to the city council. So again, we can also have clarifying questions from other commissioners after the staff report. So I will briefly pause there to make sure I didn't miss state anything from staff. So I'm not seeing any staff shaking their head. So I think, I think I laid it out. Okay. And so we will go ahead and move into a staff report from Mr. Ferry and I do want to thank staff again for their back and forth over the last two days, helping make a pair and kind of understand how to facilitate this discussion tonight. So Mr. Ferry staff report. Okay. Thank you. Mike Ferry on the temporary part-time planner with the city at this point. So this is my first sharing screens and all that stuff. So you guys might have to let me know if it's happening. Can you see that screen that says planning commission, March 3rd? Yeah. Okay. Understanding that this project number is CP 210174, not 73. And it's basically an appeal of the zoning administrator's approval of a design permit and a coastal permit authorized development based on the title 10 changes that the city council approved last year. So a coastal permit is required because and not a local coastal plan amendment because title 10, that section of the municipal code that was changed for oversized vehicles, that's not part of the local coastal plan. However, in the coastal zone development, just the signage alone that restricts the oversized vehicles would require a coastal permit just in and of itself. Safe parking lots located in the coastal zone would always would also require a coastal permit. When you have a public project located in the coastal zone, the zoning ordinance requires that a design permit be approved. So that's why we have a coastal permit in the design permit. And that was to implement the title of 10 changes that dealt with the oversized vehicles. The design permit may also be used in a case outside the coastal zone. For instance, if a parking free parking lot was or safe parking was going to be constructed on a industrial site, they would need a design permit to change their approved site plan. What was approved by the city council, the title 10 amendments in November, coastal and design permits are required to implement the zoning district. The coastal and design permits were approved by the zoning administrator in January and that approval was appealed by Reggie Meister, I think is how he pronounces it, and the ACLU. So the appeals reference in the coastal and design permit have been answered extensively in the staff report. We've cut and pasted both the appeals in the report and worked with the city attorney and some public works folks and responded to that, but I'm not going to go over all of those items. But one of the preliminary things that stood out to me was both of them said that the title 10 changes criminalized homelessness, limited access to the coast, and that there was lack of community input in developing the ordinance. I'm going to go through those three items. So it doesn't criminalize homelessness. Implementing the parking regulations in the coastal zone is between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. The regulations are parking permit. It's not a criminal citation. It's a parking permit like anybody gets when they park in the wrong spot. Coastal and design permits will allow the city to serve at no cost, unhoused city residents living in oversized vehicles through the provisions of the safe overnight parking places. And currently we don't have, well, as of a couple months ago, we didn't have any sponsored sites like that. So the other thing about the spaces is if the recreational vehicle is registered for one of those spaces and all of the safe parking lots are full, they can park on the street and they display their permit and they won't be in violation. Safe parking locations would offer the minimum trash, restroom and hand washing facilities, all of them. So it doesn't eliminate coastal access. It eliminates parking between midnight and 5 a.m. But Maine and Cal Beach have the same kinds of hours from midnight to 5 a.m. Coast Commission approved parking restrictions on West Cliff between midnight and 5 a.m. White House State Beach closes and locks its parking areas from sunset to 7 a.m. Natural Bridges does the same from sunset to 8 a.m. Recreational access can be maintained from 5 a.m. until midnight, 19 hours each day. In terms of community input, between 2016 and 17, the council appointed a homeless coordinating committee, the research prepared recommendations related to homelessness. 2019, they established the cash committee, the engaged community, and a variety of policies related to homelessness. Cash membership included people with a wide range of experience and knowledge, including individuals who either were or had been unhoused. Over the course of the year, the cash committee held about 16 public meetings and a lot of subcommittee meetings with and without staff. That's made a range of recommendations to the council, such as expansion of the sanctioned camping and safe sleeping, including oversized vehicle parking. And this safe parking program would provide those things. The expansion of parking capacity at faith-based parking lots was one of their suggestions, and the city council has approved it. Standard access to restrooms, hand-washing stations, downtown, and elsewhere were another of their recommendations, and the safe parking program will provide that as well. The creation of the Blackwater dumping sites was a recommendation and options are currently being evaluated along with the safe parking program. The outreach also included the county of Santa Cruz. They had in 2015 all towards home in every county residence. In 2021, they had housing for a healthy Santa Cruz, and the city council endorsed that study. The point-in-time homeless census data, and the most recent one was completed today, and the information is not out yet. The city council received over 400 letters in response to the proposal related to oversized fee of parking, public hearing feedback at transportation and public works commissions, and at the city council when considering oversized vehicle parking on all its street. And I wasn't here for that, but I've heard that that was quite a number of commenters on that. The ad hoc council committee engaged community members, public health, homeless service providers, members of the association of faith communities, those are the folks that operate the safe parking programs on the churches and some of the city sites, county staff, or the supervisor members. Three city council members were heard specifically for the oversized vehicle ordinance, and approximately 400 letters were received. The city council, when they approved the title 10 amendments, they also asked the motion to implement the safe parking program. And that included a free tiered approach, emergency overnight safe parking on city-owned parcels for at least three vehicles to be implemented immediately. An overnight parking program on city-owned parcels or other non-residential approved parcels for a minimum of 30 vehicles throughout the city be implemented within four months of passing the title 10 ordinance revisions. A robust safe parking program in partnership with service providers, health providers, and county partners with the following subpopulations being prioritized. Families with children, seniors, transitional age youth, veterans, and those with a valid disabled placard. In February of 22, the city is now operating three safe parking locations that allow for nine vehicles to park as part of the tier one and tier two parking programs as directed by the city council. The initial pilot that we're currently operating will solicit feedback from participants living in the vehicles and modifications will be evaluated to the program as it expands. One of these locations currently have additional off-street expansion capacity. Current desire among staff is to keep each location small with up to approximately six vehicles in each. So when we did the design permit and the coastal permit findings, we wanted to have a lot of general language because it's not site-specific. The coastal commission staff agreed that this was something that they would be able to work with. So generally, the off-street locations and public or private property will be on public or private property plots. Hours will generally be from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. Sanitation will be provided at all locations. No cost to the participants. Re-tiered facilities. These are enhanced facilities. We'll be operating with extended hours, including 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And city staff is currently evaluating two of those tier three proposals right now. Additional support includes after analyzing best practices in other communities. Members of the community suggest some ideas to bring forward. A voucher program for wastewater dumping. And a limited number of financial subsidies for individuals who are trying to repair their cars or get them registered. These funds will be established through partnerships and neighborhood groups. So the planning commission can approve the coastal and the design permit. If that approval is not appealed, the city sends the coastal commission final local action notes a flan. When the coastal commission gets the flan, they start a 10-day appeal period, and the public can appeal for free directly to the coastal commission. The planning commission's decision tonight can also be appealed to the city council. However, there is the fee. I think it's $699 right now. And that's because of the design permit that's attached to the coastal permit. So appealing to the city council is going to be a $699 fee. And the planning commission could also deny the coastal and the design permit. And most likely that would be appealed up to the city council. Council members could do that or other people. And I think that ends my presentation. So I have to stop sharing the screen somewhere. Okay, right there. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, this is a time we could ask any clarifying questions to staff and what you've heard before we go on to the. Is there any clarifying questions about the information that was just presented from any commission? Yes, Commissioner Conway. I was just curious and I'm sorry I didn't text the set. Staff is currently evaluating two tier three proposals. I understood that at the request for proposals route, but I didn't understand that they were evaluating them. So there were two responses. Is that right? Good evening commissioners. I'm deputy city manager and thanks for that question. Commissioner Conway. Yes, we've had a rolling request for qualifications out. For about nine months now. And prior to the last review timeline, which was in February, we received two proposals for. Two or three parking facilities and yes, we are evaluating those and will be and anticipate moving forward with one of those. Once the scoring is completed. Okay, I'm glad to hear that. Thank you. Okay, any other clarifying questions from commissioners before we move on to the appellant. Okay, just a reminder, we're going to give each appellant up to 10 minutes to present us with information from their appeal. And Mr. Ferry, are you going to run the slides for the appellant? Or what is the order in which you guys are set up or to hear the appellant information? I talked to the ACLU today and they're not going to have any slideshows. They're just going to speak. And I'm going to do the slideshow for Reggie. Okay, well, why don't why don't we go ahead and hear from the ACLU first? I'm not sure who the representative is, but for with a representative from the ACLU, please raise your hand and you will have up to 10 minutes to speak. Okay, can you go ahead and unmute? Looks like John has raised his hand. Okay, go ahead. Good evening commissioners and staff. My name is John Doe. I'm an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. And with disability rights advocates and on behalf of certain local ACLU members and folks directly impacted by the ordinance and permit. We followed one of the appeals at issue here. We're honoring Santa Cruz's treatment of its unhoused constituents for some time now. And we view the OSD ordinance and the permit as an unfortunate tool and a misguided attempt to drive out unhoused people out of the city, rather than lead with real services. Now this is a population that's disproportionately black, people of color, and folks with disabilities. We ask that you reconsider the coastal permit in order to preclude enforcement of the OSD ordinance. It's inconsistent with the inclusive goals of Santa Cruz's general plan, violates the coastal access principles embedded in the state's constitution, it's cruel and otherwise ineffective. Santa Cruz should not be limited to those who are able to afford the limited housing here. We're hopeful that the city may be willing to commit to finding real solutions. And to do so, the city should concretely commit to parking alternatives that are practically available to anyone in the real world for folks who live in their vehicle. Now I'd like to focus my limited time here by rebutting some of the staff comments and presentation. For most, the city relies heavily on section 1040120G7, which exempts certain folks who are part of a safe parking program that at the present time does not have nearly enough capacity to serve the needs of basically housed people. Now, although we support safe parking alternatives generally, there are a few false premises baked into this exemption and practical realities that the city has failed to consider. First, the exemption presumes there will be safe parking that people can actually register at. But there remains no legal requirement that the city has sufficient available spaces for people before enforcement. Nor is the permit automatically void if sufficient spaces are not made available. The city doesn't test this. Now, although the city has plans and desires to run a pilot parking program, plans and desires must first be translated into actual spaces. And so until this year, six years after the prior ordinance was rejected by the Post Commission, the city didn't directly fund a single parking spot, not one. It's only now that the city has apparently secured three locations. And now the city also promised that it would have the second tiered 30 spots available this week, four months after the original passage of the city from city council. But it doesn't appear that's on track. And even if the city meets its goal of a three tiered safe parking program, it still falls short of the need, which leads me to my second point. For the exemption to work, there can't be barriers to registration. Being such as costly, particular registration, questionable background checks, curfews that require the costly requirement to come and go, onerous, intrusive, and vague behavioral guidelines are all barriers. Such conditions are ripe for abuse and discrimination. And folks in traditional fixed housing aren't generally subject to them. Even if the city were to commit to making spaces available on a trial basis with no barriers, it has yet to commit to the absence of these barriers as a permanent feature of any program. Assuming the program even continues to exist. Similarly, although we law-based communities providing compassionate, accessible services, any face-to-face requirement would likely not be suitable. Lastly, it would be impractical and concerning for the city to make registering for a program a prerequisite to avoid enforcement under the ordinance until the city has actually committed to making sufficient low or no barrier spaces available. Without this commitment, there will be no incentive for people to register for a parking program. It's not realistic to expect that they would register. That being said, signing people who have failed to register would still be very punitive and counterproductive. And in that event, there is no system in place to ensure that folks are registered before there is enforcement, as one of the prior members of public privacy said earlier today. Again, we urge the city to adopt a real commitment to all types of parking alternatives that are untethered to enforcement. Now, another issue I want to respond to is the staff's report statement that the coastal permit doesn't quote, criminalize the act of living in vehicles, end quote. The associated ordinance effectively does that. First, it subjects people to a misdemeanor, which can lead to a risk for the crime of having trash that may not even be theirs. It does this by again imposing a requirement that the area surrounding a vehicle be kept clear of trash. Even though, again, the trash may be dumped by somebody else. Secondly, the eighth amendment ban on cool and unusual punishment is not limited to just jail time or criminal penalties. So we'll find our punishments under the eighth amendment. Limiting one parking option, finding them, increasing someone's risk of losing one's home for unpaid tickets, inflicts untold cool drama. There are tools for the city that can use to address their concern. Given that there are other laws that address things like storage dumping or the possibility of providing options for disposal, display draconian ordinance and permit should not be one of those tools. Next, I want to highlight the short trip that the city provided with regards to disability issues at play here. Nearly stating that safe parking facilities will be accessible isn't enough. The proposed enforcement scheme itself has no reasonable accommodations for folks with disabilities. And highlighting the fact that tier three safe parking programs will prioritize people with disabilities placards is entirely under inclusive of people with disabilities. And the location of from the parking is vital. Pushing people to the far corners of the city or maybe even out of the city away from the coast where daytime parking is now more restricted. Unquestionably limits access to the coast for folks like miss pro one of our clients. Now equally brief is the city's response to the environmental justice and inclusive principles found in the coastal act and the city's general plan. Again, it's not enough to just say the city does not discriminate. Rather, there should be an affirmative duty to promote access to the city for people who have been historically been and currently are excluded, including black folks, people of color, or folks. People with disabilities among other groups. What the city proposes to do through this ordinance and the permit is privilege the voices and complaints of the well to do. People who can afford to have fixed housing in Santa Cruz. The city is quick to fight to their complaint. But not to the majority of public comments today. And in the past to oppose the permit and the ordinance.  We ask that you live up to the constitutional requirements and inclusive ideals that the city claims to hold. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Doe. Can we go ahead and move to the second appellate Reggie Meisler and Mr. Ferry. I believe Reggie has some slides. So can we go ahead and unmute Reggie and Mr. Ferry. Can you pull up the slides? Can you see it? Thank you. Yes, we can. Okay. Go ahead. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. You have up to 10 minutes. Go ahead, Reggie. All right, great. All right, Mike, I'm going to go kind of fast here. So hope you can keep up. Hi, my name is Reggie Meisler. I am a member of the Santa Cruz Cares Organizing Committee presenting on our appeal of the oversized vehicle ordinance. Next slide. There we go. Sorry. I think you skipped the slide. Left, left arrow. Just left. Just use left and right arrows on your keyboard. I was trying that. Okay. Can we start over with that one? Okay. Okay, can we start over with something? I feel like that was kind of a loss of time. Sorry. Okay, so let's go to the next slide. So these are all the organizations that supported us in our appeal and formulated their own appeal in some cases. So I want to thank them for their support. Next slide. And so Santa Cruz Cares has already sent a robust 24-page document discussing how the OVO violates the general plan, help in all policies, and why Coastal Commission is unlikely to give it a permit, as well as how Lee Butler's wife, being a Coastal Program analyst, represents a potential conflict of interest. We hope that commissioners have read this document in public correspondence under Sabina Holder and Rachel Chavez ahead of making their decision today. But today we'd like to focus our presentation on the human cost of criminalizing our unhoused neighbors and vehicles, as OVO does, and hopefully demonstrate to you why it doesn't have to be this way. Next slide. Can I go? Sometimes it goes and sometimes it doesn't, Reggie. Try clicking the... Yeah, just click it. Okay. How about that? Okay, that's good. Sorry. In the middle of the night during this past winter, Santa Cruz police towed a multi-generational family, including a medically fragile grandmother, her daughter, and her young grandson, who's about 10 years old, as well as their pet. This action was in stark contrast to Santa Cruz's police's claim that they do not tow vehicles with children and vulnerable elderly people in them. Left with only tents to survive, this family set up camp right next to where their vehicle was once parked on Shaper Road. The only reason they have these tents, however, was because the grandmother thought quickly to throw the tents out of the vehicle as it was being towed. Otherwise, they would have been left entirely without shelter during some of the coldest and wettest times of the year. Next slide. Santa Cruz CARES members met with the family and provided them with wood pallets so that their tents would at least be raised above the dirt floor, as rain was expected the following night. Meanwhile, the city did not appear to provide any assistance to the family, including motel vouchers, support services, or alternative shelter options. Several weeks later, the city visited the family again, but not to assist them, but to take away their pets, which were a litter of kittens. Next slide. Most recently, just a week ago, the family was told by Santa Cruz police that they had three days to move their tent and all of their belongings to San Lorenzo Park three miles away. Otherwise, their survival gear would be thrown away. This is what criminalizing poverty and keeping people trapped in a cycle of poverty looks like, and we can expect to see more stories like this if you allow OVO to receive a coastal design permit today. Next slide. So why does it have to be this way? Santa Cruz CARES believes in service-oriented policies without the threat of criminalization. Is that possible? Does it work? Let's look at evidence provided by our own city staff and their experiments to take a look. Next slide. Here we have staff provided trash receptacle on Shaper Road, where a number of our unhoused vehicles parked, unhoused neighbors parked their oversized vehicles. Staff claims that the use of the trash receptacle here was ineffective at mitigating impacts and that this photo is evidence of that. But let's take a closer look. Next slide. There is no trash near the vehicles or in the road. There's no debris. Next slide. The trash appears to be conscientiously placed either in the bin or next to the bin, which is fairly full. And hopefully staff can think of some reasons themselves why some people may not be able to put things in the trash can, particularly when the unhoused population has an intersection with physical disability and old age. Next slide. We have another photo taken around the same time as the last photo, but after trash has been picked up. And you can see that it's almost immaculate in its view. So is there really a problem here? Apartment complexes with trash shoots often have more spillover than what's being documented here. Let's take a deeper look with some numbers. Next slide. The city sites the cost of providing trash service to vehicles on Shaper Road, Natural Bridges and Delaware Street Avenue to be $21,000 a year. The total number of oversized vehicles in town is said to be about 300. Now the percentage of oversized vehicles on the far west side is about 40% as estimated by staff in their September 21st report. So despite staff claims that the service area of this trash can and the others are along that area was relatively narrow by saying only serving the far west side with the $21,000 citation. We see that this is a little out of sync because a large plurality of our unhoused neighbors parked from the far west side. Next slide. Comparing this sum to the cited cost by staff to establish a safe parking program to serve only 30 vehicles, 10%, we see an enormous discrepancy in cost. There are at least 30 vehicles on Shaper Road alone. Next slide. Looking at staff's notes on the subject and the response to our appeal, they say that safe parking programs mitigate impacts by providing services. Note, they do not claim that any kind of threats of harm or strict rules like no drug use are what mitigate impacts only the provision of services. Next slide. Later they describe what these services are in more detail and we see that these services are what is often provided to homeless camps already. These are portable and easy to provide to a location like the far west side at present. Next slide. In explaining how they deal with black water, again, staff notes that this would be a mobile service. Something staff could easily provide to residents from the far west side today without the need for establishing a high barrier entry safe parking zone that serves only 10% of the population of our unhoused neighbors and vehicles and criminalizes the rest. Next slide. To admit in the response to our appeal, they indeed already provide services to people where they are, though these services are not complete. And in doing so, they see an impressive reduction in impacts at a relatively low cost per capita. Surprisingly, that seems to agree with Santa Cruz Cares that it is the services they provide which mitigate impacts, not threats of criminalization, which are unfortunately the focus of OVO. What we find then that the data and argument staff provide are in congruent with the narrative they are trying to develop. It's clear that people providing people services where they are is radically cheaper and serves more people than taking those services and locating them behind a high barrier enclosed area, which requires folks living in vehicles to meet requirements that many fail to meet, including having up to date vehicle registration, license tags and more. Furthermore, social scientists and cash agree that ticketing vehicles for minor offenses does not even curb the behavior that supporters hope to be curbed as these behaviors are not the result of intentional misbeeds, but the result of impoverishment and a lack of access to needed infrastructure, which again staff seems to agree with. In a presentation given by staff and former police chief Mill Blatt September Mills noted that the process of towing oversized vehicles of the unhoused is an unsustainable form of punishment. Private toy yards don't want to store these vehicles because their owners cannot afford to pay the fees to get them out. And the because of the reduced market value of metal, metal scrapping cannot make up the cost of towing them and storing them. Furthermore, the makeshift toy yard the city created at the landfill with no public input or legislative oversight, by the way, is also at capacity and land fill staff cannot deal with any more than they already are. Next slide. Oh, sorry, I think I was on the wrong. Can you go to the next slide after that? Yeah, I was desynced there. In conclusion, the city is not only perfectly capable of implementing service oriented policy without the threat of criminalization, but they already have done so in various ways. And it seems that through trial and error, the city has kind of stumbled into what social scientists and policy researchers have already been telling us, which is that criminalization is ineffective and expensive and providing services to people works at mitigating impacts and is cost effective. Thus, we find the focus being placed on discriminatory parking permit programs to enhance the city's ability to ticket and prosecute people for crimes of poverty to be misguided. And in conflict with not only policy researchers and what they say is efficacious, but with their own data. This means that the OVO, as written, will only properly address impacts for the 10% of oversized vehicles in town that are able to participate, but worse than impacts for the remaining 90%. We suggest that the planning commission side with research and data and not staff misguided narratives. Next slide. If I won't end here for Santa Cruz Cares, we're going to keep on building the coalition. We're going to keep on fighting against all forms of poverty criminalization. And if you agree with us, please join us Santa Cruz Cares.org at Santa Cruz Cares on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Thank you. Thank you, Reggie. Okay, can we stop sharing the screen and go back to the commissioners. So I'm going to go ahead and move on and open the public hearing. And this is going to be a time for the public to address the commission on this item. So if you would like to speak now is the time to raise your hand. So please raise your hand if you would like to address the commission. And we'll kind of give a second for the delay. See how many folks would like to address the commission. Want to give you all plenty of time to get in on the public hearing. So again, I've opened the public hearing for this agenda item on the oversized vehicle ordinance. If you would like to speak, please raise your hand. So what I'm seeing right now is we'll go ahead and give each person three minutes and you will hear a chime from the clerk at the end of your time. So once you hear that chime, I would ask everyone to please figure stuff along, go ahead and wrap up. So, sir, can we go ahead and move on to public testimony? Each person will have three minutes. Please identify yourself and first person can go ahead. Thank you very much. This is Ralph as I'm so I'm speaking on behalf of myself this evening. As a former member of the Community Advisory Committee on homelessness, I think I know as well as anyone, you know, what went through the processes of developing recommendations for the city's policies on homelessness and state parking programs, I think are good, are good. Good supplement and a good option for the city to be to be taking up. I think the city should be supporting state parking programs, but not at the expense of the folks who can't access those services and the criminalization in particular, the aspects of the oversight of the vehicle ordinance that make it more challenging for folks to access services to get housing are really counterproductive. I'm disappointed, excuse me, that the city decided to go down that path. You know, we've heard from the ACLU tonight why it's incredibly flawed. And frankly, this just feels like like a big wasted energy, because we're going to end up in court, and it's going to be struck down. And we could be focusing on solutions that are actually moving us forward. So I think we should, you know, cut the losses, cut the staff time. I know I recognize that, you know, there's politics at the city council that will come into play and it will probably be a deal anyway. But, you know, I think this body can be the voices of reason in this conversation. And for the purposes of, you know, the parking street parking aspects of this permit, I suggest that you don't approve those aspects. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller, you have three minutes to identify yourself and go ahead. Hi, can you hear me. My name is Logan Howe. I'm a student at UC Santa Cruz and I speak to you tonight as a member of the Student Housing Coalition. I urge you to appeal the oversized vehicle ordinance. This ordinance will criminalize houselessness through its vague language. Regardless of whether it's a parking ticket or a misdemeanor charged through the police, houseless persons are extremely vulnerable. In fact, some of the most vulnerable members of our society in Santa Cruz, we need to stop criminalizing the houseless and begin a services first based approach instead of approving this hurtful ordinance that will only perpetuate the cycle of houselessness and settle needless financial burden on our most vulnerable members of society. Thank you. Thank you. Next person. Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead, Michelle. Hello everyone and good evening. My name is Michelle. I'm a first year student at UC Santa Cruz, and I'm with the Student Housing Coalition. I'm here asking you to support the ACLU and Santa Cruz care of appeal of the oversized vehicle ordinance. So firstly, I'd like to say I support a services-based approach to homelessness in Santa Cruz. Speaking personally, one of my friends and a personal role model of mine had experienced homelessness during his second year at UC Santa Cruz. He said that time as the most frightening and stressful time of his life as he had to maintain both his studies and a part-time job while living in extremely dangerous and unstable conditions. During that time, sheltering in an RV in the city would have been a welcome alternative to the situation he was truly in, and it's saddened me to see that for others that possibility may be outlawed and likely aggressively penalized by the oversized vehicle ordinance. Finding those who can afford fixed housing or a stable lifestyle, even going so far to assign a misdemeanor for miscellaneous garbage that is found around an RV, all with an absence of a substantial effort to provide public services like garbage collection or safe parking spaces as a misguided approach to solve homelessness. As previously stated, we need to adopt a services-first approach without the threat of criminalization for our most vulnerable members of our county. I believe that the board would agree that imposing financial burdens and impounding the homeless people rely on is not inefficient nor is it even an efficacious way to combat homelessness. It simply perpetuates a cycle that causes homelessness and frankly, waste county resources by chasing after homeless people, slapping a Band-Aid over an issue rather than alleviating it. Pushing them to the fringes of our society and going so far as to treat their bodies and belongings as pollution is not a line we should cross. I support providing the OVO from receiving a permit to be enforced in this coastal zone and urge you to decide with the ACLU and Santa Cruz Carries Appeal. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Michelle.  Go ahead. Go ahead, Dennis. Hi, thank you. My name is Denon Elliott Crowe. I'm the president of the Student Housing Coalition coming out today to speak against this. And I was going to go ahead and talk about the personal connection as students from UC Santa Cruz. As you just heard, someone who knew a friend who was living out of their vehicle called it the hardest time of their lives. And even I personally know people that are living out of their vehicles who can't afford a place to live. You know, 9% of UC Santa Cruz students are homeless. It's a crisis. And we see many, many students living out of their vehicles. And we see that with this ordinance that there could be a lot of harm to those constituencies, those people that are trying to study trying to better themselves with the UC education. You know, we see that this is a really important part of their lives. And if they don't have a home, how are they supposed to go through school? How are they supposed to graduate? And so when we talk about this policy and we talk about bringing it to a broader picture, you know, the talks about reform of the criminalization of people who shouldn't be criminalized, who should be helped. This is a policy that does not belong in this era of social change in this era where we've looked at policies of past that have harmed, you know, our society as a whole. And so when I look to this and I look to see where we should be going, I don't think this is the measure of where we should be going. And that's why I strongly encourage you guys to go ahead and deny the permit. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead and go to the next caller. Go ahead and identify yourself and you'll have three minutes. Hello. My name is Bodish Argal. Thank you for hearing our everyone's public comment. I'm a UCSB student. I'm a lifelong Santa Cruz County resident. I'm here with the student housing coalition as well as as well as the Santa Cruz chapter of the YDSA. I support the appeal of the oversized vehicle ordinance being barred from fixed housing as well as homelessness in general are categorically human rights violations. I don't like that. I don't want homelessness to exist, but criminalizing those experiencing homelessness does not in any way, shape or form help the situation. Banning RVs just just forces people into smaller cars or other worse options. And we can do a lot of things to fix these problems, but the oversized vehicle ordinance is not one of them. Santa Cruz is in desperate need of affordable housing. Santa Cruz is in desperate need of social services for those experiencing homelessness. Santa Cruz is not in desperate need of a law banning people living in RVs. And we can, we can devote the resources that we are devoting to criminalizing homelessness to a lot of much better things. And I hope that those of you on the commission can agree with me on that and appeal or repeal the oversized vehicle ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. The next caller you identify yourself and you have three minutes. Hi, my name is Adrian. I am a fourth generation Santa Cruz resident. I'm currently living along the levy and I do have to say that after this OVO ordinance went into effect, the living along the levy got a lot nastier. And I personally don't want folks feeling the need to come right around in my backyard and finding somewhere to sleep behind a bush or behind my car behind my belongings. Alongside that, it is undoubtedly cool. You guys seem to want to argue whether or not this is criminalization. But kicking someone out of somewhere that is warm and somewhere that has shelter and putting them out again when it was raining and making them sleep in the tent and in the dirt is cool. That's not the kind of place that I want to live. And I don't think that that is connecting with how folks that live here and have lived here for generations want to see their community going. So again, I would like to advise you guys accept the appeal. Thank you. Thank you for your comments and go ahead and go to the next caller who hadn't identified yourself and you have three minutes. Hello, yes. My name is just Thompson. I'm here representing the young Democratic Social America chapter in Santa Cruz, along with a student housing coalition. And lastly, I'm leading the charge of the immunization at our local store buses. I come to you guys today to ask you guys to accept the ACLU and Santa Cruz Cures Appeal to the Oversize Deal for Ordnance. My main purpose against this is when I was working at my public location, we had a regular who'd come in. Very nice man. He just come in, sit down, order his coffee and never had any problems with him. And one day I was talking with him and he told me that he was homeless. And I had no idea. And he then told me that he was living out of his car. He had served in the military and he had no other choice.  And it's heartbreaking to hear the impact of this on normal people who are just trying to get by, who have been let down by our society time and time again. And I hear the people in this community who are experiencing the issues of homelessness who aren't homeless and are having to deal with the impact, you know, like the previous speaker just said about, you know, resting around their back yard. And I understand that. But the idea that we are instead of giving them services and allowing them to, you know, continue living in this beautiful city and instead, you know, choosing to criminalize them, you know, poverty is a policy choice. And when it comes down to the end of the day, we need to be helping these people instead of further criminalizing them. You know, as another speaker said, 9% of UC students are homeless. And they're living out their vehicles, living out their cars. And, you know, some of them can even be on the street. These are regular people trying to get an education, trying to live their lives. And we need to be protecting them. And obviously, with this ornament, not only is it completely unlawful and, you know, goes against all the values that we should have in society, but it really is dehumanizing towards homeless people because it continues this narrative that they're less than the average person. They're the exact same as me. They're the exact same as every single human being because, you know, we're all the same when it comes down to it. It doesn't matter if you have a house, a mansion, you're the exact same person. And when you order a cup of coffee, it doesn't matter who you are, you're just getting a cup of coffee. And I hope that you guys deny the ordinance to keep going and really just stand with the Santa Cruz people who are here tonight and fighting for this. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. We go ahead and go to the next speaker. Please identify yourself and you have three minutes. Go ahead, speaker, are you on the line? Savannah, we can't hear you if you're speaking. Okay, let's go ahead and put Savannah back in the queue and then we'll go to the next speaker and come back around to Savannah. Okay, speaker, you're on the line. Go ahead, you'll have three minutes. Hi, can you hear me? We can go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Serge Pagno of Stepping Up Santa Cruz. I was a member of the catch and have helped run some of our homeless shelters. I've consulted with the county and setting up the vet hall shelters and the project room key. I also will admit that I live in my vehicle and I am affected by the ordinance as well. Tonight's question is focused on giving permits for the OVO. The question is not whether the ordinance is compassionate or not. The question is not whether it's effective to housing people or not. One question that you have to decide is whether the Coastal Act allows for limiting access to the coastal zone. The staff mentioned tonight that it feels it does not limit access to the coastal zone because there are some beaches that are closed at night. But the issue is about low income people who can't cross the city. I have helped run some of the shelters in town and I've often heard people not being able to cross town because of gas money. So being excluded from the coastal zone at night would limit access for them during the coastal zone during the day. Another question as you're deciding whether to give permits for this ordinance is whether the ordinance is legally written. One aspect of it which has been mentioned tonight is about trash around vehicles and being able to site people even though there's no proof that they are the ones who put the trash out. So I think that that's simply just not legally defendable. For your question tonight about giving a permit for this, I suggest that you do not give permits for this until the city finds a different way to deal with those who are low income. Those who are not comfortable or feel safe to be part of programs and until the city also has more programs and more options for people. Forcing people into programs is not an effective way of solving this problem. But different ways of solving it whether mobile services or having more options available should come before giving this permit for the ordinance. Thank you for your time and stay safe. Thank you for your comments. Okay, we'll go back and try Savannah. Go ahead and unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes. Hello. You guys hear me now? Absolutely. All right. Thanks so much. My name is Vanna. I'm a first year at UCC also affiliated with the student housing coalition. And I'm asking the council to support ACLU and Santa Cruz Cares appealing the OVO. I don't continue and have personal experience with the family living out of their RV. It was a team that went to high school with me. They're two parents and they're cats. And even though they were a subpopulation that was typically given first access to safe parking and like other resources. These are all temporary and very limited and hard to achieve. So they were still largely dependent on themselves and were forced to like do their best to work around laws in order to protect their safety and the like the little security they had left. The government systems need to work with their own house populations and this can't be done by punishing them for like their own plight by imposing fines and attributing their belongings as like a nuisance. Settling further financial burdens and impounding their homes along with their possessions perpetuates the cycle homelessness. And so those are that's why I support prevent preventing the OVO from receiving a permit. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead and go to the next caller. Please identify yourself and you'll have three minutes. Hi, I'm last my man. I'm with the housing coalition. And honestly, I understand a lot of the frustrations that homeowners are feeling. I mean, people work hard to own their homes and they want safe neighborhoods. However, this ordinance is not at all the right way to go about ensuring a safe community criminalizing people and dehumanizing them is not a means of opening community dialogue between housing unhoused people and simply slapping fines and misdemeanors on people is not going to solve this problem. The homelessness issue in California is deeply rooted in a lot of different things and frankly it's not going to go anywhere anytime soon. And so just having, you know, an ordinance like this is not going to solve it. It's just going to shift the issue to somewhere else and it's just going to move an issue from one place to another. So frankly, I think that we should work on senior humanity in people that are living in their RVs and understand that we can work together as a community to build a dialogue and to move forward and do it through ways that aren't criminalization and ways they are building up and using compassion as a means of actually addressing the deep-seated issues behind homelessness and behind living in oversized vehicles. So I urge the commission to accept the appeal. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Moving to the next caller who hasn't identified yourself. Hi, this is Jazmi Nia. I am calling to urge you to please not issue the zoning permit for implementing OVO and coastal zones. You know, I really love that the ACLU explained how this is indeed criminalizing. I feel like staff is going on a technicality that the parking ticket is not a criminal offense. But as many have said, people can receive misdemeanors and their homes can be taken away. That is the criminal act in my opinion by the city. It's also extremely cruel. Reggie, on behalf of Santa Cruz Cares, made excellent points. You even used the actual facts of city staff. Please note the fiscal impact of the safe parking programs, which have barriers to access anyway. I just did the math and for 325,000 for 10% of the OVOs served, which would be 30 of them, 30 OVOs, that would be $10,833 a year per vehicle. For the 21,000 of providing services for 40%, that's 120 vehicles. That's $175 per vehicle. That's a huge difference and a big savings to bring services to where the people are. So you can see that the city has a narrative based on bias and discrimination. If what we care about as a city is to lift each other up and act with compassion and humanity, we would provide services to people where they are. When it comes to people's discomfort with those arguments about public nuisances and things, versus other people's survival, there should be no hesitation as to whom to support. And may I add something about the arguments I hear in the written documents regarding environmental effects? We talk about impact on wildlife and monarch. Are you aware of the application here? People don't matter as much as wildlife. The city is so worried about protecting wildlife. What about protecting our fellow Santa Cruzans? It's outrageous. It is shocking to me that this is even up for consideration. Again, I urge you to take a stand and do the right thing. Do not issue this permit. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. The next caller who hasn't identified yourself in the last three minutes. Hi, my name is Erica Aitken. I have a business in Santa Cruz and a home as well. I also support the ACLU's deal. According to the ACLU, the oversized vehicle ordinance is unconstitutional. And it goes against the Disability Rights Act. To help the city with implementing the ordinance is to subject not only the city but all of us to yet another lawsuit that we will lose. That alone should be enough for you to deny the permit. But also on the human side, a sport more practical and respectful solution is outlined by Santa Cruz cares, for example, today and many times before. Please don't waste even more money on lawsuits we can't win. Deny the permit and do the right thing. Thank you. Okay, thank you. The next caller, please identify yourself and we'll have three minutes. I think it's important that if you didn't already say that people do not have to identify themselves to speak to this commission, perhaps you said at the beginning. But I think it should be made clear if there are any other speakers. It seems overwhelming testimony against this ordinance. I don't mind identifying myself. My name is Robert Norris and I'm with almost night for friendship and freedom. The real question is, will the power that be the council and the police actually pay any attention to the overwhelming majority of testimony that gets presented, even if you do. They didn't in terms of defunding the police. And they haven't in terms of, I think, the actual ordinance discussions, although there was quite a, there was quite a number of voices raised in that regard, well organized voices on the right. The problem is bigotry masquerading itself, which is a form of hypocrisy. It's sad that the staff, as it usually does aligns itself with a thinly disguised ordinance designed to reassure those who want to run the visible poor out of town while bombing their consciences with the illusion that resources are being provided. Now, this struggle has gone on for years and it's likely to continue. If the planning commission does refuse to rubber stamp this law, it will likely, as was the case, find itself reversed by the city council as it was in the case of Alicia Cool. Folks will have to continue to put their voices and their bodies on the line to resist what is likely to be an increasing crackdown. It's obvious the answer to homelessness is housing and not the strip folks of their vehicles for parking without a permit. However, for those concerned about property values, inflated with a sense of privilege, empowered with outside funding to strike down rent control and to recall progressive council members and to ignore public comment, that makes little different. So what does this mean? It means you must appear in numbers. I'm talking to the people who are speaking today, as well as any sympathetic members of the planning commission. You appear in numbers when tow trucks appear or when police begin sweeping folks off the levee without adequate alternatives, as they did today, March 3rd, for those on the levee. There are embarrassing politicians and city bureaucrats who pander to this kind of attack on poor people in whatever forums they frequent. That's how you begin to make some changes here. This process is kind of like a pantomime play when we all give our testimony and we're all ignored. It's a really serious problem. Of course, I've given you elaborate different kinds of reasons why I took this to the Coastal Commission in 2016 and I won the appeal. There have not been any other appeals as far as I know. That's why the main and Cal Beach closures were actually granted because they never got appeals to the Coastal Commission itself that I heard of. So let's not be misled by staff claims and I would say it's the community here that has to act, although we're using the planning commission as an opportunity and I urge the planning commission to also show the right face here and do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you. Also, I just want to say that I do take Mr. Norris's point and I do want to be clear, we asked you to identify yourself when you speak, but you can choose not to do that. So let's go ahead and go to the next caller. You'll have three minutes. Hi, can everyone hear me? Yes, go ahead please. Hi, so my name is Isadora and I'm a student at UCSC and with the Student Housing Coalition and the YDSA. I actually moved to Santa Cruz recently, so I can really attest to how difficult it is, especially for students to find housing that is actually affordable. And I sympathize a lot with students who can't afford the housing and have to live in their cars. And I really think there are better alternatives and better things that could be done with, you know, the time of the city than the oversized vehicle ordinance, which really just makes life harder for people who are already struggling. I usually talk to them on to go forward with the oversized vehicle ordinance. Yeah, and to just look into alternatives that can be done. Thank you. Okay, clerk. I'll go ahead and give one more, two more seconds to see if anybody else would like to raise their hand and speak before I close the public hearing. It looks like some hands are coming up. So let's go ahead and go to the next speaker, please. Go ahead, speak to the other three minutes. So thank you for taking my call. My name's Carol Paul Hamas, and I'm on the steering committee of Westside Neighbors. Westside Neighbors was founded in 2019 based on this very issue, which was one city council member's proposal to allow overnight RV parking on Delaware Avenue on the lower west side. Westside Neighbors sent you a several page rebuttal, which I'm not sure you had a chance to read, but there were 796 pages in this report and 500 of them were emails previously received by people mostly on the lower west side. I'm appealing to you to help and the city council to help us find ways to mitigate the problems that the west side has experienced with a large number of overnight vehicles parking on city street. Ironically, we agree with Santa Cruz care in this way. We think that people need services. We believe that the overnight vehicle ordinance, if you read the whole thing, I'm sure you did, but I'm not sure some of the callers did. We'll see that there is a proposal to provide services for people and to consolidate services in a way that is most cost effective and also most helpful for county services, as well as sanitation services. This is not about criminalizing people. It is about not allowing city neighborhoods to become unsanctioned RV parks, which has created a lot of problems. Those are also documented in the staff report from city staff earlier in the process of the OVO. We're asking you to deny the appeal. We're asking you to uphold the city council's attempt at regulation to help people to move into safe spaces parking. We know that the city is coming up with more and more places for people to park, which will be revealed next week. And we're asking you to support the city neighborhoods and the people who need help, both with services and with having their city streets not become or not continue to be RV parks without services. Thank you for listening. Good night. Thank you for your comments. We'll go ahead and go to next caller caller. You have three minutes. Hi, they're a Filipino here. I know I'm involved in many local community organizations. I'm representing only myself and my own views tonight on the subject. I find the concerns of the local communities, experiencing these parked over sized vehicles, very compelling. And I think they should be recognized and they are of real concern. However, I can't find any concern that does not have a corresponding law already in place that I would see as not being implemented adequately, or in some times actually discriminatorily implemented on certain people unfairly. On top of that, it seems that what the city staff is actually kind of new, sorry, my chat is making noise in the background. There are a couple of justifications, one of which being that the oversized vehicle ordinance and issuance of the associate permit does not criminalize the homeless. However, it absolutely creates a ticketing and potential towing structure that is in fact the definition of a criminal act in that it is a violation of a local law that has a definable consequence. On top of that, they also say an entire other category of their justification for this permit, they want to put through is that it doesn't eliminate postal access and they give you a whole bunch of examples of, you know, local state parks and areas along in which you're not allowed to park during certain hours of the night. However, that is for all sized vehicles. What they're doing with this oversized vehicle ordinance is in effect creating a discriminatory act against the people who are dependent on living in that they're oversized vehicles, but allowing anyone in a normal size vehicle to park in these locations. I think that there are so many human issues with this. And I do think that also the people who have issue with some of the concerns around the current pattern of where some of these oversized vehicles are collecting. Those are real too. We have better solutions and ones that are humane and ones that do not criminalize these people. We need to create avenues of service and working together and recognizing that this is part of our community. And listening to what they actually have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Okay, we're going to go ahead and do last call and to go ahead and put your hands up and then I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Okay. Okay, I'm seeing one. Last call and whatever hands are up. After I call last call here, that'll be it. So we're going to go ahead and go with Lisa is going to be our last speaker for the public hearing. Lisa, go ahead and you'll have three minutes. Okay. Thank you. I'll be I'll be very quick. So I'm just calling as a local downtown business owner and I'm asking you to uphold this deal. And please reject the oversized vehicle ordinance. Many of our regulars and my personal friends with the vehicle and criminalizing their shelter is simply global and discriminatory. You've heard many clearing telling points tonight to protect the community. So I really hope that you will listen to them. Thank you. Thank you for your comments and thank everybody in the public for attending and for your comments. And with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. And we will bring the item back to the commission for consideration. So, are there any commissioners who would like to make comments? Yes, thank you. I really struggled with this issue. I think it raises a whole host of concerns, many of which have been presented tonight. I have process concerns as well as substance concerns with the permits before us. I am concerned whether the coastal design permits are properly before us. And approving permits to carry out an ordinance in the coastal zone that hasn't been approved by the coastal commission. I don't know that's the way down in the county. And it just seems to do that. But since staff in the city attorney have assured us, at least I've heard that they were sure that this approach is legal and approved by coastal commission staff. I guess that's the way it is. I also have concerns about the difference between ordinance and the permit. Normally, the permit carries out an ordinance. And here it's unclear how much the provisions of the permit are also just the provisions of the ordinance. And from my perspective, it's important to understand the difference between an ordinance and a permit. The ordinance is a law that contains the regulations that apply and permits generally implement the law. Mostly what we do, the planning commission, when we look at projects that come forward that need various permits, it's a question. Our job is where they, to the extent we have a job anymore, do they adequately conform to the city's general plan of zoning ordinance? So it's just a little unusual, I guess, what's happening here in terms of the relationship between the ordinance and the permit. I think it's important to emphasize that what is before today is not the ordinance. It is the permit that carries out the ordinance. And if the council has adopted the ordinance, that's not before us and concerns about the council's motivation or whether the ordinance is being adequately carried out. I don't know whether that's really property before us. I don't think it really is. Whether we agree with the provisions of the ordinance or not, our job is to determine whether the permits implement the ordinance consistent with its provisions, the general plan and the zoning ordinance. I think there's a final process concern I have and it's kind of the tricky situation where the city is both the regulator and the applicant. That's always a little bit difficult in terms of the whole issue of the city bias in its own behalf. And I think it's important that as a commission we exercise our independent judgment and whatever decision we make. So those are kind of my process concerns. I understand that we can move forward and I'm willing to move forward. So I want to talk a little bit about the substance because I think this is really where we've really heard a lot of the testimony tonight is around the ordinance and the permits criminalizing behavior. What is the state parking program all about? Let me first say that from my perspective, the overall objective of the ordinance seems to me to be a strike of balance between the rights of the ordinance. Between the rights of people living in fixed housing and the rights of people living in oversized vehicles. And residents living in fixed housing have a right to safe and peaceful neighborhoods. And I don't think public streets are appropriate locations for permanent housing and oversized vehicles really kind of function as permanent housing. I have a problem with that notion that somehow people can park their oversized vehicles on the streets forever and that's fine because they need to. On the other hand, people living in oversized vehicles have a right to safe undisturbed places to sleep. And so that's where I see the ordinance and the theory of the ordinance, the theory of the permit is to strike this balance and provide for, you know, improvements in neighbor situations, but also to allow to assure that people have the right to have a safe place to sleep. I think the ordinance and trying to balance these rights by requiring residents of fixed housing to obtain permits that only for limited periods if they want to park there when they get oversized vehicles on the street is legitimate. I think prohibiting other oversized vehicles to park on city streets overnight is legitimate, but only if they are parking spaces available to them as an alternative. And I think that for me that's the crux of the matter is a lot of the testimony, at least as I understand it is kind of based on the notion that there are places for people to go and under this ordinance and these permits, the people who don't have a place to go will be ticketed and forced to move or forced to move. So I think the objectives of the ordinance are reasonable and I can support them. Unfortunately, though, I don't think that conditions of approval for the permit adequately carry out these intentions. While a safe parking program is identified, it isn't clearly required while enforcement of the oversized vehicle parking prohibitions is related to the availability of safe parking places. It isn't clear who can participate in the program. The ordinance speaks to participating in the safe parking programs, but never really defines what this entails. What does it mean for participants to register? What are the eligibility requirements? There are no details provided or required each outlining how the safe parking program is going to work. Overall then, I don't think the permit, the permits do not provide the assurance that people without fixed housing will only be prohibited from parking their oversized vehicles on city streets overnight if they have a safe parking space available to them. And to my mind, that's what the permits need to provide. So despite my concerns regarding the process and with the way the permits are before us, I am willing to support the permit, but only if some significant changes are made to the conditions of approval. Because that's where we as a commission have the ability to condition the implementation of the permits to assure that the requirements or the intention of the ordinance is carried out. At the appropriate time, I want to make a motion to do this. It will take some time and it may make sense for me to share the screen and go through the changes in the ordinance that I mean in the conditions of approval that I think need to be adopted in order for the permit to adequately carry out the ordinance and protect all the neighborhoods and the people living in the oversized vehicles. Okay. But I don't want to cut off other commissioners comment. So I can wait on making a motion, but when the commission is ready, I will make the motion and share my screen to show the conditions of approval and the proposed changes I would recommend being made. Thank you, Commissioner Schifrin. I see Mr. Butler's hand up. So let's go ahead and hear from Mr. Butler and then we'll bring it back to the commission for any additional comments before we swing back to Mr. Schifrin, Mr. Butler. Thank you, Chair Dawson and thank you Commissioner Schifrin for that very well thought out consideration of where we're at. And yes, it is a odd situation where we've got the coastal permit that are that's implementing the ordinance. And I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to a few of the comments that you said as well as clarify some of the things that I heard from the speakers in the public. First off, I think it's important to recognize that we do have a requirement in the conditions of approval that precludes the enforcement of the no parking between midnight and 5am for oversized vehicles unless and until at least one safe parking location is in operation. So I'll do a quick screen share for you so you can see that. So this is the condition of approval here and this is essentially saying that the parking restrictions in the section 10.4128 that's the midnight to 5am restrictions shall not be implemented unless and until at least one safe parking location is in operation. And of course, we have identified that if there is not sufficient capacity in the safe parking, but someone is registered for safe parking, but there's not sufficient capacity, then they would not have enforcement occur against them. So they would have a permit that they could display and they would have locations where they could go and park on street so that it is not actually criminalizing living in an RV. It is encouraging people to go to the locations, the safe parking locations where they're connected services, both the services like trash service and the services like restroom services as well as where we can have individuals from our nonprofit service providers in the county connect with these individuals and hopefully help them connect to a larger array of social services and ultimately to housing. And that's exactly what the tier three approach is looking to do that is a 24 seven approach where we would have case management services where the city would be paying for direct case management services to really link these individuals to the services that can help them get to into permanent housing, which is the goal. I wanted to point out a few other things here. The, there were some comments about the, the city, you know, not funding services and the implications associated with that. So, and also costs associated with that. So we have funded spaces in the past, for example, at last 17 behind wheel work. We offered spaces for free to AFC, the Association of faith communities who operated that we also paid for the port of bodies, the restroom services and the trash services at that location. We recently stood up the pilot program for the tears one and two, and we're going to learn from that and we're going to expand that out as we're learning. I wanted to point out the, the, one of the appellants had used the photograph in the staff report as an example, and said, yes, it's clean all around the garbage can. You know, we wanted to focus on the, the, the dumpster, because that's, you know, that was the focus of that point. But if you actually see here, this is the same photo just from a different angle. Sorry, the, the same picture just from a different angle. Here's the cart that you saw in the other picture. You can see the RVs in the background, which we wanted to show. But if you actually look here, you know, there is a significant amount of debris. That is, is right back here, right behind the dumpster. And so it's not just the costs associated with removing the debris. There are significant costs that are our. City encourage for removing other debris surrounding these uses as well. Another, just another example here of a trailer with a large amount of debris that is out in the street here that you can see. So I just wanted to point that out that it's, it's not as simple as it's just that cost. There are, there are substantial costs that we incur on a regular basis. I did want to also speak to the barriers or safe parking program. We do not have any barriers at this point. You do not have to have registration. You do have to follow some rules.  You can't bury your trash out. You have to be quiet after hours and so forth. The, the, I wanted to be clear because there were some questions about that in the public comment that the ordinances made nine to five and restrictions, those have not gone into effect. And so I just wanted to be clear about that. And the, the, there were some comments about the trash and the ordinance provisions related to that. The coastal permit and the design permit are not related to those particular provisions in the ordinance. This is about the coastal access provisions and the state, state parking. And then I just would like to point out that, you know, this, these, these permits, both the coastal permit and design permit would actually facilitate the city's ability to set up a state parking program inside the coastal zone. And so this would allow for parking lots within the coastal zone to be utilized. And one thing that we are looking to do is actually have a larger number of locations with a smaller number of vehicles in each one. So that it isn't a large concentration, but rather smaller ones. And then I think finally, I would just point out that there aren't some of the details with respect to, you know, the registration provisions. We'd be happy to take a look at thoughts and ideas that you have surrounding that. But I also would caution the commission and not getting too detailed there. Because we've got our former parking programs manager who's still working with the city just in a different department now on the line here. And if needed, he can speak to some of the provisions that we have in place related to that registration process. But we also want to be flexible, right? If we're finding that the registration of going down to the parking office doesn't work, then we might want to have some other approach. So right now we have a number that you can call and they provide you instructions on how to get a permit for those facilities. But I want to just maintain that that flexibility is really important. We're going to be conducting outreach and engagement with those early adopters, the ones that are coming into the program. Initially, so that we can understand, hey, how would we serve you better? What would be an easier approach? And we'll take that into consideration as we're morphing where the safe parking locations go. What kind of services are provided? We'll hear from the neighbors of these programs so that we can help address any of the concerns there. And I think that's it. That's a lot. Sorry, I heard a lot of things that were words I felt responding to. Okay. Thank you. So we'll bring it back to commissioners for any comments. And then we can go ahead and consider a motion and then have discussion about that as we would like. So anybody like to comment before we entertain a motion and then we would have discussion about that motion. Okay, looks like maybe we'll go ahead and go back to Commissioner Schiffer. Oh, I'm sorry, Julie. You have books in your hand color is exactly the same color as the books. I always miss it. So, sorry. Commissioner Conway, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. And I don't want to take a lot of time and I'm looking forward to hearing commissioner Schiffer and ideas about tightening this up. I do want to thank the community members who are providing input. This is a, it is a very difficult process to create a safe parking program. And I want to, there's been a lot of people involved in trying to find a reasonable way to thread the needle. And this attempt is trying to do a whole lot of things. I felt like I appreciated the feedback and the attention that people were paying to this matter. But I felt like lots of what was missed was that this actually is an attempt to move this forward and to create some safe parameters. I have some really big concerns about it also. However, and, you know, mostly that it needs, it really does need to be low barrier. It needs to not cost and including the hidden cost of forcing people to drive somewhere in order to get registered. There needs to be plenty of spaces. And I think that there is some work that we can do to move this forward. I, I guess we're not really addressing the appeals at this time. And, you know, I guess I'd rather really talk about how can we make this better? How can we move this forward? Because we clearly have a big problem. And I don't think any of us, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I'm certainly interested in finding a way to support people who are living in their vehicles, which is an incredibly important ability. People who have vehicles are safer on the penal street. And I think we can stand up programs that will allow them to be safer and on her ass and have access to just the simple services of living, which I know that the city program is trying to do and also make sure that people are safe. So I really look forward to further discussion to try to meet those goals. Thank you, Commissioner Conway. Okay. Why don't we go ahead and go back to Commissioner Schifrin. And if you'd like to share your screen, I would go ahead and entertain a motion. And if we get a second, then we can go ahead and have more discussion about it. First of all, I think when I respond to Mr. Butler, because I think he did clearly express the intention, which I agree with, of what this program is all about. But as part of that, I think you raised some of the issues that are of concern, which I feel that and sometimes are so close to something, you don't really see its limit. And I think that's really my intent is in proposing these revisions to the conditions of approval, is to really make sure that the intent of the motion is carried out. And let me just say in terms of one of the issues she raised is a very common issue in the land of regulation, which is do you want flexibility or do you want certainty? And the regulator is 10 to 1 flexibility, the recipients 10 to 1 certainty. And I think with this issue, we have, as we've seen with the testimony, we have a good deal of distrust of the city and what its intentions are, what it's actually doing, what its representatives are doing. And in that kind of situation, I think it's better to have certainty, to have more certainty and less flexibility. The conditions of approval allow the city manager to make changes. And I think from my perspective, it's, as you'll see, the proposed motion is pretty detailed. So can people see the screen? Yeah, if you could make it maybe one page and a little bit bigger so people would have a better chance of seeing the writing. Let me try to figure out how to do that. All right, let me, okay. That's a little bit better. Well, it's the same as it was. How's that? I think so. How's that for other commissioners? Thumbs up? Okay. So I would use that the planning commission take the following action. Approve the spare recommendations regarding the cost of permit and design permit with the following revisions to the conditions of approval. And the changes, the revisions are with underlines and force outs. So I won't read the whole, even though the conditions of approval were only on two pages, I won't read that what isn't being changed. I'll just read those sections that are being changed while we're on the motion would would be to make these changes. So in section number one, if one of the following conditions related to the same parking program is not met with respect to all its terms, the enforcement of the ordinance will not be allowed and the approval of a safe parking program at a specified location may be resolved. So that's really just tying to the same parking program to the enforcement of the ordinance. And then in number three, the use shall meet the standards and be developed within the limits established in 2014 regarding emissions of noise, odor, smoke, dose, vibration, et cetera. And what's added is mitigation measures may be applied when proposed by staff. Safe parking program participants to bring them into compliance. City of Santa Cruz will actively seek funding to provide mobile mechanics to assist participants and need it as needed. So again, this is speaking to services and responses in terms of trying to assist the clients in participating in the program. The major prevention of the condition of approval is this condition for the safe parking program. And it was, I didn't think it was very clearly written. So I'm proposing that it be rewritten to say a safe parking program as described in section 1040-120M of the vehicle and traffic section of the municipal code shall be implemented by the city and remain in effect for the life of the permit. So this really is saying in order to have the permit, you need to have a safe parking program. Site location shall be in the City of Santa Cruz and will include basic sanitation services at a minimum, whatever toilet and washing stations, trash containers, and detailed information will be provided with an up-to-date list of options for sanitation and blackwater dumping. City of Santa Cruz will actively seek funding to provide vouchers for blackwater dumping and fuel to offset costs for relocation and waste management for participants in the safe parking program. And so again, requiring not just the intention to provide services, but really putting the services be provided. And then these off-speed locations changing hours from 8 p.m. to 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. And then again, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. or 8 a.m. And then under for the, there will be no cost to participants in the safe parking program. That's in the conditions. And then the new sections are the prohibitions of section 10.40.120A, which prohibits the overnight parking, shall not be applied to any person an oversized vehicle collectively that does not have free and unrestricted access to a safe parking program, parking space, and there shall be no registration or eligibility requirements to participate in the program. It was very confusing. There was no description of what, there was a reference to registration. There was no description of what the registration would entail, what kind of eligibility would be required. If it's, if it's going to be available to people living in their oversized vehicles, it needs to be without barriers. And I think others have talked about it being without barriers. And then either the added conditions and operations are managed from plan for the safe parking program shall be approved by the zoning administrator with me much from the effective date of the permit and shall contain the following. So as other kind of uses to carry out the project, there needs to be a management plan that's available that's approved by the ZA and that's available to the public, but that there is details of how the program is going to operate. And it's not simply decisions at the staff level that for all the best intentions in the world may not be clear to people. There should be procedures for informing law enforcement. So the provisions or part of the plan would include procedures for informing law enforcement personnel in real time of the availability of safe parking program parking spaces. And this procedure should be in place prior to enforcement of the ordinance. There should be procedures to ensure that potential participants of the same parking program will confront no barriers to their participation. There should be details regarding the funding and management of the safe parking program. I think these are all things that that we've heard that the city is intending to do, but I think it's legitimate given the importance of the program and the controversy around the program that they all be made clear. Parking restrictions contained in, again, the prohibition shall not be implemented until and unless a safe parking space is available. If all available safe parking spaces are filled, the non permit parking restrictions shall not be enforced. I think this is sort of critical in terms of the, in terms of the good intention of the city, because the, as the, as Mr Butler said, the ordinance is the, the, the enforcement can occur unless there is at least one safe parking space. Well, that I think is insufficient. There needs to be a nexus between the availability of spaces and the enforcement of the ordinance. Otherwise, there are going to be people who are enforced against where there may not just may not be enough spaces, which according to testimony is not that unlikely. If a vehicle cannot relocate to a safe, safe parking location due to a mechanical issue of a lack of fuel of physical or physical mental or emotional difficulties of the vehicle operator that prevents state operation of the vehicle parking restrictions will not be enforced for up to 72 hours in the right to sleep with the current location will be observed. The city shall notify the occupant of any resources available to assist in revenue, whatever is preventing them from moving a vehicle to a safe parking spot. So, my motion is to approve the permits with the revision to the conditions as, as, as, as I've just outlined, but the motion, I don't know if somebody is willing to second it, but that's what I'm making as a motion. Yeah. Looks like commissioner Maxwell has seconded it. So we have a motion on the floor from commissioner shifrin and second by miss your Maxwell. And we go ahead and open discussion. I see. Miss Bronson's hand. Go ahead. Hey, I'll introduce myself. I work in the city attorney's office.  I'm an attorney in the city attorney's office. I was wondering, I've never seen this document. I was wondering if it might be possible. To email me a copy of the document and maybe take a brief recess. So that I can review and make sure that it's. Really appropriate. It's pretty long and it's a little surprising to get something so long to have to review on spot. I don't know if that would be possible or appropriate or how, how you always feel about it, but. I'm happy to do it. What is your email address? Sure. And it's to see Bronson. At ABC, I've been law dot com. And the law. Yes. Okay. Well, you're doing that. I see commissioner Kennedy's hand and let's get some feedback from other commissioners and then we'll consider a recess perhaps. Well, can we get it by email too? It's the first time I've seen it as well. So I'm feeling kind of like I need to digest it a bit. Yeah, so I guess like I want to ask, is this the first time staff has seen that at all? Well, you know, I have been told by staff, well, there are two problems with not being able to send my thoughts to people before the meeting. Or even at the start of the meeting. I've been told that it's a violation of the Brown act for me to send anything to anybody. I tell a majority of the commissioners before the meeting. Certainly. The other issue is I didn't, you know, I've been thinking about this ordinance. But I didn't want to present a final motion until I heard from public testimony because it really didn't seem legitimate to, you know, sort of circumvent that testimony and not allow that to also affect the motion itself. So. So, the best way is to have that. The website public come back to it and then I can send it. Go ahead and and do that. Okay, so I sent it to the attorney and to you test. And let me know if you get it. And so just to be clear, and I might need a little direction from staff here. So, so we have a motion and a second on the floor. I think there is also the potential to continue the item if we're going to need more time to consider it. And then there's also the potential for us to take a 15 minute recess. So. Is that something commissioners would support? It looks like it's about 909, 910 now. We could take a 15 minute research. Recess. Am I seeing nox mostly from commissioners with that? I would prefer to act on it tonight if possible. Okay. I don't know whether the attorney has received my email and whether the test has received the email. I want to make sure you've gotten it. Okay. And, and, and test. And how long would it take for you to get it up on the website for folks to be able to to look at it as well. The public be able to look at it. Okay, moments. Okay. So, so why don't we go ahead and is 910 by a lot. Why don't we go ahead and take a recess and we will return at 925. So we will go into recess. Let me go ahead and call in Commissioner Greenberg before we go into recess. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Dawson. I was just curious. So we're getting, we would go into recess and then we all would have a chance to review this. And you're saying that public would have a chance to review this. Well, and there would be additional comment or what do you, yeah. Yeah, I don't think that we would reopen. I don't think there's a requirement to reopen the public hearing staff. I think that would, would, since the public hearing is closed, it would just go back to the commission to act on the motion. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, right. So I think it is important though that the public can at least view what we're acting on. So, again, this, this is the this is what we have been in consideration for this meeting, right? And this is the condition of approval associated with that action. So we will go into recess for 15 minutes. We will come back at 925. And then commissioners will have a chance to further deliberate. And then we will go ahead and vote on this motion. There's a clear on that. Okay, I will go ahead and call the meeting into motion into recess and we will return at 925. Do you want me to put it back up? We could go. Well, let's hold off on that for a second. Let me just officially call us back into session here. We have a motion before us to approve the coastal development permit and the design permit to implement the oversized vehicle ordinance with with changes proposed changes to the conditions of approval. So go ahead and bring it back to commissioners. Hopefully you had a time. It wasn't very long, but there, there were some substantive changes proposed. So does anybody want to have any comments or questions before we go to a vote? I have some comments, but I'll, I'll be last in line. So it looks like I think commissioner Conway and then commissioner Kennedy. Thank you. And commissioner Schifrin, thank you for providing this. I think it is helpful. And of course, we're a little bit on the fly. I generally agree with the clarifications. I feel like you are not, you've not in making this motion. You're not redoing or undoing the work that staff and the many people that have participated in this, but it's mostly clarification. I'd like to clarify that as to the no barriers. I certainly agree that there shouldn't be barriers to participating. However, the expectation that participants and safe parking programs will follow reasonable rules that have been developed by the operator are important. That's one comment. And the other one is on number six, you're suggesting that there could be a set of reasons why a vehicle can't relocate. I appreciate you. Thank you for acknowledging that. But the occupant will also need to follow all of the other laws on the books. Maybe it goes without saying no black water discharge, trash, and, you know, the disruptive behavior. Those are those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Conway. Go ahead. Commissioner Kennedy. Oh, let me lower my hand. I'm just working through him. Give me another minute. We're going to hear from staff back on legality at some point here too. Yes, perhaps. Miss Johnson would like to chime in and then we can go to Mr. Butler. Miss Johnson. Okay, so we've had a few minutes to look over it and I don't haven't got through the whole thing. Yes, I just sort of looking at it in terms of clarity of language, making sure that we're not having any unintended consequences and also to make sure that everything is within your purview as a planning commission. One, the change I think you might consider is in the paragraph one. The under underlined in black it says the enforcement of the ordinance will not be allowed and you might consider changing that to the enforcement of section 10.40.1 to a to just clarify that it's that one section of the ordinance that has to deal with the parking rule. I think that was intended, but that's something that you might consider is also.  And I'm willing to make that change as a friendly amendment to the motion. To specify the section I think that's a good suggestion. I'm going to see where and. I'll go ahead and second. Do I need to second your. Well, no, we just have to ask the person who seconded it. It's okay with him as well. Okay, great. Thank you. And, and I think that same change could be made in other places as well where it talks about the ordinance. Let's see in the. They're one of the bullet points here. I tried to put in the code section. Yeah, I failed. So, where are we in the. If we look at number 5. If we go 1, 2, 3. The 4th bullet point ahead of that. It also says sort of the ordinance. I might suggest replacing that with a reference to code again 10.40.1 to a. That's acceptable to me is that acceptable to the makers of. If we're talking about that specific provision chair, would it be okay if I joined in and ask our attorney about. Our approach here. Let's go ahead and get through the attorney's comments and then we can ask questions. Why don't you go ahead and finish response and then we will go to Mr. Butler after we. Make it through your comments. Okay, and then just that same comment once again in paragraph number 5. The last sentence. It does if all safe parking spaces are filled. And I might suggest you right then, you know, section 10.40.1 to a 1 to a shall not be enforced just as again as a point of clarity. And that's acceptable to me. If it's acceptable to the second, the second. Okay. I couldn't come up with a good language. And then I think maybe now it's maybe at least I think we have had number of sort of policy. There are a number of issues that are maybe legal, maybe policy and that Lee and I talked about during the break. I'll let him take from here. Thanks Kathy and I think. Yeah, just. So, so I just want to encourage. Mr. Johnson to chime in and it would be very important. I think that the commissioners to understand the points of policy where there may be concerns and the points of law where there may be concerns. So it would be very good to get a lot of clarity around that because those can. Be hard to parse so please as much as we can. Can we make those clarifications through the comments. Thank you. The first one that I would like to point out is the, the hours. I actually, I think that the hours there are the changes to the hours are problematic. We had some really detailed conversations with the coastal commission staff about those about how the safe parking programs. Can be designed in a manner to not limit public access. And so when we're putting the program in place, we're essentially saying that those individuals can park in this location during those hours. And the coastal commission was concerned about having those hours too early. And so if they're starting at 6pm, rather than 8pm, they were concerned that the visitors to the coast. May have access precluded by these safe parking programs. And the the commission also did not support. The staff, I should say I want to be clear that this is the staff. They were talking with not the commission itself, but the commission staff did not support. 247 facilities. In the coastal zone. You know, I think in thinking through it in theory, you know, there could be some private lot where that could be the case and we could wordsmith this such that that a private lot would be allowed. But we were specifically talking and anticipating that these would be in public on public properties. And, you know, public lot and the coastal commission did not want that 247 program. In a place where it's going to take up and potentially prohibit public access in or limit of a cactus in the coastal zone. That was 1 of the comments that can I follow up with you. So, some of these parking spaces are going to be in the coastal zone. Some of them may not be in the coastal zone. Would there be any problems sort of differentiating as it kind of does in the conditions where we would say within the coastal zone. It would be 8pm to 10pm to 8am. But outside of the coastal zone, they could be from 6pm to 8am. There's no issue with that. The only concern is that, you know, some locations that might be more challenging. If, for example, it's a location where office workers or retail workers are using that location. You know, the 6pm stuff could be more challenging. So, again, this is, you talked eloquently, Commissioner Schifrin, about that balance between, you know, certainty and flexibility. And this is one where, you know, providing that flexibility, I think is important. Because a different one site might be fine at 6pm. And another might not be. I hear what you're saying. And I said it's kind of in the interest of trying to maximize the number of parking locations. It may give more ability to have a later date. I wonder if it would say no later than 8pm. And then that would give you the flexibility if you could have it earlier in some other places. It could work. I'd be willing to support that. How does that sound to you? I think two things. One, I think if we had something like would strive to be open as early as possible near 6am, but may, or sorry, 6pm. But maybe adjusted on a case by case basis. I might ask at this point, Brian Borguno, our former parking manager now working in our economic development department. But just maybe if he has a perspective on whether or not, you know, 8, you know, sometimes is there a lot, for example, where we would say, hey, you know, this is heavily utilized until 9pm, for example. And so on this one, maybe we did 9 to 8. And again, I just want to reiterate for the commission and for the public that we're actually looking to do these in a lot of different places, small numbers in a lot of places. And so if it's okay, Brian, maybe any issues with a later start time in some locations. I guess a point of clarification. This is a coastal permit for coastal locations. I would want to make sure that I understand that is the intent then to mandate what's happening outside of the coast, do that provision and how we program locations versus in the coast. That's a great question, Brian. There's also a design permit. So I don't know, that was one of the confusing things is design permit is both in the coast and outside of the coast. So what provision applies to design permit, what provision applies to the coastal permit, I'll leave it up to you to figure that one out. So that's my first question. The second part of that is I think, you know, the hours that we had proposed, again, we're in coordination with coastal commission staff. And there is problematic conflict with availability. The earlier we go in the day at a lot of the locations that we are attempting to stand up early on in this program, but that may not always be the case. So the more flexibility we have on not mandating a time start, the more opportunity we have to stand up more locations. The proposed, I'm kind of convinced, I don't know about the second, but I'm kind of convinced that we, you know, the original conditions of approval were for 8pm to 8am. As I remember, the additional operational criteria may be applied by the city manager. I would say that that would give you the flexibility that maybe you're asking for. But again, trying to find the balance between certainty and clarity and flexibility. I'm willing to go back to the original time, based on the coastal commission, to the extent that if the permit is approved, it has, if we approve it tonight, if there is a voice to approve this and the support from the coastal commission staff, that's going to be desirable in terms of the ability to move forward with permit. So if it's okay with the second, I would go back to having the hours from 8pm to 8am. Is that okay with the second? Commissioner McFaul? That's okay with me. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, there's two places where that is located, I guess. Yeah, and Commissioner Shifrin, you can feel free to share your screen if you, since you're making life changes and that might help the other commissioners kind of track as we move through these. Okay. Um, share. I think we can go ahead to Commissioner Kennedy. Thanks, chair. So I really do appreciate the intent here of kind of doing some fine tuning. And I think some of these ideas are good. I did work through the bullets. So before I work through those just to set the table here, I'm coming in at the end of a very long process here. And my concern is kind of upsetting balances that have been worked out through committees and all these, you know, different things that have happened over the years. So at least from my perspective, changing things like 8 to 6, I don't know. That might have a big difference for a neighbor, you know, the two hours. So I'm just a little bit nervous about running in here and moving things around. So I don't think you need my vote to pass this probably. If you do, I'm fine with number one and number four, those are great. Good clarifications. I have some reservations about number three, you know, his mobile mechanic, a thing, or is this like just adding extra costs to the city where there's no budget. Similarly, like, okay, so where I draw the line is number six, just to me feels like it's way over the line. You know, it seems to accommodate mental emotional difficulties, all these different things. It just seems like that would be very hard to implement. So I'm not in favor of number six in any way. And then number four, like, I don't know, it's just getting so specific with all those additional bullet points. So I could go in one and three. And with love and compassion to our houseless members of our community, truly, I want to bring the focus back to Carol and the neighbors and you know, all that the neighbors have gone through through this process and I want to reemphasize that this is a balancing and a good place to start and we should just do it. Let's, let's, let's deny the appeal, run it out there. Staff is great at adjusting, getting new data. So that's where I'm at with the whole thing. So just to recap, like, yeah, condition changes one and four no sweat. For me, three, the mobile mechanic is too much. Four is just too much detail in the bullets for condition in my opinion.  That's really hard for us to develop effective policies around. So that's where I'm at with this. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and make my comments and then look like Mr. Is that the only concern you had? It's not. I've got a series of other comments. If the mission would be interested in hearing. Okay. Yeah, let's go ahead and run through those. Go ahead. Great. Thank you. Chair Dawson. So, uh, Mr. Schifrin, or excuse me, commissioner Schifrin, you've got the number four there. If you scroll down to the bullet that begins in the prohibitions. Okay. Right here. Yeah. I think that is wholly redundant with the condition number five. And so I don't think that that is necessary. You can, you can take a look at the two and see. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think that has to do with, um, registration and, um, eligibility requirements. I kind of almost, I mean, you're right. It is somewhat redundant. Um, but there's a matter of mucking in the most of number five. Um, just taken from the conditions of, um, I don't think that's necessary. Um, unfortunately I didn't course out all that was there. Um, And with, I think this is kind of a timing line as well. Um, it's, well, I guess I'm, as I'm thinking about, I think they are different. Uh, prohibitions one says they're not going to be applied to any person that doesn't have a free and restricted access to a parking space and there should be no registration eligibility requirements. Um, So, um, I don't know prohibition shall not be implemented until a safe space is available. And if they're all taken, then it won't be important. So it really just emphasizes that point. Right. And, um, with respect to your, um, your comments about the barriers, I think that's better handled in, you have a specific bullet related to that. Um, a couple further down where it talks about procedures. Um, and I would think that, um, you know, you may want to, as, um, commissioner Conway suggested, you may want to, um, like that language a little bit, uh, with respect to as commissioner Conway was saying that there are some rules that need to be followed. With respect to, um, you know, good neighbor policies, right? Um, and, you know, you can't, you can't be disruptive. Um, and, and so forth. But I think that, that, um, and the, um, some of those, uh, registration, um, criteria can be added to the, um, barrier bullet below and still be covered by number five and have everything else covered by number five. So, so Mr. Butler, um, if I'm hearing you correctly, I mean, it seems, well, I'm just trying to facilitate moving this along here. So, um, chair, chair different, you want to keep the sections that Mr. Butler has brought up and then, um, we can go on to.  Um, do you have some language that you would suggest? Um, yeah, let, let, let me work on that and, uh, go ahead, Mr. Butler. I could also, I could also work on some language also in a moment. Um, it was just, that was one of the things that jumped up to me. Um, and, um, then, uh, just down from the procedures for informing law enforcement personnel in real time. Um, I know that there has been a number of potential, uh, considerations for how this will be enforced. Um, and, um, how it will roll out. Um, I might invite Brian or, you know, up again and know that, you know, the display of a permit, for example. So we, we provide a permit that, um, can be displayed in a window when someone goes to a safe. Parking location. And then if that is full, then they could also display that permit at, uh, various locations to park on street as well. Um, is that how that's anticipated to occur, Brian? Uh, at this time that's how it's anticipated to occur. We also are exploring how we are going to manage data collection of availability and what potential applications can be used, but that has not been, uh, uh, I would just ask you, Brian, um, the way this condition is worded, do you see any, um, concerns with respect to implementation? At this time, I'd say yes. Um, not that that's insurmountable, but I don't think that we would be ready to launch a real time availability program. Um, you know, right now we're relying on our police officers as, you know, participants in hosting some of the emergency parking in safe places and coordinating with staff, um, you know, the intent is for them to have as much of information as possible as they're doing that enforcement and have the ability to check on it. But when it states, you know, real time availability, um, you know, they might only be getting that the day before and, um, you know, making their judgment calls in the field as they're doing enforcement and if they're unsure, um, I would defer to their expertise to not be enforcing if they don't have the information of availability. I think that's the concern that, you know, how the law enforcement people that, you know, at midnight know where there are safe parking places. And if the program is going to work, they really need to know that. I mean, otherwise, how can they tell somebody that they need to go to a safe parking space? If they don't know if there's a safe parking space available, people could be just driving around and trying to find a place to park for the night. Um, Yeah. Um, I just want to chime in here. Um, there are very affordable technological solutions for real time availability. It's just something that has to be committed to. Um, so I, um, I appreciate the information that that isn't part of the program now, but I think part of the idea for the conditions of approval is to help guide the opera, like operationalizing some of these aspirations. Um, okay. Let's, um, looks like lots of commissioners have their hands up. Um, I, I will save my comments to the end. Um, Mr. Butler, do you have anything else you'd like to work through with chair shifrin before we go to, uh, commissioner Maceti Miller. I thought talk, Mr. Conway, Mr. Greenberg. So, uh, let's go ahead and finish working through your comments. Um, and, um, let's go ahead and start taking comments at, uh, at each of these points. And so we're not all having to remember the four to five points before. So if, if, if people have comments specific to, uh, uh, the section we're working through, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, the section we're working through now, go ahead and raise your hand. I'm going to go ahead and put my hand down. Um, Mr. Maceti Miller, uh, go ahead and, uh, make your comments. I'm not sure, um, my comments are related to the specific sections under consideration right now. I'm, I'm feeling a bit uneasy with the process that we're, uh, going through tonight. Um, and I'm, I'm feeling a little bit like, um, uh, Commissioner Kennedy was expressing earlier. We are, we're sort of, you know, dabbling with something that was obviously developed, uh, with in close cooperation with other agencies, you know, outside the city, uh, multiple departments within the city. Um, it's a bit like a puzzle. Uh, um, permit and development of the permit and the conditions of permit. And I'm, I'm concerned that as we tamper with this, we're going to make a program, uh, unworkable, um, with, with insufficient flexibility to meet, uh, uh, situations that have not been fully flushed out. And, uh, I think it would be wise for us to, um, you know, think carefully about changing things too much. You know, a word or two here or there, or maybe an extra condition, you know, you can kind of live with sort of the, uh, Commissioner Kennedy.  I think, I think we're going to wholesale, you know, rewrite this thing. Um, I think it would be prudent, uh, for us to, uh, push this back to staff, and ask them to take a fresh look at this and bring it back to us, uh, after they've had a chance to look through these things, coordinate with other agencies, coordinate with other departments, and give us a holistic, um, response to this, uh, you know, big rewrite of the conditions of approval. So, um, if we're going to continue this way, it'll be difficult for me to support this. Um, and I think that's the extent of my comments right now. Thank you. Before we go on, could I, um, respond to a concern raised by Mr. Butler around the prohibitions, uh, bullet, and, uh, ask, uh, I'm willing to add the sentence, reasonable rules and behavior may be applied. Um, is that responding to your concerns about, uh, concerns about the rules? Um, yes, I think that, um, I'm willing to, um, uh, actually be, um, better in the, um, the, uh, barriers bullet, that you have to down below to speak to Commissioner Conway's earlier concern. So that's number five. Uh, right now, uh, right there, uh, yes, right in the middle there. Okay. Um, I'm willing to add, um, uh, Commissioner Maxwell, you are on mute. Can you hear me now? Yes. That's acceptable for me. Okay. Mr. Butler. Um, so, uh, let's see. I do have on that prior section, um, some potential language where the prohibitions one, if, if the, um, the, uh, commission is interested in that. Well, I'd like to hear what you, uh, propose. Here's a, uh, I'll pull up a draft here. If you could, um, or would you prefer I read it? I can, I can. Yeah. Yeah. Are you probably sharing. Yeah.  Mr. Butler. Okay. Let's try this prohibitions and section. This is the midnight to 5 a.m. prohibitions and prohibitions in that section. Shall not be applied to any person and oversized vehicle collectively. That does not have free access to a low or no barrier safe parking program space. So the unrestricted speaks to the, um, you know, they are restricted from dumping black water.  Um, but that, that was part of the, uh, consideration there. Frankly, I'm concerned about low. Um, and what that might mean. Um, and I think it's more, it's not like there wouldn't be rules. I think. The intent with this was that there'd be no barrier to participation. And. Yes, I'm not comfortable with that change as, as I'm reading it. I just wanted to put something out there. Is it option? And it looks like chair Dawson wanted to comment. Yeah. And, uh, since we're on this bullet and, um, Mr. Butler, if you could stop sharing your thoughts on this. Since we're on this bullet and, um, Mr. Butler, if you could stop sharing your screen and chair shuffling, you could go ahead and share your screen back. Um, I, I think that, um, I would like to offer a friendly amendment around the, the reasonable word. Um, I think kind of a more common term with, with, uh, could be like good neighbor. Um, I do, I do worry that something like reasonable could include things like alcohol use or things like that that are reasonable to some people and not reasonable to other. And that would create a barrier to participation. So good neighbor rules usually are around, um, things that commissioner Conway mentioned noise and hoarding and, you know, trash and of course all the existing rules around pollution and those kinds of things. So I would, I would like to offer a friendly minutes of reasonable that you use the word good neighbor. Um, a good neighbor agreement would be, you know, part of, uh, good neighbor, a great, uh, good neighbor rules of behavior may be applied. Uh, something like that. Well, I would like to offer that as a friendly amendment. And let's have an objection to that. Um, it's fine by me. Um, but you're okay with the second. Yeah. Um, sure Conway again, your, your hand is camouflage, but I see you go ahead. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, I had a couple of comments. And, um, one of them is the, I was fine with Mr. Butler's language of no and low barriers. I can definitely imagine. And in my experience, I believe this would be, um, desirable. That there would be, um, in various locations that some of them might be specifically targeted to. Families with children. Um, or transition age youth or some particular population. I would consider that a low bear. I mean, maybe we would define it differently. Um, but that an absolute no barrier besides following the rules. Might be appropriate. And, um, but I think that this does. Um, make me think, um, really in support of what missionaries Kennedy, the city Miller are suggesting, which is, um, these clarifications are helpful. And I'm glad that we're going through them. Um, but they are complex. And I feel like, um, they're going to need to be vetted. Um, in one way or another, whether it's after planning commission, moves them on and before they go to council. Um, or in returning to the planning commission. Um, I definitely agree with commissioner shifrin that we want to get this. Moving it needs to get moving. But, um, if, to me, it seems like it may be expedited best by returning. Um, having it, uh, moved over by all the parties that be and return to, um, the planning commission as soon as it's reasonable. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for your comments. Um, Mr. Butler, do you have additional sections that you would like to work through before we go to a vote on accepting the permits with, uh, the proposed conditions of approval? I would like to look at number six. Um, and I know there were some concerns that some commissioners expressed regarding this. Um, I wanted to point out just in, so in case the commissioners had not seen it, there is a provision in the ordinance itself that, um, speaks to this. Um, but it's, it's not as broad as this. And so I just wanted to point that out. Um, and I'll read that for you so that you're aware. It says the prohibitions contained in subsection a, which is the midnight to 5am. Would you give the reference to the, uh, section of the ordinance? This is, this is section, uh, G. Uh, so 10.40.120 G. And I'm happy to share my screen if that would be helpful. The G. G. And then, um, under number three, I'm sorry, uh, Lee, G is the guy or yes. Thank you. Under, um, number three there, it says, um, oversized vehicles involved in an emergency or being repaired under emergency conditions. So the, um, midnight to 5am, uh, parking prohibition doesn't apply to that. And if this, if I want to be clear, because it's not as, it's not as broad as what commissioner shifrin has posted here. It says emergency parking may be allowed for 24 consecutive hours where an oversized vehicle is left standing at the roadside because of mechanical breakdown or because of the driver's physical incapacity to proceed. But the ordinance speaks to that in, in, um, physical incapacity and mechanical issues, um, but provides the 24 hours. So this would actually be providing more than the ordinance. Okay. Um, thank you for that clarification. So, um, I did want to make a few comments before I bring this to a vote. Um, just generally, Mr. Butler down. Is that the last of your, uh, Yeah. Uh, I think we could do a lot of words here to be honest, but I think those, those are the big ones that, uh, that jumped out to me. That thought might be of interest to the commission. Okay. Thank you. Uh, for going through that. Um, I'll go ahead and, um, uh, uh, state my comments to that cleanup here. So, uh, commissioner Greenberg, did I see your hands or did no? Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Greenberg and then commissioner, that I'll make a brief comment and then we'll go ahead and take it to a vote unless somebody else's hand comes up. So commissioner Greenberg. Thanks so much. And I, I, you know, I really appreciate everyone's efforts around this. My understanding is the spirit of this really is that we want. To balance, um, the different sides that, that we've been hearing and that we, we want to, um, you know, uh, perhaps, um, expedite a process that will. Achieve the maximum that the different sides are interested in. In terms of, um, the, the folks in the vehicles that includes. This recognition that I think the talents and a lot of the people in the public were mentioning having to do. Largely with, um, the impractical, the, the, you know, that this is not a really, um, practical, uh, humane policy. And so far as there really aren't sufficient. Spaces available. Um, and you know, the 10% of the spaces relative to the number of people in the vehicles and so forth. And that this effort is really to ensure that it won't be implemented. Unless those spaces are indeed available. And in fact, um, speaking also to the concerns of neighbors and others, as well as the folks in the vehicles that services are available in those sites in the safe parking site. And so like there's this effort to really ensure that the material reality is in place in order to make this practicable and humane. Um, and you know, something that is sustainable to some degree. Um, so I, that's the way I'm understanding this effort and that, you know, it could go through a whole other process. Uh, that might take longer and that this might achieve the maximum of the needs of both sides. And so that's, I'm, I'm trying to see the best in this, in that regard. And I really appreciate all the effort that went into this in that, in that way. And I realized we're trying to like get through this as quickly as we can. And that's some new information. Um, I had, um, a couple of questions. Um, one is, um, and you know, you'll tell me how, um, when you think about this, but, um, in terms of the good neighbor rules, this last point, um, I'm wondering, um, and, and also the point about procedures to ensure the potential participants in the safe parking program will confront no barriers to their participation. I'm wondering about the kind of process. You know, what these procedures are and the degree to which, you know, given what I've been hearing some folks saying that if there are complai