Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-10 Human Relations Commission Summary Minutes Approved 1 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Thursday, September 10, 2015 Council Chambers Palo Alto Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chen, Gordon Gray, O’Nan, Savage, Stinger, Stone Absent: Alhassani Council Liaison: Council Member Berman Staff: Minka van der Zwaag, Mary Constantino ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: None V. BUSINESS 1. Discussion on Comprehensive Plan update – Community Services and Facilities Element Community Services Director Rob de Geus stated that he wanted to provide some background information on the Comprehensive Plan and then explain how the Commission could be engaged. Mr. de Geus introduced Jeremy Dennis, Planning Manager, who had been working on the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. de Geus explained that the Comprehensive Plan was the most important Planning document of the City because it represented the community’s vision in sections which were called Elements that address Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Services, and Business and Economics. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998 and was planned to be reexamined in 2010. Since 2008 the Planning Staff and Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and had workshops and made recommendations to change the plan to make it relevant. Council decided to take a step back in 2014 in an effort to ensure broader community input partly due to development pressures that were happening in town because residents were concerned about traffic and a variety of quality of life issues. The Council developed a new initiative of outreach and dialog with the community called Our Palo Alto and in the last year has held workshops around town. After 6-8 months of the campaign Council reached out to the community in April and had requested the formation of the Citizen Advisory Committee which consisted of 22 voting members and 3 non-voting members appointed by City Manager with the support of Council. The Committee is shepherding the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan with staff through Approved 2 spring of next year. The meetings are open and the public can speak at the meetings. Council will continue to meet about the Comprehensive Plan and provide advice to the Committee. The Council will focus on the vision and goals and the Citizen Advisory Committee will focus on the policies and programs that support and advance the goals and vision. Mr. de Geus reported that the Comprehensive Plan update will be ready for Council’s consideration mid-2017. Mr. de Geus stated that there are a variety of chapters in the Comprehensive Plan. One is the Community Services and Facilities Element, which he felt should be most interesting to the HRC. The Element speaks to the values of the Palo Alto community members about equal access and caring for the community. The goals in the Community Services Element from 1998 are: (1) effective and efficient delivery of community services; (2) the commitment to excellence of high quality customer service among City of Palo Alto officials and employees; (3) improved quality and quantity and affordability of social services particularly for children, seniors and people with disabilities; (4) attractive well-maintained community facilities that serve Palo Alto residents; and (5) equal access to education, recreation and cultural services for all residents. From 2008-2012 the Planning Commission, working with the community and boards and commissions, made many recommendations including changing some of the goals to the Community Services Element. Mr. de Geus expressed that it would be helpful to have the HRC’s perspective on the Community Service Element since the Commission advised Council on many of these issues. Mr. de Geus stated the following were options on how the HRC could determine how it wanted to be engaged in the Comprehensive Plan update. 1. Attend the Citizen Advisory Committee meetings. Meeting times and minutes are posted online. 2. Participate in online surveys and questionnaires that are posted by the Planning Department on the online platform Peak Democracy. 3. HRC could provide an informational memo to the Council on the HRC’s perspective of the Community Services Element or any Element that the HRC has an interest in. Mr. Dennis explained that the primary outreach the Planning Staff was asking the community to participate in was the Peak Democracy tool that was called Our City Hall. On that tool the city posted the Element and asked a series of questions related to policy and programs to spur a conversation with the community. It is a great way to get feedback from residents on various parts of the Element. Residents are asked to participate openly not anonymously, which provides a more dynamic and open communication with the public. The CAC has already met on the Community Services Element on August 11. Typically a brainstorming meeting is upfront where CAC members share ideas relating to policies and programs. The Council will be moving forward and setting the goal structure and vision statements for the plan. The CAC has the ability to create subcommittees made up of its own members. Staff suspected that a subcommittee would be constructing a new set of policies and programs related to the Element. The draft of the Community Services Element was due back to the CAC on November 17 and that was when staff would have another round of wordsmithing and at some point the Element would go to Council for their changes and approval. There are many opportunities for the public and the HRC to participate. Chair O’Nan stated that she was puzzled about the role of the Commission versus the role of a private resident. Mr. de Geus stated that the Commission needed to plan ahead for that situation. For instance if a Commissioner was going to the Citizen Advisory Committee meeting and had not spoken to the Commission about their position, then the commissioner needed to indicate to the group that they were not speaking for the Commission but as an individual. If the Commission has Approved 3 had a chance to deliberate on a topic and agreed on a position, the Commission could nominate a Commissioner to be a spokesperson. Another option was writing down the specific thoughts and interests in a memo form so that it was documented and it could be included in Council packets. Commissioner Gordon Gray asked who actually developed the Community Services Element and what would be the HRC’s involvement. Mr. de Geus explained that the role of the HRC would be to review the Element in its existing form with the recommended changes and consider whether the Element is aligned with the HRC’s interest and purview. Does the HRC think there should be a greater emphasis in certain areas such as emerging needs? There are a variety of areas in the Element that are under the purview of HRC, such as childcare and the unhoused, that are aligned but there may be slight edits and adjustments and the HRC can advise Council to help them make good policy decisions. Commissioner Stinger asked if November 17 was the date that Council reviewed the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dennis stated that the timeframe is complicated. The end date for the process is mid-2017 and that would be the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. The existing document was written in 1998 and the PTC recommendations were completed in 2012. On November 17 the CAC would see a first draft based on the work of the Subcommittee and the draft would go to Council for first review in early January, but completed action would not happen until 2017. Chair O’Nan asked how the HRC would interact with the CAC. Would the HRC be spectators or would the HRC be able to comment and interact with them. Mr. de Geus explained that the HRC would be more spectators because it was a formal meeting and they were an appointed group. Chair O’Nan stated that if the HRC wanted input directly to Council the HRC would need to write a memo to include in the packet. Commissioner Stinger added that the HRC could present during oral communications so the HRC’s comments could be considered in the preparation of the workings of the document. 2. Review of Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Eloisa Murillo-Garcia thanked the Commission for the opportunity to talk to the Commission about the CAPER Report which was the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for fiscal year July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015. The city had 90 days after the end of the fiscal year to submit the report to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and it was in the public review period. The report described all of the accomplishments that the city had made by the CDBG funding and reports on CDBG funds that were expended during the fiscal year. The CDBG program was authorized by Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the program had just celebrated its 40-year anniversary. The CDBG program provided annual grants to cities, counties and states to develop strong communities by providing decent affordable housing, a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities principally for low- and moderate-income persons. The city received an annual entitlement grant from HUD under CDBG and the activities that were funded with CDBG must meet three national objectives to benefit low- and very low-income persons, aid in the prevention of slums or blight, and meet an urgent community need. All the activities that the city funded fell under the first benefit. The funds allocated in 2015 were Approved 4 $673,416, which were the total of the entitlement grant and program income. CDBG funds provided the continued implementation of the Workforce Development Program run by Downtown Streets Team, which led to 30 previously unemployed individuals reentering the workforce, the continued implementation of the Micro Enterprise Program (MAP), and continued successful partnership with five service providers: InnVision Shelter Network (for the Opportunity Center); Catholic Charities (for their long-term care ombudsman program); Palo Alto Housing Corp. (for their SRO resident support program); YWCA (for their domestic violence services); and Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (for providing services for locating housing for disabled individuals). There were two Economic Development programs, MAP and Downtown Streets Team, and two Planning and Administration programs that included the administrative and planning support for the CDBG program and fair housing services. Commissioner Gordon Gray asked why the Microenterprise Assistance Program budget was $150.00; actual was zero, balance $150.00. Ms. Murillo-Garcia explained that the program received funding for the prior fiscal year and the program took a while to get working so 2015 funds were not expended and the program was still working from the FY2014 funds. Chair O’Nan stated that the report indicated the affordable housing goals for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 were zero and asked whether that was because funding was received in the prior year. Ms. Garcia replied that the CDBG program worked from a five-year consolidated plan and the goals were based on who was being funded. The goal was to build 125 affordable units but the city did not have a project during the FY2015 period. Commissioner Chen asked if a budget was not expended can the remaining funds be used the following year and what about the total amount versus different categories such as economic development. Could the funds be used for other purposes or are they limited for a specific category. Ms. Murillo-Garcia replied that there are two categories that have limits and one is the public service category, which is limited to 15% of the City’s entitlement grant plus program income that was received the prior year, and the planning and administration cap is 20% of the entitlement grant plus the anticipated program income. Commissioner Chen asked if more than 20% remains could the city give the money to other projects. Ms. Murillo-Garcia replied the money could be used for other projects such as economic development, housing or other categories that do not have a cap. Chair O’Nan stated that she read that Palo Alto was not eligible for LMI and what does that mean. Ms. Murillo-Garcia replied that it means a low- and moderate-income category. Chair O’Nan stated that there was a reference that Palo Alto would not receive funding to improve blight and asked whether it was because it was perceived that Palo Alto does not have urban blight. Ms. Garcia replied that under the federal guidelines there were specific guidelines on what was considered slums or blight so typically it was very difficult for areas in Palo Alto to meet that definition. Commissioner Alhassani asked what program income and access income was. Ms. Garcia replied that anticipated program income was when the budget was being formulated and the city must project how much program income the city thought they would receive so historical data was reviewed and an estimate was created for the anticipated program income. Access income was when the city received more program income than anticipated. Commissioner Alhassani asked where the program income came from. Ms. Garcia replied that there were old CDBG loans from a Approved 5 housing project that generated income by paying the city residual receipts and the city also had a housing rehab program with old loans from the program so when a homeowner passed away or sold their home they would repay the city. Commissioner Alhassani asked how HUD figured out the amount of CDBG funding each city would receive. Mr. Murillo-Garcia replied that there was a complicated formula but HUD took into account the population, poverty levels and there were other factors that were considered. Commissioner Alhassani asked if the city was showing that they were using the money for good things, would HUD provide the same amount of funding. Ms. Murillo-Garcia replied that a funding amount was provided for the whole nation and then HUD divvied it up amongst all of the entitlement jurisdictions. Commissioner Alhassani asked why the priority of housing needs was cut in half from year one to year five. Ms. Murillo-Garcia replied that it was anticipated that the houses would be built and the need would be reduced with the hope that things would improve from the first to last year. Chair O’Nan asked why CDBG funding could not be used for the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Ms. Murillo-Garcia replied that typically the funds were allocated to nonprofit organizations. Council Member Berman added that the individual homes were owned by a private owner as opposed by the residents so he would imagine the owner would not be eligible for receiving CDBG funds. If Caritas, a nonprofit, was successful in their offer they would be eligible to receive CDBG funding. 3. Discussion with Downtown Streets Team (DST) on their programs and services Ms. van der Zwaag introduced Chris Richardson, Regional Director and Zia MacWilliams, Project Manager of Operations who supervises 35–44 team members. Mr. Richardson explained that they would be discussing the questions that were provided by the HRC. How does Downtown Streets Team recruit and keep people in their program? Mr. Richardson explained that most of the people who first show up at a team meeting are not ready for regular employment due to barriers such as substance abuse, mental health problems, having not had a job in 10 years, not being motivated, do not believe in themselves or do not have identification. First DST works with individuals to help them believe in themselves and transition them to a life of independence. Staff cannot recruit folks, team members need to build their team by word of mouth and peer to peer which was a lot more powerful. DST does do outreach but mostly to connect people with services not to convince them to come to a meeting. How does DST transitions people into employment? Ms. MacWilliams explained that the transition was “person” dependent because everyone had their own path and each person must be individually worked with to help them find where that path would lead them to. DST emulates an employment atmosphere meaning there was peer to peer supervision with rules and there were consequences in breaking the rules to create an environment where people were accountable for their actions. The program would lead them into employment with the help of two staff members and a Business Outreach Specialist who works to connect with local businesses such as Whole Foods Market and Enterprise Rent a Car. They also work diligently to build soft skills such as self-worth and motivation with offsite leadership and readiness classes which businesses help host and work on interview skills, resume building, coaching, and transition into educational programs. DST also works with the local community to find out what the community was interested in and how to Approved 6 prepare the team members to meet the needs of the community. Mr. Richardson explained that it would be more effective to have one employer to transition team members into employment but after 6 months many were not ready for employment or the job might not be right for them so DST must individually work with each team member. Last year DST had a 75 percent retention rate with team members lasting 90 days in their new employment. How have you worked to institute the model in other cities? Mr. Richardson replied that in 2007– 2009 DST and Peninsula Healthcare Connection created a franchise model and gave the model to San Jose, Gilroy and two cities in Florida. After 6 months staff visited Florida and realized that the program had been modified too much, the program in Gilroy was small and stagnate and the San Jose program was being operated in a shelter and folks were not being moved on and being used as cheap labor so DST took the model back and asked the cities not to use the DST name. In 2011 DST launched their team in San Jose, the following July a team was launched in Sunnyvale, and the following year in San Rafael. DST received a $1 million investment from the Peery Foundation to invest in growth and infrastructure. In January there would be an official launch in San Francisco with backing from Google. Does DST participate in the Micro Enterprise Assistance Program? Ms. MacWilliams replied that DST submitted nine applications and one team member was selected to start his umpire business and there were several people who were interested in participating next year. What long term solution do you see for homelessness? Mr. Richardson stated that DST took on the piece of building people up and getting them back to work. The only way to end homeless is to have more homes. With the affordable housing crisis in the region, until there was a commitment to the problem there would always be homelessness. Between Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto there are only 15 shelter beds and over 1,000 people sleep on the streets. When the Armory closed, DST participated in an alternative program to the cold weather shelter program by being able to offer motel rooms to some homeless people and there was a difference in folks in two days after living in motels because folks were happier, more motivated and looked better. There has been a 14 percent reduction in homelessness in Santa Clara County in the last two years, which was the biggest reduction in 15 years. However, there has been an increase in Mountain View and Palo Alto because folks from the Armory have spread into the cities. The biggest reduction was in San Jose, where the city allocated $2 million from their general fund for a voucher program. DST won the bid and they had housed 104 people from the Jungle encampment in 8 months and 70 from another project. The San Jose Housing Department is working on building affordable housing for extremely low income and homeless individuals. Commissioner Savage asked if DST was projecting an increase this coming year in employment and housing in Santa Clara County. Mr. Richardson explained that this year employment is up 95% and housing 81%. An increase in employment is projected. Since homelessness is a regional issue, when the Jungle closed down there were folks from the encampment in Palo Alto two days later. In San Jose there were 100 vouchers provided so there would be a drop off in housing unless more vouchers were provided. Commissioner Savage asked who the major employers of the homeless in Palo Alto. Ms. MacWilliams answered Whole Foods, Enterprise Rent a Car, Equinox gym, and Coupa Café. Commissioner Gordon Gray asked if she were to interact with a homeless person was there a way to provide a referral. Mr. Richardson responded that DST did have referral cards with their meeting Approved 7 times. The meetings were designed to have a waitlist out of necessity and design because DST does not have money to provide case management for everyone. Waiting gives participants time to get to know the program and creates some buy in. Generally if someone approaches a homeless person they do not have a relationship with and gives them a card about DST, it would end up in the trash. Commissioner Gordon Gray asked what DST was doing to recruit other employers. Mr. Richardson replied that Assemblyman Simitian provided some funding to DST through CDBG funding to hire an outreach specialist to build relationships and trust with employers. DST provides services and value to recruiting managers for small business owners. A lot are eligible for tax credits and the DST team members they hire are vetted. The responsibility of two employment specialists is to prepare the team members with the skills to be successful and build relationships with employers Commissioner Stinger asked if there could be a case study done on what it was like to come to a meeting. Mr. Richardson stated that folks hear about DST from Hotel de Zink, the Opportunity Center or on the street. Many folks ask why you are wearing the yellow shirt. It has to be the right time, and they must build trust and get on a waitlist when they were ready. When a position opens up they are welcomed on the team with a shirt and then given an assignment. Participants work with a team lead and may be pulled out of the shift for a case management session. Shifts cannot be more than four hours so the team members can take care of their business. A team member can stay with DST for one year. Ms. MacWilliams stated that the team meetings were one hour and full of excitement and energy where people can vent and share resources and challenges. The meeting is a time when team members are allowed to release the mindset of being homeless and be part of a community. Meetings are open to the public every Thursday at 1:00 p.m. at the All Saints Church Episcopal Church. DST also manages the food closet, which has been in operation for 30 years. Commissioner Chen asked if in addition to their individual counseling were there trainings that taught resume writing and job skills. Mr. Richardson responded that there were a lot of homeless service agencies that provide resume writing. DST provides job search classes and classes designed for folks that help address their working gaps and explain that they have moved on from life on the streets. An empowerment course is offered to build folks up to achieve wellbeing and happiness and a leadership course is offered where team members receive colored shirts that identify their leadership and where they stand in the ladder of success. Chair O’Nan asked if the new Levi Stadium was a potential partner for employment. Mr. Richardson replied that during the first season DST employed 14 people at the stadium. DST had a theory called ABC which means get a job, get a better job, get a career. Working 10–15 times a year is not going to lift anybody out of homelessness so the job was not what DST was going for because something more consistent was needed. Commissioner Alhassani asked if was there anything the HRC or community-at-large could do to encourage the community to work more with DST. Ms. MacWilliams stated that DST encouraged businesses to host Employ-a-thons where groups of employees sat down with job seekers working through applications an allotted time. Mr. Richardson stated that there were also volunteer opportunities working in the food closet alongside their team members. DST had involved nontraditional stakeholders by small business owners hosting hiring events at their offices. DST did not work in Section 8 programs any longer but had TBRA (tenant-based rental assistance) Approved 8 vouchers in Sunnyvale and San Jose, which are designed to end after 2 years, so it is important to work with people who are highly motivated to take over their own rent. In 2008 DST had 40–60 team members who were housed in Palo Alto but due to rising rents they needed to be moved. Chair O’Nan asked if women had additional challenges.in terms of moving into the workforce. Ms. MacWilliams replied that DST team members are mostly male but now there are 6–7 women. DST has specifically designed resources for men and for women who are fleeing from domestic violence. Commissioner Stone asked how long a person could be a member on the DST. Mr. Richardson replied that it was generally about 8 months for housing for team members and leadership can stay longer. The one year was built in to incentivize people to move on. 4. Discussion on the Planning of a Domestic Violence Awareness Event and other topics in the community series Chair O’Nan stated that the HRC was sponsoring a series of events under the brand name Hidden Palo Alto to shine a light on sensitive topics in the community. The first event would be the Domestic Violence Awareness Event being held on October 28 from 7–9 pm at the Mitchell Park Community Center. Commissioner Gordon Gray explained that the structure of the event would be a panel of 7 experts in the realm of what happened when a victim who had been in an abusive relationship reached out. Mayor Holman would be the moderator and ask questions, which would be the bulk of the evening. There would be questions from the public and agencies would be represented in the back of the room. One takeaway was what someone should do if they suspected someone was being abused. The panelists would include: Lieutenant April Wagner, Palo Alto Police Department; Clarissa Hamilton, Deputy District Attorney, County of Santa Clara; Julie Saffren, Attorney, Domestic Violence Educator; Richard Ferry, therapist; Ruth Patrick, Director of Domestic Violence Intervention Collaborative; Melissa Luke, Domestic Violence Program Manager; American Asian Community Involvement Organization; Sandy Harvey, a survivor. 5. Update by the Homeless Vets Subcommittee Commissioner Alhassani reported that there would be a housing panel and healthcare panel. Mayor Holman would be giving th e opening announcement. The speakers include Destination Home, Home First, two speakers from the Veteran Administration and a veteran who was formerly homeless. The Summit would be held in the El Palo Alto Room at the Mitchell Park Community Center from 1–4pm. Alhassani stated that the primary goal of the Summit was the thesis that a lot of people in Santa Clara County do not know the scale of the problem of homeless veterans. The main goal was to bring some active citizens together to get educated about the issues and to know the organizations that were working on the issues and get mobilized. 6. Follow up from the HRC Retreat Chair O’Nan explained that the recent HRC went very well. The Commission had a good discussion on projects, roles and plans for the future. The Commission first identified what the HRC called its “Bread and Butter,” which are the ongoing HRC responsibilities such as HSRAP, CDBG, overseeing Project Sentinel and Palo Alto Mediation program, and the various liaison roles. For the upcoming year Commissioners Savage and Stone would like to continue on as liaisons for the Palo Alto Police Department. Commissioners Chen and Alhassani volunteered to be liaisons Approved 9 for the Palo Alto Mediation program, and Commissioner Gordon Gray signed up as the Project Safety Net liaison. For the past year the HRC has been working on continuing projects: Commissioner Chen had been the liaison for the Affordable Housing Subcommittee which came out of the Affordable Housing Learning Series and Commissioner Savage agreed to join her starting in January. The outcome of the Affordable Housing Subcommittee would to go to Council with a policy recommendation. The Veterans Summit was a short term project but there may be some follow up work that may continue for some time. The Senior Services Subcommittee came out of the Senior Summit and the summer intern did a massive amount of research on transportation options for seniors specifically VTA Outreach, the current shuttle programs and what other communities did and what was available through our local service providers. There were a lot of great ideas and recommendations that came from the report. Chair O’Nan stated that she would be the lead on the Subcommittee with Commissioners Stone and Stinger, and they would go through the intern’s report and craft their own recommendations and take the recommendations to both Council and the County to address some critical transportation needs in the community. Commissioner Gordon Gray was working on the Domestic Violence Summit which was coming up soon. Another open item was the issue of trying to get regular cost of living increases for HSRAP which were stagnant for years. In recent years Council had been generously adding money back into the program and helping the HRC get caught up but during each funding cycle there was no guarantee of an increase. Later this year the HRC would be approaching the Finance Committee with the request that regular increases be included in the HSRAP budget and possibly increase the reserve fund to further protect the program. For the Hidden Palo Alto series a number of the Commissioners mentioned topics that they were interested in pursuing next year. The HRC could spread out three events next year and two Commissioners could work on the event with support from leadership and staff. Commissioner Chen was interested in working on immigration issues but maybe an event could be created since there was hostility in the community against immigration. Commissioner Savage was interested in working on an event about teenage drug use. Commissioner Stinger was interested in implicit bias with a future tie-in from a police department workshop with Sandra Brown. An event about senior nutrition was an idea since it has become a growing problem with seniors not eating well or not eating at all and many of the local service providers were trying to get seniors to eat more nutritious food and have access to quality food. Chair O’Nan stated that a great topic would be mental health because it was such a stigma. The community had experienced it in a very visual way in terms of the suicide cluster of our young people. There had been community dialog about the subject but mental health in general still was a huge stigma especially if it was the mental health of the homeless and people who were marginalized. Chair O’Nan stated that the Comprehensive Plan report that was discussed tonight could also be a great way the HRC could participate in at a citywide level. VI. Reports from Officials 1. Commissioner Reports Commissioner Chen reported that Debra Cen received a $1,000 grant from the City of Palo Alto under Know Your Neighborhood and needed additional funds to help her make a movie trailer. Ms. Chen stated that she thought it would be a good idea to have an annual welcome event for all newcomers. The event would teach the newcomers how to live in the city. Vice Chair Stone stated that he would like to participate in the event. Approved 10 Commissioner Stinger reported that Pastor Smith of the AME Zion Church was having a couple of events. There was a the kids’ carnival on Saturday, September 10 from 12-4 pm at the Cubberley Community Center and a Community Book Club on two Saturdays, October 10 and November 4 to discuss The New Jim Crow. Commissioner Stinger shared her enthusiasm for Avenidas’ new addition. The new addition would be three times the space and the design was exciting. Chair O’Nan reminded the Commission that on Saturday at noon the City of Palo Alto was having a Boards and Commission Recognition event in Mitchell Park. 2. Council Liaison Report Commissioner Berman thanked the Commission for all of the work the Commission does. 3. Staff Liaison Report Ms. van der Zwaag stated that she had a lot of enthusiasm for the Commission this year with a number of great projects that would move the dial forward on the issues of importance to the Council and the community. Ms. van der Zwaag reported that the Andy Goodman storytelling event on how nonprofits could sell their story in a compelling way was scheduled for Friday, October 16 from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm at the Mitchell Park Community Center. Ms. van der Zwaag reported that she contacted the county regarding the Implicit Bias film and informed them that the HRC would be interested in partnering with them but not until the first of the year. CALL FOR AGENDA ITEMS (October 8, 2015) 1. a . Follow up on Comprehensive Plan input b. Digital Leaders Film screening c. Follow up on Subcommittees d. Online summer camp registration process e. Speaker topics for speaker series ADJOURNMENT 1. The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.