[AD] City Council members are seated at a curved dais.
[AD] City Council members are seated at a curved dais. [CC] Mayor and council, we are live.
[CC] Mayor and council, we are live.
Okay, good evening, everyone.
Welcome to the August 3rd, 2026 meeting
of the Pasadena City Council.
We'll start with the calling of the roll.
Thank you, Mayor.
Council member Cole is not in the room yet.
Council member Hampton has not joined the meeting
yet he's going to join for just cause
reason to announce.
Council member Jones.
Council member Lyon.
Here.
Council member Madison.
here counselor Masuda here vice mayor Rivas here mayor Gordo here there's a
quorum the council present okay miss Rivas will you lead us in the pledge of
allegiance please
[AD] Council members and audience rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[AD] Council members and audience sit down.
in the interest of time we are going to take the agenda
out of order and take item 3 up first given the level of public interest so
we will jump right into item three.
I'll turn it over to the city manager, Mr. Huxworth.
Thank you, Mayor.
Good evening, Mayor, council members.
We are coming back this evening seeking council's actions
to adopt the resolutions and other required documents
to place a parcel tax on the ballot for November.
We've shared this slide before that the only thing
that we did add is it was asked
what were our final deadlines relating
to putting something on the ballot and if we had to make a change so we just
wanted to share that this week August 7th is the last day to place a measure on
the ballot and August 12th is the last day to amend or withdraw the measure.
I'm not gonna read this. This is the ballot question. This is the same
ballot question that we shared in the staff report. I will highlight that
this provides for an annual levy of 19 cents per square foot of improved
property that is a level 19% there a 19 cents sorry there is no escalator and
then we took council's comments from the last meeting and the provision does
include include incomes for low-income seniors and others that mirror the
language in the code currently for the exemptions of the library parcel tax
and and that's what this slide does it's these two sections and again
and these are the same sections
that are in the library parcel tax.
[CC] So it would mirror those.
[AD] Section D and E highlighted. "Senior Citizen or disability exemption" and "Very Low Income Limit" [CC] So it would mirror those.
[AD] Section D and E highlighted. "Senior Citizen or disability exemption" and "Very Low Income Limit"
We do wanna point out that in the proposed ordinance,
that would be approved by voters.
There is one correction.
The draft that was in the staff report,
it starts within the first fiscal year
and it should have said for each fiscal year.
So that's one change that we wanted to point out
if the council moves forward
with the staff recommendation.
And then the financial model.
So the proposed parcel tax structure,
we reviewed a number of different scenarios
across the board, lower amounts, higher amounts
with inflationary growth without that.
And here's what we have landed on.
19 cents per square foot of improved property.
We're proposing that it's assessed annually
until ended by voters.
By doing this methodology,
it does meet the current strategic plan goals for the 10 year for both
operations and capital.
This financing mechanism would fund the capital on a pay
as you go method. We could certainly issue debt and accelerate that but we
wanted to make sure that this methodology worked for either and it
does. And then we believe that this financing mechanism will provide viable
operational revenue for approximately at least 15 years.
And then we would certainly have to evaluate it
in the future based on what the growth is,
based on a developed property and whatnot over the years.
So here's a couple of graphs to show the spend.
And so this first graph, the first charts on the left,
first five years, second five years,
third five years, what it looks like.
So you can see that a significant amount of capital
gets done in the first 10 years and then as the capital ramps down the
operational costs ramp up and take over what the revenue is covering covering
each year and then on the right side this graph shows how a pay as you go
model we would build up fund balance and then appropriate that money to do
[CC] the various capital projects and I'll flip to the next slide which will
[AD] Slide: "Implementation Timeline for Parcel Tax" with a Gantt chart. [CC] the various capital projects and I'll flip to the next slide which will
[AD] Slide: "Implementation Timeline for Parcel Tax" with a Gantt chart.
[AD] Slide: "Implementation Timeline for Parcel Tax" with a Gantt chart. [CC] show how that timing is so of course we debate men brush clearance that
[CC] show how that timing is so of course we debate men brush clearance that
kind of stuff would happen every year going forward.
The lower ones in the red highlight the capital projects.
And so under this proposal and working with the fire chief,
we looked at facilitating the training center first
with a hope of construction that that would be
at the start of probably year two.
Station 33 we built ideally would start at year three.
Station 37 would the ideal part would be to start reconstruction of 37 as soon as
33 was done because in talking to the chief it would probably be challenging
to have two stations fully under renovation at the same time so we we do
them consecutively and then in this model as a pay-as-you-go the ninth
station the new ninth station would be would be done after 37 is rebuilt of
Of course, if we explored issuing debt
and doing it through a debt issuance,
we could likely accelerate the night station
earlier in the process,
but this is what it would look like as a pay as you go.
And then as I noted in the prior schedules,
by using pay as you go and doing this methodology,
we would need to ramp up the operational
for the additional rescue ambulances,
fire suppression company and ladder truck
toward the later in starting from year six through year 10.
And then the last one here is,
So the proposed partial tax structure,
it would be $304 on a 1,600 square foot.
We were asked last week if there's
any way to come up with an average of what somebody
might pay in town.
So we did look at some various things,
and we were able to come up with the one
at the bottom, which is a single-family residential
home with a SES value of about $750,000.
Their current property projected annual tax
is around $9,600 if you included this $304 assessment
into their property tax.
I'm sorry, before you include this $304 assessment
in their property tax.
So with that, we will answer questions
and proceed from there.
And before we get in trouble with the fire marshal,
if we could have some of you guys
that are in front of the exits,
there's plenty, there's a few seats,
like I just would like to clear the doors
just to make sure that we could get guys, anybody out.
I just don't want the fire marshal to close us down.
Okay,
thank you, Mr. Clerk.
Okay, we have 12 public comments.
And if you, the clerk will call out names.
If you hear your name,
please form a line in the center aisle.
Yeah, let's hear from the public first.
[CC] Carlos Javeira followed by Lee Wallace,
[AD] Public Speaker Carlos Javolera approaches the podium. [CC] Carlos Javeira followed by Lee Wallace,
[CC] Carlos Javeira followed by Lee Wallace,
then Jackie English, then Ida Demesian, Chen Vu,
David Kissinger, Christian Miller, Rafi Bachachian,
Jesus Rojas, Claire Bryan, Adam Breali,
and Christina Terrazas.
Those are the cards that I have.
I'm sure we'll get a couple more.
Two minutes, Mayor?
Yes.
Two minutes.
And I'll ring a bell when you have 30 seconds left.
So when you hear the bell, it's 30 seconds.
Go ahead.
Good evening.
I'm Carlos Javellara, president of West Pasadena Residence
Association and representing WPRA viewpoints
on the Pasadena Fire Department's
10-year operational and organizational plan.
As we've seen with the Eaton conflagration,
fire can obliterate a community.
The Pasadena Fire Department has delivered a plan
that mitigates fire danger while also improving fire
suppression capabilities.
and the WPRA supports it.
This plan would improve emergency response times,
address environmental change
and growing wildfire risk locally,
develop a long-term plan
to address critical infrastructure needs
for fire stations, improve operational efficiency
and community safety,
fund a comprehensive vegetation management program.
The WPRA supports the fire department's continued research
into thermal imaging technology as part of the city's early warning strategy for wildfires.
As we saw with the Eden Fire and the Palisades Fire, wind-driven wildfires can move faster
than traditional detection systems can keep pace with. No technology can guarantee prevention
under those conditions, but earlier detection can shorten the gap between ignition and
fire response. And in a fast-moving fire, minutes matter.
We can't put a price on what we could lose
if we don't act now.
Fire doesn't wait for budgets to catch up.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
And I would just ask for Council Member Hampton
to, since you've joined the meeting,
if you could announce your Just Cause
accommodation request.
Yes, I am participating in the meeting
under just cause provisions for child care purposes and I guess is there
anyone under the age of 18 over the age 18 sorry no one over the age 18 here
with me in this room okay thank you and then the
[CC] sorry the next speaker is Lee
[AD] Public Speaker Lee Wallace approaches the podium. [CC] sorry the next speaker is Lee
[AD] Public Speaker Lee Wallace approaches the podium.
[AD] Public Speaker Lee Wallace approaches the podium. [CC] Lee Wallace.
[CC] Lee Wallace.
Mayor Guardo and members of the City Council,
my name is Lee Wallace,
representing West Pesting and Residence Association.
I'm also here to support
the fire department's expansion plan.
And if you approve a vote on this with parcel tax,
I will be voting for it,
even though I will be paying a lot more
than what you saw up there on the screen.
If we do not modernize
and make our fire department even more effective,
home and business fire insurance costs
are very likely to increase.
And for some homes and businesses,
they may face cancellation
and having to obtain lower quality insurance coverage
at higher rates.
WPRA has devoted a lot of time and effort
to research and educate our residents
about what our high wildfire risk status means
in terms of getting and keeping
affordable home insurance.
Insurance companies determine whether or not
to insure a home based on two separate evaluations.
Of course, the insurance companies evaluate an individual home for its risks.
They include tree trimming, location of combustible materials, the nearest fire hydrant, the nearest
fire station, et cetera.
Insurance companies also weigh the fire risk in an entire community.
The single most important factor in determining a community's fire risk is the effectiveness
of the fire department.
If Pasadena fails to provide the resources to modernize our fire infrastructure and
up new, more effective methods and technologies that will send a clear signal to the insurance
companies that we are not serious about reducing our high fire risk.
Insurance companies can draw only one logical conclusion.
Fire risk and passive need will remain high and only get higher.
Higher risk means higher insurance costs and insurance cancellations.
So the real question is not simply whether we pay more taxes.
The question is whether we invest in our own fire department or risk paying more later through higher insurance
Bills with no improvement in public safety to show for it. Thank you very much. Thank you
[AD] Public Speaker Jacqueline English approaches the podium.
[AD] Public Speaker Jacqueline English approaches the podium. [CC] and then Jackie English followed by
[AD] Public Speaker Jacqueline English approaches the podium.
Ada Demigian and then Shin Boo and if you heard your name, please come forward
Go ahead. Hi y'all
My name is Jacqueline English and I'm with the WPRA
I'd like to begin with a simple question.
How lucky do you feel today?
How lucky do you feel?
I'm asking that is because our community faces
several significant risks that require immediate attention.
According to a report cited by the Los Angeles Times,
the U.S. Geological Survey has warned
of a substantial likelihood of a major earthquake
in the Los Angeles region by 2045.
If a major rupture occurs, particularly near Cajon Pass, the consequences could be devastating
for communities throughout the region.
We're talking 6.7 or above.
6.7 was the Northridge quake, okay?
The geological survey is very worried right now about the San Andreas Fault.
We cannot predict when that's going to happen.
So we have to focus on preparedness.
One of our most urgent needs is ensuring that our fire stations can withstand a major seismic
event.
Several stations, I think two, have not yet been retrofitted for earthquake safety.
If a significant earthquake were to occur before these improvements are completed,
we risk losing critical facilities, emergency vehicles, and potentially the firefighters
who serve our community.
The longer we delay, the greater the risk.
Whether the solution is constructing new facilities or strengthening existing ones, we need to
begin the process immediately.
Design, planning, and construction take years, and every year of delay leaves us vulnerable.
Earthquakes are not our only concern.
Lucky us.
Our community is also surrounded by a high fire hazard area.
Experts have warned that the extreme wind conditions experienced in early 2025 are
run a one-off. Powerful Santa Ana winds. Miss English, your time is expired? Pardon?
Your time is expired? I thought there was going to be a bell. I rang it. I didn't
hear it. Sorry. Can I finish my sentence?
Okay, we need to reduce the fuel load in
the Arroyo, retrofit or replace vulnerable fire stations as quickly as
possible, strengthen our fire response capabilities, install sirens and
folks evacuate and invest in infrastructure before a disaster
[CC] occurs not after. Thank you. Thank you. Aida Demagian followed by Chen Vu, then David
[AD] Public Speaker Aida Demagian approaches the podium. [CC] occurs not after. Thank you. Thank you. Aida Demagian followed by Chen Vu, then David
[AD] Public Speaker Aida Demagian approaches the podium.
[AD] Public Speaker Aida Demagian approaches the podium. [CC] Kissinger, then Christian Miller, then Rafi Bajachian. Good evening Mayor Gordo,
[CC] Kissinger, then Christian Miller, then Rafi Bajachian. Good evening Mayor Gordo,
council members. My name is Aida Demagian. I have been a resident of the
city of Pasadena for over 50 years and I'm the current president-elect of
Pasadena Association of Realtors. I urge you not to put this parcel tax on the
ballot and the reason is public safety is one of the most fundamental
responsibilities of local government. Fire protection and emergency medical
services benefit everyone who lives, works, shops or visits our great city.
They are not services used exclusively by property owners yet this proposal
places the financial burden primarily on homeowners,
including many who are least able to absorb
another recurring expense.
Many of our senior citizens
purchased their homes decades ago.
They are asset rich, but income limited,
living on fixed retirement incomes
that do not increase with inflation and rising taxes.
They are already facing higher costs for insurance,
utilities, health care, and everyday necessities.
Another annual tax may seem modest on paper,
but many seniors, it becomes one more bill
that they must struggle to pay.
Before asking homeowners to shoulder another tax,
I encourage the city to explore
many reasonable alternatives,
including pursuing state and federal grants,
improving operational efficiencies,
strengthening economic development,
and identifying new revenue resources that spread the cost more fairly among everyone who benefits from these essential services.
We all agree that our firefighters and first responders deserve the resources they need.
Believe me, I experienced that firsthand. My son's house burnt down in the Eaton fire.
The question is whether homeowners, especially our seniors on fixed income,
should bear a disproportionate share of that responsibility
when these services protect the entire community.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam.
Chen Wu, followed by David Kissinger,
[CC] then Christian Miller.
[AD] Public Speaker Chen Yu approaches the podium. [CC] then Christian Miller.
[AD] Public Speaker Chen Yu approaches the podium.
Good evening, Pasadena Council members.
My name is Chen Yu.
I'm a part of the Pasadena Fire Department.
I'm here as a member and as a loser in the EEN fire.
I want to advocate for this, for you guys to let the people decide if they should approve
the attacks.
And I hope you guys do, because I don't want anybody to go through what I'm going through
and continue to go through and there's, I think we're kind of a little late behind
on this game because me as a survivor, it feels like people have moved on and it's
the next thing.
So hopefully we can get this out there and have the people decide.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you. David Kissinger, followed by Christian Miller, then Rafi Bachachian.
[CC] Sure, welcome. Welcome. Go ahead. Good evening Mayor Gordo, members of the City Council,
[AD] Public Speaker David Kissinger approaches the podium. [CC] Sure, welcome. Welcome. Go ahead. Good evening Mayor Gordo, members of the City Council,
[CC] Sure, welcome. Welcome. Go ahead. Good evening Mayor Gordo, members of the City Council,
David Kissinger with the Pestate Foothills Association of Realtors. Thank
you for having this discussion tonight. Every first responder standing
behind me in this room and in the department deserve to have the best
resources available for protecting the community. This measure is not it and I
to urge you to send it back. It needs more work. It needs more tension, more focus and a better
financial plan so that the financial backing for the department can be made available. So what's
wrong with what's wrong with the proposal right now on the table? The cost is actually so the
the voters in Pasadena have been asked a number of times since 2020 to pay a little bit extra
on their property taxes bringing the total cost according to our calculations of closer to $1,700
over $1,700.
For some families, that is as many as one to two months of groceries.
The proposal as it stands now is unbalanced and it is unfair to property owners.
The burden is almost entirely, we believe, on homeowners.
While there is a provision for landlords and housing providers to pass it through
to tenants, that is at best a Byzantine complicated and poorly documented process
that a landlord would need to apply for again and again
every single year forever,
because this item does not have a sunset.
We do not have faith respectfully in the rental housing board
to process these requests in good faith,
and so it is a deep concern for us.
What I one again ask you to do is send it back,
rework it, come up with a financial plan that works
at a minimum, provide something like a sunset date,
add for a more equitable and balanced pass-through,
make it apply equally to all residents
in all businesses of the city, come up with a better financial plan, something that doesn't
necessarily need to go to the voters or to property taxes to make this plan work.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you.
[CC] Christian Miller, followed by Raffi Bajacian, then Jesus Rojas, Claire Bryan, Adam Bray
[AD] Public Speaker Christian Miller approaches the podium. [CC] Christian Miller, followed by Raffi Bajacian, then Jesus Rojas, Claire Bryan, Adam Bray
[CC] Christian Miller, followed by Raffi Bajacian, then Jesus Rojas, Claire Bryan, Adam Bray
Ali, Christina Terazas.
Hi, Mayor, Council, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
I come here representing the city as a resident, I was born and raised here, born in Huntington
hospital and as a Pasadena Fire Management President and a 21-year
employee of the city. I wanted to address a couple of things. First of all, this
this is something that we've been known about for a long time. It's been part
of our strategic plan for over 20 years. I found some old documents from
the 90s that are addressing these concerns that we have right now and
I also recognize and appreciate that it's part of your top five priorities.
So it's something that we need to address. Time is of the essence. If we
addressed it 15 years ago, probably half the cost. So
every year that goes by inflation and money just
becomes more. I don't like paying a lot of taxes. Our
citizens probably don't either, but they're willing
to refurbish the library. I think they're going to
be willing to refurbish and put money into public
safety. The fire chief and the members behind us are
responsible for evaluating risk. We evaluate risk for
the lives and the citizens of Pasadena. We risk
a life to save a life. We did that most recently at
Eaton incident the members behind here as I was responding in as my family was
evacuating were texting me saying where do I go well we all came in and that's
what we want to do we want to continue to come in to serve this community and
we can't do that if we don't have a sustainable future this provides us
with a sustainable future it provides us with the ability to provide
coverage to the city and it allows us to respond when we have emergencies
like the Eaton incident thank you for your time thank you
[AD] Public Speaker Raffy Bitchakdjian approaches the podium.
Raffi good evening mayor council I want to thank you for your time and as
always I want to thank the community for all the love and support they give us
every day. I would be remiss if I never, if I didn't say that every meeting, uh,
look around you in this room,
every one of these firefighters that are here today represents one of your
districts or works in one of your districts. Believe it or not.
I know hopefully none of you have ever had to call nine one one,
but this is our nine one one call. This is our call to the community.
And what we want to do is give them the opportunity to vote and give them
opportunity to help us be sustainable in the future. We want to leave this place
better and we found it just like Christian said, been close coming up
close to 20 years and all we have been doing is talking about it and we have
not taken action and I think the longer we take the harder it is to be
able to accomplish this. We've definitely kicked the can down the
road far enough and before I retire and I leave this place I want to make
sure that we leave it better and we found it for the future firefighters
are in the back room. Their safety is my priority. I know it's the priority of the
community too and we want to do the best we can and we need to be able to be
sustainable and the chief has done an amazing plan putting this together the
capital improvement plan to keep this place sustainable grow so that way we
could lower our response times get there faster mitigate danger and help
everyone that's out there in the community. So please again let's have a
vote and let's get this measure on for November and keep this place
sustainable and and and and take care of our firefighters and our safety and
their families. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[CC] Hey Zeus, Rojas, followed by Claire, Brian, then Adam Bray Ali, then
[AD] Public Speaker Jesus Rojas approaches the podium. [CC] Hey Zeus, Rojas, followed by Claire, Brian, then Adam Bray Ali, then
[AD] Public Speaker Jesus Rojas approaches the podium.
[AD] Public Speaker Jesus Rojas approaches the podium. [CC] Christina, Torazas, then Pete Cutzer. Welcome. Hi, good evening. My name is
[CC] Christina, Torazas, then Pete Cutzer. Welcome. Hi, good evening. My name is
Jesus Rojas. I'm from the apartment association of Greater Los Angeles. I
understands and believes that the fire services are vital for the entire
community and should be a top priority as a core city service. However, Agla
strongly opposes the parcel tax resolution as it is unfairly placed a
financial burden solely onto property owners. Fire services are enjoyed by
the entire community including renters, residential and commercial workers including
non-residents, tourists, business, and social visitors.
A sale tax, also known transactions and use tax,
would be far more equitable and will face no opposition
according to the city's finance committee report.
If the need for additional funding is urgent,
then the tax with the lease objectives
should be utilized to secure passage,
which is a sales tax and not a parcel tax.
This is a rushed resolution that uses doing a proper mechanism as of a parcel tax instead
of the proper mechanism of either a permanent or temporary sales tax so that everyone not
just property owners who benefit from fire services will pay their fair share.
Once again we urge the council to reject the parcel tax resolution and instead use
a sales tax either permanent or temporary.
Instead, if the council moves forward with the parcel tax, we request that all multifamily
properties be excluded from it.
Thank you.
[CC] Claire Bryan followed by Adam Bray-Ali, then Christina Terraza.
[AD] Public Speaker Claire Bryan approaches the podium. [CC] Claire Bryan followed by Adam Bray-Ali, then Christina Terraza.
Let me say I have the deepest respect for our city firefighters and for those across
the state and country that risk their lives to keep us safe.
But let's be honest, this parcel tax is being promoted as including a comprehensive
wildfire prevention plan.
It does not.
Less than 5% of the money is directed
to wildfire prevention throughout the entire city.
And that paltry amount is stretched
to include litter control and work program development.
Not a single dime is earmarked
for the dire fire hazard presented by the Arroyo Seco
with its decades old buildup
of dead trees and ladder fuel.
This 227 million dollar plan misses the point.
All fire experts agree that firefighters are basically
helpless in putting down high wind driven wildfires
unless until hundreds of thousands of people
are dead and houses are burned.
The best defense against a wildfire
is vegetation management.
Clearing away the dead fuel that feeds the flames.
The Arroyo Seco with the steep slopes
and North-South orientations, ready-made pile of kindling
or even a spark from a campfire can set up a conflagration.
I don't know whether the fire department needs
all the new equipment they're asking for.
I'm not sure that a comprehensive city-wide fire risk
has been done and has analyzed how these news changes
will affect things.
But with respect to fire prevention in the Arroyo Seco,
I do know this, it's urgent.
I'm asking you to take immediate steps to address the dangerous accumulation of brush
and vegetation.
It's not a landscaping or maintenance issue, it's a wildfire safety issue.
The city has recognized this in approving vegetation removal and goat grazing near
Arroyo Seco.
Pasadena cited the sequoia exemption for actions necessary to prevent or mitigate a
wildfire emergency, yet significant areas of the Arroyo remain heavily overgrown.
Miss Brian your time is expired. I didn't hear a bill one paragraph
One paragraph the City Council is designated. You have the money. We want to be fair to everyone. So if you could
[CC] If you'll
[AD] Claire Bryan hands papers to the sergeant-at-arms. [CC] If you'll
[AD] Claire Bryan hands papers to the sergeant-at-arms.
hand it to the sergeant arms, thank you. Thank you
Good evening mayor members of the City Council and more importantly the incredible men and women I see all around the room behind me
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this.
I really wanna start by making one thing crystal clear.
I strongly support our firefighters
and the essential life-saving services
they provide to our city every single day.
However, I strongly oppose this parcel tax measure.
The amount being discussed, the $22 million,
represents less than 1.5% of the city's budget.
Bringing this forward is a last minute,
truly the last minute of this opportunity
to put something on the tax measures,
It feels like a Hail Mary designed and calculated to create division in our community, rather
than fostering smart, disciplined budget decisions.
It is deeply discouraging to see the General Fund priorities manipulated to create a false
narrative, essentially making it appear as though the new tax is the only way to fund
core services.
Fire protection is a primary municipal responsibility.
It should be prioritized directly within the General Fund, not held out as an excuse
for an additional tax.
Beyond the process, the structure of this tax is really fundamentally flawed. It never ends.
There's no sunset to guarantee long-term oversight or accountability.
It is unfairly distributed. It places a heavy burden on residential income properties and commercial properties
without recognizing that all community members benefit from the fire protection and should share in funding it. For housing providers,
this burden is especially compounding. Between the rising rent stabilization
department fees and this proposed tax, owners will face at least $500 per year
in additional fees in voted debt since 2022 per unit. These costs cannot be
passed through or accounted with under CPI rent increases. In short, this
last-minute Hail Mary should be adjusted and or rejected. Thank you.
[CC] Thank you. Thank you. Christina Terrazas followed by Pete Kutzer. Welcome. Good evening Mayor,
[AD] Public Speaker Christina Terrazas approaches the podium. [CC] Thank you. Thank you. Christina Terrazas followed by Pete Kutzer. Welcome. Good evening Mayor,
[CC] Thank you. Thank you. Christina Terrazas followed by Pete Kutzer. Welcome. Good evening Mayor,
good evening Council. My name is Christina Terrazas and I am a Pasadena firefighter. I've been with
the city for 25 years and I'm currently assigned at station 37 which is one of the projects that
would be put out on this measure to be enhanced and current to today's age. Ever since I've been
here a lot of these conversations have been part of our discussion and we have not yet
seen them fulfilled. I don't have much longer here and I would also like to advocate for
the future of our fire department and better serving the community in which we do every
single day. All of these members, our brothers and sisters answer the call phenomenally every
single day regardless of the circumstances and the things that are up for this measure,
but we are asking for a unanimous vote and your support so that we can have the
of Pasadena go out and make this decision and just as we care for them
we're asking that we give the opportunity to educate them and discuss
this with them so that we can have a better city altogether that we serve.
Thank you. Thank you.
[AD] Public Speaker Pete Kutzer approaches the podium.
[AD] Public Speaker Pete Kutzer approaches the podium. [CC] Mr. Kutzer. Good evening Mr. Mayor, honorable members of
[CC] Mr. Kutzer. Good evening Mr. Mayor, honorable members of
the City Council and city staff. My name is Pete Kutzer and our firm is an
active investor and developer in Pasadena primarily of commercial property.
Thank you to the City Council and the staff for doing this difficult work of
assessing the city's deferred maintenance and capital needs. This
responsibility is as crucial for our long-term resilience as it is unglamorous.
From what I've seen, however, in the current ballot measure, this tax as
designed will not be successful. I have the following concerns. This tax
does not sunset. It's perpetual. It's good practice to come back before the
voters every 10 years or so to update them and renew the tax.
This parcel tax is not a flat amount per parcel
as traditional parcel taxes are, but it's
assessed at $0.19 per buildable square foot.
Therefore, it's designed to more heavily tax
commercial buildings and apartment buildings.
This parcel tax has no requirement
for actually spending on the crucial capital projects that
are the main reason for it, only that they be prioritized.
The annual amount raised, approximately $22 million,
appears to be about 30%
of the current fire department budget.
That's a big percentage,
and so being more specific would behoove us all.
The fire department's about 8% of the city's overall budget,
and so I would ask, what are the expectations
for future new taxes to help fund the capital
and operating needs of the other 92% of city operations?
As an example of the impact on businesses,
I would highlight that virtually every tall office building
Lake Avenue has recently gone through foreclosure in the last year or will in
the next couple of years. This represents about a 10% increase in property taxes
for every business and apartment building in Pasadena and that's a big
increased burden with everything that's going on with inflation and
spiking costs of insurance and utilities.
The fire department is at the
heart of our resiliency as a community and our firefighters put their
lives on the line for us. I would fully support a flat rate per
parcel tax that sunsets thank you very much thank you thank you
that completes
public comment on this item okay we've had previous discussions related to this
matter are there any questions or
requests for more information or comments
from my colleagues I'll start with mr. Hampton who is in the queue he had his
do we need to vote for me to participate no no okay purpose you want to make sure
all right um i appreciate all the public commenters um for and those that want us to clarify things
um when this came out of uh finance originally mayor i had mentioned that you know there should
be some sort of sunset um whether it be 10 years eight 10 years i don't know um what the
that the deadline would be but having a parcel tax on the ballot i mean having a parcel tax on
without any sunset doesn't give a the opportunity for residents to to re-vote it
up so I would be in support of this going on the ballot ultimately it's
really up to the voters so I don't want to take away their opportunity if they
believe that we need more fire services I believe that we do but I do
think that there should be a sense that so we could have a check-in you
know for the next council I probably will not be on the council with this
sunset comes back up.
But I do think that it's an opportunity
for checks and balances.
So I would be in favor of this with a 10 year sunset.
Thank you, Mr. Hampton.
Mr. Masuda.
Thank you, Mayor.
And I appreciate all the speakers that spoke today
and no matter what side you're on.
But I wrote down the comments that,
especially the people that supported the parcel tax
and they said to modernize our fire department
and to reduce risk, better fire preparedness.
Don't have people divided on this.
So we can respond to emergencies and respond better
and firefighters to get to the fire quicker.
And I believe that and I'm gonna support having this
on the ballot this year.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Masuda. Ms. Rivas followed by Mr. Jones.
Sorry. I have a question for
Matt. We chatted a little bit earlier about this kind of the philosophical
different approaches to focusing on capital versus operating. I think the
case for the capital improvements has been very clear for decades now. We got
to rebuild two stations. We've got to build another station. We've got to
the training center, I think that the case,
or for me in my mind, I wanna hear funding
ongoing operating costs by this method.
What are the alternatives?
Why is this the best way to do it?
Because in my conversations with residents,
it's a very easy conversation to have about,
you know, these one time capital expenditures.
There's no other way to fund them.
But the operating costs, I mean,
it aren't those things we should be figuring out
how to fund in other ways and planning
for decades down the road instead of just relying on this measure so if you
can shed any light on that. Sure I I would say is as a couple the the
firefighters noted earlier that that this has been part of the plan for
quite a long time and and I would say that the city has been prioritizing
fire improvements where we can we recently added a six rescue ambulance to
response we recently added a second battalion chief shift for all three
shifts so we have been making incremental gains but looking in the
forecast of all of the other things that we need to make we don't believe
that we'll be able to achieve all of these within our current operating
structure in terms of the general fund being primarily property tax sales
tax, utility users' tax growth, most of those are,
I mean, you've heard for the last many, many years
we've been challenging, we've been challenged
with balancing the budget, and so the city is,
we've had a parcel tax for the library
for quite a long time, and yes, that's had a sunset
and the voters have approved extending that sunset
for many years, but in working with the chief
and the other parties involved, we believe
that things like adding another truck unit,
another fire suppression unit,
opening up a ninth fire station,
those are things that we're just not gonna be able
to absorb the operating costs
within our existing revenue structure long-term.
And that's why we have been trying to maximize
our return on billables for emergency response
for our rescue ambulances.
And I think the chief and the firefighters in the room,
they've doubled that revenue,
I think in the last six, seven years.
and that's how we've afforded the six rescue ambulance
and things like that.
So we have been doing as much as we can
and we think we're at the point where our budget
won't be able to support it under the status quo.
I appreciate that explanation.
I'm also interested in having some sort of sunset
or giving voters an opportunity to re-up
or to continue on with the tax.
Does staff have a position on the timing of that though?
I believe Council Member Hampton mentioned 10 years
in your presentation you mentioned
that the current proposal would fund operational needs
for 15 years, is there a preference
or do you have a suggestion on the timeframe for a sunset?
Sure, I mean, if the council did desire to put a sunset,
this is why we offered up the model
which had the getting everything done
within the first 10 years
and purposely looking at a pay as you go method
in case we couldn't issue 20 or 30 year debt.
And so we do believe that we could achieve
all the results within that 10 year window if the council so choose chose to
put a 10 or 15 year sunset on it that's why we built this model is so that it
could accommodate a sunset if the council wanted to go that route okay
so the model could accommodate a 10 or 15 year sunset and I'm assuming a 15
year sunset would be more preferable give you more breathing room it it
it would still go back to voters right right but rebuilding two fire
in building a new fire station.
We will work earnestly on that,
but yeah, the extra years gives us a little more runway,
but I mean, we believe we can do it in the 10 years as well,
if that's what the council wants to do.
Okay, thank you so much, Mayor.
I'm supportive, but I would prefer a sunset
to give voters the chance to revisit this
in 10 or 15 years.
I think I'd have a slight preference for 15,
but open to both.
Thank you.
Mr. Cole.
Thank you, Mayor.
Three things. First, my appreciation to everyone who spoke.
This is not the ideal way to make
this decision. I think we could all acknowledge that. What is true is that there is a rush
to put this on the ballot because we have a limited timeframe. This will have to wait
two years if we don't move tonight.
What's not true is that this is new.
Our fire chief, since he arrived here,
has done an extraordinary job of really analyzing
what the needs of a 21st century fire department
for the city of Pasadena needs to be
in order to protect every single one
of the people in this room.
And we have done the studies.
We have done the analysis and we have done the hard work
of recognizing that it can't be accommodated within our,
we're going to have a struggle to balance our budget, period,
given all of the challenges facing cities with inflation.
So, this, a lot of work has gone into this
and that's why I'm prepared to support it.
Like my colleagues, I think that a forever tax
is understandably a concern to folks in the community,
and all of us are concerned about the various taxes
that have been piled on by the school district,
by the community college, by us, by the county.
And this is yet one more.
So on the timing, could we issue 15-year finance?
Certainly we have in the past.
Yeah, that's long enough that we could certainly issue debt on that kind of timeframe.
So I'm more comfortable with a 15-year, because I do think we want to accelerate that.
I also believe, Mr. Mayor, and I'll make this as part of the motion, whoever ends
up making the motion tonight,
that we have actually a guarantee that we are going to
unsound and we are going to build a ninth station. I think to prioritize that
I understand why people are concerned. That is our priority. That should be our
commitment to the voters that if they are willing to make this investment
that they see the tangible results.
And finally this may not make a
in how a person votes, it may make a difference
in how people prioritize their finances,
particularly people who we know out there will struggle.
I am more comfortable with the original 17 cents
we talked about, we talked about a range,
17 to I think 24 cents.
19 is a reasonable number in terms of financing
all of the things we want to do.
But I think the citizens who've raised concerns
and their legitimate concerns tonight about,
well, what is the city doing?
Where's the city prioritizing this?
And you've made the point, which again,
we need to make clear to the community
that we have found additional resources.
The last three years running,
we have added over and above the existing staffing
and operations of the fire department.
And we've done that through the budget process.
but I think I would be more comfortable with the 17 cents. It's a small adjustment
but I think that puts us in a better position for us to make some hard
decisions around this table and that's what I think citizens are asking us to
do.
Mr. Lyon. Thank You Mayor. I also want to thank everyone who came out to
I was I've been talking all weekend about this and about the development in
my in my neighborhood back and forth and have heard from a lot of people that I
I and heard a lot of what you had to say today I'm particularly sensitive to
mr. Cutzer's comments about the burden on commercial buildings which I hadn't
really fully appreciated in the formulation of this tax and it you
South Lake is in my district and I have we are still reeling from those
bankruptcies we are an expensive place to live I say all the time we're also an
expensive place to do business and we're gonna have to reckon with that
and all of that said I am highly convinced of the need here it as
people said very well today it goes back many many years a few people
have said like this is all sort of a rush to judgment after the Eaton
I think the Eden fire just demonstrated for us the urgency of this work but we
knew certainly clearly before that this work was essential. I also appreciate all
our firefighters coming out. Y'all I hope we don't have a big fire tonight
because I'm worried about it. But thank you for being here. It's good to see
all of you in one place. We don't get to do that very often.
So the things
I think we're all leaning toward putting this on the
it and and I thought Rafi said very well like ultimately this is a question for
the people to decide and we should let the people to decide I think we do need
to give it the best chance of passing and what I heard all weekend were two
things one it needs a sunset to a person every person said to me I would
feel much more comfortable if I knew it stopped the second thing were
variations on the theme of some guarantee that the money actually goes
to what we say it's going to, whether that is citizen
oversight or a firmer promise in the ballot language
than we have.
So that's my question to you.
How do we shore up the, because certainly we
have had measures in the past, whether at the county,
I don't know if we have in this city,
but certainly at the county and state level
that didn't fund what we thought
they were going to fund.
right so how do we meaningfully convince the public that that these funds are
going to go to these projects and in 10 years or 15 years or whatever sunset we
decide on we're going to see these two stations
rehabbed and a new station built sure so in the big picture this is a
special tax and so it doesn't go into the general
fund it's not part of the broader general fund
and the city as mentioned earlier had a library tax for
many, many years of parcel tax,
and I'm not aware of us ever being challenged
on whether or not we appropriately use
the library tax for library purposes.
So it is a special tax, it just can't get lumped in
to everything else that we do.
The proposed language that would amend the municipal code
does establish a baseline,
so we can't just pull money out of the existing budget
and supplant it with this money,
because it establishes a baseline
based on our current deployment and things like that.
And then the other thing is if the council wants to,
there is the language, as you mentioned earlier,
about capital improvement
and capital improvement prioritization.
I think that if the council would like,
it says capital improvement is currently,
it says capital improvements for the fire department,
including stations, training centers, fire headquarters,
essential safety, infrastructure, rescue,
ambulances, fire apparatus, and equipment.
We can bolster that to specifically call out
fire stations 33, 37, and a new fire station
if the council would like to more firmly highlight
what those are, and that would be in section 4.110.150,
which is the purpose of it.
We can bolster that section.
Okay, I would like to see some language firming it up.
I think these are the things that I'm hearing,
and I also would support a sunset.
And with that, I'm supportive.
So before I, oh, Mr. Jones.
You wanna go?
No, go ahead, Mr. Jones.
Thanks, Mayor.
And then thanks to the firefighters
that turned out here today and also to our residents.
You know, first I wanna say, like,
I'm very supportive of our fire department.
I also understand that the financial realities
of our working class residents,
Every dollar counts towards medication,
towards groceries, towards gas.
And I'm not just speaking this, you know,
obviously from my own experience,
but from talking to the residents
over these past few weeks,
since we started to initiate this discussion.
With that said, I do think we need to move forward
with supporting this ballot measure
and place it on the ballot and let the voters decide.
And I think ultimately, you know,
we need to make sure that we retrofit
our stations, we need to make sure
that we have a new training facility
for our fire department, have a new battalion chief.
I think we approved one last year
and didn't have a third one.
And I would say that this has been around
for quite some time.
Ever since I came on the city council
when I met with the chief,
after he asked me how much weight did I deadlift,
he brought up the 10-year plan.
He brought up his vision for the fire department.
And I think we have a world-class fire department.
And so that requires, you know,
obviously world-class thinking,
and it requires resources for us
to keep our community safe.
And I heard today, and I heard also
these past couple of weekends
about sunsetting this parcel tax.
So I'd be interested in evaluating
the 15-year sunset.
I'd be open to discussing a 10-year sunset as well.
And also the, as my colleague has said,
some firmer promise to the voters
on what this money will be used for.
Just making sure that there's a guarantee
that the money's gonna be used to retrofit the stations.
I don't know if I'd go as far as, say,
Fire Station 33 and Fire Station 37,
maybe just saying retrofit the fire stations.
And also, I guess, for the city manager,
for the interim city manager,
as he whispers to the finance director,
can we spend this money on other items
so in calling the election there's a
resolution and in the resolution there's a whole slew of where as's and then
there is the amendment to the municipal code if it's not in that document we
can't spend money on it that document also provides the guardrails of what
we can spend money on and so while for example fire stations 33 and 37
aren't currently in the draft municipal code amendment, they are in the where as's.
And in the where as's, it's very explicit. It says including reconstruction of fire station 3337,
construction of an additional fire station, etc. are the things that we've talked about. So
if we want to put any more guard rails, it should be in that resolution document.
I see. Okay. That's helpful. And then I did hear about the burden on commercial properties
on Lake, I mean, could you just opine on that, Matt?
I'm not sure what, I'm not gonna disagree on the burden.
The burden is on everyone.
We evaluated a number of options in approaching it
and the reality is is we didn't believe
there was any perfect model.
We believe this was a good model to approach to do this
in trying to take an approach to fixed income
and low income and size of properties
and size of residences because while one person
might say, well, you should do it on parcel type
or parcel size, somebody else will come and say,
that's not fair because then the single family
residential property of 25,000 or 40,000 square feet
that lives on an acre pays the same as a bungalow
that's 600 square feet or 800 square feet, right?
So there is no perfect science.
We believe that this is a fair and equitable way
to apply it across the board.
We understand that the commercial market
is challenging right now.
But that's the method that we went with.
I don't have, unfortunately I don't have a magic answer
that will make everybody feel exponentially better.
Yeah, I mean, and that's helpful.
So, I mean, I'm prepared to support it
and I'm also prepared to make the motion
which would approve this to place on the ballot,
but also to have a sunset of a 15 year
or a re-evaluation for the residents every 15 years,
and then also provide the firmer language
that you mentioned.
Thank you, Mayor.
So a check-in?
A check-in, yeah, I think a check-in to the council
on year 15, perhaps, or.
I think a sunset is gonna be
what people are gonna ask for.
Yeah, so I
think likely what would happen is if the council goes with the 15-year sunset
and this is approved, it's probably prudent to have a check-in at year 9 or 10 to see
did we hit our 10-year plan, and then you have five years to strategize what's the
next appropriate thing because maybe it's putting it to the voters at year 10.
Maybe it's taking it back to the voters in year 14.
So I think that a check-in with the council on the year 10 with yeah, or maybe it's your eight, right?
But but like I mean, I imagine there's gonna be a check-in every year with the council
Those are gonna progress that we're happening, right? But but a 15-year sunset. I wouldn't in my seat today
I wouldn't recommend waiting till you're 15 to go
Should we keep doing this or not? Right? Like we should be checking in every year to see are we make by the motion?
To check in every year with the City Council
I believe there's some language that every year
you have to audit.
And so that would be, so if we could have a public hearing
on that every year, that would give residents
an opportunity to actually have the transparency
and accountability that we're doing the right thing.
I'd be supportive of that.
So if your motion is a 15-year sunset, I second that.
Well, before we get to motions,
let's go through everyone
and give everyone an opportunity.
Mr. Madison.
Thank you, Mayor.
I'm supportive of the staff recommendation
and I'm concerned about some of the sort of hedges
that I'm hearing about guarantees
and sun setting and the like.
Let me ask staff, Matt, I agree with your earlier statement
but I just wanna confirm that we haven't ever had a case
where we haven't followed our promise
in terms of a special tax or assessment.
I'm not recalling any, are you?
No, not for a special tax.
I have, yeah, that's the short answer.
No, not regarding a special tax.
So the two words I've heard are guarantee and sunset.
I'm not sure, guarantee always makes me
little squeamish because there would be so many actions required by future city
councils to actually execute and implement the plans even for a rehab
which I have no doubt we've already rehabbed numerous fire stations I mean
our commitment on that is clear these final two are more substantial because
they require demo and rebuild but like what does that guarantee actually look
or is it just window dressing?
And I would, this is Michelle Bonnerice, the city attorney.
I would note that as the city manager,
the interim city manager referenced,
the proposed ordinance does specify,
and I found some of the sections where there are limits
and it's limited to what it can be spent on
in sections 4.110.140 and 4.110.150.
And that sets forth the bases for spending the funds
and the limitations set forth in the code.
So is it your assessment Michelle that those are guardrails? Yes, I would say that's what they are in the ordinance in various places
and then in terms of
the sunset
Matt could you help us?
Is the idea that with a sunset in 15 years the assessment would stop
Well another election by the community the council putting it on the ballot for another
round of expensive elections and a two-thirds requirement that it that it
continue if there was a sunset then yes it would be it would require to go back
to voters for a renewal or an extension and you may want to look at oh I'm
sorry this is Michelle you may want to look at the time frames I mean I don't
15 years from 1986 I don't know where that puts you in an election
cycle so you should probably look at that if you're looking at those kinds of
sunset time frames I would think right and so that's how I land on 10 or 14 well
I don't support a sunset because I think if a future council were in the
position that we got all the work done and we'd satisfy ourselves that we
the fire department that we need in terms of the infrastructure and staffing and
remember part of this proposal is for staffing so if you're funding ongoing
staffing needs which is proven and appropriate with this assessment you'd
really be facing a cliff that the city would be driving off of if it
automatically sunset it and we'd either be looking at massive changes to
budget to be able to continue those operations or a reduction of service, which I don't think anybody
would support. So I don't support either the quote-unquote guarantee or the sun setting.
Obviously, if we were in a position where we could essentially walk this back,
reduce the assessment, do whatever it took to terminate it, great. But I wouldn't want to
automatically going I mean let's take a reality check at 19 cents I remember Matt
at the last meeting you showed us what that would look like and if I recall it
was $150 something like that for an average home in Pasadena first you're
looking at about three hundred and four dollars okay thank you for that so I
also don't support reducing the amount that's in the recommendation
Because I think those pencils were pretty sharp when staff worked them up in terms
of what the real costs are going to be.
And, of course, our experience is not that these costs tend to go down.
They often go up.
So I'd be nervous about reducing it and trying to do half a loaf.
In terms of the commercial stakeholders, obviously, I'm gravely concerned about the
of vacant buildings that one sees as one drives around
and what in a post-COVID world, you know,
what office space and bricks and mortar retail,
all of that, what it looks like.
But I totally agree with the city manager
that it's sort of like what Churchill said
about democracy is the worst form of government possible
except that it's the best anybody's ever been able
to come up with.
And this too is the case that none of us likes
putting an additional tax burden on our residents
and property owners.
But this is the fairest,
the most appropriate way to do it.
We had many commercial establishments
that were lost in the Eaton fire.
Those businesses are gonna be affected
as well as our residents.
Obviously our residents are our primary concern,
but the business community
in our commercial fabric is right there as well.
So I think it's appropriate and fair.
And so I'm prepared to support the staff recommendation.
And if there's a motion,
and I don't know that I heard the motion
to be exactly that, but I would second that motion
if that were the motion.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Madison.
Yeah, you know, the issue of fairness is important
and for so many years are the way we tax residential property
versus commercial property in my view hasn't been fair.
And, you know, I'm very sensitive to commercial property,
but it's a fact that upon reassessment,
commercial properties often are exempted
to the higher tax rate.
And so this is a, what I believe to be
a fairer approach to development.
Again, not being insensitive to the arguments that
are being raised, and we'll have to double our efforts
than we have on economic development.
And we'll continue to do that.
In terms of the need, I'm not going
to repeat what we all saw during the Eaton fire,
because it was not only tragic,
but physically and emotionally scarring to this community.
But I am concerned about not just fire,
certainly that's top of mind.
But I'm concerned, and I think Jackie pointed it out,
the earthquakes.
If we, on the day we last discussed this matter,
Two days before that, the Santa Andreas Fault
saw two earthquakes in very close proximity to our city.
Each of them over 4.2, I believe.
And you know, that's a concern
because what we saw in the fire
was not only that the fire can move swiftly,
and assistance doesn't arrive as quickly.
You know, we had to wait, we count often on mutual aid.
And mutual aid is important and it's,
you know, we should continue that.
But if we were to have a regional earthquake
impacting more than just, you know,
one geographic part of the valley, for example,
the San Gabriel Valley other you know mutual aid I don't think we could
rely upon like we do in an isolated incident in a couple of communities because fire departments
appropriately not being critical will be focused on their own community they'll be focused on
helping their own residents in an earthquake.
And so we have to be prepared to help our own residents
in an earthquake situation before mutual aid arrives.
And we're now seeing more development,
particularly because of changes in state law.
We're seeing more intense development in the downtown
and soon in other outside of the downtown.
And we have to be prepared to respond to all emergencies,
including medical emergencies, you know,
and what a lot of people don't realize is, you know,
firefighters can't take an elevator upstairs.
I'm sorry, up to second, third, fourth,
fifth floor, sixth floor,
they have to take the stairwell for safety
because they also wanna make sure
that they arrive to provide the assistance needed.
And that's gonna take more time
and it's gonna be a bigger burden on our fire service.
You know, in terms of investment,
we have invested tremendously
in our fire service and fire department,
including, I would point out,
what many cities don't provide,
which is a four-person response.
We invested tremendously to ensure
that when our fire department gets that call,
whether it's commercial or residential,
that we have the best staffed department and response
to an individual call.
And a lot of cities, including Los Angeles, don't have that.
and we've invested in equipment, trucks, ambulances.
And what we're saying to the voters is
we wanna continue to provide that service.
They've responded to calls in my family
and I've appreciated the assistance and friends,
the assistance they've given my family and friends.
So thank you to our firefighters and all those involved.
And in the end, what we're asking the voters to review
is our record of service.
And what we're asking them is to look at our plan
for continuing that level of service
and doing so safely for the people who we count on.
Because remember these fire stations
aren't just housing fire trucks,
they're housing people, families,
and the people we will rely upon
to come to our aid in an emergency.
So I'm prepared to move forward
with asking the people if in fact,
our record of service and our firefighters
record of service and the need to keep them safe
so they can keep us safe is something
they want to support.
and I think that they will.
It's not going to be easy because it is additional cost.
You know, I personally, my family owns,
we own a number of properties
and we're going to have to pay
on all of those properties in Pasadena.
But I think keeping our commitment to family,
friends, residents, and visitors to Pasadena
is important and making sure that we're there
when they need us is important.
I don't wanna look back and say,
well, if we'd just done things differently,
we could have helped more people
or provided a better response in an earthquake,
in a fire or any other emergency.
Mr. Hampton, you're back in the queue.
Yeah, so I appreciate everyone's comments.
I do, once again, we talked about this
at the Finance Committee.
I did think that a 10-year sunset would be most ideal.
I think it gives the opportunity for the residents
to vote on again.
I appreciate Councilman Madison's comments
about not having a sunset.
I would say that I don't yield to him at all.
I mean, as far as a supporter of public safety,
since I've been on the council,
Councilman Madison has been one of the biggest supporters
he would give every dollar that we'd have
to first responders if we could.
So I appreciate his comments,
but I do think that we need a 10-year sunset.
And so I would make a motion for a 10-year sunset.
That's the only way I'd be able to support this
if we're looking for unanimous support.
This is uphill battle.
The responses I've received from residents
that were even affected by the Eden Fire.
There's only two districts in the city
that were affected by the Eden Fire.
There was one in four.
And we were all affected, don't get me wrong.
but I think as far as homes being lost we're one in four and even those uh that lost their homes
are I've sent me communications that were not favorable for the outcomes of of this at least
within my district boundary so I think giving more um assurances uh as mentioned you know the
the fire stations that are in dire need 33 and 37 and also having a ninth fire station
be identified somewhere but definitely having a sunset would be of 10 years would be
where I stand and so that's the motion I'm making and that's that thank you did I get
a second on my motion you did so there was already a motion so you're making a substitute
motion.
The second on your motion was for 15 years and I was going to call out
that our elections don't happen in 15 year cycles or odd cycles I'd say.
So
yours was ten years? Ten years. I mean I like to hear what my colleagues have
to say about it.
Mr. Cole?
I am very committed to the
petrofit of the two fire stations that we worry reasonably would not withstand a major
earthquake. I think that that is one of the reasons why I'm willing to move forward and
not wait two years is, as Mr. Madison said, there's a lot of pieces that go into that.
But I think that we have no excuse to not initiate as quickly as possible the reconstruction
of two fire stations that will be, as the mayor has just pointed out, will be critical
to emergency response in the case of a major earthquake.
So how would we how would we make sure within a 10-year window that we could
be able to finance those two stations would that mean postponing some of the
other operational augmentations or are there ways in which we could finance
this or partially finance this through a 10-year paper?
So I will start by saying, if that's the council's direction,
we'll find a way to make it happen.
The other thing I will say is that the outline
that we provided earlier today frontloaded the training
center.
It might mean that the training center doesn't
get frontloaded.
One of the renovations gets frontloaded.
We'll still have the challenge,
and the fire chief is here.
if you may wanna comment on it,
but one of the conversations about
it would be challenging to have two stations
being rebuilt at the same time,
but we'd work on that too.
The other thing which this draft ordinance does provide
is the city could advance funds
that the tax could repay.
So the city could advance funds if it wanted
from reserves or somewhere else
and get repaid from tax collections
if the council did want to accelerate something faster
than we could generate the revenue through Pay As You Go.
So I think there's enough opportunities in there
that we could certainly shift those earlier in the priority
if that's the council's direction.
There was an amendment or a substitute motion offered
by Mr. Hampton which,
so far as I know, has not gotten a second.
We are colleagues around this table
and I respect everyone's view
and we don't have unanimity on every aspect of this.
And so I think all of us will need
to be flexible in some ways.
I'm willing to be flexible to gain Mr. Hampton's support
by going with a 10-year sunset, as we've heard.
I also strongly believe, and would
ask that it be incorporated into the motion,
that we guarantee at least that we
retrofit the two fire stations.
I think that's a tangible commitment to the folks who live there 24 hours a day and to
the folks that would be served by those fire stations post an earthquake.
And I will drop the 17 cents recognizing that in 10 years we're going to have an
opportunity to revisit this.
Mr. Madison is right that we would face a cliff.
But I think we need to prove to the citizens that this
insurance is worthwhile.
And we have 10 years to do it.
We have 10 years to show that every single penny of
this is augmenting what we already have.
We have a fantastic fire department today, but in a
hotter and drier climate, one where we have the
present risk of earthquake, one where inexorably medical response calls go up year after year
after year.
This is less than a dollar a day for the average homeowner.
It is an investment that I think we need to give them the opportunity.
Not everybody buys insurance,
but boy, we found out a year and a half ago what not
having insurance is like.
this is insurance for all hundred and forty thousand people who live in our
city so with the permission of the person making the motion those would be
my points to include in the motion yeah I'd be willing to modify the sunset
to ten years to accommodate unanimity as you as you've mentioned you what
What else did you say?
That we guarantee that we will retrofit the two fire stations
that are seismically unsound today.
Yeah, I mean, but you're already
saying that's already included in the resolution.
Yeah, once we get ready, I can offer up
some revisions to the language that further
clarifies that, if that's what the council wants to hear.
The two stations are in there, but it
say that we're going to do it within 10 years and I think we should say we're
going to do it in 10 years. Are we able to do that within 10 years and do the
training facility? Yeah that's that's the timeline is we've built and we
believe we can do all of the things incorporated in the plan within 10
years but we can certainly highlight in the capital improvement proposed
municipal code section under the capital improvements we can highlight
including reconstruction of fire stations 33 and 37
within the first 10 years.
Yeah, as an additional statement
within that broader statement.
We can absolutely do that.
I'm willing to amend my motion
to include those two things.
I would say if there's a sunset,
it would just be before the sunset.
Yeah.
You know, if we head in this direction,
I would work in there that the council,
whoever's sitting around this dais in five years,
start the work of assessing and evaluating how it's,
we avoid that financial problem that occurs
when this goes away.
Because we are going to need equipment,
we're going to need to up staffing for fire stations,
particularly a new one.
All of these issues need to be worked on in advance
so that an education campaign can be undertaken.
And if the future council thinks they need to go
to the voters, there'll be sufficient time to do that.
And so at five years, if not before,
no later than five years, I would say,
the work has to start.
Ms. Rivas?
Mary, yeah, my comments are along similar lines
when I just wanna make sure we're considering
all the logistics of the 10 year versus the 15 and the timing of our election. So
if we're looking at 15 years and we want to put it to the voters to re-up
or you know continue it we'd have to put it in back on the ballot 14 years
from now. So we'd have a one-year leeway. If we're looking at 10 years
we'd have to put on the ballot eight years from now. So we'd have a
two-year leadway but that you know fewer time will have passed.
We may not
completed projects and I'm still I feel more comfortable with the 15 year
timeline and going to the voters in year 14 then going to the voters in eight
years and then having it sunset in 10 I don't know I guess I'm looking to staff
or there's any other timing considerations we should be looking at
when it comes to elections and perhaps other considerations that we
haven't brought up yet sure why I would say that although it would
sunset in ten years because it's a parcel tax, the council could still put it on the
ballot in ten years and it wouldn't sunset, it would still keep going if voters approved
it.
So it wouldn't have to go in year eight, it could go in year ten.
Well, actually no, in year
ten.
Correct.
Yeah, it's another consideration wanting to time it to certain elections over others
potentially.
Right, and that's why, that's why we were looking at ten or fourteen were the
two out years that made the most sense.
and you know and I would hope you know with the residents of Pasadena had
invested tremendously not just in infrastructure and services and there's
been a tremendous benefit to real estate and values of real estate in Pasadena
and I would hope that our friends at the Pasadena Realtors and
Department Association owners understand we want to maintain that
level of service and continue to ensure that you know Pasadena is a safe and
attractive place for people to live work visit and play and so that's a part of
why we're doing this this is not something any of us want to do but it
really is a desperate need at this point.
Mr. Lyon then Mr. Madison. Thank
Mayor so I will echo the Vice Mayor I for me the point of putting the sunset
in the measure is first and foremost to give this thing the best shot of
passing but second relatedly to demonstrate to the public that that
this is not a grab we're trying to do something very important and very
specific. That said, I'm not sure that 10 years versus 15 years or whatever number we
pick in between is is materially different for the public. I think the point is having
a sunset is saying this this stop so you'll get a chance to look at this again no matter
what. And I'm sensitive to Councilmember Madison's point that we we want a little
a runway on this thing right and and it wouldn't be bad to have some operational dollars at the
back end of this even if we get it all done at the front just to for the for the transition
into whatever comes next so i i want us to speak with one voice on this i hope that we will be
unanimous wherever we land my preference would be for the for the longer sunset
Mr. Madison.
Thank you, Mayor, very much.
And I too am very concerned about a 10-year sunset.
I don't love a 15-year sunset
for all the reasons I've already stated,
so I won't repeat myself,
but especially if we're still contemplating
operational budget as part of the use of this revenue,
it would really be imprudent
to have such a short termination date.
And let's be clear, when we're talking about sunsetting,
that means it's gonna go away.
And unless a future council goes through
this entire process again, puts it on the ballot.
And I had a question for staff on that,
actually a couple, one is,
presumably that would require also
two-thirds majority at that point.
Yes, sir. To pass.
Yeah, so, you know, again, we've talked about the challenges of an initiative like this
when we have other jurisdictions adopting new taxes sort of left and right, and then
taking funding away from us at the federal level currently.
I think those are the reasons why I'd be happy to have check-ins or even guarantee
that we would discuss agendizing and considering a termination of the
assessment, but to require us to go through this all
over again, especially if we're going to use the funds for operations.
Again, for three hundred dollars an average parcel,
it's a lot for a lot of families. I get that,
but I don't think it's the best practice.
But Matt, in the limited work that we've been able to do,
and I should just say that I do disagree
that this has been a rush to judgment or what have you.
We've been talking about this for a long time,
and certainly after the Eaton fire,
those conversations have intensified and increased.
So I don't feel rushed at all,
other than what Coach Wooden said,
be quick, but don't hurry.
And in the work that we've done
terms of outreach has this sunset thing been a topic that's moved the needle
one way or the other
it it's a topic that we've wrestled with for sure staff
landed on the proposal that didn't have a sunset but we certainly
recognized that the council had asked us prior to build a methodology that
would work with a sunset and that's why we approached the methodology that
we did so yeah well just from where I said I would not have the sunset I would
I'd be fine with committing to have a discussion set the agenda right now for
a council meeting you know eight ten twelve years whenever it is yearly even
someone said absolutely we should be talking about this and I expect we will
you know this isn't going to self execute right we're gonna have
Contracts year over year. We're going to have approvals of
construction and the likes
So this will be top of mind for all of us and I'm not I am not concerned that the staff or this council is
Not going to keep its promise
and then
Just procedurally. I'm a little confused because I heard a motion that had a 15-year sunset and
Mr. Clerk, can you remind me who seconded that?
It was made by Councilmember Jones, seconded by Councilmember Cole, but then it was modified
after Councilmember...
Well, hold on.
No, no, but you're getting ahead of me.
The next thing that happened was not a modification.
There was then a...
Substitute motion.
It did not have a second.
It was made by Mr. Hampton.
I thought I heard Mr. Cole second that motion also, and I don't know if that's...
No, he did not.
No.
Okay.
That was the...
That motion...
Sorry.
yeah that motion then dies for lack of a second correct the 10-year no he had a
substantive motion for 10-year it died it did not get a second but then okay
council member okay that motion died for lack of a second yes sir okay so
then we're back to the original motion and the maker then has amended that
motion? Yes, sir.
Okay. Well, I would really.
or just to, as I've heard some of my colleagues indicate,
to not make that modification respectfully,
but rather to keep the mushing where it is.
Thank you.
Okay, I just want to put us in the best position
to be successful.
And if we go down the route of a sunset,
it has to be firmly rooted and stated.
and I, you know, I'm hearing 10, 15.
I think if we're going to say to the voters
that it is a sunset, it should be a hard sunset
with a check-in and a commitment for us
to work immediately at five years.
The 10-year, I think, delivers that message
with the five-year check-in.
I would prefer-
or 15 I would I would prefer not to have one but you know I can see that a
majority of the council is headed in that direction so I just want to make
sure that if we do it that it's you know doesn't that it feels real to the
voters and that our commitment to come back to them is real so is your point
you think that 10 is more persuasive than any other number I think it would
I think otherwise it looks and you know, but we have to follow it up with a real commitment to
Start the work at five years if not before not later than five years
I have a strong preference for 14, but same or 15. I feel like we're good
It's a such a short time line it to come back at eight years
I worry that even if things are going well, it's just gonna be a harder case to make to the voters
I don't know.
Yeah, I concur Mayor because also these projects
won't happen overnight and it may be the case
that those who say that they're in favor of this
but actually aren't out in the community
that they would have an opportunity then to say,
see the work hasn't happened yet
and you shouldn't go down this road.
Can I ask the city manager
if that's the direction we're headed?
Like how much operational expense
are we planning on funding?
Ultimately, we're funding two new rescue ambulances,
a new fire suppression or fire engine, a new fire truck,
and year-round weed and brush clearance abatement.
Yeah, that's the truck.
And then year-round brush abatement, weed abatement.
Those are all operational costs that are ongoing
with the current financial model of 19 cents
essentially that I think it's in year 12 or 13,
all of those dollars are going towards
covering the operational cost,
because the capital would have been paid for
if we did the pay as you go plan.
And then that would essentially be what the need is
for all the operating costs 12 years or so down the road,
depending on inflationary pressures
and everything else of course.
Really we'd be essentially calling a referendum
in 10 years as to whether we wanted to continue
as enhanced services and the capital work would be done
is at least a plan.
I think that's probably the conversation in any sunset.
And the other thing I wanna point out,
I can hear the chief reminding me in my ear,
even though he's not really,
is this is a 10-year capital plan.
In year 12 or 15, there are gonna be other stations
that are gonna need to be remodeled
or they're gonna be other apparatus
or fire suppression is gonna look different in 12 years
or we don't know what will happen.
This is our 10 year capital plan
and then staffing plan going forward.
But with any good plan,
we will revisit that plan and create a new plan.
Okay.
So Mayor, I just wanna chime in
that I too would be more comfortable with,
let's say 14 year quote unquote sunset.
Again, it's really problematic to anticipate
this amount of operational expense and take that on.
And I know we talk about trucks and ambulances,
but what the city manager was just describing
is the men and women, the firefighters
who are gonna be staffing those initiatives.
And it's not prudent to commit to the community
that we're gonna be adding that level of service,
which we should do, but also say that the funding
is gonna go away for it in 10 years,
absent another expensive time-consuming election
where we'd go back to the voters.
But I've said my piece about that.
I think 14 years is much more preferable.
Could I just inquire the maker?
Would you accept a friendly amendment to 14 years?
Yeah I would accept 14 years if that's what my colleagues want but it also
sound like there wasn't a clear plan if the voters did turn this down after 10
or 14 years and that's a concern as well because if there's operational
costs that we're gonna be relying on the what is it 22 million or what is
by year 12 you're at over 22 million you know so it's closer to 25 million by
year 15 of those operational costs with all the capital already funded. Does the
council have the authority to I guess stop the tax or you have to go back to
the voters?
No I'll look to the city attorney but as far as I know the
Council could always assess a lower tax.
But you can't go back up once you lower the tax.
So the council could terminate the tax or lower the tax.
But that would end it.
Yeah.
Yeah. I just inquired if the second would also
I just inquired if the second would also
support the friendly amendment to 14 years.
I think we need more discussion on the sunset,
to be honest.
So I'm in the queue.
I've been asked by one of my colleagues
what my position is.
I'd like to be heard.
Mr. Cole.
So my colleague quoted Coach Wooden,
I will do the same, which is don't let the perfect
be the enemy of the good.
For all of the people who came out here tonight,
they're probably wondering, why are we fixated
on this one point, right?
For those who think that this is an absolutely urgent need,
why would we put a sunset on it?
We're going to need this ongoing.
And for those who are skeptical of it, even though a few said
if you're going to go forward, at least put a sunset on it,
this all seems like a very small concession to their concerns.
So I want to take a step back.
When I was mayor, the library director
came to the city council asking for the entire library
budget to be taken off the books.
because in order to protect police
and fire during the recession of the early 90s,
we severely cut the library
as we did all other departments besides police and fire.
And we were at the point of having to close a library.
And one of the things that's been a hallmark
of our community is that every child is
within one mile of a branch library.
And what library would you close?
Which neighborhood didn't deserve a library?
That was the issue.
So Ed Zanacca, who was library director,
said, let's just take the library out.
But that would have required a $12 million tax.
And I just felt that was never going to pass.
And so he's never forgiven me.
But in order to pass the library parcel tax,
I made the motion that we simply restore the funding
that we had cut, which was about $3.5 million
at the time.
And we got 82% of the vote.
And so I repeat, let's not make the perfect
be the enemy of the good.
I agree with Mr. Lyon.
I think without a sunset, getting to 2 thirds
is going to be extraordinarily difficult.
And so if we're talking about $22 million or zero,
I much prefer $22 million.
The perfect is we have everything
that we think we want.
But the voters have it within their power
to give us nothing.
That's entirely within their authority.
In fact, it's only a third of the people
have to decide that.
And this thing goes down in about, say, flames.
But so I think that's, and I would
like to see this be unanimous.
So, before answering the question about 10 or 15, I would point out that the library
tax was a 15-year sunset, and the voters have twice re-upped it because they saw that
our library provides an extraordinarily valuable service to every neighborhood.
And I think if we spend this money to augment our fire service, to retrofit to
fire stations, and to deliver better service to our community, I have no doubt that the
voters will continue to support this in the future as they have with the library.
I can live with 10 years, I can live with 14 years, I can live with 15 years, I would
like to have a unanimous vote.
So I'd ask Mr. Hampton, who has made clear up until this point that his support
for this is contingent on a 10 year sunset,
whether he would be comfortable in the spirit
of getting us to unanimity of either a 14 or 15 year sunset.
I appreciate that.
And I think the discussion is an important one.
I am firm in the 10 years.
I think that what we're asking of our residents
at this time when everything is the most expensive
to say, you know, we're going to do it for 15 years.
15 years is an eternity, 10 years is more palpable.
And so I think, you know, asking the voters again
in 10 years or eight years, if they want to continue this
after we show our work is the most or in my opinion,
the best way to go about it.
And I think a 10 year, I also think, you know,
is psychologically 10 versus 15 or 14 for anyone
who's voting on this that reads it's going to be 14 years
or 15 years.
10 years is just more palatable.
So I want to see a pass.
I would like to see this on the ballot.
It's a need.
It's a need that we've been talking about for years now.
So I appreciate my colleagues for having this long discussion
dialogue on these about 10 years is where I'm at. Thank you. So Mayor, just a
point of order. Am I hearing then that in that light Mr. Cold does not accept a friendly amendment?
Hold on. Mr. Mayor, it's a point of order. Do we have agreement from the
second to my friendly amendment? I don't think that's an appropriate point of
order, Mr. Madison. I'll answer in due time. That's your opinion, but I'd like an answer to my question.
hold on one second mr. Madison the city manager has a response that he'd like
to give so it when we were talking about when councilmember Cole brought up the
15 year of the library and and the importance of that I was just asked to
pull it to the library tax the library tax from now needs to be renewed
in ten years so not saying right or wrong I'm just saying there's a
that if it's a 10-year sunset both taxes would potentially have to be on the same
ballot which is for me convincing that you know we don't want this to pit
libraries against our fire service and fire department and so I'm prepared to
support the 14 I'm prepared to support the 14 and I would bring up that you
Although we won a unanimous vote it's obviously not required and we didn't have one for the
library just what two years ago so I think that's correct yeah so I I'm prepared to
amend my motion to to 14 years
prepared to support that change okay
Mr. Masuda mayor I'm prepared to support the 14 year thank you okay
So let's call the roll.
So the motion is to approve the staff recommendation with a 14-year sunset and to guarantee seismic
retrofits for the two fire stations.
Councilmember Cole?
Yes.
Councilmember Hampton?
Abstain.
Councilmember Jones?
Yes.
Councilmember Lyon?
Yes.
Councilmember Madison?
Yes.
Councilmember Masuda?
yes vice mayor Rivas yes mayor Gordo yes motion is approved seven in favor one
abstention so if it's okay I would just like to clarify for the council that
the ballot language that's in your staff report will be revised because it
currently says until ended by voters those four words will be replaced with
expiring after 14 years.
And that is found in, that's in the question.
Question as well.
And then we will add section 4.110.240,
which is the sunset provision.
And that will say the special parcel tax
established by this ordinance shall automatically
expire 14 years after its effective date,
unless extended by a subsequent ordinance
approved by the voters of the city of Pasadena
Upon expiration, no further taxes shall be levied
pursuant to this chapter, and any remaining funds
shall be used exclusively for the purposes
authorized herein until expended.
And I would suggest, I know you don't like this,
but we should read the question as amended.
Sure, I can do that.
The title, City of Pasadena 9-1-1 Firefighter
Paramedic Emergency Medical Wildfire
Preparedness Response Measure.
City of Pasadena 9-1-1 firefighter paramedic emergency
medical wildfire preparedness response measure
to help maintain fire paramedic 9-1-1 response,
prepare for, respond to wildfires, earthquakes,
medical emergencies, recruit, retain well-trained
firefighters, maintain life-saving equipment,
fire alert communication,
Shall City of Pasadena's measure annually levy 19 cents
per square foot of improved property
with low income senior exemption
providing approximately 22 million 100,000 annually
expiring after 14 years requiring accountability,
independent audits, oversight,
public spending disclosure,
all funds must be used to support local fire protection
emergency medical response services be adopted.
Okay with that I think that completes this matter and the plane has landed.
Now everyone has to go out and campaign for it. Yeah tonight start knocking on
door. And sorry for the turbulence but okay we'll allow those who want to stay
to stay and those who do not to thank you for your participation okay now we
will entertain a actually mayor what
do you want mayor do you want did you want
to do public comment on matters not on the agenda we have two spoke cards
mayor yeah we have two public comment cards for matters not on the agenda
And Caleb Kodama, followed by Heather Kodama.
Are you here?
[AD] Public Speakers Heather Kodama and Caleb Kodama approach the podium
Go ahead.
Ms. Kodama, go ahead.
Hi.
How are you?
Good.
Good evening.
My name is Heather Kodama, and I'm proud to be a lifelong Pasadenaan and an Altadena
resident.
I attended Firehouse Preschool, Burbank Elementary, Noe's Elementary, Elliott Middle School,
and John Muir High School.
For more than 30 years, I volunteered
with Pasadena Unified School District
and spent 10 years decorating Tournament of Roses floats
and currently serve as the vice president
of Rolls-Royce Riders.
My husband is the former principal
of Pasadena High School
and our son proudly graduated
from Pasadena High School in 2026.
Horses have been part of my life
since I was five years old.
Years later when my son was nine, he discovered horseback riding through
Rose Bowl Riders' Art of the Horse program. That city-supported program
introduced primary Title I students to horses through the art, hands-on
learning, and equestrian demonstrations. For many children it was their first
experience with animals, nature, and the outdoors. More recently, Rose Bowl
Riders and Myrtle Hill Farm have continued serving our community by
hosting programs for Pasadena after school youth and Five Acres.
Our members volunteer countless hours because we are deeply committed, not only to preserving
these programs, but to expanding affordable public access so more Pasadena families,
especially our children, can experience the lifelong lessons horses teach.
Responsibility, commitment, discipline, confidence, compassion, and the value of
the committee.
The mission is especially meaningful to me personally as a child my own family experienced homelessness for nearly three years
During that difficult period a local barn gave me the opportunity to become a working student that experience provided stability
purpose responsibility hope during one of the hardest times of my life ma'am
You your time is expired. I've got one little sentence
Okay, go ahead and wrap it up as Roseville riders approach it this 80th year in ha ha munga watershed park
I respectfully ask the City Council to continue supporting these valuable community partnerships with myrtle Hall farm and
Local schools face increasing fiscal challenges in coming years programs like mine
They become even more important for Pasadena youth. Thank you. Thank you so much, and we're having our 80th anniversary
I'm over ma'am now now you're
Caleb
[AD] Public Speaker Caleb Kodama approaches the podium.
[AD] Public Speaker Caleb Kodama approaches the podium. [CC] Kodama. Two minutes. I feel like a half my points got said by my dear mom there.
[CC] Kodama. Two minutes. I feel like a half my points got said by my dear mom there.
One minute. Hi, as you guys know my name is Kodama. I graduated Pasadena High
School, don't worry like me or two for those of you out there, and you know in
a couple very short weeks I'm going to be starting to study bioengineering
at University of California, Riverside. Now as she said I started going to
Rose Bowl Riders when I was nine. Pretty cool I thought at the time and
That was from Rose Bowl Riders' Art of the Horse program.
You know, one day, one field trip turned into multiple years
and a lifelong commitment to the program.
The thing for Rose Bowl Riders with me
is it helped shape fundamentally who I am today
and I think it is a valuable tool
in doing that for the youth of today as well.
You know, for me, growing up wasn't always easy.
I faced social struggles, got bullied,
but you don't wanna hear about that right now.
We got two minutes, right?
But the thing is, is at this barn,
I found something that I couldn't find anywhere else.
I found community, and I was guaranteed lessons by that community. I learned confidence, organization,
responsibility, perseverance. I mean, hey, horses don't judge you, right? They ask you to be patient,
consistent, and keep trying. And those lessons have carried over to every part of my life.
I mean, except for those couple seconds of air time I get whenever I'm bucked off. But
during COVID, when so many activities came to a stop, and the same thing for and during,
Oh, wow.
The Eden Fires.
The community offered by Rolls-Royce Riders
and the Myrtle Hill Farm Lessons program
provided so much support for me.
The lessons I have gained from riding, from the barn,
from the community has given me, frankly,
invaluable experience in building my character that
has helped me persevere through volunteering,
school, the fires, and now college.
Thank you very much for your time,
and I hope that we can continue to support
the whole farm and RVR.
Thank you.
And congratulations.
That completes public comment.
A matter is not on the agenda.
We have the consent calendar now.
Okay, is there a motion on the consent calendar?
Sweet motion.
The only one I'll accept.
So there's a sweet motion and a second.
Roll call.
[CC] Roll call.
[AD] Roll call vote for the consent calendar. [CC] Roll call.
[AD] Roll call vote for the consent calendar.
[AD] Roll call vote for the consent calendar. [CC] Council Member Cole.
[AD] Roll call vote for the consent calendar.
[AD] Roll call vote for the consent calendar. [CC] Council Member Hampton.
[CC] Council Member Hampton.
Yes.
Council Member Jones.
Yes.
Councilman Lyon.
Yes.
Yes. Councilman Madison.
Councilman Madison.
Yes.
Councilman Masuda.
Yes.
Vice Mayor Rivas.
Yes.
Mayor Gordo.
Yes.
The motion is and the consent calendar
is approved unanimously.
And we have second reading of an ordinance.
[AD] Roll call vote for an ordinance.
[AD] Roll call vote for an ordinance. [CC] This is an ordinance offered by Council Member Cole.
[CC] This is an ordinance offered by Council Member Cole.
It's an ordinance of the City of Pasadena
repealing ordinance numbers 7455 and 7457,
seven prohibiting urban lot splits and construction of multiple dwellings
pursuant to Senate Bill 9 and very high fire hazard severity zones within the
boundary of the Eaton fire to adopt. Councilmember Cole.
Yes and I'd like to
make an explanation afterwards. Councilmember Hampton.
Yes. Thank you.
Councilmember Jones. Yes. Councilmember Lyon. Yes. Councilmember Madison. Yes.
Councilman Masuda? Yes. Vice Mayor Rivas? Yes. Mayor Gordo? Yes. The ordinance is adopted unanimously. Mr.
Cole, explain yourself. So I supported originally a version of this ordinance. I asked for one that
was more restrictive. In the end we passed this this ordinance as an emergency ordinance
recognizing that it would not be on there forever.
It should be noted because people have asked,
Well, wait a minute, are you suddenly opening the flood gates
to high density development in high fire danger areas?
We are not.
And we should also be clear that we were sued on this
and we would have lost the lawsuit.
And so I think that people need to understand
that context for the decision
that the council is making tonight.
Thank you, Mr. Cole.
Okay, that completes our agenda.
Good morning, Mr. Madison.
Oh, he's gone.
Oh, he's there, yeah.
Okay.
Thank you, Mayor.
And with that, we will adjourn.
Thank you, everyone.