[0:04] recording in progress.

[0:06] Thank you, mayor and council. We are

[0:08] live. Thank you. Um, welcome everyone to

[0:12] the uh September 8th, 2025 meeting of

[0:17] the passing of city council. Um, let me

[0:20] first start by apologizing on behalf of

[0:22] the council for uh uh our long close

[0:26] session that's delayed this meeting. Um

[0:28] but we had some urgent and important

[0:30] matters uh in close session that needed

[0:33] the council's attention. Um so my

[0:36] apologies on behalf of the council. The

[0:39] we'll start with the calling of role.

[0:41] Council member Cole

[0:43] present.

[0:44] Council member Hampton

[0:45] blessed and honored to be here.

[0:46] Council member Jones

[0:47] here.

[0:48] Council member Lion

[0:49] here.

[0:49] Council member Madison

[0:50] here.

[0:51] Council member Massuda

[0:52] here.

[0:53] Vice Mayor Rivas

[0:54] here.

[0:55] Mayor Gordo

[0:56] here. There's a quorum in the council

[0:58] president.

[0:59] Okay. We have a couple of ceremonial

[1:01] matters.

[1:02] Pledge of allegiance.

[1:03] Oh, I'm sorry. Um, Mr. Hampton, will you

[1:06] lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

[1:07] Everyone rise. Right hand over your

[1:09] heart. Ready? Again.

[1:12] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:14] United States of America and to the

[1:17] republic for which it stands, one nation

[1:20] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:23] justice for all. You may be seated.

[1:32] Um, so as I was saying, we have uh two

[1:35] ceremonial matters. The first uh I'll

[1:38] ask uh Chief Harris to step up and uh

[1:43] introduce our new sergeant-at-arms.

[1:45] Uh as we thank our outgoing

[1:48] sergeant-at-arms, uh Jason Van Heck for

[1:51] her service as a

[1:52] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's going to be

[1:54] uh the division commander for field

[1:56] operations uh commander Sean Dawkins

[1:58] who's going to make that introduction.

[1:59] Great. Thank you, Chief. Commander,

[2:01] welcome.

[2:03] Thank you, mayor. Uh good evening,

[2:04] mayor, vice mayor, council members, city

[2:06] staff, uh Sergeant Rich Padilla. Could

[2:08] you please join me up here?

[2:11] Uh this evening, I have the pleasure of

[2:13] introducing to you your new uh

[2:15] sergeant-at-arms for city council. I'll

[2:18] give you a quick brief uh bio on

[2:20] Sergeant Padilla. Richard Padilla has

[2:22] been with the Pacian Police Department

[2:23] for 27 years. He joined the department

[2:25] after graduating from the University of

[2:27] Leverne with a bachelor's degree of

[2:29] criminology. As an officer, Richard was

[2:32] assigned to the following sections:

[2:33] patrol, the special investigation

[2:36] section, vice narcotics, patrol as a

[2:38] field training officer. He was my field

[2:40] training officer a couple years back.

[2:43] And the neighborhood action team as a

[2:44] bicycle officer. As a corporal, he was

[2:47] assigned to patrol and then detectives

[2:48] as a res residential burglary

[2:50] investigator. In 2014, he was promoted

[2:53] to sergeant. As sergeant, he supervised

[2:56] patrol, the field training program, the

[2:58] hope team, park safety, and the K-9

[3:00] unit. In 2018, he reestablished the

[3:03] neighborhood action team, a mark bicycle

[3:05] unit specializing in quality of life

[3:07] issues. In 2020, he was given the

[3:10] opportunity to supervise the K9 unit on

[3:12] a full-time basis. He currently serves

[3:14] as a dual a dual role as both a canine

[3:17] supervisor and a canine handler. His

[3:19] partner Peppa is a six-year-old Belgian

[3:22] Malawa trained to detect explosives and

[3:24] firearms. Together, they have worked

[3:26] four Roseb seasons ensuring the safety

[3:28] and security of both the Roseb and the

[3:30] Rose Parade. In 2018, Sergeant Padilla

[3:33] was recognized as a police as police

[3:35] officer of the year by the Pasadena

[3:36] Scottish right. He's a post-certified

[3:38] bicycle instructor, postk9ine evaluator,

[3:41] and a canine subject matter expert. In

[3:44] his spare time, he enjoys cheering for

[3:46] his favorite baseball team, the Dodgers.

[3:49] And spending time with his wife Diana,

[3:51] and their two children, Isabella, a

[3:53] college student, and Gavin, a high

[3:55] school student. And I would be rem

[3:57] remiss if I didn't add um that recently

[4:00] uh last week, Chief Harris uh promoted

[4:04] Sergeant Padilla to acting lieutenant

[4:06] where he'll step into that role as one

[4:08] of the watch commanders in patrol in two

[4:10] weeks from today on September 22nd while

[4:12] Lieutenant Quay is attending the FBI

[4:14] National Academy. So he'll be doing that

[4:15] for about three months with us. Uh in

[4:17] addition to his roles here, he'll still

[4:19] be with with all of you every Monday

[4:21] night for city council. I'll let uh Rich

[4:22] Padilla come up and say a few words.

[4:24] Thank you.

[4:26] Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome.

[4:32] I'd just like to thank everyone for the

[4:34] opportunity to be here and I'm looking

[4:36] forward to learning more about the uh

[4:37] what the city council does and and and

[4:40] more about these meetings and and how it

[4:43] helps out every other department other

[4:45] than the police department in our city.

[4:47] So, thank you for the opportunity once

[4:48] again.

[4:49] Do we get the dog?

[4:51] Uh yeah,

[4:52] she's out in the car right now.

[4:55] bring her in.

[4:58] Thank you and welcome.

[5:01] Uh next, uh we have an announcement uh

[5:07] and presentation uh related to the

[5:09] Hispanic and Latino Heritage Month

[5:11] celebrations. I'll ask uh Pam Cantero

[5:15] and uh Bana Deakuba and Lisa Barios to

[5:19] step forward.

[5:26] Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and

[5:28] council members. Um, I'm Vana de Lauba.

[5:30] Uh, I am the co-chair of the Pasino

[5:33] Latino Heritage Parade and Festival

[5:36] Committee. My co-chair, my colleios

[5:39] isn't able to join us this evening.

[5:41] She's ill. Lisa, we hope you're feeling

[5:44] better really soon. Um, so I'm here also

[5:47] with my colleague Pam Canter, um, from

[5:50] PRCS to talk about this year's Latino

[5:53] Heritage Month and the celebrations that

[5:55] we've got underway.

[5:58] This year has been a difficult year for

[6:00] our committee um, as it has been for our

[6:02] Latino community here in Pasadena. And

[6:04] this morning's Supreme Court ruling

[6:07] allowing detentions based on race,

[6:10] language, and simply where a person

[6:12] works wasn't only troubling.

[6:16] It is a step backwards

[6:19] for justice in our nation. Seeing the

[6:22] ICE raids and the impact that they have

[6:24] had in our community has been difficult,

[6:26] troubling, heartbreaking, heartbreaking

[6:28] to see the impact on our kids.

[6:30] personally difficult for many of us as

[6:33] many of us can absolutely connect with

[6:35] those families. Um and yet we know the

[6:38] strength of our Pasadena community and

[6:39] our strength is really deep and it comes

[6:41] from the diversity that we have and from

[6:43] the hardworking families, our

[6:45] hardworking immigrant families um who

[6:47] are here and who help make our community

[6:49] as great and as strong as it is.

[6:52] [Applause]

[6:59] So, it is that belief that led to our

[7:01] theme for this year's Latino Heritage

[7:03] Celebration,

[7:08] a proud past and a hopeful future. And

[7:11] after much discussion with our partners

[7:13] and others out in the community, our

[7:15] committee came to a really difficult

[7:16] decision, but one that reflects both our

[7:18] compassion and our responsibility. This

[7:21] year we are foregoing the parade,

[7:24] but we are expanding the Latino Heritage

[7:27] Festival in front of Pasadena City Hall

[7:29] and we're going to offer many community

[7:31] center programming, education, things

[7:33] that uplift our community, things that

[7:35] are fun, dancing, music. Um, it's going

[7:38] to be in the evening to make it more

[7:40] comfortable for our neighbors to come

[7:42] out and to celebrate and for you all to

[7:45] uh Mayor, now that we've seen you

[7:47] dancing.

[7:50] Exactly. There you go. Come out and and

[7:52] uh and and and join us and join the

[7:55] Latino community, your community, uh in

[7:57] this celebration because even though

[7:59] times are really heavy, the fear is

[8:01] real. There is a lot to celebrate. The

[8:04] strength that we have in our community,

[8:05] the beauty of our community is worth

[8:07] celebrating. And so we hope that you

[8:08] will join us all on that evening. During

[8:11] the month of Latino Heritage, we do have

[8:13] a variety of other activities that are

[8:15] have also been planned. Um, so that

[8:18] there's educational things, fun things

[8:20] for kids, for seniors, for adults, um,

[8:22] something for everyone. And I can, uh,

[8:24] I'll have my colleague Pam talk a little

[8:26] bit more about that.

[8:29] Good evening. Um, just like Vana said,

[8:31] our goal is to bring joy into our

[8:33] community. Um, we're going to be having

[8:35] a series of events or smaller events,

[8:37] workshops. We're having Fiesta Spatrias

[8:40] September 19th at Villa Park from 5 to

[8:43] 9:00. We're having the movie Elio at

[8:46] Madison Elementary. Um, Friday,

[8:49] September 26th, we're having a bandulse

[8:51] or a koncha making class at Villa Park

[8:54] on October 4th. Um, we're having Panawa

[8:58] Frescas Villa Park October 18th and

[9:01] we're going to be celebrating Day of the

[9:03] Dead October 24th. Hopefully you can

[9:05] join us for one of those events.

[9:08] Thank you.

[9:09] Thank you.

[9:10] Thank you.

[9:17] Next, uh, Council Member Jones,

[9:21] uh, has an adjourn memory.

[9:23] Thanks, Mayor. Uh, I have two

[9:25] adjournments. The first one is for

[9:28] Reverend Dr. Joan Taylor. She was a

[9:31] Reverend at First Amy Pastina, born and

[9:33] raised in the city of Pastina, was a

[9:36] resident of Mr. Hampton's district, and

[9:38] she served our community um, throughout

[9:41] her life. And so I think it it's it's an

[9:43] honor for her family, at least has been

[9:46] communicated to me, that we adjourn in

[9:48] her honor, the city council and the city

[9:50] that she was born and raised in. And

[9:52] then the second adjournment is Mr.

[9:55] William Larry Edson. Um similar story,

[9:59] born and raised in city of Pasadena, I

[10:02] believe at St. Luke's Hospital. He uh

[10:04] grew up in Pasadena, attended John Mir

[10:07] High School. Uh he was the vice

[10:09] president of Union Bank of California.

[10:12] Um he married Geraldine Edson and

[10:15] together they built a multifamily

[10:17] residential housing portfolio in the

[10:19] city of Pasadena and he also was deeply

[10:22] committed to civic and community life.

[10:24] He was engaged in his church, engaged as

[10:27] the board of director for LA athletic

[10:29] club and he was also um on the board of

[10:34] friends of Cleveland Elementary and

[10:35] supported Door of Hope and also

[10:38] supported Steam Coders Community

[10:40] Partners and just was a very big

[10:42] advocate for the city of Pastina and its

[10:45] residents.

[10:48] Thank you, Mr. Jones. Um I and I know

[10:52] I'm joined by all of my colleagues here.

[10:56] Uh ask that we um adjourn in memory of

[11:00] Nina Chsky, a longtime resident envi

[11:03] environmental advocate. Um in Nenah's

[11:06] loss, passing loss, one of its fiercest

[11:09] and most passionate advocates. Uh she

[11:12] was an attorney, an extraordinarily

[11:14] intelligent leader, a tireless volunteer

[11:16] uh and pro poured herself into

[11:18] protecting the Aoyo, championing uh

[11:21] neighborhoods uh and preserving Pasio's

[11:25] uh historic beauty and legacy. Uh for

[11:29] decades she was a constant presence in

[11:31] our community and in our city council

[11:32] chambers, always speaking up for for

[11:35] preservation, uh thoughtful

[11:37] architecture, design, planning,

[11:40] importantly diversity, uh and improving

[11:42] the quality of life for all of us who

[11:44] call Passina home. Um, and she was a

[11:47] formal advocate, always prepared, uh,

[11:50] always principled, uh, and never about,

[11:54] uh, making and never shy about making

[11:57] her opinion known. Um, in fact, some

[12:00] would say, uh, you know, she was she

[12:03] could be a bit stubborn. Uh, and I would

[12:05] say, and thank goodness for that

[12:07] because, uh, she always caused us to

[12:11] think differently. uh and because of

[12:13] that more deeply and we made better

[12:16] decisions uh as a city ca as a city

[12:18] council and as a and as a city uh she

[12:21] leaves behind a legacy of service, civic

[12:23] pride and spirited leadership. Uh and so

[12:27] on behalf of all of us uh and on behalf

[12:30] of all residents of Pasadena

[12:33] uh I want to say that Nina is a

[12:35] tremendous loss uh but a tremendous

[12:39] contributor and leaves behind a legacy

[12:42] of great contributions. I think we can

[12:44] find her fingerprint on virtually every

[12:48] important decisions uh in the last 30 to

[12:52] 40 years in this city. Um, you know, on

[12:55] a personal level, uh, I

[12:58] didn't always have a good relationship

[13:00] with Nenah. Uh, in fact, when I was, uh,

[13:03] um, a member of the RBOC and we were

[13:06] going through the renovation project,

[13:09] uh, Nina, you'll recall Mr. Madison and

[13:12] others made it a habit to show up at

[13:15] RBOC meetings and city council meetings

[13:17] and asked for my resignation.

[13:20] Um

[13:21] and she did so and she meant it. Um but

[13:26] you know like any other good person um

[13:29] she gave me a chance uh and she gave me

[13:32] a chance uh to prove myself and one day

[13:35] I got a call just over 5 years ago from

[13:39] uh her and Mick Hansen saying I'd you

[13:42] know like to invite you to breakfast.

[13:44] We've never sat down.

[13:47] And so I thought to myself, well, should

[13:48] I bring a taster? Um, but no, you know,

[13:53] I showed up at Brookside Park uh at

[13:56] Brookside uh clubhouse. Um, and before I

[14:02] was able to sit down, as I was sitting

[14:04] down, she points at me and says, "I

[14:08] never thought I'd agree with you on

[14:09] anything,

[14:11] but you should be our next mayor." and

[14:14] she's the person who really got me

[14:17] thinking about that. Um, you know,

[14:21] that's

[14:23] uh a very uh important moment for me uh

[14:28] and showed a lot about her and her

[14:31] willingness to to give people a chance

[14:34] uh and give this city a chance. And so

[14:38] on behalf of all of us, I'd like to say

[14:41] thank you, Nina Chsky, um, for all of

[14:44] your contributions.

[14:50] Mr. Madison,

[14:53] thank you, Mayor. I um, very well said,

[14:56] and I don't want to prolong the evening,

[14:58] but I um, this was a major loss for

[15:01] Pasadena, and I, too, have many arrows

[15:04] in my back from Nenah over the years.

[15:07] Um, but actually that's even unfair

[15:08] because Nina wouldn't stab you in the

[15:10] back. She would tell you to your face

[15:12] when she thought you were wrong

[15:13] right here.

[15:14] And uh and Larry Wilson put it so well

[15:17] in his piece that um she would come to

[15:20] counsel and end up filling out cards on

[15:23] things that she hadn't intended to speak

[15:25] on and and she would begin those remarks

[15:27] with. I wasn't going to speak on this,

[15:29] but I have to tell you, um, but we need

[15:33] people like Nenah, uh, who are

[15:36] dedicated, who care, uh, who do what

[15:39] they say they're going to do, who show

[15:41] up, you know, for young people, uh, you

[15:45] will find that when you do what you say

[15:47] you're going to do and you show up, that

[15:50] that separates you sadly from most of

[15:52] the world in terms of uh, integrity and

[15:56] and being there and uh you know Nina was

[16:00] a pioneer. She was um became a lawyer in

[16:03] 1973 and it's hard to believe cuz it's

[16:07] seems you know forever ago and also not

[16:10] that long ago it was very difficult to

[16:12] be a female attorney in 1973. Those were

[16:15] the days when um not too far after

[16:18] people like Justice Sandra Day Okconor

[16:20] were offered uh legal secretary jobs

[16:23] instead of um the job that the number

[16:26] three person in her class in the case of

[16:28] Okconor should have received at law

[16:30] firms. The the sexism was still rampant

[16:33] in the profession and she proudly became

[16:36] an attorney and was a great lawyer. Um

[16:39] and her her intellect was just

[16:42] unwavering. She had paid attention to

[16:45] detail. She read everything. She studied

[16:47] everything. We need people like that in

[16:49] the in our community to keep us on our

[16:51] toes and to keep us all moving in the

[16:54] right direction. In April, she stepped

[16:56] away from the LVAA board and uh was I I

[17:01] joke that she was claimed as a free

[17:02] agent by the WP who uh put her on their

[17:06] board and assigned her to some u a

[17:08] mandate, but she'd been on the LVA board

[17:11] for as long as I could remember for

[17:13] decades and been the president of it for

[17:15] for many many years. And I am so

[17:18] thankful that we collectively at a at a

[17:21] town hall about the fires that we had in

[17:23] April, we um honored Nenah and thanked

[17:26] her for her her decades of service. Even

[17:29] that was painful though because she

[17:31] insisted we go to her home, pick her up,

[17:33] drive her to the event, drive her home,

[17:36] and she didn't really know what was

[17:37] going to happen. But we presented her

[17:39] with a certificate and some flowers and

[17:41] and she was pleased as punch uh because

[17:44] her efforts weren't often enough. um

[17:47] recognized. So, uh her memorial is

[17:50] pending and I think I'll be involved in

[17:52] that in some way, shape or form along

[17:54] with the many many other friends she has

[17:56] in the in the community. And um you

[17:59] know, very very grateful and so tragic

[18:01] that she died in a in a house fire that

[18:04] um should be prevented, you know, these

[18:08] days with technology and our fire

[18:09] department was there instantly. But the

[18:12] home was a it's the so-called butterfly

[18:15] house on Lancaster, wood and glass

[18:17] basically. And so it it was u you know a

[18:20] very rapid confflration and um anyway uh

[18:25] thank you mayor and I hope uh we will

[18:27] adjourn in in Nina's memory and honor.

[18:30] Thank you.

[18:32] And you know, uh I I'm confident that

[18:37] there will be an opportunity for an

[18:39] appropriate

[18:41] uh

[18:42] dedication to recognize Nenah's

[18:45] contributions and uh and uh fingerprint

[18:51] in every part of our city. Um a lasting

[18:54] contribution. Mr. Mr. Hampton,

[18:58] I appreciate everything that everyone

[18:59] has said um you know about Mrs. Taylor,

[19:02] u Mr. Edson and Miss Chsky. I know that

[19:06] there are people watching this right now

[19:07] and I know that there's some young

[19:09] people actually watching this because um

[19:11] there's a high school um student that

[19:13] reached out to me about watching a city

[19:15] council meeting. I said you could look

[19:16] at them on YouTube now. By the way, you

[19:18] can watch this on YouTube. Um,

[19:22] as we talk about these individuals, I

[19:25] mean, they were amazing people in our

[19:28] community. They were bricks of roads

[19:30] that have been paved um that have been

[19:32] paved by people before them, but they

[19:34] kept on moving forward. I would just

[19:38] remind everyone in this room to not be

[19:40] the problem, but be the person who

[19:43] solves the problem. And these

[19:44] individuals are all individuals who

[19:46] solve problems. They didn't bring us

[19:48] problems. they they said this could be a

[19:50] problem and here's how you can fix it.

[19:52] And so I just want to um say that I

[19:54] appreciate knowing all three of these

[19:56] individuals and as a silent second um to

[19:59] adjourning in their their memory tonight

[20:01] um they will never be forgotten in this

[20:04] community. Thank you.

[20:06] Well said, Mr. Hampton. Thank you.

[20:10] Okay. Um

[20:12] it's uh we'll move on now with with our

[20:16] agenda. Um well, we'll start with public

[20:19] comment for matters not on the agenda.

[20:22] Um and before we

[20:25] start that, let me just say that uh the

[20:29] council will recall that earlier this

[20:31] year um uh a number of council members

[20:35] including Mr. Cole and um well, no, Mr.

[20:39] Cole and a few others, Mr. line others

[20:43] um requested the issue of uh an ethical

[20:48] investment policy. I think Mr. Cole

[20:50] raised it at finance committee initially

[20:53] uh that it come to finance committee. Um

[20:56] the

[20:58] because the matter has been delayed uh

[21:01] first by the budget and then other

[21:03] urgent items. Uh, I've conferred with

[21:06] council member Cole to and to suggest

[21:09] that this be referred directly to the

[21:11] fire and police and pension fund um the

[21:15] issue of divestment. Um, and so

[21:20] um and well the issue of an investment

[21:21] policy I should say. Um and he is now a

[21:25] member of that board uh and in a

[21:28] position to ask that the matter be

[21:31] agendaized for a discussion. um and he

[21:35] will be requesting a special meeting of

[21:37] the board to do so. Um and that's the

[21:41] body that has jurisdiction. This should

[21:44] not be thought of as you know some sort

[21:46] of punt because

[21:49] we have to follow our own rules and

[21:52] jurisdiction on these matters is with

[21:54] that board. Um

[21:57] and that there will be an opportunity

[21:59] there to uh give public comment. uh and

[22:03] I look forward to a productive

[22:06] discussion um by that board.

[22:11] So with that, um, Mayor was one of the

[22:14] council members and before we had the

[22:17] public, I don't need the credit or

[22:19] anything, but I I I do definitely want

[22:21] to make sure that we have a I mean,

[22:24] because we're going to get this more and

[22:26] more and more and more.

[22:27] I mean, the way our world is shifting,

[22:29] things are changing. Um, I think there

[22:31] should be a policy that we have across

[22:34] the board that just says, you know what,

[22:36] if we find an organization that has or

[22:40] anyone that has um, you know, not

[22:45] cause war crimes, etc. I have no idea. I

[22:47] mean, that's what the the great minds of

[22:50] attorneys are to to think about those,

[22:53] but um that we are not investing in um

[22:56] any businesses that are supporting uh

[22:58] atrocities like what's happening in

[23:00] Gaza.

[23:01] [Applause]

[23:07] I I appreciate that, but I got ADHD and

[23:09] that messes up my train of thought. So,

[23:12] at least my wife tells me I got it.

[23:16] could be a long list.

[23:18] Okay. Um

[23:22] so let's uh

[23:25] so let's move on uh because we have a

[23:28] long agenda with matters agendaized. Um

[23:32] uh we're going to suggest one minute uh

[23:35] per speaker for matters not on the

[23:36] agenda. If you wish to have more time,

[23:39] um, please state so and then at the end

[23:43] of the agenda, we'll give you more time.

[23:46] Uh, but I think it's fair to say to

[23:49] let's we're going to try and get as many

[23:50] people in as we can, one minute. Uh,

[23:53] please respect that. Uh, and if you want

[23:55] more time, we invite you to allow us to

[23:59] conduct the city's business. Uh, address

[24:01] matters on the agenda and then come

[24:02] back.

[24:04] Okay. with that

[24:06] uh Fawaz al El Mar Masri followed by

[24:10] Hadab Tarifi then Lucinda Wills then

[24:13] Olden Denim I'll ring a bell when

[24:16] there's 30 seconds

[24:19] and we have over 20 cards and so if

[24:22] 21

[24:22] 21 so if you if you hear your name

[24:24] please step up and form a line in the

[24:27] center aisle here

[24:28] Mr. mayors, council members, dear

[24:32] community, respected members, and I read

[24:35] their names of the children they were

[24:36] killed in Gaza.

[24:52] Muhammad

[24:59] Muhammad basal

[25:02] Hamdan

[25:04] Radi Hamdan Shannon

[25:09] Muhammad Mustafa Muhammad Abu Mas Ali

[25:13] Khali

[25:15] Elen Ahmed Abdarimi

[25:27] Sal

[25:30] Yousef Abu

[25:33] sir your time is expired.

[25:34] I'm sorry.

[25:35] Your time is expired.

[25:37] Thank you for your time.

[25:38] Thank you. Hab Tarifi followed by

[25:40] Lucinda Wills followed by Olden Denim

[25:42] then Alen Shay.

[25:44] Greetings of peace everyone. Um, last

[25:46] time I left sad and extremely upset

[25:50] after I shared the picture and the name

[25:52] of my niece who was killed just a few

[25:54] days earlier.

[25:56] None of you showed empathy, sympathy, or

[25:58] even one word of condolences after

[26:01] giving us almost an hour giving

[26:03] condolences and eulogy about the

[26:05] previous mayor. So, just to let you

[26:07] know, but you're not getting rid of me

[26:09] so easily. I am back and all the names

[26:12] that are going to be read about these

[26:14] kids who have been killed. Uh I'm going

[26:16] to ask I'm going to share a few

[26:17] questions that these kids have been

[26:19] asking instead of asking about what gift

[26:23] uh they're going to get. All these

[26:25] questions are about death after we die.

[26:28] Will I hear your voice? When I die, will

[26:32] they put me in a grave with my mom and

[26:34] dad? When it rains, will we drown in the

[26:38] tent?

[26:39] When they bomb us in the tent, will we

[26:42] burn?

[26:44] If they bombed someone while I was

[26:45] walking next to him,

[26:47] Mr. Time is expired.

[26:49] I hope these questions touch your heart

[26:51] because they broke mine.

[26:52] Thank you, ma'am.

[26:53] Lucinda Wills, followed by Olden Denim,

[26:55] followed by Alan Shay, then Randall Hen

[26:57] Lamb.

[27:01] Dr. Ahmed Sam is a surgeon with Doctors

[27:03] Without Borders. This is a story in in

[27:05] his words, edited to fit our short time

[27:07] limit. The last thing I heard was the

[27:09] voice of my children playing. Then

[27:10] everything went black. When I opened my

[27:12] eyes, I thought I'd gone blind. I could

[27:13] no longer hear them. I checked to see if

[27:15] my wife was alive. Her back and legs

[27:17] were fractured, but she was alive. I

[27:19] turned on my phone flashlight to find

[27:20] the children. My three-year-old

[27:22] daughter, Julia, was calling to me from

[27:23] beneath the rubble. I carried her to a

[27:25] safe place and went back for my second

[27:27] son, Kareem. He had severe head trauma.

[27:29] When I brought them to the hospital, I

[27:30] refused to let my colleagues deal with

[27:32] their injuries. I wanted them to feel

[27:34] our dad is taking care of us. Maybe he's

[27:35] still our hero. We're doing okay now, I

[27:38] guess. My wife is in a wheelchair now.

[27:39] She can't walk, so I'm everyone's

[27:41] caregiver. The children's wounds are

[27:43] healing slowly, but they cannot talk or

[27:44] eat well. I'm trying to keep myself

[27:47] together, so they can still see me as

[27:48] their hero. But no, I'm not strong now.

[27:50] There's so much fear that they will

[27:52] never recover. If there's another strike

[27:54] near us, they will lose their mind. And

[27:55] I have so much guilt because I'm the

[27:57] reason we stayed. We had a chance to

[27:59] leave Gaza a year ago. I refused because

[28:01] I love my people and my patients, but I

[28:02] regret it now. We used to be a beautiful

[28:04] family, but now I don't know.

[28:06] Your time is expired. Sorry.

[28:08] Um,

[28:09] Olden Denim, followed by Alan Sheay,

[28:11] then Randall Hein Lamb, then Mrs. Mrs.

[28:14] Jane.

[28:15] I'm no stranger to everyone here. And

[28:16] everyone know

[28:17] if everyone will form a line whose name

[28:19] was called, please.

[28:20] Excuse you.

[28:21] I think I'm sorry, M.

[28:23] Everyone knows my name. Everyone I'm no

[28:24] stranger here. And everyone knows what

[28:25] I'm here about. I came here a few years

[28:27] ago trying to get some justice. All I

[28:29] had was the truth in my hand telling. I

[28:31] put the truth on the table, but I've

[28:33] seen this truth being put down by lies.

[28:36] I've seen police officers say that

[28:37] Anthony Mlan had a gun in his hand. I've

[28:39] seen nobody look at the footage long

[28:40] enough to know that he didn't have a gun

[28:42] in his hand. He had a cell phone in his

[28:44] left hand. And the only other and the

[28:45] other thing that I got to say because I

[28:47] know I don't have much time is his dying

[28:49] declaration was after being asked where

[28:52] was his gun, he said his dying

[28:54] declaration, I don't have one.

[28:59] Thank you, Mr. Sheay.

[29:03] First of all, I'd like to thank uh

[29:07] Commission, I mean, council member

[29:09] Hampton. I think he said the most poetic

[29:11] thing tonight, and that is being a

[29:13] problem solver. I would hope that the

[29:17] councilman as the chair of the public

[29:19] safety indicate whether we're going to

[29:22] close out our request to have a properly

[29:26] held agenda item instead of continuing

[29:29] to ask that we get it done correctly. It

[29:33] was requested that we have it heard and

[29:37] discussed. The city attorney brought

[29:39] forth the law which was not complied

[29:42] with by the police officers. So if it

[29:45] doesn't stop here, we're going to take

[29:46] it to the oversight commission and keep

[29:49] putting it forth. So we are asking that

[29:51] you put an end to it now and either make

[29:54] a declaration that it is ended now.

[29:56] You're not going to move forward and

[29:58] then we'll take it to another level or

[29:59] we get it corrected here and call it

[30:02] closure. Thank you.

[30:04] Thank you, Mr. Ch.

[30:05] Randall Hin Lamb followed by Mrs. Jane

[30:08] Alara followed by Denellia

[30:11] Hin Lamb and then Bailey Payne. Please

[30:14] make your way forward.

[30:16] Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Mayor, I

[30:18] want to say that your words about Nenina

[30:22] were very moving and I hope you will

[30:24] remember that as we continue to be

[30:26] stubborn, I won't call for your

[30:28] resignation here today, but as we move

[30:31] stubborn,

[30:33] uh, these are names of children who

[30:35] never reached their third month of life

[30:38] who were killed in Gaza. Shima Nabil

[30:41] al-Aam

[30:43] Samar Muhammad Abu Hind Khaled Jajou

[30:47] Mariam Su Abed Mahmud Abdullah Hammad

[30:52] Sullean Jabra Kinawi Habiba Amar

[30:56] Al-Srafi Samir Muhammad Tamraz Juri Anas

[31:01] Shamiya Alma Adnan Jamal Wam

[31:07] Salah Salam Abdullah Riyad als

[31:15] Rabba al-Hhat

[31:17] Abdel Rahman Hammuda Bilal Kam.

[31:22] Thank you.

[31:22] Thank you very much.

[31:23] Mrs. Jane Al Far.

[31:26] Okay. Thank you.

[31:27] Uh Daniela Hinlam

[31:31] follow

[31:31] then Bailey Payne. Then Paul then Simon

[31:34] Gibbons.

[31:38] Hi, I'm Don Heinlam, resident in

[31:40] Pasadena, District 5.

[31:43] I was gutted today to hear of yet

[31:46] another act of violence, this time in

[31:49] Jerusalem.

[31:52] Mainstream media across our country will

[31:55] cover this act of violence. We'll know

[31:57] their names. We'll know all about them.

[32:01] We'll be able to recite their names.

[32:04] Unlike the perhaps 66,000

[32:07] officially declared dead in Gaza, of

[32:10] whom we know very few of their names.

[32:13] The names I read today are all babies

[32:18] two months old who have died and been

[32:21] killed in Gaza.

[32:23] Aria Saber Salah Abua

[32:27] Bisan Ibraim Muhammad al- Malaha Malak

[32:30] Ahmed Maher Abuida

[32:33] Gaser Nabil Nafal Mustafa Muhammad Farid

[32:38] Kandil Aid Hussein Muhammad Abuhamad

[32:43] thank you

[32:43] may rest in peace

[32:45] Bailey Payne followed by Paul by by

[32:48] Simon Gibbons then Dr. Treasure Shepard.

[32:52] Good evening, council and mayor. I

[32:54] wanted to share a story to explain why I

[32:57] will keep showing up at city council

[32:58] meetings advocating for divestment from

[33:00] the genocide in Palestine.

[33:03] The Red Crescent gets a phone call from

[33:05] a 15-year-old girl in a car in distress,

[33:07] begging for help. Her family is trying

[33:09] to flee, but they're surrounded by

[33:10] Israeli tanks in Gaza. Then shrieks,

[33:14] rounds of rapid fire, and then no more

[33:16] voice of a 15-year-old girl. The only

[33:19] voice left was that of Hend Rajab, the

[33:22] six-year-old girl with the flower crown.

[33:25] She says the tank is right next to her.

[33:27] She says it's dark and she's scared. She

[33:29] begs for the operator to come rescue

[33:31] her. The operator stayed on the phone

[33:33] with her for hours, reciting the Quran

[33:36] while two paramedics are trying to find

[33:37] her in an ambulance. Then the call goes

[33:40] silent. The Israeli tank killed the two

[33:43] paramedics and the ambulance and hind

[33:45] Rajab, the six-year-old girl with the

[33:47] flower crown.

[33:49] That tank was paid by my tax dollars and

[33:52] that haunts me.

[33:53] So, I will continue to show up

[33:56] differently. Thank you, Paul, followed

[33:59] by Simon Given, then Dr. Treasure

[34:01] Shepard, then Chelsea.

[34:05] Uh, good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council

[34:08] like to read the names of one-year-old

[34:09] children killed in Gaza. Eileen Ahmed

[34:13] Abdel Muti Alami

[34:20] Leanne Bilal Shabban Al-Husami

[34:24] Masa Allah Alin Ali Uda

[34:38] Talia Matasum Samir Mosp Okay.

[34:43] Malak Yaser Muhammad Doud

[34:47] Zena Fadi Muhammad Hajazi

[34:54] Masa Ahmed Paranaser

[34:57] Mera Mahmud Fadi Amida

[35:04] Juman Osama

[35:07] Sir your time is expired.

[35:09] Simon Gibbons followed by Dr. Treasure

[35:11] Shepard then Chelsea then Scott

[35:14] Habbermell.

[35:18] Thank you. Last year I stood in front of

[35:21] this dis with a group of other people

[35:23] asking you to review the way that you

[35:26] manage rents in Pasadena.

[35:28] We looked at whether we could make some

[35:30] adjustments to measure PR and we were

[35:33] told we needed to wait until the next

[35:35] electoral cycle. we'd see how things

[35:37] worked out. As you know, the rent

[35:40] department is not doing well. And last

[35:43] week, as part of the California

[35:44] Apartment Association's uh lawsuit, I

[35:47] took part in the the appeal court and

[35:49] listened in and heard the words from

[35:52] Justice Seagull. This is the most

[35:54] unfair, discriminatory rent

[35:56] stabilization board that I've ever seen.

[36:00] I'd like you to think about this and as

[36:02] we move into the next electoral cycle,

[36:04] as new options are put in front of you,

[36:06] to consider how we can make a reasonable

[36:08] approach to managing rent in Pasadena

[36:10] that make sure that all voices are heard

[36:12] so that we can have a stable and

[36:15] suitable way to ensure affordable

[36:17] housing. Thank you.

[36:19] Thank you, Dr. Treasure Shepard,

[36:22] followed by Chelsea, followed by Scott

[36:24] Habmill, then Michael Bonura.

[36:27] Uh, thank you. There's supposed to be a

[36:28] visual that Koko Panasian sent to it to

[36:31] post up right now um regarding the

[36:33] concert series, but I'm here as CEO of

[36:35] the Pasadena Recreation and Parks

[36:37] Foundation. We partnered with the city

[36:39] to bring back the Levit Foundation

[36:41] concert series for 3 years. So, we need

[36:43] everyone to vote. They have until the

[36:45] 15th to do so, 5:00 p.m. on that day.

[36:47] Random time, but please do so. Um just

[36:50] text Pasadena to the number 187749-5525.

[36:55] and whenever you guys put up the visual,

[36:57] that'd be great. Um, second, Council

[37:00] Member Cole, please take care of this

[37:01] divestment issue. You're hearing all of

[37:03] this. I know you care. I've talked to

[37:05] you, but yes, we need to handle that.

[37:07] And I agree with Hampton. Um, we need to

[37:09] make sure that citywide we are prepared

[37:12] for this in the future. Um, thank you

[37:14] very much.

[37:14] Thank you.

[37:15] Thank you, Chelsea.

[37:18] Followed by Scott Habbermill, followed

[37:20] by Michael Bonura, then Nasier Carse.

[37:23] Yes, this is Chelsea. I reside in

[37:25] district 7 and thank you Hampton for

[37:27] your interest in divestment. That's

[37:29] actually something I wanted to bring up

[37:32] um about just the media attention right

[37:34] now in Israel today about um eight

[37:36] civilians who were wounded by

[37:37] Palestinian shooters at a bus stop. Um

[37:40] however um as I've been sharing um

[37:45] Israel military intelligence data

[37:46] indicates that five out of six

[37:48] Palestinians killed by Israel's army are

[37:50] civilians. Um the 83% of civilian deaths

[37:53] is extremely high for modern warfare and

[37:56] even when compared to recent civil wars

[37:57] in Syria and Sudan. Um did that mean I

[38:00] was done?

[38:01] No, you have 30 seconds.

[38:02] Okay. Hamus International has concluded

[38:05] that Israel's committing genocide in

[38:06] Gaza joining more than 400 genocide

[38:09] scholars. So your continued interest is

[38:12] um really key right now. Thank you so

[38:14] much council. God bless you guys.

[38:16] Thank you.

[38:18] [Applause]

[38:19] Scott Habbermill followed by Michael

[38:21] Bonura, then Nasier Carse, then David

[38:24] Bond, then Pranit.

[38:26] Hello. Uh, my name is Scott Habmill. I'm

[38:28] a resident of Pasadena District 7. I'm

[38:31] here today to give my unqualified

[38:33] support for the Pasadena Greenways

[38:35] Project. I believe that everyone

[38:38] deserves the right to get around

[38:39] Pasadena safely without a car. And by

[38:42] that, I mean they should be they should

[38:44] both be safe and feel safe.

[38:48] In addition, I think that includes

[38:49] walking by bike, by scooter, or by

[38:52] public transport. The greenways are a

[38:54] low impact project that promises to give

[38:56] neighborhood streets back to the people

[38:58] who live on them while allowing those

[39:00] who don't to safely get around Pasadena

[39:03] on a bike. Please put them on the agenda

[39:06] and please approve the plan following

[39:07] the all ages and abilities guidelines.

[39:09] Thank you.

[39:13] Michael Bonora followed by Nasir Carse

[39:16] followed by David Bond then Prrenit then

[39:18] Levent Akarut.

[39:20] Thank you. Mayor and council members

[39:22] while the while the FBS board will make

[39:26] the decision to divest the city council

[39:29] can still pass a resolution calling on

[39:32] the FBS board to divest.

[39:36] that will show that the council cares

[39:39] that we are involved in genocide. Please

[39:42] be strong leaders. Thank you.

[39:47] Nasir car followed by David Bond and

[39:49] Perit

[39:53] Nasir.

[39:54] Yes. And it's Naser Kaser. Sorry.

[39:58] Um thank you so much for having us and I

[40:01] appreciate you serving our community.

[40:05] However, I am here today to um and and I

[40:09] was very touched by what everybody said

[40:12] about uh uh Nenina and um in my mind I'm

[40:17] thinking how many thousands of

[40:20] Palestinians have been killed and I

[40:22] would like for us to recognize at least

[40:26] the loss of the children and the honest

[40:30] people, the the uh young people. So what

[40:33] I was going to mention is just a couple

[40:35] of names one year olds that have passed

[40:38] away

[40:40] have been killed uh by Israeli um

[40:44] killers Muhammad Abdullah Nadia Senad

[40:49] Ahmed Minir Ibraim Ali Kazim Magd

[40:54] Muhammad. So I'm just reading a few.

[40:57] These are one year olds. 2,000 of them

[40:59] were killed

[41:01] which is just amazing.

[41:02] Your time has expired. David Bond

[41:04] followed by Prrenit

[41:06] then Levent Akbar and Mariam Gada.

[41:12] City Council, I am here in support of

[41:15] the city council's divestment of all of

[41:19] the genocide actors that's occurring

[41:22] right now in Palestine. It is uh the

[41:25] worst genocide that we have seen. It is

[41:28] being televised to us and we're seeing

[41:29] hundreds of thousands of innocent

[41:31] civilians killed. We're seeing a famine

[41:34] imposed by our tax dollars and this city

[41:38] has investment into these actors. We

[41:41] must show a united front of ending this

[41:45] genocide.

[41:50] Prenit followed by Levent Akabarut then

[41:53] Miriam Gaada then Anna Soul River and

[41:55] then Michael Tucker will be the last

[41:58] speaker on matters not on the agenda.

[42:02] Hi everyone, thank you for having me. My

[42:04] name is Prrenit. Um I just wanted to ask

[42:06] you guys again to divest from all all

[42:09] the companies that are uh currently

[42:11] profiting off of the genocide that's

[42:13] happening in Gaza. uh as you guys saw

[42:15] maybe in Santa Monica they have a

[42:17] financial emergency because of a huge

[42:19] lawsuit that they faced and they're

[42:21] unable to balance their books and the

[42:23] same thing will happen in Pasadena once

[42:25] they find that we are also guilty of

[42:27] committing genocide as we own we are

[42:30] partial owners in some of the war

[42:31] companies so again this is more of a

[42:33] legal protection for Pasadena is we need

[42:35] to make sure we dive best from all of

[42:36] them because as amnesty and all ICJ ICC

[42:40] has determined that genocide has been

[42:42] committed we are responsible for that.

[42:44] So, let's divest as quickly as possible

[42:45] so we don't get any legal repercussions

[42:48] as the city of Pasadena. Thank you.

[42:50] Thank you, Levent Akarut, then Mariam

[42:54] Gada, then Anna Soul River, and then

[42:56] Michael Tucker who's participating

[42:58] virtually.

[42:59] Okay. My name is Levent Akbar. I am a

[43:01] resident of Pasadena.

[43:04] I have a list of 1896 children and it's

[43:09] probably a way more now that have died

[43:12] since July 15, 2025.

[43:15] My list consists of number 9004, Karam

[43:20] Nadal Zoher Salman. And last on my list

[43:24] but not least is Jud Ma Mahmud Muhammad

[43:28] Hamdan.

[43:30] All the names here are uh children that

[43:33] are 11 months old. All of them are just

[43:36] 11 months old. And I would like to say

[43:40] that let's adjourn with the remembrance

[43:42] of the beautiful children of Gaza.

[43:46] Hopefully we can think deeply and make

[43:49] right decisions. Do not be a genocide

[43:53] denier. do not fall for the public uh

[43:56] for the public relations machine that

[43:59] are per perpetuating lies

[44:02] encouraging the genocide in Gaza.

[44:05] Mariam Gada Gada

[44:09] followed by Anna Soul River and then

[44:11] Michael Tucker.

[44:12] Good evening uh mayor and council

[44:14] members. My name is Mariam Sada. I'm an

[44:16] educator. Um I work with children every

[44:19] day. This is suicide prevention month

[44:21] and it's ironic that I work on the

[44:24] prevention end of death and I get

[44:27] trained uh to see the signs and prevent

[44:31] and save lives before they go and I'm

[44:34] standing here with a list of lives that

[44:36] are gone. And I tell my students every

[44:39] day, you know, as a good taxpayer, I

[44:41] don't want my money to go to this. I

[44:44] really don't. I work really hard so that

[44:46] my students go to college. we improved,

[44:48] you know, they find their American

[44:50] dream, they live it not for the sake of

[44:53] anything. So, it's the question here is

[44:55] not when where if we're going to divest

[44:58] is when. Thank you.

[45:03] Anna Soul River.

[45:04] Yes. Good evening, council members. I'm

[45:07] speaking as a concerned Pasadena

[45:08] resident. After reviewing the Department

[45:10] of Transportation's hydrogen bus

[45:12] proposal and hearing expert analysis

[45:15] like Joe Rum of the Bulbas,

[45:17] I urge real caution. Yes, hydrogen

[45:20] grants are tempting and a few extra

[45:21] miles of range may sound appealing, but

[45:24] those short-term benefits don't justify

[45:25] the long-term cost. Hydrogen is

[45:28] incredibly energy intensive to produce.

[45:30] And as the solar and battery

[45:31] technologies keep improving, hydrogen

[45:34] becomes harder to justify, not easier.

[45:36] Even so-called clean hydrogen has major

[45:39] climate drawbacks. Not the best idea.

[45:46] Okay. Michael Tucker,

[45:49] who's participating virtually. Mr.

[45:51] Tucker, I'll ring a bell when you have

[45:52] 30 seconds left.

[45:59] mute. Oh, I'm trying.

[46:02] There we go. All right. My name is

[46:03] Michael Tucker and I'm addressing the

[46:05] Pasadena City Council today to express a

[46:07] serious concern as a citizen of the city

[46:09] of Pasadena, District 1. First,

[46:11] expression of principle. For me, every

[46:12] human being that lives and works in this

[46:14] city is a member of this community and

[46:16] deserving of its respect and protection

[46:17] regardless of their federal immigration

[46:19] status. Everybody has inalienable human

[46:21] rights and is our duty as a community to

[46:23] look out for all of us. My concern is

[46:25] the expected resumption of the ICE raids

[46:27] in our community after the disappointing

[46:29] Supreme Court decision that put a stay

[46:31] on the district court order stopping

[46:32] him. That decision was handed down with

[46:34] no explanation despite two lower courts

[46:36] finding the stoppage order legal and

[46:37] appropriate. The brief review of a brief

[46:39] review of ISIS's motus operandi. ICE

[46:42] deputies are often mass and do not

[46:43] identify themselves. They detain people

[46:44] who have committed no crimes and

[46:46] interrogate them on the street. They

[46:47] imprison people, some of whom were later

[46:48] discovered to be American citizens

[46:50] unjustly and without warrant. The last

[46:52] item is my biggest concern. But I don't

[46:54] understand how we can allow people to

[46:55] essentially be kidnapped by someone

[46:57] cosplaying as a federal officer or

[46:58] without providing the requisite proof

[47:00] such as a signed warrant or at least ID

[47:02] proving they're a federal agent. I want

[47:03] to know what the city council has done

[47:05] and or plans to do to protect the

[47:07] members of our community these

[47:08] constitutional activities danger.

[47:10] Mr. Tucker, your time is expired.

[47:11] Thank you, Mr. Tucker.

[47:13] That completes public comment on the on

[47:15] matters not on the agenda.

[47:17] Thank you everyone for your patience and

[47:18] for adhering to the time limits. Um,

[47:23] Mr. Mayor.

[47:24] Yes, Mr. Cole.

[47:25] Um, I'll be brief. Um, I took to heart

[47:28] uh the comment made uh both to me after

[47:31] the meeting and then tonight at um the

[47:34] beginning of public comment that um

[47:37] we've heard week after week um eloquent

[47:40] and heartfelt uh concerns expressed by

[47:43] members of our community and that

[47:45] seemingly by our silence

[47:49] um we showed lack of empathy and

[47:50] compassion. I don't think that's the

[47:52] case with any of the members up here,

[47:54] but I understand how um people would

[47:57] interpret um that silence. Uh these are

[48:02] deeply troubling times in our country

[48:05] and in our world and uh what is

[48:08] happening in in Gaza and the West Bank

[48:11] uh and now in Israel again um is

[48:15] heartbreaking and sickening.

[48:19] Um, so I would ask um in the in the

[48:22] spirit of empathy and compassion, um,

[48:25] it's estimated that more than 700

[48:26] civilians were killed on October 7th um,

[48:31] uh, in Israel. And as we all know, well

[48:35] over 50,000

[48:38] Gazins have died uh, in nearly two years

[48:41] of warfare against uh, a civilian

[48:45] population. So I would ask that we also

[48:47] tonight adjourn in memory of all of the

[48:50] innocent victims

[48:53] of this war.

[48:56] I'd give a silent second to that and

[48:58] then I have one thing that's not such a

[49:00] silent second as well.

[49:03] I get it.

[49:05] Can't you can't be silent here. You

[49:07] know, Mike, but um a silent second to

[49:09] that. Uh and I also wanted to um say um

[49:11] to Missy Dodd, I'm so sorry to hear

[49:14] about your niece. I I wasn't here when

[49:16] you told the story, but I just want you

[49:18] to know that I love you and um your your

[49:20] family. I I just I want you to know that

[49:22] I'm I'm here uh in any way, any capacity

[49:25] I could be for you. I love you.

[49:27] [Applause]

[49:31] I uh

[49:34] I think um you know the

[49:39] public should also understand that you

[49:41] know it's it was well put by Mr. Cole,

[49:44] Mr. Hampton, and I think you speak for

[49:46] the rest of the council, uh, but you

[49:48] know, by law, we're prohibited from

[49:51] engaging or addressing matters that are

[49:53] not on our agenda. Um, and so I I I just

[49:58] want you to understand that it's not

[50:00] don't interpret our silence as, you

[50:02] know, a lack of sympathy or empathy for

[50:05] anyone who has lost a family member on

[50:09] whatever side they may be on. um uh in

[50:14] in any part of the world in any atrocity

[50:17] uh including in this country. Um and so

[50:22] uh you know we will uh adjourn in memory

[50:24] of all victims of violence uh anywhere

[50:27] and anywhere they may be.

[50:32] Um

[50:34] with that uh we will uh move on to the

[50:38] consent calendar.

[50:45] For the consent calendar, we have one

[50:47] speaker card for item 8. Uh we did

[50:51] receive correspondence for item four,

[50:54] five, and eight with those letters

[50:58] distributed to the council posted online

[51:01] and part of the record for each of those

[51:03] items.

[51:08] Okay.

[51:10] Um, mayor,

[51:11] I have concerns on items seven and

[51:12] eight.

[51:15] Ask the

[51:17] Okay, you want to hold them? Um,

[51:20] okay. Uh, is there a motion? Is that a

[51:22] motion on the remainder of the consent

[51:24] calendar?

[51:25] So moved.

[51:26] Okay. Is there a second?

[51:28] Second.

[51:28] Second. Are there any objections?

[51:30] I'm sorry. Six and seven, not seven and

[51:33] eight. I apologize.

[51:35] Six and seven.

[51:36] Yeah. Six and seven. You're dropping

[51:38] eight.

[51:39] No, no. 82. 678.

[51:43] Well, we have a speaker card on

[51:46] We have a speaker card on item eight.

[51:48] Okay. So, 6, seven, and eight are held.

[51:53] Uh, and the remainder of the consent

[51:55] calendar

[51:56] uh is subject to a motion. Any

[51:58] objections? Seeing none, let's start

[52:01] with item six, Mr. Cole.

[52:04] So, um, I was on the municipal services

[52:07] committee. My colleagues gave it serious

[52:08] consideration. Um I'm

[52:11] concerned about our recommendation. Um

[52:16] the

[52:17] under the proposal we move now to as

[52:22] little as onethird of the residents of a

[52:25] block um uh could u

[52:30] could be successful in in voting for

[52:32] speed humps. Um I made a motion for a

[52:35] higher threshold which is that at least

[52:38] 50% of the people meaning 67% of the

[52:42] voting but at least 50% of the people um

[52:45] who live there. The staff made a very

[52:48] persuasive to my colleague argument that

[52:50] it's very difficult particularly in some

[52:52] neighborhoods where there's a higher

[52:53] level of renters um etc. But uh I think

[52:57] it's we will encounter down the road

[53:00] some concerns when people say how come

[53:03] there speed humps on my street and we'll

[53:04] say we had an election and half the

[53:06] people voted and twothirds of the people

[53:08] voted for speed humps which means that

[53:11] twothirds of the people haven't weighed

[53:12] in. I think that's difficult but I am

[53:16] not going to um do anything other than

[53:19] suggest to my colleagues who are not on

[53:20] MSC if you share that concern we could

[53:23] discuss it. Otherwise, um I'm prepared

[53:26] to I I don't think it's a bad choice,

[53:28] but I I would be more comfortable with

[53:30] at least 50% of the people on a street

[53:33] saying they wanted speed humps.

[53:36] I I I agree with you given our history

[53:39] on speed humps. Uh it's been my

[53:42] experience that once they're installed,

[53:44] there are unintended consequences. you

[53:46] know, people speeding up to the hump,

[53:50] slowing down, going over it, and causes

[53:53] noise and sometimes screeching. Um, and

[53:56] then there are other issues when people

[53:59] don't slow down for the speed hump and

[54:02] cars bottom out, maybe lose control. Uh,

[54:05] my experience is that sometimes people

[54:09] who,

[54:11] you know, be careful what you wish for.

[54:12] Sometimes they wanted some wanted the

[54:14] speed hump and then they want them out.

[54:16] In fact, at one point we took up a

[54:18] policy in Pasadena that if a

[54:21] neighborhood wanted them out, they had

[54:22] to pay to remove them. Um, and so uh I I

[54:27] think I would suggest that we hold this

[54:30] matter uh and uh and revisit

[54:34] particularly the issue of a threshold.

[54:38] Mayor Oh,

[54:40] yeah. Go. Oh, council member.

[54:42] Oh my. Sorry.

[54:45] Uh, thank you, mayor, and thank you for

[54:47] your comments on on that.

[54:49] Council member Cole, um, I have a

[54:53] experience with this kind of like on a

[54:55] negative experience on it. starting with

[54:57] Green Hill and um you know there was a

[55:01] someone that wanted bumps on Green Hill

[55:04] really it was like she was running for

[55:08] election you know and and and really

[55:10] going to all the houses and then they

[55:12] put

[55:14] um you know speed bumps on that street

[55:17] and and everybody was complaining about

[55:19] it you know and when I was walking you

[55:22] know the uh when I was walking in 2011

[55:26] uh They told me how them how much they

[55:27] hated the the speed bumps. Well, she

[55:29] moved away. You know, the lady that

[55:31] wanted it. And now the the the uh the

[55:34] traffic goes onto the adjacent streets

[55:37] and that's the problem with having speed

[55:39] bumps if you're not careful. Thank you.

[55:43] And then there's the issue of, you know,

[55:45] people want some people want the speed

[55:47] humps and then there's one put in front

[55:48] of their home

[55:50] and they said, "No, move it over." Um

[55:52] and so I I think this this Well, let's

[55:56] hear from members of the MSSE.

[56:00] Mr. Hampton,

[56:00] um the policy went through so many

[56:04] different I mean it went through other

[56:06] committees as well. So there was a lot

[56:08] of time for residents to um chime in. Um

[56:11] in my district um there have been speed

[56:15] bump petitions that have gone out and

[56:17] transportation didn't get enough vote or

[56:19] enough responses at all. Right. And so

[56:21] we have to ask transportation to send

[56:23] out another ballot and they're kind

[56:25] enough to do it. Sometimes in some cases

[56:28] up to three to four times to get the

[56:31] response either yes or no. Um most cases

[56:34] it was always in favor or someone looked

[56:36] at the mailer that came in and they were

[56:38] like I'm not paying for nothing. I don't

[56:41] know what the city is sending me because

[56:44] probably looks like a bill or something

[56:45] to them. Um but I would say that I think

[56:48] that the policy that was put together um

[56:51] by um the transportation department um

[56:54] and um the transportation committee

[56:57] yeah transportation committee of a

[56:59] commission sorry commission of uh the

[57:01] city members uh is is actually a solid

[57:03] policy. The one thing I would have added

[57:06] to this um would be as um council member

[57:10] Cole has mentioned, you know, having

[57:12] below 50% or having would be to notify

[57:17] the residents 60 days prior to the

[57:19] install if they want to respond. They

[57:23] have 60 days putting notice notices

[57:25] along the corridor of that street that

[57:28] will say speed bumps will be installed.

[57:30] you have questions or concerns to reach

[57:33] out.

[57:35] I think that would be fair and then

[57:37] transportation would have the

[57:38] opportunity to look at those and say,

[57:40] you know what, now that everybody has

[57:42] weighed in on this and they really

[57:44] notice this and they're not just

[57:46] throwing away that mailer.

[57:49] Long story short, because otherwise we

[57:51] could just have, you know, 10 households

[57:53] on a house on a street of, you know, 30

[57:56] households that are on all in favor of

[57:59] it and everybody else says absolutely

[58:01] no. Because everybody looked at the

[58:03] mailer and they said, "Oh, I'm not going

[58:05] to I don't I don't need to respond to

[58:07] this. I don't need to I don't need to

[58:09] look at this." Or maybe there's just

[58:11] another way to advertise that we're

[58:14] we're asking for your input. I think

[58:16] that's I think that's what we're

[58:19] what's being suggested. Um, and it's a

[58:22] good suggestion. I mean, I don't want to

[58:26] infer from people's unwillingness

[58:28] sometimes to respond that they're for or

[58:31] against. Sometimes people don't respond

[58:33] because they're against. Um, Mr. Jones.

[58:38] Thanks, Mayor. And we did have this

[58:40] discussion at MSC and I believe it was a

[58:42] unanimous decision, but Mr. code did u

[58:45] bring up his recommendation as part of a

[58:47] a second motion, but I think it's

[58:50] important to to know like this policy is

[58:54] in response to the residents coming to

[58:57] their council members and what we've

[58:59] seen from DOT is that we've put out the

[59:02] the speed markers. A resident will

[59:04] petition for a speed hump and they

[59:07] didn't meet the threshold, right? They

[59:08] didn't meet the thousand um what is it

[59:11] car trips per day. So we've lowered that

[59:13] to 500. Often times when even if they

[59:16] did meet the thousand um they didn't get

[59:19] the 67% response rate that they were

[59:23] required. And so now the residents who

[59:26] have actively engaged and organized,

[59:29] they don't get the speed humps. And so

[59:31] our fear was is that if we didn't revise

[59:34] this policy,

[59:36] then we'll just be back at the same

[59:38] issue again. residents asking for speed

[59:41] humps and they not qualifying for it. Um

[59:44] I mean it's a good point about what Mr.

[59:46] Cole brought up and we did defer to to

[59:49] walk and his team to do some further

[59:51] investigation and then come back with a

[59:53] a recommendation of a response rate

[59:55] because it originally there was no

[59:58] minimum response rate. I believe it was

[1:00:00] just based on your engineering judgment.

[1:00:03] And so then part of that discussion we

[1:00:05] landed at a um for walk to come back and

[1:00:08] look at a minimum response weight. He

[1:00:10] came back with 50% and I think it'd be

[1:00:12] helpful to hear from him as how you came

[1:00:15] to that conclusion.

[1:00:21] Thank you. Yes. As as we discussed at

[1:00:22] MSSE, there were a number of things that

[1:00:24] we're looking for in this policy update.

[1:00:25] Um the one that that this discussion

[1:00:28] revolves around is that twothirds vote

[1:00:30] and um not getting um enough ballots

[1:00:33] back even after going going out a second

[1:00:35] or third time to try to get additional

[1:00:37] feedback. Um in the gender report we we

[1:00:40] did note that uh the percentage of

[1:00:42] ballots returned really ranged from

[1:00:44] about 46% to 78% of those mailed out and

[1:00:48] that's really after doing um a number of

[1:00:50] rounds of of outreach. So, um we are

[1:00:54] open to um adjusting that number at, you

[1:00:58] know, at this time if we'd like to move

[1:01:00] forward with um 50 or 50% plus one of

[1:01:04] all votes versus 2/3 of 50% of what

[1:01:06] comes back. I think either way, what

[1:01:08] this does, it it does uh provide um more

[1:01:13] uh opportunity for speed humps to be

[1:01:15] installed. They are a proven uh safety

[1:01:18] uh device. They're proven to be

[1:01:19] effective at reducing speeds. um they're

[1:01:21] one of the most asked for um types of

[1:01:23] devices that we get throughout the city.

[1:01:25] It's just it's very hard to meet our

[1:01:26] criteria. Um so we were trying to make

[1:01:29] that more uh accessible to everybody. Um

[1:01:32] we as staff feel that the 67% approval

[1:01:36] of 50% ballots was um was a a good

[1:01:40] number based on our data, but um it

[1:01:42] doesn't mean that we're opposed to uh

[1:01:44] 50% plus one of of a yes vote. Um it's

[1:01:50] just that again we don't count no votes

[1:01:54] as nos um anymore. We still need that

[1:01:57] that yes vote.

[1:02:01] Um I I think the policy in terms of the

[1:02:03] threshold is I mean I I I don't think

[1:02:06] that's the issue. The issue is the

[1:02:09] people who will respond and vote and um

[1:02:15] uh Mr. Lion were you

[1:02:16] yes in the

[1:02:17] Thank you mayor. I support the

[1:02:19] recommendation um the department's

[1:02:21] recommendation. I supported the

[1:02:23] recommendation that came before um this

[1:02:25] has gone through TAC, it's gone through

[1:02:26] MSSE um and now it's here. I don't know

[1:02:30] I don't know the residents that are that

[1:02:32] are crying out about furious about about

[1:02:35] speed bumps. Um I heard from quite a few

[1:02:37] people about this policy. Everyone

[1:02:39] uniformly asked me to vote for it.

[1:02:42] people. What I hear is that people want

[1:02:44] don't want cars speeding down their

[1:02:46] residential streets where their kids are

[1:02:47] playing and they're walking their dogs

[1:02:50] and this is a way to slow people down on

[1:02:52] our neighborhood streets. Um I I I don't

[1:02:56] think there's a lot of data to support

[1:02:58] that that speed bumps in particular, but

[1:03:00] trafficcoming measures in general result

[1:03:02] in in a mass um overflow to other

[1:03:06] streets. It's the first argument

[1:03:07] everyone makes against any trafficcoming

[1:03:09] measure and there's not a lot of data to

[1:03:12] support it. So I very much support the

[1:03:15] recommendation. Um I don't think we we

[1:03:18] have to infer anything from the non

[1:03:20] votes. That's the nature of democracy.

[1:03:22] The people who vote get to say what

[1:03:23] happens. That's how we're all sitting

[1:03:25] here at this table and we don't have a

[1:03:27] minimum threshold in our districts. So I

[1:03:30] think the threshold we came up with is

[1:03:32] is good. half the people on the street

[1:03:34] have to vote and then twothirds of of

[1:03:36] those voting can decide. Um and I I

[1:03:39] support the policy uh as written.

[1:03:41] I I'd second the motion too.

[1:03:46] I just have one clarifying question.

[1:03:48] It's not about the

[1:03:49] speed. So there's speed tables, speed

[1:03:52] humps, and speed cushions. Are we still

[1:03:54] doing speed humps or only speed cushions

[1:03:56] and speed tables? Uh speed cushion is a

[1:03:59] type of speed hump and that's the new

[1:04:01] standard that we're using throughout the

[1:04:02] city. It provides the grooves for fire

[1:04:04] vehicles. Speed tables are still under

[1:04:06] pilot and not um part of this policy. So

[1:04:08] we would come back at a later time for

[1:04:10] speed tables.

[1:04:11] I understand. So speed the long speed

[1:04:14] humps that everybody's used to seeing is

[1:04:16] no longer going to happen. What we're

[1:04:18] going to see from here on out are going

[1:04:20] to be the individual cushions that are

[1:04:22] like three cushions. They look like

[1:04:24] pillows.

[1:04:25] Correct. there. Uh they have the wheel

[1:04:27] cut out for fire emergency response

[1:04:29] vehicles. So that is the speed cushion.

[1:04:31] That's our current design. We wouldn't

[1:04:33] go back and change the existing ones

[1:04:35] unless we're resurfacing a street, but

[1:04:37] any new locations would uh would have

[1:04:39] that speed cushion design.

[1:04:41] Okay. Thank you. And nobody's found a

[1:04:43] way to take advantage of those and just

[1:04:45] go with one set of tires over it.

[1:04:47] Promise,

[1:04:48] Mr. Cole. Um, so to be clear, I support

[1:04:54] the change in policy and as the chairman

[1:04:57] noted, I went along with it because I

[1:05:00] support the change in policy and I do

[1:05:02] think it has been well vetted and I do

[1:05:04] think it's a step forward. Um, I again

[1:05:08] worry about what happens after speed

[1:05:10] humps are installed and I think that

[1:05:12] council member Hampton's suggestion is a

[1:05:14] good one. Although if that just opens

[1:05:16] Pandora's box, we have a we have a

[1:05:18] problem. I mean, the three complaints

[1:05:20] cause us to maybe maybe posting during

[1:05:24] the election makes sense.

[1:05:27] Uh so so that people know to to request

[1:05:30] a ballot if they lost theirs or threw

[1:05:32] theirs away. Um in the interest of of uh

[1:05:36] of hopefully passing this and and if it

[1:05:39] passes without um uh my vote, then I'm

[1:05:42] I'm fine with that as well. Let me offer

[1:05:45] a friendly amendment that we increase

[1:05:46] the um minimum uh threshold of

[1:05:50] participation

[1:05:52] uh to either 60%

[1:05:55] or um

[1:05:58] to 60% or um the equivalent of 50% of

[1:06:04] the turnout in the election to be either

[1:06:08] 60% or the number of yes votes uh to be

[1:06:11] at least 40%.

[1:06:14] uh that on 67 at least 40% of the total

[1:06:19] households. I know that sounds

[1:06:20] confusing. Let me say it again. Right

[1:06:22] now at 50% a twothirds vote is one-third

[1:06:26] of the people on the street.

[1:06:29] I think that's a problem. I think u Mr.

[1:06:33] Lion makes a good point that where's

[1:06:35] there's no minimum on elections for this

[1:06:38] body. If 10% of the people show up to

[1:06:40] vote, somebody gets 6% of the vote,

[1:06:43] they're a member of this body. But I do

[1:06:45] think on something as sensitive as this,

[1:06:47] it will make sense for us to be able to

[1:06:49] say there's a higher than onethird of

[1:06:52] the people. So leave it at at 67%.

[1:06:56] Um but at least

[1:07:00] 40% of the of the households be voting

[1:07:03] yes.

[1:07:06] Yeah. Um the the distinction, Mr. Lion,

[1:07:09] I I get what you're saying, but you

[1:07:11] know, we're not I mean, if if voters

[1:07:15] vote us in, um they can also vote us out

[1:07:19] uh in a couple of years. Uh there's a

[1:07:22] little bit more permanency to a physical

[1:07:25] change to someone's street. Um and you

[1:07:29] know that's I I think that's where I

[1:07:32] would say to you uh the difference is um

[1:07:36] and you know in terms of we we may have

[1:07:39] to agree to disagree on this but I do

[1:07:41] believe that you know I mean just look

[1:07:44] at your own our your meaning the

[1:07:47] collective all of us driving patterns um

[1:07:50] I've always said traffic is like water

[1:07:53] you know it will find the path of least

[1:07:54] resistance and I challenge anyone in

[1:07:57] this room to say to me, you haven't

[1:07:59] thought about finding the path of least

[1:08:02] resistance when you're driving, whether

[1:08:03] it means taking residential streets uh

[1:08:06] or streets with no speed humps or, you

[1:08:08] know, no stop signs. Um I think uh maybe

[1:08:13] at least once in your commute in the

[1:08:16] last few years, you've thought about

[1:08:19] that. And so I I do think there's an

[1:08:22] argument. Maybe we'll just have to agree

[1:08:23] to disagree.

[1:08:24] No, sir. I think I think we'll look at

[1:08:26] some data on the traffic is like water

[1:08:28] is is there's a good deal of data to

[1:08:31] respond to that I think. So

[1:08:33] mayor we can I clarify just your math or

[1:08:37] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:08:40] I understand what I was going to say.

[1:08:41] It didn't just sound confusing to us.

[1:08:43] I know. I apologize.

[1:08:45] Let me let me make it as simple as

[1:08:46] possible.

[1:08:47] 40% of 50% of 22% on a Tuesday is what I

[1:08:51] understand. No, no,

[1:08:53] that's exactly what to me.

[1:08:55] He was like, who's on first?

[1:08:58] Sorry.

[1:09:00] 100 houses on two blocks, right? Under

[1:09:04] the current policy,

[1:09:06] the minimum vote is 67 votes. If 67

[1:09:11] people vote and they all vote in favor

[1:09:13] of it, fine. But you have to have

[1:09:16] obviously more than than um 67 votes in

[1:09:20] order to get to the 67 threshold. And

[1:09:24] that's almost impossible as it turns out

[1:09:26] um because of people who don't vote at

[1:09:28] all. So um under the proposal that's

[1:09:32] before us,

[1:09:35] uh the minimum number is 34 on on those

[1:09:38] two blocks. I'm suggesting that it be we

[1:09:42] leave it as as 67, but there be a

[1:09:44] minimum of 40 yes votes.

[1:09:47] So 40% of the of the households be the

[1:09:51] minimum threshold. So it's that's pretty

[1:09:53] simple. It's the difference between

[1:09:54] right now it's 67 under this proposal be

[1:09:57] 34. Under my proposal it would be a

[1:10:00] minimum of 40 votes. It could be 90 to

[1:10:03] one or 90 to 10. It can be 67 to 33. But

[1:10:08] the yes votes have to me make up at

[1:10:10] least 40% of the households. That's all.

[1:10:16] Thank you, Mr.

[1:10:16] So basically 40% of the ballots that go

[1:10:19] out have to be returned in affirmative.

[1:10:22] No, that's under this proposal. Under

[1:10:23] the current proposal, 50% have to be

[1:10:26] Oh, in the affirmative. Yes. Correct.

[1:10:30] Yes. Correct.

[1:10:31] So that's your I missed your last two.

[1:10:32] You got to get 40% of yes votes and you

[1:10:35] doesn't matter how many come back.

[1:10:36] Yes. If it happened that 40% came back

[1:10:39] and they were all yeses, it would be a

[1:10:41] a yes.

[1:10:43] But I mean, we did discuss this at MSC

[1:10:45] and we did say that we was going to

[1:10:47] re-evaluate it after like 6 months.

[1:10:51] So I I mean I I'm still comfortable

[1:10:53] supporting the

[1:10:54] it's a friendly amendment if you don't

[1:10:55] accept it. I understand.

[1:10:56] Yeah. And and part of in addition to

[1:10:59] this is that we was going to do more

[1:11:01] outreach in different languages because

[1:11:03] a lot of residents were not returning to

[1:11:06] ballet because you know we just wasn't

[1:11:08] meeting their preferred language and so

[1:11:10] there was a barrier to that as well.

[1:11:13] So would could I add an amendment if

[1:11:16] that's okay? And I don't have an

[1:11:18] amendment on the the math percentages. I

[1:11:21] there's not going to be a math contest

[1:11:23] here. just that we notify

[1:11:27] the way the same way you know you can't

[1:11:29] park on the street there's some very

[1:11:31] visible notification that ballots are

[1:11:34] going out check your mail

[1:11:37] that we can do yes

[1:11:38] thank you I I I think I mean you

[1:11:40] mentioned 60 days and I was going to

[1:11:42] suggest it should be during the voting

[1:11:45] process

[1:11:46] yeah prior to the vote you know maybe

[1:11:48] put out the the the electronic uh sign

[1:11:53] um

[1:11:54] to notify people be that the vote is

[1:11:57] happening because 60 days out we've

[1:11:59] already let contracts we've you know the

[1:12:01] that

[1:12:03] no no 60 days is off the table. It was

[1:12:05] Yeah. Yeah. No. Council member Cole

[1:12:06] brought up a great idea. He was like or

[1:12:08] someone said why not before the ballots

[1:12:11] even go out so that we're advertising

[1:12:13] it.

[1:12:14] I was only putting the 60 days prior to

[1:12:17] just in case had issues with it.

[1:12:19] But yeah before Any

[1:12:26] further? Oh, Miss Rivas.

[1:12:28] Thank you, mayor. I'm supportive of the

[1:12:29] motion, supportive of the um friendly

[1:12:31] amendment. Um I think the key piece that

[1:12:34] we don't see in the staff report. It

[1:12:36] sounds like there was discussion, but

[1:12:37] that's why I support the friendly

[1:12:38] amendment. It's just the outreach piece.

[1:12:40] Um I think right now in my district, the

[1:12:43] streets that have done it, they really

[1:12:45] go all out. it is a really intensive

[1:12:47] effort and which is a good result

[1:12:49] because you know people are really

[1:12:50] motivated really invested in it um but

[1:12:53] it it's a lot of work so doing the

[1:12:56] outreach helping with outreach is going

[1:12:57] to make a big difference so I appreciate

[1:13:00] everyone's attention to that thank you

[1:13:03] and one quick item is the mailing of the

[1:13:06] ballots because we know from the city

[1:13:09] clerk's office you're doing obviously

[1:13:11] the city clerk's doing an audit but

[1:13:12] there's some city mail that hasn't

[1:13:14] reached every residential unit in the

[1:13:17] city. And so we need to make sure that

[1:13:19] we're very thorough about mailing out

[1:13:22] ballots to each unit within that block

[1:13:25] or that that segment that's petitioning

[1:13:28] for the speed hump.

[1:13:30] Yes, that's one of the things that we're

[1:13:32] looking at with the mailers is u making

[1:13:33] sure that the addresses that we've

[1:13:35] mailed them to uh make sense. If we get

[1:13:37] any returned ballots for undeliverables,

[1:13:40] we'll check and see why that address um

[1:13:44] uh was returned. Maybe it's a different

[1:13:46] address or maybe that address doesn't

[1:13:47] exist. But but we're um trying to

[1:13:49] approve that process to make sure that

[1:13:51] everybody gets a paper ballot um gets it

[1:13:53] in multiple languages. And uh now uh we

[1:13:56] will also be doing some notification

[1:13:58] when the ballots go out um public

[1:14:01] notification so people can see it

[1:14:02] through some kind of signage on that

[1:14:04] street that there is a ballot out.

[1:14:09] Last question. Do we do this digitally

[1:14:12] as well? Have we thought about that?

[1:14:15] We've traditionally just done paper

[1:14:17] ballots to be able to get them um back

[1:14:20] that way so that we can um um verify

[1:14:23] that it was

[1:14:25] the ballot that was mailed out is is

[1:14:26] coming back from that address.

[1:14:28] I'll tell you this just as one

[1:14:29] individual, right? I mean, I guess I'm

[1:14:32] considered a millennial. I I the mail

[1:14:35] that I get in my home is pretty much

[1:14:38] just coupons.

[1:14:40] Everything else is done digitally. My

[1:14:42] bills don't come to me. That's all

[1:14:44] digital. I don't get that in the mail.

[1:14:46] So, if I get a a letter from the city of

[1:14:49] Pasadena,

[1:14:51] I mean, I'm looking at it because it

[1:14:52] comes in our packages, right? But but

[1:14:55] I'm saying the average person is not

[1:14:57] opening them, right? They're just not

[1:14:58] opening them. They're just saying, "I'm

[1:15:00] not going to open that because

[1:15:03] everything I get is digital." So I mean,

[1:15:05] so we should look at when that

[1:15:06] notification goes out some sort of dig

[1:15:09] digital way and in a way that the

[1:15:11] individual can identify, you know, this

[1:15:13] is my address, etc. Because even, you

[1:15:16] know, with fraud, someone say, well,

[1:15:18] that that opens up the door for anyone

[1:15:19] to vote, right? And put any address in.

[1:15:22] You could do that now.

[1:15:24] Right. You could technically get a

[1:15:25] ballot from someone's mailbox and vote

[1:15:28] in affirmative

[1:15:29] or vote in favor or vote against.

[1:15:31] I'm going to remind us that we're still

[1:15:32] on consent calendar on the first item

[1:15:34] pulled.

[1:15:36] Um there's a speed bump.

[1:15:39] Yeah.

[1:15:41] Question.

[1:15:42] And so

[1:15:44] um

[1:15:45] are there we have a motion and a second.

[1:15:48] Are there objections? This is for the

[1:15:50] staff recommendation without the

[1:15:51] friendly amendments.

[1:15:53] What was the friendly amendment? I think

[1:15:54] we were good with the with the

[1:15:56] outach. Yeah. Yeah. Signage on the

[1:15:59] street I think is important and and and

[1:16:01] a really rigorous outreach. That's what

[1:16:03] I would say.

[1:16:04] Okay. So, that was the friendly

[1:16:05] amendment. Okay.

[1:16:08] Uh,

[1:16:10] Council Member Cole

[1:16:11] on balance. Yes.

[1:16:14] Council member Hampton.

[1:16:16] Yes.

[1:16:17] Council Jones. Yes.

[1:16:18] Council Lion.

[1:16:19] Yes.

[1:16:20] Council Madison.

[1:16:21] Yes.

[1:16:21] Council Msuda.

[1:16:27] Yes.

[1:16:28] All right.

[1:16:28] Vice Mayor Rivas.

[1:16:30] Yes.

[1:16:30] Mayor Gordo.

[1:16:32] Yes.

[1:16:33] The motion passes unanimously.

[1:16:36] Item seven. Mr. Cole.

[1:16:41] Um, let's see. Uh,

[1:16:45] questions or

[1:16:46] No, not I'm sorry. Seven was a mistake.

[1:16:48] I did not mean to call seven.

[1:16:49] Eight.

[1:16:50] Motion to move approval of item number

[1:16:52] seven.

[1:16:53] Thank you.

[1:16:53] Second.

[1:16:56] We have a motion and a second to approve

[1:16:57] staff recommendation.

[1:16:59] Any objections?

[1:17:01] Seeing none, matters approved.

[1:17:02] I apologize. I was I was looking at six

[1:17:05] and eight and uh seven got mixed up in

[1:17:08] there.

[1:17:08] Okay. Uh on number eight

[1:17:10] again I had um a difference of

[1:17:14] perspective from my colleagues on MSC

[1:17:16] although um we're all thinking in the

[1:17:20] same regard all of us uh who are present

[1:17:23] want to see this policy changed um I

[1:17:27] wanted to go further um right now you

[1:17:32] can size up to 150% of your uh current

[1:17:37] use

[1:17:39] um and if you want to go above 150%

[1:17:44] uh this under this policy change then

[1:17:47] you need to install batteries. The

[1:17:49] problem with that is the batteries are

[1:17:51] very expensive. They make a lot of sense

[1:17:53] but we we have not yet in uh created an

[1:17:56] incentive program to help people to

[1:17:58] invest in batteries. And so we need

[1:18:02] between 90 and 120 megawws of local

[1:18:05] solar and putting them on people's

[1:18:08] rooftops,

[1:18:09] individual homes as well as businesses

[1:18:11] make a lot of sense. And given that

[1:18:14] people are buying electric cars, people

[1:18:16] are increasingly electrifying as I have

[1:18:20] um their appliances and their heating

[1:18:22] and air conditioning. Uh, I think that

[1:18:25] 200%

[1:18:27] um makes more sense. If we want to come

[1:18:29] back and revisit when we get a battery

[1:18:31] incentive and and really um incentivize

[1:18:35] batteries, I think that makes a lot of

[1:18:37] sense and I understand why the staff

[1:18:39] recommended it. But I think until we

[1:18:41] have that battery incentive to ask

[1:18:43] people um to put in very expensive

[1:18:47] battery systems, not that we'll pay for

[1:18:49] 100% of it, but we should we should find

[1:18:51] a way either to finance it or or some

[1:18:54] kind of credits, but in the meantime, I

[1:18:57] think it's unreasonable to limit to just

[1:19:00] 150%. It's not a do or die issue, but I

[1:19:04] think it is an important um and and the

[1:19:07] the chances of abuse, whatever that

[1:19:09] looks like, uh are so minuscule. The

[1:19:13] number of people that are going to spend

[1:19:14] the money to go above 150% are the

[1:19:17] people who are not trying to make a buck

[1:19:19] off of the city. They're people who

[1:19:22] legitimately think I'm going to buy an

[1:19:23] electric car or I'm going to convert. Um

[1:19:26] and and so that's uh that's my view and

[1:19:30] I wanted to put it on the record and see

[1:19:32] if any of my colleagues not on MSSE

[1:19:34] share those concerns.

[1:19:36] I will second that if that is a motion.

[1:19:38] Uh and I am fine with I prefer the more

[1:19:42] I think that anybody wants to put any

[1:19:43] solar on their home, we should allow

[1:19:45] them to do that. Um if they want to

[1:19:47] disconnect from the grid, we should

[1:19:49] allow them to do that as well. So, um,

[1:19:51] if you're able to produce 200% of your,

[1:19:54] um, usage, maybe you'll eventually

[1:19:56] decide to disconnect from the grid. Um,

[1:19:59] to council member Cole's, um, point

[1:20:00] about the, um, how much batteries cost,

[1:20:04] depending on how you're doing your

[1:20:06] solar, um, installation, adding 50% more

[1:20:11] could be equivalent to the cost of your

[1:20:14] battery. So, I I I do think that

[1:20:17] residents should have the option um to

[1:20:19] go to 200% if they like. Um but I would

[1:20:22] encourage them to and I would encourage

[1:20:24] water and power to um come up with um

[1:20:26] some sort of incentive um to give our

[1:20:30] residents to to really invest in battery

[1:20:33] storage.

[1:20:33] Well, not to be um preempt here, but I I

[1:20:36] will make a motion to that effect with

[1:20:39] the following provisions. number one

[1:20:41] that we adopt this the recommendation

[1:20:43] from MSSE

[1:20:45] number two that we raise the threshold

[1:20:48] from 150 to 200%

[1:20:51] um to be revisited when and if we move

[1:20:55] forward with battery incentives

[1:20:57] and number three that this apply not

[1:21:00] just to new systems but to upgrades of

[1:21:02] existing systems.

[1:21:04] That's my motion.

[1:21:09] I mean, I thought I just seconded it.

[1:21:11] So, I mean, I I I seconded before, but

[1:21:13] it's all good.

[1:21:15] Okay.

[1:21:16] Works.

[1:21:18] Um,

[1:21:21] Mr. Madison,

[1:21:24] thanks, Mayor. Mr. um Hampton was

[1:21:26] talking about making a buck, but is this

[1:21:28] a a revenue generator for the resident

[1:21:33] if if it potentially is sell back? It

[1:21:36] potentially is uh if they are producing

[1:21:40] more than they consume.

[1:21:41] Is that a policy change?

[1:21:45] It is a slight policy shift I would say

[1:21:48] um from where the existing policy exists

[1:21:50] today which is to try to match the solar

[1:21:52] system to the residents uh needs to

[1:21:55] their actual usage.

[1:21:56] Are residents today receiving u checks

[1:21:59] from the city for power?

[1:22:01] Some do.

[1:22:02] Okay. Yeah. That's problematic because

[1:22:06] uh

[1:22:08] you know there've been some subsidies of

[1:22:10] those systems by the city and other

[1:22:13] levels of government. So I wasn't aware

[1:22:15] of that. I have solar in my home but um

[1:22:18] we don't get checks from the city.

[1:22:20] Certainly never expected and I never got

[1:22:22] a rebate too. I never applied for them.

[1:22:24] Um, so that's a significant policy

[1:22:28] judgment, I think, if we're going to

[1:22:29] turn the residents into um, producers.

[1:22:34] I'm not opposed to it necessarily, but I

[1:22:36] think that needs some discussion. And

[1:22:38] then my understanding was, I mean, I

[1:22:40] liked the staff recommendation because

[1:22:41] what we really need is storage. We need

[1:22:43] to have storage so that um, we've got

[1:22:46] the capacity when we need it um, even if

[1:22:49] we're not able to generate it in that

[1:22:51] moment. So I read the staff

[1:22:53] recommendation to be you can get more

[1:22:56] but it'll be tied to a storage

[1:22:59] mechanism. So for me that's a good

[1:23:02] policy. Um and it's hard you know at

[1:23:05] 8:30 at night for eight of us to tinker

[1:23:08] with really well-reasoned professional

[1:23:10] staff

[1:23:11] policy judgments that have already all

[1:23:13] these arguments were made at MSC

[1:23:15] unsuccessfully apparently um by Mr.

[1:23:19] Cole. So, I'm going to stick with the

[1:23:20] staff recommendation.

[1:23:22] Thank you,

[1:23:24] mayor. I don't know that it's helpful,

[1:23:25] but I would just remind the council that

[1:23:26] the council did approve uh a budget that

[1:23:29] includes a rebate program, and we're in

[1:23:32] the process of developing that

[1:23:33] implementation. So, there's money there

[1:23:35] for a rebate program for batteries,

[1:23:37] battery storage. We hope to roll that

[1:23:39] out in the next 3 months.

[1:23:41] And David, could you clarify the fund

[1:23:43] that that's coming out of?

[1:23:44] It's from the PBC fund.

[1:23:45] Yeah.

[1:23:46] Public benefit. Yes. So it doesn't

[1:23:48] affect the rate pair.

[1:23:51] And I'm not this is sort of without

[1:23:52] prejudice to future adjustments upwards.

[1:23:55] And I'm not hearing staff say otherwise

[1:23:57] in terms of the the generation piece,

[1:23:59] but I think it's a it's a good balance

[1:24:02] of focusing on more generation and more

[1:24:05] storage. I think we need to catch up

[1:24:07] with storage if we can as it were.

[1:24:12] Um Mr. Jones followed by Miss Reebas.

[1:24:15] Thanks, Mayor. And and that's precisely

[1:24:18] the discussion we had at MSC. This is

[1:24:20] again responding to residents who want

[1:24:23] to get the the solar credit before it

[1:24:26] expires or the federal government um

[1:24:28] takes it away and allowing them to build

[1:24:31] out some additional capacity. Maybe in

[1:24:33] the future they're going to get one EV.

[1:24:35] And so we came to the conclusion that

[1:24:37] 150% of their existing usage was a fair

[1:24:42] and balanced approach. part of the staff

[1:24:44] recommendation and Mr. Cole did raise

[1:24:46] these concerns and and you know we

[1:24:48] thoroughly discussed it and my

[1:24:50] recollection was is that we would kind

[1:24:53] of the the general manager would get a

[1:24:57] sense of the applications coming in and

[1:25:00] then if you know if people are saying

[1:25:02] hey I want 200% then general manager

[1:25:05] would come back to MSC and we'd have

[1:25:07] that further discussion but it part of

[1:25:10] that was that we are um encouraging

[1:25:13] solar storage because we do know that we

[1:25:15] need our residents to help us meet our

[1:25:18] carbon-f free goals with solar and with

[1:25:20] storage. And so that was part of the the

[1:25:22] balanced discussion we had at MSSE. And

[1:25:25] so I'm prepared to support the um

[1:25:27] staff's recommendation, the

[1:25:29] recommendation that we had at MSC, but

[1:25:31] I'm also prepared to to have a further

[1:25:34] discussion on Mr. Cole and Mr. Hampton's

[1:25:36] motion.

[1:25:37] If that's a substitute motion, I would

[1:25:39] second it.

[1:25:39] Yeah, substitute motion.

[1:25:42] uh the the issue of I'm sorry, Miss

[1:25:44] Reebus. Go ahead.

[1:25:46] Thank you, Mayor. Just quick question

[1:25:48] because I I wasn't following the

[1:25:49] discussions at MSSE and I appreciate the

[1:25:51] overview we've gotten here, but and as a

[1:25:54] just from the perspective of residents,

[1:25:56] what I've heard, the move to 200% over

[1:25:59] 150 is something that I've seen a call

[1:26:01] for a desire for, there's a desire for

[1:26:04] to be able to to do more. Um what's the

[1:26:06] department's response? What is the

[1:26:08] concern that I feel like we haven't

[1:26:09] heard that piece of it yet? what why why

[1:26:11] did the department recommend 150 over

[1:26:12] 200?

[1:26:13] Yeah. So, what what we've looked at and

[1:26:15] and again the the existing ordinance and

[1:26:18] policy really speak to trying to size

[1:26:20] the solar system to the customer's needs

[1:26:23] so that whatever is generated or used uh

[1:26:26] is paid for. It's offset. Basically, the

[1:26:28] solar system would offset the the needs

[1:26:30] of the customer and so basically you're

[1:26:32] not paying for electricity. And what

[1:26:34] we've heard is that our existing policy

[1:26:37] of looking at annual usage is somewhat

[1:26:39] restrictive and doesn't allow customers

[1:26:41] to rightsize for the future. They're

[1:26:43] going to buy an EV, they're going to do

[1:26:44] an addition, maybe they're going to grow

[1:26:45] their family. Um, and 150% is what we

[1:26:50] recommended just sort of as a matter of

[1:26:52] right. Uh, that accounts for about one

[1:26:54] EV, a little bit more than one EV from

[1:26:56] our from our math. And then the thinking

[1:26:58] was beyond that. Um, if you want to go

[1:27:02] beyond 150, you you certainly can, but

[1:27:04] we'd like you to install a battery. And

[1:27:06] the OSP, although it's not done, our

[1:27:08] carbon-f free goals in the city are

[1:27:11] going to require uh our residents to to

[1:27:13] help out and and batteries are a great

[1:27:16] way of doing that. And that that was the

[1:27:17] staff thinking.

[1:27:18] And is it a concern from the department

[1:27:21] or the city that if a home has more

[1:27:24] capacity than it needs and then the city

[1:27:25] has to buy it back, is that a financial

[1:27:27] concern from the department's

[1:27:28] perspective? Is that what is that where

[1:27:30] this is what's driving this?

[1:27:32] So, the time of use rates that we've

[1:27:34] been talking about with council with MSC

[1:27:36] within the OSP uh once we have our AMI,

[1:27:39] we think we're going to be able to

[1:27:40] address that. Right now, we're not able

[1:27:42] to. In other words, buying back power at

[1:27:44] 12:00 p.m. when we don't need it at at a

[1:27:47] premium cost, it doesn't make a lot of

[1:27:49] sense for anybody. Um but but if a

[1:27:51] customer has uh battery, they can

[1:27:54] basically store that energy that's not

[1:27:56] needed at 12 and they can either use it

[1:27:58] themselves or they can sell it back to

[1:28:00] the city at a premium. So financial uh

[1:28:03] analysis was not part of this

[1:28:04] discussion. I can tell you that it would

[1:28:06] be certainly part of something in the

[1:28:08] future. We've talked about it with time

[1:28:09] of use rates and what that looks like in

[1:28:11] terms of how much the city uh would

[1:28:13] would actually how much we're paying for

[1:28:15] power versus how much we're uh buying

[1:28:18] from our our customers. But the 150

[1:28:20] versus 200 and when the batter is

[1:28:22] required, you know, I think staff would

[1:28:24] would uh follow whatever council's

[1:28:26] direction was.

[1:28:28] Thank you for that explanation.

[1:28:29] Appreciate it.

[1:28:30] We also have public comments

[1:28:32] in the issue of uh of whether you know

[1:28:36] the city would buy back. That that was

[1:28:39] heavily debated when when we went

[1:28:40] forward. Um and it was a concern that

[1:28:44] people would you know um

[1:28:49] uh make it a profit center or that

[1:28:50] businesses would make it a profit

[1:28:52] center. Where we landed on it at the

[1:28:54] time was well you know we are interested

[1:28:57] is in in uh having no carbon footprint

[1:29:01] and so that was a price to pay at the

[1:29:04] time.

[1:29:05] Yeah. um for

[1:29:08] uh allowing residents to to collect.

[1:29:11] Right. I appreciate hearing that uh as

[1:29:13] well. If it seems like the the the

[1:29:16] technology or batteries or is not there

[1:29:18] yet or rather the cost of batteries is

[1:29:20] not there yet to make them widely

[1:29:22] available. So we have this mismatch

[1:29:23] between the panels and the batteries.

[1:29:25] And I don't see it as folks, you know,

[1:29:28] trying to gain the system, trying to

[1:29:29] make a profit. It's just the nature of

[1:29:31] that imbalance right now where there's

[1:29:32] going to be an excess at certain points

[1:29:34] of the day until we correct that until

[1:29:36] there's more batteries. I appreciate

[1:29:37] again hearing what the logic was with

[1:29:39] the the batteries.

[1:29:40] The other the I just want to add and

[1:29:42] Vujo would probably do a lot better than

[1:29:43] me, but just to share it really does

[1:29:45] help with demand on the grid as well.

[1:29:47] The the batteries do help uh alleviate

[1:29:50] load and I don't know if Mr. Vidian if

[1:29:52] you wanted to say a little bit more

[1:29:53] about that. Uh yes thank you David

[1:29:55] version of video and assistant general

[1:29:57] manager for power delivery division in

[1:29:58] addition to the financial aspects of it

[1:30:01] and us and the customers needing the

[1:30:03] batteries I mean uh David mentioned the

[1:30:06] imbalance like in the middle of the day

[1:30:08] there's we have excess solar and that

[1:30:10] the excess solar that comes back to our

[1:30:12] grid has an impact on our grid it can

[1:30:15] increase voltage it can over overload

[1:30:17] equipment and we have been upgrading our

[1:30:19] system for years this was the first year

[1:30:22] we created a specific CIP P to capture

[1:30:25] the cost to give us transparency and the

[1:30:27] public transparency how much as far as

[1:30:29] how much we're spending. So our concern

[1:30:30] for going anything over 150 is that that

[1:30:33] impact on our distribution system is

[1:30:35] going to be greater. So we want to be

[1:30:37] really cautious as far as what we do. We

[1:30:39] can certainly uh be back at council at a

[1:30:42] later date if we see uh what it is as

[1:30:45] far as financial impact on our

[1:30:46] distribution system, not the rates. Uh

[1:30:49] but we uh we can we can report back to

[1:30:52] council as far as what what we see.

[1:30:55] Yeah.

[1:30:56] You know the the debate at the time was

[1:30:59] heavily around we still have to pay for

[1:31:02] the distribution system and and so that

[1:31:05] was part of the the the balance we the

[1:31:07] council at that time was attempting to

[1:31:09] strike. Um, let me suggest that maybe uh

[1:31:13] since we have a substitute motion um

[1:31:16] that we support the substitute motion

[1:31:18] with an amendment to send the issues

[1:31:20] raised by Mr. Hampton and Mr. Cole uh

[1:31:23] back to MSE for more thinking and then

[1:31:25] come back to us. Um but um

[1:31:29] we still have public comment

[1:31:31] oh uh we still have public comment and I

[1:31:34] see Mr. Lion, uh Mr. Madison and Mr.

[1:31:38] Coler are back in the queue.

[1:31:40] Thank you, mayor. Um, I we did go around

[1:31:43] and around about this. The batteries are

[1:31:47] an incredibly important piece of

[1:31:49] converting solar into a resource that we

[1:31:52] can use around the clock. Um, but

[1:31:56] in some ways that this number is squishy

[1:31:58] and maybe a little arbitrary. I wonder

[1:32:00] if there's not a compromised position to

[1:32:02] get to here, which is that we set the

[1:32:06] the entitlement at 150%. And then to go

[1:32:10] over you either have a battery system or

[1:32:14] demonstrate a need for and which is to

[1:32:17] show I'm actually purchasing a or I have

[1:32:20] purchased uh a second EV. Um, but you

[1:32:24] can either either get a battery system

[1:32:26] or demonstrate a need and then you can

[1:32:27] go to your need over

[1:32:30] 150%. That may be able to bridge this

[1:32:32] together. It's unfortunate we're coming

[1:32:34] to this discussion now. It's a little

[1:32:36] peace meal. We we're we're just about to

[1:32:38] get to adopting the OSP. We know that

[1:32:41] solar is the critical component in

[1:32:44] getting over the 100% goal. Um, but we

[1:32:48] also are running up against the clock of

[1:32:50] the of the federal incentive running out

[1:32:53] at the end of the year. And so we're

[1:32:54] trying to create what we can a mechanism

[1:32:56] to incentivize people to move now if

[1:32:58] they want to do that. Um, so it it I we

[1:33:02] need to get something passed tonight.

[1:33:04] Um, and I'm I'm happy to to compromise

[1:33:07] on how we do it. Council

[1:33:09] totally undermine batteries, but the if

[1:33:11] if the if that system could work, we can

[1:33:13] kind of meet both.

[1:33:15] Is that a friendly amendment? Oh,

[1:33:17] I was just want to clarify. Um, what if

[1:33:21] a resident already had an EV? Would that

[1:33:24] qualify them to get the 200%.

[1:33:27] Well, no. They're going to get to So,

[1:33:28] they get to go to 150% of their of their

[1:33:31] load for the last five years. Is that

[1:33:33] how we do it? So, we look at average

[1:33:34] from the last five years. they they get

[1:33:36] to go to 150% of that. To go over that,

[1:33:39] they either have to demonstrate an

[1:33:40] actual need, which might be another EV,

[1:33:44] it might be uh they're expanding the

[1:33:46] house. Um I don't know what other need

[1:33:48] you might have, but but um either an

[1:33:51] actual need or a battery system.

[1:33:53] So your EV now, at least newer EVs, act

[1:33:57] as a battery system. So I my question is

[1:34:01] would that contemplate or maybe I should

[1:34:04] ask the general manager me having a EV

[1:34:07] that could generate power back to my

[1:34:09] home which most EVs have this capability

[1:34:11] now and any EV I think any EV has the

[1:34:14] avail ability to do this with a device

[1:34:17] would that consider me as having a um a

[1:34:21] battery

[1:34:22] that doesn't get back to the grid just

[1:34:23] yet so the the point of the battery is

[1:34:26] that it would be connected to the grid

[1:34:27] and So, um, we we hope to get there. Uh,

[1:34:30] and and I believe actually we will get

[1:34:32] there. We're we're not there yet. Where

[1:34:34] the the car batteries would serve as,

[1:34:36] uh, uh, interconnected to the grid, but

[1:34:38] it it certainly as everything that you

[1:34:40] said I I believe is true. They can if

[1:34:43] you hook it up correctly, you can uh

[1:34:44] help power your home, but it wouldn't

[1:34:46] get back to the grid. Okay. Thanks.

[1:34:51] Okay, Mr. Madison.

[1:34:54] Thank you, Mayor. I'd really just want

[1:34:56] to follow up. So, did I hear that we're

[1:34:58] buying power that we can't use right now

[1:35:02] from residents?

[1:35:05] We under our existing net energy

[1:35:07] metering system, we we do purchase uh

[1:35:10] excess power um from from our customers

[1:35:12] that have solar where they're generating

[1:35:14] more than they uh than they use.

[1:35:16] Even at non- peak time when we don't

[1:35:18] need it.

[1:35:19] Yeah. We without consideration of time.

[1:35:21] Yeah, that's a problem.

[1:35:22] I mean, it's a bit it's it's a problem

[1:35:25] just because I don't know that we

[1:35:26] understand what the economics of that

[1:35:28] are, why we're doing that. So, and you

[1:35:31] know, my experience is batteries are

[1:35:33] already the prices are coming down and

[1:35:34] they're going to proliferate. So, I I

[1:35:37] really feel like that's where our focus

[1:35:38] should be. Um, and I would actually like

[1:35:42] to see a maybe a just a written report

[1:35:45] about, you know, what and how much money

[1:35:47] are we spending and are we are we is

[1:35:49] that taxable income to the resident? Are

[1:35:51] we are you issuing 1099s? Um what's

[1:35:55] happening there?

[1:35:56] It's in the form of credit usually. Um

[1:35:58] if they're generating more and so um

[1:36:01] well the credit's different and if what

[1:36:03] you're telling me is

[1:36:04] we're just rolling that into their

[1:36:06] yearly or some other measurement of of

[1:36:09] power. I think that might be okay

[1:36:11] because then they're still just

[1:36:13] getting the benefit of what they're

[1:36:14] using.

[1:36:15] Yeah. the the existing uh regulations

[1:36:19] call for a credit and in some instances

[1:36:21] they're still generating more than than

[1:36:22] what their usage is on on a rare

[1:36:25] occasion. I know that we we have issued

[1:36:27] checks before.

[1:36:27] Then we cut a check. So again, is that a

[1:36:29] taxable event? Are we issuing a 1099?

[1:36:31] We we are not issuing 1099.

[1:36:34] I I don't know why not. That should be

[1:36:35] taxable income probably, right? I mean,

[1:36:37] this needs more study than a 900 p.m.

[1:36:40] city council, you know, session. So,

[1:36:44] I'd like to get a report, you know, just

[1:36:46] offline from staff about all that. Thank

[1:36:49] you.

[1:36:51] No pun intended.

[1:36:55] Um,

[1:36:55] non peak.

[1:36:56] Yeah. Not non- peak hour. Uh, we do have

[1:36:59] public comment. Um,

[1:37:03] clerk.

[1:37:05] Um, Mr. Qu was in the queue, but I'll

[1:37:08] I'll defer till after public comment.

[1:37:11] Sandy Kraner

[1:37:14] and uh I believe Yachti put in a public

[1:37:16] comment card for this as well.

[1:37:18] Hi there. Well,

[1:37:19] two minutes. Go ahead.

[1:37:21] Two minutes. Okay. As I understand,

[1:37:22] politics is the art of the possible,

[1:37:24] right? Um so I think tonight it

[1:37:28] certainly makes sense to go ahead with

[1:37:30] the staff proposal for 150% batteries

[1:37:33] above that. I think as you've seen

[1:37:36] there's a certain sense of urgency. We

[1:37:39] got a deadline coming up at the end of

[1:37:40] the year because of what the

[1:37:42] administration has done to solar panel

[1:37:44] credits. Let's move out with this as

[1:37:47] you've got it. Now, I didn't want to

[1:37:49] address Mr. Madison's question. I don't

[1:37:51] know what the statistics are on PWP, but

[1:37:54] I suspect there's not a lot of people

[1:37:55] out there making a million dollars a

[1:37:57] year being power generators. There might

[1:38:01] be a few people that are making a couple

[1:38:02] of bucks on the side, but I suspect

[1:38:05] that's not really the concern. Um, one

[1:38:08] big thing to keep in mind here, sort of

[1:38:11] referring to something else that that

[1:38:12] you that that you're working on right

[1:38:13] now, um, certainly as Mr. Reyes uh,

[1:38:17] said,

[1:38:19] battery storage is coming. There's a

[1:38:20] there part of the the plan is to put in

[1:38:23] 125 megawatts, which I think is 500

[1:38:25] megawatt hours of batteries at at

[1:38:28] Glenarmm. Um it's really important that

[1:38:31] you proceed with the optimized strategic

[1:38:33] plan which should be putting together

[1:38:35] the whole story for how much um how much

[1:38:40] storage are we going to have at Glenarm?

[1:38:42] How much rooftop solar are we going to

[1:38:44] have? How are you going to incentivize

[1:38:45] people for ro rooftop solar? If we had

[1:38:48] the optimized so strategic plan

[1:38:51] presumably all this would come together

[1:38:53] and there'd be an understanding of how

[1:38:55] all the pieces fit together. But for

[1:38:57] now, we got the street the the urg what

[1:39:00] do they call it? The urgency that we got

[1:39:02] to get this one going and then we can

[1:39:04] come back and revisit it. Okay. Thank

[1:39:06] you very much.

[1:39:09] Uh Yachti,

[1:39:13] I just want to say I appreciate the many

[1:39:15] discussions that there's been. As you

[1:39:17] probably already know, I'm a big

[1:39:18] proponent of clean energy. I drive EV. I

[1:39:21] have solar. Actually, I picked the house

[1:39:23] that I live in right now because it

[1:39:25] already had panels and my lease is

[1:39:27] already over and I'm kind of stuck in no

[1:39:28] man's land when I'm trying to figure out

[1:39:30] how to upgrade. But because we're stuck

[1:39:32] in this conversation, I um I'm I'm stuck

[1:39:36] at trying to make a decision. And for

[1:39:37] example, what you guys were look saying

[1:39:39] to look at the past power usage. That

[1:39:42] would be difficult. For example, in my

[1:39:45] um in in my scenario where I don't use

[1:39:47] my gas stove because it's gas and I try

[1:39:49] not to use my gas dryer because it's gas

[1:39:52] and I would like to upgrade my other

[1:39:53] appliances. So, examply, for example,

[1:39:55] using a heat pump. And so, looking

[1:39:57] retroactively at my past power use

[1:40:00] wouldn't uh help me or be able to

[1:40:03] qualify for that. And the 150 I think is

[1:40:06] good if that's what you settle on. And

[1:40:07] possibly I would ask maybe to look at

[1:40:09] 200% or giving the flexibility of people

[1:40:12] to be able to have a discussion with the

[1:40:15] city staff on being able to look at a a

[1:40:18] special accommodation. But again, just

[1:40:20] appreciate and the urgency and again I I

[1:40:22] have an EV because I was able to take

[1:40:24] advantage of the tax credits and I would

[1:40:26] try to take advantage of other programs

[1:40:28] that are available um as much as

[1:40:30] possible. But that's what we would need

[1:40:33] our rebates and incentives to do that.

[1:40:34] Thank you.

[1:40:37] That completes public comment on this

[1:40:39] item.

[1:40:39] Okay.

[1:40:41] Uh so

[1:40:43] where are we? Mr. Jones, you're in the

[1:40:45] Mr. Cole followed by Mr. Jones.

[1:40:47] Yeah. Go ahead.

[1:40:50] So I I apologize that um we seem to be

[1:40:53] arguing over a relatively

[1:40:56] um small difference and that um

[1:41:00] philosophically I think we're all

[1:41:01] aligned. I agree with Council Member

[1:41:03] Madison. We want batteries. We want to

[1:41:06] incentivize batteries. Um, we're talking

[1:41:10] about a handful of people who are going

[1:41:14] to take advantage of of this under any

[1:41:17] circumstances, right? It's probably less

[1:41:19] than a hundred will will actually be

[1:41:22] under this policy before we have

[1:41:25] batteries. And we're what are our annual

[1:41:29] electric sales, Mr. Rivas?

[1:41:32] Mr. Reyes?

[1:41:36] I have that number. Just give me one

[1:41:38] second, please.

[1:41:40] I don't have that data.

[1:41:42] Yes.

[1:41:44] I

[1:41:45] I also misgendered you, so uh my

[1:41:49] apologies.

[1:41:51] Yeah. Um but it's I think my memory is

[1:41:55] it's 80 million but um we're talking um

[1:41:59] I mean the the concerns about uh this

[1:42:02] this is

[1:42:04] less than a rounding error. Um,

[1:42:08] philosophically

[1:42:10] the reality is that we need 90 to 120

[1:42:14] megawatts of solar and we need a similar

[1:42:16] amount of battery and some of it's going

[1:42:18] to be on people's rooftops and some of

[1:42:20] it's going to be municipal but we need

[1:42:23] to be moving forward on it. I would

[1:42:25] rather on the side of encouraging

[1:42:30] as much solar as possible. I am strongly

[1:42:32] in favor of um supporting batteries, but

[1:42:36] I think um the rather than think about

[1:42:41] how little we can do, I think we should

[1:42:44] be focused on how much we can do uh

[1:42:47] given the the stakes and given the

[1:42:50] timeline. We have five years to get to

[1:42:53] 2030 and get to 100%. So, um I will not

[1:42:57] support the substitute motion, but I

[1:42:59] understand um the you know on this issue

[1:43:04] I I think we're not all that far apart.

[1:43:10] Yep. 2030.

[1:43:13] Mr. Jones.

[1:43:15] Thanks, Mayor. Um Fujian, could you

[1:43:18] remind us why you recommended 150% and

[1:43:22] not 200%.

[1:43:23] Sure.

[1:43:25] as Mr.

[1:43:28] Dis

[1:43:33] um

[1:43:34] so as Mr. Reyes mentioned the

[1:43:36] discussions we had we had numerous

[1:43:38] discussions about this topic and the

[1:43:40] conclusion that came we came up with is

[1:43:42] that the additional 50% it's

[1:43:45] approximately equal to one electric

[1:43:48] vehicle. So if a household doesn't have

[1:43:49] an electric vehicle, we consider that

[1:43:52] like added that uh 50% to that which is

[1:43:55] 150%. One thing I want to emphasize is

[1:43:59] all the percentages that we're talking

[1:44:01] about whatever it is, whether it's 140,

[1:44:03] 150, 200, whatever it is, they have a

[1:44:06] real impact on our distribution system.

[1:44:08] I want to emphasize that fact that

[1:44:10] whatever we do, any excess solar coming

[1:44:12] to our system has an impact. Some areas

[1:44:15] will not have much as much impact as

[1:44:17] other areas, but they do have an impact.

[1:44:22] Okay. Thank you.

[1:44:27] So, um, should we vote on the substitute

[1:44:29] motion and then see where we go?

[1:44:33] I like Mr. Lions, but if there's no

[1:44:36] uptake on that,

[1:44:38] what was Mr. Lions? What was you said to

[1:44:41] go to 200% but you have to prove that

[1:44:43] you're getting the

[1:44:44] EV just the to go over 150 you either

[1:44:47] have to you either have to have a

[1:44:49] battery or demonstrate an actual need

[1:44:51] for for more and then you can do more

[1:44:54] sort of blends the two.

[1:44:55] Prove it up.

[1:44:57] I could support that.

[1:44:58] I support that. I mean

[1:45:00] if you I mean if the

[1:45:03] if that's a substitute substitute

[1:45:05] Well, let's see if the substitute the

[1:45:07] maker of the motion. I think you get one

[1:45:09] substitute, right?

[1:45:10] Well, no, you can make it a friendly

[1:45:12] amendment.

[1:45:12] That's what I was proposing to

[1:45:13] substitute. Yeah, I'm amendable to that.

[1:45:15] I'd like to hear Mr. Reyes and

[1:45:19] your team's take.

[1:45:20] Yeah. If if the thinking was by

[1:45:22] demonstrating actual need, it's um you

[1:45:25] know, they're doing an ADU and it's not

[1:45:27] just like I'm thinking about doing an

[1:45:28] ADU, but I'm here here's I have plan

[1:45:31] check in. I have a you know, I'm I'm

[1:45:33] making actual steps towards an ADU where

[1:45:35] I have a new demand. I think that makes

[1:45:37] a lot of sense. Uh here's registration.

[1:45:39] I'm, you know, I've purchased an EV

[1:45:42] versus I I think I'm going to get an EV

[1:45:44] in the future. And the way that we've

[1:45:45] outlined it is the 150% to sort of

[1:45:48] rightsize your system and then a

[1:45:50] battery. I think what I hear Mr. Lion

[1:45:52] saying is that's fine, but what if

[1:45:54] someone also says, "Look, here's my

[1:45:57] registration. I've got another EV. I

[1:45:58] need more than 150%." And I think

[1:46:01] that's what I'm talking I have an EV on

[1:46:02] the way or I'm getting ready to

[1:46:05] electric appliances on the way. So, it's

[1:46:07] basically

[1:46:08] EV on the way.

[1:46:09] It's basically actual demand.

[1:46:12] Yeah, Mr. Madison.

[1:46:14] Thank you, Mayor. I think that's already

[1:46:16] in the motion. So the the second part of

[1:46:19] the motion is to allow greater than

[1:46:22] 150%. Uh provided that such

[1:46:25] installations do not exceed 1 megawatt

[1:46:29] or paired with an energy storage system

[1:46:31] which I'm hearing could be a new EV or a

[1:46:33] battery system and subject to localized

[1:46:37] grid distribution efficiency. And this

[1:46:39] is critical because if we're going to

[1:46:42] set up a system where we're buying power

[1:46:43] that we can't use and that that strains

[1:46:46] our our distribution system, that's

[1:46:48] crazy talk. So I'm com I'm comfortable

[1:46:52] with the uh staff recommendation which

[1:46:55] already offers those things and and

[1:46:58] hasn't offered the the overage. I think

[1:47:00] the difference the difference is, if I

[1:47:02] may, is that if we want to if a resident

[1:47:05] wants to go from 150 to 200 because

[1:47:08] they're going to purchase a second

[1:47:10] electric vehicle, they would have to

[1:47:12] prove to David and his team that they

[1:47:15] have a registration or they just

[1:47:17] purchased the vehicle and they need that

[1:47:19] additional uh capacity. And I think

[1:47:22] that's what Mr. Lion is saying. So I

[1:47:24] think that's a little different from

[1:47:26] what's in here, which in that point

[1:47:30] you're saying that that's fine as long

[1:47:32] as they are for sure going to have the

[1:47:34] EV by the time the of the installation

[1:47:38] of the solar.

[1:47:39] What it lets us do is know that there's

[1:47:41] not going to be excess generation that's

[1:47:44] not stored. So if they have excess

[1:47:45] generation over the 150%, it's because

[1:47:48] they're using it.

[1:47:49] We're meeting their need. And then if

[1:47:50] you're if you don't need it, then you

[1:47:52] got to be storing it. So it sort of

[1:47:55] accomplishes both goals.

[1:47:56] Yeah. I'm struggling with um how that's

[1:47:59] not in part B. And to me is only about

[1:48:02] the battery. It's not about your excess

[1:48:04] need.

[1:48:06] But the the EV is a battery.

[1:48:09] Yep. The EV is not a battery. Actually

[1:48:12] shut that down. It's not a battery. that

[1:48:13] I mean the technology it is a battery

[1:48:15] but um that's the where the technology

[1:48:17] is but they're saying that they're not

[1:48:19] they're not recognizing that.

[1:48:21] Okay. Even for even for the home you're

[1:48:24] not recognize that as a storage system

[1:48:25] that the home can use.

[1:48:28] Yeah. From from our perspective in terms

[1:48:30] of looking at the the reasons that Mr.

[1:48:32] Adian talked about the the number and

[1:48:34] the reason for the battery storage is

[1:48:36] really to help protect the grid and also

[1:48:39] to uh to offset some of uh the demand

[1:48:42] that we need at the peak time. So uh and

[1:48:45] the car batteries just aren't there yet

[1:48:46] for to help the grid.

[1:48:48] Okay. And does the motion the amendment

[1:48:52] to the amendment include grid

[1:48:54] sufficiency as being a factor or is

[1:48:57] Yeah. All of the other technical pieces

[1:48:59] that are here need to remain. Yeah.

[1:49:02] So I'm I'm fine with it.

[1:49:04] Yeah. I would accept the amendment then

[1:49:05] to the substitute if that's the intent.

[1:49:08] Just a addition, right? Yeah.

[1:49:11] Yeah.

[1:49:13] Mark, do you have that? Um

[1:49:16] it was a lot, Mark.

[1:49:17] It is a lot. Uh also to make a note, the

[1:49:21] we've distributed a revised resolution.

[1:49:25] Um the it's a revision to um page two of

[1:49:29] the resolution.

[1:49:31] uh item number one in the resolution

[1:49:34] second line and it's to remove the word

[1:49:36] new. So I think this addresses the to

[1:49:39] apply to existing and not just new solar

[1:49:42] systems. So that's resolutions in front

[1:49:44] of you. It's an amended resolution. So I

[1:49:47] would assume that that's part of the

[1:49:49] Yes. Yes.

[1:49:50] Okay.

[1:49:55] Okay. Um

[1:49:58] all set.

[1:50:00] So to vote on the

[1:50:02] So uh

[1:50:03] substitute motion

[1:50:03] vote on the substitute motion as

[1:50:05] amended. Um are there objections?

[1:50:11] Okay. Thank you. Uh uh matter passes

[1:50:15] unanimously.

[1:50:16] Thank you everyone for your input and

[1:50:18] participation and patience.

[1:50:22] We are on to

[1:50:22] You don't look as charged up as I

[1:50:24] thought you would be.

[1:50:28] Pun intended. Okay,

[1:50:32] we're on to item 11.

[1:50:34] Took a minute.

[1:50:38] I was laughing, but I was like, man.

[1:50:40] All right. All right.

[1:50:42] I'll keep

[1:50:44] I'll keep both my day jobs. Um, next

[1:50:47] next matter is item 11.

[1:50:50] It's pennies.

[1:50:52] Pennies.

[1:50:56] And there are 11 speaker cards on item

[1:50:58] 11.

[1:51:09] The mayor had to step out for a moment,

[1:51:11] but I believe

[1:51:12] we lost our

[1:51:13] Oh, did we also lose our quum as well?

[1:51:14] No, we have five.

[1:51:16] Oh, no. I'm sorry. Thank you.

[1:51:17] So, we can continue. I believe we'll

[1:51:19] start with the staff recommendation on

[1:51:20] this item.

[1:51:21] Yes. vice mayor the hour where we have a

[1:51:24] presentation teed up or if you'd like to

[1:51:26] uh have questions or we can

[1:51:29] yeah what's the will of the council on

[1:51:31] this item and uh council member Hampton

[1:51:33] this is in your district so look to you

[1:51:36] first

[1:51:36] yes I've gone through this uh thoroughly

[1:51:38] and um I do have some questions but I

[1:51:41] don't know if everybody needs a

[1:51:42] presentation on it if we don't need a

[1:51:44] presentation I could go straight into

[1:51:45] the questions

[1:51:45] yeah I think that's appropriate so thank

[1:51:47] you

[1:51:48] um first and foremost I want to thank um

[1:51:49] staff for um doing all the work and

[1:51:51] making sure that we got all the legal um

[1:51:55] eyes dotted and tees crossed um for the

[1:51:58] process. Now, part of the um staff

[1:52:00] report, it recommends um demolishing the

[1:52:03] buildings.

[1:52:04] Yes, sir.

[1:52:06] um

[1:52:08] as a part of the RF. So, so I'll just

[1:52:11] start with off with why don't we make

[1:52:13] that the ownest of whoever is awarded

[1:52:16] the RFP to do a um I guess a building

[1:52:20] analysis to see if the if the buildings

[1:52:23] actually need to be demolished and have

[1:52:25] them pay for their own um structural

[1:52:28] engineer, etc. to go out to to check to

[1:52:30] see if those buildings need to be

[1:52:32] demolished.

[1:52:34] Council member Hampton that that is an

[1:52:36] option available to the council if that

[1:52:37] is a direction. Our direct our

[1:52:39] recommendation to demolish the buildings

[1:52:42] uh is

[1:52:43] more a result of the recent uh

[1:52:46] assessment done by our city's risk

[1:52:48] management team safety officer in the

[1:52:50] visit and the all the the the condition

[1:52:53] of the buildings that were further

[1:52:54] deteriorated from back when it was

[1:52:55] adopted in 2010. Um, that's the reason

[1:52:58] why the city's position, the staff's

[1:53:00] recommendation is to look at demolishing

[1:53:02] the building to to open the opportunity

[1:53:05] for a new construction that can probably

[1:53:07] better suit the proposals that are going

[1:53:09] to be coming forward.

[1:53:11] I think that um we would only get a few

[1:53:13] proposals if we demolish all the

[1:53:16] buildings because whatever organization

[1:53:17] comes forward would have to have multi

[1:53:20] millions upon millions of dollars to be

[1:53:22] able to to do the work that we would

[1:53:24] like to see in this um in this place. I

[1:53:27] think that onus if even if another

[1:53:29] organization has millions and millions

[1:53:30] of dollars and they say we want to tra

[1:53:32] we want to demolish all these buildings

[1:53:34] and start a fresh that's their option

[1:53:36] but I think any other organization

[1:53:37] that's going to apply for this RFP

[1:53:39] should have the option to look at the

[1:53:41] buildings that are existing to see if

[1:53:43] they are able to refurbish those in any

[1:53:45] way. So that would be one of the items

[1:53:48] um that I would ask uh you my colleagues

[1:53:53] um to just make the onest whoever is the

[1:53:56] awardee of the RFP.

[1:53:59] The other um piece is in your staff

[1:54:02] report it says that RFP is going to take

[1:54:04] 12 months.

[1:54:07] Yes, we uh we estimate about six months

[1:54:09] to prepare the RFB process, have it

[1:54:12] reviewed by multiple departments and

[1:54:14] ensure it is prepared and everything is

[1:54:16] captured and the release and the process

[1:54:18] of receiving the RFPs, reviewing, doing

[1:54:21] the interviews of the proposers. We're

[1:54:23] estimating between 6 months for the

[1:54:25] first portion, six months for the other

[1:54:26] about one year overall. I think that

[1:54:29] that is a u very prolonged period of

[1:54:31] time and we mentioned this at um finance

[1:54:33] at least I mentioned it at finance and I

[1:54:35] said that a lot of the work has already

[1:54:37] been done and there's been a lot of work

[1:54:39] um towards this it seems like we've been

[1:54:41] talking about this building or these

[1:54:43] structures um for the past 3 years or so

[1:54:46] um and so because we have so much work

[1:54:50] and you guys have already done all the

[1:54:51] work to talk to all the different

[1:54:53] departments you talked to um the water

[1:54:55] board etc to make sure that this could

[1:54:57] all be approved Now that we've gotten

[1:54:58] this far, um I would like to see um a

[1:55:02] RFP issued within the next 90 days. That

[1:55:05] would be

[1:55:07] No. No. And and those are my two um

[1:55:12] issues with the staff's proposal or or I

[1:55:15] mean if it's not 90 days, you let me

[1:55:17] know. I mean, it seems like we're able

[1:55:19] to get RFPs out in 90 days. That seems

[1:55:21] like the the going and that was what was

[1:55:23] brought up in finance according to my

[1:55:25] notes that I wrote on the day that we

[1:55:27] talked in finance. Can you hold that

[1:55:29] thought cuz I want to make sure I I we

[1:55:31] didn't just make a mistake. Given the

[1:55:33] importance of item 14, the fire um uh

[1:55:39] issue um the because of the late hour,

[1:55:44] uh I don't I think it's best to put it

[1:55:46] off for a couple of weeks. Uh allow

[1:55:49] public comment. um

[1:55:52] to go forward. Um so we would allow

[1:55:56] public comment to go forward and then

[1:55:58] take the matter up.

[1:55:59] Just to clarify, item 14 is the fire

[1:56:02] department's plan, not not this item.

[1:56:05] The fire department the

[1:56:07] informationational item.

[1:56:08] It's anformational item,

[1:56:09] not for action.

[1:56:11] Um

[1:56:12] it's not it's not this item.

[1:56:14] It's not this item.

[1:56:15] It is item 14. It is the fire

[1:56:17] department's 10year strategic plan and

[1:56:20] and look forward. That's the last item.

[1:56:23] It's anformational item. I It's not this

[1:56:25] item. Seeing your looks.

[1:56:28] Yeah, it's not this item.

[1:56:31] We're on item 11 right now. Yeah,

[1:56:33] we're saying item 14 is not happening.

[1:56:35] We're on 11 right now.

[1:56:38] 14 is not happening. We're on 11 right

[1:56:40] now.

[1:56:41] 14's not happening.

[1:56:42] And 14 is also an important issue. And I

[1:56:45] don't want us to give it, you know,

[1:56:46] short trip. I think we should have fresh

[1:56:48] minds and

[1:56:49] and and so there are five public comment

[1:56:52] cards submitted for item 14 on the fire

[1:56:54] department. If you are here for that,

[1:56:56] we can hear

[1:56:57] we can hear your public comments after

[1:56:59] we get to that item and it's going to

[1:57:02] come back in the future. So you can wait

[1:57:04] near future a few weeks,

[1:57:07] a couple weeks. they can wait until the

[1:57:09] you can wait until we get to item 14

[1:57:11] when we're going to continue it to

[1:57:13] another meeting or you can um come back

[1:57:16] when it's back on the agenda.

[1:57:17] I just don't want people to wait um and

[1:57:21] then the matters put off because of the

[1:57:23] hour. So I apologize.

[1:57:26] Um so with that um

[1:57:30] item 11,

[1:57:31] back to item 11.

[1:57:36] Should

[1:57:38] we take public comments for item 11? We

[1:57:41] could do that.

[1:57:42] The other Oh, so there were only two

[1:57:44] things that I had mentioned um about the

[1:57:46] staff report. Otherwise, I'm supportive

[1:57:48] of it.

[1:57:48] I've noted them. Council member,

[1:57:50] thank you.

[1:57:52] Vice Mayor, do you want to do public

[1:57:54] comment?

[1:57:55] Yeah.

[1:57:55] Okay. So, we'll do public comment on

[1:57:57] item 11. Uh Dr. Treasure Shepard,

[1:58:00] followed by Charles Thomas, followed by

[1:58:02] Brandon Hammerly, followed by Jackie

[1:58:04] Heny.

[1:58:06] If you hear your name, come forward. Is

[1:58:09] Dr. Treasure Shepard here?

[1:58:12] Left.

[1:58:13] Okay.

[1:58:14] You are Charles Thomas.

[1:58:15] I am Charles Thomas.

[1:58:16] Great.

[1:58:18] Welcome, Mr. Thomas. You have two

[1:58:19] minutes. Go ahead.

[1:58:20] Way to small riot. That was really smart

[1:58:24] of you to clarify that. Thank you. This

[1:58:26] is 11.

[1:58:27] This is This is 11. All right. So,

[1:58:30] tonight we're going to be voting on this

[1:58:31] RFP that is pretty important to a lot of

[1:58:35] people obvious as you can see. Uh and

[1:58:37] it's important because it's going to

[1:58:39] have profound impacts on workforce

[1:58:42] development, providing jobs, promoting

[1:58:45] environmental and

[1:58:47] uh um racial justice, addressing climate

[1:58:51] change, and creating major opportunities

[1:58:54] for community healing. The restoration

[1:58:57] of the Hamonga annex and creek are two

[1:59:00] ideas whose time has come. And to quote

[1:59:04] uh Victor Hugal, nothing is as powerful

[1:59:06] as an idea whose time has arrived. These

[1:59:11] are community uh solutions addressing

[1:59:14] systemic social problems. And uh the

[1:59:17] need for a conservation job training

[1:59:19] center, the need for green more green

[1:59:21] space, the need for community healing is

[1:59:24] immediate. These are today's problems

[1:59:27] that will eventually become tomorrow's

[1:59:29] crisis if they're not uh addressed. And

[1:59:32] as Dr. King often described it there,

[1:59:35] this is the type of need that's also

[1:59:38] referred to as the fierce urgency of

[1:59:41] now. So before you vote yes to the staff

[1:59:45] recommendation, please consider amending

[1:59:47] the motion to consider these three

[1:59:49] things. One, as noted in items number

[1:59:52] two and five of the staff recommendation

[1:59:55] uh asking the council to authorize a

[1:59:57] demolition of six buildings, please

[1:59:58] allow a comprehensive feasibility study

[2:00:01] to make the definitive uh determination

[2:00:04] for demolition. Now, um I don't try to

[2:00:08] brag much, but I am internationally

[2:00:11] known as a leader in environmental

[2:00:13] education and uh mission excellence. And

[2:00:16] I can assure you that the existing

[2:00:18] layout of those buildings of the annex

[2:00:21] buildings are perfectly set up to

[2:00:24] develop a worldclass environmental

[2:00:26] education center. Uh, and regarding uh

[2:00:29] the last item referring to the one-year

[2:00:32] timing of the RFP, now I've worked at

[2:00:35] three federal agencies. I'm almost done

[2:00:36] here. I've worked at the Army Corps of

[2:00:39] Engineers. I've worked at the Forest

[2:00:40] Service, and I've worked at the National

[2:00:41] Park Service. And each of these

[2:00:43] agencies, I've always had an input on

[2:00:46] developing RFPs. Now, we know the

[2:00:49] federal government is notoriously slow

[2:00:52] for uh getting stuff done and moving at

[2:00:55] a glacial pace. Well, when we worked

[2:00:58] when I worked on these RFPs, they

[2:01:00] typically got these RFPs out in 90 days

[2:01:04] or no longer than 6 months for projects

[2:01:06] much longer than

[2:01:08] Mr. the the annex. Yes, I'm I'm wrapping

[2:01:11] right now. So it should take about 3

[2:01:13] months and um with the amount of

[2:01:16] information studies and documents that

[2:01:18] have already been written and if it does

[2:01:20] take more than that then I would highly

[2:01:22] recommend that you either give Mr.

[2:01:24] Penosian more staff or you give him new

[2:01:27] staff.

[2:01:28] So I appreciate the time and I

[2:01:30] appreciate you guys consideration on

[2:01:32] this. Thank you. Brandon Hammerly

[2:01:37] followed by Jack Heny and then Dave uh

[2:01:40] Wishoff.

[2:01:42] Good evening everybody. My name is

[2:01:43] Brandon Hammerly. I am the project

[2:01:45] manager for Creek, the Climate

[2:01:47] Resilience Environmental Education

[2:01:48] Center working for OBA. Um I just want

[2:01:50] to clarify from the last time we were

[2:01:52] here those questions about who is the

[2:01:53] lead organization. Outwardbound

[2:01:54] Adventures is the lead organization um

[2:01:57] for this Creek initiative. Okay. So um

[2:02:00] just want to make sure that's really

[2:02:02] clear. We're responsible for managing

[2:02:03] the project. We're responsible for

[2:02:05] responding to the RFP, carrying it

[2:02:07] through a feasibility study, and

[2:02:08] ensuring it has sustainable political

[2:02:11] and financial support. So, I want to

[2:02:13] tell you you all a little bit about the

[2:02:15] political and financial support we

[2:02:17] currently already have before this RFP

[2:02:20] is released. Um, we have secured the

[2:02:23] following support. The Santa Monica

[2:02:25] Mountains Conservancy has promised a

[2:02:28] $250,000 grant to fund the feasibility

[2:02:31] study and the planning of the creek

[2:02:33] project if OBA is awarded and becomes

[2:02:35] the tenant under the RFP. Senator Perez

[2:02:39] and Assembly Member Harbedian have

[2:02:41] jointly submitted a letter to the state

[2:02:43] legislature to support in support of

[2:02:45] this project and have requested a direct

[2:02:47] allocation of $3 million to fund the

[2:02:50] creek initiative from Prop 4 funding.

[2:02:52] So, we have right here a joint letter

[2:02:54] from Harbedian as well as Perez. Um,

[2:02:57] it's in the legislature as we speak. Um,

[2:03:00] we submitted a public access grant to

[2:03:02] the state wildlife conservation board

[2:03:04] for $3.5 million. It is currently also

[2:03:07] being considered um with the pending of

[2:03:09] the release of this RFP. Um, we have

[2:03:12] also met with and engendered the support

[2:03:15] of Susie Nemer and Supervisor Katherine

[2:03:17] Barger. um and they will be supporting

[2:03:20] our submittal of a $500,000 grant uh for

[2:03:23] planning and design under their RPOSD.

[2:03:25] Um so we've been busy, okay, uh getting

[2:03:28] a lot of support for this initiative. Um

[2:03:32] I'm really worried about the momentum of

[2:03:34] it um getting a road a roadblock, a

[2:03:38] speed bump if you will, um because of

[2:03:41] this RFP taking so long. So, a whole

[2:03:43] year, all of that amazing support that

[2:03:45] we have right now, all that momentum we

[2:03:47] have, I'm worried about a year-long RFP

[2:03:50] really derailing some of that. So, just

[2:03:52] please act on that uh excitement that's

[2:03:55] happening. Please don't um miss the

[2:03:58] opportunities that are before you. I

[2:03:59] want you all to be champions of this.

[2:04:01] You have a great chance.

[2:04:02] Jackie Hy,

[2:04:03] I'm going to introduce Jackie and she's

[2:04:04] going to tell you a little bit about how

[2:04:06] we want to go about this. uh

[2:04:08] followed by Dave Wishoff, followed by

[2:04:11] Emily Hob Hopkins, and then Heavenly

[2:04:13] Hughes.

[2:04:14] And I'd like to request that Tristan

[2:04:15] Walker go behind me in the order. We

[2:04:17] submitted his card. Um if that's okay,

[2:04:23] is that okay?

[2:04:24] I'll say it's okay.

[2:04:25] That's fine. I don't see Mr. Walker, but

[2:04:27] I'll uh

[2:04:29] refresh. Maybe it's there. Go ahead. You

[2:04:30] have two minutes.

[2:04:31] Okay. Uh good evening, council members.

[2:04:33] My name is Jackie Henzy. I'm

[2:04:34] representing Stainer Architects and so

[2:04:36] is Tristan in a proono capacity to offer

[2:04:39] our professional opinion in support of

[2:04:41] transforming the Hahaonga annex into

[2:04:43] Creek's vision for an environmental

[2:04:44] education center and a living resource

[2:04:46] for our community. I'd specifically like

[2:04:49] to present our findings on the condition

[2:04:51] of the annex buildings and implore the

[2:04:52] council to consider adaptive reuse with

[2:04:55] imagination. These buildings can be

[2:04:57] transformed into a modern code compliant

[2:04:59] and usable environmental education

[2:05:01] center. Viability of reuse has been

[2:05:04] confirmed by a licensed structural

[2:05:06] engineer, Matthew Melnik of Noose

[2:05:08] Engineering, and we perform an initial

[2:05:10] life cycle analysis. Our investigation

[2:05:12] confirms that this project is not only

[2:05:14] viable from structural and layout

[2:05:15] perspectives, but offers significant

[2:05:17] environmental benefits relating to

[2:05:19] greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste

[2:05:21] reductions. A building's initial

[2:05:22] construction emits more greenhouse gas

[2:05:25] emissions than during its entire

[2:05:27] operational lifespan. It can take up to

[2:05:29] 80 years for energy reduction strategies

[2:05:31] to overcome this initial carbon impact.

[2:05:34] These buildings already exist and the

[2:05:35] carbon from their construction is in the

[2:05:37] atmosphere. Earth has paid the carbon

[2:05:39] price for these structures. Our

[2:05:41] responsibility is to reuse what we have

[2:05:43] and consider new construction when

[2:05:45] there's no other viable choice. By

[2:05:47] reusing just the concrete walls and

[2:05:49] foundations, we conserve 317 metric tons

[2:05:52] of carbon dioxide. That's equivalent to

[2:05:55] the annual energy usage of 139 typical

[2:05:59] Pasadena homes or the carbon absorbed by

[2:06:03] 318 acres of US forests in one year. In

[2:06:07] addition, reusing these structures will

[2:06:09] divert 968 tons of solid waste from

[2:06:12] landfills and the associated carbon

[2:06:14] emissions from hauling and dumping.

[2:06:16] We're confident the existing masonry

[2:06:18] walls and foundations can be repurposed

[2:06:20] to meet or ex meet or exceed the

[2:06:22] structural provisions of the 2025

[2:06:24] California building code. The buildings

[2:06:26] are well suited for selective demolition

[2:06:28] to transform the annex into something

[2:06:30] entirely new. This could involve

[2:06:32] expanding openings for more natural

[2:06:35] your time is expired.

[2:06:36] Raising the ceiling heights and

[2:06:37] incorporating a new roof to conjoin

[2:06:38] existing structures to create outdoor

[2:06:40] classrooms. Thank you.

[2:06:42] So, I'm going to pull Tristan Walker out

[2:06:45] of the order

[2:06:47] and and we don't generally do that.

[2:06:50] Followed by Dave Wishoff, then Emily

[2:06:52] Hopkins.

[2:06:52] Please step forward if you hear your

[2:06:54] name.

[2:06:54] Thank you for the flexibility. Um, good

[2:06:56] evening, council members. My name is

[2:06:58] Tristan Walker. I'm also here

[2:07:00] representing Stainer Architects as a

[2:07:02] proono capacity. Um, we wanted to raise

[2:07:05] a concern that extensive demolition will

[2:07:08] negatively impact the health of the

[2:07:10] existing oak trees on the site. An

[2:07:12] assessment by a certified arborist Matt

[2:07:14] Riberitch um identified that two trees

[2:07:17] in proximity to the four structures with

[2:07:20] a diameter of breast height of over 60

[2:07:22] in. These trees qualify as heritage oaks

[2:07:25] and the largest is already stressed and

[2:07:27] needs immediate care. Heavy machinery

[2:07:29] from total demolition and new

[2:07:31] construction will compact the soil

[2:07:33] around the trees, reducing their access

[2:07:35] to water, oxygen, and nutrients. While

[2:07:37] debris will contaminate the soil, the

[2:07:39] widespread presence of invasive mustard

[2:07:41] seed on the site is competing with the

[2:07:43] oak trees for resources, making the

[2:07:46] trees vulnerable to disease, drought,

[2:07:47] and fire.

[2:07:49] A large pile of dead wood and mulch on

[2:07:51] site further increases fire risk and can

[2:07:53] introduce invasive beetles identified as

[2:07:56] a significant threat specifically to

[2:07:58] mature oaks. There's an immediate need

[2:08:01] for on-site intervention to protect

[2:08:02] these heritage oaks. We encourage

[2:08:05] council to approve Creek's request to

[2:08:07] introduce a motion to amend agenda item

[2:08:09] number two from potential demolition to

[2:08:11] selective demolition and agenda item

[2:08:14] number five from demolish and rebuild to

[2:08:16] adaptively reuse. This is a project that

[2:08:19] aligns directly with Pasadena's climate

[2:08:21] action plan. It prioritizes reusing

[2:08:24] existing buildings, reducing waste, and

[2:08:26] limiting new construction. This is a

[2:08:28] project that benefits our community and

[2:08:30] our environment. and I urge you to

[2:08:32] define the parameters for an RFP that

[2:08:34] prioritizes adaptive reuse, a

[2:08:36] construction model essential to our

[2:08:37] collective future. Thank you very much.

[2:08:40] Thank you.

[2:08:40] Thank you. Um David Dave Wishoff

[2:08:43] followed by Emily Hopkins and then

[2:08:46] Heavenly Hughes.

[2:08:47] Hello. Uh Mayor Gordo, I'm Pasadena City

[2:08:50] Council. I'm David Weissoff, vice

[2:08:52] president and conservation chair of

[2:08:53] Pasadena Ottabbon Society and wish to

[2:08:56] emphasize the importance of expediting

[2:08:58] the issuance of the RFP as well as

[2:09:00] accelerating the RFP decision process

[2:09:03] and signing a contract to proceed. The

[2:09:06] Creek the Creek Coalition

[2:09:07] enthusiastically working for over three

[2:09:10] years on the project is ready now to

[2:09:13] reply to the RFP quickly, completely and

[2:09:16] in response to the needs of the

[2:09:18] community. As you're aware, the annex

[2:09:20] area of the watershed park has been

[2:09:22] derelic for many years. It is a

[2:09:24] temporary rotating dumping ground for

[2:09:26] tons of miscellaneous dead trees,

[2:09:28] leaves, trunks, creating a fire hazard

[2:09:31] and a risk of personal injury and

[2:09:34] beetles. The vacant buildings are

[2:09:36] unattended and at risk of vandalism as

[2:09:38] well as inviting personal injuries and

[2:09:41] other hazards to park users who might

[2:09:43] visit the location day or night just on

[2:09:46] an occasional basis. And we have seen

[2:09:48] that going through the the area uh

[2:09:51] individuals and also small groups of

[2:09:54] children going through the this property

[2:09:56] in its current state. The mission of

[2:09:58] Pasadena Ottabon is to bring the

[2:10:00] excitement of birds to our community

[2:10:02] through birding education conservation

[2:10:05] of bird habitats. Pasadena Ottabons

[2:10:08] actively supports these activities but

[2:10:10] is severely limited by the lack of

[2:10:12] suitable venues to do so. Especially

[2:10:15] since each eaten Canyon is closed and

[2:10:17] will not be reopened for many years. We

[2:10:20] forecasted we could readily provide free

[2:10:23] public education, recreational, and

[2:10:26] conservation offerings at Creek nine

[2:10:29] times a month, more than trebling our

[2:10:32] support to passing area families,

[2:10:35] schools, and multicultural demographics.

[2:10:40] And not only will we be three times the

[2:10:43] number of events, educational programs,

[2:10:47] etc., But we are currently limited to 25

[2:10:50] people per per meeting by by what we

[2:10:52] have access.

[2:10:53] Your time is we could triple that.

[2:10:55] Sir, your time is up. We want to be fair

[2:10:57] to everyone.

[2:10:58] The time is now quickly to thank you.

[2:11:00] Thank you.

[2:11:01] Emily Hopkins, followed by Heavenly

[2:11:04] Hughes, followed by Marcus Rener, then

[2:11:06] Jessica Blickley,

[2:11:09] then Marcos Aguilar.

[2:11:12] Go ahead.

[2:11:14] Hi. Um, members of council and Mayor

[2:11:17] Gordo, thank you for having me today.

[2:11:18] Um, I am a resident of district 1. My

[2:11:22] name is Emily Hopkins, uh, and current

[2:11:24] resident. I'm back. Um, executive

[2:11:27] director of Sid Street Projects and

[2:11:29] Creek Coalition member. Um, I am

[2:11:31] actually reading a public statement on

[2:11:33] behalf of our communications manager,

[2:11:35] Stephanie Ailles, who is also a District

[2:11:37] 1 resident because she is born and

[2:11:39] raised here, and I think that her

[2:11:41] experience speaks more to the urgency.

[2:11:43] My name is Stephanie Ailles. I am a

[2:11:45] proud District 1 resident, the daughter

[2:11:48] of Salvador and immigrants and a first

[2:11:50] generation college graduate. I grew up

[2:11:52] in Pasadena. I attended Washington

[2:11:54] Elementary and Middle School and John

[2:11:56] Mir High School. I am here today not

[2:11:58] only as a community member but a proud

[2:12:00] team member of the visual arts

[2:12:01] organization side street projects who

[2:12:03] deeply values the city. The Haha Manga

[2:12:06] an annex has great potential to become a

[2:12:08] vibrant community hub by uplifting local

[2:12:11] voices and engaging residents through

[2:12:13] art and more. For example, I can see our

[2:12:16] free intergenerational art skillshares

[2:12:17] workshops being a place of sanctuary for

[2:12:20] folks to connect with community centered

[2:12:22] artists and learn new skills. I still

[2:12:25] remember school field trips with my

[2:12:26] grandma to the Eaten Canyon Nature

[2:12:28] Center learning about my backyard's

[2:12:30] wildlife. Now, imagine something like

[2:12:33] that in Northwest Pasadena, offering

[2:12:35] programs in intergenerational art and

[2:12:37] environmental education. This is the

[2:12:40] future I envision and I hope you'll

[2:12:41] support it by releasing the RFP as soon

[2:12:43] as possible so that we can get to work.

[2:12:46] Thank you.

[2:12:47] Good timing. Thank you.

[2:12:49] Well, actually, you

[2:12:51] Hello. Hello. Hello. It's so great to

[2:12:53] see all of your faces tonight. We're

[2:12:55] still up and at it, right? This this

[2:12:57] topic is the most important topic to us

[2:13:00] right now. So, I'm glad that it was not

[2:13:02] being moved to another night. Um, we

[2:13:05] really want to Everything's been said,

[2:13:07] right? Everything's been said. It's very

[2:13:09] important. Um, why we want to have this

[2:13:12] environmental

[2:13:14] climate, all the things, right? The

[2:13:16] climate, the environment, education,

[2:13:18] inclusive, diversity, healing in nature,

[2:13:21] all the things that we need right now in

[2:13:24] our community. It's available. It's

[2:13:26] before us. It's right here before us.

[2:13:28] All we have to do is vote and say let's

[2:13:30] get this RFP. We want to say yes to

[2:13:33] that. Yes to the RFP and we want to make

[2:13:35] some adjustments saying let's get it

[2:13:38] within the next next 90 days because

[2:13:41] what I understand is that the haha manga

[2:13:44] annex has been sitting for over 20 years

[2:13:47] right so it's been dormant like death

[2:13:50] kind of like a space that's been

[2:13:51] grieving although it has all this um

[2:13:54] life that can be activated right in that

[2:13:57] space right I'm actually experiencing

[2:14:00] that with all my neighbors in Aladena

[2:14:02] right Now we're grieving, right? We want

[2:14:05] to activate this space. And when we see

[2:14:09] that places like Hahaanga annex sitting

[2:14:12] for 20 years is a little discouraging

[2:14:14] because we we don't want to see that

[2:14:16] happen in Aladino. We don't want to see

[2:14:18] that happen in Pasadena where places are

[2:14:20] sitting 20 years dormant waiting for

[2:14:23] decisions to be made. So I'm just glad

[2:14:27] that decisions are going to be made

[2:14:29] tonight to activate this space to be

[2:14:32] able to say let's get this RFP out there

[2:14:35] so decision so people can apply for the

[2:14:38] RFP. Um when you do the RFP RFP is

[2:14:42] giving access to many people to uh be a

[2:14:45] part of it. Although I think the Creek

[2:14:47] Coalition is very prepared. Um yes we

[2:14:51] are. Yes we are. um yet we are we

[2:14:54] understand that this opportunity needs

[2:14:56] to be a process and so let's get this

[2:14:58] process going. Thank you so much for

[2:15:00] listening.

[2:15:01] Thank you.

[2:15:01] Thank you Miss Hughes.

[2:15:03] So then it's Marcus Rener, Jessica

[2:15:06] Blickley, then Marcos Aguilar and then

[2:15:08] Anna Soul River.

[2:15:10] Okay. Thank you. I'm just going to coast

[2:15:12] on Heaven Heavenly's energy that she

[2:15:14] just brought. Um, I'm speaking to you as

[2:15:17] somebody who just uh finished a dissert

[2:15:20] PhD dissertation from UC Davis in

[2:15:22] geography on environmental justice in

[2:15:23] Pasadena and along the Aoyo. And I just

[2:15:26] want to underscore the real opportunity

[2:15:28] to address environmental justice which

[2:15:30] is as I understand it a required mandate

[2:15:33] of the state to incorporate into our

[2:15:35] general plan.

[2:15:36] A lot of this opportunity has to do with

[2:15:38] the history. 25 years before the first

[2:15:40] uh environmental justice summit in

[2:15:42] Washington DC, Outerbound Adventures was

[2:15:46] taking young people of color into the

[2:15:47] outdoors and introducing them to

[2:15:49] conservation careers.

[2:15:51] There's a place for the co-founders of

[2:15:55] OBA, Helen Mary Williams, Helen and

[2:15:57] Leroy Chris, and Bud Ross to be embraced

[2:16:00] by the city in the pantheon of civil

[2:16:02] rights leaders in line with Jackie

[2:16:04] Robinson, in line with Octavia Butler.

[2:16:07] that this is an opportunity because of

[2:16:09] this history to honor it. Um

[2:16:13] before getting a PhD, I got did a wrote

[2:16:15] a master's thesis on conservation

[2:16:16] education. Um there was a distinction

[2:16:19] made uh at the finance committee meeting

[2:16:21] between nature education as Eden Canyon

[2:16:24] and workforce development. But the best

[2:16:26] environmental education connects nature

[2:16:28] education, our plants and wildlife, um,

[2:16:31] to how we treat each other, to how we

[2:16:32] build and power our cities, to how we

[2:16:34] manage our water, to environmental

[2:16:36] engineering, to the environmental

[2:16:37] careers young people dream of, and to

[2:16:40] the workforce skills that they need to

[2:16:43] make those dreams a reality. Not many

[2:16:45] environmental education groups take on

[2:16:47] that challenge, but that's what Creek

[2:16:49] aspires to. Um, so there's a real

[2:16:52] opportunity here. I know you're just

[2:16:54] approving the RFP, but thinking about

[2:16:56] building and honoring the OBA founders

[2:16:59] and um not only teaching about nature,

[2:17:01] but joining that with workforce

[2:17:03] development for conservation careers and

[2:17:05] starting green businesses for Pasadena.

[2:17:07] Thank you.

[2:17:08] Thank you.

[2:17:08] Thank you,

[2:17:10] Jessica Blickley, followed by Marcos

[2:17:13] Aguilar, then Anna Soul River.

[2:17:18] Thank you. Good evening. My name is

[2:17:19] Jessica Blickley and I'm Pr I'm a

[2:17:21] professor at Pasadena City College where

[2:17:23] I've been teaching biology for the last

[2:17:25] 12 years. I'm here to speak in strong

[2:17:28] support of Creek and the RFP for the

[2:17:30] Haha Watershed Park annex.

[2:17:33] In our classes at PCC, we use the Haha

[2:17:37] Watershed Park and the Aoyo as a living

[2:17:39] laboratory.

[2:17:41] It's a critical part of our curriculum

[2:17:43] where students apply the academic

[2:17:45] knowledge and technical field skills

[2:17:46] that they are learning in class. um by

[2:17:49] collecting real data and engaging in

[2:17:51] authentic research beyond the academic.

[2:17:54] For many students that have grown up

[2:17:56] here, these trips are their first

[2:17:58] opportunity to connect with the nature

[2:17:59] in their own backyard. I have seen it

[2:18:02] time and again. These experiences in the

[2:18:04] Aoyo spark a genuine and lasting

[2:18:07] connection to the natural world and

[2:18:09] inspire careers in conservation,

[2:18:12] environmental science, and environmental

[2:18:13] education.

[2:18:15] Creek will amplify this work. The

[2:18:18] proposed environmental education center

[2:18:19] will provide a permanent home for

[2:18:21] hands-on learning both in the classrooms

[2:18:23] and in the field. Equally important, it

[2:18:26] will serve as a vital hub to connect

[2:18:28] students with community members and

[2:18:30] environmental organizations that are

[2:18:32] working here in our local community.

[2:18:35] Environmental education for the

[2:18:37] community and by the community.

[2:18:39] Crucially, it will also provide

[2:18:41] essential job training for envir

[2:18:42] environmental and conservation careers,

[2:18:45] preparing the next generation to face

[2:18:48] our most pressing climate challenge.

[2:18:50] Creek represents more than an

[2:18:51] environmental education center. It's a

[2:18:53] community-driven investment in

[2:18:55] Pasadena's future. I urge you to move

[2:18:57] forward without delay by expediting the

[2:18:59] RFP process and avoiding unnecessary

[2:19:02] demolition. Our students and our

[2:19:04] community need this center now. Thank

[2:19:07] you for your time and your support in

[2:19:08] bringing this initiative to life.

[2:19:10] Thank you.

[2:19:14] Marcos Aguilar Fab River

[2:19:30] My name is Marcos Aguilad. I serve as an

[2:19:32] executive director of Anawa Kalmechak.

[2:19:34] We're the only indigenous people school

[2:19:35] in all of Los Angeles County. I'm also a

[2:19:38] head of the Secat Community Development

[2:19:40] Corporation by which we liberated 12

[2:19:42] acres of land in Northeast LA that were

[2:19:44] rematriated to the Gabalino Shashon

[2:19:46] Nation. And through those partnerships,

[2:19:48] we met and uh collaborated much more

[2:19:50] closely with Outwardbound Adventures and

[2:19:52] are here to support the the initiative.

[2:19:55] I'm here to express my support for item

[2:19:57] 11 on the agenda today regarding the

[2:19:59] Haamonga watershed park annex area. I'd

[2:20:02] like to add my voice of support for the

[2:20:04] concept of the climate resilience

[2:20:05] education center as proposed by the

[2:20:07] coalition including outwardbound

[2:20:09] adventures and San Gabriel Ban and

[2:20:10] Mission Indians among others. As a Nawa

[2:20:13] Mexican indigenous educator, I look

[2:20:14] forward to including the proposed

[2:20:16] concepts of the of the park annex as a

[2:20:18] future learning site for millions of

[2:20:19] indigenous children, youth, and families

[2:20:21] from across North America who make the

[2:20:24] greater Los Angeles area, including

[2:20:26] Pasadena their home, our home as we grow

[2:20:29] in our autonomous approaches to

[2:20:30] indigenous education across the county.

[2:20:33] However, with regards to the SQUA

[2:20:35] exemption, we urge the council to

[2:20:36] conduct formal tribal consultation with

[2:20:38] all local tribes in compliance also with

[2:20:40] AB52 as a proper and necessary course of

[2:20:43] action and a requirement respecting

[2:20:45] tribal self-determination and

[2:20:47] sovereignty. Thank you very much.

[2:20:49] Thank you. And

[2:20:53] Anna Soul River,

[2:20:55] welcome back.

[2:20:56] I'm back. Um, good evening again.

[2:20:59] Tonight, I want to emphasize one thing,

[2:21:01] alignment. We say we want

[2:21:03] sustainability, equity, and climate

[2:21:05] resilience, but our actions must align

[2:21:07] with those values, especially here in a

[2:21:09] place like Hahaonga. We pass an adaptive

[2:21:12] reuse ordinance. We can't invest in

[2:21:13] climate education through projects like

[2:21:15] Creek. And yet, we're still proposing

[2:21:17] demolition of usable structures without

[2:21:19] full exploration of reuse. That's not

[2:21:22] alignment. That's contradiction. If

[2:21:24] we're serious about climate action,

[2:21:26] adaptive reuse isn't optional. It's

[2:21:28] essential. is how we reduce carbon,

[2:21:31] preserve cultural memory, a model

[2:21:33] responsible land stewardship. Hahaonga

[2:21:35] is sacred ground ecologically and

[2:21:37] historically. Let's not erase what

[2:21:39] exists before we're asked the right

[2:21:41] questions. And let's also practic be

[2:21:43] practical. The longer we delay an RF FP

[2:21:47] and clear guidance, the more these

[2:21:48] buildings deteriorate, making reuse

[2:21:50] harder, slower, and more expensive. Time

[2:21:52] is money. Streamlining adaptive reuse as

[2:21:55] the first choice and offering incentives

[2:21:57] can actually save time and resources

[2:22:00] while staying true to ourselves. I urge

[2:22:02] you to amend the recommendation tonight

[2:22:04] and to prioritize adaptive reuse before

[2:22:06] moving forward. Not as a symbolic

[2:22:08] gesture, but as a real commitment to

[2:22:10] sustainability, to history, and to the

[2:22:12] future we keep talking about. Let's lead

[2:22:15] by example and put our policies into

[2:22:17] practice. Thank you.

[2:22:19] Thank you.

[2:22:19] Thank you, ma'am.

[2:22:22] That completes public comment on this

[2:22:24] item. Be

[2:22:25] before we get to council members, maybe

[2:22:28] a response to RFP options to address

[2:22:32] reuse versus uh new.

[2:22:35] Yes, Mayor Gordo, uh safety has been our

[2:22:38] priority as it relates to the

[2:22:39] recommendation of demolishing the

[2:22:41] buildings. Having heard from the

[2:22:42] community, there is an opportunity in

[2:22:44] the RFP process if council directs. We

[2:22:46] can incorporate a feasibility study to

[2:22:49] have a firm come in and do the study and

[2:22:52] recommend which buildings selectively

[2:22:54] can be demolished and which ones can be

[2:22:55] preserved for use for adaptive reuse.

[2:22:57] That is an option we can incorporate in

[2:22:58] the RFP if that is council's

[2:23:00] recommendation.

[2:23:02] Okay. Thank you, Mr. And that uh just

[2:23:05] for clarification on that um that would

[2:23:07] be um paid for by the applicant or the

[2:23:10] awardee of the RFP. Correct.

[2:23:13] Yes, council member Hampton that is the

[2:23:15] intent is once we release the RFP and we

[2:23:17] will do our utmost best to expedite it

[2:23:19] as fast as possible to release it within

[2:23:21] the timelines being requested. uh and

[2:23:24] within the RFP will highlight the fact

[2:23:26] that the operator and proposers would be

[2:23:29] responsible for the feasibility study

[2:23:31] the you know the adaptive reuse the

[2:23:33] construction necessary rehabilitation as

[2:23:35] well as the operation of the site

[2:23:37] you mentioned exped I'm so sorry to

[2:23:39] everybody that's in the queue but you

[2:23:41] mentioned expedite and this is what I

[2:23:43] was talking about before when we were

[2:23:45] playing musical chairs what does that

[2:23:47] mean

[2:23:48] the RFP process

[2:23:49] the RFP process to have it you would

[2:23:51] expedite it

[2:23:54] Go go go go go go ahead and then we'll

[2:23:56] get back to

[2:23:56] Yeah, council member Hender, our intent

[2:23:58] is to make sure we capture everything

[2:23:59] that should be within the RFP and

[2:24:01] consulting with the departments that

[2:24:03] should be consulted as well as the LA

[2:24:04] County's RPOSD given that the grant we

[2:24:07] want to make sure they're comfortable

[2:24:09] because they had given a grant. It's in

[2:24:10] the report uh uh the area was

[2:24:12] rehabilitated and they should have a

[2:24:13] say. So part of that process is we're

[2:24:15] buying safe timeline to not commit for a

[2:24:18] shorter time frame yet allow us actual

[2:24:21] reasonable time to put the RFP together

[2:24:23] and release it. So uh we will do our

[2:24:25] best to release it as fast as possible

[2:24:27] but there's still the evaluation and the

[2:24:28] interview process that comes afterwards.

[2:24:30] So that is our goal. The intent is to do

[2:24:32] the best we can to release it sooner

[2:24:33] than intended in the report.

[2:24:35] Okay, Mr. City Manager.

[2:24:37] Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I just want to

[2:24:39] emphasize something Koko said because,

[2:24:41] you know, we looked at this, went back

[2:24:43] three years and and there's been a long

[2:24:45] process here. We wanted to dot the eye

[2:24:46] and cross the tees and I thank the

[2:24:48] public for and the community for giving

[2:24:50] us that time to get it right. And I

[2:24:52] think now we bring forward a report that

[2:24:54] really has us ready to move forward. Uh,

[2:24:56] however, you know, it is important to

[2:24:58] remember the buildings have sat vacant

[2:25:00] for since 2004. That's in the report.

[2:25:02] So, 21 years there's been a lot of

[2:25:05] damage to them. There's been theft.

[2:25:06] there's been a lot of infrastructure

[2:25:08] that's, you know, vandalized. Um, and I

[2:25:11] myself went to go see it. I wasn't

[2:25:13] allowed to go in because of the dangers

[2:25:14] associated with it. So, I I think we

[2:25:16] need to be careful on the safety

[2:25:18] component. And I think what uh Mr.

[2:25:20] Ponosian is telling me and telling us is

[2:25:22] that we can work into the RFP process a

[2:25:25] way to safely do a feasibility study to

[2:25:28] see what can and can't be saved or

[2:25:30] reused, what needs to be demolished, and

[2:25:32] we can enter into that exercise in good

[2:25:34] faith. But I also do want uh everyone to

[2:25:38] be mindful of our own safety office went

[2:25:41] out and identified all kinds of safety

[2:25:43] issues. Asbestous lead, all of the

[2:25:45] hazardous materials that are from a

[2:25:47] different era that we still have to

[2:25:49] contend with. Uh but we can again work

[2:25:51] that into an RFP. And as you suggested,

[2:25:53] Council Member Hampton, that would be on

[2:25:55] the proponents, whoever it is, because

[2:25:57] we we're going through an RFP in good

[2:25:58] faith. We don't know who's going to um

[2:26:01] submit proposals, but we can uh engage

[2:26:03] in that process so that we can vet it

[2:26:05] carefully and and safely.

[2:26:09] Mr. Msudo, followed by Mr. Cole, then

[2:26:11] Mr. Jones and Mr. Madison.

[2:26:13] You know, thank you very much for uh

[2:26:15] letting us know what this is all about.

[2:26:17] In fact, I asked them the question from

[2:26:19] just on on the side here about the u uh

[2:26:23] the feasibility study and and trying to

[2:26:26] preserve the buildings if possible. and

[2:26:28] and now we're hearing from the city

[2:26:29] manager saying how how it's kind of a

[2:26:32] real dangerous situation right now

[2:26:35] because of safety uh concerns.

[2:26:37] Is there a possibility of start going

[2:26:41] into that direction of trying to save

[2:26:43] the buildings at least some of them?

[2:26:47] Council member medicine um sorry council

[2:26:49] miss yes there's opportunity is there uh

[2:26:52] and it would have to be determined by a

[2:26:55] consultant we bring on board or the

[2:26:57] proposal we bring on board to do that

[2:26:58] study. It is there there is room. The

[2:27:00] safety officer has identified methods of

[2:27:03] entry to the building, access to the

[2:27:04] building to you know play it safe, wear

[2:27:06] N95 masks. So we'll have to put criteria

[2:27:08] as to who can get access to the building

[2:27:10] and what type of work should be done.

[2:27:12] They could all be incorporated in the

[2:27:13] RF.

[2:27:14] I certainly like the idea when uh the

[2:27:17] the the speakers were talking about

[2:27:19] educational purposes and that that

[2:27:21] that's really great, but the adapted

[2:27:23] reuse is what caught my attention. So

[2:27:25] thank you for your uh of studying that.

[2:27:29] Thank you. Um, Mr. Cole, followed by Mr.

[2:27:33] Jones

[2:27:35] and

[2:27:37] Mr. Madison.

[2:27:39] I appreciate Mr. Massuda and Mr.

[2:27:41] Hampton's uh, comments about expediting

[2:27:43] the RFP and about um, uh, doing

[2:27:47] everything we can to look at adaptive

[2:27:49] reuse. I I'm going to be unusually

[2:27:52] direct, mayor, because I find this to be

[2:27:55] a surreal situation.

[2:27:58] I understand why we um are not just

[2:28:03] partnering automatically with Creek.

[2:28:06] This is public property and we have an

[2:28:08] obligation uh to to have an open

[2:28:11] process.

[2:28:13] But we've been at this for a couple of

[2:28:16] years and literally no one in the

[2:28:21] universe

[2:28:23] has stepped forward and said, "I would

[2:28:25] be vaguely interested in this project

[2:28:29] except Creek.

[2:28:36] We we have a broad multi-racial

[2:28:41] community coalition of credible,

[2:28:45] committed, passionate people

[2:28:48] who have been on this

[2:28:52] like flies on fly paper for years. Mr.

[2:28:56] Cole, may I may I interrupt because the

[2:28:59] RFP process may need to be voted on. I

[2:29:03] I'm I'm not I'm going to look to the

[2:29:04] city attorney. The awarding of a

[2:29:08] contract. Yeah.

[2:29:10] Yeah. The actual contract if there are

[2:29:12] multiple

[2:29:15] uh

[2:29:16] proposal submitted.

[2:29:17] Yeah. I I don't want any one of us to

[2:29:20] get too far ahead and be accused of

[2:29:24] having made up our mind before a

[2:29:25] contract with the comments we make

[2:29:27] tonight. And so,

[2:29:28] yeah, you're just framing

[2:29:30] Okay. right now generally not u I

[2:29:33] appreciate your comments mayor but

[2:29:34] and I and I would like to clarify that

[2:29:36] I'm the council member that represents

[2:29:38] the area and there's been a lot of

[2:29:39] interest of those buildings

[2:29:42] for for someone to propose

[2:29:45] for the you the use of those buildings

[2:29:47] okay

[2:29:47] since I've been elected

[2:29:49] okay so you expect that there will be

[2:29:52] applicants beside Creek

[2:29:55] I think that they're doing a great job

[2:29:56] at making sure that there are no other

[2:29:58] applicants

[2:30:01] I

[2:30:02] So, so let me let me in in in

[2:30:04] consideration

[2:30:05] public institutions as well who

[2:30:07] in in consideration of of your comments,

[2:30:10] mayor, let me let me make this point.

[2:30:16] Pastina Playhouse exists today. They

[2:30:18] just bought their building because we

[2:30:21] partnered with them first um with the

[2:30:24] developer and then with the nonprofit

[2:30:27] and and we saved um the state theater of

[2:30:31] California which now um is stands stands

[2:30:34] on its own self-sufficient.

[2:30:37] Uh the Western Justice Center,

[2:30:39] notwithstanding the arguments over

[2:30:41] whether they have weddings, exists

[2:30:43] because we partnered with them with a

[2:30:46] lease um for a building that um has had

[2:30:51] really significant contributions to our

[2:30:54] community. We have a Norton Simon Museum

[2:30:57] where we still pay to do the landscaping

[2:31:01] there. Um, we've partnered with one Aoyo

[2:31:05] who have raised money and and done

[2:31:08] projects.

[2:31:10] We have a extraordinarily long-standing

[2:31:14] partnership with an organization called

[2:31:15] the Tournament of Roses um where we are

[2:31:20] intimately

[2:31:21] um connected to them financially and

[2:31:23] logistically. Um

[2:31:26] and uh the Pastina Armory exists because

[2:31:30] uh this city partnered with them. Um

[2:31:34] okay, we'll go through an RFP process,

[2:31:37] but I think the way to expedite this is

[2:31:41] not to exhaustively

[2:31:44] create all of the 17,000

[2:31:47] possibilities

[2:31:49] uh legal, logistical,

[2:31:52] financial, etc. but rather to see who is

[2:31:55] actually viable. That's more like a a

[2:31:59] request for interest. Um, and then to

[2:32:02] enter into not just negotiations

[2:32:05] about how we can protect ourselves seven

[2:32:08] ways from Sunday, but how we can

[2:32:11] actually bring into birth as we did the

[2:32:15] parade and the bowl, the Norton Simon

[2:32:18] Museum, the Pasadena Playhouse,

[2:32:21] um, the Western Justice Center, the

[2:32:24] Armory Center for the Arts. These were

[2:32:26] products of the city partnering

[2:32:30] with community organizations. And I

[2:32:32] would like to see if if we have a

[2:32:35] community organization who wins this RFP

[2:32:39] that we not try to solve every problem

[2:32:42] beforehand, but rather we find a viable

[2:32:45] partner and then we try to solve the

[2:32:47] problems with them so that we end up

[2:32:50] with a great project. And I think if

[2:32:52] that's our approach, there is no

[2:32:54] question that we can get this out on the

[2:32:57] street in 90 days. And if we have

[2:33:00] multiple applicants, great. We'll go

[2:33:02] through the process, weigh the um the

[2:33:05] pluses and minuses. But if as I suspect

[2:33:09] we only have a very small number of

[2:33:13] viable um applicants then uh we can get

[2:33:17] to moving forward to bringing this dream

[2:33:20] into realization. That's my approach um

[2:33:24] to this.

[2:33:25] Thank you Mr. Cole. Um I don't think

[2:33:28] anybody disagrees

[2:33:31] I don't think anybody disagrees with the

[2:33:32] partnership and the importance of

[2:33:34] working with partners. the the the

[2:33:37] examples you use, however, none of them

[2:33:40] were subject to an RFP.

[2:33:43] None of them were subject to the legal

[2:33:46] implications and ramifications if we

[2:33:48] don't follow the RFP process and law.

[2:33:53] This one is subject of an RFP and it's

[2:33:57] we're bound by our by our own rules in

[2:34:00] handling an RFP as well as um

[2:34:05] state and

[2:34:06] what's what's the state law on RFPs? Uh

[2:34:09] I understand the state

[2:34:10] we have to be fair and we can't it has

[2:34:11] to be competitive. You you can't just

[2:34:14] say we're going to issue an RFP and and

[2:34:16] where in the where in the state

[2:34:17] predetermined that there's

[2:34:18] code does it say that?

[2:34:22] There's no rules for requests for

[2:34:24] proposals for cities that

[2:34:26] for a competitive RFP and this is

[2:34:28] there is not mayor. There is there is

[2:34:30] for bidding. Yes, absolutely.

[2:34:34] There is absolutely for surplus property

[2:34:37] but we're making a choice about our

[2:34:40] property and there's no state rules on

[2:34:43] that

[2:34:43] but we've made a decision to have a

[2:34:46] competitive and open process. That's the

[2:34:48] rule

[2:34:49] and and we have our charter and our code

[2:34:52] that we would follow with respect to

[2:34:53] that the city not as

[2:34:56] it's there.

[2:34:58] I understand that but that it's not it's

[2:35:00] not factual to say there's state law on

[2:35:03] this that applies here. It is we have

[2:35:04] our own rules and our own laws. We issue

[2:35:07] RFIs. We issue RFPs.

[2:35:10] Um, and this should, in my view, look

[2:35:13] more like an RFI.

[2:35:15] That's competitive and it should be

[2:35:17] competitive. But the reality is is that

[2:35:20] um, we don't have to have an exhaustive

[2:35:23] um, process if we end up with one or two

[2:35:26] applicants.

[2:35:27] That's not what I'm suggesting. And if

[2:35:28] we didn't follow our own rules on a

[2:35:30] competitive RFP, you better believe the

[2:35:33] attorney general would be down here from

[2:35:34] the state attorney general to call us on

[2:35:37] that. And that's what I mean by

[2:35:38] following state rules.

[2:35:40] So, we should follow our own rules.

[2:35:42] That's all I'm suggesting. Find a

[2:35:44] partner. F follow our rules. Find a

[2:35:46] partner and work with them as you

[2:35:48] suggest in partnership. But if we don't,

[2:35:50] the the state implication comes from the

[2:35:53] attorney general if we don't do that or

[2:35:56] or somebody else. So, um Mr.

[2:36:02] Jones,

[2:36:03] thanks, Mayor. I only need like five

[2:36:05] minutes. Uh, Koko, you said that we

[2:36:08] could do a feasibility study um to look

[2:36:11] at rehabbing the buildings instead of

[2:36:14] demoing them, right? So, you can

[2:36:16] incorporate that into your RFP.

[2:36:18] Correct. Council member Jones. The what

[2:36:20] what I said was incorporate a

[2:36:21] feasibility requirement, feasibility

[2:36:23] study requirement in the RFP. So the

[2:36:25] successful proposals would have to

[2:36:26] conduct that hiring the right

[2:36:28] consultants and determination of that

[2:36:30] study can help guide us which buildings

[2:36:32] should or should not be demolished or

[2:36:34] selectively choosing which buildings

[2:36:35] must be demolished based on the

[2:36:36] findings.

[2:36:37] Okay, cuz I'm I'm interested in in

[2:36:40] repurposing the buildings and adapting

[2:36:42] for use of those buildings. And then the

[2:36:44] second part was the RFP doesn't

[2:36:46] necessarily have to take one year,

[2:36:48] right? You can expedite the process and

[2:36:50] like how soon could you get it out?

[2:36:52] Council member Jones, I don't want to

[2:36:54] put a timeline. It's a matter of

[2:36:56] resources and sometimes things do get

[2:36:58] delayed and held up and I just don't

[2:37:00] want to put a timeline. We feel six

[2:37:01] months would have been appropriate. It

[2:37:03] gives us enough time of whatever delays

[2:37:05] we might experience at the different

[2:37:06] levels, different organizations that we

[2:37:08] have to work with. But the goal now

[2:37:10] based on the direction is to expedite it

[2:37:12] to get it to uh to be released sooner

[2:37:14] than the six month.

[2:37:16] Sooner than the six months. Okay. Thank

[2:37:17] you.

[2:37:18] Okay. Um Mr. Madison, followed by Mr.

[2:37:23] Hampton.

[2:37:24] Thank you, Mayor. Um, one question I had

[2:37:27] was how many acres of the 30 total are

[2:37:29] we talking about here?

[2:37:32] Council me, this area is roughly about 8

[2:37:33] to 10 acres.

[2:37:35] Okay.

[2:37:35] And then the Oakland comes in the mix as

[2:37:37] well. The 30 acres is the entire Hong

[2:37:39] area that has all the equestrian

[2:37:40] centers, but this location is roughly

[2:37:42] about 10 acres.

[2:37:42] So, is that the right way to think of it

[2:37:44] that we're dealing with an RFP for the

[2:37:46] use of the 10 acres or is it just the

[2:37:48] buildings or something else? Uh so

[2:37:50] council member Madison there were two

[2:37:51] areas within the Hamonga annex that

[2:37:54] we're considering. One is the former US

[2:37:56] forest service which are the buildings

[2:37:57] these six buildings and the surrounding

[2:37:59] area and then the second area is the

[2:38:01] Oakland's the the Woody area which is

[2:38:04] the open space that is the second

[2:38:05] portion that we're incorporating A and B

[2:38:07] together uh for this particular um RFP

[2:38:11] process.

[2:38:11] Okay. So how many acre because you said

[2:38:13] and the surrounding area on the

[2:38:14] buildings. So how

[2:38:15] buildings in surrounding areas in plus

[2:38:17] the oaks the wood oaks is roughly about

[2:38:19] 10 acres

[2:38:20] total

[2:38:21] and do you have a division of the the

[2:38:23] breakdown of that?

[2:38:24] There is a map that actually would show

[2:38:26] yes if I could uh pull the

[2:38:29] it's I believe it's one of the

[2:38:30] attachments and I do have it as a slide.

[2:38:32] If we can pull the presentation please

[2:38:34] I'd be happy to show that

[2:38:35] in the agenda report it is attachment C

[2:38:37] that shows.

[2:38:39] Thank you. And then is this uh one RFP

[2:38:42] for both parcels? Yes sir. Okay.

[2:38:45] The intent is to identify both areas

[2:38:47] within the RFP and one operator to

[2:38:50] commit to both.

[2:38:51] Okay. And then um I do think the debate

[2:38:55] between two of my colleagues was

[2:38:58] interesting but it was a little bit uh

[2:39:00] premature. I I do think though that the

[2:39:02] um surplus land act does apply right the

[2:39:05] California surplus land Act under the

[2:39:08] acquisition agreement with MWD.

[2:39:11] That that is correct. So, council

[2:39:12] memberson, we did reach out to the

[2:39:13] housing.

[2:39:14] No, my question was just surplus land

[2:39:16] act applies.

[2:39:16] It it does apply and we are exempt as an

[2:39:18] agent for its agency use.

[2:39:20] We are exempt

[2:39:22] uh we are exempt to from the uh

[2:39:24] reporting under the surplus lands act

[2:39:26] only because we are considered as agency

[2:39:28] use because the intent to use it to

[2:39:30] bring a nonprofit organization to

[2:39:32] operate as we would it kind of allows

[2:39:35] for the exemption.

[2:39:36] Okay. So, um we're still bound by the

[2:39:39] land act. we just don't have to report

[2:39:40] to somebody agency. Okay.

[2:39:42] And then um the costs that we have, I

[2:39:45] noticed there was a lot of enthusiasm

[2:39:47] and even some kind of u maybe overly

[2:39:51] robust comments about grant funding

[2:39:53] that's been promised or is out there

[2:39:55] somewhere and that's great. I hope

[2:39:57] that's all real. But for right now, the

[2:40:00] question is are those estimates of cost

[2:40:03] uh current? Because there's a lot of old

[2:40:04] information kind of embedded in this

[2:40:06] record. But the

[2:40:09] so council member Madison the cost

[2:40:11] estimates presented herein were

[2:40:13] evaluated and resubmitted with

[2:40:15] partnership with our public works

[2:40:16] department. It was when we brought this

[2:40:18] item to uh the finance committee in May

[2:40:20] of this year. I believe it was May.

[2:40:22] That's when these numbers were revamped

[2:40:23] to more current standards of what the

[2:40:25] estimates would be. And of course we

[2:40:27] also in the report highlight that these

[2:40:28] are estimates as of today. They'll be

[2:40:30] like 7% escalation for construction for

[2:40:33] future years. And we'll look to the RFP

[2:40:35] applicants to address the financing.

[2:40:38] Yes, sir.

[2:40:39] In whole.

[2:40:40] Yes, that is the intent.

[2:40:41] Okay. And um is it a long-term lease or

[2:40:45] a a land transaction or some other form

[2:40:48] or is that not baked in right now?

[2:40:51] We will be consulting with the city

[2:40:52] attorney's office as to the best

[2:40:53] approach. There are a number of ways we

[2:40:55] can approach it, whether it be a lease

[2:40:57] or an operating agreement for the use of

[2:40:58] the area for a long period of time. And

[2:41:01] the intent to do a long-term contract

[2:41:03] agreement is because the entity is going

[2:41:06] to bring forth investment to the

[2:41:09] property by way of grants or other

[2:41:11] means. We want to make sure that they're

[2:41:13] able to get those grants. So longer term

[2:41:15] works best in that effort.

[2:41:17] Okay. And then this may be a little

[2:41:19] premature too, but since we've gotten so

[2:41:21] much comment from this one coalition,

[2:41:23] which is highly impressive, no question.

[2:41:26] But does it include the Tongva and

[2:41:28] Hahaonga

[2:41:30] um native peoples?

[2:41:32] I'm looking at the the organization and

[2:41:34] the they're giving me the thumbs up that

[2:41:35] yes, it does.

[2:41:36] Okay. Can you explain that to me?

[2:41:40] St. Gabriel Band of Mission Indians is

[2:41:42] coalition.

[2:41:44] So it includes the Tongva.

[2:41:46] Correct.

[2:41:46] So it's the Gabrielino Gabriel

[2:41:48] St. Gabriel Mission

[2:41:50] St. Gabriel Mission Indian

[2:41:51] Band of Indians including Tongva and

[2:41:53] Hahaonga.

[2:41:54] Correct.

[2:41:54] Okay. Great. and their role in this is

[2:41:56] is particularly around I mean they have

[2:41:59] a very robust role in the coalition but

[2:42:01] in particular they're going to be um

[2:42:03] managing the the um

[2:42:05] well let's not we don't know that you're

[2:42:07] going to apply for a letting you know

[2:42:09] but

[2:42:09] that's the problem that's the problem I

[2:42:11] was trying to highlight but sir if you

[2:42:12] could identify yourself for the record

[2:42:15] myself

[2:42:16] yes just for the record

[2:42:17] we know you did before but if you could

[2:42:19] do that again

[2:42:19] Brandon Hammerly uh creek uh project

[2:42:23] manager

[2:42:23] thank you we we just need to have a

[2:42:25] clear record.

[2:42:25] Okay, those are my questions. Thank you.

[2:42:27] That that's that's precisely

[2:42:30] the problem that I was infully trying to

[2:42:34] highlight, but okay. Um

[2:42:38] so, uh

[2:42:41] Mr. Hampton, yeah. Um thank you and I I

[2:42:44] thank all my colleagues and the

[2:42:46] discussion has um been been great. Um,

[2:42:48] to Council Member Nicole's point about

[2:42:50] the RFP, I agree that I think the city

[2:42:53] could just go into a partnership uh with

[2:42:55] any organization, um, I agree with that,

[2:42:58] but in principle, I would not vote in

[2:43:02] favor of that and I would never do that

[2:43:04] because that's the reason why there has

[2:43:06] been so many people that look like me

[2:43:08] that have been overlooked because the

[2:43:10] city has decided to make sure that they

[2:43:12] are giving it to whoever their friends

[2:43:14] are or whatnot. Um, and that's not just

[2:43:16] in the city of Pasadena, that's across

[2:43:18] the board. So, I just want to be very

[2:43:20] clear here. That's the purpose of a RFP

[2:43:22] is to make sure that it's fair for

[2:43:24] everyone to be able to um participate in

[2:43:26] it. Um, I appreciate the

[2:43:29] a real competitive process.

[2:43:30] A real competitive process. Absolutely.

[2:43:32] Uh, that is notified for everybody and I

[2:43:34] appreciate the questions about the

[2:43:36] Tongva and the Gallerino tribe being um

[2:43:39] a part of the the process in general. I

[2:43:42] wish we had had that as a part of the

[2:43:44] process. As I mentioned when the one a

[2:43:46] royal was being formed, they're still

[2:43:48] not a board member at the one of Royal

[2:43:50] um that and I every time they come and

[2:43:52] present to us, I say, "Where's the

[2:43:55] representation from um those tribes?" Um

[2:43:58] because the one of Royals essentially

[2:44:01] just recreating the same trails that

[2:44:03] were already created by um the Native

[2:44:05] Americans that were here before. But

[2:44:10] once again, I don't know if you guys

[2:44:11] were here earlier. Yes, I appreciate it.

[2:44:14] But ADHD. Um, so uh the my um my my

[2:44:20] motion would be to would to be to put

[2:44:23] out the RFP um and make the feasibility

[2:44:26] study um on the onus of the awardee of

[2:44:28] the RFP. Um number two um as a part of

[2:44:32] the motion would be to have the RF we've

[2:44:35] already had RFP that was presented for

[2:44:37] this before. Isn't that correct?

[2:44:39] Not for this purpose.

[2:44:41] But there was an RFP for these buildings

[2:44:43] at one point

[2:44:46] or this space.

[2:44:48] Council, not not to my knowledge, not

[2:44:50] for the use of the annex. You you may be

[2:44:52] referring to the RFP process we start

[2:44:54] for the equestrian center to bring new

[2:44:56] operators at the equestrian center. That

[2:44:58] is process is still pending, but uh we

[2:45:01] have not had one released for the annex,

[2:45:02] the use of these buildings and this open

[2:45:04] space.

[2:45:05] Okay. So, this this process um we've

[2:45:07] been talking about this I I feel like

[2:45:09] I've been talking about this for three

[2:45:10] years and um I would like to see now

[2:45:13] that we have gotten all the eyes dotted

[2:45:15] and tees crossed and we've asked all the

[2:45:17] right people um I would like to see this

[2:45:20] RFP um go out in 90 days or before the

[2:45:23] end of the year.

[2:45:26] That would be my request and my motion.

[2:45:28] And so my motion would be to make the

[2:45:30] physibility study um the onus of the RFP

[2:45:34] awardee and um for the RFP to go out

[2:45:37] within 90 days or by the end of the year

[2:45:39] calendar the end of the actual calendar

[2:45:41] year not year.

[2:45:42] I'd second that.

[2:45:43] Okay.

[2:45:44] Is that uh doable?

[2:45:48] Mayor Gordo, we will do our utmost best

[2:45:50] to make that doable. Uh I do have a

[2:45:53] clarification question. The assumption

[2:45:55] would be that the other items which

[2:45:56] would be three and four as in the uh the

[2:45:59] organizations the entities allowed to

[2:46:01] submit and the uses are also part of the

[2:46:04] motion being adopted.

[2:46:05] Yes.

[2:46:08] So all the staff the recommendations one

[2:46:10] through five because it includes squa

[2:46:12] and some other

[2:46:17] uh questions comments.

[2:46:20] Okay.

[2:46:21] And who was the seconder? I

[2:46:23] I don't know. Oh, Mr. Lion.

[2:46:25] Lion.

[2:46:25] Thank you.

[2:46:26] Thank you.

[2:46:28] Speaking of dotting eyes and crossing

[2:46:30] tees,

[2:46:31] we have a motion and a second. Um,

[2:46:35] and I think this is deserving of a roll

[2:46:37] call vote. You, you've all worked very

[2:46:39] hard to get us to this point. Don't

[2:46:41] interpret any of our comments as

[2:46:43] predetermining one way or the other. I

[2:46:46] think you all understand the open and

[2:46:48] competitive process and why it's

[2:46:52] important for us to follow the rules and

[2:46:55] and have it be a real open and

[2:46:57] competitive process. I do suspect that

[2:46:59] the work that's been done is going to

[2:47:02] pay dividends. Uh but I'm not prepared

[2:47:05] to predetermine that, nor would it be

[2:47:07] appropriate for any of us to do that.

[2:47:09] So, with that, um,

[2:47:13] let's, uh, take a roll call vote.

[2:47:19] Uh, Council Member Cole,

[2:47:20] yes.

[2:47:21] Council member Hampton,

[2:47:22] this is item 11. Yes.

[2:47:26] Council member Jones,

[2:47:27] yes.

[2:47:28] Council member Lion,

[2:47:29] yes.

[2:47:29] Council member Madison,

[2:47:30] yes. Take off.

[2:47:31] Council member Massuda,

[2:47:32] yes.

[2:47:32] Vice Mayor Rivas,

[2:47:33] yes.

[2:47:34] Mayor Gordo,

[2:47:35] yes.

[2:47:35] Motion is unanimously approved.

[2:47:40] Okay. Again, thank you to the public um

[2:47:44] and all of the staff and everyone who's

[2:47:47] gotten us to this point.

[2:47:48] I got to

[2:47:50] seems like it's slow, but we have to get

[2:47:52] it right.

[2:47:54] Okay, with that, um we have items 12 and

[2:47:58] 13 left. Mayor, it's a public hearing.

[2:48:02] This is the time and place for the

[2:48:04] public hearing on ordinance on the

[2:48:06] ordinance

[2:48:09] on the ordinance prohibiting Senate Bill

[2:48:12] 9 applications within a very high fire

[2:48:15] hazard severity zone in the boundary of

[2:48:17] the Eaton fire. On August 28th, 2025,

[2:48:21] the public hearing notice was published

[2:48:22] in the Passina Press. The city clerk's

[2:48:25] office received three letters in

[2:48:27] opposition to the staff recommendation

[2:48:29] and advocating for the city to maintain

[2:48:31] the implementation of SB9. The letters

[2:48:34] have been distributed to the council,

[2:48:35] posted online, are part of the record

[2:48:37] for this public hearing item.

[2:48:39] Um, do we have public comment?

[2:48:41] Uh, we have two speakers on and we're

[2:48:45] taking up items 12 and 13 concurrently.

[2:48:48] Okay. Why don't we open the public

[2:48:49] hearing? Um,

[2:48:51] public hearing is open

[2:48:53] and uh I think the matters pretty

[2:48:56] straightforward.

[2:48:58] Um why don't we unless anyone needs a

[2:49:02] full presentation

[2:49:04] um why don't we just go straight to

[2:49:05] public comment

[2:49:06] uh Bert Newton followed by Andrew

[2:49:08] Slackom Slum sorry

[2:49:11] it's

[2:49:13] yeah good evening uh mayor and city

[2:49:14] council so my concern with this is that

[2:49:18] um the SB9 would be a good tool for

[2:49:20] people who are underinsured and who have

[2:49:22] lost their homes in the fire to be able

[2:49:25] to rebuild uh they can sell uh half of

[2:49:28] their lot to uh to someone who's going

[2:49:31] to live in it because that SB9 requires

[2:49:33] owner occupancy. Um so it's probably not

[2:49:37] going to be used by anybody else. It'll

[2:49:39] probably be because those who can

[2:49:40] rebuild on their whole lot will probably

[2:49:42] do so. It's only people who really need

[2:49:44] to who are underinsured that could use

[2:49:46] SB9 to rebuild. And if they can't do

[2:49:49] that, they may sell to an outside

[2:49:51] investor. They'll sell the whole lot.

[2:49:53] SB9 would not allow that. it would only

[2:49:56] allow it to be sold to um to somebody

[2:49:58] who's going to live in it. So, um so if

[2:50:01] we want to have our people stay and and

[2:50:04] be able to move back and rebuild, we

[2:50:06] need to let SB9 uh stand and and allow

[2:50:10] them to use that. Um I I don't think

[2:50:12] it'll be that many people, but it will

[2:50:14] be the people who really need it.

[2:50:16] Thanks.

[2:50:18] Thank you.

[2:50:19] Thank you,

[2:50:19] Mr. Sloum.

[2:50:20] Yeah. Um do for since we're doing two

[2:50:23] items concurrently, can I speak twice on

[2:50:25] each one? Yeah. Okay. Um good evening uh

[2:50:28] council members and uh mayor.

[2:50:30] Well, no.

[2:50:32] I'm sorry.

[2:50:33] Yeah.

[2:50:33] Uh on the two items. Yeah.

[2:50:35] You can speak on both items. You'll have

[2:50:38] two minutes to speak, right?

[2:50:39] For each item.

[2:50:40] No, two minutes.

[2:50:43] Okay. All right. Um anyway, I want to

[2:50:45] make it clear that banning SB9 does not

[2:50:48] actually reduce the number of units that

[2:50:50] can be built. Um under state law, ADUs,

[2:50:53] the same number of units is still

[2:50:54] allowed even in areas with limited

[2:50:56] entry. What the ban really does is

[2:50:58] punish homeowners. ADUs are valued far

[2:51:01] lower than SB9 because they are

[2:51:03] illegally accessory, not primary. The

[2:51:05] lower valuation means homeowners will

[2:51:07] have less equity, less access to

[2:51:09] financing and insurance is now valued on

[2:51:12] the equity that you now have. Um, in

[2:51:15] addition to this, underinsured families

[2:51:16] may use a lot split to sell their lot as

[2:51:19] Bert had said, and that may be the only

[2:51:21] reason they're able to rebuild and stay

[2:51:23] here. Um, on top of that, the number of

[2:51:26] 80 or SP9 applications will be extremely

[2:51:29] small. There's not going to be a

[2:51:30] floodgate. So, I think taking the

[2:51:32] knee-jerk reaction that mayor's failed

[2:51:34] policies of city Los Angeles, which will

[2:51:36] be facing a lawsuit over this, uh, as it

[2:51:39] is a legislative authority in violation

[2:51:43] of constitutional separation of powers

[2:51:45] under the California Emergency Services

[2:51:47] Act, is not a way that Pasadena should

[2:51:50] go. I think we're better than City of

[2:51:52] LA. And so I urge you to not move

[2:51:54] forward with this ban that strips

[2:51:56] residents of value, equity, and choice

[2:51:58] without actually solving a housing or

[2:52:01] safety problem.

[2:52:03] Thank you.

[2:52:05] That completes public comment on this

[2:52:07] item.

[2:52:08] Okay.

[2:52:10] Um

[2:52:13] questions, comments,

[2:52:14] question.

[2:52:15] Oh, I'm sorry. Vice Mayor Rivos.

[2:52:17] Actually, Mayor, if Council Cole has a

[2:52:19] question. Go ahead, Mr. Go ahead. How

[2:52:20] how many lots I don't know if that did I

[2:52:23] miss that in the staff report.

[2:52:25] There are 185 approximately 185 parcels

[2:52:28] that would be subject to the ban.

[2:52:30] Okay. Thank you.

[2:52:31] Go ahead.

[2:52:33] Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Um

[2:52:36] and I'll be brief given the late hour.

[2:52:38] Um, I totally understand

[2:52:40] the policy reason for uh suspending SB9

[2:52:45] in a high density area with limited

[2:52:47] points of entry and exit like we saw in

[2:52:49] the Palisades on that afternoon of Jan

[2:52:51] of January 7th where it was just a

[2:52:53] traffic jam and they were bulldozing

[2:52:55] cars out of the way. That's I think the

[2:52:57] nightmare scenario that city of LA was

[2:53:00] trying to avert or try not to make

[2:53:02] worse. So, I totally understand in that

[2:53:04] scenario why we'd want to suspend SB9,

[2:53:08] try not to bring in more density to that

[2:53:11] neighborhood that dealt with a

[2:53:12] catastrophe. Um, this neighborhood did

[2:53:16] as well in Upper Hastings, homes burned,

[2:53:19] but we didn't have that evacuation

[2:53:22] um blockage essentially. There are, I

[2:53:25] believe, based on the map provided and I

[2:53:27] think it's exhibit B, four entry points,

[2:53:30] north south streets going to those 185

[2:53:33] homes. And so to my knowledge and and I

[2:53:36] defer of course to staff and council

[2:53:37] massudas, your district, you know it

[2:53:39] well. Um, in this area that we're

[2:53:42] talking about, was there was there were

[2:53:44] there traffic jams or did people have

[2:53:46] trouble getting out because the roads

[2:53:47] are blocked? because I feel like that's

[2:53:48] the that's the main concern that we're

[2:53:50] trying to address through this this

[2:53:53] proposed action.

[2:53:57] I can speak to that. I did uh speak to

[2:53:58] the fire chief and they confirmed that

[2:54:00] there were not um evacuation and

[2:54:03] issues or cars coming in and out. I

[2:54:05] think from the staff perspective, it's

[2:54:07] an area where we wouldn't want more

[2:54:09] density. You know, we would like to

[2:54:10] focus our density in other areas. Um,

[2:54:12] under ADU law, you can get up to four

[2:54:15] um, units, but most of these lots did

[2:54:18] already had attached garages. So, you'd

[2:54:19] be probably be looking at a maximum of

[2:54:21] three. You wouldn't be looking at these

[2:54:23] sites getting four ADUs because they're

[2:54:24] not converting a detached garage. So,

[2:54:26] there would be potential for another

[2:54:28] unit on each one of these lots that they

[2:54:29] wouldn't get under ADU law. So, I think

[2:54:31] just from the policy perspective of

[2:54:33] planning, it's not an area where we

[2:54:35] would like to see four times in the

[2:54:37] extreme scenario. We know that not every

[2:54:39] property would do it, but right

[2:54:40] potentially four times over the amount

[2:54:42] of um rebuilding going on on the

[2:54:44] properties. So from that perspective,

[2:54:46] it's not traditional grid streets. Um

[2:54:48] you have some that are one way in, one

[2:54:50] way out. Um you don't have as many

[2:54:52] access points and so they have to funnel

[2:54:53] into the streets to get out. And so just

[2:54:55] from a planning perspective, that was

[2:54:57] our approach. But again, it's it's up to

[2:54:58] the will of the council.

[2:54:59] I I appreciate that explanation. And can

[2:55:01] you remind me how many SP9 projects

[2:55:03] we've had in the city in the last

[2:55:04] We've had um four pull permits citywide

[2:55:07] and we've had one um as a result of the

[2:55:10] fire that is outside of this area there

[2:55:12] in council district 1. So this only

[2:55:14] impacts one portion of um council member

[2:55:18] a very small portion. Totally

[2:55:20] understand.

[2:55:21] So yeah, the fact that we over the last

[2:55:24] several years haven't seen many SP9

[2:55:26] projects and in this tiny little sliver

[2:55:27] of a neighborhood we're unlikely to see

[2:55:29] many. Um, I'm uncomfortable with taking

[2:55:32] an option away from perhaps that one

[2:55:34] homeowner that want does want to do a

[2:55:36] lot split or maybe does want to make use

[2:55:38] of the ADU provision. So, you've

[2:55:40] explained um and we've heard that there

[2:55:42] are other ways to build ADUs, not

[2:55:44] necessarily through AB9. So, uh through

[2:55:48] SB9, sorry. So, again, just to wrap up,

[2:55:51] I I don't feel like the case been made

[2:55:54] for this neighborhood here. Um, and I

[2:55:56] would hate to take away that option from

[2:55:58] that one neighbor who's that one

[2:56:00] resident who's trying to rebuild and

[2:56:01] maybe does want to to have that

[2:56:03] flexibility to do that here. Um, but

[2:56:05] again, I appreciate the staff bringing

[2:56:06] this up and I look forward to hearing

[2:56:08] everyone else's comments. Thank you.

[2:56:12] Um,

[2:56:14] Mr. Cole,

[2:56:16] I uh I share the concern of of of the

[2:56:19] vice mayor. Look, um,

[2:56:24] a couple of these streets maybe we

[2:56:25] should never have built on, right? I

[2:56:27] mean, that's arguably particularly the

[2:56:29] ones that are dead ends.

[2:56:31] Um, but state law will allow additional

[2:56:35] density through ADUs.

[2:56:38] Um, and very few people probably will

[2:56:42] take advantage of these. These are big

[2:56:43] homes on big lots. Um, and uh, if

[2:56:48] anything, I think people will build

[2:56:49] bigger houses um, rather than than do

[2:56:53] lot splits. Um, I we haven't heard from

[2:56:56] from the council member who represents

[2:56:58] the area. I I I don't see the urgent

[2:57:02] need for the handful of cases that that

[2:57:05] uh, that might eventuate from this and

[2:57:08] particularly given that the difference

[2:57:10] between what you can build in the way of

[2:57:12] ADUs and what you can build under SP9 is

[2:57:14] is dimminimous. But there's a

[2:57:16] significant advantage to the homeowner

[2:57:18] if they take the SB9 route. Um, so, uh,

[2:57:22] I if if we were to compromise, and I

[2:57:24] don't know if there's any interest in

[2:57:25] that, uh, at least just confine it to

[2:57:28] the to the deadend streets right there.

[2:57:31] Streets like Valley Lights, um, you

[2:57:33] know, have have plenty of access, um, up

[2:57:36] and down. So that would be I would be

[2:57:39] more comfortable with that um than just

[2:57:42] saying you know SB9 doesn't apply here.

[2:57:46] it. I think the number of people

[2:57:48] affected one way or the other is going

[2:57:50] to be probably counted on one hand. And

[2:57:53] um there's, you know, we have to weigh

[2:57:55] the the concerns uh about um uh fire

[2:58:01] danger and density against um the desire

[2:58:05] to allow people to rebuild um in in the

[2:58:08] neighborhood that they've lived in in

[2:58:09] many cases for a number of years.

[2:58:12] Yeah. I um let let me say as someone who

[2:58:16] represents that part of the city as well

[2:58:18] and is very familiar with it. Um there

[2:58:22] there are concerns about uh getting out

[2:58:26] in an emergency um and you know those

[2:58:29] were expressed. Our fire department did

[2:58:31] a and you know city staff in general did

[2:58:34] a phenomenal job of getting people out

[2:58:36] but that could have been a very day

[2:58:38] different situation. these 139 property

[2:58:42] owners who were impacted. Um uh uh you

[2:58:48] know

[2:58:49] we want to do everything we can to

[2:58:51] support them and we have I think it's

[2:58:53] very telling uh and this is a partly a

[2:58:56] statement and partly a question that I I

[2:59:01] I don't know where you live Mr. Slokum.

[2:59:04] Um, but residents who were impacted are

[2:59:08] not here objecting to this. Have they

[2:59:10] expressed a view one way or another?

[2:59:17] Have the residents said no, don't don't

[2:59:19] do this.

[2:59:20] My microphone might have not to staff.

[2:59:23] Yeah. I and this is a group of residents

[2:59:26] who believe me has been very very

[2:59:28] engaged

[2:59:30] uh in in uh everything that uh we've

[2:59:34] done to to be responsive. what we're

[2:59:37] trying to

[2:59:38] what I think the intent of setting aside

[2:59:42] SB9 is to not create the situation that

[2:59:47] you know you're describing uh Miss Rivas

[2:59:50] um and you know there are infra

[2:59:53] infrastructure issues in terms of fire

[2:59:56] hydrants there are um access issues uh

[3:00:02] and there's the question of whether or

[3:00:04] not we should be um constructing

[3:00:09] um in areas like this whether we as Mr.

[3:00:13] Cole said whether we should have uh and

[3:00:15] now the question is whether we should um

[3:00:18] increase the density there. Some of

[3:00:20] these lots are right up they're in

[3:00:22] canyons. They're right up against the

[3:00:24] foothills. Um, and

[3:00:28] you know, I I think we have to be

[3:00:31] careful about creating another situation

[3:00:35] like that. And so, uh, I I you know, I

[3:00:38] plan to support, uh, the motion. Um,

[3:00:43] um, and if I'm sorry, there's no motion.

[3:00:46] I I plan to support the staff

[3:00:47] recommendation for all of those reasons

[3:00:50] unless we're prepared to say we're going

[3:00:52] to increase the capacity of our

[3:00:54] infrastructure to meet the needs of the

[3:00:55] additional

[3:00:57] um density and we're okay with

[3:01:00] increasing density in this neighborhood

[3:01:03] uh given what we've experienced in

[3:01:07] Altadena this neighborhood and uh other

[3:01:13] and in Los Angeles

[3:01:15] I I think that would be a mistake for us

[3:01:18] to do. Mr. Massuda, did you have a

[3:01:20] Thank you. And Vice Mayor, we didn't

[3:01:23] have the congestion you're talking about

[3:01:25] like in Palisades and Malibu area

[3:01:27] because u you know I'm familiar with

[3:01:30] that as well. Uh uh if you remember the

[3:01:35] uh we were going through a red flag

[3:01:37] alert right before that and so we're of

[3:01:39] course you know being in the uh you know

[3:01:42] the hills over there in upper Hastings

[3:01:44] were very concerned but um I don't know

[3:01:48] what your question is because we we

[3:01:50] don't in in fact the of course the the

[3:01:53] the people that live there that were

[3:01:55] supposed to leave because it was

[3:01:57] evacuation

[3:01:59] requirement they didn't bottom of them

[3:02:02] didn't leave. So that's uh that probably

[3:02:05] added to the lack of a congestion. So

[3:02:08] what is your question about that?

[3:02:09] Sure. So my question and I think um

[3:02:12] Jennifer answered it was essentially

[3:02:15] I see the logic of suspending SP9 or

[3:02:18] avoiding density.

[3:02:19] Yes.

[3:02:20] Where there's a potential for traffic

[3:02:22] trams where there's only one point of

[3:02:24] ingress. You know, people can only get

[3:02:25] out through one street. Only get in

[3:02:27] through one street. and we have the

[3:02:28] situation we had in the Palisades which

[3:02:30] was horrific and terrifying uh for those

[3:02:32] folks. Um I again I just don't see that

[3:02:35] this neighborhood is that situation. So

[3:02:38] I I think what the city of LA did in the

[3:02:39] Palisades makes 100% sense here because

[3:02:43] there's we only talking about about 100

[3:02:45] homes as opposed to hundreds feeding

[3:02:47] into one street. We have about 180 I

[3:02:50] think it is feeding into four streets

[3:02:52] and some of them are culde-sacs for

[3:02:54] sure. Um, I just don't I see it as two

[3:02:56] different scenarios. Um, and and we we

[3:02:59] went through the worst. We went through

[3:03:00] the worst that could have happened and

[3:03:02] we didn't have the traffic jams and I

[3:03:05] think Council Member Cole's point is is

[3:03:07] very important and just that at the end

[3:03:10] of the day, no matter which way we go,

[3:03:11] it's going to affect a handful of

[3:03:13] people. we're not really gonna

[3:03:16] it's and so that's and for me that

[3:03:18] pushes me towards leaving things as they

[3:03:20] are for that one or two homeowners who

[3:03:23] do want to make use of SP9. I really

[3:03:25] don't think we're going to see a a rush

[3:03:28] to do something. Um so in the grand

[3:03:31] scheme of things, I don't, you know, I

[3:03:32] don't think we're going to shift things

[3:03:34] too much in either direction no matter

[3:03:35] what action we take. But for me

[3:03:37] personally, I think the case hasn't been

[3:03:39] made um like it was in the Palisades uh

[3:03:42] to suspend SB9. And I want to make sure

[3:03:44] that all homeowners, you know, whoever

[3:03:46] that is out there, it might be just one

[3:03:48] or two of them that want to use it. If

[3:03:50] if that probably none, honestly, just

[3:03:52] looking at the numbers of SB uh 9

[3:03:54] projects in the last three years across

[3:03:56] the city. So, but I want to make sure

[3:03:59] they have all the options on the table

[3:04:01] as homeowners going through a very

[3:04:02] difficult uh situation and through the

[3:04:06] rebuilding process. So,

[3:04:07] you know, the the only thing I would say

[3:04:09] to that is um it wasn't we're not just

[3:04:14] talking about the properties that were

[3:04:15] impacted. We're talking about the rest

[3:04:17] of the neighborhood as well.

[3:04:18] Absolutely. And they all feed down into

[3:04:20] those.

[3:04:20] We didn't see what happened in Los

[3:04:22] Angeles, you know, um for two reasons.

[3:04:27] Um well, the whole host of reasons, but

[3:04:30] one is the wind shifted.

[3:04:34] um you know the wind was headed uh in an

[3:04:38] easterly direction and then shifted in a

[3:04:41] westerly direction.

[3:04:43] One two we issued our evacuation orders

[3:04:48] before Los Angeles or the county did and

[3:04:51] our staff evacuated as many people as

[3:04:54] would leave. And so our process

[3:04:59] um was different. We handled it proudly.

[3:05:03] Um absolutely you know different but we

[3:05:05] also you know

[3:05:07] had some and again my thoughts to the

[3:05:11] people who were and prayers to the

[3:05:12] people who were impacted but if that

[3:05:15] wind hadn't shifted you know but for the

[3:05:18] grace of God if that wind hadn't shifted

[3:05:22] we might be looking at a

[3:05:24] totally different situation including

[3:05:26] people not being able to get out in time

[3:05:28] and that's what we're guarding against

[3:05:30] that what I'm suggesting we guard

[3:05:34] Mr. Cole,

[3:05:35] uh, just a final comment and and then I

[3:05:37] think we should take a vote here. Um, I

[3:05:39] think we all are concerned about um

[3:05:43] protecting the the neighborhoods and I

[3:05:45] think we all are concerned about giving

[3:05:47] um people the maximum option to to

[3:05:50] rebuild where appropriate. Um, again,

[3:05:54] for me um

[3:05:57] we don't control the number of cars that

[3:06:00] people have in their house. We don't

[3:06:01] control the number of people that live

[3:06:04] in a house. Um, we don't have any

[3:06:06] control over the number of ADUs that are

[3:06:09] allowed by by state law. So, we're

[3:06:11] talking probably of these 185 homes,

[3:06:16] we're talking about the margin of error

[3:06:19] one way or the other, the margin of

[3:06:21] error of people moving in and six people

[3:06:24] moving into a house instead of three

[3:06:26] people or um or a single person. So I to

[3:06:30] me I would be much more comfortable with

[3:06:32] just the the deadend streets. I think

[3:06:35] there's a real concern on the deadend

[3:06:37] streets. Um but I respect other people's

[3:06:41] views. So um because the staff

[3:06:44] recommendation is is uh I think we've

[3:06:47] heard at least two voices in favor of

[3:06:49] it. Um I will move that we um uh limit

[3:06:55] it to just the deadend streets. And if

[3:06:57] that doesn't pass, then I'll I will

[3:06:59] support the staff recommendation.

[3:07:00] And and what's your recommendation on

[3:07:03] infrastructure improvements if um we

[3:07:07] increase the density up there?

[3:07:08] I think it's in the margin of error of

[3:07:10] the number of people that live there and

[3:07:12] the number of people that that can build

[3:07:14] ADUs. I think I think the the there's

[3:07:18] 185 lots. Um, not not everybody is going

[3:07:22] to be adding any units, but anybody can

[3:07:26] add up to three units. This would add up

[3:07:29] to four units. The difference between

[3:07:31] the people who can add three and the

[3:07:33] people that can add four is about the

[3:07:34] same as the number of of older couples

[3:07:38] that sell their home and now a family

[3:07:41] moves in with two teenagers. I mean,

[3:07:43] it's it's a very small number. So, I

[3:07:46] don't think there's going to be a need

[3:07:47] for any more fire hydrants or any any

[3:07:49] less fire hydrants um in the end. But,

[3:07:53] um but again, let's let's let's try this

[3:07:55] out and um and see if there's any

[3:07:58] support for that besides me and the vice

[3:08:00] mayor. And if not, then we move with the

[3:08:02] staff recommendation. So, that's my

[3:08:04] motion. If the vice mayor will second

[3:08:07] it.

[3:08:09] Sure, I'll second it.

[3:08:11] Well, just point of order. Can I ask

[3:08:13] council member Massuda what your

[3:08:14] position is on this? Are you supporting

[3:08:16] the staff recommendation?

[3:08:18] I am.

[3:08:19] Okay.

[3:08:22] I'm going to support the council member

[3:08:24] from the district.

[3:08:26] Yeah. And I had a

[3:08:27] and the mayor

[3:08:28] and the

[3:08:28] sorry and the mayor for the whole city.

[3:08:32] I had a a quick follow-up question. So,

[3:08:36] have residents in Hastings Ranch reached

[3:08:39] out to you asking for this to

[3:08:43] voicing their opinion one way or the

[3:08:45] other or No,

[3:08:46] they haven't.

[3:08:46] No, no, but uh um I definitely uh know

[3:08:52] where they are from Yeah. just just from

[3:08:55] talking to them in general.

[3:08:57] Yeah, I'm I'm prepared to support the

[3:09:00] the representatives of the area. So, I

[3:09:03] would support the staff motion or

[3:09:05] recommendation.

[3:09:08] Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[3:09:10] Okay. Um,

[3:09:14] well, we have a motion and second. Any

[3:09:17] other comments?

[3:09:20] Okay. So this is to limit uh the

[3:09:24] Oh,

[3:09:25] and if if we hear

[3:09:26] and if we hear different from the

[3:09:29] residents, we should be prepared to

[3:09:31] to shift gears, so to speak.

[3:09:34] Well, the motion is not what the council

[3:09:36] member from the district and the mayor.

[3:09:38] Correct. Right. So, correct. Should

[3:09:39] there be a

[3:09:40] sub meaning if I I'm I'm not going to

[3:09:43] support the the motion as it is.

[3:09:46] Thank you.

[3:09:47] And um and if we get you know feedback

[3:09:51] from the neighbors saying you know we

[3:09:53] just you blew it and you know believe me

[3:09:57] Mr. Masuda will hear about it. The staff

[3:09:59] will hear about I will hear about it and

[3:10:01] we should you know inform them

[3:10:03] immediately that this motion has passed

[3:10:06] or I mean sorry that that this motion

[3:10:09] has passed or that um the staff

[3:10:12] recommendation if this motion doesn't

[3:10:14] pass uh hopefully that will pass and we

[3:10:18] should inform them either way.

[3:10:19] I appreciate that mayor. just reading

[3:10:20] the room, I think the staff

[3:10:22] recommendation will ultimately pass. And

[3:10:24] I just appreciate you being open to

[3:10:26] listen to the residents because if there

[3:10:28] is that one homeowner that comes in,

[3:10:29] it's like, man, I really want to do a

[3:10:31] lot split, but you guys are not letting

[3:10:33] me, at least we can, you know,

[3:10:35] reconsider at that point. So, I I I

[3:10:37] appreciate that.

[3:10:38] Well,

[3:10:40] I'm not sure if the staff recommendation

[3:10:41] passes reading the room. And so I

[3:10:43] thought I thought this was a a smart

[3:10:45] compromised position to actually address

[3:10:48] the streets where we have a an an an

[3:10:50] egress issue. So

[3:10:52] we'll see where we

[3:10:53] and just procedurally to remind everyone

[3:10:55] this is an interim ordinance. So we will

[3:10:57] return within 45 days to extend it

[3:10:59] longer if something if there's something

[3:11:01] to pass. We would so it would be this is

[3:11:04] for 45 days. We are having a workshop um

[3:11:07] on the 18th. It's the 18th um with our

[3:11:10] fourth workshop with the residents so we

[3:11:13] can we can socialize some of this as

[3:11:15] well. So when we come back um after the

[3:11:17] 45 days we will have some feedback and

[3:11:19] we can provide more information at that

[3:11:20] time as well. And believe me, I know

[3:11:22] that neighborhood well having attended

[3:11:24] Pasadena High School and spent a lot of

[3:11:27] time in that neighborhood with friends

[3:11:30] and there are but for that windshifting

[3:11:34] there would have been ingress and egress

[3:11:37] issues. Um and but for the wind shifting

[3:11:42] and our staff, you know, acting swiftly,

[3:11:47] um there would have been problems beyond

[3:11:52] what we saw. So

[3:11:54] So if the staff recommendation passes,

[3:11:56] you'll socialize it for 45 days, you

[3:11:59] said. And then if you hear from

[3:12:01] residents that no, we wanted to do lot

[3:12:04] splits, you would come back to the

[3:12:05] council. we have to reach. This is an

[3:12:07] interim emergency ordinance, so we have

[3:12:09] to return within 45 days. And we would

[3:12:11] ask the council to extend it for up to

[3:12:13] two years unless the emergency order is

[3:12:15] lifted, then it everything goes away

[3:12:17] anyways. Um, and we're having a workshop

[3:12:19] on the 18th, so we we were going to let

[3:12:21] people know what happened tonight as

[3:12:22] part of the other updates that we're

[3:12:24] giving so they'll be aware of what

[3:12:25] happened. Um, and we'll explain that

[3:12:27] we're going to be coming back in 45 days

[3:12:29] and so if they have strong opinions one

[3:12:30] way or another that they could

[3:12:31] participate if we come back with

[3:12:33] something. Congratulations, Jennifer.

[3:12:36] You just po co coined a new term,

[3:12:37] socialize, uh our policy decisions. I

[3:12:41] like that.

[3:12:41] Yeah. Okay. Um

[3:12:43] procedurally, mayor, uh we need to close

[3:12:46] the public hearing first before we

[3:12:47] Okay. Motion to close the public

[3:12:48] hearing.

[3:12:50] Second.

[3:12:51] Moved and seconded. Uh any objections?

[3:12:53] Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

[3:12:56] Uh now on the merits, we have a motion

[3:12:59] is

[3:13:00] to limit to the dead end streets.

[3:13:03] Mhm.

[3:13:05] Um, you want me to roll call?

[3:13:09] Uh, Council Member Cole,

[3:13:10] yes.

[3:13:11] Council member Hampton is absent.

[3:13:13] Council member Jones,

[3:13:14] no.

[3:13:15] Council Lion,

[3:13:16] yes.

[3:13:17] Council member Madison,

[3:13:18] no.

[3:13:18] Council member Massuda,

[3:13:20] no.

[3:13:20] Vice Mayor Rivas,

[3:13:22] yes.

[3:13:22] Mayor Gordo,

[3:13:23] no.

[3:13:25] That's three in favor, four against. The

[3:13:26] motion does not pass.

[3:13:30] I will move staff recommendation.

[3:13:32] I'll second if Mr. Masuda wants the

[3:13:35] motion.

[3:13:36] Mr.

[3:13:37] I thought I did make the motion already.

[3:13:40] So, Mr. Cole,

[3:13:41] I'm happy. I'm happy to know that M Mr.

[3:13:43] Massuda I was in the spirit of trying.

[3:13:46] Yeah. Yeah.

[3:13:46] You all heard. We had a vote.

[3:13:48] Yeah.

[3:13:49] Um it was not successful. So, we move

[3:13:51] on. That's all.

[3:13:52] Mr. Massuda will Yeah.

[3:13:54] And you'll you'll second.

[3:13:57] I'll make the motion to support.

[3:13:58] You represent the area. You should

[3:14:00] second.

[3:14:00] Oh, okay. Thank you. I'll second.

[3:14:03] Thank you, Mr. Jones. I appreciate

[3:14:05] approve the staff recommendation moved

[3:14:06] by Mr. Massuda, second by Mayor Gordo.

[3:14:10] Uh, roll call.

[3:14:13] Council member Cole,

[3:14:14] yes.

[3:14:14] Council Hampton is absent. Council

[3:14:16] Jones,

[3:14:17] yes.

[3:14:17] Council Lion,

[3:14:18] yes.

[3:14:19] Council Madison,

[3:14:20] yes.

[3:14:20] Council Msuda,

[3:14:21] yes.

[3:14:21] Vice Mayor Rivas,

[3:14:22] no.

[3:14:24] Mayor Gordo,

[3:14:25] yes.

[3:14:26] Motion uh passes. Six in favor, one

[3:14:28] against.

[3:14:30] And then uh we have to do the ordinance.

[3:14:34] Mr. MSU, you want to offer the

[3:14:36] ordinance?

[3:14:37] Yes, I would.

[3:14:39] Yes, I would.

[3:14:40] Okay. So,

[3:14:47] there's the ordinance. There we go. This

[3:14:49] is an uh interim urgency ordinance of

[3:14:51] the city of Pasadena prohibiting urban

[3:14:53] lot splits and construction of multi-

[3:14:56] sorry construction of multiple dwellings

[3:14:58] pursuant to Senate Bill 9 in very high

[3:15:02] fire hazard severity zones within the

[3:15:04] boundary of the Eden fire

[3:15:07] uh to conduct first reading. Council

[3:15:09] member Cole,

[3:15:10] yes.

[3:15:10] Council Hampton's absent. Council member

[3:15:12] Jones,

[3:15:13] yes.

[3:15:13] Council Lion,

[3:15:14] yes.

[3:15:14] Council member Madison,

[3:15:15] yes.

[3:15:16] Council Msuda,

[3:15:17] yes. Vice Mayor Rivas,

[3:15:18] no.

[3:15:20] Mayor Gordo,

[3:15:21] yes.

[3:15:22] Uh, ordinance was successfully first

[3:15:25] read, uh, with, uh, six in favor, one

[3:15:28] against, one absent.

[3:15:30] Okay. On the socialization.

[3:15:34] Now, um,

[3:15:38] that completes

[3:15:39] that does complete. Item 14 was not

[3:15:43] discussed and I don't see anybody left

[3:15:45] over to give public comment on that.

[3:15:48] Okay. Now I I would ask that we stand.

[3:15:52] Mayor, before we do that, just in the

[3:15:54] manner of agenda items and the like, um

[3:15:57] I have asked a couple times that we

[3:15:59] agendaize the Guanowato city sister city

[3:16:02] um relationship. U there's an invitation

[3:16:06] outstanding to the entire council and

[3:16:07] the mayor to attend events next month.

[3:16:10] Now the time is passing and um I'd like

[3:16:13] to know if we're going to do that. If

[3:16:14] not, then I'd request that we formally

[3:16:17] agendaize a motion to put it on the

[3:16:19] agenda. I would hope that's not

[3:16:20] necessary. I think there's a you know

[3:16:23] interest on all of our part to move

[3:16:25] forward with a sister city relationship

[3:16:27] in in Mexico. Um especially given the

[3:16:31] events that we're living under now. So

[3:16:34] um just would love to know your your

[3:16:36] view on that. Well, my my view is, you

[3:16:38] know, the sister city um

[3:16:43] the sister city program is an

[3:16:45] international program that focuses on

[3:16:48] building relations

[3:16:50] uh and working together. Um the fact

[3:16:53] that, you know, the the the approach

[3:16:56] fails to even take account, you know, or

[3:17:00] go through our own sister city committee

[3:17:03] um flies in the face of that spirit. Um,

[3:17:05] I've not heard our sister city um

[3:17:09] committee make a recommendation to us.

[3:17:12] Um, and I'd be interested in modeling

[3:17:15] what the sister city program is all

[3:17:18] about right here in our city. And so um

[3:17:22] I you know I happy to agendaize

[3:17:27] that issue um and that question um

[3:17:31] whether we should model in our own

[3:17:34] process what the sister city

[3:17:38] uh program attempts to achieve.

[3:17:41] So, um,

[3:17:42] yeah, I'm fine with that as long as it

[3:17:44] includes the opportunity for us to, um,

[3:17:47] you know, pursue that relationship with

[3:17:49] Guanowato. I mean, there is a report. I

[3:17:51] I don't think it's unanimous on the

[3:17:53] sister city, but they they arranged a

[3:17:56] visit here, they've visited there.

[3:18:00] Uh, I think there's pretty overwhelming

[3:18:02] support for it. Somehow it seems to have

[3:18:05] been politicized there, and I'm not

[3:18:06] interested in that. I want to move

[3:18:08] forward. And frankly, it's embarrassing

[3:18:10] now that we've hosted the mayor and

[3:18:13] she's hosted a contingent and now she's

[3:18:15] asked the council and the mayor to

[3:18:17] attend the Day of the Dead uh

[3:18:19] celebration with her. There's no other

[3:18:21] alternative on the table, near as I can

[3:18:23] tell.

[3:18:24] That's that's that's inaccurate, but I I

[3:18:27] I would ask that the

[3:18:28] there's no publicly available

[3:18:30] information about any other alternative.

[3:18:32] no politicized recommendation that's

[3:18:34] made it appear that there's no one else

[3:18:37] ready to participate. And so, you know,

[3:18:40] I would ask that the sister city

[3:18:42] committee

[3:18:44] um weigh in and tell us uh whether there

[3:18:47] are others under consideration whether

[3:18:51] um that's their recommendation and then

[3:18:54] we can make a decision. So, that's what

[3:18:56] I would recommend.

[3:18:58] So, we can we can have that discussion.

[3:19:01] But will you include the option? Because

[3:19:03] again, I would just I just want to make

[3:19:04] sure that's included. So the council has

[3:19:07] the power to do that. I don't I don't

[3:19:09] want to get caught in a catch 22 if the

[3:19:11] agenda doesn't include that.

[3:19:13] Yeah, I'll I'll ask the sister city

[3:19:15] committee their their view. Um because

[3:19:18] they're they're the ones, you know, the

[3:19:20] last time there was public comment here

[3:19:22] on that issue. Um I suggested that we go

[3:19:25] through the sister city committee and

[3:19:27] one of the speakers said well we can

[3:19:29] just you know essentially do it

[3:19:32] ourselves

[3:19:34] and that I think it was Mr. Gonzalez,

[3:19:38] you know, and that just in my view that

[3:19:41] approach flies in the face of what we're

[3:19:44] trying to do. And so, you know, we'll

[3:19:47] I'll ask the sister committee to weigh

[3:19:49] in whether we should take their

[3:19:51] recommendation so that that feedback is

[3:19:54] before the council when we take the

[3:19:57] issue up.

[3:19:59] Yeah. So I'm going to ask then that we

[3:20:01] formalize formally agendaize next Monday

[3:20:04] a motion to pursue Guanowato so that

[3:20:07] we'll have that option as well and u the

[3:20:10] council will have to vote on that under

[3:20:12] our rules of procedure to have it

[3:20:14] agendaized. That's unfortunate because

[3:20:15] again maybe there are backroom

[3:20:17] conversations but there's been no public

[3:20:20] pursuit. No let me just finish there've

[3:20:22] been no public uh information about any

[3:20:25] other relationship. uh there have been

[3:20:27] no visits by any other city. There have

[3:20:30] been no uh nothing certainly publicly

[3:20:32] available and it should be a public

[3:20:34] process.

[3:20:34] That that's that's an accurate one. Uh

[3:20:37] there have been visits um and there have

[3:20:41] been people who expressed an interest

[3:20:43] and I've always referred them through

[3:20:45] the appropriate process to go to sister

[3:20:47] cities.

[3:20:48] That's what's different about this

[3:20:49] and we're talking

[3:20:50] but I don't think sister city has done

[3:20:52] anything nearly as substantial as what

[3:20:54] they have with Guanowat though. I don't

[3:20:56] I'm not aware of any official exchanges.

[3:20:59] Um

[3:21:00] but but yeah, we're probably getting too

[3:21:01] far down.

[3:21:01] I'm making a motion to have this agenda.

[3:21:06] Can I do that tonight?

[3:21:07] You can make it You can make a motion to

[3:21:09] have a future agenda item. Yes.

[3:21:10] Okay. I thought I had to.

[3:21:12] Yeah, I think we have to listen.

[3:21:13] I thought we had to agendaize that

[3:21:14] motion. Yeah.

[3:21:15] And so you're making a motion to have

[3:21:17] this considered for the agenda at the

[3:21:20] next meeting,

[3:21:21] please. And

[3:21:23] my understanding is the process

[3:21:27] you want them to vote next week on

[3:21:30] whether to put it on the agenda

[3:21:32] to to agendaize

[3:21:34] to agendaize a vote on whether to put it

[3:21:36] on the agenda.

[3:21:37] Right. That's what I'm trying to say,

[3:21:40] which I think you just did, but

[3:21:42] yes.

[3:21:42] Okay.

[3:21:43] That's the request.

[3:21:44] That's the request.

[3:21:44] And I don't think it's a motion. I think

[3:21:46] it's I make that request and it

[3:21:48] goes on the agenda next Monday to vote

[3:21:50] on.

[3:21:51] So next week there will be an agenda

[3:21:53] item that says consideration of a

[3:21:55] request by council member Madison to

[3:21:57] agendaize the sister city relationship

[3:21:59] with Wanowatau Mexico. And that would be

[3:22:02] an item on the agenda for a a vote. And

[3:22:06] if if I have to do that, mayor, I'm

[3:22:08] happy to include the things that you

[3:22:10] articulated also that we should receive

[3:22:12] feedback from the committee about their

[3:22:14] efforts. And broadly speaking,

[3:22:17] from which committee?

[3:22:18] The sister city.

[3:22:19] Yeah.

[3:22:20] Yeah.

[3:22:20] But but I I I do think we should ask for

[3:22:26] um their input and follow the the

[3:22:28] process.

[3:22:29] Of course.

[3:22:29] Yeah.

[3:22:30] That that's fine. And so it's so I think

[3:22:32] you've reached the end of the time for

[3:22:34] it not being on the agenda to say we'd

[3:22:36] like it discussed at a future meeting.

[3:22:38] Mr. Massuda,

[3:22:39] mayor, I I'm sure you're aware that the

[3:22:42] sister cities uh group has split.

[3:22:46] They they have a split there and uh that

[3:22:48] makes it so unfortunate. So

[3:22:51] uh I'm

[3:22:52] and I mean I I know of it and I hear

[3:22:56] about it. So, I'm kind of wondering uh

[3:22:59] if if what we would do going forward,

[3:23:04] you know, it's um

[3:23:06] this may if not handled properly may

[3:23:09] cause more of a split on the sister city

[3:23:11] committee is my concern. So, so

[3:23:15] um with that um

[3:23:19] let's

[3:23:21] anything else on that?

[3:23:23] Where's Nina when we need her?

[3:23:24] I know. I know.

[3:23:27] So in that spirit, Mr. Madison, um let's

[3:23:31] ask everyone to um stand

[3:23:36] uh and um adjourn in

[3:23:41] um the memory of three great

[3:23:44] contributors to Pasadena. Uh and you

[3:23:47] know I I always say that our city is

[3:23:50] great not necessarily because of

[3:23:51] buildings or you know um or architecture

[3:23:56] but our city is great because of the

[3:23:58] people. Um and you know they're these

[3:24:01] are we're recognizing people who have

[3:24:03] contributed greatly to our city uh to

[3:24:06] make us who we are. And so I'd ask that

[3:24:08] we stand and adjourn in memory of

[3:24:11] Reverend Joan Taylor and Larry Edson uh

[3:24:15] and uh Nina R. Chossky

[3:24:19] and Mayor uh also we agree to um

[3:24:23] to also adjourn in memory uh to the

[3:24:26] civilians who've lost their lives uh in

[3:24:28] Israel and Palestine.

[3:24:31] Yes. Um and so

[3:24:35] um if we'll observe a moment of silence.

City Council Meeting: September 8, 2025

Agenda

Transcript