what's going on everybody welcome back to another draw preview and we have the guitar open and it's a very special event and I know that you guys out there that love Roger Federer you've been waiting for this day let's go to the withdrawals before we get to the draw though so a couple of players have withdrawn Kevin Anderson he's pulled out Carino Buster is also out her catch Gail Monfice is also not playing this event all right let's go to the top of the draw of this ATP 250 event the top four seeds get a buy in the first round and Dominic team he's back since the Australian Open of course played a couple of tough matches at the Australian Open lost in the fourth round he'll be looking for some form he's going to play a wild card in the second round no matter what we have Zahid and then we have Carrotsev of course making the semi-files the Australian Open so Carrotsev versus team that's a tough match for Dominic team in his comeback then we have a qualifier versus Bublek who's in some great form beat Sashas Vairav last week winner of that's going to play either Opelka or the number five seed Patisserie Gou and that is such a great matchup we've got a big server versus a great returner so that's a great popcorn match circle that one then we've got the number three seed and defending champion Rubelev getting a buy in the first round he'll play the winner of Gaskay or a qualifier in the second round then we have Lyovic versus Fuchovic two players who are in a little bit of form over the last couple of weeks winner of that's going to play either a qualifier or seventh seed Stan Bobrinka so Stan the man he's played well at this event in the past and be looking to do something similar this year with a good draw but big names I know you've got team you've got Rubelev you've got Stan the man there's a couple of good unseeded players as well Fuchovic he's in some form Carrotsov we all know he's in form and Bublek as well has made a couple of finals in 2021 so watch out for all those names in this top half all right let's go to the bottom half of the draw now you've got the number six seed Gophane he versus Kryanovich in the first round that's a fun match winner of that match is going to play the Sonigo or Fritz in the second round then we have a qualifier versus Pospisul in the first round winner of that match is going to play number four seed Shapovalov who we haven't seen seems like for a long time because he lost kind of early at the Australian Open so we haven't seen him for a few weeks now but he's back in Doha then we've got the number eight seed Chorich versus Gisiri in the first round Chorich is in some form made the Rotterdam final this week winner of that match is going to play the Basilashvili or Milman in the second round then we have Shadi versus Evans and that is a fun match between two unseeded players but very good unseeded players and the winner of that gets to play against number two seed Roger Federer for the first time since the Australian Open last year we're talking about Roger Federer we're talking about Roger in a draw very excited to watch him we're going to be watching him a lot this week and I've got to be honest he's got a pretty good draw there are some names that maybe can cause him some troubles Chorich Milman they've pushed Federer in the past but Federer's got to be happy with this draw even if he gets to the semi-finals he won't be too worried about Shapovalov or Goffin so Federer has got a great draw could make the final in his comeback so there you have it Federer is back teams back and Rubelev is continuing his tournaments he's played a lot of tournaments over the last couple of weeks since making that quarterfinal of the Australian Open played Rotterdam last week he's playing this week and I think he's playing Dubai next week so watch out Rubelev's playing a lot of tennis but we all want to watch Roger Roger's back first time in a year let me know down in the comments below who's winning this event it's very wide open do you think Federer has a chance so a very strong tournament for an ATP 250 you've got Grand Slam champions you've got great next-gen guys and it's very hard to pick as well but I'm going to go with Rubelev Rubelev's in such great form at the moment I'm going to pick him to win this tournament just based on recent form played really well in Rotterdam last week he beat Sidney Pass along the way and of course they quarterfinal of the Australian Open I'm only worried that he's not going to be fit enough coming into Doha but I'm going to stick with him I think Rubelev is the man again let me know down in the comments below who do you think's going to win so Roger Federer he's back in the draw in Doha


Hey everybody, I'm Lance Goyke and today I want to talk about a mistake that I see really commonly made in the single leg Romanian deadlift and an exercise that I like to use to fix it. The single leg Romanian deadlift or the single leg RDL or the slurdle as one of my old clients used to call it is a hinging exercise So it's it's like a deadlift. That's why deadlift is in the name There's not a lot of knee bend. We want to keep the knee nice and soft and we bend over We get a nice stretch in the hamstring and even in the hip capsule of the glute and then we stand up using those muscles on the posterior chain of the leg To train the hip hinging pattern So it's a it's a good builder not only for balance but also for hamstring and glute activation Now one of the mistakes that I see oftentimes is this poor hip position And this is just a result of the normal asymmetries in the body Everybody has some element of this, but if you're doing your single leg RDL And first if you feel like your balance is way off This is probably what's going on this or you have some sort of foot and ankle thing going on But we don't have time to talk about that today If i'm doing the right foot down And my hip sags out to the side and my hips maybe turn to the right to kind of face the right I'm really exaggerating this. It's usually not this bad The other thing that you can look for is if you don't really feel your glute But you feel a lot of pressure through your heel and maybe through your inner thigh Then this is an asymmetrical loading pattern We are loading the right hip too much So what we have to do is we have to learn to unload it Conversely it might look like this on the left side Instead of overloading the left side and feeling a lot of hamstring We under load it we turn the hips away from that side And then we don't feel a whole lot of symmetrical hamstring It might feel a lot of outer hamstring Or you might just feel calf or hip flexor or TFL If you don't feel like you're loading very well on your single leg RDL Or you feel like you're falling over all the time Then let's take a look at this So with the asymmetries in the body The pelvic bones on the right side tend to tilt inward Rotate backward and raise upward While the left side does the opposite Tilt forward tilt outward and then it lowers away from you So when I'm doing the single leg RDL This right side tends to be really scrunched up And the left side tends to be really long Okay and that could be with the right leg down or with the left leg down Right it's the same position no matter which side you're doing Now not everybody has this to an extent to where I would fix it But if you think you do then let's give it a shot So my favorite exercise for fixing this asymmetry Is the standing supported left hip hike And there's a couple different variations that we can do with this one Essentially I want something to help you with balance I like to use a chair And you know I'm going to do it here Normally I'll do it here But just a demo right now It's just exactly what the name says It's a hip hike okay It can help if you put your right foot on a block So your left hip gets to hike a little bit more You get to feel a stretch at the bottom And then a contraction of this left leg pulling up into the hip So that's all we're going to do This is this is exactly the motion Okay so to set up for this one You're going to find some sort of balance Chair works really well You can also use like a rack in the gym And all I'm going to do is I'm going to shift 80% of my weight to my right foot And then 100% as I lift the left foot straight up off the ground The cue that I had heard that I liked for this one was Imagine you're pulling your boot out of mud You don't want to press like a step You want to just hike everything up When I do that then I'm looking for two specific muscles I'm looking for the left inner thigh muscles to turn on And I'm looking for the right outer hip Some might call it the gluteus medius I'm looking for those to turn on here If you need to do this exercise You probably won't feel them right away If you do you are an athletic person And I would love to work with you You probably won't though And what tends to happen is this right inner thigh Is just unrelenting It won't let go at all So when you hike like this Your weight stays kind of pulled over Your pelvic bone stays kind of pulled over To the right side And the right inner thigh won't shut off Now to fix this Generally we just do a few reps You want to go through a few breath cycles And after you do it for a little bit That muscle will start You're going to hold this nice shifted position That muscle will start to realize This is not a very advantageous position for me to be on Maybe I should just shut off And that's kind of the goal with this one So if you don't feel it right away Do a couple rounds Sometimes people don't feel it till the third round But if you don't feel it by the third round Then it's probably you're either not doing it well Or it's just not in the cards Maybe today or maybe ever I'm starting to feel it though After explaining all that to you So how will people mess this up Let's go through that first So when I do the hip hike If I shift and I list my upper body a way to do it I'm not getting the scrunching that I need To reverse the hip motion And instead I'm just kind of keeping Not that great position The spinal bones are not stacked very well And they don't tolerate that position very well So the way you want to think about it You want to think about your torso as an accordion And it's just bending and manipulating You don't want to move it this way Because then it's going to tear Right, not your body, but the accordion Okay So when I do the hike I want to make sure that the left shoulder And left hip come closer together Like this Okay, see I've got this little C shape In this way, this way, there we go This little C shape in my torso like this Okay, if I start to get more of a zigzag That's wrong Second thing is if you don't really have your balance Then it can be really hard to shut this muscle off So don't be afraid to push into the thing That you're stabilizing yourself with This is not an exercise that I would really say You need to do without the balance support Like if you can do it without the balance support Just go back and do your single leg RDL You know Because you'll be able to load that one up a little bit more You'll get more strength while maintaining your mobility Now a third mistake that I see often Is people kind of just rushing through it If this set takes you 15 seconds to do Well, it could be just that it's really hard And that's fine Just kind of layer on more volume as you're able to But if you're doing it and you're done in 15 seconds It's probably not long enough We probably want to extend the time a little bit more And we're going to do that by breathing really really easily So when we're doing an exercise like this And any mobility exercise I would say You should practice your nasal breathing In through the nose Maybe out through the mouth But out through the nose if you can Just try to stay super relaxed Deep slow breaths and pause after your exhales That will re-equilibrate your CO2 and O2 balance And blood health is also good for mobility We're going to leave it at that So as I'm doing this It might look something like this I'm going to I like to exhale as I pull up Pause Breath in And what you can try to do Is when you exhale reach that right foot Longer through the ground And that might help you kick on this outer glute on the right side When I hang on to the inner thigh on the left side As long as you have it Try to keep those muscles while you breathe in I tend to shake when I get it So look for that It might look just like me I like to do five breaths Sets of five breaths And I would do at least three sets Because like I said before Sometimes it takes a little bit of volume For things to kind of relax Okay we talked about torso alignment We talked about using a chair to help you balance Using something to help you balance We talked about your breathing cadence And making sure you're going slow enough Now a fourth one It's hard to say that it's a mistake But it's usually the cue that I use So I have to talk about it In the description of this exercise I say Hike your hip up Generally people just don't hike it up enough So if you if you're not feeling it After you know three or four breaths In your first set just on your exhale Try to get a little bit more hike And even that last little millimeter Is a big deal Okay that can that can be the difference Between you feeling this and you not feeling this So if if you've tried all the other stuff And it's still not feeling quite right Just try to exaggerate it a little bit more All right so those are the main mistakes that I see In the standing supported left hip hike Just to recap it's a torso position It's a make sure you're using your balance It's a make sure you're breathing With a slow nasal breath And make sure you're hiking up enough One other clarification that you might need to make Is when you hike up Sometimes hiking up more Does the first error Where you're twisting your torso Or you're listing your torso So the fix there Is that you have to make sure that that left hip And left shoulder are squeezing together Visually it's kind of easy to see My foot is over here I'm trying to keep my nose kind of centered over my right big toe If it starts to move over Then my joints aren't stacked And I'm not in an optimal position For maximum mobility All right if this one has previously Up you know we've done your troubleshooting And it's still too difficult to do Then there are easier ways to do it So our full version is I'm hiking the foot and the left foot is floating But our next step down version Would be to support that foot Okay So ideally I'd put my foot on something Like a pretty thick book You know maybe not dictionary thick But a little bit less than that I'm gonna I got my chair right here So I'm just gonna use this Even though it brings my foot forward a little bit And then I'm gonna use that support To support me To unload me essentially Okay so it's like I'm taking some of the weight away From the exercise Now big thing here Is you don't have as clear a line Of a hip hike to tell you where to go So you need to think maybe less about Hiking pulling your foot out of mud And more about pulling your hip up Okay drop the right hip And pull the left one up When we do this I'm gonna show you Here just so you can kind of see my hips So I'm gonna do the same kind of setup I like to start with an exhale Push through the inside of that right foot And then I'm gonna support it Okay And I need to bend my knee a little bit Because my support is too high But in doing that I'm just keeping my left hip scrunched up And I'm trying to keep You can see it a little bit My left shoulder is down a bit And then we just do the same stuff We take a breath out Pause and then breathe in And all the while You're thinking as I exhale And as I inhale I want a whole pressure in that Right outer hip That left inner thigh And you might even feel Some left lower abdominal here And good Okay so that is a standing supported Supported Left hip hike Something like that So not only am I supporting myself for balance But I'm also supporting that foot Okay so that is probably the next step down That's probably where I would have you try next If you can't get any of that You could even just sit down And practice You could put your left foot on a block Do not do it like I'm showing you here Where my toes are down And my heel is up You want your left foot on a block I'll put it on the chair That'll be a little better here And then I'm just gonna work on that Hip position again So left hip kind of comes up a bit Left shoulder kind of sinks down a bit Now since you're sitting on a flat surface on the chair You can't do that a whole lot But this really unweights you So that you can start to practice What it's like to sink that left shoulder down And it's the same thing Just same breaths Get comfortable with pausing after your exhales And then we're looking just for this left side To be nice and scrunched Something like that So you would repeat that for three sets Three to five sets of five breaths as well The next step down would be to do the same kind of thing Except you're laying on your side So I would lay, I guess I can just show you I'm gonna lay on my side Right here I like to keep my knees bent up Like this And then from here All you're gonna do is you're gonna exhale And bring that left shoulder and left hip close together And you can even relax when you inhale And then do it again when you exhale Same kind of thing I would do three to five sets of five breaths of that one And that is just a more remedial version That would make you more successful If you've been having issues with it All right, that's gonna be it for me Hopefully you found this helpful Hopefully now you have somewhat of an understanding On hip position And how to fix any balance issues Or hip alignment issues During your single leg Romanian deadlifts And you know, perhaps we can use these for some other exercises as well If you learned something Hit the like button and subscribe to be notified When I release new videos If you need something else to watch Well I mentioned it earlier You should probably watch the fix your pigeon stretch Left hip capsule inhibition Because when I'm doing my left single leg RDL Generally the left posterior hip is tight And so loosening it up Before you do the single leg RDL Can help you with fixing queuing that hip loading position Helping you turn your hips towards that front leg So that you can use all of the glutes Instead of more of the hip flexors and low back Check that one out


you know we have some potential time to have more outreach occurred i thought you know what might seem like a good compromise would be to direct staff to continue moving forward with establishing safe sleeping and storage programs as previously directed provide a minimum of two public meetings for members of the public including us individuals to provide feedback on the ordinance and input on what they would like to see come forward and their concern and concerns provide updates on feasibility of establishing safe sleeping and storage programs including costs potential operators sources of funding scope of work and any other relevant information and bring forward and updated ordinance along with an emergency ordinance for adoption when it's clear what programs are feasible and locations for sleeping and storage services after receiving public input and um the comments i'll make around that is that um you know there's still a lot there's staff mentioned that there's going to be a lot of outreach going on into the community around what these programs will be and how we can stand them up and who the providers are and you know it seems like we really want to understand what is feasible in terms of the programs before we have laws that um we're creating around these programs so it's not clear what we're going to might be that we can provide more services um you know we can increase those beds above 150 um or it might be that we you know we can't find a provider that's able to um provide those 150 beds so uh the thought here is that you know by providing this kind of direction um we can continue moving forward provide the community with an opportunity to give us more feedback and tony please correct me if you weigh on on this but my understanding just based on the years of being on council is that you know if we were at a point where for example we have a storage you know we have a service provider for storage safe sleeping the council could potentially pass an emergency ordinance that would immediately take effect and we could also pass the regular ordinance that would then take effect after a second reading in 90 days is that a correct um yes if the council makes findings uh to establish the basis for declaring an emergency then the council can adopt an emergency ordinance that takes effect immediately uh I believe with the five vote majority and just to follow up on that question as well I mean the council did the homeless state of emergency back in I think it was 2017 or 2018 so under that you know assumption we technically and we haven't changed that so with that the council the council uh re-adapted that in august of last year as well but I would add that that's the that the homeless or the shelter crisis declaration really is designed to provide a mechanism for establishing shelters without strictly complying with with building and zoning codes so it's not really the exact same thing but but you have declared that there's a shelter emergency in effect right now I guess it would also be safe to say I mean I'll just my comment would be that I think it's also safe to say that we are in a bit of an emergency the fact that you know with our current homeless situation so um that's a friendly or a substitute motion that I'd like to put on the table for consideration and again I want to thank all my colleagues and members of the public for hanging in during all the time we've spent on this item council member council member brown I'll second that and um given that I think I know where that's going I'll just make my comment now while I have the floor um so I mean I'm not comfortable with moving uh the recommendation we have forward for many reasons and I'm not going to go through all of them here although I will say um that Sabina Holder Ms. Holder pretty much said what I would what I'm thinking and said it much more articulately so that's kind of where I stand um but so I'll just put in two categories I'll start with the practical or instrumental and I think that gets to part of why council member coming I think brought this substitute motion forward um you know passing an ordinance when we don't even know if we can actually do the things that have said we need to do in order to operationalize the ordinance just seems really cart before the horse to me it's um and potentially self-defeating really I mean we need a clear understanding and I'm hopeful because you know we're hearing and I understand staff is working very hard and I'm hopeful for that but given that we have never been able to state before um it's it's hard to imagine that all of a sudden we're going to figure it out and make it happen in this short amount of time um so I think we really do need a clear understanding of what we can actually do um you know what the city can do what operators can do um before we say we're going to do this um otherwise we're really kind of misleading the public I think yeah um I I imagine others don't agree with that but I kind of feel like we are if we can't really you know operationalize an ordinance without you know a whole bunch of other steps um and then the you know the other uh kind of general area of concern that I have is is obviously ethical um you know leading with compassion I agree we we should be leading with compassion you know and we should be focusing on trauma interventions rather than enforcement um you know folk enforcement focused uh interventions the nurse who the who said we've talked about um you know chemo or chemo patients um you know thinking about them and you know the hardship this creates on top of multiple multiple layers of hardship um and suffering I mean that's not hyperbole but I mean you know there's at least one person yes it was displaced yesterday um who is going through chemo and so that's this is real this is the experience people are having in the world these are they're humans human beings um you know to even the discussion about um you know oh you know adjacent to schools and neighborhoods and basically you know trying to get us to they're aware for people to go is and suggesting that um because one is without a home a house that they are somehow um shouldn't be anywhere near school is just you know it's just disturbing um that kind of narrative um I was interesting um uh Councilmember Callentary Johnson uh that you uh you break and I'm really interested to hear that the word compassion in Sanskrit is really focused on you know my heart is broken to act um and because I feel right now and I you know I'm not going to go on any longer about it but I just I have to say that my heart is breaking with this act that we are considering here um not all of it obviously but certainly um the criminalization part without knowing that we can actually meet people's needs I'll leave it there okay so we have a um substitute motion on a floor um Tony I believe procedurally we have to first take a vote to accept the substitute motion and then vote on it correct that is correct want to make sure new council members are aware of that so um the uh councilmember Watkins did you have a comment I have a question go ahead please is it okay Tony um you mentioned the emergency ordinance you'd have to make findings but I'm confused that if we're planning to have an emergency ordinance then isn't that sort of putting the cart before the horse because we then would have to retroactively like find the findings to make that happen like I feel like that usually comes as a consequence of the findings not looking for findings to justify the ordinance do you want to speak to that a little bit yeah this it's kind of complicated because the findings necessary to justify an urgent an emergency ordinance are are sort of quasi legislated uh and in and so um the council's determination that that a state of emergency exists uh is it is a policy statement that the council makes um you know the way I think about it is is there a need to take immediate action that um you know that that the so that the ordinance can take effect immediately um I think our circumstance really um you know as it just as a policy matter I don't think our circumstance neatly fits into that because we're dealing with such a long term uh chronic problem and um and the ordinance contemplates that it will be implemented um as the city roll of these additional services and resources so um sorry if I can't like answer your question more clearly but but it's certainly not like uh you know an approaching fire or imminent weather event or something in that nature I think I think that's really helpful information because essentially what I really read into a lot of this is um that we a lot of the direction is the direction we're already moving in in terms of public outreach that's going to be forthcoming as well and and frankly having been on the council now for four years and just living in this community I think you know it's a really it's been often really circular conversation because it's just so challenging and nuanced and complicated and people are complicated and people are unhoused of all types and um to the point where I feel sometimes paralyzing and I um just recognize the you know the wanting to have um you know a balance between engagement and action and I uh I think you know that it's individual right whatever that feels like for the individual person who feels like they've struck that balance um and and I think there's a real tendency and often difficulty around really moving from process to action and continuing to have that feedback loop in terms of how to as I mentioned earlier for continuous improvement and I think that also by not doing anything we really do run the risk of continuing to have nothing uh as a tool to mitigate entrenched unmanaged encampments which are significantly challenging for our community uh for those that are residing there for those that are surrounding it and have not been the most healthy way for us to to work on on on this issue in a meaningful way to help our community stay healthy as well as to help the individuals in those encampments so I don't feel comfortable with this motion uh for those reasons Do I see uh Vice Mayor Bruner did you have a comment on the uh on before we vote um this would be on the sub two votes go to accept the substitute and then uh vote on the and if that goes forward then we would vote on the substitute motion I had question on the substitute motion and um just for clarification uh public meetings on the current ordinance in today is that your intention council member coming it says provide a minimum of two public meetings for members of the public to provide feedback on the ordinance and input on what they would like to see come forward and concerns regarding this current draft version before us today okay and then um uh bring forward an updated ordinance along with an emergency ordinance for adoption can you just explain that intention sure so um mayor for me yeah Tony I just want to understand procedure here should we taking the vote to accept the substitute motion first I'm just I'm not sure if we should be dialoguing if the substitute motion might not succeed that's why I like it's not it's not required um I might suggest that you that if the council uh you know that before the council debates the substitute motion um you might want to consider on whether to accept the substitute motion and then you can debate on its merits uh or um you know uh or advocate for or against it right yeah I think surely that's the purpose of the um the vote to accept it right Tony okay before I accept it or decide to accept it I want to understand just the clarity of the intention is that okay I'm not debating anything yeah no I understand vice mayor I'm actually just looking for um some um Tony your soft phone I'm just trying to find follow procedure Tony both the motion um substitute motion is debatable so um so there can be discussion as there has been on whether or not to accept the substitute substitute motion it's not a it's not something that can't be debated I just thought that it might be a more efficient way to actually get to the heart of what action the council is going to take to me okay um so why don't we go ahead and um well vice mayor Bruder it sounds like you yeah why don't why don't you go ahead and with your your questions and then let I think I'd like I've heard from council member Cummings I've heard from council member Brown I'd like to take a vote on whether to accept the substitute motion but since uh vice mayor Bruder I I don't want to cut you off so let's go ahead and finalize that and then we can we'll vote on whether or not to accept the substitute motion and then deliberate if it succeeds so my my question was the intention of adding the direction of bringing forward an updated ordinance along with an emergency ordinance and in addition to that did you want me to provide clarity on the the public meetings so to the first point the public meetings the idea behind this would be that we we currently have a draft of an ordinance and that the staff would be directed to go out to the community hold you know a minimum of two meetings whether that's in person or online where community members could provide back on the ordinance that's before us today and I included also you know trying to have outreach with the unhoused communities to get feedback on the ordinance and provide people with more time to better understand the ordinance to review it the fourth bullet is that should those meetings occur and that there are recommendations the staff would bring back an updated ordinance with those recommendations and the emergency ordinance the reason why put that in is because if there's a circumstance under which we can people are concerned with being able to act swiftly on this an emergency ordinance could be potentially be used to make something happen more immediately that was trying to get at the concerns around council members feeling like if we delay then that's going to delay when we can implement this ordinance and so the idea would be we have an emergency ordinance that's in place and then we adopt the official ordinance which would then take a second reading and 90 days 90 days correct Tony to implementation 30 days after the second week 30 days that's the intention of those two parts of the motion great thank you for clarifying okay so we will go ahead and we have a motion for a substitute motion and made by council member Cummings seconded by council member Brown so we'll go ahead and take a roll call vote on the substitute motion we want to hear that thank you mayor council members Watkins no calentary johnson no older no nice mayor brunner no so that motion um around my script here so that motion fails with members uh calentary johnson Watkins may mires voting against and council members uh Cummings Brown and Brunner voting for so we do have a motion on the floor to accept the ordinance um as uh with with the noted annotations or noted um um that was presented by staff and if there's not any additional council um discussion i see we have got um some of these sections that we have just been edited if there's no further questions or comments by council um then we will okay uh lee do you have those all of those up so we can see them looks like you do actually um bonnie is sharing her screen and has those up i wanted to uh clarify um one thing um and um that is um so actually bonnie maybe if i could share my screen for a second um so i can find it a little more easily thank you um mayor you had and let me make this larger so you can see it better um this is the version with the changes and you had um suggested that this um language um in 040 include under two here right leaving facility shall we not be located in or adjacent there are other places down here um where you may want to consider adding that um this was what we had suggested here facilities noted in this section shall not be located um you may want to consider adding in or at this location as well for consistency and then um you suggested um someone one of the council members suggested um that this be added to uh see as well facilities in this shall not be located um and presumably the uh approaches to also say in or and i just want to so i wanted to clarify that um i also just wanted to note that um for c here um we this this um as a nonprofit so the the um potential here um for say like a church to have a couple of pallet shelters if that church is located in a residential um in a residential area that would be precluded by this addition and so i want to just put that out there for the council it's a politician um when the um when the council provide us the direction to um not have the city the city owned or operated properties or facilities um that's where we had specified not in residential or not adjacent to residential schools this one um would also it would preclude those types of facilities um run by nonprofit so um you know there could be some limitations on creativity but that is it's entirely a policy decision as to whether or not the council wants to um to do that and i don't know whether a church would be interested in hosting you know a hand of tents or pallet shelters on an interior portion of their property for example that may or may not be something that they would be interested in doing but that was one of the things that we had thought about um in and not including that here and the last thing i'll say is that um we we did say as part of prior um uh staff reports that we would come back to the council with operational policies related to uh to this section so i can leave this up i i think we need we need two things um one is uh well we really need one thing is you know do you want the in or in these other two sections which presumably so and then i just wanted to to call that um the policy implication out for uh to your attention i think um at least from my my request of the motion maker and and council member uh commentary johnson mine was focused on the d and i believe that the mr brown suggested that addition to c but i wasn't completely sure he just he mentioned that but i can see the conflict in c um so i'll i'll leave it to the motion maker um in terms of that and i believe she's taking a look at her right now yeah um can can you repeat lee could you repeat the the conflict in c i'm trying to sure it's not a conflict um you know this this you could you could implement it's fine um i just wanted to call out for the council so that they understand um you know where where this um it without uh this section without the let me highlight let me be clear without this section um a a church for example could say i want to um host i want to put up two pallet shelters on um an interior courtyard of my property um and if that church was located in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood which many churches are uh they would not be able to do that with this i see uh yeah i wouldn't want to do that then i would just point out that c also refers to managed encampments as authorized by the city manager of city council um whereas subsection d is a little bit less structured okay got it okay let's strike that then take it back out for sorry which part yeah the the um red um text under c i wouldn't want to exclude churches from doing something i thought it's 050 050 c bonnie what's highlighted on the screen right now so are we we're just not including the n or or we're including the red minus we're taking out the whole red part the whole right so we're not editing that section at all that's correct because my understanding is that um an instinct could be that church then couldn't stand this up and i wouldn't want to exclude that thank you for that lee of course yeah i mean there are there are policy considerations on either side you know the neighbors have expressed concerns about this and the council reacted and said let's uh preclude from residential and schools um and you know this i think if it were implemented would have to be done so in a careful manner so that um it isn't um creating impacts to the screaming community um but i do think that um that you know we we may get some creative responses and um every every bit can help and so you know if a church wanted to do something like that that would have act um you know having that opportunity i think is um something that we um wouldn't necessarily want to preclude so just wanted to put that out there and i and i think lee your point earlier which is that you know the city will be developing sort of prescriptions in terms around operations and some of that so you know if this situation did arise you know that activity would would actually be permitted and part of that permitting would be you know typical operational requirements et cetera et cetera correct absolutely and we would certainly have any um we would have in any uh authorizations that we issue revocation uh provisions so that if there are any acts that aren't being addressed that we would have the ability to revoke that permit okay thank you and again we would be coming back to the council with some of those um operational considerations so that the council can say yes no these are the kind of things um you know have to have access to sanitation facilities um how are you dealing with complaints and um who do people call those kinds of things okay thank you okay um so we still have the original motion on the floor we've clarified the um uh adjustments to the language uh council member coming do you have uh questions or comments i'd just like to make um final comments and i just want to again express my appreciation for the work that's gone into this um i'm not going to be supporting the motion on the floor um i think that at the last the last time this was heard there's a large contingency of people from the community who came out and given that there's still time before any of this would be implemented i feel like um there's also opportunities to you know take what we have before us and have more community engagement um that is what was clearly expressed the last time we had something come before us was that the community felt like um we were trying to do this quickly and we weren't trying to get as much input and they really were expressing wanting to be included in the process and um and the people who you know came to this meeting weren't just the homeless activists it's many members of the community who um want to see something like this happen and i think we all really want to see how we can strike the balance and so um well i'm you know encouraged to see how this is going to turn out i'm very supportive of safe sleeping sites i'm very supportive of the storage programs we've been able to make them work in the community i think that um we can make them work again uh but i do believe that you know we're creating laws that are going to impact people's lives that we really especially when it comes to probably one of the most controversial topics in our community that we really need to do our best to have as much as possible and then i'll just end by saying you know there was a comment and um i'm not prepared to make any suggestions but i do know that there was a member of the public who made a comment around um qualified disabilities and people needing to to provide doctor's notes and that uh pretty problematic because i think the way that it's stated currently um you know many homeless people don't have access to doctors and so you know for them to obtain a doctor's note and money to pay for a doctor you know could be um you know prohibitive and and they might not be able to do it so um that's just one thing i'd like to point out that um is probably a very big concern that hopefully be addressed before this is voted on and i'll just leave my comments there and thank you all again for your time and for um taking my comments in the community's comments and all of our work into consideration thank you council member um i have vice mayor bruner next thank you um i had some comments and uh we were surprised with the substitute motion so now i have um comments and a friendly amendment i'd like to propose uh at this point so um i think it's uh you know all of this discussion has been really uh valuable in um all of us getting around this and i know this discussion has been going on since the 2017 uh homeless uh report and the cash work i mean so much work and public input has gone into that however with that substitute motion that was there was a piece that i think is very valuable um i think the added time for public input was good and i'm wondering if the maker of the motion would be willing to uh make a have a friendly amendment um for that added public input even though we feel that um we've received so much input already this is a new draft proposal and while we expect to have it on a thursday and ready by a Tuesday the public doesn't always have that option or the opportunity and i know um the process for two readings but i'm wondering if i just that added public input is valuable um the second friendly amendment would be to address the invisible disability that was brought up um and so i'd like to you know give staff direction to address that doctor's note um piece i think is very important we have invisible disabilities um i would just hate for that to be uh not addressed i think that's vital this ordinance has many great components the safe sleeping sites the daytime storage collaboration and access to county health services human services housing services um there was a caller who called in about the four million uh dollars the city has spent and where has that gone and i just want to applaud so much of i know the efforts are are almost invisible um you know the four million i know uh has gone into a lot of prevention and programs security deposit uh comes rent payments um uh and housing matters support to encompass community services um there's so much that the city is addressing and continuing to support and i want to just acknowledge all of that and all of those components are are are still happening this ordinance is not to solve the whole thing that all the needs that are needed you know there were a lot of callers tonight that kept emphasizing 150 safe sleeping sites is not enough and no it's not nobody is saying it is but it's something and um uh it's a minimum we hope to have more we hope to keep that in context of the county also working on shelter sites um doesn't necessarily have to be within the city um all of us working together to address the pieces of that are needed you know it's not one solution we have many solutions needed in this big structural uh issue that is in our community and we have a lot of affordable housing since november i think of 2020 we've approved and uh the construction of so much affordable housing uh which includes transitional housing permanent supportive housing low income housing we need to happen again that that speaks to the prevention component so all of those pieces are happening so uh i just hope that message is heard and understood um by the community when those feel that this is not enough um it isn't enough and um it's a piece of all the other pieces and um so those are my comments and then i'll bring it back to the the friendly amendment and ask the maker of the motion we have a friendly amendment um i believe vice mayor it was to uh address the um invisible disability piece yes and that is public time public input time i'll ask the make the motion mayor sorry i can just confirm uh vice mayor are you can you specify the wording on the disability are you wanting them to look into the requirement for a doctor's note for yet uh the the part i don't have the number in front of me if if someone could bring that up um but where that would fall under if we can get language there it is sure that any invisible disabilities uh rod let me pull it up in front of me there it is so are you wanting to edit the ordinance or are you wanting them to to bring back information on it i am uh hold on give me one second to look at this so i can direct you i'm wanting to edit that physician's verification uh to the ordinance because it's speaking to the um disability that's not apparent to city staff so specifically what are we changing that to delete the fact that they may ask so um i think you probably want to take a look at qualifying disability uh definition phrase in o2o it means a physical or mental disability that prevents a person from being able to on a daily basis deconstruct and put away uh an encampment but the uh the wording in there that to provide uh patient verification it's actually section d it's 3d i think it's the language um vice mayor um at the very end of that sentence it says a person who claims to have a qualifying disability that is not reasonably apparent to city staff may ask maybe ask to present a physician verification of a qualifying disability um is that the language is yes does that need to be in there i don't i i guess my question will be i don't know how uh i just don't know how police would or i just don't know how anybody making contact would be able to maybe maybe choni you can speak to that early um i would say that um this my thoughts on it are that this i think um or this statement was arguably more um uh carried more weight with the prior version of the ordinance and that's because earlier versions of the ordinance recall had um allowances for individuals who could not unpack uh or pack their belongings um to remain in place for 72 hours um and the attorneys have worked in and we've had some conversations back and forth and and i think um we've we've tried to um knew a lot um to address this issue of individuals with qualified disabilities in terms of um now providing reasonable assistance and so that's really what this is related to now is if there's an individual who um has a qualifying disability and they're not able to pack up um that reasonable assistance would be provided to them um that's a very different um scenario than um and uh being able to remain in place for i think it was four days uh that they could stay in place so the implications of taking this out are um less um now than they were before um there still could be um abuse of this sure um but um you know i i don't think that of its removal um are as um as much as they would have been in prior versions of the ordinance i don't know what Tony you want to i would tend to agree i don't think it would i don't think it would um substantially uh affect how the ordinance is implemented if we were to delete that sentence as suggested by uh vice mayor bruner now the challenge would be you know is there a safe sleeping location where someone um says you know i'm unable to um pack up my tent and so i need assistance doing it on a regular basis and um you know that that's that's the flip side is you know someone could then abuse that scenario frankly and um so there's pro and con to it yeah i i just don't i i would like to see that the physician patient not be a requirement and that someone would not be in violation of this ordinance um because they don't have that there is their discretion in the way that that's written in that the word may is is it operative there yes it was intentionally written that way so that um you know a person in the field could make a common sense determination about whether or not a person had appeared to um or exhibited the qualities of um having a disability that i just add a disability that would render the person unable to um relocate their belongings such that they would need assistance from uh city staff to to do so i guess i would ask the maker of the motion if you're i'd believe it's a proposal that that be struck given i think what i heard from staff if i am not following or tracking exactly what is being said is that if that were struck then it doesn't substantively change that component of the ordinance because it's already sort of covered under the other language find it which talks about reasonable assistance available is that accurate um somewhat um the um the issue here would be that um you know if if someone is um capable of doing that but is not going to do so then um under the ordinance they if this section were not there and you know they they could say i need assistance every day which you know can can result in you know staff time in assisting that um individual so um you know that's where i think as attorney kandadi was saying um you know if this provides some discretion for the city so if you know someone seen you know if someone's biking and running around at one point and then you know an hour later they say hey i can't pack up you know absent this i think we would be um we would be mandated to assist them in um packing up their belongings again that's a visible example that you brought up yeah yeah true um and they may or may not have a verification verification um it's still in the ordinance here for assistance and there may be someone who will need daily assistance um but the fact the the physician's verification should be irrelevant make her the motion um i know i'm just trying to um i don't know if the second or one said uh i mean i'm i'm comfortable because i feel like to a certain extent we could take that out and then see how it goes and if there is a feeling not working as written then we could bring back a potential for um an amendment but i'm also concerned that if we do it based on uh individuals words or uh kind of misuse potentially then are we not necessarily going to have an effective approach so i mean i welcome uh the seconder if they have any you know any comments around yeah thank you go ahead thank you i i hear um your concerns vice mayor brunner it seems like the word may as um tony mentioned it gives the discretion um so i don't know it just it seems like the word may there gives us a discretion to not require a verification um i am also concerned of of this being misused if it's taken out um so that's my that's my concern there and then and then um i did have a comment about the engagement but we'll wait till this piece is community engagement so wait till this piece is resolved so the may word um let's let's say they don't have or let so then what happens they're in violation correct they wouldn't be in violation um required to to pack up their belongings themselves and they would have the opportunity to go to uh you know if they needed a physician's verification they could go to for example um the hphp offices at housing matters and get a physician's verification there if they needed that can can i add to that you know typically staff will work really hard with individuals to provide them to refer them to assistance uh through the outreach workers we have the outreach workers obviously as you're familiar with um and they'll connect them to services and you know the spirit of the ordinance is to give everyone the every opportunity to uh access services including medical services which are available at housing matters uh for example at the there um and so those referrals will happen i think the concern here really is that uh it's somebody this is it would be an extreme example of somebody uh that was really trying to abuse this potential uh and that that would really be the concerns and that that would be an extreme situation i think for the most part staff doesn't run to enforcement uh uh until it's it's an extreme situation where somebody really is is trying to and i think it'd be helpful to have a tool to be able to address those extreme situations when they come up and if they don't we can always report back and if it becomes an issue i suppose but i think that's the concern that uh there'll be abuse uh and it'll be a loophole that people take advantage of so if they staff has the option to ask for a physician's verification as it's currently written and if they don't have that staff can want to assist is that what's being implied well good so so if um we would we would generally be assisting and if there is a instance where we have reason to believe that um you know a staff member has reason to believe person is capable they could say hey um you know can you get verification for this and again it goes back to the invisible disability like for staff to determine something like that um and they may not have a physician's verification but they won't as i think is the greater concern than the possibility of uh abusing that uh i wonder if i could offer a suggestion mayor yep vice mayor i wonder if i could say that um if they may be asked to present a physician's verification at disability um and be open to receiving assistance uh in regards to movement and that it kind of covers that that they'll still be open to receiving the receiving the assistance but um not necessarily not being able to provide the verification just a little bit yeah i just don't want the lack of verification physicians verification to be an uh an obstacle to receiving assistance um i don't think that or we could just explicitly state state that that the lack of um positions verification cannot be uh an obstacle to receiving assistance or something like that essentially how would that subjectively change the ordinance because i think you're looking for a safeguard in that regard and i don't know if that could how would that know what that would look like i think that would uh if it's not enough if that's not well i think it would essentially amount to the deletion of that um section um you just as an option they they could um you could have the staff um track and report on how many times we actually request that with my other thought that if we or try to see how worksmen have verification or i you know an assessment um when it occurs and then review those cases potentially is needed or something like that to ensure that it's not um you know an unintended consequence for uh this population potentially that could maybe i don't know because somewhat of a tool that we could use but i'm open to other suggestions i'm just trying to see how we can kind of get get get kind of agreement on what i think is the intention around yeah but can you say that one more time so i understand what you're suggesting that essentially we would given that we're going to have sort of uh data collected and sort of a review of how this is working so that we can make changes that we would ask uh our staff to identify these situations when they act when they may uh have to ask the individual to present a physician's verification of a qualifying disability in those circumstances and then review those to see if it's an impediment in relation and or if um you know if it if it works and then just change the language essentially as needed and adapt and kind of refine right that's kind of the hope i think with a lot of this is that we constantly learn and refine um but not completely change it substantively we get back from police or others um reach workers service providers collect that data and then refine as needed needed versus taking making the revision tonight to suggest a revision tonight vice mayor uh yeah i i i agree with um the revisions you know and refining that we will uh but it brings me back to simply deleting that last sentence and tracking to refine and revision in the future um is is the simpler way without changing it substantively which way does the motion maker which way would you like to delete the sentence and then assess um via data that there is potentially um folks not you know potentially kind of evaluating how that's working in the field or do you want to keep it in and evaluate on the back side i mean i i think maybe since i see a lot number of my colleagues with their hands up i'd like to hear what some other people might have to add you know um but i'm open to that um i make a suggestion i mean obviously there's a there's a there are competing concerns here one is uh vice mayor bruner's very legitimate concern that people um such as the the person who is receiving chemotherapy or has a heart condition or something of that nature that is truly a qualifying disability but it's not readily observable um will not be burdened unreasonably by this requirement on the other hand um i think it is fair to say that a significant number of people that the staff encounters on a daily basis um in large encampments um are not in every instance credible when someone might assert that they have a disability and so really the intent here is to give staff reasonable tools to deal with the person as we suggested who's riding a bicycle or shooting baskets or doing something of that nature that they can't for the pretend and so i have some alternative language that i could share them that is my attempt to address that i will call on other i i have a suggestion for vice mayor bruner um position maybe directly not identifying position but maybe there's also another category of a clinical advocate or a case manager so um someone under the care uh huh that could be an option i know um you know working with the the actors and the mental health leads on that uh oftentimes there are certain individuals they are familiar with their cases so maybe there's with with their situations with their needs um and have been working with those individuals um and may know their story and and their struggle their qualifying disability um so maybe extending those types of categorizations of folks that may be able to provide some verification if it is an invisible disability maybe just by extending some of those other service providers that may have knowledge of the person with that yes it's in the right direction however in the moment when you have to what if no one's there to verify that or you know that you wouldn't receive assistance it's a burden on the individual and already we have to look at the burden okay i'll go ahead and bring it out for other council members um so right now i think we're trying to remedy this language in this particular language i think there's also a motion or a substitute or excuse me a friendly amendment to add um some public hearings um i'll call on council member brown and then council member calentary johnson council member brown are you planning to address this particular change in the ordinance that we're working on no no i'm not i raised my hand quite a while ago just to make one comment i can wait until we're you're done with this thank you uh council member calentary johnson did you have a comment on this particular item or on the public hearing uh i had a comment about public hearings but it seems like this specific item isn't resolved so i can i can wait okay and i will i will just comment that um adding um clinical advocate or case managers um i think i really get maybe get to what vice mayor brunner is um is is trying to move us towards and and then the other suggestion that council member wattkins brought up um that we come back and look at how this is being implemented if um i like that suggestion and would recommend staff to direct staff to add that as one of the indicators um that we would be tracking because we had a list of indicators so not an indicator but one of the specific types that we'd be tracking yeah i'll go to council member golder do have a language on this particular one well i just um i think that everyone's good intentions here um i just want to buddy and then people have brought it up already but i think when someone's being contacted to clean up and they're saying i have a disability i would hope that whoever was helping them would help them that first time and direct them to the hphp where they can have walk-in positions um to adopt to the point where they have access to medical care and and so or with contacting them to clean up would take into consideration if they didn't know the person that where they can get a physician's verification and with that some assistance for whatever their disability whether visible or invisible is and so it's kind of what the was wanting us to just look up to put this in and re-evaluate are people taking advantage of the if it is a loophole that people around or whatever like i i don't count the number coming did you want to speak to this item i just had um because a couple things came up um and i do think that um you know case managers and other people providing you know it's probably sounds like a good compromise i would i do want to ask and i don't know if susie is available or somebody who's that are you know um but if or if anybody on staff can answer this question but i think this is an assumption that we have which is that you know people who are experiencing homelessness can kind of just walk in to hphp and get an appointment and get a doctor's note and walk out the door and my it's not that easy to get a doctor's note especially when you're experiencing homelessness and so i really it would be great to hear from staff you know um what the reality is around getting those notes and then also i think there's also an assumption that everyone experiencing homelessness has a case manager and many people haven't been connected to services and i think it's you know really critical if you know somebody um you know has a disability and counters camping in unsanctioned areas um you know what's the opportunity for us and the potential for us to connect them to case managers because ultimately that's what we want to do and i we want to get people back to services and so i i guess that's just a concern i have is that um that we're working on a couple assumptions here and i'd like to get like we can get a reality check around you know how people can see doctors and how we can connect people to case management and case workers i do count remember i just i just took a tour there less than a year ago and i was i was there's a walk-in clinic and that you could get same-day services if you need and then you could make appointments that's what i was told so yes uh i see suzio here has come on yeah i thank you mayor um just um confirming that director butler would like me to weigh in i'm happy to do that if so go for it thank you okay thank you councilmember for um the prompt and i just want to um express just some empathy around how challenging the subject is um generally speaking hphp does have walk-in hours monday through friday i'm getting a qualifying disability physicians assessment is not going to be a drop-in situation however everybody who walks in does have access to clinical support and so what i would say about the invisible disability or if there is an interaction with law enforcement or an outreach worker on whether somebody has a qualifying disability it seems as if what council is trying to do is say at you know under no circumstances could should first contact under the subsection be um you know lead to enforcement and i think you know staff should have some potential to evaluate whether um their conversation is happening um with transparency and honesty and i think multiple interactions will allow for that i do think um with a first interaction under the subsection it would be really hard to um assess how best to move forward and i so i do think that um having that caveat might be helpful and and alleviate some of this challenge and then secondarily i think um as vice mayor bruner mentioned you know while not everybody has a case manager necessarily most folks that are you know have disability are on SSI do have um clinical support at the homeless person's health project or at the clinic at Emeline so um i think in large it's going to be a very small fraction of folks that might fall into this loop pool and i i do think the the intention is to have repeated contacts and making sure that um we're not you know disrupting um and or further challenging somebody who just simply cannot meet the expectations of this particular subsection okay so i see language up um the language on the left side is that from me or um it looks like we're trying to get to this uh qualifying disability that um staff reasonably believe based on objective factors that shall be documented may be asked to present physicians and then we could add clinical um we could add that language um trying to um provided that language and i'm realizing it's an incomplete thought so um i was wondering where that came from but i will try to put something back okay um susie i think your suggestion about no first contact interaction shall result in enforcement of this subsection might be the key to what count vice mayor bruner is trying to achieve so maybe that language um tony is that correct vice mayor bruner does that sort of address your your concern simpler to delete that that sentence a person who claims to have a qualifying disability that is not reasonably apparent to city staff maybe asked to present a physician verification of the qualifying disability like it doesn't serve a purpose enough to have it in there uh the maker of the motion are you are you i think we're stuck so someone's got to move somewhere um and i think we could debate these probably this language for a while but i think there's also that assessment on the back side that could be done if this this does arise based on all the context that this language that maybe needs to be brought back in but i'm trying to we've been taught for almost an hour now so i think we need to someone's gotta someone's gotta someone's gotta accept something um so if the maker of the motion might be willing to uh potentially uh agree to remove that with um and then uh hopefully on the with the data collected in the field we could find out if that needs to be um we put back in at some point i think that might the fastest thing to do at this point i turned the language up here but i would tend to agree with the comment that the mayor just made okay i'm i'm fine with that i i mean and i hear the concerns and considerations around around it so obviously we'll want to look at it and track it but if that is the you know the consensus of where we're at this point then i'm fine with removing that language whoever's screen is up is we're seeing your house um if the secretary also is is the second or amenable to that yeah that's fine as long as we track it because it does seem like there was a purpose to it so let's just make sure we track that okay okay so we will strike that sentence i think moving before we move into the public hearing piece which was a suggestion around process uh if the maker of the motion might be amenable i'd like to revisit um the send that we just discussed earlier which was six point three six point oh five oh um it see it is item c which we had struck all of the language um regarding um the statement of um categorizing the facilities and where and whether or not they could be a just adjacent to residential neighborhoods or schools so this is um the language in this section is at events or in a manner that is authorized by the city council or city manager such as managing campments and or managed safe sleeping zones for overnight tent encampments which may be managed by the city the county or an approved nonprofit these may be authorized on any public or private property in any zoning district and in areas that would otherwise prohibit such uses we had a suggestion that facilities noted in the subsection shall not be located adjacent to residential neighborhoods or schools if there was one comment that was very clear in all of the dialogue we had um a couple of meetings ago um it was the frankly that the concern that um that residential neighborhoods or schools could potentially be impacted by these facilities i'm wondering if they make her the motion um i'm wondering if a way to go about this would be to add back in that language where we say facilities noted in this subsection with the exception of neighborhood churches or churches shall be located adjacent because i think what we were really working on was trying to make sure that if a church in a residential area was going to potentially be a site for this we would be able to accommodate that but i think um deleting it all together i think we we get um people that who are also weighing in on the side of saying we support facilities we just don't want to see them adjacent to our neighborhoods or adjacent to our schools whether that's right or wrong or you agree with that or not i'm just trying to figure out a way to acknowledge that churches may play that role but i would like to um ask the maker of the motion to see if we could put that language back in which would be just so they'll change the facilities noted in this subsection with the exception of churches shall not be located adjacent to the residential neighborhoods or schools i'm comfortable with that okay and a seconder uh yeah yes and i just i have a question um i know some communities have had schools who put up shelters uh either in cases of emergency or um yeah in cases of emergency so would this with adding that include us to have schools step in in cases of emergency otherwise i am okay with it i would say as as written it would i'll share my screen because sometimes it's easier to actually read so i've gone back to this section uh c and um facilities noted in the subsection with the exception of churches uh and actually we should say uh religious assembly uses may not be a church what if um what if we had um school sponsored programs like if a school wanted to do something facilities noted in the section with exception of religious assembly uses or school sponsored programs would would that work i yeah so are you for a school maybe that um potentially had one or two safe sleeping you know maybe a few things for a student if there was if we were found that that was needed or a student was i'm fine with that yeah and i'm just i'm thinking of um you know recently cabrera college put up trailers for the pay transition aid youth program um as a shelter in place site um so that's a college but i think i think there are those instances though we don't want to um we don't want to use language that would exclude school programs that want to do something like this okay i'm fine yeah so the maker of the motion is okay with that language seconder is is okay with that language yeah okay um vice mayor breuner had one other um requested change to the motion or a friendly amendment and that was to include two additional public hearings so i'd like to um uh provide an opportunity for the motion maker to respond to that request and i wanted to see and get clear up in regards to some of the outreach strategies that i think i heard or kind of were identified but i don't have off hand specifically so a few things that we're playing on doing um coming up in the near future um one um we will be um engaging some of the um technical experts in the field people who have experience um either operating or residing in these types of facilities to um help us better gauge the um responses that we're getting to the rfq and potentially even you know to to put an end amount to the rfq um if um there are things that warrant um revisions to that um and then we'd be doing site specific neighborhood outreach so any time we're um contemplating one of these locations out to people in the immediate vicinity to um engage with them understand their concerns see how we can adapt the the uh proposed facility to address those concerns um and then we've got a webinar coming up um next week that is a broader webinar about the the services that uh the city provides and then we'll be doing the um uh risk specific um uh webinar for those who are looking at um providing the services that we're requesting in the rfq so that's that's uh the the current slate that we have planned in the next um few weeks thank you i guess if i could get clarification of what um what the two additional public outreach efforts look like beyond what was identified by staff already so just so i'm clear i'm what that translates to i think for uh my intention and um and how i see it is we i have received uh comments that it's it's difficult to have time to really go through this type of um ordinance on from a thursday to a tuesday um and have uh for the public to feel that they are part of giving the input and not everybody has opportunity to do it within that time not everybody has opportunity to be on this call um so just giving extra time um for that input so that our constituents can feel that they've had a chance to weigh in and i understand email uh we sure get a lot of emails and that is another option but really um you know with everything forward and there is no immediate next week time frame and uh that we need to adhere to i think it would be a very appreciated um thing to do to allow that extra time and you know two public hearings one public hearing even that would be i think um really important if i may jump in as a secondary of the motion um vice mayor brunner is this um are you suggesting in addition to the webinar that is taking place next week something that looks different than that i think so okay um and the other comment i wanted to make is that um i've also seen a number of emails that have indicated that there has been public outreach and engagement um and there has been opportunities to voice um input on what this ordinance should and shouldn't look like so i've also received a number of those emails um so i would just say i mean to me it seems like what staff has laid out in terms of engagement through the rsq process through the webinar through direct outreach to service providers um feels like we cover our basis but but i hear what you're saying and i hear what um councilmember Cummings has brought up as well um i think as long as it doesn't um keep us from moving forward with the programming that we have in motion with the faith sleeping with the storage with the transitional shelter um i just don't want those programming pieces to be delayed so as long as we can um if staff has the capacity to to do public hearings while we're moving forward with programming i would be okay with that i'm gonna programming yeah i'm gonna go ahead may or mayors i'm going to call on bonnie go ahead bonnie do you need to tell us something um no i'll need i'll i'm hoping to be able to go section by section on what i've captured so far okay before we vote okay um i have i i have councilmember brown i'm not sure if you and then i have councilmember Cummings i i'll just make a comment um i'm not supportive of additional public hearings because um the main you know i'm hoping we will we'll obviously go through a second reading in two weeks um and then we're trying to operationalize this um i i i don't agree that um this is going to go on forever i think fairly likely we'll be in the yellow tier very soon um i've heard really really loud and clear and i've talked to literally talked to hundreds of people many of them in person um our community is really ready for this and um to continue keep saying we need to do more public discussion or have more public hearings um i just i think we're just sort of starting to lose traction on really frankly the severity of the conditions that people who find themselves in these encampments are experiencing and this ordinance provides us a way to provide services and it provides us a way to make contact with folks and i've seen our police officer officers and other fields um provide very good care and thoughtful care for people who are trying to um you know even if we're trying to move them along um or move them to another location or get them into a hotel um i think it's i just feel like having another public hearing is kicking the can down the road we have a severe and acute issue with encampments they are not good places for people to be there um there there's a lot of things that go on in them that we need to acknowledge um and um this provides a huge amount of service level that is tied to having an ordinance in place um putting the programs up without an ordinance in place really make any sense um because it's not going to address the acute issue of encampments and that again if we go back to our goal at least for this one part of our homelessness management um that is one of the established goals or stated goals of the ordinance so that's just my opinion is that um you know we've had at least five will have six hearings yes they're formal regarding the ordinance language but each time we've made changes um and i just i just think i think we need to decide whether to adopt the ordinance and move on and get into a programmatic mode on this rather than continue to have more hearings that's just my thought um i'll uh acknowledge uh council member ready then council member coming and then council member colder i am uh so uh just uh mayor if i may in response to your the comment you just made i you know i i hear you and i i understand um the urgency um and i just i just want to point out that um i i too understand the emergency and i also believe that the way to address that is with the programmatic stuff and i don't think we need a camping ban to give us as a political will to um to you know develop these this kind of programming unfortunately that's what's happened here we are um the comment that i was going to make though was um why i had my hand up was uh related to churches and i just wanted to say i was surprised to hear that staff is not aware of churches who um would be interested in this um because they as far as i can tell have been begging us for years to have more of a role and so you know i would really encourage you to get in touch with them if you haven't because i think that you will find um there is an interest there and it's in some cases the resource question but they do have lots of volunteers as well so uh it's a resource question that you know a more cost effective answer um so that's all i got thanks council member council member coming hey man i just also wanted to comment that you know we as we mentioned before i know that we've had a number of these meetings but you know we started back in february and i know even um we the council kind of rushed to put something on the books and as a result of that many people in the community weren't felt like they weren't aware of what was happening and when they became aware we're pretty upset with uh the direction we were going in and as a result we're back here today and although i do understand that there's an urgency to the establishment of encampments um but one of the things that's been pointed out and this is you know for the community to take into consideration is the fact that you know there is still time um you know the rfq hasn't been issued yet and hasn't been finalized and so between the final between the time when we finalize that and we get the uh proposals back until decision is made and then a rollout is actually established that's likely going to be another month and a half to two months and so you know we can there is time it's you know it's may 11th um we could have um outreach occur between now and the first meeting in june uh we could have the first reading of the first meeting in june and the second reading at the second meeting in june and that would still provide us with time to roll everything out especially because we don't have an identified provider yet and we haven't identified you know costs or or any of these other um things that are really important and critical for us to get these services up and running and so um i do understand the urgency but i think that you know one of the things that i'm hoping that comes out of trying to have more of these conversations is that we can rebuild trust with many members of the community who don't feel like they can trust us right now i mean and that's because we receive what close to 1500 um emails regarding the tolo and people not wanting to have the tolo move forward at the not the last meeting with the one before and so you know i just keep recommending that we have this opportunity to have further engagement with the community because that's what the community is asking us for and it would go a long way to cut to rebuild trust and let them know that we are trying to hear them out and so i've been i mean i've been advocating for this for months now and and i'm going to continue to advocate and support the the vice mayor's recommendation so um i'm hoping we can you know move forward and figure out a good path to make sure that we're having inclusive um and transparent conversations with the community around this topic um i will go ahead i i i think i'll respond if that's okay um again i just wanting to make clear uh there has been extensive outreach there's been extensive opportunity for people to engage in this um we've had extensive planning processes um we um we're writing a law which by nature is a public process foods um public comment it provides us the time um to be able to make changes we're doing those again tonight um and i don't think that you know because we have an rf2 that's going to go out in a week and then maybe it's um again we we have to set the policy without the policy doing all of those things you know um while it would be good to do all of those things we also have to bring the policy in alignment with some of the goals that our community as a whole is expressing and our community as a whole is expressing that they would like us to have a managed approach to homelessness and this policy is providing a managed approach to homelessness it's not penalizing homelessness it is providing a managed approach to homelessness um and so that's kind of where i'm coming from in that it it it does provide the policy that then builds the programmatic pieces that put the policy on the ground um if we continue to just sort of talk about you know you know sort of the the need for more people um you know we're just kicking the policy down the down the down the road um and i i guess i i just end by really stating what i stated at the beginning tonight was is that um i mean i attended a statewide conference last week on homeless encampments that was specific to looking at actual the environmental damages associated um and this with you know a lot of practitioners that work on water quality and environmental protection and things like that um everyone in the in that conference was very compassionate about the this tragedy that's happening in california um but everyone was also acknowledging that this is unsustainable it's unsustainable for our environment it's unsustainable for the people in the in these encampments um it is a state responsibility it is a national responsibility and i think with the governor's announcement today that he specifically is offering local government 50 million dollars to address encampments that is a signal that our management policy that we're crafting right now is an alignment to what the opportunities will be to bring resources to the folks who are in these encampments um and that need to get into services and need to frankly get into housing talking about it for another month or two is not going to help in fact if we have this on the books when we go to look to write this grant hopefully in the next couple weeks we can say yes we have an ordinance on the books we have our management policy on the books it's not perfect we're going to keep collecting data we're going to keep engaging with our community um we're going to get regular updates from our staff but i can guarantee you we're going to be a lot more competitive for that 50 million dollars than if we don't have this policy on the books so that's that's my pitch tonight i get to do that so that's my pitch tonight let's not just keep keep kicking this down the down the road i just i it we need to get ready we need to get ready for this money we need to take it seriously we need to be ready as a community i'm tired of talking and not doing anything we've got to get assistance for the people who need it here in this community i'm done talking about it okay council member boulder you've you pretty much summed up everything i was going to say but i just i just any grant opportunities that could be forthcoming um and so i i don't i don't want to delay for that i i see that urgency uh what do we got here we have uh council member wackens the mayor i i i agree i just i appreciate your comments and i my colleagues and i i think we all share a real commitment to wanting to see movement here and wanting to see is improved and our community healthier and frankly we want to see us being poised to receive the resources we need and that requires us to be bold and take action and to be uh educated action and do that for refinement and i think mayor you pointed you you spoke to this point so we don't have to talk about it anymore we don't and i i just want to say as the friendly amendment uh maker suggestor um i i was really referring specifically to this draft uh you know i don't disagree with um the points of moving this forward it's um you know the courtesy of this draft and in giving people the opportunity to sit with this draft and to go through it and to understand it and to to give perspective that we may not see because we only have our perspectives as seven people and so the community as a whole as a much wider perspective that is valuable as we've seen all of their input thus far in all the previous drafts have helped form this current version it's pretty amazing the process we've gotten to at this point with this so that was all uh i was um really just you know if it was until next council meeting just having that draft out there um and having people have that opportunity to have it more equitable so i wonder if between this first reading and the second reading you know our um our communication person can help with getting it out there and that we encourage their input and feedback on this draft after people we make a final decision before the second reading would be sufficient to what i think the intention we all share is we could do that that would be great thank you okay great so with that maybe you can kind of reach a compromise in that direction thank you thank you great so it sounds like that friendly amendment um will hopefully be honored with you know some really focused communication and outreach um so i think i'd like to go ahead and finalize and get get our vote on your way tonight um councilmember Cummings do you have another question i just wanted to see if we could get a clarification on what the motion is before since it sounds like the friendly amendment might have changed and so i just want to make sure that we um that the motion is clear that's before us yeah just going to ask bonnie to bring that up so we can see it before we vote um okay bonnie you want to put that up um and uh ask the maker to make sure we've captured everything on these language changes okay is it up or no my zoom is see it yeah um it's not in red anymore it looks like you're mostly noting it in underline right bonnie that's right okay so the motion would be to um basically just grab my sheets here um so this would be a motion to consider introduction introducing for publication and ordinance amending chapter 6.36 of the Santa Cruz municipal code relating to Kansas camping services and standards with the following um uh the following um revisions as noted in these sections bonnie do you feel like i need to read these off i would like to just have for a clarification on one sure go ahead tony uh 040d my recollection was that the council um uh that the friendly amendment was to strike the last sentence of this this is some alternative language that we were that i was touring with but the about the friendly amendment was strike it yeah you're you're correct although with a eight person bonnie goes all the way to that that entire section gets struck right okay thank you the amendments um are going to include um uh 6.3 6.040 a to the addition of the words located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods or schools i do have a question about that sorry what was that i do have a question about that the edit you've made here down below um is that that does not touch it it's it's not part of this it's not part of all the adjacent section right i think bonnie if um i think you need to add the n or to the um o or o c below keep keep going down where keep going down yeah i'm still 050 sorry 050 yeah so uh shall not be located in or adjacent to so the other part so do i need to add with the exception of churches or not bonnie's question oh sorry you do not need to add that there that is related to uh city um owned or operated city owned or operated properties or facilities and we're not operating right religious symbol uses so we should be okay thank you for checking yeah thank you on that bonnie can you scroll back down to 050 with some language about school yeah i think we put in with the exception of churches and religious assembly yeah instead of churches oh wait when i can i how should i put that uh with the with the exception of religious assembly uses and sponsored sponsored programs programs school stuff yeah thank you yeah and churches goes away bonnie there we go and that would be the same down below in the yellow yeah we actually do not need that exception in that section this this o d is also referring to um city owned or proper city right operated properties so that would just say facilities in this section they'll not be located in or adjacent right exactly thankfully for catching that yep um we can get rid of the safe sleeping there right yep so yep here we go okay then with that um my other question was about this one i didn't know if we had left that one i think that was tony kandadi's language that was not but i think it's the birthless uh now that don't feel a strict in that language so back to me yeah yes bonnie can you scroll back down to 050d again i'm not i'm not seeing that okay no one question the did the bullet point on the provider minimum of two public meetings remember you're right yeah councilmember heard of that the bullet above the bullet there middle of the page um go back up to where you were right there oh yeah that was my that was my question if that was a thing only if that was a friendly and then offered that i think was we talked about having our communication specialist right the person to get input from the community between this first reading and the second reading thank you marquise okay i think we may be there um 050d does include um private property if you know that so the the second line city on parking lot closed portion of right away on private property um so i i sorry i missed that i think that we should include that um oh the fee the same fee sentence above yep okay the uh exception for um religious assembly uses school sponsored sorry about that as he caught that thanks to her just post just put that out at the end of that sentence like that sentence yeah any other things lee that you've seen or we look like we're there martin does this look right to you thank you okay okay do a roll call vote then member watkins Helen tarry johnson hi for the record state that i'm supportive of the safe sleeping storage programs many of the amendments but um many members of the public have not felt that there's been clear and transparent process to provide feedback and engagement and that's why i'm registering my no vote i'm brown yeah sorry for interjecting but the council did also discuss deleting subsection j which was um subsection j of section o 8 o right i have that it was on there i don't i don't think we've made it that far down but all right sorry i had a note that that yeah that that had been agreed i was that burner um motion passes from this that motion passes uh with um yes votes and two no votes and so that will conclude our um meeting this evening um just want to thank everyone and the public for being here tonight and um our meeting is adjourned thank you everyone night thank you thank you tonight goodbye