of this in a way to make it like motion me um from what I hear you're saying we're not removing 6.3604 b5 modify 6.06 this in the red line it is in the red line yes the motion we work from the red line I had a um an alternative suggestion that when I said I think I drafted the initial edit to um subsection b5 but I think it might make more sense to instead of modifying that to add a sub paragraph to 0408 make it um 0408 number 12 to uh to specify that camping is prohibited um in the on on public property in the in the residential zoning districts of r1 rl rm rh and rs b5 intact as is accomplishes the same thing and it's a little bit less convoluted probably a bit more clear because it's expressly called as it's prohibited can you go ahead and repeat that yes um a new b uh a new a 12 to 040 that states property in the residential zoning districts of r1 rl rm rh and rs and renumber existing uh paragraph sub paragraph 12 has 13 seeing paragraph 12 that in the draft now as well in the red line coming to your hand is just sort of uh for councilmember Cummings and then I saw councilmember calentary johnson councilmember golder before um if we could mayor uh one of the aspects was to have as part of the direction to work with the county to also identify what shelter capacity is available um so really trying to think about it holistically that way too technically you brought you brought that up as a missing kind of language but just didn't want to lose the sentiment behind it that's the councilmember who brought this forward I totally support the intent and purpose of why this ordinance is coming forward especially as it relates to environmental protection um but I do have some really strong concerns with how this has come forward and um kind of where we're at right now um a couple of examples I'll give one in particular I mean we had 140 people I think on the call we've received hundreds of emails and I think that for some of the people in the community what they've expressed to me is that they were a little bit blindsided by this coming forward last year um our police chief had mentioned that he had you know a number of quality of life ordinances that we're going to be coming forward this was one of them and part of the reason why that was put on hold was because there was a need to do more community outreach and really get input from the community before bringing those quality of life ordinances forward and um and a lot of people what I've been you know what what I've been hearing from people is that um you know there wasn't the sense that there was enough outreach done with this ordinance in particular to get feedback from the community and I feel like that's what we were able to accomplish tonight I think that we have been able to get a lot of feedback from folks throughout the community of where they should see camping where they don't want to see camping whether they're okay with this or not there's been a lot of questions from you know council members alike with regards to funding the storage program how this is going to be implemented and in addition to all this the staff has brought forward a red line version that none of us have seen and none of us have had a chance to read and that the public hasn't had a chance to weigh in on or read as well and you know the things that really concerned me the most about trying to move forward with this this evening is that you know we have an outdoor sleeping ordinance with no clearly identified outdoor sleeping spaces um we also have our proposing that to enforce this we need to have a storage program which doesn't exist we don't have identified funding one thing that hasn't come up in this conversation is day services so if we're to tell these people you cannot have your tent up during the day where do we expect them to go and I would imagine that many would likely flock to downtown our beaches these other areas because they don't have you know a place to reside we don't have any day services so if they don't have jobs where do we expect them to go so those are some of the concerns additionally you know it's come up in the conversation we are currently being sued for intent for attempting to break up the incantment that's at San Lorenzo that was not sanctioned and one of the things that concerns me the most is that if we implement this and we don't see any change within you know the time that it takes for this to be authorized and implemented is that we're going to be displacing smaller encampments and those people are going to go straight to San Lorenzo or to highway one and nine because those are the two places right now where if you have a tent that's established you will not be told to take your tent down and you will not be asked to leave so by implementing this I do I am concerned with the impacts that's going to have on those two large encampments and you know I think as policymakers it really is our obligation to hear from the community and to act on behalf of the community and to incorporate the community comments into our policy decisions as I mentioned before the public nor the council has had an opportunity to read this red line version I think what would be good is if the sponsoring council members and staff take the information that they've received tonight and work on this red line version because I would imagine we're probably going to be if we're going to go through this line by line we're going to be up for the next two hours or so trying to word Smith a red line version of this ordinance and if that's going to happen I'd also like to ask the staff send us all copies so we can look over it and read it but I just think that you know we are in a really difficult position and I and I feel for all of our neighborhoods that are being impacted by homelessness and I think that we do need to figure out solutions that will hold everyone accountable regardless of your house or unhoused for your behaviors but I would just caution with how quickly we're trying to move forward with this this evening and if there's an opportunity for the council members to work with staff on taking into account the concerns that were raised and bringing back another version of this that's been another red line version of this for us to look over I think it'll be a much better use of our time and I think it'll also demonstrate to the public that we're taking their comments into account because I think we do need to explain to them if we're not going to you know if we're going to say fine we'll kick everybody out of neighborhoods or if we say we're going to allow people in neighborhoods having some justification behind that so those are my comments if we're going to go through I'm happy to provide more insight into the red line version but I think that you know we're going on 13 and a half hours now for today and so you know if there is a way for us to have a group that could work on this outside of us trying to work with this right now I think that'd probably be better for all of us as decision makers and seeing as how it's getting light. Thank you I'll go to council member Golder, council member Contari Johnson and then council member Brown and I think I'll just I'll just jump in here and been trying to be respectful to have you guys have as much deliberation as possible. I understand the concerns and I think this is our first reading we're going to be going towards a second reading so I think to the extent that we get something in on the books that we can then continue to work from but I think continuing to put off sort of a decision to at least step forward with ideas I think based on the hundreds of emails that we've already gotten when this hits the books if we do pass it tonight I don't think that we're going to have a lack of community input moving towards the second reading and so I do think that there is some urgency I do think there is urgency with this I share comments that I've heard from various colleagues that you know you know dignity and the ability to really be in a place that may look like it is an option but where we could craft better dignity better availability better security is is something worth trying to achieve and I think some of the comments around sort of this this this concept of a social contract that we do share our public spaces and we do need to honor each other's needs for whatever those spaces may be and that that is a really important principle about putting something getting something on the ground tonight and looking at that from the perspective as from the perspective of a second reading so you know I would urge us to keep moving tonight and accept to the extent that we can some of the what I looked at are pretty minor edits but we can pull them up but I really think we should you know try to get something over the finish line tonight rather than continue to try not to you know try to continue to come up with the with additional items right now I'm losing it I've been up since five so I will let let me go to council member Golder and then call on Taryn Johnson and then council member Brown thank you mayor I agree with a lot of what my colleagues have said and I would I would just wonder if there's a way that we could if we did move forward tonight with the first reading revisit this in maybe nine months and see how things are going and come back with some data and and reevaluate things if we you know did pass anything tonight and I was curious and I don't expect this answer now but maybe at the second reading if we could if there is if it does go through how many beds emergency shelter beds there are in the county and how many has there been you know increasing over the last a few years or the last several months during the pandemic I also have questions for chief mills regarding if this did pass what would one of the callers I think said regulatory and operational clarity like what would this look like on the day-to-day for the officers or who would be out there enforcing this do we have the resources so the operational clarity is that we will enforce whatever you give us and we will do it consistently and we will do it and if needed with overtime we want to make sure that the the reality of council is carried out in the best way we can and it can do so again the ordinance is set up so that you warn first site second and arrest third and that is exactly how we will proceed with that and thank you I mean I think all of us really want to look at the root causes and prevention of homelessness first I mean you know as something that's really important to all of us we really care about the 5,000 kids that are going to be going back to school here in the next few weeks and I agree with Justin that it's probably hard to set up and take down tents in the dark but like the idea of kids biking past or walking past or over people trying to get to school I don't think that's a good mix I don't think it's safe and especially some of the things I've seen I wouldn't want kids to see that and so my suggestion would be to modify the hours to maybe sunrise to sunset or I know San Francisco has I think 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. something like that but those are some suggestions I don't know if they could be friendly amendments or if that's too soon and I've got councilmember colantara johnson and then councilmember brown and I think just for clarification I believe that we took residential right now councilmember golder the residential areas have been taken out as locations for sleeping so I'm not sure if the question was regarding kids living in those residential areas but okay councilmember colantara johnson um yeah you know I um just to to councilmember coming comments um it doesn't seem like we have been having this conversation as a community for a long time just looking back and looking at all the resources that we have the catch recommendations that was a year long process these are components it's not the whole set of recommendations these are components of those recommendations including an update to our current ordinance um and then dating back to I'm looking at my notes 2017 the homelessness coordinating committee there were recommendations and I'm gonna in a moment I'm gonna um propose some friendly amendments that that reference that committee um there were recommendations that were unanimously approved just a few years ago so I think um I hear your comments that that this seems to have been sprung on us but but we've been having this dialogue for a long time and and it's an imperfect solution but we won't I don't think we will have a perfect solution and in fact um I don't think anyone's going to walk away extremely happy tonight um none of us here and none of our community members uh so just with those comments I think if it's okay I am um I'm going to send Bonnie some proposed language is that is that the appropriate staff yes okay all right so I just need a second to download my document I'm sorry and Bonnie will add these to the existing motion and if if they're accepted but yeah okay all right Bonnie I gave you an outdated draft so let me um send you I've been we've I've been made oh these are in conjunction with um Vice Mayor Brenner and I've been working on them um so we've been making changes as we've been glad we've been hearing the conversation so I'm pulling it up now as well yeah and I'm going to send oh thanks I think I got it it's on my desktop now sorry this is taking a moment I know we're wanting to move so I just sent it to you as Bonnie's pulling it up um you know again just to reiterate that this is moving forward components of the catch recommendations not the full recommendations um it's helping to set clear standards and code for us to be able to address quality of life issues environmental and health and safety impacts um and then really move towards developing the yes and Mr. Brent Adams of implementing a roadblock homelessness program so um the first if you can scroll up thank you so the first friendly amendment is to the the original amendment that council member Watkins made around um the removing the neighborhoods and adding parking losses as potential safe sleeping sites so I would like to add to that make the amendment to that um and again this is in line with catch's recommendations that we look oh I'm sorry that's the second part if we can move down to B but council member Watkins had brought up that that in addition to that that we within 60 days look at launching a safe sleeping program that is um that has staff and supervision and this can be in conjunction with um afc and or nonprofits so that's that's under 2a that's sort of an amendment to what council member Watkins had put up around the parking lot sites we can does it okay if I just go through each one of these okay okay so then if we can scroll back up okay so we've talked a little bit about um this piece around enforcement um so one friendly amendment again per catch's recommendation is to include um an outreach and engagement portion and have that proceed or occur simultaneously to enforcement um of the prohibited outdoor living um regulations that are in the ordinance um and the outreach and engagement again can be done either through city county staff or nonprofits or faith community so we can scroll to the 1b this is around the storage programs you know it's been brought up that this seems like a difficult piece of breaking down the tents and um putting them back up um I know that we're offering a storage program but I think that in order to make the storage program work one piece of it is to provide transportation for those individuals who need it um and then council member Brown I believe brought this piece up is that how will we get this information out so I hear that we have it on the website and we'll have printed documents but for um law enforcement and outreach workers to uh have these these uh pamphlets or or and the maps at hand and to provide them in um I have Spanish translation to have them in English and Spanish so that's the third piece of specific amendments to the ordinance and then in terms of policy direction uh council member Watkins had brought some of this up um we already talked about 2a 2b is really that holistic approach of um looking at the mental health and intervention piece we have a lot of this in place um we have the hopes team we have the downtown streets team the downtown outreach worker um by sir Brenner brought up a lot of these programs but it's really looking at how we can tie um these programs and make the outcomes really specific city-centric and specific to um our holistic approach to supporting those who are unhoused and again the little indents are kind of how they align with either catch recommendations and or the homelessness coordinating committee so these aren't coming out of nowhere they're not my brilliant ideas they've been talked about embedded by many people for a period of time so then moving down to to see um this was already brought up by council member Watkins I don't know if I need to repeat it but really looking at the navigation center and where we're at with that um and then I I did have some parameters around asking um uh that's further down but but really asking the um the staff to come back um in a certain time period to let us know where we at where we're at and and what are the next steps for us to move towards that navigation center uh so then the next piece is um really continuing our work with the with the city county two by two um and then there's several pieces to this as well if you can scroll up a little bit um wanting to really robustly look at our diversion um programs that we have in place and and look at how to expand these including the home or ground program behavioral health intervention uh and access to outreach and case management and job programming again council member Watkins brought this up I would add to this what um council member Watkins brought up around shelter bed capacities uh and then uh this piece of the longer term transitional shelter to ensure housing um pathways are created and create wraparound services uh you know this is I think what um council member Brown had brought up uh that that we know that there's interest in the county um I think several people had brought up supervisor conic is putting something forward it's uh going to be viewed in uh by the board of supervisors in a couple of weeks so this is sort of linking to the work that's potentially being done at the county but really explicitly naming it here um and the time parameter for this is um sorry this is incomplete because we were revising as we were going um but for the the policy directions above by April 2021 and then the policy directions around the two by two by May 2021 I can be flexible around um those timelines if if vice mayor Boehner and council member Watkins are um and then note at the end is again that this would be part of none of this is sufficient and we have to start somewhere this is a part of a larger approach a countywide approach for us to be able to support those around house as well as our um house community members so I know that was a lot and this is my first attempt at trying to weave in multiple parts of the motion so um I'll just pause there oh I think um I'm just going to jump in because I want I just want to make sure I'm I want to repeat for the public so I believe you had three language changes in the ordinance specifically and maybe um Bonnie maybe I don't know how to do it more sufficiently few but maybe those get a yellow highlighter I don't know if they get turned a certain color maybe um so I just want to make sure we've got those captured so you've got a b and c um she has one a b and c and the two a b and c now let me let me just clarify with you council member contrary Johnson the um the if you go down to two Bonnie are those policy it looks like they're more policy related correct right um so I would say one a dc are um recommended language change to the ordinance however two um two a may also now be part of the ordinance given the direction the amendment from council member Watkins the two a is um would be it looks like um it would be related to the remember the but Lee the section where you would be putting in the availability to establish um dedicated sites it is related to that section um two a would go there but I think um I'm I'm really pleased to see that we're moving in the direction of specifying sites and I think we will run into challenges um if we don't have some type of staffing and supervision connected to that you've grabbed that I think we've got maybe cut and paste a up into the actual ordinance changes yeah and I don't think we need aligned with the cat or okay aligned with cash recommendations um yeah we can take that out that was I was just trying to show that it's not coming out of nowhere and Lee can you can you reference the section that this would go in so that could go into the same section where we're talking about um affirmative um make it the I'm scrolling to the section right now can't is 6.36.050 camping slash outdoor living permitted um it could go at the bottom of that section okay can you say that again 6.36.050 and um that would be you know if you could put it in that would be a substitute for I'm gonna well I don't want to share my screen because you've got that up we had um the potential that council member Watkins is considering that said uh to set up the um uh in all or part of a city-owned parking lot closed portion of the public right away um and so forth a program for overnight use of no more than 150 safe sleeping spaces so it could go in that same section it could replace that or it could um be in combination with that I can share my screen if that's helpful for the council yeah why don't you go ahead and do that and then I'm sorry if I if I may just complete um I really I strongly believe that these components um are are necessary needed to have a more strengthen ordinance for us to move forward so um I would like to support this ordinance and I think these are the pieces that are missing um some of the other pieces council member Watkins has already has already brought it so I'll look the maker of the motion um I also I believe missed maybe a motion um or at least a change meant by council member Golder council member Golder you mentioned uh report back to council in nine months after the implementation yeah that would be my desire just because I would like to see if you know this is so complicated and it's getting really late and then not a night out and like council were coming said like we haven't had an opportunity to read all of the edits and so I guarantee we're not getting everything right and so I would like us to revisit it in like nine months and so we can have some data to look look back on and you're referring to if the count if the ordinance becomes if it is approved at the second reading or if we have to go through exactly exactly what we've said in nine months got it to reevaluate you get that in the motion Bonnie thank you and I'm for whether she'll have a second on the council member Watkins motion do we have a second that was me oh are you ready for me yeah go ahead I'll just start my comments by saying um I think there is definitely alignment in the direction we want to go and I want to thank um Vice Mayor Brunner and Councilman Calentari Johnson for your thoughtful work in providing these additional amendments and I definitely feel they're in the spirit of a lot of my thoughts as well so with that I'm pleased to accept those friendly amendments if the seconder is also willing to do so as well as including that uh report back that was referenced by council member Golder in the nine month time paint time period yeah and I accept those as well thank you for that work okay um anything else council member Calentari Johnson I know that um there's also the other part of your motion which is really policy direction for for staff follow-up um so I know others have their hands up but I would just want Vice Mayor Brunner to chime in because we worked on this together that's appropriate absolutely uh yeah so thank you so much for walking through that I wasn't sure how that would play out but hopefully that um you know these components really provide a policy direction to carry forward you know those components of the catch recommendation as what recommendations as well as the homeless coordinating committee recommendations we read through a lot of those documents and work and and really can help move us forward to addressing um and implementing the the overwhelming community input and and um you know develop get to a point of of developing the programming and the outdoor uh uh standards for everybody so thank you for for taking us through those amendments thank you I have council member brown and council member Cummings next and then uh I do want to capture I think one other amendment which was looking at the time but we can hold off on that and then I do have one one amendment myself so um okay uh council member Cummings and council member Brown a few comments I did have some other questions but I didn't get to ask them and I think at this point it's probably um not worth returning to that um but um so I just I first want to say you know I I really agree with uh council member Cummings comments I think they're spot on um you know and I won't repeat them but they really just spot on you know I word smithing um this kind of of ordinance from the dias going into pretty close to the 15th hour of our meeting is you know I don't believe it's um the most effective or productive way to make policy um and um and I also want to really appreciate council member Calentary Johnson and um vice mayor browner's proposals I absolutely support um the the staff direction and the the other pieces of that um that that you proposed and I'm hoping we can take those we can separate those from the ordinance motion the first the reading of the ordinance so that I can support those on the record um I um I guess in the you know because I've been thinking about this as I you know I saw the um what uh council member Calentary Johnson uh provided in writing and um you know and I think that I want and I get I get why um you're you want to talk about doing the both and and I agree um and uh but my concern is you know perhaps because I've just been through this so many times uh and watched it happen uh the city council I mean I cannot count the number of times that city council have said oh of course we want to do these things and um you know and I believe that I don't think it's disingenuous when people say council members say we want to do that um and then there's always obstacles and but we have to do this this enforcement piece now and then you know and then we'll get to the other stuff and of course it's it's critical and you know and so I I don't want to suggest that when I say this that I it's a lack of trust or you know I or you know lack of you know I that I don't think that um people really have good intentions here um and so I want to support those intentions and I want to work with you uh all to uh to to realize those um it's just that you know we I I just can't you know and I and I also believe that there are um legitimately there are places in our city that are not appropriate for um you know camp for congregate camping and and I um you know and so I don't want to suggest that by not being able to support this ordinance tonight um that I'm suggesting I you know that I think that what's happening right now is okay it certainly is not um I just think that there are other things that we need to tackle in order to actually achieve the goals that I think we all share so many people have written in and um it talks about the kind of social uh you know uh you know kind of you know the the behavioral issues the um disorderly conduct issues that um are you know leads to really legitimate and then obviously the litter and all of that that leads to really legitimate frustrations and fears about um you know what's happening in our community and you know around them and so I you know I I get that and um but I'm also really hard pressed to figure how um you know making it you know very difficult for people to have a place to stably be and and sleep and have their belongings is going to um rectify or really in meaningfully address those those social issues those disorderly conduct issues you know we're just you know we're it's a city we're a city we are we have you know land use and you know kind of and increasing levels of um you know citation and fractions and misdemeanor approaches are the tools that the city can think of to to address these major social problems and you know it's just it's frustrating all around I know others are frustrated too so I just think a more uh you know appropriate and effective approach would be to commit ourselves to do that hard work that we say we want to do um and to identify those alternatives before we start make creating new restrictions um and you know we've had multiple commissions and committees and recommendations come to us and you know and again uh councilmember calentary johnson has um integrated some of those into you know and identified where though we've seen those and you know and yet we and then the catch you know directed you know recommended that we do this but they said clearly I mean multiple times you need to do both and you need to do them simultaneously and that's not what we're talking about here right now um you know we we know that when people have um the the ability to to stabilize their lives when they have some sense of um you know of security of stability um that they can actually perform the basic life functions that most of us take for granted um that it it greatly improves the people's chances of getting out of um you know sometimes terrible situations that they're in improving their their lives and um you know and yeah and when people are you know I mean just I just think about being constantly worried about you know like losing all my stuff or being to get it or moved along and trying to actually um like you know figure out how to how to get through the day or you know much less make plans for the future it's just it's just really overwhelming to think about um and so I'm just going to end by saying you know we've received proposals there are people in our community who are thinking about this who want to work with us we've received proposals from community organizations from faith-based organizations the ASC um you know has has um consistently and and more recently I mean just in the last couple of days we've received messaging saying you know we want to work with you and here some of the things that you know we can bring to the table and you know well so first of all and those organizations work largely with you know volunteer the help of volunteers they have the ability to raise private funding you know donors want to step up and and support these efforts and you know and to create some kind of you know programmatic and you know perhaps permitting or you know locational parameters to have that conversation and actually step up and you know ASC is talking about a pilot you know I think we ought to be looking at that very seriously I think we ought to be trying to do that right now um it before we consider all the ways that we're gonna make it impossible for people to have you know someplace to be as it stands I just you know I I can't support an ordinance like that tonight I want to support all of the other recommendations that have been made um I just you know I just doesn't feel ethical and it doesn't feel efficacious um even if it you know seems to satisfy some you know with the optics so um I'll leave it there and um I look forward to um carrying you all to some words nothing I just I'm like I can't I can't I can't do it but um I appreciate your I think what we'll do um I know council member Cummings you have your hand up and I'll get you rolling here in a minute but just so people are tracking um member Calentary Johnson um I think it might be better to capture your policy or your your motions for staff follow-up and some of the items that you listed maybe in a separate motion so that council members potentially can look at that um is that amenable to you council member Watkins because those were more based I think in count in directing staff for additional items but I I'm happy to look at what you think in terms of bifurcating those or not and and Tony please weigh in here if that's not what should be appropriate at this time I think we'll all let Tony weigh in if that's needed but I think one of the other options could be that essentially what we would have is if council members are supportive of um certain aspects of the motion then they could indicate that they want for the record that their support of those aspects be you know it we could go through the kind of the complicated bifurcation but I don't know what's easiest or how you want to handle it I think if that's acceptable to council member Brown that would be fine if it's noted in the record that she supports those um otherwise those could be voted on as a separate action item after the council votes on the main motion and I just wanted clarification Lee as I'm reading the ordinance if if an organization such as AFC or any other organization wanted to come to this either the city on a public on a public property with a proposal or um if it was a on private property I I does the ordinance allow I believe the ordinance allows us to stand up these kinds of facilities that I think some folks are mentioning but can you clarify that for the council or thank you mayor Myers um so uh this is again in the um camping and outdoor living permitted section and we have this provision in here that said at events or in a manner that is authorized by the city council or city manager at temporary safe sleeping sites and or temporary encampments which may be managed by the city the county or an approved nonprofit we subsequently recommended um or I should say we subsequently added for the council's consideration oh the council's consideration the option allow those facilities to be our private properties in any that was the additional that was the additional commentary Johnson and then I think we're going to try to and I will call up a non-online version of that hacked into if the council has any other member coming yeah I mean I do because again I mentioned this when I commented earlier but you know we kind of went quickly through the yellow line version with the new staff recommendations during the presentation and personally I haven't seen a copy of that red line version and so for me it's rarely difficult to be able to provide the appropriate comments unless we're going to go through this kind of section by section because um it'd be really good to see and I think for members of the public to see what that new language is um I do have some issues with the warnings for example um and so you know wherever that section is I think that it's important that everyone receive a warning um you know if if somebody receives a warning and the police are like we will come back you know you have to be gone in 24 hours or what have you um you know that's an opportunity for people to pick up the things and move along and you know regardless if somebody tears up a ticket and throws it on the ground I think if you give them a warning and give them time to think about what they need to do to move on and then if you come back and they're still there there's a way to enforce um and then again around the misdemeanors um but then you know just filled yellow line language in general which tonight's the first time that we've actually seen that and that the public seen that and you know I get that there's a strong desire to address these issues um I'd say that's the same for many of the issues that are you know occurring in our community but I think that it's you know as elected officials it's our role to be transparent with the public and to take the time necessary to ensure that the public understands what we're voting on and what we're getting the public into and I don't think that we've done a good job with this ordinance to you tonight I mean just to provide some of the new council members and to talk to the public about you know some examples you know when we brought forward the removal of the mission bell which you know it's something that's largely symbolic what means a lot to the indigenous people of our community and from this land and other people in our community I mean we took that item we worked on it with stakeholders brought it to the council we sent it to historic preservation commission for more input we brought that back to council we were able to make a decision on that because we were able to gain the competence of the people in the community and to be transparent with what we were doing so that throughout that process there were multiple times for members of the public to comment on this I get that this is gone that the catch has provided us with recommendations and other groups have too but the specific of what we're implementing this is the first time this has come to the public's attention and we don't even have the full language in front of us this evening because of the fact that there's been edits that have been done by staff we've been introduced to those edits today but I personally don't feel like I've had enough time to even look over them to understand what we're getting ourselves into and so you know regardless of the direction that this goes in tonight I'm just going to say that I think that this process has not been transparent and and I think that we're going to miss out on a really good opportunity to build consensus within our community and I think we are dangerously running the line of tearing you know open a wound that has been healing over the course of a year and that you know by moving too hastily we're going to really start pitting people in our community against each other again as we've seen in previous years so again I don't feel like I've had enough time to because we just got it today have not seen the SAPs changes to the red line version I feel like the process that we've been going through has not been clear in terms of what's being changed I would very much appreciate this motion could be separated because there's a lot of stuff that's been brought forward by council members counter johnson and bruner that it'd be good to see that a little bit longer be able to read that on the screen I would like to make a motion at some point because I think there's some other things that we're not that we're neglecting as well related to homelessness that I think we should bring forward related to the quality of life ordinances but I do think that let's you know it'd be good to have these separated out and to have more transparency around what we're doing this evening and I feel like that's lacking council member callantary johnson and then I've got council member let's see vice mayor bruner I think council member brown was ahead brown was ahead of me brown was ahead of you okay can we can we get the the red line version because that is that the best place where people want to go it's 1130 now the red line version has been emailed to each of the council members so you have the version that it does not include council member calentary johnson's edits I wasn't able to capture all of those and bring them over into the document but it includes the other edits it includes council member walk-ins edits and the edits that Tony kandadi added and changing the residential where that residential allowance was located and that was just sent out right now right or was that yeah it was sent out maybe a half hour ago or something like that thank you and mr kandadi I might just have you jump in here for a moment I my understanding is live red line edits are kind of typical and working our way through language correct yeah the first reading is your opportunity to make tweaks to the ordinance and and you can do that so long as they're made before the ordinance is introduced otherwise they would have to be brought back for another first reading a future time so so these edits can all be approved by the council this evening if there is a majority of council members in favor of them okay thank you for the clarification um do council members have the ability to pull this up we can run through this my count I think there's about 10 10 length 10 10 changes in the language simultaneously maybe just run this run us through this because I'm not sure if everybody's got their tablets or what have you that I'm happy to do so and thanks I think Bonnie yeah Bonnie's got this up here so first edit at the top there is removing could you go Bonnie to the section above so just so we know these sections and we can track there we go perfectly so section under definitions would be great just so people understand it references in the outdoor living facilities item and that's because those are dealt with elsewhere noting in the outdoor living encampment definition that if things have been there for 12 hours then they're considered an outdoor living encampment I'll give you guys a second to read that if you want to make a comment yeah please go ahead the email that I received from Lee has the document without the color changes it has the changes but they're not in color yeah I think you have to open it in word on your tablet that's what I had to do you have to have exact changes on my belief yeah thank you yeah thank you much yeah Donna wanted to make note of the section so it's private property just additional private property uh things that could be restricted this is the clarification in number seven there that it's not just neighborhood and community parks it's all parks number 11 here this is the prohibition on camping in the residential zoning districts so r1, rl, rm, rn, rs the hours were discussed those were flagged in case anyone wanted to make changes to those but they're they're as 8 a.m to 8 p.m now if we want to make changes as we're going along through this do we just speak up or how would you like us to kind of chime in for those changes uh we could uh I was hoping we could go through these um what uh what did uh do we I guess we should do and certainly that is certainly one way that you could do it can be adopted sort of as a package in concept or I'm just trying to understand the most efficient way but if individual council members have specific changes on these language I think we will have to have to work through them that's right so if if council members would like to discuss us or make modifications to any of these provisions it might just be a good idea to flag them and come back to them so that we can sort of gauge whether there's a council consensus on um you know in general on the individual modifications and then I just want to call on council member calling Tari Johnson and council member uh Brunner next uh did you guys have clarifying questions or additions to I just didn't want to make sure you had that um no I think I had my hand up because there was a request to break up the motion and then council member Watkins asked if we could keep it together but have council members address which pieces they support and I would like to go in that direction before I have my hand up and just want to take knowledge um both council member Brown and Cummings comments and appreciate him here where they're coming from so great thank you okay um Lee we're sir I'll keep going here um so this is for families with children associated with individuals with a qualifying disability okay we'll move forward this next one is specifying that the physicians verification of qualifying disability shall be evidence but not necessarily binding evidence any comments from council members on this change I have a question on that uh stand what this is trying to get to is that positions verification um individual doesn't have to have positions verification in order for them to have a disability is that the intention of this I think that because the opposite that I read it is that um someone can have a physician's verification though that's not necessarily binding to protect them in all instances either that is how I read the um they change is that um there still there could be some discretion there so something the council is interested in then they can scratch that so I guess in this with that it's it's the idea is that even if it's determined that a physician has diagnosed me with a physical disability that can still be overlooked in terms of whether or not I need to take down my tent or move or what have you that is how I interpret this is that there would be opportunities to um consider cases alternatively Tony do you have anything to add on that what okay I guess I'll just say with that but this and then I think there's another one uh in here around the warnings that are like seriously subjective and leaves a lot of discretion for people to determine who should be giving a warning who shouldn't and it also gives discretion of whether someone wants to take a physician's zone seriously or not and that can be very problematic I think that there's that starts getting along the lines of discrimination in some cases I'll leave my comments there council member Watkins clarification behind or my question for clarification behind this is uh as you read it Lee is that the stance in which an individual may have a qualifying disability um but be living in an encampment at say a very dangerous location and even though their disability like I mean I'm just trying to discern where the circumstances might come in where that would be a real problem uh you know an encampment that's not the way I read this is that a physician's so a physician could say you know someone um has you know someone mobility challenges and a police officer could be there and to that they could then under this they could that is not the capability that that disability is not the thing that the council is interested in including is that subjectivity as council member Cummings puts it then you should remove this this uh suggestion suggestion or consideration council member contrary Johnson that is in fact how this piece reads um I guess I I want to know why it was added and and I um share council member Cummings concerns that um it could lead to discrimination the subjectivity of it council member Golder my colleagues I was confused by the vagueness of the definition originally but I'm not sure I this clears it up for me um the definition around disability because there's a lot of disabilities that you can't see and um so I'm just I don't know where to go with it but I just um I I just don't like the vague language of it either council member Watkins would you entertain a motion to edit this out or try to resolve yeah yeah no I think I appreciate the clarification because I wasn't reading it the same so yeah given that I think it's important that we just remove that at this point we're going okay um Bonnie you could just um remove it and because we've got the the red line that's it's being yeah so I think that works I'm not sure if you were going to reference that in the motion itself I was yeah I think just by deleting it here I think we're good next item uh so the next item is uh these are reasons why um things can be closed maintenance limiting the incidence or frequency of sale of the sale of unlawful drugs limiting or controlling the incidence of crime the incidents are infrequent or frequency of domestic violence or other violence limiting the accumulation of debris garbage and syringe waste limiting the amount duration and effect of urination and defecation on public and private property limiting the duration of adverse effects on the surrounding area neighborhoods and businesses and or addressing health and safety concerns so add in additional um clarifications on why uh the city manager could close an area the city will provide um parties or hand-washing stations but sanitation facilities where these outdoor living environments are going to be identified because I see where we're I see a lot of the prohibition but I don't see much of you know in the instances where we're going to designate uh safe camping or we're going to allow people to pitch tents is there any like I haven't seen it it didn't stand out to me that there's anything in the language that says that the city will provide um you know facilities for people to use for the purposes of using the bathroom and hygiene so there isn't anything specifically in the ordinance that calls out those facilities that uh that I can recall other than I mean the the allowance for them so you know in the uh provisions related to um the outdoor encampments and uh safe sleeping sites that um is approved by the city manager or by the city council and so you know that could inherently and would likely you know we would expect to include to include those but there isn't anything to your I think what you are getting at um which is like you know if if things are allowed in the open spaces if camping's allowed in the open space would restrooms be provided in the open space there's nothing specific to that in the code as it currently reads I guess for my colleagues um I just you know if on where we're prohibiting people to sleep and camp it sounds like this is going into the open space I think part of this was to protect protect the environment a lot of what we're trying to push forward is for the purposes of environmental protection and if people are going and if we're designating that it's okay for people to sleep out in our open spaces and we're not providing you know trash or bathrooms we're going to see a lot of environmental degradation happening so I'll just leave that for people to consider. Council Member Conter Johnson do you have a question? Just a comment I think I think we addressed it but that that would be part of the that amendment that was proposed that we look at a safe sleeping program that's part of that model is my understanding. The restrooms would be if we had a safe sleeping program we would include restrooms and hygiene station hand washing stations as well as looking to all the other provisions that would be expected elsewhere you know areas being kept free of litter and so forth. Any other comments and I I agree with Council Member Cummings assessment of that I think what we were trying to I think the intent of this was to balance the availability of places for people to go and I personally would feel better that our open space areas were actually not available and I'm not sure we can go there based on all the analysis that's been done again trying to strike the balance of providing clear places for people to be and not continuing to narrow that down but to the extent that we could potentially put based on assessment maybe look at you know the installation of some facilities at if open space areas do seem to be being used which they've already been being used for years you know there's there's been people you know using our open spaces in this manner unfortunately for many many years I don't know if there's a way we can we can look at that obviously after the assessment period but I agree if you know people are going to be ending up in those areas it would be be who goes to try to put some kind of sanitation pieces in there I'm not sure exactly what that looks like versus closing you know trying to narrow the availability of some of those areas yeah I'm not ready to make a change on this particular language is there a change on the language that anyone wants to do by motion council member cotton tarred johnson can we to the next section the permitted section camping and outdoor living permitted your seat this would add the city manager or city council can authorize temporary safe sleeping sites temporary encampments and we clarified here that that can happen on any public or private properties in any zoning district including in areas that would otherwise prohibit such uses so there were some questions pete they came in and from the public that said hey you know you can't do this in downtown don't you think you know you want to think about parking lots downtown and we so we said oh well that's unclear we let's clarify that let's make sure that we've got that information clear for us and the public and the next one is in all or part of a city on parking lot closed portion of a public right away on private property or in an alternate space or area designated by the city manager for safe sleeping and this specifies that city manager or their designate shall establish program for overnight use of no fewer than 150 safe sleeping spaces in such areas subject to all the criteria now this is where council member counter johnson had we were going to insert that provision that she had about safe sleeping the way that I understood it was that that was in addition to this but I'll leave that up to the council in terms of how they want to do that so so Bonnie you could actually drop the language from the ocean and right here as he if it is in fact in addition and I saw council member counter johnson shaking your head yes that's an addition mayor um with that last blue line um comment so you know i'm just thinking back to some of the safe you know like some of the sites where we've had people sleeping in the past few years and for example if I remember correctly and please if anybody out there if i'm wrong please correct me but if I remember correctly um 12 20 river street I think it was about 80 tents that we had allocated at that site and so you know give or take you know maybe 100 people plus and what I read in this in the blue what we see here in blue is that you know we can't set up an overnight sleeping program for fewer than 150 people so I'm just wondering if that is kind of the intention so what that means is that if we wanted to set up a smaller site you know especially during COVID where people have social distance if we wanted to set up a site for people that's less than 150 individuals and this actually prevents the city manager from doing that the intent here was to actually require the city manager to set up at least 150 spaces throughout a number of areas so you know it could be one large one of 150 um or it could be um you know 15 small ones of 10 but the intent here was to require that so if there's some misunderstanding we should probably look at um some quick words nothing um the program uh for overnight use um which cumulatively has instead of uh which cumulatively has no fewer than 150 safe sleeping spaces in such areas I I I think that the language as written um does not restrict the city to one program with 150 spaces but it can be that it just designates 150 um shall be made available but I don't I don't think a change is necessary to to be consistent with what is intended here if that that helped my understanding of that I was I just needed the clarification so thank you health member contrary johnson um yeah just two things I think for Bonnie I think just to add within 60 days of ordinance passage might complete my addition to it um and if we want to have you know in alignment with the cash recommendations or something like that I think that should that should complete that um but to the um so hopefully that is clear for Bonnie or you can just drop in what I sent you just copying and pasting what you sent or are you going to work Smith it right now um you could copy and paste what I sent but I think it's all here and it just needs to have within 60 days of ordinance passage added to it because the safe sleeping program is is listed here right so this is your language from what you sent me I'm just wondering if it's saying the same thing but it's specifying within 60 days but we can leave it in there just to make sure it's all there um and then I'm just wondering oh sorry go ahead sorry Lee um this is more directive because it has specific dates yeah sorry Johnson to combine these there's yes the intent is to combine them there may be just a couple pieces missing from item D from what I proposed so and so um I think that we can add the date in and 60 days you want the specific cash recommendations in the the ordinance language as well what I would recommend is that that direction be given as a separate um motion or as part of the motion that includes approval of the language of the ordinance because they have a number of things in there that um for instance the catch is not defined in the ordinance uh and the catch is recommendations aren't um referenced in the findings or anything of that nature and so um I think that would be that would be better included as a motion to accompany the ordinance uh otherwise we could spend a fair amount of time finessing that language to incorporate it into the language of the ordinance itself yeah I think I think that's fine if we want to um just add uh the safe sleeping program with cash recommendations in in the lump with the policy recommendations and just have this um launch a safe sleeping program within 60 days of ordinance passage and no later than June 30th 2021 maybe we just have that piece of it and the records to catch can be part of the policy recommendations if that makes sense I I think that works because the dates are the dates work if it's accessible it's like Susie might have something to add yeah go ahead yeah thank you thank you Lee and I just wanted to mention in contemplating the safety sleep of these for the last several months if not years that I think at this point if there is an attention to move forward with a program um with pretty significant haste I don't think the 150 number is realistic nor do I think that we will actually be able to meet that expectation so my my recommendation is to actually phase that in eventually but for the first part of this program to really not focus on any more than about 60 spaces um and I think we you know per um councilmember golder's recommendation this certainly can be reevaluated in nine months but I just don't think um I think we might be setting ourselves up with for failure with so many that was going to be the second part of my question is how feasible is 150 councilmember yeah go ahead councilmember golder I was just going to I said a quick question for Susie Susie how long do you think it would take to get up to 150 like realistically well I think what you want to do is is build a reasonably managed program um you know until winter shelter season um collect some data on how the programs are managing within the sites that have been selected and then also be able to evaluate demand I mean we're really not entirely certain what demand is going to look like for these programs and so I think um you know maybe the objective is to evaluate um sometime in early September for um the you know around a question of whether an expansion is required um but at this point I would not expect the need to look at that and I think it should be data driven um between now and fall for instance so are we comfortable with um maybe not putting timelines on all of this in the ordinance and looking at um future staff direction potentially even at the second reading so we can clarify all of that with um with staff direction in terms of some of these timelines I think the key with the ordinance maybe is to try to keep the languages all lived as possible to the extent that we can um councilmember colantari johnson um as a suggestion from Susie was the the keeping this to um move forward with the programming within 60 days but but limit that the safe sleeping spaces to 60 for now and then when we revisit in nine months or in september that um we could look at expanding that having having the parameter of standing this up within two months of the ordinance passing I think it's still important to have martine um here are you I I just have a question about the language where it said shall establish a program for overnight use of no fewer than 150 so if we sat if we sat up 60 we would still be in concert because otherwise we're gonna have to go back in and change that back to 150 in nine months so I'm just wondering is that rightly the way I'm reading it is you could go up to 150 right minimum right so that would be okay I guess the concern here is that we need to be able to demonstrate that there are places where people who um don't have a place to go can spend the night in the city and we will be able to demonstrate that to um you know judge van keel on that at some point or another judge in the event of a legal challenge one way to do that might be to tie the implementation of the daytime ban with uh the the provision of safe sleeping spaces to accommodate the number of people sleeping out of doors um in in the community that's that's the possibility 150 was a thumbnail uh estimate of that would be able to accommodate people that might avail themselves of this option as opposed to the option of trying to find a place in uh one of the open areas walkins um your thoughts on this as a motion maker yeah I think we could I mean I think we can keep it up you know up to 150 that makes sense to me for the reasons that have been uh specified um I guess my only additional input or question or comment depending on how we want to do it is um if there's additional locations that are available in terms of our sheltering options you know how does that play into the keeping locations that fall into this sort of legally for me please I guess my my question is I mean I'm fine with leaving it at the 150 but my question is is if there are additional this is safe sleeping spaces right but there are the sleeping sheltering options available and so when you mentioned the legal constraints how does that fall into that based on your opinion I wish I could um break it down to a precise number or a or a precise target that would that would get this right um but that's that's not what we have here it's really uh you know a series of measures that that we intend to provide a location where anyone who is finds themselves outdoors uh on a given night in the city can find a location where they can you know pitch a tent or curl up in a sleeping bag so this is just one component of it and I don't think there's any or at least we certainly have not um been able to just given all of the all of the different factors and uncertainties that we've been talking about we haven't been able to pin down a precise number uh or you know where where we get it just right sounds like we're okay on that language we've just got a couple more pages to go sorry was there a question on that language I was I was just going to make one comment it does seem I mean it it came up but it seems like this is saying since it says shall establish a program for overnight use of no fewer than 150 does that need to be changed to um two or greater than 150 if we want to have fewer than 150 because the way that it's stated right now is that it's 150 is the minimum and it sounded like there was a desire to have an opportunity to have less and build up to that 150 and above but the way that that's stated the way that I'm reading it is that if it says no fewer than 150 then that means the city manager is obligated to establish at a minimum 150 so I mean that's right and I think that's that's that's a good comment um the way I envision that being implemented and I certainly think that that's possible that we'll be coming back to the council with sixes to this ordinance but the way I anticipate that being implemented is as we do public outreach and we do establish storage facilities and as we do a lot of outreach to the homeless community this can be implemented as part of that but it doesn't require that on the 30th day following the second reading we go out and mark 150 spaces in parking lots in the city councilmember Watkins I mean I I appreciate the clarification and I think that where I was coming from is that if there are better sheltering options available we also want to direct individuals to better sheltering right so that factors into it and I guess what it speaks to really is what I think Susie brought up which is essentially how do we become eventually data driven in regards to what our provision of these options are right but starting with this I understand so I'm comfortable leaving it at okay next uh or next uh next comment change okay these are the additional criteria under which the camping has to happen and it just clarifies electrical connections or taps we just had taps before the next section e um is that um campfire it it calls out some additional types of fires and it specifies that um lawful campfires within designated fire pits are acceptable I'll give you a second maybe uh give everybody a sec to read that funny even the top part maybe we give a thumbs up when when folks are ready to go yes read these two okay the second one as well the f um that's keeping keeping trash in a box and actually picking it up um so removing it at the end of the day is anybody okay with that box or bag or similar okay so I was just thinking like logistically if it was me and I was packing up my camp then where must take the trash and so I'm wondering if we can have a place to put trash at the same place where people could store their belongings I don't know if that can be where we could put this at like a future direction or somewhere in here but it just like if we want people to clean it up where are they going to take it that's one of my thoughts thanks yes that I think is something that would um provide that opportunity to comply and encourage compliance it's pretty late for g uh to all read g and then um I can explain the intent of it based on the number of uh individuals with a qualifying disability as well as their caretaker but if you have one person and you have 20 people in one person that's disabled it's not each person gets uh I'm sorry you have 20 people in one person is disabled you don't have uh 12 by 12 for all 20 people just for that one if they have a caretaker it would be an extra 12 by 12 Dr. Member Watkins I just I'm wondering how does this factor into our conversation about what we determined was a qualifying disability and um and does that need to be defined then and given the previous conversation we had about that yeah I think that um the would just refer back to the prior um language regarding qualifying disability the council chose to remove the section that provided discretion so then it would revert back to the definition that says um and and Bonnie if you wanted to scroll up you can get to that if you scroll slowly I'll tell you when keep going keep going uh otherwise sorry it'll be um an indented portion um keep going this is almost it just above here so in a so here uh qualifying disability is uh person with a physical or mental disability that prevents that person from being able to on a daily basis construct deconstruct and put away and out there living in Canton and um then it's got the provisions if it's not apparent to city staff they may be asked to present a physician's verification okay thank you Holder did you have a question on this one yeah I guess mine was um along the lines of council member Watkins and then I was just wondering I'm not sure what they use at the DMV to define um handicap or physical handicap but I'm wondering if we could use something like that just it just it still feels like super vague to me like you could go to the chiropractor or I don't know my sister got a doctor's note so she could take her dog on a plane it seems like a bit of a loophole trust everybody that they do but I think also like it might create distrust between law enforcement and people that have other disabilities that they might not be able to see like the discussion topic you know should it should we just use a DMV um determination and we looked at the DMV determinations we actually thought that it could be easier to um get a physician's note than to actually have to go down to DMV but um you know I think it's a fair comment and perhaps um if it is amenable to the council it could be either or and that would allow some uh flexibility so that if they DMV criteria and they have say a driver's license that they have the physician's note to council member Cummings um concerns earlier about you know would someone be able to get access uh to the doctor that would just be you know one additional way to make it a little bit easier so just a suggestion if if that's something you'd be interested in. Council member Cummings, council member Collin Tari Johnson I believe was next and then Vice Mayor Bruner is that correct in order? 8 p.m and I'm wondering if the will be one hour before sunset to 8 a.m and that's just to really you know especially in the winter allow for if people need to set up their encampment during the while it's still light out you know an hour before dark in the winter is about four o'clock but then in the summer it's about 8 p.m so just trying to put in that buffer for when people are going to need to escape kind of the night time at Owens um because again if people can't set up a tent before 8 p.m in January that means that they're you know out and about for three plus hours in the dark and in the cold and then they have to set up their tent in the dark and if we're saying that people have to be in open space that means they have to go get their tent from the storage hike all the way out into wherever the open space is you know ensure there's 75 feet off of a path established camp and so I'm just curious how people feel about the proposal so proposal for the timing um and then we can maybe go back to the block path he came on but maybe she's she yeah she was she was just on so so let's let's finish if we don't mind let's finish where we were on the thread with the qualifying disability and before we move to the time uh if that's okay um I have council member calentary johnson and council member brunner uh mine was to just go back to that um shelter program but I can wait until we're finished going through the entire piece and then go back council member I mean excuse me vice mayor brunner hand down oh you're you're muted I'm sorry vice mayor I had uh noticed uh the language and maybe that's what council member calentary johnson wanted to bring up uh regarding the 60 days uh language so I don't know if you want to come back to that or uh keep going on this current thread why don't we why don't we finish this thread is there Lee you put out a bunch of options for us was there any interest in in any of those qualify future qualifying or people comfortable with the disability language I'm just looking for uh either Cassie would like to comment on the qualifying disability language go ahead Cassie thanks just really quick um so this is an extremely challenging issue how to deal with people with disabilities within the scope of this ordinance in a way that's reasonable and fair eviscerate the entire ordinance and the intent of the ordinance to have able-bodied individuals um uh been moving around every day um so that's been extremely challenging I do I do say in the draft language there is a provision that talks about these staff potentially drafting clarifications um to the extent um that um council deems that appropriate that's an option to sort of um kick that down and we did look at the DMV language I think it's a little bit different um somebody who can not walk all the way it's similar what we're looking for is people who really cannot um do what's required every day by the law which is um just every single day so I think some of the factors are similar to the DMV language but some of it's um a little bit different and I think um within the scope of the current language we should sort of leave it up to staff to figure out some regulations later um or you guys are free to uh do that clarification tonight thank you Cassie I think with not being an attorney and having the kinds of things that the eye to the the kinds of things I think um if it's the councils um and the motion makers that that that staff could could fine-tune some of these true legal definitions to to move keep moving tonight looks like everybody's got consensus on that okay so we will keep moving down the list then and then I I have not lost track of um the next proposal since we do have a question around the the timing uh proposal to change it from 8 a.m. to um an hour before sunset to 8 a.m. with the proposal correct council member coming and the motion uh the motion maker is that amenable to you was it an hour before sunset in an hour after sunrise or no I'm sorry it was an hour before sunset to 8 a.m. does that work for you uh mayor yeah I'm just wondering about whether if 7 a.m. might be better just in terms of um people kind of heading off and moving around in cars and things like that 8 a.m. is a little more of a of a active period of time so an hour before sunrise sunset to um 7 a.m. okay okay say that is referenced a number of times throughout the ordinance so um if council could include as part of their motion for us to um rectify those uh other areas where the time is cited we're almost there council member coming do you had a question you had a I believe you had um you had mentioned earlier that you wanted to talk about the warning language do you want to visit that that's not redline for tonight but if you have proposals we could I assume a week yeah let's go ahead and talk about that I think it's in it's in section 6.36.070 penalties for violations cities oh we see you get to it so in the third line um on the right it says city staff shall consider giving the person a verbal warning a verbal or written warning before an infraction citation is issued and I don't know I just personally feel like that again where the discretion that's provided can lead to you know people favoring certain to give certain people warnings over others and I feel like it might just be in order to be consistent just giving people warnings verbal or written um before issuing an infraction citation I think is will be appropriate and the way I think of this too is that if someone gets a warning on you know Monday and then they're encountered again on a Friday I don't know if that would necessarily constitute needing to give an additional warning again or if there's you know if we want to put timelines around when if somebody's issued a warning to say they're issued a warning and then a month from now they encounter that officer again you know do they get another warning or if they end up in another part of the town but they didn't know that they could camp do they get a warning because um removing that discretion of you know somebody coming across them and saying I'm not going to give you warning I'm just going to give you an infraction and they legally have the right to do that versus someone getting a warning and given that it's not really clear where people are supposed to go to figure out where they can and can't sleep if somebody gets up and moves and they are still in a no sleeping zone do they then get an infraction or do they get a warning again and I guess the efforts that will be made to ensure that once people are warned that they're clearly given the areas for sleeping have been clearly identified and communicated to the individual so that they can avoid you know getting an infraction or any further consequences so Tony do you want to take that one on I think the intent of this language was to deal with the situation where uh an officer or or staff member encounters someone who has clearly been warned or cited multiple times and so they know that that person is aware of the of the restrictions of the ordinance and are clearly um doing what they're doing with knowledge that they're in a location or they're they're set up in a manner that is prohibited by the ordinance that being said I think councilmember Cummings I have a little bit of discomfort with the language shall consider giving a warning myself we have not come up with a better way to address specifically the concerns that are behind that but the intent here is really just to to deal with the situation where the person is well aware of the requirements of the ordinance and where a warning would would just be you know something that is unnecessary because the person is already aware that they're in violation of the ordinance so we could try to change that and or the council could direct that a warning be given in each instance and that could be implemented as well yeah I I guess my thoughts would be the city staff shall give the person wherever we're in warning before an infraction citation is issued and then the warning scratch if given shall provide the person with information about legal indoor shelter indoor permissible night time sleeping operation options and then scratch the next sentence and then just have city staff also may but not but shall not be required to transport the person to available shelter or permissible sleeping van locations can you repeat that so city our citizens would disappear I would just want to make sure that we understand the intent of council on this in terms of how long of a time period this warning would last for logistically it could become very complex to try to get all the warnings given to a particular person and how we you don't necessarily have a record system in place for that so um you know just so I understand is that I'm giving you warning you're refusing to go and therefore I'm going to issue you a citation now or is that I warn you once every week you know or issue a citation on a regular basis and then we can make sure that it happens however the council wishes to do it awesome comments for the chief you know I even personally if I if I may you know I think even if you give someone a warning and I guess it'll be what we're gonna have the words with this somehow but you know even if you give somebody a warning and you know they tell you they're not gonna comply and probably more colorful words um then you know I think that that would be grounds for giving someone assuming someone a citation and so you know I don't think it has to be like we're gonna give you this warning we're going to come back in 24 hours you know it's here's your warning and you know I don't know if we need to set a time frame around when people have to move if we haven't said that already but um yeah I think just by you know giving someone the opportunity to to pack up their stuff and go seems appropriate yeah sorry go ahead that would be fine um just as long as because what we wouldn't want to do is is keep coming back you know four or five times the same person this is going to be a big enough push as it is for us let alone uh coming back multiple times uh which we do we give warnings almost every time anyway but uh yeah and then I have Vice Mayor Bruner and then uh Council Member Golder I'm not sure if you guys are on this part but go ahead Council Member Golder. Thank you um so the amendment that was that was proposed by myself and Vice Mayor Bruner around the um outreach and engagement proceeding um preceding um uh enforcement it goes in this section so I don't know what the language looks like but so the warning would be with outreach and engagement I wanted to just add that and clarify that um and I also just want to say that you know this maybe goes counter to my social worker hat but I do think that strong enforcement is necessary otherwise um the ordinance won't be effective so I hear Chief Mills' comments and and I think that we have to have both we have to have the prevention outreach engagement and we have to have the ability to enforce when um there's a problematic situation otherwise people will take advantage. On that note I think that at the end of this paragraph is is uh the place where the language suggested by Council Member Calantari Johnson could be inserted um with the modifications that were proposed if they're acceptable to the Council. And that's regarding the um the outreach yes and you suggest that at the end of the paragraph there Bonnie could you could you cut and paste that there and then I have Council Member Golder did you have further comments on I'm sorry actually I said and then I can't remember Golder. I was actually going if it helps Bonnie I can read it that's why I had my hand up um to just notate this section is um um in in the friendly amendment section that we put forth so um per the catch is recommendations ensure that outreach proceeds or occurs simultaneously to enforcement of prohibited outdoor living to the greatest extent possible for instance when public safe or except for when public safety life safety is not under immediate urgent or threat outreach could take the form of city county nonprofit or and or faith-based contact with identified individuals on a complaint basis or within a structured proactive program and it ties into with um the um third part of this being the that all outreach materials be created and disseminated to um in you know paper hard copies paper versions to remove all barriers to access of the information you know full of minor modifications to that yes please so I would recommend deleting per the catch is recommendations again um outreach and I think the word there is precedes rather than proceeds except wow bullet of I am sorry Tony would you remove the last the reference on the last bullet as well the bullet yeah I think that was a rationale for the language not not the text that council member talent sorry Johnson was suggesting uh council member Golder do you have questions on this um the warning so I'm just curious is the intent then you give me a warning I move along and then let's say two days later you give me a warning at a new spot you gave me the information I move along I just keep getting warning warning warning or if I comply then I won't then I won't ever reach the level of infraction even if I'm not following the rules or the citation whatever the next is that Tony or Andy do you have comment on that that is how I read the language as has currently been that might be what the council intends um I I think you know enforcement is intended to be um you know the last the last the last option when other good options have been exhausted so even if I'm not really complying with where I'm supposed to be if I just keep moving from place to place I'm not supposed to be yet well I still just keep getting warnings that's what I mean like if I do we need to have language if if we wanted to I think council member Golder and this was kind of part of what I was going to mention with the warning does it need to specify verbal warning written warning um what you know within the hour or 24 hours or some time frame um the manner and the time does does that need to be included the concern is that like maybe one or two individuals make make enforcement really hard for a couple you know for people by just you know manipulating the warnings a certain point this is tools that might have with law enforcement um as as written it kind of provides that one of course warning but see is when they would instigate it to go into a higher level of intervention that would be sort of discretionary cheap mills to weigh in here um I think we're trying to create something that works in the field kind of I think I rely on your expertise to try to see what this this language just trying to look at it from the implementation perspective yeah from implementation perspective we certainly can give a warning when we contact people um the more specificity you give us I think the better so we understand your intent of what you're trying to accomplish um but from an operational perspective we've got to give our officers enough authority to do their job and so if we warn somebody on Monday and then we warn them on Tuesday and then we warn them on Wednesday there we might also not issue any citations um you know that's I think that we've got we've got to give them the tool they need to to go out in and in good faith to cite people after the person has been warned adequately and the definition of adequate to me is if if we give them a flyer that is approved by the city manager uh in myself to define where they can go and they choose not to then I think that the only thing left to do is start citing them in until they comply so multiple contacts at different sites is not envisioned um I don't believe by I would not be envisioned as but I'm happy to hear uh additional council members and Lee I see you've had your hand up for a while and then I'll uh council member coming separate issue for me um thank you Mayor Myers I've related to the hours that I'd like to revisit when the time is right council member coming yeah I was just going to say to the chief's point you know and I've been thinking about how to articulate this but um you know I think it the intent is that um individuals who are contacted are going to be given a warning and that there is you know there's no gray area around whether or not someone who's initially contacted is going to receive a warning and then I think after that initial warning um you know whether it's subsequent warnings within a 30 day period I think it also depends on how often we're going to be switching around where these sleeping sites are because if we designate if we say one week you can go here and then you know whoops it's you know fire season or endangered species mating season we have to close on this area and we have to reopen another area then does that person then you know I think that anytime we reset that would you know also kick in a new kind of warning period um but I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I understand the um police chief's concerns and I think that to the extent that we can put in some language around adequate warning and noticing that would then allow for enforcement to occur makes a lot of sense I I might have some suggested language here in a second okay if we have that there is clear record of prior warning within a reasonable amount of time we can do that through our computerated dispatch system or written warnings we can we can figure that piece out of the field interview then I think that the officers could go ahead and uh and be confident that the person has been awarded given the proper information so do we need to change the language to say city staff shall give the person instead of a verbal change a to adequate and that set is there counting them colder does that get at your question okay so it's um it's that it says city staff keep going past that all the way to the give go up up up up up person a just make that adequate you're coming since you have another thank you Bonnie would you mind scrolling up to oh doing this is that we moved the hours to um if the council would like to see the hours at sun an hour before sunset to the uh evening time very well could conflict would say you know if we were doing a parking lot um and office workers in the winter time were there and so I would suggest including uh can we find uh 0 5 o d he is in dog at the end yes so uh shall be subject to all criteria set forth in 6.36 uh being provided except like 8 p.m. would be and you know depending on the lot that may not be an issue um but certainly you know if it's winter time and it's a sunsetting at five you know four o'clock if we're trying to get folks out I think you guys get the issue and councilmember commentary Johnson yeah I have the same question and concern around um the parking lots and and businesses so I think um hopefully this this works for councilmember Watkins who made the original I think amendment to this part but since we're here um can I go back to the to the point that I had raised my hand on before yes please it's it's just um this within 60 days time frame is missing from the language okay where should that go establish a program within the 60 within 60 days within 60 days of passage of the ordinance yeah exactly and I think no later than uh June 30th 2021 you've got to go back up I think yes it's still up it's uh 6.0 oh 5 o d oh yeah it's where we we're we're we're just at right there yeah back up right typed in hours of operation so that would be the last sentence is that where that's it just be part of the motion uh approving the ordinance but council could insert it in the text as well I suppose the motion was to remove the I thought the suggestion was to remove the catch recommendation piece and put that as the policy direction that was that was a different uh component but um does it complicate the ordinance Tony we put the within 60 days in here I just want to make sure that that piece gets captured I think it's really up to the up to the pleasure of the city council on that point oh I'm sorry that's my hand out um do you have a comment on this council member colder and council member Cummings okay council member colder I correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Susie said that it would be like setting ourselves up for failure to put 150 spaces within 60 days did I hear that wrong it would certainly be challenging yes could we modify would you be open to modifying that council member charlottary johnson so that we're set for success the document that we're in and maybe it works better to get out because what I would like to see is is a safe sleeping program started within 60 days not necessarily that we have it for 150 sites does that make sense so back when you guys were talking about it this is I moved this from the change to the ordinance just to council direction that would be the adopting direction they're just direction right or this is option and I think I think the reference to catch for us recommend these contexts um I'm hearing an echo starts uh makes sense as part of our oceans but not just to be able to get it going in 60 days but having that 150 in 60 days yeah my internal is not 150 in 60 days but just that we we make sure that we have something going within 60 days that's okay thank you justin do you have a comment on this one thing I was going to mention if we're going to put that exception in there for the hours could begin as late as 8 p.m and I would say maybe end as early as 7 a.m but no later than 8 a.m and the reason why is because um I was just looking at a sunset sunrise chart and in the winter sunrise uh certain times in january doesn't occur until almost 7 30 a.m but then also understanding that I know for some of the three-hour lots downtown and that and someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think a lot of the parking enforcement downtown starts at 8 a.m so if we were going to do something in parking lots trying to you know find that balance between getting people out before people need to park there to go to work but then also understanding that it's really difficult for people to wake up when it's dark and cold outside so so it's just the intention there and then I did have a question um we're council member cal entire johnson around the safe sleeping sites and I was just curious um what what the what would be the goal of that and the reason why I ask is because um you know over the course prior to the pandemic and throughout the course of the pandemic when we stood up we started off with 1220 river street that moved up to the armory we had the armory and then we had a slave a managing camp and program at the benches that's now also up in the armory I think we have like 160 or so tents up in the armory all of which were independent kind of safe managing camp and programs that all got moved up there for you know river street had to be moved because of construction benches got moved because of you know the winter and the rains and so I'm just wanting to understand what the 60 with the the next iteration of sleeping programs kind of what the thought is I'm all for having as many programs as we can but I just wanted to know if you could speak to that a little bit sure yeah um and I'll invite my my fair runner as well since we worked on this together but the 60 the safe sleeping program um is a little bit what what uh association of faith communities currently does in their churches but it's in public spaces so that's the idea is that there would be some kind of monitoring and staffing and supervision um in connection to outreach and engagement staff and that would be one step towards um the encampments that you're speaking of the the the full managed encampments I don't think that our city um I know that our city doesn't have the resources and capacity to stand something like that up ourselves and I know that it's a challenge for the county as well but that would be a step towards that does that help clarify great thank you yeah we might be here um routine I think we've gotten Bonnie did you get everything these changes but in terms of them we're going to have to watch the video and piece everything together can you put the original motion up to your participant ID entered the meeting as a panelist attendees can now hear you speak thanks for the clarification Bonnie I'd be happy to agendize um you know work with the chief to get those agendas as they can be packaged but I think if we would be willing to kind of finalize this work tonight but I'm happy to work with you and the chief to look at to look at those quality of life ordinances and see how quickly they can be brought forward okay and that just for clarification I wasn't going to put a date on it but just put the intention of you know some of these really fitting within figuring out how we can move things forward um to start addressing especially the bike chop shop thing because that I know is people are very upset when they get the bike stolen in this town and we want a bike from the community and I think that that's a not only crime against an individual but a crime against our climate and so but yeah if it if uh if we can follow up on that I'd be happy to have that conversation with you yeah the chief and I had talked about that one in particular um I was in the impression that he might have thought that we had captured that in here but I think re re-looking at it and make sure we capture the intent of that ordinance as best as we can it's a better way to go much much better um I have so Bonnie do you want to why don't we take a five minute break Bonnie and you can massage the uh motion so we know for sure what we're voting on um I have council member I mean excuse me council member and vice mayor Bruner did you guys have questions or comments is that a mental I had a comment on the bike chop chop if you want to wait I can wait yeah we'll just power through then I think if we could um I think if we if you don't mind vice mayor Bruner we will bring that other those or other ordinances um back um as a you know as a package we'll do the analysis beforehand if that's appropriate so we don't um necessarily go into that discussion tonight because it's not agendized per se so is that amenable to you or did you just have a clarifying question I just wanted to understand uh the the intent of the um 6.36.060 uh D as in dog their public property shall not be used as storage for extra car tires and an ornament number of bike parts gasoline generators etc etc so is that a section that we could simply scroll in red lines um stronger language to incorporate the bike or does it need to that was that was my comment so rather than a separate cover the intent of that bike shop piece but I don't know enough about how you how you want to enforce against that chief mill so after what you and I had discussed earlier is that this may get us most of the way there uh I think the ordinance that we have looked at was a little bit stronger in terms of um just a few bikes and a location that are disassembled there's a little bit more clear language that don't happen in front of you right now but we could certainly start here and then ask if we need to and it might be that that getting and I think council member Cummings concern is is really those large-scale true chop shops that for example the photos we saw from so maybe there is that need to to provide additional an additional ordinance that clarifies is that that intent with the volume vice mayor Bruner that was all I had that's it thank you thank you okay um body can you flip back to the motion and I'll repeat the motion and we will go ahead and vote tonight council member walk-ins seconded by mayor Myers to introduce for publication ordinance number 20-2021-03 amending chapter three six point three six of the Santa Cruz municipal code related to regulations for temporary outdoor living with the following changes part D and a part or all of or all of a city own parking lot believe we might have changed this um language um is the most clear thing to do um Tony to make the motion as amended now that we've actually gone step-by-step through the ordinance is it better to say enter to that the motion would be to introduce the publication ordinance of the ordinance as stated in the first bullet there yes as amended um uh pursuant to the discussion that that the council has has just concluded so the motion um council member walk-ins if you're amenable to that would be to introduce um the motion would be introduced for publication ordinance number 20-21-03 amending chapter three six point three six of the Santa Cruz municipal code related to regulations for temporary outdoor living as amended um as amended and you had the other language there Tony as amended period uh as amended yes for the minutes are you wanting to change the part Tony I'm just looking for it we we just went line by line through the actual ordinance right but a lot of what's here is actually in the ordinance now that we've gone line by line yes we also plug it into the minutes because somebody reading the minutes doesn't have the ordinance so the body will be filling this in with all of the details of okay i think the motion will catch it but um uh also uh to delete per cash recommendations etc so I just want to make sure that we have that language in the notes that Bonnie took on the on the red line text and that we can clean up the motion uh to make it consistent with that okay make your emotion okay with that yeah amendments okay yeah I'm getting a little we're all exhausted yeah I think we'll we'll go ahead and uh go to a roll call vote then Bonnie fighting we'll make sure that things like you know the direction to staff regarding the navigation center is not a part of the ordinance but a part of separate directions and so play ordinance especially as it relates to environmental protection but I do have some concerns with buttons and just um community input and rollout with that I believe we are can I just ask really quick the next reading will be in two weeks can we just have that clarified for the public as well the next step to see if they can this will be ready in two weeks or it's what's called the action summary posted on our website um before the minutes are so I'd say no later than Monday it will be on um March night through the ordinance and hear from the public I want to thank our staff again this has been a haul and uh I want to thank all my colleagues um very very difficult policy to try to work through and decide um on and uh I just appreciate everyone's willingness to stick with it tonight and um I would love to say good night but I'm going to say good morning and um wish you all a special day today