ations till after public comment so we can really hear from folks um and so i'll open it up for questions uh council member golder i think you had your hand up first i i have a do you want me to save my comments then or just stick to the question right now i'd like to get your questions if there's clarifying questions for staff if you want to yeah i'll save my comments my question is um and i know everyone's on this meeting but if there's somebody that can let us know how the change at the county level um will help with our situation in the city and like how soon can we expect to see those beds open up thank you to our partners at the county that brought that forward and um this morning i'll take a stab at that i wasn't able to attend the county discussion today um as we were in session here um but um it's it's going to depend on a number of factors um how quickly they can secure land um how what what type of facility they want to set up is it is something that they do on a temporary basis um or something that they want to do as a long-term facility and so there are a lot of factors but suffice to say you know that takes time um so um the 120 i think you're referring to the 120 shelter beds and um that isn't going to be something that's happening um likely and um you know the next few months it's going to be a longer term effort um even if they they've got land it takes time to um mobilize all the resources even for a temporary facility any other questions council member coldis no i'll save my i'll save my group okay uh council member watkins was next and then council member coming yeah i think i'll save a lot of my comments and questions also but i just really want to speak to a comment that i heard during oil communications in which you were referred to as mayor karen and i guess i just want to say a couple things about that one is that it was misused often that's associated with racial um actions and i think we want to be really clear about that with language and i um i also want to say as mayor it's the job of the mayor to facilitate public input and process and it's a tricky job and i have empathy for your position and um and also just recognize that's the role of the job of mayor right facilitate that process um i think after four years of name calling i hope that we can move away from that type of um dialogue and that we as a council welcome of course your policy input and ideas and thoughts and opinions but when you go to personal name calling i think it really is something i'd like to see left in the past as um as we had a lot of that from our former president and so i just really want to say that because i think we all observed it and heard it and i hope my colleagues here on the dais the virtual dais stand with me and wanting to move forward in that kind of direction so i will reserve my comments specific to this item but hope that as we move into oral or into the public comment process that our community members can adhere to that standard thank you councilmember councilmember coming thank you mayor and i agree with my colleague statements that were just made right now regarding some comments that were made during oral communication i had a couple clarifying questions and i'm going to also reserve comments for later i think a lot of those comments will be addressed was i'm wondering if you can just explain with regards to the on-street transportation what that can just clarify what that statement is thank you councilmember Cummings let me um pull this back up um and i apologize for going quickly through that but let me uh get that uh the transportation i believe is number two yes okay um so i'm going to share my screen again here so this is um where we saw um the draft said authorized storage programs shall be required to provide transportation assistance to individuals who request it and a potential alternative would be as any personnel encounter individuals who are camping in prohibited areas or at prohibited times so that's the when it would be offered the city shall have a service available to assist individuals with on-street transportation to storage facilities so that's again it's saying um where they're going to where they're they're starting from um the concern part of the concern was um the um drafted language could be interpreted very broadly like you know well someone would be given assistance to take their belongings out into the far reaches of the Pogonip every day with the with a broad interpretation of the language and so that's where we wanted to have the council consider a a more narrowed um uh directive as part of the ordinance they wouldn't then get so at least i'm just trying to understand you know why the term on-street is used and like how it applies in a certain sense to whether that's you know you have to be in the city um in like a residential area or does this apply to other spaces as well right certainly the council is you know it's it's the council's discretion related to this i think um part of the concern was that this says shall be required so uh the storage program shall be required to provide transportation to individuals so so the concern was where does that go and and obviously you know if if someone's being required to provide transportation to you know far reaches of open space that's going to take really significant um staff time um you know if they're um helping convey materials back and forth and so that's where we wanted to to have the council consider the implications of the policy that um and had been approved and um you know there are there are time and cost implications but it's it's the council's discretion as to how they want to approach the issue we wanted to call it to your attention so that um you can you can make that informed decision and then looking through the ordinance and then even today you know we have all the different zones called out and i'm wondering and you know if we if we express neighborhoods parks and things like that why do we have to call out all the zones and is there an easier way of saying what parts of the community are off limits by just stating you know neighborhoods parks open space etc so i'm just wondering if you can clarify you know why why we're laying out every single zone yeah i think um it it's been an iterative process um and i appreciate that question because um as we go through that iterative process there may be alternative approaches and so um you know depending on how the council wants to um direct us this evening there may be an alternative approach that's preferred in terms of how the ordinance is structured um so you know we started off with um fewer you know we tried to to minimize the number of areas that were prohibited um and certain areas have been more areas have been prohibited um with the addition of residential um for example and so you know certainly if if we're heading in that direction um if it's the will of the council we could restructure the ordinance such that it um it is worded in the affirmative of here the areas that you could go if um if that's the will of the council that would be an alternative approach um because you're you're correct there are uh you know the number of prohibited areas has been growing was mentioned um i think it was mentioned in the presentation around sensitive habitats being on the list but when going through the ordinance i just want to point out that it's sensitive species that are listed and so we actually don't have sensitive habitats as no sleeping areas so just to provide that distinction there's there's a difference between um you know sensitive species and sensitive habitats my question is there for now i have more but i know um we have limited time for comment and i want to ensure that we can hear from as many numbers of the bubbles as possible so and i know my other colleagues have questions as well so i'll stop there thank you and don i think you're muted or maybe right i'm sorry uh vice mayor bruner uh councilmember brown and councilmember condary johnson in that order great thank you uh and thank you councilmember walkins for calling out that caller statement my questions i'll be quick i did have one question and uh councilmember coming sprouted up on the transportation alternative language um that was part of the amendment that councilmember calentari johnson and myself had included and added at the last reading um i'm still unclear of the definition of on street in that usage what what was intended for that alternative language thank you vice mayor bruner um i think what um the thought was as part of that discussion was that it would be vehicular transportation um you know it wouldn't necessarily be going into the open spaces um but it would likely be vehicular transportation so that that was the thought going into it and again you know council discretion but that was how it was considered development okay okay and um my second question was um the hours you brought up a slide uh something about the hours um and again if you could clarify that sure happy to so i will know that the slide itself um is is particularly helpful but um the um the ordinance allows for camping um between one hour before sunset and seven a.m and uh councilmembers will recall it was presented last time as eight um allowed from eight p.m to eight a.m and there was some discussion about well it gets dark early in the uh winter and so maybe we should have one hour before sunset that'll give time that'll give people time to set up their camps um and then seven a.m since that time um since the last meeting the questions have also arisen well it's seven a.m the right time um so some other communities have done things like half an hour before sunset to half an hour after sunrise or it could be an hour before to an hour after and so forth so there are lots of different ways that the council could do it and given those questions that have arisen it is wanted to call that to the council's attention as a potential discussion topic and um we did have um exceptions built in to those um one hour before sunset to seven a.m for our expressly for our safe sleeping zones so we said it's allowed but you know the safe sleeping zones can have different hours um so that you know it wouldn't conflict with other uses you know if it's a parking lot you know starting it at four o'clock on on christmas eve you know an hour before sunset then you know downtown parking lot might be full at that time so um that was that was the thought is um you may want to consider alternatives there okay and um what what parks are not under state parks or parks master plan the open spaces are not considered parks in the parks master plan okay but there's okay yeah so i think we've got seven and i can pull the slide out we've got seven open spaces um and the ordinance before you preclude camping in a number of those um but um almost to the slide um here we go is that you know aronical more creek they love you get a coconut yeah so so um here um neary lagoon is an open space but it's it would be prohibited the um a rail soco canyon would be prohibited um and about others like the more creek hogan ebb um gala and um uh the aronical would uh not fall under those prohibitions in the ordinance that's before you tonight um okay and aronical portions would be due to the trail uh proximity is that correct that's correct you can see in in each of these you know the trails at 75 feet so these are 150 foot wide because it's 75 feet on either side would be expressly prohibited um and then um the um sensitive habitat areas could be prohibited as uh councilmember coming said if they're determined to have potential impacts on sensitive species so if the camping would have uh impact on sensitive species and these would be the first areas that we would look at and evaluate is these habitat areas should the council approve the ordinance as is drafted okay um and uh that's it for now thank you you're welcome uh councilmember brown and then councilmember commentary johnson yeah i i just want to make note here i i do have a comment because i think it's important to note that it is now 803 um we are not even done with councilmember questions and i appreciate that folks are trying to limit them but um we are leaving almost no time for the public to speak and i think that given what we're hearing it um it seems like there are a lot more people who want to speak on this item um i would appreciate extending uh public comment time to allow for that and i you know i i just i just want to say that you know on an issue a set of issues and a major policy change that is going to have major major impacts on our city all of our residents the city budgets um marginalized people in our community that um it's the least we could do to uh let the people speak um my question is it with respect to the cost estimates um we did have you um talked with other actors besides the county to have you talked with any of the nonprofits or community faith based organizations to um try to get a handle on um what costs might be if we looked at alternative administrative models because i think that um certainly that would be significantly reduced will we to do that so i just am wondering if you talk with anybody else to get a sense of what the cost might be otherwise so i'd note that the the managed camp was run um i believe a salvation army that was running that is my recollection and our estimate there was about 80 000 so that that is less than what the county was doing for the 100 000 plus that they were spending for you know roughly the same number of individuals though um i you know they were also providing more meal services um as well um and um what we based that on was just hours and pay so 19 dollars an hour number of hours number of staff um i do have a meeting set up next week um with a provider that you know i hope that we can have some of those conversations um however um you know between two weeks ago and right now um we all we were able to do is is get these rough estimates just based on um you know using those you know back of the envelope here's how many hours we would have people out there if it was um two staff members and and then we used our experience based on the 1220 river street thank you you're welcome and and i would say you know there is that potential and we're hopeful that um some non-profit providers could assist in doing it in a more cost-efficient manner councilmember callantary johnson thank you um i also share um councilmember brown's concern that hoping that we can extend public comment a little bit longer and i also want to thank councilmember Watkins the um name calling is unacceptable we may share or have different perspectives and come from different experiences but there's no reason for that and we can do better than that i do have a clarifying question for lee um or maybe something to confirm that permitted managed camp programs are currently possible um in the ordinance as it's written right now is that correct yes that is correct there seems to be confusion but that's not included and but it is currently possible yes it is and we have said in our draft report that one of the next steps would be to it should this be approved we would come back to the council with a policy um that provides some just high level guidance for those you know we don't necessarily want to get really specific but just high level guidance so we can understand what the council would like to see as part of those should this ordinance be adopted great thank you that was my question thank you councilmember um and i appreciate the councilmember's brevity in their questions um as many people know last couple weeks ago when we um reviewed this we stayed till 1 30 in the morning and um there was a lot of people that left during that process too so i'm trying to balance um a peak period of time where we can get as many people from the public involved in commenting um and give council members enough time for questions and comments and deliberation i'm not intending to eliminate or try to deny anyone public comment but i don't think setting policy at 1 30 in the morning is helpful to our community either so i am very read recognizing that i'm at a major balancing act right now so i'm going to go ahead and extend the um public comment time up to 9 45 so i'm going to add an extra 30 minutes right now there's 98 speakers starting at 808 i'm hoping we can accommodate everyone if all 98 people would like to speak um so if i did my math right i might miss a few here or there and feel free if you're speaking tonight if you don't need your full minute please make your comment as brave as possible and we can get through as many people as we can so i'll go ahead and open this up for public comment um if you are interested in commenting on on the ordinance related to regulations for temporary outdoor living press star nine on your phone to raise your hand when it is your time to speak you will hear an announcement that you have been unmuted the timer will then be set to one minute public comment will end at 9 p.m excuse me 9 45 p.m to return to council action and deliberation and we will go ahead and get started i have caller lori martin please go ahead lori martin can you hear me fine yes we can hear you okay 30 year resident of prospect heights neighborhood thank you for taking on this difficult issue i realize the issues homelessness and city ordinances are controversial and complex however the issue of fire safety is not i'm from paradise california the fire storms we're seeing in recent years extend beyond what would normally be expected the csu fire had many of us in the city packed evacuating or prepared to go if camping's allowed in the open spaces of day la viega park around engulf should more creek it will have the potentials of the entire city of santa cruz at risk from devastating fires as well as our neighbors in the county these areas are also constant risk of falling trees and branches they're not safe for camping the fire in day la viega would also put our 911 center our hospital the armory shelter the golf course santa cruz shakesburg and more city assets at risk please amend the ordinance to remove day la viega park and these other open space areas from the loud overnight housing thank you thank you next step is search kagna go ahead search i did i sent bonnie could you put up slide number three is that possible i'll just keep talking i hadn't realized that health in all policies was actually in ordinance it's six point zero three point zero five zero and it states that all agenda reports within a year of adoption which were passed that time will contain a paragraph considering health in all policies so since this doesn't have one i don't know whether uh that lee just broke the law and whether this uh vote can actually go forward without that being included um with slide two i had a map that shows the black is the only places that people are allowed to camp and this is the best i could do trying to figure it out and trying to cross off all the neighborhoods it's a completely confusing it's absolutely unconstitutional homeless people are never going to be able to figure that one out thank you next up is phone number oh search are you still working i don't know i'm do i still have time it hasn't rang yet you do okay well if the if it was possible to show slide number three um that was i emailed all of you guys uh thank you search will if you email us we look at it we appreciate it zero nine five zero the solid in sales speaking for the more creek canyon homeowners association we support your efforts to help the homeless at the same time the lives of we who live at the wildland urban interface have been transformed by the growing thread of wildfires it defies logic to legalize outdoor living in areas of extreme fire danger like more creek canyon aranigal chindalabi aga park disposing of santa cruz is homeless by inviting them to camp in these remote inhospitable locations away from basic services is a disgrace removing unwanted encampments by opening the green belt to so-called overnight camping foolishly sweeps the hot coals of the unsheltered under an open space rug where it's only a matter of time before flames erupt it's been said that all sides unhappy may be the mark of an equitable solution in this case all sides are unhappy because the camping solution is a bad idea that helps no one and endangers many thank you thank you next up is tiffinnie worthington please onnie did i skip one no there we go tiffinnie worthington hi sorry i just came up thank you so much for hearing me and thanks for tackling this i'm with sol and laura lee i'm not with them but i just heard them speak and yes i agree it's um you know being intimately involved with the wildfires myself you know it's profoundly critical to keep camping out of these so-called open spaces you know fire hazards are extreme and i didn't realize i didn't have an intimate um experience with homeless and and drug addicted people until now that i live about 50 feet away from the encampment beach behind royal toge and um there was a massive explosion which turned into an uncontrolled bonfire the other night and luckily it didn't catch the nearby trees which hang over our home um but you know having that fire happen in our in pogan at for instance could easily start a series of mega fires um so i definitely discourage that i think it should be in some big parking lot and managed i think that would be easily managed and then i just have a quick question is what discourages um out of town homeless people and addicts from coming here to enjoy these these services and just increasing the need thank you very much next up i have mary please go ahead yes can you hear me yes we can great um i would propose that arena gulch would be an absolutely horrible place i think that they've tried this before to have camping i was actually part of one of the original people who was part of when original arena gulch was to be put in and that conversation came up believe it or not before they put arena gulch in regarding camping and it was the number one concern of having that just having that go into that area and now here we are saying that we're going to allow camping in arena gulch there's absolutely nowhere to put people there's everywhere you go there's no way that you're not going to be by the sidewalk i go through that i go through there at least three times a day early morning and evening it's very busy there's a lot of children in there there's no room and i don't understand how you have homeless people get there when they're all actually they need to stay exactly where they are right now and also i would propose that you put them at the facilities are for the homeless next is amanda s amanda s go ahead hi can you hear me yes we can my opposition to the inclusion of the arena gulch open space in the list of overnight sleeping areas arena gulch is the heart and soul of the east side it's a heavily utilized space by families dogs cyclists it's handicapped accessible it's the gateway to the beach and i wonder if this council doesn't fully grasp the amount of use it gets this past saturday from 9 30 to 11 30 in two hours we counted 255 separate individuals coming to use the open space a ronald gulch is key it is key to the quality of life of us those of us living on the east side of town this ordinance sacrifices the quality of life and security of the people of the a ronald gulch neighborhood please do not take our park for much thank you very much uh next up is david williams good evening my name is david williams i'm a resident of the city of santa cruz i share the serious concerns that others have already addressed about the wildfire danger of opening the city's greenbelt lands including the pogunap to temporary outdoor living there have been several fires in the existing outdoor living communities including in the pogunap area banning open fires will not be sufficient to prevent a totally tragic wildfire since fires occur even when both camping and fires are banned the city is exposing itself to future liability if it ignores this risk i'm also concerned about the environmental impact of overnight camping in the greenbelt lands the argument in the agenda report that this proposal is sequel exam is not compelling particularly with respects to throwing the greenbelt lands open to new camping in areas where it has not occurred or been allowed before if our greenbelt lands are needed for as temporary housing it must be done in a sustainable way that confines the impact to small regions that can most readily be supervised mitigated and enforced thank you thank you bonnie can you clarify did i i thought amanda just went right before david but i just want to make sure i didn't i didn't mess up amanda asked did you speak before regarding aronago yes okay thank you uh next up is beth princess please yeah i'm trying to unmute is it working it is we can hear you okay great thank you um so i live along the levy and i have an encampment um basically uh right by my house and um i'm calling in support of the ordinance just so that i can start feeling safe again uh you know all day long there is shouting um really obvious drug use and drug sales i've had people hop defense and steal things from my yard i've had someone a man from the encampment tried to enter my home while i was in it there's so many reasons that i feel unsafe because of the encampment um and then also the fires that just happened which i could see from my door they were very close so please um please continue to consider the residential areas and um yeah that's all i have to say thank you thank you very much breath uh best excuse me uh next person is with phone number ending in 1810 population density is directly proportional to homeless services so why thinking adding more services just here is not going to actually increase the homeless council santa cruz is questionable enabling homelessness is a city growth industry or a santa cruz city cause for many the line for free stuff is endless there should be other lines elsewhere i join others thinking an open invitation to legal mass occupation of so much vulnerable open space is a mistake as to tent camps sandwiches go set up six uh safe sleeping villages where each of 262 campsites cost 5 000 a month totaling 16 million a year more than it costs for a market rate apartment coming with three meals a day bathroom security the homeless industrial complex is a very very happy camper helper bunch since tent camps are not reimbursable by the fed one wonders what city services they give up an exchange maybe they and you should say what those are giving the unelected city manager autonomous bureaucratic authority to set up a temporary whatever that is homeless camp anywhere anytime is just one of many concerns thanks if you're pleased and ask your next speaker please um go ahead done mute and we'll ready to go okay thank you so much um my name is and simonton and i'm very curious that you haven't really you're considering this ordinance without as an idea of where to camp and where are you going to put these people camping when we have a very good solution that's used in many places around the country which is called a managed camp and that means there are guidelines that you are not investigating this and that you haven't really put any time or effort into this and i mean i know brent adams doesn't get 75 grand per year for his storage program so that you put forward these numbers to frighten people like the last caller who just was saying how prohibitively expensive all this stuff is there are volunteers in this community please consider faith-based groups nonprofits private groups and a managed camp thank you very much thank you next up is phone number ending in 9532 my name is soren whiting i'm the legislative director of the uc santa cruz now the temporary outdoor living ordinance effectively removes compassion from an area of policy decision-making that is in so desperate need of compassionate decision-making instead of having tolo we should be having discussions around topa copa it really breaks my heart to see the city which i've spent the last four years of my life being the news in the headlines with the title uc or santa cruz trying to regulate homelessness while at the same time my hometown berkeley discussing how make an implement policy like topa copa and other initiatives that can actually help people out and prevent situations leading to house homelessness um furthermore you know uc students are currently receiving around five percent of housing insecurity which you know you know a big part of our population is being dramatically impacted by this so i just want to say that that we are keeping a close eye on this issue uh and we want to make sure that you know going down the line that we have compassion and policy making rather than money guiding uh decision-making uh thank you next up is hilda can you hear me yes we can all right thank you so much so to the santa cruz community listening to me the way that the homeless folks were presented to us as a monolith last week was horrific paying them as drug riddles second-class people who are criminals who dare take out space in our prestigious areas like we're going to ban them from open space and then provide those temporary or even permanent shelter are you praying that they like die because obviously we're not looking at them we're speaking with them even with no access to libraries or even phones how are they even able to have access to this meaning that we're talking about their livelihood i like to remind folks that santa cruz is the fifth most expensive city to live in the world according to business insider every two years santa cruz conducts this county homeless like survey and i read all 60 pages from 2019 and 75 percent of the homeless of santa cruz aren't outsiders they've been here for five to ten years more these are your seasonal workers who are doing your actual construction work and these are your boardwalk people who are actually getting hired on these years you haven't gotten your first or second stimulus because the nation's had a huge influx and so we're not able to handle it really have compassion here and let me know that i voted for a kind and compassionate council member thank you next up is uh phone number ending in 2885 just press start there you go hello this is marv louis long-time resident of santa cruz this ordinance should it pass will likely stand as a challenge to the eighth amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment as well an indictment upon the majority citing a consciousness vacant of compassion this ordinance does not speak to liberty and justice for all rather the ordinance speaks to an abuse of power within a virtual process that refutes the best interest of this community both housed and unhoused thus i urge you to refute this ordinance until which time the community-oriented solution as would be representative of a democracy may be presented to this council that concludes my statement thank you very much uh next up is uh phone number ending in six nine five nine please go ahead and you can press star six and we can hear you number ending in six nine five nine phone number ending in six nine five nine did you want to speak if you unmute yourself we're ready to have you speak we're going to move on to the next speaker elise you're up next looks like you're ready to go is that six nine five nine or never mind bonnie you must have done that next up is elise okay hi can you all hear me yes we can thanks again i really appreciate i just want to say i agree name name calling shouldn't happen however people are very angry and i'm one of them and killing people is also unacceptable very much so in our country i believe it's called murder and that's what this law will be it is a punitive law it's a political law the ultra ultra conservative council that won on a primary date with big big big money and lots of deceptions in the sentinel is the reason behind this punitive law i have deeply investigated services in tana cruise profoundly services actually the city is in the business of lying suzi ohara is one of the zars of empty homeless policies she regularly tells bibs and you all do about your real policy which is mostly about about the police if you if your number ends in zero eight six one you're ready and we're ready to hear from you well i'd like to uh object to this uh criminalization of the homeless um you're picking on the poorest people in town and i realized that there are some of them that are making messes and stuff around town but that's uh that's not everybody that's a small group of people um how would you like it if you had to tear your house down every morning and then when you came home from work you had to build it back up again um it's very unreasonable and i'm sure that all of this is going to end up in the city in another lawsuit which you're probably going to lose so why even bother to do this if you know it seems futile and the fact that you're putting these um things in there to say okay this has to happen first before we start it that's not going to happen the police will enforce this law as soon as it goes on the books they're not going to wait for storage places to open up they're not going to wait for um somebody to come around and hand a piece of paper to every homeless person thank you next caller it ends in uh the last four digits nine zero six eight i can hear me yes we can yes my name is christina kowdland uh i'm an retired environmental consultant i specialized in recreating native plant communities especially in degraded areas uh clients have included municipalities parks departments of transportation airports power companies and many other commercial and industrial entities my particular emphasis has been on preventing erosion and fire as well as on the protection of watersheds and wildlife habitat what you are planning to do in other words allowing camping within parts of moore creek pogo nip dale aviega and orana gulch will quite simply ruin the native habitat it will quite simply destabilize the non-native environment it will also ruin the watershed it will place these natural areas at high risk of wildfire which as you know can jump to residential areas within the city of tana cruise i'd be happy to offer my services pro bono thank you very much next up is eric please thank you for taking my call tonight this is eric rodberg i understand i understand the many concerns people have it both uh the public and council and staff with the issues with it being rushed and um the potential amendments i would urge you to pass it tonight on a second reading so that you um with a few amendments as possible so you can pass it on a second reading you'll have plenty of chance to amend it before it actually can be enforced because of all the triggers and the thresholds before it will be enforced and i think this has been in the making for so long it's extremely important that we get something on the books tonight and um that thank you and uh thanks for all your hard work and staffs all staff's hard work thank you next up is clloe hoax go ahead clloe unmute yourself clloe can hi can you hear me yep we can hear you hi my name is clloe and i strongly oppose this ordinance i'm an environmental scientist with a background in water quality i'm well aware of human impacts on waterways but the city's concern for the environment is completely disingenuous you all admitted this isn't going to help homelessness it's just a first step but aren't there other first steps we could be taking like waste management portable hygiene facilities basic survival resources or how about funding mutual aid groups that are actually keeping the unhoused community fed enclosed why not invest more there first you're more concerned with protecting the environment from the houseless than you are from protecting the houseless from the environment somebody said this last week but you can't compare unhoused folks need to survive with housed wealthy folks need to not to be close to poor people your outreach is a vague afterthought and chief mills with all the respect how dare you say there's any compassion in your criminalization of homelessness this ordinance is a performative attempt to sweep optics of poverty out of the public eye with no genuine attempt to address the underlying issue vote no defund the police thank you next up is caller with the phone number ending in 7409 speaking on behalf of iran a gulch neighborhood and i'm wondering if you guys have consulted with the coastal commission um the city of santa cruz invested an enormous amount of time and money into developing the open space in iran a gulch for the purpose of protecting the tar plant by also creating a space for our entire community um allowing the homeless to camp in iran a gulch would inflict an exorbitant amount of damage to the endangered species habitat and coastal area implementation of the iran a gulch master plan required the city to obtain a coastal development permit from the coastal commission because the planning area lies within the designated coastal zone the coastal development permit includes both standard and special conditions and iran a gulch habitat management plan was developed to satisfy the special conditions of the coastal development permit iran a gulch is an area that's been protected for the endangered habitat in addition the majority of the area lies within the designated coastal zone and per the habitat management plan by allowing homeless to camp in this area would be in violation of those regulations thank you next thank you that's go ahead you're unmuted hi there sorry about that i um i'm a resident of santa cruz of 10 years one thing i'd like to bring to the conversation is why the city hasn't implemented a point in time survey in the houseless community and aren't doing their due diligence before implementing this ordinance and even i'm having an understanding of what the homeless population is currently at in santa cruz county with all of the additional houseless people from the pandemic thank you for your comments next up is caller with the number one you press star six thank you go ahead um i agree with chloe hook and um basically we're having a heart can you move a little closer to your speaker we're having a little hard time hearing you yeah um i very much agree with chloe hook and and listen i'm listening to what's going on in um the administration and the police and talking about homelessness and it seems to me that they're you know they're coming up with these kind of systematic ways to deal with homelessness on an ordinance level and it's very bureaucratic um and they're dealing with the fact that there's large encampments in san lorenzo park and um up in uh harvey west park until they're targeting those areas it's really clear to me that that's what they're doing they're not saying that but that's what they're doing and so my question to you is i i'm trying not to come off this um confront um confrontational or oppositional here but um i feel that you have to adapt to some kind of a mood of tolerance because what it means to cutting me off yeah i'm giving everybody a minute and i didn't even say it give as many people in as possible okay i don't know thank you next up is toby vini you're ready to go you can unmute we're ready been five fires this past year from a legal camp in iran a gulch her chief andy mills is only four to five hours off just a shift there's not enough police funding to secure the iran a gulch neighborhoods after budget cuts there will be no nighttime security and neither packing up every morning nor lee's proposed bedtime for the homeless is enforceable this kind of a housing project is not it's such a high density neighborhood with constant security is irresponsible it shows a complete lack of deterrent for city phantacruz city residents this is a flagrant and it's used to significant funds to only appear to address a growing mental health and economic crisis on our streets we've all seen what happens when the county embarked on these band aid projects in their attempt to only address the symptoms of a bigger problem while ignoring the real issue we've also seen what happens to the scarred environment in neighborhoods after the negative impact of these housing projects are irrevocably left in these areas before being relocated to another area if this measure is allowed to pass we're going to see the same things happen to iran a gulch the lovey aga poghanip and more greek iran a gulch is the most is the most frequented area in the heart of midtown if this is allowed to pass then it cruises the whole will never be the same again next up is davin we oppose this ordinance on the ground that is morally bankrupt logistically untenable likely illegal and altogether antithetical to the health of our community we must be the problems faced by our community in the context of the material conditions which give rise to them the 2019 santa cruz county homeless census found that of the 2000 on-house people in our county a vast majority are previous residents who became homeless due to domestic abuse divorce or separation the loss of a job and eviction or a rent increase and those who are able to work over 90 percent are either doing so or are currently looking the facts tell us this the on-house community is populated largely by the working class of santa cruz our struggling neighbors whose lives will be needlessly more complicated by this ordinance we must address the assertions made by those ordinance holistically claims such as irreparable environmental degradation are unfounded at best though often the result of inadequate city services other cities have demonstrated that robust community organizing paired with sufficient social services is not only more impactful and cost effective at addressing the problems at hand but it's also the responsibility of governance we call upon the council to do the right thing in the santa cruz chapter of science for the people thank you very much next is maria solis kennedy hi can you hear me yes we can hi i just wanted to um encourage the city council to vote against this ordinance i'm super confused after tuning in last week how it managed to get even worse and exclude people from basically every corner of the city i agree with a caller earlier that says this is can amount to trying to kill people um i think that this would do nothing but bring harm if you're looking for more money to um fund actual solutions for ending homelessness then i suggest um taking money out of the police budget which is overblown and there's a lot of public support behind that so please listen to your constituents and vote no against this thank you next up is anastasia hello can you hear me yes we can and go ahead thank you um i'm here today because i value compassion for all and i want to see it reflected in the systems that surround me and the police i live the issue of homelessness is of course an undeniable one in santa cruz those who are in sheltered often have big physical and mental health needs for obvious reasons and our city and county don't have the capacity to meet those needs right now i believe that the funding time and energy needed to effectively support this population and the surrounding community is being wasted to double down on things that have never worked writing citations to the already impoverished forcing those who live on the streets to constantly relocate taking away places of respite and shoving aside those who need help none of these things have thus far made an impact on the problems caused by homelessness in santa cruz i address any change makers on this council please reconsider this ordinance and instead prioritize working with the diverse community and local organizations you represent to create effective spaces of support and compassion for those who need it the most thank you go ahead garret unmute yourself star six um hi can you hear me yes we can all right um what i want to throw is a possible amendment if this is going to pass and that amendment would be rather to stop uh the taking and choosing certain areas and asking yourself sort of where people end up manifesting where they camp anyway instead of spreading them out into the open spaces if you had the camping van just be eight through eight um then basically you'd be outlawing all encampments in the city and that's a pretty huge move and it's really really hard for people to pack up their stuff every day so that's a big move and considering that amendment included that it wouldn't push people out into the brush areas they'd stay virtually where they were but they would give the police officers something to enforce in some way sorry uh so basically that as an amendment i don't think it would leave any encampments it would be a really strong anti-homeless move which the tolo already is and it would outlaw encampments and other that have mutual aid groups have to step up and help people set their stuff up thank you next up is phone number indian 6074 hello my name is grace pastille and i'm an undergraduate uc santa Cruz as well as a legislative advocate at the uc the temporary outdoor living ordinance ordinance effectively removes compassion from an area of policy decision making that is most in need of compassionate decision making while amidst a pandemic and long-lasting housing crisis the city has proposed increasing punitive measures against a large population of our city who have been displaced and disproportionately affected the city has yet to acknowledge the true measures that they need to take to truly combat homelessness and make living affordable we urge the city council to take compassionate action rather than punitive measures to provide relief to those in most desperate situations and urge you to see homeless people as important legitimate members of our community thank you thank you very much next up is kiki on you're welcome to unmute go ahead please hi my name is kiki and i strongly oppose this ordinance i be proposed costs from outline today by we are only three percent of the total of Santa Cruz's police budget which would be much better allocated to a managed camp facility and this would actually provide real resources and solutions to the houseless community instead of continuing to criminalize them and create more harm to one of the most vulnerable communities so i think that i urge council to vote no on this ordinance thank you thank you next up is raffa son in film i was appointed to catch and served on the safe sleeping subcommittee we were from to try to come up with solutions the city could use to improve or mitigate the negative effects of unsheltered homelessness and while i appreciate the city's effort to attempt to tackle this complex issue they approach taken with this ordinance is not helpful and frankly counterproductive not only do i believe this ordinance is unconstitutional and will open the city to further civil liability but it will not be effective in managing camping in a meaningful way people will be forced to break the law to meet their needs there'll be so many violations of this ordinance that'll be impossible to enforce fairly and consistently resulting in more litter more human waste since there'll be no organized trash and toilet service for dispersed camping increased burdens on people sleeping outside through the particularly counterproductive misdemeanor arrests that are included in this ordinance and resulting in making it even harder for folks to access medical and social services harder to obtain housing and harder to keep and result in keeping people on house i think we need to focus on solutions to get people out of homelessness not policies like this one that perpetuate thank you thank you next up it is phone number ending in 0249 for all your work on this challenging issue this is carol fulhamas i was very encouraged this morning to see that the board of supervisors passed their proposal to provide more shelter options in county districts since the county receives the funding for homelessness mental health and substance abuse treatment i believe that the city should begin to shift its focus to reliance on the county for these services and to work closely with the county to locate managed transitional camps with services on county property i um also encourage you to pass this ordinance with modifications thank you thank you next up is abby young hello can you hear me yes we can go ahead yes my name is abby young a 20-year resident of prospect heights and co-founder of fire-wise communities in the city of santa cruz i cannot support this ordinance as written especially because of the provision to prohibit camping and require storage of belongings between the hour seven am and one hour before sunset this will criminalize the unsheltered with an ordinance that's inhumane and punitive unenforceable in old times especially given that the board of supervisors passed their resolution this morning for housing and health division to work immediately with the city to create stable healthy safe places to live and a mission which was endorsed by the mayor and vice mayor in that matter to the board yesterday i strongly urge the city council hold off on passing this ordinance till the county's housing for health divisions first priority of exploring city county partnerships has been explored and their first report has been written also as fire-wise leader the allowance of camping and open spaces of moore creek poganip and orana gulch would greatly endanger the neighborhoods above the gulches i predict this will be described as people who need community and services to survive thank you very much next up is branna mochler wanted to start by saying that i've just been really disappointed about how much so many people have been referring to the house's people they are part of our community they're residents they're our neighbors um and many people call it in support of this measure asking for it to be expanded are talking about them as though they're pets that should be gotten rid of which is just really disgusting um obviously santa cruz has a very high rate of homelessness um of community members experiencing homelessness but this proposal as council members have stated isn't fixing the problem it's just trying to make it less visible to the wealthier and luckier members of this community um it's clear that many people are much more concerned about the small nature spaces within a city that's surrounded by protected nature than they are about the well-being of the most vulnerable members of our community and i'm embarrassed to live in a city that would put forward such a heartless and clearly nimby motivated ordinance that make it harder for those most vulnerable members of our community to sleep and to stay safe during the cold thank you next up is phone number ending in 8002 hi my name is rebecca lundberg i'd just like to say that i think you'll be making a huge mistake if you try to allow homeless camping in aranagoche it is in the coastal zone i believe you would be breaking the law if you allowed that we still have huge pockets of trash garbage chopped bikes um gas cans um mattresses in the creek and in the waterways please please please do not allow this camping to go on it's a fire hazard the vandalism that took place in our neighborhood i live right across the street in the entrance to the park was untenable cars vandalized homes broken into it's not okay we're upset and you're making a big mistake please do not allow camping in this space as well as i'm pretty sure it's illegal talk to the coastal commission thank you thank you next up is phone number ending in 7044 can you hear me yes we can hi my name is melissa free baron and i'm calling right now to advocate for the neighbors surrounding stan lorenzo park um it's very clear what's been happening we have a serious mess and heroin problem in our community that is not being addressed and what happens in these unmanaged encampments is it brings a drug territory issue to our local parks it brings fires it brings trash we have removed along with volunteers and city workers over 11 000 debris pounds of debris just from under the soquel bridge it is unacceptable to think that people can camp in our open spaces moore creek pogo nip irana gulch these are all areas that people the residents locals have been doing cleanup for over the past 10 years you need to amend this ordinance and you need to support managed encampments with services connection to providers thank you thank you very much next up is harm mc can you hear me you're a little bit light um but yeah please go ahead maybe move a little closer to your things sound okay now that sounds great thank you okay i don't think that fires or needles or trash or noise are going to be solved by discernment to the county or more police action i don't think that you can address symptoms only i don't think looking over the fence and listening to talk show radio is also research and transparent measures are not only morally but scientifically and actually bankrupt i don't want to have to keep spinning my wheels because people get spooked by some shallow hard-on-crime 90s puppet show constantly masquerading homeless people in front of them to legitimize the salaries of the council and the cops over half san cruz city's council sorry budget goes towards the police and most of the stuff they deal with is the unhoused population i also want to know why they're actually harassing the volunteer thank you very much thank you is edward astrada hi can you hear me uh you're a little bit light if you could oh hello there you go that's better okay hi everyone my name is edward astrada i'm the president of college dems college democrats at ucsc i don't think more regulations on homeless people and criminalizing homelessness is a solution to our current homelessness and housing crisis i know this issue is very complex but this is a step backwards many of us are only a couple paychecks away from homelessness in this county with its extreme housing costs their residents too and they're part of our community this ordinance does not fix homelessness it only pushes the homeless population out of sight and out of mind while criminalizing their existence and survival we should be moving our homeless population into homes providing them with mental health and drug services and not increasing criminalization housing is a human right thank you thank you stacey falls you're next two weeks ago and my concern has not changed the ordinance is completely untenable because you know you're you're restricting all these different places and the places might change depending on the season tiger beetle is mating or not as people get pushed around ten minutes it's just going to be exacerbated by not providing a place to rebuild their lives if you start in 2554 you press star six you could unmute your phone number ending in 2554 hello can you hear me yes we can go ahead all right hi my name is john mckelby i'd first like to thank the city the council and city staff for trying to balance the interests of our entire community i support approval of the outdoor living ordinance but if managed encampments are necessary for accommodating families who have recently lost their homes they should serve as triage facilities and a starting point for houseless individuals and families to escape homelessness altogether we should not satisfy ourselves with creating favelas as new neighborhoods in the community and accordingly i don't believe we should allow ourselves to see such facilities as permanent or even semi-permanent end states for people experiencing homelessness i think we need to do better for the most vulnerable in our community having said that the inclusion of open spaces like irania gulch television park and more creek within the definition of places where outdoor living will be allowed is problematic the topography combustible vegetation general and accessibility and environmental concerns in these areas make them unsuitable for outdoor living we should instead be focused on limiting managed encampments to underutilized easily accessed safe and easily maintained locations not otherwise accessible to the public whether located on public or private property is sabina over can you hear me yes we can thank you hi my name is sabina i want to give a shout out to my children who are still up at 9 p.m because we're all listening to the city council meeting together they understand that criminalizing houseless people is not going to help any issues that are going on here i would really love the city council to comment on exactly what this ordinance is fixing also this is clearly a huge huge lawsuit that is about to hit the aclu is definitely interested as our other groups so how are you going to pay for this lawsuit you're giving all the money to chief andy mills who is salivating at the thought of ot for all of his officers who are just going to tell people to keep moving along which is what they're doing right now so i'm not sure how this is going to work also these comments are overwhelmingly against the ordinance so i'd really like a comment on that from the city council as well besides that homeless people are just icky or something like that because that's all that i hear from you now anyways i need to put my kids to bed you should really start these meetings earlier so you can get more public comment thank you next up is adam novak i guess we can ordinance is an attempt to make homeless people disappear by moving them around really fast now this is a strategy that i would be disappointed to see employed by a baby let alone elected officials have a strong grasp of object permanence let alone empathy for the people being regulated here it's just a mean policy nobody benefits from making people set up and break down camp every day that's two hours off your day that's a significant reduction in quality of life for what's supposed to be a quality of life ordinance and it would cost every household person in the city something like ten thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars every year in city compelled unpaid labor as a generally accepted minimum medical wage i mean look at this great new program to help the homeless by giving them negative eleven thousand dollars said no one ever like this is not a good idea please reject the ordinance four digits four three four three you press star six we can hear you hear you just a second ago if you press star six on your phone you should come through dollar with the left four digits four three four three we can't hear you okay i'm going to move on uh tiffany worthyton i believe you've spoken already is that correct bonnie are we the second for it to unmute to offer the unmute no i i really i have and i just simply wanted to say i just apologize for all of the um that um the kind of the hate and anger that's coming towards you and i just want to really appreciate you guys for taking on the service of being on our city council that's really all i want us to say it hurts my heart to hear how harsh people are being towards you all so thank you for taking this on just all thank you next up is uh phone number ending in 9820 i oppose the ordinance thank you next up is phone number ending in 5383 yes we can thank you uh next up is phone number ending in 0845 criminalizing poverty does not make it go away we give you our tax money to help the left fortunate not to pay for more police in jails and judges are intelligent and we'll be able to see through the attempt to um circumvent previous rulings the second point i wanted to make is that it was wrong for the mayor to censor the commenter who played her own words back to her it sounded like mayor meyers was embarrassed by her previous outburst it would be appropriate and i encourage her to initiate a reparations reconciliation process if she's embarrassed as she ought to be i i believe that mayor meyers knows that we are all racist and our identities does not exempt us in our behaviors we have to be honorable and we have to be honorable towards those less fortunate to us and those who are poorer than we thank you next caller is ending in numbers 5383 council members um this is skirt bonnigot again i'm calling um to say that i oppose this ordinance um i oppose it mostly as a taxpayer and as someone who looks critically at city budgets um i believe the overtime required for our officers to enforce this ordinance should it pass um given the number of homeless people that we likely have in the city and likely ability for everyone to comply perfectly 100 of the time um i do think this will cost our city a quite a bit of quite a bit of money and um i don't feel comfortable with that on top of a lot of other things that i don't feel comfortable with about this ordinance and i just want to say uh you know i played for you know derby for this community for five years i love Santa Cruz i'm very very proud to be uh thank you thank you thank you next up is pire pire ritchie please star six unmute your well we're ready to go pire ritchie okay go ahead we should be able to hear you we can't hear you um pire ritchie um you look to be unmuted but we cannot hear you we'll we'll try to come back to you can you keep track of that i've got the name written down to next up is baro this ordinance because as we are all aware it was not written to support the basic needs or well-being of the unhoused population and i don't think it was even written for the wealthy residents of Santa Cruz who don't want to have to look at dirty poor people in their neighborhoods because so many of them are calling in to complain about the few areas we're camping would still be allowed this ordinance is only concerned with the aesthetics of the city and its goddamn tourist industry and it's obvious your greed and lack of humanity are disgusting you're not fooling anybody with this you need to be investing in actual services for unhoused people if you want to claim to be addressing the issues stop making excuses by deferring to the county if it's the county's job then you should stay out of it because you clearly don't know what you're doing vote no on the ordinance deep on the police and quit your fucking jobs thank you is friend adam hi i'm here hi brent hi uh you know i just wanted to uh kind of remind us about what has been happening in the previous years for instance the um uh interim shelter um idea where the city had identified five different locations put that up on a map and then there were resistance movements didn't move forward transitional encampments you put a map up there the city manager did and then resistance movement put a kibosh on it parking lot 27 safe parking lot put a map up resistance movements not going to happen all mon starters here we are put a map of course you're never going to put camps in these open space areas this is really just um a dry run fiasco the city manager knows this is a non-starter this is a fool's errand and you're just running us around and we i kind of wonder wonder where we're really headed of course we need transitional cabinets we need a full array of shelters in this community we need an authentic program from the city manager's office and i'm really wondering you know what's behind all this it's just i'd press star six and you should be able to speak i was wondering if any of you have read the letters from the dsa i mean not dsa sorry d rc disability rights of california um they sent a four page letter about how this how they oppose this ordinance um as well as the htlu sent a letter um so i'll just read until i get cut off from the disability rights the a few things that it says in their letter is people with disabilities both of which will result in unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability also acknowledges that people with certain disabilities may be unable to relocate their campsite every day the provision gives them 96 hours to relocate ignoring the reality that moving every four days remains burdensome for anyone particularly people with disabilities additionally in order to receive the extra time to relocate the individual with a disability may be asked to provide therapy for you i just wanted to state that i oppose this ordinance because i believe that it is unlawful and unethical to make people move that much i also think that it isn't actually going to do anything productive for the issue there are not the facilities in place to make this happen making people move their stuff without having places for them to go during the day is just going to create more issues with the police and making giving police more power to enforce this i think it's very violent i think that it's a horrible idea and i heavily oppose this ordinance thank you thank you next up is hector marin you're a little bit muted i we can't quite hear you i don't know if you can move closer to your speaker can you repeat that again that's great oh good yep okay yeah so i just want to quickly say that you know when it comes to the you know temporary outside living ordinance that we should oppose it because there are no alternative solutions that are being offered for houses books and it's imperative for y'all as public uh you know public officials to represent the needs of the community right because like what's going on especially you know during these times we're in the middle of a pandemic there is no support being you know provided for these folks and it's really dehumanizing to impose this ordinance which is which really represents the real estate and the elitist endeavors of the city of Santa Cruz right so i you know i the community the community is coming forward to engage with y'all to um oppose this ordinance because it's morally wrong there are no solutions being posed and above all this y'all can be voted out just as much um if y'all don't represent the community in that same regard um but yeah that's my message and you know follow what the community says and this is what the community is um enforcing y'all to do um oh yeah part of the people Barton do you know what's next council to vote no against this ordinance because i see it as a wasteful step to solve homelessness it makes no sense to me to see the city face the potential for lawsuits and the continual use of police time and money to issue useless citations if this ordinance is passed to imagine at home people have to tear down their houses every day with a cop over their shoulder is on the unacceptable to me and seeing that there have not been comprehensive outreach and nonprofits faith-based groups and mutual aid organizations to work towards a cost-effective and manage open space camp makes me urge the council to do more research towards this option i see this as a much more appealing and cost-effective option compared to the cost of paying the police overtime to enforce this ordinance again i urge council to vote no against this ordinance defund the police fund effective solar services and i'm finished with my time thank you thank you very much next follow-up on 226 this is kandace elliott and i just wanted to thank you all for the work that you're doing tonight on this issue um and after having listened to everyone and everyone's concerns i think this is still an important piece to move forward with in recognition that it is a part of a tapestry of work that is being done locally on the issue from nonprofit organizations and the county and the city with federal and state and all these different funding sources um and so thank you for the work you're doing tonight next up is steve schnarr can you hear me now yeah go ahead yeah so this this policy seems like a foolish attempt to make people to sorry i understand that that like we there's a lot of problems that people have with the camp big camp in the middle of downtown but um people are going to sleep somewhere and pushing them to the remote areas of our open spaces without trash service without bathrooms um it's only going to make the problems worse so if we want to actually reduce these negative impacts that people are worried about we should be investing in designated camps where there are bathrooms where there's trash uh where people can get transit otherwise we're wasting everybody's time and i'm risking future lawsuits next up is phone number ending in 2760 2760 you're up hello my name is isabel salazar and i am one of uc santa cruz's legislative advocates and i strongly object to this ordinance the ordinance is trying to break up in canvass yet does not address the core reasons of why so many people in dead cruise are experiencing houselessness or even offer short-term solutions of shelter it is this heartening and disturbing that the ordinance involving extreme policy changes was corroborated by the police department who is going to be offered overtime pay to enforce this initiative i strongly urge city council members to not pass this ordinance as it will cause more problems and pain people need approaches of care and support not policing as this ordinance very much does i hear a lot of people on the call talk about their safety with encampments nearby but what about the safety of having to live on the street criminalizing houses populations does not fix the surface level problems that people are listing here like fires needles and noise it just moves them away from their view there is strong city opposition for this ordinance and i really hope that the city council will keep that in mind when voting thank you come back up i committed to having you come back up when we see you are online so please go ahead hello can you hear me yes we can thank you so much for your time um my personal experience with the uh outdoor living ordinance issue is my personal experience homelessness in the city of santa cruz in 2008 uh long before you guys uh spent three million dollars on creating tent city i was living in that homeless facility that's located on river street uh going to school every day to mission hill middle school from seventh grade eighth grade and a lot of the stereotypes and a lot of the uh rhetoric that i'm hearing towards homelessness about theft and drugs and of many bad rhetoric that i hear about the homelessness i've heard from students i was plastic swift and many of those rhetoric i knew was from the parents and a lot of the older adults who are in charge of the city and a lot of them carried that rhetoric to their children and it made me more shameful to be homeless and the community that didn't really have careness towards homeless and it made me more introvert and um a lot of these issues uh affected a lot my mental health issues uh dealing with depression of trying to figure out where i'm going to live where my next meal is going to be and i just hope that you guys have the empathy when you vote on the deal thank you very much also want to um bonnie advance uh phone number four three four three they i think couldn't get through last time either you see them four four three four three right below nancy could um the number that couldn't get through initially was five three three but we did get to it three three that we didn't get to and we did we did get to it oh we did get to it okay got it okay okay um sorry uh sabrina lopez you're next i really like to reiterate what so many have said here today that the ordinance is can you hear me yes we can did you hear all of that okay great so uh the ordinance is inhumane as criminalizing poverty is an unintelligent solution to getting people out at the end of the day it's clear that the motivation behind this ordinance is to simply get these people out of your backyard and if i can change your mind on your motivation at least i can encourage you to use a more intelligent and innovative problem solving skills perhaps some that don't perpetuate criminalizing minorities and poor people perhaps my tax dollars and the tax dollars of your constituents could be put to better youth by utilizing actual problem solving skills your staff repeatedly acknowledged that this is not a long-term solution so why would any of you vote yes mind-boggling but the fact of the matter is we know that you are going to vote yes because that's what the city does it aims for short-term solution prioritizing aesthetic and tourist income over human needs thank you next up is number ending in 7149 and then i just want everybody to know the last caller that will take is with the federal level ending in 8877 i believe that will take up to 945 go ahead good evening thank you for your time my name is jace ritchie and i strongly oppose tollo and in this moment honestly my heart breaks when we talk about marginalized people and marginalization this policy is literally what pushes the most vulnerable among us to the farthest most or more corners of the city away from critical resources and into our green belts i hear deep pain in our community though and the city leadership seems eager to brush off our pleas for compassion i want to take a moment to speak to those still fighting for human rights in our community there is still compassion in our community even if we do not see it from this council there is still compassion even as members of this council spends vapid words lamenting hurt feelings or sue the california department of public health as they vote to eradicate poor people but not poverty from our community there is still compassion despite this punitive police heavy ordinance and we will continue to fight for a just safe compassionate Santa Cruz until the day we meet our maker until then i pray for guidance for city leadership and i persist with peers in the name of the next up is phone number ending in 4931 hey can you hear me you can hey i'm rachel chavez lower ocean resident and nurse i live here and walk alone through encampments regularly and without any problems i'm begging you to not pass this ordinance even those that are in favor of camping restrictions can see what a disaster that it would be to push people away from services and further into neighborhoods and open spaces this ordinance is ordinance lacks humanity it lacks logic and it laughs in the face of evidence-based practice it's shameful that so many of the council members who recently ran on platforms of compassion equity and health and all policies support this ordinance that ignores the wealth of research that proves that anti homeless laws are expensive and effective and traumatizing for the in-house the time and effort that went into this hateful and senseless ordinance is disgusting misuse of city funds that could have been spent writing grants and setting up services instead of scheming how to give scpb even more money to terrorize homeless people there's no evidence that having more services brings more homeless people to town it's actually contradicts the point in time count as well as other research done on hopelessness it's disgusting that the city promotes this myth and other dehumanizing anti homeless rhetoric while hiding behind people's first language tells us that you know better but you don't care thank you yes me me yeah i think we okay go ahead nancy caruso i oh no yeah we can hear you okay thanks thank you i think what we've heard tonight shows this ordinance is pairing our city apart and we've also heard there's no right place as you know we have successful encampment models as an alternative to unmanaged camps or over managed costly ones we have models from managed communities that have positive results and they're not managed by police so instead of instituting another punishing policing regime which will ruin lives and risk the health of hundreds of people vote no on this ordinance and bring us ideas that have the potential to succeed not rip us apart to heal not harm us and to save lives thank you next is nadia parolta hi good evening wonderful things have been said i hope that the city council tonight can hear that and let it in through the very human hearts that we know you have despite the inhumanity of the tumbary outdoor living ordinance i think that one of the most things that sticks out to me the most is how this ordinance is just so emblematic of everything that so many people are ready to leave behind and that is while so many people tonight are telling you that there is a desire to embrace actual um compassionate solutions for houseless this um i personally i'm the resident of the antiques and have been for a long time and i talk to my houseless neighbors on a regular basis asking what they need and bring them things as much as i can um i feel like there's so much you get time there and some people just from talking to them and i think that there's so much waxing in here it's so disgusting and i know he seems better and we will vote you out if you do not see my opinion as a mother a taxpayer and i work as a paralegal in this county um i i understand the law i i understand people's concerns i also have been an unhoused person um on two occasions once before i was a mother and and once as i as i had become a parent um neither of those occasions were because i wanted to be an unhoused person would assume that that most unhoused folks in our community didn't make the choice to to live as unhoused people uh no one wants to be unhoused here but as a person and a taxpayer and and and a member of our community i have to say it's absurd that we should expect our unhoused community to to set up camp and then and then take up their lives and move thank you next up is phone number ending in 1158 thanks for thank you for taking my call i want to point out that we're living in a county where the median house even in city where the median listing price is over a million dollars it feels selfish and irresponsible to separate yourself from the rest of the community and i urge you to vote down this ordinance thank you thank you next up is phone number ending in 2033 if your phone number ends in 2033 you can unmute can you hear me if you can um my name is britain fits morris i am the uh the grandson of former mayor kim fits morris so the green party and i strongly oppose this measure i think it's very performative neoliberal bullcrap and it's harsh confusing punitive please vote no the recent fires have added many new houses people it's an immoral class this ordinance during a pandemic against tdc guidelines uses weird uh faulty environmental tactics instead you should build affordable housing not development uh for for you know like whatever weird things that you guys are building in town that we don't want um like resorts and stuff defund the police reallocate services to mental health services um and be um be an ideal city uh instead of one that takes punitive measures towards houses people thank you uh you you will suffer legal suffocation if you pass this ordinance as well so take that into consideration thank you jennifer you're next hello can you hear me hi uh my name is jennifer burnow and i strongly oppose this ordinance i uh i've been living here for 16 years in santa cruz i'm a mama i haven't eaten eight-year-old daughter and she cares so much our family cares so much about people as humans and it breaks my heart when i have to explain to her that we live in a city that wants to pass an ordinance that will move people experiencing houseness around so heartlessly we regularly visit people living on the street sharing basic needs items food forms and i wouldn't have it any other way i want her to grow up seeing people as human and i it just it makes me so sad that we would that you would consider passing this banning people from seeking shelter will not magically disappear houseness i urge you please please please reconsider passing this ordinance and instead find compassionate solutions because they are out there and we have a whole community of people who want to help to find ways and thank you seven seven last four digits your number ends in eight eight seven seven you're ready to ready to go you can press star six you can unmute yourself ability rates of california in order to receive the extra time to relocate the individual with a disability may be asked to provide verification of their disability from a physician this requirement creates an unnecessary barrier as unhoused individuals rarely have regular access to a physician who can provide such a letter this is especially true during the pandemic when most medical providers operate through a telehealth model even when an individual is able to get healthcare services the transitory nature of homelessness including the threat of encampment sweeps often results in the individual losing important documents like id cards and medical records the city should not require anyone particularly a person with a disability to change where they live on a regular basis the other provision addressing people with disabilities is six point three six point oh six oh g which states that a campsite shall be no larger than 12 feet by 12 feet per occupant or 1150 and that'll be it go ahead saxon i create a bike and really crunch off doctor like that on the interconnected nature social categorization such as race class and gender as they apply to a given individual or group regarded as creating overlapping and independent systems of discrimination or disadvantage in the ordinance of discrimination is non-intersection half of this council is promised to bring equity to the city of santa cruz mints on the lives of our neighbors are far more important than quote unsightly tents the city has relentlessly pushed people into corners so that they're out and out of sight and out of mind of tourists and this does nothing but make life harder on the people who already have it hardest and people many people already have to walk miles to go to their night jobs and to get water and to get food and pushing people around and redlining areas and making them pack up their tents every single day just makes living so much harder at san lorenzo park for example which the city has already tried to broke up break up the homeless union and others have proved in federal court that the accusations the city manager and city has made about fallen units garbage needles and human waste are false and that community members at the park have actually worked to resolve any issues that there are despite the negligence of the city which has actually failed to provide proper garbage services at the park this is just one example thank you number one one five zero hi can you hear me yeah hi this is helsey hill um i made comments two weeks ago on the first reading but i want to reiterate some comments that have been made how in the world that this ordinance get even worse and what i've witnessed in these last two meetings is patently bad city policy crafting it's confusing it's messy and it opens the city up to lawsuits in the worst budgetary constraints the city's experienced in decades many of you on this diet know that i was homeless for five years as a youth and if it had been my mom or dad that you were legislating against the tolo i definitely would not have been able to go to school in this town or run for council this last year where i heard the newly elected members on this diet talk about compassion ad nauseam so how dare the majority on this council call themselves leaders when they're unabashedly serving only the interests of people who are already sheltered in our community you need to hear the concerns of your constituents and kill this ordinance thank you have a good night thank you we'll go ahead and uh conclude um i believe the last two folks with their hands up i believe the aspirin you've spoken um and i believe michelle we can hear as well mayor jasmine who is one that didn't get through the first time oh okay so why don't we have her go ahead please uh can you hear me yes we can um i'm jasmine mia and um i lost my faith in the city council in the electoral process a while ago yet somehow i was still surprised surprised you somehow made this ordinance even worse the presentation was basically city staff pointing out all the places you overlooked to suggest ways to make this even more restrictive hey you guys forgot that little patch over there this is essentially saying that houseless people should cease to exist because where should they go what if all cities and counties did this invoke john ralph veil of ignorance what if you were houseless and this was happening to you how would you want to be treated this is a path to genocide it's heartless inhumane and unacceptable connect with your humanity vote no on this ordinance defund the police and use the money to provide actual solutions thank you bonnie was there any other callers that didn't get in when we were working through some of that yeah okay okay i'm gonna allow the last two six nine oh three because i said i'd go till nine forty five so six nine oh three and michelle and that will be it for this evening thank you this is cat and k on speaking on behalf of the sanix group coalition of homelessness we're advocating for transitional managed encampments in the city it's of no cost to the city because the funding comes from organizations or communities managing them people living nearby transitional encampments actually benefit from them last crime and greater cleanliness of the neighborhood people transition into better situations at a higher rate than other models through self-care and communal responsibilities like picking up trash in and around the encampment and maintaining the encampments facilities like cooking cleaning and staffing the welcome desk if the outdoor living ordinance passes we wanted to include a permit process specifically allowing faith-based communities and or nonprofits to operate the transitional managed encampments in all parts of the city our preference is for a permit process to be included in this ordinance but we are also in support of it being its own individual agenda item the city can either continue the never-ending cycle of relocating homeless individuals through police enforcement or they can invest into a true long-term solution of transitional encampments okay go ahead Michelle hey thank you I am just begging you to please vote no on this ordinance as a community member and a previously unhoused person people need a chance to to prove themselves to to have potentially a better life and and most of these people did not choose this path and I just wish that we could give them one more chance and and that may be just to to stay where they are for a few more nights and to be able to pick themselves up to have somewhere that they can can count on sleeping for a few nights and and and began to to make a new life thank you thank you okay um thank you and thank you for everyone that spoke tonight um I hope we got through pretty much everybody um we tried hard um I'll go ahead and turn it back to the council now um uh I believe council member Cummings I I have to admit I was focused on a lot of numbers tonight so I'm not to be honest I'm not sure if it was you or council member Golder that raised your hand first so I'm hoping I wonder what are the other of you would know probably what's one of the community's biggest and most challenging issues I greatly sympathize with the members of our community who are experiencing homelessness and homelessness um and I also greatly sympathize with those who are housed to experience some of the negative um impacts that can be associated with homelessness and my hope is that you know we can work together to find a balance and personally my feelings are that you know rather than to rush to do something that we should really take our time to do something right and you know we make changes this evening I really hope that it can come back as the first reading and that we could have staff do some work to really make some updates and changes that can address the concerns that we're hearing from the community really believe that it's so critical that we get something past this evening because as it's been expressed we do have time to continue working on this given that there's going to be restrictions in our ability to enforce this due to CDC guidelines among other things and you know I think we also need to take into account you know if this is something that can't be enforced then why are we putting laws on the books that can't be enforced so um those are some initial comments I wanted to make I agree with members of the community especially those who have expressed concern around um this around unsanctioned camping in our open spaces um that was one of the biggest reasons we'll have voted against this last time and my feelings toward that have not changed at all I've looked over the parks master plans each of the areas that have been defined have their own master plans some going as far back as the 1990s some in the early 2000s and many of them truly expressed the need to preserve these environmental habitats and minimize to the greatest extent possible human disturbance within these areas as some of the callers have mentioned some of these plans had to go through the coastal commission and so I was concerned around whether or not you know saying that we we would allow for camping in those areas whether or not that we need to have approval by the coastal commission um but you know I do want to recognize that we need to try to start figuring out ways we can address some of the behaviors that we're experiencing um to um one of the the callers made the comments around the cleanup under the Soquel bridge um I know a number of other people who went to help with that effort and while we need to try to do what we can to um you know allow for people experiencing homelessness to have compassionate ways to find sleep and to live within our community we also need to ensure that the actions that are associated with those encampments aren't damaging our natural spaces our water supplies that we're not promoting fires within fire centers and habitats and that we're not you know putting unnecessary impacts on people within our community who may be housed as well um so with that I do have a few questions I do have some recommendations for changes that can be made um and I'm willing I'd like to hear from colleges where I'm not gonna you know jump the gun and make a motion straight out the gate um but I did have a couple questions uh before we kind of get into deliberations for staff first question and and I know I brought this up at the last meeting and I've had community members reach out to me as well um last meeting we had maps showing where camping could not occur but we weren't provided with a map of based on the areas where we designated where camping could occur and I'm wondering still has there been a map created to show based on the current ordinance where camping could occur um and I think that's really important because if this were to pass tonight the way that it's written then the community at least deserves to see what areas would be uh where camping would be able to occur in the city. Thank you councilmember Cummings uh a pictorial representation has not been prepared I can tell you the ordinance in front of you includes the four open spaces which would be um Dela vega pogunov uh orana gulch excuse me yeah orana gulch and um uh pogunov or I know more creek I already said that other one um and then it would include the commercial industrial areas so that includes west side industrial um the uh harvey west area um it includes the uh small area in seabright that is owned industrial and it includes um each of the primary corridors so mission ocean water soquel um that's essentially what it would include as permissible areas. Can you just repeat that one more time please? Sure the four open space areas um and then um are three industrial areas so that's um the far west side um harvey west and there's a small industrial area in seabright and then uh the commercial uh zoning districts so that's mission water ocean and soquel. An example so Dela vega I'm wondering could you bring up one of the maps at least what we can kind of point to where we're discussing? Give me one moment one here can you see this so this is the ordinance but I'll pull up uh find one of the maps here correct yeah so those light drain areas are those the golf course and the disc golf open so the they're all um that are the golf course you can see through here um and other areas are prohibited these this is you know the lower Dela vega park this I believe is the disc golf course back here and then um there's some other facilities that um are also off limits based on their their designation. I just wanted I wanted to point that out too because when we're you know if we move forward tonight with saying that this is a fan open spaces I just want to point out that one of those spaces as well is one of our economic generators which is our golf course and I believe this year for the first time in 20 years we're actually in the black and our golf course and so having that designated as a place where there'd be unmanaged encampments would be extremely problematic I think for many people in the community um and then my next question is for the city manager and I couldn't find it in my most recent emails but we did receive an email from an individual who had reached out last year and had mentioned that they had proposed providing the city with a number of properties on the east side that could be used for homeless encampments and I'm just wondering if you could speak to that because that individual emailed us again um and it reminded me of when this person reached out to us and so I'm just wondering you know if there's been any follow-up with that person or what the potential is to work with them because it sounds like if someone offered his property to use for this purpose and if that's the case then we should probably consider taking them up on it uh I believe you're referring to an individual that owns land uh out on uh it's it's it's in the unincorporated area it's not in the city limits it borders the city I think it's off of 7th avenue um and uh but I think last year because it's not in the city um I think that was referred over to to the county and then last year the county was focused on opening up all the the other facilities the armory we focused on the armory we focused on the hotels and all the other facilities that were bought online so I don't know whether it might be a conversation that the county may have now that they've adopted some some new policies and perhaps that might be something that they consider but it's really not within our control as it's not in the city limits and I'll note that um I did forward that information to um the county so that they couldn't the the letter that came in as part of this packet I forwarded to the county for their consideration they did indicate that they were going to follow up with the individual so it's in their hands at this point okay great thanks and then um I'm happy to kind of go through some language at a later point but I do want to provide opportunities for other council members to ask questions and make comments but I do have some suggestions for um direction moving forward I have the council member golder council member brown council member voluntary Johnson and then council member Watson okay so um you know I feel like it's taken decades to get the city where we are today and it's not all our fault there's state laws that have also contributed this situation and I am completely prepared to make a motion I've emailed it to Bonnie um but I just want an opportunity to share some thoughts and I'm happy to hear from um my colleagues as well but first of all I'm super happy to hear about what happened at the county this morning and I can't thank the supervisors enough for um you know starting the ball rolling with that but I also want to be clear to the callers that I don't think there's a member of this body that wants to live in a police state and thinks that arresting a person um every person for being poor homeless is what we want but that's being said like we do need some basic rules and like I'm my kids have asked me like how many callers that called in have invited homeless people into their home and I'm only making the suggestion because uh my family and I have invited two different homeless individuals into our home and we had one live with us for eight months and another has come in off and on as he pleases for the last five years so um it's really illuminating and I encourage everyone that has a couch or an aerobed to to do that um but when you do that like I really would like to know do you not have basic rules because uh we have rules at our house to guests follow and just some simple ones like not eating on the couch or throwing trash on the floor please pee in the toilet and make your bed in the morning like and guess what they managed to follow it and so when someone's homeless if they're a grown adult I don't see why they can't follow rules like how we're expected to stop and stop signs and things like that like I don't think that the rules that we're trying to throw out there that um I'm also curious if some of the callers even read the ordinance or if they just kind of found a call to action from Instagram or a flyer but I just think that the intention of this council is to address the complex needs of the homeless individuals and make our city safe and clean for everyone and um I'm going to keep ranting for a second but like I'm so sick of everybody um the narrative I shouldn't say everybody the narrative that just because someone's homeless they're the most vulnerable person in our community you'll never convince me that of that the home the most vulnerable people in our community are our children and whether they're housed or not we have to do everything with them in mind and from my perspective I don't think we're doing a very good job of protecting our watershed or making certain places of our town safe for kids I just read during the break that somebody was there's an attempted murder at San Lorenzo Park this week and like over the past two months I've or maybe the last month even I went on two cleanups where we cleaned up over 4 000 pounds of trash left by campers and hundreds of needles that are flowing straight out to the national marine sanctuary like I saw gang graffiti with gang tags I saw swaps because carved into trees and I'm not a detective but I hypothesized this is over you know turf for drug sales and like I just can't believe that living you know in unmanaged unruled camps is the way to go ideally obviously I'd like to see managed encampments transitional encampments and things like this and so to the extent that we can work together to find places where it like councilman coming said where it is acceptable and putting those people kind of together um where you know that's ideal that's what we want I don't want people in open spaces and I don't think anybody here does so you know I have a motion that I think that that we could that addresses some of the things that director Butler said and that I think addresses a lot of the concerns of the council and a lot of the community concerns and so I'm wondering if we could look at it and then try and work from that but I saw Sandy and and Shebra and Martine you guys all had your hands up too so I don't want to be too much of a gas bag so I'll stop talking thank you well in the in the effort to try to get a motion on the table it's 10 o'clock now um I'll go ahead and second your motion and I know that there will be other edits most likely um but we'll just try to manage it going forward um councilmember Brown if you could put that up I'd love to see me in the map I guess well we're waiting to get that I um one of the reasons that I want to take a look at this is one to make a couple of comments but also to ask the city attorney to give us a little bit more of a take on what looking at what moving forward with this iteration of an ordinance mean in terms of our legal vulnerability so actually that was produced by a member of the public um and it is so it may not be exactly uh you know the the boundaries but I think it it's pretty representative so what you see here uh the black areas are camping between sundown and 7 a.m. or you know 8 p.m. whatever the time frame that the end of uh coming to you um where camping would be permitted uh you'll note that most of this area is the four open spaces which have been discussed tonight we've heard a lot of concerns from the community I share that concern um it's you know it's just a little bit confusing to me that um to move forward in this way we are um we have been up until now and I imagine there will be changes tonight um then looking at uh some of the only places that people can be are open space that's much of it not really conducive to um actually that certainly without hygiene and waste management and access so there's all kinds of challenges even if we did leave this in I don't believe we that these are appropriate areas but if you take those out we what I see left is Harvey West Soquel Avenue Mission Street and perhaps a little bit of the west side industrial zone um so that is a fairly limited realm of of possibility for people who are you know legitimately without shelter shelter and have no other place to go so I'm just gonna now ask the question uh Tony if you could um just maybe talk a little bit about that I know we we've acknowledged that there's probably no way to you know move through this without some legal claims without having to move through that process but I'm I'm just wondering if you could help us understand what that might look like should a claim be a constitutional claim an eighth amendment claim um and or sequel claims what that will mean like how long in mind it take before that gets resolved um I know that it's again it's a lot of variables and I kind of tried to ask this last time but I'd love to just get a better understanding of what we're looking at here um as a result I'm sorry I think that's a thanks yeah um so there's there's quite a lot to unpack there so let me try to break it down a little bit first is as we have discussed and I think I was candid um the last time uh that that the council met on this topic uh we are dealing with a very complicated issue with a lot of competing a lot of competing interests and an area and areas of the law that have um no clear guidance and and so the litigation uh risk-free option is not on the table tonight including maintaining the status quo um and we're already under in litigation on this topic and I think there are a number of ways to look at this but whatever whatever ordinance the council ultimately ends up approving I think there's a reasonable likelihood that we'll be defending it in court and I'm not suggesting that that's a reason not to do it it's just the reality and and and one possible outcome of that is that through the court process um further amendments could be made because there is a severability clause in the ordinance and so a court could strike portions of it and leave the basic framework intact um and so so that so that's just the circumstance that we're operating under a separate concern is could the council move forward on an ordinance tonight for final adoption and direct changes be brought back for consideration of future meeting that would address some of the and you know perceived uh flaws that might give rise to litigation and that's a possibility as well that someone might you know you meet you leave the potential for camping in open space intact but direct um the staff to return with an amendment to remove the Oranagalch and Dolaviega and Moor Creek etc from the places where sleep overnight sleeping is available could someone file an environmental challenge based on endangered species act or or um Sequa to challenge that component only even though the council's already given direction to bring back an amendment to fix that and I think the likelihood is is not very high but but there is at least you know a potential likelihood of that um and and one way to mitigate that would be to have an ordinance brought back for introduction um you know before the deadline to file a uh a Sequa lawsuit it has passed and the and the deadline to file a Sequa lawsuit is triggered by by filing a uh notice of exemption with the state office um the state clearinghouse and if the council directs us to bring amendments back I suspect we won't be filing a notice of exemption uh at least until the council's taken up the ordinance at a future meeting so so the risk there is even further mitigated so that's a possibility um and so I think that gets to the heart of your question but I want to make sure that I answered it fully is there is there another um have I missed anything no I think I think I know I think substantively on the the claim what the claims might entail I think that covers that I appreciate you uh going over that um I guess the other question that I do have though is um in terms of and I know this is you know there's a lot of possibilities here too and a lot of variables but should either of those kinds of claims be filed what happens next after that for the council to consider for the for your office to to do what would be the next steps you know would we go into settlement talks or would we try to I mean would part of the ordinance still be you know could we sever then you know I'm just I guess I'm just confused about the potential there's a process timeline yeah I think that no matter what the no matter the direction from which litigation comes we would look to attempt to resolve the litigation through uh discussions and negotiations um and and regardless litigation does not get resolved quickly and so um so there would be plenty of opportunities for us to have further discussions and possibly make changes as a settlement or um maybe make changes um based on guidance that we get from the court if this litigation so so that's that's a fluid process and it really depends on what the nature of the claims uh is and and and what specific issues we're we're trying to we're trying to deal with thanks I appreciate you trying to help me envision the future here with uh you know a whole lot of unknowns but I appreciate in mind you know as an attorney who's accustomed to providing you know advice on litigation in closed session as as attorney client privileged communications I'm trying to you know I'm trying to walk an appropriate balance between having as much of a candid discussion as you can without like totally tipping our hand on on potential uh legal issues that might be used to count this right thank you I do have some comments but I think I'll I'll let others uh weigh in and um hopefully come back around before we vote sure uh councilmember con tarry johnson thank you um um yeah I I just want to start out by saying again I I heard all the callers and appreciate and want to thank the callers um for taking the time to engage and participate um as well as those who wrote letters in the last several weeks um taking the time to express your concerns um compassion was brought up a number of times tonight and and through the letters um and I just you know I I want to say that doing nothing is not compassion and um watching human suffering um among those who are unhoused is not compassion and watching the negative impacts of our community members who are housed is not compassion I understand that there are um challenges with this current ordinance and I'm hoping with our discussion tonight that we can make some significant amendments that address the concerns and challenges um but sitting here and doing nothing is not compassion for anyone I just I really want to make that clear um but that's I feel strongly about that um what the ordinance has done is it's given us an opportunity to engage although a very divisive issue it's given us an opportunity to engage and to have dialogue with community members um and among us the city council colleagues that I have um it's also allowed us to in a meaningful way talk about programming um right now as the ordinance stands a safe sleeping program would be launched um and stood up within 60 days maybe we need to look at that and expedite that um right now as the ordinance stands there are opportunities for managed encampments um I think that that piece of the language in the ordinance is confusing but it's in the ordinance that managed encampments would be permissible in all areas of the city um even the ones that are outlined as prohibited um if we work with city county nonprofits and I think the language of faith communities is missing so I hope that we could have that um again there's work to be done um there are issues to be addressed um I hear the concerns around criminalization I had some really insightful phone calls with some community members that work in the field um some people who I know some people who I've never met um and I think as much as we can really narrowing in on the unacceptable behaviors and the rules that we all have to live by as councilmember golder mentioned um to explicitly name those those are expected of everyone to explicitly name those and not criminalize being unhoused or sleeping um but hold people accountable for the rule that that are here in society um so I'm hoping that we can have some clarity around that um uh yeah I think I'll just I'll just stop there with my comments and I also have um worked with councilmember Watkins to draft some potential amendments and changes and I'll wait to see what's brought forward by my colleagues before sharing those thank you great thank you councilmember uh councilmember Watkins I do want to thank my colleagues for their comments I want to thank the community members who've reached out to us um who were on the phone today but also the many who emailed us their concerns I um I want to reiterate what Lee said and thank just the amount of work that's gone into this from various um department heads and community members who've informed some of those modifications and changes I think what we know is that there really is no single strategy or true simple solution to um the issue of healthlessness in our community I think what we also know to be true is that really cities are not equipped um to handle these complex issues on our own and um anytime that I've observed being on council um a proposal to take action you know like a big action um it's been very you know controversial and polarizing and difficult and um just to the point where it's paralyzed it's really our our ability to move in any way I think you know one of the things that I really when I learned about for example health and all policies which I know has been brought up you know one of the things that really struck me is about how that framework really takes in the whole community um is really balancing the health equity and sustainability of the entire community it also really it focuses on the fact that we have really complex societal issues before us and that no single entity can handle this issue on its own and we have to collaborate and so it was brought up by one of the callers that it's almost like a tapestry of um interventions and um supports and mitigations and ideally continuous improvement but what I also know is that large unmanaged entrenching campments are not healthy living environments um they cause environmental and social concerns and they are simply unsustainable they actually had an opportunity to go down to the San Lorenzo park after the first reading of the ordinance and I actually invited some members of the community who um shared concerns with me about the ordinance to to come with me I didn't hear back from them as interested in wanting to come but I think people um who may want to understand what it could be like um just observing or talking to individuals down there who have it but have opinions you know I suggest they do and I'm sure our law enforcement if they don't feel comfortable going on their own we'd be happy to go with them um but I want to just sort of share what I observe visuals residing there I spoke to a few of them some of them uh said they were local uh from Capitola in Aptos a country um some just went just a woman who looked distressed there our law enforcement who I was with that every time an ambulance comes there's uh a law enforcement officer or companies that EMT to um to to perform their services there there are no children in the playground nor do I think there could actually probably you know would be good for any children to be there in that playground that's actually one of the more lower income areas of our community so it's the low income families who are not able to benefit from their their local playground um I observed our seniors who are there who are actually living in uh seniors who are 62 years older and um or disabled and um and them being impacted from the conditions of park a healthy equitable approach to our entire community university um doesn't make it okay to allow us to ignore them or take any action whatsoever and say that that's what we're willing to accept because that's where that is and those are the areas that are most often impacted I think that really about how do we improve and I know uh Councilmember Callentary Johnson brought up that we have some amendments we'd like to share around um improvements and modifications to really address a lot of the concerns that were brought before us but about also balancing being in action as opposed to deferring to status quo um because that is not what I would consider a healthy equitable or sustainable community decision in my opinion so I know this is always tough and tricky and I have sat on the Council for four years and it is never easy because there are um human beings of all different sectors who are impacted our entire community is impacted and so at point we have to stay unwilling to try things and if it doesn't work we tried and we'll improve and we'll continue to modify and track and we'll improve and we'll continue to modify and track but we're going to continue to try because I'm not willing to throw out my hand to say that that's what I think is acceptable because it's just it's not for anybody and um and I want to echo the comments made about the county I think I appreciate them willing to step up we're uh in this together and we need to work together on these solutions so those are my comments and I know that the amendments in the motion are forthcoming in terms of how we're going to move forward with policy direction thank you council member um council member coming if you don't mind I might stick myself in here just for a very brief comment and then I'll ask I'll I'll be happy to have you continue um yeah I um I you know I echo a lot of what's been said um I've said many things before I'm not going to repeat them um this is um basically a societal failure um it probably 30 years in the making at least in my knowledge growing up here in California um and watching my mom hit the roof when Ronald Reagan you know passed laws that basically decided to not take care of people who needed to be taken care of um and who needed assistance um and I remember I remember those conversations I remember reading the San Francisco Chronicle I remember her as a very staunch liberal democrat who spent a lot of time taking care of people being absolutely curious that that was going to be the destiny for you know the people of california in the future of california I have a dear dear family member a relative he has been homeless for 20 years he's a veteran he's a father um he's been off and on the streets he's lost his home he's lost his job he is disabled um from 20 years of meth addiction um he um so he's the guy I called he's the person I called this week and I said and and he knows this place um he's been here many many times and we've hiked in the woods and we swam in this river and we've done all the things that you do with people you care about and um I said well what should we do should we do nothing or should we try to do something and he said trust me start doing something start stop ignoring us stop accepting that this is acceptable it's not he lives in camps he knows what they're like um and he said please do something stand up and try to do something try to name opportunities try to set behaviors try to tell me that you expect me to do better so I'm going to take his words and I'm going to try to do that tonight because that's my experience and I trust him because he has been living homeless for 20 years but he's a proud veteran he's a proud father and he was a very successful person and unfortunately his substance abuse it's just consumed him but he can't find help for that disease um and that's the problem that is affecting our entire society right now is we're not investing in things that are making people's lives fail and it's not people that don't that build big houses it's not those things it's disinvestment into our society and into our communities and that's why we are where we are today so when you vilify people who may have built a house or owned a house or did any of those things I agree with my colleagues please do not turn this into a divisive community argument we're only going to get there if we work together and nothing is going to be perfect when we push it out the first time but I haven't heard anyone here tonight who's your elected official who has said that they are you know died in the died in the wool around one thing or another I think we're all trying to push something forward trying to make the inertia stop and make something happen so um you know I second I seconded the motion I feel very strongly tonight we've got to we've got to put some on the books and I think we already know we'll come back with an amendment but I think something has to be put on the books tonight and that's that's that's what at least I'll be advocating for I really appreciate all my um colleagues comments um and especially um all your concern for everyone involved and all the people who are unfortunately having to to be in the place that they are tonight with um not having home so councilmember Cummings I will um call on you next and um and then we'll go I think to the motion after that I want to thank everybody for the comments I did want to make um one comment very briefly you know we open this and to the points that will make a councilmember Brown before we um went to public comment I think there was um you know a real desire to try to allow as much time as possible for the community to speak to this item and for that reason I know councilmember Brown kept her her question short I did as well and I know other members of the council like like so probably did because we wanted to make sure we heard from the public and when we opened this portion I was ready to make a motion but wanted to wait to hear from my colleagues and I know a motion has been made and so I'm not going to argue that point I will just ask though that as we move forward when um we are taking action and making motions that those motions are read before a second or what have you because currently we have a motion that was made and seconded and no one in the community knows what that motion was and so I think just for transparency and as a part of our process that you know it's really important that when motions are being made that we read them that it's clear for everyone that we know where this what direction's being moved um you know before we're we have seconds and we're starting to move forward in the process because technically if someone were to call a question we could just move on to a vote I know that's not going to happen but just in terms of process I think it's really important that we try to be as transparent as possible and stay true to the process so all in my comments and I'm looking forward to seeing what is before us and the motion that's been made and then ways that we can try to you know contribute and move something along that will help our current situation I just want to make sure counts yeah counts member commentary johnson you're back in you got kicked out you got booted off yeah something weird happened everything turned off in the house I think it was a win I'm back thanks okay is there do you want to put them is there any other questions I don't want to cut anybody's time short I did I was trying to honor listening to the public so I don't know if counts members have specific questions for staff or if we should just go right into deliberation counts a member golder do you want to walk us through not sure if you gave this Bonnie's got it but I didn't know if you sure I'm happy to um I don't know if she wants to scoot it down and I can read it or people can read it what would be sorry you should read it can you can you put it down a little then because they can't see the top okay so um is up the very top this is the very top right here I don't know what you can see oh okay um oh there yeah I could not see it there okay now I can see it okay so um I'd like to make a motion um to amend um chapter 6.3 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code related to the temporary outdoor living and direct staff to return by April 9th 2021 with an amended ordinance that would include the following and so the first was MAP amendments an amended map um designating more creek preserve Pogonip open space um Delaviga Park Arana Gulch closed during all for camping during all hours an amended map um designating public property adjacent to the state parks when public property of butts are residential zoning district as closed to camping during all hours and designate um Swanton Boulevard as closed to camping um amendments to 6.36040 at risk areas and daytime encampments so um direct staff to return by April 9th 2021 with the following revised language designated public property adjacent like sorry it was like I was trying to put everything together so I might have duplicated some things here um this is kind of just the same thing but as um language and not the map but um designating public property adjacent to state parks when public property of butts of residential zoning districts such such as closed to camping during daylight or during all hours and designate all of Swanton Boulevard closed to camping as well as public right of ways such as sidewalks adjacent to city and state parks um when said property of butts a residential zoning district direct staff to return by April 9th 2021 with the following revised language to section 6.36040 at risk areas and daytime encampments section 8 to remove but not including open spaces um can you scroll up a little Bonnie I'm wondering too if we could email it to everybody just so that they can read it it might be easier too I mean I can I'm happy to keep that way people can read it on their own too direct staff to return by April 9th 2021 with the following revised language to section 6.36 oh sorry um 040 at risk areas and daytime encampments to include more creek preserved poking up open space or on a gold shula vega and within all parks as defined by the parks master plan and then I took some of Lee's words that's why it seems so duplicative um have to return by April 9th 2021 with the following revised language to section 6.36040 at risk areas and daytime encampments section a 11 to include RT zoning district direct staff to return by April 9 21 with the following revised language to section <IP_ADDRESS> at risk areas and daytime encampments section D3 as city personnel encounter individuals who are camping in prohibited areas or at prohibited times the city shall um service of available to assist individuals with on-street transportation to storage facilities staff to return by April 9 21 with how individuals will with physical disabilities will be addressed and then for the direction for city staff city staff shall conduct a census of the homeless individuals at least quarterly if funding is available to do so city staff shall return with operating and permitting guidelines for 6.36050 and 6.36050B sorry the city staff shall issue a request for qualifications for non-profit service providers for safe sleeping programs and temporary encampments in order to broaden the city's list of qualified organizations for providing such services allowed under this ordinance the city shall not implement enforcement until amendments are made and cdc covid tier is orange city staff shall provide an amended map with clarifying legend and a statement that camping is not allowed pursuant to state requirements for state parks city staff shall seek opportunities particularly when public safety life safety is not under immediate slash urgent threat through coordination with city county non-governmental organizations or faith faith faith based staff for outreach to proceed or occur simultaneously to enforcement of provident living so that when feasible non-enforcement personnel can contact identified individuals on a complete basis with a structured proactive program city staff shall seek opportunities particularly when public safety life safety not under immediate urgent threat through coordination with city county is this the same paragraph again I think that might be a mistake thank you and then finally no action can take place no no action can take place in it it's supposed to say if safe sleeping spots are not available in the county and that was I was trying to get if there are no safe sleeping spots or so I was trying to capture what Lee was suggesting at the end of his presentation and then I wanted to put something here with the misdemeanor so this is that that that only and I think this is something Lee put on there I was trying to put it but I don't know if I did it right but that that the following could be the following could be misdemeanors and now I can't see it can you scroll up a little bit no I meant down sorry did I put them on there yeah then I can't see him no I don't know I can't read him it just says misdemeanor 6a as all I can see but there was like a list of things that Lee said right there tied to tie him to actions fires bike chump shops needles camping in specific locations and so I know that that's something I feel like that we could work through I don't I don't have it so much and then the and that's the same thing down there is that that you part was the same thing I was trying to capture from so I understand that it's not perfect and I was hoping that through teamwork and friendly amendments we can make it better thank you councilmember boulder um councilmember Cummings and then councilmember commentary Johnson Justin you're muted my hand was up in last time did you not I didn't have my hands in the last time it's not then I'll take my hand down right now okay councilmember commentary Johnson um you know I I was just going through councilmember boulder's motion and and an amendment and looking through councilmember Watkins and I put together and there's there are quite a bit of overlap so I was trying to go through and cross out