 So good morning everyone and welcome to our 1045 a.m. session of the November 24 2020 meeting of the Santa Cruz City Council I have a few announcements and then we'll move on to our regularly scheduled meeting Today's meeting is being broadcast live on community television channel 25 and streaming on the city's website city of Santa Cruz calm All council members are participating in this meeting remotely and I want to thank the public for staying at home to view today's city council meeting If members of the public would like to comment on an agenda item Please call in the beginning of the item that you're wanting to comment on using the instructions on your screen Please mute your television or streaming device once you call in and listen through your phone Please note that there's a delay in streaming so if you continue to listen through your television or streaming device you may miss your opportunity to speak When it's time for public comment, please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand When it's your time to speak you'll hear an announcement that you've been unmuted The time will then be set to two minutes and you can hang up once you've commented on your item of interest With that I'd like to ask the clerk to please call the roll Thank you mayor, council member Byers Catherine you're muted She means here Matthew Here Here Golder Present Watkins Here Vice mayor Meyers Here And mayor Cummings Here acknowledge that the land on which we gather is the unceded territory of the Oahuasua-speaking UP tribe The Amamutan tribal van comprised of the descendants of indigenous people Taking the mission Santa Cruz and San Juan Batista during Spanish colonization of the central coast Is today working hard to restore traditional stewardship practices on these lands and heal from historic trauma With mountain bikers of Santa Cruz Presented by presenting please turn off your video and we'll and so with that I'd like to turn it over to Emma Sure a quick update with you Santa Cruz is a non-profit trail building organization So yeah I just wanted to start off since it's been a while and start from March So in March COVID-19 hit things were pretty quiet We had to stop all of our volunteer trail work opportunities that we were offering at the time While we figured things out one thing that we did from March Through or starting in May through June is we started tabling at all the local trail heads and a lot of local parks State parks and city parks Included and the two locations that we were at and city parks were at EMP element curry trail and Yukon So we created a pretty big Poster that we put out and we had a really long list of Recommendations for trail users. So during the first few months we spent a lot of our time educating the public Encouraging folks not travel from far away Things like that. And so we had two shifts of people working every Saturday and Sunday out at all the local trail head Then come July that's when we actually Have these protocols that were in the last slide kind of put together and we had permission from City of Santa Cruz Parks and Rec to start volunteer trail work again So since July we've been doing quite a few Volunteer events each week Contract maintenance on Thursdays every Wednesday night until the time change We were doing a Wednesday evening trail work event in more Creek Preserve and in Pogonis And then we've been doing Saturdays at Daylaw of Diego So just like a three-hour event and so we're really lucky that we got to start trail work again and have this kind of cool resource For people to help out with the trails especially since trails are really reaching an all-time high With youth right now. So Some upcoming work we're going to be doing is we have a plan for the nature loop reroute do seven volunteer events There and make some updates there as well as the upcoming Daylaw of Diego work plan for 2021 Just kind of outlines all the work that we're going to be doing for the next year So here's an example of some of the work we were doing during all these events As you know, it's been pretty dry without a lot of rain So we haven't been doing much digging. We've actually just been picking up trash on all of the trails and also brushing all the sightlines The really important thing to do it reduces user conflicts. These trails get a lot of use which I'll get to later And so here's the first time volunteer Erin. This was her first time volunteering. She picked up a bunch of garbage. It was awesome So our time since around end of July Here's all of our staff for all the open spaces that we were working in that our city of San Fris Park But the totals and short were 109 volunteers were working 253 hours total And so here's a really big That that I wanted to pull up that why it's just so important. I think this is something that gets lost is These are the these are the numbers for a university connector trail Yukon trail starts the top of Emma McCrary trail or the recon road and goes up to UCSC These are the actual use numbers of that trail alone So 3,000 trips last week 11,000 trips the last month 62,000 trips in the last six months. So This is wild. I mean this is showing how much trail use there really is just on one trail and why it's so important that we're out there Having this opportunity to work on the trails So that was my update nice and short. Please feel free to Have any questions Learn here right now Great. Thank you for that presentation and all the hard work that you all do to help maintain these trails I'll turn it over to councilmember golder I just want to say thank you to you and your organization for all the wonderful work you do out on the trail I know councilmember browner and I walked that trail this week, and then I walked it again yesterday So it does get used a lot and I appreciate all of the hard work we see from the volunteers If people want to get involved right now, what is the best way they can get involved to help? Just going on our website Something fun we're going to do in 2021 it's every first Saturday of the month is going to be a first time volunteer event So like limited to only people who have never volunteered before and it's going to be like more of like education about what we're actually doing Why we're doing it as well as trail work. So I would say that's a really good opportunity as well. Thank you Thank you Yeah, I just and I just wanted to thank you and mountain bikers with Santa Cruz Our as you said our parks and our trails are just that's where everybody's going and so it's great to see people discovering the Amazing parks that we have in Santa Cruz and so but with those numbers 62,000 that's pretty amazing on one trail So I'm really glad you guys are out there and also just really glad that you're able to kind of just maintain in general I appreciate the trash pickup. Sometimes those things aren't the funnest things to have your volunteers do but it's just Maintaining our open spaces as well in terms of You know garbage and other needs so thank you for everything you guys are doing Thank you Matthews That's what they said you're great. Thank you Thank you The questions or comments from council members Okay, hearing none It'll be great for us to be able to Stay in touch with you all and learn about opportunities for us to be able to get out and help support the work you do So thank you again, and we look forward to hearing more about what you're doing moving forward Hey, thanks so much for the opportunity. Have a good one. All right. Take care Bye Presentation on our agenda is the neighborhood courts program The presenter is Elaine Johnson program coordinator for neighborhood courts and so I'd like to welcome Elaine to our city council meeting Everyone good morning. Thank you for the opportunity for me to be here this morning to share with you about this amazing program called neighborhood court I'm going to share my screen and walk you through a brief presentation and open it up for questions asked Can everyone see my screen? Yeah So again, my name is Elaine Johnson. I am the program coordinator at the district attorney's office here in Santa Cruz and You know after two plus years of having a vision of having a restorative justice program Implemented in Santa Cruz. We are launching the neighborhood courts program Well done. Let me try to shake you down here for some reason. It's not clicking Oh, there we go People say so what is neighborhood courts? Neighbor courts is an alternative to the traditional criminal justice system It's a pre-filing diversion program that is community and volunteer driven So the conference that we that is held is all by members of the community We use restorative justice principles instead of punitive principles It's held in a conference that is confidential participation on behalf of the participant and a victim if there's a direct victim is completely voluntary And if we address the needs of the offender, the victim and the community So in neighborhood courts when we want to use restorative justice principles versus the traditional principles So in court you may hear language such as what law was broken, who broke it, and what punishment is deserved But when we use restorative justice principles we're looking at what harm was done What are the needs of all those involved and how can we repair that harm for all those involved So how the program works? Eligible cases are diverted from the DA's office to the neighborhood courts program The participant must be willing to take full responsibility for the harm they have caused That is a priority in order to be eligible for the program We use a restorative justice conference which consists of community members such as yourself The offender who we call the participant in this program The victim is applicable and again there's no judges, no juries, there's no courtroom settings, none of that sort of thing No attorneys, it's all community driven And during this confidential conference we have the volunteer panelists which will consist of three community members and the participants And in that conference they will discuss the harm that was caused if there was a direct victim to the direct victim and the community And then it will take this time to dive deeper into the root of why this crime may have happened And then collaboratively they will work on selecting some directors that are specific, attainable, that are restorative to the participant, the victim and the community This program is designed to set the participant up to be successful and not to fail So during that conference when the three panelists and the participant come up with some directors which are agreement for the participant to complete When they have two months to complete them Once those directors are successful the case will be dismissed and the DA's office will not press any charges and there will not be any record The person is free to go Now if there are additional services that the participant may need we will make sure those services are offered to them Now if a participant chooses not to resolve the neighborhood courts program if they don't do their directors that they were assigned to do The case will be rerouted back to the DA's office But in that process in the two months that they have to complete the program I will reach out to them to make sure that they're on track The agreements are going to be designed where they're really attainable for the person And as we get down there I'll show you some of the agreements, some sample agreements So as we kick off the program we've identified 12 low-level misdemeanor sentences that we will start with So we have petty theft and shoplifting Vandalism and trespassing Disorderly conduct drunk in public Misdemeanor assault on batteries Drug possession and drug paraphernalia Receive the stolen property and possession of burglary too As the program grows as we go down the line the eligible cases will definitely definitely grow And for the eligibility of the participant they need to be 18 and over This is their first offense and they only get one there's only a one-time participation in the neighborhood court They must take accountability for the incident And they must be willing to pay restitution if it is wanted The neighborhood court volunteers who are the hub of this program Community members we invite them that we actually just had a two-week training Maybe we just finished up the training this past weekend We asked for a commitment of two years for community members and one year for students And and what that commitment means is it doesn't necessarily mean that you're gonna be participating in every single neighborhood court for the next two years As we just like to have a pool of people that we can can pull from and know that they will be available for at least two years And of course they will participate in the neighborhood court conferences Now there's a direct victim involved they have an option to choose to participate or not participate You know they have the option of having somebody from the victim's advocate's office Department in our office to assist with them to either attend the conference with them Or to write a victim's impact statement and have it read at the conference but the victim has that choice And here's a list of just some examples of some directors that may be offered to the participant For them to complete in the next two years So you of course they have community service and with community service One of the things that's important is that we want to make sure we tailor the services That that is going to make the participant more successful So something that they really like and enjoy doing because we don't want them to just okay say do they're going to do 10 hours But you know we want it to be some sort of lifelong goal of some sort You know of course we may have them attend some 12-step meeting Apology letters and that could be for themselves to their family To if they store store manager You know just that's just to name a few Of course if the victim is requesting restitution they must pay restitution And we may have them write a reflective paper Since we're in COVID a lot of the directors we are looking at right now are having to maybe watch some For example if someone has been charged with petty theft There is a video that they can go watch for a couple hours and then we want them to write a paper on what that meant for them You know the video will explain to them the bigger impact of what petty theft concourse And those sorts of things And so the goal of the conference is to have community driven solutions We want the community who was affected by the harm to have a voice in restoring the harm It'll reduce the burden on criminal courts, which will save us a lot of time and a lot of money And it'll reduce re-offending I talked I spent the last few months Working with San Francisco, who was the first county to launch a report And Yolo County and the city of Los Angeles And their success rates and we'll see that toward the end But their success rates and the testimonials they shared with me Of people that have gone through the program who have gone on to live successful meaningful lives Is really encouraging And in the last eight years San Francisco as I mentioned That number is now over 4,000 cases and their success rate is about 93% Which is very impressive And Yolo County in seven years and 1,600 cases there about 90% as well And I look forward to Santa Cruz County having those promising numbers as well I'll just pass on So ways to get involved We just got about 55 applications Which I was really impressed with to volunteer And we just trained the first 24 And there's people on the waiting list You know because as we grow we will continue to have more people on the panel So if there's anybody you know that is interested in the program You know that you can have a go to the DA's website and follow up application And I will definitely put them on the waiting list So if anybody has any questions I'd be happy to answer them for you And we'll stop here Your leadership on this program and for bringing to the city council And make us aware of everything that's going on I will likely be visiting the DA's website to sign up as well Because I think this is something that have a lot of positive benefits for our community So I'll turn it over to council member Golder And council member Watkins Thank you this is such an exciting change in the justice system That I'm really looking forward to seeing you know the positive outcomes from I'm just wondering if someone was to sign up What would the time commitment be like Aside from the two years like a weekly monthly So they can wrap their head around it Wrap their head around it Once we get going the plan is right now to do one conference a week As we grow so you know I tell volunteers You know maybe every other month they'll have an opportunity to do a conference So it's not that much time It would be like one whole day or one hour No the conference is about an hour and a half Okay so if someone was going to sign up an hour and a half Every other month there's something at this point cool That is correct Thank you You're welcome I just want to express my thanks Elaine For your leadership I'm getting this up and running And for the county to take the initiative to get this started It's very exciting I've read a lot about this approach And I think it really fits well with our community So I'm just super excited and great that You got to be five people who are interested in participating And I think as the information gets out I think more and more people are going to really see that this is really about Healing each other and healing our neighborhoods so And our community so thank you very much for putting the program together Thank you so much Thank you for the presentation And extend our gratitude to the DA's office And for really the leadership to move in this direction You know that we work together on restorative justice programming for youth And the healing is not only for the individual who caused the harm in the community But it's also for the community as a whole And that holistic approach of really repairing harm Is so much more powerful especially as a diversion option For individuals to go a different path So I am really excited that this is happening for the adult setting I know it's been challenging more so for adults To have this kind of approach to the criminal justice system But it's so important and wonderful And at some point if you or the DA's office would be willing to come and present After it's been up and running some of the outcomes and successes and approaches That would be wonderful just to kind of keep this on our radar And ways that we as a city can also support the work So thank you very very much for the presentation Elaine Thanks Martina, Shobu, thank you Questions or comments from council members Elaine I want to thank you again for being here today And we look forward to hearing how this program Thank you so much, happy holidays everybody Thank you Covery Cafe Santa Cruz, executive director of recovery cafe And I was going to say earlier this year They will actually sit down with some folks from other cities Who had developed a recovery cafe program And the offices could look like for homelessness in Santa Cruz And surge offered to come and present to council And so I thought it would be a good opportunity To hear about this potential option for the city of Santa Cruz But with that I'll turn it over to the search Thank you Mr. Mayor Good morning council members And thank you for the presentation That just went the mountain bikers And all of the work they did And neighborhood courts is a pretty amazing thing for Santa Cruz I'm one of the volunteer panelists for that So really looking forward to how that turns out Today talking about recovery cafe Bonnie if you can go to the next slide Recovery cafe creates a supportive healing community For individuals recovering from life's traumas I'll talk about how that happens Throughout the presentation The past year has been a time of stress, fear And community challenges Recovery cafe Santa Cruz supports people And their healing from life's traumas Offering a welcoming smile And a free cup of coffee In a safe community setting Knowing each participant Supporting them in their goals As they define for themselves We give support and realistic feedback And housing, staying housing We help those who are experiencing homelessness To stabilize and move forward And with their desired goals And job readiness skills, shelter, health Addiction recovery and more Bonnie would you do the next slide The recovery cafe is focused For not any one particular group Housed or unhoused For recently housed people Who want to stay on track with their goals People who have completed residential treatment Or are in outpatient care And need additional structure and support Individuals living with a mental health diagnosis Who need community to combat isolation People living on the street Seeking to make steps towards recovery and stability And individuals re-entering the community From jail and prison Seeking strong and sober support Next slide So the recovery cafe Is a site-based program Pre-COVID In 2003 Seattle Started the first program Different programs started up And in 2016 they started a network So that other communities Could decide whether they wanted to start Their own independent program Based on that model There are now 23 different sites Around the country Each one independent The recovery cafe Santa Cruz RCSC We received our 501C3 status Last month And we also received our first $50,000 donation Next slide The membership is pretty simple 24 hours of sobriety Agreeing to attend a weekly recovery circle And willingness to help in some way Depending on what somebody's abilities are To help the community within the cafe Next slide We have a bunch of different programs When it's site-based We try to do meals We try to have peers learning Peer leadership Taking over different responsibilities Community participation Something in the neighborhood About cleaning up the neighborhood Around the site School for recovery A model for recovery Drop-in activities Depending on whether that's an art class Or a job readiness skill Or a required recovery circle Led by a trained facilitator Next slide There's weekly support groups Which we call recovery circles We have a trained facilitator We have 8 to 10 people per group Members create their own goals And the facilitator is helping it Be a group conversation So peer-to-peer accountability And required attendance For membership Next slide So when it's site-based Guest speakers coming in Either somebody from Homeless Garden Project Or from different programs Coming in to do presentation Health fairs Getting HPHP to come in Community resources Getting people connected Music, art, writing Depending on what sort of groups People want Holiday celebrations Always have coffee, caffeinated And decaf for some Input within the program Next slide The school for recovery Is about life skills Because boredom and depression Also lead to difficulty with recovery So there's different aspects For recovery and addiction Life skills, inner healing Healthy living Next slide So for the mobile program The way that we're creating Something new during the pandemic We're offering weekly meetings At partner agencies Like talking to different food pantries Talking about setting something up outside On the time that they have a food pantry On a certain day For a couple hours Offering coffee to people Who are willing to be consistent We're talking to the homeless shelters Also When they have space Whether that's inside or outside And different kinds of programs Mobile program, definitely And social distancing Next slide We offer for the mobile program Free coffee Weekly confidential recovery circles Led by trained facilitators We'll also be talking to people And do referrals for benefits Housing, treatment, job training Etc Where people can also meet With their case managers Some people are a little hard to find In our community And it's going to be a place Where people can meet Our needs as this moment We're looking for partner Partners for mobile sites We're in negotiations With a couple different programs And we're willing to have more conversations Setting up certain groups Based on the population Depending whether it's One of the isolation quarantine motels Or whether it's a food pantry Depending on whether other members From the community can come We're looking for a little office space And a little storage space Just for our tents And our stuff like that We're looking for funding We're applying for grants We got our first $50,000 grant In the last month or so Looking for volunteers Who want to be a part And asking for people to spread the word And just say that we're here Any contact information If anybody wants to get in touch With me to talk about programming You can send me an email We got a website RecoveryCafeSC.org Also on Facebook And I'm happy to take any questions Search that presentation On RecoveryCafe Thank you for bringing this And you're pretty clear about how people could Sign up to help And again the same question for the others What would kind of be the time commitment Or expectations Or level of experience Good question Thanks I think it depends on the person I think we'd like people who are consistent Who could start creating relationships The hope In the different volunteers So everybody is getting One-on-one conversations And people are able to build relationships We want to build community If people want to come For a shorter version of things Whether that's just donating coffee And not really wanting to interact I mean that's okay too Giving comes in lots of different forms So we're definitely willing to Accept people who are Want to be less interactive Or people who want to be trained To be facilitators Thank you for the presentation It's exciting to see a program like this Emerging in Santa Cruz And I appreciate your leadership I am wondering So obviously things are More in COVID time So I imagine that has some effect On how you Major effect on how you Set your sites up And all of that But just kind of more generally What's your vision For kind of expansion Of this program How many sites And what are you thinking In terms of the coverage How you'd like to see that go up Nice question In the dream form of things It was funny because just before COVID We were in the final stages Of signing Making an agreement for a site In Santa Cruz Because we had a fiscal sponsor At that point And then as COVID happens And gathering is a less Suggested So eventually post COVID When we can have a site Having a site in Santa Cruz And then we can have a site Having staff that are there Which has enough funding And enough support To actually make sure people Get to their medical appointments Make sure they get to their Court appointments Make sure they get to Whatever other connections they need And case management Making sure people get connected With different services At the same time A place where somebody can be Over to Whether they want to interact Whether it takes them They don't want to interact And it takes them months To build relationships Before they're willing to really Talk much Which is okay Everybody moves at their own base In healing But yeah, that's the goal I like the idea that right now We can offer it to anywhere To any program We have to have a site-based thing And it's going to be people Are going to have to find a way To get to us rather than us right now Being willing to negotiate to get to them Yeah, thanks for the question Communications you've been having With the county and Especially as it relates to Being able to offer these services At places like the Armory And some of the other places Where we have shelter currently And down Yeah, great question I think we're going to have A few more procedures For the vet halls So I've spoken with the motels And we've offered that There's flyers there We're just trying to figure out To have enough people who are interested Because it's a completely voluntary thing We could do a zoom Kind of meeting But depending on if there are more Numbers at more places And the same thing for the vet halls At the vet hall And it's I think for all of us There's just so many things That we've been working on throughout this year And new things keep cropping up Programming is the thing That we want to add to our shelters The Armory And the The Benchlands that just moved up there And the vet halls One of the things that is true Is as we try to continue funding Things we're not sure of How long the funding goes So doing some programming To moving people to help get people Engaged And feel connected Is a big value It's really a lot of people Don't want to be engaged So this kind of social program Is something that helps Them more willing to accept housing And the other kinds of help So definitely in those negotiations And I will keep you informed From council members Presentation from the California Homeless Union, LLC The presenter is Roxanne Burdick California Homeless Union Outreach Coordinator Was working homelessness In our community And this is a group that's from Keith McHenry And from Alicia Cool And I think Anthony Prince And this is a different group From those individuals And so commenting on how they've been Expanding food to homeless individuals In our community So Roxanne if you're on the line Or if there's a representative From the group The rest of our meeting As an attendee So I'll turn it over to Roxanne Good morning, sorry about that We would like to thank Mayor Justin Cummings And City Council for inviting us to speak As the Outreach Coordinator For the California Homeless Union I'm happy to report We have been able to accomplish Some great things while helping Many members of our community Many community partnerships With local nonprofits That provide vital services and support To those experiencing homelessness And facing food insecurities Victims of domestic violence So on and so forth We have done all of this Without monetary donations or crowdsourcing For example, through word of mouth We were able to connect To the Walnut Avenue Early Childhood Center With a local grocer Providing over $15,000 Of food donations So they could better utilize Their food grant Since their needs have, for their families Have drastically increased Because of the pandemic Additionally, we sought out Other struggling pantries And diverted donated food That would have otherwise gone to the trash And we have continued To provide them with support And resources Furthermore, we have Only partnered with groups To provide usable food Donated in order to decrease What doesn't go to the hands Of the needy people Become feed and does not End up in our landfill We, the California Homeless Union Believe in doing this These things for the betterment Of our community We believe this can accomplish Through community partnerships Rather than through taxpayer funding Funded think tanks And committees Ourself is to pass an ordinance Requiring grocers and restaurants Within the city limits Donate more than 50% Of their potential food waste To local nonprofits I myself, Roxy and Bredick Have experienced homelessness In my early adulthood And if any of these services Were provided to me It could have made my life a lot easier And spent more time Trying to seek out jobs, housing Instead of having to seek out food For us And maybe go with our suggestion Of asking the restaurants To provide 50% of their Like I said Prior to their food waste To local nonprofits Thank you again Thank you Thank you for the Overview of what it is That you do I'm sorry you weren't able To sign on and we could see you But thank you for being here Thank you for having me Trying to work more Proactively with local restaurants I know there's a lot of that Work goes on but Trying to be more proactive About that is a great idea I'd love to find ways to support that And I was just wondering If you could I'm not sure If your organization is the California Homeless Union Do you have chapters in different locations Or a base? No, we We are solely based here In Santa Cruz And we have three board members We are not affiliated With any other chapters Gotcha, thank you Working at food pantries More to What kind of food distribution You all have been doing What food pantries You've been working with We've been working with We've been working with pantries In the Pajaro Valley Helping people who are Not only are homeless But are having Problems providing food For their families Even though they are housed And work We do anything from Like at the soup kitchen We donate a lot of kids To the soup kitchen Anything that can go into a bag lunch That gets donated from our grocer We We get so much food That gets distributed Throughout from Santa Cruz All the way to the Pajaro Valley An understanding of How your services have expanded And I guess what are opportunities To work with the city Because that's obviously something That's a big deal in the community Is ensuring that we can get Homeless individuals So I wonder if you could speak to that Well, we would like to Because right now We're doing all the pickup And drop off to all of our locations So if the restaurants could help Deliver their food Directly to the places where food Can be handed out That would help a lot Also, we have Offered to work with the city In the beginning To provide a nighttime meal Because we do have a kitchen We have access to a kitchen And so if But we were never really taken up On that opportunity But we would still love to do that Because a lot of these food services Are daytime And so what we've seen Is that the food is distributed During the day If they don't save the food Throughout the day They don't really have an option For a nighttime meal I guess I know that a lot of restaurants Are really struggling right now And I'm wondering if you reached out To any restaurants Just to sort of start a restrictive And pilot kind of opportunities We haven't reached out to any restaurants yet We wanted to bring this fort to the city First to see what they thought I know that they are struggling And I know because I have spoken To a lot of business owners That they are having a lot of waste Because people are afraid to come out They're afraid to eat out I think it would be a great idea For us to utilize the food Instead of it going in the trash Yeah, I wonder if To reach out to restaurants Specifically to see if there's any That we'd want to partner with you directly I guess my other question is I was just a little confused about The emails that we received Or maybe you have more clarity About the type of organization And then the broader statewide Organization and sort of Being affiliated But having your own sort of thing Happening here So are you a non-profit Or I was just trying to We actually are not a non-profit We are an LLC We're operating as an LLC But we do partner with multiple Non-profits in the town Or in the county Like the soup kitchen The Walnut Avenue shelter Early childhood development center We feed all the children In the valley Also an animal rescue Where our compost Anything that can't be used Can go into the compost And help feed them I guess maybe to what my colleague Was asking is How do you all distinguish From that group Or what kind of distinguishes You all from them Because I think there's a Potential for there to be confusion When there's two groups That are proactive And to provide And not I feel like The other group can stir up Some trouble a little bit here and there And we want to be a positive force In our county And help as much as possible And we've done so much In the little time That we have become the LLC Council members at this time Hearing none Roxanne, thank you for Being here today And I think this is an opportunity To grow Let us know if there's opportunities For collaboration As it relates to Food distribution in our community Yeah, we'll start reaching out Like she suggested to local restaurants And I'll keep you updated on How that's going Great. Thank you so much. And so I have a few Announcements and we'll move on City of Santa Cruz dot com. If members of the public would like to comment on any item instructions will be provided on your screen. We will provide these instructions throughout the meeting. Whenever we move into an agenda item that will be opened up for public comment. Please note the public comment is only heard on items that Council is taking action on and not on a regular updates or reports items that will be open up for public comment and during today's meeting or items numbers nine to 25 on our agenda. At this moment in time I'd like to ask Council members if there are any statements of disqualification today. Commissions or deletions to our agenda today. Commissions or deletions look like her phone or microphone is gone. So I'll come back to that. I'd like to make an announcement about oral communications. Oral communications is an opportunity for members of the public to comment and speak on items that are not on our agenda today. An oral communication is anticipated to occur on or around 7pm this evening. I'd like to ask the city attorney to provide an update on closed session. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Cummings members of the City Council. This morning closed session involved one conference with legal counsel regarding liability claims. Those are the claims of Lauren Willis Brown Bailey property management and Isadora Karcher. And those are also listed today on your afternoon agenda on the consent calendar as item number 13. It was also a conference with legal counsel concerning anticipated litigation and the council received a report from the city attorney's office on two items of potential litigation. There was no reportable action. I'll circle back. I'd like to ask the city clerk if there's any additions or deletions to today's council meeting. Can you hear me now? Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council. This afternoon I'd like to have our principal management analyst, Ralph DeMarica, provide the council with an update on the street bending, the work that he's been doing per council direction. I'll turn it over to Ralph who can give you an update on when the work has been done with the vendors and those stakeholders involved in trying to come up with a way to provide for street bending in our beach area. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor Cummings and Council. Ralph DeMarica, principal management analyst at the city manager's office. And it's my pleasure to be here today to provide you with a brief update on the progress that staff have been making with regards to sidewalk bending on Beach Street. So hopefully you guys could see my slide. Here are the main points for my update today just really briefly and that right now staff is currently conducting an inclusive outreach effort to ensure vendors and business concerns are heard and considered in this process. Beach Street is a unique location and it really requires a creative solution. Overall, public health and safety is our priority and there's several city departments involved in finding a path forward and our goal is to have a usable process in time for the 2021 season. And we do have an executive order that was issued in mid-August and that prohibited bending on Beach Street, the war, West Cliff Drive and Maine and Cal Beach. This expired, but however, due to ongoing COVID-19, due to ongoing COVID-19 emergency was replaced by another executive order. So as of today and as staff is currently bending at the application, including Beach Street is still prohibited. We are continuing our outreach efforts. We're talking to vendors, the community and businesses along Beach Street on sort of their concerns and their experience with what happened and sort of situation overall. And we did have a meeting with about a dozen vendors in September and it was in collaboration with Community Bridges. We had PD on there from the city. We had PD planning and a representative from the city manager's office, which was me. And we wanted to make sure it was an inclusive outreach effort. We provided translation services and the invitations and the agendas that were sent out were both in English and Spanish. And it was a really productive meeting and several concerns were discussed and a lot of the vendors brought up a lot of issues and sort of the challenges they were facing with the previous model that we had. But on top of that, we also asked them what solutions would work for them. And a couple of the things they brought up was the limiting of future permits and having assigned spaces, having clear guidelines and improving communication with the city. So there was sort of that that asked to have a more defined process for them. And we also heard from several businesses in the area and continue to work with Community Bridges for a follow-up meeting after Thanksgiving with the vendors. As I mentioned, health and safety is our priority during this whole thing. And Beach Street is just a really unique situation. Beach Street is a really unique location. As you can see here, just even on a really slow day, when you have four people walking down, three people walking down the sidewalk, it really starts to get crowded already. You have the bike lane here and the benches here. And right now we do have social distancing signs up and it really creates, or it gets really crowded really fast. And so with that, we did have to get creative and really look at different places to consider. And right now, finding the location is one of the goals we have. And this is one of the ideas that we're looking at, which is this patio area right here. And that's how it might look. But this isn't the final location. As I said, finding a location is one of our challenges. Another challenge we have is finding a process that's fair and works for the vendors and the businesses. You know, trying to figure out how many permits, how many sites, and how to distribute permits moving forward and all of that is another priority of ours. So we've got to have a follow-up meeting with the vendors probably after Thanksgiving and before the end of the year. We're working with community bridges to set that up. There are two challenges that we're trying to work through with this location. And yeah, but we're working with several departments to figure that out and trying to see if this is the place that we want to move, or this is the location we want to move forward with, or if there's other options. But ideally, before next season, we want to have a new permit process in place. We want to have a limited number of permits. We want to make sure that the spaces are marked and that the challenges that departments and community members and vendors themselves brought up are addressed in the process. So ultimately, we want to have clear guidelines for the vendor. We want to improve communication between them and the city. As I mentioned, have a time space, spaces, limit the number of permits, and have a process in place for 2021. Some of the challenges we're dealing with right now are discussing the site that I showed earlier with the Coastal Commission. They had a couple of things that they wanted to discuss. The site's also being used by salsa dancers. It was last year, but with COVID in place, I'm not sure if that's going to continue next season. And the sidewalk bending also impacts city staff and our day-to-day sort of action and activities there, too. So we're reaching out to different departments to see how, you know, using this site, what would impact them. But that is sort of where we are right now. I'm also available to talk to you guys one-on-one to get your input and any ideas you guys might have moving forward, and I can answer any questions you might have right now, too. All right. Thank you for that update. Yeah, I would just say with that site in particular on Sundays, I know that right now, you know, we're trying to keep people distanced, but I know the salsa dancers have been there for a really long time. And so trying to figure out, you know, how we can accommodate both is going to be really critical because that's a site of long use for dancing on Sundays. Matthews and Councilmember Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, right. I just had a question. Thank you for the report, and thank you for all the efforts. It sounds like the communications has really gotten to be much more beneficial and proactive in terms of really problem solving the way through this for everyone. One complaint that I received from not everybody, but from some of the folks who do have at least some of the retail locations down in that area is sort of the overlapping product in terms of sort of what's being vended and then also what's being sold in the stores. Did you, was there, did that come up in any of the discussions either with the stores along that area? So in other words, people pointed out to me, you know, boogie boards, you know, the kinds of things and that there was sort of an inherent sort of conflict in the actual items being sold as well because if they're being sold in a store, then we're receiving the sales tax and other things. So I just curious if that kind of communication had come up in any of your work to date. Those discussions have not come up yet. We are holding another meeting with the vendors to discuss the details and sort of additional restrictions with the permits moving forward. That'll help some of the challenges that the business owners and the vendors are seeing themselves. And so I want that to the list of items that we'll discuss at that meeting. Okay. Thank you very much. And thanks for your work. Council Member Matthews and Council Member Brown. Thank you. I agree with Dustin's comment about the social dancers. That's really a great activity, very participatory. So keep that in mind and we'll come back at some point. It's my understanding that because of poor or legislative restrictions that the economic impact of the vending has limited applicability. Maybe Tony can speak. It is a big issue. It's kind of the unspoken. It's the elephant in the room, really, for these whole discussions. So maybe Tony, you can speak to that. And then my other question then I'll be done is, again, my impression is that this is each specific mess, nothing to do with what's happening on Pacific Avenue. My own feeling is that it would be good to have some greater leverage. Let's just put it that way about the vending on Pacific Avenue. We're going to talk about downtown recovery and kind of keep our local merchants alive, et cetera. That's been an issue for a long time. Those are the two things, the economic impact on the existing businesses, even an issue that can be considered in the permitting, and then how does it relate to downtown? Yeah, I think we need to be pretty careful about the extent to which we can adopt regulations for street vending under the new state law, which allows the city to promulgate regulations for the purpose of protecting public health and safety, but specifically excludes perceived competition with brick-and-mortar businesses as a public health and safety issue. So we're pretty limited in that regard. I would just say that, unfortunately. Couldn't agree more. Member Colder. Thank you. Thanks for all your work on this, Ralph. I really appreciate the update. I am wondering in terms of the conversation, you know, I know that there are kind of the vendors are a somewhat diverse group and, you know, demographically, geographically, et cetera. I'm just wondering how, like, of the vendors who showed up, I mean, how did you outreach? I know you did communications in English and Spanish, but how did you reach the wider community and kind of how many people showed up, wondering kind of what the participation level was and who was there? Our initial invite was to the business license holders that we had on file, and that was about six to eight. We sent that email, both English and Spanish, to community bridges who had connections to more of the vendors that we did not have contact info for. And they also asked the vendors to spread it through word of mouth. That is, I think, the most impactful way to get the word out in that community. We had about, I'd say, a dozen, maybe 12 to 14 vendors on that call. We had a couple of community organizations who were supporting their efforts to get permits at the city and county on that phone call as well. And we had a couple of translators, too, just so ours wouldn't be overwhelmed. But we had about, I'd say, about 30 people on that phone call, 12, 14, or vendors. Thank you. Okay, Council Member Golder. Thanks for your work on this, Ralph. I know there was an issue with trash. Is that something that's been discussed as well? Yes, so our executive order right now, well, the previous one, the first one did mention that vendors would have to take their trash out with them and not use city trash cans in the process. Well, that expired and that was a previous sort of regulation we had before we put the executive order in place. And it's also another issue or concern that our city staff brought up when we are trying to create this permitting system moving forward. Other cities have similar regulations in place. And one thing that we wanted, a takeaway we want from our next meeting with a vendor to really set a number of rules that we could include in these new permits that we're handing out to kind of make the guidelines and expectations clear between them in the city. And that's one of the major issues that's been brought up that we want to include in that permit. I've got two other ones. One is, is there, say someone is non-compliant with the structures that are put in place. Is there a process where a permit could be revoked? We could look into that. I mean, what's interesting is from that meeting we had with the vendors, they want more regulations and clearer rules because a lot of the competition was coming from vendors who weren't following the rules and weren't applying for permits. And it was really making it challenging for those who were trying to follow the city's protocols. So we could work with the city attorney's office and maybe planning on trying to see if we could include them in our permit moving forward. Yeah, I remember it was not really creating a fair playing field. And my final concern is, so I'm all for kids doing limited stands and kids selling stuff, a little entrepreneurs and even, you know, high school age kids working with a work permit. But more than once I passed down there and I saw kids. And so I understand like parents have to bring their kids to work, especially like right now. But I have a huge like concern for child labor and human trafficking. And I just don't know like what measures are in place or anything could be in place to prevent any children being exploited through these types of vending. And if council member Guller, you guys are as council members are definitely, you know, in touch with the community and are hearing community concerns on these issues. So after our meeting with the vendors and I'm talking to local businesses and we have this list of regulations and things you want to add to these permits. I'd love to sit down with any of you to see if we are missing anything or anything needs to be considered that we didn't think of and that's something we could do. So I would say probably early mid-January would be a good timeframe as to when we could set those meetings up. Thank you for your work. Follow-up to Renee's comment about consequences of not following the guidelines. In terms of getting any permit is if you don't follow the guidelines, you're either on probation or a pre-vote. I mean that seems pretty straightforward. And enforcement was one of the major issues that city staff brought up and the fact that, you know, prior we had them really spread out and there were individuals who had multiple sites using one permit was another issue that was raised. So hopefully by having really clear spaces marked out and ensuring that you have to have your permit with you on your site and you can't be vending without your permit on you will address some of those concerns. Which was what's the timeline kind of look like or what are you all hoping for in terms of the timeline for being able to get this program in place or what are some of the next steps? Because oftentimes members of the community are curious and you know they want to have updates and information on what's happening so I'm just kind of curious about what the timeframe might look like. What we're shooting for our goal right now is to make sure that by March of 2021 vendors who have a permit are have the permit on them and are ready to go. But it's a multi-layered situation. There's a lot of moving parts to it. But we want to make sure that they're going to go and expectations and rules are set for next season. With that in mind, you know, throw COVID on top of all of this and we're really trying to have like two systems in place or have a system that can address both COVID-19 and post COVID-19 situations in place. But we definitely want to make sure vendors who want to bend next season know the rules and are able to apply for the permit before next season starts. So we're working almost daily to make that happen. You might be worth, I think as we were kind of mentioning earlier, reaching out to the folks who organize the salsa dancing sooner than later if you haven't reached out to them already. Not to the organizers, but I've reached out to Park and Reagan and they've talked to him. I think they did pull a few of the permits this upcoming season just because of COVID and social distancing. But this location, I wouldn't be surprised if we had to get a little creative and move some of the vending sites in the future. There's just really no good ideal place for this and we're trying to do the best we can, working with the Senate bill that's in place and we're trying to protect the health and safety of the community too. Council Member Matthews and Vice Mayor Myers. And probably the safety obvious, but it would be good to connect with the merchants as well who raise concerns on this. So they have a sense of how it's unfolding, what they can do and not do, et cetera. That's the other side of the coin event. We'll do and we have and we'll continue to do so. Vice Mayor Myers. Yeah, I think I would just, Council Member Matthews brought up what I brought up and I guess I just kind of like the state during the time that, you know, as much as we are, you know, it's important to provide the feasible location and rules and permits and things that we would like for the vendors to do while they're vending in our city. We also have to recognize that we have a lot of local businesses that are struggling and they're paying their rent. They're buying their merchandise, they're paying their taxes and this is not to negate the need for some, you know, individuals in our community to also be able to bend and do things in a way that, you know, again, brings the resources to the community. But, you know, to the extent that Ralph, we can make this as we know there was a lot of conflicts down there last year, especially in the beach area. You know, I've talked to a lot of the businesses down there. Many are right on the edge of closing. We've already lost a lot of businesses downtown. So as much as we need to follow the law, I think it's very important that we really work with our local businesses. They have been here year in and year out. They're holding up these storefronts. They're paying their rents on time. They're driving our local economy. And I want to make sure that it's really clear that the city's investing in all folks who are trying to, you know, make these areas a place where they might be able to, you know, have merchandise purchased and use the visitation and the tourism that we do gain in certain locations in town. But I just personally publicly want to acknowledge that our local businesses do get impacted by these activities. And we do need to make sure that the program is developed in a way that is, you know, as productive as possible for everybody involved. So thanks again, Ralph, for your work. You're welcome. Any other questions or comments from council members? I'll turn it back over to the city manager if there's any other further updates. Thanks. Thank you, Ralph. No, that's all I have today. Thank you. So the next item on our agenda is the council meeting calendar. I'll now call on the city clerk to provide any updates to the calendar. There are no updates. So with that, we'll go ahead and move into our consent agenda. So this is our first item on our agenda today and these includes items numbers nine to 19 on our agenda. For members of the public who are streaming this meeting, if you'd like to comment on our consent agenda, now is the time to call in. You will see instructions to call in on your screen. And once you've joined the meeting, please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. Once you've been called upon, you'll be asked to unmute your phone and you'll be given two minutes to speak to the council. So all items on the consent agenda will be acted on in one motion unless an item is pulled by a council member for further discussion. Are there any council members who would like to pull or have questions or comments on any items on our agenda? We'll start with council member Byers. Catherine, you're muted. Oh, not number 11. Do you want to pull it? Yes. I have a question for staff on item 16. I'd like to make a comment on item 12 and also a comment on item 18. On item 16, don't need to have it pulled, but I would like the staff to, if they could briefly set the stage of when we take this action. What does it mean for us going forward? I mean, we now are being given the full responsibility for the whole levy system. It's been decades and decades of back and forth and changes of direction. So a quick comment on what this really means for us would be great. Okay. I think Vice Mayor Myers, you said 18. Is that right? Yes. I have a question on that, but I don't need to pull it. I have the questions and comments on the items that have not been pulled. And so we'll start with Vice Mayor Myers, if you'd like to start with your questions and comments. Do you want to go for number 12 first? Yes. I'll go through each item so that if there's council members who have questions on the same item or comments, we can just have them all happen at the same time. So we'll start with number 12, then 16 and then 18. I just have a comment on this. I just want to, for the public, recognize that this is a grant submittal approval to the NOAA Climate and Societal Interactions Division Adaptation Sciences Program Advantage Climate Adaptation and Coastal Community Resilience. And it's a long way of saying that our climate action, our climate manager Tiffany Weis-West is submitting this grant on behalf of the city. And the work that is proposed in the grant is incredibly important for our community to understand the proactive approach that we're taking to continue to study and understand the way that sea level rise and climate change will be affecting some of our most vulnerable neighborhoods. So this grant, if we receive it, will help us study both the impacts to the lower ocean area and beach flats and other areas in the low-lying parts of the city with regards to sea level rise, as well as potential larger storms that may come from the watershed. So I know I've talked to Tiffany about this approach over the years, and I'm really excited to see that she's putting this forward in this grant application. Without this kind of study and modeling and effort, it's very hard for a community to really understand how to not only plan for existing flooding impacts and risks, but also for future risks. So I just want to recognize Tiffany's efforts in this. And again, it just talks specifically on the importance of our climate change, really, really active climate change program that Tiffany oversees. And I just want to acknowledge her and thank her for, you know, this is really about helping people survive these kinds of events. So this is not just a study that sits on a shelf. This is a kind of study that actually helps us really understand how to manage, you know, a flooding event into the future, actually for decades. So thank you, Tiffany. I just want to recognize you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Meyers for calling out this item. And I also extend my appreciation and gratitude to Tiffany as well. I think maybe my question might be for Martine Bernal or, you know, maybe this is a place for it. But I know we've talked about wanting to support our city staff with grant writing and being really poised to receive additional funding. And sometimes there's a conflict for doing the job, but also having the space and time to apply for these grants and to bring these monies into our city. And so I'm wondering what is sort of in terms of your leadership, where do you fall and how we can support our staff being able to pursue these types of grants or if they need additional grant writing assistance? Sure, I'd be happy to answer that. So we have a, we have a very, actually very good and dedicated staff that's very good at keeping on top of opportunities for grants. And some departments have more capacity than others. There is some variation there. And so what we try to do is to support each other in terms of trying to accomplish that. And I think we are open to at times as necessary to provide and obtain outside assistance in order to be able to be able to access grants. But many times the, an investment in trying to develop a grant application and obtain it is worth it given the potential payoff. So I think what we do is where we have staff capacity to do those applications and submit those applications. We have them do it where we don't have it. And we look at other ways to make sure that we take the opportunity to either get outside assistance or to put a team together or staff that can come together and put together those applications. So I think we have to be really flexible in particular in terms of making sure that we don't lose opportunities for grants. Great. I guess I maybe my last bit would be just to really, you know, support the city and the various departments for getting additional support if need be to be able to pursue these different funding opportunities, especially right now. And I know we've had actually times where there's been sort of a trade off whether or not you can pursue the grant or, you know, trade off with the other work that you have. But I think with a number of particularly climate resilience funding coming in, in terms of recovery, but others that we're really able to support the staff with getting some of the great resources we need. That concludes item number 12. Why don't we move on to item number 16. And so we'll start with Vice Mayor Meyers followed by Council Member Matthews. Thank you, Mayor. And yeah, I just had a couple of questions for Mark Dantle, our Director of Public Works on this item. So for just for the public, this is the approval of a contract for services for the FEMA levy certification for the levy portion of the San Lorenzo River that runs through downtown. And first, I just wanted to recognize that, yeah, this is a long time coming, Mark. And, you know, at least over 20 years, I know you guys have been doing a lot of work with the core over the last three or four years, getting ready for this moment. And also, as you know, it now kind of, you know, puts us square in the center of managing this facility into the future. I have a question regarding once the certification is completed. I know that there's a direct relationship to people who do have flood insurance within the area of potential flood risk. What happens for those folks who are carrying that insurance, Mark, is there also some kind of certification or reduction in their flood insurance? I'm just curious about what happens to the properties of the levy once this is done? Right. That's a great question. As you said, this project has been going on for a long time. It has been over 20 years. One of the advantages of this project extending that length of time was actually the project under construction gave the people that had flood insurance a reduction of 50% of their existing flood insurance rates because of the flood control project under construction. Once it reached about 50%, 60% complete, and Joe Hall secured that for people. They may not have realized it, but they actually had reduced flood insurance rates for quite a long time. The other thing that happened when this project was so once this project is completed, we have approximately three years to get the FEMA certification before we lose that under construction designation and flood insurance rates are changed. That reduction goes away. So we are motivated to get this certification from FEMA. And that's why this contracts before you. One other thing that is in this agenda item was the acknowledgement of we did get the bridge credit of almost $2 million from the Corps of Engineers. I got to tell you did not expect that to happen. We really worked very hard to do that and stayed on it for almost 15 years and had to go back to Congress twice to get that approved. But we did get a check for $1.9 million of our bridge credit. So that money will be used for our certification effort. So we are funded for the certification. And this contract before you is to award the contract to our consultant who's done certifications of levy systems in Sacramento area multiple times. So he's experienced and we're happy to work with them. So that's why it's for you. Thank you and congratulations on receiving the payment for the bridges. That's super helpful. And I hope with some change in our international leadership we'll hopefully see some creative ways to help communities ensure that these facilities are going to live into the future as best as they can. My other question had to do with the tasks that are in the actual scope of work. So there's a mention of evaluating the vegetation and the erosion. And then also it looks like finalizing the operations and maintenance manual for the system. And I just want to, I guess, maybe just request that the department in both of those situations, if you can. We've been operating the maintenance of the system in a pretty unique way in the state of California for decades in regards that we actually leave some of the vegetation in the channel. We've been able to do the ripping and we've made some adjustments and been able to get those things permitted. But, you know, overall the commitment has been that there's sort of a natural river within our, within our flood control system. And so do you see that? I mean, I know a few years ago the core was really pushing to really go with just scorched earth and basically cleaning everything out of every flood control channel in California. Are you seeing any signs that these tasks are going to lead to more removal of vegetation or a different way of maintaining the channel? You know, our goal is to keep maintaining the channel the way that we are maintaining it currently. Yeah, the core has national standards and that is a problem for us, basically. The vegetation was actually part of our design. We overbuilt the channel and built that vegetation in that it was paid with federal money as well as our money. So it's part of the design to have that vegetation removed seemed inconsistent with the funding and we made that argument. Unfortunately, we weren't successful. So in our operations manual, we have some language in there that meets what the core needed, but we pushed back pretty strong on giving us flexibility on maintaining the vegetation. So we will continue to fight that battle and maintain it the way we are maintaining it 90% of the time or even more 95% of the time. That's an environmental location for, you know, the animals and plants that live in that location and we experience and enjoy it. But when the flooding happens, we need that channel to perform. So I think we've struck a pretty good balance there and we'll continue to strike that balance. We did talk about this item during the operations manual with the core before they approved it. We added a little modification to the language so that we can still maintain it the way we are maintaining it and still meet any of the core requirements. I think we've walked a very tight fine line on the tight road, but I think we're okay at this point. Okay. Yeah, I am, you know, if there's any outreach or I think also I just reflect on all the work on the HCP that the water department is doing. And just the work that I've done on the river over the years and the work that many, many scientists have done. San Lorenzo River is a very, very important steelhead stream. It has been found to harbor populations from other nearby watersheds and the lagoon is incredibly important. So and the temperatures and the water quality that we've seen with four, you know, over 100 degree temperature events this summer having vegetation in that channel is going to be really, really important. Otherwise, I fear that we are going to be picking up fish like they do in Carmel River and trucking them down 10 miles down into a lagoon that is, you know, dry above. So I've seen some very expensive steelhead fixes over the years, and I don't think we want to go there and I, but I do think the endangered species piece in this needs to be carefully thought out. And I hope that your department and the water department can cooperate and coordinate on on an approach to the lower river because I think that we could be looking at some extremely expensive issues with regards to endangered species if we're not proactive in thinking through. I'd hate to see us capturing, you know, fish up in the Henry Cal Park and trucking them down to our lagoon because that is happening in rivers throughout California because of damages to the habitat. So thanks for your work on that. That's my last, really my last comment on that and thanks for all your work. It's sort of tucked in the consent consent agenda, but this is a massive largest. Just I'll state it just for the public. I may be hearing or watching them. And this is the largest public works project next to some of our water projects that are now occurring that the city has done probably in its history is massive. So I just want to thank your work mark. You've been working on it for as long as I know and long time. It's surprising to see something this massive that gets tucked into consent, but this protects our downtown. It protects area. It protects countless numbers of housing, professional businesses, government buildings. I mean, the value of what this facility does is significant. And I just want to make sure that the public understands the significance of what what this means today. So thanks for your work. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Matthews. As Donna mentioned, it is significant on so many different levels. And the reason I wanted to just make a comment was certainly now becomes our responsibility for maintenance both on the environmental issues that just been discussed and also maintaining the functionality of it to protect all the obvious home businesses, et cetera, and continue to meet the requirements. And Mark, my understanding is, well, I guess my question is the funding for that because that that comes at a price. And and where does that figure into annual budget operating decision. Well, one thing we did one thing that we did when we got the bridge credit is we put that in the in the overlay fund. So we do have money to take care of get us through the certification effort as well as the ongoing maintenance. So I think we're we're in good shape for the next four or five years. Hopefully, I think we will get through that. We do have an there is an overlay fund. So people in the floodplain that that river protects do pay into this fund. And so there is funding for the maintenance. Okay, thank you. I want to item number 18. And so there were comments from council members or vice mayor Myers and council member Brown. We'll start with vice mayor Myers. I'm just being a water geek today. So these are the kinds of things that get me excited. I just wanted to recognize that this is for the public. This is the an agreement with Soquel Creek Water District, which was actually we agreed to this work a number of months ago, but this is actually a land lease with the Water District, Soquel Creek Water District and the city of Santa Cruz regional wastewater treatment facility to construct and locate a tertiary treatment facility at our wastewater treatment facility. And for the public, this is again another very, very significant, basically a significant day that this agreement is is before us. Again, it's on consent, but in terms of long term, the long term future of our water supply and the way that we manage it with our neighbor Soquel Creek Water District. This is a really, really significant action. And I just again want to recognize our public works engineering staff and leadership and also our water staff and also just express to the Soquel Creek Water District, who has secured millions in funding, that this is just the way that most people, most agencies fight over water in California. And we've been lucky enough that even though there's been some bumps along the way that we're making progress. So I just wanted to publicly recognize the significance of what this is what this is really about. And it's securing a water future for our communities that without water we wouldn't we wouldn't be succeeding. So I just wanted to really recognize the significance of this and thank everyone involved. Yeah, thank you for my chair Myers calling this one out as well. This is a really big deal and a lot of these things happen on consent. And so it's, you know, it's not as obvious to the public what we're doing. So I am just wondering a couple of things and I know we've, you know, we've moved ahead and voted in support which I was in support last year. I mean, this was covered and I just can't remember or I didn't catch it. I have a couple of questions about. So this, the tertiary, the Soquel pure water portion of this project. Is there I mean what is that going to affect the kind of broader environment there the near lagoon environment. Is there some expand. I'm just wondering how that is going to work in terms of space available space. And because some people that I've been talking with prior to the Council meeting asked about this, I'm just wondering if there's been any analysis on potential odor impacts. I know that's been an issue in the past, particularly for folks, you know, near the near the treatment plant. And so I'm just wondering about those two things. Those are, those are great questions. And I'd like to address those. Basically, there won't be any impact on nearly lagoon at all. All of the, the actual space for the tertiary is actually on site at the wastewater treatment facility. And that actually will allow us the first phases for Soquel Creek project. But if the water department decides it's going to go to tertiary, we require space available that we could expand and actually treat our water department water as well. So it actually takes a better use of our, the product that we make right now it's secondary water that goes out to the bay. Actually, we're being able to reuse that water and re-inject into the groundwater after it's been advanced treated. Soquel Creek will do that. So it's a reuse of that, of that resource. As far as odors, there really shouldn't be any odors, additional odors by this treatment at all. It's a closed system. We do have odor control that we use. And actually, I think it was last meeting, we actually updated the, came back to you when you guys approved the contract to update the maintenance agreements for those odor control systems. So that system actually works very well and we get very few odors at the wastewater treatment right now. We think this is a win-win for the city as well as the Soquel Creek. I think it's a good use of the water and it helps secure the water supply system for the region. Yeah. Thank you. And thanks for the reminder. It's hard to keep all the pieces in my head. Thanks a lot. Council Member Mathews. Well, all of the above and I just want to mention the context for this is a long, very productive relationship between Santa Cruz City Water and Soquel Creek Water District. This is one, as Council Members know, many concurrent projects happening. And we are so fortunate that we have the professional and policy sense of partnership about a common shared problem on this. Very pleased to have this going forward and it's a very promising sign of the ongoing collaboration between ours and also reflected in the Midtown and Grandwater Agency, which involves the two other players as well. But this is as Mark said, win-win-win-win. All right. Are there any further questions or comments from Council Members on these items? Okay. Hearing none, what we'll do now is we will open it up to public comment. So if there are any members of the public who would like to speak to items numbers nine through nineteen with the exception of item eleven, which has been pulled, now is the time to call in using the numbers on your screen. Once you've called in, please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and you will be given two minutes to speak. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. This is Becky Steinbruner. I want to speak briefly to item number sixteen, but mostly to item number eighteen. Item number sixteen needs to make sure that it addresses the Purewater Soquel Project's plan being put forth by Soquel Creek Water District to do horizontal drilling under the San Lorenzo River and the levee on both sides. This is part of the Purewater Soquel Project and whatever levee maintenance happens there, it needs to address the possible impacts of this construction project related to Purewater Soquel. Regarding number eighteen, I want to say that you don't have to worry about odors, but what you certainly should be worrying about is potential hazardous accidental release of a caustic that is part of the revised Purewater Soquel Project in this tertiary treatment process that requires an additional treatment process. It's called ENBAF, that's Bravo Alpha Foxtrot, because the level of contamination, nitrites, ammonia, and total organic carbon in the secondary effluent from the wastewater treatment plant is higher than had been expected. With the tertiary treatment alone, it would not clean the water to meet Title XXII recycled water standards, so the project is being revised. This is not with any environmental analysis on the part of Soquel Creek Water District at all. Your city should be worried about this because it includes a 9,300 gallon above tank storage of a caustic, sodium hydroxide, that if there is an accidental release, you will have grave implications to your city, to your schools who were not noticed. Please do not approve this until Soquel Creek Water District does a subsequent EIR to study these very critical and significant impacts. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other members of the public who'd like to speak to us on these items, I'm going to close public comment and bring it back to council for action deliberation. So right now before us is items numbers 9 through 19 on our consent with the exception of item number 11, which has been pulled. And so if there's a council member who'd be willing to make a motion, we can go ahead and move on. Council member Matthews. Yes, I'll move consent with the exception of item number 11. Okay, to a motion by council member Matthews. I'll go ahead and second the consent items with the exception of item number 11. Are there any further comments from council members? Okay, seeing none, I'll turn it over to the clerk for the roll call vote. Council member Byers. Aye. Matthews. Aye. Brown. Aye. Boulder. Aye. Watkins. Nice Mayor Myers. Aye. Mayor Cummings. That passes unanimously. Okay, so we'll move on to item number 11, which was pulled by council member Byers. So if you'd like to go ahead, council member Byers. Sure. Thank you. I get it. I need to address Martine, our city manager, and I know we talked on Friday, but I just hadn't noticed this particular number 11. So when I did see it, I kept thinking, I don't know that I've ever seen a list of our grants on a monthly basis. If so, I don't know whether just missed it or buried in our agenda or wherever, but I know what you're asking or going to change the policy to move from monthly to quarterly. But where, where are they monthly? What we've been doing is we've been issuing those FYIs. So they're informational reports that get provided to the city council. They're not on your, in your agenda packet. However, I think we may have, I think because of the limited resources in the minute have been keeping up with those. But I'll ask Laura Schmidt, who's the, our assistant city manager who's been working on this, if she has anything to add to that, but typically we've been doing them as FYIs basically. So it might be, well, I'm thinking new consumers to highlight that because I would think this is a kind of a curious item. We do apply for a lot of grants. Yes. And it's just a list of all the grants that we've applied for in that period and which ones have been received. It's more of a, just like a spreadsheet. Spreadsheet. Yeah. No, it sounds, it sounds very good. And I'm certainly useful. So, okay. Thanks. Yeah. Add to that. The FYIs are actually included in the agenda packet. They're in the very end. Oh, at the very end. Ah, I see those. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Yeah. A list of FYIs is included in the agenda packet. But the FYIs go directly to you. They should to you. Got it. Good. Good. I'm prepared to move the agenda forward. Okay. To amend the council policy. I'm moved to staff recommended to change the policy. Okay. So why don't we, I'm going to open it up to public comment. Okay. Thank you. But I'll bring it back. Okay. Sure. So are there any council members who have questions on item or comments on item number 11? Seeing none, we'll open it up to the public. So if there are members of the public who would like to comment on item number 11, now is the time to call in using the numbers that are on your screen. Once you've called in, please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. And when you've been asked to unmute your phone, you'll be given two minutes to speak. Members of the public who would like to comment on this item will bring it back to council for action deliberation. Council member Byers. Catherine, you're muted. To move from monthly grant FYIs to quarterly. Can you repeat that because we didn't catch the first. Oh, sorry. The staff recommendation, I'll move the staff recommendation to move from receiving monthly reports on the grants to quarterly. Second and fully support. Okay. So the motion by council member Byers to adopt the staff recommendations for item number 11, seconded by council member Matthews. Is there any further questions or comments on this item? Yeah, sure. I don't know where else to bring this up, so I think I should bring it up before we vote on it. I was not familiar with being able to speak to agenda item, a consent item, and really have a discussion and have staff participate. I wouldn't have, I don't know when you pull something or when you say, I want to discuss, you know, 18 or 16. And what I realized, the public doesn't get to respond, even though staff is giving us more information and going over things. It was just, I just think that should be more clarified to the new council, either by Tony or someone. When can you say I just want to speak to this item or I want to pull it. I just, it was, it was brand new to me, let me say that, that people would speak to an item, unless it was just a very, thank you or one liner, but certainly no discussion. So, I just wanted to make that comment, nothing to do about right now, but thanks. There's no further discussion. I'd like to turn it over to the clerk to call the roll call vote. Thank you mayor, council member Byers. Aye. Matthews. Aye. Golder. Aye. Watkins. Vice mayor Meyers. Aye. Mayor Cummings. Aye. That passes unanimously. Why don't we go ahead and take a 10 minute break so people can stretch their legs and we'll be convened at 1pm. Justin, what are you thinking for lunch break? What's your thought on that? Well, we have a pretty tight agenda, so. Is this it? I think this is it. Okay. It's just a question. Yeah. Yeah, I think we're just going to take a brief 10 minute break and we'll try to. Council members are back. If you could please turn your video on so we know that you're here. We can then go ahead and get started. Why don't we maybe just go and hopefully the council members will join in before the presentation gets started. So the next item on our agenda is item number 20, general business, which is our slow streets pilot program. And so for members of the public who are streaming this meeting, if this is an item you would like to comment on, please call in at this moment in time using the instructions on your screen. The order will be a presentation of the item by staff followed by questions from council. We will then take public comment and then return to council for action and deliberation. And so with that, I'd like to turn it over to Claire globally, transportation planner to kick off the presentation on the slow streets pilot program. Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. I am quite globally on the transmission planner for the city of Santa Cruz and today we'll be reviewing the slow streets pilot program that we implemented based on your recommendation in July. I am going to share my screen. In the right order of operation. Nope, not that one. Have it up in two locations. Sorry about that. There we go. Okay. Okay. So the slow street pilot program. Claire, if I could stop you, we, we see presenters so we see all of your notes. Oh, okay. Let me get out of that and go into lay settings. That one thing updated on my computer. Today we're going to be going through a summary of the pilot program and staff recommendation based on what to do for next step. I want to do is thank the group of amazing community volunteers who we had helping run this program. And then we'll get into the program relied on having a neighborhood point of contact for each and every street. And these are folks who stepped up and stepped in and said that they would dedicate their time and energy and effort to really make this program a reality. So I'm very thankful for all the help that they gave throughout this program. And it's so glad that we have people who are willing to volunteer in our community. One thing that I want to keep at the forefront of our mind as we move through the presentation is that we have a shared value. And I know this is an item that generated a tremendous amount of community feedback in your, in your letters that you have in your packet. And the overwhelming theme of all of that feedback was that our community wants safe places to walk and bike. And one of the reasons I love working in transportation and that makes it so interesting is that everyone needs it and everyone has an opinion on it. And there are so many ways to make that happen. And so I hope as we move through this presentation and we hear a lot of differing viewpoints, we can remember that really this is this is the theme that everyone is wanting safe places to walk and bike. And the question is, is this the program that that means that need. Let's start us with our staff recommendation and subsequent to this I'll present the different recommendations mark mission. Our staff recommendation today is that it should say council itself that didn't say that council recommends that they accept a report on the flow streets pilot program and then end that pilot program. When we went to commission and presented the information that's going to follow. The transportation public works commission, their recommendation was as follows that council thanks the public works department for their work in developing the program. And that the city council direct public works to conduct a request for proposals with a local nonprofit to sustain the program on a subset of streets so small number of streets and what we have now, and to use up to $20,000 of Measure D funds to fund the program until the end of May 2021. And I think something key to focus on is that we do have different staff recommendation and commission recommendation that's coming to you. I'll go through the step point. I know that you do have letters in your packet from commission. But how did we get her right. It was something that came from community to commission to subcommittee to commission and then the council through many, many steps before resulting in where we are now. So the process started with a lot of folks writing into our transportation public works commission, a lot of other cities starting flow streets program and it coming up at our TPWC. The TPWC kicked the discussion to a subcommittee that they had, and then ended up making a recommendation to city council to implement a flow streets program with a $200,000 budget to move forward on that. The council then took that under advisement and on July 2nd, they made the following recommendation to use up to $30,000 of Measure D funds to have the program created and operational by the end of July. And then it should include an application process, supplies, materials and online map a website and should be in place for the period that SIP orders are in place for up to six months with our port back to the council at that time. We're going through each of these, we'll hit the budget at the end, but we definitely went through that $30,000 very quickly. The program was created and not operational by the end of July. It ended up taking us a bit longer due to the fires that we had. We did not implement on the timeline that we expected to because many of our staff were otherwise diverted working on fire efforts and so as soon as that was under control, we then launched the program. We had elements that were intended to be included in application process. We did have an online application. It was available in both English and Spanish. It was on our website as promoted via our normal channels. It was talked about in the Sentinel on many online local social forums and it resulted in us receiving 48 applications from which we selected 11 flow streets. We had our website up and running which also had educational materials including an FAQ contact information and other relevant information on it. We had an online map and program rolled out. We did continue to produce educational materials. This last point here with a report back to council. This today is that report back to council and it was reviewed by commission prior to returning to council. I'm going to go through implementation because many of the letters that you received did talk about some of the hiccups that we had going forward with implementation. I'll bring this with saying that this was a pilot and we were intending as we moved through to work out many of the kinks as we went through using low cost materials that were easily movable. The first one, we had the two signs that you see pictured here, a bike pad warning sign and a road closed through traffic sign. Those are signs that we selected because they were what other cities were doing. No flow street sign exists so we use what was available and what is a legal sign for us to use. In iteration one, we have signs located side by side at the cross streets of the busier roadways. Picture here is Darwin at Broadway. We also did this where Melrose crosses Morrisby and other similar locations and at the more minor street crossings, we'll have a single sign. Day one, we heard from our refuse crews that this made it difficult for our garbage trucks to turn onto these roadways, especially when, as you see in this picture, there's a car parked right there as well. So it led to our refuse folks having to get out of their vehicles, move the signs, move the truck, return the signs and continue on every step of the way. So we quickly moved to iteration two, which was just a single sign located in the middle of the roadway. We had it placed where it was on the center line if the center line existed and directly behind the crosswalk where there was a crosswalk in the similar location where there was not a crosswalk. And we quickly heard from our friends at the fire department and the refuse folks that this still wasn't working for them. It did not allow enough training radius for our large vehicles. And in particular, it was not in compliance with fire code. So we worked with our fire department. We went out and walked multiple sites to check out what could we do to make it work, looking for solutions that would still have the spirit of what we were trying to do, but also would comply with the needs of public safety. And what we came up with was iteration three, where the signage was moved to seven feet from the curb and 20 feet back from the intersection. This placement in our third iteration did allow for that turning radius of our large vehicles and did allow us to comply with fire code. This placement also was not well liked by many people who were in the community and created a lot of issues with the signs being so movable with them moving to many places that we did not want them to be. So that's how we did go through quite a process. It's different than our normal process. If we were doing an infrastructure project, we have a fairly worked out process where we do plan review with various departments who would be engaged in this, and it would have been a time that police and fire and refugees a little looked on, but that was not something that occurred as part of a super quick start pilot program with movable materials. So we were learning as we went. Feedback from the community. We got a lot of feedback from the community. There was not a single day since we launched this program that I have not talked to, you know, at least one, oftentimes more members of the community hearing their feedback and thoughts on the program pro and con. Our feedback to November 5th. This is the same slide that I showed at Transportation and Public Works Commission. And while these numbers have changed since then, I wanted to leave this in because I wanted to frame for you the feedback that they had when I was presenting this for the recommendation and decision making. Through November 5th, we have received a lot of calls and emails, and of those, 64% were con, 16% were pro, and the rest were neutral or suggestions. I do want to note that this was just proven. We've been receiving emails on this program up until I think I got the last batch this morning, and those have not been aggregated in this table. But I think the tenor of folks that I spoke with over the life of this program to date, this is fairly representative of the conversations that I had. Of note, though, many of the emails that have come into use since this time have been overwhelmingly positive. What we heard, what is the summary of the community feedback that we get? The program is awesome, and the program is awful. I got lots of things at both ends of that spectrum. People who really like the program because they like the places that it created for them and their families to walk and walk. And people who thought the program was awful because it led to impacts on neighboring streets, or they thought that the signs were in the way, or it made it more challenging for them to get around. Both of those are very real experiences for people in our community. The next and big one is a desire for permanent traffic calming. I don't think I talked to a single person who said, oh, yeah, this is the program that I want, and this should be our long-term solution. Everyone I talked to said, oh, yeah, well, this is what we have available right now, but what I really want, and this is reflected in many of the letters that were sent to you, is speed bumps, or sidewalks, or bike lanes, or permanent infrastructure solutions. And, yeah, this is what you have for right now, but how do we get from here to there? And something I want to be clear on is that going back to that shared value is that we do all want safe streets, and that's what people are saying. But permanent traffic calming or infrastructure solutions is not what this program is. It's not what it can be. But I do really want to recognize that that is, I think, the tenor of the singular thing that carries through all of the feedback of being what people want. The signage was on the blank. People had very, very mixed reactions to the signage that we had. In particular, the road closes through traffic sign. Folks who lived on these streets loved that sign because they thought it really reiterated the message that you should not be driving on the street unless you live here, you're visiting, or it's directly on your route to get where you're going. Folks who lived on surrounding streets really didn't like it because they thought that it was dishonest. It took away from actual construction that was going on in other locations, and it caused a lot more traffic onto other neighboring streets. Many folks I talked to wanted first street specific signage or other non-compliant signage. Many have seen signs in other communities that they really wanted to do here. And over and over again, when I called my colleagues in those communities, they weren't able to say that they were using legal signage. We danced around that topic a lot, but there was nothing that said, oh yeah, we definitely have covered a liability for this. Also of note, we are out of signage. The program we ordered, as noted in the staff report, we ordered more signage than we needed, and we have had significant problems with theft, vandalism, damage, and at this point we're not even able to maintain the existing program that we have. We have barricades that are out there without signage. We have street crossing locations that don't have signage or barricades because so many of them have either disappeared or become unusable. Communication and outreach was a big one that we heard. As noted, this was a program that the Council Director was to move forward on in the beginning of July. We were working on moving forward and we're ready to launch when the fires hit. And as you know, there is a list of communications around the fire and people were very singularly focused on fires happening and paying attention to that news. One thing that we did release during that time definitely went to the bottom of people's consciousness and attention. And then when we did launch, I received a lot of feedback of disappointment that we had not done a city-wide mailer, such as in your utility bill, or a direct mailer to everyone on the streets and surrounding streets, that I had not gone to knock on folks' doors and tell them about what was happening. Also, lots of people who were just unsure about the rules and didn't know about the program and many people who wanted to know how they could voice their strong opinions about what they felt and also a timeline for when this program was planned to end. Many folks said, well, I really don't like it, but if it's just going to be for the next two months, I guess I can suck it up. But if it's going to be here for the next year, how do I voice my opinion and make it go away? Because it's really impacting my life. And so not really having a timeline there made it challenging. Besides, we'll be going to Council at a point in the future to give them an update as directed by the motion was something that was frustrating for a lot of folks to hear. All signs were trouble. I think we can universally agree to that that things that can move generally will. The signs, the biggest complaint I got was the signs were almost constantly in the wrong location. By the time that we got iteration three and they're supposed to be located seven feet from the curb and 20 feet back from the intersection, if people didn't want them to be there, they just consistently moved them. They were stolen, moved big lives. We had at least three renegades, low streets where folks stole our signs and set up their own flow streets and I would go pick them up in my car or ask our operations team to go pick them up and then have to find their way back to their home where they should be. And it was really, really challenging and getting on to the immediate next point. The neighborhood points of contact, the lovely volunteers that we had on each of these streets, they had to spend so much of their time and energy and effort moving these signs over and over again to the correct location. And I spent a lot of my time calling them and saying, hey, I got a complaint from a neighbor that signs are in the wrong location, can you please move them? So it was a lot to take on and it was, it oftentimes felt like a full time job keeping those signs in the correct location. Big things here about neighborhood points of contact that I also covered in the report is there are a couple things that I felt went really well with using a volunteer based model. I thought that it gave us an opportunity to do deeper outreach in our community, build stronger relationships, talk about shared goals and shared concerns that we have. And then there are a couple things that I think were really challenging and things that I didn't feel was good about with this. Primarily, and one thing I called out in the report, was asking these folks to manage disputes. So we had numerous instances over the life of the program where the police had to be called to neighbor disputes. We also had numerous instances where the neighborhood points of contact or other neighbors reached out to me and said, I was trying to keep the program running in a state of good repair. And one of my neighbors behaved aggressively to me or was overly hostile and I don't feel comfortable. And for me as staff, asking a volunteer to engage with that is not something I felt good about or felt okay doing. That doesn't mean it didn't have to get done. And oftentimes what that meant was that city staff was in taking that on. Outreach and communications also were another big thing on the neighborhood points of contact. We saw a big difference in the various streets on streets that had an existing strong community network already email lists or storm relationships. Those streets generally had an easier time maintaining the program, communicating with their neighbors and being able to clearly and concisely communicate with me about how the program was working. Versus streets that didn't have those existing strong relationships, it was more of a challenge at times to keep the program running and keep people informed and generally happy. And then also the staff role and volunteer role with my role generally being as this program was set up to really communicate what the program should be, where the barricade should be, communicate around issues. And the volunteer role really for this program was managing the day to day. And a lot of that ended up being, you know, asking a meeting to monitor and constantly replace the barricades where they should be. So it was a really interesting experience and I'm really grateful for the folks that did step up and volunteer their time and their effort. And it was a big lesson, a different way of doing things. Lessons learned that I think are really important. I think we did learn a lot from this program. We learned, I think the biggest thing is that we do have that value of wanting livable streets in our neighborhoods. And as we roll this program out, we also learned that it was incredibly labor intensive. As I get to the budget in a minute, you'll see some more specifics on that. But the volunteers help but they don't substitute. Even though we've had neighborhood points of contact there who were doing so much work every day and knew many of their neighbors. I oftentimes have folks calling me and saying, yeah, I know that I have a neighbor who's supposed to be in charge of this, but I don't want to talk to them because I'm going to have to live next door to them for the next coming years. I want to share my opinions with you because they're different. Or having to send out our operational teams to replace signs and barricades or fire department and other needs there. So it was very, very labor intensive. The movable barriers were something that really fit the needs of a pilot program in the way that they were relatively inexpensive, easy to move, non-permanent. But on the downside of it, things that move will be moved. And that was the biggest issue that we were chasing the whole time since the start of the program. Pilots also still require pre-launch outreach. And what we learned from this was that even trying to utilize our existing structures that we have in place, it was not enough. And it would have been worth taking that extra time and delaying the launch and then having a more successful launch after. So I think chasing after wanting to get this up and running so quickly did us a disservice in doing that deeper outreach in the community. And to create an experience with organized neighbors works best. It really did allow for that communication to go both ways and it to be more seamless than in some other locations. Getting into the budget, I noted Council directed us to use $30,000 of measure D funding. We spent through this number through the end of October, we had spent $36,000. And as you can see here, 25,000 of that was labor. It was our operations team, my time, our engineering time, only about $12,000 of that was supplies. So we are over budget by over $6,000 on that. One thing that I do want to call out here is that this is from measure D funding. And we are anticipating having a measure D fit in the coming years. I want to make sure I get these numbers right for you. That our measure D is estimated to be reduced about $1 million over the next three years, which is about a 30% decrease over what we have been expecting to have. As part of our adopted five year measure D funding plan, what that looks like is potentially taking away from other projects that we have identified as priorities and programs that we've identified as priorities, including our existing programs that benefit across the school and other outreach based programs. I also do want to highlight here because I know that talking about a staff recommendation that ends a program that supports biking and walking is incredibly challenging. But as we are in these fiscal times and as we are looking at making hard decisions, I want to point to your next council item also and highlight the two of the priority areas that you have for interim recovery plan are to take actions for short and long term fiscal sustainability. That's priority one. And priority three is to improving maintained infrastructure. And I think the word infrastructure is really important because what we heard throughout this entire program was people wanting that infrastructure and wanting permanent infrastructure. And this program continues on without meeting that need. It's a temporary, it's a pilot, it's a program for now that we will, if we continue on, continue spending money on. I don't really see a way to lessen the amount of spending and the amount of staff labor that's needed on this program. But we won't be getting to that thing that people are actually asking for and that your interim recovery plan goals or priority areas really support there. That brings us back to the staff recommendation, which is that the city council accept a report, this report on the flow streets pilot program and then vote to end the program. In summary, what I really want to say is that this program is sprung from a desire to have safe places to walk and bite during the pandemic. And other cities were using this tool, our community was really interested in seeing what we could also do to respond. We launched for 11th Street Citywide, which is a small number compared to the entire city and the number of streets that we have. And while folks are so interested in investing in making these safe places to walk and bite, I, in my professional capacity, do not think that this has done what we hoped for. There have been parts of the program that are hopeful, the pilot has been really interesting, but the movable features, the minimal staffing, the surrounding impacts on neighborhood streets have led to an incredible amount of feedback against this program, which is something that I feel nervous about as we look to implement long term projects in our community. Continuing this program would require an infusion of funding to purchase additional signage and barricade, do direct outrage, produce additional information and fund the staff time necessary to run the program. Today, as noted, we've spent close to $40,000 of measure D funding and going into a reduction in the amount of measure D funding that we're anticipating to get. And especially with the reduction of what projects that we have adopted in our five year plan, such as the rail trail segment 789, Swanton multi-use path and other programs we have, it's a question of prioritization and where this ranks compared to those programs and projects. With that, I will turn it over to you. Actually, I did not generate a right that the recommendation from our Transportation and Public Works Commission is different than staff recommendation and they do not recommend ending the program as noted in slide size that I showed. They do recommend continuing the program through the end of May with an addition of $20,000 in measure D funding and issuing an RFP to select a local nonprofit to run the program. And I would note that part of that $20,000 would need to go towards purchase of materials so contextualizing that for the amount of staff time that would be available. And with that, I turn it over to you and I'm available for any questions you have. Thank you. Yeah, I think that'd be great if you could. Thank you. Appreciate it to Council for any questions or discussion on this item. Council Member Golder. Thank you, Claire. And I think that one really cool thing that came out of trying this was that we saw that with the stolen signs and the renegade streets. I think the community value around having safe places to walk and bike and having safe streets is something that we can all rally behind and it shows that everyone's intentions were good. And I was just wondering and maybe this is a question for Tony, but I know Claire mentioned I think twice about the legal signage of the need for the legal signage instead of the signs that maybe some others preferred that other cities have done. And I'm wondering what what potential liabilities the city could be open to. I've heard and I actually saw to like near car collisions that happen driving around where while people were confused about the signage. I mean what with this temporary program what potential liability the city has. Well, that's a good question. And it's kind of a complicated question but I think it's fair to say that anytime you have a street feature that's not in accordance with applicable standards like Caltrans standards, for instance, then there is a potential liability exposure and whether or not that would arise in a particular case really depends on the facts and circumstances. If, for instance, an intersection had a series of accidents or mishaps associated with the signage then there would be, you know, liability exposure attached to that. But it really depends on a fact based analysis and so but but I but I agree having a non standard type of signage certainly does increase potential liability claims possibilities. I mentioned this too just because I know all the local schools have ecology action come teach bike smart program to the kids and one of the things they train the kids is that you just the drivers expect things to be a certain way and like you you know you have to keep keep that in mind as you're biking for safety reasons or walking for safety reasons and then things that are out of the ordinary I think sometimes cause accidents. I mean exactly that accidents people don't mean to to to crash but I saw I I was worried that because the signs were out and then they were like all of a sudden I mean why I shared with you Claire that one day the signs popped up on my street and I thought there was construction like I don't know where they came from somebody took them and put them here and then they were gone so. What can brown and then I have a couple questions as well. Thank you Mary thank you Claire for the presentation you mentioned that some of the areas were more successful than others about how many if you were to kind of say out of the 11 that you know didn't have as much conflict or issue versus those that did. You know I think the only street that we had that was fully without conflict was the only street that elected to withdraw from the program. Every single other street that we had I would say had great that we're able to resolve the conflict a lot more constructively we probably had three or four streets that solidly could self resolve conflict. But I don't think that we're to the point where I would say maybe we have one of our streets who is consistently able to keep their signs in the right location and communicate with their neighbors. Okay thank you. Thank you. Yeah a couple of questions. So in terms of this you know the tensions around this program you know I'm just curious because you must be talking to a lot of people that are not communicating with the city council I mean I just looked at the post packet production and I actually did count those I didn't have time to go back and count through all of that and I know we did receive some complaints about it in the early on when people just had no idea what was going on. So I'm just wondering how you know how it is that you know method the opponent you know like where that that came in I recognize of the dynamics on street but I just I've not heard about those so I'm yeah I'd like to stand that a little bit more. Thank you. There in your I believe it's attachment one to your staff report and we make sure it's either one or two but it's the one that's not photos attachment one that is all of the communications that I received prior to my agenda packet being to and that is the analysis that I presented in the presentation of the 64 against 16% pro and that includes phone calls emails and survey responses because we did have an online survey as well. So those are included in your packet those as noted those that did come in post packet correspondence it did come through work overwhelmingly in favor. But those that came during the life of the program were more heavily balanced against and many of those were folks calling me on I just have this experience this happened to me today. I've been trying to live with this I'm really frustrated or even I talked to my neighbor I talked to my block captain and I feel like I've not listened to where I'm not heard or that's not resolved. So I spent I think when I average it out I spent about two hours per day on the phone talking to people about this program over the life of the program. So there were a lot of phone calls that came in and a lot of deep conversations that were occurring. But I don't want to also not respect the many post packet correspondence letters that did come in in favor of the program. Yeah. And we had a lot of those prior to the post packet document. So two other questions. The have you because the county is happening in the county as well. So streets and the RTC is funded this and I have not heard any complaints of I mean I just anecdotally heard that it's been pretty successful and that so I guess there are two questions that are connected. So have you discussed this with the other funders of flow streets in the county and where they're at on it and one and then two. Is there a reason that we are not looking to the nonprofit sector to for help with administration of this kind of pilot program. I know that's what we did at the RTC. And so far I mean we'll see if anybody calls in to comment about that. But I have not heard similar concerns. So if you have I'd love to hear about absolutely great questions. First and foremost the county wide program is not launched yet. So it's not an operation. So therefore you wouldn't have gotten feedback for a comment about it because it hasn't been started yet. Although by Santa Cruz County via RTC funding is will be operating that program is I guess and will be operating and implementing that program as they move forward. That said that that's using money that previously had been allocated for the open streets programs that we've had at various locations in the county that got repurposed for flow streets countywide. That said I did talk with both Ecology Action and Santa Cruz County both earlier on the program throughout the program and then they advanced up the recommendation of the Transportation and Public Works Commission and did have that conversation. I don't want to represent for them. I hope that they are on the call but I gather no one has the capacity to do more right now. Thank you for your comments for after we hear from the public and so we'll move on to Council Member Byers and then Vice Mayor Myers. Thank you. I'm just looking at my notes here. And would you just summarize the Transportation Commission's recommendation that was made I believe it was unanimous although two people had to step out. I can't get to it when I'm looking at the screen. So again apologies normally I would have included that in my staff report but my report was due to you prior to their recommendation was for the last Monday. The key points of their recommendation are to thank Public Works staff for implementing, allocate $20,000 of Measure D funding to issue an offer for a local nonprofit to take on the program and have it be operational through the end of May 2021. But your last statement right before I guess I spoke you've been told that bike Santa Cruz was no longer would be a possibility to us to contract with there when I don't want to speak for them but when I did talk to their executive director last week prior to the commission meeting. The bandwidth that they have as well there. I'm trying to think out how to say this was not speaking for her. Well I could ask them. It's more limited and the financial capacity that they have is more limited as well and recognizing that this is a labor intensive program to run and is not inexpensive in terms of its needs both from bodies or from material. It was a point of at that time of discussion that they didn't feel would be something they could take on. Thank you. And it seems I don't where I read that many cities have implemented this. Are you familiar with that? Correct. Many big neighborhoods or cities or something. What what do you think they're successful and loving and that we were get wrong or we didn't do and we could maybe take another stab at it. Yeah. And I think that's a really interesting point and a really interesting question because I think categorizing the program as successful or unsuccessful doesn't quite do it justice. I think that our problems that we've had are not unique at all. In colleagues that talked to in other cities they are having the same issues that we are with signs moving with pushback in the community. I don't know the science of locations pushback from side streets. Many staff people who have spoken with have had exactly the same experience that we have had. That said the community experience also mirrors what we're seeing here where there are a group of people who really like the program and a group of people who really do not. So I don't think that it is unique. I don't think that what we have going on is different. I don't think it's necessarily something that we did right or wrong or that our community is good or bad for this. I do just think and that choosing to move forward the program is choosing what your priorities are for spending the most flexible transportation dollars that we have. And where this ranks in terms of your priorities of what you want to see for programs and projects. And so that's kind of the context of recommending this forward is that it's not that it's good or bad or that this is a program that we you know with endless dollars and endless time wouldn't keep trying to pursue and keep trying to tinker with. But it's a question of priorities. Thank you. Thanks. And hopefully we can move on to public comment. Sorry I'll make this as quick as possible. I think Claire you pretty much were hitting on my question which was I think for the presentation it just seems to me that to your point we sort of rushed into this and we were not really able to communicate exactly sort of what this was going to be. And it struck me in the in the all the communications that I read. It's interesting that people's different response to it. Some people were very excited because they could do the street for walking or biking or you know having their kids there. Others were like it's great I can pull out of my driveway without getting rear ended you know or I'm really glad you slowed down the traffic on my street. Those kinds of comments just kind of brought it brought it kind of apparent to me that what you know the goal of the project was sort of amorphous right. I mean some people were sort of thought oh this is traffic calming but to your point. I think you know a lot of people are interested in solving you know the traffic issues whether that's too much traffic to people driving too fast. They don't have sidewalks whatever it is and that gets to that bigger programmatic question around. What do we use our limited resources for and how do we how do we how do we publicly discuss that with our team. So I've seen I looked at all the other cities at least the ones I could find in California it looks like there's about I don't know 1215 cities that are working on these varying sizes all the way from Los Angeles down to San Salmo. Glendale you know big population small populations. Several of them mentioned this program in the context of vision zero and I know we have adopted vision zero as well right so my question is. What is the context that fits into vision zero is it calming is it safety is it. And if it's not kind of nested in vision zero then I feel like that I mean that would be something I guess I would that would be a comment that I would kind of want to discuss as we get public comment. So great question. So council did adopt a vision zero resolution about a year ago now subsequently staff went out and we got grant funding to conduct a local roadway safety plan which is the data driven collision analysis component of vision zero action plan. We have a consultant on board right now and actually that is one of the projects that has been delayed as a result of implementing this flow straight program. We delayed our schedule on that by multiple months because I needed to dedicate my time to this and come to that at the same time with everything else. The local roadway safety plan did a five year deep dive analysis of the collisions that we've had in the city collision patterns hot spot locations corridor hot spots and correctable activities. I do not. Without directly cross referencing I do not think that a single street in our flow streets program. Would be highlighted in our vision zero plan they are streets that we do not have collision history on streets that we do not have. Correctable behaviors on and the treatment that we've used for slow streets are not treatments that are proven by data to type of things that we're looking to solve. Our goal is to get you our local roadway safety plan in early 2021 actually just received the draft of it last night around 11pm. It all the way through yet with our edits in it but as it relates to vision zero while there are many components that go into addressing our highest needs which are the locations that we have. Patterns of collisions and in particular patterns of collisions that are correctable with database solutions. The flow streets program doesn't doesn't address those priorities that we have. Thank you for that and then my last question is. Did you work with Santa Cruz neighbors at all not next door but name Santa Cruz neighbors where did they surface in any of this. I know they have some really sophisticated ways they get you know groups of neighbors together just curious if there was average. I did not know. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. If there's no further questions or comments from council members I'm going to go ahead and open it up to public comments. So for members of the public who like to speak to item number 20 flow streets pilot program now is the time to call in if you haven't done so already. Once you've called in please press star nine on your phone. And when you've been asked to unmute you'll be given two minutes with the exception of one person who's called in for additional time. Okay. First caller. Hi this is Rick Longinati from the campaign for sustainable transportation. So I want to talk about the lessons learned here. I think that the rollout was bumpy and a lot of there's a lot of confusion. Some pushback. I think it's smoothed out considerably and it's gotten more a lot more popular since then. But the lesson to me is that there was a lack of communication between the city council and its transportation commission because the transportation commission anticipated that the rollout would need some organizing it would need some pre launch effort. It would need to be organizing neighbors to understand what was happening. And they actually recommended to the council that the nonprofit group be charged with that organizing effort. Unfortunately their recommendation did not come before the council in those terms. And so the council was not able to figure out you know that this might be a bumpy ride on rolling it out. But it's not too late. I think what you could do today is just continue the program and continue the recommendations unanimous recommendations of the transportation commission. But I want to add one suggestion and that's that the input from the commission is summarized by Claire. But their whole thinking behind it has been filtered out. And so I would recommend that the commission and the city council have a joint meeting because this communication problem is not just around this. It was around the highway one and nine issue where the council charged the commission with developing safety plans for that highway and staff did not bring it to the commission. Instead they put up a poster during an open house and they call that they're completing their obligation on that. And it's you know it's it's continued with the vision zero the council approved vision zero staff objected to that and the commission was for it. So you really have a communication problem. I recommend that you get the commission together. Thank you. Thank you. Hi this is Garrett Phillip. I sure can't speak to every street in the program but my opinion about the ones I am very familiar with hasn't changed. These are largely advocated it seems by people who want to turn public streets into semi private ones for their own private purposes. The justifications of unicorns and children playing more pets walking more bikes riding have not occurred. And basically the signs are traffic obstacles on the road making pretend gated communities. The flow streets over here on the far west side are not heavily traveled are pretty foofy neighborhoods. I did witness a car blowing the stop scene to stop sign at speed at David and Oxford. So fat lot of good that sign was and that was a big reason for the Oxford signs related to me by a resident. Otherwise Oxford has nothing special traffic and most people walk on sidewalks. I don't get the Mary signs at Grant Park with a sign in front of a cul-de-sac and I don't get real short slow streets between stop signs there and anywhere else. It'll make sense to me to do nothing for me. I think a hard look has to be made comparing the value of streets as actual benefit besides the status I'm special. I want a special street angle. I suspect is behind some of it got me how to do that but there must be higher priorities to consider for the money at this time. Okay bye. Council members my name is Ron Goodman and I serve on the Transportation and Public Works Commission. Before you get started if we could give Ron three minutes. I have it. We imagined a program to encourage drivers to slow down on selected streets to make it easier for people to find recreation close to home during the pandemic. That was it. We recommended modeling our program after successful programs in nearby Bay Area cities. Although our recommendation included having an NGO administer the program under the guidance of staff and the commission. Staff elected to implement it in-house without commission or NGO involvement. We agreed it made sense for staff to focus on other priorities. That's why we thought it would be better for an NGO. Our entire commission has voiced our deep gratitude for the work that staff did. But the challenges that arose were largely due to the implementation choices and they could have been avoided with input from the commission. Most centrally the choice to use road closed to through traffic signs that did not include additional signage mentioning slow streets predictably caused confusion. Many motorists were annoyed as they couldn't understand why the street was closed. After all there didn't seem to be construction and since the signs contained no indication of slow streets or references to any additional information this turned to frustration as there was no guidance revealing what behavior was expected. Nearby neighbors were frustrated that the traffic was being diverted to their streets but this wasn't the point of slow streets and it only occurred because motorists through slow streets thought they were closed streets. Even some cyclists thought they weren't supposed to use the street since road closed applies to bikes as well as automobiles. I'm on the bike pedestrian subcommittee of the commission and I personally drafted the original slow street proposal for the commission. And when I saw the first slow street was totally surprised. I had no idea it was a slow street. I looked for construction too. Still the program is extremely popular at our meeting last week we received a packet with almost 100 letters with more than 10 supportive responses per negative response. This is exceptional since usually people complain more than think people love slow streets and the sentiment has dramatically improved as captains have refined the implementation. We heard from street captain after street captain the folks who saw this project the best support the project. One captain said she had posted information around her neighborhood in advance and that explained the lack of opposition she saw from her neighbors. If we were to stop this program we'd likely be the first city anywhere to end the slow street program and we'd be doing so at a time when encouraging decentralized outdoor recreation is more important than any than ever. If the NGO which is managing the county than Watsonville's slow street program is willing and I've also spoken with them and I believe they are but I think they're going to speak later. We believe they can sustain the program in the city starting in 2021 through the end of May for less than $20,000. If staff needs to stop here. If there are other questions we have I wish we had more time for me to cover everything but I'm available if there are questions. Thank you. The last four digits of four nine six five please press star six to unmute your phone. City Council, can you hear me? Yes, good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. My number one recommendation is please follow what the transportation on Public Works Commission recommended I was at that meeting I've been a street captain. I could repeat a lot of what's already been said about early unpopularity due to poor communication and gradual acceptance. It takes people time to get used to things. I particularly want to mention the fact that this program potentially addresses two problems which have not gone away. It addresses the need for more space for people to walk, have good exercise and open air during COVID. COVID is not going to go away for quite a while and that's why the Commission recommended through May 2021. In addition, we have a climate crisis which was highlighted when a few couple of months ago none of us could breathe because of the thick smoke. The thousand homes that were destroyed in the Santa Cruz Mountains. We have a climate crisis and getting people used to not driving as much biking more walking more is essential. What could be done is to continue this program and for some of the streets to phase into actually having neighborhood discussions on street specific infrastructure redesign, which of course is what the staff would like to move towards, but we could use this as a launching pad for that kind of progress. Please accept the transportation and Public Works Commission recommendations. Thank you. The last four digits are four, three, five, six. Please press star six to unmute your phone. Okay, next caller if you're the last four digits are one, eight, eight, four. Please press star six on your phone to unmute yourself. Good afternoon City Council. My name is Gina Cole. I'm the Executive Director at Bike Santa Cruz County. While we were very disappointed to hear City staff's recommendation to discontinue the slow streets program in Santa Cruz. We do have high hopes for the program to continue in some capacity. We supported the initial implementation of the project we spoke with staff several times prior to and during the rollout. Claire's been amazing. She's done a truly, truly amazing job with the resources that she had available, the least amount of resource that she had with time. And I feel like that was in, you know, she's given you all the pluses and minuses and that was probably one of the biggest as far as we could see. We do support the recommendation of the Transportation Public Works Commission for the City to prepare an RFP utilizing up to $20,000 in measured case funds for local organizations to sustain the program through May. Bike Santa Cruz County is currently working with Santa Cruz County Public Works and the City of Watsonville Public Works on similar slow streets programs. We believe that slow streets are an important piece of coping with the ensuing pandemic. sidewalks are not built to support physical distancing. And as you know, we can see by the color of our tier and the directives that are coming from the state, we are facing the same dilemma as to where we can get outside with kids still being distance learning. I see parents in our local streets out with kids during the day. And while those streets is not a perfect fix, it does make for a more comfortable place for folks to get outdoors and exercise. We really hope that you will consider in, also in light of the fact that the Transportation Public Works voted unanimously twice for this program voted unanimously to prepare an RFP. And the U.S. City Council also voted unanimously to implement a preliminary first place that you will continue the program. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, good afternoon. Thank you. Hi, this is Phil Houtel from the Transportation and Public Works First Commission. I don't know if to expand on what our commission recommended. I think my colleague, Ron, did an excellent job expanding that. And I also want to thank Claire. I think it's important to emphasize that the intent of the commission was not to take away from the great work she's doing. And I think we all recognize what that means. That was a trade-off, unintended consequence that nobody wanted to happen for sure. And maybe that speaks to staffing. I know our commission has recommended in the past that staffing for that department is increased. And we were able to increase staffing there previously, but it was cut back due to pandemic planning. So I hope in the future this can be used to increase staffing again so we can have more programs like this, whether or not this program. My quick comment is an address to Vice Mayor Meyers, who mentioned Vision Zero and wanted to talk about the applicability here. I think Claire did a great job in responding to that as well in relation to the report. But one key concept of Vision Zero is speed reduction. And speed reduction really relates to the physics of it. When you're going slower, you have a greater field of vision. You have a quicker reaction time. Your car can fix speed stop faster. And if there is a collision, there probably won't be a death if you're actually going slower. And so the relationship of slow streets with the intent to actually slow cars down to make it safer does directly correlate to Vision Zero in that regard. And that's kind of independent of whatever that report finds around the specific collision locations or other overlined cars for the collisions themselves, is that speed essentially is always a factor, even if there was also distracted driving or something else as well. It's kind of a prime time in Vision Zero. So anyway, thanks everyone for whatever you decide here. I appreciate you considering this. Thank you. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you for letting us speak. My name is Candice Brown. I'm speaking as a private citizen because I was asked to recuse myself as I am on one of the slow streets streets. I just wanted to reiterate the fact that the slow street program is solely meant to be an interim intervention to allow safe passage of designated neighborhood streets for pedestrians, runners, bicyclists, scooters, and people of all ages. We found that this program, people indicated are saving marriages. They're letting people, kids, feel safe going out for the first time on their bikes and even see your citizens are coming out on their walkers for the first time in our neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are also cross-pollinating and walking in different neighborhoods. So it's really creating a real sense of community throughout our town. It is basically encouraging people to social distance. At the same time, we're seeing hundreds of percent increase in people biking and pedestrians walking in our neighborhood. It's really phenomenal. So I just wanted to say that I think there are a lot of lessons learned. One of which is that we do have to follow guidelines, but there are natural guidelines. And the first step in doing so is community engagement. We knew that was going to be important all along. And I would encourage you to work with an organization like Bike Santa Cruz that is set up with the right relationships and already implementing two other programs to do so. They were led to believe initially that there was no funding, and that's why they were initially discouraging being involved. But with this small amount of money, they think they can proceed with this program. This program is only recommended to be continued through the end of May, and that's all it is. We want to keep it simple. We want people to have a little light and a little sense of community during very difficult time. We are in the middle of the pandemic, and we've got to get through this. So I appreciate your support of this low street program. Thank you very much. Bye bye. Hey, thank you. The last four digits are four, three, five, six. Please press star six on your phone to unmute. Please press star six on your phone to unmute, and you'll have two minutes. Good afternoon. Ron Pomerance. Hello. I hope all of you are ready as well. I would like to strongly encourage you to accept the transportation of Public Works Commission. Good afternoon. This is Ron Pomerance. Hope everyone's well. I really want to strongly encourage you to please accept the transportation of Public Works Commission recommendation. They're your, they're the council's, your representatives, really, eyes and ears to the community. Their unanimous vote speaks volumes. It appears as though staff really wasn't too excited about this program. And they gave pretty minimal support and encouragement. It sounds like a little more public outreach and education, some better signage. And that would, that's all you probably need to support this really innovative program to make for safer, safer streets and for bikes and pedestrians. I really hope you'll continue this program. They're only asking until May. It's not asking a whole lot. Let's get some results and see how effective we can make it. I thank you for your time and support right now. Good afternoon. This is John Aware. I apologize. I've been having some technical difficulty getting through, but I am here to tell you I am a street captain on Caledonia Street. And I 100% support this project and this program. It has been a major positive impact on our street. We have gathered a number of our neighbors. We have a mailing list of 18, 20 different neighbors. And I sit where I can actually see the signs. And I could tell you people are walking more, riding bikes more, and people are compelled to slow down the street. I borrowed a radar gun from the city and measured people driving down the street. And even with the signs, we had people driving down our street at 45 miles an hour. That's a football field every 4.5 seconds. We need this program to help provide a space for people to enjoy the outdoors during the COVID crisis. I have seen my neighbors with wagons full of groceries walking down the street being able to have access to a broader area to carry their groceries. So I 100% support this program. My neighbors have all written in positive support for this program. I was one of those persons who was confronted by a unfriendly neighbor. We got past it and the program is working. Most of the negative is people who just don't like having to be compelled to drive the speed limit, which is 25, which is the average of the people I had driving down the street while the signs were in place. Thank you for your time. Please vote to support this through May. And then let's find a way to make this happen for a long-term solution as well. But short-term, we've got something that's working. Let's keep it going. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we're going to close public comment. And so I'm going to bring it back to council for action and deliberation. We are a little bit behind schedule as it is. And I want to appreciate all the work that our staff has done on this. In addition, our Public Works, Transportation Public Works Commission and for the public who've reached out. I'm going to just be honest and say that I'm a bit torn on this because I think one of the things that I'm concerned with is that we've had a $30,000 contract and that went from about June until now. Is that correct, Claire? And your motion was July 2nd of 2020 and we really started spending money starting late July when we purchased materials through the budget reconciliation that I gave you was through the end of October. So it goes, I would say, August, September, October. Okay. So I'm a bit concerned too with now considering a reduction in that budget to $20,000 over the next six months to carry out this work. So that's something I'm a bit concerned with. In addition, it sounded like that this would only be on a subset of streets. And so I think that also is concerning where one street shuts down and another street is disproportionately impacted. If they're not able to get slow streets, then, you know, why should one street, you know, have the privilege of having this over another? And I think that one of the things that was brought up earlier was this demand for and I think that's something that I, you know, I think we're all very interested in. We've heard that from the people called in and I think really focusing on the streets that have the issues. So for example, Almar Street, I've spent time over there. And I know a number of employees who work at the parish and they have said, you know, there's people who blow through stop signs. There's constantly people who are speeding down that street. And so really trying to identify what are which are the streets that have the issues so that we can actually slow down the streets where we're having these impacts where people are speeding or there are collisions. So, you know, I'm hoping my hope is that we can really target streets that are problematic versus just, you know, having slow streets pop up on streets just because people want them versus they're being in need. And so, but I'd like to hear from my colleague and go ahead to Claire. Yeah, you raise a really good point about looking at the city holistically and recently just a couple years ago we adopted our active transportation plan which does have a community based project list of bike and pedestrian and safe route school projects that our community said through a year and a half long outreach process they would like to see coupled with that is the local roadway safety plan that we have underway right now which identifies data based locations that would be well served by infrastructure improvements to promote traffic safety. So what you say I do think is important that we do have these community processes to identify where our priorities for investment and we do have right now one adopted red map and one underway that I would really continue to recommend looking to. I totally agree that that seems like a good approach to really addressing traffic safety. So those are all the comments I have I guess the other comment I've had it I have the last one is that I've seen people use, you know, children at play signs drive like your children live here signs and people have just voluntarily you know had these out in front of their and I've seen those be effective in the neighborhoods where they occur and so I think there are ways that we can continue to encourage encourage people to you know slow down on streets that doesn't have to be you know a program that's put on by the city. I think there are many alternatives and options out there that are that are also effective that don't have to be a city run program so I'm happy to hear what other with the rest of my colleagues think and so with that I'll turn it over to Council Member Brown followed by Council Member Watkins. Thank you. So I really appreciate the thought and effort and energy that's gone into rolling this out and trying to make it work for the purposes of which it was established and I agree that the rollout was bumpy. And, you know, we're it's a learning process right so I understand how that that why that might be. But I think now that we have those lessons learned and, you know, and clearly a significant amount of interest in this program that we find a way to try to keep this going and keep these neighborhood improvements as I think Pauline said kind of talking to each other communicating around other kinds of improvements that you know it's a way for us to get additional thoughtful community engagement around alternative transportation and our vision zero policies and you know kind of so on so you know I'm interested in trying to find a way to keep this going and I think May 2021 makes sense. You know, it seems to me like what I from what I'm hearing I'm hearing just wildly different interpretations of what's happening and you know the support level, and I think you know if you if you pose the program or you don't want to deal with the program then you focus on those and if you, you know, if you really like it and you want to see the program continue to focus on the positive and so you know just trying to kind of find a way through that based upon what we know to be true. And, you know, and I also want to say this is a little bit of an aside but I do really appreciate Claire your work to try to make this work and I, I especially, you know, appreciate your patients with, you know, fielding all of those calls trying to figure out how to make this work. I mean, I'm sure that was just, you know, that was pretty overwhelming with all the other work you have to do. And I wouldn't want you to have to continue doing that by any means. So I'd really like to see us, you know, look at other possibilities and it sounds like actually, you know, we heard from Mike Santa Cruz County that they, they could, they could be ready to administer something like this and, you know, in terms of the cost, I think for a nonprofit to do something like this. It clearly will, that will reduce the cost overall. So, you know, I think, and then having some of the, you know, the equipment already out, you know, we've already purchased that it's there it's available. You know, we can work on signage a contractor could work on signage. You know, it just and for all of the reasons that people have suggested this is a positive program. You know, I'd like to see a way forward. So with that, I want to make a motion to accept the report on the Slow Streets pilot program and recommend that staff develop a request for proposals for administration of the Slow Streets pilot program in an amount up to $20,000. Including an outreach plan operating guidelines and appropriate liability safeguards to allow local nonprofit to administer the program through May of 2021. And I can send that over. I'm sorry I didn't send it to our city clerk in advance. I was just make creating it right now as we're talking. That's my motion. I'll I'm happy to send it on if people want to look at it. But yeah, it's just to really continue to spend $20,000 to try to make it work as an interim measure a pilot continuation of the pilot. Do we have a second to the motion? Council Member Byers, I think you're muted. I'll second the motion. If you can send that over. I think it'd be great so that we can have it up on the screen and able to see it. I'm sending that. Yeah, my GMO is just loading. So I'm sending it now. Council Member Watkins and Council Member Matthews. I appreciate the presentation and from hearing all of the members of the community who called in. I too feel a little bit conflicted on this one to just recognizing the trade off as well as some of the long term efforts we want to focus on. And while also acknowledging these extraordinary circumstances and kind of now moving back into a more restrictive environment where people are needing to stay closer to their homes. The opportunity for us to be nimble. I do want to also share my same sort of sentiments around sort of the equity lens as we look at a program like this. And I appreciated your comments Claire in regards to really looking at more of an equity lens as we're looking at some of these longer term solutions. And so I do feel like there's certain areas in communities and neighborhoods that feel more comfortable approaching government and approaching these types of programs than others. And we want to be mindful of those that don't necessarily feel as comfortable doing that. But that being said I think that given where we are in terms of the kind of the extension of the shelter in place more restrictive environments and the pandemic that it could work to extend the pilot for a certain amount of time longer to may sounds appropriate. And then really thinking about the longer term strategy because I think what I really hear from you Claire and just in general from the sentiment is that what are we doing in regards to our shared values around safe accessible streets and pedestrian industry and invite walkways and how are we moving towards more long term strategies given the short term circumstances. However I think it makes you know a good amount of sense to continue for a bit longer. And then I just have one clarifying question because in the staff report you mentioned that if we were to continue the pilot you would recommend a notification to go out to neighbors within a 300 foot range. Is that do you want to speak to that a little bit in terms of what. Absolutely. One of the pieces of feedback that we got from folks was that they didn't feel like they were notified. And if they had been notified they would have liked an opportunity to be heard. So we have an existing process in our unique code for changing traffic control devices and it's a process that we use when we're installing red curbs or stop signs or new crosswalks etc. We notify all owners and residents within 300 feet of a given location. And there is an appeals process if people would like to appeal to the Transportation and Public Works Commission who will then hear that and make a recommendation and that recommendation can then be appealed to council. And so for community members there is a way to feel heard to provide their feedback and to have some level of recourse if they disagree with the recommendation that's been made. As part of this if we were to move forward considering that the recommendation is and now I'm reading to see if that stayed in Council Member Brown's language but that the recommendation from commission was that it be on a set of streets. I think that an appeal process there, a notification process there would be appropriate to give people some level of input and guidance there and then it would be something that there would be some level of recourse if there was one street that felt that it didn't fit for them. Of note for this program we did only require that one person on a street nominate their street. There didn't have to be any buy-in from their surrounding neighbors. And I solely selected the subset of streets that were represented in our slow streets program and that process is imperfect. And so having a notification process that is something I'd recommend, the other thing that I do have in there is that we are out of materials. So within that $20,000 that would need to account for new signage and barricades as well. So thank you for flagging that. I think that's an important point and then also being able to tell people that there is an end state because that was also a question that I got frequently. How long will this impact me and people making a value decision of is that something I can live with and just be unhappy with or happy with? Or is it something that feels untenable to me? Thank you, Claire. I wonder if the maker of the motion would want to include some of those logistical elements into the next steps in regards to the continuation of the pilot? Absolutely. I was pretty general in my wording there around outreach process, but certainly any of those notification and ability to appeal or voices to be heard about the implementation and the continuation on particular streets. The issue of subset as well. Absolutely. I support including that. I have to close. There we go. So I guess, you know, and I just, you know, I'm happy to take a lead from you, Claire, if you want to help me think about what the language, what kind of language would be helpful to you or moving forward with those conditions attached? Yeah, I'm happy to work on that. I think my first question would be, is your intent for this to be on the subset of streets? And if so, do you have any qualifiers around that? Well, I mean, yeah, I would say for me, I think it's, you know, that's not our job to decide which, you know, which streets, but a subset certainly makes sense. And I think, you know, if there's, if there's, I don't know if we can do, maybe we could do some kind of re-up, like, you know, street leads, you know, can ask to continue and provide some of that additional information in terms of making a selection process if there is a winnowing that has to happen. So I would say, you know, the ones that have seemed to be most effective, the ones where there's, you know, not as much opposition or no opposition, you know, some kind of guidelines for making that decision, but I, you know, I'm not, I don't feel equipped to come up with what they would all be, but I think that's where it makes the most sense for kind of operational, logistical reasons and community support reasons. I would give you the context there. I'm fully able to make that choice and any and every choice I make there will be wrong. And you will hear an intense amount of feedback around the wrong choice that I make there. Well, it will be based on a value judgment and based on, you know, of many number of factors that I was asked to commission as well, which states I would recommend ending. And I sent that back over to them because it really, their objective criteria that I can use to make a recommendation, but whatever, whatever choice and recommendation I make will be wrong. Would it be okay then with the Councilmember Watkins to keep this at a general level, maybe include some language about, you know, working out selection criteria and process between the qualified RFP applicants and staff and, you know, the Transportation and Public Works Commission, if that makes sense as well to kind of have more eyes on, on the criteria decision making and selection process? Yeah, no, it does. I, I, maybe if I could ask one more clarifying question in regards to sort of the continuation of the pilot view, you anticipate new streets coming on board or would it just be an extension of the existing streets that we've already identified to have this continue? In which case I think that the processes would be different, but I don't, I don't know how we'd want to move forward if, if the pilot were to continue, if there's additional streets who have interest in wanting to be as low street at this point. Yeah, no, definitely. We on a rolling basis have continued to accept applications for this program. I have them saved in a folder called Phase 2. If we were to move to Phase 2, we also do have the whole list of Phase 1 streets, the, the 48 of which seven of them were not selected. That's what I do think we could set it up so that the RFP did have the nonprofit, nonprofit organization develop that outreach plan, operating plan, selection plan of a subset of streets and the liability safeguard insurance plan, all of those pieces in there as well. It's all, it's all doable. But what I, what I do want to bring front and center is in saying that it will be a subset of streets. There will be winners and losers. Sure. Sure. I, if I make in terms of what you also mentioned in terms of supplies, would you include that in the RFP for the nonprofit to purchase or would that be something that would be deducted from the RFP that would go out to the nonprofit for operations? That's a good point of clarification for you here. You've identified $20,000. I would interpret that to mean that the selected partner in this would be purchasing those supplies, storing those supplies, deploying those supplies in order to minimize the impact on our operations team, which has been a big list there. So that $20,000 I think would need to include that purchase. Okay, great. Thank you. Very briefly, I think to what might, maybe we can think about it. If a street wants to continue, they have to, you know, that street or wherever the captain has needs to go out and get, I don't know, 80% of the residents is on the block needs to be in agreement. I think there needs to be some inclusion of the perspective of everybody on the street, the people who live on that block, because if it turns out that there's one person on the street who wants the program, but the majority of the people who live on the street don't, then I don't think that we should continue that program on that street. So, you know, to the extent that we can work that into the motion as well as a, you know, criteria or if that's something that often has to work out, I think that that, you know, if we move forward with issuing an RP, I think that that would be appropriate and could be used as a criteria for continuing the program as well. I was just going to say something that you could point to there as our existing parking permit, residential parking permit program guidelines where we need a 50% plus one of neighbor songs. It makes sense. That sounds great. Council Member Matthews and Council Member Golder. Thank you. I want to start by acknowledging clear comments from the very beginning about the shared values. We all want safe streets. We want places that are walkable, bikeable, have some traffic calming features. And this was a good effort that came out of the Transportation Public Works Commission. I do feel given the experience here and honestly my experience over time with neighborhood traffic endeavors that given the amount of staff time, even under the contract of the nonprofit and the limited funds that this is not the time to go forward. Even the motion as written here, I think we'll pull a lot of staff time. So I'm not prepared to support the motion presented. My own preference would be to accept the staff recommendation with some slightly different direction, but I want to take a little bit of time to talk about my reasons for that. I just want to say how the captain is the only one that remembers this. But I was involved, gosh, how many years ago now, 40. And I'm going to hold it up here. Little street program for downtown. Do you remember that? I do. Definitely. Yeah. But you remember it was intense. It took a lot of it was neighborhood. It took a lot of feedback. What were the issues? People have big dreams, big desires, and it boils down and it became more modest. And some of the things I think that we take for granted now. There were some one-way streets and stop signs, some bulb outs for the pedestrian crossing are easier. And I think there's been so much. And just in my experience on council, we've done targeted improvements in these different areas. Traffic, colony, pedestrian, bike safety, around the city. And writing down beach flats, west side, east side, sea bright downtown, beach hill. Each one of those took a lot of effort. And I think the public work staff will know as well as anyone. Doing a good job of this, one that will last and not just go for a few months and then stop and smoke, takes a lot of input, good conversation, kind of tough with reality. And I was particularly taken by Claire's comments about getting the roadway safety plan and really identify where are the places that really need it. Because I think it's probably fair to say that everyone in the city would like to live on the street that didn't have much traffic and et cetera. But in general, I think we need to look for the cost effectiveness. Where are the most impacted areas and what are the things that will actually lead to improvements in those areas? These are always more complicated than they seem to be, setting out. And what we're doing is right now, when we're facing the fiscal crisis, the crunch on our staff time, this is going to be one more complicated project. And personally, I'd rather see Claire refocus on the roadway safety plan, the digital zero, and direct our resources there. I think it's also fair to say that over time, I mean, I'm really proud of what the city has done in all of these areas. I'm just walking down the list here. The lighted walkways, et cetera, these all collectively continue to a safer pedestrian-like environment. So just to say all of that, I think the area is a benefit, the scale of benefit, the staff time, the cost. The controversy that will inevitably be involved and focusing on other ways to achieve these goals. Those are the things that lead me to think that at this point in time, this is not the best motion. I'm not going to be supporting it. I would support a motion to accept the staff report and encourage a focus on existing and anticipated city programs that advance the same goals more cost-effective. That's the direction I disagree to go. Thank you. Council Member Golder. I'm super complicit also. I think the mayor has said most of the things I was thinking and, you know, I've really enjoyed wandering around through these streets with the program. But I think ultimately one thing that I keep thinking about is were the decisions that we made to close the streets that we did, they weren't really dated to them. Like Claire said, it was just kind of like a neighborhood captain, somebody nominated the street. And I think a bunch of them came out really nice. But as I'm kind of thinking of the city holistically, when I look at the streets, specifically on a map, and then I think about the state roots to school. And I'm thinking specifically for Galt and Bayview are two Title I schools in the neighborhoods where the lower socioeconomic students tend to live down, you know, off of Laurel Street or the B flat. And if and when, and we were making plans to move towards a hybrid reopening, those kids are going to be coming back to school. The kids as well going to Mission Hill that already have to cross Mission Street to get there. And they typically take King Street. I'm wondering, so the kids, my point is, is that these kids that are coming back for hybrid reopening, it's these weird schedules where drivers aren't going to be expecting to see kids on the road. Right. And so, in addition, I anticipate that a lot of kids are going to have to get themselves to or from school because the schedules are going to be so wonky and the parents might be working or whatever. And so we're expecting the kids will be having to get themselves to and from school. And like if I think about it from an equity perspective, like there's no routes where it's just one of these slow streets where the kids can take. But in fact, the one that concerns me is the Escalona one. And I know it's really a popular one and really fun. But I think about all of the kids that are going to be coming down King to get to Mission Hill and they haven't had an opportunity to be doing this before they're becoming at weird times. I really concerned with, you know, the kids biking, walking, and I really keep thinking of long term infrastructure would be a better use of money. I do understand that if there's a nonprofit out there that thinks they can do all of all of this for $20,000 for a long period of time, like it would be nice to continue. But I just think realistically, like I don't know how that would be possible. So I have to say at this point, I'm super conflicted. I have not made up my mind. And I just want to let folks know we're about 40 minutes behind schedule. I will try to make it quick. Of course, long term planning and calming is really wanted and needed. It's always been something I fought for over time. But what I see here, everything about our life is different. Everything we're doing, our daily routines, look at downtown, this is just a short term plan. It's going to end and what they propose is to end in May. So I can't say that that's going to make a big impact of where we really want to go with having a good traffic plan for all our little neighborhoods. So I think it's short term. It's quick. $20,000 is whatever that's going to bring us. People I think have loved this program. I went back and looked at all the letters and it was just amazing how I think partly people just got into it after a while. And we know the rollout was kind of awkward. But I think just look at it as a short term. It's going to be over. It's not in perpetuity. And I think transportation commission who really are our eyes and ears spend a lot of time thinking about this more than more than we are allowing ourselves. So I certainly support their recommendation and would like to move forward with it. Council Member Brown and Council Member Watkins and Vice Mayor Myers. I'll just quickly say with respect to the questions about concerns over street safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, schoolchildren and adults. That is not very much a concern. And I think that the plans that we're making around safe streets and kind of envision zero. I mean, those are just much larger and longer term. And so the idea that this is somehow going to conflict with or preclude moving forward in all of those other areas, resources permitting. I just don't think that's the case. So I'd like to just move forward as well. I know we are well behind the schedule time for this item. And, you know, there's met. There's a lot of things I want to say in response to some of the concerns and questions that have been raised. But I'll just leave it there because I think, you know, we're we need to move on. Watkins and Vice Mayor Myers. I'll keep my comment short, too. No, I totally understand the feeling conflicted about this and the tradeoffs associated with it. And I do agree that we're in very extraordinary times and being kind of nimble. And I also recognize that we do want to see how we can prioritize the communities in the areas that aren't necessarily more inclined to pursue that. So however, maybe that could be related to the to the nonprofit to look at kind of an equity lens to those those neighborhoods in our city, but also really being realistic about what we could get for the 20,000. And I think that that is a big heavy lift for a small relatively small amount of funding. And so I think that has to be acknowledged in terms of what kind of what will be the ultimate outcome of the extension of the pilot. Thank you, Mayor. I'll make my comments very brief. I'm inclined to support the program through the end of May. A couple of questions, a couple of comments I would offer would be that I do think that if we are going to be buying signs to the extent that they're affordable and within the budget of that 20,000, you know, try to figure out how to make a little better about what the street closure is about. So whether that is purchasing signs that are slow down for kids or what have you, but trying to at least convey through the signage. I found the signage pretty confusing as well. So I think to the extent that we could put signage out that is a little bit more in keeping with the intent of the program would be helpful. I think that signs could be more ubiquitous. They may be available for neighborhoods to keep as long as they're used within people's yards or what have you after the program. So I think it's important to really express what the program is for. I agree with the comments around equity and providing some assessment of why a street would or wouldn't become part of the program. I do worry about the budget as well to the Mayor's comments. And I guess, you know, in that same comment, I just want to remind everyone that, you know, when the proposal came to the Council back in July, we were sort of looking at a historic budget emergency that had really no timeline associated with it. And so at that point, you know, the proposal was for $200,000. We had just finished negotiating furloughs with our workers, with our, you know, staff. So I think we need to be realistic about the cost of this and then also just in terms of the context of our larger goals around Vision Zero and others. So I'll support the program through May 2021. But I do, I'd like to just see some tweaks that do provide more efficiencies for staff or a nonprofit if they're going to be running it and then also really recognize that we need to be talking about this kind of work in our interim recovery process and through our discussions around one of our three priorities, which is infrastructure. So I do think there's a context that needs to be put into a longer discussion, but I will support the motion for today. Thank you. I had a couple of questions really briefly. Well, the first was, I'm wondering if there might be a friendly amendment that could be made to state that in order for a street to continue, they must receive 50% or more signatures from the residents on the street in support of continuing the program. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I agree. The other question I have is for Claire. I'm just curious. I guess the next step would be an RFP will be created. It will be sent out. I guess I'm just kind of curious what the timeline generally is or is that something the council needs to direct that we provide a timeline for how long the RFP is going to be out. And then I guess the other question is what happens if no one kind of, you know, what with no one accepts RFP or if no one applies. Part one, I don't believe it takes any other council action. I can drag it up and circulate it in December. It is of a cost that we know work with purchasing on what that looks like it will likely just be a three bid scenario rather than a three bid scenario. Because it's only $20,000. We will review the applicants and make a determination and it's a pretty straightforward award process. And in terms of if we do not get any respondents to our RP, then I think you'll see me back here soon. And I think with the friendly amendment, if it could maybe state that the streets continue, they must receive signatures of support from 50% plus one of residents on the street. I'm wondering to, this is just something maybe on the council member applies for this RFP or who weighs in. I'm wondering if that would be grounds for discontinuing the program. I don't know what your thoughts are on that. But, you know, I think where we're at today is the recommendation from the Public Works Commission is that there's potentially an organization out there that can do this for $20,000 from now until May. It seems like a pretty far stretch because that's a very low amount of money for what sounds like a pretty substantial amount of work, including supplies. So if no one submits an RFP for that amount, I'm wondering if that would be grounds for us to terminate the program. What I wouldn't want to see happen is that that then falls on the city employees to then pick up that flak with the understanding that, you know, we're the vote that we're making today is to remove this workload from our city staff and move that over to, you know, nonprofit. So I don't know what your thoughts are on that. Well, I think we just heard Claire say, if they don't get any, she comes back to council and informs the council and they take action to not continue the program. I mean, why don't we just do a step at a time and see. But Claire, of course, she would come back and say we didn't get any. Therefore, I recommend we drop the program and people could weigh in on that. If I may clarify there, I think, Mayor, what you're asking is to put it into the motion. Oh, I see. So that that stuff wouldn't have to come back to say, if we did not receive any respondents, then council directions be to end the program without coming back to you. And I think procedurally, it's just a procedure question. Sure, that's fine. Okay. Brown, is that something that you'd be willing to include in the motion? Sure. I guess I'm a little nervous about what the interpretation of not receiving requests. So not receiving a request from what's considered to be a qualified provider. I mean, there's all kinds of ways that you can interpret that. So I'm a little nervous about it. But if that's going to make people feel more comfortable, that's fine. Director Mark Dettel has hand up. So just want to acknowledge you and give you an opportunity to speak. Yeah, I would just maybe suggest the not just request a proposal, but to request an award if we receive a proposal so that we don't have to come back and we can shift that workload. Yeah, yeah. Council Member Matthews. A few on the end, I would say in the original motion, I think allow a local nonprofit to administer the program. I think the conversation implies at a reduced level. Are people understanding that? I understand it. I understand it's up to $20,000 worth of... No, no, no, no, no. The number of streets. Oh, number. Yeah, because initially I heard in the presentation that what the Transportation and Public Works Commission recommended was that this continue on a subset of streets. Maybe just put that language, administer the program on a subset of streets just to be clear. And then I think on the last item, if no responses, I think you want to say qualified responses, that's kind of implied. I guess my other question is about timeline. And implied in all this is still a lot of work on clear as part, you know, managing the RFP and working with the contracts nonprofit and ordering these signs, et cetera. So time to issue an RFP, time to look at them, time to pick the subset of streets, this... And then we have, you know, the holiday season and all this stuff, you know, what we get into around this. So I guess this is a question for Claire, what do you see as a timeline for this? And I'll just be honest, it seems to me like a lot of work for something that's just going to last a few more months on a few streets. Yeah, thank you for that. Thank you for that. Realistically, it's the end of November right now, which gives us two weeks of December before most folks are shut down for the holidays. And we have our closure for the holidays as well. I can likely work on this RFP in that first two weeks of December. I see this needing to go through our risk department as well and have a lot of questions about what insurance will want from folks who are doing work in the roadway. I have quite a few things on the interview, so I wouldn't anticipate being able to get this out until January after the holidays, and then hopefully have a fairly quick process to get someone on board then. But we'll want to make sure that it's readily apparent in our RFP about what we are asking for and what we do require in terms of insurance liability, et cetera, so that folks know if they're applying if it's something that they can actually be qualified for. And then I guess the follow-up question is, do we assume that the streets continue as they are now or that they just continue until the RFP is issued? My plan would be to keep them running status quo with the recognition that because we're out of supplies right now, they're not all investing. Vice Mayor Meyers. No, I have nothing else. I have to say, I feel like we're micromanaging something that Claire has now said she is fully capable of making some of those more detailed decisions about what goes into this RFP, and I'm really not interested in continuing to micromanage this well into the rest of the afternoon, and we have a lot of business to attend to. So I really, you know, I'm not going to call the question. I'm hoping that because that could take a long time too, but I hope we can just, you know, proceed and, you know, people who support it support it. And if you don't, don't. I think you are the last comment. And so if there are no further comments from council members at this time, I think we're probably ready to go ahead and call vote on this item. So there's been a motion made by council member Brown seconded by council member buyers to accept the report on the flow streets pilot program and recommend staff develop a request for proposal for administration of the flow streets pilot program and the amount of I guess the amount 1000 and award including an outreach plan operating guidelines and appropriate liability safeguards to allow a local nonprofit to minister the program on a subset of streets through May 2021 along with friendly amendments by the mayor to ensure that in order for the street to continue, they must receive signatures of support from 50% plus one of the residents on the street. And if no qualified responses to the RFP, the program is to be discontinued. And so with that, I'll turn to the clerk to call the roll call vote. Thank you, mayor. Can I just confirm that council member buyers accepted. Yeah, yeah. Council member buyers. I. Matthews. No. Brown. I. Boulder. I. Watkins. Vice mayor Myers and Mayor Cummings. Passes with council members by Watkins, vice mayor Myers and the mayor voting in favor of council member Matthews voting opposed. Why don't we take a five minute break. We're running behind, but I'm just so that people have an opportunity to stretch their legs and then we'll move on to item number 21. So if we can come back around 305 ish, we can go ahead and get started on the next item moving along. Hopefully everybody will join in. So number 21 interim recovery plan for members of the public who are streaming in. If this is an item you want to comment on now is the time to call in using the numbers on your screen. Once you've called in, if you'd like to comment on the item during public comment, you'll want to press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. And then when you've been asked to unmute, please press star six to unmute your phone. You'll have up to two minutes. And so with this, I'd like to, with that, I'd like to turn it over to Laura Schmidt assistant city manager to kick off our presentation. Thank you, mayor. Thank you council members. Laura Schmidt, the assistant city manager. I'm just going to do a brief overview of the city's interim recovery plan draft. And what we'll cover today is the brief recap and then the main components of the interim recovery draft plan, which management partners that is included as a PDF in your agenda packet. The major sections of the plan are the principles and processes, the actual priority focus areas of which there are three, the metrics that you voted on for tracking recovery, a framework for considering new initiatives. The ideas that came up during the workshop on October 29 for communications and what the next steps are. As far as the recap of how we came to this draft, as you all know, the COVID-19 pandemic emergency has been in March and is ongoing through present time. Around June, the council formed a council interim recovery plan committee and that team worked through October, culminating in an interim recovery plan workshop facilitated by management partners on October the 29. They worked in early November to put together the actual draft of the contents of the interim recovery plan based upon your feedback during the October 29th workshop. And today we bring that draft back to you for your consideration. The page reference numbers are the actual numbers in the, yes. Are we supposed to be seeing your screen? Yes, you should be. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. I think the slide is just breezing right on through. So that's the slide I just spoke about. And then this is the recap that I gave you. And then now we're on the principles and processes. And I went a little bit out of order of your PDF document. The principles and processes actually come after the focus areas, but I wanted to cover them for it before it because they serve as the foundation of how I think the council wanted to approach the interim recovery itself. So decisions are consistent with our three pillars of equity, public health and sustainability and our health and all policies program. And additionally, you guys escalated the green economy from a possible focus area to an actual underlying principle and process. And that overall were to foster opportunities and practices to accelerate the green economy. And we need to make sure that we access state and federal resources such as the cares act prioritize resources to those most in need and prioritize the items on the grand jury response reports and then engage the community in maintaining our parks. So that focus and a, and a perspective on risk management for us that we approach the recovery with a risk management hat on and then define our core services and focus and prioritize our core services. So those were the underlying principles and processes that you all articulated both in the committee and then reiterated during the workshop on the 29th of October. So we just culminated in three focus areas. The first one was to take action to ensure short term and long term fiscal sustainability and best in downtown and other business sectors and there was a lot underneath that umbrella and improve and maintain infrastructure in here. You all spoke about not our just our traditional infrastructure that we normally envision, but also infrastructure of our natural resources in our parks and open space. In order for us to be able to determine our, how are we successfully making progress on those focus areas you identified several metrics for tracking the recovery and all these were a percent change in the first few relate to the business and our economy. So business licenses issued, business licenses renewed, commercial vacancy rates, business closures, and then on the development and permitting signs, the number of permits issued for planning, building, et cetera by type, new housing units permitted. And then financially, fiscally, our transient occupancy numbers, our sales tax revenues, our admission tax revenues, and our general fund reserves. And then on the infrastructure side, the line of sight is our investment on the general fund side for capital maintenance projects budgeted and then our labor hours for maintenance of parks and open spaces as well as our labor hours for maintenance of recreation facilities. So those are our underlying principles. These are focus areas and this is how we're going to measure them. How do we facilitate new items and new initiatives coming into the process as we go through the 12 to 18 months of our interim recovery. So the scope of this conversation was new requests that might come up and it was not the council meeting agendizing process that was not the scope of this. The intent was to figure out as new items should be considered. Normally, the preference is that those go through the budgeting process, but obviously there are always new items that come up and that if their council initiated that their request have a broad sponsoring support of three council members and that the discussion of the proposed item and applying the basis of the rest of the criteria, which is on the next slide. Also by council policy 6.9 if a request is to take more than eight hours of staff time that goes to council for consideration and approval. So the the the framework for consideration and the criteria would be is it consistent with the interim recovery plan. What is the urgency associated with it. What's the fiscal impact of the item being proposed. Will there be net revenue that we will be the beneficiary of or will it cost cost us additional funding that we would have to find. Is it a mandate that there's something out there that is new changed in the legislative arena or any other in executive order at the state level. What's the mandate behind it that would be driving the new initiative and then the city resource impact. Does the request require additional city staffing our facilities or any other resources and will it delay anything else that is currently on the plate or will something have to be supplanted or do prioritize or slow down. So those were the framework for those were the criteria for the framework for considering new requests coming into the pipeline. Additionally on the communications front there was there were several suggestions brought up. I don't intend to go through every single one of these. I know that Elizabeth is on the line with us today. The intent would be that as we go through the interim recovery plan process. We would work with Elizabeth and this would be one of her community engagement community outreach projects and we would wrap the communications manager services around this program as we roll it out into the future. The next steps. One of the things that the interim recovery plan we have the three focus areas underneath each focus area will need to line up the existing projects that are in the pipeline into the different focus areas and get that line of sight developed and bring that back to the council. That would be a 12 to 18 month work plan underneath the three priority focus areas that you've identified. And back at the end of October we had said bringing that back in January I added some buffer in there for February because we had originally intended to have this item on the October 10 meeting but that got pushed due to the length of that meeting. And with the holiday closure we only have two weeks in December. I don't know that it's realistic for us to coordinate across every department and bring that information back to in January. We'll do our best to do that but I wanted to add the month of February as a possibility in there as well. And then the other thing that we'll be developing is the quarterly report format on the metrics and the progress associated with the metrics that were identified and bring those back to council with the first quarter ending in March. So that would come back to you in April. So we would do every three months generally for every March come back in April. April, May, June come back in July. That sort of thing. So our recommendation is asking you to consider and adopt the 12 to 18 month interim recovery plan for the city. I showed in the draft document with edits as you described and discussed today. And I know I've really gone through the senate accelerated pace but I know we're about an hour behind at this point. So that's it. Opening up for questions and conversation. Martine I didn't know if you had any context or thoughts that you wanted to add as well. No, that's fine. I'm here to answer any questions as well. Thank you. Thank you Laura for that presentation. I do have some comments and changes to language that I don't know if now is a good time but maybe when we come back for action deliberation I can make some suggestions but are there any questions or comments from other council members at this moment? We'll open it up to public comment. So if there are members of the public who like to comment on item number 21 interim recovery plan. Now is the time to call on using the numbers on your screen. Once you've called into the meeting please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. And when you've been called upon please unmute your device. You'll be given up to two minutes to comment on this item. I'll bring it back to council for action and deliberation. So as I mentioned before I did have a couple suggestions maybe to make and this can come with it. I'll just mention them now and maybe when there's a motion made that they can be incorporated but on the metrics for tracking recovery. I did have one concern that was raised around the third bullet point which is percent change in commercial vacancy rates. And I wonder if that was supposed to be rates or just percent change in commercial vacancy because you know the rate at which businesses become vacant over time. I don't know if that's the concern or if that's a metric we want to look at rather than looking at you know how is the vacancy changing over time. So are we seeing less vacancies. Yeah. I think I think that we accidentally deleted the word occupancy. So it should be occupancy rates I believe. And I think that would probably address your concern. It's commercial occupancy rates rather than rates that we're charging. It's the occupancy rate. And then the other one I just want to raise that exercise and caution around is the new housing units permanent because one of the things that I've heard over time as it relates to construction is that during COVID there actually hasn't been a reduction in the construction of housing. And so I think that we just need to be cautious that we're using housing as a metric when we might continue to see housing being produced and that's not being impacted by COVID. So I just want to raise those two points. And then the last one I just I think that you know we've mentioned a few times now concerns around the framework for considering new initiatives. And I just wonder if maybe you know if we could pass the force today with the exception that we allow new council members to weigh in on that since that's really going to impact the new council members we're going to be joining us in the next couple weeks. So that's just one and then within that I'd also like to mention that one thing that wasn't in the presentation with the eight hours that the city manager will make the determination as to how the request will be handled I wonder if that can actually be in conjunction with the mayor so the city manager and mayor will make the determination as to how to handle items that are less than four hours because you know I think that the mayor plays a pretty critical role in setting the agenda and if there's items that are less than four than eight hours then you know I think that it makes it seems appropriate to have the mayor weigh in on on that and as it relates to setting the agenda so Can I comment on that? That is the existing policy and basically what it does is it sets an administrative parameter so that if the request takes less than eight hours then you know we will do it but then it's up to the city manager to figure out how to do it which is just the existing approach that we've had. That doesn't change anything. Okay it just seemed it just seemed confusing so I just wanted to make sure that that was clarified. Well I think the idea was to continue to have that same standard basically is just reiterated and here's. Vice Mayor Myers and then. Actually mayor I'll go ahead in the interest of time I'll go ahead and lower my hand you covered some of my questions thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from council members if there's someone who might be willing to make a motion council member Watkins. Mayor I'll go ahead and move the recommendation to discuss and adopt a 12 to 18 month interim recovery plan for the city and I'll end my motion at that and the only comment I would add is that there will be a way to onboard the new council members to have their voice be heard in this 12 to 18 month recovery plan as well and however we can support the city manager's office in doing so would be I think really beneficial because we want their input and buy in as well. Well second the motion thank you. The motion by council member Watkins seconded by Vice Mayor Myers to discuss and adopt the 12 month 12 to 18 month interim recovery plan for the city. Is there any further discussion. Seeing none. I'll turn it over to the clerk to call the roll call vote. Council Member Byer. Aye. Matthew. Aye. Brown. Aye. Boulder. Aye. Watkins. Vice Mayor Myers. Aye. And Mayor Cummings. Aye. So that passes unanimously and for the record I just want to you know state and that I think it's really important that with the framework for considering new initiatives that we also have an opportunity for a new council member. To weigh in on that as well. So. If I can just add a little bit more to that the work plan will come back to you so there'll be an opportunity obviously we'll do as a council member Watkins noted during the onboarding process of bringing them up to speed on it and discuss it with the new council members. But also when it comes back to you in the form of a work plan which is really actually will be the need of the plan there'll be it will be the new council who will ultimately have to adopt that work plan. So there'll be an opportunity for that discussion as well in that context. And Martin I have a question to before we move on so we receive the work plan. Is it going to be broken down by department because I think it's one of the things that's come up and I think it's a concern is just being able to see which departments are going to be impacted. So for example, you know it does seem like you know economic development is going to have a big role planning will likely have a large role public works you know along with infrastructure but then you know there's other projects going on for example the work that's been going to help the community around policing and changes to public safety and seeing as how you know police and fire might not have that big of a role in the interim recovery. I think it would be really good for us to see what departments are going to be most impacted by this work so that if there's opportunities to work with other staff and department heads on other items that we can really see where other opportunities to work. So that's we typically identify all the departments that are impacted by the various initiatives or objectives that come underneath or that are part of the work plan and then the leaders. So we will do that with that let's move on to the next item which is item number 22 on our agenda. This item is housing inclusionary ordinance amendments and so I'll turn it over to Jessica with housing and community development manager. Good afternoon council and mayor. I'm actually having a technical difficulty and I'm wondering if Bonnie might be able to jump in and show the slides. Yeah, that this is Bonnie I just wanted to introduce this item as well. And I think I may be able to do it remotely. So give me just a second. But I did want to just sort of kick this off by saying that this is reflection really of a of a year's work and a year's work with started with a council subcommittee looking at our inclusionary ordinance with a recommendation to go to 20%. And then culminated last December with a direction to staff to work with a planning planning commission subcommittee on a subset of that 20%, which is what we're here today to talk about with a recommendation that has been approved both by the planning commission subcommittee, as well as the planning commission. And I'll turn it back to Jessica in just a second related to this presentation today. But I did want to mention that we are working on a couple of additional elements related to our inclusionary ordinance and we'd like to bring back to you in early 2021 and that includes an employer sponsored housing. We're working on a number of elements that we've been working on with the school district and really using the school district as a case study and we've been working really actively with them. And we are going to the planning commission subcommittee with draft language related to that next week at the planning commission on December 3rd and are hoping to bring that back to as I said early next year, along with some additional cleanup language that we do have our housing legal ordinance. You know, long term objectives from the inclusionary ordinance or other areas of cleanup at each time we do a change it requires a pretty thorough analysis. There's so many different linkages within the ordinance. So it does take some time to go through but really appreciate the hard work both of our staff and the planning commission subcommittee that's been working on this as well as the planning commission. So thank you for that. And with that, I will turn it back to Jessica. And Jessica, it'll take me just a minute. Let me see if I can pull that up for you. I think I might have gotten it. I apologize. Almost. For you. Point there we go. Can anyone see? Yeah, you got it. Awesome. Thank you so much. All right. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. What we have before you today is a recommendation to amend the inclusionary ordinance city code 2416 to include an option to allow rental residential developments the ability to make 5% of their required 20% affordable units available to the Santa Cruz County Housing Authority tenant based subsidy holders and only if there is no subsidy holder available to occupy the unit that these 5% units be restricted to households at 120% of the area median income and rent levels. For county direction or city council direction, the planning commission formed a housing subcommittee earlier this year to focus on the inclusionary ordinance, including the potential for adding a tenant based subsidy option in the ordinance. The subcommittee met around nine times to review well over 15 jurisdictions inclusionary ordinances and collected feedback from local agencies and stakeholder groups for this. So even though everyone has been super impacted by the pandemic and recent wildfires we worked really hard to catch up and draft this amendment recommendation as well as others that Bonnie just mentioned that we plan to bring to council. In the new year after the after the planning commission reviews and for this inclusionary ordinance that we're recommending for proposal today. We spent an extensive amount of time with the housing authority to ensure the policy proposed would have the best chance to be successful at getting more subsidy holders housed. An older version of the proposed amendment was first heard by the planning commission on September 17. And at that meeting the planning commission provided direction to bring the item back to the housing subcommittee for further review on how to strengthen the language to encourage tenant based subsidy voucher holders. So then we brought it back to the planning commission on October 15. In preparation for that October 15 planning commission meeting staff and the subcommittee compare compared the latest housing authority payment standard rents with state regulated moderate income rents and confirm there really is not a whole lot of difference between those two rent tables. There's for the two bedroom units it's less than $100 difference and it goes it does go up to 600 for three bedroom in terms of a rent differential. But really there's there's not a whole lot of difference between the two rent tables. However, the decision was made to use the lower rent of each of either tables in the in this instance in the ordinance. So after reaching out for further feedback from the housing authority and legal council the subcommittee reviewed the amendments and here is the first the first of the amendments that we're proposing today. So in the definition section of the chapter 2416.15 in the affordable rents were basically giving a clarification providing clarification on what moderate income households and how that's calculated per. This is a standard state formula that's up here before you and then we also provided a definition for what the payment standard unit rent would be. This is a continuation of the same definition section we're just providing a definition for those 5% units and calling them payment standard units. And then we're also providing a definition for what is a tenant based subsidy holder. Alright, so then in section 2416.25 this basically is just demonstrating that no discrimination should be given towards a tenant based subsidy holder when they're going through the rental application process. 2416.030. So this is where we're kind of getting into the meat of the of the ordinance amendment proposal. So this walks you through the process for how how how these 5% is is rented to a tenant based subsidy holder. But essentially, as stated earlier in the presentation, we worked really hard with the housing authority to vet this process and make sure it's followed with the internal process of the housing authority. I'm sorry, would you say I thought someone was talking to me. Okay, so, so basically this walks you through what the process is. Then in section nine C it further defines how is this rent being calculated. And again that goes back to that information I provided you earlier when we were looking at the different rent tables for a moderate income rent versus the payment standard rent through the housing authority. So basically we're using we're applying whichever rent is lower if it's if it's for if it's for a non subsidy holder that's renting the unit if it's for a subsidy holder then it's always going to be the housing authority payment standard rent. E goes through the requirements for the contract that the housing authority requires when an owner and rent from a subsidy holder or when when a subsidy holder is renting from a from a property owner. And then I do E is going through the monitoring and compliance and what what is the process there and I know there's been some questions from the public on this. So there's a 30 day marketing period where the property manager or owner has to list the unit on the housing authorities website. So this is something that the housing authority can actually track to see if if the you know if the owner actually did posted on the housing authorities website. In addition, the owner must keep records showing what documentation you know what they did to follow the process. And that proof must be retained for five years in addition to be done to its own monitoring annually. And in working with the housing authority they're also open to providing reports to us on a request basis if they see that if they're tracking and they can see that you know an owner doesn't seem to be accessing the 5% that they're actually doing it or renting to non subsidy holders versus subsidy holders for those payment standard units. Okay, so then section F is basically it's really encouraging and a property owner to rent to rent the payment standard units first for subsidy holders. And what's the whole idea behind this provision is really to keep the low income inclusionary units available for low income households versus filling them up with the payment standard. You know the payment standard rent when and then subsidy holders when we really want to try to focus on keeping the subsidy holders and the payment standard rent or units and the low income households in the low income inclusionary units the rest of that 15%. So again before you is the recommendation. Introduce the publication for an ordinance amending the title 24 of the Santa Cruz municipal code the zoning ordinance part one of chapter 2416 affordable housing provisions including sections 2416 10 through 2416 60. All right well thank you for the presentation and I really want to thank staff and our commissioners for all the hard work that they put into this. I know that it was quite an effort to try to figure out how to make this 20% work but it seems like you know there was a unanimous decision by the planning commission and it seems like this might be something that we can see how it works out moving forward and can really benefit our community providing more affordable housing. With that I'd like to see if there's any council members who have any questions or comments for staff at this time. Vice Mayor Myers. Yeah thank you just go for the presentation and yeah I want to express my. My thanks to the planning commission housing subcommittee. And our staff this bump in the 20% really you know getting there making it 20% is is one thing getting there is another and actually having to be successful with regards to building you know building housing is is is really what we need to be measuring ourselves on. Outside of the ordinance today which I know we're doing the first reading. I'm just curious when we come when other additional amendments come back. The staff have any ideas in terms of how we assess these policies moving ahead. I feel like we're at a point in time where the state housing policy is almost overtaking our tweaks to some of the work we're doing within our own ordinances. And I'm just reflecting on a couple of the approvals that I think you know one approval occurred last week. And certainly a few more on on the books you know where we're looking at potentially a couple of hundred units potentially being approved very quickly here in town. I'm just curious from a staff perspective. Whether or not you've you've thought about an evaluation kind of process for these for these policy tweaks. Thank you. Yeah I can speak from the housing side. I mean we're tracking I mean as you saw in the study session that occurred a few weeks ago. We're tracking on all the legislation that's going on out there but there there is a ton going on. But we are trying to track on that legislation and mirror it with with our current ordinance. I can give you an example is something that we're tracking on in the school district. There's a lot of legislation that's been going through on the school district and there's you know potential for a school district project on the west side. And so trying to try to make sure we're aligned correctly to be able to you know be ready when when that comes about. And I think that that's why we're also coming to talk with you about the employer sponsored housing item in a few weeks next year. So yes we are tracking on it. But I'm I'm merely speaking from the housing side so I don't know if I or we want to jump in you know on on any of the other pieces. Sure. Good afternoon. Mayor and council members. As Jessica mentioned, there are quite a few bills and we heard about a number of them. The earlier in this month with the study session but AB 2162 allowing for affordability through for qualifying 100% affordable projects with supportive housing going through ministerial process. And with SB 330 requiring council or decision making body to make specific findings related to adverse public health and safety impacts supported by substantial evidence in the record. In order to deny projects that meet all the objective standards of the city, you know the state is stepping in as you mentioned, vice mayor Myers and putting in some very strong regulatory constraints on what we can and cannot do. And, you know, I'm not sure if you're you're speaking to this specifically in relation to the the implications on housing of the inclusionary ordinance, but with the inclusionary ordinance. You know, this is certainly going to I mean Jessica looked into this so she can speak to this better than me but you know from the perspective of financing. This provides a little bit of wiggle room. More so than the 20% at 80%, which is still an option as I understand it. Correct, Jessica. Yeah, pursue this as an alternative. So I think we will want to keep an eye out on that right now. A lot of the projects that we have are predating the current 20% requirement. And we do need to look at each project individually. You know, when projects are purchased, you know, if they're small ownership units, that's going to have a different implication than, you know, larger units in terms of how they're able to meet the inclusionary requirement because that delta between the market rate price for small ownership unit is going to be less if you've got a very small unit. So, you know, we're going to have to keep an eye on it and between economic development and planning will continue to keep you appraised on what we're hearing in the community and looks like Bonnie might want to add something as well. Thank you, Lee. The only thing I would add to that is that with the past direction we had as part of the housing blueprint recommendations and the recent direction from council to track housing legislation, it's something that we are constantly sort of monitoring. And with the recognition that there are increasingly each year more and more bills and legislation related to housing. It's something around our inclusionary ordinance that we realize we're going to need to be on top of. And as we've mentioned before, and I mentioned at the beginning, our inclusionary ordinance is very complicated to the extent that we can streamline it. We would love to take the opportunities to do so. It is sort of an ongoing process that we've been looking at for the last couple of years. Yeah, thanks for those comments. I think that, you know, with the loss of houses that were experienced in the fire and sort of the blood force kind of approached by some of the state legislation. I just worry that achieving the mix that we need and, you know, attracting the private market to actually help with some of the with the building of some of these units. We it just seems it just seems something that we want to keep keep our eye on. So thank you for those comments. Very helpful. Comments from council members, the public comment. So public would like to speak to us on item number 22, which is the affordable housing inclusionary ordinance amendment. Now's the time to call in using the numbers on your screen. Once you've got called in, please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. And you'll need to listen for when you've been called on. Once you've been called on, please press star six on your phone to unmute and you'll be given two minutes to speak members of the public who are interested in commenting on this item. I'll bring it back to council for action deliberation. I actually have a couple of questions, maybe for someone economic development. It was brought to my attention within the language of the ordinance. Two items one was within the and it's just to try to make sure that these that this is consistent but within with number six, the in lieu housing fee in item number. Six, a one for all ownership residential development or residential subdivisions that would create two with no more than four additional dwelling units or parcels at one location. The applicant may like to pay in lieu fee for the fraction of an inclusionary unit equal to 0.15 times the number of units or parcels in the residential development or subdivision reduced by 60%. I was just curious with that 0.15 is reflective of the 15% inclusionary because if it is, I'm wondering if it would make sense for it to be increased to 0.20. If that's what's going to happen, if we're going to increase the inclusionary to 20% because that seems like it would bring it, it would make it consistent. Mayor, I'm going to turn it over to Jessica in just a second, but this did come up internally at the staff level and we were discussing this as well. You may recall from our conversations and our detailed discussions at council and with the council subcommittee, you know, well over a year ago. There has been some analysis conducted independent analysis of the challenge for small developers and those are doing small projects under five units particularly. So that is something that we had some analysis regarding the challenges of actually developing those units. We would need to go back and that's something that we noted when we were looking through those as well as part of the recommended changes that are coming back to you in early 2021. Regarding that we need to see if they're linked together related to the 20% and if so we'll come back to you with a recommendation around that. And I don't know, Jessica, if you would like to add to that. Yeah, a lot of these items were also brought up at the subcommittee level and so we're hoping to that is one of the next things that we're planning to bring back to council in early next year after it gets vetted by the planning commission. The next question I had was on item numbers seven land dedication so similar similarly for residential developments with an inclusionary requirement of seven or more. Inclusionary units and applicant may propose to donate a minimum of 15% of the net developable area of the residential development to the city for the construction of a project with it goes on. And I was just wondering similarly with that 15% donation if that would make sense to reset to 20 as well to be consistent with. We're looking at that as well to bring back at the same time. Okay. I just wanted to check on those things because we had heard from members of the public so appreciate it. And saying you muted. I think I was off me at the moment for so long. But it wasn't loud. So yeah, I wanted to say thank you to really to staff much appreciation for going through the really complicate our Jewish process to try to figure out how to make this work as you all know I this is a major issue for me. I am really happy to be seeing this come forward and, you know, and to think about the possibilities for increasing our affordable housing stock through this because we do have a lot of projects that will be coming our way. And so I'm just really happy to see like the problem solving that went on to make it work. And I hope that that we can come back and see evidence of that in the future. I with that I will. I'm very pleased to move the recommendation of the staff recommendation and planning commission recommendation to introduce for publication and ordinance amending title 24 of the Santa Cruz. Municipal code of our zoning ordinance part one of chapter 24.16 affordable housing provisions, including sections 24.16.010 through 24.16060. Just emotional. I'll give you a sense of how complicated this is. Thank you. I'll go ahead and second the motion. Councilmember Matthews. Thank you. Long complicated process. Thank you for all the efforts coming up. Thank you, everybody. I just had one question. So I am still a little confused. So let's say somebody wanted, because we talked about that mid housing in one of the previous meetings, somebody wants to build something that was more like a duplex triplex or four plaques. So would that would they be subject to to this ordinance. So they do mean the rental subsidy. If they can take that option, if they would like to, if this is one of the options available to an owner is that they can, they can request to use this rental subsidy option, but they don't have to. They could just could just do the 20% and 80% of AMI. I guess that I'm still like confused. So let's say they're building a brand new tripla or less than five units. I think I might be fine. So I think your question is if they're building a, you know, a three unit or four unit, are they subject to the inclusionary inclusionary ordinance and yes they are. They do have the option under a certain amount of paying and in Lucy in lieu of providing the affordability on site, but everyone in the city is subject to our inclusionary ordinance all new development. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I guess I just wanted to state before the vote. I'm actually not going to support the change in the ordinance. I do feel like this. I mean, this will work for some of the bigger projects, but I have some concerns about the kinds of projects that we need to produce within our neighborhoods. Some of these smaller projects. I do feel like it especially the inclusionary this high for the rentals is really going to disincentivize creation of the types of diversity that we need in the in our housing stock. I appreciate the interest in trying to, you know, produce affordable housing through this method. But I just think that it's going to prevent some of these smaller ones that actually these infill types of projects that actually provide really important infill opportunities for our neighborhoods. And so I fear that our pattern will be not really what we all have envisioned once once this gets in place and we sort of see how it plays out in the market. So I appreciate the I appreciate the intent behind it. And I'm thankful that the state is actually paving the way in many ways to help us get get projects moving. But I do just want to state that I'm not going to support the amendment or amended changes at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I just just in response to the comments by Mayor Myers, I do understand your concerns and also councilmember Golder around these smaller projects. But let's not forget that they've already they've always been subject to the requirements at the 15% level on for that brief window when we were the council reduced it to 10%. But I guess I'm just I'm a little confused by Mayor Myers by your opposition, given that if we don't do this, then developers will not have the ability to capture those additional rents through the subsidy program. So it seems to me that if we don't support, if we don't approve this, then developers are sitting there with the 20%, which is with the problem that we were were told, we were told it would be a problem. So I guess I'm just I'm just not clear about that. But I understand that if we don't support the policy in general, there will be other, you know, other points about that. I need to I'm sorry for interrupting. I need to make a point of clarification. I had staff texting me about what I just said, so I need to clarify. So part of our housing team has been, you know, furiously in the background, make, you know, confirming everything what we're saying and looking at details. And so I need to correct what I said earlier. So ownership projects where they're not going to rent them can opt to pay a fee or provide a unit through our ordinance. However, for very small rental projects, they are not subject so for units or less are not subject to our inclusionary requirement. So it's really important that I clarify what I just spoke a minute ago. Wait, so what do you mean by ownership projects? Sorry for interrupting. So those projects that are are built to be sold are the ownership projects and and Jessica, you're on so I don't know if you want to add to that. No, that's right. I just I was trying to raise my hand and I didn't know how to clarify. I apologize for the confusion. Yeah. So they're mapped. Council Member Golder. So if you can map a project so that they can be the unit can be individually sold. And we do have allowances that allow for mapped units to also be rented. And that's where some of the confusion comes in sometimes because then we often will negotiate an interim arrangement for those that have mapped but are rented in the interim that provides affordability in that interim period as well. So it is it is complicated. I mean, I'm having to respond to Council Member Brown. I, you know, we've we've we've gone from a pretty comprehensive study with 10% outside of downtown 15%. We're now, you know, at 20% for both rental and market or for both rental and purchase. So it's just in my opinion, it's just we've just moved up into an area that I just I just will be curious to see how everything works out. So I'm I'm just not supportive of the leap we've made. And so I'll leave it at that. So thanks for your comment. Thank you. Are there any further comments from Council Members hearing none. I think that there's a lot of work that my head just died. So I feel like there's a lot of work that just went into trying to see how we can make the 20% work. I'm really confident that what the staff is proposing and what the Planning Commission is proposing. I think it's an opportunity for us to see how we can make this work and to just, you know, and if it doesn't work, then we can come back. I think that, you know, we've seen, you know, we programs don't have mechanisms that allow them to work. Then we often see them fail. And I think this is an opportunity where we can implement something that will help me and address the needs and concerns of developers. It will help us provide more affordable housing in our community. And I think that it's the right stuff. And then something we should at least give a chance. So with that, we have a motion that's made by Council Member Brown, seconded by Mayor Cummings. I'd like to ask the clerk to please call the vote on this item. Thank you Mayor. Council Member Byers? Aye. Matthews? Aye. Brown? Aye. Golder? Did you say aye? Yes. Watkins? Vice Mayor Myers? No. And Mayor Cummings? So that passes with Council Members Brown, Byers, Watkins, Matthews, Golder, and Mayor Cummings voting in favor. And Vice Mayor Meyer voting opposed. Okay, so we are, and so if then hopefully we get through this item, we can have a break from 5.30 until, or communications. So I'll, with that, the next item on our agenda is the Santa Cruz World Master Plan and Environmental Determination. For members of the public who would like to comment on this item, now's the time to call in using the numbers that are on your screen. Once you call in, please listen through your headset or your phone and know that if you are watching through television or through online streaming, when you, it's really important that you listen through your phone so you don't miss your opportunity to speak on this item. And so with that, I'll turn it over to Bonnie Lipscomb, our Director of Economic Development, to take us off. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make just a few brief comments before turning the presentation over to David McCormick, who's our asset manager and property manager for the wharf. I just wanted to sort of put this in the context of the last sort of decade around the wharf. So the consideration this afternoon of the Wharf Master Plan and certification and consideration of certification of the R has been over seven years in the making. It was actually in 2013, the year before the Wharf Centennial Celebration, when we first kicked off the public outreach process for the Wharf Master Plan. We embarked on the master planning process as a result of considerable feedback over the years from our regulatory partners at the state and federal level that we were long overdue for our guiding document and updated regulatory framework. In fact, the last master plan for the wharf was approved in 1980. So it is definitely time for a new master plan. In the last decade, each time, and we frequently have attempted and applied and often been successful in the past, but applying for grant funds, most recently, Economic Development Administration for major repairs, or for new opportunities, or to the Coastal Commission for approval of outdoor seating, our lack of an updated master plan for the wharf became a point of discussion and a directive from our partners. In fact, EDA provided considerable funds, grant funding to enable the current master plan to be brought before you today. We're excited to bring it today for a full discussion. I know that we will have one. And I'll now turn the presentation over to Dave, who has prepared a thorough overview of the plan, its purpose and the need. He also will go over the public process and recommendations regarding both the master plan and the EIR to date. John Bambachi, the wharf supervisor, is also available and will go over the current state of the infrastructure on the wharf and the need to move forward on critical repairs. And with that, I'll turn it over to Dave. Thank you. You just see here. Okay, I guess I have to phone in the computer on muted, so just checking. Well, thank you everyone for allowing us to come here and present this today and for your consideration. Today we want to talk a little bit about the wharf master plan and the EIR that goes with it and why it's really critical that we move this forward now. And as Bonnie mentioned, my name is Dave McCormick. I'm the city's asset manager and I oversee the city owned properties and redevelopment as needed, such as the wharf and Del Mar and things. So I want to just give an overview of what we'll be talking about today. Initially we'll have a quick overview of the wharf history and then a little bit about wanting to spell some myths about what the master plan will do and what it won't. What is the master plan, what the process was leading to it, and then sort of what's included, what our needs are, and then finally the EIR before we adjourn to comments and questions. As you can see here on the screen, the wharf was originally built in 1914 or began in 1913 and it was overwhelmingly supported through the support of the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce at the time, but also just the voters in general. As you can see it was passed by 3434 to 74. I can imagine there's a lot of policy goals that you'd like to pass the margin like that. But it's pretty impressive that the wharf was done so with so much community support. This is just a scene of opening day. You can see the crowds came out in mass to visit the new wharf that was the last of six wharves built along the waterfront. You can see a couple of them still in place in this picture that's I think Pleasure Pier and the railroad wharf there in the last. When it was originally built, it was, as I mentioned, a commercial wharf. It still is a commercial wharf, although it has a lot of recreational and tourist functions. It was originally a shipping center and actually passenger vessels came up and down the Pacific Coast, frequenting Santa Cruz from, you know, anywhere from San Diego up to Seattle. Historically, as mentioned, it's a shipping pier along with fishing and other ocean related industries. As those began to decline in the 1940s and 50s, tourism began to take greater hold on the wharf. And you can see in the picture there how it kind of a little bit of a tourist kish at one point. The large warehouse buildings still there in the back, but still very much a fishing wharf with the boats alongside. But increasingly becoming a tourist center. One of the constants about the wharf is that it has changed over time. The picture at the top shows you what it looked like originally. And then today, a number of expansions have occurred adapting the wharf to different economic conditions and community needs, helping to sustain it through business partnerships and really use as a wharf. That's one of the critical historical values of the wharf. As you can see, when things change on the wharf, new opportunities present themselves. So that historic warehouse building that once anchored the end of the wharf came down in the 1960s, along with about 45 feet of the end of the wharf, you can see in the bottom left, which had deteriorated to a point that it couldn't be repaired. And so it was taken down along with the warehouse building and replaced with a fishing park. The first generation of what we now see as the sea land viewing holes were produced through a partnership with the California Wildlife Conservation Board. Back to that series of expansions, this gives you some idea about how the major expansions of the wharf occurred. There's a few changes in there, but generally that's the course of adaptation and growth as the wharf has changed to support what the community needed. The most recent ones would be the Agora and the Commons. Those two additions created a lot of the public space that is now in the wharf. Those were added in the 1980s. As Bonnie mentioned, the current plan for the wharf dates back to the 1980 Beach Area plan. Along with that was the Santa Cruz Wharf. Was it the Municipal Wharf design framework? No, it's not really coming up. I thought I could hold it up. Looks something like that design framework. So that has this plan, as you can see on the top there, which is a very distinct proposal for the wharf. Very different and much less, in my opinion at least, sensitive to the historical context of the wharf. It has some of the geometries that we might have found on the Pacific Garden Mall, but along with this odd fell shape extension at the end. But it goes to illustrate that while a lot of good things came from that master plan, like the Agora and the Commons buildings we know today, where Alitas are in the stage area, not everything in that master plan was built. It's a characteristic of master plans. Sometimes they always put out a vision, but not all of it comes to pass. It's really a reflection of what the community needs at any given time. Regardless, 40-year-old master plan, it's well time for an update. The wharf today, it's important to get a little context on that. One thing to note is that since the 1980s, when we passed that plan and expanded the wharf, the population in San Cruz County has increased by about 45%. Nearly 90,000 people or so. And since 1914 when it was built, it's increased more than 10 times. So while we think about the wharf as being a tourist center and attracting more than 2 million visitors a year, it also supports our local community, which has grown substantially since the wharf has last been really reinvested in. And I think John will go on to elaborate at that, that there's a feeling that a lot of the spaces there are getting increasingly crowded and tight, particularly in the COVID environment, we notice that more often. It's also, the wharf is also a top-through regional attraction going to visit Santa Cruz. It's got upwards of 25 business partners, the vast majority of which are locally owned businesses, but with partners that help sustain the wharf and reinvest their earnings here in the community. More than 400 employees call the wharf home. That's where they get their livelihood. And then roughly 10% of the city's restaurant workforce, of course pre-COVID, call the wharf their place of work. So it's not an insignificant impact economically with over $30 million in yearly sales between the businesses or right around there. And it generates about 2.9 million on average for the city revenues. Most years, all of that goes right back into the wharf and sustaining it. So it's kind of a model for sustainability, although it needs an update and it needs a lot of corrective changes that the master plan puts forward to help us continue that into the future. Finally, a 2018 insurance assessment valued the wharf at roughly $119 million in value. So it's a really high-value asset that takes constant care and stewardship. And we should keep that in mind. Moving on to what the master plan will do. We really want to dispel some of the notions that have been out there in the public realm. There's been a fair bit of misinformation. So first and foremost, the Mark's master plan will set rules and goals and guidelines for what we do going forward and how the wharf will develop and adapt. It will expand public access and it will increase parking. Although the parking spaces, a few of them may shrink with restriping. They will go to the city standard of 8.5 feet. That's a proposal. Some of the spaces today are 10-foot plus, which is inefficient. I mean, it can be comfortable if you get one of those spaces, but it also means that on a busy summer weekend, that many more people aren't able to get out to the wharf, which affects the bottom lines of our businesses, but it also affects public access to the coast. It's important. The master plan will create opportunities for us as a community to determine what are the new businesses that go out there, what sort of cultural and community assets could be developed on the wharf? How do we make it better serve our needs in providing access to the bay? It will also increase the sustainability and resilience of the wharf against changing climates, and today we're also challenged with economic conditions. So adopting some of the changes in the master plan will help support those. It will also increase our eligibility for funding and investment in the wharf. This is really key as we know that the wharf has a lot of needs, and the city is not in a position to fully fund those. And then lastly, it will make it that much easier for us as a city and our business partners to get the permits they need, both for minor improvements and, as Bonnie mentioned, outdoor seating, which has been very popular, as well as things like routine maintenance. We've been tied up for two years with various state and federal agencies just trying to get maintenance permits to drive some piles and deck work. So it's a lot easier once you have a certified EIR and a master plan to go with it. All right, and next, the question is, so what will it not do? A lot of this stuff is what we've seen batting around social media, and I want to be very clear that it's not the case. The wharf master plan will not immediately authorize or fund any development. The city does have limited redevelopment funds that are currently earmarked for the gate relocation. That's the primary anticipated use of them. However, all of that is subject to additional approvals by council. You know, it'll have to come back here for budgeting. We'll have to come back with potentially bids and contracting. So it doesn't make anything happen tomorrow. It also will not allow ocean liners and cruise ships. A lot of people felt that was a little unclear in the original master plan. So we've gone back with staff's recommendation to make it absolutely crystal clear that ocean liners and large cruise ship type vessels are not welcome here. Nor are there shuttles to serve them. We're really looking at fishing boats, bay cruises like the O'Neill's or the Chardonnay, the occasional research vessel from Mambari or NOAA. But really, you know, we have no interest in becoming the Monterey wharf and supporting cruise lines. The master plan will also not remove sea lion viewing holes. Although what happens at the end of the wharf is up for discussion in the master plan. It does propose a landmark building that appears to get in the way of the sea lion viewing holes. Staff's recommendation is, again, to commit to preserving or relocating those with any changes to the end of the wharf. So we know that the end of the wharf has significant structural needs and will have to be readdressed in the next, I don't know, in the coming years over the life of this plan as it hasn't been significantly improved in 60 years. We don't know yet what that will look like and the public process around it, but we know that the sea lion viewing holes are very important to our community and we want to make sure that we preserve them or we find the best way to keep them going forward. It also will not mandate tall buildings. Staff's recommendation is to reduce the maximum height to 40 feet. The master plan originally called for 40 feet on the tall landmark and cultural buildings. We propose bringing that down to 40 so it's consistent with the existing zoning that's been in place for decades. As well as reducing the height in all other buildings to 35 feet, which wasn't the plan previously. So there was a potential for height increases over what's currently there, but none of that is mandated. It will be driven by the projects, by the financing required for those projects and for the community need. When something comes forward, there will be a lot of discussions and design review that will lead to what ultimately gets built. The master plan just sets an envelope and tells us how far we can go and what is the maximum criteria. The EIR also found that it will not significantly impact bird or marine life. There's a few mitigation measures in place through the EIR and the mitigation monitoring program that will help us address any of those potential impacts, but the research suggests that we're not going to be severely impacting any of the wildlife out there. Finally, our next, it's not going to close the door on community engagement on work projects. So just because the master plan is approved doesn't mean we're just going to go out there and build whatever we want. All of it's going to be subject to going back out to the community, talking through what happens next, what's needed, and building coalitions to hopefully make some of the vision a reality. And lastly, it won't reduce fishing or sightseeing opportunities. So the consolidation of boat landings will help open up more of the side of the wharf for fishing and sightseeing, as will the expansions, the walkways. And there's just a lot of opportunities for additional recreation on the wharf that will develop through this plan. All right, so what is the master plan? So the master plan is a cohesive vision for the wharf. It's the result of the public engagement process that got us here, as well as weighing that engagement with the needs and the findings of the engineering report. The master plan is a framework. It does not prescribe what has to happen. It just sets the rules and gives us those placeholders for developing solutions in the future. It's a 20 to 30 year plan. So we can't possibly envision what the community will need in 20 years. But what we're doing with this plan is we're setting out the rules and the opportunity sites for our community to decide what the wharf must be going into the future. It puts us on a pathway to sustainability. So balancing economics, nature and the environment and social needs. And finally, it's a critical requirement for financing and permitting city and private partner projects. So without having the approved or certified EIR and a master plan, it's that much harder for us to get any outside investment in the wharf. Again, on that public process, for anyone that might think that this happened in a vacuum, it was a significant undertaking. Beginning in August of 2013, there were a series of eight stakeholder meetings, as well as ongoing focus group meetings. There were 1,400 mailed notices, as well as ongoing stakeholder engagement. And then there were updates to city council, planning commission, parks and recreation commission, all within the first nine months or so of the project. The draft of the plan, the draft of the plan was released in April 2014 and was released to a public milestone meeting, which again had mailed notices, a twice weekly ad in the Sentinel, a press release going out to over 75 organizations, a briefing paper that was prepared and released to the Santa Cruz Neighbors Organization, a webpage and a showcase at the 100th anniversary celebration of the wharf. All of these were opportunities for public feedback and comment, and they helped develop the plan as we know it today. Leading into the EIR and historical timeline. A lot of this, these are all meetings and important dates as far as leading to the EIR. The ones with the little arrows on the left are all opportunities for public engagement and public comment. So beginning in 2014, the council accepted the master plan engine report and directed staff to begin the environmental review through an initial study. That led to a first release of the mitigated neg deck for public comment. It was subsequently brought back and revised for 30 days, and then it was brought to, once that was closed, it was brought to Planning Commission for consideration in November 2016. Planning Commission unanimously approved it. City Council then heard it less than a week later, but based on a public petition that was circulated online from the wharf and other comments that were received, the city staff revised the recommendation to council and suggested that they develop an EIR rather than rely on the mitigated neg deck and initial study for the master plan. As a result, council approved that or directed staff to repair the EIR, and that process was started the following year. In June 2017, a scoping session was held in which the public to comment on issues that they were concerned might provide environmental impacts as a result of the wharf master plan. That led into the administrative draft of the EIR, which was prepared in October 2017. And then due to some changes on council as well as staffing changes and other issues, unfortunately the EIR was slowed down. So it didn't immediately move forward, but we got rolling on as soon as we could, and this past spring we released the notice of completion and availability of the draft EIR. And the public comment period was held from March to May of 2020 and was extended for an additional two weeks due to the COVID pandemic and the challenges of access. So traditionally we need a 45 day minimum public comment period. We extended it for two weeks, which is one day shy of the maximum recommended in the CEQA guidelines. So CEQA general or the state recommends no more than 60 days of review. The final notice availability for the EIR was this September, and we subsequently followed up with three commission hearings. First an update to the Parks and Recreation Commission, then a hearing at Historic Preservation Commission, and then Planning Commission, both of whom supported adoption of the master plan. So going into the master plan itself, it's important to note that there's really two great goals with the master plan. First is creating a more sustainable wharf. So as I mentioned, balancing the economics, the social needs, and the environmental stewardship, it really fits this project well, that triple bottom line. And it's just a plug for our green wharf project where we're investigating sustainable technologies and energy creation on the wharf. And the second goal is creating a more resilient wharf. One that'll be more up to the challenge of a changing climate, as well as I included the letter from Dino up there, because we understand also the economics are a serious challenge, now perhaps more than ever. But we need to keep in mind that the cherished local businesses and institutions we have out there really subsist on a night veg, and they've been pushed to some extent to the ability that they can help sustain the wharf. So we really need to do something to help them as well. But within the wharf, what's new? Sorry, within the wharf master plan. So the first element is expanded gateway entrance. So this would move the existing parking gates in about halfway to the line of buildings from Beach Street. The thought here is that it would help alleviate traffic backups on Beach Street, as well as making a more efficient queuing and exiting of people parking on the wharf. The proposal includes both self-serve pay stations, as well as I believe there may be a pay kiosk or a service kiosk. The gateway entrance is proposed to include some artful sort of monument signage to help identify the wharf as a tourist destination and invite people out there. It also provides security gates and things like that for the three hours a day the wharf closes, as well as, you know, in inclement weather and other unforeseen conditions where security might be needed. One of the really exciting elements of the master plan is this east promenade. So along the eastern edge, the wharf would expand by up to about 20, 26, 28 feet in order to provide both an emergency vehicle access as well as a, as well as additional sort of fishing areas and a bike path. So really a bicycle pedestrian path that would go along the east side of the wharf. There you go. Alongside that would be a consolidated small boat landing. So currently the wharf has five landings, although several of them are in somewhat unusable shape and none of them are really accessible to people with disabilities. So the small boat landing proposed in the master plan would be universally accessible, allowing wheelchairs and other people with special needs to get down to the water and enjoy water recreation. And it would support our current boat rentals and kayak rentals as well as, you know, conceivably paddle boarding and other recreational uses directly from the wharf into the wharf. That east promenade would continue from by the gateway entrance down to the east parking lot and along the east side down really to the end of the wharf. It would expand a little bit on the end of the wharf where additional ledgers are proposed. These are the sort of struts you see at the end of the wharf that the sea lions love to hang out on. But the really lateral support that's intended to keep the pilings from shifting out in the deeper waters where the forces of the waves can be particularly strong. So the improved ledger system that's envisioned in the master plan would reinforce that end of the wharf. And who knows, maybe the sea lions would like it too. That's been proposed, but we couldn't say for sure. The south landing is also proposed out there. This is one that, you know, opponents to the master plan keep saying it's for cruise ships, which is of course not the case. It's designed for a vessel of about the size of a small coast guard vessel with a maximum length of about 120 feet, 200 tons of displacement. And while that's not really the size of vessel we expect to see on the average, part of the reason of that size is to ensure that it's got the robust engineering needed to withstand being in the water pretty much a year round in the sort of harsh open ocean. So it had to be designed in a way that was sufficient to both support the potential for vessels like that but really to ensure that landing would have longevity. Next element is the, oh okay, next element is the stepped overlook. So the master plan proposes additional viewing area at the end of the wharf that would be almost like an amphitheater type seating that would step down a little bit from the end of the wharf, allow you a little bit closer access to the waves and the sea lions, but really give you a more intimate experience of being a half mile out in the open ocean. The proposed landmark building. So as I mentioned, this is really a placeholder for what sort of structure may come in the future. I'll talk about a little bit more in a minute, but it's the master plan proposes a building that was reminiscent of the original warehouse building and could serve cultural uses like a museum or maybe a public market or any sort of just large open active space to help anchor the end of the wharf and help draw more tourists down to the end. While we think that the half mile length of the wharf is really an asset and a unique feature making the wharf really alone in its class in the world, there's a handful of wharfs of this length, sorry wooden wharfs of this link in the ocean worldwide and not everyone chooses to walk that entire distance. You know, depending upon your fitness and stuff, a little bit extra of enticement down there really goes a long way to ensure that people are going out there, experiencing all the wharf has to offer, visiting the businesses and just really taking it all in. So the end of the wharf would also be expanded on the western side to continue the walkway really as almost a 360 degree circuit around the wharf. The coastal commission has really pushed and supported the idea of walkable access all the way around the wharf to improve public access to the water and to the bay. This also again provides additional lateral stability, also gives a little bit more room to work with as far as what happens out at the end of the wharf. As I mentioned, we'll have to sort of re-envision it at some point in the future. You know, ultimately when the future that often comes into question, but also with the landmark build in the restrooms and all the lateral support that we're getting with the expansion, there'll be a lot of opportunity to ensure that the sea lionholes continue and that other uses really fit what the community wants there. Next is the events pavilion. So the current stage structure that we have out there, it gets, in a normal year, it gets some decent use through the summer, but it suffers from a lack of seasonality. It really isn't available or highly utilized throughout the year. And events are key to bringing more people out there during the off season when the businesses are really subsisting on earnings they made during the summer. So the idea is by enclosing that stage area with an open seasonable structure that could be open and closed throughout whatever type of weather, we'll have that increased sort of commercially, I guess, I don't know if it's just commercial, but event use of the wharf. You know, it could be public meetings that we kind of hope to take off the zoom again some day or, you know, cultural offerings or weddings or any number of things could happen there. But it wouldn't matter really what time of year it is because we'd have that extra flexibility. And then the last bit is this western walkway. So this is a proposed to go along the backside of the buildings at a reduced elevation. So below deck level would allow people viewing access under the wharf somewhat, a little bit closer access to the water. But one of the real key reasons for this is a resilience feature. It creates a buffer zone for the piling under the buildings which are vulnerable. And so I'll go into that in a minute. And lastly is the welcome center. So down where the Marcella is today at that extension there's a proposal for sort of a gateway building that would be there to welcome people and orient them to the wharf. It might host an open water swim lounge. It might, you know, be home to community groups that use the wharf and water. It would have approximate access to the water on the west side if the western walkway were built. But it's really there to invite people in, sort of set expectations and orient people to all that the wharf has to offer. Okay. So again, looking at the wharf master plan in comparison to the wharf today, the orange areas are looking at potential expansion under the master plan. So you've got the extended east promenade. It's the most prominent feature that would expand the acreage of the wharf by about two and a half acres or a little over two acres. That particular element, which is, you know, 30% increase over the seven half acres today. So it creates a lot more public space, provides that emergency access along the wharf in the event of an accident and stabilizes the wharf against more turbulancies. So along the lines of greater public access, those expansions, the east promenade on the east side would have these sort of fishing areas, almost like a little lounge set off beside the bike path that pedestrians and bicycles could use to get out to the wharf and not have to share the road with cars and delivery trucks and everything else that's there. It provides great viewing of the beach area. And then on the opposite side, we have that western walkway, which is down at a reduced elevation, providing, you know, viewing of the underside of the wharf, which is really a remarkable feature. It's still a marvel of engineering when you look at it today, 106 years later. But a lot of people don't get that experience or opportunity. But you can see how this extra row of pilings potentially can help defend the buildings. This is what that greater public access looks like when you step back a little bit. It's expanded with the east promenade on the left, so the east side. The small boat landing might stick out a little bit as far as providing the universal ramps and access down to the water. However, we've also seen designs proposed where it switchbacks underneath the east promenade somewhat. There's really a design solutions remain to be seen about how that will be developed. But the master plan sets those goals and says, hey, we're going to consolidate these boat uses. Let's make sure everyone can use them. And it provides that. And then on the opposite side, you can see how the western walkway might orient to the buildings. And then there's this photo simulation that kind of shows what that western walkway might look like down below. I would note that the designer for contrast colored the railings white. So you could kind of see that railing. But in reality, another design solution to reduce the visibility of it might be to use more earth tone or wood coloring. Or the master plan also took talked about minimalist railings so that goes back towards what historically was there was no railings. So there's a lot of design solutions that can be there to sort of make things blend in more. But the master plan just kind of sets out the framework. So speaking about resilience, again, there's this emergency access. The eastern promenade would expand on the east side. You can imagine that something like Woody's on the wharf. Were there an incident down at the end of the wharf? How challenging it would be for an ambulance or a fire truck or police to get out there. Having this dedicated path that people can step to the side and get out there could really expedite and make public safety, you know, a higher priority or an easier thing to ensure. Next is the boat landings. So the boat landings could serve as emergency evacuation routes. In the 1940s, there was some fires that broke out on the wharf. It was put out by boats that had pumps at the time. But if something like that happened today and we weren't able to address it quick enough, you can imagine how people would have to get out. And so having these boat landings that are universally accessible is a key element to ensuring human safety, really. And then finally, the resilience improvements on the west walkway. So as I mentioned, it's really there as a protective measure. However, we're looking at multiple benefits and the pathway, the western walkway itself is really proposed as a multiple benefit to a defensive measure. So as you can see in the top left, when we talk about marine debris and obstacles that threaten the pylons under the buildings, we're looking at redwood trees that wash down the San Lorenzo or any number of other tributaries. The wharf crew has to remove these and chop them up every year. And you can see how one of those with one of the waves down the bottom left slamming into a set of pylons under the buildings could really take out one of our cherished businesses fairly easily. And they do lose pylons from time to time. That's why the buildings on the wharf typically have a lifespan of 40 to 60 years, because sooner or later we have to replace the pylons underneath them. But the idea in the master plan is that having this defensive row of pylons on the walkway, they're easier to replace. And they're that first line of defense to ensure that when we do put on new buildings or we do repair what's under there, it has a longer lifespan. It's also designed to have this lightweight permeable decking that the water can flow through and reduce the wave force. And the engineering report for the master plan when it evaluate the Eastern walkway also looked at the walkway as a disruptive measure. So by being there, it breaks up the waves full force as it hits that first kind of dissipates the wave and defend those pylons. So it's there for a number of reasons. The walkway is really there as a multiple benefit to give us more flexibility in how it's funded and to expand public access. The accessible landings, as I mentioned, this is one of the versions where the up in the top right, you can see one of the versions where the small boat landing might switch back under the deck, providing storage and educational space under it, but also having a lower profile against the edge of the wharf. And then at the top left, you can see how it could be kind of built out and kind of almost like a tower spinning back and forth down to the water. There's a number of design options for how that would work. Similarly, down the south landing at the far end of the wharf, you can see that ramp there being more accessible to people with special needs compared to the wharf, the landing that's currently there today in the bottom right, which has no semblance of ADA access and it's in a state of somewhat disrepair. And then the three new buildings that are proposed in the Wharf Master Plan. We have the new gateway building up in the top right, the pavilion structure. Again, these are all just artist renderings of what could be and what we're studied under the IR, but not necessarily what has to be. And then the landmark building down at the end with the step to overlook and the lower ledgers kind of proposed down there. The landmark building, as I mentioned, was really designed and proposed by the designer of the Master Plan to be reminiscent of the old warehouse building that used to be there. You can see how it anchored that view at one point. The picture in the bottom right gives you an idea of what it looked like inside really this large cavernous space that initially was used for shipping and passengers and stuff and later fishing uses. But it's a blank slate for what you could do in the future. And that's what we kind of, one of the reasons why I feel like it's an essential piece of the plan is it gives us that flexibility to determine what the community needs. And then the view from Pleasure Pier showing the municipal Wharf warehouse building when it used to say work on it. The Master Plan envisions those buildings to really be cultural uses. So whether they're museums or sort of maker spaces or whatever they might be, they're there to be publicly accessible and to provide year round opportunities for engagement out on the Wharf. And the pavilion, as I said, you can see sort of the space that was created with the last Master Plan at the Commons. What it looks like when it's activated with events, but with the pavilion in place, you know, potentially these walls could open up and have really a similar experience to today, but having it protected from the elements and really supportive for year round events. The Master Plan also calls for limited new commercial. So a bit of, sorry, a bit more of commercial infill. So we're looking at the, some of the spaces along the front of the buildings where we've got blank walls right now. We'd be proposing liner uses and things like that that are really smaller commercial ventures. So the open space by the, or not open space, but some of the underutilized area under the walkway by the Commons might be infilled with more like small kiosk retail locations. Some of sort of the strange jobs and buildings potentially could be utilized as redevelopment happens. But the idea is really to stay within the existing footprint and densify either in some cases with second floor uses, other cases with those liner uses and a limited amount of about 4,000 square feet of additional commercial. The entrance gateway signage, this is the revised, proposed revised exhibit for the gateway signage. Down the bottom right or bottom left, you can see what the artist rendering the design for the entrance gate might look like with the signage. But all around you can see what the various ideas and inspirational images about what Santa Cruz can do. You know, we have full flexibility to design as a community what that new signage for the workforce will be. And we wanted to throw those ideas out there for public engagement in the future. The master plan includes a whole host of policies and plans as far as implementing them. It's hard to read these, but there's, there's probably too much to get into here, but just know that it's all in there. I encourage people to look at it and read it if you haven't already. But it's really there to accomplish the goals that we're talking about. It also highlights design guidelines. So it includes design guidelines to help ensure that the buildings are more reminiscent of their historical past, but also that they're built and sustainably going to the future. So there's a lot of information on the design guidelines there. Some of the elements that they want to bring forward are really increasing building transparency. So opening up our businesses and our buildings so that you can see what's happening inside and in some cases through the space. The thought is that that's very much more like what the wharf used to be. And you can see these kind of historical images. And we want to bring that experience back to the wharf. It seems to have been lost in the 60s or really the 70s and 80s. A lot of the buildings are more insular. So we want to try and bring that back. As I mentioned, the liner uses. So as you can see up in the top right, the old Miramar, a lot of blank walls hiding things like walk-in coolers and restrooms. The master plan calls for lining the front of the wharf walkway. The sidewalks really with smaller liner uses they call them such as might be a fish market or a gift shop rather than having blank walls like this. We want to really engage people all the way down as they walk. And there's just one rendering of what a restaurant might look like on the Miramar site. And again, looking back at what the wharf used to be. It also talks about second floor uses primarily for the same businesses that are in there. So you might have a restaurant expand up to a second floor rooftop. But it just provides that flexibility going forward. And it may be something like we see at Signaro's today where it's fully enclosed and has this sort of, you know, cruise ship feel to it. Or it might be something like at the Capitola Pier where you've got really open air dining that's, you know, covered in seasonal. The master plan doesn't say how just gives us those options. But it also talks about signage. The design guidelines provide direction on signage limiting the size of individual signs out there as well as proposing these sort of heraldic blade signs for more engagement and visibility going down the wharf. So knowing those things, why do we have the master plan or why did we go and develop one? As Bonnie mentioned, the beach south of Laurel plan outlined the need for compliment for basically for an update for objective standards on the wharf and the coastal commission reiterated that need. Our current plan from 1980 is unworkable and they don't really support it and it makes it that much difficult for us to seek anything, any funding. The master plan codifies and lays out that the wharf serves a number of roles, be they historic and recreational habitat values as well as the recreation of the real estate value for both the city and the local economy. And it sets that framework and guidance for future decisions about the wharf. Lastly, it's needed for grant funding, both for new and existing infrastructure. And so I know that it's been alleged that there's an abundance of grants out there that don't need an approved environmental report and could be there for sustainability. The two most common places we look are the California Grants Portal and the Grants.gov. Both of these are really easy to use and you can see what's out there. It's incredibly rare to find grants available for rehabilitation and maintenance, almost certainly in most cases. The federal agencies and state agencies want to see new developments as far as what they're going to invest in. They want to expand jobs or they want to expand public access or any number of policy goals they have. They do not typically fund deferred maintenance. So one of the things with the master plan is it provides us the opportunity to deliver new things but also to provide repairs and expansion to existing infrastructure in the process. And I just want to be clear that CEQA itself clearly outlines and that's the code at the bottom that state agencies will not fund anything without CEQA compliant certification. So it's right in CEQA, right in that section. And so if we can't get an EIR or some certification for environmental clearance on the wharf, we are not able to get funding from any state agencies. The greater need though is going back to these other items. So beyond that, the regional population growth. I think John will probably talk about it, that our neighborhood has grown and the demands put on our community by people wanting to come here, both from the greater region and within Santa Cruz County and the Monterey Bay region have grown as well. And the wharf simply is not positioned to support that right now. The financials of the wharf are unsustainable. They have been for a number of years, at least back to 2013. And it no longer really pencils. It's reliant on subsidies from the general fund. The city's budget crisis also comes into play and the wharf businesses themselves. They have, as the city's updated its leasing structure since about 2008. Many of their rents have gone up at the same time that labor costs have increased substantially and continue to, as well as utilities, product costs, food costs, insurance, everything keeps going up. And they've had to raise, many of them had to raise prices accordingly, even as visitation has gone down to some extent, being pricing people out. So it's a challenge to balance all those needs, but we need to be able to support the wharf more fully. And then finally the infrastructure backlog. Originally estimated at about $11.6 million in the engineering report, but today is likely escalated to $14 million or more based on inflation. And then finally, outside funding is needed to address all of these needs. So just a little clarity on the wharf revenues and expenses. The chart here shows you the total revenue versus total expenses since 2015. And the red line at the bottom gives you the balance, showing really where we've been. So we've been largely underwater every year since at least 2015. I looked back at some old, I didn't have time to put into the chart, but I looked back at some old statements we made to the state to 2013, and all of those were negative years as well. The two years that we almost balanced were a result of insurance proceeds from the tsunami. I believe that's where it went from. So, you know, we're not on a good chart to keep funding all the maintenance and the needs the wharf has. Similarly, the wharf has not seen substantial reinvestment in a long time. Going back 18 years, we can see all the capital repairs that were made at the wharf. The two largest items there were the master plan, which was intended to open the door to wharf funding, and the wharf beach intersection, which improved access at the wharf intersection, but did not do much to the structure itself. Mostly these are minor repairs and little retrofits over 18 years. So in contrast to the 14 million or so that we know we have needs of now. So with that, I'm going to punt this over to John in just a minute, but just the infrastructure backlog is detailed somewhat in the engineering report from 2014. It's the result of age, wear, and deferred maintenance, and the costs of rehab are outlined in the report itself. The report also evaluates a lot of the improvements in the master plan and suggests improving lateral stability and other elements to ensure it can last long into the future. John, you want to take it from here? Thank you. Yes, I do. And thanks so much for such a comprehensive overview of the wharf master plan. Really a brilliant presentation, Dave. Mayor Covings, counsel, I'd like to give the council a brief overview of sheer integrity to start if I may. Because it speaks so much to the urgent need to take decisive action towards securing the funding needed to preserve it and the wharf by extension. Sheer integrity is the synergy of all the fasteners connecting, decking to the joist, the joist to the cap beans, and the caps to the piles working together so that the whole of these bonds that compromise the wharf structure can absorb and more evenly resist the kinetic force produced by large volumes of moving water that we understand as current and the power of falling water that we know as breakers. The forces working to destroy the sheer integrity of the wharf structure are oxidation or rust, which is Neil Young so aptly observed never sleeps. Uneven deflection of framing members expressed as vertical movement and vibration, the rattle that you feel when you drive down the wharf, kinetic energy, the current and waves I spoke of, expressed as lateral stress on the structure, and a wood fungus commonly known as dry rot. Framing connections weakened by corrosion and a wood fungus lose their grip and allow the wharf to sway more freely in wave events. And the more freely the wharf can move, the more those connections are weakened or broken by this stress. Evidence of how these forces combined to compound damage can be seen in the exploded joist ends at the south end of the wharf picture. As fasteners oxidize, they expand while simultaneously losing their power to bond decking and framing members together. Additionally, the expanding fasteners open fissures in the framing members, allowing water and fungus force to penetrate into the untreated wood interior of the wood framing members, further weakening the bonds as fungus breaks down the structural integrity of the wood fibers in the joist and decking. The bad news is that these forces have gone unchecked for a very long time in long stretches of the wharf. As the budget and staff we've had to work with has caused us to prioritize most of our attention on the roadway. The good news is that they can all be countered effectively by the use of construction strategies and materials called out in the wharf master plan. If all the piles supporting the wharf were in perfect condition, which they're not, the erosion of the shear panel formed by the decking joist caps would still be alarming, because it could allow large sections of the wharf to begin moving independently in a wave event, severing utility conduits, exponentially increasing repair costs by damaging structure that's in good repair, and causing business disruption, and a general erosion of public and investor confidence in the safety and viability of the wharf. The public area expansions of the 1980s went a long way towards slowing the decline of shear integrity in those areas of the wharf that were widened then by significantly dampening lateral movement. If we employed that same strategy today using the improved construction materials and superior construction and surfacing techniques that are called out in the wharf master plan, these improvements would substantially extend the value of the investment and the longevity of the wharf. Given the accelerating decline in the wharf shear integrity and the fact that the wharf structural building and facilities maintenance program have all been funded primarily through an operating budget that has largely been flat over the last 20 years, and that those scarce dollars have been significantly devalued further by prevailing wage law, I believe the survival of the wharf to be imminently dependent upon the city's ability to compete robustly for the widest variety of grant funding available, and that adopting the wharf master plan and the environmental impact report, and allowing staff to move quickly on preparing a public works plan for approval by the California Coastal Commission, is the most expedient means of achieving that goal. The wharf has changed many times over my lifetime, and the fact that the wharf still survives when so many others have perished is the legacy of those changes. The federal economic development grant that funded the wharf master plan funded a plan rather than repairs precisely because we lacked the resiliency planning and permits needed for that agency to fund the work that was needed then. I would most sincerely and respectfully ask that the council adopt this well-conceived plan that we've all worked so long and so hard on so that our ever-expanding future generations can enjoy the wharf as comfortably as we have and call that wharf that they grow up with their own. David, it looks like you're muted. Yeah, there we go. So I would just add again to John's comment, just for a little bit of perspective on the allegation that 91% of the piles are really the finding that 91% of the piles are in good condition. So of course, yes, that was found in 2014 in the engineering report. It's now been six years since then. But what's important to note is that the location is not evenly spread. There are hotspots in the wharf where piling work is needed more urgently than others. None more apparent than the Miramar site, where you can see the A-frames and issues there with missing piles, but in various places. So it's not an insignificant amount of repairs that are needed just to address the pilings. But up above here, you can see also significant deck, stringer, and cap rot and issues that also need to be addressed. So these are all those sheer elements that John has referenced. The needs are widespread. It's not that I think John, one of his favorite things to say is that the engineering report found that the patient can tolerate surgery, but it did not find that it was okay on its own. Sorry, I didn't do you justice, John, but that's in large part what the report found is that it's repairable, but it still has significant needs, and those are quantified in that infrastructure backlog amount. So moving on to the EIR, just a little bit of detail so we can get to you guys in your comments. The EIR during the scoping session built upon what was studied in the initial study, and the scoping session led to targeted study of these topics. So the first being aesthetics, then biological resource impacts, cultural resources, geology, hydrology, and water quality, transportation, traffic and parking, and water energy demands. So these are the topics that were specifically focused in the EIR and what was studied. In response, we received comments during the public comment period on a number of questions about what was found, namely about aesthetic impacts of the landmark building and West Side Walkway, impacts to birds, concerns that they may not be able to access their nest so that they would be disturbed, impacts to sea life potentially from chemical leakage from pylings or the noise from construction, things like that, impacts to historical resources more on the West Side Walkway, traffic and parking concerns, of course the no cruise ships that was loud and clear and saving the sea lion hole. So those are the most common comments that we received during the public comment period and our responses to all of those are included in the final EIR. Again, those impacts to birds, many of the bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As a result, the master plan talks about or outlines mitigation measures and bird exclusion zones during the nesting season such that construction activity isn't allowed to occur within 100 or 150 feet, depending upon species of established nests. These relate to things like the Pigeon Gallamette and some of the gull species and other ones that are out there. As well as nesting disruptions, that's to minimize those nesting disruptions. And then more recent comments we've received have been regarding the Western Walkway alleging that it would block access to these nests and making it difficult for the birds to thrive. Our findings are published in the expanded staff report as well as in the final EIR and largely reflect the fact that according to the bird survey that was done with the master plan, it doesn't appear that there's a significant trend as to where they prefer to nest throughout the wharf. The EIR acknowledges that there may be impacts to the nesting as far as by having people walking along the west side, but that with the expansion of the wharf by two and a half acres predominantly on the east side and their apparent flexibility in nesting locations, there should be plenty more opportunities that would offset any impacts. There will be more places for them to potentially nest. So that's all outlined in the EIR biological resource section as well as responses to comments and I believe in the staff report somewhat. Just an example of what those bird exclusion zones might be. We've been back and forth to various regulatory agencies. Initially at one point looking at 300 foot buffers, which you can see there. A presence of six nests, if not ideally located, could easily shut down all repair work on the wharf under those circumstances. And so working with biologists who've gone out and done acoustic assessments and evaluate like Gary Tiddleston, I believe, went out there and assessed ambient impacts as well as behaviors of the species. And then in consultation with various state and federal agencies, we've been working on determining sort of the optimum nest buffers that would come to play. As you can see, just on the left side, all those pylings, those 400 or 4,500 pylings create a variable forest underneath that wharf. And it's just sort of interesting to see how it all goes. Again, also with the mammals, in addition to the bird exclusion zones as a mitigation measure, the EIR also outlines mitigation for noise impacts from construction. So when we drive piles to expand the wharf or to do the repairs, they create sound waves that could potentially be harmful to species, marine mammals and fish and things like that. And so working with the various agencies, they propose some potential mitigation measures. Most commonly would be the use of a cushion block, which will soften the impact sound and the vibrations created when the pile driver is going, as well as creating, again, more exclusion zones around construction sites where the mammals might be present, having a pre-construction survey done and or on-site monitoring to make sure they're not present while work is happening. And they've suggested measures that have worked other places such as bubble curtains that help mitigate sound and might be also used. But they provide all those things in the mitigation, monitoring and reporting plan as ways of mitigating potential impacts from construction. And then once the construction is complete, these potential harmful impacts largely abate with the exception of ongoing maintenance. So here we go, mitigation monitoring plan. Again, it outlines the two impacts that were found in the EIR were potentially to birds and marine life, as well as the water quality of marine debris resulting from construction. So mitigation measures are there to provide for noise dampening and pre-construction surveys, as well as the bird buffers and the underwater exclusion zones to address the biological impacts. As for water quality, this is really an uncertain potential impact, but it's just anticipating with that with any construction. Some debris may fall into the water, potentially a fuel leak or something like that could happen. And so the various agencies have directed us to prepare to have floating booms available, magnets and divers available for larger debris or metal debris. And then should you find some sort of chemical leak and immediate work stoppage and consultation with the Department of Toxic Substances Control. So overall the EIR did not find significant impacts to most of the things studied, but for these two items where we did find significant impacts or potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures were developed to address them. Subsequent to the publication of the final EIR and, you know, immediately before our meeting last week, or not last week, two weeks ago, we received a letter from a Grant Holly law firm on behalf of Don't Morf the Wharf. And the letter alleged that the EIR was inadequate, raising concerns over our analysis of aesthetics, recreation and historical resource impacts. The letter also demanded the removal of the landmark building, the West Walkway and reduction of all building heights to 30 feet while supporting the requirement for historic alteration permits and review under Secretary of Interior standards. Staff found that it would be best to rather wait and review these in more detail in anticipation that there may or may not be anything to them, but we wanted to really be sure because it appears that there may be a threat of a lawsuit. And then we all discussed this, I believe, with City Council at a closed session today. So our responses to these concerns are in the staff report, but I'll summarize them here. So overall, the aesthetics and the city fields that we followed the accepted standards, both within the general plan and SQL guidelines, we found that the proposals in the master plan conform with existing zoning and regulation per the threshold of significance established in the SQL guidelines update from 2018. We also provided photo simulations to evaluate the real visible potential changes to the wharf, and we mapped those or based those photo simulations on views that were identified in the general plan under significant views figure 4.3-1. The study also evaluated light and glare, the development around the surrounding area, and the visibility and access to landmarks. So all of those things were evaluated under aesthetics, and we feel that our analysis was as complete as reasonably could be given our established guidelines and thresholds, and that the letter did not suggest anything that was missing or a higher level of evaluation that would have been necessary. And then recreation, the city, they have suggested that the sea lion viewing holes would be removed for the western walkway. That was what was suggested in the letter. First and foremost, the western walkway or the west side walkway would have nothing to do with the sea lion viewing holes. It's a completely different part of the wharf master plan, but also the city has committed in its recommendation or rather staff has committed in our recommendation to preserving and relocating the sea lion viewing holes. They've been moved before, and they can easily be reworked around whatever development might be proposed at some point in the future for the end of the wharf. There will be an expanded end of the wharf, as well as changes in how the buildings and everything are laid out. So it's not inconceivable, and the city is committed to preserving and or relocating those to optimize the viewing pleasure of the wharf holes. Overall, there will be a net increase in fishing, wildlife viewing, and sightseeing opportunities. So there will not be any degradation of those recreational benefits of the wharf, let alone any impacts to the sea lion viewing holes. And then lastly, the letter suggested that the city should adopt the HBC recommendation for historic alteration permits and commit to review under secretary of interior standards for historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources. Staff has reviewed that, and out of an abundance of caution, we support that and we have changed our recommendation to do so. However, we would note that it's not a mitigation measure. The EIR did not find any significant impacts to historic resources on the wharf, namely the historic value of the wharf being derived from its location, its length, its alignment and orientation, and its function as a wharf. Nothing in the wharf master plan is proposed to change any of that, and thus the EIR did not find impacts to historic resources. But nonetheless, the city's historic preservation ordinance could be interpreted to apply to all aspects of the wharf, rather than just the wharf structure. So while the wharf structure itself is listed on the historic building survey and it no doubt would be subject to a historic alteration permit under existing ordinance, buildings and other elements on deck and around the wharf have historically been seen as non-contributing, non-historic structures or accessory buildings and not subject to historic alteration permits. The HPC suggested an alternative that the wharf essentially is a historic site as a whole in which interpretation anything on or around the wharf that would be built could potentially be subject to historic alteration permit, whether it goes through HPC or it's administrative. And so out of an abundance of caution, staff is going to concur with the HPC recommendation and suggest that we treat the wharf as a historic site and subject to historic alteration permits until such time that we have better definitions of what a historic site is in the municode, as well as what constitutes a minor project and may not be as subject to HPC review. So, okay. And moving on to the HPC commission, just to clear that up so you know, the recommendations that they had put forward at their October 14th hearing were to recommend certification of the EIR and certification of the findings of fact and then to accept the wharf or approve the wharf master plan with the following changes. So they wanted to acknowledge that the wharf is a historic structure and that review of buildings in addition to their site is required by city ordinance. And then secondly, that historic alteration permits be reviewed by the HPC and that any new buildings over 3,000 square feet as well as the new public buildings would require a review by historic architect to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. So this is discussed in the staff report. Both items really. The first item is more of an interpretation. It is undoubtedly, the wharf itself is undoubtedly in the historic building survey. However, the buildings we maintain are not historic. They don't meet any of the thresholds of historic findings and that they are not historic, non-contributing structures. But because we want to treat the wharf like a historic site, they would still be subject to a historic alteration permit review until that's clarified in the Munich Code. And then on the second, the staff mentions the, basically the same, that there would be historic alteration permits under the existing ordinance. However, some might be administrative. Some might be through the HPC itself, depending upon size and that clarification of what constitutes a minor project. And that currently staff, the staff historic preservation planner is able to determine whether a historic architectural review is required based upon the size and certain metrics of any given project. And so the planning felt that it was not necessarily added value to require it in every instance. And that that discretion should be left to planning professional staff. So while we generally support the HPC recommendation, there's a little bit of nuance there. And then the planning commission, which heard the wharf master plan the next day and voted six to one to approve or to recommend approval, also voted to support certifying the AR and the findings of fact. And they suggested a couple of minor modifications to plan that we've incorporated. And that is to revise the language to ensure that cruise ships are not allowed anywhere in the master plan. And that to revise the exhibit showing the wharf signage so that it would be, the dimensions would be more flexible and not specified and to encourage it to be an inspirational exhibit, not the final determination of what the signage should look like. So we've done that. So summarizing staff's proposed modifications. The first we wanted to engage the HPC early on in any of the new public buildings to try and get the standardized or objective goals for what those new buildings should achieve and sort of the historic aesthetic that we want to go after. And then to require historic alteration permits as established in the Munich code under the understanding that the wharf is a historic site for the time being. And then aligning the language, the second change was to align language banning ocean liners at an early part in the plan. The third was proposing a wharf interpretive resources plan. So the historic commission really wanted to encourage more historical interpretive materials. And looking back at the record, a lot of the environmental groups that chimed in as stakeholders in the planning process, it's really important to them to also expand the educational offerings, you know, as far as nature and wildlife. And so we're proposing to sort of a consolidated plan to help balance and weigh and organize all of this interpretive material and to include art and different strategies for achieving this enrichment of the wharf. The fourth item is again clarifying cruise ship changes so that they're not allowed. And then the next two are about revising the entrance gate signage and the exhibit. Lastly, changing the maximum height on all public buildings down to 40 feet consistent with the zoning. And then that commitment to preserve the sea lion holes with any development at the end of the wharf. So there's those changes. And then following up on our closed session today, there was a concern that we may be subject to the threat of a lawsuit. And in consultation with our secret attorney, we thought it might be worth including a modification to the resolution and the findings of FACT such that we would have a severable clause. So under CEQA currently the courts are allowed to decertify portions of an EIR if they find that something fails to meet the standards of review and the discretion of the public agency. Well, we don't think that's the case here. What this language, if added, would do is essentially convey our intent under the EIR that should anything be challenged, we would like that to be separated while the rest of the Wharf master plan could move forward. The intent here is to allow us to continue moving forward on those structural improvements and the ones that we have general agreement on while any challenges are settled outside of the public process or in the courts. So again, this is not something typically done or really we're not sure if it has been effective or ever done in the past, but CEQA attorney thought it was as worth doing as there is some increase in case law on the courts decertifying portions of the EIRs and this would convey the council's intent to do that. And last is any of the documents if anyone's interested for the master plan and the environmental can be found here and we'll adjourn questions. How long presentation? Yeah, it was long, but it was really extensive and very comprehensive on this Wharf master plan and I just want to thank you all because this is a massive undertaking that's taken years to get to this point and so I just want to thank everyone for all the time and hours of community outreach and work that's been done to really get it to where we are today. I think this is, you know, the presentation really highlights how critical it is that we move forward a master plan so we're going to see state funding and really truly invest in supporting and preserving the Wharf future generation. So thank you all for all of your hard work on this. It's really impressive. We'll go ahead and open it up to council members for questions and comments and I'll start with the council member buyers. Thank you. I have three questions rather all over the place. The comment about it, let's see, limited commercial expansion maybe could address that. It seemed to me there was a real increase in commercial expansion. So in large part it's using the same footprint so the intent is that the majority of commercial expansion I think it was up to about 18,000 square feet would be through the use of second stories so something like, you know, Firefish might consider putting a second floor outdoor patio or even a second floor restaurant. The other commercial expansion, the limited amount is really a maximum of about 4,000 square feet of dispersed commercial in some opportunity sites. And so that may be a few hundred feet here but it's not building out any substantial unbuilt areas of the Wharf. Just to put that into perspective, Gildes is about 5,100 square feet so the 4,000 square foot expansion would be less than the size of Gildes right across the Wharf. Got it, okay. How tall is the, how tall is building on the Wharf now? I know there's several things. I believe the EIR sites are around 27 feet. So there's some disputes that plans aren't always developed or are constructed exactly as they're written but it's somewhere between 27 and 30, yeah. Wow, and the proposals go to 40. Would that be three stories? It doesn't have to be. Typically, it could be. It could be a maximum of 40 feet which could be three stories. The other one... And I'd clarify that's only for those three landmark buildings. Everything else would be capped at 35. Remind me of the landmark buildings. So that would be a maximum of 40 feet on the pavilion, the end building, the landmark and the gateway entrance building. The gateway building. You know, the west walk, I know the weather is much different on the west side to the east side and the proposal, I didn't quite get it, was to have a walkway to have structures there or people there. I think it's called a walkway. Yep, hold on a second. I just had it. This one here? I believe so, yeah, it looks like it. Yeah, so the proposal there is really to create a defensive barrier. As you can see down below in this picture with the waves, it's taking trees and things like that and slamming into the pilings under the buildings. The only way to really significantly repair pilings under the buildings is to remove the building. John's been able to make a lot of headway doing A-frames and things like that that redistribute the weight for your period of time. But ultimately, when you lose those pilings, the building's lifespan shortens. And so the designer's intent is to put this row of pilings down along the outside of the wharf as a set of guard piles to protect our sensitive buildings. And then the proposal for the walkway is really a multiple benefit approach. So it's saying, hey, since we put the pilings there, let's give it a little bit more use so that we can get more out of it. I'd like to add that early on we collaborated with the Coastal Commission quite a bit on this plan and this was a feature that they really wanted because they wanted public access all the way around the wharf. Yeah, you almost could walk around. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. Those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Brown. This is pretty pre-country. The last hand of your presentation talked about new proposed language, civability, finding, adding, finding the facts regarding the third station. In the motion, would that be a fifth item or would that be included now in the recommended number three, adopt the plan subject to modification both by staff? I mean, tell me where that would go. Does it have to be an additional item? I think it might be a, I might have to punt that to Bonnie Bush to recommend, but it might be an amendment. Don't need to know it right now, but it sounds, but when the time comes, be clear about how that gets incorporated into the motion. Yeah, I think it would be amending the motion for the two resolutions. Okay, number two. Yeah, one and two, I think it would be... Okay. Yeah, thank you so much for all the people that you're doing. Thank you, John, for trying to keep that the work from falling into motion. And I know it's been a lot of work trying to apply those mandates. And I'm looking forward to being able to move forward with this. I do have a question about the landmark building in particular. This seems to be the source of a lot of particularly what I've heard, or the opposition that I've heard is to that. And so I just want to ask you to help me understand how potentially going from 27 to 40 feet with that landmark building is not going to create an aesthetic impact. And I think it would be to me that there would be. I mean, that's a pretty significant increase. I think I'm going to pass that to Stephanie Strillo. I believe she's on the line here, who is our environmental consultant with Dudak. Thank you, Dave. Good evening, mayor and council members. Yes, we did. I think the staff report does address this towards the end of the staff report. But basically, as Dave mentioned earlier, I think it would be to consider both the SQL guidelines standards and the city standards and addressed this that it impacts based on whether or not there's any existing regulations that would need to be considered regarding scenic quality as well as looking at whether or not the project would lead to a substantial of the word that's used both in the guidelines and throughout SQL. And in looking at substantial, we looked at a number of different visual considerations, both impacts of the new facilities on scenic views, on scenic resources and then looking at the new facilities themselves in the context of height, math and scale of both the war and the general surrounding area that you can see from a number of vantage points on West and East Cliff drives. So in that context, yes, the buildings of three new buildings would be higher than the existing buildings, although they would be in line with the zoning requirements of what is allowed. At this point, this is just a program, EIR and there's no specific building plans. So the depictions on the photo depictions in the EIR just based on very conceptual renderings and models that are in the master plan. But in looking at that with the city staff, it was felt that there's not any substantial blockage of views while the height is higher than the existing buildings. There are other buildings in the surrounding area, other facilities that are taller and dream in. So in that regard, there are some existing facilities in the built environment that are similar scale and height of what any of these three new buildings might be in the future. So with that in mind, the conclusion was that it was not a substantial change or degradation in the surrounding visual quality. I suggest since we have those renderings that it might be useful to put those on the screen for the council and the public to you know, as they say, picture paints a thousand words. I think Stephanie explained that very well. That'd be great. Yeah, that'd be helpful. I mean, I've looked at them and I just I still not it's just still hard to imagine that not having an impact, but I'd love to see it and it would be good for the public. So just to kind of recap the aesthetics issue. So as Stephanie mentioned, we studied a number of potential thresholds of significance that Chiqua lays out for us regarding aesthetics. The first is whether there's a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. And when you look across the 120-degree arc of a human vision on a panoramic vista, the buildings themselves don't overwhelm that view and there's significant ocean views and coastal views still impact or without any impact. And then it doesn't block sort of natural aspects. And then it's this section C is one of the key ones that has evolved with the change in secret guidelines that was intended to help avert sort of what's the right term frivolous lawsuits on the grounds of aesthetics in urbanized areas. And so what it finds is that if your aesthetic analysis or your proposal aligns with existing zoning and regulations, you've satisfied that threshold and that's certainly what we've done here. The existing zoning allows up to 40 feet and we've brought the heights down on all the other buildings below that. But for these couple of landmark buildings to ensure that they're maintained some variation in building heights, there's that additional flexibility up to the existing zoning. So by satisfying that section C there, that third threshold, that's one of the findings that we needed to ensure was covered to not have a significant impact. And then as far as substantial light and glare, all of that's evaluated within existing building codes and the responses in the EIR. So on to the fun part here is the figure I mentioned earlier that's in the general plan regarding what are seen as important scenic views and visual landmarks. And then the places that Dudek went and evaluated and did photo simulations from. So these roughly align with all of the locations that were identified as important scenic views here. And then the artist renderings of what those changes might look like. And again, these are up to the maximum. Originally studied at 45. At 40, the buildings would be slightly smaller. And that's again the maximum height. There's no reason we have to build that high. It will be guided by public process and project development going forward. So this is looking from Main Beach. You can see what the entrance gate might look like. The gateway building might look like and that small boat landing. This is from Cowles Beach where you could see what that landmark building and gateway building might look like as well as an expanded lifeguard station that might potentially go up an extra floor. And then on the right you've got one from East Cliff Drive looking down over Seabright. It shows you that small boat landing, one version of it, as well as the gates and things like that. And pretty clear, still a good line of sight of West Cliff. And then this is a view from West Cliff Drive looking at those new buildings and the west side walkway. The model that was prepared for the 100th anniversary and was put out there for the showcase exhibit where people could see the in sort of real scale what these things might look like as proposed. I'll bring it back. The potential for upgrades to the lifeguard station. And I know that that's a building that really needs some, and so I was just wondering if you could speak to that and how that fits within the WARF EIR, so like the potential for upgrades to the lifeguard station. Yeah. To be honest, that's one of the elements that I haven't focused the whole lot on. I know that in the engineering assessment it shows some significant needs underneath it. I think John has probably a better idea of how that fits in, and Stephanie I don't know if you recall how that fit in the EIR. Yeah, I can respond to that quickly. We did mention it's in the project description and part of the total square footage that could be included in the future expansion and redevelopment of the existing warf building. John, did you want to add anything? I would just say that the building as it stands is utterly inadequate for the purpose that it serves. The fact that it kind of juts out there in the impact zone makes it pretty vulnerable as well, and so expanding that base and getting the building to a size where it can adequately serve its purpose is why it was added. Sorry, I just thought of another one as I'm looking back at my notes from the when I was at the original, the draft EIR and I don't think that this has changed based on my recollection of my read the other week. So maybe I just missed something here, but in the description of the overall increase in square footage of states available, when council member Byers asked this question, it was a low number that you gave about what the overall expansion of square footage would be for new and or renovated building and it was low and I can't remember exactly what it was, but I'm looking here at the square footage that could be included for the large buildings and it's quite a bit. I mean, it's over 20,000. I'm not mistaken about 20 way more than 20,000 square feet 25 perhaps very good in addition. So that's kind of, I mean, that's just with those three buildings and not looking at any additional high second stories on some of the existing. So I'm just trying to understand that could help me out. Yeah, so previously we were discussing the commercial expansions so we were talking about specifically the line buildings and the commercial info. The three public buildings are a separate element and yes, I forget the exact number, but that sounds about right and they would be dispersed up to that square footage in the locations proposed. One of the things to note though is that with the overall expansion of the work by two and a half acres 20,000 square foot or 25,000 square foot is one sixth of that. So it's kind of balanced by the overall expansion in public access space. Additionally, since the buildings are intended to be publicly accessible and more community oriented structures, because they're enclosed does not mean that you have to necessarily pay to enter or to do anything there. The intentions that they're at least in the master plan is really to promote cultural uses through those structures. And if I could just quickly add this is Stephanie. What the EIR considered was the three new buildings which total 15,000 square feet. The master plan also has a specific recommendation for the infill which is 4,000 square feet and the recommendations in the plan encourage redevelopment of the existing building. So in talking with the planning department and economic development we came up with an estimate of about 12,000 to 18,000 square feet for redevelopment. So our total building square footage is a combination of those two that we look at in evaluating impacts such as water, traffic, things like that. Thanks. And some of those, so I guess that what the confusion for me was not considering those buildings to be commercial although there may be commercial uses in them. I think that's what I'm hearing. Yeah, I mean at the program level it's uncertain what the use is. So I mean when a project comes forward it certainly could be that. That's not the intent of the master plan. I would also note that just the added sort of ability to infill is to some extent the financing mechanism. We know the buildings will have to be replaced at some point to repair the wharf underneath them. And at that time whatever comes forward has to be able to convince banks and financiers that it will be able to pencil and sometimes that means it needs to grow. That's just a reality of economics whether or not we like it. I'm just smiling Dave that your background shows a picture of the wharf from West Cliff maybe. I think so. And the other part of it is not way to the end. But I think it was just a few weeks ago when I was actually at the lighthouse and it was dusk and the boardwalk was lit up. It was the most gorgeous view because you looked at the wharf but then you went beyond it and could see the roller coaster and the lighting and then that row of trees behind it. And then I pulled it all and I usually tried to pull it to the end where that landmark building would be and it it's huge. It surprised me. I mean 40 feet when you think of three stories I mean even walking on the wharf along a three-story building to me is so out of place. I'm sorry I'm just having trouble with that but I think there's a visual impact of itself on the wharf that wasn't looked at. At least I didn't see any comment. And the same thing looking not at sea bright but that wonderful street when you cross the trestle bridge and then you come out it's very dominant in fact all the new buildings and the other ones are allowed to go up to 40 feet as just from what we have now I think it'll be just a huge impact a visual impact almost everywhere and so on. I'm disappointed in the size of it. I would just clarify again it's a placeholder whatever is developed eventually would be as a result of community process and it may not be that high. Right I totally understand but we are putting forward parameters. If there's no further discussion from council members I'm going to open it up for public comment so if there are members of the public who would like to comment on item number 23 on our agenda which is the Santa Cruz Wharf master plan and environmental determination now's the time to call in if you haven't already using the numbers on your screen. Once you've called in please press star 9 to raise your hand when you've been called upon you'll be asked to unmute your phone and you will be given two minutes unless you've already spoken with me and received communication otherwise. With that we'll go ahead and open it up to public comment. Before you start the clock can you hear me? Yes. Members my name is Gillian Greensight I'm representing the group Don't Morse to the Wharf. The community is also maintaining the wharf so it will last another century. Fixing the road repairing the shear panel and replacing pilings as needed are strongly supported. What the community is against is changing the character the feel the aesthetics of the wharf changing its place in our heart. There are parts of the plan that the community can support and parts that are strongly opposed as evidenced by the many letters emails and petitions. You can by your vote take out those aspects of the most unpopular and by doing so get the community behind a far better plan and EIR. This will take a little longer but it was the city's decision not ours to wait four years to circulate the EIR. This plan imposed on the community rather than developed with the community proposes three new 40 feet tall buildings whose function is to shield people from the ocean breeze the out at sea experience that the wharf provides and which is its attraction. The massive landmark building will cover the five sea line viewing holes with no replacement sites identified in the staff report where exactly will they fit the lower western walkway ruins the aesthetics of the historic pilings and displaces migratory birds sheer strength can be achieved in other ways. Staff says this plan is just a vision a placeholder that as each project comes up there will be opportunity for public input. Experiences shown that once a plan is approved future projects mirror the plan. If public input so far has barely moved the needle for the warp master plan it is unlikely to do so for individual projects. Staff says that grants for ongoing wharf maintenance can be leveraged only with this plan and this EIR and only if all this new construction is included we challenge that claim an amended plan and EIR achieves the same result we are told the wharf is losing money however during this year's budget hearings a department head said and I quote the wharf breaks even if you want to augment augment the wharf's budget give the considerable money from wharf parking fees to the wharf rather than to the general fund this was suggested in the engineering report it appears that this is a plan to change the class character of wharf visitors to attract the more affluent to spend money on upscale restaurants and boat tours rather than lower income visitors with their callers next to their vehicles the plan does reduce the usable areas for fishing turning fishing areas into conflicting use areas it turns open space into closed space for private weddings and the like council you can do better than to accept this wharf master plan and it's deficient EIR approve an amended plan that reflects what the community will support whether the landmark building the lower western walkway keep heights at 30 feet and adopt the recommendations from the historic preservation commission that leaves a lot in the plan with an amended plan and EIR and with community support it's full steam ahead for grants to fix the maintenance that has been neglected since 2016 it's amazing how smoothly things can go when you work with the community rather than against it thank you thank you can you hear me hello esteemed mayor and council I'm Andrea Rosenfeld community member and I'm opposed to some major aspects of the current wharf master plan I acknowledge the need to make repairs and improve the economic vibrancy of the wharf however I question the scope and approach that is being taken to permanently change this beloved historic landmark I'm glad to hear staff's recommendation to be flexible with the proposed entrance way as the current vision is not aesthetically in keeping with the wharf and surrounding areas our waste treatment plant even has a curved gate with turtles on it the proposed gateway building appears to be nothing more than a large herding area to accommodate throngs of tourists waiting to board a tour and a place to display racks of brochures the improved use of the outdoor pavilion for private weddings appears to be a redirection away from public use and most objectionable is the 40 foot tall proposed warehouse style landmark building at the end of the extended wharf which would have fabulous uses it has no guarantees of educational or regionally appropriate businesses within it and their selection would be quote subject to competitive evaluation from a broad range of non-profit and for-profit entities and quote although it is stated that a great deal of thought would be required to make the choices for tenancy in this building there's nothing in the plan to require this selection to be fitting of our community's priorities and affinities the plan also indicates this building would be a ripe opportunity for corporate sponsorship something completely unacceptable in my view finally I strongly object to the destruction of the sea lion viewing areas by this proposed building plan with no designated replacement sites the plan sets the rules for development I'm urging the council to reject the current plan until it's modified to address the above items of concern within its current framework in order to better mitigate community concerns thank you Hi this is Debbie Hinkie I appreciate all that has transpired this afternoon I've noticed a couple things and I think you know pretty much my views on morphing the work but what I've noticed is the incredible amount of traffic I recently spent some time in the summer the traffic report that's committed to this EIR was done in October that is not indicative of the traffic that's going to be there in the summer nor is the amount of enormous projects that you have that will impact the area most of them are on the west side or coming to the west side or on the way from ocean street that is a lot of people a lot more cars a lot more impact on the traffic that's going to affect the wharf so I think you need to rethink the flow and the amount of people you want to draw to the area and it just is unbelievable when I look at the impact that it's going to have on that area the other thing is I'm not seeing one IOT of evidence of climate change in your EIR and I'm sorry even the president elective created a position in his cabinet for climate I think it is crucial to look at what that impact is going to be in Santa Cruz are we even going to have a board walk are we even going to have this area in as much as 10 years from now granted when this was all created the 2030 general plan it wasn't in our foresight I think you need to really rethink and consider the impact that climate is going to have on Santa Cruz thank you for your time I appreciate it thank you can you hear me yes good evening okay good evening I'm Susan Martinez I am a community member here I am opposed to the master plan of the wharf as presented I agree completely with the three speakers before me so I will just confine myself to just one important point that I think needs to be made I'm amazed at this so-called final EIR I've never seen an EIR that was quote unquote only a possible framework it's not a complete definitive plan your presenter used words such as points that are only proposed unquote placeholders quote suppose to include quote design design features that remain to be seen and another quote was this gives us options this is not a definitive document a definitive legal document that's what EIRs are supposed to do because they guarantee that the final product will comply with California's CEQA standards environmentally biologically economically when the concrete plans are finalized for construction you're going to have to redo the EIR you're going to have to re-circulate any changes as supplements to this EIR and that means noticing to the public the same way you did the DEIR and then EIR so I hope that your staff realizes this because this EIR is not adequate it can't be said that it's up to CEQA standards because we don't know what we're being presented everything is just kind of iffy so oh thank you hi can you hear me yes good evening oh good evening so my name is Carol Pico and I wanted to address the EIR in the context of the interaction with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary I can see that there was a huge amount of duggling of all the concerns which is wonderful and there's a lot of time put into that I was not hearing a whole lot of time put into the environmental in relationship to the wildlife and I want to speak to that I did not understand the mitigation of the bird nesting for example which had been nesting there for generations it did not sound like any experts had been contacted I might have missed that I needed to briefly step away but I'd like to ask if that actually has happened so if somebody who actually knows about that as opposed to just saying this should be fine because I did not see that also I'm very concerned about the pile driving time of the year construction as we all know sounds travel much extremely further distances in the water and I want to know if that there are allowed pines for that and pines that are not allowed to take into account both the nesting and also the major migration of the whales and I also agree with several people talking about the non-specificity I know that you'll need to basically make some general things so that there's an envelope with which the specifics can be spelled out in but there also need to be some specifics when it comes to here is how here is how the wildlife is going to be protected thank you very much yes good evening yes good evening my name is Michael Becker and I am a community member also and I resent the use of this term community member to only represent those opposing the master plan I completely support this new plan and its guidelines and a plan is guidelines it isn't specifics the work needs to be both prepared and improved to embrace new modern uses for work visitors both local and tourists and its users and occupants I totally support this plan I think 40 feet is within the zoning requirements and you should vote to support it very much thank you 7-0-0-0 if you can please unmute your phone you'll be given two minutes those are the last four digits of your phone number please press star 6 to unmute your device and you'll be given two minutes good evening this is Judy Grunstra I agree with Gillian Greensight this is way too much can we mute my TV yeah when you're walking just because a 40 foot building is allowed doesn't mean it's desirable if you're walking on the wharf itself it's going to be massive these buildings in front of you and on the side you know the wharf is funky let's put it that way it doesn't have to be some slick Santa Monica kind of attraction so repair what needs to be repaired possibly expand it but don't make a slick, ugly commercial endeavor of it it's fine the way it is we enjoy the sea views and the ocean proximity to the ocean and the feel of it thank you hello that's Fred Geiger here well first of all I think we can all agree the reason people come to the wharf is for the ambiance obviously and whatever you do that affects that ambiance by changing it is obviously counterproductive so you've got 27 foot buildings and you're allowed to build 40 foot buildings but as the old SUV commercial said with the guy jumping his SUV off the cliff just because you could doesn't mean you should so I mean why would you want to tamper with something that's attractive and brings people into town and creates business by mucking it up with some out of scale non-ethnic type building it just isn't in the benefit of the wharf it's not in the interest of the wharf it's just a community also I think the reports said that the viewing ports would be relocated if possible if that's still in there that's not good enough folks if possible we don't know what that is get it in writing also with the cruise ship stuff we were told originally cruise ships couldn't come in the marine sanctuary well we found out that wasn't true cruise ships are not going to land at the dock yes it's going to be shuttles and if you don't want shuttles or tenders you have to put the language in there to prohibit that because future councils future staff members whatever you're being told tonight fine great sounds good but if it's not written down and completed then it could easily change it could change without public notice it could change without public acceptance so don't mess up the wharf there's no point in changing it drastically do the repairs that are needed keep the ambience keep the viewing ports for sure the outdoor dining at the end of the wharf is where I take my friends when they come to town if you destroy that that's one of the best things about the wharf and what are these 200 feet of landings for like we heard it was marine vessels marine research vessels there's three harbors on the bay already that's where they go so you're wasting the taxpayers money by building these landings because there's really no use for them so thanks for looking into these things and taking care of these problems thank you okay so last call the last four digits of your phone number are 7000 now is the time for public comment you'll want to press star 6 to unmute your device and you'll be given two minutes hi my name is a Charles Mayan I'm a business owner on the wharf I wanted to support the wharf plan and I think that it's positive to create a nicer place for people to come and also for people that have been going there for years and also the new generation of people that would like some changes I think it would be good I just want to say that I support thank you please press star 9 on your phone to raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes good evening this is John Aird I don't think I've quite worked out your system here but I appreciate the opportunity to comment I strongly agree that this program needs some additional work fundamentally this plan I agree with lots that is in the plan there are essentially 11 or 12 major items and I'm comfortable with 8 of them so it's a 75% batting average I think overall though the issue that I really take exception to is best typified if you take kind of a macro view of this whole plan the 33% increase size of the wharf is too much and the 40 foot maximum height for the new proposed buildings are just too high the overall effect of these two alone when combined is to totally change an individual's experience from being one on a wharf jutting into the Monterey Bay Sanctuary one that immerses oneself in the beauty of the bay and the environment and the entertainment and restaurant platform that happens to be over water this is particularly highlighted by the landmark building the construction it's going to be constructed over the existing sea line by the size it's 6,000 square feet which is described as relatively small but that is much bigger than the existing our current civic center our civic auditorium to give you a feel for it its mass will effectively block the view of Monterey Bay off the wharf's end it's also absent any evidence of it being a response to a defined market or community need or potential negative effects if built it would have on the other comparable existing commercial I would suggest take that out for sure and do the other adjustments and you'll have the community behind you thank you good evening Mayor Cummings Vice Mayor Myers, council members Byers, Brown, Golder, Matthews and Watkins this is Casey Byer I'm the CEO of the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce we have written before on behalf of the chamber members to support this wharf master plan I wanted to point out again that in 1910 the committee to construct a municipal wharf the chamber issued $165,000 in bonds to build the new wharf in 1913 I was at the 100 year anniversary celebration of that wharf and at that time it was very clear from the attendees that the wharf was in need of major repairs I want to remind you that the chamber represents over 600 businesses county-wide individuals, community leaders and public officials and is considered the voice of the Santa Cruz County business community since 1989 that's 131 years ago the wharf, like the boardwalk as well as the Monterey Marine Sanctuary Center at the entrance of the wharf reminds us of the direct connection between protecting the natural environment and while balancing economic benefits that the wharf brings to the city of Santa Cruz these iconic attractions for residents and tourists like to draw hundreds of thousands of people to visit annually the wharf is known as one of the county's premier tourist attractions and we all understand that tourism is one of the core economic engines of our community that is why the wharf master plan needs to be improved updated and the wharf's infrastructure and management system must be designed so it is maintained for ongoing protection of our ocean paradise I can go on in extensive detail about the master plan for you, but it's the chamber's 131 years of promoting economic vitality, environmental enhancement of the city and county's it is a simple response to this plan please approve this plan now, thank you very much thank you hello can you hear me? yes good evening well thank you for this wharf master plan I think it's been a very involved process there has been a lot of community involvement but we are at a pivotal moment where this can go forward knowing that there's a major lawsuit before you and it probably will go to that level and maintenance and critical structural issues will be delayed and that's a great concern to me so I would encourage you to maybe have a third party and negotiate and delay the master plan until such time as you can work out some of these details otherwise you're going to cause a very challenging situation for the city and the city attorney was just asked for $400,000 overage and I just wonder how we can continue in some of these lawsuits so I think it's worth trying to negotiate further even if it's with another third party as a go-between between the parties of the city and the people involved with the lawsuit I'm also concerned about extreme weather conditions and how that will affect the lower pathways we obviously want them to be safe and well maintained but can they really withstand these major weather events and so what are the maintenance costs going to be and I'm going to look at the plan more closely because I haven't heard a lot about how these landmark civilians are going to generate enough income versus the cost of delaying this and the cost of going through this lawsuit and so I think it's worth reconsidering the height I find it interesting that you talk about a variation whereas people when they look at the horizon and they look at a line they don't necessarily when you're dealing with the waterline have to have variation in building sizes so I find that argument a little bit strange you're using land use considerations for the war I can't think of many buildings or wharfs that actually have a three-story building so I think it's worth doing an equal comparison thank you very much thank you I have some questions the TV hello my name is Kathy Haber and I live within a half a mile of the wharf I frequently walk on it so I'm very familiar with it and I have questions about the wharf master plan that have not been answered first it's been presented that the wharf is weak and needs strengthening and I don't understand if that is the case how it can support second stories and 40-foot buildings has the weight and the wind shear from these higher buildings been considered will the wharf actually have to be may be fewer to support these heavy buildings and more driven second question the landmark building will generate more visitors with their cars otherwise why build it where is the additional parking for special events when people come for a special event they expect to be able to park their car reasonably close and you are not adding really any significant additional parking it sounds like it's just mainly restraints my third question is I don't understand the source of funding for this massive project if you don't have the funding to repair the wharf the way it is where is the money supposed to come from to build these new buildings these walkways etc etc that is going to cost a very great deal of money I do not think that the city should issue general obligation bonds for these projects when there is so little community support and a lot of community objection thank you for your comment my name is robin broon I'm speaking on behalf of myself I wanted to make a few remarks based upon the questions of council members landmark building I don't think the title of this building is it is going to dominate the scene it's in the middle of the ocean I don't think it's very good to compare it to coconut grove which is a building on the land the photos do not show how it will appear when walking on the wharf itself it will be predominant and eliminate a wide best of view of the water you will see more buildings and you will see the ocean the presenter from the city said it was to entice the person to walk to the wharf and so increase the commercial possibilities they walk full landfill by more things I mean be more commercially productive I would like that the enticement is to see the unlimited view of the Monterey Bay Merlin Sanctuary one of the council members mentioned enjoying seeing the Liddiff Park this landmark is having weddings and venues into the wee hours of the night it's going to increase the impact on the marine sanctuary as far as noise and visual pollution this is going to disturb wildlife at night which used to have the night to itself we don't do that in our state parks so why should we do it in a national marine sanctuary we wouldn't put a landmark building like this on Sunset or Manresa Beach we shouldn't have it on the wharf either the city representatives say it's just a placeholder the building doesn't have to happen that means punt the ball down the road you have the authority to set limits now please do so and I do believe the commercial space has increased about 60% that's way more than just the deck on top of our desk floor thank you we did have one more hand to go up and this is going to be the last comment hello good evening mayor and council members this is Ron Pomerance and uh I just find the city is spending a diminishing tax dollars to push this incredibly staff driven unnecessary and wasteful project the wharf master plan proposes to construct three new buildings one of which is going to be well over 40 feet obscuring the iconic vista into the bay at the end of the wharf I highly recommend that you require putting up story polls to really see the impact what this new construction will look like the plan eliminates the will most likely eliminate the popular and educational sea lion viewing area the master plan reduces fishing areas which was original reason the wharf was was built the plan calls for reducing already too small parking space space sizes in and there's no additional parking provided which which will in the in the high season will create potential grid block on the wharf and the entry to the wharf and um I don't know how you're going to control cars and other traffic issues there's nothing addressed there structural improvements to the wharf are continuously necessary and highly supportable but to spend millions of dollars for tourist amusement is out of the question for me city revenues are essential to cover the ever need for covid world to support basic and essential services which is the primary function of the city the wharf is a holistic structure with charming character that would be destroyed by the proposed master plan do not accept the IR as presently laid out spend what it takes to keep the wharf structurally safe and sound to maintain the feel and historic charisma I thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration action and deliberation I know there are a few questions that came up so um maybe if staff could is available to answer a few of those questions I know from the community who asked about sources of funding for kind of these other aspects within the project and then the other one was whether experts were contacted so I was just wondering if you could address those questions that came up in the community and David you're muted there you go again I think for the first one I think we've been fairly clear that we're looking largely outside funding grants and things like that we have limited redevelopment bonds that could be used to leverage some of that funding but you know at short I don't think now is the time to think about a ballot measure you know for it let alone for improvements but grants and stuff probably makes the most sense as far as the expert analysis of birds I'm going to ask Stephanie to speak on that one sure and this is also included in a response in your staff report but the biological resources section of the EIR was prepared by five different biologists and there was a technical bird nesting study prepared by local biologist Gary Kilsen and Brian Mori and then the EIR section were due deck biologists the nesting birds setting impact section and responses to comments was prepared by David Compton so it's over 20 years experience of the biologist specializing in ornithology and we had Dr. Michael Henry prepare the setting section impacts and all the response to comments related to the marine environment and other wildlife issues yes thank you I am actually if the questions have been answered I'm prepared to go ahead and make a motion to move forward on this I first want to say I want to command all the members of the EIR for how long it's been going into this I mean it's obviously the the well-being and future of the work has been a concern for a long long time and I think the degree of community involvement all along but particularly most recently with the EIR publication has been very helpful we got lots and lots of comments all along the way I will point out that we did get the Monterey Bay National Infection among others so that was mentioned but the comments raised from the public did cause us to take a little extra time to make sure the issues were covered and many callers will know but not perhaps all that many significant issues were reviewed and we have revised language that comes forth from staff in response to specific concerns that were raised I want to just mention briefly I think I'll mention them first in the revisions that have come to us since we heard this recently proposed modifications include one about the historical process that was mentioned in the SAC report I'm not going to go into detail but just the issues the issues of explicitly not accommodating large vessels or their shuttles is covered in additional language the issue of the entrance sign has been revised this is mentioned but these are recent changes in response to public comments which has been changed and made much more flexible with the direction that it seems simply inspirational the section of height explains that it's consistent with the underlined buildings but it is not a mandate to do anything and I think it's most important these are guidelines and maximums regarding the ceo I am doing added language is very clear and I will have to say the SAC report the agenda report mentioned that there is a fair amount of misinformation that has circulated on this so the revised language is very explicit any potential development at the end of the work shall preserve to the greatest extent possible or relocate to a place of greater access in viewing quality the popular ceo I am doing it's very clear in the presentation that the locations have moved and in fact are even greater possibilities under the revised plan so I just wanted to start by saying that the community input has been very valuable and the staff recommendation has been responsive quite explicitly to the issues that have been raised so having said that I'm going to move that we adopt the recommendation presented which includes adoption of a resolution certifying the final EIR including the amended language that was suggested earlier in this meeting by the city attorney but maybe with that language up there it was shown to us once that we adopt the resolution approving the findings of facts and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Santa Cruz Warf Master Plan and the CEQA that we adopted Santa Cruz Warf Master Plan subject to the modifications proposed by staff and I described some of those so those are included in our agenda material starting on page 23.11 and we number four direct staff to prepare a public work plan with the California coastal commission for implementation of the Warf Master Plan so that's my motion I have a motion by Council Member Matthews Council Member Brown I see your hands raised but I'm looking for a second to the motion so Council Member Brown are you Council Member Watkins I'm happy to second the motion so the motion by Council Member Matthews seconded by Council Member Watkins Council Member Brown muted by the way thank you so I just want to say a couple of things first I want to be clear that I absolutely support this master plan I you know I appreciate all of the work that's gone into it I really appreciate the work that has done concerns and so I'm really glad to see it that has happened but as staff has repeatedly reminded us today that we are being asked to approve a placeholder that will set up the parameters for an acceptable envelope for construction for new building and I'd like I just would like to see an envelope that is a little bit smaller that actually you know does not insist on including the really objectionable elements and for me that is I've heard it over from from poking tonight in communications to us the landmark building that is where my my significant opposition is for me at least but also given that there's some potential there's some gray area here about interpretation of CEQA with respect to the in particular the landmark building and aesthetic impact we are going to see a lawsuit we will if we don't remove that landmark building and so I would like to see a motion that includes that I have so I'd like to put this forward as a substitute motion I want it to be on the record I have sent it to the city clerk and if you could put it up that would be really great and I'm just to make this clean I'm going to offer this as a substitute motion Sandy before you go do you want the additions added that staff this part right here to the that I plugged it in just in case I sent it to you before that that was so I'm going to make a substitute motion get it on the record here and it's essentially the staff recommendation and so you can you we've read all of that going down to number three with respect to the adoption of the Santa Cruz work master plan subject to modifications proposed by staff with the following revisions so and I'm looking at the master plan itself that document on page 11 of that document summary of policies and proposed actions in section one paragraph three I would propose that be deleted and that paragraph says construct a new landmark building on access with the main vehicular circulation drive reminiscence scale and industrial form to the large warehouse structure so that and then and these are just kind of going through in the master plan places where I think if we just eliminated these this length we might we might feel we might get a lot more community support so on page 12 in section four construct a landmark building that punctuates the bayward end of the wharf celebrates its deep water extension and southwest orientation into the wind for optimal mooring and recall historic warehouse structure again to delete that paragraph on pages 29 and 30 there is like regarding the landmark building and I I propose that that be removed lastly on page 49 amending design standards as follows building height second floor uses and rooftop dining are encouraged with a maximum height for all buildings not to exceed two stories or 35 feet not including special apertur and architectural projections I can never pronounce that word so then the rest of it is the staff recommendation that my substitute motion and I will substitute motion by councilmember brown councilmember buyers does that take a second to this motion yes I'll need a second yes I second the motion okay so we have a substitute motion made by councilmember brown seconded by councilmember buyers I'd like to speak to it too sure go ahead okay fine I think removing the landmark building is often referred to as if there had been a landmark building at the end of the war there was a good size building absolutely true but that's where all the fish are fish came in or the fish from men and women came in with their fish and it was a utilitarian part of the war absolutely needed it made sense but we've long passed that this is any longer a fishing war it is a tourist war and for the other reason increasing the commercial by 57% you've got to think of that where a lot of it would be in that landmark building totally out of scale not necessary the views I think we already talked about the views of it just walking by it would not be a pleasant experience you can walk in if we one of the historic pictures was wonderful there was nothing on the war maybe there was just that building and I thought you know if you just walk out there which a lot of people do they hear the lion's barking all kinds of birds and look at the sea that should be the experience yes there has to be some buildings but people want to eat and rest and stuff but it shouldn't be overwhelming taking that experience of of a place where you should see the sea and hear the birds and hear the barking of the lion and it's just become an overbuilt totally overbuilt place no longer a war a place that has been here forever with all of its historic significance there's really nothing left that would be a historic significance maybe a couple of topics I just think the community has no sense of what the structure and 40 feet of buildings would break up that ambience totally I'm so happy to work and thank you Sandy for this it's way too much it's just way too much and it could be a thing to walk on the war back at low sea I hate to go on about it but it is just changing at 150% I just want to make one more comment about this because there seems to be a real insistence that we keep this this element in the plan and at the same time we are hearing well it's not a mandate it could be and so I guess I'm just wondering how to reconcile what I'm hearing the push back seems to suggest that that's a lynch pin for the master plan and if we don't have it we're not really talking about what happens if we don't have that particular building of the master plan so I just feel like that's a little contradictory and I wanted to put that out there if it is so critical that we have it then saying that maybe it isn't going to happen is not really an appropriate argument at least for the community to feel more comfortable about it and that is what I am I don't want to see the word change but that's not my decision to make I understand that there is a need for doing things that are going to help augment the business and provide some resources for the repairs which I do believe need to be done and all of it but this particular piece just seems to be what is really objectionable and so that's why I made the subsequent motion thanks there's members on the staff who want to respond to that so maybe Mr. McCormick can give any follow-up comments to that yeah absolutely and Bonnie may or may not want to add anything to it but when I reference the idea of placeholder or not a mandate it's in large part because the master plan is a programmatic analysis of potential for the most part for everything but the east promenade which is a program which is somewhat nebulous but an idea and analyzing that idea for its merits and its potential impacts once the project comes along they'll have to be analyzed further to see if it's more or less than the impacts evaluated at the program level as far as the building itself yes it could potentially be built up to 40 feet and a 6000 square foot floor plate but it will evolve based upon community process and needs at the time that funding and or coalitions and or a project that comes along that wants to do that development the fact of the matter is the engineering report found the end of the war to be among the highest needs for reinvestment I didn't believe it said upwards of 50% of the fasteners on the end of the war for failing we know it's been major investment in the end of the war and it's getting the brunt of all of the damage we know that the dolphin is one of the sites that was of greatest concern among the engineering team when they evaluated things like the Miramar which has since come down so we know we'll have to redevelop that at some point as we go to do these things we need to have maximum flexibility as a community to determine what goes there what will change how we meet the needs of the future as far as how we shore up the end of the war and how we provide all the recreational aesthetic and investment opportunities that are needed to sustain the end of the war we already lost 45 feet in the 60s we want to lose more that's certainly a question when it comes to doing those major improvements at the end of the war having a project placeholder allows us to go with the design money and the funding money that we need to determine what we're going to do there to best meet the various needs that will evolve and without that it will be that much harder it will be only basically trying to fund deferred maintenance and that is not something that is easy to get outside money for it doesn't come along often and it's highly competitive when it comes along so having a project there whatever it is whether it's a landmark building or some much reduced version is an important placeholder for us to ensure the end of the war you have the floor so I'll just if you have any further comments we'll move on to other council members I understand what you're saying I don't want to sound combative at all because I'm really just trying to understand how a building of this scale is necessary to the shoring up or doing any work at the end of the war why couldn't it be a smaller footprint or envelope for that I guess that's just where I'm still confused the insistence that it must be potentially of that scale and that otherwise we're going to not be able to do anything except for deferred maintenance so I'm still not understanding that why we couldn't do a smaller envelope there I couldn't say for sure not knowing what the eventual use would be as to what envelope it needs to be and that's kind of the point is we don't know what the community is going to need 10, 15, 20 years down the line to serve the needs down there it very well could be that we see a return of the shoring the stocks have recovered the addition of landings and new davits might allow us to have commercial fish landings at the wharf in which case we might need refrigeration units we might need an expanded fish market there might be any variety of things that change out there that we can't anticipate the current zoning allow us 40 feet and while we might be able to do a lot with less we just don't know at this point there's a flexibility and it also allows you the opportunity to ensure that whatever is proposed will have the flexibility to secure the financing it needs not just through grants but potentially bank financing and things where stuff actually has to pencil you know we're trying to argue over something that is necessarily nebulous at a program master plan level but it's there to ensure that the community has the type of project it needs when the time comes maybe Bonnie's got a little bit more to say she's got her camera on yes had some camera issues actually you've said everything really very well that I would have added to it the last part of what you just said was what I was going to add is that it does provide a maximum flexibility through the planning process the public outreach process the plan that's before you today is actually a lower height than what was originally recommended through the public process and through the architect's visioning so there has been really some thoughtful approach to this in hearing some of the comments many of the comments that we received from a public standpoint I think the critical point from our perspective is that flexibility we know that the dolphin has to come down at some point in the not too distant future we don't have some building that's included in the master plan at the end of the war it's going to be really problematic from us from an economic viability perspective we know we need commercial activity we know we need to bring tours to the war and as a member of the public commented earlier who owns a business on the war bringing a new demographic to the war is going to be critical for long term economic success we need to do that so I think from my perspective does it need to be 40 can it be 35 you know it could it absolutely could the 40 foot is in line with current zoning which is why we felt like we were compromising on what's allowed under current zoning if council wants to direct it a lower height they could it's not the staff recommendation but that is something you could do absolutely I think the critical thing is that we are able to understand that it does include a building of some sort direction to include a certain height and massing at the end of the war so that we can go forward in the future and to your question I mean David addressed this as well we don't have the funding right now but we do need it in our planning document you know as David mentioned earlier and I mentioned at the beginning the last master plan we had was in 1980 so that's why we feel it's so important to include these elements now we may not have another opportunity to bring another plan to you again once we get this approved for you know 30 40 years this is a document that's supposed to stand for the next 20 or 30 years so we want it to have the maximum flexibility hopefully we'll be able to apply for grants and we'll do more community outreach and go through a future public process for what any future building does look like and we recognize that there is you know the majority of the public sentiment about a lower building on the war that ultimately is what will be built on the end of the war but right now for the planning document and the visioning we really do recommend that we stick with the current height that's allowed in our current zoning thank you are we now discussing the proposed amendment I think that's correct or if there's any other comments replacement motions I guess that's what we're talking about I'm going to speak against it I do think we need the master plan state picture with no specifics required and I just want to point out we have had in the past the downtown plan of each plan so to say downtown you could build a building of this height on this parcel it's not that specific it gives the framework and then every project that comes along is reviewed independently and specifically within the context of the plan I think that's what we need the work has evolved from day one that it was built that needs to be structurally sound and commercially successful environmentally responsible and contribute to the visitor experience and I think what we have before is to choose that so I'm going to be opposing the substitute motion yeah thank you mayor yeah I I'll chime in here I don't want to touch on brief but I won't be supporting the substitute motions I do believe that we have put together a very solid master plan and that is what it is it is a master plan for the war as many people have mentioned today that this is you know this sets a direction it does not confirm exactly what is going to happen in the plan those buildings may be smaller they may be architecturally different than not requiring 40 feet so I think what we do by doing this is that we leave that ability for not only additional public comments and public involvement but we also leave the flexibility for creating the kinds of spaces out there that I think we all hope will live on you know into the future so the technology around green building the technology around how buildings are designed the look and feel of some of the things that are being built around the bay area with regards to refurbishing these working wars you think about the prosceo in San Francisco and some of these other historic sites that are being refurbished and redone these are national features now these are places that people travel to come to Christie field all of these opportunities where we didn't tear it down we didn't let it fall down because of neglect we didn't say it's okay to just let it fall into the ocean little bit by little bit we acknowledge that we have new technology we have design buildings and we created spaces that people enjoy people embrace so I think keeping in mind what we can do in the future and really acknowledging that this is a really important part of our infrastructure in the city and we need to be thoughtful about it we need to be opportunistic about it we need to be visionary about it and again we'll play out again in multiple community meetings and as we get proposals and those come forward we'll be able to shape these buildings we'll be able to understand exactly what their impact will look like but at this time I think it's premature to start limiting buildings and I think the main goal of this is that we need to get this get it to the coastal commission and actually be ready to invest in the infrastructure which is the most important thing as well as the economic revitalization of the wharf I walk on the wharf every day it's gone it's been since COVID hit and I really I really hope that we decide to invest in the future a wharf that people will experience in the future which I think will be fitting with the environment and the scenic resources so I'm very glad to hear that Marine Sanctuary is supporting this as well the wharf is an amazing place to interpret the Marine Sanctuary as well as the history of Santa Cruz so those are my comments I unfortunately will not be supporting the substitute motion but I am interested in wrapping this up and setting the wharf on its new course thank you no further questions or comments why don't we go ahead with the substitute motion that was made by Council Member Brown seconded by Council Member Byers and then if there's a need to and then we'll based on the outcome of that we can continue moving forward with subsequent actions so with that I'll turn it over to the clerk to call the roll call vote on the substitute motion and just to confirm this is to accept it yes Council Member Byers Council Member Matthews no Brown aye Boulder no Watkins no Vice Mayor Meyers no and Mayor Cummings Boulder Watkins and Vice Mayor Meyers voting opposed and so we'll move the motion that was originally made by Council Member Matthews we also include the language amending Council Member Byers no Matthews yes Boulder Watkins Vice Mayor Meyers aye and Mayor Cummings so that passes with Council Members Matthews, Boulder, Watkins, Vice Mayor Meyers Mayor Cummings voting in favor Council Member Byers I hope that and so I think that when we get to these moments where we're discussing the different types of buildings that are going in the heights that they'll be further opportunity for the community to voice their opinions and we can take their opinions into account when we're making those decisions but overall I want to just thank all the staff and community members for all of the work and support that's gone into getting us to this point and I really look forward to us being able to apply for grants and really work towards preserving and maintaining our war. With that I know that we were going to start we were going to start oral communications at 7 o'clock I do want to acknowledge that we've been sitting here for a pretty long time today and I know that Council Members may need to take a break for a while so why don't we reconvene at 7.45 and that'll give us about a little bit over 45 minutes to take a break and we'll start 7.45 with oral communications followed by our evening item at 8.15. We can go ahead and get started with oral communications and then move on to order with oral communications and hopefully once we get started we'll have a few of our other Council Members joining so good evening everyone and thank you for your patience we've had a long day of meetings and so we're going to go ahead with our evening session next item on our agenda is oral communications so for members of the public who are streaming in this meeting if you would like to comment on items that were not on our agenda today during oral communications now is the time to call in using the numbers on your screen if you're interested in addressing the Council please press star 9 on your phone to raise your hand once you've been called on you'll have two minutes to address the Council for items that were not on our agenda today if you're time to speak you'll hear an announcement that you've been unmuted please press star 6 on your phone to unmute yourself we request that you clearly and slowly state your name before making comments so that we can accurately capture it into the meeting minutes however it is not required so with that if I could take roll really quick oh sorry about that so before we do that I'd like to ask the clerk to please call the roll Council Member Byer here Matthew okay Golder Watkins Vice Mayor Meyer here and Mayor Cummings here there are members of the public who would like to comment during oral communications now is the time to call in please press star 9 on your phone to raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes Kyle Davenport I believe everyone is a leader in their own small and big ways and I see the City Council as the county leaders to me so I'm just here to talk about what I want to talk about homelessness and racism I believe both of these things stem from a mindset of categorization and I just wanted to get that into the minds of our leaders I've studied this for a long long time inside of myself and others around me and read and read and read about it and read philosophy from the last 3,000 years and leadership from the last 3,000 years of what has been written I think it all comes down to categorization so I'm asking our leaders to think about that and keep it in your mind how can we stop as a community categorizing other people and instead of manifesting negative qualities how can we manifest positive qualities and dream of those things and make them happen acceptance prosperity for all I believe we can all win in our individual unique ways and if we focus on that that it can happen for everyone and to me it comes down to an individual mindset of integration integrating wounds from the past integrating left hemisphere and right hemisphere just having an integrated mindset I think we all want integration on the outside and on the inside of each of us individually that's my dream thank you Peaceful of quite audible protest outside the house of volunteer police officer and right wing activist Deborah Elston a dozen or so activists with bullhorns brave the evening cold expressing outrage and amazement Elston had used her police positions to issue citations to people living in RVs resulting in numerous tows homeless people is also clear as a next door moderator and Santa Cruz neighbors organizer last Monday Huff received reports that's homeless united for friendship and freedom that on duty she drove her police vehicle into a man the man was trying to photo her behavior to defend his vehicle against one of her unjustifiable tickets after hitting the man with her police car Elston then reportedly attempted to leave the scene the man and his friends demanded she stay when Elston's police friends arrived they cited the man for false imprisonment and refused the man's request to cite Elston for traffic accident in the past year Elston has issued over 200 tickets costing sixty seven hundred dollars to RV and vehicles in spite of shelter and place safety precautions as the COVID-19 pandemic grows worse driving homeless people onto the streets by ticketing and towing their vehicles is cool and costly it is also foolish and threatens not just the health of the poor outside but that of the general public our police condone and defend this kind of abuse it takes place under their authority city council funds these outrages so get out your cameras speak up for those in your community it falls to us to oppose the perpetrators and support the victims and thanks to the community for listening to me yeah hi this is Garrett Phillips following up on that Alma Mootson coast diaries letter I still think the notion that planes flying at 10 to 20,000 feet would disturb the cultural ceremony stretches believability I quote perhaps a different justification for a flight objection from the monument proclamation itself quote are the rights away should be authorized only if they are necessary for the care and management of the objects to be protected unquote perhaps that's a different way to go there in that letter of support but in general I was fascinated by the Alma Mootson chairman by a biography book title assimilation is surrender while there can be truth to that taken literally America's cultural ideal is not the colonialist culture of Spain or Mexico Americans should embody the uniquely special e-pluribus concept that is now anyway the most culturally accepting diverse successful powerful and longest lasting democratic republic in history the many subcultures can and are largely accepted and preserved here but accepting the American made a culture for e-pluribus to them to work to me a combative assimilation as surrender stance and denial of today's realities may be responsible for the extreme Native American mass poverty while cultural identity has almost a religious reverence the real life consequences of differences in sub cultures within the made a culture are a reality and those are called due to the old or racism sex and homophobia or their oppressions like the leftist would have us believe cultures are continuously invaded all the time as the American originally European culture continuously has been for decades and still is being invaded now by invaded I mean not accepting the made a culture of speaking English advocating socialism communism or misusing parliamentary procedure of democracy to overflow belief values like capitalism private property or not accepting separate church and state in that sense I get it that cultural invasion is a most disturbing event if it succeeds in destroying what what was a well functioning society but without accepting the US made a culture uniting different people that we are left with an endless divided warring tribalism resentment and display good evening my name is Jason Richie I'm a lifelong resident of Santa Cruz and I'm very proud to present to you guys very briefly thank you Mayor Cummings vice mayor mayors and other counselors recently a letter written by our police chief came to my attention and I'm deeply deeply alarmed by it and the rogue vigilance that it seems to promote and the notion that police officers in our community need vigilance rogue vigilance shooters from hidden corners of our community to come out and protect our officers I understand that this community has been tragically affected by violence against police officers our community is however much more significantly impacted by violence against our marginalized community members mainly our homeless community and other marginalized people whom we share land space and values with it is within that vein that I beg the counselors to consider specifically the recommendations from lawyer Jay Rorty who made some really concrete productive constructive considerations and delivered those to you as an alternative as a community representation of the values that we hold dear and the values that contrast apparently quite significantly the alarming militarized values that our police chief seems to be presenting to our community at this time I really hope that we can take into consideration the scope greater than a few leaders who've been given the mic and return the mic to our community at this time of reconsidering the ways that we hear our police and the ways here that we are affected. Thank you so much for your time and please give it a more deep understanding of what the police is about. Hi, my name is Chelsea and I'm a Santa Cruz resident, a homeowner and a mother. Police accountability means that it needs to be easier to bring lawsuits against the police for misconduct. As written, the language is most too vague to actually increase the ability of people to bring those suits. I would like to thank you for the questions made by Jay Rory in the letter he sent to council. This current moment is not about trusting police to reform themselves. They can't. It's about reducing police presence and power in our communities and installing funding and constructing new systems of community safety that aren't rooted in histories of police. Chief Mill's recent blog post glorifying vigilantism and promoting a warrior cop mentality is disgusting and disturbing. I hope that we can all agree that a citizen training his laser rifle sights on a police officer and a suspect grappling for control of a knife is not actually a good example of the mindset a public should show towards police. We are not only talking about police, but about the police. We are not about proving. Have you already forgotten what happened in Kenosha? When two men were murdered there, their chief blamed them for their own deaths because they were out past curfew. This is who you are calling with your dog whistles, chief. It's the Kyle Wittenhouses of our community. It's people like that. They are emboldened by those words. You need to stop. You need to do better. We are all counting on you and you are failing. That's all. Thank you. My name is Joan Peterson. I'm a resident of Santa Cruz. I'm speaking about the police policy proposal. I'm going to stop you because I want to tell you that I know that our members of the public have an opportunity to address the council on items that are not on the agenda. If this is regarding the policy, that's the next item. We ask that you kindly wait until that item is heard, and then we will open up for public comment. Please press star 600 phone to unmute, and you'll have two minutes. now having absolutely no shelter and the rains are beginning. You kick everyone off the bench lands because you supposedly care about people getting flooded by being in a flood zone yet you don't care about kicking them out of their tent shelter forcing them to move while raining and those who receive no notice on the bench lands were asked to leave with no other shelter options. I know there's a lie being purported that there are 15 available beds in a supposed shelter program but you have to go through a referral process and right now they're currently backed up talking to individuals back from putting themselves into the referral process back from May so this is not true when you kick someone out of their tent and tell them to move during a COVID crisis there are no other places to go and and this this what you're doing is pretending you care that there's a flood zone and people get flooded if the rains come they can move the amount of money that you're spending on fencing off the city could be more wisely spent in helping those individuals continuing to fence off the city reminds me of Trump building the wall and the number of executive also orders remind me of Trump additionally Deborah Elston she's in the volunteer police program she hid an individual with the police car she should be fired from the program immediately lastly please fire fascist Martin Bernal thank you the public who would like to comment during oral communications I'm going to go ahead and close oral communications and we can move on to our next item of business so the next item of business this evening is item number 24 policy changes related to racial equity and social justice and the criminal justice system and we have presented tonight chief Andy Mills for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if this is an item you would like to comment on now it's a time to call in using the instructions on your screen we will have a presentation of the order of the item by staff followed by questions from council and then we'll take a public comment and return to council for action and deliberation and just to get us started I just want to reflect back on you know what's been happening throughout this year and so shortly after the murder of George Floyd on May 29th chief Mills reached out to me to inform myself and other council members I would imagine about an action that was going to take place that Saturday and the action that was organized by Joy Flynn where members of the public came out and it was the first kind of call to action to acknowledge the mistreatment of African Americans in our community well in our society as a whole and in need to be begin you know and continue with ensuring that there was equal justice and equal rights for African Americans in our nation as a whole and to begin discussions in our community shortly after that action the summer was followed by numerous protests and actions that took place around the city but it was really clear to myself and chief Mills the need to engage with our community and begin to hear the perspectives of the African Americans within our community to begin to address policy changes that would help better the lives of marginalized people within our community we held like numerous I'd say from June 3rd through September we held numerous zoom meetings with the public we held numerous meetings with members of the black community to really understand what was impacting them especially since this discussion was around black lives matter and if we're going to say that we want to support black lives matter and that's something that we care about then it was really important for us to reach out to the black community and hear their voices and ensure that their voices were at the front of this conversation I'd want to thank councilmember Watkins who joined us early on in many of these meetings as well listening to black community to hear their concerns and I want to thank all the community members and staff who will the community members who have been working with us and trying to figure out ways that we can move forward together and I want to thank chief Mills for you know being open to listening to the community and trying to bring forward changes that can you know it's not everything but it's a start and I think that this is something that we hope we can continue working on moving forward and so with that I'll turn it over to chief Mills to start the presentation for this evening's item well thank you Mr. Mayor and good evening council members with me I also have several people representing parts of the community we have Joy Flynn and Taj Leahy Reggie Sanders Steven's excuse me Brenda Griffin from the NAACP and then Joyce Blotsky these are just a few of the people who really helped drive this forward but I really am indebted to them and they'll be adding into this conversation when appropriate as part of this conversation and I just really wanted to take a couple seconds and thank the mayor Justin Cummins for his assistance and help and leadership to help over sustained period of time to help drive this forward including even editing the staff report that went out and and so forth and Martin Watkins was there from day one also and so I really want to thank the support from not only YouTube but all the council members who have contacted me both privately and publicly to offer assistance and even sometimes cheerly behind the scenes so thank you so much I do believe that this is an opportunity for us to begin the process I'm going to ask for three things today one is to affirm support our policy amendments at the fcpd which are items one through 16 and then to direct staff to incorporate policy changes at the council policy changes items b one through four and then provide direction and support to the chief of police to further items c one through three and we'll break those down a little bit as we move on. You know what I wanted to ask are we supposed to be seeing your screen. Not yet. Much check. I think that Bonnie is I think that's ready to go so you can turn that out at any time so that would probably help some of the council members see what's going on. You can advance the next slide please. It has been said that culture eats policy for breakfast in my experience in policing that is certainly the case. So the idea behind the policy amendments that you see here is to chisel some of these policies in stone so that they cannot be altered without going through city council or changing law and that's the purpose for the it's been broken up as you see it and we've spent a lot of time thinking about this with multiple community members and we think that this is the best way to go. This is an effort to change and influence the culture of policing here in Santa Cruz and hopefully in other places as well as people watch what we do here in Santa Cruz. Do you go ahead and forward please. First of all I want to congratulate and and think about what council has already done. You've already removed our ability to do predictive policing and prohibited face recognition technology by council edict. And I think that's important because it was the first step in a series of steps to make sure that we're policing in a very just manner here in Santa Cruz. So I applaud the city council for that. But I also want us to recognize that this is a process. It is not an end step in and achieving equity in justice here in Santa Cruz. As the mayor pointed out we have met with multiple community members multiple times in multiple venues to get as much input as we felt that we could. Some of the input you agree with some of it you don't. But the point was to listen and to thoughtfully consider what can be done. On September 22nd I posted online and we didn't throw all our social media accounts to Joyce Blotsky. The the proposals that you see today to get feedback from people we got plenty of feedback in that way also. I think the important thing here is to understand that this is a first step effort in a long series of steps. But we're getting pushed back as we expected from both extremes. We have people in Santa Cruz who are commenting that there is no such thing as biased or racism in Santa Cruz. And we get people on the other extreme saying that this doesn't go nearly far enough and they want to be able to noodle out every word that is being presented. So this is an effort to be in the middle and to push forward now and get some things enacted so that we can improve racial equity here in Santa Cruz. And I think Joyce Lynn had a comment about this as well. Thank you Chief. Thank you Mayor. Thank you Council. I just want to say thank you for having us here today. And I will chime in as as needed. But the main thing I just want to reiterate and stand behind what Chief Mills is saying because we've been in multiple conversations and really what this is about is setting a precedent for our community and a precedent for change, a culture change. And this is something that is going to take time. And you as a council have already taken some of those steps with eradicating the predicted policing. And so I also want to thank you for that. And this is a continued conversation. While we're asking for specific things tonight, there will be things that will be uncovered as the paradigm shifts and as the purchase needs to change. And again this is really working towards a culture change within how policing has been. Over hundreds of years and why not start and have that example come from Santa Cruz. Thanks Joy. I'd go ahead Bonnie if you'd advance. Let me start out this presentation by telling you how proud I am of the men and women who serve our community. We have some wonderful people, some very thoughtful people who I can say were partners in this process. Some were part of our committee. Some used to force experts that down. It was a report over policy and the POA also, the police officers association, also chimed in to make sure that this was going to be done correctly, working with us and all of us rowing in the same direction. While we say that, we also recognize that each of us, each and every one of us holds personal bias. And we want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to reduce that. We also recognize that there's a need for racial equity and justice in the justice system and the healthcare system and the education system and housing and employment. This is our slice of the pie, what we believe we can influence. And so our goal is to push this forward together. We truly believe that we are safer as a community and we are safer as a profession when we bring the levels of tension down. And there's plenty of tension between the black community and the police. And so we can reduce that tension and that hyper-vigilance. We honestly believe that makes all of us safer, including our police officers working the street. We also recognize that we police in a very violent society. And that sometimes our people have to get confronted by things that they don't want to be part of. Just this last, in the last couple of weeks, we've had a police officer and a firefighter kicked in the face while trying to help people who are in a medical episode. So we do police in a situation that is violent. We expect that we are going to have those violent counters. What we really want to do is be able to de-escalate everything we can possibly do to prevent people from being injured. Having said that, I think it's also important that I need to stay clearly in the front side. Not everything can be de-escalated. And we want to make sure that we're doing all the weekend to time talk and tactics through interpersonal skills to make sure that we are reducing that. Finally, a few of the advanced police. The process that we use is we listen to thousands of Santa Cruzans who are marching for change, engaging people in conversation in some of those marches, as well as in community meetings afterward. We met with many members of the Black community, certainly not all. But one thing I discovered and learned, I'm sure that everybody else already knew this, is that this is not a monolithic group. There are many different people with many different views, many different desires. And so we try to look at consistent themes through the information. And when you identify those themes with commonalities, and when it falls within the sphere of what we think we can do as a police agency, that's when we decided to make the changes that we thought we could make. And just again, wanted to recognize a lot of people who are involved in this, and there's some special people that you can see listed here. I'm not listed as Ashton Davis from New York Jets, and Coach Weems from the Santa Cruz Warriors, as well as Chris Murphy and many others. So again, I can't thank you enough. Go ahead, Bonnie. Can I say this clearly for everybody? Black lives matter. There's no equivocation or minimization of that statement. It's just important for us to say clearly, pure and simply, Black lives matter. You know, I'm reminded of a story that I heard just recently of a man who was talking about Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. And when he said, Bluffs are the poor, he didn't, you know, quickly say, oh, Bluffs are the middle class and the wealthy also. It was Bluffs are the poor. They were the ones that were hurting at that time. This is what's going on with the Black community in my estimation. And so our responsibility is to gather around that community, do whatever we can to uplift that community, work with that community, and make sure that there's inclusion. And if you look over the history of policing, from 400 years ago, some of the first police officers were actually hired as people to track down runaway slaves. And then you go through the Jim Crow era, where policing developed even more power through the enforcement of Jim Crow laws. And then when people walked over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, who were they met by? The police. And when Brown versus Board of Education, the first child to be integrated into a white school, who could protect her? Well, it was U.S. Marshals because the police wouldn't do it. And I can go on and on with the examples. But the point is, things that have to change, things are changing, I truly believe. But these are things that we can do to change even more and in a better way that truly is inclusive. Go ahead and advance, please. Many members mentioned to us the eight can't wait campaign. And I know that the mayor was going to chime in on this one as well. So if you had some things you wanted to mention, Justin. Yeah, no. One of the things I really wanted to mention was that when these came before us, we listened to the community as a whole. And this was one of the items that was brought before us. Shortly after, again, the murder of George Floyd. And it was one of the templates that we were able to use as a starting point. And as we learn, there's a number of these items that the Santa Cruz police had already been implementing. But quickly and shortly after reviewing these, there were additional items from this that we'll discuss later on this evening. But where changes were also made. And so, for example, the banning of the chokehold was something that came shortly after. And as we'll listen to tonight, there's a number of other items on here that were, if they hadn't been implemented already, were taken into consideration and were either acted upon or still under consideration. Thank you. So this was a template. And we could look at these and have something visual that we could study and see what others had done and then see whether or not this would fit with what our community needed. And so, in advance, please. So these are all of the items that we have considered and are moving forward. Now it's color coded for you. The items in black are things that we felt that we could do at the department and that we could get done fairly quickly and in a permanent fashion. The ones in orange are things that we're going to ask you to take action on to give direct and approved changes to city policy. And the ones in yellow are the ones that you're going to provide direction on to me. And then the one in green is what's already been taken care of. And by the way, if somebody would like a copy of this PowerPoint, that can be provided to them after the session. So these are what we're going to go through one at a time. It'll be a little bit arduous, but I think that it will be helpful to particularly understand that. Bonnie, please go ahead. You can go through two. This is to affirm and support policy amendments by SCPD. Step one is we ban the carotid restraint. And the reason we did that is because it can slip easily from a control carotid restraint to hold, as you can see in the picture, to a chokehold. People just don't stand there still when you're trying to apply this. You're normally fighting with somebody. So the risk became too great of doing significant injury to people for the minimal positive effect that it could have. So we banned it on June 3rd. Santa Cruz police officers can no longer use the carotid hold restraint. Joy, I think you were going to comment on this as well. I just wanted to say this came from a direct result from the action that I held on May 30th. And this was something that happened really quickly, as you can see that action was on May 30th. And then this went into effect on June 3rd. Great. Bonnie, if you could advance. Second thing that was done is we prohibited no-knock search warrants. Think of the Breonna Taylor case in Louisville. And that was a no-knock search warrant served at one o'clock in the morning. Our department has been good at not using them for a long period of time. However, we're making a formal policy that is prohibited. The only exception to that and only I can approve it if it's a bona fide hostage situation where we need to make a entry without making no-knock search to protect a hostage. Unlikely to occur, but we still do need that flexibility to do that. So in effect, although no-knock search warrants were prohibited. And Todd, you were going to make a comment on that, I think. Yeah, this was a thank you, chief. And thank you, mayor and council members. This one was really important to me because I think there's, you know, from where I grew up, there was a lot of people who are afraid of these police forces coming in. And there's a fair amount of trauma that happens in the black community from these type of events, even if they're not witnessing or experiencing it themselves, not just the black community, actually, many communities. And so this was a great thing to be talking about with you all. And I'm thankful that we have this now. Thank you. Go ahead and advance, if you would, Bonnie. We've curtailed dynamic entries on search warrants. A dynamic entry, and you see the door knocker there, is when the police run up to a door, use a heavy object to burst open the door, and then they run out into the building with weapons pointed to most often to prevent the flushing of drugs. There are some reasons for this to take place, but very, very limited. And so what we've done is we curtailed it by making a deputy chief of police or hire approve and authorize this before it takes place. And we're telling them they need to use other less intrusive tactics. And so our officers are prepared to do that. Our officers are doing that currently. And then the second part of that is that a uniform police officer, with a marked vehicle, will assist on every search warrant so that there are no mistakes as to whether or not this is the police. They will be visible whenever possible. And so this is a important step forward. Remember the ICE raid that took place on Windsor Street last year? That was a dynamic entry search warrant at four o'clock in the morning. We don't see a reason for that, especially on a paper crime of any kind. So our thought is a deputy chief will have to approve it and that will curtail almost all dynamic entries. Please advance. Warning prior to shooting. Whatever feasible, the officer will shall prior to use of force make a reasonable effort to identify themselves as police officers into warrant that deadly force may be used. Our policy, policy 300 is now up on our website and anybody can go and inspect that policy to make sure that we're doing what we say we have done. That policy was amended just recently and the way we use this is it has to go through Lexapol to actually get published. Then it comes back to us and then we can post it. So it's posted this week and it is now on the website. A couple of things that are interesting in this policy I think that are important to point out. One is it discusses the proportionality of the use of force. That if you're dealing with a person that you're resisting that your force your force must be proportionate to that level of force that they're resisting. And the second thing is that fear alone is not enough to qualify for for the use of a high level force. So there has to be actual fear that you can articulate and we'll go into that in a little bit if you advance please. We are prohibiting shooting from or at moving vehicles. Now it's not 100% clean and I'll explain why. First of all we demand that officers shall not should move out of the path of vehicles instead of just charging their firearm at the vehicle. An officer can only discharge that firearm when no other reasonable means available to avert the threat. So let's just stop right here for a second. The reason we left this in is because what if you're that officer who's pinned up against the wall and a person is gunning it and you really feel like you're going to be killed. There has to be something you can do. Or and we I have seen this before. I've lost colleagues who've been written over by people who intentionally hit them with vehicles. So that's the only way you can defend yourself. I will not do anything to increase the mortality of our officers. So we want them to be able to avert the threat but they shall move out of the path of the vehicle if they at all possibly can. Or if the person is using deadly force other than the vehicle directed at the officer. If you're somebody's doing a drive-by on you we give our officers the authority to shoot back. And then lastly they will not shoot at a vehicle in an attempt to disable the vehicle. The only exception to that is if somebody is using the vehicle to inflict mass casualties. An example of that is Nice France where terrorists drove into a crowd and injured scores of people and killed many as well as others places that that has happened in the United States. So those are the exceptions to that. And all the shoulds in this paragraph have been changed to shell in the new policy which has been posted. So just to make that perfectly clear to everybody. Anybody want to jump in on that? I don't want to. Yeah, I just wanted to say that this this protects officers and it also protects citizens because when I go to a march one of the things that I'm thinking about now is the times when people have been run over by people trying to murder them. And so it makes me a little bit it makes me feel safer if I know that you guys can use deadly force if need be. So this is for everyone. And Andy, I'm glad to hear that you've changed the language from should to shall. It's very important. Thank you, Brenda. And that is correct. It has been changed. Go ahead and move forward with the next slide please. Required de-escalation. This has been a very heavy focus for our department for several years. And in the top left corner of the photograph which you can see is a little pin that says D with a lighting bolt and an E next to it. That means that the officer has successfully de-escalated a situation where a high level of force could have been used. And these are lapel pins that they can wear as a sign that they have de-escalated. We do training every year. We also have equipped every vehicle with the equipment needed to de-escalate rather than use lethal force. This is important. And our policy has a separate section that talks about specifically officers are to de-escalate whenever possible. And then also we also take a look at monthly videos through our patrol officers through TikTok and Instagram where they assess other incidents that have taken place around the country and talk about how they might have been able to de-escalate that situation without using force. And the picture here is an example of a de-escalation that took place down the war some time ago. This is a pretty busy slide. And this was done with the consultation of our use of force experts. And you'll see a couple things in here. I won't go into every detail on this slide but you can study it on your own later. But the intensity of conflict goes up. And this is a, it's not really a step process. It's more of a fusion. So as the behavior of the person escalates, the level of force that an officer can use escalates all the way up to potentially life threatening use of force. We want to do this in number one as often as we can, which is to gain compliance with people or to use minimal levels of force. But sometimes that is not the case. You might have to go to medium level of force or a substantial level of force depending on what's happening. But you can also see that we're talking with our folks consistently about de-escalation and de-escalating these conflicts and driving that use of force back down. That is just because it goes up doesn't mean it can't come back down. And we feel very strongly about that. Our officers do it as well. But we need to point out that the use of force is not static. You don't go from point A to point B to point C to point D. You can go from one to five very quickly. And if the threat warrants that. But our expectation is that they will do everything they can to use the lowest amount of force necessary to complete the task that they've been assigned. A few advanced, please. Duty to intercede. This has its own section now in our policy. And our little mantra is if you see it, you own it. No longer can an officer stand by and say, well, it wasn't me. I wasn't part of it. If you're there and you see it, you own it. And our policy says that you shall intervene when another person that has used excessive force. And that they are to report that excessive force to a supervisor. Including the decision-making process that they have to go through. Which is, do I want to go against my colleagues? Or potentially risk up to and including termination from the police department if it was a serious enough event. And Reggie Stevens, I know you're on the line here and you were going to comment on this. Hello. You're there, Reggie. Do you hear me? Yep. Definitely. Thank you. Chief Mills for having me. Santa Cruz council and mayor Cummings. I definitely want to talk on this because me being living in Santa Cruz for so many years, I've been in a situation like this several times. And one time I came out on the end of it where I felt that when it happened to me, I didn't have any more hope or faith than the Santa Cruz police department. And when the situation happened, it was just one of those things like you felt helpless that someone that knew me basically acted like they didn't know me in the situation. They could have helped me in that situation. Now on the flip side of that, as I went on with my career and if you don't know, I played professional football for the New York Giants. I went to Cabrillo College, Santa Cruz High. There was another situation that came up. And basically a judge was to intervene and was able to help me in a situation that allowed me to go on and help me to get my career going and help out. So that basically gave me hope again. So I think this is very important. And I think there's something that should be done because I understand there's a code, but sometimes that code can leave a person in a bad situation. Thank you, Reggie. Moving on to the next slide, please. Independent oversight. The city manager has approved this contract. And so our independent oversight is Mike Chinaco. Mike is a former U.S. civil attorney in the Civil Rights Division in Los Angeles. He's nationally recognized as an expert at law enforcement reform in accountability systems. He already published his first report to city council. And from there, it'll be as you'll see later, it'll be posted to our transparent support should that be approved by council. And so we're happy to have Mike on board and he's a brilliant jurist. And I think that this is very good. What he essentially does is takes our investigations, looks at them for fairness and objectivity, gives us feedback on the quality of our investigations. And if there's anything else we should have done or should do, he guides us through the process. And then he also takes a look at the discipline that was imposed if something was sustained. And so we're happy to have Mike on board and that has already been approved. Part of this, though, is to make sure that we're having discussions with the other chiefs in the county to make sure that we're all on the same page. And so I've had that conversation with several of the chiefs in the county, and they're doing their things that are consistent with their communities. And but I know that they're all very interested in having further conversation and working together and being consistent in how we do this throughout the county. So I applaud my colleagues for being thoughtful about that. Next slide, please. Tom, this is all you, man, because you're the one. This was your idea. All right. Well, I'll say that there was a time where I witnessed a situation with an officer kind of harassing a young guy. And I sat and I watched and I got the officer's card and most officers have cards on them. And it occurred to me that it would have been great if there would be something on the card that just said, if you have a complaint or even a compliment, here's exactly where you go in order to do that. Because I don't know that all community members know that they can actually file a complaint when something happens that's sort of out of sorts. And so I say, hey, why don't we just put this information on the back of every card? And it's just a really simple thing, but it may actually help help someone's life. And so that's that's what this is. Just trying to get a little bit more transparency happening and a little bit more feedback as well. And accountability. That's the word I was looking for. Thanks. You're ticked at one of the crowd. So this will be put on all of our business cards. And so when we make contact with people in the community, whether it's a citation or a radio call, we can have a card. And our policy is that officers must identify themselves by name and badge number should someone ask, but we want to be more proactive with that. And that's the purpose of this. Next slide, please. Implicit bias training for all staff members. We've now presented implicit bias training to all of our staff members. And and the next step will be to continue with different forms of implicit bias training. This was based on the book by Dr. Everhart. We went through multiple police departments and it's now post certified course, police officers, standards and training course on procedural justice, which leads to police legitimacy. And so we've already accomplished that. I go ahead. 72 hour release of body worn cameras in critical incidents when we can. State law on this, by the way, is 45 days. So our goal is to get these videos out within 72 hours. It does depend on who controls the evidence. Sometimes we don't necessarily control all the evidence what DA's office or different jurisdiction locally. But when we have the control over it and won't harm the investigation, we want to release this within 72 hours. And make sure that we're doing this. We had an interesting discussion on this this week with this group. And that is, well, what gets released an edited version or an unedited version? Well, unedited version could be hours of videotape. So what does edit mean? If it's a juvenile, by law, we have to edit it. We have to blow their face. And so they can't be identified. So it won't be necessarily unedited. But I think that there are things we can do to make sure it's transparent. That's transparent. And that's one of the things that we can have a discussion about after this. Go ahead, Taj. Well, yeah, this is one of those situations where, you know, we needed to really go back and forth about this because my first thought was, well, why not 48 hours? You know, why do we have to wait so long? And, you know, it was because there is some sort of editing that does need to happen if it's blurring out a kid's face or something like that. And it just shows that we need to have this partnership. Because in my mind, I'm thinking, oh, well, this is how it can be. But in reality, sometimes it needs to be a little bit shifted. And the whole intent behind putting this in here is that we have unfortunately seen police departments throughout the country not actually give all of the footage. And so we're trying to finesse this and get to a place where the footage that comes out can be seen by the average person and know actually what's going on. So there's not anything shady happening. It's pretty much that simple. And we concur with that. So we will get together and make this happen in a thoughtful way and maybe make policy that can come out so that everybody can see that and be transparent. What's the normal turnaround time? It can be. It depends. Like one of the things we talked about in our group is I've got one person who does this. That person is not available. They're on out of town. It's going to slow me down. So we have to be able to do this in a reasonable way. But it will take at least 24 hours to put the body wearing camera footage together to put that information out. You had set 45 days, I think, normally? Well, by law, we now have to put it out 45 days without an extension by the courts. The 72 hours is very short turnaround time. So thank you. Moving forward to examine and adjust hiring practices. You know, once you start looking at the things that we do, you start scratching your head. And so there's a few things in our hiring practices that can be barriers to people trying to get on police departments. For instance, poor credit barriers. Now that was originally done to prevent corruption. But, you know, when my kids went to college, the first thing they got in the mail when they got to college was their credit card offer from a, you know, from a local bank. And of course, what do you think the kid did once they got to college? They ran up that credit card and came home and mom and dad are in trouble. I've got this credit card and we paid it off for them, but made them pay us back. Well, don't have that ability. And so that's one of the things we can take a look at is why it's a poor credit. Whether it can be in the completely irresponsible buying boats and, you know, or whether they were they putting school on their credit cards. So those are some of the things that we can do and take a look at to reduce that barrier. One of the things we found in our policy is that you that's a branding was prohibited. Well, who gets brands? You see on the NFL, Reggie, some of your old colleagues had the alpha tattoos that were brands. Well, we don't see a good reason to have that prohibition. So we're taking that out of our policy effect that give us one extra person who may be a person of color. And we are going to now prohibit and touch. Did you bring this up? The excessive force one now? I did. Okay, go ahead, Joy. It's very important to me that people coming in from different agencies that might be on probation or have been fired due to the use of excessive force are not allowed to be brought on to the Santa Cruz Police Department. And so this is something that I discussed with Chief Mills about making sure that this is something that Andy that Chief Mills, you said that you wouldn't do anyway, but I want to make sure that it's also a policy within the council that we make sure that even somebody who is under investigation for use of excessive force is not allowed to be brought on as a police officer to the police department. And this isn't just for the citizens. It's also for the safety of the police officers that they would be working with. You have a volatile partner that you're working with that might use excessive force. It puts the police officer in danger as well as the community. Okay, great. And then the last part of that is, and we won't be doing that, by the way, there is written policy on that, that we will not hire people who have excessive force from other locations. And then the whole goal of recruiting to hire people through community policing, deescalation, and diversity recruitment videos. I'll go ahead and advance, please. I increased transparency. We're going to make sure that all of our CPRAs, our California Public Records Request Act, requests are posted to our portal when they're not confidential in nature. I'll go ahead and advance, please. Up to this point, SCPD in the past has published stop data, but we've actually published citation data, not stop data. So because of AB 953, we will have to publish starting in 2022 all of the stops that we make. The first report would be out, we'd be doing April 2023. Here in the county, we've all talked about it. We're trying to move that timetable up to as early as in the early part of 2021. So hopefully we can get that done, but that is, there is a cost associated with that that we're all working on together with that kind. And then create a recruitment video. I think this was the mayor had talked about this. I know Justin, if you wanted to pitch in on this. The comment I'd make is that one of the things that has come up in these conversations is just how recruitment is going down. And I know councils heard about some of the troubles that the Santa Cruz police department has had with recruiting more officers. And one thought is that, you know, we're moving in this direction of having a, you know, very inclusive, diverse police department that is really trying to ensure equal protection of all citizens under the law, that it's really important that we communicate this when we're trying to recruit. And so one thought is that, you know, we can really demonstrate the desire for our public safety department to change the way that it's conducting public safety and really trying to appeal to a broader, more diverse audience that creating some kind of recruitment video that really demonstrates how our police officers are trying to make a difference and make a change and really highlighting the good work they do in our community could maybe help to increase recruitment and attract more people to our police department. Thank you. As you can might imagine, there are some costs associated with a lot of these and we've cut pretty much what we can out of our budget. What we're going to do is try to find pieces of our budget where we can move forward with each of these, like for instance, the business cards, reprinting those video, there are a couple of other cost items where we try to take those out of our current budget. If not, then we'll come back to council with a budget adjustment at some other time, but that won't be right now. I move forward, please. And then the last part of this particular section is we have changed the policy from immediate threat to immediate threat versus eminent threat. So an officer may use W. Forrest to protect him or himself or others from what he or she reasonably believed to be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person. And the word immediate threat means a person has a present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury. This was a pretty big change and we have many discussions about this internally, but we believe that this is a good change as part of the Sean Alt lawsuit. And we believe it's the right thing to do. And it's also consistent with the Supreme Court decisions. So we believe that we're on a good track there. That may not seem like a big deal to a lot of people, but I can tell you it's a big deal to your police officers. And we want to make sure that they are understand that and they do. So let's move forward. Council action direct staff to incorporate policy changes to council policies, items B, one through three. Change the standard of public safety unit, IA findings. And go ahead in advance. At the suggestion of the independent auditor and the NAACP from the university, change the evidence or standard from clear and convincing to preponderance of evidence essentially mean this. In order to sustain an allegation against the police officer, you'd have to have almost the evidence in my mind of conviction in court, whereas preponderance of evidence would be more like a civil suit. You're weighing the evidence to see which tips to what one would believe. So in other words, 51% you may sustain that allegation. Now, if it's only 51%, then your discipline may be adjusted as a result of that. It is the same standard, by the way, that is used by the rest of the city and the city government. It's also the same standard used by most of policing in California. We did an informal poll of police chiefs all over the state and every single one of them came back as preponderance of evidence. And effectively it's kind of been what we've been doing anyway. So the POA supported this. So that is a pretty big change. Any thoughts from the panel on that? Anybody? Okay. Go ahead and move forward, please. The controlled use of military surplus equipment in the city. This policy would mean that all of the 1033 program of military surplus equipment being requested would have to go through city council. It ensures that the purpose of the equipment would be conformed to the standards of city council. I believe would bring greater transparency to the acquisition process that would be helpful in terms of making sure that it's in line with what this community expects of us. I'd like to say something about that. Really to speak frankly, this speaks to the militarization of the police department, which all over the nation people have talked about. And this would make it just one more step so that instead of the police department just saying, oh, we're going to go get this really big crazy thing, that it actually has to go through council first. So that's why this one is kind of important. It may seem a little small, but it could help in a larger picture. Thank you. Go ahead and advance, please. And then we're going to publish our PIA, our public standards unit findings to the city council and to the community. So it used to be a confidential memorandum. The names will be stripped out to comply with the police officer bill rights. And then it will be posted to the transparency portal. And it would say something like this. Officer Mills was accused of doing, I won't say the name, but Officer A was accused of doing such and such. And it was investigated. Here's that the findings were sustained, not sustained, exonerated or unfounded. And then that will go on the website for everybody to see. According to law, we cannot give the names or the discipline associated with that person, but this is, I believe, a significant step in accountability and transparency. Moving forward, provide direction support to the chief of police for further items. One more step, please. Now we're asking you to pass the discriminatory reports to law enforcement act that will be coming up in the next session right after this. San Francisco has already done this. And you know, some people ask, well, why is this necessary? I can give you three examples off the top of my head in the last year and a half or so, where people have called in based on a person's color. One was in front of Forever 21. Somebody called in and said, there's two black men creating new disturbance. And so Rick Martinez and I were together. We, I think we had just grabbed lunch and we walked over there and we said we would handle this call because we knew what this was. There were two guys that were selling CDs and had shirts on that said end white slavery now. Nicest fellows on the planet doing absolutely nothing wrong. There was no doubt in my mind that was based on race. First of all, by the description that was given out first, there was another call that went out not too long though where there's a quote unquote black man walking down the street in the upper west side. And that's all the call was. There's a third call that went out. There's a Mexican man standing next to a car, not trying the doors, not looking in the car, not under the car standing next to a car. Those are the kind of calls that cannot continue to take place that puts our people of color in a bad spot, nor puts our police officers in a bad spot for having to confront that. What good can come of that for either side? And that's what just creates that hyper vigilance on both sides. So this would be a good step in the first direction. I don't think we can quantify how many calls we get, but it certainly is not unusual. Go ahead and advance, please. Improve racial diversity and equity training. Mayor, do you want to cover this one? As someone who came in and as someone who has done a lot of work in diversity, equity, inclusion, I've done a lot of advancements in this kind of training, and there's been a lot of advancements in the types of trainings that our officers maybe consider whether we need to update. I think that the training that we receive is good, but I also think that there are other people out there. I've heard from members of the community a desire to consider whether there are different people who might be able to conduct this training, the frequency of the training as well, and so whether or not we need to consider. Thank you. And we're currently searching for a vendor to present some of that, and we'll evaluate that and then bring it back. And if you move to the next one, I know that Brenda has some questions that others have given her that she may want to ask at towards the end here, so I think that'll be important for other panel members as well. Assist with research. Many people of color have commented that that the arrest, there should be the word arrest in there, and incarceration rate is much greater here in Santa Cruz than other locations. So why would that be? This would be a look at the complete system, not just the sheriff's office who houses them, but the complete system. It's my understanding that the sheriff already has a study underway to find out the numbers that are currently in the jail and so forth. It's not necessarily not an issue of his doing. It's more of an issue of how do we understand the entire justice system here in Santa Cruz and what does that look like? There are a couple things that this will be dependent upon, dependent upon. One is collaboration and two is cost. A study like this won't be free. We would want this to be from an academic institution, so it has the rigors of science behind it, and so we would want to see where we can get money and then push it forward from there. So this would be a collaboration between all the departments as well as the district attorney's office, the courts, probation and parole, and maybe many other people as well. So this was a kind of a longer term perspective and certainly not the near term. You'll have to find money to do this, and I would guess it would be pretty costly. Then lastly, if you would move forward. Next steps is to serve our community. We've got several things going on. I'm a partner with Warriors and Reggie Stevens Foundation to create a mentoring program. Reggie coaches a lot of young kids in the community, and thanks for all the service that you're doing, Reggie. Continue to listen to community and make adjustments. This is not the end of the beginning, and so we want to make that clear, and then lobby for the changes as needed. So I'm going to move it back to Council on the second, but I really wanted to give Brenda and others the opportunity to ask questions. Should you have any that maybe aren't clear in this presentation so that Council can consider those? Thanks, Chief Mills. I have more of a comment on the data, the data collection and publication. Yes, I believe to me it's important that the data that is published is not only demographics, but also it needs to include, you know, other information like the nature of the stop and what did you find when you searched a person? Also, I think it's important that you publish the use of forest data. That's very important to the community as well, as far as the data is concerned. You talked about a council policy for the acquisition of military surplus equipment. Isn't there already a policy on that? Am I thinking of something different? I'm not that I'm aware of. Okay. I thought that there was a policy developed when the department purchased the Bearcat. Yeah, that wasn't a 1033 program that was purchased through a grant, a Yawasi grant. So that would be a little bit different. Okay. And then I guess my next comment is regarding the procedural justice and police legitimacy training. I would recommend that you post a curriculum online. It's a great idea. And I think that's it for now. Of course, you know, I do want to talk about use of forest policy, but that's a longer conversation. It seems that it always is, isn't it? Thank you. Thank you, Brenda, for those comments. If you would advance. So we turn it back over to council and we're asking you to affirm support policy amendments. One through 16 direct staff to incorporate policy changes to city council policies. Items B one through four and provide direction and support to the chief to further account further items C one through three. So I turn it over to you, Mr. Mayor. Well, thank you very much for that presentation. I want to thank all the members of the community who have been able to join us on this panel and provide some feedback. Chief, I didn't want to point out I was looking at the agenda and looks like there's 17 items under a that were in the report. So I just wanted to make sure that was a clarification. That's one through 17 for council. With that, I'd like to see if there's any questions and council members for the chief or in general regarding this item. None. Well, do is I'll open it up to public comments. So if there are members of the public who like to speak to the council on the item before us, which is police policy changes related to racial equity and social justice and the criminal justice system. Now is the time to call in using the numbers on your screen if you haven't already done so. Once you've entered the room, please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. And once you've been unmuted, you'll be given two minutes to comment. My name is Michael Shirley. I have lived in Santa Cruz, California, all of my life. I want to thank Mayor Cummings, the members of the Santa Cruz City Council, special thanks to chief mills and Ben Rice. I would like to discuss or reiterate on improving racial diversity and equity training. I have been through the justice system. I have also done time in federal custody. And after post incarceration, I have made very, very productive changes through academia. I'm currently looking to get into Cal Berkeley in Stanford. And in doing so, I wanted to implement a program that can help with improving racial diversity as far as making a basically a bridge between the community and police. And I think by doing that, we can't just rely on training in the classroom. There needs to be some type of volunteer work. There has to be a bridge where you can make a relationship, not just formal training. And I've had a unique situation where I left Santa Cruz Police Department and went over to Capitola to obtain an incident report, and it resulted in a stop by a police officer, and it was unwarranted. So if I can't feel safe at a police department, where can I be safe at? And there's instances like that that have to be addressed. Yeah, this is Garrett again. I personally don't think most police departments are systemically racist, or the Santa Cruz Police commit racially motivated misconduct. I don't think this ingenuous, violent, radical Marxist anarchist, any police mob chants alone are a basis for vast changes in policy. The reality of black people disproportionately encountering police is largely due to the vastly disproportionate violent crime committed by some black men. And yes, that is an ignored hard reality to accept for them. I personally believe the claims of widespread systemically racially motivated police brutality by the BLM are largely improving and have other motives. And the BLM itself is really a destructive revolutionary movement who has and is using incendiary methods to sway public opinion with violent protest and mischaracterizations with a very different than stated political agenda, none of which particularly applied all to the police and Santa Cruz. That said, excessive use of force always merits examination and it does occur. As to the bloated numbers cited wanting major police reform, the survey said 33% of 18 to 34 year olds favored abolishing the police. That is purely a goal of anarchy. I blame squarely on a BLM anarchist targeting impressionable young people having already been brainwashed by leftism. A year ago, these numbers would not exist. In general, though, I applaud and support the bulk of Section A policy changes. As to item 13 and Section A changes, you know, I disagree with any diversity policy that would involve quotas that rejects a more meritorious candidate in favor of diversity because it breeds mediocrity besides being unfairly prejudicial as unfairly prejudicial as if that what is hinted at may have occurred historically. The really shocking ignored justice system part not working here at the present is too many turnstile catcher releases of the same offenders. Penny Bale in some cases dozens of times accuses some pretty serious crimes only to offend again and again and again and really needs a high priority examination. Strangely, the justice warriors don't care about that. Okay, that'll be it. Bye. Hey, Reggie here. Can you hear me? Yes, good evening. Yeah, thanks. So, you know, I think a lot of Santa Cruises are sort of watching this presentation and earnestly believing that these proposals will make a real difference in how the city treats our community. And I want to just acknowledge that. But I want to sort of remind the community that, you know, the standard for a policy was not it's not this, you know, Minneapolis, Minnesota, that's where George Floyd was killed, and they are defunding their police department. And I want to remind everyone what happened with Sean Arlt, the man who was shot and killed during a mental health crisis by SCPD. Just like any of these other police departments, he was not charged with criminal offenses for the sorry, the police officers. And the police union and mills himself ran to the defense of those officers, saying things like we still bleed and victimizing the police in this effort. Under these new proposals by mills, Sean Arlt's death would still have happened and the officers would still be unaccountable. Jay Rortia, local lawyer, has written a letter demonstrating how these accountability measures by the motion mills has presented are written intentionally loosely, leaving them largely unimpossible from a legal perspective. The thing is, mills cannot be trusted to be entirely on the side of public good, because he's a police officer. That is his role in society. And he's a member of the police union. And so it's this relationship that prevents him from being fully on our side. He just can't be. And you can see it in the watered down reforms that are being presented here. Or you can see it in why the police budget increases every single year, even during major budget deficits, like in 2019. You can see it when mills suggests that we need to hold on to extremely dangerous uses of force, like shooting at moving vehicles. Anyways, let me just end this on SCP and fund public good. Good evening. My name is Jay Ritchie. I apologize for having called in earlier to make my remarks now. I'm going in to amplify Reggie's remarks and give a little bit more context to that. While I disagree with Chief Mills' vision, I'm grateful to the Chief for recognizing the need, pressing need to act to improve our community, and especially to provide the safety measures that community members who have been unfairly targeted deserve. That said, Chief says that this is a process, but I'm not seeing the roadmap from where we go from here. It can't wait was great. They were well branded proposals, but they couldn't wait. Now we've waited months and now I believe it's time for the next step to consider the legitimate plans of non reformist feedback and look at the path forward beyond what can't wait and look towards the future we want to see for ourselves and live in. Chief Mills says that he's found the middle path for our community to come together between those who deny racism and those who seek to eradicate it. I cannot believe that we're settling for the middle path when we've spent a year of travesty watching time and time again the exact actions that he is proposing fail to actually materially protect community members across this country. I'm deeply ashamed of anyone who seeks to charter the middle path between those who deny racism and those who eradicate it. Community members are killing themselves to think that anyone with a vision in this country is looking towards his decision, the one that aligns with glorified police violence and blog posts about the criminal crimes against officers and violence in the community as a roadmap for what the future of community safety looks like. There is a vision for that. There have been proposals to the council along those lines and I plead and beg community members or council members please to listen to the community members on this issue and defund the police. Thank you. Hi my name is Jasmine and I am a woman of color in Santa Cruz. This whole presentation was in bad taste in my opinion. Chief Mills surrounded himself with a few BIPOC members of the community with whom he had already been working and was already working with Mayor Justin Cummings so it feels like this was limited to people who already agree with him. Also are you even trying to listen to the public to other people of color to what we the people of Santa Cruz want? You give lots of examples of reforms that seem to have all too many loopholes. There are some things that are now banned like carotid restraints and no knock warrants but they can be overridden. Where is the accountability when that happens? And you said black participants from the community were not a monolith. Indeed they aren't. However you didn't listen to or convey the opinions of black folks who demand defunding of the police. You had level conflict of a poor meaning uncooperative imposing a threat which could justify strikes, kicks and use of weapons. The way this was written could encapsulate individuals with a mental health crisis. We really need a cahoots program instead. They would never use force to deescalate a situation like that. I'm a therapist and know how erratic people with mental illness can be and I would never even consider an option to be killing them. These reforms barely sound good and they don't seem likely to lead to meaningful change and they certainly don't represent what the public wants. I can say that I as a person of color who has many friends of color who agree with an abolitionist perspective do not agree and do not feel heard. Thank you. Hi, my name is Vicki and I'd like to thank all the community members for engaging in this process but particularly what Joyce Lynn said about needing to change the culture of the police department really resonated with me. That's why Andy Mills's recent blog post which the police department paid to promote Facebook really troubled me. In this post Chief Mills describes a story about an attack on a policewoman in which a citizen of veteran conglosing at home trains a sniper rifle site on the attacker. It's not clear whether this incident happened in Santa Cruz or somewhere else or if it happened at all. My question about this went unanswered by either Chief Mills or the department but many commenters assumed that it took it at base value and assumed that it happened here to a Santa Cruz police officer. My question is this type of post really doesn't seem to be something that someone who really wants to de-escalate tensions and bring the level of tension down that they would post and I just want to quote what a fellow police officer who actually killed a drunk person waving a box cutter in San Diego in 2015. He reacted to this post by saying, I applaud citizens who take action to jump in to protect and save lives of officers who are being violently assaulted even if it means taking the life of the assailant. Now I think we have enough trouble with police killing civilians. I don't think we need to bring into this armed citizen into this melee just shooting whoever they feel like. This is not de-escalating tension. Hi yeah I'd like to uh just echo what the last couple callers said especially does mean I really agree with her and her point of view. I think at its root policing is a system designed to uphold oppression. I do not believe that anyone deserves to be caged. I don't prescribe to the state's notions of innocence and culpability. I recognize that the system of policing is heavily intertwined with the military industrial complex both here and abroad. In abolishing policing we seek to abolish imperialist forms of police such as militaries responsible for generations of violence against black and brown people worldwide. As abolitionists we recognize that reforms that do not reduce the power of the police including those proposed by eight can't wait simply create new opportunities to surveil police and incarcerate black brown indigenous ports labeled transgender oppressed queer migrant people and those who work in street economies will believe in a world where there are zero police murders because there are zero police not because police are better trained or better regulated. Indeed history has shown that ending police violence through more training or regulations is impossible. I think to build an abolitionist world that prioritizes the lives of black people we have to draw upon the decades of abolitionist work to compile the list of demands targeted towards city and municipal powers and I think these are one to defund the police, two to demilitarize communities, three remove police from schools, four free people from prisons and jails, five repeal laws that criminalize survival including here in Santa Cruz where 80 percent of the calls for police are regarding homelessness, six invest in community self-government governance like Jeff said because who and provides safe accessible housing for everyone and invests fully in care cops. Thank you. Kim in the essence of time because we still have one more item after this item I'm going to ask that we reduce the time for public comment to one minute so we've got about 10 people who are lined up so if we can get through these folks move on to action deliberation and then we have one more item and it's 9 20 so hopefully we can continue moving through and get through these comments and deliberate and move on to the next item so if we could change the clock to one minute we'll go ahead and continue on public comment here on the line we can hear you. Hi this is Joan Peterson speaking about the the police policy proposal I'd like to urge the city council to adopt the amendments detailed in the letter written by the concerned expert attorneys that you have I'm sure you have a copy of. The proposal states require officers to exhaust all other reasonable alternatives before resorting to deadly force. Now this would be came to amend use of force policies to incorporate as a core principle that deadly that deadly force will be used as a last resort at only when other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted first when feasible. Also in addition an additional thing added to the proposal could be require use of force reporting including threats with a firearm post SCPD use of force data regularly including race ethnicity gender age weapons force injuries underlying crime context on a website including analysis of trends policy policy and training issues. These details matter because it's important that police make substantial improvements and aren't accountable. Thank you so much for the work you're doing and I think that more work to be done thank you. Thank you. The assembly line process of not allowing the public to speak is really deplorable and bad news. Missing from the recommendations the homeless harassment ordinance is empowerment and funding which even mills it takes up a large chunk of police time and money. Missing any serious consideration of even token shifting of resources to the nonviolent alternatives like the Kahootz model in Eugene buried in last Monday's study session. Missing any real examination of racial discrimination in the SCPD instead the SCPD continues its policy of not summarizing racial data and missing is the mention of the word H the homeless word any corrective measures stand to stay away orders from the parks the empowerment of vehicle seizures by right-wing ideologues like Deborah Elston and her next door vigilante volunteer cops missing is any real input from the public instead of the closed meetings with comings and mills behind closed doors with select group instead you have a laundry list of self-promoting claims by mills rushed forward even the conservative local ACLU is urged to wait until the community gets more time to examine these so don't be fooled by this cosmetic clowns mask of pseudo reforms as long as lethal force continues to be funded we must be on the streets demanding real change that this council refuses to even consider and thank you community for listening. Hi my name is Madeleine I want to start out by expressing my appreciation for all the community members who gave up their time to go through this process with chief mills as previous color jasmine said there were other community members involved in this process but didn't seem to be asked to appear tonight some who have different views about these proposals and I noticed something to me that is really missing from Santa Cruz I believe we need to have a civilian police review board to hold the police up to more accountability we have volunteer cops in Santa Cruz going out doing cop things I think we need just some regular community members reviewing police actions especially if these so-called reforms are passed thank you. Hey can you guys hear me? If you could speak up a little bit you're a little faint. Okay that's better. So I'm calling I'm a community trainer in town and I just really wanted to specifically touch on the discussion of including implicit bias training de-escalation trainings and racial equity trainings I don't think that these are sufficient because the system that we have for policing itself is flawed so if you're having things like implicit bias trainings that you have somebody who's armed it's not enough to completely remove the biases that lead to disproportionate people of color that are being killed by police officers so the real reforms that are needed are not surface level like recruiting more diverse police officers you know recruitment campaigns feedback you know email addresses on the back of business cards it's really about completely uh re-looking at the system that we have uh defunding and looking at something like a the Hoots program that doesn't like by bringing a cop into the situation you're automatically escalating the situation so de-escalation is kind of a uh an oxymoron in this area. You're being asked to unmute your phone so if you can unmute your device you'll be given one minute. Okay can you hear me now? Yes good evening. Sorry okay it's Peter Gelblum calling I sent a minute of email urging the council to put this over for more study for to release the next meeting and I reiterate that based on what I saw because I just put up I don't know when it was put up it wasn't up when the agenda came out this is in the use of force policy it's now on the transparency portal section 300.3.1 the de-escalation section it's just complete garbage the first half of it is nothing new with de-escalation it has to do with protecting officers better the second half is so qualified when reasonable when feasible consider alternatives it needs to be wordsmith it needs to be studied it needs to be looked at this was put up maybe yesterday today I don't know when it was put up but the public has not had a chance to review this and the council needs to study this without just rubber stamping it thank you. What a lot of other people said that these changes mean that almost nothing that a lot of the time when you have someone reform themselves they're going to choose within their own best interest not what's in everyone else's best interest that it's just giving them more funding and more power through that and what we're failing to address is why police are responding to these situations where there is a racist call into 911 or where there is a issue of homelessness or mental health that should be addressed and that's not being talked about here and I would like to see something more like cahoots model something towards defunding and de-escalating in that way rather than counting on people who are trained to look at us in ways as us the rest can handle the situation. Andy Mills I'm wondering if you've had a change of heart in 2017 three years ago you complained about firefighter Matt McFarland wearing a BLM plant bit pin while you continue to wear your blue eyes matter bracelet when you arrived here in Santa Cruz you said you cared about our houseless population would not give them camping or sleeping tickets. I'm going to pause you for a second. I'm going to relate it to police exchanges related to racial equity and social justice so I think if you have personal comments about the police chief maybe there's another venue for that so if we want to talk about the policy I think that's appropriate otherwise maybe you can find another time to call the chief and talk about these other issues so if you'd like to continue happy to um allow you to continue your comments so long as they're related to what's on our agenda and so if you'd like to press star six you can unmute your phone can you give me one minute please yeah you can have one minute to comment on the agenda item these reforms that you're presenting are unenforceable what good are they if they're not forceful please refer to many of the emails you refuse we received from several different attorneys um Mills blogged recently about certain stories um including the last blog regarding vigilantes um it's it's uh I won't go into that because you told me not to speak about things that personally about him but um Brenda Mills commented that there's a current policy in place regarding after the bear cap um and Brenda Mills is correct that there is a policy in place already whether or not it's part of the 1033 program please check on that I know that Mills became chief of police after that policy was put in place but it worries me that you're not aware of this policy I watched a young black suicidal man be surrounded by 10 cops with absolutely no mental health officials present I've seen this over and over again none of you are going to make a change I'm white and privilege and pretend not to know what it is like to be stopped by the police there are many members of the black community who are meeting since 9 30 this morning it's now 9 30 p.m and we need to be sold one more item so my name is Lisa uh I'm calling about the police department's proposal for the reforms I read the city's proposed ad sponsored ad promoting chief Mills horrifying cop fan fiction blog post where he advocates for an increase in vigilante violence and supportive cops this is deeply disturbing a police department that believes that they need vigilantes a la kyla written house or warriors as the chiefs calls them out in the streets obviously doesn't have any interest in actually implementing any checks on their officers I urge you to listen to the many bypass groups in town when they say that the police's presence even with the proposed reforms leads to increased violence and harassment against community members of color more needs to be done to hold the police accountable and define alternatives to their presence hey can you hear me yes good evening hey I'm Garrett Stevens I wanted to put an idea out there I've been talking to some friends about several of these issues and one thing I think would help with the follow-up in terms of what's on the agenda today is if I know police ride-alongs are a thing that are possible and I'm not sure during COVID how possible that is wearing masks obviously we'd be a part of it but it would be great if community members were encouraged to do ride-alongs so that we could get a more first-person knowledge about what goes on throughout a shift and what goes on out there on the streets so that that can inform the conversations we're having we can have better informed community conversations around policing and possible reforms so I wanted to put that out there and we'll hopefully follow up and see what what options there may be to do that but I think it would be great if more community members got an experience doing a ride-along or something of that nature to try to just inform have that have the community as a whole particularly become more informed thanks hi this is Emory I'm a Santa Cruz community member and calling to echo what a lot of people have said here as long as as well as Reggie and the NAACP's letter to chief mills and the sdpd we need to defund the police these reforms outlined here the half-hearted seven the dark and really don't achieve much as far as what the community has been suggesting I think the chief mills blog post was disgusting and dangerous and we need to defund the police and refund at the community thank you council for action deliberation I'd first like to thank all the panelists for joining this evening I'm going to ask if the panelists can all move off in their mics off and just listen for the rest of the meeting as we take action on the following items in addition to that I do want to just based on some of the comments that we just heard I do want to stress that last week we did have an extensive presentation by cahoots we had an entire afternoon dedicated to mental health crisis response and alternative like what we're doing in the city what we're doing in the county and then hearing from cahoots on an alternative model there was direction given that we would continue having those conversations and just like with anything that we're trying to address here in the city things take time there needs to be an opportunity for us to have discussions with the community work with our partners throughout the community and so regardless of what happens there's going to be a lot of time that's going to need to be taken in order to make further changes but this what's before us tonight it was in response to what we were hearing this summer and throughout the fall and which is where how we've gotten to the place we are tonight there's nothing stopping us from continuing to move forward having discussions with the community and finding further ways to improve public safety but this as we mentioned before is a step in the direction of trying to implement changes that will make our our community safer and make people from underrepresented and diverse backgrounds have a better relationship with our public safety officers um with that i will turn it over to councilmember walken well i'll just um thank you mayor for your comments and then i want to also extend my gratitude and appreciation for taj and brenda and joy and reggie and cheese mills for your presentation this evening and i um just really recognizing the you know the historical um context of race relations in this nation and the deep-rooted uh racial uh systemic racism that we've seen throughout a housing education and the m police and policing in our nation um where we are today is a step in the right direction and uh it does uh there's always room for continuous improvement and training and better understanding how we as a society can remedy and um and create more equity uh and improve black lives from all the spectrum and i um recognize also though we have to start with with what we can do right now and i appreciate the thought that went into creating the policy recommendations before us um recognizing that we also have had a very long meeting i'm happy to kind of keep the agenda moving and go ahead and provide a motion to accept the recommendation as presented in our staff report and um and welcome any comments or uh further discussion amongst my colleagues by councilmember walken councilmember brown sorry hands up i um i do have some comments and actually a couple of questions now um and so i'm gonna hold off until there's a second on on that motion i i'd like to see us go a little bit further okay councilmember matthews we'll go ahead and second motion and um uh my comments can be very greek so make them now i just want to thank everyone involved with the cheese the mayor other councilmember the community from what i could tell i was not deeply involved in the process it seemed to me that everyone approaches them genuinely good faith a genuine openness to listen to hear to try and understand and move forward it's a significant process so obviously this is not an end point but i just want to personally personally thank the um the spirit that everyone approaches very challenging situations thank you uh council brown then vice mayor mires thank you um yeah so i i want to start off by appreciating the efforts of uh the mayor i know you you've um hadn't uh quite arrived as your term as mayor um and you managed to kind of keep this uh you know this real you know in front and center for you and um for our community so i appreciate that i appreciate uh chief mills efforts to uh kind of move move things along here and i know there's a lot of uh you know kind of conflicting uh you know we're not necessarily conflicting but different perspectives on how how does that we proceed and what uh meaningful change might look like um a lot of community members have turned out i really appreciate all of you for and those of you who are here tonight um and and weighing in as well um and i i really want to echo um branda griffin's comment uh related to reporting and i'll get back around to that in just a second um i also want to appreciate all the community members who have come out and um and and have weighed in who have weighed in um kind of pretty consistently uh for the past uh many months now um about the limitations of this kind of incremental policy uh change and kind of you know and the generalized um policy changes that um that that are difficult to um kind of pinpoint what specifically will change would change and you know how to evaluate that what kind of metrics how we know um that these efforts have been effective or successful um and you know and i and people have you know there's this this um insistence that this is a process and this will be ongoing and i absolutely support that and i agree but i worry that we don't have um any real structure channel or or structure uh to um ensure that there is ongoing engagement and deliberation about these issues so um i'd like to see uh uh do something that that kind of helps reassure um you know me certainly me but members of our community that there will be ongoing dialogue right now um it's like we can walk away from this meeting we'll pass the policy tonight but what's you know so then what um how do we how do we decide and how do we actually get to a place where we can keep moving this forward so that's a real concern for me um you know i take very seriously the comments that have come in from the aclu and um others uh um civil rights attorneys and others who have our experts are really experts in these matters um and and i do want to um you know try to try to get us to a place where we can acknowledge that those are legitimate concerns and that we can do better we can do more um and so you know i'm not gonna um belabor this tonight because i you know i i i don't think that um you know offering up a bunch of amendments and giving you a big talk about all of the ways that i think we the other things we should be doing i think you all know i you know i made the motion about because who's on monday last monday didn't get there um but um you know for now i would like to see um or hear more i guess so this is the question um one of the questions um with respect to uh reporting which is i think a huge piece of um you know getting us to uh broader accountability not just around specific incidents and where there may be misconduct and that's reported but kind of generally friends and how the department is doing um and we have a transparency portal and there is a lot of information that is is being shared and i i really appreciate that um you know i've had a lot of requests from folks over the last few months uh asking to try to get access to information that is not readily available um even with the kind of the transparency portal and and it's great and i i'm really appreciated and i talked with um deputy chief of galante i've asked for some additional information and some of it um i've been told is not possible to get because it's not recorded and so i'm just wondering you know given uh you know i think branda just said it the reporting on demographics and outcomes um there's information that people would like to have and i'm just wondering um if you know chief mills if you could talk about your thoughts and how we get there um because i think that i think it's it would be really helpful and it would it would help our community um kind of uh have you know in trust building so thank you councilmember brown but i think and i think that uh this information is available and that we can get much of it it depends on specific specifically on what you're asking for uh obviously the devil's always in the details but every time we use force of any kind it's recorded uh and i know that some members of the community have commented on things like well anytime a gun is is displayed well we capture that um and that goes on to a form and that all that data can be collected now the issue is because of the budget shortfall like my crime and crime analyst position out of the budget um so there is nobody to do that right now but i'm always willing to improvise and maybe we can find a volunteer or somebody else that can capture that data uh an intern or whatever the case may be so we can be creative and come up with those kind of solutions i'm not opposed at all um about um uh being more transparent and give you as much information as we can so people can make thoughtful decisions about recommendations to policy and that's the whole goal here is to make the best recommendations that we can thank you so if i could just add that so the the demographic areas of interest that i hear that i hear consistently about um are uh you know race ethnicity gender age um and you know and and more recently i think um you know housing status and and really observable um uh mental health status are you know and and those are demographics that would be collected at the the point of interaction with um with folks on the ground and so i guess um i'm if i could ask is that information that is possible to um is that recorded is it possible if the resources were made available to make the process that yeah we certainly can put the day the forms together to make sure that data is captured it just becomes a matter of will and and cost and uh but i'm not i'm not opposed to that at all um and i guess on the just as a follow-up in terms of you know evaluation we you know we spent a lot of time kind of trying to come up with metrics to evaluate programs that we fund and you know um and you know the community and wondering if your thoughts on you know evaluation how do how are we going to know um like what does what does success look like you know how are we going to know that we're on the right track you know to which topic reducing uh bias or to reducing use of force or what are you referring to all of the above i would say yeah yeah so i i think it's important for us to capture and one of the reasons we have the use of force form that we have our officers fill out is because we want to assess what uses of force are effective which aren't under what circumstances so we have our officers fill out that form of tasers for instance don't work and or aren't effective then we don't want to use them or if uh let's go to a different tool that might be more effective so there are things that we that we do take a look at i just try to capture that data and uh and i do believe in evidence-based practices so you take a look at the evidence you try to do it in a way that identifies what's most effective and uh but again that takes time and effort and staffing to do and right now because of the budget shortfall we are down a lot of bodies thank you um and then one last question um i have a lot more but i'm not going to keep you're all night with us i i know i can ask you those offline and and it was great to talk with you yesterday um in terms of the de-escalation policy um you know i see the word require in the um the material that we have in the agenda report and but when i look at the policy i it doesn't really match up with requiring um de-escalation and i know that it's qualified with when possible and there's you know uh language around um you know what's feasible what's possible elsewhere um so i'm i guess i'm just wondering how you see um you know the this requirement how you know how to evaluate that i think somebody mentioned with the policy proposal um what happened in the genre case for example um could still very well happen and i don't think there's any policy that you can put in writing that it would guarantee that something like that isn't going to happen so i you know i totally understand that um but i guess i i am wondering how um you know how that the you know what's written in the policy matches up with this idea of like requiring de-escalation so how do we i guess understand that that's actually occurring um you know as needed as you know yeah so i know that one member of the public um you know mentioned it was quote garbage uh and that's fine that's his opinion um it's easy to sit at home and uh you know at least through this leisurely but when you're in the midst of a very difficult situation uh and we have gone to great extent to train to educate to practice with live bait live scenarios uh we regularly do these videos for our officers they have to work through these problems and and look at those things but it's interesting to me that the policy actually states and officers shall consider actions that may increase officer safety and the needs in the let and reduce the need for using force uh so it's not an option for them they shall do that and because in our whole goal of communicating with our officers is that we want to pull them in because there's normally something in it for you and what's in there for you is that you're safer if they're safer and so um we believe that certainly we can always improve our policies and now that people have them they're welcome to give us their uh their thoughtful opinions and how that can be improved but we want to start someplace rather than sitting on our hands for the next six months why um while people debate it in the public square debate it in the public square but let's get moving on something now and we also have to do it in a way that uh brings along the officers who are actually out there doing it every single day they've got 40 millimeters in the cars now all of them have tasers all of them have body-worn cameras all of them have had the training they've gone through a great deal of expense time and training to do this and so there's no doubt in their minds that the requirement is both in policy and in practice is to do everything they can to de-escalate and they're doing it successfully on a regular basis I applaud them for that sometimes even taking risk like a man that threw a knife at them over at the staff of life so um I you know I have unbelievable amount of respect for the men and women who are out there doing it every day and I think that the policy is going to get positioned certainly can be improved thank you and that's a lot final question um just bring it back around and not you know I I also have tremendous respect for the work you do and you know I I um so I don't mean to sound um like I am just looking for something to critique here um but I do want to you know I do want to reflect the community concerns that are expressed to us and the last question I have is just your thoughts on um given that this is a starting place um how you see a process you know the process continuing and you know how it is that um people can give input um you know decision points and kind of how we move forward just what you're thinking about how what that'll look like well I'm certainly always open to any community member that has criticism for the police front or me personally um and they're welcome to voice that but I think that we need a structured process in place and I would suggest maybe knocking heads together with uh some of our you know city manager and the council members to come up with a process that would continue to consider policy changes that would affect and improve the way that we as a government interact with people of color especially African Americans in our community so um whatever that might look like whether it's the American continues with this or or others on council then I'm wide open to that and uh and you know uh again we wanted this as the beginning point it's not the end point and uh as we as we work together thank you Mr. Meyers and before I give you this well I'll just say as well that I'm really committed to is continuing to work on this over the course of the next couple years and so I mean I think it's something we can probably talk about after our new council gets seated but you know if it's something that the public safety committee can you know play a role in I think there's a lot of opportunities for us to continue working on this so I just wanted to put that out there first and foremost so but moving along council vice mayor Meyers and then um let's hopefully continue on next time soon yeah I'll keep my comments brief many of my comments have been asked by other council members I just wanted to take the time to just thank you mayor Cummings and Mills and joy and Joyce and Brenda and Taj and I know I'm missing somebody or a few people here I just think that the work that you've done is important it's timely and I I you know to the extent that we acknowledge this is a first step or a first set of conversations a first set of policies it's it's a conversation that had to happen in our community had to happen throughout the country and throughout the world and so I think to the extent that you you know you recognize the work that you put in the work ahead and you know just thank you for for taking us on and it's incredibly important and I'll leave it at that but just wanted to express my thanks I'm happy to happy to continue the conversation and work towards the motion thank you council member Matthews without trying to amend the original motion I just had some thoughts about that third category and the general concerns about how are we going to measure how are we going to track some of these items it seems to me in that third category improved diversity training and assisting with research those are areas where interim reports back information reports memos back to council and community you'll give the feeling that we're working on it and I think sometimes that that um procedural that that interim steps doesn't happen you know the council with direction and then we think where is but the work being done so um this is on people's minds so the extent that can be just update progress reports on these things um will I think get confidence that work is being done um with the research um it mentions um possible involvement of the court and the sheriff so that's obviously complicated I think to mention that there was some conversation with some of the broader regional public safety entities wanting to ask the same question so there again there won't be a final final product in short order but progress reports on that would be helpful um I would think going forward may be engaging the public safety committee on tracking some of these things and I didn't have a method to please auditor but he seems particularly well grounded in civil rights so so he may have also suggestions um to bring forward and again just a personal observation I know just because of the event we live through uh of this year um there's been the particular focus on Black Lives Matter I can think back in police trainings and trying to even start with awareness of bias and then moving um to uh reduce that bias there have been focus trainings on GLBT I'm talking about policing back over time you said GLBT uh victims of domestic violence Latinx etc and I I think also the mayor I think he talked about um um um expanding the net a bit on that topic as well so that's that's I think a good a good place to move the direction we move in when we come in here thank you uh councilmember Watkins I too will keep my comments short and I appreciate the remarks made by my colleagues in regards to um thinking about metrics and how we're going to move forward with with continuous improvement and definitely I'm supportive of going in that direction and then we'll just also add that you know one of the things that this presentation was prefaced with was that this needs to be a holistic approach to how we're um how we're factoring equity into all of our decision making and that when we had our interim recovery planning conversation uh occur several meetings back but also talked about briefly today we really talked about how health and all policies and integrating health equity and resilience into our decision making throughout all sectors of our role as government and that too really will enhance I think the broader hopes and efforts that this as one element also includes so I hope we can not lose sight of that broader uh framework as well as we move forward with tracking how this is improving our government systems thanks for those comments I did before we move on to the vote I did have a couple questions for the chief that um related to some of comments that came up um so chief I was just curious I want to just run through a couple of these real quick one um based on the letter we received one comment that came up was requiring that officers de-escalate before using a force when feasible that's kind of my understanding of what policy is that we've had before some changes were been made I just wanted to confirm that that's the case yes it is now standalone policy and it says they shall consider it it's not always going to be possible but they shall consider it cool the next was um deadly force will be used as a last resort and only when other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted first when feasible is that currently the I believe that yeah I believe that's pretty clear in our policy all the way through the escalation to the matrix to everything else that's in the totality of the of the policy when it comes to the use of force reporting my understanding I guess based on the conversation we're having that's that's something that we don't currently do but we could potentially do in the future so I'm wondering if as an amendment we might be able to add that as something that can be you know worked on moving forward certainly at the council's pleasure we can add that to it to report out to the public safety committee or to full council whatever your choice might be on the data concerning the use of force and that can be adjusted as we go to make sure it captures all of the information that you want but as you can recall that's where I mentioned that we have to figure out how to do it since we don't have a crime analyst now for the motion I was just wondering if maybe we could add to the after the agenda with regards to yeah I actually have a thought on that too as for the future direction for that third category we just ask the chief to report back on what would be required to begin compiling reporting on different different metrics because I remember your comments that we're cutting your records back for the analyst to add also that the I think there was an app that was going to make the recording better it couldn't afford that if I recall correctly with you know two strikes and so I think just giving the chief direction to report back on what are feasible next best steps that we can be making and what would it take to do it whether it's um um qualified volunteer whatever grant money etc so that would be a number four that would be the asset chief to report back on the potential for improving collection of stats on various measures and does the maker of the motion accept that amendment yes never are there any further comments from council members at this time seeing none I'll turn it over to the clerk to call the roll call vote there's a motion made by council member walk-in seconded by council member Matthews to pass the staff recommendations and then also to add another item which was to have the police chief report back on what could be feasible next step to um report on various um statistics council member buyers is absent um Matthews five brown life golden I can vice mayor Myers and mayor Cummings with council members Matthews golder brown Watkins vice mayor Myers and the mayor Cummings voting in favor and council member buyers absent so with that um let's go ahead and move on to our last item and hopefully we can move through this one um fairly quickly I think we've heard a little bit about it in the last presentation um but the next item is discriminatory reports to law enforcement ordinance uh the presenter on this item again is chief mills and so for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if this is an item you'd like to comment on now it's the time to call in using the instructions on your screen the order will be a presentation by staff followed by questions from council and then we will take a public comment and return to council for action and deliberation once you've called in if you it when we open up for public comment you'll need to press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and after you've been called on uh you will be given one minute to speak on this item but before we go there I'll turn it over to chief mills uh good evening uh mayor city council members again I'm actually going to turn this over to uh our city attorney Tony Codati and Kathy Bronson who actually wrote this but uh we talked about we addressed it a little bit in that slide presentation that from the last section but this is a problem that is not only heard here but in other parts of the country where people have called in uh based on a person's race or other protected classes according to the constitution and this is one way we can have hope to reduce the conflict or the potential of conflict between people of color and uh and the police so um Tony or Kathy are you there yes thank you uh chief mills and the city council of Kathy Bronson uh in my office has done I've been working uh extensively with the police department on this matter the ordinance itself is modeled after a uh campus so ordinance adopted by their board of supervisors recently and Kathy here on the student conference and I will turn it over to her Hi good evening um it's a pretty straightforward ordinance um pretty much taken word for word from uh the city of San Francisco um who adopted this under the name uh I believe they called it their the Karen law um in this instance we haven't decided to name it the Karen law because there were some complaints about naming it that but it's essentially the same ordinance um what it basically does it's fairly straightforward it just calls out um that it's unlawful to knowingly cause a police officer to arrive at a location to contact a person with some sort of improper discriminatory intent um the beauty of this type of ordinance is it creates a civil action for somebody who is aggrieved in this circumstance um it says that um they can maintain a civil action and get a thousand dollars plus attorneys fees uh so this is um a nice little remedy for an improper thing that um has been reported to happen to people um across our country and um the nice thing is you know folks can take it upon themselves to enforce it and it doesn't take a lot of city attorney time or you know um prosecution to enforce this type of law I mean you may know already that um it's already illegal to make a false police report right the problem is that um these types of crimes aren't ones that are commonly prosecuted by our district attorneys because they're really quite busy um and so this sort of leaves opens up an additional legal option to folks um seeking a remedy in civil court city attorney's office for bringing this to us at this time um are there any questions from council members we just have one I mean I know chief mille shared with us a few circumstances that um he had some anecdotal information about but is there any quantifiable data that this is a problem in the city of Santa Cruz I mean every time that I've called 911 the first thing they ask is what am I reporting not like who am I reporting and I you know state whatever the issue was and then they ask you to just at first they ask if there's any weapons then they ask what the person looks like and they ask like hi wait ethnicity clothing vehicle description all these other things that's just in this broad context and I just think like um the dispatchers at netcom would be able to weed out calls that are not worth sending out the police department and so I'm just curious is there any quantifiable data that this is a real issue here in our community I'm not denying that it's an issue around the country of the world but here is this an issue or is this um something you think is important well to me if there's three examples that I just came off the top of my head and I'm not on the radio that much because I'm sitting in my office I think that's too many personally and uh and so yeah that does present a problem to me however I do agree with you that um certainly some training at netcom can handle some of these problems by screening a little bit more effectively and asking why are you calling on this person but when we get radio calls of a person walking down a street just because of their color and they dispatch officers on it that's not right and uh we we answer those by telling our officers they're not going to go to those calls um but there's an expectation unless the person can articulate some kind of crime being committed or likely to be committed uh and uh that would be different so that's what that's what I'm kind of curious about so if someone calls in and they're making a report of something like the ones you shared would right now would they dispatch officers out to a call like that or would they say what would they say I'm just curious yeah we've we've sent them a memo over a year ago asking them not to dispatch us on those calls for service it's pretty tough to train their folks in that area when people call and demand an officer respond so this will I believe takes the rest of the way there I cannot quantify for you the number of calls we get a year for this kind of there seems substantial enough to me to warrant this kind of ordinance along with training for netcom to make sure that they don't dispatch officers for just race calls or um lgbtq rights or whatever the case might be we want to make sure that uh and that our supervisors have informed uh if they hear those calls to cancel those calls they'll send an officer if it's if it's solely based on race and there's not a crime that's present are there any other questions from council members okay seeing uh commuted by the way Cassie you mentioned it would be um so the damage is I just want to make sure I understand um would be awarded if the if the um person that you know experienced this actually filed a civil civil suit is that how this would be awarded in terms of that um let's see it's under yeah 9.86.020 uh item c identifies a thousand dollar attorney fees and costs um so I just wanted to make sure that that was clear yes I think that's the idea behind the ordinance is um create a civil cause of action presumably these many of these if they are ever filed would be filed in small claims court which is a low barrier to entry for people okay thank you already be annoying how how is this different than now if someone was to file a false police report and let's say like I was just walking along and someone called on me and then I mean how did I need to I don't understand what's the difference between now we have that's a really good question so presumably now if you were to somebody called the police on on you improperly um it would be a hard to prove that you were damaged in any way if you wanted to file suit um especially if nothing resulted from it um it would just there would be a barrier um to creating to having a theory that would support a legal cause of action so what this does is it recognizes that there's um harm in and of itself and that's entitled to compensation so it basically just sort of clears the way for um most likely a small claim faction um as um sort of um in order to get some sort of um justice in the situation I think I know where Renee was going with this and um we haven't really had the full discussion but um I have on occasion called netcom 911 for a whole variety of reasons and I think they are good as I think what's the issue first of all do you feel in danger right now and and there's a whole sequence and race is down down the list a bit what are they wearing how tall are they male or female etc um it almost seems like this is on this deals with what's the initial description and concern coming out of the mouth of the caller and it almost seems like it's it's uh an opportunity I mean you watch that video on the parents thing I mean that's enough to drive you crazy so um in this case I think this is an area where um me and the education can be when you are reporting a concern the first thing is what's the activity what's the behavior then the appeal threatened then describe the person that's kind of just keep on set so that people go through and it does that's just my observation and I I think that's kind of what you're getting at she's shaking the hand yes are there any further questions or comments from council members comment on this item now's the time to call in using the number that's on your screen and if you haven't called in already once you call in please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and you will be given two minutes to speak yeah hi this is Garrett Philip this law attempts to define a violation for specific intent to cause any of six harms based on any of 15 different personal characteristics those harms do not even have to occur specific intent requires proof of a state of mind intent to harm and an act in this case it's calling 911 the act of funding itself in no way supports a claim of a particular specific intent and otherwise the caller is engaged in what we would normally call protected free speech as the basis for intent trying to define speech as a civil violation assuming intent for any speech including references to almost any personal characteristic is an attack on the first amendment this violation of specific intent to harm also allows for damages even if there's no listed harm actually done and please merely show up this doesn't acknowledge the officer's responsibility to protect but instead assumes they are solely for lack of a better phrase no run no responsibility obedient robots doing the caller's bidding no matter those harms without cause are a hundred percent a duty preventable by the officer and the caller cannot can tell the officer to perform any of those harms wow it's very unlikely the 911 caller flat out confesses and precisely connects the dots with these specific intents and explains listed personal characteristics are the basis to get a judgment chief mills 911 feelings are irrelevant this either tries to define legally non-existent hate speech or a much too broadly defined disallowed speech as intent to cause harmful outcomes somewhat vaguely described that are based on personal characteristics commonly mentioned in 911 speech discriminated against the person is very vague the phrase based on is very vague feeling harassed a million or embarrassed our person's feelings i can think of a lot of speech that might hurt someone's feelings that will never be called a crime because we have for better or or you know or we better have free speech also 911 callers are not trained observers and false perception should not be a crime 911 dispatchers routinely ask for descriptions of people there must be laws against calling 911 with false complaints somehow true even perceived true speech should be legal there are infinite reasons to and not looks like taj has raised his hand so taj if you can leave your video off but you'll be also given two minutes to comment on this item um thank you thank you mayor thank you council members so i just want to give a little bit of a personal view on this as a black man um the Karen law at first i thought it was a joke um i know that it's it's going to be uh named something else with lots of numbers and letters but i'll call it the Karen law for sake of brevity but um this this is a step in the right direction i will say that as a young man i got pulled over by police and harassed by police far too often um what we have seen around the country is that these these stops and harassment have led to the dash of many of my people and this is one thing that's going to help codify into law that this this that particular thing won't happen it's going to give some of us a breath of fresh air hopefully and cause a little bit of pause um so that when i'm walking down the street it's not just going to be another traumatic incident when i when a when a police officer gets called to my side when when i haven't done anything it's a traumatic event it it causes me to feel less safe in my own body it causes me to be less feel less safe around police which um strains our relationships as you have seen as many people have commented on there there are very big issues with police being called um on on on people of color uh and and we've seen it play out throughout this country since 9 11 it was it's been a very very big issue and so um i just want to give you my perspective as a black man that this this law is something i am fully in favor of and it's a step it's not it's not the end i'll be all but it's a step in the right direction thank you you care there any other members of the public who'd like to speak to us on this item good evening my name is jay say gave some feedback earlier i want to make this super brief thank you so much for your now 13 hours of service on this uh tuesday really appreciate each and every one of the counselors truly um i really appreciate and want to lift up uh taraj's comments and uh amplify the fact that i'm hearing several counselors mention how they feel safe when they're able to call the police and explicitly ground this conversation and the one that we just had in the reality that many people including queer people like myself and black people like previous speaker uh do not feel safe and do not feel like they can contact the police when a crisis or issue arises also is relevant to the many homeless members of our community who are important voices whom we need to center when we're considering public service uh priorities i hope we're able to pass this uh hope we're able to call it a caron law to identify the appropriate problem that this is responding to uh and move quickly forward after today with immediate actions uh to continue this conversation towards defunding and abolishing the police thank you so much take care good night okay thank you it's like we have one last um speaker a joy plan i'll just ask you to unmute and then you'll be given two minutes as well thank you i just want to reiterate what taj had said and um this again um sets a precedent and aids in the culture shift that i sent out an invitation to everybody to participate in on thursday may 21st that invitation resulted in about a thousand person action and then again created a larger conversation which is leading to this moment now and many moments before again with a greater conversation around um black lives and how we are seen and perceived in our own home of of santa cruz the city and santa cruz the county um it is not illegal to walk around our town in black bodies and this again sets the precedent to um non-black people who um may be uncomfortable by a black person walking around riding a bicycle just being just simply being in a black body so i am in full support of um this law to move forward call it the caron law call it whatever you want but i um as a black woman with black children don't want people calling on um my me or my son my son or my grandson um just because they happen to be living in a black body thank you thank you this public comment and then bring it back to council for uh further discussion deliberation and action and so start with council member gole then council member brown so i just want to be clear it's not that i take issue um with the notion that um people should be held personally accountable if they're making false police reports and making false claims about people for being in neighborhoods or whatever based on their race or other protected classes it's just that um like the way i see it the the community is kind of the eyes and ears for the police department and um i i i know that there's a difference it's like we teach the kids there's a difference between tattling and reporting i don't want people going around being a bunch of tattletales but reporting things that um like for example one of the calls the times i've called 911 this year was i was taking a walk along the levee and i saw a man two men actually beating up a woman and so i called 911 and um and i just have to say like i think that in those descriptors when they ask you those questions when you call i don't know it by heart but race is down there pretty darn low um in the in the description and so in a sense that this will make people feel more comfortable than i'm fine with it whatever um we decide to call it but the only other thing i have a problem with is calling it karen because i get it that it's a funny name and this doesn't mean other but i have a dear friend her name is karen my daughter has a friend on the wrestling team you know only in ninth grade whose name is karen i feel like they get teased and i just think it's not really fair to point someone just gives up their names that's also something they didn't choose i will just say that the the ordinance is the discriminatory reports the law enforcement so um i think if we leave it at that we don't have to get into the conversation around karen uh councilmember brown and then councilmember matthews uh so yeah i'll just go ahead and move the recommendation to introduce republication and ordinance adding chapter 9.86 uh the discriminatory of reports to law enforcement to the santa cruz muni code and appreciate everybody's efforts to bring this to us and uh those who weighed in and you're you muted by the way you keep doing it um uh i'm just a final comment regarding the concerns that your name's grown up i'm trying to think of permissible and not permissible activities impermissible would be you call 911 and you say i want to police your thoughts there's a latino guy they're sitting in the park no that's not illegal to be latino sitting in the park 911 says well why are you calling well he's been here and he's acting weird around some kids that are playing and i mean you know if there's a reasonable suspicion of something alive that would be a reason if others understand what i'm getting here there has to be a justifiable reason and this is about specific intent based on characteristics that have nothing to do with a crime or a problem i'm feeling comfortable doing this i think is the first thing that they say is what is the reason for your call and then they ask the weapons and this and that and the other so that's that was my point yeah if i can just make a brief comment um you know people can ask the reason for your call but if the first thing that comes out of that person's mouth is their race and a behavior that's not an actual crime and then they insist on the person that's taking that call because of that person's race or ethnicity and they're not actually doing anything wrong i think that's that's what this is getting at and i can also say that yeah i've experienced this as a teenager frequently in chicago where police would come out just because they were kids hanging out in the park and a few of them happened to be black so this is really what it's getting at and if it's you know hearing from the police chief that if there's three calls that's three too many and that means that if he's heard those three there's probably many more that are happening so the motion by councilmember brown i'll go ahead and second the motion to move the staff recommendation oh you did okay seconded by councilmember matthews further discussion on this item being none we have a motion by councilmember brown seconded by councilmember matthews to move the staff recommendation to introduce for publication and ordinance adding chapter 9.86 the discriminatory reports to law enforcement to the santa cruz um municipal code with that i'll turn it over to the clerk to call the roll call vote councilmember matthews hi brown hi golden hi so i will make note uh councilmember byer is adopted sorry um what can hi vice mayor mayer hi and mayor coming hi so that passes with councilmembers matthews golder brown watkins vice mayor mayers mayor coming's voting in in favor and councilmember byer's absent and so with that i'd like to uh conclude our um meeting today and i hope that everyone can join us for the last meeting of 2020 on december 8th and so with that i'd like to join the meeting thank everyone for being here today and thank all the councilmembers for for being on this meeting for the 13 hours we've been here so take care everyone have a good night and we'll see you soon happy holidays