name as though it were some sort of endorsement while cash often focused largely on meeting the needs of the houseless community the temporary outdoor living ordinance is far more interested in where household folks cannot be what they cannot do how best to legally allow police to continue displacing them destroying their survival gear and impounding the vehicles they use for shelter than it is in helping them survive it shouldn't have to be said but if a houseless person is in living in a public park that does not mean that house members of the community are now unable to use the park many residents continue to use san lorenzo park with children in spite of the large encampment that resides there bigotry is not an accessibility issue and the city should not treat it as such one would hope that black history month might provide some much needed perspective on the notion of developing apartheid like policies based solely on the bigoted fear of wealthier wider house persons but once again here we are instead of city staff serving the needs of santa cruz's most vulnerable working class residents they are instead asking the police to subvert our rights to soothe the nerves of some of the most privileged individuals in our community in this ordinance city staff argue that public plans have essentially been privatized through their use by the public we instead argue that police have been privatized by santa cruz's wealthiest residents to target the houseless the presentation by parks and rec was particularly nauseating pure bigotry laced with false appeals to foul and violent mentalism we're trying to come again thank you fund police fund support danie drivesdale with the harm reduction coalition of santa cruz county please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand go ahead go ahead mr drivesdale makes the unmute and you will be ready to go yes we can thank you okay that's uh mr drivesdale thanks uh good evening council members my name is danie drivesdale i use she her pronouns i am the certain services program coordinator for the harm reduction coalition of santa cruz county speaking on behalf of our organization as a public health centered service provider that works closely with our unhoused community members in the city um we are very invested in the outcome of this discussion tonight hrc scc opposes this proposed ordinance wholeheartedly we do not believe that giving the city police department more tools to criminalize people sleeping outside is going to positively impact any part of our community in fact we think it will lead to more negative outcomes including more syringe litter more fatal overdoses and more infectious disease being spread the broad strategy of making whole areas off limits for sleeping and living is unethical and unworkable and the specific regulations proposed around camping that is quote unquote allowed in certain areas would be a disaster i specifically want to point out that reference to quote improperly discarded hypodermic needles is extremely vague it would allow police officers to write citations based on their own interpretation of what quote improper disposal means and we've seen firsthand how police officers and other city employees have claimed that used syringes stored in a proper and sealed sharks disposal container are somehow improperly disposed or stored or even considered later furthermore under the new state law ab 2077 any citation issued as a result of a syringe possessed for personal use would be invalid and could be challenged into that state law syringe possession is now fully decriminalized in the state and attempting to include syringe possession in this campaigning ordinance opens it up to legal challenges separate from the ones about covid disability rights and martin v. Boise there's been research done on syringe litter and the reasons that it occurs and it's extremely clear that this ordinance would create more syringe litter santa cruz county's health services agency 2019 report on syringe access and litter showed that the two biggest factors that contribute to syringe litter are fear of police and lack of access to programs like ours this ordinance would substantially increase the stakes for people to keep their syringes on their person in a sharps container thereby incentivizing them to litter syringes elsewhere allowing people to remain where they are allow service providers like ourselves to consistently provide sharps disposal containers and collect those containers moving people from place to place makes it that much more difficult to find and provide disposal services for those people and evidence shows that will increase syringe litter besides that if you can't reach people of our services they will not receive clean syringes or naloxone leading to a strong chance of an increase in the spread of infectious diseases and fatal overdoses other service providers such as a homeless person's health project also struggle to reach those people the negative health outcomes will be even greater in short it is our opinion of this ordinance is unethical and immoral probably illegal in multiple ways and would lead to worse health outcomes for the entire community including an increase in syringe litter fatal overdoses and infectious disease thank you for your time thank you next we have Brent Adams with the warming center program footbridge homeless services please press nine on your phone to raise your hand but are you on you could press star six unmute I can't tell Brent are you what was that I can't tell either KB foster keep freezing our hand Brent Adams are you able to get on tonight please press there he is hi Brent press star six please and we all ready to go sorry for that hi it's Brent can you hear me yeah Brent go ahead all right firstly we encourage the council persons to vote no on this proposal but if one must vote yes let it be a yes and admittedly an 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. 10 camping is vastly different than we had been enduring for many decades under that previous camping ban but we're wondering what has become of the city plans to establish the heat funded jumpstart of a navigation center let alone the interim shelter there were several million dollars spent right where are the day service programs where even is the well-funded rhetoric of housing the chronically homeless it all seems to have evaporated and all we're left now with is a tent that must be broken down in the morning with nothing much else offered meanwhile warming center program established footbridge services center serving more than 800 discrete individuals with storage a thousand more with laundry showers donation materials and device charging we've transformed homelessness to something vastly more dignifying you may know we've done this largely with our own on our own without city or county health certainly the city has worked with us to remove a third of the trash of material from the Felco street camps that existed for more than a year without complaint we're only that were only removed for fear of river water rise we've established the agreement camp in harvey west that's been there in place for four months the city has honored it with garbage porta potties and afc weekly showers noting the amount of materials and the establishment of large encampments we do understand the need for constraints though there have been new ideas implemented including agreement camps and the possibility of non-profit permitted transitional campments yet where here we are tonight with this proposal that would establish the ability to set up tents between eight and eight and bring those items into storage if there are specific areas where people may set up camp given our success with the harvey west agreement camp our non-profit would like to discuss what shape that can take today supervisor konig and i visited the agreement camp we witnessed many people enjoying the park playing ball hiking etc relating to storage we become highly trusted for the integrity of our work it can be difficult to build trust within that population of those people who sleep outside it's been our goal to vastly reduce the amount of materials people carry throughout the day and keep the longing safe at night we'd like to work to help provide the best opportunity to provide such storage tonight we see the proposal as a legal exercise that a municipal corporation thinks it needs to engage in what but what a creative inventive thinking clearly what's missing here is the opportunity of local churches and non-profits to operate managed camps that both the city and the county have obliged themselves to stage the city clearly has been failing at serving this population and that it plays host to this is the perfect time now to make a permit process for non-profits and churches to share the load of this our shared challenge please tonight consider adding a permit prop process for non-profits to operate such encampments uh thanks for this time thank you very much next up is greg pepping with the coastal watershed council and just press star six and you can start great can you hear me yes um mayor meyer and vice mayor bruner council and staff getting my name is greg pepping executive director of the coastal watershed council thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic and thanks for the leadership you're demonstrating and bringing this topic up thanks for going straight at this the coastal watershed council is in support of the ordinance in this community like in many river towns in addition to people experiencing homelessness the poorest housed people live right next to the river and you won't hear many of their voices tonight they're at their second job their third job they're exhausted from those jobs and making dinner deal and kids etc the coastal watershed council is hearing from those families who used to use the sannikers riverwalk that longest city park surrounding the sannikers river we hear that they don't feel safe they don't feel comfortable they do not demonize people experiencing homelessness they just don't feel safe and they don't use that park that's a park's equity issue to consider that's not often included in this conversation they don't matter more than people experiencing homelessness they also do not matter less separate from seeing this through a park's equity lens that have just three suggested clarifications or edits the first one is in order for this to be successful we need regulatory and operational clarity which is what you heard as a reminder a request from the parks director and the parks and rec commission again today now you know if you pass this after a second reading i think you have regulatory clarity what i mean by operational clarity is what's really going to happen on the ground we have a chief of police it was always been very direct with the u.s council even when it's what you might not want to hear we're fortunate and i think you need to hear the community needs to hear from the chief more details on what this is going to look like out in sannikers it doesn't fix everything so what does it do really do we have the officers who will enforce this the overall resources the will are we truly going to see a shift into a proactive and reasoned enforcement of the new ordinance the second piece is about the outboard side of the levy you have the onboard side of the levy but not the outboard so from the past into the river but not outside and you're going to have tents right by the path and if you have tents by the path you're going to have tents and stuff in the past i continue to be amazed that we can't even keep the path clear i think it's a very basic low bar a test of our enforcement ability and will i'd like to include the outboard side of levy and then the third one is very specific the red map of prohibited areas has a gap that all not all of the sand and under river is included some of it is but not all of it again regulatory and operational clarity number one the second is outboard side of levy and the third is having all the river in the prohibited areas the coast water should council supports the ordinance i think we can be pro river and pro human thank you for really for your leadership it really matters thank you great next up is josh peterson with the ghost writers waterman's club please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand star six and you'll be yeah thank you mayor and city council for your energy and attention on this very important issue my name is josh peterson president of the ghost writer waterman's club a local 501 c3 nonprofit organization that has worked for the last decade to raise awareness of ocean safety in our community now we as a group strongly support this ordinance in order to protect our community and environment now whether you surf swim paddle or walk on the beach many of us in the community would agree that our beaches and ocean waters together are the true heart of santa cruz however today through the uncertainty of camping ordinances the city of santa cruz is actively contributing to the pollution of our beaches and ocean by allowing homeless encampments to entrench the city is unintentionally facilitating the buildup and concentration of trash hazardous materials and human waste that will eventually run into our ocean there's no way around it i don't think there's a single person on this call tonight who would as an individual knowingly pollute not at all we all love clean beaches and ocean waters but by enabling homeless encampments to entrench our city leaders enable gross pollution of our beaches 11 000 pounds of trash collected along the center in the river a couple weekends ago dumped by those living in homeless camps by letting these homeless camps persist the city is complicit in that massive level of dumping and pollution now on a summer day in july when a nine-year-old junior last-guard kid running on the beach with friends gets stuck by washed up hypodermic needle the city will also unfortunately be complicit in that horrific event and it sickens all of us that this has actually happened in the past it will persist with these encampments now none of our civic leaders here wish this pollution on our environment notion there's no way but mayor and council this is up to you down in a world of increasing pollution you can actually do something you can act to mitigate our problem locally by prohibiting homeless encampments and preventing their massive buildup and concentration of waste you guys can keep our beaches and ocean beautiful and clean so on behalf of the ocean community and ghost writers of sanctuary's all families in the event of who rely on clean beaches and ocean waters for physical mental health i urge you to ban homeless encampments pass this ordinance and protect the heart of sanctuary's thank you thank you next up is denise pan with the sanctuary's people's kitchen please press star dying on your phone to raise your hand hi can you hear me i'm denise pan and i'm speaking on today on behalf of the sanctuary's people's kitchen we are a loosely organized group of about 15 to 30 volunteer community members who provide meals supplies and other essential services to our houses neighbors and we are completely funded by donation our position on the ordinance the outdoor living ordinance is an is absolutely against it um outside of its questionable legality um we'd we've determined that this ordinance undermines the humanity of our unhoused neighbors one of the main points brought forth by e butlers and tony elia and their presentation is um surrounding the issue of quality of life bringing up show writing parking and issues of safety however this ordinance doesn't actually solve any of these issues and not to mention that it undermines the quality of life of the individuals who are forced to live outdoors uh they're going to be forced to face harassment imprisonment and increase indebted indebtedness and be put in a cycle of um an increased cycle of poverty addiction and homelessness um and i've also also wanted to mention a note on the disability provision not only does this not really do anything to help the people the person who is disabled or people who are disabled um it doesn't provide them with any resources but simply gives them an extra 96 hours to move um but it also doesn't change any rules around uh the conditions of their movement another thing i would like to mention around that is that encampments actually provide safety and community particularly for health system men who depend on each other and who aren't forced to be alone at any part during any point of day i think that there are a couple of things that give us insight into what this ordinance is really about and that is the criminalization of homelessness uh the first reason is that there are no attributes being provided um instead homeless people are expected to be shoved around like herd animals and um the other thing is that provisions such as camping on private pop properties so long as they are out of sight really shows us that this is more about houses people being an eyesore than it is about their humanity or any kind of actual equity or um change in resources or in the way that we handle things it's really about more policing um i also wanted to note that um one of the um main people who helped write this ordinance and who is in staunch support of it is um city manager bernard and in a personal email that i got from him he um described that many of the individuals at the encampment in risk is messaged to centers of park are not actually homeless but are there to access and use drugs and to party uh clearly homelessness is an issue that is a struggle that is traumatic that nobody would ever want to be there voluntarily it that would nobody would ever want to be voluntarily in um but our own city manager doesn't seem to have a grip on this idea and um in addition in addition the criminalization of homelessness has shown over and over again that it really doesn't do anything but makes things worse um it increases uh people's indebtedness and um systems of uh typical typical um and to into into the the prison system and for these reasons scbk um urges me to vote against agenda item 25 thank you thank you very much um mr norse you're up robert norse are you there i believe pro star norse please put your hand down yes we can thank you all right it's not just commanders mistakes it's wrong to harass sleeping at night where they must yet that is the underlying message still of the new temporary outdoor living regulation ordinance no sleep is worse than the prior sleeping ban in many ways it does not actually provide for specific safe places for homeless people to sleep outside or inside simply restrictions and punishments that could be imposed largely at will unaccountable to the city council for 30 days not that the council has ever shown any interest in protecting the poor from police sweeps it's the community that has mobilized to do that food not bombs outside in santa cruz cop watch stop the sweep santa cruz union of the homeless huff and a variety of other organizations who've spoken here tonight the law and the council provide no expansion of shelter nor clear promise that the current covet expanded shelter will be maintained the so-called 20 dollar fines for violations are actually 190 so-called engaging in improper temporary outdoor living has been increased to a misdemeanor for the second offense we thought removed at the recommendation of the city's own homeless issues task force 20 years ago the law criminalizes possession of sleeping bags and so-called at-risk areas you know the areas city gentrification masters want homeless people gone from like downtown the beaches the parks the law ignores the catch committee's recommendations as have been pointed out any law or set of police practices that criminalizes the poor in our community for necessary survival behavior is wrong abusive futile decisions over the last three decades have recognized this in the taube icorn pottinger jones and martin versus boysy cases unfortunately the only way this law will be dumped is if the community actively dumps it through direct actions scornful publicity mutual aid and legal challenges after your council rubber stamps it will that happen and city bosses issue orders but it's up to us to decide whether the community will allow these actions to go unchallenged and thank you to the community for hearing me next up is joy shindalak decker from the sanitation for the people please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and then you want to press star six on you go ahead please hello hi there hi i'm speaking on behalf of the the mutual aid working group mutual aid group sanitation for the people sanitation for the people is a mutual aid group working for sanitation and waste management services for all we clean up and we work on system change so so that people living without houses get basic services we work from a non-judgmental harm reduction ethos we oppose the proposed temporary outdoor living ordinance because it proposes very little to improve life for people living on house and Santa Cruz while increasing the burden on those residents exponentially and essentially further criminalizes homelessness in addition the exceptions for disabilities are shamefully inadequate they put undue burdens on disabled people to get doctor's letters and are cruel and demanding that people move every 96 hours i hope the letter of opposition from disability rights california is taken very seriously by the city and council members what we have found working with the community living at highway one and nine helping residents with waste management weekly and on dumpster days is that the reasons for garbage buildup are many first after months of no garbage collection at all the buildup is overwhelming most people do try to keep things clean some people are not physically able to clean some garbage is the result of storm damage where tents and possessions end up abandoned and neighbors don't want to be accused of stealing when cleaning up there's also a lot of well-meaning help from sympathetic community members that ends up as garbage that is no one's responsibility people don't have access to laundry which creates an enormous amount of clothing and bedding that ends up ruined and ultimately landfill if the goal is to prevent entrenchment in order to protect the environment there are much better ways to do so first and foremost provide increased and adequate sanitation services including toilets hand washing stations laundry and shower trailers and garbage collection the city and county county have a responsibility to cooperate on funding these services why should the poorest people suffer because of this dysfunctional bureaucracy preventing entrenchment also prevents stability and we know that people benefit from stability on so many levels they have continuity of care without reach workers they can be found for second doses of the covid vaccine they can build community with each other and those who support them they can be found by friends and family they can rest and recover from physical and mental illness they can access services where they are rather than having to expend enormous energy seeking out those services lack of stability increases physical and mental health issues increased hunger and malnutrition increases the likelihood of substance use disorders to cope with destabilization increases loss of survival gear personal possessions and essential documents okay i will end there i have more to say but thank you very much thank you for hearing me thank you very much next up we have top of you and so he lay with stop the sweets please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand are you with stop yes mean are you with uh stop the sweets i think so yes i'm reading the statement on behalf of stop the sweeps got it great go ahead please um the grassroots movement stop the sweeps stands with our unhoused neighbors and against the temporary outdoor living ordinance while the idea sounds positive for the city to supply a facility for unhoused people to store their belongings during the day the issues of accommodations and accessibility arise the ordinance refers to a reasonable quantity of daytime storage and the program being reasonably available in the city of santa cruz the language is too vague and what is considered reasonable needs to be explicitly addressed for feasibility like convenience of location also while people with disabilities are exempt from moving their tents and belongings during the day they still would have to move every four days breaking up encampments would make people lose contact with or have difficulty getting to their service providers nurses and social workers regularly visit encampments and would struggle to connect with even completely lose touch with the people for whom they provide care many unhoused people would be forced out of their current static spaces where they are more easily found during the day they would also lose access to resources like community members and mutual aid groups to bring donations to encampments this would cause irreparable harm to those who rely on those visits and supplies those who seek out services and resources would face a major boondoggle as they would have to prioritize packing up their space every day and setting it up every night and dropping off everything and picking it up every day furthermore when people are scattered about it becomes harder for the city to clean up because people aren't concentrated or allowed to stay and set places where sanitation resources dumpsters and regular trash pick up can be provided without giving people a consistent space during the day that has access to toilets hand washing stations and dumpsters the issues would increase become more dispersed and therefore more difficult to deal with there would also be an increased risk of harassment violence and even death when people who look out for each other in small communities are forced out of their spaces in those communities there's not only an increased prevention of harm there's also a higher likelihood for intervention in case something does happen people who choose to stick together in groups to look out for each other would have much greater difficulty continuing that practice when they can't stay put together this disproportionately would have adversely impact women lgbtq plus and people of color who are unhoused and have security with their camp neighbors finally anyone who violates the ordinance twice in 30 days would be guilty of a misdemeanor this would go against martin v boysy because it would make sleeping during the day in a tent illegal in addition people who prevent delay resist obstruct or otherwise interfere with any removal of personal property could get misdemeanors which would be a violation of the first amendment to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly instead of further criminalizing unhoused people the city and county should stop neglecting their duties towards their own community members the ordinance itself acknowledges the need to expand shelter capacity and very low income long-term housing options etc yet there's no transparency on how federal funding to santa cruz county through the housing action partnership is spent and how it can be effectively used thank you thank you very much and the last speaker and the extra time speakers in surge cagno with stepping up santa cruz please press star nine on your phone and raise your hand go ahead search get yourself start it's a long evening and i'll try to keep my uh comments brief cagno uh stepping up santa cruz i have a resource directory i was also on the catch that you guys were given in the packet uh from the safe sleep committee i actually wrote those so i just want to clarify one thing um we did not support this um we said our first line of that uh if you go to the documents we do not support as written it was to be implemented we had some suggestions but we were not supporting the document so just to be clear on that one could you go to the next slide bunny peer gratitude peer gratitude and appreciation for lee butler the amazing amount of work that everyone's put in trying to address the society's most complicated problem there are a lot of good things that are trying to balance the life of people experiencing homelessness in this um and i can't list them all i can't list all of the inaccuracies either including how funding works or the relationship with the city and the hap uh the short version is the city manager is a voting member of the hap executive and general boards to decide how homeless funds get spent throughout the county so trying to blame the county for not doing more um is a misunderstanding of the city manager's office's authority with as a voting member for this um um ordinance like let's tweak it in a couple ways um it's true that there's a lot more no you can't and trying to just have a reasonable expectation for somebody who's trying to live within the ordinance um we want to have clean and safe streets and we want to get people housed uh can you switch to the next one bunny really quickly the issue is bathrooms so right now they can't go downtown they can't sleep downtown in the ordinance or in parks and that's where the bathrooms are so my comment would be figure out how where you're going to put them so that they're not um urinating defecating outside because a lot of them don't want to uh bunny next slide disability is vague um by legal definition that includes mental health diagnosis and substance use disorder so who is deciding which kind of disability is allowed uh that needs to be clarified and inclement whether uh raining or heat next slide bunny move the ordinance I would suggest uh creating a design work group setting up people for success who don't want to break the law clear outstanding tickets for those working with a case manager for volunteering working and receiving services and find a nonprofit that will find funding to met they can find funding themselves to manage this reliable managed encampment on city owned lot and that's it thank you very much thank you very much search we'll now move on to um comments from individuals it's 8 16 and I'll go till 9 10 tonight with this uh give a try to give ourselves a full hour I'm sorry 9 9 16 we'll go to um if you're interested in commenting on this item please press star 9 on your phone to raise your hand when it is your time to speak you will hear an announcement that you've been unmuted the timer will then be set to one and a half minutes and I will be um stopping folks from right at that one and a half minute period of time uh first up is kb foster unmute your phone and please go the homeless because more often than not not getting that is why they are asking out no on this ordinance particularly some people have spoken to it um I'm probably not going to be quite so articulate um but I mean really you're trying to strike a balance here that's the claim but as far as I can tell the thing that you're trying to strike a balance between our people need to live and to have a place to live and on the other hand people need to not be near poor people and that's not something that that's not balancing you know like you can't put people's need to live on the scale it's just ridiculous a little angry I'm very disgusted I think you guys need to like take a look in the mirror check in with God or whatever do some meditation because this is really pretty foul in my opinion and uh I'll yield my time thank you next up is phone number ending in 6278 hi this is Laura Lee Martin um I'm a 30 year resident of prospect heights and I've submitted a letter so I'll keep this very short um I support passage of the ordinance with a request for an amendment to designate they love the aga park off limits all of the park all year there is no fire season anymore and I suggest we also look at chogan if the same way this request for an amendment is based on three things fire safety I'm from paradise california and very aware of the risks that we have here I'm a co-founder of fire wise and prospect heights we've had numerous fire events over the years in this neighborhood and we worked with the fire department to help clear out the underbrush any camping in this park creates a tremendous liability on the city for potential firestorm that will easily endate adjacent neighborhoods it's the wildland urban interface concern we also another important one is armory we the neighbors really supported the armory use for the homeless we um worked with you when you wanted to extend the use and extend the time of that use and increase the um population and during that time the city explicitly assured us numerous times that no camping or homeless would be permitted outside of the camp the compound of the armory so this is um unless the entire park is off limits then that promise is being broken and last I would say that public safety I no longer feel safe on any of the trails up in the daylight the aga area or even on my street outside finally thank you all for taking this extremely complex issue on many layers and thank you for sending your letter to the governor thank you next up is Tiffany Worthington for this discussion um I'm just real quick I have you know three three requests um on behalf of Santa Cruz citizens whose homes border the levy my request is that the camping not be allowed on the I think it's called the outboard area behind our homes such as Riverside Avenue in my experience as a resident here along the levy the hours between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. are not often used by campers for sleeping but more often for drug dealing screaming obscenities drumming loud music fighting and using our front and back yards for vomiting and defecating I mean this is like nightly it's serious and anybody who doesn't realize it clearly doesn't live next to it um so that's one request not allowed it allow camping in the outboard um or you know in the home side of the path uh the levy and then number two um you know to address the health hazard that is this uncontained human waste which is very serious for both homeless people and for anyone else I propose um there's these really cheap it's so it's so easy we could um there's cheap environmentally friendly um temporary mobile compost toilets they're easily easy to assemble um you know we've did it during the wildfire uh in areas like last chance and there's handlocked hand washing stations known as tippy taps really uh really really easy and we should definitely put them up and um people shouldn't have a place to go to the bathroom thank you so much thank you very much and I just want to remind people that if you do want to speak um you should raise your hand so that we can tell that you're part of the queue best parenthesis next please can you hear me yes we can hi uh thank you for having this open forum so um similar to the last caller yeah the people who are opposed to this seem to be very out of touch with how these encampments are being used I also live on riverside I have an encampment literally on the other side of my back fence and I'm not a wealthy landowner gentrifier I'm a social worker and educator I rent and I'm just trying to feel safe I don't feel safe walking around my neighborhood I heard one of the people opposed talking about people being like queer women I am a queer woman and I've been harassed walking with my partner with homophobic comments coming from people from the encampment I feel unsafe as a woman walking past groups of men who have also made comments to me and then there's just the garbage there's people defecating right behind my fence when there are bathrooms nearby and so there is shouting there's cussing there's a lot of music all day long people are not using the hours of 8am to 8pm for the most part to look for jobs in the encampment behind my house so these people who are opposed are talking about the exceptions that are actually proving a rule that what's going on is enabling drug use and crime and so I just ask that the city council stand up for community members who are trying to keep this community alive and contribute and stop enabling the drug use and I'll give up the rest of my time thank you and next is KB please press star six and you can speak I'm K can you guys hear me I just want I I've noticed that a lot of people have been like thinking and kind of like clearing and tapping that you guys have brought this ordinance to the table but honestly I guys like use like a single brain cell like in a ping pong video game to make this ordinance up like it doesn't as people said it's definitely punitive action that's like just going against folks that have been dealing with a very very difficult year so let's like summarize a little bit of what Santa Cruz has been going through in the last year and the news at least not even on homeless situation so we had earlier in the summer with Santa Cruz actually letting them be able to sell stuff and then we had again follow up and trying to get encampment out you follow up with it definitely put a lot of people out of housing what Santa Cruz actually sets up it actually did something and then all kind of went away when everything seemed to settle like I don't understand how we have folks who have been in these positions and these roles of power and you finally have the chance to do something and you're giving us a maybe we can accept it like yet again like you didn't think maybe we should work with the current homeless program and like see what we could do together like that in no thoughts head empty i'm very it just makes me like very upset that like people's money are going to your pocket like why are we paying you for this is sabina holberg please press star six six excuse me hi there can you hear me if we can great thank you i want to state something really obvious the solution for houses individuals is to actually house them and not criminalize them everybody in your presentation kept talking about how this won't solve homelessness or houselessness and we all agree on that issue so i want to know what the council is actually doing to solve these problems um for instance you said that there's 401 beds available now that is a laughably small number for the amount of houseless individuals that are here the fact that it was 155 beds pre-covid is ridiculous so i really want to see what the council is going to do to expand the beds the other thing is that you put up these photos of trash and debris to shame houseless people but i have a home and i have trash service and if we had trash service maybe we wouldn't have those many issues and just shaming people for not having a place to put their trash is really wrong the needle issue that was shown would be greatly helped by a fully funded needle exchange program i was looking into this issue and Renee Golder is personally pseudogram so i would like to ask that she recuse herself from this vote due to conflict of interest you guys know there are real problems and just banning houses people from public spaces is not solving it i also want to mention that i've lived on the west side for years and i've never heard of the west side neighbors group that spoke earlier or my neighbors thank you thank you very much next up is stacey paul okay go ahead please can't hear you please press star six and you should be unmuted are you there stacey go ahead you're unmuted bonnie is there anything i should be telling her to try to do differently no she's unmuted so there's something on her it is are you there stacey i'll come back to you i don't know why you're we can't hear you you're unmuted but i we can't hear you let me come back to you um next is marge what the half oh there you go we heard you okay can you hear me yes we can go ahead okay i mean we also hello yes we can hear you stacey hello yep we can hear you some of you can hear me because i i can't hear you so i'm not sure you can actually hear me yep great okay good peter can we both have time on this computer you have one and a half minutes i can't hear you but i'll just assume that was a yes okay one and a half minutes um one minute sandler on so encampment i'll just to know what the weather conditions are and then i have to consult with some like biological expert who can tell me if the aloni beetles are having a mating season right now measure with me to make sure i'm 75 feet away from martin v boy v to the people who are who live in the neighborhoods who are impacted by all of the negative impacts that were described in the presentation and it overwhelms our criminal justice system with you know just my husband can speak vote no please it's not good for the for the entire city okay next step is marge please press star six to unmute yourself hi can you hear me yes we can okay i'm here to read a letter from the aclu the aclu of northern california condemns the increased regulation targeting unhoused individuals in santa cruz and urges the city council to reject a proposal to establish ordinance number um 2021 unbending chapter 6.36 currently entitled camping and hereafter entitled regulations for temporary order living of the santa cruz municipal code numerous courts have iterated the rights of unhoused people seeking necessary shelter and in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic that has already devastated local economies and exasperated poor living conditions bearing individuals from sheltering is not only inhumane but will lead to catastrophic health risks and while the ordinance language suggests that it abides by martin versus city of voisey this is not true by criminalizing the act of sleeping through strict prohibitions the ordinance likely violates the eighth amendment of the u.s constitution under ninth circum precedent the city of santa cruz has historically and continues to target unhoused populations despite an expansion of shelter capacity limiting unhoused individuals ability to seek shelter will only further escalate the public health crisis especially when they are forced to move from location to location additionally it places an increased mental and physical burden on individuals who are already struggling to find a warm and safe place to sleep during the winter months a number of the hunt house population are families who have been displaced from the recent fires having lost any stability from one catastrophe to the next prior attempts by the city of santa cruz to manage unhoused unsheltered homelessness few ordinances targeting a ban on sleeping in public has been deemed unconstitutional and ineffective today's ordinance is similarly problematic in that it will fail to address and mitigate the environmental and social impact of encampments that city leaders are touting thank you next step is nancy there you go can you hear me now yeah yeah okay thanks i'm nancy cruz so i've been a lot of years volunteer for years in homelessness programs um i oppose this ordinance because it criminalizes homelessness denies stability and security and offers nothing beneficial i feel it's your job to represent all of us in this ordinance does not it's destabilizing individuals are to take down and set up a camp every day this city should not require that of anyone much less elderly and disabled people a large portion of our home of community we know it's stability that encourages health and healing and community building this ordinance is unreasonably complicated and will lead to increased encounters with a judicial system with a justice system yet we know encounters with law enforcement produce profoundly negative consequences for homeless individuals that's one of the primary reasons the public asked for and demonstrated to you the value of programs like to hoots however this proposal goes in the opposite direction will be more overtime for police create more trauma and more cost it contains so many caveats and exceptions that people will struggle to know where to be any day store and unstore their belongings and returns it thank you very much next up is call number ending in one two two nine my name is madison and i've been a resident of santa cruz for five years i'm calling to urge you all to oppose this ordinance it's honestly it's hard for me to believe i even have to make the case for this curtailing the right of the unhoused seek shelter at the height of a pandemic is breathtakingly cool and you all know that the problem is that most of you lack the courage and the political will to enact real solutions to homelessness in santa cruz mayor mires you wrote to the governor asking for assistance only to look like you were doing something the fact that you would bring forth these ordinance which further criminalizes homelessness and deepens the cycle of poverty among the unhoused shows that you don't really care what you care about is pushing the homeless out of sight and out of mind to plague it wealthy residents and businesses in a recent sentinal article ben shiro a man who is homeless in santa cruz for 15 years told his story about how he built up $15,000 in debt from homelessness related citations his story is not uncommon it is the norm in a city that ruthlessly criminalizes being unhoused so please explain to me how we'll increase incitations and find for seeking shelter with the unhoused out of a cycle of poverty and end the crisis in santa cruz if you can't answer that question i implore you to vote now on this ordinance thank you the next caller and in numbers 1657 there you go i changed my testimony after going through the public correspondence because of my disillusionment by many comments on both sides of the issue i saw no mention of what i perceive as the elephant in the room santa cruz needs a permanent homeless shelter but the santa cruz community doesn't want to put one anywhere the community says it wants to help the unsheltered but as far as i'm aware what's when specific locations are proposed the sentiment continues to be oh no don't put it there martin v boysy decision was nearly two years ago and the supreme court denied the hearing the case later that year people can say what they want the decision stands if shelter space isn't available preventing camping becomes highly problematic with a heavy heart and great hesitancy i support the ordinance but let me be clear why the santa cruz community has failed to come together and agree upon where to put a permanent shelter if enough camping occurs in residential areas perhaps residents will be compelled to advocate more productively for a location for a permanent shelter it will cause a great deal of pain for all especially our unhoused seems safer to me than places like pokinip and dela viega for more reasons than i have time to outline here thank you next step last four digits five seven five four please press star six dear mayor mires and city council members my name is debora elston i support this living outdoor living ordinance and i'm calling you to speak for the seniors who live on dakota across the street from the san lorenzo park they are essentially living next to a nuisance property here they are living in their enjoyable twilight years some actually chose to live in this location because of the quietness the convenience to downtown shopping and a senior community now they are lucky if they get to sleep through the night or even feel safe they are living across from a nuisance property if there was an ordinance like this this would have never happened one senior described that she couldn't even get her dinner delivered one night because the person delivering the meal didn't even feel safe delivering to that address the park and all it brings with it partying drug dealers a goat and a boat mental illness selling drugs noise all hours of the day and night and the safety of walking for groceries has been a daily challenge for these seniors they should not have to deal with all this activity it's exhausting for them you as a council can change the situation please pass the temporary outdoor living ordinance and let's support regulations that help our whole community thank you very much for your time next step we have phone number ending in 2885 allowed to go forward whom reside the council hold let's begin hi this is kelsey hill i'm calling to urge that the leaders on this dais vote no on item 25 i of course understand calls for environmental protection and safety but this ordinance is drafted only serves the interest of people who have the privilege of being sheltered at this perilous time in our history and it does not solve the crises that it claims to we butler himself over and over again noted that this is not a solution this ordinance does nothing to mitigate the stressors on those who sleep outside and it only amplifies them could any of you on this dais breakdown and set up your possessions in such a routine and also work toward being rehoused and employed we're also in a pandemic that's killed half a million people across this country and 172 people in our county from a virus that disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups including unhoused people dispersal policies don't work and they threaten an individual's ability to distance sanitize and practice other methods of slowing the spread of COVID-19 moreover this ordinance only further pushes people experiencing houselessness to the margin and makes it more difficult for them to recover from cycles of trauma addiction or mental health issues human first approaches are more effective and more cost efficient in the long term and i know all of you know this on the dais meanwhile criminalization is expensive in colorado six cities spent over five point one million dollars in forcing camping vans for 2010 to 2014 and in 2021 denver can't even calculate what it has spent on sweeps and enforcement but even the conservative estimates are not pretty and that doesn't even touch on the spread of lawsuits that council member coming ventures i cannot for the life of me fadden help burn all in staffing this is a good idea thank you step is uh number 1810 press star six please to see further improvements to the ordinance and so far as the ordinance essentially seems to give permission for a near permanent outdoor nightmare excuse me nighttime camping on private property in a very high density number and on public street sidewalks and residential neighborhoods at night the era of people squatting wherever they like however they like for as long as they like and any numbers they like should come to a close in our small somewhat politically confused city it's a big country with a lot of opportunity and i see no positive purpose the sad cruise should be the county dump and caretaker for unlimited homeless individuals doing what some do now as to the details of the ordinance quote as expressly authorized in the art of a residence uh with the consent of the arachnid residents where the camping is in the rear yard etc is an acceptable camping area for one person seems to find is 12 by 12 feet does that mean in my 50 by 50 backyard like mine theoretically permits 16 to 17 people a camp at a willing backyard unless they violated other sections you should go further in defining what residential zoning districts might allow what density limits are to be for private property residential area backyard camping we should be far less than that there are the same these are the same types of homeless camping densities rejected by thousands of city residents when the city proposed camps and neighborhoods not long ago okay thank you bye next up is phone number ending in ending in 1018 10818 press star six press star six we can't hear you yet phone number ending in 1018 we can't hear can you hear me can you hear me hi my name is tj dimos and as a west side santa cruz homeowner i urge you to reject this anti homeless ordinance which clearly undermines and attempts to circumvent martin versus boise and cbc guidelines contra lee butler's presentation the confusing ordinance with its Byzantine maps of prohibition and preposterous demands for continual packing up of one's belongings especially harsh on disabled folks will only add to the worst of santa cruz's policies of intolerance fee and finding policing and criminality targeting and exploiting the most vulnerable also the most racially diverse of our community without of course including any of them in that discussion nimby ordinance which favors endless evictions over compassionate services comes from a place of cruelty and is only counterproductive in the spirit of health and all policies i urge you to reject the outdoor camping ban it's clear that santa cruz city and county are lacking an available shelter for people suffering houselessness the cold-hearted ordinances like this uh do nothing but harm the most exposed criminalizing them with citations when they have nowhere to go ticketing them when they have no money to pay and destroying their possessions when they have nothing else and weaponizing discriminatory environmentalism against them as in the highly biased images and info and fear mongering presented by lee butler and tony elliot the failed police approach of enforcing itinerancy to prevent so-called entrenchment it's not only heartless and mean it's illegal and unconstitutional thank you thank you appreciate it next up is gabriel cone please press star six camp event i i think criminalization is not solution it's not going to change the form of all realities that are causing people to live outdoors um i was thinking about this is being very similar to my job as a teacher right now we're dealing with kids who are dealing with a lot of crises and traumas of while dealing with uh schooling online and simply yelling at them or failing them doesn't accomplish the goal of helping for their education is to meet them where they're at and help them create a new and perhaps different path forward so that they can actually have likewise punishing someone further for their lack of resources is not going to magically help them find housing and i would instead urge the city to consider ways that we can redirect funding away from criminalization towards solutions to actually help those thank you very much next up is phone number indian 7343 as a working class resident of santa cruz who's experienced bike theft a car break in and an assault on the riverfront i encourage the city council to vote yes and adopt these ordinance ordinances immediately what i see in santa cruz does concern me when it comes to homelessness but by and large the behavior perpetrated by the homeless are not good for the community at large especially families and children we need to take them into account when we consider how we approach this very difficult issue i'd also like to draw the council members as well as the community's attention to a recent podcast youtube video by a homeless advocate named pio henderson called we the unhoused uh episode number 40 and it's focused on santa cruz in the video he interviews a number of residents of samlor aso park and other encampments none of these people are from santa cruz all of them have obvious mental health and drug dependency issues i think we need to stop encouraging more people to come to santa cruz with these type of issues so that we can focus on the people who want and need help our budget and resources are limited we need to focus them appropriately thank you for your time thank you very much next up is uh phone number ending in four six five six thank you very much my name is father joseph jacob's i'm the program manager for the association of faith communities safe parking program uh association of faith communities is a local nonprofit based here in santa cruz and we are a coalition of over 30 faith-based communities in santa cruz and santa cruz county i just want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who is working so hard to solve this illness and i do believe it is a social collective illness and i believe we cannot legislate our homeless away and they are our homeless despite the cynical views of some we must embrace nurture and heal our common illness called homelessness i have done my homework on statistics for people in the safe parking program over 60 percent of them are from santa cruz near the 80 percent are from santa cruz county this notion that we are attracting people from outside of santa cruz because it's fun to live on the street or or camp or something is specious and encouraging and asking everyone to be more compassionate not less thank you thank you very much the next speaker is ending in phone number 2279 you should be able to speak we can't hear you we're are you unmuted we you look unmuted right there you hear me now here you go yep great um thanks hello my name is graham edwards i live just a few blocks from sam lorenzo park and i would like to urge the council to vote no on item 25 earlier speakers have stated that this is not a criminalizing houseless folks uh but the outland ordinance would functionally criminalize and punish and terrorize homeless people i implore you to allow my homeless neighbors and community members to shelter and to actually invest in truly affordable housing rather than veiled luxury development also as a climate and earth scientist i would like to speak to some of these concerns of habitat destruction the landscape lawns of these green space parks are not natural ecosystems to the santa cruz area the argument appealing to natural habitat destruction are moot as the natural habitats are already destroyed these fabricated landscapes may as will be used for a common good providing a living space for community members also with respect to concerns for mountain bikers uh these are the greatest destroyers of natural landscapes these mountain bikes and it is a hobby for the extremely wealthy and the majority of santa cruz residents such as myself live much more financially close to losing our apartments and becoming homeless than to pleasure riding on our multi-thousand dollar mountain bikes uh i hope you will give as much attention to our hopes for our community as the wealthy class you seem so attuned to uh thank you thank you next up is gail mignolte please press star six okay thank you so much um white mother of three children um two of whom have had middle and high school in the city of santa cruz during non-physically distanced time i'm also an anti-racist climate advocate um as a bonny dune resident i was displaced for a month and a half this summer so i'm well aware of the complications of the urban wildlife interface um that said i oppose this ordinance in part because it continues a message that poverty is a crime and should be hidden when in fact poverty is an inexcusable repercussion of the same failing economic system that's destroying our ecosystems and our children's shared feature as a parent i believe it's time we start modeling for our children how to use creativity compassion and courage to solve this difficult problem and i'm afraid that this ordinance failed to do all of these things um i really do think that well i believe everybody in this discussion um has a desire to do the right thing the proposal being proposed here is completely failing to do that so we're this is the end game guys we are living we are witnessing the end of time as we know it and we need to reinvent the future we need to do it with much more creativity compassion encouraged than what's being proposed tonight so thank you so much thank you next up is uh phone number ending in four two five seven you press star six you should be able to unmute you should be able to unmute we can't hear you there you go for you but you have an echo i think the turn down your tv if you have your tv on a little bit hard to hear you but we can hear you better now with the echo are we should we tell her to turn off her tv or what's the best way to do this there we go a little bit i can't hear you uh maybe it just hurt yeah we can't hear you could you call back in well yeah we can't hear you unfortunately we can't hear anything right her number down mayor okay i'll call back in thank you next up is phone number eight eight eight three chris enreo and i've been living downtown san cruz for the past 25 years and i'm calling to support the ordinances that will regulate outdoor living in vagrancy in san cruz um i'm supporting this ordinance because it will help create a city that is safe and healthy for all of its citizens including the homeless population i want a city where the environment and our parks are protected and our resources are taken care of right now there are many areas in san cruz that are no longer accessible to the general public because they have been taken over by permanent campers this includes families of parks the levy harvey west park pogunas and many areas downtown because we live downtown we see on a daily basis the problems associated with these unmanaged encampments there are many incidents that occur in front of our houses um there are fights deaths overdoses and we're needing to call 911 three to four times a month just last week i had to call 911 because i was threatened while going on a run on moral streets by a homeless man under the influence who threatened to kill me my husband is a san cruz city parks worker and he and his co-workers have had incidents of being attacked when they're trying to clean up parks they have been stabbed by improper leisure started needles and verbally harassed and threatened to an asking hamper to move out of playgrounds and bathrooms please support the ordinance thank you thank you very much next up is phone number 9869 hello can you hear me yes we can hi my name is benet hawkins i've lived in san cruz for five years now and i pose this measure um just hearing about it i'd like to ask if you want people people to move where are they really supposed to go because looking at the map that was put up they basically just blocked off every area that you could realistically camp and still have access to a bathroom a convenience or grocery store i don't know any kind of facilities that you may need to live um these people aren't camping outside because they want to they are because they have to they've been forced out of their previous living situations uh all of the surveys referenced in the presentation uh also show that the majority of the homeless people in san cruz are from santa cruz they are and still are they are and we're our neighbors um i think we need to remember that and this ordinance is not doing is not really acknowledging that it's just a punitive it's just a punitive measure it really only seeks to make people's life outside harder than it already is um i really urge you to oppose it um i think that this is just incredibly wrong um that's all thank you thank you next up is it looks like just one tosh if we can all right thank you um thank you uh mayor meyers and council members i'm going to speak as fastly quickly as i can um so i'd like to echo uh council member commentings uh comments about potentially getting sued i think i think that it should be taken with a lot of weight that that sounds about right to me um i'd like to say to the general community that i feel like this ordinance coming up right now is to deal with um like nuisance and unsafe encampments which do exist they're not uh every homeless or houseless person but there are places where it's getting pretty bad and so i think this i'm assuming this is an attempt to deal with that and also um as we've seen in the past some of these encampments do just get bigger and bigger and get more out of control um all right however that said i'm not sure if this is the way to do it uh camping ban uh in the daytime you know it's it's just like what other causes that's going to move people around a little bit too much i i don't know if this is the right way to go about um getting those particular things done however um i also know that it's legally it's very limited in what tools there are for our local government to actually deal with some of the issues that are arising in and in terms of balancing everyone's needs people that are in houses people that are not in houses um and that's what we have to do as a community uh let's see also people that are just coming to these meetings now there's actually a lot being done oh my god okay i'm sorry we short just a short apologize for that um next person up is seven zero zero three really tired of hearing this narrative about the folks in Santa Cruz uh the homeless folks are all are from Santa Cruz and all are they used to be our neighbors or are still our neighbors and that they excuse me um couldn't possibly wouldn't possibly choose this lifestyle but don't believe don't believe me let's hear it from somebody that was interviewed by Robert Norris on his radio show hang on if you caught that he's now he's only he's a vagabond he ended up in Santa Cruz uh because he's a free spirit and he just decided to stay because he once undeclared the camp thank you thank you okay it looks like we've got um maybe eight more people to go and then we will be stopping um indian 4931 go ahead hey can you hear me that's the camp hey this is rachel chavez and i'm calling today as a nurse in the lower ocean resident to voice my vehement opposition to this ordinance in the city's health and all policies fact sheet we are reminded of the differences between equality and equity equity which the city now claims to prioritize acknowledges that not everyone starts from the same place and asks us to make structural change to ensure that people have access to similar opportunities and resources is passed this ordinance will further the already drastic inequity in our community by criminalizing some of our most vulnerable residents thus negatively impacting their social determinants of health which as the health and all policies reminds us is a harbinger of inequity if council members truly believe that health and equity should exist in all policies then they must understand that we only get there by centering and uplifting the most disadvantaged members of our community which in turn makes a better city for everyone either acknowledge that the content and spirit of this ordinance opposes the stated goal of health and all policies or admit that the intent was always just to punish people who have been judged as not worthy and to pacify those who find themselves loudly inconvenienced by having to witness people living in dire straits additionally i would just like to make it known that i hike regularly alone in pokinip and walk through downtown using campments that personally never felt threatened by any homeless person um anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that this ordinance will only make homelessness and it's a quality significantly worse for all Santa Cruz residents you don't want to see trash buildup set up regular trash pickup want to see less human waste both bathroom want to see less needles see conjection sites sharp containers everywhere nonsensical you don't know ashley wheel natural resource manager of a local public agency i'm a conservationist and i find it asinine and dehumanizing not to mention neoliberal and performative to even try to claim that this ordinance is remotely concerned with environmental degradation we all know that those who consume the most are those that destroy this planet additionally when i think of degradation of sensitive habitats my mind goes to clear cutting with the globe increased line of sight for police and the disturbance caused by police vehicle access acts on dpr employees but failed to mention vigilante and police assaults on our houseless neighbors and on that note why are we only presented with mountain bikers the report feeling unsafe recreating as opposed to houseless neighbors who feel unsafe while trying to survive again as a Santa Cruz resident i urge you to vote no west light since resident uh co-president soon as monterey county homeless union and i guess i was urging you to say no as well just like everyone else um also i'd try to point you in the direction of the continuum of care here in monterey and san bonito counties they're kind of leading the way in state for you know project room key and actually treating people like people have you taken a head count of how many people will you plan to display with no alternative to go are they just supposed to fall off the checkerboard you know did they lose the casino of life here so the enforcement is crazy off the top but you should work more in collaboration we've actually uh locked down swing is pretty good is a there the county seat here in monterey county and they're not conducting sweeps they're actually trying to be humanistic and you know so i'd point that out as well you know if you're gonna vote yes on this you may as well be you're voting against humanity and and you're turning any humanity as well so you should vote on this you should tell you revamp and just table it out honestly that way you don't have to embarrass yourself with the vote to even admit how little humanity you have this is about business you know we worry so much about separation of church and state now we get to worry about separation of business and state because this where it's at right now it's big money there's little so little people and there has to be a lot of losers for there to be a few winners and we just need to stop this game once again thank you better hi can you hear me yes we can you're a little bit light if you could speak a little louder cruise is a really beautiful place and it's disartening to see so many people supporting those who would spend their time justifying tactics that they've already been sued for while ignoring all the effective things that charities or housing plans could provide there's no housing for low income people either unhoused or housed um and I think this is just like a appetizer for the poor people who get sick or injured in Santa Cruz um they see exactly what's going to happen to them pro cultures want to keep shooting themselves in the foot while being as cruel as possible the ordinance will fail it's a paper single it's barely a change from the thing they've been doing for 10 years and it's just going to inevitably inevitably bloat the already over 30 million dollar police budget if you're okay paying jail time and court costs and a victor's salaries who keep people in a cycle of inescapable poverty to justify what they do then by all means vote yes i yield my time thank you thank you stuff we have phone number ending in eight nine two five phone number ending in eight nine two five please hi can you hear me yep hi my name is maria solis kennedy and i um live in santa cruz right near san lorenzo park i'm originally from boise idaho a city that has wasted millions of dollars already on an anti homeless lawsuit and it looks like the city of santa cruz wants to follow in its footsteps and fight um the spirit of uh the uh boise vs martin and i'm really surprised because when i moved from such a conservative place to a democratically controlled city i thought that i would encounter a different attitude towards the poor and the houseless and i'm really disappointed in the spirit of this ordinance and i urge city councils to vote no i also want to attest that as a young woman who lives very close to san lorenzo park and walks through frequently i've never felt threatened and i've never felt unsafe i continue to use the park regularly um if people are scared of the poor people that live in the park i don't think criminalization is the answer i think that will exacerbate the problem and i think we should act with compassion i would just like to add that if the city and the park system is short of money then i suggest that you look at defunding the police and cutting the police budget and not increasing it thank you thank you very much this will be our last caller tonight your number ends in five five excuse me five four four six city council members my name is amy leba chuck and i'm a nine-year city resident social worker i'm asking that you vote against this ordinance from mr butler and mr elliott's presentation it appears we can all agree that this ordinance will not alleviate homelessness in our community this ordinance as outlined is inhumane and seeks to undermine martin versus boise limiting a person's right to sleep to the hours of eight p.m to eight a.m this ordinance wastes santa cruz police officers time during a budget crisis giving warnings and 20 dollar citations to households residents thereby criminalizing homelessness this ordinance cites environmental degradation as the underlying issue so i propose that the city council instead focus their efforts on providing trash receptacles and bathroom facilities to homeless encampments to resolve this issue i also hope that the city and county can continue to partner to expand existing programs that do value the rights and lives of people experiencing homelessness including safe parking programs shelters and supportive permanent housing programs and hope to see transitional encampments added to the list thank you thank you that's our last public speaker i have council member walkins golder and council member Cummings in the queue i'd like to take a five to seven minute break and then come back and we'll deliberate there kind of a question yeah i know that there's some people they've been reaching out to me because they've been online for hours now waiting to speak and i was just wondering if there might be an opportunity whether we could cut public comment to 30 seconds but to allow some of these people an opportunity since they've been waiting so patiently to address this sorry i cut it off i've gone over the intended period so i'm sorry but i think we've gotten a really good we've gotten a number of people so i'm going to cut it off so we have time to deliberate thank you we'll take a five minute break vice mayor um and council member callantary johnson i i'm sorry but i i must have gotten up i did not see who was who was between the two of you who went up first uh vice mayor going before me i don't know thank you council members are back if they could turn on their uh turn on their camera so i know they're available and we will go ahead and get started i believe it's been five minutes and a few comments and then we'll get right into it i just want again wanted to thank folks from the public showing up tonight i'm very sorry that we couldn't accommodate everybody we're going to try to get into this and and get uh get into these decision-making aspects of this i do want to just um acknowledge that we did receive hundreds of emails on the item and we appreciate the engagement by our community on all sides of the issue and i want to recognize your letters were respectful informative and all correspondence has shown all of us here on the council that you care deeply about this community so we thank you um and i also just um want to kind of put this ordinance in the context of really acknowledging the scale of homelessness in the city of tana crews and its impacts to everyone in the community including those that are houseless and are struggling to be here um without the adequate amount of affordable housing and other services including mental health behavior health and substance abuse disorder facilities we we are lagging and very short on the things that we need to take care of of our community and we're not the only city in california or the nation that is suffering from these exact same issues um and this ordinance is really most importantly placed in the context of the bigger picture of where we as a city are heading with our partners at the county for both short and long-term actions to address homelessness and importantly in the larger context of a statewide crisis homelessness is acute is an acute and debilitating social and economic issue in tana crews and it is an environmental issue as well and it is continuing to get worse this is a difficult issue that shouldn't be happening anywhere in the united states or in california but it is and we are doing our best to manage something the city has no real way to manage for it is not the duty of city governments in california to provide services necessary to manage this crisis yet we do do our best with our resources and locations as much as possible and i think it's very important for and i hope that people really understand that our city does expand resources and and funds as much as possible to try to do really what many experts have said which is to try to prevent people from becoming homeless number one to try to look at diversion and rehousing as quickly as possible to look at case management and social services and then most importantly to try to provide that permanent support of and transitional housing needed to try to help these individuals i will have lee put the red line version up tonight but i will let you know that we've worked for many months on this and i would hope that one of my colleagues would entertain a motion to start the evening off with and we can begin deliberation at very soon i want to recognize in order councilmember walkins councilmember golder councilmember comings and uh vice mayor brooner at this time and then councilmember callantari johnson councilmember walkins your comments yes thank thank you mayor and i'm going to try to keep my my comments short because i think as we all recognize these are really complex issues before us i want to thank the community for your emails and input and those who are able to attend this evening as well as the staff and the mayor for your work on this as well i feel like having served on the council for now the past four years no matter when an item comes up in regards to those who are houseless in our community is always really challenging and although at times it feels bound wanting to connect people to better living standards and to see their success so i just want to honor that shared space as you mentioned mayor we've seen for decades now this trajectory continue in terms of increased poverty shrinking middle class housing costs lack of national investment in mental health substance abuse i mean you name it right so i don't think it's not by mistake that we've ended up here it's unfortunate and it's um unacceptable as a nation that we are in this place and this is not the kind of policies that we enjoy making but it's also our responsibility as policymakers to take ownership over some of these issues in our community serving as mayor i had um you know really witnessed firsthand the challenges associated with large encampments particularly around the rock camp and um the health and human safety uh associated with living in that environment for the individuals there the surrounding community sources are simply unexpected i think we know that large encampments are not good for individuals residing there nor for the community as a whole and i feel like that as policymakers we are um in these positions to make really difficult decisions at times and i feel like tonight and this topic in general is always really challenging and it's about as uh balancing being in action or deferring to inaction and status quo um trying to make policy to move forward without um continuing to kind of operate from this place of um really crisis response constant crisis response as opposed to trying to formulate policy that's going to drive um more clarity in the direction i think that you really touched on mayor a lot of what um i wanted to also recognize that this is all in the context of a broader a continuum of care a broader approach to those who are experiencing houselessness in our community rooted in an interest in wanting to prevent houselessness in the first place identifying the unique populations and needs of individuals and doing our best to advocate and leverage and draw down as many resources as we can to support those for unhousing our community um you know we've seen that with the interest in the county wanting to prioritize families and children uh veterans um and we have other uh subpopulations that also need addressing i know that you may or interest we're interested in um wanting to have additional uh questions answered at prior uh sort of prior to opening it up to public comment i do um feel like i could entertain a motion to get deliberations going but want to honor that so i'll hold my motion at this time and maybe start off with the question and then when the questions have concluded i'm prepared for a motion to begin our deliberations um for the purposes of discussion um my first SOPs that we had and this is more geared towards staff um you know when we closed the rock camp there was a lot of work that we did to formulate um now i'm spacing on exactly what the SOPs stand for i uh thank you stated operating procedures and and really trying to think about how we manage large encampments forming um and preventing them from forming and becoming entrenched and um and we had these policies outlined and i know that covid has complicated uh the situation um but i'm i'm curious as to why or if the staff could speak to why they haven't been operationalized um yes thank you um councilmember walkins i think for that i'd invite um sudie ohara up um she has um some more history on that issue hi good evening councilmember walkins and uh mayor and vice mayor and councilmembers happy to be here and provide a little bit of update on the standard operating procedures as you know during your term as mayor um councilmember walkins we we relied heavily on the standard operating procedures as we move forward with closing the ross camp um since that time those operating procedures have been utilized on several different occasions um most specifically around ensuring that um those are that are in encampments are given um adequate notice that 72 hours and that we are storing personal property that qualifies um under that those SOPs for um the experience around covid so say for the last um 13 months 12 months we have to the greatest extent possible use those standard operating procedures as well but given that the fact that there have been changing um orders around sheltering in place changing guidance around the cbc and allowing for folks to shelter in place as long as possible we've had to be really nimble and flexible with how we apply those but in in large part the spirit of those SOPs are always used we go out um and perform outreach we ensure that folks understand what their options are just um knowing that the options for additional shelter have diminished so significantly during the pandemic has created additional layers of complexity for us okay thank you you know I appreciate the clarification around that I will post I will sort of hold off on um any additional questions at this time but um just sort of showing that we can craft something that is informed by our community input and a way to move forward in addressing some of the concerns so that we can have um you know at least action and direction in some regard here and I am interested in looking at the red line version again I think opening up our parking spaces available in the city while simultaneously not including residential makes a lot of sense and I think that by location specifics that our community is looking for and that we're hoping to have answered I also um have concerns about the misdemeanor component of the language and potentially thinking about um potentially thinking about removing that knowing that there's so many other tools that could be employed and then also looking at where are we at as a region in terms of a navigation center and other types of efforts and social workers etc so that's sort of just a summary of my thoughts on this at this time and I look forward to the conversations that we'll see with my colleagues we'll go back to council member um walk-ins for motion but I do have and again just for additional comments questions I know many of you were waiting to get get those answered before we deliberated once we get those done um Lee we can maybe put up the red line and we can start to work through uh the motion as as made by uh started with council member walk-ins um council member colder do you have comments or questions that you want to make at this time I do thank you and um I want to thank all of the members of the community that took time to write a letter call in tonight you know it's obvious that everyone's really passionate about this issue and I think the bottom line is nobody wants to see people suffering they want you know um people to be living in conditions that are humane and safe and um I think there's reasons why we have in the city in the state um policies around like zoning regulations and things like you know smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms and occupancy limits and buildings and stop signs and building codes and they're there to keep people safe and so to the extent that um the ordinance not only the house residents feeling safe in their neighborhoods or their parks it's also in a way to keep um the people that are living outdoors safe and I think it's it's a way to kind of um you know move forward and help um regulate some of the situations that have cost a lot of money and um I want to say I just I applaud the association of faith-based communities and the safe parking programs and I and I encourage people with businesses or homes to allow people into your homes and yards I do have concerns about a couple of um aspects of the ordinance and I'll wait to discuss those but um I also agree that I I'm not sure about camping in the neighborhoods and I think that we should look at parking lots as alternatives um and as far as the misdemeanor goes it's complicated um um sometimes I think with without um any consequences people are reluctant to make changes and you can't always just keep giving like carrot carrot carrot um and I know that's not the case here but I would also you know like to see maybe not tonight because I don't know how much we'll get to but I would I mean I'd like to see ways that we can help people get their credit back on track and their criminal records erased and things like that if um if they were to start looking for housing and jobs and things like this so um anyway I feel like I'm rambling but um I'm also curious what everybody else has to say and thank you to everybody that called in thank you next up I have councilmember Cummings thank you mayor and thank you members of the public who all chimed in tonight um and um for the staff I have a number of comments um I'll probably hold my comments I'll ask a few more questions um and then at some point when we get into deliberations I'll probably express my feelings towards this ordinance this evening um I did have a couple questions regarding um the timeline so the 8 p.m to 8 a.m and a question I had around that is if we establish the that you can only have a tent up from 8 p.m to 8 a.m is that something that's static so for example if someone you know works um well I'm thinking about it within the context of you know where we are right now in the winter when the sun goes down in January by around 4 30 p.m it's cold and I'm just curious as to how we're going to adjust those times to and reflect when people need shelter because um yeah it gets dark three hours before 8 p.m during the winter so I'd just like to hear from staff how that's supposed to be accommodated if tents can't be up until 8 p.m and also along with that setting a tent up in the dark for anyone who's ever done that is pretty difficult so uh planning director if you can speak to that or anybody else can that'd be helpful thank you council member Cummings I would say that in the ordinances that we've looked at um there are different timelines some for example to address the issue that you raised um say um 30 minutes after um sunrise as the uh pack up time and then 30 minutes before sunset as um the uh time when you can start setting things up so that would address your concern in relation to um the the light um and uh the varying times throughout the year um I would say that um you know that was that was something that was considered it's certainly something that you can consider completely within your purview um the ease of implementation of knowing eight o'clock to eight o'clock um was a factor in um the deliberations but I appreciate you raising that question and certainly the council can modify that as you all see fit okay thank you um the next the next question I have is one that came up um I had and then also came within the community which is the determination and definition of disability um I think somebody had pointed out that you know um anxiety PTSD schizophrenia all these things are disabilities drug addiction could also be considered a disability if it also has impacts on your ability to your ability for you to mentally function so and then you know I think it's pretty safe to say that in our country unfortunately access to medical care is really limited so you know how do we expect someone who you know may not even be aware of their surroundings because of their mental health issue to be able to go to a doctor carry a note on them at all times which they're able to present to police officers that would then um you know justify them being able to keep their tent up all the time so I'm just wondering if someone could speak to you know the process behind you know how we're gonna expect people who may have mental difficulties or disabilities to be able to meet some of the requirements that are outlined um in this ordinance especially since they may be on their own and by themselves so I would say a couple of things um so one um with respect to medical access um there are um uh folks at the county HP HP it helps to provide uh free and low cost services um and um with respect to um and so those individuals you know could feasibly um provide if there is a medical uh doctor's note that's necessary um that was that was part of the thought process um and then um you also had another question um about the um the identification could you repeat that I think that was the second part uh was there a first part to that as well no I think most of it was along the lines of you know our expectations around people who have mental health disabilities right and one how they're going to be able to get you know a doctor's note and then you know our expectation around them keeping that on them all the time to present to police officers um in order to keep their housing yeah sure yeah and I would say a couple things um just in addition there so um you know one of the things that it the ordinance identifies is that um if that disability is not readily apparent um you know there may be um individuals who are known um to the um uh to the um policing community for example um and um so those police officers you know may even if they've lost the note uh say hey you know we know that this is the case um there are also um other resources I think um and whether it's through the continuum of care or um uh through you know visits at housing matters and HPHP staff there versus you know field staff there so there are some opportunities um and I would say if anyone on the team has additional uh things that they'd like to add chief mills or others yeah thanks director bellard we actually deal with us a lot with a lot of medical reasons um that people you know use different substances for instance when cannabis was um a medical excuse for under two prop 215 to use cannabis people you know you you work with them you try to figure it out the second piece of that is it can always be dismissed later at these city attorneys level when that takes place um yeah should they have their you have to re-obtain their medical clearance to have that level system and that we're fairly used to dealing with yeah in addition to that um director butler if you don't mind if I jump into as well for councilmember Cummings that our downtown outreach workers as well as um as chief mills knows our mental health um liaisons have access to those within the system of care especially those with mental health diagnoses um I know that our mental health um workers are um you know having hundreds of contacts um a year if not thousands with folks that are um in the city of Santa Cruz that do have um access to the system of care treatment and so I do think that there is while there is hipper considerations there is a recognizable group of folks that um we have contact with through both of those programs questions just one in particular I'm just curious about you know if we're going to put this in place like what is the strategy around increasing turnover in our current facilities because if we have I mean we can't assume that we're going to have all 400 plus beds once COVID is over and if we're back down to 155 beds which I hope we're not um you know just thinking about the proportion of people who are homeless in our community how are we going to are there any thoughts around how we're going to be able to transition people out of shelters and either into homes or back with families so that we can get people in because um if the strategy is going to be to break up these encampments and people are literally going to be you know randomly sleeping throughout the city of Santa Cruz how are we going to ensure that we're trying to get more people into um shelter and services and not kind of in this perpetual cycle of poverty so I would uh comment on that and I'd invite others up uh after that as well one of the things that I would say is you know I mentioned the um the county's um focus strategies plan and um one of the um the recommendations and and really part of the the conversation that we've been having with the county is directly related to these questions that you're asking and they're looking at a number of things um the the data is a big um thing that they're looking at is is uh looking at um reducing those timelines so they have set um uh goals they've they've looked at how long people have stayed in certain facilities in transitional housing and in shelters and um they've they've set uh goals that they are looking to attain within certain timelines and and they're substantially shorter than what has occurred um in the past um and so the county is well aware of that um concern um and um is is seeking to address that as part of their um upcoming six months and uh three-year strategy because you're absolutely right if if there is not that turnover um then um you know it's not opening up beds for that next person that that needs to access that resource it looks like Susie might want to add something as well yeah thanks director Butler um uh council member um Cummings I wanted to call you Justin I apologize um while you were on the two by two committee we spent uh months talking about this subject so I know that it's deeply ingrained in in your policy um consideration so one thing that we did talk about at the two by two level was um the assurance that um as we contemplate new sheltering models that that shurn um and the incentives to you know provided to folks to ensure that not only are they offered um diversion programs before they hit the shelter system but each step of the shelter system um provides opportunities for folks to find um pathways out of homelessness is critically important so I do think that stepped model um will continue to be a critical piece of the county and focus strategies work and I think the work on the half and the work that Lee and others are doing to help advocate um for focus strategies to really focus on kind of that stepped shelter program um and leading into long-term housing solutions will be really important so I appreciate you bringing that up thanks and I'll I only have a few more questions then I'll try to wrap it up I'll share my comments and then I'll probably quiet um next two questions one um and I just want to get this as a summary piece but it sounds like um and Lee maybe you can touch on this based on the report that we were given it doesn't appear to myself and I don't think it's clear in members of the public where people can sleep and so I'm just wondering if you can touch on that again um because we have outlined where people can't but we haven't said where people can and I think the other concern is you know there is this you know component which is having storage be accessible if the only places for people to camp are in the middle of open space is 75 feet away from uh trails for me that leads that what that tells me is that there's the there's a higher potential that people will be camping in these areas and having negative impacts on our environment because they won't have access to bathrooms um they'll have to you know and as a result have to make use of where they are they won't have easy access to refuse so they're going to be throwing their trash in a lot of these areas and you know if they're in open space it's not like you can drag a garbage can in and out right it's going to be teams of city workers going out and cleaning up after people because these people have no way to um access um garbage or you know when we think about black water and gray water they'll have nowhere to kind of dump there those um biohazardous waste so I think it would be really helpful for us to kind of have a better understanding of where people can go especially now that we're saying well now that it's coming up as well that people don't want these people in neighborhoods so I'm wondering if you could speak to that sure thank you councilmember coming so I'm happy to speak to that um so first off I I saw I heard three questions there or three things that I'll respond to there first off where um and I'll I'll respond um as the ordinance is currently drafted um so you know the council can modify this as they see fit but as are currently drafted um it's the open spaces aside from the three that were precluded so uh the four open spaces um meaning uh more creek Poganip um Arana Gulch and uh De La Viega so those four open spaces outside of 75 feet from either side of a trail and then there would be some sensitive habitat areas that are identified and we would publish those before we are enforcing the ordinance um so that is as uh oh excuse me and then sidewalks throughout the city sidewalks throughout the city so that's how the ordinance is currently drafted um I would just comment on that and say that you know um so long as adequate places are being provided I think you know we um would um just tell the council like if you want to modify the places look to ensure that there is adequate space um when we were when we were um you know uh working through all of this and looking at options and um considering the ordinance um you know there are there are reasons for and against everywhere and you know you've cited some valid reasons why there are concerns about open spaces and so what I would tell you is if the council wants to take open spaces off the table um then think about what what other places are going to be put on the table so that we do have adequate spaces I mean that's that's critical from a legal perspective um of having a sufficient number of spaces for people to go into sleep so that's one two you mentioned um storage and how would that work and you know with if it's open if people are camping in the open spaces you know I think that's something that we will clearly need to evaluate but certainly we would be looking at all right where can we place facilities that are convenient to where people are going to be um and um you know if if the council chooses to move those places around as far as where people can be then we would reevaluate where we want to put the storage that store the storage programs um and then finally you mentioned the cleanup um and you know the hauling of trash by city staff I'm not going to say that this ordinance is going to fix that issue but what I will say is I do appreciate the comments that we got from members of the public that spoke to the changes that were included in for the council's consideration which included things like you know hack your trash out um you know so it'll be the Canberra's responsibility to keep their their trash in a bin and a receptacle and you know is that going to happen all the time no but um from an expectation standpoint um hopefully that can address some of the challenges I will say I'm a bit well I'll hold my comment or since I know that there's other people who want to speak um but thank you for providing that um the answer last two questions one um there's been a lot of discussion popping up around not allowing camping in neighborhoods however at the same time there is a provision that's written into the ordinance that says that private property owners can have um campers people camping in their yards and so I just want to understand would there need to be some reconciliation if you say you cannot have it in residential neighborhoods and the fact that private citizens are allowed to actually allow people to camp on their properties no I think um when we went through the proposed um or potential edits for the council's consideration um it precluded the um residential districts and that is in a section pertaining to public property and then there is also the the separate section related to private property and I think the ordinance would be okay um and and just to remind the viewers I heard a number of uh uh commenters uh speak to allowances for uh you know proposed allowances for camping in on private properties and those those allowances are on the books that is that's currently law and so currently people can do that so just clarification for members of the public and I guess the final question is funding and so I'm just curious how you know we're talking about um we can't do anything until we have adequate storage which also means we're going to identify locations for the storage locations for the camping it sounds like we're probably going to need more staff because if we designate these camping areas someone's going to have to go through and check to ensure that people are throwing up their trash but there's not going to be um you know defecation in areas where they there shouldn't be obviously we're probably also going to have to provide porta potties hand washing stations in these areas that we designate as um outdoor sleeping areas so my question is what where's the funding supposed to come from to support that given especially given that we're in a very deep that's a great question you know we spend um a lot on um our homeless response now um you know sometimes dizzying amounts to when we're just um you know conducting cleanups um following um you know a camp that that moves from location and so um you know I think we'd be looking at whatever sources we can for um those resources you are correct there would need to be some type of um uh of program to operate the the storage you know in our initial brainstorming we've talked about you know whether that could be a nonprofit or whether that could support existing groups or if the downtown streets team or you know there's a combination of ideas that we've thrown out there but whether it's a general fund or looking to cdbg you know we would have to have to find those resources and um you know it's it's a cost one way or another you know we're spending money on these efforts now and it looks like City Manager Bernal has something he might want to add as well no I think you covered it Lee I think that Lee mentioned that we are already extending funds for portable bathroom hygiene facilities cleanups and the like and have received a cdbg funding that we've set aside and expect to use for this purpose it's supposed to be for this purpose and I think we also expect to receive additional funds through the state and some of the federal funds for some of these purposes as well so thank you um bag I'm going to end my questions I'll just raise my hand so I can come back later and make my comments thank you okay thank you um next up I have Vice Mayor Bruder yes uh thank you uh thank you so much to everybody that uh you know all our constituents and the public and community members that I've never had so many emails it was very um the engagement and the the response and uh I just want to say I really appreciated those that took the time to read through the draft we all I got it Thursday we all received the draft ordinance Thursday um and you know very little time to really comb through it so for those that combed through with very specific suggestions um and points that was appreciated um I do want to say there were a lot of um there was a lot of input and we heard some on the calls today um you know my understanding is this ordinance has potential to help manage a very difficult situation and I want to be clear I don't have any delusions that this ordinance attempts to address the humanitarian crisis that exists here on the streets in Santa Cruz that's my understanding of this ordinance does not replace the dire need for significantly increased health and human services and as I continue to work downtown in the uh you know downtown district and um also I'm now newly appointed on the uh two by two committee with mayor Myers and county supervisors and county staff and health and human services um I'm reminded regularly of the need for more mobile outreach workers and mobile social worker teams and vastly expanded mental health and substance use order treatment facilities and services um in Santa Cruz and understanding that the intention of this ordinance is not a replacement for that I had to really get to that point um and knowing that that work is happening simultaneously and um I think that's important to to note um in my notes you know there's so much work that has been done I'm really actually amazed at the homelessness recommendation report that was adopted in 2017 and I understand that went through a process and as well as the cash committee's final recommendations so there has been a lot of engagement and community support um and input and process and um identifying short term there's a list of uh you know 10 or so short term solutions and long term solutions and we've actually checked off it looks like some of these items so far and um you know if we keep these first and foremost there's templates to continue the work on really addressing the root cause that um is exists not just in Santa Cruz um but you know as in the county all the cities in the state you know the long term goals for more housing all types including subsidizing permanent supportive housing um these are necessary components of you know our public policy and in addressing the city's role in supporting this crisis the crisis of unhoused folks the crisis of mental health the crisis of substance use disorder um and it must I really feel it must be supplemented with short term measures that will help people in distress and reduce the social disorder um and so we need it's our responsibility to balance the city's responsibility to maintain public health and safety with those that are unhoused and um um you know I'm looking forward to hearing council member Watkins motion and I hope that we can discuss complementary policy um to ensure that action on the ordinance is balanced with providing additional resources to our unhoused folks and um really at you know the broad concept I think we all you know is there and I think there's some discussion and need to really find to flesh out the details in some of the language um and some of these items in here and and it's nice to know that we have that flexibility so I look forward to that discussion I had I had one quick question too I'm looking I'm looking at my notes here um this is in reference to 6.36.060 which is the additional criteria section um where are sharps containers in stay located and how would one know where they are right now um we have three thank you guys mayor Burner that's a good question and I'll say that there are three um sharps containers that um the uh that are in the city that the county services that I'm aware of um there's one on coral street um there is um one on water street and there is another um that was newly installed at the um the San Lorenzo park to help address issues there and um there is one more that is in the works that is being coordinated right now with the county that would be at another location along the river thank you welcome next step um I have a council member call and Tari Johnson and then council member brown and then I'll cue after thank you um yeah I'd like to echo some other comments from my colleagues that made and thank um the staff who worked really hard on this um and all of the community members who joined tonight who spoke tonight who wrote letters um it this is a really complex and complicated issue um and and actually I want to go back to um council member Watkins uh starting statement around our shared vision and goal of community well-being and reaching success for everyone um I think I think it is that is an important space to start from um and I think what I heard over and over again from sort of both sides of the aisle if you will um compassion and dignity um those are important spaces to start from because I I know that that our community cares and and um we want to reach those spaces and we're not there yet and and this ordinance won't necessarily get us there um but we have to move in some kind of a direction um you know I just want to note that people spoke um very passionately from both sides and and and directions and uh and I hear all of it um this is an issue that that all of those experiences that were named are real they're real for those who are on house they're real for um neighbors they're real for the environment it's all real um it's it's not one side or the other as council member Watkins has said uh I so I have my background is in social work for members of public who don't know I have a master's in social work I've worked in the field of homelessness for over two decades in the Tenderloin in San Francisco doing direct services um doing policy work doing grant writing doing strategic planning so I've I've addressed this issue from many angles and I and I don't have a perfect answer and I think that we're not after a perfect answer tonight um to help us move forward to the beginning I find that there are some gaps in it uh that I'd like us to discuss and deliberate and um I can name some of them quickly here but I'll hold it for when we're in deliberation but um the storage program and accessibility as council member Cummings brought up um designated areas I think many of the council members have brought that up and and perhaps that's on the table having designated areas and then connecting that to staffing and supervision um hygiene stations um and and then uh oh the other piece is um you know the the enforcement piece um really starting out from an outreach and engagement approach first I think that was a specific recommendation from the catch uh safe sleeping subcommittee uh using that in conjunction with our the steps of warnings and citation having outreach workers so really integrating that piece of it um and and I hear what council member Golder said that it's it's complicated and tricky uh because those who will abide by the rules um if we provide support outreach engagement they'll abide by the rules and then there are those who frankly will um endanger some of our unhoused population who aren't following the laws and restrictions that are in place so it it is a complicated space so I think there's there's space in this ordinance that can be strengthened um I also think that we need to think holistically and in the full continuum of care um a phased approach where we work towards what Mr. Brent Adams brought up it's a yes and right we work towards safe sleeping model and we have it connected to resources and staffing we work with our faith community and nonprofits um and ultimately working through our 2x2 and with our county to get um to some kind of a transitional shelter space that is robust and that's connected to navigation centers so um Vice Mayor Brunner and I have been working together on some policy direction that would complement um the ordinance and some suggestions for strengthening the ordinance but we'll wait till there's a motion and we can present those thank you thank you very much council member coantara johnson um I have council member brown next thanks uh so I'm the first question I have I have three uh the first question I have is it can we get a sense of um those of you who are able to see uh how many people were waiting to speak who were not able to just a ballpark um I'm getting a lot of messages from people uh if I had been able to get the floor earlier I would have made a motion to extend our public comment period in response uh Mayor Myers to your uh statement that uh we we were going to the meeting was closed but I would like to know um you know if we could get a sense of how many people were not able to speak you could not count them all I'm sorry I was able to count the hands that were up there about 26 thank you thanks okay so my other question um I am you know I'm not going to ask uh a lot of questions about the ordinance language I'm looking forward to hearing the motion and the deliberations and um the possible uh amendments revisions additions etc um that council member coantara johnson mentioned um and I I just want to say that I I really um echo um a lot of the you know the interest that you expressed um council member coantara johnson in you know the both and that mr. Adams uh suggested suggested and I think many others have and I also share a lot of the concerns and questions that um council member Cummings has so I won't repeat them uh my questions are um one so I'm I'm not going to again ask questions about the the ordinance language I think it's just um it's just it's hard for me to see that any potential for clarity in in some of this because it is so um you know complicated and convoluted and necessarily so given the constraints um but I'm wondering if we could is it would it be possible to just pull up that uh those maps for um for a moment because um I think that you know it there is a big question that's just kind of lingering there um that um council member Cummings kind of asked you know um where people can't who who want who who legitimately genuinely want to follow the rules um that we are um the city is council is considering um how they could you know reasonably or effectively successfully do that and so and I don't suppose it's um I don't imagine it's possible to do an overlay of the the red zone and the yellow yeah well good great um and then so then so if we look at that um you know again I we can't um dive all the way into this map and spend hours on it but you know it looks to me like what's left is neighborhoods which I don't I don't believe was the you know or primarily neighborhoods I see maybe a little bit of area over on the west side industrial and you know harvey west area but aside from that it's neighborhoods and and I don't think that was the intention with uh developing this and so if we add the neighborhoods and then I I just I I'd really love to see what that looks like and if if somebody could just walk me walk us through um like to give us some idea about where you know people who do want to um try to navigate through whatever um you know parameters are placed upon the them um like where they could be so that's one question and then my second question which is related is how will people come to know um and and understand what spaces are on or off limits I think that that's been that question's been raised um but you know especially given the conditionality of some of the spaces um and then some of it being up to interpretation um you know I've heard you know in response to a lot of questions well if they have a doctor's note or you know oh if so it's like there's just so much that's not clear and that I I don't think can be clarified but what I would like to know is like where people can be and how they will come to know like get that um that understanding I don't think signage is going to do it I like the idea of some outreach uh and being getting built into this but I also um you know I'm not sure that that would really get us there so I think there's just going to be confusion kind of ongoing so again so two questions where like tell us where people can be and how they'll know aside from the website because I don't think that's a realistic way for people to access um that information or not for everybody at least so thanks those are those are valid questions um and I think the first thing that I would um say in response is you know this uh this map here is kind of the baseline um so right now this map would show you um where um you can camp there there may be some areas that are flood prone um you know that we uh would close right now and there are some areas that are signed and we would then need to also sign some um uh some sensitive habitat areas so you're absolutely right you know the the um the think the the response that I had before was somewhat um because we do need to still identify the uh the um sensitive habitat areas that would be off-limits um when we start looking at these additional maps this one for example showing the um the wildland urban interface as the largest area um you know certainly if that whole area was closed then we would we would have a big chunk of the areas that otherwise would be allowed in open spaces for example that would be off-limits and so you know that is um concerning um and something that we would need to work with our fire chief on on a regular basis to say all right you know what are the the key areas um you know I I may actually um ask the fire chief to to pop on for a second because I believe and I'm not positive about this but I believe when um the uh restrictions were called for recently that it was um related to the um the Hoganette area and not all of the wooey but I I would ask Kim to maybe weigh in on that and that could you know help inform the discussion as well I think there's Jason I may have said to council so the wildland urban interface is an overlay that um is not just for those who are unhoused it actually impacts uh housing and building standards uh that are adjacent to those large open spaces and this is past summer um prior to the CZU fire we've done a number of outreach uh for highest concentration of our large encampments within the sick work road Hoganette area and we experienced a number of fires there and so we targeted that just because of the frequency of fires and we cleared that area because of the fuel conditions and so um even though that you you see the entire wildland urban interface it's really dependent on the fuel conditions um how uh receptive something is the catching on fire and then the ignition source and so we we had people that were camped in other spaces in our wildland urban interface but we weren't having calls we weren't having the frequency of events there and so this is really dependent on the impacts and the behaviors in that area and the risk to the individuals there as well as the greater community so that wildland urban interface is very much dependent on the weather outside of our control and then the events that are happening in that area and we had a really big concentration uh within that area because we had an entrenched encampment um that was crowing water and we had actual incidents that we were trying to curtail so that we didn't have you know that catastrophic uh you know wild land fire like we saw earlier this summer and so uh councilmember brown I um I asked that because I wanted to confirm that you know it wouldn't necessarily be in across the board will we um elimination um and your your point is a valid one how will folks know and I know you know you you express concerns about you know the website um I think that it could very well be um and in fact as we have this set up it could change um over the course of the year you know flood prone areas might go areas where um you know we have a migratory species um might be off limits during one time during the year and might be okay during another and um uh wooey portions of it may be okay all year round and portions of it may be off limits for a part of the time so I do think that um you know it will be incumbent upon if if council chooses to take this approach with these limitations then it will be incumbent upon staff to make sure that we're updating that regularly and and I know um there's a concern about digital access um we did include in the ordinance a provision that says that a paper copy would be available um and I think you know we we want to make sure that it is clear um you know we we want to make sure that that where it's you know where it's okay that people know it's okay so that um you know they can they can go to those areas and and we want to hear from council where those okay areas are and we're happy to um adjust the ordinance accordingly all um I believe um we're starting in to get to details and I think I'll go to uh council member Watkins to your hand up um and I don't want to miss um but I'm just wondering if maybe the most productive thing would be to go ahead and um and get that red line up and so I'm hearing a couple of different council members who've expressed um potential changes the ordinance I think baby that's the best place to go next um so that we can uh deliberate and start those changes so Lee can you um so uh council member Watkins you mentioned you were ready to put a motion on the table you know we um to craft something that's going to work for our community I am interested in uh moving forward I'm trying to I'm going to try to differentiate my comments from the motion because I know Bonnie knows that I have a pattern of sort of blending in my thoughts as opposed to a really clear motion augmented by um my colleagues um I do like the idea of the red line version I be parking lots here's the residential portion um if you wanted to eliminate the residential it would entail this and then if you wanted to add information related to parking lots or private property or closed portions of public right away and so forth however you'd like to articulate that um could be done in this section here which just as a reminder is part of this uh outdoor living permitted section so far though okay so I would like to so I would like to move forward with that um direction I think it um it helps provide clarity of where as opposed to where you can't and I think also the residential language uh it could be problematic for uh several reasons and supportive of that modification in this red line version so I'll make that as part of my motion as a foundation with Bonnie and um I would also I will not include at this time the the misdemeanor provision being removed because I want to have that conversation with my colleagues but I do have concerns about them kind of criminalizing status versus criminal activity and you know um hearing from Tony Kandadi there are a number of things like illegal campfires or obstructing a city's ability to mitigate an illegal camp that could be used as tools if there's individuals who are unwilling to move but I want to really understand what the cost benefit of that is so I'm not going to include that in the motion at this time but I'm interested in that conversation um I would like to direct staff to return um with some sort of update on a navigation center on a day center where are we at with the county with this maybe that's a conversation that has um ensued with the two by two I know there's been discussions of this for uh several years now and um just really want to reinforce personally my interest in being something like that move forward that's critical I think in terms of also connecting the individuals who are experiencing houselessness in our community to um resources to get out of that that uh I'd like to direct staff to explore how we can partner with the county and expand a social worker or case managers to support contacting and connecting individuals to resources and supportive paths out of homelessness and houselessness as well as to the ongoing tracking of shelter options available I know we mentioned wanting to have clarity around where they could go we should also have clarity around what sheltering is available uh point in time right now this evening and I know that's something we discussed as well in the past the rest are just really comments I think I'll leave that I hope that was sort of somewhat um clear enough for you Bonnie to get us started as a motion you know look at community service as options as uh sort of this diversion type model for potential individuals who are not in compliance really look at waiving um the impacts for scores or other things that may impede their ability to find success they were to be cited I really this is about us this is one component of a broader picture around um how we're addressing houselessness in our community and I really believe that it's inhumane to allow these large encampments to remain and we've seen that time and time again and the amount of resources um it's not efficient nor it's not socially uh right to have us in this crisis response mode so however we can balance policy with the broader conversation of this continuum of care for services I think we really have to factor all of those things in um so I'm going to leave my comments at that knowing that uh it's getting late and we have other individuals who want to also have friendly amendments so I hope that was clear enough for the motion um happy to have um Bonnie either reread it what she was able to gather I'm happy to also just restate just the motion components of it but I wanted to find let me put it up yeah that'd be great thank you Bonnie thing that I think is missing is to also remove the residential allowing I don't uh Lee you had I can't remember exactly what I can pull the uh section and then I think you also mentioned something about um the sheltering oh yeah that's right it's on sheltering that I didn't see and I I just wanted clarification too you mentioned working from the red line version that was reviewed by staff correct yes which includes the um the modifications that you brought up in the beginning of my comment so the um bear with me for one second the residential portion is in 6.36.040 b b5 so that would be taken out it would not be taken out um that would have um the uh this would um add a prohibition so it would say so uh sleeping on sidewalks is still okay except downtown um you know you couldn't sleep on a sidewalk in the downtown and then also the residential zoning districts of r1 rl rm rh and rs would remain does not include our commercial which you know where mixed use would be allowed um but it includes the primarily the exclusively residential zoning districts okay and I'm gonna I'll go ahead and second that motion um okay off we go um I had in order um Lee you might be the better person to kind