that turn that brought up as well. And so wondering if we can look at how that reservation that would have all as process free, right? The reservation, I think the permit is $30. Permit is $30 and then the parks team is working on what the would be for the, which is what would be required for the reservation. Any other questions from council members? At this time I will take this item out to public comment. This is item number 24 on our public screen. And there are any members of the public that would like to speak now as the time is your hand by dialing star nine on your phone or selecting and webinar. Your turn to speak will hear an announcement that was unmuted. The timer will then be set. We did have one request for extra time from a group Robert Norse and let's see if phone number ending in 4-844 go ahead and unmute yourself. I'm representing Huff. I'm Robert Norse and it's homeless United Friendship Freedom. We've heard about the impact of this law for people who are both patrons of vendors who are also maybe vendors of those. The city manager can have a negative impact on not just those who spend most of their lives outside and rely on active public spaces. This I think comes from the staff that it's being, well, concerns I guess itemized. It's mainly the destruction of a vibrant street seat have negative impacts on the entire community. We'll discourage visitors seeking legendary but increasingly less actively described versus use characterized are down for city. This expands spending your law and display device restrictions folks moving around so that someone hocking their poets or other work on a bike would be required to register pay and regulate those according to unnecessary and burdened requirements. We'll seriously encourage colorful street life to the detriment of the broader community. Visitors have come to produce the experience that brick and mortar business share in the process generated by the use of the ones that are free. Free vendors will be boxed in massively regulated while merchants spend their domains of public spaces. Sidewalks happening COVID era. I'm particularly concerned about the exclusionary impact this ordinance has been forced again on homeless and low income people whose living space now undergoing massive stated shrinkage hundreds illegally outsourced Bible and reportedly given July eviction date in the financial lands where they've been correct to go. But of course they have nowhere to go after that. So it's going to be the street observed by minority vendors often cheaper than corporate sellers for homeless folks to be. The ordinance also calls for a return to many of the anti-homeless downtown ordinance impressive fact. If bans, vendors, petitioners, anyone with a table asking money for anything with no apparent first amendment exception except in the disc outline box getting the requirement of permits downtown. Half a million was authorized last month for enforcement and 200,000 as part of the budget. Why? 18 pages of ordinance. Why? What's the problem currently? Get the staff juicier job. Get enforcement officers busy. Where the police staff indicating substantial problems.   They grabbed a punch in the pusser to a poor person spreading out their books on a blanket and trying to sell, trade or give them away or a way of sanitizing Pacific Avenue of handicraft vendors. To the Robinson-Torreses councils were able to drive out of sight bans restrictions of this sort. The cities failed to adjudicate an issue that was the assault upon a taco vendor's push cart. They didn't hold the merchant responsible. Instead, they moved to ban street vendors without permit and uphold this monopoly of brick and mortar stores. This is a strangle of the street vendors ordinance. Clearly limits the street vending. Reinstitutes stay in your box based on restrictions they have began with two on Pacific Avenue and awards special interest legislation brick and mortar stores. This is a return to the old regime. What can people do about it? Of course, questions then you won't. You will simply rubber stamp. We can object to police enforcement of this law when it happens and raise our voices in public forums where we'll actually be heard rather than sideline in celluloid void we're in now. And of course, I should point out to the, as I have already to the city clerk that has the dialogue on community key of the Kishan Sanacris City Council has not been audible. It's jerky and it's cut off. You can't really understand what's being said. So this was primarily a measure to overcome SB 946 which became law in 2019, which allowed for commercial sidewalk vending and limited city council's abilities to restrict sidewalk vending. This is the city council striking back on behalf of merchants. I think it does a detriment to the homeless and the housed both. And thanks to everybody for listening. For your comment, the next caller with your hand raised has a phone number ending in 177, Karen. Hello, my name is Guillermina Garcia. I'm a street vendor on Beach Street and I'm really nervous right now because we're starting speaking up by myself. I hope you guys understand me and I can't hear any well. Okay, my first comment is that I'm a vendor that went into the robo and went in one of the spaces that were food. So it took time for me to get the help from me. By 2021 on October, I got my help from me. Also, I have a liability insurance. Also, I have a business license and a Sanacris permit. I wear a jacket a lot of times for other vendors already. I didn't work 2021 because I was scared that other vendors didn't let me get any really small space to sell. But right now I came on the second of April, first time, and I see an open space here by Beach Street. I set up my staff, I set up my table so I can bring my food cart that already has all the permits. And I set up, this guy came to me and asked me for that space that belongs to him. He told me that I need to move my space and my things because that size belongs to him. And he said, are we with me? That's the time when my husband came and asked him what was the problem. And he told me that we need to move. I was pretty scared because we already beat him the fight and I don't wanna beat him no more in the fight. So he started fighting with my husband and all his co-workers, he's working because his name is Dorian Rodriguez. He has like 20 spaces in most stands working for him. And all those people came to my husband and started attacking him. His mom, his dad started hitting on him. So my son, one is 17, his name is Rodriguez Cruz. He's about to go to the Navy on June. He already enlisted, he's ready to leave. But he came to defend his dad, taking away the other people that were attacking him. And I don't, I feel good that they went, my kids went to defend his dad. The other kid is 16. He came to take out the other girls that were attacking us. And that's the time that when they started hitting my kid. And right now I feel so very scared of them to start our win again. So I just moved to the other side of, another space where on the palm tree. So I just set up, I make a report of police and everything but they didn't wear a vest. Also I wear a robe by his mom. His mom take away his backpack with my husband. And my husband had like 4,000 in a pocket because we have changed, we're vendors. We didn't deposit the money on the bank. So she took everything, the police just give me the change, only 5,000. That's all she has in the bag. And I recommend my recommendation is to limit the space for that ones where six on the ruffles. And also my recommendation is to site all the vendors that doesn't have the permit that were on the ruffles. Also I asked him for that parking space for permit. And my small business can also offer a job to another people that is struggling for jobs. And that's all my comment. I hope somebody can hear me, my recommendation. And I hope the audience doesn't have to know me. Thank you very much. Hello Amina, our next caller phone number ending 721. Hi there. Hello. Hi, my name is Dave Jones. I'm a street vendor on Sidewalk Vendron. I wanna thank Council Member Justin Cummings and Staff Member Elizabeth Smith as well as the Mayor for taking time out and listening tonight. I have several concerns, but I would hope that everything's straightened out and they find out your thing. They worked out that the brass dots before this council passes this ordinance because afterwards it'll be a little bit more difficult and they'll have carp launch on what they wanna do. And it's not always in the vendor's interest. Number two, this Senate Bill 946 was intended to decriminalize street vending or sidewalk vending. But on page 14, 24.14, there's a violation of this subdivision as a misdemeanor. That's a criminal offense. And that goes against what Senate Bill 946 is trying to do and decriminalize sidewalk vending. I have a lot of concerns. What I would hope would happen would be for the council to table this and have it straightened out before it's passed. There's, I don't think there's anything wrong with just waiting a little bit longer. I mean, you waited this long, you might as well wait a little bit longer and just work out all the details before it's passed and made into an official ordinance. And that's all. And I appreciate all the work that's gone into this and all the people who've been working on it. I know everybody worked hard. I wanna thank everybody involved. Your comment for any other numbers of the public who wish to comment on 24 is being done. We'll bring it back to council. Time, I have council member Calantari-Johnson. Great, thank you Mayor Brunner and thank you the callers. I wanted to just note that I had questions. I had a time that I sent to staff and shared with community members who had questions. So I didn't have questions earlier. I have some comments that I wanna make and I am ready to make a motion to move staff recommendation. I will make a point or I make it now, I'm not sure. If you make it now, I will ask for a second. Okay, I'll go ahead and make it now and then make my comments. So I will move to adopt the ordinance number 2022-03 repealing Santa Cruz municipal code SCMC after a 5.1 vending and display devices on city property adding SCMC chapter 5.8 sidewalk vending. There a second? I'll go ahead and second that. I second the walk-in, okay, now we can have discussion on this. Great, I just wanna know Ms. Wilhelmina's comments that she called in, heartbreaking story. I watched the video, one of our community members sent the video and it truly brought tears to my eyes and it really further makes the point that what we're doing is not working and it's impacting folks who are trying to bet. And my understanding of this ordinance is that we are gonna set parameters and we're going to address the very egregious health and safety impacts that we're seeing out in the community and then work, staff will work, create a framework where we can get these vendors safe spaces for them to do their business. I mean, young children are being impacted as we heard Ms. Wilhelmina, her teenagers being impacted and then of course other community members trying to access those spaces are being impacted. And this isn't safe for anyone, this isn't equitable. So I support this recommendation because I think that's very clear parameters and I support the work that staff's doing and I would love to work with staff. I have been meeting with community members who have some ideas about how we can roll out a vending permit process and allow those who aren't otherwise able to work in our community. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Cummings. Motion seconded. Yes, by Vice Chair Watson, thank you. Thank you Mayor, I just wanted to thank those members of the public calling in and with regards what happened area, I think that further reinforces the need for there to be some kind of recognition in that area in terms of obviously there's fighting over spaces and if we're gonna be paying someone to enforce ordinance in that area, it makes sense that we would at least allow for some people in that area. And also, there are legal terms because we came up with a plan that previously worked, that would have worked if we hadn't. And it wasn't clear back then that we were under the impression that it would be if we went forward with limiting spaces. That was the entire time just putting all that time into having members of the public work for our static program. So, you know, my concerns are largely around the city being legally liable of preventing people from ending in the beach area. And as I mentioned before, if we're gonna have someone down there enforcing, that could actually provide added security for people like the member of the public heard from. And so, and it also would be an equitable approach. We're saying that in the city just not here, that's not actually providing opportunities for people to then where we can for public safety identify such areas in the beach area. It sounds like it could be possible. So, I'm gonna, as an amendment to the motion, have two options that I'd like to include. In addition to Mr. Jones's comment, I don't think that there would be support for tabling this item, because I think that there is some desire to help mitigate some of the facts that we're seeing, although taken into account what was said would lead me to the second part of my amendment. And the amendment would be, I sent this over to Bonnie to direct part, direct staff department draft resolution, establishing a limited ending zone and or city-marketed bending displayed on the streets and sidewalks of each street between the minutes for third street. Also direct staff back and update vendor space size in the downtown and implementation of the sidewalk bending ordinance prior to important. I'll second that. The amendment. This is the amendment. I mean, I can make it a friendly amendment if it's accepted. I'm not inclined to accept those friendly amendments. I'll make an amendment. And I'm sorry. And I do have some comments. I'm sorry, sorry, sorry. Council member Cummings, are you saying to adopt the ordinance in addition to things? Yeah, it's a motion to amend the main motion and add those. Right. I didn't. Yeah, so I'm gonna, it's okay, mayor. I go ahead. I've had my hand up. Yes, I just want to make sure council member Cummings, so council member Brown. Thank you. So I seconded the motion on the amendment. I support this amendment. I want to point out here that the very disturbing incident that, well, I mean, a tribe. Yeah, I mean, I think it was very disturbing and it does indicate that what we're doing is not working. That I think staff has made it very clear to us that enforcement has been a problem or lack of resources for the council majority did vote to support and increase the sources for that purpose of, I believe, almost half a million dollars. So in total, that's right to address. So I have some confidence that that will make it, that will ease the burden on staff to help there. And I, you know, in respect of this particular case, though, I'm also quite stressed that the solution I'm hearing council member, the council majority or a couple members who have spoken support is to prohibit this person from even having the right to defend at all despite the fact that the business life and the permits and has gone through that entire process. So I don't think that's really an acceptable alternative for people who rely on this for their business, for their livelihoods and were the council to support this inclusion of additional language to allow for limited spending for vendors who are interested and have made a really good faith effort followed through and want to fly but to then eliminate that possibility for them is I just appropriate. And a more general comment that I have about this ordinance is that while I very much appreciate the challenges for city workers, for community members, for the vendors themselves, what people have experienced as a result of the lack of regulation high demand zone. I really do appreciate all of that work and I would, I'd like to support this, but I just can't support something that is then closing off possibilities for people like Wilhelmina and family and that also puts us, what I would, a position of having potential exposure that we wouldn't otherwise have if we're simply regulating the time, place and manner rather than a blanket restriction in the beach area. So I'll leave it there. I will support the amend, adding the amendment if that were to occur. Okay, thank you council member Brown and I'll insert myself here. I really appreciate all the comment from our community members. We've received a lot of comments. Last Sunday I was on a beach seat and I was in on the avenues, as well as the vendor who called in earlier and spoke on some of the coming tonight, today. And, you know, it's clear that livelihood, that some of our community members really depend on and are not able to achieve a standard and mortar location and some of them, a couple of the vendors have brass fire. Go in that direction and aspire to a small store of their own and had a wonderful presentation earlier from the Small Business Development Center at Rio College. I know that there are, of course, and offer consultations from business plans, lease negotiations and finance all sorts of support for various business sectors and various types. So my concern is definitely being this, is recommended ordinance changes or guidelines, I would say, equitable for everybody. And, you know, we had our first reading already session and I did vote no on the first reading based on concern of vendors, the recommendation for April through September, absolutely no pending and based on Willa Mina's story and after talking with witnesses that day and after going down there on Sunday, it's very clear that the recommendation for no pending on that is necessary and it is a huge public concern. And we have to continue to work to ensure that those vendors have located and understand the locations can be in their livelihood. And if it's not on that section of, then we work with them on clear guidelines of their, it won't such a public impact. And, you know, just really having the implementation team after staff and Elizabeth Smith, you're still here, the staff really working from the various departments together on implementation and taking all of these while I will be supporting Ordnance Day as it stands without amendment. I really encourage staff to consider all of the accessibility for the vendors who need it. And so I would like to, if any other, council members have any further comment, otherwise, Will? If the amendments, I am going to support the original motion, but if the amendments were to pass, does that lead to the first, again, maybe it's party? That is 20. Yeah, I'm here. I understood the motion to be to approve second reading of the ordinance and direct staff to turn with the resolution establishing a program for limited vending on the street. So that wouldn't necessarily change anything to the ordinance? It would not change the text of the ordinance as I read the language of the council member's motion. Except, okay, well then, okay, yeah, no problem. I appreciate it. I needed to be read it again. Thank you for that clarification. So the resolution would be a separate intention, so to work towards demarcated zones on sidewalks of the park. I should also add in there the deck to add, that's where we were going to put the save for the vending previously. So the idea is to have, you know. I think that's fair within the language of the existing item one that if that's the direction. And council member Cummings on this of the street, I think. Yeah, that can be on the sidewalk. Imagine what you've got, the sidewalks. The addition, sorry, about the behind the deck, the deck. The, I don't know where. That's the deck behind ideal. So the city property, oh, on the sidewalks of the street between the minutes fourth, third street and then comma and on the deck, city owned deck behind the ideal of our intro. Thank you for clarifying this resolution, this resolution of an intent set for a resolution. The direction is to have staff prepare a resolution to bring back for council consideration. Welcome council member Golder. Thank you. I apologize for just now arriving was serving on a three that I've been serving on for this weekend. So I'm just kind of getting caught up to speed here. Would it be appropriate for me just to ask, is this motion, is this the one we're getting ready to vote on with the amendment? Yeah. The item before the council is whether to accept member Cummings substitute motion. Is this the substitute motion or is this, this is the substitute motion. That was an amendment. An amendment. An amendment, pardon me. Whether to accept the amendment. Right, sorry. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Council member Calentari Johnson. Yeah. I wonder if so many are not or so. I'm unclear about how these amendments impact implementation of ordinance. And my concern here is that somewhere is around the corner and we clearly saw the impacts of not having these parameters in place. So I want to move forward with ordinance as possible. And I'm concerned that these amendments will delay us. And speak to that. Council member Calentari Johnson, that Elizabeth may have some comments as well. Staff's recommendation right now as set forth in the ordinance contemplates a total prohibition of the reasoning for that is right now based on current conditions. There are some significant unsafe conditions and behaviors that are occurring along that stretch. So really the spirit behind a total prohibition is to allow us to stand up a program and try to get that area on more stable ground. Not necessarily an indefinite prohibition however. So the ordinance does leave open the opportunity down the road to review the current conditions, the effectiveness of the program as a whole and evaluate whether or not some level of ending could be brought back to the area once we have this new program fully resourced. So as I read the amendment, it would be directing staff to allow for and develop some level of vending along Beach Street. The concern also as we're rolling out these new regulations was one of, on its base, creating an appearance of a double standard allowing for vending in certain areas, but not others, allowing some individuals that have gone through the program to Vend. But for those that may be coming into the area for the first time that are not familiar with the program, that can lead to, so what's being proposed is really aimed at a reset as we get the program in place allowing for reconsideration down the road. So anything outside of that would require some additional resources and could potentially delay implementing what's being proposed. That's really helpful, thank you. You manage your Matt, can I just clarify what you just said? I always do, it was a little long winded, so happy to clarify. The motion as stated is clear. The amendment is directed to draft a resolution that establish play zones on Beach Street. There's no timeline resolution and it's not, it is a motion. Is that what I'm hearing? I think on its face, that's correct. If I am paraphrasing what the recommendation would be or the proposed amendment Council Member Cummings, it would be to develop a vending program along the street, but it's simply, there is no timeframe established with that, so that clarification would be helpful. But if there was an expectation that that be brought forward in a timely manner, I think that could have an effect on the team that is also being tasked with moving forward with implementation of the ordinance as a whole. The implement, which item two as well, they will be passed with. Thank you for, let's see, did you have a follow-up on Council Member Calantari-Johnson? Or Council Member Cummings and Council Member Calantari-Johnson? Yeah, the direction here is really to provide, you know, to move forward with limited vending in the beach area. Now, whether that, you know, based on what that was saying, it sounds like it wouldn't be able to have summer. So if there's work that could be done on this, this impact was August. I'm developing a preference, personally, would be that we allow for this to happen in the summer. However, it's pretty clear because like Council on that. So, I mean, I'm happy to move forward with this motion just going in this direction and it goes down. But, you know, in the spirit of trying to build consensus, this is something that we have our staff working on, understanding it's going to take time and understanding that, you know, we're trying to mitigate that currently that, you know, he can provide this direction, have this back to us since we don't meet in July, August, because we have pretty impacted Council meetings and I think that needs to be forward. And that's fine for the beach area related. I just think that as we heard from the person called in, there are families that depend on vending, vending for the livelihood in the area is area where we work to create programs by enforcement, but it's area where people can make a pretty decent amount of money to sustain their families, given the level of tourism that's being created. And then the other direction would be, you know, I think that's pretty clear that based on what we've heard, there's a lot of concerned downtown vendors that, you know, not clear what the size faces are. There's some desire possibly to have the space as a base increase, there's issues around the medallions. So being able to get an update on that from staff, I think it's helpful so that, man, how the implementation is rolling out, how we can address the other concerns that you might have. So that is the intent. Happy to build in that into the number one and bring an item back for council direction at the first meeting in August, if that's, if they're having that timeline. Councilor. Mayor Burriner, I didn't want to clarify that I mentioned a total prohibition along beach. In fact, the restrictions are only during the summer for vending allowed along beach during the off peak season. I just wanted to make that clear. Yes, April through September, correct? That's correct. April through to October. October. Is the, when the prohibition is. Is that October 31st? Correct. Council Member Callentari Johnson and then Council Member Myers. What I heard earlier from staff is that the intent is to reset and that this is an iterative process that we are going to pass this and create a comprehensive thoughtful framework. So I heard that from staff and I think that I think that's what the intent of this amendment is, but I'm not sure if that's what staff has said we are going to do then why this is, sorry. Again, I'm concerned about any kind of a delay in moving forward with this ordinance given the safety and health impacts that we heard about in on videos that gotten comments on. So that's where I'm at. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Standing is there's amendment, so the motion to amend with these two items. And I guess I just feel like we're going to need everything that came in the businesses not recognized that this that this is an extreme situation that is happening now.  Correctly, this is our major tourism area in the city of Santa Cruz. Last week we had a major blowout with violence against kids. I mean, this is about, if it's sort of buckled down and figure this out and the ordinance as it is now crafted is just the time to do that. We can't at the same time implement hopefully for a much more visitor oriented as well as resident oriented area down without giving our staff an ordinance that they can work under with restriction. And then also can't do all of that and also do what we've been doing in the past. Basically what I think kind of posing. Last two years have been a disaster. I spent as mayor last year, I spent at least four or five meetings with upwards of different businesses as well as supervisor Coonerty and Senator Laird's staff. It was not going all last year, not at all. And it wasn't just because of an enforcement. There was a lot of other issues. So I think it's just, I think what's for us, the global ordinance is workable. It provides the ability and sort of the ability of our staff, both police, foot enforcement, city managers, as well as the local owners, a pathway to sort of get things that reset have a more productive summer than the last two. I also know a lot of families who work at the park, they were terrified to have their kids down there. Most of them were driving their kids in the box while they were working at the park. There had been so many fights in the park. So I feel like we're sort of ignoring the elephant in the bush that basically that are a major, one of our major, and so I'm gonna, I won't be able to support this amendment. I just really publicly want to acknowledge that the senators were down in that area, how much they are asking, how destabilizing of our main driver areas. And I also want to acknowledge who are trying to vent, they've come very unsafe. So we need just time in the right, the area is stabilized, they have to go, try to continue to build for care. Without stabilization this summer and moving ahead, potentially all the way through the season, just not, when people start selling their businesses, that's a sign of lost track. So I'm not gonna be able to support those. Council member Watkins. Hello, Mr. Watkins. No, no, I appreciate the conversation and I also appreciate the intention of trying to really come up with something as a solution here and knowing that it's really complicated and challenging. And I also know a lot of work has been done to get us displaced and the conversation to the last, or the first reading of the ordinance was really around getting something in place and then continuing to improve upon that policy and learn and make it iterative as I think a good approach to most things is really. And so also, Mayor, and sort of the spirit of what you brought up at the very beginning of the meeting and knowing now that we're over two hours behind schedule, I'm just respectfully happy to just call the question to take the vote on the amendment and then vote on the motion. Okay, so calling the question includes all the discussion of this item and we move. Just to be clear, this is a vote on the motion to call the question. Yep. Vote, call the question. We do a roll call vote. I'm sorry, Johnson. Hi. Hi, we're voting on the original motion. We're voting on whether to call the question. What space you're watching. Hi. Okay, so now we will take a roll call vote on motion. Votes on the amendment. Be clear. Yeah, I'm, so Tony right now are voting. That's correct. Back in my minutes, I haven't gotten to that for yet. November, so in turret Johnson. No. Sir. No. Coming. Hi, and I'll just say for the record that these amendments would not prevent us moving forward with current ordinance. A lot of the impacts that we've been facing the change to state law. Amendments are really meant by some legal coverage in the city. In favor. Yes, Mayor Watkins. No. No. But the main motion is now on the floor. Now we have the main motion, the original motion on the floor. Be clear. And we have a roll call vote. Member Calentari Johnson. Voting no. And I just want to say for the record that I understand the facts that we were seeing area and really my previous motion was trying to figure out a way forward for us by direction. Move this forward and also and to come up with a way to mitigate. So my hope is that we will be able to figure out a way forward with each ending in the future. And that also we're going to be working to figure out a way forward with each ending in the future that vendors Pacific and in other parts of the city will have sufficient space to be able to stop the business. So, see how things turn out. But at this moment, I believe that we're putting ourselves in a legally liable position by outright prohibiting ending in the area. Given that we were able to create a program previously we just didn't have any. So I'll be voting no and I'm really hopeful. I agree with council member Cummings that nothing about a proposal that made was intended to delay this. I just absolutely agree and quite frankly am disturbed by a member Myers and from that this is intended to allow for continued mess. Eighth area, the idea here was or that people who were playing by the rules who like us or you just heard from are not doubly punished one by experience of the Wild West atmosphere. And now being called does not be able to bend at all but it's for your own good. I just don't think that's an appropriate way to handle this. The proposal direct staff find ways to work on that reset at the long side, the implementation of an ordinance to me seems totally reasonable and more likely to pass the cluster. And so I just want to make that clear. I'd like to put it on the record. Questions are getting called. The question is getting cut off. I'd like to put that. And I'd like to say thank you to all the staff and community members that have worked to input the all of the information have so far to get this point. And I'm happy to hear earlier from Elizabeth Smith that implementation team will be able to operations and turns into their work and get the most equitable process and safe process going forward. Okay, so we had the motion asked with five, yes, no, at this time we are ready to move on to item number 25 has been postponed to and continue to the April 26th meeting as well as item 26 has been to our meeting. And so we are now out of our ready item 27 on our agenda. Item 27 is a public hearing for green building program closed for members of the public for streaming this. If this is an item you wish to comment on, now is the time to call in using the instruction on your order will be a presentation of the item by staff followed by a question from the council. And then we will take public comment and reach out. I would like to invite Vivian Nguyen principal manager and analyst. Welcome Vivian. Good afternoon, honorable mayor and city council. Let me go ahead and share my screen. My name is Vivian Nguyen and I am the principal management analyst for the planning and development department. With me today, I also have Lee Butler, the director as well as John Javisani, the building official. I'm pleased to be presenting the green building program be increased today. Staff is recommending to support the current program and to allow an amendment to chapter 24.15 of the green building regulations that would authorize that by resolution. The amendments would allow the program to be cost recovery as well as specifically sustained. Now in October 2005, city council established a green building education fee or DTF to support the green building program. The was codified OO25 of the project valuation with a cap of $20,000. The green building program promotes environmental sustainability, including incentives for waste reduction, energy efficiency and water conservation. Now this is a brief high level overview of the green building program which applies to most new construction and summary models. There are a range of exceptions that I won't go into, but there are various green building measures that are assigned values and applicants must achieve a set of points based on measures that they select. Residential and non-residential are considered separately. Now the green building program has not been increased. The fee has not been increased since 2005 even though employee costs have continued to increase and the program has changed. Most notably in 2007, the change was that we had a part time building specialist go from part time to now full time. There are a couple other adjustments needed for the fiscal year 23 proposed budget, including increasing baseline percentage of the building and safety staff who support the green building program. We also need to take a look at other staff who support the program and adding them such as that staff who support the green building and inspection. The current budget doesn't consider this. Now in addition, the budget also needs to adjust for supply costs by three to five percent per year from fiscal year 23 to 27 to account for the general price. Now taking a look at fiscal year 21 as our baseline budget, the program costs about 300 and for the fiscal year 23 budget proposed, our projected cost would be about 620,000 dollars. Now the accounting for the past few fiscal years for fiscal year 2017 to 2019 to, did not meet any of the program's requirements. 2017, fiscal year 2017 was required of full time building specialists. And as you can see, we've been operating at an overall deficit since fiscal year 2017 with the exception of fiscal year 2017. Now here is just a few examples of the rentals fee that we wanted just to show you. A hypothetical 650,000-dollars-dollars-dollars-dollars would pay about a $358 fee. And now to more accurately capture the cost for that, they'll be paying $1,430. For a typical single-family home, that's about an $880 fee, but they would now be paying $3,520 to again more accurately capture the cost of reviewing. For a typical 10-unit building, that would be a total fee of 3,578 or 358 per unit. And at proposed fee change, that would be a total of 14,310 or 1,000. And the fee would be capped at 50,000 based on our analysis of the time and the costs associated with review and inspection. Now for next steps, you have the first reading today, then assuming you passed this for publication today, the second reading would be 1426. The fee would be effective six days later. It would likely be considering future changes such as building a location to adjust the fee accordingly as a program changes to ensure cost recovery. The recommendation is from your agenda report here for your reference. Then staff will be available. Thank you Vivian for that presentation. I will now, we have a recommendation from staff, but I will bring it to Council Member Brown. Hi, thank you for the presentation. Thank you for your work on this. I'm always a big fan of full cost recovery for our services. And so I really appreciate bringing this to us. I just had a question about the cap, because it looked like there was removal of the cap, the cap of the cap and then, but it's now been determined that cap. And so I just would love to hear a little bit of this. And that on the face of it, I make wonder with this, you know, provide that with this potentially subsidized large project. Yes, is what I'm wondering as a result of that. And I only asked that because it is a significant for smaller projects for individual property owners. Do you want to build an ADU or those kinds of, you know, it's a significant increase and grand scheme of things. But I know that a lot of people really struggle to provide additional housing on the properties. They have small scale. And so I guess I'm just wondering, like I wouldn't want to see a program that ended up subsidizing larger projects by common property development. So just wondering about that. Thanks. Thanks, Council Member Brown. I think any of us here, John or Vivian or myself could answer that, but I'll take the first step and offer either of them an opportunity to add on, leave other director of planning and community development and appreciate that concern. A couple of things that I would say that first off, that was an inadvertent miss of keeping the $50,000 cap. And actually if you go to the, so we did add it back in to make sure that we were clear and the resolution had not been inadvertently left that cap out. If you go back to the analysis of the different revenues, each of those include the $50,000 cap and that's because as we started looking at how much time we spent from a staffing plan review perspective as well as from an inspection perspective, there is an economy of scale. The systems in building systems that are being installed, both from a plan review perspective, the amount of time we're spending and the inspections that there's an economy of scale on that. Well, and so we really couldn't justify having more than $50,000 per project on that as we started looking at it. So I'll see if Vivian or John wanted to add anything, but I do apologize. We meant to include that $50,000 cap and appreciate Bonnie, City Clerk and her team in providing that update when we recognize the year. Well, if I might, I think and the reason that they stuck with the $50,000 cap, well, first of all, I'd like to say hello to the honorable mayor and the council members, probably about the first time I spoke to you since I've been in this. But I think the reason we also stuck with that $50,000 cap was that so there would be an equal place for everybody. They would stop paying. And this also benefited the medium-sized project. The apartment houses, not necessarily the larger projects that were starting to go up in the Pacific, but with a large use. But the medium-sized project, like 10, 20, 25 apartments, holding our... Seeing that it was actually those smaller projects really weren't a fair share when we figure the amount of time that's spending on each one of them. So that's kind of where we thought that we could be collecting a little... Making up definitely. Thank you, that's helpful. So just to make sure I'm clear, and I recognize the economy is a scale and not a one-to-one depending on how many... I get that. So in your experience then and the information you have, you're not answering that larger project that's costing more than $50,000 by the Greenville. Okay, got it. Thank you. And also if you think about it, Councilor McBrown, the volume, the larger volume, what we deal with is those smaller projects. When you look like right now we've probably got two, maybe three of those major projects of which XL should be going quickly. That makes two of those. But when you look at the total number of the smaller projects, the homeowners use, that kind of thing, those take up 40 of them in time. And while they're smaller projects compared to those large projects, we think that the amount of time you spend on those would be commensurate to what you spend on the larger projects. That's not true. You spend a lot of time on these smaller projects, educating the homeowners, giving them direction, helping them through the azure of the web, the best thing we... A lot of them just don't understand how the program is set up. So we do spend a lot of one-on-one time with these more so than the larger projects. No, that totally makes... I just was hoping to hear what I heard that it doesn't cost that much for the larger projects. That was just... But it sounds like based on your... Right. And we're only trying to recoup the costs of that, our services are... Thank you, Council Member Brown. Any other Council Members have questions from staff regarding this item? I'm happy to bring it out to public comment. If you're interested in commenting on Green Building Program, those, increase. Please raise your hand, either by dialing star nine on your phone or selecting to raise hands in the webinar controls on your... When it's your turn to speak, you will hear an announcement and you will have three minutes. Okay, going out to... I have a hand raised. The name is I am watching. Thank you. In the past, the justification for building codes, plan-checking, and inspections was the health and safety of the occupants of structures. Then regulations morphed into areas of energy efficiency that arguably are still sufficiently justified by economic benefits to the occupants, but emerging were community benefits of conserving energy. Then some new Green Building regulations went beyond that and don't really provide as much benefit to the occupants, but much more so to the community and it has already begun that Green Building codes related to climate change have relatively zero benefit to occupants with almost all benefit if there is any, flowing to the community or the world. What hasn't changed is the supposed equitability of case for what benefit, which we still say is 100% infinitely always to fall in the developer. As I explained, some of that 400% proposed compliance increase should more rightly be borne by general public practice, not developer. I say you have had this hidden growing public pact versus the equitability of this green eco-compliance trend going backwards since inception in 2005. Otherwise, the enforcement of Green regulations isn't different from any other in the ever-growing list of planning or building code regulations for occupations. And this need for an extra developer fee structure was never 100% justified, although maybe a discount for exempt project works for me. It's sort of a lipstick off pig contrivance masking insatiable governments, co-warrioring administrative growth without having to go to the public to raise taxes. I'm guessing you're not going to get. I don't think you have an ethical clue here. I am not surprised with wild inflation on top of a city systemic overspending trend that accounts are tapping you on the shoulder with the idea of attaching more salaries to massively increased fees dazzling you with the many tables of how much more money you can tap and how much more money you have to pay for a new green building fee access is upward creating vastly more income as if somehow the actual work done in exchange for this fee would automatically be fair and equitable at any higher approved fee you may fancy. Or that somehow the work done is totally different than the jobs fee workers are normally paid with tax dollars for community benefit to do. I note the principal management analyst presenter is Dr. He also wanted to consider that making housing more expensive also runs bottom line directly counter to lowering housing costs. The current list of salaries paid on this scheme seems enough of a stretch of the imagination to me. A no vote doesn't mean there won't be green building. A no means you're not doing an end around public taxation approval or holding a project for cash just because you can when community funds the current payers and I say fairness questions exist about who benefit and then who should pay our issues that did not exist in the past. My thinking is this is just the city. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Um. We have any other members of the public who are in public comment.  There's no more hands raised back to council member Golder. Right. So for this I just acknowledge that the cost to build here in Santa Cruz is really expensive and having almost completed a remodel myself I think around the nation it's around $100 $200 per square foot build ours is cost over $400 a square foot to build and if you take into consideration the cost like the purchase land or something you know cost could be around $700 square foot. So I think with every additional fee it directly impacts the cost of housing whether we like it or not and so for that reason I'm actually going to vote no even though I principle that I think it's a good practice to do green building but I just can't support additional for this cause. Why? Thank you. Vice mayor what? I understand council member Golder's you know impacts of these so I totally understand that. And I am in support of this proposal so I'm happy to move the recommendations as written in the agenda report. Great thank you council member Brown. We have a first Vice Mayor Watkins and a second by council member Brown and further discussion council member Brown did you have any further discussion? Okay and I don't have any other council members with further discussion and we will move to a roll call. Council member council member Johnston? Hi Golder? No Coming? Hi Brown? Hi What? Hi That motion passes guess votes and one against council member I would like to thank the mayor council members. Thank you. It was nice to meet you. Thank you Vivian Nguyen as well. Going back to the agenda we have item 28 has been continued to May 10th the council meeting and item number 29 has been continued to the council meeting. So before we begin item 30 I would like to take a quick break 6 o'clock is world communications or is it 30? Okay so a quick break until world offers food and bio break. We'll see you at 6 o'clock.  I am. Thank you. Thank you. Okay thank you everyone now I can stay good evening welcome to our PM part of our April 12, 2002 meeting of the Santa Cruz city council. This is the time now for oral communication for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if you would like to comment during oral communication now is the time to call in constructions are on your screen. We are an opportunity for members of the community to speak to us on items that are not on time. If you're interested in addressing the council please raise your hand either by pressing star nine on your phones like raising a hand in the webinar. We'll have three minutes. Please remember this is a time for council to hear from the public that we are not able to when we are able we will address questions. Going out to our attendees I see a few hands raised and the first name Serge Pogno welcome. Okay I don't know what happened but I can come back to you the next hand raised for oral communication okay thank you. After examining the climate action plans considerate public participation review of climate action proposals here is my review. The massive high scoring of support for every single proposal clues me that the only people who fill out such responses are climate action activists. One of the profile pictures of a respondent was actually that of Brett Thunberg. The proposals apparently written by a person who doesn't know that 132 2022 isn't a real date I see some very troubling authoritarian woke thinking and have four main objections. The first is simply the proposals largely advocate a very coercive unit of measures and not constructive low cost incentivizing ones require large employers to subsidize alternative modes of transportation require large building owners to install 20% of the total amount of infrastructure. The second one is the infrastructure. Banning or charging extra for single occupancy driving and parking remove natural gas infrastructure and mandates requiring electrification of existing residential properties are but some examples of vague but extremely coercive authoritarian measures and questionable legal authority. The third one is the general impression is the government wants a lot more of the public money and a lot bigger more intrusive government. Fourth and yes the survey proposal's input is not alone in this it is right with hijacking though whatever real legitimacy the sustainability sustainability issue has is much less legitimate unrelated issues for instance the garbage well-perm known as equity we've discussed before how equity is based on the falsehood that a human's potential is some known certainty on this unmeasurable unknowable life outcome should be assured by any means necessary using race or gender quotas or whatever whatever meaning central planning authority like communism to make it simpler equity is about taking people down not building people up it's the ugly face of jealousy discrimination and the ruin of individual rights I thought this was going to be one of the most important issues in the climate change never mind until the rest of the world similarly commits there is zero chance anything Santa Cruz does will have any measurable effect on climate none zero it can have the effect of destroying our energy infrastructure and transportation before the carbons are a replacement energy exist American climate action planning I would mention not everyone or even 40% thank you at this time we are taking public input on oral communications oral communications our items and I have the name Jennifer go ahead and unmute I'm specific for understanding where I am and quite my large our budget shortly after I'm here to request symbiotic possibility communication our next I see council this is not the council to anybody who is listening right now listening I have been in every human being has been and there is something about being out loud has a very beneficial effect I believe it engages the frontal cortex which is one of the most advanced parts of our brains I have been honest every human being has been dishonest there is something about saying that out loud as well also if I look back on my life I have been in denial about any small thing even the laundry my laundry in particular and I can conclude that I am probably still in denial right now if I have it is my belief that every human being is in denial and there is something about it being out loud as well here just ask anyone anyone at all say these things out loud to anybody see what it does it has had a beneficial effect on me personally because I have been in denial I also have some words of love like this before in my life it asks you actually not even listening to me right now don't hear anything right now and don't hear my word inside of it is a platform and a platform is like a deck under every deck every child inside knows there is a secret place to hide it is safe where you can be alone without worry turn your hidden pain for sorrows into joy turn your hidden sorrows into joy turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories You're back. Your hand raised. Okay, our next. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, I apologize. I have my air buds on. I was messing with it. Good evening. My name is Serge. I'm the secretary of the mental health advisory. And I'd like to invite to our next, just next Thursday, April 21st. I'd like to put an end to this. Let's get a little & just our time. And I'll say good evening. For our shout out. Callan Terry Johnson for coming to our last presentation on the road map. To deal with crisis. On April 21st next Thursday, we'll be having presentations for the upcoming 98. System which is federally by on. Online July 16th this year. And July 16th National Suicide hotline which is sort of a long to the three-digit or will be accepted calls at the nine-eight-eight line it'll also calls for any behavioral health crisis is your number to remember and the broader most like raise the number of calls by as much as 30% are the same as some other states that have already started the system in Santa Cruz the family services agency is the nonprofit that manages our suicide hotline they're hiring up to and more because of expected call now this is going to also affect law enforcement domestic violence and all the other dominoes our system still unclear so next Thursday we're having some the record our local hotline also somebody from behavioral health presentations on how we're getting ready for that system and I invite city council and anybody else who's listening to attend I'll send you a flyer once I have one and well the mental health advisor in Santa Cruz County and the agenda will be up thank and stay safe thank you our next member of the public is David Hart public answer hello can you hear me all right yes this is a David Van Brink and there's one or two tough acts to follow there and my comment is rather more mundane I just wanted to thank you all for all you do for our city it's all important and moves us forward in particular though I want to thank you for your work on our local bike infrastructure of the last several years it was actually seeing those mean bike lanes on Laurel Street but a few years back that made me realize that oh you know actually people don't think about this and make it happen I want to express special enthusiasm for the upcoming trail segment 7d we're all on pins and needles for how the bidding is going to turn out and fingers crossed and hopefully happen soonish so again thank you all thank you are there any other members of the public that would like to speak during oral communication which is any item that is not on agenda of Mark Haller all our ending in 4844 go ahead and unmute Robert Norris again I guess I'm concerned of having heard the city manager's report that there is no new information on expanded shelter and storage services such as was promised by council and supposedly reconditioned to any enforcement of the renewed camping camp CSSO ordinance which the city manager Matt Huffaker said was in fact going to be done when he spoke I guess three weeks ago at the previous council meeting that's part of the staff report as well so how can you have enforcement don't really have storage and shelter now what's been happening has been massive sweep throughout the city in violation of the Martin versus Boise ruling with the claim that the bench land is a justified campground and it certainly is an emergency place people are using there's no question I'm glad they have something but it's also been announced by that same city manager whom you apparently approved the appointment that there's going to be a complete removal of people the hundreds of people in the bench land in July of this year that's what he announced next morning now are you actually claiming with a straight face to be able to have storage shelter facilities by that time when you evict those people and are you claiming that you are now enforcing the camping ban in order to shovel everybody into the bench land then to evict them nowhere in July of this summer may I pose this question it seems pretty obvious if you are to take it with a straight face what city manager is saying I don't really believe what I'm saying but I must presume that you are taking him seriously because you take a lot of directions he has a lot of power so if somebody can ask a few questions after the social communications with actual status of the shelter service situation is what the real intentions are in July and the real press shelter and storage at that time would be very reassuring not to have to wait till May to get another we'll be working on this very hard kind of report and it might help the people who are in the bench lands and those reports as well as well as the neighbors we're concerned about and I thank everybody for listening thank you for your oral communications our next name is Reggie Meisler sorry we'll try again well I just want to echo what Robert Morse the previous caller just said I think it's very disturbing and irresponsible but you know all just status quo that I have a definite end date for the bench lands but no definite provision of services that people will be redirected to it's unclear why the bench lands needs lows me at that time it has something to do with environmental reasons or something like that or the you know the sort of something with the river but whatever the case I mean it seems like a plan should be formulated to sort of redirect before a definite end date is designed I mean this is the same problem that came up with Ross campus same problem that was attempted by City Manager during the winter when City Council was out of session in 2020 when they tried to just shut down by executive order San Lorenzo Park and activists had to come in stop that from happening as it was illegal and it was you know in many ways could be seen as almost the kind of genocide given the conditions of COVID at that time and so I think for me I would just like to be something different than what we saw with the previous City Manager Martin Bernal I don't want this new City Manager Matt Huffaker to just be a repeat of that kind of just horrible abuse of power and the complete lack of care for our unhoused community and I and I don't it doesn't you know give me much confidence I'll speak on this later that the public gathering ordinance is happening because you know it feels like that's kind of being planned to hurt food not bombs and then maybe wash distance to a bench lands closure so yeah I just you know I hope for more but I guess you would have thank you our next and up Alicia cool welcome me yes so hi so I just wanted to take a moment to say that I would hope that I'm supposed to bench plan you know to echo the previous callers would include a good plan for relocation for those individuals it's grown quite large and the hope is that you could now have adequate indoor shelter if possible for those individuals and I want to again say that several years now the death hole in the unhoused population has risen and so you have to do something about that as you have previous here and you know just to talk about what has helped me I'm no longer this anymore and that's because of an emergency housing voucher and services and you know it's not helpful to spend time fighting against you know harmful ordinances and things that would criminalize I've paid thousands dollars in tickets just while I was unfortunately forced to live in my arms with my family that was unhelpful you know having litigation to protect others against harmful ordinances and to you know protest to try to fight for human rights it's just not helpful what's helpful is really pay attention to people's needs and to address those and so I just I really want to talk about that and again just you know the ball is in your court to have a lot of power who are our leaders and so you can really out what needs to happen in the correct way you can save lives here and you know although I'm housed now it's very unfortunate that I've lost some really good friends along the way and I can't even invite to a house part you know it's very sad so we can we can stop it and all work together and we can stop trauma and pain and suffering and and what we need to be done for our entire so thank you thank you for your input or oral communications we have another caller phone number ending 1197 democratic all in a lot of good life thank you our next member of the public is named boy at welcome hi thank you for taking my call I also want to echo the sentiments of Robert Norris Reggie Meisler and especially Alicia as well as Abby's points about access for people who don't have housing or technology I would like to add that people are being pushed to the Benchlands or have been pushed the Benchlands continually for months from different areas around the city and of course there are health and safety concerns at various locations but simply pushing people into the bench without having alternatives you know Alicia brought up that we need alternative spaces before the Benchlands closes we need an alternative spaces now you know I visited Benchlands Sunday morning normally I would go on Sunday mornings to Camp Paradise or Hell's Rail and you know people do as the best they can but it's really I mean to say that it's not ideal situation to have everybody who's been trying to take care of themselves at alternative sites to sort of self manage themselves in smaller groups of people with people that they know and trust and care for and share resources with have all of them or most of them pushed into the Benchlands is yes not helpful and that's a huge understatement it's dangerous for a lot of people and it's you know not healthy for most people then the other people who just refuse to go to the Benchlands have I think taken themselves to more hidden spaces so what you're trying to do is like get full access to services to case managers to the camp stewards who help them get their documents again and again and again you know they're more hidden the Pogonip or up highway 9 less accessible for public health and safety issues less accessible for services so I would say you know regardless of CSSO and you know enforcement of those issues or the services of storage you know people need alternatives now not just some shitty alternative you know they need real okay thank you very much looks like that includes our oral communication I'm not seeing any I'm sorry I don't know if hands are going up for oral communications that I will check the first caller ending in 174 oral communications or items not on to Linda go ahead and unmute that's all right yes thank you thank you my name is Gillian Greenside and you know I've turned on a different issue but just say that is one good reason to have a quick your thoughts in first meeting of the county I thought I was in line put in your eight digit meeting I see in all that did the star nine but then I didn't count nine I said star nine so I wouldn't have gotten to speak because and I'm really with zoom I'm really with this not like I'm a newbie that's easy to make today so soon as you can back in what I am pulling in about that I very surprised managed say that Ben's man goes by I noted early before that it was safe to see Armory have what a 79 bed and I could understand it if there was no comment about Ben's where there's over some people there now without having had a space things I know there's problems that spend I've been there with the best so I see the issue both of them are a lack of resources that he's giving in the last sorry I'm there's not enough and the issues impact on the riverbank but you have an old furnace that used to be going going in but I could see a rationale but we're going in summer and of course there's issues about numbers being crammed and understand and I think well the nation why the plan goes that without simultaneously saying and here's the alternative to accommodate the equivalent number so I hope here some point an explanation of why this is happening and why I'm saying comment that thing the last color I will for oral communications is really shall I thank you can you hear me okay yes welcome I'm here to bring something to everyone's attention that there is a website called finds and justice center.org and I'm just going to go ahead and read the about us page until I'm here the people that I no longer allowed to speak so every year finds and devestate lives of millions of Americans our justice system is supposed to operate with integrity providing equal justice for all yet in far too many places in the United States court fines and fees have put Zuberge price tag on justice Zorbitant thank you across the country courts impose fines as a punishment for minor traffic and municipal code violations misdemeanors and felonies courts then tax people with fees and surcharges and costs used to fund the justice system and other government services those who cannot immediately pay these costs face additional fees places suspensions loss of voting rights arrest and jail stuck in a cycle of punishment and poverty people can lose their job their homes and even their children we've created a two-tier system of justice where poor people and particularly communities of color are disproportionately punished the mission of fines and fees justice center also abbreviated as FFJC says the fines and justice center is catalyzing a movement to eliminate the fines and fees that distort justice our goal is to create a justice system that individuals fairly insures public and community prosperity and is funded equitable we work together with communities and justice systems stakeholders to eliminate fees in the justice system to ensure that fines are exposed and enforced and an abusive collection practices again if anybody wants to learn more they're welcome to go to fines and these justice center dot org thank you appreciate your time thank you so much I will now close oral education and we will turn to our agenda and we are currently on agenda item number 30 before we start that can I just comment on one of the one are my allowed to say something about one of the oral community yes and I did also want to before we start with number 30 there were several callers who brought up the in-person meetings and those will be April 26 so the goal was in meetings in April and our April 26 will be person as well as the members of the public have the option of it and we will be receiving an update on Benchlands along with the next homelessness on feel free to reference the website for updates that are getting close to there along the way as well or to contact any of us councilmember Golder yeah I just wanted to be on my colleague and friend Jennifer that called in about her ADU and I know I mentioned this to I don't know from it who I mentioned to you I'm not on the revenue committee but I would like to throw it out there that this might be something we should look into revisiting because of some of these unintended consequences she's not the only person that's approaching about this I know two of two other city employees with ADUs with similar situations and you know just just revisiting the short-term rental ordinance in totality in addition to the ADU aspect of it you know I think I've seen houses on Westliffe just sitting vacant and so I understand there's you know a move to try and get a vacant home tax but I think if those houses were able to be rented out as short-term rentals we would see greater revenue and it's not like somebody that has a vacation house on Westliffe is going to rent it out for long-term you know residential use likely there's vacation home the other thing in that regard is I would like if we if the revenue committee or whoever's now to look at and what the county does in collecting that tot tax off the top on these websites rather than having everybody that has a short-term rent once a month as I've many of you know that I've I've Airbnbed my house for years and it's only time-consuming there's lots of ways that I'm sure we're not getting all of the money that we're there but I think she brought up a valid point that it might evaluate okay moving on to item 30 on our agenda today this is public gathering and expression events ordinance amendment for members of the public for streaming this meeting if this is an item you'd like comment on now is all in using the instructions on your screen the order will be a presentation of the item from staff followed by a question from council we will then take public comment and return to council and our staff then it's like invite Deputy City Attorney Cassie Bronson as well as Deputy Mary hi good evening you're happy happy to be here with you and have maybe five slides on the PowerPoint so I'm gonna share a screen okay all right around these guys hello good evening my name is City Attorney's office and it's a pleasure to be here with you today and let's dive into talking about the public gathering and expression event ordinance so just brief intro what is a public gathering Russian events it's an event or activity primarily in communication is these are activities that boards have determined are entitled to a high degree of and you know obviously some of the examples are marches rallies they're asking you to update the ordinance and why but the rationale what are goals well first really wanted to just find the ordinance with the existing language it was difficult to determine when it so I'm a big believer that clarity and language is key and to be really just priority with date second required legal update this is a topic where updates will be required from time to time as a slide develop so the goal here is to bring the ordinance line so what are the specifics of the proposed update well first the default is basically that a permit not required for public gathering but a permit will be required if specific criteria very clearly delineated criteria so does your event interact with traffic does it act as does it use a number of structures on public property are there repeat consecutive events at the animal pin you have more than 75 pins are more twill did this we also added an important exception required by the court that's an exception for spontaneous event so this is what's required by the court we made it clear that if you know something comes up use the news event a political event that comes up don't need a permit that at City Hall or address we also clarified that violations of the chapter can be enjoined in court we don't really interpret that as a change in the law but just so we received a very thoughtful public comment and I thought I'd just take a moment to address it here as I'm sure that are interested in the response so this is a letter from your gal bloom of you so he noted section 10.5 030 g and there was a request that violation not be identified as a public the response from this office that you know so desired also council could just describe that language declaring violations of the public news event that said the city's definition of public news since already that is the violation of code so you know we didn't really interpret that as so section 4.01010 already provide that that violations code are under the 10.65040 b there was a request did not delete a sentence about fundraising at public gathering and I just wanted to give some information 10.65040 b is sort of the definition of public gathering and expression and the parks and record record he asked that we really simplify this definition and his office is the one that administers these so obviously a lot of what they're saying because he thought that the exception there was a bunch of language about there was a section that long as the event is non-profit in nature then the permit would process as a public gathering and but in fact there are many events in the city that are not for profit that would be more properly characterized as the major event which is dealt with under a different so for example non-profit reporting event but you know if it's so desired also even language about fundraising and donations will secondary objectives I don't think leaving it in or out really and the next point that was brought up by public comment is 5.0508 and there was a question about what is the rationale of the section which requires a permit that's held on consecutive days. So you know currently repeat events are being held and without any sort of a permit and you know that has been an issue that has created that which hasn't access resources that are intended for use by all people rather one person or one organization chooses to have repeated events that's the exact same. So you know one goal of the ordinance was to clarify that would be required. I think that this is a reasonable time it's not closing down opportunities and it's again and actually hold events that they would just do and the last comment that was brought up by your gal bloom was section 10.650508. He noted that there needs to be a stand or at the end and I agree thank you that's a clerical error I really did so that those edits but it should I made it very short and I realized that yeah very heavy city council meetings days that's all right. Thank you for those clarifications and present and questions from council members council member Cummings. Thank you Mayor and thank you for that presentation Cassie. You mentioned the people wanted to have events they would need to get a permit I'm wondering if you could speak to that a little bit more. What's the cost I'll frequent you know because I think there is some concern here about being able to have this it seemed like someone would have to go get a permit every single time they wanted to have an event and it wasn't clear that there's an option for an event permit and so I'm just wondering if you can kind of speak to what that looks like and how much that is and how one would go about getting that permit. That's a good question. No, I think it's clearly on the line but that would be dealt with. Do you have any comments? Yep, here we go. All right, got a vacuum fire up in the background here. Yeah, so to answer that question quickly, NOFI associated with public gathering and expression permit. The purpose really on that permit again if they're Cassie correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's two consecutive days or more but we have proposed ordinance. The idea there is again related to those criteria that Cassie mentioned. If that is impacting a park general park use impact neighbors over multiple days that would be one of the criteria that we would ask to require a permit just so that we know and we have a sense of how long might this activity occur and just have a better sense as we again plan in a park if we've got a little leak for example scheduled in a park while there's an expression activity going on. Forgive me, I've got a lot of noise background here in my office. That's really the purpose. I hope I'm making that clear but again it were more days but NOFI that it's more about having a timeline and expectation of the presence of that activity. But also Cassie, I also have our administrative supervisor on the call head and Jones who's our permit officer so I welcome him to talk. Hello, can you hear me? Sorry, I'm plugging in from home. Hi, welcome. Hi, this is Jones, the administrative supervisor. Thank you, honorable mayor and council members. So to answer council member Cummings question about charges for permits, the application itself is free so we want to charge for a permit. However, they may be some temporary fees as a result of impacts. For example, if there's a trust or refuse, things that we can't get around or if there are requests for police escort for raids or marches, those fees may be assessed but they're not assessed by our department. It depends on how the application itself is reviewed by other departments. In terms of consecutive days or serial events, we can certainly put them. It's important that these spaces are occupied or can be occupied by other community groups or organizations and so we want to offer as best we can an equitable approach to these spaces. We get repeat requests for example for the town clock or for sister city circle. We will make sure that those spaces are accessible by the public or also by other community organizations that wish to express their messages as well. I hope that answers the question by council member Cummings. That helps a lot and then I just I guess I have a brief follow-up. Is there any limit in terms of the number of days that a serial event can take place under one of the permits? There's no particular limit currently with the draft ordinance or what's being proposed. We do request that, you know, different parties do consider leaving available dates for other competing interests or other interests that may be not on the calendar yet. But I believe this still allows for the directed congregate rules under the conditions of approval or conditions of use. Very much. Thank you. Council Member Brown. So as a follow-up, that was the question I had and getting that answered. I have a couple of other questions related. I think it's 10.65. And kind of the conditions under which that would be fired. So I'm and some of these are I recognize that they are in response to particular shared by some of and that their concerns that general may arise the context of public gatherings, ongoing or quarter. So I guess I'm wondering about how does that have kind of how determination will be made about whether or not certain lists would how it would be determined that they are being violated or that they would potentially be violated. I mean, it seems a little kind of speculative, which is understandable as well. I'm no judgment there. I mean, it is trying to anticipate different scenarios. So I get that. But for example, things like I'm trying to find the ones that I was in particular wanted to call out. And so one of them is I guess it's UF. It was will require additional grade toilet and sanitary facilities.  And given that the city itself is not required by restrooms and sanitary facilities, even within its own operation. Some case for the public, you know, I just I guess I just wonder how that that did and implemented. And so that's one. And we don't have page numbers on these, but I think it's on page four of the draft ordinance. So that's one. And then a question about what percentage of a given public base is being utilized for the purpose. You know, I mean that also like it's up to significant interpretation. And I'm just thinking about particular examples, but I'll raise them right now. Think of trying to get those basic questions answered and not make it about the. So those are two that I wonder about. Yeah, let me just. I'll take a shot at that and then pass your money. I may want to weigh in, but we've gotten through a considerable effort in this drafting process to make the criteria as objective as reasonably possible. So that it's not a staff sort of that reaction or judgment as to whether or not conditions exist. In general are observable. Measure the dimensions of area used versus the dimensions of usable area of a park. I suspect that House member Brown you, you focused on item F, which is will require additional temporary toilet and sanitary facilities. My sense is that in most instances. A need for a permit will rise mostly for recurring events. So that we have some experience with event. And the manner in which it is conducted before we or the staff makes it determine a determination based on a perspective. Observations that these conditions are are applicable. So. So, because I think 1 of our major concerns in. Working on this ordinance was to eliminate the sort of subjectivity that could create problems under the 1st amendment analysis that we need to. That we need to undertake in order to ensure that this is legally defensible. Thank you for that. And I. It's the intention. You know, not to say that this isn't perhaps based compared to what had on the books in the past make creating the potential for objective decision making. It just seems with things like whether or not you need a bath. You know, if that's really going to be an objective decision, then it would be helpful for what those criteria would. Is it a certain number of people? Is it somebody reporting that they observe somebody, you know.  You know, not having facilities and people taking care of business. I mean, what are like, there's there's a lot of questions there and I don't want to get into on that here, but. Just to say that there's. You know, without it being clear what those. What would be considered and what goes into the. It just doesn't kill objective yet. I agree that there that it's that it's challenging to drill down at the. At the level of. Making an ordinance of general applicability. It's. It's difficult to drill down the level of detail. That would be required to implement the ordinance and so. So there will be half there will have to be some some regulations. And standards that are identified and implemented at the staff level in order for that. That we are approaching these items objectively and and based on measurable criteria. And it would be helpful if that also available generally in the public. It would, it would, it would certainly need to be made available to the public and would be obviously. Still number Brown. Are there other council questions or. A move on public comment. Get out. Public comment at this time and we did have. One group that was approved for extra time. Robert Norris number I believe is 4844. I'm here ready. You're already. Allow me. You know, I'm wondering where this coming from. Cassie. If that was Tony. Tony. There was a letter from Cassie demanding that not bomb supply permits. Or be immediately forced away from it.  Now bombs. Look. When we're in New York, we don't apply for permits. We've already discussed the whole thing. Do you have any problems with any doing? Let us typically that else. And so it looks like this is a specific attempt. At least in part to go after. The city council. The city council. It also of course impacts a lot of other things. Like the DIY parade held on New Year's Eve. It did impact any kind of demonstration. Let's say that were held that. Went to the houses of. City council members. About two years ago. When they were holding closed meetings that were not accessible to the public. The public could be held accountable. So instead people went to their house. Made. Loud noises.  Though perhaps some would say they were. In which case they could have been charged under. Existing laws. That. Will issue. What is the need for this kind of a thing other than. To give. Essentially to throw a roadblock. In. And make people nervous about going to protest at all. But. The. These. So-called reasonable considerations. Do not sound. So reasonable. Me and they attack. Traditional. Protests. You can be. These criminal charges. If you join an uncommitted protest. And you didn't even know it was uncommitted. I guess now I think. Somebody tells you it's uncommitted and then you continue to be there. You might say the first amendment is my permit. Well and Santa Cruz. That's no longer the case under this ordinance. You better have a permit. Now if there's a real claim about a real problem. Often the people who are doing. Approach us whether it's the center for non violence. Other groups. Help to alleviate the difficult. But the notion of giving the very people who you're often. Protesting against. To it the city manager. The council. The city attorney. Some agencies of the city that are being abusive. That you should give them the power to deny you or accept. You make a permit and you have to go to them to get it. Is really pretty preposterous. And it's sort of like going to King George the third for a permit. To protest against the British government. In 1775 or. Not going to happen. It doesn't work that way. So it's also true of course that. If you try to change the route of your protest. That's the crime according to this. You can be penalized and fine for doing this kind of. This sets up all kinds of tripwires. Which are pretty darn nasty. And I remember these these ordinances.  I guess it's predecessor ordinance. I also thought. Was bad for similar reasons. But it's. We have to look at what the real reasons for this are. I think that I think if Cassie wants to. Hold food and bombs to account for problems. Let her talk bombs. And say what her concerns are. Not vague and. And broad concerns about others neighbors. Trash and when in fact the area is quite clean. When it's cleaned up every day. We have a situation where. The city wants to. Ignore or criminalize. Alternate service like red Adams. Woodbridge service. Hold shoulder them. His community friendly campground experience of hijacked. Sidelined and monetized. And he's denied grant. Now bomb similarly has to call its money. It does. You know it does. Willingly and joyfully seek its funding from the community. Rather than government. It doesn't want to be held accountable to government. The city is not interested. As we saw with the bench lands. During oral communication. They don't care. What's going on in the bench lands. As far as. People getting sick. People having inadequate services. That in fact instead what's happening is they want. To. Enforce. Again. The visible presence of homeless people. The visible reality of protest that make them uncomfortable. And to limit protests that are spontaneous. There's an exception for spontaneous protest. To the town clock or city hall is outrageous.  And people want to hold a mass protest there. Well I think they damn well should. You know. If they want to. If there's exclusion against homeless people. People want to go to that door in front of it. And make it there.  So therefore these are some of the. I have and I hope others will raise other concerns. I'm glad. I'm glad Peter Geldblum. Brought some of these issues up and thank you. I guess. City attorneys for. Trying to respond for the first time in my. Knowledge. To an actual. Individual member of the public. I'll be at the president. You know you locally. And his. The. Ring. Was that the buzzer. Thank. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. The next. Member of the public. Public comment on this. Item. Is. Reggie. My sir. Hi can you hear me. Yes. Hello. Hi yeah. It's just so funny. I like. Big deputies. I mean. I guess. I mean. I mean. Anyone. He knows that. I've been kind of making it her mission to stop. Bombs from feeding the house. As Robert. Know why this. I mean. I mean. I mean I mean I mean. I mean. I mean. I mean I mean. I mean I mean. I mean I mean I mean. I mean. I mean I mean I mean. I mean. I mean I mean. I mean. house. As Robert Norse mentioned, you can read in the Sentinel, you know, from February, Ronson worked to force Food Not Bombs to get a special charitable fee permit, as well as ding, ding, ding, a public gathering permit, the very permit we are discussing here today, and they received it, because they understand, like Robert Norse does, that not only would permit having to follow them, make it effectively impossible for Food Not Bombs to keep people daily, it is against full notion of sort of community organizing to meet their own needs. And so it's, this is just such a, like, silly, silly situation. I mean, it's, let's just, like, remove the veil, we know what's going on, like, come on. And this is a particularly problematic ordinance, not just not bombs or sort of like anarchist style direct action, but also just for, like, labor strike, right, which are definitely, like, happening more and more often. If I want to do a labor strike, it's, and it needs to be, you know, impactful, it's gonna affect traffic, it's gonna affect, you know, walkways and things like that, because that's what clients do, right? And so I find it interesting that people could say here that they support, like, Starbucks immunization effort, but then would do something like this, which would make labor strikes require a permit to have a ticket line, but then give that permit requesting ability to the city manager, who, let's face it, I mean, probably has the boss in it, right? Like, city manager isn't, like, getting lobbied by workers, he's getting lobbied by capitalists, who the workers are trying to strike again. So, yeah, I mean, you know, what more can be said? Okay, next member of the public is I am watching you. Yes, thanks. When this public gathering ordinance came before the council last time, it is my remembrance, I solely spoke pretty clearly about how I literally violated, and the only acknowledgement with some vague assurances, oh, we don't do that, extreme wink thought approval from at least one council member, the rest somewhat silently, I assume, unconcerned on this subject. I'm glad to see upon review at least some of the excess restrictions on each are being removed. And I applaud the effort by the city attorney's office moving this ordinance in that direction. But I'm not fond of Section four for 20 being to hear that laundry list of so many untrained, unqualified public employees that can issue citations. But that is a different ordinance. No, the one with the seemingly endless list of so and sos, their designees authorized issues, I patient burn the books during a time of pandemic emergency, and now routinely inserted here. Well, I don't have an objection to making a clear designation preference of the clock tower in the city hall courtyard that may be used for spontaneous speech events. The wording seems to indicate to me those are the only places spontaneous free speech is permitted. The limitation to 48 hours following news, etc. He's overly restricted. And if permits for food, not bombs were issued to sermon seemingly own the clock are used for they are just there forever. Anyway, would you really be designated free speech allowed sites when making them are actually they're unavailable? Perhaps I misunderstand. If so, disclaimer, I find food bombs an awful homeless grandstander to me. However, public places are public places. And there are a lot of those many of great sides accommodating large crowds, free speeches, free speech, and people also have the right to assemble, especially involving redress grievances against, for instance, the government. So I'm not sure this correction goes far enough. And situations can still exist where the people, as I said last time, don't need no stick and permits for free speech. But I like the increase to 75 people gathering skies and overall, this is an improvement in what is a rare event for me. I agree you should vote yes. Thank you. The next member of the public, Alicia Cool. You hear me? Yes. Thank you. Um, so I definitely think that this kind of, you know, is too close to, you know, briefing, you know, the right priest and the right to assembly. I, you know, I would say that I know that you're advised by Cassie Bronson. And but although she's an attorney, always right. We've witnessed that in the past. I do think that this is a direct attack against food not bombs. I'm wondering, you know, what the future looks like. And food not bombs doesn't participate, you know, because they have a I guess, you know, I don't even know how to explain it. It's a tool to feed people priority. They're prioritizing the need to feed the people in our community over the fact that it's wrong or have sort of ordinance against that. Um, some of those things there, that's they get a meal. And when people's needs are met, if the safety of our kids is met, and what are people going to do when they can't get that meal? A meal service around town has drastically decreased. Many services have fallen. We've lost shelter space. We've lost those services. And so, you know, food not bombs has been helping the community for years now. And for the city to not recognize that and assist them rather than constantly try to find a way to move them around is just is always battling. And the reason that they meet every day in one place is because people know that that's the space to get services. When you move them away, it's hard for people to locate this says, and they don't get there. And so this is something that care about health and safety, you will really address what I'm saying.  And I will also say that I've witnessed food not bombs being very clean. They clean up. Some of these reasons for justifying this ordinance make no sense at all. So, you know, please really listen to what I'm saying. Thank you. Thank you. Our next phone number and 1197 for those who are going to vote yes. For those who are going to vote yes. Thank you. Our next caller is the letter R and unmute. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. I just want to echo, you know, what mostly everybody has said so far, but especially something that Alicia said, that when people's needs are met, our city is so why does the city keep trying to make it a criminal offense for people to meet their needs? Whether that gathering to get free food or living or that's it. Okay. That's like a public comment on this item. And we're taking I'll bring it back to council before taking further comments or questions from council members. I will ask move the recommended action. And if that is made perfectly acceptable to vote no on a motion before making a separate motion, friendly amendments or as with council member questions after a council member has provided comments. All other members will have an option before I recognize it helps you for working through this agenda today and bring it over the council member Myers and then member Cummings or muted shade all the balancing act basis, fighting right. There have been made to finance. Thank you. Is needed. Johnson mentioned a little bit over recommendation. We have a motion by council member Myers. Second by council member older. Okay. And now we can have discussion on that motion. Council member Cummings. I was I dropped my hand. I can accidentally put away. Go ahead. Council member Cummings. Okay, thank you, mayor. And I just want to thank those members of the public for calling in and raising the concerns that they had. I think some valid points came up. Let's see if we can get some clarification on. I'll just say that I'm having a difficult time with this item. I do think that there's been some reasonable things brought forward by the staff. It sounds like there's a number of barriers that I couldn't, for example, you know, the fact that no time on really associated with them. I would like to get some information on sounds like one of the big concerns from the members of the public is how this will impact bombs. I know that they have been operating primarily on a private plot for most of the most of the pandemic and up till most recently, before they left a lot on civic. So I'm just curious about what are some of what the current permit requirements are and what not bombs would be. What's been this effort working with bombs? But I think the concern is that they're operating on public property like forward the way to fight for it. So I'm just kind of wondering what has been going on with the city and bombs and what the process is. A letter was sent to bombs a while ago, asked to permit under 10.5 as they did not get a permit. And, you know, we took a close look at 0.65. And, you know, we know there are some updates that we need to make this a chapter. And that's that's sort of where we're at. As far as how it's going to impact not bombs, I can't say that. I think there is a section in 521.0, which is permit condition. And it is basically as when necessary to protect the safety of persons or property or provide adequate control or provide reasonable public access to or use of sidewalks or beaches or other public areas.  So I mean, that's what I would expect would happen is that they would apply for the permit and the city would issue a permit and the city would impose a reasonable time, place and manner restriction to be able better balance. You know, as Councilor Myers and the varying needs on our property. So, you know, we have set very, very heavily used property. And there are so many competing needs. And so that's really sort of the idea behind the provisions that allow this balance. Cassie and then I did have I didn't want to see a follow up on some of the other points that were brought up. So one of the members of the public kind of mentioned, you know, labor strike. I was thinking back to occupy movement that occurred years ago. It could occur again and then we'll make to occupy clock power or some other part of the city. And then also thinking about, like, for example, last year, the I remember it was last year 2020. But when the offerenda was at the clock power, that was kind of out there almost an entire year, maintained by members of the public. So I'm just kind of wondering, you know, when certain things like that, how does this permit or like, you know, what, what are we having a hard time articulating? I guess, what are some of the issues that might arise? A passionate group of citizens that are, you know, standing for multiple days, protesting for multiple days at a certain site. And, you know, having this move forward in this way. That's like, what are some of the impacts that we might foresee or how navigate this ordinance? I think a lot of people will feel like they're right. They're being violated. They're just trying, whether it's the offerenda in mourning for a year, would have you but I'm just really trying to get it. How can we make sure that this is going to allow for protests for multiple days on end, necessary, not being another friction place?  I believe that this ordinance is being a restrictions to be quite honest, as compared to what the previous ordinance said. You know, we haven't an increase in terms of number of people that would reach thresholds we are 75. We decreased the number of days that you would need to before the permit issue. And we created this very clear spontaneous and this is all intended to sort of, you know, make it less restrictive and more compliant with what we were with. So I just want to sort of put that out there.  You know, I think the appropriate reaction is the letter first, hey, would you please get a permit? Can we please work this out? And, you know, and then if that doesn't work, I think that there are remedies listed in the ordinance, including, you know, potentially going to court to resolve. Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that the city is really trying to take reasonable measures to work with groups that are protesting or whether it's feeding homeless people for free, or whether it's a protest that's gonna, you know, prolong the city's really trying to work with folks on these issues. Thanks for those comments. And yeah, I think I'll hold the rest of my question. Okay, Council Member Brown and then Council Member Golder. Thank you. So I since food not bombs, and their particular experience has now been placed on the table, I'm gonna I want to say about that and ask a question. I'm, I guess I'll say I live a block away from block power. I walk by it almost every day. During the bombs hours, sometimes after. And what I have experience is dark contrast. But I would say are very limited. Plaint that have been delivered city about the operation. How that else access block power. On most days, empty. There are not there do not competing group want to use that base. And so I think there is some of that the communications that we've had and I'm, I'm gonna say they've been relatively limited. Now, no, I've heard from other some of you that I was in terrible and we have to do something. And I just haven't heard that in the city. I haven't met with my own eyes. And in fact, every and I, many of these I didn't have an I didn't go back and look if every council member risk every I risk. But mostly in support of what they do. And so I'm concerned about writing an ordinance that is arguably less restrictive. And I appreciate the thought that's gone into this and, you know, trying to find that balance. And, you know, I guess I just wonder what what the what the goal is with respect to bombs. Because so what would change if we're not bombs? No, asked for and risk to permit. What would be then what's happening now? It's kind of an open question. I'd love to hear if they if if ask here if others have thoughts on what that might be, I'd like to hear that. No, I just wanted to put that out on the table as part of the context. And, you know, I do have about language written in that does target one that is arguably created some challenges, and that other people that will have raised concerns, but that by and large, not both did, perhaps for a full day feel very, but I have not agreed. I read sense about that. So again, I guess I'd like to hear a little bit about that. Also ask if kind of what the basis was today. Today we're out, you would have to if you're going to do days. And then I'll ask that and I have a solution looking for a problem. And I know that's not a shared by all of my colleagues. But the data that I have, that not as big of a problem. So I will try to address. So I think, you know, I sort of addressed earlier, I don't want to get too into this fix of not bomb situation, because I mean, this is an ordinance of general applicability. And, you know, it really is intended to address a variety of although I know that this has not been so this is what we're all interested in. You know, again, we have two one oh, which sort of governs what type of permit conditions issued. And I would anticipate that we would that section to try to come up with reasonable permit. Unfortunately, I mean, I can't tell you exactly what those are at the moment. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to sort of think of them off the top of my head on an open city council meeting. But you know, happy to see about this. And what was your have another question. Oh, another question that Yeah, most that was a comment and kind of contact my question. Another question was the rationale for today. Oh, sure. You know, I mean, the two day that was sort of intended to get at the events, organizations are using same exactly for over. I mean, the council could certainly change that we could set it to something like a user or something similar. But that it was really just address the and then quickly last question. But I know you did, Kasi suggested that you had and I appreciate that. The case effort by that agreement around it. So I guess I'm wondering, it was that I'm just trying to understand the difference the current circumstances or the moment in time when you made that request, that how that would be different for men. And you don't require it now. But the idea was that you were asked voluntarily. No, no, a permit was always required. Okay. So that we looked at the chapter that was firing the permit without, you know, this part. So that's really a permit is required. Yeah. Right. So a permit is required. And why do we need this ordinance is an amendment to the chapter that requires permit because when looking at that chapter, this could be a lot more clear, just for public usage and consumption, I really strongly the ordinance, very clear. And also just make sure that it is compliant with the latest process. Thank you. I think Cassie covered it really well. I think only other this is the 1065 and 1064 have a lot of similarities in our special event permits and the public gathering and compression. So part of the clarification on this from the perspective of Parks Breck is to really delineate between a special event. So say like a big concert, for example, this is some of those definitional changes, those clarifications, and a bit of that simplification and really the Cassie alluded to and really just trying to clarify this that distinction between 1064 and 1065. An example of that is, you know, girl scouts selling girl scout cookies in a in a park is argued is that a special event? Is that commercial activity? Or is that freedom of expression? And so some of these definition changes, you know, there's a lot of talk about the clock in this, but this really gets into a lot of nuance between what is a special event, the compression and really trying to clarify that from the fact of the fairness from our community. Thank you. Okay. So then we have Council Member Golder. Thank you. I don't want to dwell on not bombs, but I just have to say I have had the opposite experience of Council Member Brown in that even before food not bombs, the town clock, I get daily bills, phone calls, text messages of people having experience complaints, whatever. That isn't what I was going to say. What I was going to say is I feel like another objective of bringing these changes to the ordinance would be also, you know, we had the was at the maniac right out that we talked about when we're talking about entering our public safety thing as that causing some significant impacts to the city. And so my hope and that and I wasn't even going to not bombs when reading this is that we would be addressing some of the nuisances and dangerous activity that happened in that event. And so my question is would these changes also address the issues that we had with, you know, the people getting injured and the traffic and the other things that happened during that event? Well, you know, this is having an expression that you know, I apologize, I'm not actually right out all the way about it. So, so I don't know if that would be a public gathering and special event. Really what this is is bridging people have their larger events or repeat events to get permit so that the city can plan for these events appropriately. Just to speak to that briefly that maniac right out in about 5000 from all over the place to a right out town. So I think that case that would require that I would think about that as more of a special event for it actually over an entire park. But again that the current language 1064 and 1065 use a little lack of clarity I think and it could potentially be argued right out is freedom of expression potentially but again this is what we're trying to try to clarify. I think that one very clearly was a special event meeting traffic control and you know, trash and restrooms so forth that many. Absolutely that's my hope that that's what I was going with this is I felt like this these changes would address that from happening if it was to happen again this year or I forget what that happened. Thank you. I will just start myself. Director Elliott remind me and the public how many different kinds of permit there are parks and recreation department. I think there's like five or six different types of event permit. A great question and I'll lean on our administrative supervisor and head and Jones here on the call. I think what we referenced the packet we've got public major and public minor events and then these public gathering and expression permits as well but I'll lean on tray here for more detail. First, thank you. Honorable mayor. Dr. Elliott. Yes, we do have several different different permits public major event public minor events. We also issue film video and recording permits public gathering expression permits neighborhood block party permits and street closure permits. And so these changes are specific to the public gathering and expression event. That is correct. So the ordinance changes are specific to that permit. And a lot of my questions were answered at a time but there was interesting point brought up in that also I went to my mind went through some of the larger events like the bike ride out, you know, that some folks consider to be a public gathering and expression event. So I think the definitions of types of events needed clarity and seeing those clarity in these amendments helpful in different some of the differences, right? Those different permit. And so it's interesting to consider, you know, the perceptions of some of the members of our public that called in as well in terms of the different types of events. And I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that some of the members of our public that called in as well and immediately thinking about examples such as food not bombs at the power. And so it sounds like that would be what type of permit they call enter. And so there was a freedom of expression event. And so this would, the changes in this the work turns brought up in their actions at this time. And so if I think of them as an example with changes They would need to get a permit for this permit, public gathering and special event, and they would only be allowed to operate for two days within what they did. The two-day trigger is what requires that it wouldn't necessarily prohibit them from operating more than two days consecutively in one location, although it would allow additions to be imposed, address specific concerns, and one of those conditions might be to alternate locations and I think city staff would be assisting in identifying alternative locations where they could operate part of the week, as well as continuing to operate at the town. I was. It certainly would not restrict, would not bombs ability by food service on a daily basis, but reasonable condition attached to them. Definitely, any members of the public have called multiple times, as well as those that come in tonight, and I think that everyone's in agreement that a service, although this isn't an item about food, not bombs, but their service is appreciated. Anyone eating those that are hungry or off food that is appreciated, however, some of the consequence around that, which I see this ordinance guidelines on ability in terms of damage, the area, the walkways, garbage, last during plates and food along the way. I think off the top of my head, I see that permit here, a decision to what they would have now changes. Either way, it's on ability for impact at the area. I see that correct, and I appreciate the other examples. Certainly, by the clock, but of our other shared public space, matter of what gathering expression event. Thank you for making those clarifications and answering some of the questions prior, and we do have a motion. Everyone has had a chance to speak, I believe, or anyone else who hasn't spoken yet, that was like a council member Cummings, I see you have your hand up. Thank you, Mayor. I had a couple more questions possible from the amendment make based on what I've heard. I guess for me, one of the things that this ordinance, and I want to thank council member Golder for kept the ride out because that wasn't something that I was thinking about, but I think definitely need to be addressed, and I just want to say that I feel that this ordinance really heavily focusing on beaches, parks, and open spaces and not in that ride out event, and so I don't know if something needs to be backed, typically deal with that kind of gathering, because that did have a negative impact on the community, and definitely need to figure out how we can keep that from happening in the future. But really a lot of what I see in terms of some of the new languages, for example, GH and I all focus on, for example, G is a block by areas that are marked as by reservation only in a city park, or open space, the next one will occupy or negatively impact sense of having that city park or open space, and I know it mentions sidewalks alleys are the right way, but getting to that impacts a lot from that event. I think it'd be good if we had something forward specifically to address those kinds of events, because that was throughout the entire city blocking traffic. There were all sorts of impact. It would also be great to hear from the city, turn up the city, kind of follow up with the organizer in terms of charges, or whether that's going to court, and that doesn't have to happen. Putting that out, there's a comment. The one thing I do have an issue with is really around item number under 1065050A2, and as that relates to under three, so really saying that these permits required if the event lasts more than an hour in duration, and then later on, we have this language on will require additional temporary coiled capabilities. It seems like if there's something that's happening, whether it's multiple days in a row, but it's only like two hours a day, that really doesn't seem like it would require the organizers to have to get a bathroom and have hand washing and toilet facilities. So I'm just kind of curious about, because that seems like obviously not bombs of beating people there for more than an hour, the likelihood of somebody needing bathrooms to die. But if you have something like the off-renda, or there's a protest that's occurring multiple days in a row, multiple hours a day, it doesn't seem like you would necessarily need to have the organizers purchase a port-a-potty and hand washing facilities, which that also, I will point out, takes time having to work related events. So I'm just wondering if someone can speak to that, because I'd be comfortable with that language, but it will for F. Yeah, I think there's a misunderstanding in the ordinance that I hope I can explain to you quickly. So a permit is triggered if beyond public property, so that's A1, it's going to last an hour, and it meets at least one of the criteria under submission. So the public property, more than one hour, and there's, for some reason, additional facilities are needed, then you need to get a permit, not necessarily saying that if you're there for an additional. That helpful. Welcome. That's, those are all my questions. I guess the last one would be, what's, I got two last ones, two last questions. What's the turnaround? What would be the turnaround time on the permit? I guess, because if somebody, for example, there's a multiple day protests or something that's going to go, say, 14 days after two days, they would need to get a permit. But then what would be the turnaround time on when people would actually receive that permit that might lead into the time that they're. I can, I can take a shot at that. The ordinance requires the application to be submitted at least three business days before the event. So if, you know, by default, then the maximum turnaround be three business days from the date. I guess I'm wondering, as a friendly amendment, then if we can increase the, I guess it's one of the following criteria. Um, is conducted on a regular schedule basis at a single occasion, more than four consecutive days per week. And it seems like there's other provisions that would pick in the permit, but I think that in particular, the reason why. Is largely due to if this is going to be something that, and maybe staff comment on this, but if it's going to be a reoccurring. For example, like the offer and being able to. Give that time for people to apply for the permit, it's going to be a longer multi-day event. And then have that and around so they can get the permit. I think that's the rationale, but I'm trying to just. A little bit more time when we pick in under that item member coming. Are you asking on 3D? About four days versus executive days. Yes, 10, 6, 5, 0, 5, 0 public gathering session event under a you just say it 1 more time in the section. On the screen and it's, yeah, I saw asked from a friend there a couple of times.  So I guess, I guess what I'm trying to get yours parks just works ahead. So, trying to make sure this is I guess I would look to maybe somebody. Yeah, thank you council members. Yeah, I think Tony can not he mentioned a little bit ago. I think the goal here is just objectivity. And so, yes, from my perspective, whether it's days or 4 days. Don't necessarily have a lot of part burn with that. I think that the key is just in having those objective criteria here in the language so that we've got. A threshold so that we're really clear on what that is and when that is. So. That's just my my initial perspective on that, but I'll look at the Cassie or the city manager if they've got that. Suggestion calling my what's going to be reasonable. I think it was reasonable for you to be reasonable or would be reasonable as well. So, I would agree with that. I think as council member wires mentioned, this is about striking a balance and what passes that reasonability test. This is 1 of other metric the only metric that we would be. Terminating 1 of permit would be triggered so. I don't know that I have any major reservations either just policy question. Find that link time over the 2nd or amenable. I guess my last I guess my last comment I can't remember what the question was, but. I just hope that, you know, moving forward the staff work with not bombs. I know it's challenging and difficult sometimes to. Working with not bombs, but I think it hasn't pointed out they did good service pandemic. They do good service for homeless. I guess, yeah, now I'm remembered. I'm reminded my last question. You know, if a group currently is not willing to pull out a file for a permit and pass this, you'll not willing. I guess, like, what's the consequences? Is there any change? I think that Tony I mean, I think there there is a change to the. Section over regarding violations in addition citations for infraction. Misdemeanor violations, there could be. Civil action brought for party injunction. All right, well, I just hope that, you know, we can. Regardless of who it is that we're able to really, you know, work with the. Try to figure out ways that we can allow themselves. Exercise their 1st amendment, right? And it seems like this is really trying to provide. More flexibility, but also accountability for. All parties involved, so I think it'll be really important that we. Monitor how this plays out because. Like it's restricting people's ability to exercise. We'll definitely need to visit it, but also understanding that we need to make sure that. Public space is accessible for. To those are all my questions and comments. I'll be supporting this coming and it looks like that. Discussion on this item, we have a 1st by council member Myers, a 2nd by older. The friendly amendment by council member Cummings. And so, did I just see more hands go up? Council member Myers, I just want to let you know. Yeah, tonight. Are saying that. Great goes out. Audio is breaking up. I don't know. I just want to like Bonnie, maybe. Is it the community TV or zoom? Or is that the same thing? You don't have to solve it now, but I thought maybe great if we took. Break after the vote. Okay. City clerk Bonnie Bush. Thank you. Yeah, we have had. I've gotten. Well, and what we've gathered. On the. Live. No, that is on our website. Two other. That way or to point. Audio. No delay. And here if they go. So members of the public go directly. To. For through community online. Right. So links are either front. Thank you. Council member Brown before we go to a vote. I just wanted a quick comment. I want to. Sponsive question about the limit. Pays I do that would. Provide. Relief or folks who tend to engage kind of activities. I mean, maybe it's a weekend or a long weekend. The kind of not have this whole process. That I do think that it's reasonable amount of time and my colleagues. That. Not going to be able to support. Ordinance and I before but I wanted to say before I go that I really. Understand. The rationale or board in this direction. I support most of what is. I want to work and I appreciate the role that the staff. Played and I know it's a lot of work right up find a way forward. And it's also a lot of work and conditions on the ground. When we have public gatherings. So I don't want to discount that and I don't want my no vote. Just that I'm not. About those matters. I just have. Outending questions out. My who's going to be affected and the potential of disproportionate. On. Flowing marginalized. And but I'll look forward to hearing reports on how things are going and. Want to be part of the process for. Interative process to kind of make. So I just want to. Oh no without letting you all know that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We are ready for. Remember. Hi. That motion passes. In favor one no vote. Okay. So let's see. Is there any way we can. Get. A message on our screen like a screen share that. Corrects both. Zoom directory or. Community be online. So they can see the. Can we take a five minute. Three three to five minutes. That's that eight oh seven if we return at eight ten with that you know fine. Okay. Thank you. If council members can turn on their camera. The city are ready. Thank you. Okay. Hopefully this will. And again just as a reminder for those who weren't. Able to. Get the news. Hope to tune in this morning. Our April twenty six. Meeting the regular council meeting will be in. We do have. April night. Special meeting that will but starting. As well as. Public. Have the. Either way. But remember Brown. It's just a quick question. I got a message from somebody who said that they not able to hear. Who mayor providing. Information and also I think Bonnie Bush providing the. About an alternative way. Sign in. That that would. Yeah and that's why I asked for a share screen message to be put up. Okay. So it'll it'll go up. Is it up now. Hopefully not. I think it on our website. Okay. And so also for those that can hear me. Hopefully we will get a screen up that will give direction to. Join us via the direct. Link or. The. The. Panel. The. On line. So the on base. Currently the link that is having. Sound. So hopefully. Those will be able to. Join us. That's why we do that. To. Give. Full an opportunity. To get the information for joining us. And. Access those. Correct. In link or. Correct. Here we're. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Hey. Return to the agenda. And that brings us to. Our. Here at our. Item number. 31. Public hearing. Item numbers. P1 is. Council review. Of the planning commission's approval of the. Postal and design permit. To. Authorize the development associated. With the amended municipal code. To. The parking of oversized vehicles. And to implement. Wide parking programs. For. Unhoused residents living in oversized. Of resolution acknowledging. Environmental determination and approving. Of the coastal permit and design. Permit based on the findings in the draft resolution. And the conditions. Of approval. Attach. So for. Members of the public for. Skimming this meeting. Joining us. To. Zoom link. Or. Newly. Order will be a presentation. Followed by questions from. Council. You will then take public comment. And then return. Council. For deliberation and action. In addition to the public comment. You'll be hearing on this item. There were 551. Mills that were sent to city council. At cityofcenter.com. On this item. So if if. You're interested on comment on this item. Of. Well we will get. With us. So let's see the first. I think I will. Before I hand it over to council member. Older. I just wanted to. Also have my very. Staff here. I just really wanted to keep us focused. It's been a long agenda. I tried some new technique. In in our time efficient today. And knowing that we had a very cool agenda. And our agenda has been full. The whole items. Have. Continued. The. Agendas. Time. And. Length of time that. So. For this item. I'm. I'm hoping that night we can focus on the fact that this is the review of the permit. That was issued by the planning commission. Not a review of the revised. That ordinance. Has been approved and is in place. Although not yet. Of course. All certain. Directions that was conditions were given. Our place. So. I just really want to. For that. Members of the public and. All of the council members understand that this is the. Of. Permits that were issued. By. Planning. Not. Of. The council member colder. You. So I did. Go ahead. I wanted to go ahead and start by saying that. After the planning. Mission added. Conditions. To. Oversize vehicle ordinance. I. Communications from. Various members of community who really felt blindsided and. No upset with that. And so that's why. Before us. Tonight. Um. I just want to give a little background. For those of you that might not be aware. Having served for the better part of. On the public safety. Of course this was something that came out of a recommendation from then. From from back then. And there's been. Other ordinances. Throughout years. Been. Some recommendations attached that. Or that. Let us. This. Process. Have received. Thousand. Of. Nills. In. When we were drafting the oversize field coordinates. And I really felt like the planning mission kind of. Circumvented. Those years of work. And really the democratic process that went into creating. Coordinance as it was written. And. Um. Again it was. Gated. By. Many. People. With. The. Public health and safety of the whole community in mind. And I just. I don't really have much more to say other than that's why. Here it is that's why. You know. With the liberty of. Calling it back up to us. Thank you. You. Uh. The. I. Remember Calentari Johnson. Great. Thank you for inviting me to this. We worked together on this item. I do want to acknowledge that permit program is about solutions. Help folks go pathway to housing. It's the first time in the history of our city. That the city council's getting to say parking options. We have faith based communities and organizations that have been doing this hard work. And now we are committing to supporting these efforts. And adding resources. And of course as council member Golder just mentioned this didn't happen overnight. It happened over the course of years and a lot of process. I mea