Thread by @yolopeoplepower

Time to go!!!!!

Tuesday September 22 6:30 pm Davis City Council meeting.

The zoom link is here: zoom.us/j/98338961318

#Davis #DavisCityCouncil #DavisCCMtg

[Closed captioning is available on zoom]

City Manager brief announcements -

Yolo Habitat Conservancy wins state innovation in green community planning award

Small business grant program, $750k

Grants to reimburse local small businesses for costs related to impacts of COVID-19. Awarded through lottery system by geographic location. Davis gets $236,000. Application period Sept 28 - Oct 4.

[The URL on the slide doesn't work?]

Free Flu Shots!

Monday Sept 28
Davis Senior Center 646 A st

Must make appt
Reserve by Sept 24 @ 5 pm
530-312-5858

Mayor Partida is having tech issues.

Brief announcements from council?

No

Item 1C - pulling consent calendar items

Carson wants to comment on Item C - purchasing system

Item 2 - Public Comment

[Call in with 530-757-5693]

Commenter #1: Calling about energy efficiency and hygiene of rental housing in the city. Only reqs are doors & windows lock and heating. Important city council moves forward on new ordinance to encourage landlords to improve interrelated air quality & energy efficiency

Commenter #2: Wants commissions to be able to appoint interim commissioners and wants a public hearing on the commission feedback.

Partida: Last time during public comment we had some comments that weren't related to city things, felt very campaign-y to me. This is a public forum and we support free speech (req'd to allow it). Wants city attorney to weigh in on this.

Partida: Doesn't want this to devolve into a space where it gets negative. Doesn't want to censor anyone and this is a public forum. Has questions about what's allowed and what's not.

Inder Khalsa [City attorney I assume]: Open public comment time is when people can speak to things relevant to city governance and operations. Can make statements relevant to city governance and who governs the city, upcoming election. Cannot actually shut public commenters down.

Consent Calendar item 3C - Carson is saying he supports it.

Item 4 - Surveillance Technology Annual Report & Reauthorization

Chief of Police Pytel presenting

Review and Reauthorization slide

16 different surveillance tech items to review. Recs are to review the report, hold a public hearing, make a determination, approve the use

Police Item & Use

Body worn camera & in car camera - widely used

Care Trak Sytem - not used to track anyone during this reporting period

Cellebrite - used to serve criminal search warrants on 29 devices for 20 felony investigations

Crisis Negotiation Equipment - used twice in reporting period

Covert Recording Devices - not used

EOD robot - deployed to a suspicious package at Davis school district offices

GEO Time program - tech used to assist in an ongoing criminal case

GPS tracker - used for criminal investigation

License plate recognition - used for parking enforcement

Live cameras not deployed

Trail cameras not used

Nothing out of the ordinary or notable for any of the devices

No modifications to policies are requested

Maybe due to staffing, investigations down because they didn't have officers

Non Police Items

1818 5th street Corp yard security cameras
Wildlife trail and video cameras
Public works cameras
Davis community transit cameras

Police accountability commission

PAC held 2 discussions about the tech, one in august one Sept 14
No specific concerns about individual tech [I think more the report was so long they couldn't sift through it to get recs] @Dillan4Davis correct me if I'm wrong

PAC cont'd

PAC made several recs for changes to the ordinance

Can take time to come up with this presentation for next year

Recs are the same for reauthorization for all the tech:

- public hearing
- determine that the continued use is balanced
- approve continued use of each tech

Item 4 Public Comment

Commenter #1: Wants designated body to review annual surveillance reports. With specific suggestions for security. Need metrics to determine if the tech is useful. If not, do not use it.

Commenter #2: @Dillan4Davis Chair of PAC, speaking as an indiv.

Much more information was needed about the use of these tech items for the commission and the public to make a determination if the uses are appropriate. Hopes Council takes the PAC recs to expand info available

Commenter #2 cont'd: Hopes the public can engage in the process more in the future.

Commenter #3: Second the chief's notion and the PAC, have time to work on improving and streamlining surveillance tech. In the next 6-8 months.

Arnold: Helpful suggestions PAC brought forward to improve the ordinance. Modeled after ACLU language.

Commends Chief on being an active participant in the things Council puts forward

Lee: No questions or comments on this item.

Frerichs: Appreciates efforts of Chief and PAC. Good suggestions on how to go forward in months and year ahead. Recommends approval of the item.

Carson: Supports the action. Controversy at a time but after the loss of the mom and the intervention of the police had to shoot him. So glad we have that recording to show us how professionally our officers acted.

Carson: Helpful going forward to figure out how to respond to severe mentally ill individuals the minority of whom are violent. There is an appropriate used of this tech. Hope we don't have episodes like this again.

Partida: Very grateful for police chief and PAC. Balance the need for this tech and the need to keep our public's privacy intact. Can be very challenging.

Partida: A bear to get through all of these reports and figure out which had information and which did not. To see if questions had to be asked. Don't know that we're getting the correct info that we want. Glad going to take time to look at it again.

Partida: An incredible amount of reporting that has to come from a department that is already overburdened.

Frerichs: Moves the item

Carson? [I think]: Second

All ayes to reauthorize the surveillance tech for next year

Item 5 - Amendment to the 2019-20 Annual action plan for funds & activities reallocation

Rec moving funds from one category to another. New category will cover rent payment

Instead of showers wants to purchase a mobile hygiene unit. They're already leasing one right now

Sorry Kelly Stachowicz is talking. Assistant City Manager

Arnold: Staff report says SSC had a meeting and will have an update?

Kelly: They had no specific comments about it.

Frerichs: How are we planning on publicizing the availability of these funds? Outreach that will be done

Kelly: This one is specific to the cold weather shelter program. In years past run a very different model than what they will do this year.

Other item will work with people who administer the voucher program. Will get info out to social services providers in Davis.

Partida: Tenant based rental assistance - different pot of money?

Kelly: Yes. All CARES act funding. This one is from CDBG.

Partida: This is for homeless?

Kelly: Yes

Kelly: Able to repurpose HUD funds for the tenant rental program.

Voting

All ayes.

Carson: Happy we're getting tax dollars back to our community

Item 6:

Overnight shelter and homelessness update

Cold weather shelter program 2020

Congregate care not currently safe
Propose to lease 25 2 bed apartments October through March
Including services
Intent is to move participants out and into permanent housing if possible

Partnership of Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter, City, CommuniCare, DOVe, Yolo Food Bank

This is possible because the vacancy rate is higher than normal

Arnold: Trepidation on the part of some apartment owners in town that we had not identified a partner in this. That's not the case. We have identified a partner.

Frerichs: Discussion about approval of this part and then move onto sanction camping.

Partida: Public comment time

Commenter #1: On behalf of the Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter asking council to recommend

[I'm taking a brief break brb]

Back

Commenter #2? [I think]: Want people to have opportunities. But we can't change them. Housing first moves the problem out of sight and behind closed doors. Puts strain on residents into dealing uncontrollable situations.

Commenter #2: Emotionally unstable environment for the residents. Left wondering is it time to move? Wants council to consider the consequences. Providing a roof over someone's head is hiding the problem

Commenter #3: Calling in support of the winter shelter program. Provide excellent housing for those experiencing homelessness. Project roomkey allowed people to stabilize.

Commenter #4: Happy city of Davis is using the vacant apartment complexes in town. To accommodate needs of Davis residents. Do not think the city should bar camping in locations that are not officially sanctioned by the city unless it is truly unsafe to camp there.

Commenter #4 cont'd: Should find people other shelters instead of just kicking them out.

Discussing how to take action on the 2 related but separate items

Partida: For a long time tried to require people to be clean and sober before getting housing. This approach does not work. Housing first does. Happy we're supporting this approach. People need to have a roof over their head before they can begin to address some of the issues

Partida: It's not everyone you see on the street who will be eligible for this particular type of housing. Wants to make sure we have something for the people who will not be going into this type of housing.

Partida: One of the public commenters had a concern about who was going into this housing but it's the most vulnerable and the oldest.

Kelly: There will be prioritization for those who are most vulnerable (65+, medical condition). A response to COVID and keep everyone in the community as safe as possible.

Arnold: Brought this up awhile ago. It took us and staff hardly any time at all to bring up a workable solution. Supported by the commissions. Folks like to complain about staff a lot in our community. I want to say thank you.

Carson: Trying to get people into services when they're out in the rain does not work. This way works and in this time of COVID if we do not do something it is condemning some of these folks to death

Frerichs: Wants to acknowledge private sector partners as well. Apartment owners stepping up and be willing to help us fill this real need.

Partida: Sometimes stepping up to do the right thing is a very difficult thing to do. Commends people involved

Item 6.1: Sanctioned camping

Questions for council

- preference for centralized or disbursed model?
- provide other services on site or just camping, toilets, and potable water

- vehicles and trailers allowed?
- intended duration and whether to pursue on a pilot basis for an initial period

Kelly: It is illegal to force someone to move to a campsite. Wants feedback on council's thoughts

Other homeless efforts in 2020

Paul's place
Creekside
Project Roomkey
Mutual at 5th
Davis Community Meals and Housing
Getting to Zero (new grant funds)
Daytime respite center pilot project

Kelly: Project Roomkey up to 39 individuals in local hotels through the end of the year

Arnold: Getting email public comments, "can't you do something about this"

Arnold: Boise decision means you cannot move people if they do not have another place to go. Camps can be a health hazard.

Arnold: There is no easy answer. If there was a solution we were missing you would see other cities and towns enacting them.

Arnold: If there is nowhere for folks to camp then everywhere is a place to camp. For folks who do not want this in their neighborhood. No accounting for what's going on over there. In a ditch somewhere. Inclined to prefer a dispersed model. Spreads the wealth / burden

Arnold: Access to social services, food, training is good. Doesn't have to exactly be on site.

Arnold: [Missed vehicle opinion]. Much of this will be on a pilot basis. Need is not a pilot need, it will always be there

Lee: Reasonable that people don't want to go into the traditional shelter environments. Don't view camping as the less option, just another option.

Lee: People are going to camp let's create a safe, secure, healthy environment to do so.

Lee: Potable water, toilets (can be porta potties), showers, security on site - not just for neighbors but for people who willing go there must feel safe

Lee: As far as duration reasonable to plan for 9 or 12 months.

Lee: For vehicles and trailers depends on what spots are identified. Essential we do have a place we can direct people to. I don't think by choice people choose to live in a gully.

Lee: PD active in this process - provide resources addition needs, mental health needs.

Have behavior constraints similar to interfaith rotating shelter.

Lee: As we learn more can loosen or tighten constraints.

Frerichs: Needed as soon as possible for multiple years now. Prefers 1 location. Camping around concentrated resources makes sense. Instead of spreading resources thinly across locations.

Frerichs: Some sort of power, toilets, water. Trash is what makes people most adverse to the concept of people being homeless in our community. Whether that's right or wrong, what I hear most. Keep it somewhat clean and tidy. Not through trash or junk everywhere

Frerichs: In terms of duration, sure we can call it a pilot project but it not just going to be some short term 1 year long experiment. Likelihood it becomes a part of delivery of social services in the city. It's needed

Carson: Do what rotating shelter did have a nurse stop by every couple of nights. Maybe take it further as we go. If we try to spread it out a number of places might be harder. At shelter only 20-25 people at night.

Carson: Less is more to start and then see where it goes. Vehicle trailer issue given the blight they are on our streets and neighborhoods if we can tow them to a place, out of sight out of mind.

Still having standards like Frerichs said and not letting that get out of control.

Carson: Take care of whatever neighborhood might be adjacent to this. Listen to them

Partida: Less is more right now just to get the basics in place. Get people to somewhere sanitary and not a health issue like some of these places have become.

Partida: Really important for us to get this going. Should be a location where vehicles can be moved to and out from in front of people's houses.

Partida: Provide people a place to go who are right now camping all over the neighborhood. Have an ability to tell people they can't camp in the location they are if we did have a place to go to? Sending the message right now to people who are unhoused that we are trying to...

Partida: ...create a little more standardization and parameters for how people are living in the community is good. Right now it's kind of an anything goes.

Partida: Not good for our neighbors and not good for people who have been living in the street and sort of lost that connection to social norms and probably been living that way for awhile. It's a process to get that back on track.

Pytel: The answer is extremely complicated. Boise says "people have to live somewhere." Have to provide locations for people to call go or run into the issue that we can't move them all.

Pytel: What Boise didn't do was say people could pitch a tent wherever they want and do whatever they want. Can still enforce our health and safety standards. At the end of the day people need a place to go.

Pytel: Still have a lot of room that people aren't living in that kind of condition or exposing others to that kind of condition.

Partida: Do think it's important that we do start sending the message out that we are providing a space that is safe and we are expecting people to go. Will filter out people who are really down on their luck and really trying to find their way back.

Partida: And hopefully the people who are not in that group will find that they are being encountered more often so that they will either participate or decide to go elsewhere.

Frerichs: Not comfortable saying it's a 9 month pilot program. Going to be longer than that. Respite center also supposed to be a pilot project, coming up Feb next year. That's what we told the public. Will need to be some sort of evaluation

Lee: Daytime respite center amenities can be combined with a place that has an overnight component.

Lee: Consolidating that might be a good thing, depends on the site and how it goes. Don't close the daytime center immediately but if it goes well, maybe could

[Missed a little]

Pytel: We're looking at a location that can fit all the needs. Appreciate feedback we've gotten on vehicles and trailers. Get a lot of complaints about trailers. Hopes to find a place that they can have trailers

Partida: Reopening public comment

Commenter #1: Completely deluded about the idea, you think you're saving them, you're killing them. In favor of having places around town that do allow camping. Wants this to be somewhat controlled.

Commenter #1 cont'd: Not doing this for the homeless, doing it for the people. Bicyclists were saying the track by the highway is no longer safe. If these people have a place to be that's safe we have to tell them they can't be in a place that's for other public uses.

5 minute break now

[Snack of the night is chocolate covered pretzels. From Pedrick's, very tasty.]

Item 7 - Leaf Blowers round 2

Recap from last week - emergency ordinance to temporarily ban leaf blowers in Davis until Oct 31, 2020.

Return with recs on long term changes

Urgency Ordinance

[They're moving fast!]

Clarifying expiration date

Outreach for temporary ban

Carson: Appreciates ash and AQI clarifications. Slight preference for Nov 10 but not strong.

Frerichs: Common sense, when there are adverse air conditions knock the blowing off. Since the Council meeting last week, AQI is improved. For the coming weekend, get bad again.

Frerichs: Not need for an all out ban but for a period of days when it's bad need a way of readily letting folks know to knock off blowing.

Frerichs: Need some engagement from the Yolo Solano Air Quality management district. This is not just an issue of the city. Work with the AQMD for a more permanent solution going forward.

Stan: Did reach out to AQMD. In general they haven't looked at it recently that we're aware of. A few years ago local districts have looked at this regulation. Usually they're looking at larger emissions, 50 hp or above. Supportive of local regulation though.

Stan Gryczko is from public works

Lee: Wants a airnow.gov displayed. Looking at the current trends page

Lee: Let people know in some timely fashion that the air is extremely unhealthy, don't go outdoors. Something more substantial than just leaf blowers. Weed eaters too. Less warm and fuzzy about what we did last week

Lee: Not comfortable to do what they described last week. Want staff to be able to declare an air quality emergency and have certain things fall under that.

Arnold: Similar notion to former mayor Lee. Instead of banning it until an arbitrary date. Something more akin to "don't light tonight"

[Arnold's kid shows up to say the movie's over. It's very cute]

Arnold: Older gentleman with an acquired disability. Has balance issues. Most folks think the leaf blower is obnoxious and makes air quality bad. For him he can walk outside because the slippery leaves and spiky seeds are gone.

Arnold: With leafblowers totally banned he might not go outside.

Public Comment

Commenter #1: Staff member is competent. Question about AQI 100. Thinks threshold for AQI is 50. Ambient air quality + leaf blowing stays to 100.

*thinks threshold should be AQI 50.

Commenter #2: Supports urgency ordinance. 1 suggested change even if the AQI is in the healthy range, blowers can still cause very high particulate levels by disturbing ash deposits. Responsibility of property owners to be aware of health of workers.

Commenter #3: When air quality is bad, eliminating leaf blowers is a good thing. Allow vacuums or commercial use rotating in different parts of the city.

Commenter #4 [Also maybe named Dan Carson??]: Doesn't want leaf blowers to start up early.

Partida: Rather than having a ban and lifting it, have a spare the air day type thing.

Stan: Certainly becomes an issue to get the word out

Stan: What I'm hearing is if we're using AQI as the predominant factor, can post that info and recommend that as a community people don't use gas powered equipment outside during that time. Gets more toward that long term look

Partida: A week ago on this bandwagon and now not so sure. Remind that they were talking about it because of the particulate that gets blown in the air because of leaf blowers.

Lee: What if magically that last week's council action took effect immediately. 6 days of under 100 on the AQI, would we not have contemplated lifting the ban?

Lee: What I'm proposing doesn't actually weaken what we proposed last week. Makes it a little more wedded to the reality of the situation. Say "yes there is an air quality emergency"

Mike Webb, city manager: If the council wants to discuss an alternative approach, can have others [named people I don't know] weigh in. Council seems to be describing a permissive rather than restrictive approach.

Webb: Can use emergency declaration functions if Council is inclined to take that approach. City manager can declare air quality emergency. Under certain circumstances that they internally develop, inform the community. Days are "no yard tool days"

Inder Khalsa: Under the code Mike has the ability to declare an emergency. Can't do that tonight because that's not what's on the agenda.

Would be out of your hands until it came back to you for ratification at the next meeting. Goes to Mike if you're comfortable with that.

Khalsa: Is allowed until Stan says it's not which is hard to let people know.

Carson: If we go the Mike route, comfortable with the compromises we made last week. Don't want to open it up to all tools, otherwise wants a public hearing. A very different and significant proposal.

Frerichs: To adopt an urgency ordinance needs 4/5 votes. Would propose only be through Oct 31. Can adjust if needed. If this is going to be expanded to other tools, agrees with Carson.

Frerichs: Appreciates the city manager can declare an emergency but wants them to be making an affirmative decision one way or another.

Stan: To clarify other tools would come into play with the longer term conversation. Not the short term

Partida: Need to decide if we want to take a vote on the recommendation as it is. Or if we want to go with the emergency option

Lee: If the council's desire is to say given the air quality that we've seen in the recent past, we would like to give Stan the ability to declare an adverse air condition therefore leaf blower activity would be banned.

Lee: Must be something in between last week and leaving it up to Mike. Doesn't council have the ability to authorize something? Sustained AQI of 100 or higher.

Partida: That just sounds like giving Mike the authority to tell Stan.

Lee: This isn't like an earthquake this is something foreseeable.

Partida: What you're saying is we should enact some sort of a parameter that says from here until Nov 10 when the AQI gets bad, enact no blow?

Lee: Ask Stan to use his best professional judgment. In case one day is bad but the next day is not.

Khalsa: Public hasn't given opinion on this. Would need to give it back to you to make sure the language is consistent with what you want and give public time to comment.

Carson: Willing to come back in a special meeting next week but the clock is ticking rapidly towards Oct 31.

Khalsa: Making changes the night of the adoption is less comfortable because no place for public feedback.

Khalsa: Do believe we can justify urgency now given the air. Need 4/5 vote. Council delegated the procedure for the city manager to declare an emergency 4 years ago.

Khalsa: If the air quality remains what it is today then we can wait until Oct 6 and Mike still has the authority to declare if it gets worse.

Webb: I would declare under the auspices of this conversation. Leave it to similar determination factors with what's discussed tonight

Lee: Can pass a motion that gives instructions to Mike.

Lee: Multiple days exceeding 100, ash in the air. Expect that Mike in conjunction with Stan figure out if an air emergency exists.

Lee: Don't just want to do nothing. Come out of this meeting with something tangible.

Partida: I hear you. Response to that previously was that it's too different to what was proposed earlier

Khalsa: Feel free to give Mike and staff direction tonight.

Lee: Doesn't want to make a motion but will because he brought it up.

Given the recent history of extremely poor air quality in Davis and the very real possibility of poor air quality in the near future want the city manager in conjunction with the Stan (title forgotten)..

Lee: To determine if an emergency needs to be declared and leaf blower activity halted until that gets better.

Arnold: Seconded

Partida: Do we want to come back on the 6th with a different ordinance suggestion? Or just let this stand?

Arnold: Comfortable with it.

Arnold: Don't light tonight website doesn't cite AQI, cites PM. What data points would be used?

Stan: Doesn't know the different between AQI and PM. Could look into that going forward.

Arnold: Education / outreach for the day

Arnold: Several outreach tools at our disposal. As part of the informal direction to staff, ahead of potential emergency, have a plan ready for outreach.

Stan: The team has begun a lot of that planning already.

Webb: Endeavor to be as predictive as we possibly can.

Partida: Lit signs don't know what they're called, that are there. And trucks drive around with spare the air information.

Commenter #1: Not an ambient air quality issue. It's a localized air quality issue. Impact people that are sensitive to noise.

Partida: Want to remind public that there's still a longer process for making decisions around leaf blowers.

Carson: Supports motion but will be abstaining. Is some merits to the motion that Brett put forward. City manager can start to take action. Will be open minded when the matter comes back on Oct 6.

Frerichs: Wants clerk to read motion back. Was going to abstain, but Carson beat him to the punch.

Motion is read back.

Stan: If the AQI stays fine, won't be back on Oct 6.

Lee: What colleagues are finding problematic about this? Understands the caller emphasizes noise. Have some noise regulations. Taken up in the more medium term. Lots of things make noise.

Frerichs: I've said it repeatedly this evening, I prefer the other approach.

Partida: The approach that we have?

Frerichs: The urgency ordinance, needs 4 votes, didn't get the motion.

Frerichs: The urgency ordinance allows to life the ban on leaf blowers if we have an ok status.

Partida: Also prefers the original suggestion but that is not going to pass. If I vote no which I'm inclined to do then we're back to the city manager being in charge of declaring...

Partida: ...and emergency. Do we want to come back on the 6th

Carson: If this new motion fails, city manager sees we want to take action, if the city manager chooses to declare an emergency if the situation gets back, open minded...

Carson: ...to a confirmation vote. But prefers we take the action that is before us tonight.

Lee: Withdraws his motion.

Partida: ....so are we...

Frerichs: Motion on the floor has been withdrawn. No motion right now.

Partida: Thank you for the conversation. Sometimes it is interesting this way. And I appreciate everyone's opinions.

Partida: All trying to do what is in the best interest of our community. Sometimes get a little messy. Thank you to staff for bringing this forward.

Item 8A - City Council Communications

Carson - Chamber of commerce is staging an auction. Among the items you can bid on is the right to pie my face or a school board member. He vastly deserves this honor, encouraging friends to vote for Joe. $5 donation to the chamber

Carson: Though some tonight may feel I deserve this

Item 8B - Long Range Calendar

Webb: Next meeting is Oct 6. Number of items coming forward. Public comment asking about agendizing the commission process. On the agenda for Oct 6.

Public Comment:

Commenter #1: Leasemageddon. No set date. Not clear if this is addressing the horrible lease takeover situation. That affects not only students but small landlords and people that share houses with students. Keeps getting punted by city and state.

Commenter #2: Wants tree ordinance and climate change proposal on the agenda

Commenter #3: @ConnorForDavis Supports workshop for the council and public around the idea of structural oppression and restorative justice. Has come up a lot in recent weeks.

Commenter #3 cont'd: Public comment, wants future agenda item. Understands call in method but way it is done sometimes the comments don't get in or played in time. Pause put into place to address that issue.

Commenter #4: Tree plans, city says it cannot make copies for them. How can copies be given to third party arborists then? Wants it reviewed by the tree commission. DISC tree promises become empty if the plans are not released.

Commenter #5: Calling in about the city council saying the people who called in last week were "campaigning." If a city council candidate is harassing young women online that should be treated seriously.

Commenter #5: The people calling in do not have power other places and need those with it to help fight oppression and enact restorative justice measures. It is appalling they considered it negative and political.

And we're done! See ya tomorrow for the joint subcommittee meeting