 to ask the clerk please call roll. For, sorry. Present. Present. Thank you. Our first item of day's afternoon agenda is a small business development center present to invite Bonnie Lipscomb, director of economic development. Hi, there you are. Hi, Bonnie, welcome. Chair, good afternoon. Chair and members of the council and Bonnie Lipscomb, director of economic development. And it's my pleasure today to use Brandon Napoli, who is the head of this small business development center. And they have been a long partner. I will say we've actually had a contract for all this development center at Rio College in 2008. So we're in our 14th year of partnering with STC. And I'll just say the great work of STC for our business community, for business starting up in Santa Cruz, really can't be understood from over, our contract has a minimum of 500 hours of service assisting businesses. That's the minimum. I will say on average, and you'll see that in Brandon's present today, they average well over 5,000 service hours. So it is very leveraged funding. It's a great partnership from businesses in developing business plans and evaluating whether their business can succeed in helping them take that next step, even help them apply for loans. During the pandemic help was critical for businesses being able to stay alive and survive and grow over the last year. So I could go on and on, but I won't because Brandon has a great presentation. So I will now I would be a pleasure to turn it over to Brandon now. Thank you, Bonnie, for that wonderful presentation. I wonder if that cuts into my 10 minutes, where I get to start now, but regardless, I'm very grateful to be here, Mayor, Council members, thank you for your time. I know it's precious. I'd like to share my screen and jump into the presentation really quickly. As Bonnie mentioned, we do, I think really incredible work. I have an amazing small business community here in Santa Cruz. And we've been around for over about 37 years, so we're definitely not a needle on a haystack in Santa Cruz County. And that's how we want to continue to operate. So we are hosted by Creole College that provides the wonderful back-off support, what we do. And just to get into what we do for those that are not as familiar, the Small Business Development Center focused on bringing in experts in different aspects of small business from Main Street, Tech Street, and Agriculture to focus on advising and training of small business. Our services are free. Our training sometimes comes with a nominal fee, $5 will show up, but overall, service to business owners, whether they're looking to start a business, grow a business, or even move out of business to give it to someone else. We focus on several different metrics, all are metrics captured by the reporting that we do that the business owners have to report and say, hey, you helped us actually do this. And then we're audited internally to make sure that our notes in our system match up with that support. So we're very heavily regulated. Make sure that numbers that are verified by the business owners, as well as who we report to on a lead center overall in the region, make sure we do help start businesses, increase their sales, their jobs, their access to capital as well. So getting into overall mission of the SPDC and why I'm so excited to be a part of Santa Cruz, I grew up in San Luis Obispo, grew up back in the country, went to San Diego for a cool Peace Corps in Guatemala, always served underserved business owners overseas and also in Los Angeles, New York. And then finally had an opportunity to make my way back to propose and just take a skill set with the passion and understanding of who our neighbors are to really try to help and create an ecosystem here. So the small businesses need a lot of support. That comes with encouraging that we have the capital access they need, the coaching and training we provide, connections to other resources, a culture overall that encourages people to take risks and get into business, stay in business. And overall positive for small business climate in the county and in the city. So the services, the trainings that we offer in particular, this is anything from e-commerce to changing the way things used to be, the way that things are moving to new up and coming ways of social media. We were just actually awarded the IHUB grant by the state of California. We're the only SPDC in Northern California awarded this. There are only 10 of them given out statewide to any organization and we were one of them to create an e-commerce incubator. We call it Clix the Bricks. There's several business city of Santa Cruz that we're working with to move them into this commerce marketplace. We also do advising. We help people love HR, it's a real heavy lift. Keep myself as possible in some marketing strategy and financial planning overall, these different ways that we meet businesses where they are, with the needs that they have. I mentioned relationships. We connect businesses to banks. We help to advocate for them, help to understand what their numbers really means to the banker and cut down the costs or the unnecessary declines that happen, as well as if there's any saving on software programs that we can get by being a part of the network, we provide those to business owners as well. So getting into the actual economic impact of Santa Cruz, this is overall in 2021 we were able to collect and I want to get into that story here, but again, this is reported back to this owner's 248 jobs that were created for the business. It's well created, 80 million in new capital secured that debt and equity, 30 million additional sales that were generated. As Bonnie mentioned, we go above on the amount of hours that we spend with these business owners. We love what we do and we feel like there's a huge ROI and not just the numbers here, but also what's behind the number. We throw a lot of events. Well, I'm going to get into the Santa Cruz County Small Business Summit event that we're having in downtown Santa Cruz, April 29th, right after this. Overall, one of our clients pushed into table that we were able to work with. If anyone's best picture, Kota, in a way that's what this story means to me. All those gentlemen are fully able. They don't have to sign language to get by. An amazing story that we're able to be able to tell. And Ian and Charlie wanted to change the way that the fishing industry worked for them and the economics so they wanted to go direct to consumer. And so they came to us with needing a business plan, needing to get a loan, needing to figure out how to actually connect their consumer to this new model. That's what we were able to do with them, really help them overall stay in business and create additional jobs. So we love to tell these stories. If you've ever been an opportunity to come to my office at Cropaglia, keep walking to your loss and take a left. And that's where I'm at right next to HR. But anyways, if you get inside the building, you're going to see that have no shortage of these types of success stories that we love to tell. Courage more people to get in the business, in the city, and to stay in business, do it in a smart way. So to break down the number, and I can buy this to the council afterwards, but we want to break it down. Overall, be able to fund over 100 businesses this last year, help them with the assistance. A big portion of that were the one-off programs that SBA was dealing with their idol in the PPP. I believe that our efforts here are so, we're unfortunately still dealing with businesses that did not apply for the first time and is dealing with, it's probably someone in the federal government that's just not getting the fact that they need to change something in their application. We're talking about months, months, months later. So we try to get in front of that process and make sure that committed correctly the first time. We also have very strong relationships with local banks, well, and credit unions, and PDFI here locally, Cal Postal, I sit on their loan board. Overall, we want to make sure that businesses that are getting the money they deserve and they need. At the same time, we make sure that it's not always a money problem that people really focus on, because it's an idea problem, we need to be able to separate the two and figure out how they connect with each other. Overall, our demographic, we're practically close to half and half male women, there's a portion that who's not to respond to our surveys, it is their choice, whether they want to date on the demographic side. The majority are white Asian, but there's a huge percent that she is not to respond there as well. You can see down the breakup of our business type, majority of service establishment, followed by accommodation and retail. The slide I want to end with is moving forward, and I would be happy to answer any questions. We are relaunching what was a pre-pandemic called the 80th Micro Business Summit, some of you might have attended, it was like the Imperial College Campus. We are relaunching that as a Santa Cruz County Small Business Summit. It will be downtown, starting at the mall, 8.29 to 9.00 a.m. or p.m. We'll be utilizing a couple of different businesses because we don't have a large conference center in downtown, so we're getting, I call it Creative, we're actually going to have maybe a session in an art gallery, another session at a retail shop, another session at one of the restaurants, but we're going to make it work. Super excited, I'm partnering with Event Santa Cruz to make this happen, and overall we want to encourage people to get out of what I call the pandemic paralysis, back in, engaged, moving forward in commerce in downtown, just getting that energy going again and realizing why Santa Cruz City is such a destination. Thank you again for your time, and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much, Brandon, for that information. You said you would send us a copy of those slides. Yeah, and I could, yes, I could do that, yes. I have one more question on April 29th, Small Business Summit at the Museum of Art and History. Is that eight or nine to four? So we're having it at nine to four right now as the program side, an hour earlier, doors open for registration, an hour later, stand around and, you know, meet a mingle, but nine to four is where the program is. Great, thanks. Okay, so Council Member Meyers. Brandon, I just wanted to thank you for the presentation and also just for the work that a mighty force in this town, I've known countless people who serve us, will provide to them. So, we're exactly right in that Small Business is what we're up to and who we are and just really appreciate the amount of work we've done and the value that you've done. So, especially thank you and see you again. Thanks again. Council Member Cummings. Just wanted to say thanks for that presentation. No number of people who are trying to start small businesses use some help and guidance and so being able to send them your way, I think will be really helpful. I just had a quick question about the Small Business Summit. I was wondering if people want to know more about that, send them to the website and then the other question is, are there any kind of like costs for registration and what's the business that's gonna really be targeting like the informational loans? Is it networking? Like what can people expect out of that? Yeah, so the latest information can be on the website, the smallbusinesssummit.org. So that would have the latest we're starting to populate the speakers and we'll start to populate the agenda. We're gonna finalize that this way. You know, overall, we're gonna have a pretty breath of information. Krista Schilling from the CEO and kind bank is gonna be the keynote speaker in the morning. We're gonna have like a lenders panel. So yes, finance, we'll have someone from a bank, credit union, the PDFI and a local angel investor all in one panel and there will be a round. We're talking about strategies to start business, especially in this, I like to call it post pandemic but whatever it's gonna be termed. So we get into strategy and marketing aspect. We're bringing in a new financial advisor for a restaurant like Michelin Star level restaurant executive chefs or we'll have someone talk about the restaurants in particular that have been really hard hit. What that model looks like moving forward is people just don't come into restaurants like they used to. There will be portion of the tech communicated as well. I think, you know, everything involves around tech these days but yeah, that's gonna be pretty broad. We're gonna have over 20 speak. I mean, is there a cost? Oh, thank you. Yeah, so right now, early bird is $25. We purposely reduced it pre-pandemic. We're looking at more like 75 80. We always want people to show up, right? We have limited spot, trying to get at least like 150 for about halfway there right now. So it's pretty good that we're gonna make that number. So, but up to 200, well, and also. Any other, okay. Thank you so much for joining us and then and for sharing that and come in as well. Thank you, Bonnie Lipscomb. So I think we're ready for our next presentation. And that would be a presentation. We have our director of Parks and Recreation, Tony Elliott, who will be presenting a service award of excellence. Thank you, Tony. All right, thank you mayor. Thank you council members on behalf of Parks and Rec. I'm excited to renew our celebration and acknowledgement of Jane Mio with last proclaims Jane Mio Day in the city. And we're excited to continue that celebration today. I'd like to introduce somebody with the California Parks and Recreation Society, our state-grade organization that has acknowledged, awarded Jane this award. I'm not sure if you have anybody for us on the call at the moment. Oh, yes, I'm not seeing anybody pop up here. So let me just give a little bit of background on this board and I would actually welcome our parks superintendent Travis Beck, the work that Jane has been doing with the parks team in particular, but just a little bit of background. Again, this award is from our agency, California Parks and Recreation Society, a professional and service board called Champion of the Community. And the Champion of the Community awards or award, honors, recognizes vigils or organizations who have contributed significant effort, influence and improve the quality of their parks and recreation. This statewide award recognizes the contributions of those who volunteer and provide support and services in their community that furthers the mission and quality livery of Parks and Recreation Services programs, utilities in the community. And I think that really covers the work that Jane has done certainly over the last year and more with the Estuary Project, with the Bench Lands Paramedical Service, the best we can go on and on, but I'll send it over to Parks and Recreation and the Travis Beck here. Thank you, Tony. Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the council. Of course, good afternoon, Jane. When we learned of this award, Jane Meale really sprang to mind as a champion of the community for her ability to engage people in the stewardship of the environment. And she's done that for a number of years through the Estuary Project, doing primal restoration and planting stewardship work along the lower portion of the San Lorenzo River and through that reaching out to various volunteer groups in our community, including AmeriCorps, the Downtown Street Team, various school programs, but the Earth-to-Words Program, the Natural History Program. She was an obvious tender when we recognized and had issues, flash opportunities at the Bench Lands this summer and we reached out to Jane and she very graciously volunteered to create an entirely new program down at the Bench Lands, which would engage residents of the camps there in environmental stewardship along the river. And that program has been really successful. The protection of the river banks, even the restoration of the river banks with native planting that has been done, but perhaps more importantly than that, really positive engagement with members of the stewardship team as well as with the larger camp. And I think she's a well-known figure down there. She's devoted every weekend since last summer and many days to engaging campers in that area and making sure that everyone is taking care of the San Lorenzo River. So just wanted to acknowledge Jane all of your work and thank you very much for stewarding the environment, helping people at Santa Cruz and especially our houseless residents to engage in that. Thank you very much. Mayor, champion of the community, as far as awards, I think Jane may have those with her at her home, but there is a one-of-a-kind, mosaic plaque IRS created and a number of items Jane was also recognized at the California Parks and Recreation Society annual meeting and will be recognized video and a number of other matters to see IRS throughout the year. So the celebration in the College of Jane goes far beyond Santa Cruz and across the California to recognize Jane's work. Jane, thank you so much. Thank you so much. What a special recognition. Very, very special. I'm not sure that with today's Jane, is there anything you'd like to say? Yes. Congratulations to get this award, which I adore. I look so good on that. Unlisting the reasons why I'm so excited to get this honor of the championship, President's Access to Diverse Array, who is always willing for a championship award after an embrace of their incredible support for my Earth and San Lorenzo River endeavors, the Dias River. So receiving this award, I'm still, I'm encouraged by the best and that's a group consistent of the houses and community members. Yes. So for the last eight months, 360 participants and 711 hours later, we have outstanding results. Kept over 28 months, crash out of the river as well as predicting doing incredible experience to work all in particular, my house, this, the housing launch member. And witness how they have grown, seasoned, well-trained environment to see their engagement and create a community bond based on caring collaboration. My tears goes to all of this and I'm so proud of all of you. It's all of the Banna of Park and such a rich, rich, diverse benefit of our trip by Dublin. I didn't... Thank you so much, Jane. Community members can still meet on Sundays at 11 a.m. 11 a.m. by the shipping containers. So everybody is highly welcome to experience what it is like and feel so good. Careful. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Thank you, Director Elliott, and thank you, Travis Scott. And now we will continue with our next presentation. Give me a moment while I put that up. This is a mayoral proclamation declaring March 2020 as equal day-day for Dublin. And I'd like to read the proclamation. And I'd also like to invite Laura Nolan to turn on the camera, Santa Cruz County Branch of the American Association of University of Dublin. Welcome, Laura. Good afternoon. Nine years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women, especially minority women, continue to suffer the consequence of unequal pay. And whereas, according to the class of the Census Bureau, women working full-time year-round in 2020 in the United States, they earned 3% of what men earned, indicating insufficient progress pay. And whereas, according to graduating to the GAP, a research report by the American Association of University Women, the gender pay gap is evident one year after college graduation, even after controlling factors known to affect earnings, such as occupation, hours worked, college minor. And whereas, nearly four in 10 mothers are primary breadwinners, in their households and nearly third are primary or secondary. Making pay equity critical to families' economic. And whereas a lifetime of lower pay means women have less income to save for retirement and less income counted in social security or pension benefit formulas. And whereas, in 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law, which gives back to employees their day in court challenges. Although the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have amended the Paycheck Fairness Act by closing loop goals and improving the law's effectiveness, continues to push the Congress. And whereas, their pay strengthens the security of families' day and eases the retirement costs while enhancing the American economy. And whereas, in March of 2022, the bill symbolizes the time in 2020 when the wages paid to American women back up ages eight to 10 from the bill. Therefore, I, Sonia Brunner, Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz, do hereby propose March of 2020 as equal payday in the City of Santa Cruz. And I encourage all citizens to join me in the service. Thank you. My name is Laura Nolan and thank you for taking the time to be this afternoon, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Laura Nolan. I am a member of the local AAUW branch. I've been a member for four years. The branch here was first founded in 1905 and the AAUW has been advocating for primarily economic parity for women and girls for 140 years. The association's been involved with lots of different legislation to improve pay equity among the genders and among the different and among the races. But as you can see, we still have a long ways to go. And I think for me, the most talking information or the most pivotal information was included in the proclamation, which is that women, the pay gap follows women their entire life. It affects families, it affects retired women. And we've come a long ways. We're farther along in California than the federal government is, but the gap persists. And it's significant enough to make a difference for women throughout the fight. And I'm thankful that I have this opportunity to bring the community's attention to this circumstance. One thing that is also tracked this March 15th in points, point in time, when all women, compared to all men, the salary they make, but the pay discrepancy for black women, Native American women, and Latin women, they don't catch up the last year's similarly ethnic men until late summer and early fall. So that's a much bigger gap. And one that is also being addressed part of all the other legislation process. So I'd like to thank you for your support. I am a volunteer with association. I am not like a, I don't advocate typically. So I'm stumbling over my words, but I'm a volunteer. I do have a little more information than anyone has. Any questions from council members? Council member Kellan Terry Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Brunner for the presentation. And thank you, Ms. Laura Nolan, for the work that you do. I just, I want to acknowledge how important this issue is. Someone who's from Iran, where gender equity and pay equity is a huge issue and not acknowledged. It's just important to see you doing the work and you doing the work and bringing us to our community. So I just, and it goes beyond pay equity. There's issues around childcare, as you know, all of the barriers that are in place to keep women from being able to work in the community and serve in the community. So I really want to thank you for your work and bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Cummings. Echo, my appreciation, Mayor, for you bringing this forward and Laura for all the work that you do. As someone who's been working with the largest peer acknowledged background, I've been working with on diversity equity inclusion workforce development training at the university since 2015. And one question I have that's something that's come up is, you know, as we're kind of diversify workforces that are predominantly male and predominantly white and we're moving people up in the leadership positions, one concern has been that advancements in terms of pay that people have experienced in the past, whether or not we're going to see that same rate of bank pieces occurring. So is that something that you've all been tracking? Meaning that like when women get into leadership positions, do we still see the same rate of increases as we typically saw with men? Are we seeing that flatten out? Because I think that's also a concern where we're, you know, moving people up to leadership positions but then they get to the leadership position with the rate of paying kind of flatten out. So I'm wondering if you all, back that at all, so we can make sure that as we move them in and people of color into leadership, they're still seeing that rate of pay increase that men see typically in the past. So it's interesting to bring that up because in my research, that was something that did come up and what the data shows that I'll use women as an example and women of color, but when women enter a field that is male dominated, the pay scale drops and when men enter a field that is female dominated, the pay scale increases. And so it just, for me, it begs a larger societal question. I'm not certain how to address it. We certainly have plenty of legislation and we still have gap. And then also another thing that I found interesting was women that are highly educated, like with masters and PhDs, they have a gap that is similar to women that are not as highly educated. So it's kind of across all ways you look at the data, the gap. Thanks for that. If you can share any of that data with us, it'd be great as we're entering to work on these issues so that we can have strong data to back our positions for whether it's us creating policy or if we're advocating for our policies that they put at a level that we really lean on this in. So thank you for your work. Appreciate all that you do. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Brown. I just wanted to add my appreciation, Laura, for your work, for today to help us raise the issue. I want to just say, so I first met you, Laura, many, many years ago. So for those who don't know, Laura is a pressured parish member, city staff member working in finance and we work together initially on living wage, ordinance, development and implementation and so I know that your commitment to addressing equity and livable wages has been a long time happening for a long time. And I want to acknowledge and mention that California we're doing a little bit better is a structural and persistent issue in equity and it's happening in California and in other places because of the hard work of you and others and it just wouldn't be otherwise, right? It's that reality is that we fight or push for policies, programmatic things that brings us equity over time. And so really appreciate your role in all of this. Also, you're meant to do that. Thank you. I just a point of information, I retired three years ago. So I am doing this on my retirement time. So yes, I did know that but I saw that you were still listed but I thought maybe you were to come back and doing special projects. Well-deserved retirement after your 30 years. Council member Meyers. I just wanted to say, I'm in really good shape for it and I just really wanted to touch on it. Kind of the unsaid, which is that later in life on retirement, you're growing set of data that's serving about them in us or, you know, homes as they get into their older years and largely how to plan for the dam's job. And it's that part of financial world that a great overlook. In my family, you know, we've learned a lot about that just in the play understanding and actually working with women very young and they're really understanding especially during the pandemic. Other puzzle of sustainability. But retirement looks like on the savings and becoming a common thing. And so I jaded in the motion not just about wage today, but actually thank you again for your support. So we hope to see change and thank you for all your efforts. Thank you. On a related note, pensions and social security are based on wages. So if your wages are low, then your pension will be proportional. And so women, people of color, others that have that people work part-time, their pensions are proportionally lower and you know, in today's economy, that can be really a problem. Thank you so much, Laura, for joining us today for all of awareness and really appreciate it so much. Thank you, thank you for your time. Okay, so I have a few announcements and then we'll move on to our regular meeting. Today's meeting is being broadcast live on Community Television Channel 25 and streaming on the city's website, cityofsanity.com. If you wish to comment on an agenda item today, you may call in at the beginning of the item you're wanting to comment on. You're seeing instructions on this. Please mute your television or streaming device and call in and listen to your phone. Please also note there may be a delay in streaming. So if you continue to listen while your television or streaming device is on, you may miss your opportunity to speak. But it's your time for public comment. Please raise your hand either by dialing star nine or using these hand webinars. Public comment is only heard on items council is picking it and on and not regular updates for. So the items that will be open for public comment today during the meeting are numbers nine through 24 and items 27, 30, and 31 on our agenda. We will not be picking public comment on items 25, 26, 28, and are there any statements of disqualification from council members? Seeing none, I'd like to ask the city clerk to announce the additions and deletions. Seeing none. I'd like to call on this attorney for a final report on our closing. Yes, good afternoon, Mayor Brunner, members of the city council. This morning at 10 30 a.m., the council met in closed session via zoom and the following items were discussed. Item one was a conference labor negotiators involving all bargaining groups, SEIU temp, SEIU service employees, it managers, OE three supervisors, OE three fire management, buyer, IAFF police management, police officers association and executive. Item two was a conference with legal council concerning liability claims, the claim of Chris and Scott Canaro. And on that, that item, the council by motion approved a settlement of the liability claim in the amount of $170,773. Item three was a conference with legal council concerning existing litigation. The first item of existing litigation was revision versus Mott, Hansen, Geringer, and the city of Santa Cruz. On that item, the council approved a settlement agreement that has been negotiated for the court process and the details of the settlement agreement will be available upon request to members of the public when the settlement documents are finalized in exit. Item two was the matter regions of the University of California at all versus the city of Santa Cruz, pending in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court. And item three was city of Santa Cruz versus the regions of the University of California at all, also pending in the Superior Court. There was no reportable action on this. Thank you so much. Next, I'd like to call on the city manager to see if there are any updates. Manager Matt Huffman. Here in council, I've got a brief update for you, the staff. I believe Elizabeth will have a presentation here. Moment. Okay. As Elizabeth has won up the presentation, I want to also mention that I do have a couple of co-presenters this afternoon. Tiffany Wise, West, our sustainability and climate action managers provide a brief update on society news around our Blue City certification. And she'll be joined by some members of Project O that have been working with our sustainability team on that effort. And then Rosemary Menard, our water director, is going to close us out this afternoon with a brief update on our water supply forecast. A lot of us have been interested in it. Its current status and Rosemary will be talking through that and will end up today's presentation. So with that, I'll jump in. I wanted to start off with talking a little bit about our homeless response work. We continue to put a significant amount of work and effort to implementation of the Citywide Action Plan of Council March. One significant development is the completion of the contract, Salvation Army, or additional 75s shelter at the Armory. That's work that our homelessness response team and Larry and Wally have worked on for several months decided to finally get that contract over the finish line, 75 addition. As this comes online, we have also said July for the closure of the bench lines. Council will remember that this is part of the homelessness action plan. One of our major goals for the summer and we have set the timeline for July of the summer full closure as we stand up the shelter. Between now and then, staff will be working with the people who are living there to prepare them for this significant food transition. We'll be challenging for those campaign and for the city as a whole, particularly as county shelters are in the process so our shelter environment is to be dynamic. We of course are putting significant effort in identifying additional sites for county, also identify other locations outside of it. We'll continue to provide updates to the council and the community on our progress with forward sharing the full implementation plan on May 10th, our homelessness response team are working on those cells. As we speak more information. I wanted to talk a little bit about a couple upcoming meetings that bring these opportunities to mention of our community members. We have two important engagement opportunities. First, open house for the south of Laurel, downtown expansion planning effort. That meeting that's happening on Wednesday, 20th, five to eight. That's occurring at the Kaiser Permanente arena. A lot of that folks will take the time to turn out share their opinions on a really important plan. Secondly, is a community workshop on the downtown library and affordable housing project. It came in on Thursday, April 21st at 10. We are all very excited about project press. As we look out to our future council meetings, after nearly two and a half years, we're going to believe that holding our council meetings virtually, that we will finally be with council chambers on April 26th. Part of this new hybrid structure, members of the community will still have an opportunity virtually, but those that would refer also come down to the council chambers, participate in the chambers the old fashioned way that happened in June. We are in the process of that transition, and we look forward to seeing some of you on April 26th for our next meeting. And with that, I'd like to go ahead now and turn it over to Tiffany Wise-West, project co-team to talk a little bit more about that. Thank you so much, City Manager Huffaker. Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilman and the public. Today Santa Cruz is being recognized as a certified city by the city network. This is a program of the nonprofit organization, Project O. The Blue City Network is a certification system that recognizes cities and counties demonstrating a commitment to healthy oceans and waterways. This really acknowledges the work that all of our departments stay in and day out with waste, water quality, our parks and rec folks, our coast service staff. As part of this network, our city will continue to collaborate with other cities and counties and receive support from the network, and its network of nonprofit parks help us further develop programs for our next environment. Here to present the honor is Evelina Arshaki, Executive Director, and Allison Tom Ryan, City Liaison. Yeah, I'll turn it over to them. Thank you so much. Hello, Mayor Brunner and distinguished members of the City Council. We are excited to be here today to congratulate Santa Cruz as our newest certified city. Our team is very pleased to welcome your beautiful seaside town into our network. Santa Cruz's majestic coastline inspires and emperors both residents and visitors. It's not a surprise the city ranks among America's best towns. We are so proud to recognize Santa Cruz as a committed community that is dedicated to protecting the marine environment and waterways. Santa Cruz pressively scored 405 out of a possible 500 points on the certification assessment, placing them in the ocean hero tier. The certification process involves completing a detailed assessment form that evaluates the city's current and ongoing environmental initiatives and programs. The assessment is divided into four solution areas, which are waste minimization, climate protection and community resilience, water quality and efficiency, and health and healthy ecosystems. We use a data driven approach to assess each city's progress in marine environmental protections. Achieving blue city certification allows communities to incredibly and transparently track their progress towards overall sustainability effectiveness. And now I will pass it over to Allison, our chief city liaison who gave personalized support to the city throughout the certification process. She will share more about Santa Cruz's incredible accomplishments. Evelina, it is an honor to be here celebrating Santa Cruz's great success in becoming a certified city. I'd like to point out a few of the major accomplishments that assist Santa Cruz in gaining this blue city recognition, which include implementing a master recycling volunteer training program that certifies participants and encourages them to educate their community in waste and recycling, developing the very help, what those wear guide and an app helping residents and businesses with proper waste disposal, producing an innovative, key level rise, virtual reality explorer app and online bilingual story map to share the future of Santa Cruz's shoreline with the community. Establishing the city as a zero importing community quality and that 95% water comes from the surface water right and 5% groundwater collected within the Santa Cruz watershed, reducing residential per capita water use by an impressive 22% in 2013 and 2020 and also being dedicated to urban tree planting with the ongoing annual planting of 200 trees and spearheading a street trees plan where Santa Cruz offers free trees to residents to plant in front of their home. As now part of the blue city network, Santa Cruz joins a growing community of other certified in California and will continue to receive support from us and our non-profit partners to further elevate the ocean and the city's residents. Through their certification status, Santa Cruz serves the model of other cities able to assist other towns and cities looking to advance their environmental initiatives through our program. So as we wrap up, we'd like to give a special shout out Tiffany Wise West, who is our contact person for the program and who were diligently to get their certified. On behalf of myself, Evelina and the team at Project GO, congratulations again. Thank you Mayor Brunner, team manager Huff, city council members and the public listening in for your time. Wonderful, thank you so much. Thanks Tiffany and thank you to the Project GO for all the great work, thrilled to be out part of the blue city families. Thank you for your eye, I'd like to thank for it. I'm gonna go ahead and hand it over to Rose Berryman right now, who's going to run us through what is your mind for it. Good afternoon Mayor and council members. This is kind of a little bit of an annual ritual for us to tell you about where we are about this time of the year, looking forward to our dry season, although the use of the term dry season this year is a little bit out of whack with some reality. I think that takeaway message is I want to share and I'm gonna repeat these over and over again in this presentation, not ad nauseam, but at least a few times, is that Santa Cruz has one of the lowest water using communities in the state and probably in the nation. Our water levels are really superior to those that occur in most places and La Clomann is about 90% full at this time. This is a relatively recent picture and you don't see any of that unpleasant bathtub ring kind of situation like we were looking at last. Next slide please. I think that all of us know, and this is a really water aware community, so when it stops raining, as it has over the last several months, you hear about it, people talk to you about it when you're on the street or in the supermarket and you hear over here conversations, people saying, when is it gonna rain? Well, I guess the good news for us is that La Clomann is such a small reservoir that even the kind of rain we had in October and in December really helped us build that reservoir this year. So that's a good news. The bad news is the reservoir that ties annual depletion and refill based on the assumption that we're gonna get winter rains every year which is something we're not seeing in this way historically. But nevertheless, we're in good shape here and as we're so conserving as a community, I don't see any benefit to where we will be going into the next winter from implementing restrictions this year. That is why I'm not recommending it and why the water commission also not recommending council that we've received with water resources here. A little out of touch with what's going on around the rest of the state, but where our local situation does not warrant taking that action. Next slide please, Elizabeth. When I talked about where we are and where we're gonna get to, this is a process we use every year of looking at status at the beginning of the dry season and then a projection that's based on stream flow and water supply demand and what we think that it's gonna happen over the coming months and all the different factors that influence where we'll be as far as reservoir storage and we're protecting about a 70% drawdown of the reservoir by Halloween, which is kind of the turning point for us to move back into the wet season. Now at the beginning, at this time last year in 2021, about 74% was where we were as opposed to about 90%. So the worst case scenarios we'll find ourselves going into next winter roughly in the same place we were going into last year that we started last year. So I think that this is a okay place for us to be and it feels comfortable that we will be able to manage the situation for the winter of 22, 23 and then also following year given this situation. And I want to just end this by showing you something that was referred to by the project team next slide, please, Elizabeth, which is this is our particularly the light blue bars are residential gallons today. And you can see that at the 59, 61 level before 2013, at the drought of 2014, 2015, we really had a significant reduction. We were doing rationing at that time, but our community members basically adopted and integrated into their ongoing operations and the way they use water, those measures from that time we were rationing. You can see that at this point we're at about 45 gallons per person per day that indoor and outdoor with about 35 gallons per person per day as indoor use. So relatively small outdoor water used here and very consistent commitment to conservation over the last about eight. So with this kind of ongoing engagement or I don't see basically any real value of research are used or then has been adopted over the last five years. With that, I'm happy to take questions. I think there's some more slide that the other picture of for a picture of. Thank you, Rosemary. Do council members have any questions? Starting. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you so much. Those updates. Moving on, we have the city council calendar and I'd like all on the city court provide updates on the calendar. We have no updates, but just a reminder there is a special next day at 3.30. Which is, I assume, only five percent. Great, thank you for that reminder. Okay, before we continue with the agenda, I'd just like to give a few items regarding meeting efficiencies. We have a very agenda today with a lot of important business to cover and a number of items that the public put on. I've also heard comments from members of public who have claimed that council discussions and debate is being too drawn and repetitive, causing some members of the community to now turn extended debate. Also, notice that a number of attendees signed in to our Zoom tends to drop significantly during prolonged debate, which suggests that our deliberation will result in ridiculous public participation in our meetings. So based on these terms, ordered to more efficiently and effectively manage the meeting and to encourage participation by all members of this council, as well as members of the public. I will be implementing a few changes in the order of the meeting. One, following staff presentations, there will be an opportunity for council member questions or we receive a public comment. After staff presentations, council members have an opportunity to ask no more than questions before we move on to questions from the next council member in order. Once a council member has asked or they will move to the back of the line, all council members have the opportunity to have their questions answered before I recognize a council member who is already at their turn. After all council members have an opportunity to ask questions, then the process will repeat and each council member will have an opportunity to ask more questions. The cycle will repeat until all following communications from members of the public and public input. Before taking further comments or questions from council members, I will ask the council members here to move the recommended action. And if that is made and seconded, a discussion will focus on that recommended. I would also request that subsequent motions or motions will amend the main motion to use sparingly. It's perfectly acceptable to vote no on a motion before a separate motion. And requests for friendly amendments are encouraged. As with council member questions, after a council member has provided comments, all other council members will have an opportunity before I recognize a council member who has already provided comments. Encourage more participation by the full council and avoid the race or person line. The following will be used as a guide recognizing council members during discussion and deliberation. When an item has been presented by council members, those presented the item will have the first opportunity to make a motion and explain the motion and explain the basis for the recommended action. When multiple hands are raised on an item, a council member who is not spoken has a prior claim over one who has already passed. Similarly, a member who seldom generally be given preference over a council member who's not laid. I reserve the right as writing officer to call on any council member who has a hand raised, particularly if a council member was recognized first on a prior event. So avoid drawn out and repetitive discussion after all council members have had a fair opportunity provide their input, I will entertain a motion. I have emailed this information to each council member. My goal is to really ensure that we all have an opportunity to discuss the process and public input in a sufficient and constructive way that can keep us on track. Another long meeting with a lot of input. And I do see council member Brown. I do thank you, mayor. So I have two questions actually. I'll use up two of my three. The first question is whether I'd like to, so first I want to clarify is what I'm hearing that the motion in the council agenda pocket must be paid first before after those motions or another variation on that motion. Intent is you are based on past discussions being so broad is starting from a base of discussion on the recommended motion. And then we narrow that focus of discussion. So my second question is that for us. Yeah, there you are. Have these procedural rules been vetted by your office I guess vetted by your office and is this clients with our rules around Robert's rules and all the other regulations that govern the conduct public. Yes, these, this is the product of discussions that I've been having with the mayor over the course of the past few meetings. And they are based upon a review of our existing meeting rules as well as different sources of parliamentary procedure like Robert's rules or the Alice Sturges handbook on parliamentary procedure or Rosenberg's order, which are the Cal cities version. And so yes, they have been reviewed for both conformance with rules of parliamentary procedure and the requirements of the Brown Act. So just again to clarify those goals allow a body require that only the motion for the recommendation published agenda made rated upon prior trying to roll to that's all I think that's that's not how I read the rule. Council member Brown, I read the rule as I read the rule as saying that the mayor will entertain a motion from a council member who's prepared to make the motion on the recommended action. Certainly it doesn't limit the council's ability to discuss and debate alternatives, but it's designed to initially provide council members with opportunity to discuss the record action. And it doesn't limit in any way the council from considering additional modifications to the recommendation recommended action or alternative. I'm sorry, that's what I felt like I'm hearing. I'm not sure if I hear. And again, I read the rule as a request to limit use of substitute motions, but not a prohibition on substitute motions. I would just comment that the use of substitute motions and amended motions has been, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Has been in the last, I would say three or four years come commonplace on the council. And I don't recall that as a standard practice over the years, until fairly recently. And so I think this is an effort to sort of not restrict debate, but to keep the debate on a little less adversarial putting. Council Member Brown. Well, not really, but I don't have the time to Council Member Cummings. I guess I just expressed that because I guess I'll just express that. One of the concerns I have that, given that members of the public don't have as much engagement staff or they have as much, and sometimes they'll have engagement with council members on a certain item that when these items come to us, they have concerns that making motions to help address those concerns is how we work on behalf of people. Oftentimes staff comes with recommendations that we agree with. Oftentimes staff comes with recommendations and we hear from the public and they disagree. And I think that by just starting off with only being able to move staff's recommendation, we'll actually create more attention and create more of an adversarial process. But I'm just gonna keep my comments there because I think it's actually gonna result having more substitute and amended motions. But those are just my comments. And then I guess it would also be helpful to understand as we move to hybrid meetings, if this is gonna remain a practice and just so that we have a clear sense of how meetings are gonna be managed moving forward because it's a much different, being in person is much different than online. And also if we're hybrid, that means some people will be probably using the can raise button versus people being in chambers actually raising their hands. So if we can just have a clear process as well, I think that'll be helpful. And also it'll be helpful to know when motions should be made because I know that traditionally we have questions from council public comment and then we'll make motions but sometimes we'll make motions during questions. And so being able to have a clear process for when we're supposed to make motions would also be helpful so that we don't have more conflicts rising with council. Well. Thank you council. I did want to take this approach today. We can see how this goes. Effort for me to respond to a class for a more efficient meeting without our opportunity as a body. Our only opportunity as items is in a public setting and it's important that we have those questions but it's also important that we stay focused and stay aligned with meetings. And so like our city and church said after several meetings and talking over several about how we structure our meetings it's my responsibility to get moving and best as much aligned and time for the members of the public and for city staff, council members for us all with the items for us. So going into in-person hybrid I would hope that council members are in person in the chambers like Asian where council member will have hybrid joining us via Zoom but there will be members of the public that will also be either in-person or Zoom and we'll have to navigate that process as get there. So today I would like to try this approach. I welcome input to see how it goes and I'm not trying to radically restrict anything. I'm just trying to structure us moving as a body and full of that makes sense. Council member vice mayor Watkins. Can you hear me okay? I was having some trouble with my Zoom earlier. Yes, thank you. Okay, sorry about that. No, I just wanted to share my support for your and appreciation for your structure that you played out for us here today. I've noticed that we've had several items that have been moved or postponed and I think that's because of the packed agendas that we've had and having served as mayor I also know the challenge of trying to really balance process with action and equity of voice and also encouraging council members to have questions asked and answered in advance of the meeting to have more efficient meetings if possible and to hear from everybody. So I just wanted to offer my support and I know that it's iterative we're always continually trying to move our systems. So I'm sure we'll modify or you'll modify as it but appreciate this attempt and happy to oblige in terms of compliance as well. Thank you. Council member, sorry, Johnson. Thank you, mayor. I also just wanted to acknowledge and express my thanks to you for trying this on and my colleagues for trying this on. Of course I have never been mayor but I have facilitated many meetings that's a challenging thing to do as vice mayor Watkins has said to balance what do you have voice, process and action. So I really appreciate the approach. I've also heard from many community members that they have not been able to participate because our process has been lengthy and has excluded community engagement. So thanks for bringing this forward and I'm happy to try it on as well. Yeah, council member Meyers. Yeah, thank you mayor. I just wanted to express my support as well that just so many items and so I time out of their days and their nights to try to see us create our business for years just lateness of our meeting lasting really the next morning. I really appreciate your correction that no voting on voting no is okay. Also attempts to try to change language. So that is part of our process. A lot of that staffs also very supportive. Thank you also for clarifying it, putting it. You're welcome. But what I read, I wanted to go with this starting point and I'm so glad that the city attorney's office will help me structure some of my ideas into some of these points to help us on track. With that being said today, as I tried it adds another layer to stay on track as well and track of council member questions and how many times it will add another layer for my brain to process and track of. So I'll try my best today and I thank you all for trying this out today as happy. We will now begin our consent agenda. These are items numbers nine through 22 on our agenda for members of the public. We're streaming this meeting. Now is the time to call in if you'd like to comment on items nine through 22. Constructions should be on your screen. Please remember to mute your streaming device. Raise your hand either by dialing star nine on your phone or select these hands in the webinar polls on your phone. All items will be put upon in one motion unless an item is pulled by a council member for further discussion. Are there any council members who wish to comment or pull any item? I have hands raised, council member coming. I'd like to pull 13 comment on 15 question on 16 comment on. Say that one more time because I write or I get it correctly, thank you. Sure, I have a, I'm gonna pull 13. Okay. I have a comment on 15 question on 16 comment on 17 question on 15 and a comment on 20 and a question on. Council member Brown. I have a pen on 17. Okay, council member Calentari Johnson. Thank you. I have a comment on 14, 17. Okay, so we have one item pulled item number 13. So I will go ahead and call all this up here. I will go to the comments and questions and I will go to, after that, I will move public comment on any of the items that were searched. I will start with item number 14. Council member Calentari Johnson, you've had a comment. Yes, I just wanted to thank you, Mayor Brunner and Vice Mayor Watkins for your collaboration bringing this anti-Semitism resolution forward. The resolution acknowledges the uptick in the anti-Semitism here in our community and our condemnation of these acts. And as Ramadan here in Passover converged this year, it's really important that we as the city council and we as a community stand together against religious hate and uplift the beauties of these sacred traditions. So thank you to my colleagues. Thank you. Item for comment is item number 15, council member. I wanted to express my appreciation for Mayor Brunner and council member Brown for bringing this forward. This was brought by our attention by County Supervisor Luisa Lejo. And this item is for the establishment of a new CalVet veterans home in Monterey County in order to provide skilled nursing and memory care services for aging, disabled and homeless veterans living in the central coast region of California. As we try to estimate the homeless need and understanding that veterans who make up a population of people who are experiencing homelessness and need care that our hope is that this letter will support the construction of this facility that can provide support and care for many of our homeless people. Thank you for working on this with the support of Supervisor Lejo. Thank you so much. I'll stay with you and move on to your comment on item 17. Yeah, I just wanted to express my appreciation of staff for working with the other local jurisdictions to help bring this forward. We know statewide moratorium was extended, right? But really trying to ensure that we're getting money into pockets. People who are especially renters who are struggling is really critical and want to express appreciation of staff for bringing this item forward and I look forward to hearing more about how these funds are spent, how quickly they're spent and what kind of needs there are. Council Member Brown, you've also had a comment on item 17. Yeah, I had a simpler comment, so I won't repeat it. But I would just add in addition to the station about how significant it is for low-income working families that we know that eviction prevention is our most efficient and effective mechanism for addressing and preventing homelessness and preventing the challenges along with that. So, this is a really important investment. I think staff is following up. Thank you. Council Member Calentari-Johnson, you had a comment on the item. Yes, and I'll echo my colleagues' sentiments. I appreciate this effort. I appreciate that we're moving forward with effective solutions and not working in a silo and in a vacuum and aligning our efforts with county and with other city jurisdictions to help those who are really in need of help. So, thank you to the work. Council Member Cummings, you had a comment on item 20. Yes, Mayor. I also wanted to express my support for the staff for all the hard work they've done to really start moving forward with further electrifying our fleet. Another back in 2019 when I got on council, there was a lot of discussion about why we're not investing in electric. Refuse trucks and we've moved the staff as we're working diligently to move us in that direction. Continue to carbon neutral city and just really wanted to highlight this to the community. This is high voltage portable battery charger for first all electric ref trucks. And I think that many members of the community would appreciate this, especially with our dedication to protecting the environment and also trying to continue moving in this traffic. I want to thank everyone for coming. But it's moving us in a clean and more sustained direction. Okay, now for the questions, Council Member Cummings, question on item 16, the loan consolidation and affordability term extension for St. Gimora Street Commons and La Playa residential. Thank you, Mayor. I had some community members reaching out based on the gender report, the extension of the affordability and the project is seven years. And some community members were asking, you know, is there any way that we can get this restricted portable in perpetuity? So I'm just wondering whether or not we can do that. And if not, then what are some of the questions around that? Is Director Bonnie Lipscomb or Jessica Dewitt available? Yes. Hello. Good afternoon, Council. This is Jessica Dewitt. So let's remember Cummings to speak to your question on affordability. So there's several regulatory agreements on this property. There's also several lenders of one of them being state HDD, so state housing and community development. So we're working together to consolidate. There are actually several units that are already being regulated in perpetuity. So there's sort of a mix of hybrid regulatory is going on here. So we're trying to consolidate them all. The developer Mercy Housing is actually on the call today and can probably speak to that item. I know this has been a question that has come up as to whether, you know, all of these units could be affordable in perpetuity. So that is something we're referring, but it's gonna require, you know, working with all of the other lenders to make that happen if that's a possible. State HDD being one of them. It's I guess, I don't know if the housing want to comment on the question. Oh, but I do have a follow up question. Bonnie Bush, I'm not sure if you're able to see them out in them. Yeah, so Becky Flores was Mercy Housing. Go ahead. Hello, Mayor, members of the council, can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Okay, great. Thank you for taking the time to consider this item today. And the discussion around preserving affordability and perpetuity has been brought up discussions with staff and Mercy Housing would definitely open to accommodating that request. Our goal is to come our street commons and apply a residential affordable for the long term. So we don't see any issue if that's the will of the council and the community at large in providing for that. Thank you so much. Council member Cummings. I have a question to the city attorney then. The attorney. So I'm wondering, given the information that we've heard, wondering if you want to provide additional direction that sounds like staff has an opportunity to work with various lenders. There could be the opportunity to bring this back to council. In order to designate thousand affordable and perpetuity rather than because right now we're going to put seven years extension. I'm wondering would we need to pull this to that length and how we might go about given that this item on. You certainly would want to pull it from cent. However, in terms of potential impediments to making the restrictions permanent versus a 57 year covenant. I have not had an opportunity to research that and so I'm not really prepared to comment on the viability of doing that at this point. Yeah. And the direction wouldn't be to make it in perpetuity today. The idea would be that we move forward staff recommendation to have staff return after they've had an opportunity to discuss with various stakeholders on whether or not we would be able to properly affordable and perpetuity. Yeah. I think that would be a motion that should be made separately from just acting on the consent. Looks like Becky had her hand up. Can you hear me now? Yes. Sorry about that. I would just add what Mr. Kundati referenced that if we could take action on this item and then if we make a separate motion that's the impropripity, that would be fine as well. That being said, then I'll pull 17 but we can add the additional direction. No, not 17. Item 16. 16. Sorry, I'll pull 16. Does that conclude your question first, Dean? Close. Okay, you had a question on 19 and then 22. Correct. So for the members of the public item number 19 is the UV bypass valve repair notice completion. One of the things that stood out was that additional $100,000 was required to work. Wondering if staff could just put that a little bit so that your initial bid for this project of $7,000 so it ended up costing double what it was in. I'm just wondering what happened to what happened there and why that was the case. Just to help clarify for members of the public. Yes. This was an emergency project at the wastewater plant. It's a 72-inch valve or largest valve at the nuclear plant and when we realized that the valve was not operating, we couldn't operate it and we needed to operate it and it was not a bid. It was actually an emergency project and what we do in an emergency project is basically all qualified contractors and whoever can respond fastest basically and we're comfortable and are fully competent. Industry Pacific was able to bond very quickly and then once they started the project, what happened was, it's about 12, the valve's about 12, the 13 feet deep, something like that. And once they started exploring, we ran into two high voltage duct banks that is a concrete encased conduits. One of those duct banks has 21,000 volt electricity running through it and in order to, at that point, it was very special type of excavation and shoring required to actually get down to the valve. So that's what caused basic double increase price. And in the cost, it's all time immaterial. It's a time immaterial job, so we approve their time basically approving their time that they spend on the job materials and they successfully completed the work and therefore the notice. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you for the clarification. No problem. Thank you. Item 20 is the T2 systems parking pay stations. Yeah, and so the question I had on this from the public works might be available, a question that came to me from members of the community was along the lines of, you know, there's pay stations that we use at the parking garages and then we have our parking meters. It seems like there's two different software systems that each, and so people were asking, you know, why does it have two separate systems and we don't follow it on civic kind of systems with a full, you know, for example, if you need to use it to have it to renew your parking on rather than having, say for example, two different apps on things just drop today. So that's the question that came to me from members of the public today. Okay, Nathan Yuen, are you here to speak on that? Sure. I think so. City, engineer, public works. The parking system controls, we do have a couple of different systems that are operating in our city. So in our garages, we use the park access revenue control system, so park system that's gated. So that is what we're instituting now, right now, round river front and soak health front, Teeble type equipment. The surface slots we are using, the T2 systems in which we've been using, almost the same. So that's before you at this point is replacing some of that integrated equipment. But there is a possibility that in the future as we look to upgrade parks system that we may look at trying to combine that into, you know, one vendor. So it is one more, one system. Thank you. Council member Myers, you have your hand raised. You're muted. Question, I guess now on item, I'm sorry, I didn't put it. They do have a question on item 23 now that Mr. is it, excuse me, item 23, I was wondering if I could just ask. Item 23. You said. Excuse me, that's on, sorry, I'll ask it later. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So that can comments and questions from town hall, gift items hold 13 and 16. This are members of the public that would like to, any of our items that are not pulled on our agenda. That was the time to do so. Raise your hand by dialing star nine on your phone or selecting raise hand in your webinar calls. When it's your time to speak, you'll hear an announcement that you've been unmuted and the timer will be set for first hand. Let's go to attendees. We have the name I am watching you. Go ahead and unmute. Yeah, hi. I'll be very brief. On item number 17, you're not actually saying exactly who the money will go to, surely not CAB or kind of sanctuary bank accounts, I hope the state homeless money is questionably spent on people who still live in homes that it'd be spent on homeless people. Anyway, I hope it all goes to landlords to pay back rent. No disagreement is not included. Therefore, it's big. And finally, the perpetual rent moratorium needs end and I'm not sure there's any end to it. In your mind, the state does it go over. I forget the item number, but to the cost of that electric garbage truck is now approaching a million dollars. Wow. Okay. Thanks. Okay, our next name is Brian Shields, Carpenters Local. Go ahead and unmute yourself. Welcome. All right, today. Not the night yet. I was, I had a question about 18. And so this is for the city, we say space, from 1200 specific LLC. Public comment time. So go ahead. You have three minutes to take your comment. Sure. So, but this is for the city, it's a space, correct? From. Item number 18, amend lease 1200 Avenue, specific LLC conference. There's a full title. I don't want to take a full comment. Sure. I would just ask that responsible contractor used on this project to be city money that'll be renovating the space and a responsible contractor that has a healthcare, livable wage and has been doing that for longer than just that project's duration. That's all I had to say. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your comment. Our next fundraise is the name Reggie Meisler. Welcome Reggie. Go ahead and press start on mute. Hey guys, can you hear me? Yes. Hey, I just wanted to comment on item nine and honestly just like how it just kind of plays into the continuation of the ever continuing authorization of executive power to the city manager. No, not having meetings in person. Now we're talking about having a rule that can't make alternative motions to what city staff wants to do. You know, guys can't even meet and decide on things before the meeting because that's a brown act by the way. I mean, the power grab by the executive branch right now is just so extreme and it doesn't even make sense for you guys. I mean, you must be that rubber stamp for city staff and the city manager. Like they don't want you to talk about what they decided for you ahead of the meeting. They want you to ask them questions. They want everyone to be on Zoom so we can't have any sort of, we're tightly controlled in our communications. I mean, this is just like, this isn't how democracy is supposed to be. So I just want you guys to sort of reflect on that a little. Thank you. The next phrase already spoke. Are there any other attendees with their, with public comment for consent items nine through 20 with the exception of item 13 and, okay, I see none. I will bring it back looking for a motion on items nine, 22 with the exception of, I mean, that's okay. And I also remember Myers. The exception item 13. Thank you. Vice Mayor Watkins. I'm happy to see, yeah, I'm happy to see. So we have the first bite. Council Member Myers is second. Our Watkins and items like tasks are, we'll call vote. Mayor Council Member, I'm sorry to answer this. Is that coming? Vice Mayor Watkins. Aye. Mayor Brunner. Aye. That motion passes unanimously with one absolute right. It will now come back to our pulled item. The first one being item number 13. This was pulled by Council Member Keynes. Item number 13 is a resolution declaring the city council's intent regarding possible process from measure F, a sales tax and use, a sales and use tax ballot item on the June 2020 California statewide primary council member coming. Mayor and just some members of the public are aware that this is a non-binding resolution that expresses the intent of how the money could be used should the measure pass. And again, it's not holding the city to using this in any specific way. However, it is an expression of our values and what we want to support from what we've heard from the community. And I've heard from a number of members of the community regarding the resolution and wanting to have a few more provisions included. And given the language that's before us, I went ahead and tried to make them amendment proposed some language changes. So I've done is included that into the whereas on the last whereas on the last page. And I sent that over to Connie. Happy to do that once you're on this. Am I right into a motion right now or public? Not to a motion just putting the language up as I actually called the attorney and just well that there's gonna be changes made that the public see it before public comments. They can see what the new language is. So in the last whereas resolution really outlines how the revenue would help with. And so just added in, whereas the revenue generated by this measure may help with mitigating the impacts of homelessness added including but not limited to reporting services and programs that address mental and behavioral health, substance abuse prevention, safe sleeping, safe parking programs, et cetera. The need for more affordable housing, affordable and workforce housing, downtown and business support added workforce development. Actions to help address the high cost of housing and accrues added, dating and supporting programs and services, reduce carbon emissions in our climate action plan goals, mitigate the impacts of climate change and make the city more resilient to climate change impacts but not limited to reduction of wildfire risk. Maintenance of city facilities and essential infrastructure such as streets, transit parking, recreation facilities and added for all residents including but not limited seniors and prevention of reduction up to important city services and added along with supporting and expanding services to increase efficiency and promote sustainability of services and service providers. That's the language that came before, that language to come to try to capture some of the concerns that were raised by community members. So after this bill is out, public, how we're gonna manage this as it relates to the new guidance for us but we can determine how we can go forward after the bill is out. Thank you, Council Member Cummings. So are there any questions before I go out to the public to answer? And Mr. Attorney, Mr. Chancellor, or clarify the resolution of intent regarding this revenue measure, we can't, as Council Member Cummings stated it's a non-binding agreement. Yes, the measure that's on the June ballot is proposing a sales tax increase as a general tax meaning it will provide funding that will be put in the general fund and available for uses and priorities identified by the City Council and the resolution is an expression of the City Council's intention with regard to the use of the funds but it's not binding because if it were that would be a special tax, not a general tax and it would require a two-thirds majority voter. Thank you for that. At this time then I will give hands raised and so to Council Member Meyers. Add additional clarity but I know in a sense outlining of potential uses of seeds but not getting quite in proposed revised language. Okay, I think we have a close- Here, we haven't gone out to public comment yet. I know. This is kind of what we were talking about earlier in the process. One point. We're pointing that out. At this time, I see other hands raised are there questions from Council Members before I go out to public comment? Council Member Weiss, Mayor Watkins. I have a comment. I'll just wait. Okay. Council Member Calantari-Johnson. I was wondering if City staff if the manager could comment on the implications of the added language to this resolution of intent in terms of, yeah, the implication. Here, so Council Member Calantari-Johnson, Council really does have a question on all what happened. On binding, I will say that her proposal reflects revenue, budget, ad hoc, recommended. But the Council certainly has this question. Council Member Brown, you have a question? No, sorry, my question was about perspective but I got it. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go out to public comment at this time for item number 13 on our consent agenda and I do speak to the e-mails raised. So the first hand is a phone number ending in 5542. Go ahead and unmute yourself. Press Star Stick or press Unmute Option. Yeah, Council Member Mayer, me? Yes. Ron Pomerance, the Prejudice Council Act regarding tax, falls there to emergency in order to put sales tax increase as measure F invalid. Current ongoing situation is not an emergency. The fiscal emergency started years ago or so last year. Staff said, thank you, on cost of severely harmed the budget that it was done in intervening years. Correct this situation. There's nothing in this resolution can't then address the tension. This crying wolf, United Tension, rests this finance problem. This agenda item, get in the soy, right of full voters that have sales tax these will be used for the delineated purposes based on a poll you commission. The council truly wanted to testify and locked up the sales tax to be used to have clearly and honestly spelled it out. Staff support says, Bob with this approach, get lost, requires sales tax. With these specifics, we needed a two-thirds vote of the election to be sown polling so the two-thirds vote would not pass. Then the things to say, you're worried that getting a simple majority may be a problem. Sales tax, dominantly harmed poor students, low-wage workers, struggling families, that's the stress of tax. These folks, it's the minimal benefit that kept this proportionate part of their income. For their sales tax, opposed to higher income and wealthier, the sales tax goes hand-in-hand with the highest inflation rate in 40 years, further compounding harm to their well-being. Clear violation, I'll remember, what two of the health and all policies values and requires equity as a cornerstone. This agenda item was not even placed on the agenda as a general business item. Rather, on the consent, this an attempt to fight a spirit out of public scrutiny, to quote your staff for resolution and intent in not finding why the people have a time of consideration. Thank you for your comment. Our next hand raised the name of Reggie Meisler. Welcome, Reggie. Hi, yeah, you know, I'm just wondering, why are we even discussing this, right? Like, you guys all could have talked to staff for the meeting and just figured it out. And then city staff could just get what they wanted and, you know, it can just lie through consent. Your meeting can end early. Like, no problem. You know, just chug it along, let the sort of business interests get whatever they need to get. You know, whatever people are lobbying you on the back end, they can get what they want. Nobody has to speak. Nobody has to, like, wait around for anything. So, you know, I guess it's just, that's my question. All right. We are taking public comment on item number, ICB phone number ending in 0575. Good afternoon. My name is Ken Baer. I am the city of, I'm a city of Santa Cruz worker, the president of the city of Santa Cruz chapter of FTIU 521, a lifelong resident of Santa Cruz. I would appreciate it if the city council would recognize the importance of the services that city workers provide by including us in this resolution intent for the tax sales, the sales tax measure. Throughout the pandemic, city workers worked hard to study running and at the same time to give furlough and suffering layoffs. Now that we're on the road to recovery, the sales tax keep the city running and pay the workers a fair wage. So we'll track new workers to provide services and the residents of Santa Cruz need them once. Thank you for your attention. Your comment for next fundraise is the name David to touch. Yes. Thank you, Dustin and city council for including city workers in the services that we provide the community and the resolution intent for the sales tax measure. I'm very proud to be a member of our water department live within the city just down the street off of the street. I know that both myself and my coworkers provide the essential services that this community has felt needed through the pandemic and we're facing a very severe recruitment crisis due to being underpaid and overworked. We hope that the language involved in this will prioritize, typically as can stated, our SCIU membership as an investment in the services that the work provide both for the city staff and the resolution sales tax initiative. So thank you very much. Have a good day. Thank you. Our next fundraise is I am watching you. Yeah, I'll also be brief again. I don't think that government workers suffered more than the private sector in the pandemic. I don't know what the ratio would, but I would guess it's a hundred to one the private sector suffered more. So really this item is just fluff. I mean, it's an attempt to gain support for the initiative, but it's really a simple choice for voters. Do they want to allow the government to take a bigger chunk of economy from them to spend as they please? And they have to make that choice. It's a simple choice for me. I'm gonna vote no. Thanks. Thank you for your comment. Other hands raised public comment for item number 13 on our consent agenda. We'll bring it back to council. And we have a motion that is council member Myers. Mayor, I'm happy to move resolution on the resolution to grant the city council's intent regarding the use of. Okay, and is there a second of discussion? I'm happy to. You have a first by council member Myers, Mayor Watkins and council member Brown. Have a comment? Yeah, I do have a couple of comments actually. It is comment time and I am following the rules and not comment question time. I am making comment, comment period. I actually support I am on the revenue fee and this resolution while not directly crafted by the members of the committee was based upon a discussion that suggested that we wanted to follow results of the voter poll and the priorities of from those responses. And so I think it is an appropriate exercise for us doing it puts us on record and it gives us some look forward and also look to once this measure, this ballot measure passes. And so I support that. So also support the additions that council member Cummings suggested that like included. And I think that this is an example of a council member who is not on that. Looked at the recommendation was not talk with us or talk with staff about that prior thing. And therefore is bringing this and I think they are thoughtful additions while perhaps a little bit more concrete. I think they reflect very, very important and urgent issues that are. So that's one comment. And the other comment I want to make is that we have some written communications from a couple of were able to attend the meeting today. I know many workers that and the turn about air our workforce it does not explicit graph resolution. So on this issue of the city's, the city council's view of how to address and asked to include something that's just a gust that the workers be fairly compensated at wages that are credited with other ages across. And I believe that we all are thinking and I believe that while I've heard council members talk about this kind of general concept as something that y'all post part upon. I think that we're getting these indications is workers are very concerned and they haven't that they haven't act. They have heard it in word and they are council meetings but they have or talk with visual council members but they have not had an act. So I want to be very clear that that is an absolute priority of mine. I am going to fight for that in the conversation, the ongoing conversation about the workforce issues are bargaining unit. So I just want to be really clear about that up front that's my position. I hope that is a position that is shared by my colleagues action just. Thank you council member Brown council member Cummings and then vice mayor wants. I did have a question because I brought this up and I know this is probably not related but it is a process because my understanding earlier was that out some guidelines process and the motion was made during the question for the Scott or we have to get a comment and I'm just trying to understand how we're doing or because we just had a conversation about process. Everybody said that we're supportive of that process part of which my understanding to make motions after we public but motion was made during question honored. So I'd like to have some clarification because we have a lot of items that we're going to be hearing today and some of which are very controversial and I think that it's going to lead further conflict on get that your wraps. Thank you council member Cummings. Right now we, I would like to this discussion focus to the motion that have a first and a second and then discussion on the motion and then we have a vote and then we can ask a question of process. I will, I'm prepared to make a subsequent motion and that motion will be to stop the resolution declaring the city council's intent regarding the use of central revenues generated by measure F sales tax, tax ballot item on June, 2022 California State Department primary election with the following language included that was submitted to the county clerk or the city clerk. I will go ahead and second that motion. You have a substitute motion on the floor by council member Cummings. I still want to make some comments. Say that again. I wanted to still make some comments. And a second by council member. Okay. And before I move on hands raised saying you want to make comments. Okay, go ahead council member Cummings. Yeah, I'll just say that again, when members of subcommittees and I guess more, more importantly, the Brown Act was being able to speak with one another, be able to incorporate all the things that council members want to see depending on what items for us. And at the last meeting, when it was clear that the subcommittee will be taking this up. I think there were a few comments that were made, but it was also clear that when this item came before council, we would be able to provide other resolution. When the members of the public had an opportunity to see this after it was posted on Thursday, was the public can reach out. And that's also the only opportunity that the public has to see what was conducted by the subcommittee private meeting. And as a result, we'll have, they want it to happen. In addition to that, some of the conversations I had had with members of the public were that there was a lot of what was stated was very vague. And people wanted to see examples of, when council says mitigating the tax of homeless, what does that actually mean? Because we've been trying to mitigate the tax of homeless for a decade or more. And a lot of people see that money is being spent or in the situation is getting worse. Part of this was really giving examples of when we're saying how this is spent, we have clear examples of what we mean by that. And many of these additions actually fit really well with what we want to see in our community. Workforce development, that again impacts the climate, just fire climate change in general, that we're creating, maintaining facilities for all our residents, and that we're supporting services that our city provide services. So I don't think this is a very far departure of what has been proposed, but I think it also does reflect more of what we've been hearing from the community on what the community and again, non-binding. It's really symbolic of where we are as a city and where we stand. And so that is the intent of this motion and this course. Vice mayor, what? Yeah, thanks, mayor. I was just gonna say, I think that, what I read in terms of the potential proposed substitute motion is pretty duplicative of what's written in the resolution and given what council member Cummings just said and that we have a lot of items that are big items in the forest and we're already a half hour later than usual in terms of the plan, time for the consent. I didn't think it was the best use of time given that we were kind of using the opportunity to really reconcile a lot of the same statements. Therefore, I'm prepared to just forward with the recommendation as opposed to trying to wordsmith kind of what I see as overlap, significant overlap in terms of the language. So I guess I'll just, I'll leave it there in the interest of time. Council member Myers. I would just like to apologize to my colleagues. I'm learning the new process here. I should not have made amendments offered but I do enter the solution really quite best, you know, moving into a different type of measure if you get too specific. So, just being that in mind, I apologize to my colleague for meeting your procedures and I appreciate it. So I just wanted to, not mind, I'm also just trying to continue items. Miss Mayor Watkins. Yeah, I just had a quick question in terms of the statement that Council member Myers brought up in terms of the specificity. And I know, Tony, you shared that you hadn't had a chance. I think I remember you showed you didn't have a chance to fully look at all of the language. If that's correct, I mean, I don't, I wanted to know if you wanted to weigh in on that in terms of the legality and the specificity or if it matters. I think I was referring to the other item, the 57 year term versus perpetuity for the affordability covenant. Okay. I did review the language proposed by Council member Cummings from a legal perspective. You know, it's not, it doesn't raise any legal concerns. It's really more of a policy discussion for the community. I guess another potential solution could be for the Revenue Committee to reconcile the recommendations and bring forward a more clear resolution at the next potential. I mean, if we wanted to get it written, right? Because a lot of it really is replicative in my opinion. Well, thank you. At this point, we have a Council member, Calentary Johnson. Thanks. Yeah, just what Vice Mayor Wach just expressed, I would be interested in that because the language that Council member Cummings brought forward on the surface looks good. I don't want to, that was my question earlier is what are the implications of that. I mean, I don't know, I don't know but I don't want to, that was my question earlier is what are the implications? I just want to make sure that we're not doing anything that would harm this measure or our resolution event. So if the subcommittee were open to reviewing and diving deep, making sure it's clean and clear and there's nothing duplicative and nothing that would impact negatively the sales tax measure, I would really be in support of that because I'd like to integrate what Council member Cummings has brought forward. But I just, you guys have done a lot of work. I haven't done an item that I've gone in depth as much as you have. So I would be in favor of that if that were acceptable by Council members Cummings and Brown. Okay, everyone's had a chance to speak and we have a motion on the floor. We can go ahead, oh, may I have a roll call vote? Yeah, I'm just hearing that. Other way this, so, but if we vote on it, and we're gonna go down that road of voting and dragging this out, or if there's agreement to try to work this out and back that I'm trying to. The Council member Brown, is there a staff recommendation? I think the question, Mayor, would be whether the maker of the substitute motion and the maker of the second would accept the suggestion made by Council member Watkins as a friendly amendment. I can also clarify. I can't hear you. Hearing. Now I can. I just wanted to clarify on the converter and I just wanted to remind you that action in front of you right now is the substitute motion. And Council member Cummings made a change in that substitute motion based on what's being suggested. If you want. If you ever call vote, that's the substitute motion and friendly amendment. Following that? That way you only. I mean, I think I thought I saw Council member Cummings nodding in the affirmative as to whether or not he would consider Council member Watkins suggestion of friendly amendment. The amendment would be to further the language proposed by Council member Cummings back to the revenue committee to incorporate as appropriate based on further analysis and input from Council and members. Council member Cummings as the maker of the motion. I'm willing to accept that, but I would like to hear from the subcommittee members where he comes up with that. Yeah, that means you're all gonna have to meet again and do and see whether or not the subcommittee the subcommittee is open and willing to do that. I don't see why we should hold that. I didn't understand the comment by Council member Watkins as that the resolution would come back for the council. So I just think we're fine. Vice Mayor Watkins? Yeah, I'm flexible here at this point. I think we could either take it back to revenue that the language is actually matching and cohesive or I'm personally just fine with moving forward with the original language at this point to be honest with you. It could come back. It doesn't necessarily need to. I don't know immediately what that looks like, Tony. And I think the intention is there broadly in the first one. I think there's nuances that are overlapping. So I wouldn't feel comfortable passing one that doesn't necessarily feel like it's written properly and I don't know if we want to dive into everything at this moment. Therefore, I was suggesting that we could bring it to the revenue committee for reconciliation, but does that then not need to come back? Tony, is that what you're saying? It would not need to come back if that's the direction. If that's the comfort of the council then I'm fine with that coming back. We meet anyways as a revenue committee so we could take care of it at that level. And the revenue committee I'll just add is Council Member Brown, Vice Mayor Watkins and myself. So Council Member Cummings. I just have a follow-up question then. This isn't gonna come back to council then my question is how will the members of the public know what that final, the final language will be because my understanding is that the language can then be changed by the, or is that not, if that's the intent. If that's the direction of the council then the resolution can be adopted subject to further refinement by the subcommittee. And I guess my clarification is what can then this, what can the subcommittee I guess do then in terms of the language because I think what concerns I'm hearing is that people want to see included and if we send it back to the subcommittee it's not going to come back to council then the public really doesn't know what it has. And it's not clear whether or not council pull agreement changes will make. I mean, given that concern, I guess I would just recommend that council move forward with the motion as framed and it doesn't sound like the suggestion was, was recognized as a friendly amendment. I just want to better understand. I just wanted to be clear in the process what the expectations are, that's all I'm at. So if the language was accepted as a friendly amendment then the subcommittee could refine and make changes to the language of the resolution or not. And once that's done, then the resolution is a matter of public record just like any resolution adopted by the city. Right now the question. Right now the question, right the count the question before the council is whether to accept the substitute motion. If it is accepted, then we go ahead and vote on the substitute motion. If it's not, there's the main motion for the original motion that's on the floor as well. I accept to the main amendment. Substitute motion is on the floor right now. Member Cummings. I was going to say that I'm happy to accept the friendly amendment. The understanding that final language was sent to the members of the city council and made public. And we'll see. I mean, I think that heard from members of the public, we understand the intent of the new language. And I think that we'll see what happens, I guess. But if it's dramatically different then I think there's gonna be issues that are raised because these are things that have come to my attention and by members of the public they want to have included in what, again, non-binding resolution. And should a lot of us not be included, I think that it will definitely further mistrust our community with our local government and could negatively impact revenue measure. If it is seen that this goes to a subcommittee and stripped of a lot of the language, which again is non-binding but is really reflective of our intent to support various services. Mayor, given those comments and kind of ambiguity of this process, I'm gonna go ahead and withdraw my friendly amendment and we could just take the vote and how about that? Thank you. And I just wanted to give the city clerk, I have your hand up and make sure give you an opportunity. Thank you. But my question goes away with place mayor Watkins drawing her friendly amendment. Thank you. Okay, so at this point, we have a substitute motion on council member Cummings, second council member Brown and we'll do a roll call vote to the subcommittee then. Thank you Mayor, council member Calentary-Johnson. No. Is there a holder that's coming? What, Vice Mayor Watkins? No. And Mayor Brunner. No. Okay. So now we have a motion on the floor, the original motion by council member Brown seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins. My motion is since. Council member Meyers, Vice Mayor Watkins. Yes, okay. So my understanding in terms of the Vice Mayor's friendly amendment is to provide the ability to take another look at me with some of the language I don't, I think it does commit us to certain things that, so I would accept Vice Mayor Watkins if we get resolution, any to some of the intent in that, trying to kill any of the intent of some of the things brought up in that language, trying to understand process, change, similar amendment on this motion. My question is from the city attorney, whether those changes would still have things that would still not remain resolution, also have concerns of similar conversation in two weeks. So. I think the friendly amendment would be to defer the resolution back to the revenue committee to for the limited purpose of considering the additional language proposed by council member Cummings. And if that's the direction of the council, once that analysis and any revisions are made, then that I heard council member Cummings suggestion be that once that's finalized that the resolution be distributed to the full council, that would not have to come back for further council action, but it would be distributed to the full council for as an information item, it would be available to the members of the public and council members could further disseminate resolution to their respective constituents. I think procedurally back in meeting this again, doesn't mean that we have to try to get this resource really explained to her. So. As originally stated, I'm happy to have that conversation and to do the reconciliation. What gave me pause was that if it didn't come back to the full council to approve or didn't necessarily meet a criteria that council member Cummings wanted to be met, then he wouldn't be pleased and there would be community upset. So my concern was a process, essentially saying if we don't meet an expectation, then what? So if it's not coming back for the full council to approve even if it is a reconciliation of language, then are we setting ourselves up if something that isn't in there or written the way it was wanted to be written, that would lead us to a challenging. So therefore I would approve the amendment and that was my rationale. We do have a special meeting today. Yeah, thank you mayor. I think just to have seen us to create a seat and get this, go ahead without any, I will say to my colleague, revenue issues, you know, are real, it's very important. We all really cool to other staff. This is a really pivotal comment of us to not leveraging anything over the other. We realize this is a resource that's really pivotal across many categories. So we want to just make that comment. Happy. And so for clarity, motion is being seen as originally stated and vice mayor Watkins is that under a motion and they're ready for a roll call vote. Although I see a hand up council member Cummings, just wanted to say the members of the public that appreciate them reaching out and come to address their concerns and gonna support the motion because I still, you know, agree with the, some what's included in the resolution of intent, but I think could be doing more. That being said, I think it's important for members of the public to doubt they have concerns and express their concerns to us. I do feel that a lot of city workers watching and there's a lot of community members that are watching this, maybe feeling let down by including them, especially since we've been saying for these past few years that we're all in this together. So, you know, moving forward, hope our ways continue to support our workers, you know, climate action goals, support programs that address mental behavioral health, substance abuse, safe sleeping, parking, and that we're really, you know, looking out for all our residents. So, I'm gonna still support that recognition. My, what I was trying to do was food, turn additional concerns raised after the report, please. But look forward to working with the community to see how we can address some of the major challenges and also where. Thank you council member Cummings. Okay, city clerk. We have a roll call vote. Council member Calentari-Johnson. Defton Cummings. Vice mayor Washington. Mayor Brunner. Hi. That motion passes unanimously. But we will now continue with the other pulled items from done. Item number 16, I believe. Yeah, 16 and this is pulled by council member Cummings, loan consolidation and affordability, firm extension for Sycamore street commons and by a residential. Yeah, so for members of the public who are just going to end after our discussion here that there is potential for discussion between staff, mercy housing and relevant stakeholders to determine whether or not housing affordability terms can be made in perpetuity. And so the additional language I sensed it Bonnie and so Bonnie put it up for the members of the public and the council can see this as we move into public as we move into the public comment period, but was to adopt apps recommendation and then also direct staff to work with mercy housing relevant stakeholders determine whether the affordability term be extended in perpetuity and second item for council consideration at the meeting. So, you know, I think that one of the things that I've heard since council is that only way to maintain affordable housing in our community is to make sure this is good. And this is an opportunity where we can secure units in perpetuity to be affordable for our community. And there's the opportunity for conversation around that. I think that would be great. And in the communities in the community would be on board with this having this discussion and you know, possibly make sure that those units are restricted in perpetuity. So, I'll just stop there. I know that this needs to go out to the public for any motion to be made. And thank you for that. Thank you council member Cummings. Is the attorney, did you have a comment on that addition? It can wait until the council considers motion language. Just have a minor clarification request. Okay, thank you. So, there are questions I have. Jessica, do you with staff and council member Meyer? And then I will go out to public comment. Council member Meyers? I just had a question for staff and I don't want to bring up their item on that. This was 100% I see reference to that in materials in the past property. I just want to make sure that we're not eating something. Jessica, do it? Yeah, so to confirm this is 100% deed restricted portable at both of these properties, we're working to extend that ability. And just to respond to council member Cummings motion. So we are barreling down a tax credit deadline, affordable housing tax credit deadline. And I think Becky is still on the line from Mercy housing and can speak to this. But I think we prefer to address that affordability now to be able to make sure that we don't lose the very majority of funding that we need to be able to make this rehab happen and keep these units affordable and in good condition. So I don't know if Becky's still around, but just that is something that we would like to, if possible, address now versus in a future meeting just because of this tax credit. I respond really quickly because I don't want it to be any, the idea is that we move forward with staff recommendation. And so you all can go ahead, get your tax credit, we'll have the 57 year date. But it sounded like from the discussion that was had earlier that the timeframe right now that is being set as 57 years. And it sounded like in the previous conversation could be the potential for that rather than it being 57 years that it's going to be. So the direction here is move forward and let's hear the affordable housing. If there's an opportunity to have that conversation, that can have that conversation, see whether or not and for having that affordable in perpetuity and then bring back. So this is in no way trying to stop if you all are doing, it's really trying to give you the support that you need to move forward with the item that's before us, but then also have this conversation if there's a potential that we can make this interesting in perpetuity. My clarifier question, well, Jessica, does that clarify? And she's there? Yeah, if I'm understanding correctly, move forward with this tax credit funding deadline, but continue discussions on making these all 100% of these units affordable in perpetuity. Thank you, appreciate it. Thank you. Council member. The units in this both of them now, alone, seven years, that is a marker on the loan restriction of, I'm just trying to understand. I take that question. Thank you. Thank you. So Council Member Meyers, the affordability period is also concurrent with the loan agreement period. So tax credits, the way the tax credit agreement works is that it's a loan for that period of time, but also a regulatory period for that period of time as well. There are, you can honestly say, I think 37, 48 items on title here. So that's, those are all agreements that are showing up on title that we are working our way diligently through that have several regulatory agreements and conditions. And so we are doing our best to combine everything. And like I said, we are moving towards trying to get to affordability and perpetuity for 100%. I just wanted to indicate that Becky Flores first housing does have a set up now. So I wanted to- Thank you. Okay. So Becky Flores first housing head and then mute yourself. Thank you. Mayor Brunner and Council Member Brown as was brought up by Ms. White, we are having to take into consideration the closing on the tax credit finance for this project. And I just want to be clear then that direction is that we could potentially take action today as was suggested by Council Member Cummings and that the imperpatuity could happen post closing. I know it could happen later, but you're okay with post closing. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to confirm. Appreciate it. Member Calantari-Johnson. Thank you. I'm not clear how close motion is different from what is happening already with the end with if somebody could verify. Sounds like this is the works. I'm just coming from staff. Is this happening? What I heard from Jessica is that that we are working make the units 100% affordable and property. I'm sure if I'm allowed to speak here. Yes. Go ahead. Sorry. Jessica, go ahead. Thank you. Yes. So we are working with the developer mercy housing on again, it's just trying to work to get to this tax credit deadline and also sort through all these 38 agreements at the same time. Just the history of this. This is back into the 90s, I think. So just trying to sort through what who's on the hook for what and how can we move forward with, you know, 100% affordable and yes, extend the affordability and perpetuity. If we can get every lender on board with doing that. Essentially this direction motion language is solidifying what you're currently working on. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see, it looks like we have one more question. I'm going to take item 16 out to public comment time. We have items being on our consent agenda with hold. Let's see, any public comment on items not being any. So I will come back to helpful, okay, bring it back. Hey, so we have a council member coming. Yeah, so I'm happy to move the staff recommendation and then in addition to that, provide the additional direction, direct staff. And we can even say support staff work with mercy housing, relevant stakeholders, determine whether the affordability term be extended in perpetuity and bring back an item for council consideration. And council member Brown. I'll second that and just want to say that while this may be redundant, some council members, what I heard in the discussion, what I heard the housing representative, that an indication from the council that that is a commitment to have is meaningful. And so I'm very happy to second this. I'll move member Brown and E. Clerk, Bonnie Bush. Thank you. Just to clarify, council member Cummings, are you going with direct or support? You're muted. It seems like the direction, staffs are removing that direction, so support. And thank you so much, Jessica Dewitt. And thank you so much to mercy Becky Flores at Mercy Housing for your comments and for work. And I do echo council member Brown's comment that this emphasis from city council traction, it weighs a lot, so thank you. And so we'll go for a roll call vote on this motion. Council member Callentary-Johnson. Aye. Third absent. Council member Cummings. Thanks, Mayor Watkins. Mayor Brunner. Aye. That motion passes unanimously with council member Boulder absent. Okay, that is our consent agenda. Did it? Before we continue with our next items, I would like to call court break. And we will turn at 4 o'clock. Is this part ready? Yeah, thanks. Okay, welcome back, members of the public for joining us resuming our agenda. We just concluded our consent agenda. And next up is consent public hearing. These items are 23 and 24 on our agenda. For members of the public for resuming this meeting, if you would like to comment on items 23, 24, now it's time to call in using the instructions on your screen. All items will be acted upon in one motion unless an item is pulled by a council member session. Are there any council members who wish to comment on or pull any items? So the council members, council member coming? Like pull item number 24. Pull item 24, okay. So I will now then call for questions or comment from council item, council members on items not pulled. So that would be item number four. Questions? Three. Sorry, mayor. Item 24. 23. Thank you, council member Brown. Item number 23, we will have comments or questions from council members before I go out to public comment. So at this time, I will go out to the public comment for item number 23, hands raised. Raise your hand, press star nine. Of course, select and on the webinar calls of your speaker. Not seeing any raise, so we'll come back to the call. Okay, so we're coming back to council. Council member Meyers? I was just going to, I'm not sure if I, Pete, council member Watkins, I was just going to move. Okay, we have a first by council member Meyers, item 23, and they second. I'll go ahead and second that. Five by council member Watkins. A further discussion by council members, okay. City clerk, may we have a roll call vote? Member Callentary-Johnson. Aye. Mayor Watkins. Aye. Mayor Britt. Motion passes unanimous with council member Kulder-Capsen. And now we will move to item 24. This item was called by council member Queens. Council member Queens. And mayor, for members of the public, the ordinance gives Santa Cruz repealing chapter 581, Santa Cruz municipal code and adding chapter 528, sidewalk vending, Santa Cruz municipal code. This item came with the Velocity Council meeting and since then, I've received some letters of concern. Mayor Brunner and I are briefed earlier actually, and we're both approached by a member of the public who had some concerns about this item and wanting to address those concerns, had a couple of questions for staff. I also had some legal questions to ask regarding the prohibition of vending in the area and so wanted to ask those questions as well because part of the intent of last that, in the motion I made, was to provide us some legal coverage while prohibit explicitly vending in the beach area. There is potential, I believe, in the numbers of the public also, there might be the potential that the city gets sued in that lawsuit. So the first question is one of what the number of the public we engaged with earlier today brought up was really around downtown Pacific Avenue, about street vending. One of the things that that number of the public brought up that, one, some of the spaces are really small and so it would be great to get clarity around spaces and the size of the spaces. What the member of the public expressed was that, for many of the, for many sidewalk vendors, they need tables based where they can put their merchandise. Some of these areas to then are really small. Not only that, but some of the areas that have been arcaded with little brass kind of markers, a lot of those are blue, it's not clear where those vending zones are and so they really express frustration around making sure that have a lot of issues resolved for making any action on this. So I'm just wondering if, as a first step, if staff can maybe address those concerns around the Pacific Avenue vending and marking of spaces, sizes of the spaces, there's a map that maybe we could have displayed to show where vending, or I think that might be helpful for members of the public to see. Thank you, Council Member Cummings. I think I will bring your question regarding the markers our city staff was, Smith, who has been working on this item. As we, I think I've heard from the same individual and so we have an implementation team that's working on a number of fronts to map out an implementation plan for the ordinance. One of those areas is around Pacific Avenue. Environmental changes writ large, so kind of signage to make sure that it's clear what the regulations are. How do we demarcate spaces on Pacific Avenue in a way that is clear and manageable from both the vendor standpoint and also our code plant staff's perspective to make it easy for them for everybody to understand what the rules are. And so the medallions are on our list about and replace. We have some that we can replace for the ones that were taken. But then also looking at, are we numbering spaces? How are we doing the permitting process? And so that's all new. And so it's in development right now. So as we go through the planning process, we've got some folks working on the permitting process and how that rolls out and really thinking about that two steps, environmental changes. How are we working with our code clients and CSOs to help vendors adhere to the regulations? And then most importantly, all of this will be wrapped up in an engagement and outreach, a bilingual engagement and outreach campaign that will occur over the next 30 days should the code plan pass the ordinance. So I appreciate the concerns that are coming in about specific ideas. I had a conversation this week with a member who works in the Spanish language area and they really emphasized the digital divide and how we needed to be thinking about equity and the digital divide. And so that's a new element that I'll be bringing back. So the more input we get, the more areas where we need to be paying attention and the implementation plan, that's great. Have a feel free to send them my way. And it's just a brief follow-up question maybe this for the city attorney. I'm just wondering in terms of enforced sounds like there's a lot of work that still needs to be done in terms of kind of rolling out permitting and all these other provisions that are tied to this ordinance. And I'm just curious how will the city be able to enforce this without those programs being stood up? Or will the programs be stood up before ordinance enforced? Because I think that a lot of members of the public, well, the ones that we've heard from have expressed their concern with not being ready in this timeframe. And then we move forward with the course for people who actually have access to permit sites and all those other things that are important for being able to make sure that people are fine. So I was wondering if you could speak to that. In general, I think that it will take some time for the staff to implement the enforcement and permitting scheme. But I would ask by deputy city attorney, Cassie Brunson to weigh in as she's been working more closely with the staff on the implementation aspects of the ordinance. Hey, good afternoon. I think that there is no plan to start enforcement. Like it's all one package. And I know Elizabeth has been doing a really great job in getting all of the staff on the same team and making sure that we are doing the same way. So I believe that the plan is to start the enforcement when the whole thing is rolled out, when all the permitting and all that environmental changes are rolled out. I guess the follow-up then to that is what does the timeline look like? I mean, I know that staff have a lot of things that are going on and we're just kind of curious what that timeline's looking like. And then what's the plan for kind of outreach to let people know like we have everything in place. We're gonna start enforcing on. Sure, we're meeting this Thursday where folks are bringing me their draft on the creation of free areas by outline all of the major categories work. And so we'll be pulling those together and I can give you a more specific answer today. But we are working towards the day 12 timeline, which is if you pass the ordinance today, then it would be in effect, I guess, day 13. Thank you, technically. 30 days after. 30 days. And so we have a month that we're working toward that. There are a number of systems in place that are being adapted to manage the. So this isn't a wholesale creation task, it's a evolution of the current system. So code compliance has already been out, letting vendors know about the ordinance, about what's included in the ordinance and that you all are hearing it as a second reading. They will, it is passed today, have a prior that we will be sending out on Friday. And as you recall, the, what you passed at the last council meeting was allowing for some additional hours and additional investment through the code. So they're going to be on the ground, both out on the street and in on Pacific Avenue to make sure that folks know, know, know what's going on. And then all of the channels at our disposal, including text, which we have heard is an integral, literally with. So thinking about equity and our questions, thinking about bilingual, bilingual communication and really trying to comprehensive and how we roll that over the next. And as Cassie said, you know, we'll, you know, enforcement will begin when it's equitable in the case. Thank you. I have more questions, but I've asked three. So there, nobody else has any other questions. That's my last question. I'm happy to do so. But want to know what laid out in the process. I'll ask the question. All right. Go ahead. So Elizabeth, the next question I had related to spacing. Is there any update on what the spacing is going to be in the downtown? I'm not familiar with the current sizes of those spaces, but what the vendor was explaining was that they mentioned earlier, sometimes they need a four by six table or they may need to do. And some of the spaces that are designated might not be the correct size for that. And so it's something for us to consider the sizes of the spaces in the downtown wondering the sizes of the spaces that we have located. Sure. May I share my screen? I'll share with you a map of the current, of the existing rubric for the space. And as you can see, there are some larger spaces at the top of Pacific Avenue and then some smaller spaces as you go down. I will be meeting with a council member Cummings-Alses at this time. If you'd like to share it with any of your constituents. This is the former rubric. I'm going to be meeting with our economic development and public works colleagues about what does it look like in the new iteration, especially given that we are likely going to be implementing or will be implementing a reservation system for the, with the part of it. And so it's TBD, but this is the basic rubric that we're starting. So I think that sidewalk vending by its nature has a smaller footprint than the retail establishment or that a bricks and mortar store. So we'll have to keep in mind egress ability for our fire personnel to get in and in the case of an emergency and also the traffic closed on Pacific Avenue. Because as we know, that is a concern that we have to worry about literally in our busiest. And the reason behind moving toward reserve spaces is make sure that health and safety of folks in the down. Just for clarification in one, and there wasn't answer with the size of those spaces. You know, I don't have an answer for that. I know that there are, as I mentioned, by the dots, there are two larger ones. And then what I was going back to once I've had a chance to do with my colleague in economic development, the clerks who have really been leading this in the past. And so we'll be from that. Thanks, yeah. In case we need to bring this back and, you know, take into consideration that some of these, some of these locations are really small and we're not for more like busking versus actual street vending. So we need to reevaluate side spaces. I'll definitely take a look at it and would have to follow it up with you all. And then the legal question I had was that, with regards to Beach Street, it's not fair that prohibition on Beach Street in the beach areas is directly related to public health and safety. And what I've been hearing is the perception is that it's more to support the businesses that are currently there. And no last time there was mentioned from some business owners that they understood the issue of equity and potentially having to have some funding in the beach area. But I'm really concerned because, you know, when we first moved forward with funding ordinance item city that moved a special area where we're vending to occur. That area we created the program and the business issue was there was no enforcement. So the city has been able to demonstrate that we are able to back to the beach area. And if we're going to prohibit it outright, my concern is that because we've been able to demonstrate we can do it there by prohibiting it outright. We're actually not public health and safety instead prohibiting an area because it's a preference of council or it's preference. I'm wondering if the city attorney could weigh in because, you know, if we're moving forward with this prohibiting or vending in the beach area, could be putting ourselves in a very legally liable position and I can end up actually spending more tax dollars trying to spend this for federal support. They even get sued and then lose money and have to allow anyway. So I'm wondering if the city attorney could possibly on the direction that we're heading in and potential for being legally liable for violating. So yes, thank you, council member Cummings for your question. I think the important thing to keep in mind with regard to the statute that is altered in this ordinance being brought forward is that in order to restrict sidewalk vending in a particular area, it is necessary to identify legitimate public health safety basis upon which to do so. That's why these restrictions will apply on a very limited basis in areas throughout the city and Beach Street in particular was identified as having extraordinarily heavy traffic during busy summer and weekend and holiday times. And it was a staff judgment that in fact, a flat prohibition would be in furtherance of public health and safety. There is, as with any legislative action that is taken by the council, the risk of litigation and we're not able to take the outcome of that with any degree of certainty. So I do think the more lax the ordinance is with regard to regulations, the less likely it is challenged based on sidewalk vending. But I think there are also other risks that alternatives raise with respect to potential dangerous condition liability and other potential liabilities. So it's really hard to pinpoint exactly where the spot is with respect to how to appropriately regulate these items. I think we've had the experience just in the past week of some health and safety issues that have arisen with respect to the beach vending in a rather unfortunate incident that occurred down there last week. And so what's the, where does the court draw the line? We don't really have enough experience in implementing the new state law to really have clear guidance on that. Thanks. Those are all my questions. Thank you, council member Cummings. I just wanted to also bring up a couple of concerned questions. And if Elizabeth Smith is still available. So thank you so much. Concern from member of the public regarding the spaces along this avenue and concern that there would not be large enough to accommodate two schools, six schools. So it sounds like there's an assessment that will be assessing all of those old proper demarcated spaces and taking in, let's count those to find large or equitable access to large schools and smaller schools that there's a possibility perhaps of creating some larger, just right now it looks like two large, seven small schools. And so would that be part of the assessment of the avenue that the court will look at? It is not something that was on our list but based on council member concerns on the public and then I'll bring and we'll look at it as a part of the implementation where also just balancing. I want to clear, we have to balance the sort of safety impacts of large, large tabling areas on the traffic flow on Pacific Avenue and the busiest of. So it's making sure that we're balancing all of those impacts but absolutely we will take a look and see if there's a possibility of additional large spaces. Great, thank you. And then the second part to that question was the reservation system. I know it's still in implementation stage and all of the operation will be forthcoming as our analyzed work through but turn over fighting over the larger more vendors and not having type of vendor conflict such as an expanse on space. There was that turn that brought up as well. And so wondering if we can look at how that reservation that would have all as process free, right? The reservation, I think the permit is $30. Permit is $30 and then the parks team is working on what the would be for the, which is what would be required for the reservation. Any other questions from council members? At this time I will take this item out to public comment. This is item number 24 on our public screen. And there are any members of the public that would like to speak now as the time is your hand by dialing star nine on your phone or selecting and webinar. Your turn to speak will hear an announcement that was unmuted. The timer will then be set. We did have one request for extra time from a group Robert Norse and let's see if phone number ending in 4-844 go ahead and unmute yourself. I'm representing Huff. I'm Robert Norse and it's homeless United Friendship Freedom. We've heard about the impact of this law for people who are both patrons of vendors who are also maybe vendors of those. The city manager can have a negative impact on not just those who spend most of their lives outside and rely on active public spaces. This I think comes from the staff that it's being, well, concerns I guess itemized. It's mainly the destruction of a vibrant street seat have negative impacts on the entire community. We'll discourage visitors seeking legendary but increasingly less actively described versus use characterized are down for city. This expands spending your law and display device restrictions folks moving around so that someone hocking their poets or other work on a bike would be required to register pay and regulate those according to unnecessary and burdened requirements. We'll seriously encourage colorful street life to the detriment of the broader community. Visitors have come to produce the experience that brick and mortar business share in the process generated by the use of the ones that are free. Free vendors will be boxed in massively regulated while merchants spend their domains of public spaces. Sidewalks happening COVID era. I'm particularly concerned about the exclusionary impact this ordinance has been forced again on homeless and low income people whose living space now undergoing massive stated shrinkage hundreds illegally outsourced Bible and reportedly given July eviction date in the financial lands where they've been correct to go. But of course they have nowhere to go after that. So it's going to be the street observed by minority vendors often cheaper than corporate sellers for homeless folks to be. The ordinance also calls for a return to many of the anti-homeless downtown ordinance impressive fact. If bans, vendors, petitioners, anyone with a table asking money for anything with no apparent first amendment exception except in the disc outline box getting the requirement of permits downtown. Half a million was authorized last month for enforcement and 200,000 as part of the budget. Why? 18 pages of ordinance. Why? What's the problem currently? Get the staff juicier job. Get enforcement officers busy. Where the police staff indicating substantial problems. We know the city police shut down vending on bench streets many months ago siding with a merchant who assaulted a vendor. So it sounds a bit like a racist attack on Latino vendors and a class blow at lower income people. They grabbed a punch in the pusser to a poor person spreading out their books on a blanket and trying to sell, trade or give them away or a way of sanitizing Pacific Avenue of handicraft vendors. To the Robinson-Torreses councils were able to drive out of sight bans restrictions of this sort. The cities failed to adjudicate an issue that was the assault upon a taco vendor's push cart. They didn't hold the merchant responsible. Instead, they moved to ban street vendors without permit and uphold this monopoly of brick and mortar stores. This is a strangle of the street vendors ordinance. Clearly limits the street vending. Reinstitutes stay in your box based on restrictions they have began with two on Pacific Avenue and awards special interest legislation brick and mortar stores. This is a return to the old regime. What can people do about it? Of course, questions then you won't. You will simply rubber stamp. We can object to police enforcement of this law when it happens and raise our voices in public forums where we'll actually be heard rather than sideline in celluloid void we're in now. And of course, I should point out to the, as I have already to the city clerk that has the dialogue on community key of the Kishan Sanacris City Council has not been audible. It's jerky and it's cut off. You can't really understand what's being said. So this was primarily a measure to overcome SB 946 which became law in 2019, which allowed for commercial sidewalk vending and limited city council's abilities to restrict sidewalk vending. This is the city council striking back on behalf of merchants. I think it does a detriment to the homeless and the housed both. And thanks to everybody for listening. For your comment, the next caller with your hand raised has a phone number ending in 177, Karen. Hello, my name is Guillermina Garcia. I'm a street vendor on Beach Street and I'm really nervous right now because we're starting speaking up by myself. I hope you guys understand me and I can't hear any well. Okay, my first comment is that I'm a vendor that went into the robo and went in one of the spaces that were food. So it took time for me to get the help from me. By 2021 on October, I got my help from me. Also, I have a liability insurance. Also, I have a business license and a Sanacris permit. I wear a jacket a lot of times for other vendors already. I didn't work 2021 because I was scared that other vendors didn't let me get any really small space to sell. But right now I came on the second of April, first time, and I see an open space here by Beach Street. I set up my staff, I set up my table so I can bring my food cart that already has all the permits. And I set up, this guy came to me and asked me for that space that belongs to him. He told me that I need to move my space and my things because that size belongs to him. And he said, are we with me? That's the time when my husband came and asked him what was the problem. And he told me that we need to move. I was pretty scared because we already beat him the fight and I don't wanna beat him no more in the fight. So he started fighting with my husband and all his co-workers, he's working because his name is Dorian Rodriguez. He has like 20 spaces in most stands working for him. And all those people came to my husband and started attacking him. His mom, his dad started hitting on him. So my son, one is 17, his name is Rodriguez Cruz. He's about to go to the Navy on June. He already enlisted, he's ready to leave. But he came to defend his dad, taking away the other people that were attacking him. And I don't, I feel good that they went, my kids went to defend his dad. The other kid is 16. He came to take out the other girls that were attacking us. And that's the time that when they started hitting my kid. And right now I feel so very scared of them to start our win again. So I just moved to the other side of, another space where on the palm tree. So I just set up, I make a report of police and everything but they didn't wear a vest. Also I wear a robe by his mom. His mom take away his backpack with my husband. And my husband had like 4,000 in a pocket because we have changed, we're vendors. We didn't deposit the money on the bank. So she took everything, the police just give me the change, only 5,000. That's all she has in the bag. And I recommend my recommendation is to limit the space for that ones where six on the ruffles. And also my recommendation is to site all the vendors that doesn't have the permit that were on the ruffles. Also I asked him for that parking space for permit. And my small business can also offer a job to another people that is struggling for jobs. And that's all my comment. I hope somebody can hear me, my recommendation. And I hope the audience doesn't have to know me. Thank you very much. Hello Amina, our next caller phone number ending 721. Hi there. Hello. Hi, my name is Dave Jones. I'm a street vendor on Sidewalk Vendron. I wanna thank Council Member Justin Cummings and Staff Member Elizabeth Smith as well as the Mayor for taking time out and listening tonight. I have several concerns, but I would hope that everything's straightened out and they find out your thing. They worked out that the brass dots before this council passes this ordinance because afterwards it'll be a little bit more difficult and they'll have carp launch on what they wanna do. And it's not always in the vendor's interest. Number two, this Senate Bill 946 was intended to decriminalize street vending or sidewalk vending. But on page 14, 24.14, there's a violation of this subdivision as a misdemeanor. That's a criminal offense. And that goes against what Senate Bill 946 is trying to do and decriminalize sidewalk vending. I have a lot of concerns. What I would hope would happen would be for the council to table this and have it straightened out before it's passed. There's, I don't think there's anything wrong with just waiting a little bit longer. I mean, you waited this long, you might as well wait a little bit longer and just work out all the details before it's passed and made into an official ordinance. And that's all. And I appreciate all the work that's gone into this and all the people who've been working on it. I know everybody worked hard. I wanna thank everybody involved. Your comment for any other numbers of the public who wish to comment on 24 is being done. We'll bring it back to council. Time, I have council member Calantari-Johnson. Great, thank you Mayor Brunner and thank you the callers. I wanted to just note that I had questions. I had a time that I sent to staff and shared with community members who had questions. So I didn't have questions earlier. I have some comments that I wanna make and I am ready to make a motion to move staff recommendation. I will make a point or I make it now, I'm not sure. If you make it now, I will ask for a second. Okay, I'll go ahead and make it now and then make my comments. So I will move to adopt the ordinance number 2022-03 repealing Santa Cruz municipal code SCMC after a 5.1 vending and display devices on city property adding SCMC chapter 5.8 sidewalk vending. There a second? I'll go ahead and second that. I second the walk-in, okay, now we can have discussion on this. Great, I just wanna know Ms. Wilhelmina's comments that she called in, heartbreaking story. I watched the video, one of our community members sent the video and it truly brought tears to my eyes and it really further makes the point that what we're doing is not working and it's impacting folks who are trying to bet. And my understanding of this ordinance is that we are gonna set parameters and we're going to address the very egregious health and safety impacts that we're seeing out in the community and then work, staff will work, create a framework where we can get these vendors safe spaces for them to do their business. I mean, young children are being impacted as we heard Ms. Wilhelmina, her teenagers being impacted and then of course other community members trying to access those spaces are being impacted. And this isn't safe for anyone, this isn't equitable. So I support this recommendation because I think that's very clear parameters and I support the work that staff's doing and I would love to work with staff. I have been meeting with community members who have some ideas about how we can roll out a vending permit process and allow those who aren't otherwise able to work in our community. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Cummings. Motion seconded. Yes, by Vice Chair Watson, thank you. Thank you Mayor, I just wanted to thank those members of the public calling in and with regards what happened area, I think that further reinforces the need for there to be some kind of recognition in that area in terms of obviously there's fighting over spaces and if we're gonna be paying someone to enforce ordinance in that area, it makes sense that we would at least allow for some people in that area. And also, there are legal terms because we came up with a plan that previously worked, that would have worked if we hadn't. And it wasn't clear back then that we were under the impression that it would be if we went forward with limiting spaces. That was the entire time just putting all that time into having members of the public work for our static program. So, you know, my concerns are largely around the city being legally liable of preventing people from ending in the beach area. And as I mentioned before, if we're gonna have someone down there enforcing, that could actually provide added security for people like the member of the public heard from. And so, and it also would be an equitable approach. We're saying that in the city just not here, that's not actually providing opportunities for people to then where we can for public safety identify such areas in the beach area. It sounds like it could be possible. So, I'm gonna, as an amendment to the motion, have two options that I'd like to include. In addition to Mr. Jones's comment, I don't think that there would be support for tabling this item, because I think that there is some desire to help mitigate some of the facts that we're seeing, although taken into account what was said would lead me to the second part of my amendment. And the amendment would be, I sent this over to Bonnie to direct part, direct staff department draft resolution, establishing a limited ending zone and or city-marketed bending displayed on the streets and sidewalks of each street between the minutes for third street. Also direct staff back and update vendor space size in the downtown and implementation of the sidewalk bending ordinance prior to important. I'll second that. The amendment. This is the amendment. I mean, I can make it a friendly amendment if it's accepted. I'm not inclined to accept those friendly amendments. I'll make an amendment. And I'm sorry. And I do have some comments. I'm sorry, sorry, sorry. Council member Cummings, are you saying to adopt the ordinance in addition to things? Yeah, it's a motion to amend the main motion and add those. Right. I didn't. Yeah, so I'm gonna, it's okay, mayor. I go ahead. I've had my hand up. Yes, I just want to make sure council member Cummings, so council member Brown. Thank you. So I seconded the motion on the amendment. I support this amendment. I want to point out here that the very disturbing incident that, well, I mean, a tribe. Yeah, I mean, I think it was very disturbing and it does indicate that what we're doing is not working. That I think staff has made it very clear to us that enforcement has been a problem or lack of resources for the council majority did vote to support and increase the sources for that purpose of, I believe, almost half a million dollars. So in total, that's right to address. So I have some confidence that that will make it, that will ease the burden on staff to help there. And I, you know, in respect of this particular case, though, I'm also quite stressed that the solution I'm hearing council member, the council majority or a couple members who have spoken support is to prohibit this person from even having the right to defend at all despite the fact that the business life and the permits and has gone through that entire process. So I don't think that's really an acceptable alternative for people who rely on this for their business, for their livelihoods and were the council to support this inclusion of additional language to allow for limited spending for vendors who are interested and have made a really good faith effort followed through and want to fly but to then eliminate that possibility for them is I just appropriate. And a more general comment that I have about this ordinance is that while I very much appreciate the challenges for city workers, for community members, for the vendors themselves, what people have experienced as a result of the lack of regulation high demand zone. I really do appreciate all of that work and I would, I'd like to support this, but I just can't support something that is then closing off possibilities for people like Wilhelmina and family and that also puts us, what I would, a position of having potential exposure that we wouldn't otherwise have if we're simply regulating the time, place and manner rather than a blanket restriction in the beach area. So I'll leave it there. I will support the amend, adding the amendment if that were to occur. Okay, thank you council member Brown and I'll insert myself here. I really appreciate all the comment from our community members. We've received a lot of comments. Last Sunday I was on a beach seat and I was in on the avenues, as well as the vendor who called in earlier and spoke on some of the coming tonight, today. And, you know, it's clear that livelihood, that some of our community members really depend on and are not able to achieve a standard and mortar location and some of them, a couple of the vendors have brass fire. Go in that direction and aspire to a small store of their own and had a wonderful presentation earlier from the Small Business Development Center at Rio College. I know that there are, of course, and offer consultations from business plans, lease negotiations and finance all sorts of support for various business sectors and various types. So my concern is definitely being this, is recommended ordinance changes or guidelines, I would say, equitable for everybody. And, you know, we had our first reading already session and I did vote no on the first reading based on concern of vendors, the recommendation for April through September, absolutely no pending and based on Willa Mina's story and after talking with witnesses that day and after going down there on Sunday, it's very clear that the recommendation for no pending on that is necessary and it is a huge public concern. And we have to continue to work to ensure that those vendors have located and understand the locations can be in their livelihood. And if it's not on that section of, then we work with them on clear guidelines of their, it won't such a public impact. And, you know, just really having the implementation team after staff and Elizabeth Smith, you're still here, the staff really working from the various departments together on implementation and taking all of these while I will be supporting Ordnance Day as it stands without amendment. I really encourage staff to consider all of the accessibility for the vendors who need it. And so I would like to, if any other, council members have any further comment, otherwise, Will? If the amendments, I am going to support the original motion, but if the amendments were to pass, does that lead to the first, again, maybe it's party? That is 20. Yeah, I'm here. I understood the motion to be to approve second reading of the ordinance and direct staff to turn with the resolution establishing a program for limited vending on the street. So that wouldn't necessarily change anything to the ordinance? It would not change the text of the ordinance as I read the language of the council member's motion. Except, okay, well then, okay, yeah, no problem. I appreciate it. I needed to be read it again. Thank you for that clarification. So the resolution would be a separate intention, so to work towards demarcated zones on sidewalks of the park. I should also add in there the deck to add, that's where we were going to put the save for the vending previously. So the idea is to have, you know. I think that's fair within the language of the existing item one that if that's the direction. And council member Cummings on this of the street, I think. Yeah, that can be on the sidewalk. Imagine what you've got, the sidewalks. The addition, sorry, about the behind the deck, the deck. The, I don't know where. That's the deck behind ideal. So the city property, oh, on the sidewalks of the street between the minutes fourth, third street and then comma and on the deck, city owned deck behind the ideal of our intro. Thank you for clarifying this resolution, this resolution of an intent set for a resolution. The direction is to have staff prepare a resolution to bring back for council consideration. Welcome council member Golder. Thank you. I apologize for just now arriving was serving on a three that I've been serving on for this weekend. So I'm just kind of getting caught up to speed here. Would it be appropriate for me just to ask, is this motion, is this the one we're getting ready to vote on with the amendment? Yeah. The item before the council is whether to accept member Cummings substitute motion. Is this the substitute motion or is this, this is the substitute motion. That was an amendment. An amendment. An amendment, pardon me. Whether to accept the amendment. Right, sorry. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Council member Calentari Johnson. Yeah. I wonder if so many are not or so. I'm unclear about how these amendments impact implementation of ordinance. And my concern here is that somewhere is around the corner and we clearly saw the impacts of not having these parameters in place. So I want to move forward with ordinance as possible. And I'm concerned that these amendments will delay us. And speak to that. Council member Calentari Johnson, that Elizabeth may have some comments as well. Staff's recommendation right now as set forth in the ordinance contemplates a total prohibition of the reasoning for that is right now based on current conditions. There are some significant unsafe conditions and behaviors that are occurring along that stretch. So really the spirit behind a total prohibition is to allow us to stand up a program and try to get that area on more stable ground. Not necessarily an indefinite prohibition however. So the ordinance does leave open the opportunity down the road to review the current conditions, the effectiveness of the program as a whole and evaluate whether or not some level of ending could be brought back to the area once we have this new program fully resourced. So as I read the amendment, it would be directing staff to allow for and develop some level of vending along Beach Street. The concern also as we're rolling out these new regulations was one of, on its base, creating an appearance of a double standard allowing for vending in certain areas, but not others, allowing some individuals that have gone through the program to Vend. But for those that may be coming into the area for the first time that are not familiar with the program, that can lead to, so what's being proposed is really aimed at a reset as we get the program in place allowing for reconsideration down the road. So anything outside of that would require some additional resources and could potentially delay implementing what's being proposed. That's really helpful, thank you. You manage your Matt, can I just clarify what you just said? I always do, it was a little long winded, so happy to clarify. The motion as stated is clear. The amendment is directed to draft a resolution that establish play zones on Beach Street. There's no timeline resolution and it's not, it is a motion. Is that what I'm hearing? I think on its face, that's correct. If I am paraphrasing what the recommendation would be or the proposed amendment Council Member Cummings, it would be to develop a vending program along the street, but it's simply, there is no timeframe established with that, so that clarification would be helpful. But if there was an expectation that that be brought forward in a timely manner, I think that could have an effect on the team that is also being tasked with moving forward with implementation of the ordinance as a whole. The implement, which item two as well, they will be passed with. Thank you for, let's see, did you have a follow-up on Council Member Calantari-Johnson? Or Council Member Cummings and Council Member Calantari-Johnson? Yeah, the direction here is really to provide, you know, to move forward with limited vending in the beach area. Now, whether that, you know, based on what that was saying, it sounds like it wouldn't be able to have summer. So if there's work that could be done on this, this impact was August. I'm developing a preference, personally, would be that we allow for this to happen in the summer. However, it's pretty clear because like Council on that. So, I mean, I'm happy to move forward with this motion just going in this direction and it goes down. But, you know, in the spirit of trying to build consensus, this is something that we have our staff working on, understanding it's going to take time and understanding that, you know, we're trying to mitigate that currently that, you know, he can provide this direction, have this back to us since we don't meet in July, August, because we have pretty impacted Council meetings and I think that needs to be forward. And that's fine for the beach area related. I just think that as we heard from the person called in, there are families that depend on vending, vending for the livelihood in the area is area where we work to create programs by enforcement, but it's area where people can make a pretty decent amount of money to sustain their families, given the level of tourism that's being created. And then the other direction would be, you know, I think that's pretty clear that based on what we've heard, there's a lot of concerned downtown vendors that, you know, not clear what the size faces are. There's some desire possibly to have the space as a base increase, there's issues around the medallions. So being able to get an update on that from staff, I think it's helpful so that, man, how the implementation is rolling out, how we can address the other concerns that you might have. So that is the intent. Happy to build in that into the number one and bring an item back for council direction at the first meeting in August, if that's, if they're having that timeline. Councilor. Mayor Burriner, I didn't want to clarify that I mentioned a total prohibition along beach. In fact, the restrictions are only during the summer for vending allowed along beach during the off peak season. I just wanted to make that clear. Yes, April through September, correct? That's correct. April through to October. October. Is the, when the prohibition is. Is that October 31st? Correct. Council Member Callentari Johnson and then Council Member Myers. What I heard earlier from staff is that the intent is to reset and that this is an iterative process that we are going to pass this and create a comprehensive thoughtful framework. So I heard that from staff and I think that I think that's what the intent of this amendment is, but I'm not sure if that's what staff has said we are going to do then why this is, sorry. Again, I'm concerned about any kind of a delay in moving forward with this ordinance given the safety and health impacts that we heard about in on videos that gotten comments on. So that's where I'm at. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Standing is there's amendment, so the motion to amend with these two items. And I guess I just feel like we're going to need everything that came in the businesses not recognized that this that this is an extreme situation that is happening now. No, I mean, one bull is the owner who actually sold their, they just sold their property. Correctly, this is our major tourism area in the city of Santa Cruz. Last week we had a major blowout with violence against kids. I mean, this is about, if it's sort of buckled down and figure this out and the ordinance as it is now crafted is just the time to do that. We can't at the same time implement hopefully for a much more visitor oriented as well as resident oriented area down without giving our staff an ordinance that they can work under with restriction. And then also can't do all of that and also do what we've been doing in the past. Basically what I think kind of posing. Last two years have been a disaster. I spent as mayor last year, I spent at least four or five meetings with upwards of different businesses as well as supervisor Coonerty and Senator Laird's staff. It was not going all last year, not at all. And it wasn't just because of an enforcement. There was a lot of other issues. So I think it's just, I think what's for us, the global ordinance is workable. It provides the ability and sort of the ability of our staff, both police, foot enforcement, city managers, as well as the local owners, a pathway to sort of get things that reset have a more productive summer than the last two. I also know a lot of families who work at the park, they were terrified to have their kids down there. Most of them were driving their kids in the box while they were working at the park. There had been so many fights in the park. So I feel like we're sort of ignoring the elephant in the bush that basically that are a major, one of our major, and so I'm gonna, I won't be able to support this amendment. I just really publicly want to acknowledge that the senators were down in that area, how much they are asking, how destabilizing of our main driver areas. And I also want to acknowledge who are trying to vent, they've come very unsafe. So we need just time in the right, the area is stabilized, they have to go, try to continue to build for care. Without stabilization this summer and moving ahead, potentially all the way through the season, just not, when people start selling their businesses, that's a sign of lost track. So I'm not gonna be able to support those. Council member Watkins. Hello, Mr. Watkins. No, no, I appreciate the conversation and I also appreciate the intention of trying to really come up with something as a solution here and knowing that it's really complicated and challenging. And I also know a lot of work has been done to get us displaced and the conversation to the last, or the first reading of the ordinance was really around getting something in place and then continuing to improve upon that policy and learn and make it iterative as I think a good approach to most things is really. And so also, Mayor, and sort of the spirit of what you brought up at the very beginning of the meeting and knowing now that we're over two hours behind schedule, I'm just respectfully happy to just call the question to take the vote on the amendment and then vote on the motion. Okay, so calling the question includes all the discussion of this item and we move. Just to be clear, this is a vote on the motion to call the question. Yep. Vote, call the question. We do a roll call vote. I'm sorry, Johnson. Hi. Hi, we're voting on the original motion. We're voting on whether to call the question. What space you're watching. Hi. Okay, so now we will take a roll call vote on motion. Votes on the amendment. Be clear. Yeah, I'm, so Tony right now are voting. That's correct. Back in my minutes, I haven't gotten to that for yet. November, so in turret Johnson. No. Sir. No. Coming. Hi, and I'll just say for the record that these amendments would not prevent us moving forward with current ordinance. A lot of the impacts that we've been facing the change to state law. Amendments are really meant by some legal coverage in the city. In favor. Yes, Mayor Watkins. No. No. But the main motion is now on the floor. Now we have the main motion, the original motion on the floor. Be clear. And we have a roll call vote. Member Calentari Johnson. Voting no. And I just want to say for the record that I understand the facts that we were seeing area and really my previous motion was trying to figure out a way forward for us by direction. Move this forward and also and to come up with a way to mitigate. So my hope is that we will be able to figure out a way forward with each ending in the future. And that also we're going to be working to figure out a way forward with each ending in the future that vendors Pacific and in other parts of the city will have sufficient space to be able to stop the business. So, see how things turn out. But at this moment, I believe that we're putting ourselves in a legally liable position by outright prohibiting ending in the area. Given that we were able to create a program previously we just didn't have any. So I'll be voting no and I'm really hopeful. I agree with council member Cummings that nothing about a proposal that made was intended to delay this. I just absolutely agree and quite frankly am disturbed by a member Myers and from that this is intended to allow for continued mess. Eighth area, the idea here was or that people who were playing by the rules who like us or you just heard from are not doubly punished one by experience of the Wild West atmosphere. And now being called does not be able to bend at all but it's for your own good. I just don't think that's an appropriate way to handle this. The proposal direct staff find ways to work on that reset at the long side, the implementation of an ordinance to me seems totally reasonable and more likely to pass the cluster. And so I just want to make that clear. I'd like to put it on the record. Questions are getting called. The question is getting cut off. I'd like to put that. And I'd like to say thank you to all the staff and community members that have worked to input the all of the information have so far to get this point. And I'm happy to hear earlier from Elizabeth Smith that implementation team will be able to operations and turns into their work and get the most equitable process and safe process going forward. Okay, so we had the motion asked with five, yes, no, at this time we are ready to move on to item number 25 has been postponed to and continue to the April 26th meeting as well as item 26 has been to our meeting. And so we are now out of our ready item 27 on our agenda. Item 27 is a public hearing for green building program closed for members of the public for streaming this. If this is an item you wish to comment on, now is the time to call in using the instruction on your order will be a presentation of the item by staff followed by a question from the council. And then we will take public comment and reach out. I would like to invite Vivian Nguyen principal manager and analyst. Welcome Vivian. Good afternoon, honorable mayor and city council. Let me go ahead and share my screen. My name is Vivian Nguyen and I am the principal management analyst for the planning and development department. With me today, I also have Lee Butler, the director as well as John Javisani, the building official. I'm pleased to be presenting the green building program be increased today. Staff is recommending to support the current program and to allow an amendment to chapter 24.15 of the green building regulations that would authorize that by resolution. The amendments would allow the program to be cost recovery as well as specifically sustained. Now in October 2005, city council established a green building education fee or DTF to support the green building program. The was codified OO25 of the project valuation with a cap of $20,000. The green building program promotes environmental sustainability, including incentives for waste reduction, energy efficiency and water conservation. Now this is a brief high level overview of the green building program which applies to most new construction and summary models. There are a range of exceptions that I won't go into, but there are various green building measures that are assigned values and applicants must achieve a set of points based on measures that they select. Residential and non-residential are considered separately. Now the green building program has not been increased. The fee has not been increased since 2005 even though employee costs have continued to increase and the program has changed. Most notably in 2007, the change was that we had a part time building specialist go from part time to now full time. There are a couple other adjustments needed for the fiscal year 23 proposed budget, including increasing baseline percentage of the building and safety staff who support the green building program. We also need to take a look at other staff who support the program and adding them such as that staff who support the green building and inspection. The current budget doesn't consider this. Now in addition, the budget also needs to adjust for supply costs by three to five percent per year from fiscal year 23 to 27 to account for the general price. Now taking a look at fiscal year 21 as our baseline budget, the program costs about 300 and for the fiscal year 23 budget proposed, our projected cost would be about 620,000 dollars. Now the accounting for the past few fiscal years for fiscal year 2017 to 2019 to, did not meet any of the program's requirements. 2017, fiscal year 2017 was required of full time building specialists. And as you can see, we've been operating at an overall deficit since fiscal year 2017 with the exception of fiscal year 2017. Now here is just a few examples of the rentals fee that we wanted just to show you. A hypothetical 650,000-dollars-dollars-dollars-dollars would pay about a $358 fee. And now to more accurately capture the cost for that, they'll be paying $1,430. For a typical single-family home, that's about an $880 fee, but they would now be paying $3,520 to again more accurately capture the cost of reviewing. For a typical 10-unit building, that would be a total fee of 3,578 or 358 per unit. And at proposed fee change, that would be a total of 14,310 or 1,000. And the fee would be capped at 50,000 based on our analysis of the time and the costs associated with review and inspection. Now for next steps, you have the first reading today, then assuming you passed this for publication today, the second reading would be 1426. The fee would be effective six days later. It would likely be considering future changes such as building a location to adjust the fee accordingly as a program changes to ensure cost recovery. The recommendation is from your agenda report here for your reference. Then staff will be available. Thank you Vivian for that presentation. I will now, we have a recommendation from staff, but I will bring it to Council Member Brown. Hi, thank you for the presentation. Thank you for your work on this. I'm always a big fan of full cost recovery for our services. And so I really appreciate bringing this to us. I just had a question about the cap, because it looked like there was removal of the cap, the cap of the cap and then, but it's now been determined that cap. And so I just would love to hear a little bit of this. And that on the face of it, I make wonder with this, you know, provide that with this potentially subsidized large project. Yes, is what I'm wondering as a result of that. And I only asked that because it is a significant for smaller projects for individual property owners. Do you want to build an ADU or those kinds of, you know, it's a significant increase and grand scheme of things. But I know that a lot of people really struggle to provide additional housing on the properties. They have small scale. And so I guess I'm just wondering, like I wouldn't want to see a program that ended up subsidizing larger projects by common property development. So just wondering about that. Thanks. Thanks, Council Member Brown. I think any of us here, John or Vivian or myself could answer that, but I'll take the first step and offer either of them an opportunity to add on, leave other director of planning and community development and appreciate that concern. A couple of things that I would say that first off, that was an inadvertent miss of keeping the $50,000 cap. And actually if you go to the, so we did add it back in to make sure that we were clear and the resolution had not been inadvertently left that cap out. If you go back to the analysis of the different revenues, each of those include the $50,000 cap and that's because as we started looking at how much time we spent from a staffing plan review perspective as well as from an inspection perspective, there is an economy of scale. The systems in building systems that are being installed, both from a plan review perspective, the amount of time we're spending and the inspections that there's an economy of scale on that. Well, and so we really couldn't justify having more than $50,000 per project on that as we started looking at it. So I'll see if Vivian or John wanted to add anything, but I do apologize. We meant to include that $50,000 cap and appreciate Bonnie, City Clerk and her team in providing that update when we recognize the year. Well, if I might, I think and the reason that they stuck with the $50,000 cap, well, first of all, I'd like to say hello to the honorable mayor and the council members, probably about the first time I spoke to you since I've been in this. But I think the reason we also stuck with that $50,000 cap was that so there would be an equal place for everybody. They would stop paying. And this also benefited the medium-sized project. The apartment houses, not necessarily the larger projects that were starting to go up in the Pacific, but with a large use. But the medium-sized project, like 10, 20, 25 apartments, holding our... Seeing that it was actually those smaller projects really weren't a fair share when we figure the amount of time that's spending on each one of them. So that's kind of where we thought that we could be collecting a little... Making up definitely. Thank you, that's helpful. So just to make sure I'm clear, and I recognize the economy is a scale and not a one-to-one depending on how many... I get that. So in your experience then and the information you have, you're not answering that larger project that's costing more than $50,000 by the Greenville. Okay, got it. Thank you. And also if you think about it, Councilor McBrown, the volume, the larger volume, what we deal with is those smaller projects. When you look like right now we've probably got two, maybe three of those major projects of which XL should be going quickly. That makes two of those. But when you look at the total number of the smaller projects, the homeowners use, that kind of thing, those take up 40 of them in time. And while they're smaller projects compared to those large projects, we think that the amount of time you spend on those would be commensurate to what you spend on the larger projects. That's not true. You spend a lot of time on these smaller projects, educating the homeowners, giving them direction, helping them through the azure of the web, the best thing we... A lot of them just don't understand how the program is set up. So we do spend a lot of one-on-one time with these more so than the larger projects. No, that totally makes... I just was hoping to hear what I heard that it doesn't cost that much for the larger projects. That was just... But it sounds like based on your... Right. And we're only trying to recoup the costs of that, our services are... Thank you, Council Member Brown. Any other Council Members have questions from staff regarding this item? I'm happy to bring it out to public comment. If you're interested in commenting on Green Building Program, those, increase. Please raise your hand, either by dialing star nine on your phone or selecting to raise hands in the webinar controls on your... When it's your turn to speak, you will hear an announcement and you will have three minutes. Okay, going out to... I have a hand raised. The name is I am watching. Thank you. In the past, the justification for building codes, plan-checking, and inspections was the health and safety of the occupants of structures. Then regulations morphed into areas of energy efficiency that arguably are still sufficiently justified by economic benefits to the occupants, but emerging were community benefits of conserving energy. Then some new Green Building regulations went beyond that and don't really provide as much benefit to the occupants, but much more so to the community and it has already begun that Green Building codes related to climate change have relatively zero benefit to occupants with almost all benefit if there is any, flowing to the community or the world. What hasn't changed is the supposed equitability of case for what benefit, which we still say is 100% infinitely always to fall in the developer. As I explained, some of that 400% proposed compliance increase should more rightly be borne by general public practice, not developer. I say you have had this hidden growing public pact versus the equitability of this green eco-compliance trend going backwards since inception in 2005. Otherwise, the enforcement of Green regulations isn't different from any other in the ever-growing list of planning or building code regulations for occupations. And this need for an extra developer fee structure was never 100% justified, although maybe a discount for exempt project works for me. It's sort of a lipstick off pig contrivance masking insatiable governments, co-warrioring administrative growth without having to go to the public to raise taxes. I'm guessing you're not going to get. I don't think you have an ethical clue here. I am not surprised with wild inflation on top of a city systemic overspending trend that accounts are tapping you on the shoulder with the idea of attaching more salaries to massively increased fees dazzling you with the many tables of how much more money you can tap and how much more money you have to pay for a new green building fee access is upward creating vastly more income as if somehow the actual work done in exchange for this fee would automatically be fair and equitable at any higher approved fee you may fancy. Or that somehow the work done is totally different than the jobs fee workers are normally paid with tax dollars for community benefit to do. I note the principal management analyst presenter is Dr. He also wanted to consider that making housing more expensive also runs bottom line directly counter to lowering housing costs. The current list of salaries paid on this scheme seems enough of a stretch of the imagination to me. A no vote doesn't mean there won't be green building. A no means you're not doing an end around public taxation approval or holding a project for cash just because you can when community funds the current payers and I say fairness questions exist about who benefit and then who should pay our issues that did not exist in the past. My thinking is this is just the city. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Um. We have any other members of the public who are in public comment. I will bring it back. There's no more hands raised back to council member Golder. Right. So for this I just acknowledge that the cost to build here in Santa Cruz is really expensive and having almost completed a remodel myself I think around the nation it's around $100 $200 per square foot build ours is cost over $400 a square foot to build and if you take into consideration the cost like the purchase land or something you know cost could be around $700 square foot. So I think with every additional fee it directly impacts the cost of housing whether we like it or not and so for that reason I'm actually going to vote no even though I principle that I think it's a good practice to do green building but I just can't support additional for this cause. Why? Thank you. Vice mayor what? I understand council member Golder's you know impacts of these so I totally understand that. And I am in support of this proposal so I'm happy to move the recommendations as written in the agenda report. Great thank you council member Brown. We have a first Vice Mayor Watkins and a second by council member Brown and further discussion council member Brown did you have any further discussion? Okay and I don't have any other council members with further discussion and we will move to a roll call. Council member council member Johnston? Hi Golder? No Coming? Hi Brown? Hi What? Hi That motion passes guess votes and one against council member I would like to thank the mayor council members. Thank you. It was nice to meet you. Thank you Vivian Nguyen as well. Going back to the agenda we have item 28 has been continued to May 10th the council meeting and item number 29 has been continued to the council meeting. So before we begin item 30 I would like to take a quick break 6 o'clock is world communications or is it 30? Okay so a quick break until world offers food and bio break. We'll see you at 6 o'clock. Council members on their cameras are you ready to begin? I am. Thank you. Thank you. Okay thank you everyone now I can stay good evening welcome to our PM part of our April 12, 2002 meeting of the Santa Cruz city council. This is the time now for oral communication for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if you would like to comment during oral communication now is the time to call in constructions are on your screen. We are an opportunity for members of the community to speak to us on items that are not on time. If you're interested in addressing the council please raise your hand either by pressing star nine on your phones like raising a hand in the webinar. We'll have three minutes. Please remember this is a time for council to hear from the public that we are not able to when we are able we will address questions. Going out to our attendees I see a few hands raised and the first name Serge Pogno welcome. Okay I don't know what happened but I can come back to you the next hand raised for oral communication okay thank you. After examining the climate action plans considerate public participation review of climate action proposals here is my review. The massive high scoring of support for every single proposal clues me that the only people who fill out such responses are climate action activists. One of the profile pictures of a respondent was actually that of Brett Thunberg. The proposals apparently written by a person who doesn't know that 132 2022 isn't a real date I see some very troubling authoritarian woke thinking and have four main objections. The first is simply the proposals largely advocate a very coercive unit of measures and not constructive low cost incentivizing ones require large employers to subsidize alternative modes of transportation require large building owners to install 20% of the total amount of infrastructure. The second one is the infrastructure. Banning or charging extra for single occupancy driving and parking remove natural gas infrastructure and mandates requiring electrification of existing residential properties are but some examples of vague but extremely coercive authoritarian measures and questionable legal authority. The third one is the general impression is the government wants a lot more of the public money and a lot bigger more intrusive government. Fourth and yes the survey proposal's input is not alone in this it is right with hijacking though whatever real legitimacy the sustainability sustainability issue has is much less legitimate unrelated issues for instance the garbage well-perm known as equity we've discussed before how equity is based on the falsehood that a human's potential is some known certainty on this unmeasurable unknowable life outcome should be assured by any means necessary using race or gender quotas or whatever whatever meaning central planning authority like communism to make it simpler equity is about taking people down not building people up it's the ugly face of jealousy discrimination and the ruin of individual rights I thought this was going to be one of the most important issues in the climate change never mind until the rest of the world similarly commits there is zero chance anything Santa Cruz does will have any measurable effect on climate none zero it can have the effect of destroying our energy infrastructure and transportation before the carbons are a replacement energy exist American climate action planning I would mention not everyone or even 40% thank you at this time we are taking public input on oral communications oral communications our items and I have the name Jennifer go ahead and unmute I'm specific for understanding where I am and quite my large our budget shortly after I'm here to request symbiotic possibility communication our next I see council this is not the council to anybody who is listening right now listening I have been in every human being has been and there is something about being out loud has a very beneficial effect I believe it engages the frontal cortex which is one of the most advanced parts of our brains I have been honest every human being has been dishonest there is something about saying that out loud as well also if I look back on my life I have been in denial about any small thing even the laundry my laundry in particular and I can conclude that I am probably still in denial right now if I have it is my belief that every human being is in denial and there is something about it being out loud as well here just ask anyone anyone at all say these things out loud to anybody see what it does it has had a beneficial effect on me personally because I have been in denial I also have some words of love like this before in my life it asks you actually not even listening to me right now don't hear anything right now and don't hear my word inside of it is a platform and a platform is like a deck under every deck every child inside knows there is a secret place to hide it is safe where you can be alone without worry turn your hidden pain for sorrows into joy turn your hidden sorrows into joy turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories into good memories turn our bad memories You're back. Your hand raised. Okay, our next. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, I apologize. I have my air buds on. I was messing with it. Good evening. My name is Serge. I'm the secretary of the mental health advisory. And I'd like to invite to our next, just next Thursday, April 21st. I'd like to put an end to this. Let's get a little & just our time. And I'll say good evening. For our shout out. Callan Terry Johnson for coming to our last presentation on the road map. To deal with crisis. On April 21st next Thursday, we'll be having presentations for the upcoming 98. System which is federally by on. Online July 16th this year. And July 16th National Suicide hotline which is sort of a long to the three-digit or will be accepted calls at the nine-eight-eight line it'll also calls for any behavioral health crisis is your number to remember and the broader most like raise the number of calls by as much as 30% are the same as some other states that have already started the system in Santa Cruz the family services agency is the nonprofit that manages our suicide hotline they're hiring up to and more because of expected call now this is going to also affect law enforcement domestic violence and all the other dominoes our system still unclear so next Thursday we're having some the record our local hotline also somebody from behavioral health presentations on how we're getting ready for that system and I invite city council and anybody else who's listening to attend I'll send you a flyer once I have one and well the mental health advisor in Santa Cruz County and the agenda will be up thank and stay safe thank you our next member of the public is David Hart public answer hello can you hear me all right yes this is a David Van Brink and there's one or two tough acts to follow there and my comment is rather more mundane I just wanted to thank you all for all you do for our city it's all important and moves us forward in particular though I want to thank you for your work on our local bike infrastructure of the last several years it was actually seeing those mean bike lanes on Laurel Street but a few years back that made me realize that oh you know actually people don't think about this and make it happen I want to express special enthusiasm for the upcoming trail segment 7d we're all on pins and needles for how the bidding is going to turn out and fingers crossed and hopefully happen soonish so again thank you all thank you are there any other members of the public that would like to speak during oral communication which is any item that is not on agenda of Mark Haller all our ending in 4844 go ahead and unmute Robert Norris again I guess I'm concerned of having heard the city manager's report that there is no new information on expanded shelter and storage services such as was promised by council and supposedly reconditioned to any enforcement of the renewed camping camp CSSO ordinance which the city manager Matt Huffaker said was in fact going to be done when he spoke I guess three weeks ago at the previous council meeting that's part of the staff report as well so how can you have enforcement don't really have storage and shelter now what's been happening has been massive sweep throughout the city in violation of the Martin versus Boise ruling with the claim that the bench land is a justified campground and it certainly is an emergency place people are using there's no question I'm glad they have something but it's also been announced by that same city manager whom you apparently approved the appointment that there's going to be a complete removal of people the hundreds of people in the bench land in July of this year that's what he announced next morning now are you actually claiming with a straight face to be able to have storage shelter facilities by that time when you evict those people and are you claiming that you are now enforcing the camping ban in order to shovel everybody into the bench land then to evict them nowhere in July of this summer may I pose this question it seems pretty obvious if you are to take it with a straight face what city manager is saying I don't really believe what I'm saying but I must presume that you are taking him seriously because you take a lot of directions he has a lot of power so if somebody can ask a few questions after the social communications with actual status of the shelter service situation is what the real intentions are in July and the real press shelter and storage at that time would be very reassuring not to have to wait till May to get another we'll be working on this very hard kind of report and it might help the people who are in the bench lands and those reports as well as well as the neighbors we're concerned about and I thank everybody for listening thank you for your oral communications our next name is Reggie Meisler sorry we'll try again well I just want to echo what Robert Morse the previous caller just said I think it's very disturbing and irresponsible but you know all just status quo that I have a definite end date for the bench lands but no definite provision of services that people will be redirected to it's unclear why the bench lands needs lows me at that time it has something to do with environmental reasons or something like that or the you know the sort of something with the river but whatever the case I mean it seems like a plan should be formulated to sort of redirect before a definite end date is designed I mean this is the same problem that came up with Ross campus same problem that was attempted by City Manager during the winter when City Council was out of session in 2020 when they tried to just shut down by executive order San Lorenzo Park and activists had to come in stop that from happening as it was illegal and it was you know in many ways could be seen as almost the kind of genocide given the conditions of COVID at that time and so I think for me I would just like to be something different than what we saw with the previous City Manager Martin Bernal I don't want this new City Manager Matt Huffaker to just be a repeat of that kind of just horrible abuse of power and the complete lack of care for our unhoused community and I and I don't it doesn't you know give me much confidence I'll speak on this later that the public gathering ordinance is happening because you know it feels like that's kind of being planned to hurt food not bombs and then maybe wash distance to a bench lands closure so yeah I just you know I hope for more but I guess you would have thank you our next and up Alicia cool welcome me yes so hi so I just wanted to take a moment to say that I would hope that I'm supposed to bench plan you know to echo the previous callers would include a good plan for relocation for those individuals it's grown quite large and the hope is that you could now have adequate indoor shelter if possible for those individuals and I want to again say that several years now the death hole in the unhoused population has risen and so you have to do something about that as you have previous here and you know just to talk about what has helped me I'm no longer this anymore and that's because of an emergency housing voucher and services and you know it's not helpful to spend time fighting against you know harmful ordinances and things that would criminalize I've paid thousands dollars in tickets just while I was unfortunately forced to live in my arms with my family that was unhelpful you know having litigation to protect others against harmful ordinances and to you know protest to try to fight for human rights it's just not helpful what's helpful is really pay attention to people's needs and to address those and so I just I really want to talk about that and again just you know the ball is in your court to have a lot of power who are our leaders and so you can really out what needs to happen in the correct way you can save lives here and you know although I'm housed now it's very unfortunate that I've lost some really good friends along the way and I can't even invite to a house part you know it's very sad so we can we can stop it and all work together and we can stop trauma and pain and suffering and and what we need to be done for our entire so thank you thank you for your input or oral communications we have another caller phone number ending 1197 democratic all in a lot of good life thank you our next member of the public is named boy at welcome hi thank you for taking my call I also want to echo the sentiments of Robert Norris Reggie Meisler and especially Alicia as well as Abby's points about access for people who don't have housing or technology I would like to add that people are being pushed to the Benchlands or have been pushed the Benchlands continually for months from different areas around the city and of course there are health and safety concerns at various locations but simply pushing people into the bench without having alternatives you know Alicia brought up that we need alternative spaces before the Benchlands closes we need an alternative spaces now you know I visited Benchlands Sunday morning normally I would go on Sunday mornings to Camp Paradise or Hell's Rail and you know people do as the best they can but it's really I mean to say that it's not ideal situation to have everybody who's been trying to take care of themselves at alternative sites to sort of self manage themselves in smaller groups of people with people that they know and trust and care for and share resources with have all of them or most of them pushed into the Benchlands is yes not helpful and that's a huge understatement it's dangerous for a lot of people and it's you know not healthy for most people then the other people who just refuse to go to the Benchlands have I think taken themselves to more hidden spaces so what you're trying to do is like get full access to services to case managers to the camp stewards who help them get their documents again and again and again you know they're more hidden the Pogonip or up highway 9 less accessible for public health and safety issues less accessible for services so I would say you know regardless of CSSO and you know enforcement of those issues or the services of storage you know people need alternatives now not just some shitty alternative you know they need real okay thank you very much looks like that includes our oral communication I'm not seeing any I'm sorry I don't know if hands are going up for oral communications that I will check the first caller ending in 174 oral communications or items not on to Linda go ahead and unmute that's all right yes thank you thank you my name is Gillian Greenside and you know I've turned on a different issue but just say that is one good reason to have a quick your thoughts in first meeting of the county I thought I was in line put in your eight digit meeting I see in all that did the star nine but then I didn't count nine I said star nine so I wouldn't have gotten to speak because and I'm really with zoom I'm really with this not like I'm a newbie that's easy to make today so soon as you can back in what I am pulling in about that I very surprised managed say that Ben's man goes by I noted early before that it was safe to see Armory have what a 79 bed and I could understand it if there was no comment about Ben's where there's over some people there now without having had a space things I know there's problems that spend I've been there with the best so I see the issue both of them are a lack of resources that he's giving in the last sorry I'm there's not enough and the issues impact on the riverbank but you have an old furnace that used to be going going in but I could see a rationale but we're going in summer and of course there's issues about numbers being crammed and understand and I think well the nation why the plan goes that without simultaneously saying and here's the alternative to accommodate the equivalent number so I hope here some point an explanation of why this is happening and why I'm saying comment that thing the last color I will for oral communications is really shall I thank you can you hear me okay yes welcome I'm here to bring something to everyone's attention that there is a website called finds and justice center.org and I'm just going to go ahead and read the about us page until I'm here the people that I no longer allowed to speak so every year finds and devestate lives of millions of Americans our justice system is supposed to operate with integrity providing equal justice for all yet in far too many places in the United States court fines and fees have put Zuberge price tag on justice Zorbitant thank you across the country courts impose fines as a punishment for minor traffic and municipal code violations misdemeanors and felonies courts then tax people with fees and surcharges and costs used to fund the justice system and other government services those who cannot immediately pay these costs face additional fees places suspensions loss of voting rights arrest and jail stuck in a cycle of punishment and poverty people can lose their job their homes and even their children we've created a two-tier system of justice where poor people and particularly communities of color are disproportionately punished the mission of fines and fees justice center also abbreviated as FFJC says the fines and justice center is catalyzing a movement to eliminate the fines and fees that distort justice our goal is to create a justice system that individuals fairly insures public and community prosperity and is funded equitable we work together with communities and justice systems stakeholders to eliminate fees in the justice system to ensure that fines are exposed and enforced and an abusive collection practices again if anybody wants to learn more they're welcome to go to fines and these justice center dot org thank you appreciate your time thank you so much I will now close oral education and we will turn to our agenda and we are currently on agenda item number 30 before we start that can I just comment on one of the one are my allowed to say something about one of the oral community yes and I did also want to before we start with number 30 there were several callers who brought up the in-person meetings and those will be April 26 so the goal was in meetings in April and our April 26 will be person as well as the members of the public have the option of it and we will be receiving an update on Benchlands along with the next homelessness on feel free to reference the website for updates that are getting close to there along the way as well or to contact any of us councilmember Golder yeah I just wanted to be on my colleague and friend Jennifer that called in about her ADU and I know I mentioned this to I don't know from it who I mentioned to you I'm not on the revenue committee but I would like to throw it out there that this might be something we should look into revisiting because of some of these unintended consequences she's not the only person that's approaching about this I know two of two other city employees with ADUs with similar situations and you know just just revisiting the short-term rental ordinance in totality in addition to the ADU aspect of it you know I think I've seen houses on Westliffe just sitting vacant and so I understand there's you know a move to try and get a vacant home tax but I think if those houses were able to be rented out as short-term rentals we would see greater revenue and it's not like somebody that has a vacation house on Westliffe is going to rent it out for long-term you know residential use likely there's vacation home the other thing in that regard is I would like if we if the revenue committee or whoever's now to look at and what the county does in collecting that tot tax off the top on these websites rather than having everybody that has a short-term rent once a month as I've many of you know that I've I've Airbnbed my house for years and it's only time-consuming there's lots of ways that I'm sure we're not getting all of the money that we're there but I think she brought up a valid point that it might evaluate okay moving on to item 30 on our agenda today this is public gathering and expression events ordinance amendment for members of the public for streaming this meeting if this is an item you'd like comment on now is all in using the instructions on your screen the order will be a presentation of the item from staff followed by a question from council we will then take public comment and return to council and our staff then it's like invite Deputy City Attorney Cassie Bronson as well as Deputy Mary hi good evening you're happy happy to be here with you and have maybe five slides on the PowerPoint so I'm gonna share a screen okay all right around these guys hello good evening my name is City Attorney's office and it's a pleasure to be here with you today and let's dive into talking about the public gathering and expression event ordinance so just brief intro what is a public gathering Russian events it's an event or activity primarily in communication is these are activities that boards have determined are entitled to a high degree of and you know obviously some of the examples are marches rallies they're asking you to update the ordinance and why but the rationale what are goals well first really wanted to just find the ordinance with the existing language it was difficult to determine when it so I'm a big believer that clarity and language is key and to be really just priority with date second required legal update this is a topic where updates will be required from time to time as a slide develop so the goal here is to bring the ordinance line so what are the specifics of the proposed update well first the default is basically that a permit not required for public gathering but a permit will be required if specific criteria very clearly delineated criteria so does your event interact with traffic does it act as does it use a number of structures on public property are there repeat consecutive events at the animal pin you have more than 75 pins are more twill did this we also added an important exception required by the court that's an exception for spontaneous event so this is what's required by the court we made it clear that if you know something comes up use the news event a political event that comes up don't need a permit that at City Hall or address we also clarified that violations of the chapter can be enjoined in court we don't really interpret that as a change in the law but just so we received a very thoughtful public comment and I thought I'd just take a moment to address it here as I'm sure that are interested in the response so this is a letter from your gal bloom of you so he noted section 10.5 030 g and there was a request that violation not be identified as a public the response from this office that you know so desired also council could just describe that language declaring violations of the public news event that said the city's definition of public news since already that is the violation of code so you know we didn't really interpret that as so section 4.01010 already provide that that violations code are under the 10.65040 b there was a request did not delete a sentence about fundraising at public gathering and I just wanted to give some information 10.65040 b is sort of the definition of public gathering and expression and the parks and record record he asked that we really simplify this definition and his office is the one that administers these so obviously a lot of what they're saying because he thought that the exception there was a bunch of language about there was a section that long as the event is non-profit in nature then the permit would process as a public gathering and but in fact there are many events in the city that are not for profit that would be more properly characterized as the major event which is dealt with under a different so for example non-profit reporting event but you know if it's so desired also even language about fundraising and donations will secondary objectives I don't think leaving it in or out really and the next point that was brought up by public comment is 5.0508 and there was a question about what is the rationale of the section which requires a permit that's held on consecutive days. So you know currently repeat events are being held and without any sort of a permit and you know that has been an issue that has created that which hasn't access resources that are intended for use by all people rather one person or one organization chooses to have repeated events that's the exact same. So you know one goal of the ordinance was to clarify that would be required. I think that this is a reasonable time it's not closing down opportunities and it's again and actually hold events that they would just do and the last comment that was brought up by your gal bloom was section 10.650508. He noted that there needs to be a stand or at the end and I agree thank you that's a clerical error I really did so that those edits but it should I made it very short and I realized that yeah very heavy city council meetings days that's all right. Thank you for those clarifications and present and questions from council members council member Cummings. Thank you Mayor and thank you for that presentation Cassie. You mentioned the people wanted to have events they would need to get a permit I'm wondering if you could speak to that a little bit more. What's the cost I'll frequent you know because I think there is some concern here about being able to have this it seemed like someone would have to go get a permit every single time they wanted to have an event and it wasn't clear that there's an option for an event permit and so I'm just wondering if you can kind of speak to what that looks like and how much that is and how one would go about getting that permit. That's a good question. No, I think it's clearly on the line but that would be dealt with. Do you have any comments? Yep, here we go. All right, got a vacuum fire up in the background here. Yeah, so to answer that question quickly, NOFI associated with public gathering and expression permit. The purpose really on that permit again if they're Cassie correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's two consecutive days or more but we have proposed ordinance. The idea there is again related to those criteria that Cassie mentioned. If that is impacting a park general park use impact neighbors over multiple days that would be one of the criteria that we would ask to require a permit just so that we know and we have a sense of how long might this activity occur and just have a better sense as we again plan in a park if we've got a little leak for example scheduled in a park while there's an expression activity going on. Forgive me, I've got a lot of noise background here in my office. That's really the purpose. I hope I'm making that clear but again it were more days but NOFI that it's more about having a timeline and expectation of the presence of that activity. But also Cassie, I also have our administrative supervisor on the call head and Jones who's our permit officer so I welcome him to talk. Hello, can you hear me? Sorry, I'm plugging in from home. Hi, welcome. Hi, this is Jones, the administrative supervisor. Thank you, honorable mayor and council members. So to answer council member Cummings question about charges for permits, the application itself is free so we want to charge for a permit. However, they may be some temporary fees as a result of impacts. For example, if there's a trust or refuse, things that we can't get around or if there are requests for police escort for raids or marches, those fees may be assessed but they're not assessed by our department. It depends on how the application itself is reviewed by other departments. In terms of consecutive days or serial events, we can certainly put them. It's important that these spaces are occupied or can be occupied by other community groups or organizations and so we want to offer as best we can an equitable approach to these spaces. We get repeat requests for example for the town clock or for sister city circle. We will make sure that those spaces are accessible by the public or also by other community organizations that wish to express their messages as well. I hope that answers the question by council member Cummings. That helps a lot and then I just I guess I have a brief follow-up. Is there any limit in terms of the number of days that a serial event can take place under one of the permits? There's no particular limit currently with the draft ordinance or what's being proposed. We do request that, you know, different parties do consider leaving available dates for other competing interests or other interests that may be not on the calendar yet. But I believe this still allows for the directed congregate rules under the conditions of approval or conditions of use. Very much. Thank you. Council Member Brown. So as a follow-up, that was the question I had and getting that answered. I have a couple of other questions related. I think it's 10.65. And kind of the conditions under which that would be fired. So I'm and some of these are I recognize that they are in response to particular shared by some of and that their concerns that general may arise the context of public gatherings, ongoing or quarter. So I guess I'm wondering about how does that have kind of how determination will be made about whether or not certain lists would how it would be determined that they are being violated or that they would potentially be violated. I mean, it seems a little kind of speculative, which is understandable as well. I'm no judgment there. I mean, it is trying to anticipate different scenarios. So I get that. But for example, things like I'm trying to find the ones that I was in particular wanted to call out. And so one of them is I guess it's UF. It was will require additional grade toilet and sanitary facilities. I mean, how is that that an event would fire that that and a little ambiguous. And given that the city itself is not required by restrooms and sanitary facilities, even within its own operation. Some case for the public, you know, I just I guess I just wonder how that that did and implemented. And so that's one. And we don't have page numbers on these, but I think it's on page four of the draft ordinance. So that's one. And then a question about what percentage of a given public base is being utilized for the purpose. You know, I mean that also like it's up to significant interpretation. And I'm just thinking about particular examples, but I'll raise them right now. Think of trying to get those basic questions answered and not make it about the. So those are two that I wonder about. Yeah, let me just. I'll take a shot at that and then pass your money. I may want to weigh in, but we've gotten through a considerable effort in this drafting process to make the criteria as objective as reasonably possible. So that it's not a staff sort of that reaction or judgment as to whether or not conditions exist. In general are observable. Measure the dimensions of area used versus the dimensions of usable area of a park. I suspect that House member Brown you, you focused on item F, which is will require additional temporary toilet and sanitary facilities. My sense is that in most instances. A need for a permit will rise mostly for recurring events. So that we have some experience with event. And the manner in which it is conducted before we or the staff makes it determine a determination based on a perspective. Observations that these conditions are are applicable. So. So, because I think 1 of our major concerns in. Working on this ordinance was to eliminate the sort of subjectivity that could create problems under the 1st amendment analysis that we need to. That we need to undertake in order to ensure that this is legally defensible. Thank you for that. And I. It's the intention. You know, not to say that this isn't perhaps based compared to what had on the books in the past make creating the potential for objective decision making. It just seems with things like whether or not you need a bath. You know, if that's really going to be an objective decision, then it would be helpful for what those criteria would. Is it a certain number of people? Is it somebody reporting that they observe somebody, you know. Using, you know, you know, going. You know, not having facilities and people taking care of business. I mean, what are like, there's there's a lot of questions there and I don't want to get into on that here, but. Just to say that there's. You know, without it being clear what those. What would be considered and what goes into the. It just doesn't kill objective yet. I agree that there that it's that it's challenging to drill down at the. At the level of. Making an ordinance of general applicability. It's. It's difficult to drill down the level of detail. That would be required to implement the ordinance and so. So there will be half there will have to be some some regulations. And standards that are identified and implemented at the staff level in order for that. That we are approaching these items objectively and and based on measurable criteria. And it would be helpful if that also available generally in the public. It would, it would, it would certainly need to be made available to the public and would be obviously. Still number Brown. Are there other council questions or. A move on public comment. Get out. Public comment at this time and we did have. One group that was approved for extra time. Robert Norris number I believe is 4844. I'm here ready. You're already. Allow me. You know, I'm wondering where this coming from. Cassie. If that was Tony. Tony. There was a letter from Cassie demanding that not bomb supply permits. Or be immediately forced away from it. The place that town fucked about month and a half ago. Now bombs. Look. When we're in New York, we don't apply for permits. We've already discussed the whole thing. Do you have any problems with any doing? Let us typically that else. And so it looks like this is a specific attempt. At least in part to go after. The city council. The city council. It also of course impacts a lot of other things. Like the DIY parade held on New Year's Eve. It did impact any kind of demonstration. Let's say that were held that. Went to the houses of. City council members. About two years ago. When they were holding closed meetings that were not accessible to the public. The public could be held accountable. So instead people went to their house. Made. Loud noises. Now they weren't, they weren't violating the law. Though perhaps some would say they were. In which case they could have been charged under. Existing laws. That. Will issue. What is the need for this kind of a thing other than. To give. Essentially to throw a roadblock. In. And make people nervous about going to protest at all. But. The. These. So-called reasonable considerations. Do not sound. So reasonable. Me and they attack. Traditional. Protests. You can be. These criminal charges. If you join an uncommitted protest. And you didn't even know it was uncommitted. I guess now I think. Somebody tells you it's uncommitted and then you continue to be there. You might say the first amendment is my permit. Well and Santa Cruz. That's no longer the case under this ordinance. You better have a permit. Now if there's a real claim about a real problem. Often the people who are doing. Approach us whether it's the center for non violence. Other groups. Help to alleviate the difficult. But the notion of giving the very people who you're often. Protesting against. To it the city manager. The council. The city attorney. Some agencies of the city that are being abusive. That you should give them the power to deny you or accept. You make a permit and you have to go to them to get it. Is really pretty preposterous. And it's sort of like going to King George the third for a permit. To protest against the British government. In 1775 or. Not going to happen. It doesn't work that way. So it's also true of course that. If you try to change the route of your protest. That's the crime according to this. You can be penalized and fine for doing this kind of. This sets up all kinds of tripwires. Which are pretty darn nasty. And I remember these these ordinances. I mean there's a there was of course a similar ordinance that I opposed. I guess it's predecessor ordinance. I also thought. Was bad for similar reasons. But it's. We have to look at what the real reasons for this are. I think that I think if Cassie wants to. Hold food and bombs to account for problems. Let her talk bombs. And say what her concerns are. Not vague and. And broad concerns about others neighbors. Trash and when in fact the area is quite clean. When it's cleaned up every day. We have a situation where. The city wants to. Ignore or criminalize. Alternate service like red Adams. Woodbridge service. Hold shoulder them. His community friendly campground experience of hijacked. Sidelined and monetized. And he's denied grant. Now bomb similarly has to call its money. It does. You know it does. Willingly and joyfully seek its funding from the community. Rather than government. It doesn't want to be held accountable to government. The city is not interested. As we saw with the bench lands. During oral communication. They don't care. What's going on in the bench lands. As far as. People getting sick. People having inadequate services. That in fact instead what's happening is they want. To. Enforce. Again. The visible presence of homeless people. The visible reality of protest that make them uncomfortable. And to limit protests that are spontaneous. There's an exception for spontaneous protest. To the town clock or city hall is outrageous. Suppose some merchant is engaging in racist activity. And people want to hold a mass protest there. Well I think they damn well should. You know. If they want to. If there's exclusion against homeless people. People want to go to that door in front of it. And make it there. And they damn well should. So therefore these are some of the. I have and I hope others will raise other concerns. I'm glad. I'm glad Peter Geldblum. Brought some of these issues up and thank you. I guess. City attorneys for. Trying to respond for the first time in my. Knowledge. To an actual. Individual member of the public. I'll be at the president. You know you locally. And his. The. Ring. Was that the buzzer. Thank. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. The next. Member of the public. Public comment on this. Item. Is. Reggie. My sir. Hi can you hear me. Yes. Hello. Hi yeah. It's just so funny. I like. Big deputies. I mean. I guess. I mean. I mean. Anyone. He knows that. I've been kind of making it her mission to stop. Bombs from feeding the house. As Robert. Know why this. I mean. I mean. I mean I mean I mean. I mean. I mean. I mean I mean. I mean I mean. I mean I mean I mean. I mean. I mean I mean I mean. I mean. I mean I mean. I mean. house. As Robert Norse mentioned, you can read in the Sentinel, you know, from February, Ronson worked to force Food Not Bombs to get a special charitable fee permit, as well as ding, ding, ding, a public gathering permit, the very permit we are discussing here today, and they received it, because they understand, like Robert Norse does, that not only would permit having to follow them, make it effectively impossible for Food Not Bombs to keep people daily, it is against full notion of sort of community organizing to meet their own needs. And so it's, this is just such a, like, silly, silly situation. I mean, it's, let's just, like, remove the veil, we know what's going on, like, come on. And this is a particularly problematic ordinance, not just not bombs or sort of like anarchist style direct action, but also just for, like, labor strike, right, which are definitely, like, happening more and more often. If I want to do a labor strike, it's, and it needs to be, you know, impactful, it's gonna affect traffic, it's gonna affect, you know, walkways and things like that, because that's what clients do, right? And so I find it interesting that people could say here that they support, like, Starbucks immunization effort, but then would do something like this, which would make labor strikes require a permit to have a ticket line, but then give that permit requesting ability to the city manager, who, let's face it, I mean, probably has the boss in it, right? Like, city manager isn't, like, getting lobbied by workers, he's getting lobbied by capitalists, who the workers are trying to strike again. So, yeah, I mean, you know, what more can be said? Okay, next member of the public is I am watching you. Yes, thanks. When this public gathering ordinance came before the council last time, it is my remembrance, I solely spoke pretty clearly about how I literally violated, and the only acknowledgement with some vague assurances, oh, we don't do that, extreme wink thought approval from at least one council member, the rest somewhat silently, I assume, unconcerned on this subject. I'm glad to see upon review at least some of the excess restrictions on each are being removed. And I applaud the effort by the city attorney's office moving this ordinance in that direction. But I'm not fond of Section four for 20 being to hear that laundry list of so many untrained, unqualified public employees that can issue citations. But that is a different ordinance. No, the one with the seemingly endless list of so and sos, their designees authorized issues, I patient burn the books during a time of pandemic emergency, and now routinely inserted here. Well, I don't have an objection to making a clear designation preference of the clock tower in the city hall courtyard that may be used for spontaneous speech events. The wording seems to indicate to me those are the only places spontaneous free speech is permitted. The limitation to 48 hours following news, etc. He's overly restricted. And if permits for food, not bombs were issued to sermon seemingly own the clock are used for they are just there forever. Anyway, would you really be designated free speech allowed sites when making them are actually they're unavailable? Perhaps I misunderstand. If so, disclaimer, I find food bombs an awful homeless grandstander to me. However, public places are public places. And there are a lot of those many of great sides accommodating large crowds, free speeches, free speech, and people also have the right to assemble, especially involving redress grievances against, for instance, the government. So I'm not sure this correction goes far enough. And situations can still exist where the people, as I said last time, don't need no stick and permits for free speech. But I like the increase to 75 people gathering skies and overall, this is an improvement in what is a rare event for me. I agree you should vote yes. Thank you. The next member of the public, Alicia Cool. You hear me? Yes. Thank you. Um, so I definitely think that this kind of, you know, is too close to, you know, briefing, you know, the right priest and the right to assembly. I, you know, I would say that I know that you're advised by Cassie Bronson. And but although she's an attorney, always right. We've witnessed that in the past. I do think that this is a direct attack against food not bombs. I'm wondering, you know, what the future looks like. And food not bombs doesn't participate, you know, because they have a I guess, you know, I don't even know how to explain it. It's a tool to feed people priority. They're prioritizing the need to feed the people in our community over the fact that it's wrong or have sort of ordinance against that. Um, some of those things there, that's they get a meal. And when people's needs are met, if the safety of our kids is met, and what are people going to do when they can't get that meal? A meal service around town has drastically decreased. Many services have fallen. We've lost shelter space. We've lost those services. And so, you know, food not bombs has been helping the community for years now. And for the city to not recognize that and assist them rather than constantly try to find a way to move them around is just is always battling. And the reason that they meet every day in one place is because people know that that's the space to get services. When you move them away, it's hard for people to locate this says, and they don't get there. And so this is something that care about health and safety, you will really address what I'm saying. And really, and not just go by the fact that the attorney wants to get rid of, you know, visible homelessness and doesn't want this gathering. And I will also say that I've witnessed food not bombs being very clean. They clean up. Some of these reasons for justifying this ordinance make no sense at all. So, you know, please really listen to what I'm saying. Thank you. Thank you. Our next phone number and 1197 for those who are going to vote yes. For those who are going to vote yes. Thank you. Our next caller is the letter R and unmute. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. I just want to echo, you know, what mostly everybody has said so far, but especially something that Alicia said, that when people's needs are met, our city is so why does the city keep trying to make it a criminal offense for people to meet their needs? Whether that gathering to get free food or living or that's it. Okay. That's like a public comment on this item. And we're taking I'll bring it back to council before taking further comments or questions from council members. I will ask move the recommended action. And if that is made perfectly acceptable to vote no on a motion before making a separate motion, friendly amendments or as with council member questions after a council member has provided comments. All other members will have an option before I recognize it helps you for working through this agenda today and bring it over the council member Myers and then member Cummings or muted shade all the balancing act basis, fighting right. There have been made to finance. Thank you. Is needed. Johnson mentioned a little bit over recommendation. We have a motion by council member Myers. Second by council member older. Okay. And now we can have discussion on that motion. Council member Cummings. I was I dropped my hand. I can accidentally put away. Go ahead. Council member Cummings. Okay, thank you, mayor. And I just want to thank those members of the public for calling in and raising the concerns that they had. I think some valid points came up. Let's see if we can get some clarification on. I'll just say that I'm having a difficult time with this item. I do think that there's been some reasonable things brought forward by the staff. It sounds like there's a number of barriers that I couldn't, for example, you know, the fact that no time on really associated with them. I would like to get some information on sounds like one of the big concerns from the members of the public is how this will impact bombs. I know that they have been operating primarily on a private plot for most of the most of the pandemic and up till most recently, before they left a lot on civic. So I'm just curious about what are some of what the current permit requirements are and what not bombs would be. What's been this effort working with bombs? But I think the concern is that they're operating on public property like forward the way to fight for it. So I'm just kind of wondering what has been going on with the city and bombs and what the process is. A letter was sent to bombs a while ago, asked to permit under 10.5 as they did not get a permit. And, you know, we took a close look at 0.65. And, you know, we know there are some updates that we need to make this a chapter. And that's that's sort of where we're at. As far as how it's going to impact not bombs, I can't say that. I think there is a section in 521.0, which is permit condition. And it is basically as when necessary to protect the safety of persons or property or provide adequate control or provide reasonable public access to or use of sidewalks or beaches or other public areas. You know, the permit off a condition that she was on a reasonable time. So I mean, that's what I would expect would happen is that they would apply for the permit and the city would issue a permit and the city would impose a reasonable time, place and manner restriction to be able better balance. You know, as Councilor Myers and the varying needs on our property. So, you know, we have set very, very heavily used property. And there are so many competing needs. And so that's really sort of the idea behind the provisions that allow this balance. Cassie and then I did have I didn't want to see a follow up on some of the other points that were brought up. So one of the members of the public kind of mentioned, you know, labor strike. I was thinking back to occupy movement that occurred years ago. It could occur again and then we'll make to occupy clock power or some other part of the city. And then also thinking about, like, for example, last year, the I remember it was last year 2020. But when the offerenda was at the clock power, that was kind of out there almost an entire year, maintained by members of the public. So I'm just kind of wondering, you know, when certain things like that, how does this permit or like, you know, what, what are we having a hard time articulating? I guess, what are some of the issues that might arise? A passionate group of citizens that are, you know, standing for multiple days, protesting for multiple days at a certain site. And, you know, having this move forward in this way. That's like, what are some of the impacts that we might foresee or how navigate this ordinance? I think a lot of people will feel like they're right. They're being violated. They're just trying, whether it's the offerenda in mourning for a year, would have you but I'm just really trying to get it. How can we make sure that this is going to allow for protests for multiple days on end, necessary, not being another friction place? Yeah, I mean, I just I would sort of emphasize maybe I didn't emphasize this enough enough. I believe that this ordinance is being a restrictions to be quite honest, as compared to what the previous ordinance said. You know, we haven't an increase in terms of number of people that would reach thresholds we are 75. We decreased the number of days that you would need to before the permit issue. And we created this very clear spontaneous and this is all intended to sort of, you know, make it less restrictive and more compliant with what we were with. So I just want to sort of put that out there. But, you know, to address your turn, I mean, you know, this is sort of similar to the prior comment of there are going to be events that go on for a number of days and not applies to days. You know, I think the appropriate reaction is the letter first, hey, would you please get a permit? Can we please work this out? And, you know, and then if that doesn't work, I think that there are remedies listed in the ordinance, including, you know, potentially going to court to resolve. Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that the city is really trying to take reasonable measures to work with groups that are protesting or whether it's feeding homeless people for free, or whether it's a protest that's gonna, you know, prolong the city's really trying to work with folks on these issues. Thanks for those comments. And yeah, I think I'll hold the rest of my question. Okay, Council Member Brown and then Council Member Golder. Thank you. So I since food not bombs, and their particular experience has now been placed on the table, I'm gonna I want to say about that and ask a question. I'm, I guess I'll say I live a block away from block power. I walk by it almost every day. During the bombs hours, sometimes after. And what I have experience is dark contrast. But I would say are very limited. Plaint that have been delivered city about the operation. How that else access block power. On most days, empty. There are not there do not competing group want to use that base. And so I think there is some of that the communications that we've had and I'm, I'm gonna say they've been relatively limited. Now, no, I've heard from other some of you that I was in terrible and we have to do something. And I just haven't heard that in the city. I haven't met with my own eyes. And in fact, every and I, many of these I didn't have an I didn't go back and look if every council member risk every I risk. But mostly in support of what they do. And so I'm concerned about writing an ordinance that is arguably less restrictive. And I appreciate the thought that's gone into this and, you know, trying to find that balance. And, you know, I guess I just wonder what what the what the goal is with respect to bombs. Because so what would change if we're not bombs? No, asked for and risk to permit. What would be then what's happening now? It's kind of an open question. I'd love to hear if they if if ask here if others have thoughts on what that might be, I'd like to hear that. No, I just wanted to put that out on the table as part of the context. And, you know, I do have about language written in that does target one that is arguably created some challenges, and that other people that will have raised concerns, but that by and large, not both did, perhaps for a full day feel very, but I have not agreed. I read sense about that. So again, I guess I'd like to hear a little bit about that. Also ask if kind of what the basis was today. Today we're out, you would have to if you're going to do days. And then I'll ask that and I have a solution looking for a problem. And I know that's not a shared by all of my colleagues. But the data that I have, that not as big of a problem. So I will try to address. So I think, you know, I sort of addressed earlier, I don't want to get too into this fix of not bomb situation, because I mean, this is an ordinance of general applicability. And, you know, it really is intended to address a variety of although I know that this has not been so this is what we're all interested in. You know, again, we have two one oh, which sort of governs what type of permit conditions issued. And I would anticipate that we would that section to try to come up with reasonable permit. Unfortunately, I mean, I can't tell you exactly what those are at the moment. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to sort of think of them off the top of my head on an open city council meeting. But you know, happy to see about this. And what was your have another question. Oh, another question that Yeah, most that was a comment and kind of contact my question. Another question was the rationale for today. Oh, sure. You know, I mean, the two day that was sort of intended to get at the events, organizations are using same exactly for over. I mean, the council could certainly change that we could set it to something like a user or something similar. But that it was really just address the and then quickly last question. But I know you did, Kasi suggested that you had and I appreciate that. The case effort by that agreement around it. So I guess I'm wondering, it was that I'm just trying to understand the difference the current circumstances or the moment in time when you made that request, that how that would be different for men. And you don't require it now. But the idea was that you were asked voluntarily. No, no, a permit was always required. Okay. So that we looked at the chapter that was firing the permit without, you know, this part. So that's really a permit is required. Yeah. Right. So a permit is required. And why do we need this ordinance is an amendment to the chapter that requires permit because when looking at that chapter, this could be a lot more clear, just for public usage and consumption, I really strongly the ordinance, very clear. And also just make sure that it is compliant with the latest process. Thank you. I think Cassie covered it really well. I think only other this is the 1065 and 1064 have a lot of similarities in our special event permits and the public gathering and compression. So part of the clarification on this from the perspective of Parks Breck is to really delineate between a special event. So say like a big concert, for example, this is some of those definitional changes, those clarifications, and a bit of that simplification and really the Cassie alluded to and really just trying to clarify this that distinction between 1064 and 1065. An example of that is, you know, girl scouts selling girl scout cookies in a in a park is argued is that a special event? Is that commercial activity? Or is that freedom of expression? And so some of these definition changes, you know, there's a lot of talk about the clock in this, but this really gets into a lot of nuance between what is a special event, the compression and really trying to clarify that from the fact of the fairness from our community. Thank you. Okay. So then we have Council Member Golder. Thank you. I don't want to dwell on not bombs, but I just have to say I have had the opposite experience of Council Member Brown in that even before food not bombs, the town clock, I get daily bills, phone calls, text messages of people having experience complaints, whatever. That isn't what I was going to say. What I was going to say is I feel like another objective of bringing these changes to the ordinance would be also, you know, we had the was at the maniac right out that we talked about when we're talking about entering our public safety thing as that causing some significant impacts to the city. And so my hope and that and I wasn't even going to not bombs when reading this is that we would be addressing some of the nuisances and dangerous activity that happened in that event. And so my question is would these changes also address the issues that we had with, you know, the people getting injured and the traffic and the other things that happened during that event? Well, you know, this is having an expression that you know, I apologize, I'm not actually right out all the way about it. So, so I don't know if that would be a public gathering and special event. Really what this is is bridging people have their larger events or repeat events to get permit so that the city can plan for these events appropriately. Just to speak to that briefly that maniac right out in about 5000 from all over the place to a right out town. So I think that case that would require that I would think about that as more of a special event for it actually over an entire park. But again that the current language 1064 and 1065 use a little lack of clarity I think and it could potentially be argued right out is freedom of expression potentially but again this is what we're trying to try to clarify. I think that one very clearly was a special event meeting traffic control and you know, trash and restrooms so forth that many. Absolutely that's my hope that that's what I was going with this is I felt like this these changes would address that from happening if it was to happen again this year or I forget what that happened. Thank you. I will just start myself. Director Elliott remind me and the public how many different kinds of permit there are parks and recreation department. I think there's like five or six different types of event permit. A great question and I'll lean on our administrative supervisor and head and Jones here on the call. I think what we referenced the packet we've got public major and public minor events and then these public gathering and expression permits as well but I'll lean on tray here for more detail. First, thank you. Honorable mayor. Dr. Elliott. Yes, we do have several different different permits public major event public minor events. We also issue film video and recording permits public gathering expression permits neighborhood block party permits and street closure permits. And so these changes are specific to the public gathering and expression event. That is correct. So the ordinance changes are specific to that permit. And a lot of my questions were answered at a time but there was interesting point brought up in that also I went to my mind went through some of the larger events like the bike ride out, you know, that some folks consider to be a public gathering and expression event. So I think the definitions of types of events needed clarity and seeing those clarity in these amendments helpful in different some of the differences, right? Those different permit. And so it's interesting to consider, you know, the perceptions of some of the members of our public that called in as well in terms of the different types of events. And I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that some of the members of our public that called in as well and immediately thinking about examples such as food not bombs at the power. And so it sounds like that would be what type of permit they call enter. And so there was a freedom of expression event. And so this would, the changes in this the work turns brought up in their actions at this time. And so if I think of them as an example with changes They would need to get a permit for this permit, public gathering and special event, and they would only be allowed to operate for two days within what they did. The two-day trigger is what requires that it wouldn't necessarily prohibit them from operating more than two days consecutively in one location, although it would allow additions to be imposed, address specific concerns, and one of those conditions might be to alternate locations and I think city staff would be assisting in identifying alternative locations where they could operate part of the week, as well as continuing to operate at the town. I was. It certainly would not restrict, would not bombs ability by food service on a daily basis, but reasonable condition attached to them. Definitely, any members of the public have called multiple times, as well as those that come in tonight, and I think that everyone's in agreement that a service, although this isn't an item about food, not bombs, but their service is appreciated. Anyone eating those that are hungry or off food that is appreciated, however, some of the consequence around that, which I see this ordinance guidelines on ability in terms of damage, the area, the walkways, garbage, last during plates and food along the way. I think off the top of my head, I see that permit here, a decision to what they would have now changes. Either way, it's on ability for impact at the area. I see that correct, and I appreciate the other examples. Certainly, by the clock, but of our other shared public space, matter of what gathering expression event. Thank you for making those clarifications and answering some of the questions prior, and we do have a motion. Everyone has had a chance to speak, I believe, or anyone else who hasn't spoken yet, that was like a council member Cummings, I see you have your hand up. Thank you, Mayor. I had a couple more questions possible from the amendment make based on what I've heard. I guess for me, one of the things that this ordinance, and I want to thank council member Golder for kept the ride out because that wasn't something that I was thinking about, but I think definitely need to be addressed, and I just want to say that I feel that this ordinance really heavily focusing on beaches, parks, and open spaces and not in that ride out event, and so I don't know if something needs to be backed, typically deal with that kind of gathering, because that did have a negative impact on the community, and definitely need to figure out how we can keep that from happening in the future. But really a lot of what I see in terms of some of the new languages, for example, GH and I all focus on, for example, G is a block by areas that are marked as by reservation only in a city park, or open space, the next one will occupy or negatively impact sense of having that city park or open space, and I know it mentions sidewalks alleys are the right way, but getting to that impacts a lot from that event. I think it'd be good if we had something forward specifically to address those kinds of events, because that was throughout the entire city blocking traffic. There were all sorts of impact. It would also be great to hear from the city, turn up the city, kind of follow up with the organizer in terms of charges, or whether that's going to court, and that doesn't have to happen. Putting that out, there's a comment. The one thing I do have an issue with is really around item number under 1065050A2, and as that relates to under three, so really saying that these permits required if the event lasts more than an hour in duration, and then later on, we have this language on will require additional temporary coiled capabilities. It seems like if there's something that's happening, whether it's multiple days in a row, but it's only like two hours a day, that really doesn't seem like it would require the organizers to have to get a bathroom and have hand washing and toilet facilities. So I'm just kind of curious about, because that seems like obviously not bombs of beating people there for more than an hour, the likelihood of somebody needing bathrooms to die. But if you have something like the off-renda, or there's a protest that's occurring multiple days in a row, multiple hours a day, it doesn't seem like you would necessarily need to have the organizers purchase a port-a-potty and hand washing facilities, which that also, I will point out, takes time having to work related events. So I'm just wondering if someone can speak to that, because I'd be comfortable with that language, but it will for F. Yeah, I think there's a misunderstanding in the ordinance that I hope I can explain to you quickly. So a permit is triggered if beyond public property, so that's A1, it's going to last an hour, and it meets at least one of the criteria under submission. So the public property, more than one hour, and there's, for some reason, additional facilities are needed, then you need to get a permit, not necessarily saying that if you're there for an additional. That helpful. Welcome. That's, those are all my questions. I guess the last one would be, what's, I got two last ones, two last questions. What's the turnaround? What would be the turnaround time on the permit? I guess, because if somebody, for example, there's a multiple day protests or something that's going to go, say, 14 days after two days, they would need to get a permit. But then what would be the turnaround time on when people would actually receive that permit that might lead into the time that they're. I can, I can take a shot at that. The ordinance requires the application to be submitted at least three business days before the event. So if, you know, by default, then the maximum turnaround be three business days from the date. I guess I'm wondering, as a friendly amendment, then if we can increase the, I guess it's one of the following criteria. Um, is conducted on a regular schedule basis at a single occasion, more than four consecutive days per week. And it seems like there's other provisions that would pick in the permit, but I think that in particular, the reason why. Is largely due to if this is going to be something that, and maybe staff comment on this, but if it's going to be a reoccurring. For example, like the offer and being able to. Give that time for people to apply for the permit, it's going to be a longer multi-day event. And then have that and around so they can get the permit. I think that's the rationale, but I'm trying to just. A little bit more time when we pick in under that item member coming. Are you asking on 3D? About four days versus executive days. Yes, 10, 6, 5, 0, 5, 0 public gathering session event under a you just say it 1 more time in the section. On the screen and it's, yeah, I saw asked from a friend there a couple of times. Sort of a, that was sort of property, I mean, in their time. So I guess, I guess what I'm trying to get yours parks just works ahead. So, trying to make sure this is I guess I would look to maybe somebody. Yeah, thank you council members. Yeah, I think Tony can not he mentioned a little bit ago. I think the goal here is just objectivity. And so, yes, from my perspective, whether it's days or 4 days. Don't necessarily have a lot of part burn with that. I think that the key is just in having those objective criteria here in the language so that we've got. A threshold so that we're really clear on what that is and when that is. So. That's just my my initial perspective on that, but I'll look at the Cassie or the city manager if they've got that. Suggestion calling my what's going to be reasonable. I think it was reasonable for you to be reasonable or would be reasonable as well. So, I would agree with that. I think as council member wires mentioned, this is about striking a balance and what passes that reasonability test. This is 1 of other metric the only metric that we would be. Terminating 1 of permit would be triggered so. I don't know that I have any major reservations either just policy question. Find that link time over the 2nd or amenable. I guess my last I guess my last comment I can't remember what the question was, but. I just hope that, you know, moving forward the staff work with not bombs. I know it's challenging and difficult sometimes to. Working with not bombs, but I think it hasn't pointed out they did good service pandemic. They do good service for homeless. I guess, yeah, now I'm remembered. I'm reminded my last question. You know, if a group currently is not willing to pull out a file for a permit and pass this, you'll not willing. I guess, like, what's the consequences? Is there any change? I think that Tony I mean, I think there there is a change to the. Section over regarding violations in addition citations for infraction. Misdemeanor violations, there could be. Civil action brought for party injunction. All right, well, I just hope that, you know, we can. Regardless of who it is that we're able to really, you know, work with the. Try to figure out ways that we can allow themselves. Exercise their 1st amendment, right? And it seems like this is really trying to provide. More flexibility, but also accountability for. All parties involved, so I think it'll be really important that we. Monitor how this plays out because. Like it's restricting people's ability to exercise. We'll definitely need to visit it, but also understanding that we need to make sure that. Public space is accessible for. To those are all my questions and comments. I'll be supporting this coming and it looks like that. Discussion on this item, we have a 1st by council member Myers, a 2nd by older. The friendly amendment by council member Cummings. And so, did I just see more hands go up? Council member Myers, I just want to let you know. Yeah, tonight. Are saying that. Great goes out. Audio is breaking up. I don't know. I just want to like Bonnie, maybe. Is it the community TV or zoom? Or is that the same thing? You don't have to solve it now, but I thought maybe great if we took. Break after the vote. Okay. City clerk Bonnie Bush. Thank you. Yeah, we have had. I've gotten. Well, and what we've gathered. On the. Live. No, that is on our website. Two other. That way or to point. Audio. No delay. And here if they go. So members of the public go directly. To. For through community online. Right. So links are either front. Thank you. Council member Brown before we go to a vote. I just wanted a quick comment. I want to. Sponsive question about the limit. Pays I do that would. Provide. Relief or folks who tend to engage kind of activities. I mean, maybe it's a weekend or a long weekend. The kind of not have this whole process. That I do think that it's reasonable amount of time and my colleagues. That. Not going to be able to support. Ordinance and I before but I wanted to say before I go that I really. Understand. The rationale or board in this direction. I support most of what is. I want to work and I appreciate the role that the staff. Played and I know it's a lot of work right up find a way forward. And it's also a lot of work and conditions on the ground. When we have public gatherings. So I don't want to discount that and I don't want my no vote. Just that I'm not. About those matters. I just have. Outending questions out. My who's going to be affected and the potential of disproportionate. On. Flowing marginalized. And but I'll look forward to hearing reports on how things are going and. Want to be part of the process for. Interative process to kind of make. So I just want to. Oh no without letting you all know that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We are ready for. Remember. Hi. That motion passes. In favor one no vote. Okay. So let's see. Is there any way we can. Get. A message on our screen like a screen share that. Corrects both. Zoom directory or. Community be online. So they can see the. Can we take a five minute. Three three to five minutes. That's that eight oh seven if we return at eight ten with that you know fine. Okay. Thank you. If council members can turn on their camera. The city are ready. Thank you. Okay. Hopefully this will. And again just as a reminder for those who weren't. Able to. Get the news. Hope to tune in this morning. Our April twenty six. Meeting the regular council meeting will be in. We do have. April night. Special meeting that will but starting. As well as. Public. Have the. Either way. But remember Brown. It's just a quick question. I got a message from somebody who said that they not able to hear. Who mayor providing. Information and also I think Bonnie Bush providing the. About an alternative way. Sign in. That that would. Yeah and that's why I asked for a share screen message to be put up. Okay. So it'll it'll go up. Is it up now. Hopefully not. I think it on our website. Okay. And so also for those that can hear me. Hopefully we will get a screen up that will give direction to. Join us via the direct. Link or. The. The. Panel. The. On line. So the on base. Currently the link that is having. Sound. So hopefully. Those will be able to. Join us. That's why we do that. To. Give. Full an opportunity. To get the information for joining us. And. Access those. Correct. In link or. Correct. Here we're. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Hey. Return to the agenda. And that brings us to. Our. Here at our. Item number. 31. Public hearing. Item numbers. P1 is. Council review. Of the planning commission's approval of the. Postal and design permit. To. Authorize the development associated. With the amended municipal code. To. The parking of oversized vehicles. And to implement. Wide parking programs. For. Unhoused residents living in oversized. Of resolution acknowledging. Environmental determination and approving. Of the coastal permit and design. Permit based on the findings in the draft resolution. And the conditions. Of approval. Attach. So for. Members of the public for. Skimming this meeting. Joining us. To. Zoom link. Or. Newly. Order will be a presentation. Followed by questions from. Council. You will then take public comment. And then return. Council. For deliberation and action. In addition to the public comment. You'll be hearing on this item. There were 551. Mills that were sent to city council. At cityofcenter.com. On this item. So if if. You're interested on comment on this item. Of. Well we will get. With us. So let's see the first. I think I will. Before I hand it over to council member. Older. I just wanted to. Also have my very. Staff here. I just really wanted to keep us focused. It's been a long agenda. I tried some new technique. In in our time efficient today. And knowing that we had a very cool agenda. And our agenda has been full. The whole items. Have. Continued. The. Agendas. Time. And. Length of time that. So. For this item. I'm. I'm hoping that night we can focus on the fact that this is the review of the permit. That was issued by the planning commission. Not a review of the revised. That ordinance. Has been approved and is in place. Although not yet. Of course. All certain. Directions that was conditions were given. Our place. So. I just really want to. For that. Members of the public and. All of the council members understand that this is the. Of. Permits that were issued. By. Planning. Not. Of. The council member colder. You. So I did. Go ahead. I wanted to go ahead and start by saying that. After the planning. Mission added. Conditions. To. Oversize vehicle ordinance. I. Communications from. Various members of community who really felt blindsided and. No upset with that. And so that's why. Before us. Tonight. Um. I just want to give a little background. For those of you that might not be aware. Having served for the better part of. On the public safety. Of course this was something that came out of a recommendation from then. From from back then. And there's been. Other ordinances. Throughout years. Been. Some recommendations attached that. Or that. Let us. This. Process. Have received. Thousand. Of. Nills. In. When we were drafting the oversize field coordinates. And I really felt like the planning mission kind of. Circumvented. Those years of work. And really the democratic process that went into creating. Coordinance as it was written. And. Um. Again it was. Gated. By. Many. People. With. The. Public health and safety of the whole community in mind. And I just. I don't really have much more to say other than that's why. Here it is that's why. You know. With the liberty of. Calling it back up to us. Thank you. You. Uh. The. I. Remember Calentari Johnson. Great. Thank you for inviting me to this. We worked together on this item. I do want to acknowledge that permit program is about solutions. Help folks go pathway to housing. It's the first time in the history of our city. That the city council's getting to say parking options. We have faith based communities and organizations that have been doing this hard work. And now we are committing to supporting these efforts. And adding resources. And of course as council member Golder just mentioned this didn't happen overnight. It happened over the course of years and a lot of process. I mean it wasn't until recently through some leadership that we were able to get it over the finish line. In the short amount of time that this passed. And again as you mentioned Mayor Booner. The ordinance itself hasn't been enforced. But we've moved forward with a. Safe parking programming options. We've stood out tier one which has three spaces associated to it. And we've started to. Currently have six spaces. And we have not yet done tier three. Because these appeals have hampered the implementation of tier three. And just as a reminder. Tier three is the more robust safe parking program. That's connected with community organization. That would provide wraparound case management services. So I'm hoping that we can move forward. So that we can help those. To help the most. And I believe tier three will be our way of getting there. The conditions that were placed by the planning commission. Will affect implementation of the framework. And it will hamper framework. I do also want to just state for community members. That there are spaces available right now. Within tier one and two. These spaces are not filled up. So if there are folks who need and want a safe parking place. Please connect with our homeless response team. As there are safe spaces available. And just to wrap up my comments here. This is a tool to ensure that people can sleep safely in our community. And that that doesn't impact the health. Safety hazards of others around us. This is a tool for us to move forward with health and wellness for everyone involved. We've seen some headway in a very short amount of time. And I know it took a lot of effort. By staff to get tier one and tier two going. So I'm hoping that we. Move and progress and get tier three up and running. So we can help more community members. Thank you. Have any. You guys can hear me right. Yes. Okay. Let's around here and try to share a screen with. Am I sharing the screen. Yes. Okay. Well good evening. Madam mayor council members ruined about three of my slides. So I'll be able to go through a little quicker now. Y'all know why we're here. It is for coastal and a design permit. Project number is CP 2107. Title 10 as was stated earlier that was approved in the fall. To implement any of those parts of the ordinance in the coastal zone. You need a coastal. And a design. So why do you need a coastal permit since title 10 is already done. Well the coast commission considers development of the coastal zone. Just the placement those signs from 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. That sign by itself would require. The safe parking lots if they're located in some sections of the zoning order or some sections of the. Coastal commission those would also. Any public project that's located in the coastal zone requires a design. That's in our zoning orders. And then outside of the coastal permit there could be. Locations that are chosen. That would require a design by itself. So what we've tried to do is craft the coastal permit. The design. To implement the safe parking policy. Not specific sites. By approving this design permit and coastal permit. We'll be able to disperse these sites throughout the coastal outside of the. So that quick history is that. Those two permits went to the zoning administrator who approved. That approval was a bill by Santa Cruz cares in the ACLU. It went to our planning commission and as was mentioned. After a very long hearing. It was sort of surprised with. Large number of revisions and additional conditions of approval. That's member Golder called the item up for review because of those. And tonight this is at the noble hearing. Where you have to look at the design permit and the coastal. New. So that's why the recommendation is for Europe. So when the title 10 changes happen. You also. Pass the motion to implement the safe parking program. It's the three chairs that have already been described by. And this was so. In February the city is operating three safe parking locations. But nine vehicles. I can park as part of tier one and two. What we're hoping is that these will be like pilot programs. As. Problems come up we'll be able to modify some. Program requirements. Two of these locations today have additional off street. The current overall thinking of staff is that we're going to keep these. Numerous locations. But with a small number of units have six three. Six units per location. So this was part of the coastal permitting. The reasons are conditions approval are kind of general is that. I'm talking about a specific location for closely with those commission staff. Just to make sure that they would go along with these kinds of. Usually they see a project actual physical project. So they have gone through with us. These generalities basically they're going to be off street location. Public or private loss. The hours are generally going to be eight to eight a.m. Sanitation will be provided at all of. No cost to the participants in the safe. And the tier three facilities. That good in including 24 seven basis. The city is now evaluating two proposals for a tier three facility. One of the conditions that was added was in operations. Management plan for the program. And that'll be just looked by staff. Then a momental. Procedures for informing the law. Of nightly availability of safe parking spaces. So if somebody's in the program. They've got a permit. There isn't a safe parking spot available. And they'll be directed to park out on the street. So. PD would be notified of the vehicle and the location. And they won't be taken. There's a code of conduct. This patient agreement. As part of the management plan. I attached those to the staffer. Hopefully you saw those. Some members of the community suggested some ideas that. They would initiate. One was about your program for oversized vehicles. Waste dumping. And other was financial support subsidies. Towards vehicle repair and registration. Cities also looking at. Possible waste dumping. Measures. So our recommendation. Is that you approve these. Postal permit. The dot nine permit. And approve them with the recommended conditions that are attached to resolution. Those conditions are. They reflect the seven pages of analysis in the staff report. Talks about the planning commission recommendation. So it's. Our recommendation is for you to look at that. Part of. Resolution. But that concludes my presentation. If you have questions, it looked like we had a whole battery of people. Ready to respond to your questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. So at this time. There will be questions. From council members. Not seeing any questions at this time. Council member Myers muted. Been a number of steps. So number staff have any. Language in the staff report. All the various. And that there would seem to be some. Sponses to the planning commission change. Stated blah blah blah. So I'm just curious. As they're meeting. They're meeting with. There was. We met with coast commission staff. We had them. Review our original post conditions of approval. And they had some additions, including that last condition. They were very specific about what they wanted to see. And the condition. The condition number four was basically something that they wanted to see. And we just chatted with them because this was such a weird coastal permit. Because it was. Moving a program and not a specific site. So we wanted to be sure that. We delineated as much of how this program would operate in the coastal zone. And that's why the conditions are kind of framed the way that they are. Yeah. Yeah, I got the sense that. That it's just important. I'll let to know. They were the very thick. Or that. They're definitely. I just want to. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Thank you. Council member Myers. Okay. For no further questions from council members. Take it out to public comment. And let me go back. Let me go back. Also have a request for extended time from like, well, we had seven groups. And so. The first group that we have. One is not listed. And that they did respond for. Deline on five. And that is another. I will go ahead and begin. We had. First group. At Santa Cruz neighbors. West side neighbors. Santa Cruz cares. Santa Cruz United. CLU. Those will be the group. That will have five. I see hands raised. So if you are interested in commenting. On this item now is the time to raise your hand by. Dialing star nine on your phone. Or selecting raise and in the webinar goals. On your computer. And when it's your turn to speak, you will hear an announcement that you have been unmuted. Timer will then be set. And I would like. To ask the members of the public to speak to the merit of the permit. And I will go with the first hand raised. Please let me know if you are one of the group. They see falls. Go ahead and unmute yourself. Hi, thanks for taking my comment tonight. I actually really appreciated the amendments that the planning commission made. I feel like they took what is. You know, essentially a fairly mean spirited ordinance. And it did a little bit nicer. And maybe I'm just being a little bit personally as somebody has lived in an oversize. Pickle for the last. Here's in 10 months. I, you know, I've been living in an RV and I've it's been really helpful to me at a time when rents are. I do actually be able to stay in the city of. To actually save some money. And I'm I'm literally in the process of moving as we. To a house that I was able to buy. I was able to save money by not rent. I feel like I was pretty fortunate in that I have middle class privilege and and therefore have middle class friends and somebody who had backyard who gave me a place to park my RV. I, I don't know what I would have done if it weren't for him. Friends in this town like literally are half my take. And I just don't understand how you expect working people to be able to live here and work here. I I teach public high school like I teach right in this. It would be nice to like afford where I live. And and I and I afford where I work and I a lot of people, you know, they're living in their vehicles because they're struggling like I am. Or or they're struggling worse than I am. And and the OVO like as a general rule, just take them when they're. And I that's the amendment by the. Help make it a little bit less mean spirited and ugly and nasty. And I appreciate those amendments and I support them and I would like those. Thank you. Thank you. Oh man. The next phone number ends in seven one one. Hi, good evening. Is it can you hear me there? Yes. Are you one of the group or are you just? Yeah, Santa Cruz United. Okay. Great. You will have extra time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So thanks to Mayor Brunner and the council members. Peter Cook speaking on behalf of Santa Cruz United. Just so we all remember Santa Cruz United was spearheaded spearheaded the recall effort. And really the catalyst of this effort was through Glover's proposal turned Delaware into an RV park. So people talked about normalizing homeless. So I hate for questions, but are we criminalizing tenants for having final lease a rent and buy by their rules and these rules? I mean, are we criminalizing homeowners by having to pay a mortgage tax insurance planning up a county? Um, are we are we criminalizing businesses for having to get a business license a rent their landlord and final lease and follow all of these different complicated rules and regulations? Are we criminalized first coming to our community having to put money in the parking meter? They're really answers. No answers. No, that everyone else that's in our community, visiting our community, living in our community, working in our community is following rules, reasonable rules set down by the city council in the state. And so we're not asking councils to criminalize homeless and poverty, but we are asking that everyone that lives in our community is going to be accountable and follow basic rules and regulations. And right now when we have double standards on standards for certain people that are allowed to come to our community and not follow any of the regulations and ignore what, you know, some of the basic of things the city has set down and and somehow it's about like already, uh, um, councilmember Calentary Johnson has told us there is available parking spaces in tier one and two tonight where people could go all the rules free and be accountable and and have a safe space to park and and spend the night but who are not willing to do that. So it's very frustrating for all of us that are fighting by all the rules set down that there's certain members of the community that are just allowed to stop the rules and continually take advantage of our community. So I really want to thank the council for passing the original, um, oversized vehicle ordinance. You know, a lot of thoughts or went into the ordinance passed originally. And I want to thank specifically Renee Goulder, Councilmember Goulder for seeing planning commissions rather perverse for changes to oversized vehicle ordinance. So, um, tonight you have, um, five, seven people have yet again sent you emails asked you to pass original ordinance. You worked so hard to approve. And you have four people that have been noted up. So, ratio is just 36 to one, more than 30 to one. People ask you as council to please pass the original ordinance to work so hard for. And this small, small book minority trying to cause problems asking us to get double standards for certain people breaking the rules. I think it's totally unfair, um, planning commission because you asked us to talk about their, um, their changes to the ordinance. Um, they're asking that, uh, people that come into our community are allowed to have free gas, be vehicular repair, not be required to move. It costs both emotional distress. So we already know what happens. As you're opening up our entire community to anybody anywhere that's caught a vehicle that's not working great, needs free gas, or wants to play sleep, come and sleep and take advantage of our community yet again with no, with no accountability whatsoever. And that's totally unfair. There's a huge list of people that are here playing by the rules, living with accountability in our community and, and trying to contribute to our, to our community. And there's a few people that have taken advantage of our community. And so I really asked you, you need to pass the original oversized vehicle ordinance to work so hard for. This has a lot of important provisions in it already. Make sure that we're not penalizing homelessness for people that, the people are, you know, that are poor. But at the same time, you know, we have to have accountability for everybody. Everyone has to have fair and equal accountability for us who's here and that they're following the rules that you set down. And when you have planning commission basically just expecting you, and currently taking your ordinances and turning them on your head, I would ask, maybe get rid of your planning commission as well. So thank you very much, Councilor. I appreciate your effort. Before your public input, our next fundraise is phone number ending in sign 5. Hi there. Hi. Hi. This is Lynn Renshaw with Santa Cruz Together. Can I proceed? Yes, you have extra time. Thank you. So I'm Lynn Renshaw with SantaCruzGather.com. Our mission is to encourage participation in local government in order to improve the direction of the city. I'd like to comment on the outrage and hope here. Between the first reading, second reading, and last weekend, the Council received over 1,500 emails from residents in support of common sense rules for parking RVs. Since Thursday, there were 533 in favor enforcing the RV ordinance past in November and only 15 opposed. For those that didn't read 526 pages of public input, like I did, there are two themes of the letters. Hope and outrage. There is outrage that the city led this problem becomes so bad negatively impacted children, families, elderly, and local businesses on the west side particularly. There is outrage that our environment is getting and that our water and ocean is being polluted. There is outrage when we are all subjected to increase public health risk caused by unsanitary living. There is outrage from those neighborhoods are unsafe. The problems are visible and denying them is actually outrageous. There is also outrage that the planning mission tries to circumvent the rules for public transparency and notice and make the Council in the ordinance unenforceable. But also, in the 500 plus council letters there is an outpouring of hope that the council will hear them understand their concerns and act otherwise why bother sending an email. There is hope that the process of public input to the city is reliable and that this particular city council is taking action and addressing problems. And it really is hope that we can clean up the city and make it more beautiful. The city has rules for RV parks like they have not legal challenges. These 24 other cities, the coastal commissions approve. I mean, permission to undermine your work, the majority of residents they are outpouring of hope to make things better. Approve the coastal and design permits. Thank you for serving on City Council. It's time consuming, it's a lot. Our community appreciates you. Thank you. Your input. Our next fundraiser is Reggie Weiser. Hey there. Hi there. Okay. I think there's a really important thing to note here, which is that OVO is not a state parking bill. I mean, despite what some people are trying to make us believe, it's a 3,000 word document that describes a vehicle permit program, which Ndadi and former police chief Mills were very clear was developed with the intention to enhance the city's ability to prosecute folks living in vehicles. None of the safe parking program details Mike Berry has described are codified in the OVO. It's only one subsection of OVO, which talks about established parking, and it merely allows them to operate and support safe parking. City staff note that these pre-existing establishment, sorry, city staff noted pre-existing safe parking site in the OVO drafting meeting back in September before OVO was a thing. And so that's just the reality. This is not about safe parking. I don't know why everyone is talking about safe parking, and no one is talking about like 99% of this bill, which is actually a vehicle parking permit, which is draconian, and obviously tended to criminalize done house. Like none of this is safe parking. And none of the nice things that the city manager has come up with are written into law anywhere. So he can just define them and then undefine them whenever he wants. So let's be super clear. Just because a bigoted vocal minority is able to send in a bunch of emails, doesn't mean we let them codify bigotry into law. And if you insist on trying to pass this today, we're going to bring this to a more mature legislative body to deliver a truly just Thank you. To our next member of the public is Surge Coggenal. Evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Welcome Surge. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue. As someone who lives in a vehicle, works in the city, volunteers on committees for both the city and the county, issuing this permit does not let me see a late spend time with friends during late hours or stay overnight with a friend, because those activities may require me to park on the street. As a member of the mental health advisory, what concerns me with the permit is how the ordinance may affect those with mental health diagnosis, therefore recognize disabilities. If they are unable to function in a shelter or safe parking program due to anxiety, pulse control, outbursts or other mental health symptoms, what happens to them? Are they then not allowed in our city and subject to citation of their homelessness and mental health diagnosis each and every night? A person may be able to take care of their basic therefore not eligible for conservatorship, but not able to uphold the good neighbor policy within a program. What has not been mentioned in the discussions of the CSSO and the OVO are the hundreds of people who have been banned from our homeless services. With staff that have limited training, limited funding to pay for more experienced staff, with a common bias against challenging behavior, we have not just a homeless problem in Santa Cruz, but a homeless service programmatic design problem in Santa Cruz. To have a low barrier program, but not a zero barrier program, as the safe parking program is intended as stated in the staff report. Safety for all participants is a significant challenge. As we can see from the Benchlands, zero barrier programs are unsafe. This can also be true for low barrier programs. A female participant of the 1220 River Safe Sleep Managing Campment, which I have worked with at other shelters previously, recently related to me a story where she was threatened by another participant who then fired a pistol in the air. It is still at the 1220 program, though as she understands it only needed to turn in the pistol. I encourage you to follow up with the city manager's office to clarify the details. My question is, how are we ensuring that we are protecting the safety and dignity of our participants, our safe sleep, safe parking programs, from dangerous criminal behavior, yet also the rights of those with mental health challenges will often find themselves kicked out of our programs. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your input. Next, we have phone number ending in 4844. Robert, again, of how homeless people are protected. A couple corrects, and Zinrenshai is correct saying that 25 post-cities have not faced appeals and kept their anti-homeless, anti-RV laws. That's because those cities did not get their laws of appeal. Now, I appealed to Santa Cruz in 2016 to my surprise, the Coastal Commission voted 11-1 to say, no, we will not accept this law. There is no storage facilities, and there still are no real storage facilities with numbers of vehicles that are estimated to be around Santa Cruz, not to mention visitors. And secondly, there is no proof city manager at that time could not show, and the city manager still cannot show a real crime problem with RVs for people in their vehicles. Even though that is the biggest free and prejudice you will hear coming out of this, a lot of folks who are talking here tonight, and of course, also, fact that the Coastal staff position locally conferred with staff come up with this, there were questions asked, it's not very interesting. Coastal staff previously in 2016 here approved the city's law, but the Coastal Commission said, no, they're wrong, it's a bad law, it requires a full examination, and the city has been afraid to bring it up. Now they're bringing it up, of course, with these alleged safe parking provisions, which in fact are completely inadequate. Now, I'm just going to read what I actually wrote to the zoning administrator when I wrote about, and there are all kinds of specific reasons that the design permit can approach, and I included these. The ordinance eliminates nighttime fueling for anyone in an oversized vehicle without sufficient parking areas, generally, that are adequate. It does not provide facilities for dealing with toxic runoffs for any evidence oversized vehicles are more likely than other of our great problems. Number three, it's suggesting criminal ordinance to create adequate penalty safeguards to address toxic runoffs, where the city is seriously interested in assisting RVs with problems that have created helpful facilities long ago. Four, these are all the various concerns of the planning of the design permit. Two, maintain public access to coast tests along the coastline. No, clearly the law nearly, not merely limits, but bans, ticket or access to coasts at night five for oversized vehicles, unless their own buyer is connected to a resident or paid for by a hotel, and then only for a limited period. There is no safe parking for the majority of those who live in their vehicles, Santa Cruz, in the midst of the pandemic, and I will tell you safe, if they actually exist and are used, and all you want, only when I've heard of this actually is a police car, are completely inadequate for the number of vehicles, and aspirations having safe talks about tiers one, two, and three, does not equal action. And when the Coastal Commission gets kind of looked at, are their safety direct? They're where the crime steps, showing that these homeless folks and their RVs trying to bring up a family are criminals, and you just want to move them out so you can have a better view in front of your house. Well, they're going to say no again. You'll waste everyone's time and money for this appeal, and this is the problem, of course, is going to be that now we're going to be faced with police in the city continually harassing people and RVs, regardless, because it's been illegal to harass people in the RV zone. It's been illegal in the Coastal Zone. It's been illegal to give people tickets on the basing signs that have not Coastal Commission approval, and the city's signs have not. Most cases, the city does care. Local Coastal Commission doesn't care, but it's still illegal and can be appealed. It's up to us. Those of us who care about basic justice for people who are poor have no choice but to live in their vehicles to take action on this for ourselves. Kind of vigilante action that the police have organized with Deborah Elfner, volunteer, pair up police. I don't want to call them Gestapo, but that's often how it feels when they're banging on your... Joe Haby is banging on your vehicle at night. That is how it feels for some folks, particularly single women who are living in their vehicle. We need to do something ourselves to organize for folks who are facing this kind of homeless get-out. I got more, but I'll leave. Thank you for your comment. Our next member of the public is Rafa Sananthel. Evening Council. Speaking on behalf of myself this evening, the politics in this town are such that you feel like you need to show progress maybe to your base of constituents and move forward with this ordinance. I understand that. But I think, and I've said this before, that the approach of spending police resources on dealing with a problem that's not... That's caused by housing shortages and lack of shelter spaces is misguided. I think the safe parking programs are a good idea. And I'd like to see the Coastal Commission approve that aspect of the parking... The program, but the ordinance itself, the ban, especially in the coastal zone of oversized vehicles, I think brings not only civil rights issues, but also access to coastal resources. So for those reasons, I am asking you not to move forward. I realize I have to move on with meeting this evening and that you'll do what you're going to do, but just need to say that. So have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you for your input. Next, have Alicia Poole. Hi, thank you. Yeah, thank you. So I speak on this both as myself, as someone who recently lived in an RV and as the president of the Santa Cruz Homeless Union. So I'm concerned where all of this is going. Although 30 spaces for RVs is really great, this ordinance criminalizes all others. Unfortunately, as soon as you start enforcement, there's going to be costly litigation. There have been challenges, similar ordinances, in other cities. And unfortunately, the cost of all that litigation could really be used on providing real services. And so it's always unfortunate when that money is not used on helping the unhoused folks and marginalized folks, but it's on fighting for their rights. I also want to talk about your safe parking program. The part of the reason why I don't use it being super effective is that right now it's built in parks for three days at a time. And with gas prices being so expensive, your parking program is high barrier. It requires people to do every single day. And not being are the reasons that third brought up are going to difficult for people to live there, but that is also a main reason. We're talking about people who have very little money in general. And so moving every site is going to be an issue. And also the capacity for programs is also an issue. We know that we have way more than 30 people living in our experiencing homelessness right now. I can say for myself personally, that the only thing that helped out of homelessness here in Santa Cruz was the housing voucher and a willing landlord. Not in an ordinance and not the $700 of tickets that I've had to pay while I live. I also want to say that I do not experience all the exaggerated issues that are being said, people dumping sewage, drug related. I think all of those are highly, highly exaggerated. I've experienced minor issues while living on the Santa Cruz in that category. In fact, the harass and fear that I had from people attacked because they hate homeless people, banging on my arches because they wanted us to and though we weren't even bothering it while being parked in their neighborhood, things like that. Far more are issues, I think. And I think that when we're looking at this, we need to really prioritize and weigh what the portals need or, you know, exactly what we've been. Thank you. Thank you. Our next caller was for extra time, John Doe, ACLU. Hello, my name is John Doe. I'm an employee with the ACLU of Northern California. I'm here to highlight the comment that we submitted asking the city to reject the associated permit as proposed by staff for the OSP ordinance, which effectively prohibits folks from residing in their homes with the city. We previously demanded that the ordinance be resided and appeal the associated coastal permit through the planning. Now, after the planning commission modified that those permit conditions to try to mitigate some of the ordinance's more negative impacts on unhoused people, city staff proposed stripping some of those protections. Staff proposal also essentially allows for enforcement of the ordinance so long as there is but one single safe parking location. The city's aspirational full three-tier state parking program, which isn't codified anywhere, is yet to be fully operational. And all those plans have barriers to entry, limit the duration of stays, and require participants to move daily, which can be cost-operative and even more tacky now that there are now new limits on where an OSP can park, even during the day. And of course, as others have highlighted, there are no more sufficient number of safe parking alternatives for all the house folks that we know exist. So basically, the staff proposal will further drive out house folks out of the city and subject others to fines, arrest, because there are some misdemeanor provisions in there, harassment, and increase the likelihood that their homes will be towed. Moreover, it's pretty impractical for and concerning for the city to make registering for a program approved requisite to avoid enforcement when the city hasn't committed to make sufficient spaces available. Without that commitment, there's no incentive for folks to register for a parking program. And it's just unrealistic to expect that they would. That all being said, people, because they failed to register would still be pretty pre-native on a product. So although we generally support providing services like accessible safe parking, not so when it's time to terminating poverty and coercion, the city can set up these safe parking spots and services without these forced connections. Now the city contends that the ordinance, the associated permit, is all about increasing postal access. But for whom and at whose expense? Staff proposal makes clear the city's aim is to privilege those who can afford to live in the housing over those who can. A population that's disproportionate black, people of color, people of disability. Staff proposal remains unlawful, so cruel to be rejected. I'd further direct the city council to our prior appeal, which further outlines the legal deficiencies in the city's policies on oversized view. And in closing, for the sake of transparency, we'd encourage the city to identify that pretty unilaterally to permit conditions now. Now office is taking such steps. Thank you for your comment. That phone number ending in 0745. Go ahead and unmute. Thank you Mayor Bruner and city council for reviewing this design and zone permit for the oversized view. You're muted. Hi there. You went back on mute. You unmute yourself. Thank you Mayor Bruner and city council for reviewing this design and zone permit for the oversized vehicle ordinance. My name is Deborah Elton, and I've been working in neighborhoods for over 20-21 years. In May of 2013, a public safety task force was formed for the community to come together and understand safety concerns. Seven months later, after bi-monthly meetings in November, the task force came up with a prioritized set of recommendations. Councilwoman Golder was on that task force, and I attended every meeting to be involved for the neighborhood. The oversized vehicle issue was on that list of recommendations, and two years later, there was a proposed permit ordinance from the city council. It was pushed back at the cost of commission level in 2015 and tabled at that time. From 2015 to where we are today, we have a much worse and overburdening problem with oversized vehicles and what they have created. Here we are this evening, years later, with a much better program, supported ordinance, and this is the third time that the council has met on this item since September, when it was a new ordinance brought forth by the community. You now have accumulated over 1,500 emails from the community in support to move this ordinance forward. To address one of the opposition's comments regarding criminalization, what is in the accusation is the question of personal responsibility. People are responsible for their actions or inaction, their choice. Their actions or lack of personal responsibility don't take place in a vacuum. The main violations on these vehicles is the 72-hour parking in one spot, which is in our municipal code, and is in most, all of the 58 counties in the state of California. The other violations are vehicle code violations in the state of California, which all citizens are subject to tickets if violated. It's your responsibility to follow the laws that are written for particular reasons. There are at least 28 coastal cities that already have a permit for oversized vehicle ordinance. Since 2015, there have been 11 other cities in that the Coastal Commission has granted a permit program. And ours, this program that you are bringing forward to support this ordinance is so much more robust than any of them all put together. This ordinance is a program supported with services, basic needs, safe parking areas, and a chance to up-list people in need. Please move this forward with the original design and zone permit for the oversized vehicle ordinance. And thank you very much for all your time and dedication. Thank you for your comment. Our next, let's see, our next hand raised, is Tana Cruz-Carris. You also work for action. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor Brunner. My name is Sabina Holburn. I'm calling as a representative of Tana Cruz-Carris tonight. We would like to ensure that the public is aware that despite the popular narrative provided by city staff and the moderates on the city council, the oversized vehicle ordinance does not actually produce safe parking site. In the approximately 3,000-word document, only about 60 words or 2% of the document is devoted to the supposed establishment of safe parking site. 10.40.120M simply states that the city may operate, sponsor, or authorize safe parking programs. But this is something the city was already allowed to do and something they themselves admit they were already doing. In the first OVO drafting meeting on September 21st, 2021, city staff stated that the city currently has approximately 15 known safe parking spaces managed by the Association of Faith Communities, AFC, including approximately 13 on religious assembly sites and two on city-owned properties. AFC also has an additional 21 spaces outside of the city limit. The city also allows businesses to host safe parking spaces. If OVO is repealed in its entirety, we can still move forward with investments in safe parking voted on separately via the homeless response action plan. From this, it's clear to see that the OVO is not about balancing services with punishment. It's just about punishment and specifically punishment against the poorest residents of our community. Though city council may argue that a coastal design permit is necessary to ensure safe parking programs are allowed to exist in the coastal zone, this argument has no bearing in reality. As staff and council have made it abundantly clear that they don't want parking sites in the city limit. Much less in the coastal zone. We must also note that although the conditions of permits issued by the planning commissions did a more earnest job trying to combat the harm that this criminalizing ordinance will cause. Even with these conditions, OVO would still lead to an increase in ticketing, towing, and thus unsheltered homelessness in our community. Even taken with the best of intentions, tying the provision of services to criminalizing measures is not created. It is a long-failed policy tactic Experts are in broad agreement that criminalization of homeless people does nothing to actively combat homelessness and in fact makes it worse. Repeatedly ticketing and towing people's homes only leaves them on the street. We saw this take place last December when the city toed an RV of a family, including a child, and the only option given to them was to move to the Benchlands which was experiencing flooding at that time. Former chief of police Andy Mills and city attorney Tony Condati admitted in clean language at previous council meetings that this ordinance was designed to create a more efficient way for the city to be able to prosecute people living in their oversized vehicles. Council member Renee Golder's admission in her appeal letter stating that she is concerned that the condition of the evidence-based guidelines and services for safe parking programs would have a, quote, impact on the ordinance in accomplishing its purpose, end quote, further underscores that the primary goal is not to help people but to penalize and try to banish them from our city. If the so-called moderate follows, if the so-called moderate follows staff recommendations and removes the humane conditions granted by the planning commission permit, it will be clearer than ever that every time council members said, action is compassion or perfect is the enemy is good, we must act now. They were completely disingenuous. We ask that you reject OVO as bad policy and move forward with actually helping people, including providing safe parking and services without this direct threat of criminalization. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next member of the public has a phone number ending in 0249. Good evening Mayor Burner and City Council. This is Carol Paul Hamas. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Westside Neighborhood. Westside Neighborhood is a large neighborhood organization established in 2019 in response to one city council's proposal overnight R.D. Park on Delaware Avenue. The lower Westside has been significantly negatively impacted for years by issues related to people camping in their biffles, particularly on Swanton, Delaware, Fair, Schaefer, Mission, Grandview, Ingalls, Plymouth, McPherson, and Garfield Park, as well as the sides of the Westside Drive. Neighborhoods and businesses have been impacted daily by dumping gray water and black water discharge, fires, garbage, environmental degradation, criminal behavior, including drug dealing, theft, guns, weapons, domestic violence, all well documented by previous city staff reports. We would like to express our appreciation for the significant work that the city staff and the ad hoc committee council members have done to create the oversized vehicle ordinance to develop a safety parking program. However, the planning commission's March 3 changes to the conditions of approval for the OVO undermine those months of work when one member of the planning commission made draft changes to the conditions of approval without public comment allowed that basically made the ordinance unenforceable. Enforcement is essential to ensure that those living in their vehicles out of necessity can move to a sanctioned place where they receive needed services and support and that those on vacation or camping by choice in our neighborhoods are told that this is not permitted. At the same time, enforcement will mitigate the negative impacts on the environment, city neighborhoods, and businesses that unsanctioned are in the state. Community support is critical to ensure that financial support for homelessness services happens. Activists demand services like free gas, free mechanics delivered anywhere. They want people to be able to park wherever and whenever and for however long they want to without any rules at all with no registration, with no accountability. But the community will not support services with no accountability. Community support will only be established if neighborhood and environmental protections are upheld alongside services that are provided on city and county properties. The county must be an active participant. Removing the county from the equation is a huge mistake. There are those who state and enforcing any rules criminalization, but all that anyone needs to do to avoid a ticket, follow the rules that everyone else in this don't park under no overnight parking sign. Move every 72 hours. We all have to follow rules. City residents and businesses, the owners are tired of the current double standards. Overnight RV parking impacts are also created by vacationing visitors who are taking advantage of the situation as the lower west side is advertised on many free many camping apps as a free overnight parking zone. Neighborhood city streets should not be used as unregulated free RV camps. People on vacation need to use state and private recreational overnight parking in residential areas need to stop. West side neighbors, the forced expanded safe sleeping program is outlined in the OVO and currently being underdeveloped by the city and county with county involvement. Significant previous public input and current comment has been received counted. Stancel enough in volume to feel confident that the OVO is the direction most people in the city want to see. For this meeting alone over 500 emails were received and well over 90% were in favor of passing the original ordinance with the original conditions of approval. The residents and businesses of the lower west side have been waiting since 2013 for an ordinance passed. In that time 24 other coastal communities have passed our ordinances that have been approved by the coastal that are still enforced. The time is long overdue to move forward by both enforcing reasonable regulations and creating safe spaces and services for people living in their vehicle. Please reject planning commission changes. Please support the extensive work done by city staff. We ask you to pass the original conditions of approval and the OVO. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Next member of the public is phone number indian17ro5. Hi there. Hi, Hermione. Yes. Hi, Hermione. Okay, great. Thanks. I want to thank council, especially ad hoc community, staff, citizens who worked so hard on the help of the OVO and putting so much thought into it. I know it's been a difficult vlog. Thank you. And you can clearly see where the community stands on this. But I want to, in a minute, talk about process. Sensitive to the people that were modified at. This is really a great talk. You know, that sounds really stark, but we don't elect planning commission. We elect council members as our city, but just, and you guys voted five to implement this. And what planning commission did, during advisory process, they did not have authority undermine decisions that council made. Even if they don't like them, that's not their role. And, you know, the commission hearings aren't usually that well attended. Maybe they thought they could buy, but I know it's different. He was the one who made those amendments. He's a very person. He knew what he was, this wasn't just like random saying where he thought like, makes it, makes it, ordinance a little better. It was a deliberate attempt to undermine starting of this body. Please, that is more serious than the substances, so I certainly support the OVO and the staff has brought forward, but I really think council needs to look at what happened to the planning commission. Why it has to take correct staff, which could include removing the commissioners. This isn't just some mistake. This was a deliberate attempt to undermine both starting of this council and then also know the voters because they don't like that they have authority laterally change the ordinance that council passed, which is a fact. I know that maybe that's not technically what happened, but that was a fact because the commissions are so onerous that they would render the OVO completely unenforceable. As even one OVO opponent has increased, said in his letter to you. So I would turn what if the new attorney sit on its head where he asks, what authority you as council have to do the latter that was language change the conditions? So that's backwards. What authority did the planning commission have? And I would like to take that part of your discussion. That's a very, very important. Thank you very much. Thank you for your input. Our next hand raised is Rachel Chavez. Hi, welcome. Hi, can you guys hear me? Yes. It's interesting to see how voluntary Johnson and Golder, who have been quite dedicated to the phrases don't let perfect be the enemy of good and action is compassion. How they have spun adding best practices for safe parking sites and increased services as tampering the implementation of You all have been expert at gas lighting and deflection. Anytime people have asked you to slow down and engage in critical thought and research about the policies you and I get now you want to stop and think through the unintended consequences of a policy. Once more services that are actually in line with the space programs were added to the conditions of enforcement. At least be honest with yourselves that this is not about compassion. Admit as Andy Mills and Tony Condotti already did in a member council meeting that this ordinance was created specifically to make it easier for the city to prosecute and caught the ticket though and move along the people who live in their overseas vehicle. Despite how you've tried to convince us that parking tickets are not a big we know that they lead to increase and fines, those imprisonment and unsure homeless. The textbook definition of criminalization. If you all would read any actual research about homelessness policy you would know that time service criminalization is antithetical to an effective little and compassionate response to homelessness. Lastly, Golder mentioned that she was part of the safety task force that worked on OVO in 2013. I wanted to remind everybody that that task force their main recommendation or their number one recommendation and also tied into their creation of OVO was centered around a concept called crime prevention through environmental design. This is a theory that is known to racists that has long been debunked just like the also racist and debunked broken windows theory that crime prevention through environmental design was something to think about when you guys are voting. That's all. Thank you, Rachel. Our next and raised is phone number ending in 7572. Hi there. My name is Lisa Criaman. I've never called into the city for but as a resident of Delaware Avenue I felt compelled to do so tonight just listening to the comment section of tonight's meeting. I just want to address what seems to be a bit of property between the people sort of against the OVO versus for so surge Congo. I don't know if I'm just right. I don't know and to be in a whole for both address parking without direct to be a word. And third hold a relate a story of a woman consented by a man carrying a firearm and wondered if that was really a safe park. And so I guess I'm wondering why they are under the state parking. Faces should not be patrolled or that how community members shouldn't be prosecuted if they are in fact criminal. I think that that the city has shown that they are for safe parking without a direct threat and provided safe spaces. But then you know I think that they also on the flip side of that have an issue with the criminalization of house list. Numbers of that that people who live here. But when they are criminals there needs to be some and so you know recently my daughter who is fifth grade was riding her bike home gave you elementary and a house list person stopped her grabbed her bike and forced her off and brought you know robbed her from her bike. And she was found in the bench which is not super surprising anyone. So I think that there are certain who do need health and I think that this takes away from the ability of focus their energy on helping the house list people who you know are will then go on to buy a house who though will go on. Rather than simply living in in in the space where they think that they can take advantage of the community that they're in. That's all. Thank you. The next caller is the name I am watching you. Thank you. I don't know everything. So I can only tell you what I have observed. There are RVs that have been her seemingly forever. Four to five years even and talking to these people they have no intention of doing anything different ever. No plan none. They're adamantly unapologetic about it. I would add a bit of practical mentoring here that everyone can benefit from. If you want your life to resemble what you want it to be assuming you have done the work consider what you want it to be you have to do something every day every day with responsibility with discipline to work actually work to make it more so that way assuming you have considered that plan on what you want your life to be after some amount of time with any luck yes luck betters we don't control everything your life will resemble what you want it to be but I would say many of the RV homeless another homeless don't understand or agree with despite solid mentoring perhaps they never had such they have no life plans they have no goals but are they okay with living off society off charity not playing by the rules blaming others self medicating panhandling or spilling off others having dreams of entitlements and rights that don't exist and I have news for them their life will probably not turn out to be what it could have been how they followed my simple mentoring advice yes ask the original ordinance for the betterment of the many with life plans and business to all others follow my mentor's advice thank you our next hand raised there yes lovely thank you speaking for myself tonight you've received a lot of written in oral comments from the community with concerns of environmental damage with safety and a general concern of playing by the rules first I want to say that these concerns are absolutely valid but I think it's also important to point out that all of those specific concerns relate to things that are already illegal out issuing new laws for new ordinances the city could enforce the laws associated with each of them for instance with respect to RVs leaking or dumping sewage of California health and safety code one eight eight seven point four and there's lots of laws around all of their issues that have been brought forward but since we're discussing the details of OVO's implementation and design permit the conditions of approval adapted by the planning commission are a reasonable compromise that would move the OVO toward the success of its stated goals without them the OVO would serve more as a criminal that criminalization ordinance for those relying large vehicles for their only secure shelter it does not serve as a mitigation force of ordinance to my understanding the conditions of approval forward by the planning commission are based on common best practices for ordinance of this type in other cities in which these programs actually work if the OVO is to move forward it should only do so with these sorts of research conditions and best practices that contain without them the OVO fundamentally makes it harder for folks to survive in their vehicles a burden that would encourage them to leave the city or have their vehicles towed putting more houseless neighbors out onto the streets or parks of Santa Cruz without safe or controllable shelter overall be more equitable solution provide the safe parking program as a resource provide the services discussed and also enforce existing laws without criminalizing those who are abiding by all of the current laws but who rely on their large vehicles for shelter or who may want to access the post during the night hours the way folks in regular size vehicles can also access thank you for your time thank you looks like that concludes our quick comment item the um so I will bring it back to council and um based on the previous methods of by management uh I would like to ask council member who presented this item to council um who have a motion made and explain the motion recommended I do thank you um here you know I don't remember which of the callers brought this up but it something somebody said rang through to me and it was uh that all members of Santa Cruz are you know all residents of Santa Cruz are created the same and it's interesting because it was today when I was at jury duty when I I was on the jury and the judge ordered us to take everyone's testimony the same no matter if they were wearing a uniform or what they were what they looked right it was before they called the witnesses to testify and I and I think it absolutely applies here too because I heard more than one person say they felt like there was you know kind of two tiers of justice um in some ways in Santa Cruz and so with that I'd like to make a motion to approve the recommendation for the resolution of the city council of Santa Cruz acknowledging environmental donation and approve the coastal side permit based findings listed the draft resolutions and the okay so we have motion uh by council member colder for the recommended staff um conditions of their council member Calentari Johnson I'll second and her uh deliberation discussion on the motion that's for us um council member brown and thank you to members of the community called in and spoke up I um I understand the concerns pressed by about size vehicles neighborhoods uh range of of problems that can come along with that and so you know I I don't want to discount those however I I believe and I said this before and I'm going to put short case that have laws on the book that that address those problems um dumping of environmental waste helpful um what we don't have is a place dump their waste you don't seem to be making much progress on that and the the very idea of it something that might be a condition for approval seems anathema some of the members spoke up today and some of my colleagues it's disappointing conditions of approval that the planning put together um was not undemocratic these are appointed members of you know an advisory body just like all of the others just when when you don't like what the recommendations are that doesn't that they don't serve to have a position make records liberate as for their own policy so I often with commissioners doesn't make believe that they don't serve serve on those commissions and so I just that I just had to make comment about that but I want to talk about the conditions of approval the planning commission you know I believe incorporated best practices to guide of a program that this council has said it want act and to ensure that it doesn't click with the law and policy like postal act the general plan and I would argue our policy as well based on my interest as well and they looked at lengthy studies deducted by state of California's homeless emergence program for example for Southern California's School of Public Policy looked at many many state parks program and have developed set of best practices and those for the basis for for a council that suggests want data driven evidence based materials on which decisions this is about as good as it got data existing analysis coming from actually full-size stakeholder process and two of them that I'm care of it so you know localities across California are trying to improve their responses homelessness and I would I still believe that we are one of those and there are models that we look to and we're not looking at that and so these conditions of approval were intended to cause us nothing in that in those conditions prevent this ordinance from being implemented and nothing in this ordinance necessary to achieve the goals that we have for alluring indicating the of oversize of vehicles pretty that services that that through programming can do enforcement so safe parts programs are according to the studies that I'm looking at and I I think they're coming from trust for these sources based on looking at actual programs in California that they're relatively inexpensive easily scalable and they can often leverage but we have thus far kind of dip the toe in the water around that sounds like maybe have nine spaces and somebody could I would like you know I'm my comments but I would like know where those are I call if that's ever that infighted to us but I've heard from my colleagues they exist so is safe parts programs have some pretty elements best practices that I think are really important one low barrier to parts and Diego's a good model they're doing it only have two requirements work as a partner with these managers and not be a registered sex vendor those are are pretty clear conditions we could impose like that if you were actually being a safe parking but that is not what is the ordinance is including harm reduction models for those with mental health so they can maintain access those programs and maintain the safe health of within that program and grounding areas access to additional services I mean the safe parking that we have I don't even there's nothing there's no conditions about what might be provided so it's hard to understand how the challenges with sanitation waste management some of the other things will address a park program without knowing without those I don't see them and these services can be funded through a variety of means and the AFC has good has stepped up and said they're willing to be a partner last I heard in my conversation multiple representatives AFC they they don't feel that they have been fully included in the conversation and so I think that's a bigger barrier to a safe parking program not talking to people who could potentially provide management of such a program for a relatively low cost that's like a bigger barrier than creating a that have a program council has said for doing this have a safe park program the community is saying that trying to create a safe parking program and some conditions around it is preventing us from doing this ordinance which they claim is a safe parking program so I'm just feeling like there's no there's there's something you know missing there there's just that like a deep in of the logic that and I just don't understand how that could be the conclusion I'm not going to ask to explain that because fast for not really respect for I response is suggesting that I just want I don't want that is not the case at all I totally support recommendations of the planning commission and so I you know I'm not going to I'm not going to I'm not going to motion on the floor I believe the clinic did what the council asked if if what you were asked on the on the face of it is actually what you were asking I'm not so sure at this point thank you the council member Brown I'm going to go ahead to council member Calentari Johnson thank you thank you to everyone who called in tonight and who wrote letters and who's been engaged over the months and years on this issue this isn't a black and white this is a very challenging issue and this is one piece of it I have to say I don't appreciate the tone and accusations that what we're trying to do is genuine and that we don't actually want to be standing up a safe parking program and that we only want to penalize otherwise I wouldn't have spent many evenings and many hours talking to community members and meeting with members of AFC and having monthly meetings to develop a framework not an evacue as the plan some planning commissioners did but in a process that does take in best practices so I'm not sure who my colleagues are talking to but we have been meeting with service providers including members of AFC to build this framework the staff agenda report outlines the impacts of planning commission essentially making it impossible or very difficult to implement the framework I want to move forward with solutions I want to get things done we have spaces available let's get folks into those spaces and and like help people out I mean in a very short amount of time we have stood up first tier and a pilot of the second tier so let's take advantage of like if we're really about helping folks out then let's not put in all these conditions that make it very difficult nearly impossible for us to implement but we've been working on I'm going to keep doing the work this is an issue that's very important to me I've worked on this issue for decades from many different angles so you know people can make assumptions or make accusations I'm going to keep doing the work thank you councilmember Cullen Terry Johnson vice mayor Watkins thank you mayor and yeah thank you Deborah I've been working with you on this too and a lot of issues for many decades as well and I'm here to do the work with you alongside you and alongside our community and I appreciate your comment um I guess I kind of go back to my public policy training and one of the things that we were trained to when I was studying public policy is to really analyze the policies but I analyze the problem think about the policy solutions and then dive into what pragmatic and potentially achievable right and so one policy solution is do nothing and that's I think the true to do nothing or to over condition something is a policy option and that's what we've had in place and that's been the policy option we've by default done and I don't claim why it's hard and it's and it's tricky and we don't fully know everything so we do the best we can with the information that we have within the circumstances that we're existing in and the other policy option is to do something being moderate that will move the needle given the resources and circumstances and political readiness community readiness and all the different assessments and feasibility criteria you would assess it under and then the third policy option is to do something more extreme and there is circumstances where more extreme can actually be applied but they're very rare in general and that you don't have endless money endless days endless options and often at that point it's sort of at the same decision point of nothing or extreme and so for me I feel like we are in government and we're working in public policy which we are all are then we're doing the best and to move within the guardrails in which we are existing right and that is I think where we've landed in this policy and so as much as I know that it's imperfect and that we are limited in our resources and that easy to point fingers or to over generalize person or a council in a certain way at the end of the day we're doing the best we can within the realm in which we have available to us and we're trying to move the needle as best we can to support good policy for those who are most vulnerable in our community and our community at large and so I just I say that because I think sometimes get and I I do too right I'm not saying we universally I think we all do as everybody we get caught up and these really over simplification and generalizations around people and policies when I think at the end of the day truly every single one of us is doing the best we can to try to do and move good policy that's going to be solutions oriented and will likely be imperfect and hopefully iterative and we're going to learn and we're going to go so I say that all of us one just sort of reiterate my my vote prior and that I want to see us move forward I want to see us try something I want to see us learn and I want to just continue to try something and so I'll in my comments there I do have comments later in regards to the meeting I think I think it's been disrespectful to be quite honest to you mayor and what you proposed to us which is to essentially ask that we one ask our questions in advance and two respect each other's choices and I want to see us move forward in that way and I am committed those meeting this the meetings like this but not have any break for any dinner break and to now hours delayed I think is really not only a disservice to what we're trying to do here as a council and policy but also to the community in which we've told that we're trying to adhere to these different timelines so I I I I know that you you really presented at the very beginning of our meeting of an attempt to try to to support an equity of voice here and to try to support our ability to move policy and so I don't know how that's for you but I don't feel like that's what actually really ensued and so I just I make that statement in that that's my observation in which our meeting occurred this evening and I hope we can continue to do our best to really be able to have all of the agenda items being able to move forward because now we've had multiple items that have been delayed delayed and frankly we're not able to do our full city business as a result so um you know and that's our job so I mean I'll I'll leave my comments there I'm sort of of the motion happy to move forward thank you vice mayor what what's the member coming thank you mayor well I do want to start by reiterating that someone brought up that city has located in the city there have been safe sleeping safe parking sites many years this isn't the first time we've had safe sleeping in the city the city is now taking on the responsibility of running these programs it sounds like although from what it also sounds like from these conversations that we've had we're actually going to be working with service providers so it doesn't seem like there's anything new aside from potential of the city granting some money for the program but we have had safe sleeping for RVs cars in the city of Santa Cruz for many years and so I want to recognize AFC and the people who have provided sites city for providing some of those sites and city staff who work on these safe parking programs for the many years that haven't been many but we have but you know the notion that we just had about first three parking spots is not true I've opposed the OVO originally and you know primarily because it imposes overreach and restrictions well I should say not only does it impact the experience of homelessness but it poses overreach restrictions and regulations as a result of a problem in a specific area of our I completely understand and I'm sympathetic that there are impacts on the lower west side I've worked at the marine lab from 2015 to 2020 was parking over there every single day so I'm acutely aware of the RV issues on the west side which is why as policymakers important that we're focusing on the problem and the specific specific problems and the impacts in the areas where they're occurring not criminalizing the presence of just having a vehicle over 20 feet throughout the entire city one of the major issues I've had with the ordinance is not just that it generalizes and criminalizes all people living in RVs but it criminalizes anyone who owns an RV or vehicle over 20 feet even when they don't impact residents one of the callers pointed out that when there are illegal behaviors of forcing those no behaviors they agree but what this does is that we're just simply owning a vehicle of a certain size you are now considered a criminal and I want to point out a couple of examples I lived in the beach flats my neighbors had an RV and they would park it on the street no one had a problem but now that's illegal I was also contacted by a family on the east side that doesn't have a driveway and as a result of this ordinance it's now illegal for them to park their vehicles that they use for their businesses on the street because the vehicles are over we as a community need to identify problems with civic solutions to those problems rather than creating broad sweep regulations the unintended consequences what we're likely going to see when this is the ordinance is the OVO has been passed adopted by the council so I don't think we need to really go into that any further but I want to focus on the conditions that are for us today I want to point out that the reason why this went to the planning commission was because people have a right to appeal this is part of our democratic process whether some of us agree with it or not the ability to appeal is also how this before us today one of the council members wanted to appeal the decision of the planning commission through the city council so you know I just want to highlight the part of our democracy and feeling a decision by an elected body or an elected body when possible is not an undemocratic process Nintendo the conditions of approval as stated in the public hearing was to ensure most effective safe parking program possible conditions of approval incorporated best management practices to guide the implementation program to ensure it does not conflict existing law and policies postal act general plan policy council member brown mentioned there are numerous studies that discuss best practice not going to repeat the points you mentioned but the planning commission did what the council asked or actually what the felons asked it issued the requirement the required permits to implement safe and an effective safe parking program that our council voted the conditions of approval by best management practices for the program to reflect on this and alignment with laws and policies the role of the planning this was a public process that was the resultant appeal postal permit non permit planning commission planning commission didn't stop trying to hear the concerns of the felon provide conditions of approval to address the concerns brought forward by the community so i want to thank the members of the planning commission for attempting to address some of the legal issues that came up and the input that they provided on the uh conditions of approval I support the recommendations brought forward by the planning commission but given that there are concerns related to being appealed again to the coastal commission then uh concerns about is being sued I'm gonna make an amendment motion on the floor see if we can move forward in a way that might reduce probability of this field yet again lawsuit so um I sent a number of points staff Bonnie these are related uh conditions of approval I think the last bullet point touches on the ordinance as well but bullets the amendment safe parking sites will not be decided map high impact areas with the coastal zone I added the priority for locating safe parking spaces city of san one of the major concerns is that if people are forced out in areas that are far away from resources that it can be difficult for um it's been from safe sleeping sites have access to most services to there will be no cost participants in the safe parking program added access to the safe parking program shall not be unbelievably restricted however the city may and mandatory signups tracking program participants shall be to a reasonable code of conduct and the third item is that related to emergency parking that emergency parking may be allowed 48 second of hours and oversized vehicles left standing on the road side because of kind of breakdown the driver's physical passage this just being that you know if somebody gets into a difficult situation that we will try to work with them try to help them either if they're moving again or if they're in they're personally in a tire shift that won't just throw their vehicle to try to figure out a way get them their vehicle and try to I will leave my the rest of my comments there for now see if they're my time to move forward hey so thank you council member coming have amendment to the motion and um the two hands raised as well okay so council member Calantari Johnson yeah I just want to clarify that I did not state or state or state of emergency programs um I stated that that it's the first time in the history of our city that the city council is committing to this I acknowledge that we've had faith-based groups and staffs be doing this hard work in our community and it's the first time that our city council is committing to supporting these efforts infrastructure and research the previous council majority was not able to move any solutions forward on this issue that's back I'm interested in moving forward with solutions and um I'm interested in the vote on the original okay by council member Brown so I was going to for the sake of expedience recommend for ask council member Cummings like to make that amendment as a non-friendly amendment if I will second and I will then call the question for the sake of expedience there's no need to continue this let's just take a vote okay so we can vote on calling the question unless no because I just I just don't think there's any percentage in continuing that debate who's saying that that was an accurate statement here that'd be a second to the non-friendly amendment and um most of the questions would go so I'll second that let's take the vote okay so second maybe we don't need to but I just want to move us along here so council member Brown called the question and vice mayor Watkins second that so let's take a roll call vote on uh whether to call the for commentary vice mayor Watkins aye aye that motion to call the question us is unanimously so now we have a amendment to the motion that council member Cummings added as seconded by council member brown and uh there are a roll call vote that number Calantari Johnson no no vice mayor Watkins no no that motion passes five in favor to the grounds failed sorry motion failed thank you council member Cummings five against two in favor and now we have the original motion on the that was a motion but by council member colder seconded by council member Calantari Johnson and we'll roll call vote on that motion Calantari Johnson and for the record until we're going to be able to make till we find consensus some of these controversial issues then we're going to just continue to find ourselves things get appealed legal battles so want community to understand that they're going to be dragged out for much longer than they had just made that motion passes five in favor to again okay let me go back to the agenda I believe that concludes for today we will back here next next Tuesday for 19th for a special meeting thank you everyone meeting is now adjourned