[14:24] Good. How are you?

[14:52] Good evening everyone. We'll go ahead

[14:54] and call our meeting to order. Welcome

[14:56] back to my colleagues. I hope you all

[14:58] had a great um summer recess. So at this

[15:01] time, roll call please. Mr. Clerk.

[15:03] >> Council member Mongon

[15:05] >> here. Council member Compost

[15:08] >> is here. Council member Schumacher

[15:10] >> here.

[15:10] Council member Duran

[15:12] >> here.

[15:12] >> Council member Mcrenolds

[15:13] >> here.

[15:14] >> Deputy Mayor Halter

[15:15] >> here.

[15:15] >> Mayor Dr. Sanchez Palasios

[15:17] >> here.

[15:18] >> Seven members present. We do have a

[15:19] quorum.

[15:20] >> Thank you. Council member Compost, will

[15:22] you please lead us in the pledge of

[15:23] allegiance?

[15:26] » Please stand if you're able to.

[15:30] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[15:33] United States of America and to the

[15:36] republic for it stands. One nation under

[15:40] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[15:42] justice for all.

[15:47] » Thank you for that.

[15:49] At this time, we'll go ahead and um

[15:52] welcome our special presentations and

[15:54] announcements. I know we have a special

[15:57] presentation by United Water

[15:58] Conservation District. Do we have Tara

[16:01] here?

[16:06] » Maybe not.

[16:14] » Will you check out there?

[16:38] Hi, Tara.

[16:39] >> Hi. [laughter]

[16:40] >> Sorry, I was waiting outside.

[16:42] >> That's okay. You

[16:43] >> can catch your breath. It's all

[16:44] [clears throat] good.

[16:45] >> I love I love catching my breath. And

[16:48] thank you so much, Mayor Sanchez.

[16:51] [sighs]

[16:52] Palasios.

[16:54] So, let's talk about something else that

[16:55] kind of takes my breath away. We'll

[16:58] start with our bond measure, which is

[17:00] called water supply conservation and the

[17:02] water quality bond measure, also known

[17:04] as measure D. [gasps]

[17:09] » You're okay.

[17:10] >> Yeah. All right. [sighs]

[17:12] So,

[17:14] it's um going to be on November 3rd. And

[17:17] is there a clicker?

[17:20] >> Next slide.

[17:22] Uh just to give you a little bit of our

[17:25] service area which includes half of

[17:27] Ventura County or half of Ventura, the

[17:30] city of Ventura, roughly

[17:33] all of Midtown. So, I just really wanted

[17:35] to highlight that you are in our service

[17:37] area for this particular bond measure.

[17:40] We cover 33 335 square miles and

[17:44] observed Ventura County for about a 100

[17:46] years and we have done this before and

[17:48] back in 1953. Unfortunately, Ventura was

[17:52] actually outside of our limits at that

[17:54] time, but you guys have grown quite a

[17:56] bit probably due to some of that water.

[18:00] Next slide.

[18:02] Some of our sustainability and projects

[18:04] include the Santa Fleia dam safety

[18:05] improvement project which I will go into

[18:06] more detail, the Freeman diversion

[18:08] expansion and conveyance system upgrade

[18:11] and then the extraction area and

[18:12] brackish water treatment plan which are

[18:14] these three things.

[18:19] Next slide.

[18:22] So those three things are not

[18:24] inexpensive

[18:27] and they're not optional. They've been

[18:29] demanded upon us by regulatory agencies

[18:32] including the department of safety of

[18:33] dams and fk for our dam, our nymphs

[18:37] biological opinion for the Freeman

[18:39] diversion improvement project and the

[18:41] extraction marrier and brackish water

[18:42] treatment project which is part of our

[18:44] sigma requirements.

[18:46] Next slide.

[18:49] The Santa Fle dam safety improvement

[18:51] project is up at Lake Pyu. I don't know

[18:53] if you guys have heard of that, but if

[18:55] you have, it's just down the 126.

[18:58] Thank you.

[19:00] What a great clerk.

[19:07] Oh, that was much better. Thank you. So,

[19:11] 237 people live downstream of that dam.

[19:13] Some of which live in Ventura County or

[19:15] V city of Ventura, of which I am one.

[19:18] So, I actually live in Ventura. I really

[19:20] live it there by the way. Great city.

[19:22] [laughter] Um and what it does is it uh

[19:25] Lake Pyro protects water supplies

[19:27] including wildfire suppression,

[19:28] groundwater recharge and of course the

[19:30] recreation of the lake itself. What we

[19:33] need to do is move that intake from the

[19:35] western side because right now it runs

[19:37] through the dam which means that if it

[19:39] fails, it fails pretty catastrophically

[19:44] and we need to move it through the

[19:46] bedrock of the mount on the other side.

[19:49] It's critical that we do this work

[19:51] otherwise we may lose operation of the

[19:53] dam or we uh we may have to drain the

[19:57] lake. So those are kind of some options

[19:59] of if we don't move forward with this

[20:01] project. And the project is $314

[20:03] million. So it's not an inexpensive one

[20:05] to do.

[20:07] The next slide please. The Freeman

[20:10] diversion improvement project is a NY's

[20:12] biological opinion oper uh started

[20:15] project and then we have to continue it

[20:17] because of a court order that we're

[20:19] currently under. So we're looking at

[20:21] rather than

[20:23] um abandoning our Freeman diversion

[20:26] moving forward with our improved anal

[20:29] project which is with the conveyance

[20:31] system upgrade looking at about 104

[20:33] million. Next slide.

[20:36] Finally, we have our extraction barrier

[20:37] and brackish water treatment project,

[20:38] which will create a seawater intrusion

[20:41] barrier at Point Magoo, which is where a

[20:43] lot of the seawater intrusion for the

[20:45] entire Oxnard plane is based. And that's

[20:48] looking at $51 million for phase one.

[20:52] Next slide.

[20:54] These projects together total $469

[20:56] million. We have secured grant funding

[20:58] for about 31.5 of that million. We also

[21:02] have a WIA loan that we've secured for

[21:04] 83, which leaves us with that $354

[21:06] million gap, which is why we have a $350

[21:09] million bond.

[21:12] And just as a reminder, if authorized by

[21:14] voters, we don't have to get $350

[21:16] million. We are still seeking grants

[21:19] every moment of every day. We're

[21:22] definitely looking under every couch

[21:23] cushion. Next slide.

[21:26] How it would work very, very quickly.

[21:28] The election is on November 3rd. It

[21:30] requires twothirds of a vote to pass and

[21:32] the bond measure total is 350 million.

[21:34] As I stated earlier, it would be issued

[21:36] over three years is what we're looking

[21:38] at right now. So, we get all of that

[21:39] money up front. It works like a mortgage

[21:41] where we have to pay it back in property

[21:42] taxes. The projects that would be built

[21:46] are from our capital program and the tax

[21:49] would mean roughly $24 per $100,000 of

[21:54] valuation for each home on property

[21:56] taxes. This is not a new fee. This would

[21:59] be part of property tax which would mean

[22:01] approximately $10121

[22:04] per average per year for the average

[22:06] home. We looked at about a $51,000

[22:09] home which is currently the average in

[22:11] Ventura County.

[22:14] Next slide.

[22:16] And because we care about cost and

[22:18] accountability, I'm going to repeat

[22:19] those numbers again and in a really easy

[22:21] way for people to understand. So $24 per

[22:24] $100,000 of assessed value. average

[22:27] homeowner $121 a year, which is about

[22:30] $10 a month. As a reminder, renters

[22:33] don't pay property tax directly, so it's

[22:35] not a direct tax to them. The tax would

[22:37] begin in fiscal year of 2028 and would

[22:40] end in fiscal year of 207. And because

[22:43] also accountability is important as you

[22:46] guys understand as council members,

[22:48] these would be legally restricted to

[22:49] voter approved capital projects. They

[22:52] cannot be used for salaries, operations,

[22:53] or administrative costs, and annual

[22:56] independent audits would be required

[22:57] under California law. The board of

[22:59] directors would retain full oversight of

[23:01] the issuance and spending as we do every

[23:03] single time. And of course, our board

[23:05] meetings are open to the public. We

[23:07] would also have regular reporting on

[23:08] public progress and budget, which we've

[23:10] been doing all throughout with our water

[23:13] sustainability summit. But then we would

[23:15] also be increasing our community

[23:17] outreach as we have been to ensure that

[23:19] people are aware of these projects and

[23:21] aware of what they mean. And finally, we

[23:23] have the United Water Bond Project under

[23:25] California Water Code and that's

[23:26] currently on our website. Speaking of

[23:28] next slide,

[23:31] you can find out more information by

[23:33] attending one of our community meetings.

[23:34] Those dates will be posted shortly. They

[23:36] will run through September and October.

[23:38] We'll be doing them all up and down the

[23:40] entire 126 corridor. You can read the

[23:42] bond report online which I just

[23:44] mentioned. I brought handouts with me

[23:46] today in case anyone needs a handout to

[23:47] remind them of this important

[23:48] information. You're more than welcome to

[23:50] visit unitedwater.org/bond

[23:53] for more direct bond information. And

[23:55] then you can email us directly at

[23:57] info@unitedwwater.org and that goes

[23:59] directly to me. Any other questions? Is

[24:02] that's the next slide.

[24:04] I tried to keep it quick. I was told we

[24:06] had five [laughter] minutes.

[24:08] >> Thank you so much for your presentation.

[24:10] I don't see any questions from

[24:11] colleagues. So,

[24:13] >> fabulous. Thank you for being here.

[24:14] >> Thank you so much for the opportunity to

[24:15] present this important information. We

[24:17] just wanted to make sure things were

[24:18] clear and understood.

[24:19] >> Thank you.

[24:23] » Okay, moving on on our agenda, we go to

[24:27] our close session report. Mr. City

[24:29] Attorney,

[24:30] >> mayor, the council took up all three uh

[24:36] items on it close session agenda and

[24:37] there was no reportable action.

[24:40] Great. Thank you.

[24:43] On to our city council communications.

[24:47] Do I have any colleagues with

[24:48] announcements? Deputy Mayor Halter.

[24:52] >> Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. Um as well,

[24:55] I'm glad happy to be back. Uh seems like

[24:57] we've been gone a long time. Uh I so

[24:59] long that I actually forgot my phone in

[25:01] my office, so I don't have my notes with

[25:03] me, but [laughter] but part for the

[25:06] course. Uh so instead I'll just say that

[25:08] a lot of the meetings are all starting

[25:09] up again across the board. I know there

[25:11] is the housing subcommittee on Wednesday

[25:13] at 3 o'clock here at city hall. I know

[25:15] that there's um uh uh our ad hoc

[25:19] committee for Main Street moves. We have

[25:20] five or six meetings scheduled and

[25:22] that's all listed as well on the city's

[25:23] website. And uh I know that Land Trust

[25:26] has a fantastic uh filming event uh that

[25:29] goes on. It's a wild forget the exact

[25:31] name wild and natural probably.

[25:35] >> What is it called you guys?

[25:37] scenic.

[25:38] >> Okay. Wild and scenic. Okay. And the

[25:40] date is

[25:43] Anyways, it's on my notes on my phone.

[25:45] So, I'll skip all that and just tell you

[25:47] that I had a really great time getting

[25:49] caught up on a lot of things in my life,

[25:51] getting a chance to see so many

[25:53] constituents. And I did take a week or

[25:55] so to go up uh to Northern California.

[25:57] Uh saw a family reunion, about 160 of my

[26:01] family members from one side of the

[26:03] family. I went into San Francisco and

[26:05] saw my old girlfriend from high school

[26:06] and her husband and went to the

[26:08] Prescidio. If you hadn't been to

[26:09] Prescidio, it's unbelievable what

[26:11] they've done to that place. It's really

[26:12] probably my favorite part of that city

[26:14] now. And also um got a chance to go to a

[26:18] wedding, spend some time in the

[26:19] redwoods, uh Felton up in Felton, they

[26:23] light up the redwoods at night and put

[26:25] some color on these redwoods and it

[26:27] makes the redwoods even more majestic.

[26:29] So, it was very action-packed, a lot of

[26:31] fun, and a lot of work month off. I do

[26:34] want to mention though that I would like

[26:35] to close tonight's meeting in honor of

[26:38] somebody that you probably all know

[26:39] about, and I think a lot of you have

[26:41] become just as endeared to this uh this

[26:44] being as I have, and that's Jackie, the Eagle.

[26:48] I want to mention that um as you know her name was Jackie and

[26:54] she was one of the beautiful bald eagles

[26:55] of Big Bear Lake who along with her

[26:57] longtime partner Shadow allowed millions

[27:00] of us into her life through the Big Bear

[27:02] Eagle camera. For years I was one of

[27:04] those people. And I think what endeared

[27:07] Jackie to so many of us was that in a

[27:09] world that can sometimes feel too hurry,

[27:11] too divided, and filled with so much

[27:13] contrived chaos, Jackie was something

[27:16] wonderful and real. There were no

[27:18] politics in the nest, no arguments, no

[27:20] deadlines, just the rhythm of nature and

[27:22] magnificent eagle. Sitting patiently

[27:25] through snowstorms, protecting her eggs,

[27:27] feeding her babies, soaring over Big

[27:29] Bear Lake, and sharing a remarkable

[27:31] partnership with Shadow. We watched

[27:33] Jackie experience triumph and heartbreak

[27:36] loss. We watched her endure brittle win

[27:38] brutal winters

[27:40] and begin again. And we watched Jackie

[27:42] and Shadow demonstrate in their own wild

[27:44] ways something very human, loyalty,

[27:47] courage, resilience, patience, and the

[27:49] extraordinary commitment required to

[27:51] care for those you love. Jackie died

[27:54] this month at the age of 14 years old.

[27:56] in the remarkable outpouring of grief

[27:58] from people around the world tells us

[28:00] that she became much more than just

[28:02] simply a bird people watched on a

[28:04] camera. She became a reminder. A

[28:06] reminder that beauty still exists around

[28:10] us every day. That nature operates on a

[28:12] timetable very different from ours. That

[28:15] resilience sometimes simply means

[28:16] getting back into your nest and trying

[28:18] again. And that caring for another

[28:20] living thing may be among the most

[28:23] meaningful things any of us can ever do.

[28:25] For me, Jackie represented something

[28:27] else as well. The very best of the

[28:29] American West. Wild, beautiful,

[28:31] independent, courageous, and free. So,

[28:34] tonight from our little corner of

[28:36] California here in Ventura, I would

[28:37] simply like to say that you thank you,

[28:41] Jackie, for allowing us into your world.

[28:43] Thank you for the quiet moments of peace

[28:44] you gave so many of us. Thank you for

[28:48] reminding us that sometimes if we stop

[28:50] all the noise long enough and simply

[28:52] look up, there is still an extraordinary

[28:54] amount of beauty in this world. May you

[28:57] forever soar over the mountains you call

[28:58] home. Good night, Jackie. I want to

[29:01] mention that our own uh Ohigh Rapture

[29:03] Center tried bringing her back to health

[29:05] after three weeks. It was a major

[29:07] struggle and she did end up passing away

[29:09] about a week and a half ago. So, I want

[29:11] to uh conclude tonight's meeting in

[29:13] honor of Jackie. Thank you for that,

[29:16] Council Member Schumacher.

[29:21] » Thank you, Mayor.

[29:24] Um, so [clears throat] when I uh before

[29:27] I got elected, I participated in a

[29:30] community academy through the police

[29:33] department. And I was so inspired that

[29:35] one of the things that I talked about in

[29:37] my campaign is to do a larger city uh

[29:40] community academy. And that is exactly

[29:43] two years later. Um, we are actually

[29:46] doing that this year in the fall. Um,

[29:48] I'm happy to partner with uh the mayor

[29:50] as well as the city manager and um all

[29:53] the staff members that are doing this

[29:55] amazing program. Um, the community

[29:58] academy um is really just trying to make

[30:01] sure that we have a pipeline of more

[30:02] active um participants really opening

[30:05] the house of the city um in our

[30:07] departments, our facilities, and our

[30:09] staff. Uh it is an eight-week course and

[30:11] we're doing it every other year. And I'm

[30:14] so happy to to say that uh we had we

[30:17] have 30 spots for our participants for

[30:20] our inaugural class or our inaugural

[30:23] cohort. Um and we received about 60

[30:25] applicants. So, we're doing our due

[30:27] diligence to uh look through all of the

[30:30] applicants, and we're going to be doing

[30:31] some interviews this week to make sure

[30:33] that we have a really strong, very

[30:35] diverse um uh first group of of of uh

[30:39] citizens or residents that are going to

[30:41] be participating in our first cohort.

[30:43] Um, and one of the things that's going

[30:45] to start in September throughout

[30:47] November, and I think uh it's going to

[30:49] be an eight-week um program. And the

[30:52] beautiful part about this is I'm talking

[30:54] to my colleagues now is that each one of

[30:56] you surprise will be representing each

[31:00] week to introduce uh yourselves to some

[31:03] people that may not know who you are. Uh

[31:05] so the great thing is is that um every

[31:07] week uh this cohort is going to meet new

[31:10] council or or the the current council

[31:12] members because we're all going to be in

[31:15] your district. Um we want to highlight

[31:17] the operations of the water department.

[31:19] We want to highlight the police

[31:20] department. We want to highlight practic

[31:22] I mean the city hall of how beautiful it

[31:24] is and um there are young people that

[31:27] have applied which is fantastic. We have

[31:29] retired people that are on the the list

[31:31] as well and it's just a gamut um of of a

[31:34] very diverse group of people. So I'm

[31:37] very thankful to the city manager and

[31:39] the staff for making this you know the

[31:41] vision that I had and and tr really

[31:43] truly making this into something uh to

[31:46] come to fruition. And um I think we're

[31:48] going to be announcing the final group

[31:50] uh by the end of August, if not earlier.

[31:53] So um thank you again and um I look

[31:55] forward to seeing the the first group.

[31:59] >> Thank you, Council Member Mcrenolds.

[32:02] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh two quick

[32:04] announcements. The economic development

[32:05] committee will be meeting this Thursday

[32:08] uh here at city hall at 3:30. So

[32:10] everybody's invited to attend uh that,

[32:13] get updates on the latest economic

[32:14] development news. And then I just wanted

[32:16] to welcome uh all of the students back

[32:19] uh to the school. Uh Ventura Unified

[32:21] started last Wednesday. Uh my youngest

[32:24] son started his senior year of high

[32:25] school, so excited about that and uh

[32:28] just wanted to welcome everybody back as

[32:29] we close out the summer. Thank you.

[32:32] >> Thank you, Council Member Compos.

[32:36] » Thank you. Um thank you, Mr. Mc Reynolds

[32:39] for taking my line about the schools

[32:42] welcoming back, but keep in mind there's

[32:44] a lot of activities with coming back to

[32:46] school. So, a lot of the schools are

[32:49] going to be having weekend fairs to make

[32:51] sure the kids and families all know

[32:53] what's going on in that school year for

[32:55] their school and parent nights will

[32:58] start beginning soon. So, come to those

[33:01] events. Um also the um

[33:06] tomorrow the housing and homeless

[33:08] subcommittee meets tomorrow afternoon

[33:11] and on Monday the first meeting of the

[33:14] main street move subcommittee will take

[33:16] place.

[33:19] » Thank you. And I have a just a few

[33:22] announcements as well. Um throughout the

[33:25] break uh happily attended several um

[33:28] ribbon cutings. Um, one of a few of

[33:31] those which included um the residents in

[33:33] grand opening the new hotel off of where

[33:36] the um off the 101 near Seawward. Um

[33:40] also attended the uh renovation

[33:43] reopening ribbon cutting of the um palm

[33:47] at Buenavventura Assisted Living and

[33:49] Memory Care as well as the Tifa

[33:52] chocolate and gelato ribbon cutting um

[33:54] in downtown. Uh so those were exciting

[33:57] uh ribbon cutings to attend. um seeing

[34:00] how how much our community is continuing

[34:03] to evolve and grow um which is really

[34:05] great to see. Um coming up, the Merido

[34:08] Foundation will be also be having their

[34:10] ribbon cutting this Friday. And then

[34:13] lastly, I want to ensure and welcome

[34:15] everyone to the state of the city. Um

[34:18] that will be coming up September 9th

[34:21] here at city hall. We'll be outside. Um,

[34:24] but I wanted to let you all know that

[34:26] starting at 4:00, we're going to have

[34:28] local school and local group

[34:30] performances as well as pop-up

[34:33] informationational tables. We'll do the

[34:34] touch a truck again. I'm sure we're

[34:36] going to have our um PD K9's um out

[34:40] there and the state of the city address

[34:42] will start at 5:00. So, you all are

[34:45] invited and I hope to see you there. and

[34:48] also want to welcome back students and

[34:50] just kind of let remind folks like

[34:52] council member Compost did is that

[34:53] there's a lot of pedestrians out there

[34:54] now. So, let's make sure we're paying

[34:56] attention as we're driving. So, that

[34:58] concludes my comments. Um, we'll move on

[35:01] to our city manager communications.

[35:04] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor, and thank you

[35:06] for mentioning the state of the city.

[35:07] We're excited about that. I will also

[35:09] add that the uh city will be doing a

[35:12] second presentation on the state of the

[35:14] city with the chamber of commerce. It is

[35:16] a ticketed breakfast at the Crown Plaza.

[35:19] That will be on the morning of September

[35:21] 17th.

[35:23] Uh we have upcom upcoming street

[35:25] maintenance starting later this month.

[35:26] The city will begin slurry seal

[35:28] maintenance on several major streets

[35:31] including Thompson Boulevard, San Hon

[35:33] Road, Main Street, Telephone Road,

[35:35] Telegraph Road, and Kimell Road. Slurry

[35:38] Seal is a protective treatment that

[35:39] helps preserve pavement and can extend

[35:42] the life of a street by six to eight

[35:44] years. Work will continue through early

[35:46] December and will include temporary lane

[35:49] closures and some nighttime work.

[35:51] Residents and businesses in affected

[35:54] areas will receive mailed postcards with

[35:56] additional information and project

[35:58] details will also be available on the

[36:00] city's website.

[36:02] Our waterfront project notice of

[36:05] availability and this is the old parking

[36:07] structure uh site next to the Crown

[36:09] Plaza on Harbor Boulevard. The notice of

[36:11] availability period closed on August

[36:13] 3rd. No responses were received to

[36:16] either the surplus land act notice or

[36:18] the open space notice. Staff has

[36:21] submitted the final surplus land act

[36:23] disposition packet to the state and

[36:25] anticipates receiving a determination by

[36:27] midepptember.

[36:29] Once that process is complete, staff

[36:31] will work with the council's economic

[36:33] development subcommittee to create a

[36:35] community engagement process and

[36:37] identify the next steps before returning

[36:38] to the full city council.

[36:42] Our venttor youth basketball Association

[36:44] is accepting registration. Uh opens on

[36:47] Tuesday, August 25th at noon. This is

[36:50] for players in grades 2 through 8.

[36:54] Participants will need to register for a

[36:55] mandatory skills assessment with dates

[36:58] on September 16, 19, 23, and 26. We are

[37:03] also looking for volunteer coaches and

[37:05] paid referees for the upcoming season.

[37:07] So there's lots of opportunities

[37:09] available. Registration, skills

[37:11] assessment, and volunteer and employment

[37:13] information are all available on the

[37:14] city's website. And lastly, we'll have

[37:17] meetings of the city council on August

[37:20] 25th, followed by September 15th. And

[37:23] that concludes my remarks, mayor. Thank

[37:24] you.

[37:26] >> Thank you. We'll move on to public

[37:28] communications. Um, this is the portion

[37:31] of the meeting where we have members of

[37:33] the public to speak on city related

[37:36] items that are not listed on tonight's

[37:37] agenda. Under the Brown Act, the city

[37:39] council cannot discuss or take action on

[37:42] items raised during this time. And to

[37:45] help ensure an orderly and and inclusive

[37:48] process, all speakers must submit their

[37:50] request to speak at this time. If you

[37:52] are joining us remotely, please make

[37:54] sure that you use the raised hand

[37:56] feature in Zoom. Public communications

[37:59] is limited to a maximum of 20 speakers

[38:01] with priority given to in-person

[38:04] participants. And as a reminder, um I

[38:07] encourage you to be respectful, um and

[38:09] encourage you to use the American Sign

[38:11] Language Applause by gently twisting

[38:13] your wrists to show um support and um

[38:19] yeah, support for the for the speakers.

[38:21] Um at this point, u Mr. City Clerk, do

[38:25] we have any public comments?

[38:26] >> Thank you, Mayor. We have 14 speaker

[38:28] cards for general public comment.

[38:30] >> Thank you. And because there are more

[38:32] than 10, um, each speaker will get two

[38:34] minutes.

[38:36] I will go ahead and open the public

[38:38] comment now and you can call the first

[38:39] speaker. Our first speaker is Dr. Lisa

[38:41] Klein, followed by Michelle Rosen Bloom.

[38:53] Hi, good evening. I'm Dr. Lisa Klene and

[38:57] my work and the trust my patients place

[39:00] in me revolves around confidentiality

[39:03] and privacy. That's why protecting

[39:06] personal information is so important to

[39:08] me. In 1996, Congress enacted the HIPPA

[39:13] compliance act establishing federal

[39:15] standards to protect the privacy and

[39:17] security of certain health information.

[39:21] Flock Safety, that's the name of the

[39:24] company and the manufacturer of the

[39:25] Flock cameras, raise serious concerns

[39:29] about privacy, collection, sharing, and

[39:33] accessibility of personal data. These

[39:36] systems can expose information about our

[39:38] private lives and potentially make that

[39:41] information available.

[39:44] There's 23 flock cameras in Ventura, 19

[39:47] in Oxnard, and none in Ohio. The Oxnard

[39:52] um police chief Bonitez has raised

[39:55] serious concerns and since February all

[39:58] flock cameras in Oxnard have been

[40:01] suspended.

[40:03] He stated that these cameras were giving

[40:07] outofstate agencies access to our

[40:09] information in our community. He's

[40:12] indicated that this raises concerns

[40:14] under California law and that he's

[40:16] convinced that the flock safety has not

[40:19] adequately rectified these issues. This

[40:23] is a quote from him. These cameras erode

[40:27] our public trust and technology is not

[40:31] the only issue. I implore this community

[40:35] to follow by example of Chief Bonitez by

[40:39] doing the right thing. protect our

[40:41] community, protect our privacy, protect

[40:44] the public's trust, and most

[40:46] importantly, let's have a robust

[40:48] conversation in these chambers before we

[40:51] allow this techn technology to further

[40:54] embed our community.

[40:57] >> Michelle Rosenlum, followed by Henry

[40:59] Mattisich.

[41:05] » Uh, good evening, council. Michelle

[41:07] Rosenlum. Uh I here am to to encourage

[41:11] you all to put flock on a future agenda.

[41:14] Uh I think it's really important that we

[41:17] have this talk about such a powerful

[41:19] technology that has crept up on us. Uh

[41:23] it was approved on the consent calendar

[41:26] many years ago before AI has reached the

[41:31] level that it has now. I've been doing a

[41:33] lot of discussion around town and uh

[41:38] education needs to happen with the

[41:39] public. A lot of people think that these

[41:42] are the same cameras that are just red

[41:44] light cameras. They are not. Um I

[41:47] haven't gotten the public data yet from

[41:50] here at the city. But at the county

[41:51] level, I have I just received 38

[41:54] documents on flock and a whole audit on

[41:57] a month-to-month how many searches are

[41:59] going on. not just out of state, there

[42:01] was the breach, which is super

[42:02] concerning and I think violated our care

[42:04] resolution, by the way. Um, but whether

[42:08] or not that was addressed, I am seeing

[42:10] that 7,000 searches a day are happening

[42:16] from outside counties into Ventura

[42:19] County. That's including Riverside with

[42:21] Sheriff Chad Biano and a lot of other

[42:24] cities. Some of them have been sued by

[42:27] Bont because they have been improperly

[42:29] sending that data to other states

[42:31] breaking California law. So what we're

[42:34] doing is not just it's not about whether

[42:36] or not we trust Ventura PD. This data is

[42:40] going all over the state to every police

[42:42] station. You're asking us to trust every

[42:44] police station in the state of

[42:45] California. There's a lot of issues

[42:47] around this that we cannot fit within 2

[42:49] minutes. I've emailed all of you some uh

[42:52] information and I can send some more. Uh

[42:54] Chief Dicki has offered to have

[42:56] conversation about it as well and I'm

[42:57] happy to take him up on that. But this

[42:59] to me is a bigger issue than the city

[43:01] and I hope I urge you all to add this to

[43:04] a future agenda. Thank you for your

[43:05] time.

[43:07] >> Henry followed by Lynn Arnne Brown.

[43:17] The fourth amendment endows the right of

[43:19] the people to be secure in their

[43:20] persons, houses, papers, and effects

[43:22] against unreasonable searches and

[43:24] seizures shall not be violated. This

[43:26] June, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to3 in

[43:28] Chatry v. US that police sweeping

[43:30] location data without a warrant is a

[43:32] search under the fourth amendment and

[43:34] therefore a violation of these rights.

[43:36] This applies directly to automatic

[43:38] license plate readers, just like the

[43:39] flot cameras we have all over the city.

[43:41] Every time a car passes a Flock camera,

[43:43] it is logged whether the driver is a

[43:45] suspect or an 18-year-old on his way to

[43:46] a city council meeting. And Flock goes

[43:48] further than just your license plate.

[43:50] They have something that they call

[43:51] vehicle fingerprint technology. It's a

[43:53] system designed to track your car by

[43:55] color, dents, and bumper stickers. And

[43:57] it's the exact kind of draget

[43:59] surveillance that the Supreme Court just

[44:00] ruled on. The city's invoices show what

[44:02] we pay to run it. Roughly $130,000 a

[44:05] year as Flock keeps hiking up the price

[44:07] tag on constitutional violations. If you

[44:09] thought it couldn't get worse, I'm

[44:10] sorry. Part of a contract with Flock is

[44:12] the fact that all of the data collected

[44:14] by a system gets collected into Flock's

[44:16] nationwide database, one that any law

[44:18] enforcement agency can pull from. This

[44:20] system allowed Texas cops to utilize

[44:22] 80,000 cameras to track a woman who

[44:25] crossed state lines for an abortion

[44:26] without a permit. There have been

[44:28] thousands of reports of ICE being able

[44:30] to racially profile people across state

[44:32] lines from the comfort of their mom's

[44:33] basement. An executive of Flock was even

[44:35] caught watching a community cent's kids

[44:37] gymnastics and swimming classes for

[44:40] hours on end. This is a corporation

[44:42] without accountability. And the

[44:46] sorry, the [snorts] three cameras in the

[44:49] Lowe's parking lot and the camera aimed

[44:51] at the VHS bus stop make me sick due to

[44:52] the reports of the accountability within

[44:54] this corporation. Stop giving a private

[44:56] corporation with private interests

[44:58] hundreds of thousands of dollars along

[45:00] with our fourth amendment rights that

[45:01] could be used making real public safety

[45:03] with ambulance relief, affordable

[45:05] housing, and smooth and safe roads. Make public safety by serving the

[45:09] least among us in love, not by adding

[45:12] them to a shady public surveillance

[45:14] database. Thank you,

[45:16] >> Lynn Arnell Brown, followed by Philip

[45:18] Fields.

[45:23] » Good evening. You know, I represent

[45:25] Satakoy for Sensible Development. We

[45:28] oppose the 16 pump gas station. Miss

[45:31] Arnell, sorry. Can you bring down the

[45:32] mics? Thank you.

[45:34] >> Thank you. Uh, we oppose the 16 pump gas

[45:37] station project at the corner of Wells

[45:38] and Darling called Satakoy East Village.

[45:42] I stood here over two months ago asking

[45:44] for a moratorum on the current and

[45:47] proposed gas station and drive-through

[45:49] restaurants in the city of Ventura for

[45:51] the health of the residents in the city.

[45:54] At the very least, I ask that healthy

[45:56] setbacks be established. I've heard only

[45:59] crickets. It's also come to my attention

[46:03] that Ventur's current development map

[46:06] development projects map has maintained

[46:08] a huge discrepancy for the Satakoy East

[46:11] Village project. It does not mention a

[46:14] gas station in the description for this

[46:16] project. This gas station is the sole

[46:20] reason why the developer wants to build

[46:22] at that site. This gas station is the

[46:25] sole reason why the city's east end

[46:27] water wells are at risk.

[46:30] That's Ventur's drinking water for

[46:33] thousands of people. Um

[46:37] how could [clears throat] this part of

[46:38] the project be left out of that

[46:40] description? Is this map legally binding

[46:43] or is itformational for state and local

[46:46] officials and citizens? I don't know.

[46:49] But somebody needs to talk to the

[46:51] planning department about that. But due

[46:53] to that error, we believe this gas

[46:55] station project must be included in a

[46:58] moratorum. Please do better. Thank you.

[47:04] Next speaker is Philip Fields, followed

[47:06] by Casey Rodriguez.

[47:16] The Ventura Council wants the public to

[47:19] trust you.

[47:21] But that is almost impossible when you

[47:23] look at the deceitful way the community

[47:27] development staff treats you and the

[47:30] public.

[47:32] Example, the Sarcoy development.

[47:35] the descriptions on every meeting notice

[47:37] and in the planning website itself is a

[47:40] deceit

[47:42] because the primary development there's

[47:45] a huge gas station not a dog park not

[47:49] 100 housing units a gas station however

[47:54] at no time does the description mention

[47:56] a gas station the word gas station

[47:59] doesn't even appear anywhere in the

[48:01] description thus the staff is committing

[48:04] fraud thought and deceit lying

[48:06] deliberately hiding the purpose of that

[48:09] development being pushed into a

[48:12] historically disadvantaged neighborhood.

[48:14] At this time when we face catastrophic

[48:17] climate change due to gas and oil and

[48:20] road surfaces there in our air, our

[48:23] lungs, our lives.

[48:26] We need a council we can trust to make

[48:29] the right decisions. The back stops with

[48:32] you council and with you city manager.

[48:36] Don't expect us to trust you or vote for

[48:38] you when you deceive us. And if you

[48:41] don't see the receipt, then take control

[48:43] of your city manager and his assistant.

[48:46] They have deceived you.

[48:49] must fire this deceivers.

[48:53] The

[48:55] deflocking is nationwide. We need to

[48:58] deflock

[49:00] and stop all contracts on data centers.

[49:05] That is evil. They're coming after us.

[49:08] Pauses,

[49:10] hysteria, macartism. We've seen it

[49:13] before. It's coming back. So, we got to

[49:16] stop the data centers.

[49:18] >> Thank you. Next speaker is Casey

[49:20] Rodriguez, followed by Kevin Daly.

[49:29] » [clears throat]

[49:30] >> Haku. Haku. Hello everybody. Wow. It

[49:33] must be campaign time cuz there's a lot

[49:36] of new faces in the crowd.

[49:39] One so new in this space that they were

[49:41] told sit here so they can see you.

[49:45] As a resident of district 6, I would

[49:48] like to remind I speak for myself

[49:50] tonight. As a resident of district 6 and

[49:53] one who has been involved in city and

[49:55] state government policies government for

[49:58] years, it is an issue to not see running

[50:01] candidates in these spaces before. How

[50:05] generine is your dedication to the city,

[50:08] to the people? I drive by my

[50:11] neighborhood and I see your face and

[50:13] first initial of your first name on

[50:15] signs, but I don't see anything about

[50:18] community safety.

[50:22] All I see is you selling yourself in my

[50:25] view.

[50:27] If I do vote for a council member, it

[50:30] will need to be someone who I've seen

[50:32] committed to this city and absolutely my

[50:36] district before now. one whom I can put

[50:39] my full trust in knowing that they will

[50:41] protect the people. That is why I

[50:43] withdrew being a true generant leader

[50:46] thinking of the people first.

[50:48] Today I saw flock cameras help

[50:50] shoplifting

[50:52] doesn't surprise me. Like the police

[50:55] sheriffs they weren't created to protect

[50:58] the people but capitalism. It goes

[51:01] against our rights and the only thing

[51:03] saving the people are the people. Please

[51:07] put flock cameras on future agenda. And

[51:10] thank you Michelle Wenlum for once again

[51:12] for your courageous call out.

[51:15] >> Kevin Daly followed by Amber Thompson.

[51:22] » Fellow city council members and fellow

[51:25] citizens of Ventura. My name is Kevin

[51:27] Dailyaly. I am running for city council

[51:30] in district 6. These are some of the

[51:33] important issues that are facing the

[51:35] city of Venture. We have roads,

[51:37] infrastructure, affordable housing,

[51:40] unhoused people, and new homes and where

[51:43] to put the new homes. The biggest issue

[51:47] facing my area is the roads and

[51:50] infrastructure. When I talk to people in

[51:53] the community, they always mention the

[51:56] roads and the condition of the roads. I

[51:58] talked to my city council member uh Jim

[52:01] Duran several years ago about the

[52:03] condition of the road on my street in

[52:06] the Montavo area and he said send

[52:10] pictures in with the areas that need

[52:12] work and we will send a crew out and

[52:15] patch them. I did that four times and

[52:18] received no response. I tried making

[52:21] phone calls. I sent emails in. No

[52:24] response. It's been years and years

[52:27] since my my street in the area that I

[52:29] live in has had any work on it. In my

[52:34] campaign for city council, my biggest

[52:37] issue is the roads and infrastructure.

[52:39] The people have spoken. When you go

[52:42] around, that's the most important issue

[52:45] to them. I have been a resident of the

[52:48] Montavo area in district 6 since 1984.

[52:53] I want to give the people in district 6

[52:55] and Montavo a voice that they have

[52:58] lacked a lot.

[53:01] I want to help with issues of

[53:04] infrastructure. I want to make sure that

[53:06] the roads are repaired and replaced.

[53:09] When the city uh annexed the Montavo

[53:12] area, they promised to put sidewalks in.

[53:15] That was not done by the city. So, the

[53:18] city needs to do that. Thank you,

[53:21] >> Amber Thompson, followed by Kristen

[53:23] Kesler.

[53:25] >> Again, please hold your applause so that

[53:26] we can make sure everyone feels

[53:28] included. Thank you.

[53:33] » Good evening, Mayor Sanchez Palasios,

[53:35] Deputy Mayor Halter, Council members,

[53:37] and city staff. My name is Amber

[53:39] Thompson. I'm a Ventura resident and the

[53:41] community's co-author of the city's care

[53:43] policy resolution 2025-47.

[53:47] I'm here tonight to remind you the care

[53:50] policy exists to prevent local

[53:51] government from becoming an instrument

[53:53] for targeting immigrants, LGBTQ plus

[53:56] people, or those seeking reproductive

[53:58] health care. Adopted June 26, 2025, the

[54:02] care policy prohibits city resources

[54:04] from assisting immigration enforcement

[54:06] except as Senate Bill 54 permits. It

[54:08] also affirms Senate Bill 107 and AB

[54:12] 1242, the protections for gender

[54:14] affirming care and reproductive health

[54:16] care. Yet, Ventur's taxpayer funded

[54:18] flock system created searchable vehicle

[54:21] data through 23 cameras. The city

[54:23] acknowledges that a vendor- enabled

[54:24] feature allowed two outofstate agencies

[54:27] to query Ventur's system without

[54:29] authorization between March and

[54:31] September of 2025 and that it can't

[54:33] determine whether the vehicle data was

[54:35] returned. The record does not show that

[54:38] those queries involved immigration or

[54:39] healthcare enforcement. But if Ventura

[54:41] cannot determine whether data is

[54:43] returned, it also cannot credibly

[54:45] guarantee that the care policy's

[54:47] protections

[54:49] occurred in this network. Council, we

[54:52] cannot outsource civil rights to a third

[54:54] party vendor. Logistically, please be

[54:57] aware the flock contract renews on

[54:59] December 18th. It requires 30 days

[55:02] notice to cancel, which means a pathway

[55:04] forward must be settled by November

[55:06] 18th. and the choice to renew the

[55:08] contract will become a care

[55:10] accountability decision. Council members

[55:12] Campos and Schumacher, you carried the

[55:14] care policy forward. Tonight, I ask you

[55:16] to jointly place this contract on an

[55:18] agenda long before that deadline, to

[55:20] publish the audit and performance data,

[55:22] to make a motion to refuse renewal of

[55:24] the contract, to remove every flock

[55:26] camera in the city, and to enact a

[55:28] moratorum and an ordinance prohibiting

[55:30] all AI enabled mass surveillance in the

[55:33] future. Thank you,

[55:35] >> Kristen Kesler, followed by Elizabeth

[55:37] Egert.

[55:43] » Hi, good evening. Uh, first I'd like to

[55:46] thank Council Member Halter for your

[55:47] eulogy on um Jackie. That was very

[55:49] lovely. Um, I also want to say that I

[55:53] support a moratorum on gas stations in

[55:56] the um in the city and I agree with Miss

[56:00] Arnell Brown that the the process on

[56:03] being transparent with the Satcoy

[56:05] development has has not been up to par.

[56:08] Thank you,

[56:11] » Elizabeth Eggert.

[56:16] » Followed by Theres.

[56:19] Good afternoon. I am here to speak um to

[56:23] request that the situation with the

[56:27] flock cameras be put on a future agenda

[56:30] uh with this council. And that's the end

[56:34] of my comment. Thank you.

[56:37] >> Next speaker is Theres followed by

[56:38] Adrian.

[56:43] » Hi city council people. This is I'm

[56:45] Teresa. I'm a longtime resident and I

[56:48] take the bus to the mall a lot and

[56:51] there's so much crime going on at the

[56:54] mall bus stop. They like fights and

[56:57] drugs and drinking

[57:00] and people doing messing messing around

[57:03] in the bathroom and there's so many

[57:05] homeless people there. We need like a

[57:08] cop or security guard there like at all

[57:11] times because if breaks out a lot and

[57:15] the homeless people like live at the bus

[57:17] stop, we need someone to tell them

[57:21] you're not taking a bus. Can you please

[57:23] leave? And they they even outside of the mall uh the 24-hour

[57:29] fitness and we need to get rid of them

[57:33] and find a place for them to go to

[57:36] besides hang out the bus stop all day

[57:38] making it making the bus stop look

[57:41] really bad and terrible for people going

[57:44] on the bus and off the bus.

[57:48] We need we need tougher law for the

[57:51] because by time the cops come

[57:54] the everybody's gone. Everybody took off

[57:56] on the bus or they split. We need

[57:59] somebody to enforce the law though and

[58:02] people can feel safe going on the bus or

[58:05] waiting for the bus

[58:08] for the young and the old.

[58:11] Thank you.

[58:13] >> Next speaker is Adrian followed by

[58:15] Sawyer Cameron.

[58:32] No PowerPoint today. [snorts]

[58:35] I'm asking you to place three items on

[58:37] the next agenda. an ordinance against

[58:39] data centers, flock camera systems, and

[58:42] I also asked for an emergency moratorium

[58:44] on gas stations and drive-throughs for

[58:47] any project currently shown on the city

[58:48] development map, no matter what stage in

[58:50] the approval process. Ultimately,

[58:53] barring the hire of an expert

[58:55] consultant, there should be a minimum

[58:57] setback of 500 ft from sensitive usage

[58:59] of housing and schools for these

[59:01] projects and and all the new ones that

[59:04] come after. Many of you up there have

[59:06] seen a PowerPoint regarding the proposed

[59:08] Darling and Wells project in Satakoy

[59:10] called How to Hide a Gas Station. Its

[59:13] focus was on the set of drawings that

[59:14] accompanied the proposal, but I would

[59:16] say that the city is complicit in hiding

[59:18] it as well. As of 10:48 this morning

[59:22] when I took the screenshot, the city's

[59:24] development map made no mention of a gas

[59:26] station at this project. One might call

[59:28] this lack of public notice mere

[59:30] incompetence, but perhaps danger to

[59:33] humans in but because of the danger to

[59:35] humans inherent in such uses, I would

[59:37] like to call it something else,

[59:38] administrative malpractice.

[59:41] At the very least, it exposes in 2026

[59:44] community development leadership

[59:46] stunning lack of curiosity as to whether

[59:48] gas stations and drive-throughs should

[59:50] continue to be held to the same low

[59:52] standards as storefrs like yoga shops

[59:54] and art galleries. If you do not pass a

[59:57] moratorum that allowed this project and

[59:59] you allow this project to somehow

[1:00:01] continue in its current form without an

[1:00:04] expert opinion as to whether it's safe

[1:00:05] or not for those living in the proposed

[1:00:07] adjacent housing, I would be happy to

[1:00:09] upgrade that terminology to something

[1:00:12] more accurately describing the real

[1:00:14] world consequences of deliberately

[1:00:16] allowing exposure to carcinogens with no

[1:00:18] minimum safety level. How about

[1:00:20] administration administrative

[1:00:22] manslaughter?

[1:00:24] Thank you.

[1:00:26] >> Next speaker is Sawyer Cameron followed

[1:00:28] by Wayne Morgan.

[1:00:33] » Hi, my name is Sawyer Cameron, a local

[1:00:35] student journalist. I'm here on the

[1:00:37] matter of flock safety. This year alone,

[1:00:39] Ventura has paid $71,000 for this

[1:00:41] system. Since 2021, starting with a

[1:00:44] trial camera for $25,000,

[1:00:46] Ventura has paid $200,000 for these

[1:00:49] cameras that we don't even own. These

[1:00:52] are all leased cameras. And what did

[1:00:54] that $200,000 buy? A system that broke

[1:00:57] California law. Our state's license

[1:00:59] plate data law bar sharing with

[1:01:02] outofstate and federal agencies. Flock

[1:01:05] allowed Flock allowed this to happen.

[1:01:07] VPD found this out on February 23rd of

[1:01:10] this year. Our county sheriff shut off

[1:01:12] national sharing in 2023 and has still

[1:01:15] got hit with 364,000

[1:01:18] queries every single month since. Thank

[1:01:21] you,

[1:01:23] >> Wayne Morgan. Followed by our final

[1:01:25] speaker, Becca Reynolds.

[1:01:33] Hello, my name is Wayne Morgan. I

[1:01:36] recently saw a poll uh done by uh Clean

[1:01:39] Technica that asked registered voters uh

[1:01:42] what their top priorities were in the

[1:01:44] upcoming midterm elections. Uh the top

[1:01:48] three were cost of living, the economy,

[1:01:52] uh healthcare. Uh in other polls I saw

[1:01:55] uh immigration was also high on the

[1:01:57] list. The thing is climate change

[1:02:00] affects the cost of living, the economy,

[1:02:04] uh health and immigration.

[1:02:08] Every day in the news, we see the

[1:02:10] effects of climate change, flooding,

[1:02:14] droughts, wildfires,

[1:02:16] even groups of sharks roaming waters

[1:02:18] that were very rare otherwise.

[1:02:23] Uh take the farmers for instance. I

[1:02:26] watched a few uh farm journals reports

[1:02:29] uh that aired on local TVs in like

[1:02:32] Nebraska

[1:02:33] and

[1:02:35] their cattle are dying because of the

[1:02:37] heat. They're losing hundreds of pounds

[1:02:39] in weight. And because of the droughts

[1:02:42] and the floods, hay

[1:02:45] is the cost of hay is really high now.

[1:02:48] And ranchers are having to cull their

[1:02:50] herds because the cost of hay and also

[1:02:55] the uh the heat. So these are

[1:03:00] economic

[1:03:02] effects that we're seeing from climate

[1:03:04] change. And I'm telling you, it's not

[1:03:07] going to get any better. So, I would

[1:03:10] like to see more planning at all levels

[1:03:12] of government to transition to a more

[1:03:14] sustainable future.

[1:03:17] Oh, and by the way, I saw another poll,

[1:03:20] couple of polls actually, uh, that

[1:03:22] stated that young voters rank climate

[1:03:25] change either number one or number two.

[1:03:29] Thank you.

[1:03:31] >> And our final speaker is Becca Reynolds.

[1:03:33] Becca, you should be able to unmute

[1:03:34] yourself.

[1:03:36] Thank you. Can you hear me?

[1:03:37] >> We can. Yes.

[1:03:39] >> Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor,

[1:03:40] Dr. Sanchez, Palasios, and council

[1:03:42] members. I'm here today to share an

[1:03:44] exciting update regarding local

[1:03:46] collaborative watershed management

[1:03:47] efforts. My name is Beck Reynolds. I was

[1:03:50] born and raised in the city of Ventura.

[1:03:52] I'm also the new regional programs

[1:03:53] coordinator for the Ventura County

[1:03:55] Resource Conservation District. In this

[1:03:57] role, I serve as the watershed

[1:03:58] coordinator for the Ventura River

[1:04:00] Wershed Council. The watershed council

[1:04:02] for those who are unfamiliar with it is

[1:04:04] an open network that has brought

[1:04:05] together agencies, water providers, land

[1:04:07] managers, community organizations,

[1:04:10] agricultural interests, and residents

[1:04:12] since 2006. The council exists to

[1:04:14] strengthen communication and

[1:04:15] collaboration among these diverse

[1:04:17] partners so we can better address the

[1:04:20] complex cross-jurisdictional challenges

[1:04:22] facing our wershed. For the last decade,

[1:04:25] the council has been guided by an

[1:04:26] outstanding watershed management plan,

[1:04:28] which the council created in 2015 to

[1:04:30] establish goals, objectives, and

[1:04:32] priority actions. This history of

[1:04:34] collaboration and coordinated management

[1:04:36] helped position the Ventura River

[1:04:38] wershed to become one of just five pilot

[1:04:40] wersheds selected statewide for the

[1:04:42] California Department of Water Resources

[1:04:44] new wershed resilience program which

[1:04:46] builds on local relationships and

[1:04:48] collaborative regional planning while

[1:04:49] placing greater emphasis on climate

[1:04:51] vulnerability adaptation wershed scale

[1:04:54] collaboration and equity and inclusion.

[1:04:56] Since 2024, the watershed council and

[1:04:59] our broader network of partners has

[1:05:01] participated in creating this new

[1:05:02] watershed resilience plan. And I'm

[1:05:05] pleased to share that the plan is now

[1:05:06] complete and has been approved by our

[1:05:08] council. The plan can be found on

[1:05:10] venturershed.org.

[1:05:12] The wershed resilience plan complements

[1:05:14] and strengthen stren excuse me

[1:05:16] strengthens the 2015 wershed management

[1:05:18] plan by providing comprehensive

[1:05:20] watershed scale framework for

[1:05:22] understanding climate risks and

[1:05:23] identifying opportunities for action. It

[1:05:26] also provides an even stronger

[1:05:27] foundation for the council and its

[1:05:28] partners to pursue funding for projects

[1:05:30] that can provide multiple benefits

[1:05:32] across the wershed. Thank you to the

[1:05:34] city and staff for your participation

[1:05:36] and I welcome everyone to engage with

[1:05:38] our council.

[1:05:40] >> Thank you, mayor. That concludes public

[1:05:41] comment.

[1:05:42] >> Thank you and thank you to all the

[1:05:43] speakers tonight. Um we'll go ahead and

[1:05:46] move on to actually before moving on,

[1:05:48] Mr. City Manager, do you have any

[1:05:50] comments in regards to public comments

[1:05:52] today?

[1:05:52] >> Uh thanks thank you mayor. Just a a few

[1:05:54] comments on some of the items the

[1:05:56] speakers addressed. Uh there was a lot

[1:05:58] of conversation about flock cameras. Um

[1:06:00] the city does employ that uh tool

[1:06:04] throughout the community as a public

[1:06:05] safety measure. the police chief gave a

[1:06:07] presentation to the council on March uh

[1:06:09] 9th uh with a an update on law

[1:06:13] enforcement matters in the community and

[1:06:15] there's a lot of conversation in that

[1:06:16] presentation on flock safety on the data

[1:06:20] uh concerns that some of the speakers

[1:06:22] mentioned was addressed by the chief

[1:06:24] then um that information is available in

[1:06:26] the video archive if some of the

[1:06:28] speakers would like to listen to that

[1:06:30] again it was March 9th um 2026 should

[1:06:33] the council desire to hear more

[1:06:35] information from the police department

[1:06:37] on that matter. Um certainly a future

[1:06:39] agenda items um request will we'd be

[1:06:42] happy to come forward with another um

[1:06:44] presentation with additional

[1:06:46] information. Uh wanted to make a note

[1:06:48] that the planning map online is updated.

[1:06:51] Uh the Wells and Darling project does

[1:06:53] show a an eight pump gasoline station uh

[1:06:56] as part of the proposed plans. Uh and

[1:06:59] then also the speaker who mentioned the

[1:07:02] crime concerns at the transportation

[1:07:03] center was addressed by Chief Dicki. So

[1:07:07] that concludes my comments. Thank you.

[1:07:09] >> Thank you for that.

[1:07:11] Now we'll go ahead and move on to our

[1:07:13] consent items. There are nine consent

[1:07:15] items on tonight's agenda for

[1:07:17] consideration. Um before we proceed, I

[1:07:21] know uh Deputy Mayor Halter, you wanted

[1:07:23] to say a few words?

[1:07:24] >> Great. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh yeah,

[1:07:26] I'd just like to speak on item number

[1:07:27] two on the consent calendar agenda, the

[1:07:30] second reading of the ordinance

[1:07:31] pertaining to housing element project

[1:07:33] 19. I'm going to recuse myself due to

[1:07:36] conflict of interest. I own a

[1:07:37] residential rental property, a triplex

[1:07:39] with the address 1188 and 1190 Bavista

[1:07:42] Street and 137 North Hemlock Street, as

[1:07:45] well as a commercial property at 2235

[1:07:47] North Ventura Avenue. These properties

[1:07:49] are located within or near the area

[1:07:52] affected by the proposed ordinance.

[1:07:53] Since this is a consent calendar item

[1:07:56] that is not being pulled, uh I intend to

[1:07:59] remain uh on the dis as allowed by FPPC

[1:08:02] regulations, but I would ask that the

[1:08:04] city clerk note my recusal in the

[1:08:06] minutes. Thank you.

[1:08:09] >> Thank you for that. So, at this time, um

[1:08:12] if there are any items to be pulled or

[1:08:15] no votes to be noted or there any

[1:08:17] questions? Council member Schumacher.

[1:08:19] >> Mayor, I have a comment on four.

[1:08:21] >> Okay. Council member Mangon,

[1:08:24] >> comments on three.

[1:08:28] » Anyone else?

[1:08:30] Okay. If not, um let's go ahead with

[1:08:33] comments on three and then we'll go to

[1:08:35] comments on four.

[1:08:37] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh I just wanted

[1:08:39] to give kudos to this council, but more

[1:08:42] importantly to staff for creating and

[1:08:44] administering this program. It's in

[1:08:46] consent. Most people don't read consent.

[1:08:48] Um, but I think it's important to

[1:08:50] highlight some uh some of the uh

[1:08:52] specifics with this consent item. So, we

[1:08:54] had 229,000

[1:08:56] remaining in HUD funds that this council

[1:08:58] approved for staff to create this rental

[1:09:00] assist emergency rental assistance

[1:09:02] program. Um, there was 73 households,

[1:09:06] 190 individ individuals who were kept

[1:09:08] housed or received this rental

[1:09:10] assistance. 75% of those served are ex

[1:09:15] are considered extremely lowincome

[1:09:17] households. Um six or 68% of those

[1:09:21] served fall into the vulnerable C

[1:09:23] categories meaning they have chronic

[1:09:25] illness, they're seniors, youth with

[1:09:27] health risk uh or they are at most at

[1:09:30] risk of being homeless. Uh there was

[1:09:32] fraud fraud controls in place. This is

[1:09:34] constantly an issue that people are

[1:09:35] concerned with public funds. Um there

[1:09:38] was 37 attempted f fraudulent

[1:09:40] applications that were caught before any

[1:09:42] funds were distributed through this

[1:09:43] program. So kudos to staff for that as

[1:09:45] well. And um but you know there's 301

[1:09:50] increase to receive this emergency

[1:09:52] rental assistance program. We used all

[1:09:54] 229,000

[1:09:56] and we were able to help only 73

[1:09:58] households which I think is a massive

[1:10:00] impact. But I I think it just goes to

[1:10:02] show um really the concerns we have in

[1:10:06] this community with some people uh

[1:10:08] living paycheck to paycheck and maybe

[1:10:10] not even being able to pay their rent.

[1:10:12] So again, thanks to staff for creating

[1:10:15] and uh administering this program.

[1:10:17] Thanks.

[1:10:18] >> Thank you for that. Um Council Member

[1:10:20] Schumacher, item four.

[1:10:22] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I just wanted to

[1:10:24] also uh thank the staff for this very uh

[1:10:27] intentional

[1:10:29] um uh uh effort. Ivor Davis, Mr. Ivor

[1:10:33] Davis was uh as many of you all know was

[1:10:37] named many knew him as an the unofficial

[1:10:40] mayor of Ventura. I met him once um at a

[1:10:42] at the um the museum and this man has

[1:10:47] just lived an extraordinary life. So, I

[1:10:49] just wanted to say thank you for really

[1:10:51] considering and and and making sure that

[1:10:53] we have this unnamed alley named after

[1:10:57] Mr. Ivor Davis because that is such a a

[1:10:59] way to honor him his contributions to

[1:11:02] the city. So, I appreciate that.

[1:11:04] [laughter]

[1:11:05] >> Thank you for that. Um, seeing no other

[1:11:07] questions, comments, or items being

[1:11:09] pulled, we'll go ahead and take any

[1:11:11] public comment on close um consent agend

[1:11:15] agenda items.

[1:11:16] >> Thank you, mayor. We have one speaker on

[1:11:19] consent items, Philip Fields on items 3,

[1:11:22] 4, 8, and 9.

[1:11:32] [clears throat]

[1:11:35] It's a sadness to see that the

[1:11:39] chair diamond

[1:11:43] of that department has decimated its own

[1:11:45] staff.

[1:11:48] We have lost an experienced worker,

[1:11:50] housing worker, Leona,

[1:11:53] and it's never ending the nightmare.

[1:11:57] The back stops with you, city manager.

[1:12:02] You're going to have to answer for the

[1:12:06] wrongs that Diamond is doing. the

[1:12:09] community, the unhoused community,

[1:12:12] families of low income that they're

[1:12:16] desperate for resources

[1:12:19] and diamond and your other assistance

[1:12:22] have made sure that

[1:12:24] this is not trickling down to them.

[1:12:29] So I do not know if you live in the moon

[1:12:31] or on planet earth but we would like to

[1:12:34] see concrete corrective actions before

[1:12:38] too little too late.

[1:12:42] uh the the [snorts] need for more

[1:12:44] resources

[1:12:46] and the most important thing is for this

[1:12:48] housing problems.

[1:12:52] A lawyer that helps these

[1:12:58] unfortunate

[1:13:01] people

[1:13:03] to voice for their rights, their housing

[1:13:06] rights that has never been provided by

[1:13:09] our city.

[1:13:11] We've come short.

[1:13:13] We haven't taken action.

[1:13:16] And this administration

[1:13:19] has begun and it's about to end its

[1:13:22] term. And I see no action.

[1:13:26] When will you guys take action? You want

[1:13:29] to gain our trust, but you got to show

[1:13:31] us you're worthy of that trust. You got

[1:13:35] to show us actions.

[1:13:38] With actions there comes change. There

[1:13:41] comes a hope for these lowincome

[1:13:44] families, these unhoused families,

[1:13:47] people that don't have the resources for

[1:13:49] x or yz reasons of life

[1:13:54] and uh if you don't act

[1:13:58] as our mayor talks about housing run on

[1:14:02] housing and has not delivered but

[1:14:05] evictions.

[1:14:08] She's only delivered evictions of

[1:14:10] veterans,

[1:14:12] gay people,

[1:14:14] Latino people that they've come to this

[1:14:18] city hall and she just brushed them

[1:14:21] aside

[1:14:23] by her one vote. It cost them their

[1:14:26] housing

[1:14:28] living conditions.

[1:14:31] What can we tell to those children that

[1:14:34] find themselves with their families

[1:14:36] unhoused? Thank you.

[1:14:37] >> What can you tell them?

[1:14:39] >> That concludes public comment on consent

[1:14:41] items.

[1:14:42] >> Okay. Thank you. Um so with that, we'll

[1:14:44] go ahead and uh

[1:14:47] take up consent items

[1:14:49] if anybody wants to

[1:14:50] >> move to approve consent calendar.

[1:14:52] >> Second.

[1:14:53] >> Thank you. So we'll go ahead and vote on

[1:14:56] that um with Deputy Mayor Halter's

[1:15:00] recusal on that on that item.

[1:15:01] >> Okay. You can enter your vote now while

[1:15:03] recording that recusal on item two.

[1:15:12] All votes have been entered, seven eyes,

[1:15:15] and the motion carries.

[1:15:18] Thank you. We'll go ahead and move on to

[1:15:20] our public hearing items. Item number 10

[1:15:24] is the ordinance to amend municipal code

[1:15:26] for Victoria Avenue corridor plan and

[1:15:28] development code amendments, banking and

[1:15:31] financial services drive-thru uses.

[1:15:34] We'll go ahead and confirm all the

[1:15:35] noticing requirements, Mr. City Clerk.

[1:15:38] >> Thank you, Mayor. Yes, this item has

[1:15:39] been adequately noticed.

[1:15:40] >> Great. Thank you. I'll go ahead and open

[1:15:42] the public hearing and then invite staff

[1:15:45] to make their presentation.

[1:15:50] » Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Council.

[1:15:52] Um Rachel Diamond, community development

[1:15:53] director. Um I have with me AJ

[1:15:55] Burnernhard, senior planner, who is

[1:15:57] going to make a presentation about um

[1:16:00] our first of two items related to

[1:16:02] amendments to the Victoria Avenue

[1:16:04] Development Code.

[1:16:08] » Good evening, council members. Uh the

[1:16:10] first item before you is an amendment to

[1:16:11] the Victoria Avenue development code and

[1:16:13] is specifically tailored towards banking

[1:16:15] and financial services and related

[1:16:17] drive-thru uses.

[1:16:19] I'll start with a quick project

[1:16:21] description. This is a council initiated

[1:16:24] zoning code amendment. It's specifically

[1:16:27] targeted at banking and financial

[1:16:29] services uses. And under the proposed

[1:16:32] amendment, it would allow for the

[1:16:33] occupancy of existing legally

[1:16:36] established drive-through uses. It would

[1:16:38] remove the use permit requirement

[1:16:41] and it would ensure that uh banking and

[1:16:45] financial services uses occupying

[1:16:47] legally established drive-through uses

[1:16:48] aren't required to comply with the

[1:16:50] current drive-through regulations that

[1:16:52] are in place within the development

[1:16:54] code.

[1:16:55] A bit of background and history on the

[1:16:57] proposed amendments.

[1:16:59] Drive-throughs were prohibited when the

[1:17:01] corridor code was adopted in 2009 with

[1:17:04] the intention to support a more walkable

[1:17:06] and pedestrianoriented corridor. The

[1:17:09] regulations were amended in 2021 to

[1:17:11] allow drive-through uses in certain

[1:17:13] areas subject to prescriptive

[1:17:15] development standards.

[1:17:17] However, since the adoption of the code

[1:17:19] in 2020 in 2009 and the related

[1:17:22] amendments in 2021, several

[1:17:24] drive-through facilities have since been

[1:17:26] vacated, and the current regulations

[1:17:29] limit their reuse and/or require

[1:17:31] additional permitting and site upgrades

[1:17:33] for them to be usable once again. The

[1:17:35] proposed amendment before you responds

[1:17:37] to council discussion at the June 11,

[1:17:40] 2026 economic development subcommittee

[1:17:42] meeting and is supported by the city's

[1:17:44] economic development division.

[1:17:48] For some context, I've identified a

[1:17:49] number of banking and financial services

[1:17:51] uses with drive-through facilities that

[1:17:53] have vacated the corridor since the code

[1:17:55] was adopted in 2009. This includes City

[1:17:58] National Bank at 1220 South Victoria

[1:18:00] Avenue. A photo of that bank is on the

[1:18:02] right hand side of the screen. The site

[1:18:04] was recently acquired by American

[1:18:06] Riviera Bank, who plans to open their

[1:18:08] first Ventura branch in the near future.

[1:18:11] Second is Washington Mutual at 1860

[1:18:13] South Victoria Avenue. This was

[1:18:15] repurposed as a cannabis dispensary.

[1:18:18] Third is First Bank at 5808 Telephone

[1:18:21] Road. The bank relocated to the Ventura

[1:18:23] Gateway Center down the street and the

[1:18:25] current space including the drivethru

[1:18:27] facility sits vacant. The final one is

[1:18:30] the Union Bank at 789 South Victoria

[1:18:33] Avenue. Their space was split into two

[1:18:35] units, half of which was leased to

[1:18:38] Berkshire Hathaway and the remaining

[1:18:40] half, including the drive-through

[1:18:41] facility, still sits vacant today.

[1:18:45] Staff reviewed the proposed amendment

[1:18:47] and felt that the amendments before you

[1:18:49] support attraction and retention

[1:18:51] specifically pertaining to banking and

[1:18:53] financial services uses by facilitating

[1:18:56] the reuse of existing legally

[1:18:58] established drive-through facilities. It

[1:19:00] also ensures that the existing

[1:19:02] drive-through facility regulations re uh

[1:19:04] remain in place for all other uses. A

[1:19:07] site of the now vacant First Bank is on

[1:19:09] the screen to your right.

[1:19:12] Staff took the proposed amendments to

[1:19:14] the planning commission on July 22nd of

[1:19:16] 2026 and the commission voted 4 zero to

[1:19:19] recommend city council's adoption of the

[1:19:22] proposed amendments. They found that the

[1:19:24] amendments were clear, strategic, and

[1:19:26] narrowly tailored and they supported

[1:19:28] commercial investment and adaptive reuse

[1:19:30] within the Victoria Avenue corridor.

[1:19:33] Following that hearing, staff made one

[1:19:34] clerical change that did not impact the

[1:19:36] planning commission's recommendation.

[1:19:41] The recommendation supports the city

[1:19:43] council's strategic priority of economic

[1:19:45] vitality and development.

[1:19:48] In conclusion, staff recommends that the

[1:19:49] city council conducts a public hearing,

[1:19:52] introduces and approves the first

[1:19:53] reading of the ordinance, sets a second

[1:19:56] reading and adoption of the ordinance at

[1:19:57] a forthcoming city council meeting, and

[1:20:00] find that the ordinance is exempt from

[1:20:02] the California Environmental Quality Act

[1:20:03] pursuant to the Common Sense Exemption.

[1:20:06] With that, I'd be happy to answer any

[1:20:07] questions.

[1:20:09] Thank you,

[1:20:12] colleagues. Any questions at this time?

[1:20:14] Um, Council Member Schumacher.

[1:20:19] » Thank you, Mayor. Hold on one second.

[1:20:22] Finishing my notes. Thank you, staff,

[1:20:24] for your presentation. I just have a

[1:20:26] couple questions in regards to um Can

[1:20:29] you go to slides three, please?

[1:20:32] you had said that um there needed to or

[1:20:36] uh drive-throughs were abandoned because

[1:20:39] of certain additional permitting and

[1:20:42] upgrades. Can you describe those

[1:20:43] upgrades?

[1:20:45] >> Yeah, I'm not saying that the facilities

[1:20:47] were abandoned because of the

[1:20:48] development standards being in place.

[1:20:50] However, the development standards were

[1:20:51] in place when existing facilities were along the corridor. However, since

[1:20:58] that code adopted, the four banks on the

[1:21:01] following screen vacated the corridor

[1:21:03] and now we're left with a position where

[1:21:05] there's drive-through facilities that

[1:21:07] are more difficult to use because of the

[1:21:09] development standards in place today.

[1:21:10] >> So, what upgrades are we talking about?

[1:21:12] Can you give me an example? Yeah,

[1:21:14] there's specific requirements related to

[1:21:16] queuing, stacking, uh drive-through, uh

[1:21:19] length, uh so on and so forth,

[1:21:22] oftentimes of which the current

[1:21:23] drive-through facilities might not be

[1:21:25] able to be or comply with those more

[1:21:27] prescriptive uh regulations that are in

[1:21:29] place today.

[1:21:30] >> Is there any any of those upgrades that

[1:21:33] um inhibit any type of ADA regulations?

[1:21:39] » I'm not aware of any off the top of my

[1:21:41] head.

[1:21:42] And then can you go to slide four?

[1:21:46] You had said that the Washington Mutual

[1:21:48] turned into a cannabis shop.

[1:21:50] >> Correct.

[1:21:51] >> Um so this wouldn't be included in the

[1:21:54] or this amendment wouldn't include them,

[1:21:56] right?

[1:21:57] >> That drive-through facility still

[1:21:58] remains. So theoretically, the cannabis

[1:22:01] shop could vacate that space and if a

[1:22:03] bank decided to release that space and

[1:22:05] that drive-through facility was still in

[1:22:07] place, then they could repurpose that

[1:22:09] facility for their use.

[1:22:09] >> Currently, it wouldn't because they're

[1:22:11] not a bank. Correct.

[1:22:13] >> This amendment allows for any

[1:22:15] drive-through facility to be repurposed

[1:22:16] for a banking and financial services

[1:22:18] use.

[1:22:19] >> That's what I was.

[1:22:21] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:22:23] >> Thank you. Any other questions? If not,

[1:22:26] I'll go ahead and um take any public

[1:22:28] comment at this time.

[1:22:31] >> Thank you, mayor. There's three speakers

[1:22:32] on item 10. Our first speaker is

[1:22:34] Michelle Martinich, followed by Philip

[1:22:36] Fields and Stephanie Caldwell. Michelle

[1:22:40] and speakers will have three minutes.

[1:22:43] >> Thank you.

[1:22:46] >> Hi, my name is Michelle Martinich. I'm

[1:22:48] the chief financial officer at American

[1:22:50] Riviera Bank. With us today also is Jeff

[1:22:53] Divine who is our president and CEO. I

[1:22:56] first want to say thank you to AJ. He's

[1:22:58] done a lot of research on this. Thank

[1:23:00] you to Doug for returning our phone

[1:23:02] call. And thank you to everybody else

[1:23:03] who's involved with this project who's

[1:23:05] looked at it because it is extremely

[1:23:07] narrow. Um, so we appreciate that. Um,

[1:23:11] we are I don't know if you know American

[1:23:12] Riviera Bank. We were formed 20 years

[1:23:14] ago and we are based out of Santa

[1:23:16] Barbara. We are still based out of Santa

[1:23:18] Barbara. We have gone up to St. Louis

[1:23:20] Abyispo back in 2018. And so our

[1:23:23] farthest north branch is Pasa Robas and

[1:23:26] then we have eight branches. Uh,

[1:23:28] Pasiroas uh, working our way all the way

[1:23:29] to Monaceto. And we are really excited

[1:23:32] to come to Ventura. One of the things we

[1:23:34] believe in is being involved in our

[1:23:35] community. We have an employee who works

[1:23:37] in our Monaceto branch who is very

[1:23:39] excited that we're opening a Ventura

[1:23:40] branch because it's much closer to her

[1:23:42] home. So, one of the things too, if

[1:23:44] you're not familiar, is when we develop

[1:23:47] our properties, they're unique to the

[1:23:48] communities. It is not at all like

[1:23:50] walking into a cookie cutter Chase or

[1:23:53] Bank of America. Every single one of our

[1:23:55] branches is unique and it's beautiful.

[1:23:57] And believe it or not, people like to

[1:23:58] come into the bank. So, um I know at

[1:24:01] planning they said nobody goes into a

[1:24:03] bank. um their dogs come in to get dog

[1:24:05] biscuits, them and their kids come in to

[1:24:07] get treats, and our employees know who

[1:24:09] you are. So, um it's really a hometown

[1:24:11] feel. So, we're very excited to do that.

[1:24:14] All that being said, the drive-thru is

[1:24:16] very important for ADA reasons. Um

[1:24:18] whether somebody has a permanent need or

[1:24:20] a temporary need, if it's a hot day like

[1:24:23] today and you just don't want to get out

[1:24:25] of your car, the drive-thru is a great

[1:24:26] option. If you have sleeping children in

[1:24:28] the backseat of your car, this

[1:24:30] drive-thru is a lifesaver. um if you're

[1:24:32] temporarily unable to get around really

[1:24:34] well or permanently, it is it is a

[1:24:37] lifesaver. So, our intention is to have

[1:24:40] only use two lanes. There's three lanes

[1:24:42] there now. One would be a drive up open

[1:24:44] during business hours. Um it's going to

[1:24:46] serve more complicated transactions. The

[1:24:48] other one is going to be used as a drive

[1:24:50] up ATM. This is a huge safety factor.

[1:24:53] It's Friday night. It's 7:00 at night.

[1:24:55] Maybe it's 10:00 at night. I'm headed

[1:24:57] out. I don't want to get out and stand

[1:24:59] in front of there. I don't want to be

[1:25:01] doing my transaction where I'm exposed

[1:25:03] and it's unsafe. So having the

[1:25:05] opportunity to drive up and do my ATM

[1:25:07] transaction in the safety of my car is

[1:25:09] extremely important. Um and we want to

[1:25:11] make sure we can do that too. So for us

[1:25:13] it's serving our customers, serving the

[1:25:16] community of Ventura and keeping

[1:25:17] everybody safe and keeping our banking

[1:25:19] accessible. So thank you again. Um we

[1:25:23] appreciate it. Thanks a lot.

[1:25:25] >> Next speaker is Philip Fields followed

[1:25:27] by Stephanie Caldwell.

[1:25:37] Let's take Stephanie Caldwell.

[1:25:44] » Good evening, council. Welcome back. Uh

[1:25:46] my name is Stephanie Caldwell. I'm the

[1:25:47] president CEO of the Ventura Chamber of

[1:25:49] Commerce and I am here in full support

[1:25:51] of this item. Um, American Riviera Bank

[1:25:54] approached the chamber months ago

[1:25:56] talking about the fact that they were

[1:25:57] looking to expand in either Ventur in

[1:26:00] Ventur County. Uh, and at the time they

[1:26:02] were looking at either Ventura or

[1:26:03] Oxnard. And I worked very closely with

[1:26:05] the economic development team to make

[1:26:07] sure that they did not skip over Ventura

[1:26:10] and go straight to Oxnard. So we are

[1:26:12] thrilled that their first foray into

[1:26:14] Ventura County is right here in Ventura.

[1:26:17] And it's it's this type of um policy

[1:26:21] that makes a lot of sense to look at

[1:26:24] again uh because it is going to benefit

[1:26:26] economic development. And so I just am

[1:26:29] in full support of this and also just

[1:26:31] want to again thank American Riviera

[1:26:33] Bank for their investment in Ventura and

[1:26:36] we're looking forward to a very very

[1:26:38] long and um productive partnership with

[1:26:40] them here in Ventura. Thank you.

[1:26:43] >> Okay. Uh final speaker, Philip Fields.

[1:26:46] Last chance.

[1:26:49] All right. I don't see him. Mayor, that

[1:26:50] concludes public comment on item 10.

[1:26:52] >> Great. Thank you for that. Um I'll go

[1:26:55] ahead and bring it back to council for

[1:26:57] any um final questions before closing

[1:27:00] the public hearing.

[1:27:03] Okay, seeing no questions or final

[1:27:05] comments, I'll go ahead and close the

[1:27:06] priv hearing. Um and I will need a

[1:27:09] motion on this item.

[1:27:12] Council member Durant.

[1:27:15] >> First of all, I want to say thank you to

[1:27:17] staff. I want to say thank you for the

[1:27:18] economic subcommittee. I want to say

[1:27:21] thank you to our economic development

[1:27:22] department, everybody involved for

[1:27:24] putting this together. Thank you,

[1:27:25] Stephanie, for your involvement with

[1:27:28] that as well. Um, what this is what

[1:27:31] we're talking about. Um, rethinking

[1:27:33] things to make sure that we could get

[1:27:36] business so we can make sure we take

[1:27:37] care of businesses. And I just really

[1:27:39] appreciate everybody's effort. So, I

[1:27:41] would move to uh approve staff's

[1:27:43] recommendation.

[1:27:43] >> I was like to second that.

[1:27:46] >> Thank you. I do see some names popping

[1:27:48] up. Um Council Member Mcynolds and then

[1:27:50] C Deputy Mayor Halter.

[1:27:52] >> Yeah, I I just wanted to thank Michelle

[1:27:54] for uh making the investment in Ventura.

[1:27:56] So, thank you very much,

[1:27:58] >> Deputy Mayor Halter. I also just want to

[1:28:00] one uh thank staff uh thank the chamber

[1:28:03] for being a part of this in the

[1:28:04] community and knowing that this is about

[1:28:06] economic vitality and doing the things

[1:28:08] that really suit the needs of our

[1:28:10] citizens today and the f future. Knowing

[1:28:13] that uh for people that have mobility

[1:28:15] issues or they're taking care of young

[1:28:16] kids or perhaps even um disabled, you

[1:28:20] know, that it's a great alternative.

[1:28:22] It's not like we're parked in front of

[1:28:24] fast food or some other amenities where

[1:28:26] the cars line up. It's usually a pretty

[1:28:28] quick and convenient thing. I want to

[1:28:30] thank American Riviera Bank for choosing

[1:28:32] Ventura. You chose right. This is a city

[1:28:34] that's on the move and is really going

[1:28:36] to create a great future for all of us,

[1:28:38] especially the next generation. So,

[1:28:40] thanks for being a part of that and I

[1:28:41] hope that the motion passes and um I was

[1:28:44] very honored to be able to work with you

[1:28:46] and to make sure we got this to council

[1:28:48] as quickly as possible.

[1:28:51] » Okay. Um seeing all those are the

[1:28:54] comments. Um, there's a motion and a

[1:28:57] second. We can go ahead and vote on the

[1:28:59] item, please.

[1:29:01] >> Okay. You can enter your vote now on

[1:29:03] item 10.

[1:29:06] >> All votes have now been entered.

[1:29:08] 10 eyes. Uh, excuse me, seven eyes. And

[1:29:11] the motion carries.

[1:29:12] >> Woo. Three new council members.

[1:29:14] [laughter]

[1:29:16] >> Thank you.

[1:29:18] We'll go ahead and move on to item

[1:29:20] number 11. Um, the ordinance to amend

[1:29:23] municipal code for Victoria Avenue

[1:29:25] corridor plan and development code to

[1:29:27] allow general retail uses up to 140,000

[1:29:30] square ft as a permitted use in the T5.3

[1:29:34] zone. And at this time, I'll go ahead

[1:29:37] and let staff do their presentation.

[1:29:39] >> Thank you, mayor, deputy mayor, council

[1:29:41] members, u members of the community,

[1:29:43] those of you watching at home. U Rachel

[1:29:45] Diamond, community development director.

[1:29:46] Um, once again, I'll turn it over to AJ

[1:29:48] Burnernhard, senior planner, who will

[1:29:50] talk about our second amendment to the

[1:29:51] Victoria Avenue development code. This

[1:29:54] time, um, specifically about retail

[1:29:55] uses.

[1:29:56] >> And let me officially open the hearing.

[1:29:58] [laughter]

[1:29:59] Now you can present. Thank you.

[1:30:03] >> I'll start with the project description.

[1:30:05] Again, this is a council initiated

[1:30:07] zoning code amendment. The amendment

[1:30:09] would uh specifically target the urban

[1:30:11] center zone or T5.3 zone in our Victoria

[1:30:14] Avenue corridor plan and development

[1:30:16] code. And the amendment would allow for

[1:30:18] general retail uses up to 140,000 square

[1:30:21] ft.

[1:30:23] A bit of background and history on the

[1:30:25] proposed amendment. Uh general retail

[1:30:27] uses under our current code are limited

[1:30:29] or capped at 100,000 square feet. This

[1:30:33] is the only location specific retail

[1:30:35] size cap in the city today.

[1:30:37] The limit was established during a time

[1:30:40] when the former Kmart Shopping Center at

[1:30:42] 1739 South Victoria Avenue was being

[1:30:44] redeveloped and the limit was

[1:30:47] incorporated in the original code

[1:30:48] adopted in 2009.

[1:30:51] The amendment before you was initiated

[1:30:53] by city council as a future city uh as a

[1:30:55] future agenda item on April 28th of 2026

[1:30:58] and it passed with a 4-2 vote. While

[1:31:01] that original request was to remove the

[1:31:04] cap in its entirety, staff is

[1:31:06] recommending a 140,000 foot cap to

[1:31:09] balance the council's direction with the

[1:31:11] intent of the original retail size

[1:31:14] limitation established for the corridor.

[1:31:17] To give you some context, there are

[1:31:19] three primary sites that have the T5.3

[1:31:22] zone boundary. This includes the

[1:31:24] Victoria Avenue Center, which includes

[1:31:26] the anchor tenants of Walmart and Trader

[1:31:28] Joe's, the Montalo Square Shopping

[1:31:31] Center, which includes the anchor

[1:31:32] tenants of Ralph's and LA Fitness, and

[1:31:35] the Island View Apartments, which are

[1:31:37] just south of the Montalo Square

[1:31:38] Shopping Center.

[1:31:41] For some additional context, we've

[1:31:43] identified a number of uh large large

[1:31:45] format retailers on the left side of the

[1:31:47] screen and the typical store sizes on

[1:31:50] the right side of the screen. I'll allow

[1:31:51] you a moment to review the information.

[1:32:03] Staff analyzed the proposed amendments

[1:32:05] and found that the uh amendments were uh

[1:32:09] specifically tailored to general retail

[1:32:10] uses and prescriptive only to the T5.3

[1:32:13] zone. We felt that the amendments were

[1:32:15] consistent with the corridor plans

[1:32:17] principles and policies, specifically

[1:32:19] those supporting economic development

[1:32:20] efforts. Relatedly, there's no changes

[1:32:23] to the uh development standards which

[1:32:25] include requirements related to building

[1:32:27] form or pedestrian oriented design

[1:32:29] requirements and we felt that that

[1:32:32] 140,000 foot cap maintained a limitation

[1:32:34] on some of the larger format retail

[1:32:36] stores.

[1:32:39] staff took the proposed amendments

[1:32:41] before the planning commission on July

[1:32:43] 22nd and the planning commission voted

[1:32:45] 3-1 to recommend rejection of the

[1:32:48] proposed ordinance. Specifically, they

[1:32:50] found it was inconsistent with the

[1:32:52] long-term vision for the Victoria Avenue

[1:32:54] corridor plan and the related emphasis

[1:32:56] on mixeduse neighborhoods serving

[1:32:58] commercial and smaller format retail

[1:33:00] uses. Second, they expressed a need for

[1:33:03] additional public engagement and

[1:33:06] expressed some concerns about traffic

[1:33:07] impacts.

[1:33:10] Following that meeting, staff met with

[1:33:12] our e economic development team who've

[1:33:14] provided the following considerations.

[1:33:17] First, Victoria Corridor residents spent

[1:33:19] an estimated $3.7 million at five Oxnard

[1:33:22] superstores. These include two uh two

[1:33:25] Oxnard Walmarts, Costco, Sam's Club, and

[1:33:28] Target. Relatedly, Victoria Corridor

[1:33:32] residents spend $13.4 million on grocery

[1:33:34] and general merchandise outside of

[1:33:37] Ventura. These stats demonstrate an

[1:33:39] opportunity to capture that spending

[1:33:41] outside of the city into the city of

[1:33:43] Ventura.

[1:33:45] Relatedly, there's a relatively low

[1:33:47] vacancy rate along the Victoria corridor

[1:33:49] when compared to the citywide vacancy

[1:33:51] rate and even countywide vacancy rate.

[1:33:53] This demonstrates it's difficult to

[1:33:55] capture that market when there's

[1:33:57] restrictions in place um related to

[1:33:59] making retail expansion a bit more

[1:34:02] difficult.

[1:34:03] Next, economic development staff

[1:34:06] estimates that there's an uh up to

[1:34:08] $82,000 in anticipated new annual sales

[1:34:11] tax revenue that could be generated from

[1:34:14] a 20 to 40,000t retail store being added

[1:34:17] to the Victoria Avenue corridor.

[1:34:20] In conclusion, there's more shopping

[1:34:22] choices closer to home means that we can

[1:34:24] keep money local and with more

[1:34:26] competition in the market, this can mean

[1:34:27] better prices for the residents.

[1:34:31] Staff also met with our public works

[1:34:32] transportation division. We confirmed

[1:34:35] that there was no recent quarter-wide

[1:34:37] traffic analysis and that traffic

[1:34:39] analyses would continue to be evaluated

[1:34:41] on a projectby project basis.

[1:34:46] The recommendations in the report

[1:34:47] support city council strategic priority

[1:34:49] of economic vitality and development.

[1:34:53] And it's in conclusion it's staff's

[1:34:55] recommendation that the city council

[1:34:56] conduct a public hearing, introduce and

[1:34:59] approve the first reading of our

[1:35:00] ordinance, set the second reading and

[1:35:02] adoption of the ordinance at a future

[1:35:04] city council meeting, and find that the

[1:35:06] proposed ordinance is exempt from SQA

[1:35:08] pursuant to the common sense exemption.

[1:35:10] With that, I'd be happy to answer any

[1:35:11] questions.

[1:35:13] >> Thank you for that presentation. Um, any

[1:35:16] comments from my colleagues? Council

[1:35:17] member Compost. Um,

[1:35:19] >> I had a question on slide six.

[1:35:23] Bullet point three

[1:35:25] says no changes to development standards

[1:35:28] building form.

[1:35:30] It's on

[1:35:35] no changes to development standards

[1:35:37] building form or pedestrianoriented

[1:35:40] design requirements.

[1:35:42] What does that mean about

[1:35:44] pedestrianoriented design requirements?

[1:35:47] Yeah, within the Victoria Avenue

[1:35:48] corridor code, it breaks down the zoning

[1:35:51] designations into three transct

[1:35:53] districts. And those transct districts

[1:35:55] have very prescriptive requirements as

[1:35:57] to how the buildings are designed,

[1:35:59] placed on the site, parked, so on and so

[1:36:02] forth. The proposed amendments before

[1:36:04] you don't change any of those uh

[1:36:06] requirements. Rather, they only change

[1:36:08] the use table where we would allow for a

[1:36:11] larger format retail store. So when

[1:36:14] that's when that store goes in, are is

[1:36:17] the parking lot going to be corrected so

[1:36:20] it's more pedestrian friendly?

[1:36:22] >> That would be part of staff's analysis.

[1:36:24] >> Okay. Thank you,

[1:36:28] >> Deputy Mayor Halter.

[1:36:30] >> Great. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank

[1:36:31] you, staff, for the presentation. Um

[1:36:33] just um uh I know uh this whole issue

[1:36:36] for me is all about leakage out of our

[1:36:38] city and what sales where people are

[1:36:40] driving to and uh the uh revenue stream

[1:36:43] that's not present and the inconvenience

[1:36:46] that people uh go through just to go to

[1:36:48] where they want to go and shop. So look

[1:36:50] at that. But then uh this this chart's

[1:36:52] intriguing. Uh I didn't realize once it

[1:36:55] gets over about 100,000 square feet. I

[1:36:56] didn't realize which stores what the

[1:36:58] average store size was. So, I'm curious.

[1:37:02] A lot of the stores that you immediately

[1:37:03] think of that would want to be in

[1:37:05] Ventura that um this might apply to uh

[1:37:09] are actually larger than what we're

[1:37:11] recommending tonight. So, is there a

[1:37:13] certain type of store that we're

[1:37:15] thinking is it more of a a grocery store

[1:37:18] type thing that would fit the 140,000

[1:37:20] versus say 160,000?

[1:37:29] Thanks for the question. I mean there um

[1:37:32] the reality is that looking at the

[1:37:35] existing spaces that are there today,

[1:37:38] 140,000 would accommodate expansion of

[1:37:40] some of our existing uses into adjacent

[1:37:43] um spaces, but it wouldn't allow for um

[1:37:48] you know the creation of a new building

[1:37:50] over 140,000 which kind of tends to roll

[1:37:53] into like the mega big box size spaces.

[1:37:56] So this still while a much larger size

[1:37:59] for retail use still keeps us in a the

[1:38:02] smaller version of a big box retail.

[1:38:04] >> And one final question, thank you for

[1:38:06] that. And that's kind of what I I was

[1:38:07] thinking uh where we're going is um but

[1:38:11] for instance like at Costco um I'm not

[1:38:14] really a shopper but the few times I go

[1:38:15] there I see a lot of people I know and

[1:38:18] um so I'm curious do we have any idea

[1:38:20] what the statistics are the number how

[1:38:22] much of the sales in Oxnard are actually

[1:38:24] to Ventura residents.

[1:38:27] >> We can try to get that number from you.

[1:38:29] We have our member uh representative

[1:38:31] with economic development in the back

[1:38:32] and I can ping her and see if uh we can

[1:38:34] get

[1:38:35] >> they know by chance. I think that's

[1:38:36] available, but I can't remember what

[1:38:37] that number was.

[1:38:38] >> Yeah, we'll try to get it for you. Okay.

[1:38:39] Thank you.

[1:38:41] >> Thank you, Council Member Mcrenolds.

[1:38:44] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, just one

[1:38:45] question. The Kmart closed in January of

[1:38:48] 2008. Uh, in that 19 almost 19 years,

[1:38:52] have we had anybody uh apply to tenant

[1:38:56] the that vacant space?

[1:38:59] >> Space is currently occupied by Walmart.

[1:39:01] in order to comply with the cap. I think

[1:39:02] their stores just under 100,000 square

[1:39:05] feet. Um there is a portion I think it's

[1:39:08] in the 20 to 30,000 foot range that's

[1:39:10] remained vacant since uh Walmart's

[1:39:12] occupancy of that space.

[1:39:13] >> So that 30,000 ft in the last 19 years

[1:39:15] have we had anybody apply to take that

[1:39:19] 30,000

[1:39:22] >> relying on my past experience. I was

[1:39:23] actually a retail broker for quite some

[1:39:25] time. my understanding that there was

[1:39:26] some potential deals on the table, but

[1:39:28] due to the challenges with retail

[1:39:30] leasing, the related restrictions that

[1:39:32] come with signing a tenant like Walmart

[1:39:34] to the space, uh, and and other other

[1:39:37] challenges related to permitting, no

[1:39:39] deals ever come to fruition.

[1:39:40] >> So, it's just been vacant for 19 years.

[1:39:42] >> Correct.

[1:39:42] >> Thank you.

[1:39:45] Seeing no other comments from

[1:39:48] my colleagues, I'll go ahead and um

[1:39:50] invite any public comment if we have any

[1:39:51] on this item.

[1:39:53] >> Thank you, mayor. We have three speakers

[1:39:54] on this item. Our first uh speaker is

[1:39:56] Kristen Kesler, followed by Philip

[1:39:57] Fields and Stephanie Caldwell.

[1:40:06] » Hi, good evening. Um, this happens to be

[1:40:09] my neighborhood. I live right behind the

[1:40:12] Montal Square Shopping Center um near

[1:40:15] the Island View Apartments. Um, this

[1:40:18] does not make sense to me for a variety

[1:40:21] of reasons. one. Um, thank goodness that

[1:40:24] the ordinance would not permit a Costco

[1:40:27] there. Um, but what would go there? Um,

[1:40:31] I what could go there? A Home Depot. Is that really that necessary? Another

[1:40:37] Target. We We have two already. A

[1:40:40] Lowe's. We already have one um in

[1:40:44] Ventura by the mall. Um, the other

[1:40:47] concern I have is traffic. that

[1:40:50] intersection right now is really gnarly.

[1:40:52] Um if you try to cross Victoria,

[1:40:56] um it can be uh dangerous. So, uh I'm

[1:41:00] not comfortable with potentially even

[1:41:02] more traffic at this intersection. I

[1:41:05] feel like we cannot always make things

[1:41:08] more pedestrian friendly. I realize that

[1:41:10] doesn't work in every case, but I feel

[1:41:12] like if if this were to pass, we would

[1:41:15] really be going um in the opposite

[1:41:17] direction. And so I um I would urge you

[1:41:20] not to um vote to change this. Thank

[1:41:23] you.

[1:41:24] >> Next speaker is Philip Fields,

[1:41:28] >> followed by Stephanie Caldwell.

[1:41:38] My concerns are similar to the previous

[1:41:42] speaker.

[1:41:45] Indeed, one of the problems is safety

[1:41:50] and traffic.

[1:41:52] When it's uh the grid, heavy traffic,

[1:41:57] then it's very dangerous for a class of

[1:42:00] disabled, for example,

[1:42:03] and uh for mothers with baby carriages,

[1:42:08] etc.

[1:42:10] And uh I would urge you excitedly to listen

[1:42:15] to the previous speaker. She's very

[1:42:18] clear about it. Um I support that and

[1:42:23] you can make a difference as a council

[1:42:28] in order to make that a reality and

[1:42:30] listening

[1:42:32] to a real person. That's letting you

[1:42:35] know what the real problem is.

[1:42:39] And please do not just

[1:42:43] hear a sound and then forget the sound.

[1:42:48] Her place are very clear

[1:42:51] and that's reflective of most of the

[1:42:55] community. Uh please do that when you

[1:42:59] decide to cast your vote

[1:43:02] because at this time your vote is what

[1:43:06] you're going to be known for. Not your

[1:43:08] flowery words, your vote.

[1:43:12] And if you cast against most of the

[1:43:14] community,

[1:43:16] you can be sure you're not going to come

[1:43:18] back to the council.

[1:43:20] But if you listen to the plea of the

[1:43:24] most of the community

[1:43:27] uh we love you to come back.

[1:43:30] So it is you who decides that

[1:43:35] and then uh the the Victoria one uh

[1:43:40] indeed it's very difficult

[1:43:44] uh

[1:43:47] for whatever reason for good or for bad

[1:43:52] the increase of traffic

[1:43:54] it's reflective on our health

[1:43:58] has consequence on our health, our

[1:44:01] lifestyle,

[1:44:02] our lives and that of the vulnerable

[1:44:06] children too. And it is you who must

[1:44:10] have that wisdom,

[1:44:13] not me. Because I'm not casting a vote.

[1:44:16] It is you, each one of you with your

[1:44:19] vote who's going to make a difference in

[1:44:21] the lives of those children, in the

[1:44:23] lives of those mothers,

[1:44:25] in the level of stress of the community

[1:44:29] because it's the community who's coming

[1:44:31] to you at this

[1:44:34] critical time to ask you a solution, to

[1:44:37] ask you to be wise when you cast that

[1:44:40] vote.

[1:44:40] >> Thank you. And our next speaker is

[1:44:43] Stephanie Caldwell.

[1:44:47] Good evening again. Speaking of the

[1:44:49] mothers and children, imagine if the

[1:44:51] mothers and children of the Montalvo

[1:44:53] area and the rest of Ventura didn't have

[1:44:55] to drive into Oxnard to do the type of

[1:44:57] shopping that they could do right on the

[1:44:58] Victoria corridor. When we talk about

[1:45:01] economic development, this is exactly

[1:45:03] the type of policy once again that we're

[1:45:05] talking about. making it possible for

[1:45:08] business to consider Ventura and to grow

[1:45:10] in Ventura and expand in Ventura rather

[1:45:13] than having to leave Ventura and go to

[1:45:15] another city.

[1:45:18] A few short weeks ago, you all took a

[1:45:20] vote not to put an additional sales tax

[1:45:23] on the ballot. We, the chamber,

[1:45:25] supported that vote significantly

[1:45:28] because we believe that we need to grow

[1:45:29] our revenues naturally and this is how

[1:45:32] you do that. You saw the presentation up

[1:45:35] to $82,000

[1:45:37] I believe in additional potential sales

[1:45:39] tax revenue for one of these locations.

[1:45:42] I would actually dovetail on what coun

[1:45:44] uh deputy mayor Halter said. Why have

[1:45:47] the cap at all? We don't know what we

[1:45:50] don't know. And when someone comes into

[1:45:52] the city of Ventura, having the least

[1:45:55] amount of barriers possible for them to

[1:45:57] be able to consider our city is the best

[1:46:01] option for them. Once the barriers are

[1:46:03] already there and there's another

[1:46:05] community that doesn't have that same

[1:46:06] barrier, they are skipping right over

[1:46:08] us. We call that getting fired before we

[1:46:10] get hired. So doing things that make us

[1:46:16] attractive for these businesses. Let's

[1:46:18] just say this is the Walmart shopping

[1:46:21] center. Yes, traffic is bad right now,

[1:46:24] but part of this could be traffic

[1:46:26] improvements. Part of this could be

[1:46:28] reimagining that flow in that parking

[1:46:31] lot. And again, you know, when costs are

[1:46:34] going up, gas is at an all-time high,

[1:46:37] groceries never came down the way they

[1:46:38] were promised to with this

[1:46:40] administration, everyone's looking to

[1:46:42] stretch their dollar a little farther.

[1:46:44] Giving our Ventur residents that option

[1:46:46] so they don't have to get on the freeway

[1:46:48] and go somewhere else. Please, I support

[1:46:51] this. I urge you to support it as well.

[1:46:53] Thank you.

[1:46:54] >> Thank you, mayor. That concludes public

[1:46:56] comment on item 11.

[1:46:57] >> Thank you. So, I'll go ahead and um

[1:46:59] bring it back to council for any final

[1:47:01] questions.

[1:47:02] >> Uh mayor, apologies. One more speaker

[1:47:03] card was submitted, Casey Rodriguez.

[1:47:05] >> Okay.

[1:47:10] » I just wanted to add my voice along with

[1:47:13] my neighbor who actually live in

[1:47:15] district 6. I would oppose this

[1:47:18] u making any changes except for the fact

[1:47:21] if we were to allow Walmart to become a

[1:47:24] super Walmart. Thank you.

[1:47:28] That conclude con concludes public

[1:47:30] comment on item 11.

[1:47:32] >> Thank you.

[1:47:34] I'll go ahead and bring it back to

[1:47:36] council for final questions before

[1:47:38] closing the public hearing.

[1:47:41] Uh Council Member Mcrenolds followed by

[1:47:43] Council Member Compos.

[1:47:44] >> Uh thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh so I had

[1:47:46] a question regarding the the traffic

[1:47:48] comments that were brought up. So, if

[1:47:50] the proposal is to expand, uh, are they

[1:47:53] required to make, uh, improvements

[1:47:55] regarding traffic or I guess that's an

[1:47:58] is that an analysis that the community

[1:48:00] development staff would then require.

[1:48:04] >> They're just uh expanding into the

[1:48:06] vacant space. It would be like leasing a

[1:48:08] space. The use would be permitted by,

[1:48:10] right? There would be no additional

[1:48:11] traffic analysis. The shopping center

[1:48:13] already supports that largest format

[1:48:14] store. um and they would be able to

[1:48:18] occupy the space.

[1:48:19] >> Thank you.

[1:48:24] » There. Yeah, [laughter]

[1:48:26] there we go. Uh Council Member Compost

[1:48:28] followed by Council Member Duran.

[1:48:31] >> Yes. I would like to know if there can

[1:48:33] be a a stipulation or a requirement on I

[1:48:38] don't know if it would go to the new

[1:48:40] business or to the property owner or if

[1:48:42] it's the city's responsibility,

[1:48:45] but that parking lot is not ADA

[1:48:48] friendly. There aren't sidewalks from

[1:48:50] the stores out to the street or across

[1:48:53] the parking lot. So, if I go there and

[1:48:56] come off the bus and into Walmart, when

[1:48:59] I leave Walmart and try to return and

[1:49:01] cross the street back to the bus, I have

[1:49:04] cars coming at me from all directions

[1:49:07] because I'm in a wheelchair with no

[1:49:08] sidewalks. Same for women with young

[1:49:11] children. So, I think there needs to be

[1:49:14] some

[1:49:15] something that we can do to require

[1:49:20] ADA upgrades in those kind of

[1:49:21] situations.

[1:49:24] Is that possible?

[1:49:27] >> It's certainly something we can look at.

[1:49:29] We'd have to look at I mean obviously

[1:49:31] there's a number of different scenarios

[1:49:32] if um a business is just expanding into

[1:49:35] their neighboring uh the neighboring um

[1:49:38] space there and let's say not doing very

[1:49:41] much except punching a door. Um there's

[1:49:44] limited triggers for um ADA upgrades.

[1:49:48] There are some um and as they start to

[1:49:50] do more and more it starts triggering

[1:49:52] more improvements. So, if you're

[1:49:54] building a new building, for example,

[1:49:55] that's kind of the opposite end of that

[1:49:57] spectrum, you're going to end up with

[1:50:00] complete ADA compliance, right? If you

[1:50:02] start re- um paving the parking lot, for

[1:50:06] example, you're going to need to have

[1:50:08] ADA parking spaces in the correct

[1:50:10] locations and that sort of thing. So, it

[1:50:12] really just depends. Um, I' I'd have to

[1:50:16] defer to our city attorney on ways that

[1:50:18] we could further trigger ADA

[1:50:20] requirements beyond what ADA itself

[1:50:23] requires and what the California

[1:50:24] Building Code requires

[1:50:26] um, and how we could potentially wrap

[1:50:29] that in. So, I don't

[1:50:32] have an exact answer for you for how we

[1:50:34] could facilitate that. It sounds like

[1:50:36] you're most interested in sidewalks to

[1:50:40] the right of way and ADA access in that

[1:50:44] way for pedestrians. Is that accurate?

[1:50:47] >> Yes. Pedestrian access in total, but the

[1:50:50] ADA could be used, but I know I've seen

[1:50:54] women walking three kids in the parking

[1:50:56] lot and cars come dangerously close to a

[1:51:00] child. We have to think about who's

[1:51:02] responsible there and

[1:51:05] what we can do to make it safer.

[1:51:09] >> Yeah, it's an interesting question just

[1:51:12] thinking about obviously there's kind of

[1:51:13] the sidewalk access to the street is one

[1:51:16] piece, but once you're in a parking lot

[1:51:19] um and you know I think we've all

[1:51:20] experienced this where you park your car

[1:51:22] kind of in the the sea of parking spaces

[1:51:25] um and you're just walking in the travel

[1:51:27] aisle to actually get to um to the front

[1:51:31] door. Um that's not an atypical

[1:51:34] situation where people are having to

[1:51:36] travel kind of mid um mid drive aisle

[1:51:39] because we don't have um actual

[1:51:41] pedestrian access from every parking

[1:51:43] space to um the front door of a building

[1:51:46] or any accessible space. So that one is

[1:51:49] a little bit more challenging. Um and

[1:51:51] we've seen that with a lot of projects

[1:51:53] where we've tried to help people kind of

[1:51:55] move pedestrians to the front door

[1:51:57] through a sea of parking. Um, so that

[1:51:59] one is kind of a much larger discussion

[1:52:01] about our parking lot standards and

[1:52:03] having, you know, close proximity to

[1:52:05] access. That's not something that we

[1:52:07] have in place today. Um, and goes a

[1:52:11] little bit beyond ADA, actually. Um, so

[1:52:14] I'm I'm sorry to think out loud here. I

[1:52:16] just want to try to help figure out how

[1:52:18] we can get there. I don't know if the um

[1:52:20] city attorney has thoughts on kind of

[1:52:22] further triggers to ADA requirements or

[1:52:25] if there's the ability to do that or

[1:52:26] not.

[1:52:28] and Council Member Compos, I think on a

[1:52:30] project by project basis, I mean, we can

[1:52:33] work with staff and I think what's in

[1:52:35] front of you is just expanding the

[1:52:36] zoning, but I think the the idea of what

[1:52:39] we can do from an ADA standpoint is

[1:52:40] something we can definitely work with

[1:52:42] staff um as things come up or

[1:52:44] anticipating as applications come up.

[1:52:46] This is not this is just a zone change,

[1:52:49] just adding um square footage. So, this

[1:52:52] isn't property specific, but it is uh as

[1:52:55] things do come up, we can certainly work

[1:52:56] with staff.

[1:52:58] >> And I I think it would behoove us to

[1:53:00] look at safety issues

[1:53:04] in all of our parking lots like that,

[1:53:06] all the commercial parking lots that

[1:53:09] don't have sidewalks between the rows of

[1:53:11] cars to get to and from the store create

[1:53:15] a big safety issue. And it's something

[1:53:17] along the way we could look at. I

[1:53:19] appreciate your thinking out loud on

[1:53:21] that. Thank you.

[1:53:22] >> Yeah. And I think, you know, one of the

[1:53:23] this is absolutely and not to punt this

[1:53:26] to later, but this is absolutely

[1:53:27] something that we can look in much

[1:53:29] greater detail in as we work on an

[1:53:31] update to our municipal code,

[1:53:33] specifically the zoning ordinance as a

[1:53:34] followup to the general plan adoption.

[1:53:37] Um, so looking at ways to improve

[1:53:39] safety, access are all things that we

[1:53:42] can take a look at and try to

[1:53:43] incorporate into that new set of

[1:53:45] regulations. That being said, that's a

[1:53:47] few years away from completion.

[1:53:49] >> Thank you.

[1:53:51] Council Member Duran,

[1:53:53] followed by Deputy Mayor Halter.

[1:53:54] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, just a quick

[1:53:56] question to be clear. Um, are there any

[1:53:58] other areas in the entire city that has

[1:54:00] a cap for retail?

[1:54:03] >> No.

[1:54:04] >> So, this is the only area in all of the

[1:54:06] city and I'm guessing that we went for

[1:54:09] 140. Um, so we added the the 40,000

[1:54:13] because of the size of the building

[1:54:14] that's there.

[1:54:15] >> Correct. Okay. Thank you,

[1:54:19] >> Deputy Mayor Halter, followed by Council

[1:54:21] Member Mangon.

[1:54:22] >> Um, I believe that this is true. It may

[1:54:24] be validated or not. Is uh I know as

[1:54:27] long as we're looking at reuse of an

[1:54:30] existing building and you're not doing

[1:54:32] improvements other than some basic TDIs,

[1:54:35] is [snorts] there much teeth that we

[1:54:36] have as a city to encourage the type of

[1:54:38] improvements that we've been hearing

[1:54:39] about that we all know we need?

[1:54:42] I think in our project reviews, it's the

[1:54:45] scope of the project kind of triggers

[1:54:47] the level of upgrades that we apply to

[1:54:49] the improvements. So, if you're starting

[1:54:51] to touch the parking lot and we kind of

[1:54:53] bring in the ADA triggers and look at

[1:54:55] the park parking lot and its totality.

[1:54:57] If you're touching the landscaping, we

[1:54:58] kind of reopen the landscape pallet. Um,

[1:55:01] anytime we have the the opportunity to

[1:55:02] do a design review or kind of look at

[1:55:04] the shopping center holistically, it

[1:55:06] provides an opportunity to refresh and

[1:55:08] apply those standards. In my opinion,

[1:55:10] this ordinance really allows for

[1:55:12] investment in the corridor that could

[1:55:14] trigger those timing mechanisms to to

[1:55:17] facilitate future upgrades of the

[1:55:19] center. Whereas under the current

[1:55:21] standards, it's been vacant for 19 years

[1:55:22] and we haven't seen those um those

[1:55:24] improvements made. Knowing how costly it

[1:55:26] is to open up a business, not mention a

[1:55:28] retail outlet of some type, the most

[1:55:31] cost effective thing that somebody can

[1:55:33] do to open up is nothing. Basically,

[1:55:36] rent the space and put something in it.

[1:55:38] Is that not correct?

[1:55:39] because then nothing gets triggered. You

[1:55:41] don't touch the landscape. You don't

[1:55:42] touch the parking lot. You use an

[1:55:44] existing building. It doesn't get us any

[1:55:46] further ahead. I'm not recommending

[1:55:48] that. But that's what my experience has

[1:55:50] been. You know, a lot of the retail

[1:55:53] redevelopment that we see citywide,

[1:55:55] right, are based upon retailers trying

[1:55:58] to maximize their profits. And in order

[1:56:00] to do so, it requires shifts to the way

[1:56:03] that the store is oriented, the way the

[1:56:04] parking lot's oriented, how they

[1:56:05] maximize the outdoor sales area, so on

[1:56:08] and so forth. So, change in retail

[1:56:09] market conditions theoretically should

[1:56:12] trigger upgrades sitewide um in order to

[1:56:16] monetize and maximize profits long term.

[1:56:18] >> I would agree. Um vacancy rate, do we

[1:56:20] have an idea? I think you mentioned it.

[1:56:22] The vacancy rate on Victoria, I

[1:56:24] >> think it was 3.6%.

[1:56:26] >> Okay. And that's by square footage

[1:56:28] calculated by square footage or by

[1:56:30] >> uh I don't have the I don't have the the details.

[1:56:34] >> Okay. Um, and regardless of what size

[1:56:39] somebody wants to turn a building into

[1:56:41] or parcel into, the review that would go

[1:56:44] on would be inclusive of number of

[1:56:47] parking spaces versus num amount of

[1:56:49] square foot of retail space available if

[1:56:51] I remember right. Correct.

[1:56:52] >> Correct. Okay. So, there's going to be a

[1:56:55] natural limit when we take those and

[1:56:56] drop it into AI or whatever we want to

[1:56:58] do and calculate. There's going to be a

[1:57:00] natural maximum of what you can do. This

[1:57:03] isn't the same as uh building density

[1:57:06] issues that we have with housing. This

[1:57:08] is there's no such thing when it comes

[1:57:10] to commercial

[1:57:13] where we have to do what the state says

[1:57:15] we have to do.

[1:57:16] >> Yeah. The the state housing law

[1:57:18] obviously supersedes a lot of our zoning

[1:57:20] ordinances in unique ways. Those state

[1:57:22] laws don't have similar provisions to my

[1:57:25] knowledge for commercial or industrial

[1:57:27] redevelopment. So it's a true analysis

[1:57:29] of what the impact is in the number of

[1:57:31] parking spaces versus the square footage

[1:57:33] of building and you would come out

[1:57:35] naturally with a mathematical solution

[1:57:38] that is the maximum you could do on any

[1:57:40] parcel

[1:57:41] >> without taking it through a warrant

[1:57:42] exception or variance approach. Yeah.

[1:57:44] >> You and to do that you would have to

[1:57:46] make sure you have it supported the

[1:57:47] public because the public can object to warrants and conditions.

[1:57:53] >> Correct. Dan, you open it up to city

[1:57:54] review where we may trigger uh

[1:57:56] additional improvements in order to

[1:57:57] offset the impacts of the the proposed

[1:58:00] variance request.

[1:58:01] >> Okay. [clears throat] Thank you.

[1:58:02] >> I do have a response to your question

[1:58:03] about the Oxnard Costco.

[1:58:05] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:58:06] >> Uh it looks like there was um 1,900

[1:58:10] Victoria area residents that equated to

[1:58:12] 13,100 visits and $1.873 million in

[1:58:17] spending.

[1:58:20] >> Great. Thank you for that.

[1:58:23] Thank you, Council Member Mangon,

[1:58:24] followed by Council Member Mcrenolds.

[1:58:26] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Couple

[1:58:27] questions. So, the limit was established

[1:58:28] during the redevelopment of the former

[1:58:30] Kmart site. Do you know why?

[1:58:34] >> Yeah. Well, Walmart was going in there

[1:58:36] and wanted to do a larger store.

[1:58:38] >> Okay. It was a pretty contentious issue

[1:58:39] at the time, I recall. So, it's probably

[1:58:41] like a concession. Maybe we're going to

[1:58:43] add we're going to let Walmart move in,

[1:58:45] but we're going to add a limitation was

[1:58:47] probably what happened. Um the T5.3 that

[1:58:50] essentially covers three parcels in the

[1:58:52] corridor. Correct.

[1:58:55] >> Three main sites that are

[1:58:57] >> three main sites. Sorry I said parcels

[1:58:58] but

[1:58:59] >> yeah it's multiple parcels multiple

[1:59:00] ownership interests multiple APMs but

[1:59:02] three sites for the lay person's

[1:59:04] understanding.

[1:59:04] >> And the Walmart building is the only one

[1:59:07] on any of those three sites with the

[1:59:09] current capacity to expand beyond

[1:59:10] 100,000 square feet or are there others?

[1:59:16] Yeah. I mean the only alternative to

[1:59:17] that would be um redevelopment of sites

[1:59:20] >> without redevelopment expansion within

[1:59:22] the current uh you know footprint.

[1:59:25] >> Yeah. This is the only example of the

[1:59:27] ability to move within a current

[1:59:29] footprint. Everything else is um has

[1:59:32] tenants. Yeah.

[1:59:32] >> Sure.

[1:59:34] >> Thank you, Council Member Mcrenolds.

[1:59:37] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh I have a

[1:59:38] question for Mr. Eberling. So, uh, so

[1:59:41] I'm going to let He didn't even know he

[1:59:43] was going to get called.

[1:59:47] And

[1:59:49] so, uh, my question is going back to

[1:59:51] slide eight regarding the sales tax. Uh,

[1:59:55] so the staff is providing a range of

[1:59:57] 35,000 to 88 8200 $82,000

[2:00:01] of potential new sales tax revenue. If I

[2:00:03] split the difference, let's call it

[2:00:05] $60,000. How many potholes do I get

[2:00:07] filled?

[2:00:11] Uh Charlie Ebling, public works

[2:00:13] director. Thank you for the question.

[2:00:15] Council member Mcrenolds, for that

[2:00:18] dollar amount, I would say we get about

[2:00:22] 2500 to 3,000, maybe 3,500 part u

[2:00:27] potholes filled.

[2:00:29] >> Thank you very much.

[2:00:30] >> Yep.

[2:00:32] >> You took my question. I'm kidding.

[2:00:35] [laughter]

[2:00:36] Great question. Um I had just a

[2:00:40] wanted to make I guess a point of

[2:00:41] clarification too. So um having heard

[2:00:45] the concerns of some of the speakers um

[2:00:48] this isn't automatically saying that

[2:00:52] there will be an expansion. It's merely

[2:00:54] giving us an option that it could expand

[2:00:57] and this is these are the projects that

[2:00:59] maybe could happen. Right.

[2:01:04] >> That's correct.

[2:01:05] >> Okay. Just want to make sure because

[2:01:07] we're not approving anything right now.

[2:01:08] We're just saying we want an extra tool

[2:01:10] in the box.

[2:01:12] Um, okay. Any other questions from

[2:01:15] colleagues?

[2:01:16] Nope. If not, um, I'll go ahead then and

[2:01:19] close the public hearing and council, we

[2:01:22] may enter into deliberations. Um,

[2:01:25] council member Duran.

[2:01:28] >> Yeah, I thank you very much, Madame

[2:01:30] Mayor. I appreciate it. And uh you know,

[2:01:32] I've been looking at this for a long

[2:01:33] time and I live in the Victoria area and

[2:01:36] I am um Deputy Mayor Halter, one of

[2:01:39] those that go to Costco and spend all

[2:01:41] kinds. I'm not surprised at that number

[2:01:42] because it feels like I spend that much

[2:01:44] just when I go. Um but you know,

[2:01:48] living here my whole life and seeing

[2:01:50] that for 19 years empty when it used to

[2:01:53] be thriving down there, right? Right. It

[2:01:55] used to be there was there was pizza

[2:01:57] parlor and all kinds of we were talking

[2:01:59] about that today or yesterday. Um and so

[2:02:01] I I'm actually um I'm I'm in support of

[2:02:04] this because it just makes a lot of

[2:02:06] sense. We're not getting the tax revenue

[2:02:08] that we need. People are going to

[2:02:09] another city. Um we have an empty

[2:02:12] building. Um and and you know, I will

[2:02:15] tell you that I go in that parking lot

[2:02:16] all the time. I'm in I'm in Walmart all

[2:02:18] the time. My my wife's in Trader Joe's

[2:02:20] all the times. And I don't know how much

[2:02:21] time you spend in the parking lot

[2:02:23] itself, but they've done a good job in that parking lot. I It's pretty good.

[2:02:27] I know the Trader Joe's sites gets busy

[2:02:29] sometimes because you don't have direct

[2:02:31] access necessarily in that area, but

[2:02:33] where Walmart is, it's it's great. I

[2:02:34] think the issue is this. When we talk

[2:02:36] about um pedestrian friendly, let's get

[2:02:40] the food vendors off the streets. We're

[2:02:42] going to be pedestrian a lot more

[2:02:43] pedestrian friendly in my opinion. But

[2:02:46] other than that, I I'm in complete

[2:02:48] support. Um, if you don't have any

[2:02:50] others, I'd like to make a motion to

[2:02:52] approve uh staff's recommendation.

[2:02:54] >> Thank you. And Deputy Mayor Halter, did

[2:02:56] you have a comment or did you want to

[2:02:58] support the

[2:02:58] >> I have a comment.

[2:02:59] >> Okay.

[2:03:01] Uh, I'd like to first say Victoria

[2:03:04] is an interesting um boulevard at inner

[2:03:07] city because it

[2:03:10] most of the traffic is because it's the bypass. It's going from 126

[2:03:15] westbound to 101 southbound. And I

[2:03:18] believe what should have happened years

[2:03:21] ago is that bypass should have actually

[2:03:23] happened. And instead we have our main

[2:03:26] financial center, our main business

[2:03:28] center. Uh although I'd love to see it

[2:03:31] also in downtown in the future. I'd like

[2:03:33] to say that that's really our business

[2:03:34] center. [laughter] Um but there is with

[2:03:36] the county there and so forth. It really

[2:03:38] is where most the jobs are at. and and

[2:03:41] um I don't necessarily want to

[2:03:45] uh reduce the traffic impact on that

[2:03:47] street by not filling the buildings and

[2:03:50] leaving things unoccupied uh on that

[2:03:52] street and that's exactly what's

[2:03:54] happening is so uh I still think someday

[2:03:58] it will happen somebody will have the

[2:04:00] courage and hopefully it can start any

[2:04:02] day where you push CALR in the state to

[2:04:06] plan for and build a bypass because

[2:04:09] otherwise Victoria will always be

[2:04:10] impacted. No matter what size store we

[2:04:12] have, it's just if there's any other

[2:04:14] need for someone to drive someplace on

[2:04:16] that boulevard, we're going to add more

[2:04:18] cars to that boulevard. So, I I I look

[2:04:21] at traffic. I look at all the things I

[2:04:22] have to weigh as a council member to

[2:04:24] make the best decision I can. And I look

[2:04:26] at the traffic, the impact, and the

[2:04:28] viability of reuse of some of those

[2:04:31] buildings that

[2:04:33] really to some extent have outlived

[2:04:34] their life. Uh and then we look at the

[2:04:37] convenience and the fact that instead of

[2:04:39] driving uh out of our city, it's bad

[2:04:41] enough that most of our workforce drives

[2:04:43] out of our city every day and creating

[2:04:46] more traffic on the freeways. Um we

[2:04:48] don't necessarily want to lose those tax

[2:04:50] dollars, too, on top of the workers and

[2:04:52] the employers that have already gone to

[2:04:55] other cities around us. And we lose the tax revenue. I have to look at the

[2:04:59] economic vitality. And I look at the

[2:05:02] places that are thriving. Okay. I look

[2:05:05] at when I go places and the the the

[2:05:09] story that came to mind for me that

[2:05:10] probably still won't fit the 140 square

[2:05:13] feet by 140,000 but is phenomenal and I

[2:05:16] think represents the future is something

[2:05:18] called Italy. If anybody's ever been to

[2:05:20] Italy, it is unbelievable. It is it's

[2:05:24] really a quality that every single one

[2:05:26] of us, no matter what economic level

[2:05:28] you're at, can really enjoy the beauty,

[2:05:30] the ambiance, the what it provides. And

[2:05:33] even the buildings are beautiful. It's

[2:05:35] not like the it's we're not talking

[2:05:36] about just putting up warehouses. You

[2:05:38] know, the days of that are long gone. I

[2:05:40] do want to say as a as a exterior design

[2:05:44] build contractor, okay, [laughter]

[2:05:46] so I had to qualify that a little bit is

[2:05:50] uh I will say it's very frustrating that

[2:05:52] the fight we had to get one hardware

[2:05:55] store and I'll name it because there's

[2:05:57] only one really other than some of the

[2:05:59] small ones, Lowe's here. I tell people

[2:06:02] all the time as a contractor, I could

[2:06:04] get 50% of any all the product I need to

[2:06:07] do any job I'm I'm hired to do, I always

[2:06:11] have to go to Home Depot for the other

[2:06:13] 50%.

[2:06:14] And so the things we preclude and the

[2:06:17] decisions we make have unintended

[2:06:19] consequences. So I rather believe in the

[2:06:23] process and review of what that's uh

[2:06:26] what will go on that site and actually

[2:06:29] have no barriers and leave it up to our

[2:06:32] system to say what will fit on that

[2:06:34] parcel and how are you going to make it

[2:06:36] fit the ambiance and the quality that

[2:06:38] our our design standards will say we

[2:06:42] have to do um and have and fix the

[2:06:46] impact on traffic that it might have as

[2:06:48] well as on parking. there would be a

[2:06:49] natural limitation to that. I don't

[2:06:52] really like the artificial limitations

[2:06:54] because we end up with things being half

[2:07:00] done. Okay. Trying to be nice. So, uh

[2:07:03] anyway, so I I would be seconding the

[2:07:05] motion, but I really think we shouldn't

[2:07:06] have any barrier.

[2:07:09] >> Thank you. Um Council Member Schumacher.

[2:07:13] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um so I I am generally

[2:07:17] supportive of the um of the motion as

[2:07:20] well. The only thing that uh brings me

[2:07:21] to concern and I just want to make sure

[2:07:23] that our my colleagues are are very much

[2:07:25] aware um the planning commission asked

[2:07:28] us or voted for us to reject this and um

[2:07:33] I want to make sure that we are

[2:07:34] conscious of that. Um and given some of

[2:07:38] the concerns it brings me to make sure

[2:07:40] that we bring light to that those

[2:07:42] discussions as well. There are some, you

[2:07:45] know, we are going against the long-term

[2:07:47] vision of the Victoria Avenue corridor

[2:07:49] plan and that is a represent and the

[2:07:51] representative, my gosh, the

[2:07:53] representative of that area is uh

[2:07:55] council member Duran. And so we look to

[2:07:57] you to ensure that you know you are um

[2:08:01] essentially advocating for what your

[2:08:04] constituents had asked for regarding

[2:08:06] this long-term vision because those

[2:08:09] people were part of developing that

[2:08:11] plan. Um on top of that too and I just

[2:08:14] want to make sure that we have a

[2:08:15] discussion on this is um you know along

[2:08:18] with that plan we that area is supposed

[2:08:22] to be mixed use. It's supposed to be an

[2:08:25] area in which we have more smaller

[2:08:27] format retail within that corridor. And

[2:08:30] so if we're consciously aware of that

[2:08:32] and also understanding that on the other

[2:08:36] side of this argument that times are

[2:08:38] changing sales um as uh our um uh CEO of

[2:08:44] the chamber had mentioned you know um a

[2:08:47] lot of things are h the federal

[2:08:50] government has really kind of put us in

[2:08:51] a bind in in where we want to make sure

[2:08:53] that we take care of our own city in

[2:08:55] regards to the sales tax that we are

[2:08:56] able to generate um when we bring more

[2:08:59] businesses here. So these are the type

[2:09:02] of discussions that I just don't want us

[2:09:04] to just kind of over uh you know just

[2:09:08] kind of uh uh overlook. I want to make

[2:09:11] sure that those those are things that we

[2:09:13] are considering um given that we have

[2:09:16] some concerns from the community that

[2:09:18] live in that area. Thank you.

[2:09:21] >> Thank you for those comments. Um so at

[2:09:23] this time we do have a motion and a

[2:09:25] second.

[2:09:28] >> Yeah. Uh, Council Member, Deputy Mayor

[2:09:30] Halter seconded. So, any other comments?

[2:09:32] If not, I'll go ahead and call for a

[2:09:34] vote.

[2:09:39] And Mr. City Manager, after the vote,

[2:09:41] did you want to

[2:09:50] Hey, we're waiting for one more vote to

[2:09:51] be entered.

[2:09:59] All votes have now been entered.

[2:10:03] Six eyes's, one no. Council member

[2:10:06] Compost, no. And the measure carries.

[2:10:09] >> Thank you, Mr. City Manager.

[2:10:10] >> Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor. I would just

[2:10:12] like to point out to uh to the council,

[2:10:15] to the members of the public, uh this is

[2:10:17] Miss Diamond's last uh meeting in these

[2:10:20] chambers. She uh has been a prominent uh

[2:10:23] fixture in local leadership for a little

[2:10:26] over three years with the city. Um we've

[2:10:28] benefited uh terribly from her humor,

[2:10:32] her uh high energy levels, her um

[2:10:35] intellect. Uh she's led the community

[2:10:37] development department uh to a far

[2:10:40] better place than what it was when she

[2:10:42] found it. Some terrific hires. Um she's

[2:10:44] accepted a position with the city of

[2:10:46] Glendale. So, we curse them a lot, but

[2:10:50] we thank uh Miss Diamond for her service

[2:10:52] and everything that she's given and uh

[2:10:55] you know, getting our general plan

[2:10:56] across the finish line. I'm cementing a

[2:10:59] really strong team that is going to be

[2:11:01] able to to pick up the mantle uh in her

[2:11:04] absence and move that department

[2:11:05] forward. So, Rachel, thank you so much.

[2:11:09] [applause]

[2:11:10] >> Thank you.

[2:11:12] Um

[2:11:14] [laughter]

[2:11:15] thank you. I I also wanted to say thank

[2:11:18] you, Miss Diamond, for um the leadership

[2:11:20] you've held here at the city and for

[2:11:22] helping um our community thrive. Really

[2:11:25] appreciate the uh long hours that you

[2:11:27] have put in. I know that it's not easy

[2:11:29] and um most of the time uh folks are

[2:11:33] chasing after you for not a good reason.

[2:11:35] Um, but I'm I'm happy to hear that for

[2:11:38] you, at least you've um been able to

[2:11:40] transition um to something hopefully

[2:11:43] that's better for you and really just

[2:11:45] want to congratulate you and thank you

[2:11:47] for the work that you've done here.

[2:11:49] >> Thank you so much. I really just want to

[2:11:52] thank Bill and Carlen, all the council

[2:11:54] members, the staff has been incredible.

[2:11:56] This is truly a bittersweet um goodbye.

[2:11:59] It's been one of the highlights of my

[2:12:01] professional career to work in Ventura.

[2:12:03] It's truly uh an amazing place to work.

[2:12:06] It's an amazing place to be and that's

[2:12:09] it. It's it's really been so special.

[2:12:11] So, I just appreciate um you know all of

[2:12:14] Bill's confidence and um and the team is

[2:12:18] super incredible and you're left with an

[2:12:20] amazing team that can um you know truly

[2:12:23] do the work and does the work every day.

[2:12:25] So, again, I just want to thank them so

[2:12:27] much and really the staff throughout the

[2:12:28] city who's been incredible. Um and to

[2:12:31] all of you, good luck. Thank you.

[2:12:36] Deputy Mayor, would you like to say a

[2:12:37] few words?

[2:12:38] >> Say a couple of things. Yeah. Only

[2:12:40] because um uh I've had the honor of

[2:12:42] working closely uh uh understanding uh and seeing how we compare to other

[2:12:48] cities around us and so forth. And I got

[2:12:50] to tell you is uh I've been doing what I

[2:12:53] do for 32 years and it's been tough.

[2:12:55] I've seen 30 or 40 different

[2:12:56] municipalities that I work in and seeing

[2:12:58] the differences and bringing Ventura

[2:13:01] forward in uh a more palatable way for

[2:13:04] business who want to do business here.

[2:13:05] Uh you've made a lot of progress here.

[2:13:08] You really have. I want to thank you for

[2:13:09] that. Uh there's still a lot we need to

[2:13:11] do, but we're primed for getting there.

[2:13:13] And I believe Sunday because of the

[2:13:15] efforts and all the energy you put into

[2:13:16] it. this will be that model city that

[2:13:18] people look at and say, "Hey, we're

[2:13:20] going to protect what we love and we're

[2:13:21] going to make sure that people want to

[2:13:23] invest here, but do so in a way that

[2:13:24] represents our values as Venturans." So,

[2:13:27] I want to thank you for the sacrifices.

[2:13:29] I know that you live down south, the

[2:13:31] sacrifices and meet be here at a very

[2:13:34] challenging time and to overcome a lot

[2:13:35] of uh things that we had to overcome um

[2:13:38] as we change staff here and and thanks

[2:13:41] for being a part of it and I hope you

[2:13:42] stay in contact. So, thanks.

[2:13:45] >> Thank you.

[2:13:47] I think we can let you go now.

[2:13:49] [laughter]

[2:13:50] Thank you. Okay, moving on to our public

[2:13:53] hearing items. Um, item number 12 is the

[2:13:57] ordinance amending sections 16.210.070

[2:14:03] and 16.215.030

[2:14:05] 030 of the municipal code to support

[2:14:09] changing of time limits in city-owned

[2:14:11] parking lots, allowing for paid parking

[2:14:13] in city-owned parking lots, and

[2:14:15] establishing a new downtown employee

[2:14:18] parking permit program.

[2:14:20] We'll go ahead and confirm the noticing

[2:14:23] requirements for this item.

[2:14:25] >> Thank you, Mayor. Yes, this item has

[2:14:26] been adequately noticed.

[2:14:28] >> Thank you. I'll go ahead and open the

[2:14:29] public hearing and invite staff to do

[2:14:32] their presentation.

[2:14:40] Uh, good evening, mayor and members of

[2:14:41] city council. I am Charlie Ebling, the

[2:14:43] public works director. Tonight, we will

[2:14:45] give a short presentation on mun

[2:14:47] municipal code updates for parking. I

[2:14:50] have with me Alec Roberts, assistant

[2:14:52] public works director, and Jeff Hford,

[2:14:55] principal transportation engineer. I

[2:14:57] will now turn it over to Mr. hereford to

[2:14:59] give the presentation and we will be

[2:15:01] happy to answer any questions you have

[2:15:03] afterwards.

[2:15:04] >> Thank you, Charlie. So, [clears throat]

[2:15:06] before we get into the uh the three

[2:15:08] municipal code changes uh and updates, I

[2:15:11] wanted to uh review some recent

[2:15:13] improvements to our downtown on street

[2:15:15] parking meters. Uh we have replaced the

[2:15:17] older paybyspace meters with the new

[2:15:19] paybyplate technology. Uh users now

[2:15:22] enter their license plate number rather

[2:15:23] than a parking space number into the new

[2:15:26] meters. Uh, with the new meters, we also

[2:15:28] implemented the 90 minute free parking

[2:15:30] program. Customers who park for 90

[2:15:32] minutes or less receive that time at no

[2:15:35] cost. If they stay longer than the 90

[2:15:37] minutes, they pay for their entire stay,

[2:15:39] including the first 90 minutes. The item

[2:15:42] before council tonight is a series of

[2:15:43] parking municipal code changes and

[2:15:45] updates. staff is proposing uh these

[2:15:48] municipal code updates that will give

[2:15:50] the city greater flexibility to manage

[2:15:52] our off- streetet parking resources by

[2:15:54] modifying parking lot time limits. Uh

[2:15:57] provide the authority needed for

[2:15:59] potential future off- streetet paid

[2:16:00] parking and also to establish the

[2:16:03] framework for an employee parking permit

[2:16:05] program.

[2:16:08] Uh the first proposed change is to

[2:16:09] municipal code section 16210.070 070

[2:16:13] which regulates uh city-owned parking

[2:16:15] lots. The proposed amendment would

[2:16:18] authorize the public works director or

[2:16:20] designate to establish and modify those

[2:16:22] time limits administratively.

[2:16:24] This gives staff greater flexibility to

[2:16:26] respond to changing parking demand and

[2:16:28] operational needs. It also avoids having

[2:16:30] to return to council for a municipal

[2:16:32] code amendment each time a parking time

[2:16:34] limit needs to be adjusted. Changes

[2:16:37] would still be communicated to the

[2:16:38] public through appropriate signage and

[2:16:40] notification.

[2:16:42] Uh and finally, the amendment adds a

[2:16:43] definition of a city parking lot to

[2:16:45] clarify which off- streetet parking

[2:16:47] facilities are covered by this section

[2:16:48] of the municipal code.

[2:16:52] Uh the next proposed change is also to

[2:16:55] municipal code section 16210.070

[2:16:58] and addresses the city's authority to

[2:17:00] charge for parking in city-owned off-

[2:17:02] streetet parking lots. The municipal

[2:17:04] code currently provides clear authority

[2:17:06] for paid parking on downtown streets,

[2:17:08] but it does not provide the same clear

[2:17:10] authority for city-owned parking lots.

[2:17:13] The proposed amendment addresses that by

[2:17:15] allowing the city council by resolution

[2:17:17] to establish fees for parking in

[2:17:19] city-owned lots and other off- streetet

[2:17:21] facilities. The ordinance does not

[2:17:24] implement off- streetet paid parking

[2:17:25] within the downtown core. It simply

[2:17:28] establishes the legal framework that

[2:17:30] would allow council to consider off-

[2:17:32] streetet paid parking in the future.

[2:17:35] Before paid parking could be expanded

[2:17:37] into the downtown city-owned lots, the

[2:17:39] city would also need approval of an

[2:17:41] administrative coastal development

[2:17:43] permit. Once that process is complete,

[2:17:46] staff would return to council with the

[2:17:48] proposed implementation schedule,

[2:17:50] parking rates, operating policies,

[2:17:53] financial projections, and any other

[2:17:54] actions needed before the program could

[2:17:56] move forward. The action tonight

[2:17:59] provides the authority and flexibility

[2:18:01] for a future program. While the decision

[2:18:03] on whether, when, and how off- streetet

[2:18:06] paid parking in the downtown is

[2:18:07] implemented remains with city council.

[2:18:12] The next proposed amendment is to

[2:18:14] municipal code section 16215.030

[2:18:17] and establishes the downtown employee

[2:18:19] parking permit program. The goal of this

[2:18:22] program is to provide eligible downtown

[2:18:24] employees with an affordable long-term

[2:18:26] parking option and help move employee

[2:18:28] parking into locations that are better

[2:18:30] suited for longer stays. Under the

[2:18:33] program, employees would be able to

[2:18:34] purchase a permit for $35 per month with

[2:18:37] permits issued and renewed quarterly.

[2:18:40] The permit would allow employees to park

[2:18:41] beyond the posted 4hour time limit in

[2:18:44] designated city-owned downtown parking

[2:18:46] lots. The proposed $35 monthly fee is

[2:18:49] not intended to provide full cost

[2:18:51] recovery. The cost of service analysis

[2:18:53] prepared by Clear Source estimates the

[2:18:55] city's cost to [clears throat] issue and

[2:18:58] administer a permit at approximately

[2:19:00] $88.

[2:19:01] Compared with the proposed $35 permit

[2:19:03] fee, this represents approximately 40%

[2:19:06] cost recovery.

[2:19:07] staff believes the proposed $35 fee

[2:19:10] provides an appropriate balance that

[2:19:12] allows the city to recover a portion of

[2:19:14] the program's administrative cost while

[2:19:16] recognizing the importance of working

[2:19:18] with our downtown businesses and

[2:19:19] employees to provide an affordable

[2:19:21] long-term parking option. The intent of

[2:19:23] the program is uh not primarily to

[2:19:26] generate revenue, but to provide a

[2:19:27] parking management tool that supports

[2:19:29] the downtown workforce and helps better

[2:19:31] manage our available parking supply.

[2:19:34] Permit holders would also be able to use

[2:19:36] designated employee spaces on the upper

[2:19:38] level of the downtown parking structure.

[2:19:41] We plan to initially designate

[2:19:42] approximately 20 spaces in the

[2:19:44] structure. Staff will monitor

[2:19:46] utilization and can adjust the number or

[2:19:49] location of designated spac spaces as

[2:19:52] demand warrants. The permits would uh

[2:19:55] only be valid in designated off-

[2:19:57] streetet locations and would not be

[2:19:59] valid for on street parking. Initially,

[2:20:01] permits would be issued as hang tags

[2:20:03] with the intent to transition to a

[2:20:05] license plate-based virtual permit as

[2:20:07] the city's parking enforcement

[2:20:09] technology advances.

[2:20:11] An administrative coastal development

[2:20:13] permit is also required before we can

[2:20:15] implement the employee permit program.

[2:20:17] Once the coastal development permit is

[2:20:19] approved, staff will begin outreach to

[2:20:20] downtown businesses and employees and

[2:20:22] open the permit enrollment process. As

[2:20:25] the program gets underway, staff will

[2:20:27] continue to monitor permit demand,

[2:20:29] parking utilization, parking cost,

[2:20:31] program costs, and feedback from

[2:20:33] businesses and employees. Based on that

[2:20:36] experience, we can uh we can evaluate

[2:20:38] whether future adjustments to the permit

[2:20:40] fee, number of permits, or designated

[2:20:42] parking locations are appropriate.

[2:20:47] Uh civic engagement will be important

[2:20:49] part of successfully rolling out the

[2:20:51] downtown employee parking permit

[2:20:52] program. Prior to prior to

[2:20:54] implementation, staff will work closely

[2:20:56] with downtown stakeholders [snorts]

[2:20:58] to communicate directly with downtown

[2:21:00] businesses and employees. Our outreach

[2:21:02] will focus on explaining uh eligibility,

[2:21:05] where the permits can be used, the cost

[2:21:07] of the permit, and how employees can

[2:21:09] enroll in the program. As the program

[2:21:11] launches, staff will also be available

[2:21:13] to provide one-on-one assistance to

[2:21:15] businesses and employees to help with

[2:21:17] the application process, answer

[2:21:19] questions, and address any issues that

[2:21:21] come up. Our outreach will continue

[2:21:24] after implementation. Staff will gather

[2:21:26] feedback from businesses and employees

[2:21:28] and monitor permit participation and

[2:21:30] parking utilization and make any

[2:21:32] necessary modifications needed.

[2:21:36] Uh the recommendations for this item

[2:21:38] supports the uh strategic priority of

[2:21:40] infrastructure and economic vitality and

[2:21:42] development and the focus area of

[2:21:44] continue to maintain and improve the

[2:21:46] conditions of roads, water, storm

[2:21:48] drains, parks, municipal facilities and

[2:21:49] main street moves infrastructure.

[2:21:53] Uh so the recommendations before council

[2:21:55] tonight is A through D on the next two

[2:21:57] slides which is to conduct a public

[2:21:59] hearing introduce and wave the first

[2:22:01] reading of an ordinance amending Sanborn

[2:22:03] of Ventur Municipal Code section

[2:22:05] 16210.070

[2:22:07] and 16215.030

[2:22:10] adopt a resolution establishing a

[2:22:11] downtown employee employee parking

[2:22:13] permit fee and find that adopting the

[2:22:15] ordinance and resolution is exempt from

[2:22:17] the California Environmental Quality

[2:22:19] Act.

[2:22:20] And with that, we're available for any

[2:22:22] questions that you may have. Thank you.

[2:22:25] >> Thank you for your presentation. Um,

[2:22:28] Council Member Duran, I have you on

[2:22:30] quue.

[2:22:31] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor, and thank you

[2:22:32] very much, staff, for your um for your

[2:22:35] report tonight. A couple of quick

[2:22:37] questions. Um, so if I read this

[2:22:40] correctly, if they stay beyond 90

[2:22:41] minutes, then they pay uh there really

[2:22:44] is no free parking for 90 minutes. Is

[2:22:46] that correct? Do they stay for?

[2:22:47] >> Correct. The the current program um as

[2:22:50] we went to council in I believe it was

[2:22:52] April was to similar to the Ventura

[2:22:54] Harbor uh was the first 90 minutes is

[2:22:57] free as long as you stay for 90 minutes

[2:22:59] or less. Once you go over that 90

[2:23:01] minutes, then you pay for the first 90

[2:23:02] minutes.

[2:23:04] >> So you stay longer than 90 minutes.

[2:23:05] There is no free 90 minutes.

[2:23:07] >> Correct.

[2:23:11] » Okay.

[2:23:14] I don't know. It just okay does it just

[2:23:17] doesn't sound right. Um it just it

[2:23:21] doesn't sound right to me. Uh the other

[2:23:23] question I have for you is how many

[2:23:24] businesses and employees uh were

[2:23:26] surveyed before setting the $35 fee?

[2:23:30] >> We uh in the fall we had a a pretty

[2:23:32] robust uh downtown employee parking

[2:23:34] permit survey. So we didn't survey the

[2:23:37] fee necessarily, but what we got out of

[2:23:39] that was that employees were having

[2:23:41] issues with the recently converted lots

[2:23:43] over the four hours. And so in order to

[2:23:47] um work with the business community and

[2:23:49] the employees, we are working with this

[2:23:51] employee permit program to allow

[2:23:53] employees to obtain the permit if they

[2:23:55] would like to park in lots that are four

[2:23:57] hours and they could stay all day. One

[2:24:00] of the things from the surveys was that

[2:24:01] people were coming out midshift to have

[2:24:03] to move their cars um in order to uh

[2:24:06] stay close to their work. They could

[2:24:08] always park in in lots outside of the

[2:24:10] area where we have longer eight hour all

[2:24:11] day parking.

[2:24:13] I guess my concern with that is if

[2:24:15] you're making minimum wage and you're

[2:24:18] paying $420 a year in parking, that's

[2:24:20] kind of a substantial amount, you know.

[2:24:23] So, and if you said you haven't served

[2:24:26] any employers or employees, I um I know

[2:24:29] the $35 isn't recouping all the costs. I

[2:24:33] think you said I think the report's at

[2:24:34] 88 bucks or something like that. Um but

[2:24:36] still, that's a big hit for people that

[2:24:38] are making low income. And I'm just

[2:24:39] curious, how many downtown employees are

[2:24:42] expected to want permits and do we have

[2:24:44] enough spaces?

[2:24:45] >> We That's a great question. Um I asked

[2:24:49] I'm thinking these are going to be

[2:24:50] mostly service employees that come later

[2:24:52] in the day. Um we do have lots of

[2:24:55] businesses that start early in the

[2:24:58] morning and a lot of those employees and

[2:25:00] I know several of them come in in the

[2:25:01] morning and there's plenty of space

[2:25:02] spaces for them to to park in the eight

[2:25:04] hour lots. I really think it's going to

[2:25:07] be the the the restaurants, the movie

[2:25:10] theater, those types of businesses that

[2:25:11] will be interested in this permit. Um I

[2:25:14] estimated around 60. Um there's 240

[2:25:17] spaces in the downtown core with

[2:25:19] fourhour lots. Um I also looked at in

[2:25:22] talking to economic development um over

[2:25:26] um I think it was a two-month span we

[2:25:28] had 800 um individual parking um transa

[2:25:34] not transactions but people that came in

[2:25:35] that were able to identify they were parkers of those 800 there's

[2:25:40] about three 30% of businesses downtown

[2:25:42] according to the survey that are

[2:25:44] serviceorientated

[2:25:46] so I took that got 240 and then took

[2:25:49] about 25% % of those people wanting a

[2:25:51] permit. So that's how I ended up with

[2:25:53] 60. So that's that's the number that we

[2:25:55] went with as far as what we think we're

[2:25:57] going to be having, but it could be

[2:25:58] more, it could be less. Um, and just

[2:26:00] talking to people that I know downtown.

[2:26:03] Some people may not be interested in

[2:26:05] this. There's people that are just that

[2:26:06] already have their parking spot, they

[2:26:07] know where to go, they have the all day.

[2:26:09] Um, so it's going to be interesting to

[2:26:11] see how many people do and we will

[2:26:13] adjust the program ne as needed.

[2:26:15] >> Okay. Thank you so much.

[2:26:19] Thank you, Council Member Compos.

[2:26:22] >> So, Mr. Herford, I know that the parking

[2:26:26] issue has been something you've been

[2:26:27] working on for years. I I'm sure it's

[2:26:30] like having a child that's stuck in the

[2:26:33] terrible twos for 26 years. But these

[2:26:37] questions are important because we've

[2:26:39] been emailed by a lot of business owners

[2:26:42] and a lot of employees who are very

[2:26:46] concerned about this issue. Partly, as

[2:26:49] council member Duran said, they're on

[2:26:52] minimum wage income and they don't see

[2:26:54] being able to continue paying their rent

[2:26:56] and feeding their own children and

[2:26:58] paying $35 for parking. So, some of the

[2:27:03] business owners said to me on July 10th,

[2:27:08] they were told in an email or in written

[2:27:11] form

[2:27:13] that

[2:27:16] the business parking survey that was

[2:27:18] done will be incorporated while

[2:27:22] developing the program directly with

[2:27:24] interested stakeholders.

[2:27:26] None of them feel like they've had good

[2:27:28] outreach. the the interested

[2:27:31] stakeholders.

[2:27:33] So, a lot of their emails are asking to

[2:27:35] delay the

[2:27:38] um the coastal permit until you have

[2:27:41] some kind of engagement with them so

[2:27:44] that they can understand how they can

[2:27:45] best keep their employees

[2:27:48] working for them while doing this

[2:27:50] parking.

[2:27:51] >> Sure.

[2:27:53] >> My So, this permit is I I see this

[2:27:56] permit as sort of an interim permit. The

[2:27:58] real permit is going to come if we

[2:27:59] expand paid parking. If we expand paid

[2:28:01] parking in those lots, this permit will

[2:28:03] be it's going to be a big discussion

[2:28:05] about what the cost is because that'll

[2:28:07] also allow uh um employees to not pay

[2:28:10] the not pay the parking fee by hour. So,

[2:28:12] that's going to be the ultimate permit.

[2:28:14] This permit here is just to allow people

[2:28:17] that that want to have the choice to to

[2:28:19] park in an eight hour park in a four-h

[2:28:21] hour lot all day. That's the only thing

[2:28:23] this permit does. And

[2:28:25] >> so for employees that make enough money,

[2:28:28] they can have a permit. The others

[2:28:30] can't.

[2:28:31] >> They'll have to park in peripheral

[2:28:33] >> and they're doing that now. I mean,

[2:28:34] right now, people are juggling that,

[2:28:36] finding parking spaces. This is

[2:28:38] something that could be helpful for

[2:28:39] those people that do want to pay for

[2:28:40] that permit.

[2:28:41] >> Okay. Thank you for that. Also, I know

[2:28:45] that it wasn't a key thing in the

[2:28:47] agenda, but you did mention it at the

[2:28:49] beginning of the presentation, the

[2:28:52] 90minute parking.

[2:28:54] I I was the one who suggested that we go

[2:28:57] beyond 60 to 90 minutes. The reason for

[2:29:00] that is because of the layout of Main

[2:29:03] Street, 90 minutes will generally allow

[2:29:07] someone to go do some shopping and get a

[2:29:10] meal, but no one has any control about

[2:29:13] how slow a kitchen is or how bad the

[2:29:16] weight staff is on a certain day. So

[2:29:19] giving people the idea that they have 90

[2:29:21] minutes free and then taking it away is

[2:29:24] not a good way for us to operate. I

[2:29:27] think we can just raise the fee after 90

[2:29:31] minutes if we're trying to recover more

[2:29:34] money. Go from a dollar an hour to a$150

[2:29:37] an hour or whatever we have to do. But

[2:29:39] let everybody have the 90 minutes free.

[2:29:42] I would hope that you will consider that

[2:29:45] in the midst of preparing your your

[2:29:48] coastal permit.

[2:29:52] » Thank you, Deputy Mayor Halter.

[2:29:53] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you,

[2:29:54] staff. Um, let's see. Uh, going along

[2:29:57] the same lines, I know that we enacted

[2:29:59] the 90 minutes free already. Have we had

[2:30:01] any complaints about how about that

[2:30:04] program?

[2:30:06] >> The only um Thank you for the question.

[2:30:08] I haven't directly received other than

[2:30:12] just the comments about why can't the

[2:30:13] first 90 minutes be free free. Um the

[2:30:16] one thing I have heard is people not and

[2:30:18] we have this on our signs is not

[2:30:20] realizing they have to actually register

[2:30:22] their vehicle even if they think they're

[2:30:24] going to be here for half an hour.

[2:30:26] People still customers still need to go

[2:30:28] in and put their license plate in

[2:30:29] because that's the only way we can

[2:30:30] enforce. So, I think there's been a

[2:30:33] little confusion with that potentially,

[2:30:34] but on our signs, we do say when you

[2:30:36] arrive, enter your license plate. Um, so

[2:30:39] there could be some education component

[2:30:41] to that.

[2:30:42] >> And, uh, I sit on the DVP as a

[2:30:44] representative from council. And, uh, it

[2:30:46] was a big concern. I think they reached

[2:30:48] out to you if I'm not mistaken. Um, a

[2:30:50] big concern, a big discussion that, uh,

[2:30:53] would it happened to be the first day

[2:30:54] that we implemented the new meters and

[2:30:56] so it was already in force. But the

[2:30:58] question uh that I really couldn't

[2:31:01] answer is exactly what uh council member

[2:31:04] Compost said is that instead of

[2:31:06] backcharging for that 90 minutes, why

[2:31:09] didn't we just consider doing a$125 or

[2:31:11] something for the hours there

[2:31:12] thereafter? Um because it really does it

[2:31:16] doesn't look real honest.

[2:31:21] You know, I know the intent is but it

[2:31:23] just doesn't appear that way.

[2:31:26] So is it what was the thought process in

[2:31:28] doing it that way?

[2:31:28] >> Well, the actually the um that the idea

[2:31:32] of the 60 minute free was brought by

[2:31:34] PAC, the parking advisory committee.

[2:31:36] >> Oh,

[2:31:37] >> so that was brought by PAC and so in

[2:31:39] April I brought that to council and the

[2:31:41] motion at PAC was to do it how the

[2:31:44] harbor does it where just like the

[2:31:46] harbor they have the same scheme but

[2:31:47] they just do 60 minutes where um if you

[2:31:50] stay beyond 60 minutes you pay for the

[2:31:52] first 60 minutes. And so I think to be

[2:31:55] consistent with that and using that that

[2:31:58] idea that was brought forward from PAC

[2:32:01] to staff and then that was brought to

[2:32:03] council.

[2:32:04] >> And so uh tonight though this is about

[2:32:08] allowing for employee parking permit at

[2:32:11] $35 for the existing meters that exist.

[2:32:14] It's not about agreeing to expand paid

[2:32:16] parking at this point in time.

[2:32:17] >> Correct. This is just setting up the the

[2:32:19] it's three-fold. It's um to allow the

[2:32:22] public works director or designate to

[2:32:24] make time limit changes um in our

[2:32:26] downtown lots to clarify that also to

[2:32:29] set the framework up if council chooses

[2:32:31] to expand paid parking to allow for

[2:32:34] that. It's not expanding paid parking at

[2:32:36] this point. And then it's also to set

[2:32:37] the framework for the employee parking

[2:32:39] permit program.

[2:32:40] >> And one final question is that uh we've

[2:32:42] had many discussions about paid parking.

[2:32:45] how much we're on street off street in

[2:32:48] city-owned parking lots and uh I think

[2:32:52] part of the equation I I have heard the

[2:32:54] same thing when people they feel they

[2:32:56] didn't uh give input to this uh parking

[2:32:59] fee parking permit um but I'm wondering

[2:33:02] I think part of the equation is really

[2:33:04] about how far away would an employee

[2:33:07] have to park

[2:33:08] um uh in looking at the future what we

[2:33:13] might charge out there uh for them to

[2:33:15] get free parking.

[2:33:16] >> The the current vision of the expansion

[2:33:19] of paid parking has been shared with

[2:33:20] council was only to do the expansion in

[2:33:23] the downtown core. So basically from

[2:33:25] Poli down to uh Santa Clara and then

[2:33:28] [clears throat] from uh Fur over to uh

[2:33:31] Palm those those lots in there. So it's

[2:33:34] about and the and the existing downtown

[2:33:35] parking structure

[2:33:36] >> and the streets in that area as well.

[2:33:39] some meters

[2:33:40] >> uh not not to expand just we would keep

[2:33:43] the existing on street paid parking

[2:33:45] spaces not expand that um and it equals

[2:33:47] about a thousand new parking spaces that

[2:33:49] would be paid five about 500 in the

[2:33:52] existing downtown structure and then 500

[2:33:54] in those surface lots

[2:33:55] >> so if you're a business employee

[2:33:57] somewhere along Main Street and you want

[2:33:59] in free parking the way what we've

[2:34:01] already we discussed but we're going to

[2:34:03] discuss again before we expand it uh if

[2:34:05] we choose to do so is uh they have to

[2:34:08] walk beyond Santa Clara Street to get to

[2:34:10] free parking.

[2:34:11] >> That's correct.

[2:34:12] >> Okay. All right. Those are all my

[2:34:13] questions right now. Thanks.

[2:34:16] >> Thank you, Council Member Mcrenolds,

[2:34:17] followed by Council Member Schumacher.

[2:34:19] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, so

[2:34:24] regarding the 90 minutes, I still think

[2:34:26] we're doing it backwards. It should be

[2:34:28] first 90 minutes you pay and the second

[2:34:31] 90 minutes is free so that we encourage

[2:34:33] people to stay downtown. So, I just want

[2:34:35] to put that out that I think we're doing

[2:34:37] it backwards, but uh can we go to slide

[2:34:39] five because I want to focus in on the

[2:34:41] uh employee

[2:34:43] parking. So, so my first question

[2:34:47] is why does it cost $88 to do the fully

[2:34:52] uh burden cost recovery? The 88 was um

[2:34:55] based on what we worked with Clear

[2:34:57] Source on developing a fee. And so we

[2:35:01] estimated staff time. Um and we had a

[2:35:04] our parking

[2:35:07] we had two staff that would be working

[2:35:08] on this on this program. And so there

[2:35:11] was a a combined fee hourly fee for

[2:35:14] those two employees of $132

[2:35:17] um times 40 minutes basically. And so

[2:35:20] that's how we came up with the 88 $88.

[2:35:22] So, and then so it's and how many

[2:35:24] parking spaces are we reserving for

[2:35:26] employees? Potentially,

[2:35:27] >> the only the only spots that would be

[2:35:29] reserved for for these permits would be

[2:35:32] 20 spaces initially in the in the

[2:35:34] parking structure. The other spaces in

[2:35:37] the in the surface lots, they would just

[2:35:39] be they would remain regular timelmited

[2:35:41] parking spaces. Now, if you had a

[2:35:44] permit, you would be able to stay in a

[2:35:46] 4-hour lot for eight hours. How many of

[2:35:48] those 4hour permits do you think we're

[2:35:51] we would sell?

[2:35:52] >> I'm estimating about 60, but

[2:35:55] >> plus the 20 or just total of 60?

[2:35:58] >> 60 total permits is what I'm thinking

[2:36:00] we're going to end up sending out.

[2:36:03] >> So 60 total permits at $88

[2:36:06] a month multiplied by 12 months. So this

[2:36:10] program will cost $64,000 to administer

[2:36:13] annually is the

[2:36:14] >> that's the estimate. Yes.

[2:36:16] >> Okay. And that also include well there's

[2:36:19] also in there that we didn't include it

[2:36:20] but there's also enforcement that's

[2:36:22] going to be in there. So but yes that is

[2:36:24] the estimate we came up with. Okay. So

[2:36:26] then if we do 60 permits at $35

[2:36:31] uh times 12. So we're we're doing

[2:36:35] $25,000.

[2:36:38] So I buy one of those permits.

[2:36:40] What do I get

[2:36:43] for being part of this $25,000? So, let

[2:36:46] me give you a real world scenario. I

[2:36:48] work at CineArk.

[2:36:49] The last showing of Spider-Man starts

[2:36:51] tonight at 10:30 and it goes for two and

[2:36:54] a half hours. So, at 1:00 a.m. I'm

[2:36:57] walking out of CineArk. What do I get

[2:37:00] for my $35?

[2:37:01] >> So, and that's a great example that we

[2:37:04] have. I've actually talked to the movie

[2:37:05] theater. A lot of their employees park

[2:37:08] right behind the theater behind BFA.

[2:37:10] Now, that lot was an eight eight hour

[2:37:12] lot and when we converted that to 4

[2:37:15] hour, that disrupted a lot of the

[2:37:16] employees there. So, they mid break or

[2:37:19] during their break, they come out and

[2:37:20] move their car around just to avoid a

[2:37:23] ticket. And so, now with this hang,

[2:37:26] we're going to start with hang tags.

[2:37:27] They will be able to park in that 4-hour

[2:37:28] lot and and they would have a permit so

[2:37:31] they wouldn't have to be moving their

[2:37:33] vehicle mid shift. Their vehicle, they

[2:37:35] would be able to stay there for the

[2:37:36] their full shift.

[2:37:37] >> So, I I get that. I understand what you

[2:37:40] just said, but now I'm paying for

[2:37:42] something that I was even if I was

[2:37:44] willing to move my car midshift

[2:37:47] on it. So now I'm paying for something.

[2:37:49] Am I getting anything? What's what's my

[2:37:51] value ad? What's the bang for my buck?

[2:37:53] Am I getting security? Am I getting the

[2:37:56] parking structure clean? Like what are

[2:37:57] we doing with this $25,000

[2:38:01] besides filling out permit?

[2:38:04] >> Well, yeah. I mean, it's also

[2:38:06] enforcement and they also are gaining

[2:38:07] the ability to stay in that lot without

[2:38:09] having to move their car. So, they are

[2:38:11] avoiding a potential ticket.

[2:38:13] >> So, so but basically they can avoid that

[2:38:16] ticket by just moving their car mid

[2:38:18] shift. I I just

[2:38:18] >> they don't have to they and they do not

[2:38:20] have to get the permit. If they want to

[2:38:22] continue doing that, they can still do

[2:38:23] that.

[2:38:26] » I guess we're not incentivizing them to do that. Why wouldn't they just

[2:38:31] continue to do what they're doing today?

[2:38:34] I I just I'm questioning what's the

[2:38:35] value at to the employee? I mean, is it

[2:38:38] additional security? Is it, you know, I

[2:38:40] get the uh I clean, you know, we're

[2:38:43] going to clean out the uh parking

[2:38:45] structure, the top 20, you know, when I

[2:38:47] walk in. I don't have to smell urine

[2:38:48] when I walk into the stairwell. I mean,

[2:38:50] what what is the value ad? I guess

[2:38:52] >> the the money will go into the parking

[2:38:54] authority. Um and so there will be

[2:38:57] additional money there for additional

[2:38:58] programs which could include cleaning

[2:39:00] sidewalk security, those types of

[2:39:02] things. I I don't think you said that

[2:39:03] though. I think you said we're going to

[2:39:04] spend 25,000 just to we're actually

[2:39:07] going to spend $60,000

[2:39:09] to administer the program. So, we're not

[2:39:10] even recovering costs. I don't think

[2:39:12] we're we're adding any value. I guess

[2:39:14] that's that's where I struggle. If

[2:39:17] you're a downtown employee and I'm going

[2:39:19] to start charging you for something that

[2:39:20] you already have for free. I I just

[2:39:23] don't get why why aren't we increasing

[2:39:26] security? Why aren't we increasing

[2:39:28] cleanliness? I mean, uh, I I just don't

[2:39:32] Why don't I just do midshift back and

[2:39:34] forth?

[2:39:35] >> Uh, Council Member Mcrenolds, the way I

[2:39:37] see it is, and hopefully I answer your

[2:39:39] question, is that the value that the

[2:39:42] employees receiving is

[2:39:45] very simple is that they would normally

[2:39:48] park for four hours, move their car,

[2:39:51] maybe find another lot or on street, but

[2:39:53] probably have another four hours to have

[2:39:55] to deal with their car. The value is

[2:39:57] they don't with this permit they pay $35

[2:40:01] to not have to pay not have to move that

[2:40:04] car. They can stay there for eight

[2:40:05] hours. That's that's the value to the

[2:40:08] employee. And the challenge is is how

[2:40:10] many people will want to do that. Is

[2:40:12] that enough value to pay that amount of

[2:40:14] money? Um and uh some people may say

[2:40:18] that's great value. I don't want to have

[2:40:19] to move my car. other people may not

[2:40:21] want see that as a value and they're

[2:40:23] happy to move their car and they can do

[2:40:25] the uh 4hour shuffle as it's sometimes

[2:40:28] called.

[2:40:29] >> Um that that's one one part of I think

[2:40:32] what you're driving at. But the other

[2:40:33] part is what do we what are we doing the

[2:40:35] 25,000 the revenue that we receive for issuing these permits that will go

[2:40:41] into the parking authority and what it

[2:40:44] pays for is mostly our staff time. And I

[2:40:47] think one of the big things that is

[2:40:49] important to recognize with any permit

[2:40:51] program is there's a significant amount

[2:40:52] of staff time. You have to work with the

[2:40:55] public. We may even have at some point

[2:40:57] as the as these permit pro programs

[2:40:59] expand, we may actually need more

[2:41:01] employees because these are very time

[2:41:03] consuming to administer to work with the

[2:41:05] public put the permits out that kind of

[2:41:08] thing. So, I think that's where the

[2:41:10] $25,000 goes to is trying to be cost

[2:41:13] recoverable in portion, maybe 40% of

[2:41:16] what it costs us to admin administer the

[2:41:18] program. I I guess at the end of the

[2:41:21] day, my my final concern is to Council

[2:41:24] Member Duran's comment is if you're a

[2:41:26] minimum wage employee,

[2:41:29] I just don't see you getting one of

[2:41:30] these permits. I mean, I think your

[2:41:31] managers, your your assistant managers,

[2:41:34] you know, maybe they're going to spend

[2:41:35] the $420 so they don't have to do the

[2:41:37] midship shuffle, but if you're making

[2:41:39] minimum wage, I think, you know, I just

[2:41:41] I don't think we're solving an answer

[2:41:43] yet, you know.

[2:41:45] >> And I agree and that is the council's

[2:41:47] discretion actually to

[2:41:49] >> um actually set a different fee if

[2:41:51] you're if you as a group so desire. And

[2:41:53] also as we move to implement this in the

[2:41:56] future, remember tonight's agenda item

[2:41:58] is to make the municipal code changes uh

[2:42:02] and allow us to get to applying for a

[2:42:04] coastal development permit that then

[2:42:06] after that we go through the uh idea of

[2:42:08] imple implementing these various uh

[2:42:11] programs, expanded paid parking,

[2:42:13] employee paid parking, and at that time

[2:42:15] the city council can make a a policy

[2:42:18] decision on what you think the the

[2:42:20] actual dollar amount should be. We're

[2:42:21] proposing this today so we can get to

[2:42:23] the coastal commission.

[2:42:25] >> I have two other questions, but my time

[2:42:27] is up, so I'm going to let I'll come

[2:42:28] back. Yeah, thank you.

[2:42:29] >> Yeah, I'll come back to you. Thank you.

[2:42:30] Um, council member Schumacher, followed

[2:42:32] by council member Mangon.

[2:42:33] >> Thank you, mayor. Um, thank you, staff,

[2:42:35] for your presentation. Just very quick

[2:42:37] questions and kind of falls along with

[2:42:39] uh the council members who already asked

[2:42:42] these just um additionally

[2:42:45] um

[2:42:46] so just to be clear, this is an optin.

[2:42:49] Um, it's not required for everybody.

[2:42:52] These are just, you know, reserve spots.

[2:42:54] Is that just to confirm?

[2:42:56] >> Correct.

[2:42:57] >> Okay.

[2:42:57] >> Yes.

[2:42:58] >> Okay. And you're estimating that it's

[2:42:59] not for everybody. It's only for like 60

[2:43:02] people who work during the high traffic

[2:43:06] times. And you're estimating that is

[2:43:09] usually during the weekend and also

[2:43:11] during the night time.

[2:43:13] >> Correct.

[2:43:13] >> Okay. I I recommend that you work with

[2:43:16] the communications team to make sure

[2:43:18] that that is very clear and very

[2:43:21] explicit. Um and then uh so uh should

[2:43:24] this pass? Uh on the second part of this

[2:43:28] was it explored that um what about you

[2:43:30] know I go to certain places and there's

[2:43:32] always like these um you know validation

[2:43:34] like was there any um exploration on

[2:43:38] because here's what I here's what I'm

[2:43:40] concerned about. I let's just say

[2:43:42] someone parks at, you know, the the

[2:43:45] parking spot um and they get the 90

[2:43:48] minutes for free and then they don't

[2:43:50] even shop downtown. They, you know, go

[2:43:53] wherever they need to go and then just

[2:43:55] come back in the 90 minutes. What I'm

[2:43:56] trying to do is make sure the people are

[2:43:58] actually helping the businesses

[2:44:00] downtown. So, was that explored that,

[2:44:03] you know, we have validation for the

[2:44:06] certain places that are in the in the

[2:44:08] downtown area?

[2:44:09] We we have validations at the beach

[2:44:11] structure and it's a challenge and so in

[2:44:14] order to implement a validation program

[2:44:16] downtown it's it's a it's a very

[2:44:18] complicated system in order to work with

[2:44:20] floor our parking meters. There is a way

[2:44:23] to do it with our park mobile system

[2:44:25] that um we can hand out codes that is

[2:44:29] possible. It's

[2:44:30] >> and we we have explored that. In fact,

[2:44:33] we we made available several um I think

[2:44:36] a couple hundred codes for Park Mobile

[2:44:38] just for people to test it out.

[2:44:39] >> Yeah. Um so those types of programs we

[2:44:42] can support and do to do an overall um

[2:44:45] validation system very complicated to do

[2:44:48] and that's why I think the 90 minutes or

[2:44:49] 60 minutes free came up is it's it's an

[2:44:52] easier way to manage that type of

[2:44:53] >> I mean I think we can do both right

[2:44:54] where we can certainly have I mean a

[2:44:57] movie isn't like an hour and a half

[2:44:59] movies is like two hours three hours if

[2:45:01] you're watching a Zack a Zack Snider

[2:45:03] movie it's like just make sure that like

[2:45:05] we are emphasizing spend time there and

[2:45:08] don't rush I mean That's essentially why

[2:45:10] we're building it out, right? So, um I

[2:45:13] guess that's where I'm and I'm also

[2:45:15] having some concerns about this employee

[2:45:16] parking. I feel like the direction went

[2:45:19] in a totally kind of crazy way and and

[2:45:22] what I was hoping for is that um you

[2:45:25] know

[2:45:26] what I feel like I was hoping for us to

[2:45:28] be able to incentivize people wanting to

[2:45:31] work um and also invest in businesses in

[2:45:34] downtown. Not

[2:45:36] now this is how it's coming across

[2:45:38] friends. uh it's coming across that

[2:45:40] we're punishing these business

[2:45:41] businesses and we're punishing the

[2:45:42] workforce and so that is not the

[2:45:45] direction that I want to go with. I want

[2:45:46] to make sure that people want to, you

[2:45:49] know, essentially be part of downtown

[2:45:51] and what we're trying to build out

[2:45:52] there. So, um uh maybe more exploration

[2:45:56] in regards to um making it free in in a

[2:46:00] way that's more of a like a tiered

[2:46:02] approach. Um I don't know all the

[2:46:04] details of parking for God's sakes. I'm

[2:46:06] not in that industry, but um this is not

[2:46:09] what I was hoping for. So, thank you.

[2:46:13] >> Thank you, Council Member Mangon,

[2:46:14] followed by Council Member Comp.

[2:46:16] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for

[2:46:17] your presentation. Thank my colleagues.

[2:46:18] They asked a lot of the questions I had

[2:46:20] written down. I'd like to talk briefly

[2:46:23] about the

[2:46:25] council kind of piggyback on council

[2:46:26] member Compost's comments. There's a lot

[2:46:28] of confusion around what we're even

[2:46:30] discussing right now. Um tons of emails,

[2:46:33] several phone calls just today or the

[2:46:34] last 48 hours. Um, is it safe to say

[2:46:38] this is essentially a pilot program for

[2:46:40] when we implement expanded paid parking?

[2:46:44] >> Uh, council member Mang,

[2:46:48] in a way that in a way, yes. But I think

[2:46:51] what we really want to focus on tonight

[2:46:53] is that what we're what we've brought

[2:46:56] forward is municipal code changes that

[2:46:59] enable these things. So tonight we're

[2:47:01] really looking to just enable all these

[2:47:04] great ideas. Without this step, we we're

[2:47:07] back to step one or zero. So uh and and

[2:47:12] we want to get going on things like

[2:47:13] getting the coastal development permits

[2:47:14] because those can take uh six months to

[2:47:17] a year or longer sometimes. So it

[2:47:19] depends on, you know, now we're

[2:47:21] depending on a third party outside

[2:47:23] agency to that we have to work with to

[2:47:25] be able to get a permit to be able to

[2:47:27] implement any of these programs. So, I

[2:47:29] think I think we want to make sure we

[2:47:31] understand what we're doing tonight,

[2:47:32] which is enabling the programs. Um, and

[2:47:35] then we also want to make sure that the

[2:47:37] I'm sure, as you're aware, the council

[2:47:39] has full discretion over this and can

[2:47:41] direct staff to um uh implement in

[2:47:44] different ways or to come back with some

[2:47:46] alternatives uh when we get to the

[2:47:48] implementation phase. That'd be great.

[2:47:51] Um, and meanwhile, we are working with

[2:47:52] our comm's team uh with this already.

[2:47:55] So, I think we're trying to do those

[2:47:57] public outreach things. Um, clearly we

[2:47:59] want to step it up um as we've seen, but

[2:48:02] at the same time tonight, what we really

[2:48:04] want to focus on is um that we want to

[2:48:06] enable this and then we'll get to those

[2:48:08] implementation steps uh in the future.

[2:48:12] >> Okay. Thank you. I like you saying

[2:48:14] you're going to be working with the

[2:48:15] comm's team. I've spoken the last couple

[2:48:17] days with some of the most active

[2:48:19] business owners downtown um who others

[2:48:22] call on to get advice or direction and

[2:48:24] they're confused. They've been really

[2:48:27] confused about this whole implementing

[2:48:29] this whole new system. Everything from

[2:48:32] uh you know, secondary to what we're

[2:48:34] discussing tonight, but you know, the the the new system, the check-in

[2:48:39] process, how it's it's kind of mandatory

[2:48:41] regardless of your time spent downtown,

[2:48:42] you need to check in. That's not really

[2:48:44] understood. uh the 90 minutes free

[2:48:46] that's not really understood by the

[2:48:49] general public. I think there's a lot we

[2:48:51] can work on. Um and I think that's

[2:48:53] really going to come down to um just

[2:48:56] talking to the business owners down

[2:48:58] there and getting the comm's team down

[2:48:59] there to find out directly what the

[2:49:01] issues are. Um and uh I'm certainly you

[2:49:04] know we we've all heard them in the last

[2:49:07] couple days. But um there yeah there's a

[2:49:10] lot of there's a lot of problems and

[2:49:12] it's it's to me it's it's not a good

[2:49:15] first step because this is the f this is

[2:49:17] kind of the first step when the

[2:49:19] stakeholders downtown are really

[2:49:21] confused with what's going on. So um

[2:49:23] that's why I'm kind of like hesitant

[2:49:25] with this process. It's not the kind of

[2:49:26] the work that you guys are doing. So I

[2:49:28] want to avoid that at all cost moving

[2:49:29] forward.

[2:49:31] C

[2:49:31] >> can I just um Sure. We did u as far as

[2:49:35] outreach we you know we do the

[2:49:37] transportation division does a bike

[2:49:39] valet at 4th of July. We had the new

[2:49:42] meters downtown for the fourth for

[2:49:44] anyone attending fourth of July. So we

[2:49:46] had that and then we followed up with

[2:49:47] two other farmer market um outreach with

[2:49:50] the same meter there. So the last the three weeks leading up to um us

[2:49:56] releasing these new meters um we had

[2:49:59] active downtown

[2:50:01] um uh communication. I felt and so I

[2:50:04] felt like there was good understanding.

[2:50:05] I think it is there's still going to be

[2:50:07] a learning curve, but I don't want to

[2:50:08] minimize that we didn't go out and talk

[2:50:10] to the public because that is something

[2:50:12] we take pride in and we were out there

[2:50:13] for three weekends doing that just

[2:50:15] before the release.

[2:50:16] >> No. Yeah, understood. Yeah, I was not

[2:50:18] implying that.

[2:50:19] >> But I and I would say point well taken

[2:50:21] as we as we move forward. We're getting

[2:50:23] the coastal development permit. We're

[2:50:24] working through

[2:50:26] >> uh uh bringing items back to the city

[2:50:28] council for implementation. During those

[2:50:30] time periods, we can certainly and we

[2:50:32] will be doing a lot more public

[2:50:34] outreach. So, I think we're just at the

[2:50:35] beginning stage. We're doing these

[2:50:38] municipal code updates to enable things

[2:50:40] and uh clearly what we've seen in point

[2:50:42] well taken is that we can continue to

[2:50:45] really improve how we're doing our

[2:50:46] public outreach.

[2:50:47] >> Thank you.

[2:50:50] Council Member Compos.

[2:51:02] Fourth of July and Sergio and Joseph did

[2:51:05] a wonderful job of engaging with the

[2:51:07] public. And at the farmers market, they

[2:51:11] were doing a very good job of engaging

[2:51:13] with the public. The emails that we've

[2:51:16] been receiving and the phone calls that

[2:51:17] we've been receiving are from business

[2:51:20] owners who don't feel like they've had

[2:51:23] the engagement and they're the

[2:51:25] stakeholders that they believe were

[2:51:27] referred to in the July 10th email that

[2:51:32] they're the ones who were supposed to be

[2:51:34] reached out to and feel like they were

[2:51:36] not. it it's a very bad time for some of

[2:51:40] us because in six days we have the first

[2:51:43] Main Street moves meeting and we don't

[2:51:45] want that all tied up with parking. So

[2:51:48] it's very important that we find a way

[2:51:51] to have proper communication with the

[2:51:54] business owners and input from them.

[2:51:57] Another thing is um I believe when

[2:52:02] council member or deputy mayor Halter

[2:52:04] was questioning you responded that the

[2:52:07] lots from Santa Clara north are the ones

[2:52:11] that you've set a time limit in but

[2:52:14] there's a lot on south of Santa Clara

[2:52:17] between Santa Clara and Thompson that

[2:52:19] has a 4hour time limit.

[2:52:20] >> There is. Yes.

[2:52:22] >> So does that not fit into that space? I

[2:52:26] was I was um in response to council

[2:52:28] member Halter's question, I thought I

[2:52:30] was referring to where we were looking

[2:52:31] at doing the expansion of paid parking

[2:52:34] and that's where I was setting those

[2:52:35] boundaries. But yes, to acknowledge you,

[2:52:38] yes, there are four or four hour and

[2:52:40] eight hour lots south of Santa Clara.

[2:52:42] >> So, are there enough eight hour spaces

[2:52:44] for all the employees who cannot afford

[2:52:47] permits?

[2:52:49] >> Uh

[2:52:51] I I believe there is. Yes. I mean, as

[2:52:54] long as people are willing to walk a

[2:52:56] little bit, yes, there are free parking

[2:52:58] spaces and on the weekends, um,

[2:53:00] employees can park up here in city hall.

[2:53:03] There's plenty of space up here on the

[2:53:04] weekends where it fills up a little bit

[2:53:06] on the weekends.

[2:53:08] >> Um, so my final question

[2:53:13] [snorts] for me to vote on this and say

[2:53:14] yes, let's change the code. I want to

[2:53:18] know that you're going to do outreach

[2:53:22] before the coastal commission makes a

[2:53:24] decision.

[2:53:25] It maybe you can do the proc start the

[2:53:28] process and get it turned in, but reach

[2:53:31] out to all of the businesses and get

[2:53:33] your input and then promise me you'll

[2:53:36] come back to this body. You won't just

[2:53:38] make a decision before we've heard back

[2:53:41] and understand what you're doing.

[2:53:47] Thank you. Um, Council Member Mcrenolds.

[2:53:50] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, so my first

[2:53:53] question is, uh, two parts. What does

[2:53:56] Ventura Harbor do for their employees?

[2:53:58] And what does downtown Santa Barbara do

[2:54:00] for their employees?

[2:54:03] >> I I do downtown Santa Barbara. Um, we

[2:54:06] did a a peer review of other cities that

[2:54:09] do permits. We looked at St. Louis,

[2:54:10] Santa Barbara, and Pismo. And each of

[2:54:13] them do have a permit program. Varying

[2:54:15] costs. I mean, Santa Barbara, theirs

[2:54:18] were depending on what kind you can have

[2:54:20] different tiers of of how long you're

[2:54:22] able to park and what lots you can go

[2:54:23] into. And their permit is up to I think

[2:54:26] $280 a month. Um, and so all the way

[2:54:29] down to I think the minimum was 120,

[2:54:31] something like that. Pismo Beach was $35

[2:54:34] a year. Um, and then St. Louis was $60 a

[2:54:38] month, but it allowed employees to park

[2:54:40] in their their garage. Um, and then I

[2:54:44] think it was another additional fee if

[2:54:45] you wanted to park on street in certain

[2:54:47] designated spots on street.

[2:54:50] >> What about the

[2:54:50] >> downtown harbor? I'm not sure what they

[2:54:52] do for their employees. That's a good

[2:54:54] question. I um I don't know if they have

[2:54:57] a permit for their employees. I'm not

[2:54:58] sure. I think they they put them in

[2:55:00] other they have lots designated for

[2:55:02] employees that's outside of the core

[2:55:05] area. And so they have those designated

[2:55:07] employee lots is what I think is what

[2:55:09] they do.

[2:55:09] >> Okay. And so I just want to do some

[2:55:11] quick simple math.

[2:55:14] So you're telling me that this program

[2:55:17] cost $63,360

[2:55:20] a year to administer 88 $88 multiplied

[2:55:24] by 60 employees potentially. So we're

[2:55:28] raising $5,280 a month. 12 months we're

[2:55:32] raising $63,360.

[2:55:35] We're going to subsidize this. So, we're

[2:55:38] going to charge 88 uh we're going to

[2:55:40] charge $2,100

[2:55:42] is what we're going to earn and we're

[2:55:44] going to get $25,200.

[2:55:47] So, we're charging everybody $420

[2:55:49] annually to have this

[2:55:52] >> correct, but we are subsidizing it as

[2:55:54] the city $636.

[2:55:57] So, it's costing us more than double

[2:56:00] what we're collecting. I I just don't

[2:56:02] understand what we are trying to achieve

[2:56:05] by having this program.

[2:56:08] We're we're literally

[2:56:11] sub we're not even paying ourselves for this. I mean, we'd be better off to

[2:56:16] not do anything and we would save $636

[2:56:20] a per person.

[2:56:23] I I guess I I don't understand why why

[2:56:25] would we do that?

[2:56:28] Council member McDonald Reynolds, I

[2:56:30] guess I'll add that it was brought up

[2:56:32] that when the lots changed to 4-hour

[2:56:34] limits, we started hearing the public

[2:56:36] and business owners

[2:56:38] say that they were having trouble with

[2:56:40] employees parking in that time. So, this

[2:56:41] is really brought forth out of listening

[2:56:44] to our stakeholders downtown and hearing

[2:56:46] that they were having issues and they

[2:56:47] were struggling to find parking that

[2:56:50] they their employees can stay in. Um,

[2:56:52] but it's just a consideration and same

[2:56:54] with the amount $35.

[2:56:56] That was something that was uh discussed

[2:56:59] with staff, but is by no means you guys

[2:57:01] would have free reign to to adjust that

[2:57:03] if you want full cost recovery or to

[2:57:05] change that. It is really something that

[2:57:08] was brought forth out of a need that we

[2:57:10] are hearing from the public.

[2:57:12] >> But I I guess my question is if we did

[2:57:14] nothing,

[2:57:16] we would save $38,000 a year.

[2:57:19] >> Correct. Yeah. that based on the

[2:57:21] estimates and yes and that would be an

[2:57:25] option for council here tonight.

[2:57:28] >> Okay, thank you.

[2:57:31] >> Thank you for those questions. Um I

[2:57:34] think I'm uh yeah same puzzled. Um is it

[2:57:39] fair to say that um then what you're

[2:57:41] bringing before us is kind of a

[2:57:44] placeholder so that you can go to the

[2:57:46] coastal commission?

[2:57:48] >> Correct. We have had discussions with

[2:57:49] the coastal commission and we're having

[2:57:51] ongoing discussions with them and this

[2:57:53] is part of it um that we set the

[2:57:55] framework for a a permit program and

[2:57:58] that is written into our um the

[2:58:01] information we have provided uh to the

[2:58:03] coastal commission and we've also worked

[2:58:05] are working with them on the expansion

[2:58:07] to allow that um program as well.

[2:58:10] >> And you need to have a placeholder in

[2:58:12] order to be able to

[2:58:13] >> correct

[2:58:14] >> bring this forward. Um so

[2:58:18] shortly after presenting this or

[2:58:20] bringing this to the coastal commission

[2:58:21] then that's when you would engage

[2:58:23] business owners to talk about the fee

[2:58:27] for employee parking.

[2:58:28] >> Yeah. I mean what we'll continue to work

[2:58:30] with and clearly I'm getting direction

[2:58:32] to work with business owners now and so

[2:58:35] we can do that now as we start as we

[2:58:37] continue to work with uh coastal

[2:58:39] commission on this.

[2:58:40] >> Okay. And and mayor, as I might jump in,

[2:58:42] um, council member Compos, I think, was

[2:58:44] expressed a concern and direction that,

[2:58:47] uh, that we start to engage the business

[2:58:49] community now, not wait till we're at

[2:58:51] the end of our process with the coastal

[2:58:53] commission. And we we can do that,

[2:58:55] >> right? Yeah. Because I I think it feels

[2:58:58] backwards um to the business owners and

[2:59:02] community out there. And so I just want

[2:59:04] to make sure that while I understand

[2:59:06] that you have to have something to take

[2:59:08] to the coastal commission, um it just

[2:59:11] feels like that was done without the

[2:59:14] input that they were hoping to give.

[2:59:16] >> I mean I think you know again going back

[2:59:18] to the employee survey we did in the

[2:59:20] fall, the biggest thing we heard was the

[2:59:22] struggles they were having with

[2:59:23] four-hour lots, right?

[2:59:25] >> And so this was in response to that. As

[2:59:27] far as a fee, it's really tough to talk

[2:59:30] about a fee. No one's going to want to

[2:59:31] pay a fee. And so

[2:59:34] that that's going to be a discussion

[2:59:35] that we can have. But

[2:59:36] >> yeah,

[2:59:37] >> ultimately I believe it's going to be up

[2:59:38] to council what that fee would be,

[2:59:40] >> right? And but but I I think the Yeah, I understand that. It's just the the

[2:59:45] lack of conversation about the fee is

[2:59:48] what I think is kind of gotten people um

[2:59:52] upset about it and and just kind of not

[2:59:54] really understanding the process because

[2:59:57] we said one thing and we actually did

[2:59:59] something else. And so I think that's

[3:00:01] just kind of where um I think people are

[3:00:03] coming from and we want to make sure

[3:00:05] that that's understood um by by your

[3:00:09] team as well. Um for me going back to

[3:00:12] the 90 minutes um I'm I was also

[3:00:16] confused about that because um when it

[3:00:19] came to council I think we the intention

[3:00:22] was for us to make sure that there were

[3:00:24] 90 minutes free. um if at the 91st

[3:00:27] minute we're charging you retroactively

[3:00:31] that regressively that doesn't make

[3:00:34] sense. Um I've I've gone to other cities

[3:00:38] with other you know parking paid parking

[3:00:41] and it I don't think it works that way.

[3:00:43] So um I'm just I would like to see us do

[3:00:48] 90 minutes free and then start charging

[3:00:51] on the 91st minute. That's what I want

[3:00:53] to see.

[3:00:55] Um, and then

[3:00:59] yeah, I think those were my my points.

[3:01:03] Um, but I really appreciate the

[3:01:06] information and and the work that's been

[3:01:08] done this far. I just I think we need to

[3:01:10] clean up some some of the work and um

[3:01:13] make sure that people understand um

[3:01:16] where we're heading with this. And and

[3:01:17] again reiterating that the $35 fee is

[3:01:20] not a permanent fee. That that can

[3:01:22] change. that will change if that's not

[3:01:25] what people want so that folks don't

[3:01:28] feel like we're forcing them to a fee

[3:01:32] that they didn't agree to.

[3:01:35] If I might add that when we we look back

[3:01:38] at the council direction originally on

[3:01:41] the 90 minutes um and in that discussion

[3:01:44] we found uh in review of the council

[3:01:47] meeting that it was very briefly

[3:01:50] mentioned that we modeled this after the harbor and so I understand that we

[3:01:54] went from a 60-minute to a 90-minute but

[3:01:57] there was also that just quirk that we

[3:01:58] found that we're modeling it after the

[3:02:00] harbor. So we took our direction and and

[3:02:03] did that. Um, we can, again, this is

[3:02:05] within the city council's discretion.

[3:02:07] >> Um, we certainly can, um, modify the

[3:02:11] 90-minute free in the way council

[3:02:13] directs.

[3:02:14] >> And I just want to keep reiterating

[3:02:16] though for the for this evening, we want

[3:02:18] to make sure we do these municipal

[3:02:19] changes to enable these things and also

[3:02:22] just make sure that we're on a good

[3:02:24] legal foundation for when we move

[3:02:25] forward with any any uh uh fees that any

[3:02:29] of the fees we want to charge for any

[3:02:30] off streetet parking.

[3:02:31] >> Yeah. And I can understand that. I mean,

[3:02:33] I I think we we have many conversations

[3:02:36] up here that later on we're like, "Wait,

[3:02:37] what happened?"

[3:02:38] >> Um, but, uh, I I think those are some

[3:02:41] things that really need to be looked at

[3:02:42] and and changed and pivot so that we can

[3:02:46] gain the public's trust on this.

[3:02:48] >> Absolutely. If I could add one more

[3:02:51] thing, mayor, that tonight we' be

[3:02:54] bringing forth the change that would

[3:02:55] allow, you know, council to the council

[3:02:57] has come back to council to allow the

[3:02:59] off- streetet paid parking to be

[3:03:00] expanded. doesn't make any changes to

[3:03:02] that. But for regarding the employee

[3:03:05] permit program, it would allow staff

[3:03:08] pending a coastal development approval

[3:03:10] that we would be allowed to roll out

[3:03:12] this program. So, we could come back and

[3:03:14] change it and modify it and we we'd be

[3:03:16] happy to that we will definitely engage

[3:03:18] the stakeholders downtown and get their

[3:03:20] feedback. I think it says in the staff

[3:03:22] report that we'll, you know, continue

[3:03:24] stakeholder outreach, but it would allow

[3:03:26] us to roll out the program for the

[3:03:28] permits. It would not allow us to expand

[3:03:30] paid parking without coming back for

[3:03:31] prior approval. Just want to clarify

[3:03:33] that.

[3:03:33] >> Thank you for that.

[3:03:35] >> Did you have um Council Member Compos, I

[3:03:38] have your name still on the queue. Did

[3:03:39] you have comments?

[3:03:41] >> Just commenting on that. I think that

[3:03:44] because of the questions and problems of

[3:03:47] public trust right now regarding the

[3:03:49] permits, I think this council would

[3:03:52] prefer you bring it back to us, not just

[3:03:54] roll it out.

[3:03:56] >> Okay. Thank you,

[3:03:58] >> council member. As the public works

[3:04:00] director, I we will bring this back to

[3:04:02] you before we roll it out.

[3:04:03] >> Thank you.

[3:04:04] >> Absolutely,

[3:04:04] >> Mr. City Attorney.

[3:04:05] >> Mayor, I just would make the point that

[3:04:07] the employee parking could um and I

[3:04:10] understand where the council's going on

[3:04:12] that, but the first aspect of the

[3:04:13] parking lots um we would really uh

[3:04:16] benefit from having uh that portion of

[3:04:18] the ordinance read. if the council is

[3:04:20] inclined to um move that portion but not

[3:04:23] the employee parking, I can sort of talk

[3:04:25] the council through a motion there. The

[3:04:27] second point I just wanted to make was

[3:04:28] I've heard some of the council members

[3:04:30] concerns about the hours of parking and

[3:04:31] I believe the code actually um the

[3:04:34] council adopted an ordinance that

[3:04:36] provides the traffic engineers set the hours. So I think uh there's been

[3:04:41] some general uh general direction from

[3:04:44] individual individual council members,

[3:04:46] but the uh how that that divying is is

[3:04:50] not on the agenda. So that's not fair

[3:04:53] game for a motion. So I think the

[3:04:55] traffic engineer can receive the

[3:04:56] information and proceed accordingly. But

[3:04:58] also as to if the council isn't inclined

[3:05:01] to move with the staff recommendation,

[3:05:02] we'd suggest uh going with the parking

[3:05:04] lot ordinance and I can walk a parking

[3:05:06] lot portion of the ordinance. I can walk

[3:05:07] the council through that if needed.

[3:05:08] Okay, appreciate that. Thank you. I'm

[3:05:11] going to go ahead and take public

[3:05:12] comment at this time on this item. Do we

[3:05:14] have speakers?

[3:05:15] >> Thank you, mayor. We have six speakers

[3:05:17] on item 12. Our first speaker is Melissa

[3:05:19] Bates Wilder, followed by Spencer Norn.

[3:05:22] >> Hi, I'm Melissa Bates Wilder. I am the

[3:05:24] owner of Blue Crush. We're a co-work

[3:05:26] nursery school in downtown. We serve 48

[3:05:29] families every single day and 10

[3:05:31] teachers. parking for my teachers that

[3:05:33] make $50,000 a year. I would not make

[3:05:37] them park pay for it, but it would cost

[3:05:40] me $4,200

[3:05:42] a year, which is one month's rent for my

[3:05:45] building. It's also two months worth of

[3:05:48] daycare for a family. So, just thinking

[3:05:50] about me as a business owner, those are

[3:05:52] things that I'm not going to be able to

[3:05:54] afford. Um, and I'm coming to you with

[3:05:57] some questions. And before I get the

[3:06:00] questions, I want to give you a little

[3:06:01] background. I was at the Riviera Ridge

[3:06:03] School in Santa Barbara as their

[3:06:05] director of innovation. We needed 150

[3:06:07] parking spots for 13 days when we had

[3:06:10] school events. And we priced it out. It

[3:06:12] was going to be $3 million. We were

[3:06:14] raising $18 million for the school. And

[3:06:17] I said to everyone, hey, that's 16% of

[3:06:19] our budget. Let's do a costbenefit

[3:06:21] analysis on other things we can do. So,

[3:06:23] we went to people in the city and we

[3:06:26] found out we could rent 150 parking

[3:06:28] spots for $10 a day for 13 days. That

[3:06:32] cost us about 20,000. But then we would

[3:06:34] need to run a shuttle on those days.

[3:06:36] Those 13 days at 5 hours, $25 an hour,

[3:06:40] three drivers, that was another around

[3:06:42] 5,000. So, we could raise $3 million for

[3:06:45] a parking structure or we could pay

[3:06:47] $25,000 a year using parking in our

[3:06:50] other city and running shuttles. And I

[3:06:52] figured out for the school it would take

[3:06:55] us 120 years for that to equal each

[3:06:59] other. Right? By in 120 years we no

[3:07:02] longer need that parking structure. Cars are on the way out.

[3:07:06] Pedestrian cities are on the way in as

[3:07:08] well as shared used vehicles and cars.

[3:07:11] So I think I have three questions for

[3:07:13] city council. Do you need paid parking

[3:07:16] Monday through Friday 8 to 5? Don't we

[3:07:18] want to encourage people to come

[3:07:19] downtown during those hours? How does

[3:07:22] paying

[3:07:23] help that? And have we done an analysis

[3:07:25] of how many spots are actually available

[3:07:28] on the weekends when it's difficult to

[3:07:30] park? Have you thought about other

[3:07:32] parking areas that you could use

[3:07:33] shuttles from like Ventura High School,

[3:07:35] the mall, the college, the government

[3:07:36] center? And if we're on that like

[3:07:38] thinking, why don't we just increase the

[3:07:40] bus lines? The bus lines number six that

[3:07:43] comes from Midtown runs every 20 to 30

[3:07:46] minutes when Ohigh runs every 60

[3:07:48] minutes. Those are the only two that

[3:07:50] come into downtown. Everything else

[3:07:52] stops at the mall. You could increase

[3:07:54] bus line 11 and 21 and get them to come

[3:07:56] into downtown at staggered starts of

[3:07:58] every 8 to 10 minutes like Barcelona or

[3:08:03] MIT or Cambridge where Harvard is and

[3:08:06] people use the bus every single day.

[3:08:08] Then we don't have to worry about

[3:08:09] downtown parking pit permits that I

[3:08:11] can't afford, my staff can't afford, and

[3:08:13] minimum wage workers can't afford.

[3:08:15] Instead, we increase the buses. We get

[3:08:18] people downtown and we start thinking of

[3:08:20] downtown as a destination. Thank you,

[3:08:23] Spencer Norin, followed by Philip

[3:08:24] Fields.

[3:08:32] » Right on. Thank you, Michael. Good to

[3:08:34] see you, council. It's been a little bit

[3:08:36] of while here. Hope you enjoyed your

[3:08:37] summer break. Good to be in chamber

[3:08:40] staff at the Ventura Police Department

[3:08:42] here somewhere. And also translation in

[3:08:45] the back. appreciate you translate my

[3:08:46] words in Spanish. I've been a kind of a

[3:08:49] advocate against extended paid parking

[3:08:51] downtown and across our city. And when

[3:08:54] reading this agenda item, I think I

[3:08:56] would ask you as a council to separate

[3:08:58] the three topics. I'm seeing paid

[3:09:01] parking. I'm also seeing being allowed

[3:09:02] to charge for parking and then also

[3:09:06] employee. I think it's three different

[3:09:08] topics. Have we seen the discussion go

[3:09:10] through tonight? And I like council

[3:09:12] member Compo's recommendation of curbing

[3:09:14] these topics and coming back and talking

[3:09:16] about them individually. Um I just think

[3:09:20] there's differences with all of them.

[3:09:21] We've heard the council members talk

[3:09:23] about them. So as far as parking goes

[3:09:25] downtown, I'm still not in favor of it

[3:09:27] because we've heard of the lack of

[3:09:28] communication with business owners and

[3:09:31] other um ways we can approve. So bring

[3:09:33] it back through different ways and

[3:09:34] discussions and deny staff

[3:09:36] recommendation. Thank you.

[3:09:42] Philip Fields followed by Casey

[3:09:43] Rodriguez.

[3:09:53] If Ventura City

[3:09:57] was made only by employees,

[3:10:01] it be an ideal employee city.

[3:10:06] But the [clears throat] world doesn't

[3:10:08] move around only the employees.

[3:10:12] It moves around

[3:10:14] the people,

[3:10:17] the diverse block of people,

[3:10:21] the taxpayers.

[3:10:22] They're the ones that put your bill,

[3:10:25] your money, your wages. They're the ones

[3:10:28] that are [clears throat]

[3:10:30] carrying the brunt of the economic

[3:10:34] daytoday work in the red. No, in the

[3:10:39] black.

[3:10:42] And that's the one you got to serve.

[3:10:44] You're here to serve the people. You're

[3:10:46] not here to serve the bureaucrats. I'm

[3:10:48] sorry to say this.

[3:10:51] If I was a bureaucrat, it would make no

[3:10:54] difference. You don't serve the

[3:10:56] employees.

[3:10:58] You serve the people. That's why you're

[3:11:00] there sitting there in the dice

[3:11:04] in the das.

[3:11:07] And if you don't listen to the people

[3:11:11] and you try to have a tyranny of

[3:11:13] employees where you're lied, you're

[3:11:17] cheated, you're colluded, you're

[3:11:20] deceived,

[3:11:22] and where does the back stop? The city

[3:11:24] manager. What the hell are you doing,

[3:11:27] sir? You're not running a circus.

[3:11:31] You should be running a city.

[3:11:34] And here your employees, they deceive

[3:11:37] the council. They deceive us. This is a

[3:11:41] c a boss of circus.

[3:11:44] Please do your job. City manager and

[3:11:47] council.

[3:11:49] Do what you must do, but don't let the

[3:11:52] bureaucrats run over you, deceiving you,

[3:11:55] manipulating you, and in the end they

[3:11:58] collute the developer and the the

[3:12:01] employee.

[3:12:04] What's this? It's time to look for

[3:12:08] drastic solutions.

[3:12:13] Serve the people.

[3:12:16] If you cannot serve the people, then

[3:12:18] what are you doing there in the dasis?

[3:12:21] Serve the people. We the people.

[3:12:25] So

[3:12:27] we want to see actions. We want to see

[3:12:29] results.

[3:12:30] I take the bus day and night.

[3:12:35] I stopped driving my hybrid since the

[3:12:37] 1990s because of climate concerns. You

[3:12:41] can do the same.

[3:12:43] You certainly can.

[3:12:46] So, let's do it. What are you waiting

[3:12:49] for? Give us the solution. Serve the

[3:12:52] people with the people and for the

[3:12:54] people and of the people.

[3:12:55] >> Thank you.

[3:13:00] » Next speaker is Casey Rodriguez,

[3:13:01] followed by Debbie Fox.

[3:13:08] Once again, my own opinion. I oppose

[3:13:10] this item.

[3:13:12] I don't think people understand how many

[3:13:14] people living here are already living on

[3:13:17] a very tight budget.

[3:13:20] We really need to think of those people.

[3:13:22] They say $35. I don't think they

[3:13:25] understand

[3:13:26] the pressure of having to either pay for

[3:13:29] gas in our car to buy our medication to

[3:13:34] go grocery shopping.

[3:13:36] And the last thing anybody needs to do

[3:13:38] is worry about a ridiculous parking fee.

[3:13:41] especially those who are working very

[3:13:44] limited hours as it is.

[3:13:47] People should have the right to park

[3:13:49] downtown for free and enjoy downtown how

[3:13:52] they choose. Whether it's enjoying the

[3:13:55] beach, hiking the trails, enjoying the

[3:13:58] great museums, art to supporting a

[3:14:01] business with the money they will save

[3:14:03] for not paying a parking fee if this is

[3:14:06] about supporting downtown businesses.

[3:14:09] However, we must stop thinking of how to

[3:14:12] grab every single dollar from the

[3:14:14] people. That's what it seems like this

[3:14:17] whole night has been about. How to get

[3:14:19] more and more money. Why are we not

[3:14:22] talking about what we can do for the

[3:14:24] people, the ways that we can come up and

[3:14:26] serve the people instead of always

[3:14:29] talking about another dollar

[3:14:32] and how the people feel they are truly

[3:14:34] invited in this city to come downtown

[3:14:37] and enjoy how they choose. With the

[3:14:40] mentions of the harbor since the parking

[3:14:43] fee has started, I personally have seen

[3:14:46] their parking lot emptier. Seeing this,

[3:14:49] I think it is safe to say the businesses

[3:14:52] there are being negatively affected.

[3:14:56] Furthering free parking downtown will

[3:14:59] create an issue for many people with

[3:15:02] mobility issues, whether they are

[3:15:04] elderly or disabled.

[3:15:07] We can't just assume everybody has

[3:15:09] healthy bodies and have the ability to

[3:15:11] just walk a couple extra blocks. As a

[3:15:14] former Ark employee, I know how many

[3:15:17] participants enjoy coming downtown

[3:15:20] rather going to the movies, thrifting,

[3:15:23] or having a lunch at the park or beach.

[3:15:26] For many of them, their ark outings are

[3:15:29] the only outings they will adventure on

[3:15:31] during the week. Please don't make it

[3:15:34] more difficult.

[3:15:36] at some as some posts saying their

[3:15:39] opinion of Main Street being empty. This

[3:15:41] parking fee will keep more people away.

[3:15:44] Are we thinking of those who are paying

[3:15:46] to live here or are we thinking of out

[3:15:48] in the town tourists? As we mentioned

[3:15:51] about Main Street moves when the final

[3:15:55] uh survey for the final vote of closing,

[3:15:57] I asked for a shuttle for those who are

[3:15:59] disabled and elderly so they can have

[3:16:02] access to enjoy downtown. There's more

[3:16:05] that we can say, but I think you get the

[3:16:07] vibe from everyone here. It's a no.

[3:16:10] >> Debbie Fox, followed by Lynn Arnell

[3:16:12] Brown.

[3:16:18] » Hi.

[3:16:20] Super interesting. Okay, [clears throat]

[3:16:23] first of all, the 90 minutes free that's

[3:16:26] like offering financing and then when

[3:16:29] you get to the like if financing for

[3:16:31] free for 6 months and when you get to 6

[3:16:33] months in one day you're whacked with

[3:16:36] 33% interest for that whole time. That's

[3:16:39] what 90 minutes free and then getting to

[3:16:41] 91. So that's my opinion on that. The

[3:16:44] survey you asked if they didn't want to

[3:16:47] move their car. Of course they're going

[3:16:49] to not want to move their car. You

[3:16:51] didn't ask them if they wanted to pay.

[3:16:53] If they were willing to pay. How much

[3:16:55] are you willing to pay to not move your

[3:16:57] car?

[3:16:59] Employees would rather move their car

[3:17:01] midshift than pay for this.

[3:17:05] They're being paid. They're not clocking

[3:17:07] out. The employers are paying for that.

[3:17:09] And then the employees are going to move

[3:17:11] their car. One solution is to take the lots that are a problem and split

[3:17:16] them like you've split the parking

[3:17:18] structure. That's a free solution. At

[3:17:20] the other hand, I loved what Bill said

[3:17:23] where we are spending $64,000

[3:17:27] to make $25,000.

[3:17:30] What business world are you guys living

[3:17:34] in? I'm so happy to hear that you guys

[3:17:37] are saying, "No, we shouldn't do this."

[3:17:40] No, let's talk to the stakeholders, see

[3:17:43] how many people are interested, and then

[3:17:45] we'll approve this. Because let me tell

[3:17:48] you, I found out about this meeting this

[3:17:50] morning and it spread and people had no

[3:17:53] idea. They had no idea. No one could

[3:17:55] plan. No one knows about this.

[3:18:00] Oh, how much are the parking permits for

[3:18:03] city employees? What are they paying?

[3:18:09] And to Bill's point, providing some

[3:18:12] value, the parking structure, most of

[3:18:14] it's half empty most of the time, except

[3:18:16] those key times. And so, no one parks on

[3:18:20] the roof in the sun. Everyone's parking

[3:18:22] in the shade. So, we're providing value

[3:18:25] by asking them to go and park in the

[3:18:27] sun.

[3:18:31] Uh, what are we going to do with the

[3:18:32] money that we get? Well, the parking

[3:18:34] authority used to be I was on the

[3:18:35] parking authority and it used to be

[3:18:37] making money and then what happened is

[3:18:39] that we closed Main Street. We lost the

[3:18:41] most profitable meters and so now we're

[3:18:44] deeply in the in the red. So what's

[3:18:46] happening to that 25,000 which is really

[3:18:49] negative 38,000 is it's going into that

[3:18:52] black hole

[3:18:58] at a time. This is the pre-written part.

[3:19:00] At a time when downtown businesses are

[3:19:02] facing economic challenges, the city

[3:19:05] should be looking for ways to support

[3:19:07] them. We should be reducing barriers to

[3:19:11] doing business downtown, not creating

[3:19:14] new ones.

[3:19:16] Please vote no until you've done a

[3:19:20] thorough

[3:19:22] talking to the business owners.

[3:19:23] >> Thank you.

[3:19:26] Next speaker is Lynn Arnell Brown,

[3:19:28] followed by our final speaker, Nirvana.

[3:19:34] » Hello again. I wasn't even planning on

[3:19:36] talking about this until I heard uh the

[3:19:39] bureaucratic cost of employee permits

[3:19:43] boggles my mind. Did anybody just think

[3:19:47] of finding out how many employees work

[3:19:50] in each of the businesses? do an honor

[3:19:54] system asking those business owners, how

[3:19:56] many permits would you need? And then

[3:19:59] just print out a decal that can be put

[3:20:03] on their windshield that lasts a year.

[3:20:06] Nobody would be out $88 a month permit.

[3:20:12] Don't even worry about permits. Do an

[3:20:15] honor system. Maybe that's simplistic,

[3:20:18] but it sure seems cheaper. And I thought

[3:20:21] the city needed to save money, not spend

[3:20:24] it. And as far as the 90minute parking,

[3:20:27] if it's free, it should be free. There

[3:20:31] should not be any retroactive payment.

[3:20:35] Thank you.

[3:20:37] >> And our final speaker is Nirvana.

[3:20:48] Greetings, mayor, council members.

[3:20:54] Um, I have a couple of questions.

[3:20:58] The first one is, does this include

[3:21:02] the the the park public parking at Santa

[3:21:06] Clara and Palm and does it include

[3:21:10] the the the parking lot at Figuroa and

[3:21:13] Palm outside of the tavern?

[3:21:18] That's a question.

[3:21:21] Don't have an answer. These are all

[3:21:23] public parking spaces, public lots.

[3:21:27] Okay, that that's my question to you

[3:21:28] guys because I don't think that the peop

[3:21:31] that that the patrons at the tavern

[3:21:34] would appreciate having to pay to go,

[3:21:37] you know, to park outside their

[3:21:41] place of eery and and where they drink

[3:21:44] or whatever.

[3:21:46] And um

[3:21:48] also I'd like to talk about the

[3:21:51] residents that live on Main Street and

[3:21:55] around Main Street.

[3:21:58] How about let's get some permits for

[3:22:00] them?

[3:22:03] And I'm talking to everybody. I'm

[3:22:04] talking the entire city council

[3:22:07] and these guys, too,

[3:22:10] because I know people that live on Main

[3:22:13] Street that can't find parking. They

[3:22:15] have to go park way away from their

[3:22:17] where they live. And I know one woman

[3:22:20] personally

[3:22:23] that lives around uh Oak and Main

[3:22:26] Street, right off Main Street, I think

[3:22:28] between Oak and Paulie

[3:22:31] or I mean Maine and Paulie. She had to

[3:22:33] completely get rid of her car because

[3:22:35] she couldn't find parking.

[3:22:40] So, I I would suggest if we're going to

[3:22:42] give permits to people for parking,

[3:22:45] let's give it to the residents in the

[3:22:48] downtown area, let's create

[3:22:51] some residential parking permits for

[3:22:54] these residents that live in the

[3:22:56] downtown area.

[3:22:59] Thank you,

[3:23:01] mayor. That concludes public comment on

[3:23:03] item 12.

[3:23:04] >> Thank you, and thank you to everyone who

[3:23:06] spoke tonight on this item. Um, I'll

[3:23:08] bring it back to council for final

[3:23:10] questions um before closing the public

[3:23:13] hearing.

[3:23:14] >> Any additional [clears throat] questions

[3:23:16] from my colleagues?

[3:23:19] >> Council member Mc Reynolds, followed by

[3:23:20] Council Member Durant.

[3:23:22] >> Um, one of the public speakers brought

[3:23:24] up the idea of uh a parking pass for

[3:23:27] residents. You know, I'm just picking a

[3:23:30] number like $100 a year, $200 a year,

[3:23:32] whatever. Is that something that we

[3:23:34] could consider where it just resolves?

[3:23:37] >> We we currently we do have a residential

[3:23:39] parking permit program in a downtown. If

[3:23:41] you live on a street where there's

[3:23:43] >> No, no. I'm talking about like me on the

[3:23:44] east end. Oh,

[3:23:45] >> I just I want to come downtown every

[3:23:48] Wednesday for dinner and I just want to

[3:23:49] buy a not I don't want to deal with the

[3:23:52] you know, can I just reg pre-register my

[3:23:55] vehicle

[3:23:56] and just park?

[3:23:59] >> Sure, that is definitely an option to

[3:24:00] do. We can bring something forward like

[3:24:02] that as a residential citywide uh

[3:24:05] parking permit program. Yes, we can do

[3:24:07] something like that.

[3:24:08] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[3:24:10] >> Thank you, Council Member Durant.

[3:24:12] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, based on

[3:24:14] what we've discussed already and all the

[3:24:15] questions that we've asked tonight,

[3:24:16] where where are we? What exactly do you

[3:24:18] need from us? because it doesn't sound

[3:24:19] like um the um employee parking is is a

[3:24:24] I mean I [clears throat] I personally

[3:24:27] when we didn't ask any of the other

[3:24:29] businesses would they pay I I think does

[3:24:32] it make sense? Um so so is that are we

[3:24:36] are you just going to bring that back?

[3:24:38] Is that something you could do?

[3:24:40] If if I may, Council Member Duran, um I

[3:24:44] might have a question for the city

[3:24:46] attorney on the best way to go about

[3:24:47] that if council was to exclude um

[3:24:52] recommendation C tonight on the to adopt

[3:24:56] a resolution establishing a downtown

[3:24:58] employee parking permit fee, but move

[3:25:01] forward with recommendation B

[3:25:03] establishing the ordinance. staff could

[3:25:05] move forward to coastal commission

[3:25:07] establish the framework but it could not

[3:25:09] be implemented because there'd be no fee

[3:25:12] by resolution from council.

[3:25:14] So that would be an option if you choose

[3:25:16] to establish the framework start the

[3:25:19] coastal commission process and require

[3:25:21] staff to come back after further

[3:25:23] outreach has has occurred um and and

[3:25:25] more thought has been put into this then

[3:25:26] that would be a way to go about it.

[3:25:28] >> Okay. So, so the plan is possibly to

[3:25:33] have an employee parking fee. Is that

[3:25:36] what that So, that's still the plan.

[3:25:38] >> So, so I think what uh uh Mr. Roberts

[3:25:41] was saying to not adopt the fee?

[3:25:43] >> Not adopt that. Okay.

[3:25:44] >> Just just approve the municipal code

[3:25:46] changes to allow it and then we could

[3:25:48] come back.

[3:25:48] >> Awesome.

[3:25:49] >> With some more information on that.

[3:25:50] >> And so when you say you're going to come

[3:25:51] back for some more with some more

[3:25:53] information, you're going to do a a

[3:25:54] study. You're going to ask business

[3:25:56] owners and employees. I would further

[3:25:59] add to that, council member Duran, that

[3:26:01] again that we would come back to the

[3:26:03] city council for uh implementation

[3:26:06] direction direction from the city

[3:26:08] council to direct the program that would

[3:26:10] include what the fee would be. In the

[3:26:12] meantime, as I've committed to council

[3:26:14] member Compost, that we would do public

[3:26:16] outreach, including reaching out as much

[3:26:19] as we can with the business owners.

[3:26:21] >> I public out public outreach is awesome.

[3:26:24] >> Yeah. But public outreach is not

[3:26:26] necessarily what we're looking for.

[3:26:28] business owners and

[3:26:29] employees. I I it does public is

[3:26:32] >> I said public outreach, but I meant

[3:26:34] specifically more with the business

[3:26:36] owners.

[3:26:36] >> Right.

[3:26:37] >> What point? Well taken.

[3:26:38] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[3:26:41] >> Thank you, Council Member Mcyns,

[3:26:42] followed by Council Member Schumacher.

[3:26:44] >> So, I I have a little bit of an issue if

[3:26:46] we're not taking a fee forward on the

[3:26:48] employee program. So, we're going to

[3:26:50] tell the Coastal Commission. I I feel

[3:26:53] like well, let me back. I feel like

[3:26:55] there's an opportunity for a bait and

[3:26:56] switch here. So, we know the fully

[3:26:58] burdened cost is $88 a month.

[3:27:01] We're going to but we're going to not

[3:27:02] say that and then we're going to say

[3:27:04] we're going to take it to 35, but then

[3:27:07] in the back of our mind, we always know

[3:27:09] that it should be $88. You know, why

[3:27:12] wouldn't we want the Coastal Commission

[3:27:13] to weigh in on the fully burdened fee

[3:27:16] versus the subsidy?

[3:27:18] like Council Member Mc Reynolds, that is

[3:27:21] a possibility. That could be a direction

[3:27:22] from the city council. Uh might make

[3:27:25] more sense with the um coastal

[3:27:28] commission and they get the full fee,

[3:27:30] the $88, and then um that would not

[3:27:34] preclude us from charging less later at

[3:27:37] your direction, at your policy that you

[3:27:40] would make on what we would ultimately

[3:27:41] charge for a employee permit.

[3:27:44] >> Yeah, I'm still choking on the fact that

[3:27:46] we would spend

[3:27:48] 64,000 to make 25. So that still doesn't

[3:27:52] quite make sense to me, but I I just as

[3:27:54] we we're just debating this, that's

[3:27:56] where I'm at. Thank you.

[3:27:58] >> Thank you for those comments. Um,

[3:27:59] Council Member Schumacher, followed by

[3:28:01] Deputy Mayor Halter.

[3:28:02] >> Thank you, Mayor. I um

[3:28:05] I'm just not This is a question for for

[3:28:07] you all, too. Um, well, maybe not. I I I

[3:28:10] don't feel comfortable moving forward

[3:28:12] with this at all. Um, I just don't think

[3:28:15] that it's it's packaged well and this

[3:28:18] ordinance is missing the most important

[3:28:20] really crucial part of it and that is

[3:28:22] the the public's voice. And so I don't

[3:28:24] necessarily know I know we're not at

[3:28:26] deliberations and I was going to ask a

[3:28:28] question but I just wanted to make sure

[3:28:29] that that that comment was out there. Um

[3:28:32] because honestly if there's something if

[3:28:35] we're going to piece this out but you

[3:28:37] all presented it as a whole the whole

[3:28:39] thing just doesn't seem right to me. Um,

[3:28:42] so I guess I lost my question in that

[3:28:44] comment, but I I just can't I can't I

[3:28:47] can't support this.

[3:28:48] >> If you get the question back, I can come

[3:28:50] back to you, [laughter] Deputy Mayor

[3:28:52] Halter.

[3:28:53] >> Great. Thank you. Um, okay. So again,

[3:28:55] tonight it's really about looking at

[3:28:57] municipal code and and uh allowing a

[3:29:02] path forward in the future that may

[3:29:05] consider expanding parking and may

[3:29:08] consider having an employee parking fee.

[3:29:12] Um it's not saying we're going to do it.

[3:29:14] just gives us a tool as we move

[3:29:16] forward whether it's now or five years

[3:29:18] from now that it broadens the municipal

[3:29:21] code. Right.

[3:29:22] >> That's correct. And also the time limit

[3:29:24] changes

[3:29:25] >> and the

[3:29:25] >> the time limit it allows our public

[3:29:27] works director or designate to change

[3:29:29] time limit changes in parking lots.

[3:29:31] >> Okay. Yes. Okay. Uh and would th those

[3:29:34] ch those time limit changes happen with

[3:29:36] council approval would they just happen?

[3:29:38] >> They would with this municipal code

[3:29:41] change um the it would not it would be

[3:29:43] administratively. So if we felt a lot

[3:29:46] needed to go from 4 hour to eight hour

[3:29:48] or eight hour to four hour, then we can

[3:29:50] make that change um administratively,

[3:29:52] but it [clears throat] could also be at

[3:29:53] council's direction as well. So it does

[3:29:55] for both.

[3:29:56] >> I just want to make sure that it's with

[3:29:57] some input on what those changes might

[3:30:00] want to be. Okay. And now you're talking

[3:30:02] about um about um making time changes

[3:30:08] and then we're also allowing the

[3:30:10] potential for paid parking to expand.

[3:30:14] um and we're allowing for the potential

[3:30:17] to have uh employee um permits. It's not

[3:30:21] saying we're going to do any of those.

[3:30:23] It just broadens the ability to do

[3:30:26] whatever the future be holds. And I

[3:30:29] assume all that I don't imagine whether

[3:30:31] it's this council or the next council or

[3:30:32] the one after that that anybody would

[3:30:35] make a decision without having the input

[3:30:37] from the business owners and the

[3:30:39] employees, especially the public. But I

[3:30:42] think I have that right. So it's it's

[3:30:44] really about municipal go because right

[3:30:45] now if we said yes if everyone was in

[3:30:47] agreement and say yeah let's go ahead

[3:30:49] and do this parking permit and do that

[3:30:50] it's still going to take what the

[3:30:51] coastal commission I don't think they do

[3:30:52] anything less than a year year and a

[3:30:54] half right I mean you're talking getting

[3:30:58] something in in place so it could be a

[3:31:01] tool that we could use right and I think

[3:31:03] it would take like a year or so wouldn't

[3:31:04] it

[3:31:05] >> correct yes

[3:31:06] >> yeah so nothing can happen without that

[3:31:08] so it's just a starting point it's put

[3:31:10] it's filling your toolbox with things to

[3:31:12] discuss when that time's appropriate.

[3:31:14] And I would agree with council member Mc

[3:31:15] Reynolds that I would share with the

[3:31:18] coastal commission what the true costs

[3:31:21] would be. Uh and then it's it's kind of

[3:31:24] out there that whether again this

[3:31:26] whatever council it is that makes that

[3:31:28] decision with the support of the public

[3:31:32] um that we're not automatically assuming

[3:31:34] we're going to subsidize the program.

[3:31:36] You know, that's what I'll do. That's

[3:31:37] how I'm looking at it.

[3:31:40] >> Council member Duran. Um, thank you,

[3:31:42] Madam Mayor. By, by the way, I want to

[3:31:44] let you know I use the uh the app for

[3:31:46] parking and I absolutely love it. I

[3:31:48] think it's awesome. So, it wasn't all

[3:31:51] bad tonight. So, thank you. I do want to

[3:31:54] know what authority does council lose

[3:31:56] tonight, like if if we were to approve

[3:31:58] any of this, um what parking decisions

[3:32:01] can staff make without bringing it back

[3:32:02] to us?

[3:32:03] >> The the only thing that it would um

[3:32:06] allow administratively is the time limit

[3:32:08] changes.

[3:32:09] >> Okay. which

[3:32:11] on spaces we do 24-minute zones, we do

[3:32:14] red curb. So those are the kind of

[3:32:15] things and also inside parking lots.

[3:32:17] >> So this is a clarification. So we have

[3:32:20] done those historically. Yeah.

[3:32:22] >> Now

[3:32:23] >> big changes where we're if we do change

[3:32:25] a hu a lot to four hour this that would

[3:32:28] be something that we would inform

[3:32:29] council on.

[3:32:30] >> Perfect.

[3:32:30] >> But this this really allows us to do

[3:32:32] some of the smaller stuff that we've

[3:32:33] done historically and really clarifies

[3:32:35] that.

[3:32:36] >> Thank you. Thanks so much. Thank you

[3:32:37] madam mayor. Thank you. Um, if there

[3:32:40] aren't any other questions from

[3:32:42] colleagues, I'll go ahead and close the

[3:32:44] hearing now. Um, and we'll enter council

[3:32:47] deliberations. So, if anybody wants to

[3:32:50] start that or make a motion, I am here

[3:32:53] for it.

[3:32:55] Council member Mangon.

[3:32:57] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have to agree

[3:32:58] with my colleague, Council Member

[3:32:59] Schumacher. I think I feel like we're

[3:33:02] starting off with a process that's

[3:33:03] confusing. It's unpopular. There's

[3:33:05] really no guarantee that any business

[3:33:07] owner or employee is going to even

[3:33:09] participate to get us through a process

[3:33:12] so we can eventually expand paid

[3:33:14] parking, which is even more unpopular

[3:33:18] concept. So, uh, for that reason, I I

[3:33:21] just can't I can't support it at this

[3:33:22] time.

[3:33:25] >> Council member Schumacher,

[3:33:27] >> I just want to um add to what I had

[3:33:30] stated. Um, you know, our target really

[3:33:33] is to help the businesses in downtown.

[3:33:37] That's we're not here to make money from

[3:33:40] the parking. It's really to assist in

[3:33:43] assuring that the, you know, there's

[3:33:45] enough traffic flow so there's more

[3:33:47] customers to be able to pump more money

[3:33:48] into the businesses downtown. That's the

[3:33:50] focus, right? for us to be able to have

[3:33:54] challenges that um increases the access

[3:33:58] for our workforce and the residents and

[3:34:00] the people trying to do that. It just

[3:34:03] makes it just doesn't make any sense. So

[3:34:06] I I understand that you all want

[3:34:09] something for us to move forward and but

[3:34:12] then you know I I have lost confidence

[3:34:15] if you're bringing something that's not

[3:34:17] fully formed and to me when you bring

[3:34:21] something to this council it has to also

[3:34:24] be in in my mind um with the with the

[3:34:29] support of the community and if you

[3:34:31] haven't done the work in trying to make

[3:34:33] sure that you're hearing the voices from

[3:34:35] the community. Um, then that's something

[3:34:38] that really we should really look into

[3:34:41] how we're doing our process because what

[3:34:43] we're trying to do is we're mo we're

[3:34:45] trying to motivate the right behavior.

[3:34:47] And if we're trying to motivate that

[3:34:49] people don't want to come to downtown,

[3:34:52] this is the way that we do it. We want

[3:34:54] to motivate the right behavior to ensure

[3:34:57] that people stay longer. People want to

[3:35:00] make sure that they spend money in

[3:35:01] downtown and that we create something

[3:35:03] downtown that is successful.

[3:35:05] This is not it. And I'm I'm sorry. I

[3:35:08] mean, I think um you know, there's still

[3:35:10] a lot more work that this needs to be

[3:35:12] fleshed out alongside with what we

[3:35:15] really want to make sure to have is that

[3:35:17] public voices.

[3:35:21] » Thank you, Council Member Mcrenolds. It

[3:35:23] was on anymore.

[3:35:26] >> Okay. Um Deputy Mayor Halter, followed

[3:35:29] by Council Member Duran.

[3:35:30] >> Great. Thank you. Okay. Uh this has been

[3:35:33] a long uh I mean I think I've been on

[3:35:35] council six years and we've been

[3:35:37] discussing parking downtown for the

[3:35:38] entire six years and and before. Uh this

[3:35:41] is not a new topic. This is something

[3:35:43] that has been circulated through

[3:35:45] downtown and across the city for many

[3:35:48] years. And uh still yet tonight it's not

[3:35:52] about making paid parking expanded

[3:35:55] beyond where it's at now. It's really

[3:35:58] not about even um employee parking

[3:36:00] permits. It's about giving a tool to

[3:36:04] future councils or this one probably

[3:36:06] future to make changes in the parking

[3:36:09] arrangement because it's really not and

[3:36:11] it's not about revenue generation. It's

[3:36:14] about managing parking

[3:36:17] because I remember the days you don't

[3:36:18] want me to go there but I remember days

[3:36:21] where all of us had our employees

[3:36:23] parking right on Main Street. That's

[3:36:25] what we did. and then they were switch

[3:36:27] and park across the street during, you

[3:36:29] know, half shift, you know, whatever

[3:36:31] they needed to do. So anyway, so I look

[3:36:33] at this and I think, you know, whether

[3:36:36] it's halfbaked or not, it's it's the

[3:36:39] fact that we have to consider the tools

[3:36:41] to create the most vibrant downtown

[3:36:43] possible. We all want that same goal. We

[3:36:46] all want people to be encouraged to come

[3:36:48] to downtown. And I just don't see how

[3:36:51] limiting the tools that

[3:36:55] um you know that are available to us to

[3:36:58] create the most vibrant downtown

[3:37:01] uh helps us get there. It's not like

[3:37:03] we're sitting here tonight saying we're

[3:37:05] going to expand paid parking. It's just

[3:37:06] giving us that option and it's giving us

[3:37:09] that option with the vote uh of the

[3:37:11] council uh and thus elected officials

[3:37:15] listening to the public and what we see

[3:37:17] happening out there. I think from an

[3:37:18] economic standpoint, we're in I know as

[3:37:21] a small business, I feel we're in a very

[3:37:24] precarious situation right now because

[3:37:27] while Wall Street, I think, is

[3:37:28] absolutely betrayed, small businesses,

[3:37:30] the backbone of this country. Um the

[3:37:33] fact is is that small businesses are

[3:37:35] hurting right now. The economy is not as

[3:37:38] good as people think it is by watching

[3:37:40] Wall Street make more and more billions

[3:37:42] of dollars. So, it's a really strange

[3:37:44] situation that's going on. And so it's

[3:37:48] really something where we need to work

[3:37:50] together on what how we use these tools.

[3:37:53] But waiting another year or two years or

[3:37:55] five years to get the approval to create

[3:37:58] the tools, I don't think is the answer.

[3:38:00] I think the answer is to to approve a

[3:38:03] municipal code change that allows for

[3:38:05] these tools to be available when and if

[3:38:07] we choose to make those decisions. and

[3:38:09] making sure that decision has to come

[3:38:10] back to council for a decision whether

[3:38:13] it's changing the hours, whether it's

[3:38:15] inc having a employee permit or whether

[3:38:18] it is uh expanding parking and then

[3:38:21] we'll make that decision together as a

[3:38:23] community. That's how I see it.

[3:38:27] >> Thank you, Council Member Durant.

[3:38:29] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. And

[3:38:31] um Deputy Mayor Halter, I I I totally

[3:38:34] understand what you're saying.

[3:38:35] Absolutely. I think um one of the things

[3:38:38] we really have to look at though, do we

[3:38:40] want to spend time? Do we want to spend

[3:38:43] time and money uh doing a a survey on

[3:38:48] something we already know nobody wants

[3:38:50] to do? You know what I mean? Like we we

[3:38:53] there's not one employee that's going to

[3:38:54] want us, oh yeah, I'll do that. As far

[3:38:57] as I know. As far as I know. And I don't

[3:38:58] know how many business owners are going

[3:39:00] to say, well, I want to pay for my

[3:39:01] employees. just cuz I mean we our

[3:39:04] downtown isn't isn't doing as great as

[3:39:07] they could right now, right? For

[3:39:08] whatever reason. Um so I would just say

[3:39:12] I don't even know if we should put that

[3:39:13] on the table at all. I mean I it just

[3:39:15] doesn't make sense to me. I really

[3:39:17] appreciate your comment about why don't

[3:39:19] you just issue everybody a permit that

[3:39:21] works down there that works down there

[3:39:22] and then they get an opportunity to park

[3:39:24] wherever they want. I that's something

[3:39:25] that probably needs to to get worked

[3:39:27] out. But um I hear what you're saying,

[3:39:31] council member or um Deputy Mayor

[3:39:33] Halter. I hear what you're saying in

[3:39:34] regards to we do need we do need to move

[3:39:37] forward in order to be able to do future

[3:39:39] stuff. I get it. I just think we need to

[3:39:41] take the employee permit thing maybe off

[3:39:43] the table

[3:39:45] because I just don't does it make sense

[3:39:47] to spend our resources on that. My

[3:39:49] thoughts.

[3:39:51] >> Thank you, Council Member Mcrenolds.

[3:39:56] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, can we go to

[3:39:58] slide three?

[3:40:01] And I think we should just understand

[3:40:02] the three items in front of us tonight.

[3:40:06] Go back one more. There we go. Okay.

[3:40:10] What does this change do? Like, break it

[3:40:12] down for me like I'm a fifth grader.

[3:40:16] >> Go ahead.

[3:40:18] What [clears throat] What does the uh

[3:40:19] Sorry, I thought we were um What do

[3:40:22] these three actions do? So, the

[3:40:23] >> Let's just This one

[3:40:25] >> the the city lot. This bas this allows

[3:40:28] administratively to uh for the the

[3:40:30] director of public works or designate to

[3:40:32] change uh time limits in parking lots.

[3:40:35] And

[3:40:35] >> so tell me what happens if we don't do

[3:40:37] this.

[3:40:38] >> Then anytime we want to change a a time

[3:40:40] in a parking lot, we'd have to come to

[3:40:41] city council

[3:40:43] >> and what's and and what's the pros and

[3:40:46] cons?

[3:40:48] >> Uh I think the the flexibility for us to

[3:40:51] do that. Um it also theoretically if we

[3:40:55] um wanted to make maybe someone comes to

[3:40:57] us that has needs a 24minute uh parking

[3:40:59] zone or something like that, those kind

[3:41:01] of changes as well. Um it just allows us

[3:41:04] more flexibility to make those changes.

[3:41:05] >> Okay. Do you believe this is uh this change solely is a pro or con for

[3:41:12] the business community?

[3:41:13] >> I think um and this also does expand

[3:41:15] into outside of downtown. It also

[3:41:18] >> just the business community in general

[3:41:19] >> and sometimes the business community

[3:41:21] wants us to change those. For example,

[3:41:23] in the Midtown, um we had uh RVs parking

[3:41:26] in the lots. We had criminal activity

[3:41:29] and so we were able to go to a 4-hour

[3:41:31] lot there.

[3:41:32] >> Okay.

[3:41:32] >> So again, do you believe that this

[3:41:34] benefits the business community? This

[3:41:35] change only this change, yes or no?

[3:41:38] >> Yes.

[3:41:38] >> Okay. Can we go to the next slide?

[3:41:43] » What does this do? So, this allows the

[3:41:46] uh the city count this allows us to

[3:41:48] charge for parking in uh city- owned

[3:41:50] parking lots and we this just sets up

[3:41:54] the framework for it. And when I say we,

[3:41:56] I mean city council. This would be a

[3:41:58] city council authorized

[3:42:00] um situation later. This just sets up

[3:42:03] the framework for that. And it also

[3:42:04] helps us with our um coastal development

[3:42:07] permit.

[3:42:08] >> Okay. And so I think you I wrote it

[3:42:10] down. No one wants to pay a fee. So, but

[3:42:14] so that this falls under that category.

[3:42:17] >> So, this allows the potential to charge

[3:42:19] a fee,

[3:42:20] >> correct?

[3:42:20] >> That we are not charging today.

[3:42:22] >> Correct.

[3:42:22] >> That we don't have authority to charge.

[3:42:26] >> Correct. In the downtown. Correct.

[3:42:28] >> Got it. Okay. And then the next one,

[3:42:32] what does this do?

[3:42:33] >> This set this sets the framework for the

[3:42:36] employee parking permit program as well.

[3:42:39] um and allows us to issue uh hang tags

[3:42:43] for employees that choose to u

[3:42:46] participate in this program so that they

[3:42:49] u may use that hang tag to park in a

[3:42:51] 4-hour lot and stay for eight hours or

[3:42:53] more.

[3:42:54] >> Okay,

[3:42:55] >> last question. uh is the 90 minutes uh

[3:43:01] with the regressive back to minute one.

[3:43:05] Uh if you go to 91 minutes, how is that

[3:43:07] resolved in this?

[3:43:10] >> That's not in any of these three

[3:43:11] municipal codes. That would be a change

[3:43:13] that can be made. Um

[3:43:18] could be council directed. I don't know

[3:43:19] if it could be directed at this

[3:43:20] >> direct question to the city attorney

[3:43:21] then. That's not on the table tonight

[3:43:24] based on the item before us.

[3:43:28] Sorry, the what question is not on the

[3:43:30] table?

[3:43:30] >> The 90 minutes, the regressive.

[3:43:32] >> It's not on the table for the council.

[3:43:34] Correct.

[3:43:34] >> We cannot discuss that.

[3:43:36] >> It's not subject for a vote. I think

[3:43:37] that I the council can be informed, but

[3:43:39] it wouldn't be the subject of a motion.

[3:43:41] >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[3:43:46] » Okay. Thank you for those questions um

[3:43:48] and comments. Um I don't see any other

[3:43:52] uh comments from colleagues at this

[3:43:54] time. I do need a motion um for this

[3:43:58] item.

[3:44:00] Council member Mcrenolds,

[3:44:03] >> uh could we do a straw vote in terms of

[3:44:06] the three items and see where council is

[3:44:10] and take each one up individually?

[3:44:13] >> Mayor, I think by show of hands, not

[3:44:14] secret ballot, but by show of hands, I

[3:44:16] think you could definitely do that.

[3:44:18] >> Okay.

[3:44:19] >> Is that something you'd be open to?

[3:44:20] >> Yeah, I'm I'm open to that. That's fine.

[3:44:22] So, if I So, my if we go back to slide

[3:44:25] three,

[3:44:27] understanding what staff said in terms

[3:44:30] of giving staff the ability to set

[3:44:33] parking hours in parking lots, is this

[3:44:36] council in favor, you know, with a straw

[3:44:37] vote? Yes or no would be my my question.

[3:44:40] >> Can I just have a clarifying question?

[3:44:42] >> I mean, yeah.

[3:44:43] >> In regards to the time limit, is that

[3:44:45] Sorry. Okay. Okay. Um, in regards to the

[3:44:48] time limit, does that mean the hours or

[3:44:50] does that mean the 90 minutes?

[3:44:54] >> It would refer to the hours. Typically,

[3:44:56] our lots are either all day or 4 hour.

[3:44:58] >> Okay.

[3:44:58] >> I think the city attorney clarified that

[3:44:59] we can't talk about the

[3:45:00] >> talk about the 90 minutes.

[3:45:03] >> Or add it to the motion.

[3:45:05] >> So, are we in favor of bringing this

[3:45:07] forward? And mayor, to be clear, this is

[3:45:10] just sort of a straw poll. The clerk

[3:45:11] won't be taking a role on these.

[3:45:13] >> Okay. Thank you,

[3:45:15] >> Deputy Mayor.

[3:45:15] >> Yeah. I just want to say is that just to

[3:45:17] be clear that um my my straw vote is uh related to creating the toolbox

[3:45:25] >> and and not knowing how what the economy

[3:45:28] would be like when and if these changes

[3:45:31] are going to be made whether it's a year

[3:45:32] or two years from now or five years from

[3:45:34] now. I'm just my vote is about is all

[3:45:36] about creating that toolbox.

[3:45:38] >> Right. And my understanding is this only

[3:45:40] is regarding time limits in parking

[3:45:42] lots. So there's no

[3:45:43] >> it's literally what's on the screen

[3:45:44] right now. Okay. So, do we need thumb?

[3:45:47] Do you are you taking

[3:45:49] >> thumbs up? Looks like unanimous thumbs

[3:45:52] up.

[3:45:53] >> So, then let's go to

[3:45:54] >> on these items.

[3:45:54] >> Slide four. Yeah.

[3:45:58] » Okay. So, this modifies so that we can

[3:46:00] start charging parking in the parking

[3:46:02] lots. So, obviously based on the number

[3:46:04] of hours, everything like that would

[3:46:05] change here. But this is an actual

[3:46:08] economic,

[3:46:09] >> you know, who's in favor of making this

[3:46:11] forward

[3:46:12] >> to the council or to the coastal

[3:46:13] commission, I guess. So, just for

[3:46:15] clarity, when you decide you want to

[3:46:17] change, uh, you bring that back to us,

[3:46:20] correct?

[3:46:20] >> For sure. Yes. This would definitely

[3:46:22] come back to council if we were to

[3:46:24] expand paid parking.

[3:46:28] » Okay.

[3:46:29] >> Do we have any

[3:46:31] So, four, three.

[3:46:32] >> Okay. And then the last one is the

[3:46:34] employee uh parking program.

[3:46:39] » Again, this would just create the

[3:46:40] framework. doesn't set a set set it up

[3:46:42] uh on it. And so I guess my question to

[3:46:45] the colleagues is are we in favor of

[3:46:46] this?

[3:46:47] >> Right.

[3:46:48] >> So, okay,

[3:46:51] Mayor, I and I don't know if Council

[3:46:53] Member Mcfrenolds is done. When he's

[3:46:55] done, I might be able to try to read a

[3:46:57] motion together for you.

[3:46:58] >> Yes, that would be great.

[3:46:59] >> I think that's that's

[3:47:00] >> that's the intent.

[3:47:01] >> Yes. [laughter]

[3:47:02] Thanks, M. So, and and just to be clear,

[3:47:04] these were just some slides. There was a

[3:47:05] staff recommendation in the staff

[3:47:07] report. So, I want to track that um and

[3:47:09] sort of just explain how that's going to

[3:47:11] be modified for the clerks of the

[3:47:12] council also um because we are re doing

[3:47:15] first reading of an ordinance. So, I

[3:47:16] need to be uh be clear what we're doing

[3:47:19] here. So, first thing is is that there

[3:47:22] are just to sort of set the table for

[3:47:24] the council. There are two code sections

[3:47:25] that staff proposed amending. One was

[3:47:27] employee parking, one was not. One was

[3:47:30] relating to parking lots, one was

[3:47:31] relating to employee parking. So the

[3:47:33] employee parking portion, I understand

[3:47:36] it, mayor, for council member McMill's

[3:47:38] motion is not going to be uh part of the

[3:47:41] ordinance. That's completely separate

[3:47:43] from the parking lot section. So that's

[3:47:45] first point. Uh second point is the

[3:47:47] employee parking permit fee uh was going

[3:47:50] to be proposed to be established by

[3:47:52] resolution. If employee parking is not

[3:47:54] on the table, I presume there's no need

[3:47:55] to establish the fee. Um, the other

[3:47:58] thing just to make clear to the council,

[3:48:00] the uh parking lots that still would

[3:48:03] have to go through uh the administrative

[3:48:05] coastal development permit. So even

[3:48:07] though it's a a slim down ordinance, uh

[3:48:09] staff would still need to um do the

[3:48:11] ACDP. So just to be clear for the

[3:48:13] council. So what um the recommendation

[3:48:17] would now be um if I understand council

[3:48:19] member Mcrenold's motion is conduct

[3:48:20] first reading of the ordinance only as

[3:48:23] to 16.210.0.

[3:48:26] 070 of the municipal code, not

[3:48:30] 16.215.030

[3:48:33] of the municipal code. So basically that

[3:48:35] would be the ordinance

[3:48:37] that's presented but deleting

[3:48:42] section two and then the remainder of

[3:48:45] the ordinance um would be uh given first

[3:48:48] reading.

[3:48:50] No resolution and with the sequel

[3:48:51] finding in the staff recommendation.

[3:48:54] >> That sounds about right.

[3:48:58] Okay.

[3:48:59] >> Do you want to go

[3:49:01] >> to Mayor's

[3:49:08] Apologize? Uh to Deputy Mayor Halter's

[3:49:11] point, I still think we need to continue

[3:49:13] refining the employee permit program, do

[3:49:15] the engagement, do all of that. You

[3:49:17] know, I think to Council Member

[3:49:19] Compost's point, as the Main Street

[3:49:22] Moves Committee starts meeting, this is

[3:49:24] not something that they're going to be

[3:49:25] taking up. this is something that would

[3:49:27] continue on but you know so it's

[3:49:29] direction to staff to continue refining

[3:49:32] this employee uh program and then

[3:49:34] secondarily for future consideration I

[3:49:37] think we'd like to see the the 90minute

[3:49:39] parking uh item brought back to us uh on

[3:49:43] it so and I don't know if anybody else

[3:49:45] has

[3:49:46] >> would that include pack on some level

[3:49:50] >> I I apologize I didn't I didn't hear you

[3:49:52] >> uh your recommendation would that

[3:49:54] include or the engagement Would that

[3:49:56] include PAC as well? The parking

[3:49:57] authority?

[3:49:58] >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Yeah, the parking.

[3:50:01] Yes. Yeah, we we have that commission

[3:50:02] for a reason and

[3:50:04] >> we absolutely want them to provide input

[3:50:06] and uh direction to us.

[3:50:08] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Council Member

[3:50:10] Duran,

[3:50:11] >> thank you. Just for clarity on your

[3:50:13] motion, um on your recommendations for

[3:50:15] that motion. So when you said um bring

[3:50:18] back employee parking

[3:50:22] if we bring it back as is or if they

[3:50:25] study as is it makes no sense. You said

[3:50:27] that. So right so completely.

[3:50:29] >> Okay.

[3:50:31] >> Thank you.

[3:50:32] >> Deputy Mayor Halter.

[3:50:33] >> Great. Thank you. Uh I just um I'm

[3:50:36] liking the direction that we're going. I

[3:50:37] just want to make sure though that I got

[3:50:39] to say it because the part that I'm very

[3:50:41] uncomfortable with is that uh given the

[3:50:44] last 40 years and the fact that on

[3:50:46] average it takes 12 to 20 years to get

[3:50:48] any project approved in this city, this

[3:50:51] may work. All right, just know that not

[3:50:54] doing it today and waiting a year or

[3:50:56] waiting two years, you're adding a year

[3:50:57] to two years to any time period before

[3:51:00] you could do anything. So uh we've

[3:51:02] entered a cycle in the world in the

[3:51:05] state in our city where things will

[3:51:07] happen quicker whether we like it or

[3:51:09] not. The state is forcing that on us

[3:51:11] because of the problems that we created

[3:51:12] by taking 12 and 20 years to get

[3:51:15] projects approved. So if we decide we

[3:51:18] see projects happen, buildings uh

[3:51:21] change, uh people investing, and we

[3:51:23] bring jobs back to our city, we may want

[3:51:26] these tools and we may want them fast.

[3:51:28] If you want to wait the years it's going

[3:51:30] to take to get these things approved,

[3:51:32] then let's limit the toolbox. You know,

[3:51:34] I think it's full hearty quite frankly,

[3:51:36] but I am liking the fact that about 80%

[3:51:38] of what I would do, I think it's looking

[3:51:40] like we might approve.

[3:51:42] >> Thank you. Um, Council Member Durant.

[3:51:45] >> So, I'm in agreement with with your

[3:51:47] motion, but I just have a question in

[3:51:48] regards to bringing back uh this to

[3:51:51] Javon. If uh to bring this 90day thing

[3:51:54] back, doesn't that have to be 90

[3:51:56] minutes? Sorry. in in 90 days. Bring it

[3:51:59] back. Uh, doesn't this have to be a um

[3:52:03] an addition to agenda item at the end of

[3:52:07] our meeting? Do we have to do that or

[3:52:08] can we request them to bring that back?

[3:52:10] >> You can do that right here as part of

[3:52:11] the motion.

[3:52:12] >> Then I second.

[3:52:13] >> Okay. And and just so for the council, I

[3:52:16] just want to ask council member

[3:52:17] Mcrenolds just to be clear. So, it's the

[3:52:19] refined motion minus the employee

[3:52:21] parking. What uh what I'd read into the

[3:52:23] record direct staff to continue uh

[3:52:26] refining the employee parking program

[3:52:28] and then direct staff to bring back the

[3:52:30] 90minute uh parking program to and

[3:52:33] through the parking advisory committee

[3:52:34] to the council.

[3:52:36] >> I I guess I'd really just want everybody

[3:52:38] to piggyback on council member

[3:52:39] Schumacher's comments in terms of the

[3:52:41] community

[3:52:42] >> parking authority.

[3:52:43] >> The Yeah. Well, not only the parking

[3:52:44] authority, but the outreach to the the

[3:52:46] community and everything like that. I

[3:52:47] think council member Schumacher brought

[3:52:49] up a lot of really good points. So,

[3:52:50] >> community meaning business.

[3:52:51] >> Yeah, exactly.

[3:52:52] >> Folks in downtown.

[3:52:54] >> Mayor, uh, Council Member Compost.

[3:52:56] >> Yes. I think that critical to the

[3:53:00] employee parking is not just community

[3:53:03] engagement, but engagement with the

[3:53:05] business owners and employees that needs

[3:53:08] to be included into this to get my vote.

[3:53:12] And so, mayor, I just so for council

[3:53:14] member Reynolds, so just for staff and

[3:53:16] for the for the record, what is the the

[3:53:19] direction to staff on bringing back the

[3:53:21] 90minute program? So, parking advisory

[3:53:23] committee to and through the council and

[3:53:24] then what else specifically? Uh, so the

[3:53:27] clerk has it in there.

[3:53:30] I would recommend we get this on as

[3:53:32] quickly as as possible only because it

[3:53:35] just deceptive the 93 minutes and I

[3:53:38] think we really need to we need to move

[3:53:40] as quickly as possible. Yeah.

[3:53:43] >> Yes.

[3:53:44] >> Council member Duran may ask a

[3:53:46] clarification.

[3:53:47] If your direction is to bring it back as

[3:53:49] soon as possible, do you still want it

[3:53:51] to go to the parking advisory committee

[3:53:53] or are you talking about bringing it

[3:53:54] back as soon as possible, meaning it

[3:53:57] would bypass them for their opinion?

[3:54:00] >> Well, I mean, I guess we should go

[3:54:01] through the proper process. So, you

[3:54:03] know, as soon as you can through that

[3:54:06] process.

[3:54:06] >> Yeah. Thank you for asking that

[3:54:08] question.

[3:54:08] >> Yeah.

[3:54:10] >> Okay. So, if we are clear on what we're

[3:54:13] voting on, um, does anyone need any

[3:54:18] repetition of what we're voting on? If

[3:54:20] not, I'll go ahead and call for the vote

[3:54:22] because we do have a motion in a second.

[3:54:27] » Thank you, mayor. You can go ahead and

[3:54:28] enter your vote now on item number 12.

[3:54:34] All votes have been entered.

[3:54:38] Seven eyes and the motion carries.

[3:54:40] >> Thank you. And thank you staff really

[3:54:42] for the work and the flexibility and our

[3:54:45] my colleagues as well. Thank you for the

[3:54:48] motion. Um at this point, does anybody

[3:54:50] need a break? Yes. Okay, we're going to

[3:54:52] go ahead and take a um 10-minut break.

[3:54:57] Oh.

[4:13:55] if I could have my colleagues come back.

[4:14:01] If I can get all of my colleagues back,

[4:14:03] that'd be great.

[4:14:10] So we can resume our meeting. Thank you

[4:14:13] everyone.

[4:14:17] » That was a much needed break.

[4:14:25] Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to our

[4:14:28] formal items. Item number 13

[4:14:31] is to amend the compensation of the city

[4:14:34] manager's employment agreement and adopt

[4:14:36] a revised salary resolution for

[4:14:38] unrepresented employees.

[4:14:40] The city council met in close session in

[4:14:43] July to discuss the city manager's job

[4:14:45] performance. Following that discussion,

[4:14:47] Deputy Mayor Halter and I were

[4:14:49] designated by the city council to

[4:14:50] negotiate any potential modifications to

[4:14:53] the city manager's employment agreement.

[4:14:55] We received input from the entire city

[4:14:57] council regarding a potential

[4:14:59] compensation increase and subsequently

[4:15:01] met with the city manager in accordance

[4:15:04] with government code section 54953C3

[4:15:10] which requires the legislative body to

[4:15:12] provide an oral summary of recommended

[4:15:15] executive compensation prior to taking

[4:15:17] action. I will now summarize the

[4:15:19] proposed modifications.

[4:15:21] First amend section 5.8 A.1

[4:15:26] D of the city manager's employment

[4:15:29] agreement to provide a 3% merit increase

[4:15:32] increasing the city manager's annual

[4:15:34] base pay from 311,818

[4:15:38] with 21 to 321,72.75

[4:15:44] effective August 29th of 2026.

[4:15:48] Second, adopt a revised resolution, also

[4:15:51] effective August 29, 2026, increasing

[4:15:54] the city manager's classification pay

[4:15:56] range by 3% to maintain the pay

[4:15:59] differentials between the city manager

[4:16:01] and subordinate classifications.

[4:16:06] That concludes the required oral summary

[4:16:08] of the proposed compensation changes.

[4:16:11] I'll now invite any comments or

[4:16:13] questions from my city council

[4:16:14] colleagues.

[4:16:17] If there aren't any, I'll go ahead um

[4:16:21] and take any public comment on this

[4:16:23] item. Mr. City Clerk.

[4:16:26] >> Thank you, Mayor. No public comment

[4:16:27] received on item number 13.

[4:16:29] >> Thank you. I will now then go ahead and

[4:16:31] entertain a motion and a second for this

[4:16:34] item.

[4:16:37] » Move to approve recommendation.

[4:16:39] >> Second.

[4:16:40] >> Thank you. So, Mr. City clerk, can we

[4:16:43] please call a vote?

[4:16:47] >> You can enter your vote now on item

[4:16:49] number 13.

[4:16:53] » Waiting for one more vote to be entered.

[4:16:54] All votes have now been entered.

[4:16:57] >> No public comment.

[4:16:58] >> Thank you.

[4:17:00] >> Uh seven eyes and the motion carries.

[4:17:03] Mayor, there were no speaker cards

[4:17:04] submitted for item 13.

[4:17:06] >> Thank you. office.

[4:17:10] » So, moving on to formal items number 14,

[4:17:13] the arts and culture policy framework,

[4:17:16] arts and culture definitions and grant

[4:17:18] program redesign.

[4:17:20] I'll go ahead um and invite staff for a

[4:17:24] presentation on this item.

[4:17:35] the problem.

[4:17:41] » Mr. City attorney, mayor, I think the um

[4:17:45] speaker's out of order and there's a if

[4:17:47] he [clears throat] wants to pull a

[4:17:49] comment card on an agenda item. uh the

[4:17:51] city clerk is where you can pull the

[4:17:52] comment card and otherwise the speakers

[4:17:55] um are otherwise supposed to not disrupt

[4:17:58] uh the meeting and I think um the member

[4:18:00] of the public has been disrupting the

[4:18:02] meeting from uh proceeding.

[4:18:04] >> Thank you.

[4:18:12] » Mr. Fields, can you please you're out of

[4:18:14] order. Thank you.

[4:18:17] We'll go ahead and um have staff

[4:18:20] presentation on this item. Item number

[4:18:22] 14, the arts and culture policy

[4:18:24] framework.

[4:18:26] >> Good evening, mayor and city council.

[4:18:28] For the record, I'm Emily Fox, assistant

[4:18:30] parks and recreation director. Joining

[4:18:32] me this evening is recreation manager

[4:18:34] Rebecca Ellis, as well as David Pletner

[4:18:37] Saunders with the cultural planning

[4:18:39] group consultant team.

[4:18:43] To start with some background, this

[4:18:45] project grew out of two key city council

[4:18:47] actions. In February 2025, council

[4:18:51] adopted its strategic priorities which

[4:18:54] identified the development of arts and

[4:18:55] cultural policies under the economic

[4:18:58] develop vitality and development

[4:19:00] priority. Later that year, council

[4:19:03] adopted the 2050 general plan, which

[4:19:06] includes a dedicated arts and culture

[4:19:08] element. Building on that direction, in

[4:19:11] January 2026, council approved an

[4:19:14] agreement with the cultural planning

[4:19:15] group to lead this project. The project

[4:19:18] formally launched this past March with

[4:19:21] community and stakeholder engagement,

[4:19:23] background research, and a review of

[4:19:25] peer cities, which resulted in the

[4:19:27] development of a needs assessment, as

[4:19:29] well as the three items before you this

[4:19:32] evening. an arts and culture policy

[4:19:34] framework, communitydriven definitions

[4:19:36] of arts and culture, and a redesign of

[4:19:39] our city grant programs.

[4:19:43] Before turning the presentation over to

[4:19:44] the consultant team, we wanted to

[4:19:46] highlight the most valuable part of the

[4:19:48] process, the community engagement.

[4:19:51] Since March, we've conducted two rounds

[4:19:53] of engagement, hearing from hundreds of

[4:19:55] residents through the survey, community

[4:19:58] meetings, and conversations in both

[4:20:00] English and Spanish. We also engaged

[4:20:02] with a broad cross-section of Ventura,

[4:20:05] including residents, artists, cultural

[4:20:08] organizations, community groups,

[4:20:10] nonprofits, the Chumash working group,

[4:20:12] and many other stakeholders. The three

[4:20:15] items before you tonight were shaped and

[4:20:17] refined by this collective input, and

[4:20:20] we're excited to move from planning into

[4:20:22] implementation.

[4:20:24] With that, I'll turn the presentation

[4:20:25] over to David. Thank you, Emily. And

[4:20:29] good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, and

[4:20:31] council members.

[4:20:34] Moving on to the arts and culture policy

[4:20:36] framework. This is a standalone

[4:20:39] five-year policy framework. It does not

[4:20:41] amend or update the general plan.

[4:20:44] Instead, it uses the adopted goals and

[4:20:47] policies from the general plan, arts and

[4:20:49] culture element as its foundation, and

[4:20:52] it brings them together with new

[4:20:54] policies developed through the needs

[4:20:56] assessment and community engagement

[4:20:58] Emily just described for you. For

[4:21:01] alignment and and consistency, the

[4:21:03] framework is organized around the

[4:21:05] general plan's five existing arts and

[4:21:07] culture goals, creating one focused

[4:21:10] document to guide the city's arts and

[4:21:12] culture priorities for the next five

[4:21:14] years.

[4:21:16] Because the general plan policies have

[4:21:18] already been adopted, tonight we'll

[4:21:20] focus on the new policies developed

[4:21:22] through this project. Next slide,

[4:21:24] please.

[4:21:26] Across the five goals, the framework

[4:21:29] adds new policies that respond directly

[4:21:31] to priorities and gaps identified

[4:21:34] through the needs assessment and in

[4:21:36] community engagement.

[4:21:38] These include establishing shared

[4:21:40] definitions of arts and culture,

[4:21:43] and ongoing engagement with the Chum

[4:21:45] Mash community, strengthening

[4:21:48] stewardship of the city's public art

[4:21:49] collection, expanding arts access across

[4:21:53] neighborhoods and for youth, and

[4:21:55] supporting the implementation through

[4:21:57] the redesign of the uh redesigned grant

[4:22:00] program and appropriate professional

[4:22:02] staff capacity.

[4:22:04] A significant area of focus is

[4:22:06] strengthening the connection between

[4:22:08] arts, culture, and economic development.

[4:22:11] New policies explore creative districts,

[4:22:14] cultural corridors, and entertainment

[4:22:16] zones. Recognize Ventura's music and

[4:22:19] night life as part of the creative

[4:22:21] economy, and formalize coordination

[4:22:24] between parks and recreation and

[4:22:26] economic development.

[4:22:28] The framework also expands cultural

[4:22:31] tourism to focus on experiences that

[4:22:33] encourage overnight stays and generate

[4:22:36] greater economic return.

[4:22:38] Progress is already underway in this

[4:22:41] area with a recent approval of a new

[4:22:43] position within economic development

[4:22:45] focused on leveraging arts and culture

[4:22:47] as an economic driver.

[4:22:50] Together, these new policies build on

[4:22:52] the general plan and provide more

[4:22:54] specific direction to advance arts and

[4:22:57] culture over the next five years. Next

[4:22:59] slide. Thank you. So, developing shared

[4:23:03] communitydriven definitions of arts and

[4:23:05] culture was an important part of this

[4:23:07] project.

[4:23:10] While informed by state, national, and

[4:23:12] international models, the definitions

[4:23:14] were ultimately shaped by what we heard

[4:23:16] from the Ventura community.

[4:23:19] One of the clearest themes was that

[4:23:21] culture is broader than history and

[4:23:23] heritage. It encompasses the identities,

[4:23:26] traditions, practices, values,

[4:23:28] histories, and expressions that shape

[4:23:31] community identity and belonging,

[4:23:34] recognizing both heritage and

[4:23:36] contemporary community life.

[4:23:39] This can include everything from chum

[4:23:40] mash traditions and surf heritage to

[4:23:44] LGBTQIA

[4:23:46] plus and neurodeivergent cultures as

[4:23:49] well as communities connected through

[4:23:50] shared identities and lived experiences.

[4:23:54] Arts and arts, excuse me, arts are one

[4:23:57] of the ways culture is created,

[4:23:59] expressed and shared through visual and

[4:24:02] performing arts, literary arts, folk and

[4:24:05] traditional arts, and digital and media

[4:24:08] arts.

[4:24:09] The Pura Aanita uh mural on this slide

[4:24:13] illustrates that relationship. Created

[4:24:15] by more than 50 local artists, it

[4:24:18] depicts former Chumash villages, Avenue

[4:24:21] days, surf and low rider culture.

[4:24:24] mariachi, balccorlorico, and more. Using

[4:24:28] art to celebrate the traditions,

[4:24:30] experiences, and identity of the avenue.

[4:24:33] Ultimately, these definitions reflect

[4:24:35] how Ventura sees arts and culture and

[4:24:38] provide a clearer, more inclusive

[4:24:40] foundation for the grant program and the

[4:24:42] city's work going forward.

[4:24:46] And next slide, please.

[4:24:49] The city currently

[4:24:55] Oh,

[4:24:58] okay. Just having a little consult on

[4:25:01] the script. The current the city

[4:25:03] currently administers two separate grant

[4:25:05] programs. The cultural funding grant

[4:25:08] program established in 1993 supports

[4:25:11] nonprofit arts and cultural

[4:25:13] organizations while the community

[4:25:15] partnerships grant program established

[4:25:17] in 1998

[4:25:19] supports nonprofits addressing social,

[4:25:21] environmental, and community needs like

[4:25:24] homelessness, workforce development, and

[4:25:26] senior services.

[4:25:29] Historically, the programs have operated

[4:25:31] independently with different grant

[4:25:33] cycles, application processes, and

[4:25:35] requirements.

[4:25:37] The redesign is grounded in community

[4:25:39] engagement, industry best practices, and

[4:25:42] a desire to broaden the reach of city

[4:25:44] funding and create more opportunities to

[4:25:47] participate. Can we move to the next

[4:25:49] slide, please?

[4:25:53] Yep. Okay, great. The result is four

[4:25:56] grant categories, each providing a clear

[4:25:59] funding pathway for different types of

[4:26:01] applicants and different types of

[4:26:03] community work. Category 1 provides

[4:26:07] operating support for established

[4:26:09] Ventura based arts organizations,

[4:26:11] continuing the city's longstanding

[4:26:14] support while providing greater

[4:26:16] flexibility for organizational

[4:26:18] sustainability

[4:26:20] because eligible organizations must be

[4:26:22] based in Ventura. This investment also

[4:26:24] strengthens the city's cultural

[4:26:26] infrastructure.

[4:26:28] Category 2 provides project funding for

[4:26:30] arts, cultural, and community serving

[4:26:33] organizations, broadening access to

[4:26:36] organizations that make meaningful

[4:26:38] contributions to Ventura's cultural

[4:26:40] life, regardless of whether arts and

[4:26:42] culture are their primary mission. This

[4:26:44] creates opportunities to support a wider

[4:26:47] range of arts and cultural projects that

[4:26:50] reflect and serve the community.

[4:26:52] Category 3 creates a new opportunity

[4:26:55] specifically for individual artists

[4:26:58] living or creating work in Ventura,

[4:27:00] filling an important gap in a city with

[4:27:02] a strong community of individual

[4:27:04] artists. And category 4 continues the

[4:27:08] community partnership programs support

[4:27:11] for community wellness, including

[4:27:13] health, homelessness, workforce

[4:27:15] development, environmental stewardship,

[4:27:17] and services for vulnerable populations.

[4:27:21] Together, the four categories preserve

[4:27:23] core areas of city support while

[4:27:26] expanding access and creating clearer

[4:27:28] funding opportunities.

[4:27:31] Consolidating the programs also create

[4:27:34] greater consistency and simplicity with

[4:27:36] a common grant cycle, standardized

[4:27:39] guidelines, and a more streamline,

[4:27:42] transparent, and equitable process

[4:27:44] across all four categories. And now I'll

[4:27:47] pass the torch to my friend and

[4:27:49] colleague, Rebecca.

[4:27:51] >> Thank you, David. [snorts]

[4:27:52] Council's approval tonight will allow us

[4:27:54] to move this work into implementation.

[4:27:57] Following approval, staff will finalize

[4:27:59] and publish the arts and culture policy

[4:28:01] framework along with a five-year

[4:28:03] implementation plan identifying priority

[4:28:06] actions, timelines, and responsible

[4:28:08] parties. We'll also begin incorporating

[4:28:11] the adopted definitions of arts and

[4:28:13] culture into city policies, programs,

[4:28:15] and grant guidelines.

[4:28:17] Approval tonight will also keep the

[4:28:19] community impact grant program on

[4:28:21] schedule. Staff can then finalize the

[4:28:23] grant guidelines, application materials,

[4:28:25] and scoring rubrics and launch the first

[4:28:28] grant cycle this fall with funding

[4:28:31] distributed at the start of the calendar

[4:28:33] year.

[4:28:34] Together, these actions provide a clear

[4:28:36] path forward for moving this work

[4:28:37] forward and advancing arts and culture

[4:28:39] in Ventura over the next five years.

[4:28:44] The recommendations in this staff report

[4:28:46] support the economic vitality and

[4:28:48] development's focus area of identify and

[4:28:50] adopt arts policies and cultural

[4:28:53] policies as well as the climate change

[4:28:55] and environmental stewardship's focus

[4:28:57] area of public input, community

[4:28:59] engagement, and accountability. Next

[4:29:01] slide, please.

[4:29:04] The three actions in front of you this

[4:29:06] evening are A approve the proposed arts

[4:29:09] and culture policy framework, B approve

[4:29:11] the proposed definitions of arts and

[4:29:13] culture for use in city policies,

[4:29:15] programs, and grant making. And C

[4:29:17] approve the proposed redesign and

[4:29:19] consolidation of the cultural funding

[4:29:21] grant program and community partnerships

[4:29:23] grant program into a single community

[4:29:25] impact grant program, including the

[4:29:28] proposed funding categories and eligible

[4:29:30] applicants for each category. This

[4:29:32] concludes our presentation. We're happy

[4:29:34] to answer any questions you may have.

[4:29:37] >> Thank you for your presentation, staff.

[4:29:39] At this time, I'll go ahead and invite

[4:29:41] my colleagues for if you have any

[4:29:43] questions on this item.

[4:29:46] Council member Schumacher.

[4:29:48] Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, staff, for

[4:29:50] your presentation. um

[4:29:55] in your outreach, community outreach,

[4:29:59] who who did you um go to, who were you

[4:30:03] all working with

[4:30:05] in the community?

[4:30:07] >> So, I can share that we worked not only

[4:30:10] with our arts organizations, our

[4:30:12] cultural organizations, our community

[4:30:14] partnerships organizations. We also held

[4:30:16] community meetings and invited the

[4:30:18] entire community to attend. We had

[4:30:20] pop-up events across Ventura. So at Bell

[4:30:24] Arts Factory, at Kellogg Park, at West

[4:30:27] Park Community Center, at Bronco Vista

[4:30:30] Center, at uh Ventura Community Park, we

[4:30:33] had a survey. Uh we did stakeholder

[4:30:36] meetings. So, we really were looking for

[4:30:38] a broad cross-section of the community,

[4:30:40] not only our arts and cultural

[4:30:41] organizations, um, but your residents

[4:30:44] who participate, enjoy, and and, uh, are

[4:30:48] interested in weighing in on the

[4:30:49] definitions, the policy framework, as

[4:30:51] well as the grant program.

[4:30:53] >> Beautiful. And were were any of those

[4:30:55] events or meetings held in Spanish, too?

[4:30:58] >> [clears throat]

[4:30:59] >> We did have a uh virtual meeting that

[4:31:02] was available in Spanish and then all of

[4:31:04] the materials that we had available on

[4:31:06] the website uh were also in Spanish as

[4:31:09] well.

[4:31:09] >> Were you all facilitating those

[4:31:11] meetings?

[4:31:12] >> Unfortunately, we were not. Uh but on

[4:31:15] the consulting team uh with the cultural

[4:31:17] planning group, they had a Spanish

[4:31:18] representative and then we also had city

[4:31:20] employees who spoke Spanish. So for

[4:31:23] instance at uh West Park, we had a

[4:31:25] community member who spoke Spanish. So

[4:31:28] any community members that came up and

[4:31:30] were more comfortable speaking Spanish,

[4:31:32] uh, we were able to have those

[4:31:33] conversations with them.

[4:31:35] >> Great. Percentage-wise, how many like

[4:31:37] Spanish speakers do you think you got to

[4:31:39] participate in these community outreach?

[4:31:42] >> I don't have an actual percentage. Um,

[4:31:44] we did have quite a few community

[4:31:46] members who spoke Spanish, who chose to

[4:31:48] engage with us in English, but I would

[4:31:51] say probably about 5 to 10% who who

[4:31:55] spoke in Spanish. the remainder who

[4:31:58] spoke in English but who also spoke

[4:32:00] Spanish. Um, we really worked with our

[4:32:02] community groups to make the connections

[4:32:04] with our Spanish-speaking community too,

[4:32:06] knowing that would be a comfort area.

[4:32:08] >> Were I I'm just um curious where is it

[4:32:12] you all were the ones facilitating these

[4:32:14] events or was it um just other people?

[4:32:19] >> So, it was a combination. it was the

[4:32:21] consultant team who came out um to do

[4:32:23] the more focused stakeholder engagement

[4:32:25] as well as the community meetings and

[4:32:27] then uh we had a staff team that went

[4:32:30] out and and did those meetings. So

[4:32:32] myself, Rebecca, uh our arts and culture

[4:32:35] team, we also had community uh rep or we

[4:32:37] had representatives from each of the

[4:32:39] facilities that we uh held the

[4:32:42] engagement at. So again, there was a

[4:32:44] friendly face and individuals that the

[4:32:46] community might feel more comfortable

[4:32:48] speaking with and sharing their input.

[4:32:50] >> Great. I'm going to hit some some uh

[4:32:52] trigger points because we are talking

[4:32:53] about culture. Yeah. And you just need

[4:32:56] to look at this council here. We're

[4:32:58] pretty diverse in the way that we we

[4:33:00] approach and uh culture starts in

[4:33:02] representation. And so the reason why

[4:33:04] I'm asking who was facilitating those

[4:33:06] meetings is because people are more

[4:33:09] comfortable in participating if they see

[4:33:11] themselves in the people who's asking

[4:33:14] about culture. Um and so I think uh we

[4:33:17] would have seen a bit more I I believe

[4:33:20] in in increasing the participants um

[4:33:23] that feel a little bit more um

[4:33:26] [clears throat] comfortable in the

[4:33:27] people the language and the environment

[4:33:29] that that they recognize and feel um

[4:33:31] that they can be open to in sharing what

[4:33:34] they want to see in art form. Um, and

[4:33:37] then just it help me understand um what

[4:33:42] specifically

[4:33:43] um because I think what um and I have a

[4:33:46] minute left. I think what I would have

[4:33:48] liked help me understand why uh on

[4:33:52] category two um we're back to arts and

[4:33:56] culture and not really focused just on

[4:33:58] culture.

[4:34:02] » Yeah. Excuse me one second. I'm just

[4:34:05] getting to that place in the in the

[4:34:07] materials.

[4:34:08] So,

[4:34:10] yeah, thank you. Um,

[4:34:14] we were we were really looking to

[4:34:17] reassess the program within the

[4:34:19] framework of the goals from the general

[4:34:21] plan

[4:34:23] and from what we heard in community

[4:34:25] engagement. And an important part of

[4:34:28] that was broadening access and who

[4:34:31] participates in the funding program.

[4:34:35] So uh the first category obviously is

[4:34:39] serving the arts organizations and

[4:34:41] particularly those that have been

[4:34:43] longstanding

[4:34:44] stalwarts um organizations serving the

[4:34:48] community for a long period of time.

[4:34:51] This category two was intended to really

[4:34:54] extend an invitation to a much broader

[4:34:57] range of applicants. certainly arts and

[4:35:00] cultural organizations that are that are

[4:35:02] doing, you know, arts and cultural

[4:35:04] projects. They're not um kind of major

[4:35:09] larger organizations in the community.

[4:35:11] So, it's it's saying you you can belong

[4:35:14] in this category.

[4:35:16] Also, we wanted to make um

[4:35:21] explicit that organizations that aren't

[4:35:24] incorporated, that are using a fiscal

[4:35:26] receiver, organizations that are not

[4:35:28] arts and cultural organizations, but

[4:35:30] that use arts and culture as part of the

[4:35:32] program serving the community that they

[4:35:35] had a place in this framework.

[4:35:37] >> Sure. So, Mr. I'm going to end with this

[4:35:39] comment and then I'm going to allow my

[4:35:41] colleagues to join in the conversation

[4:35:42] and I'll come back to my the rest of my

[4:35:44] questions. But, Mr. Plentress I think

[4:35:47] the reason why we wanted at least for me

[4:35:50] wanted a focus on culture is because

[4:35:53] that is what's happening um when you

[4:35:55] combine it with and there are several

[4:35:58] other categories that have art

[4:35:59] organizations individual artists and

[4:36:02] even the community wellness progs but if

[4:36:05] we have the reason why is because we

[4:36:07] wanted a lot more people to show their

[4:36:10] culture that's part of Ventura and I

[4:36:13] think that's what was missing where we

[4:36:15] wanted to have more Chumash artwork,

[4:36:18] Filipino artwork or or in a in a way

[4:36:21] that shows the diversity. Again, look at

[4:36:24] this council. We are absolutely Ventura

[4:36:28] and that's how we wanted to see it in

[4:36:30] the art form. You erase that and the art

[4:36:33] form becomes exactly the status quo.

[4:36:36] Thank you.

[4:36:39] >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor Halter.

[4:36:40] >> Great. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank

[4:36:41] you, staff. Let's see. A couple things.

[4:36:44] first is um when it comes to Ventura's

[4:36:47] cultural identity um you listed some of

[4:36:51] the identity but there's many that

[4:36:54] weren't included and I'm not quite sure

[4:36:56] how we looked at that how we picked and

[4:36:58] choose because there's things like the

[4:37:00] agricultural and ranching history um

[4:37:02] there's a lot of long-standing

[4:37:04] traditions and organizations that have

[4:37:06] been a part of Ventura for 150 years um

[4:37:09] and there's a lot of um uh existing

[4:37:12] organizations that really define the

[4:37:14] current day uh arts organization. So it

[4:37:17] seems like we probably unintentionally

[4:37:20] excluded some of a a fairly large part

[4:37:23] of what a lot of us consider our culture

[4:37:26] uh from that description. What's your

[4:37:28] comment on that?

[4:37:29] >> And if I can clarify the way the

[4:37:31] definition is written um there are a

[4:37:33] handful of examples but it's inclusive

[4:37:35] of all cultures. What we found in this

[4:37:38] project is uh the community is on the

[4:37:41] same page as council. Um actually the

[4:37:43] same page as staff too. An inclusive

[4:37:46] diverse definition. So low writer

[4:37:48] culture, surf culture, um Filipino

[4:37:51] culture, chum mash culture, Chinese

[4:37:53] culture. To list every single culture,

[4:37:56] you run the risk of leaving someone out.

[4:37:58] So the definition really was intended to

[4:38:00] show that inclusivity. What we found is

[4:38:04] uh because culture can be challenging

[4:38:06] for folks to wrap their brain around

[4:38:08] because everyone has a different kind of

[4:38:09] viewpoint of it, we added some of those

[4:38:12] examples to try and make it more

[4:38:13] accessible. Um but again, that was our

[4:38:15] intent. And to speak to the um making

[4:38:19] sure that we had representation when we

[4:38:21] did our community outreach, we actually

[4:38:23] were very intentional about the staff

[4:38:25] members that we had at each of our

[4:38:26] locations to make sure that for our

[4:38:29] seniors, for our um individuals with

[4:38:32] disabilities, uh for our Latino

[4:38:34] community that they were able to see, um

[4:38:38] themselves represented represented in

[4:38:40] the individuals that were seeking input.

[4:38:42] Obviously, we didn't have representation

[4:38:44] at every single event. Um, but that

[4:38:46] really was something we looked at

[4:38:48] because we wanted folk we wanted the

[4:38:50] community to feel comfortable sharing

[4:38:51] their input.

[4:38:52] >> Um, I I I I see it. That's great. But I

[4:38:55] think I would add about 10 more

[4:38:57] categories underneath that, maybe bullet

[4:38:59] points so people understand the the

[4:39:00] breadth and knowledge. And when I look

[4:39:02] at um uh the four categories, um,

[4:39:07] I'm not quite sure the reasoning of

[4:39:09] including the social services in the

[4:39:11] four categories. Why not keep that

[4:39:13] separate?

[4:39:16] So part of why we did the consolidation

[4:39:18] is we found at least over the last seven

[4:39:20] years, organizations sometimes are

[4:39:22] confused on the different grant programs

[4:39:24] and opportunities. So our intent was to

[4:39:26] bring them together so that

[4:39:28] organizations knew this is when the city

[4:39:30] is releasing our community impact

[4:39:32] grants. here are the different

[4:39:34] opportunities that are available and

[4:39:36] then they all have the same uh

[4:39:38] application roll out deadline uh and and

[4:39:43] so that we can talk them through the

[4:39:45] process of which category may fit best

[4:39:47] for their organization.

[4:39:48] >> I tend to think I look at it from uh a

[4:39:50] funding standpoint and I think there's

[4:39:53] funders who would be confused by that.

[4:39:55] uh the National Endowment for the Arts

[4:39:57] particular would say um I thought this

[4:40:00] was about commitment to the arts and

[4:40:02] they would have to really dive in and

[4:40:04] try to understand the logic but just I

[4:40:06] don't want to preclude potential funding

[4:40:08] from coming to the city. So that's one

[4:40:09] concern and then uh back in the 90s we

[4:40:12] uh uh very con uh there's reasons why we

[4:40:15] declared the downtown the cultural

[4:40:17] center for the city, the cultural arts

[4:40:19] district. And how do you see that

[4:40:22] playing into this framework? because I

[4:40:23] didn't see any type of weight waiting if

[4:40:25] people are doing things that are

[4:40:26] economically beneficial to the city in

[4:40:29] relation to the cultural district that

[4:40:31] is we all know is one of the uh

[4:40:34] generators economic generators for the

[4:40:36] city. Um how do it it seemed like that

[4:40:40] was overlooked.

[4:40:43] Would you like

[4:40:45] uh the cultural district is absolutely

[4:40:47] an important development and and my

[4:40:50] understanding is that um the district

[4:40:53] will reapply to the California Arts

[4:40:55] Council for designation at the next

[4:40:58] opportunity.

[4:40:59] Um it's treated in the uh arts and

[4:41:03] culture policy framework

[4:41:05] and is will absolutely be a part of the

[4:41:07] implementation framework that will come

[4:41:09] next. How do we look at our economic

[4:41:12] benefits of the grant money, limited

[4:41:15] grant money that we have um without

[4:41:19] waiting how they contributed to one of

[4:41:22] our major economic generators that was

[4:41:24] caused almost entirely by the cultural

[4:41:26] arts.

[4:41:27] >> So what I can share is there are six

[4:41:28] goals when it comes to the arts and

[4:41:30] culture grant program and those goals

[4:41:32] were pulled specifically from the arts

[4:41:33] and culture element of the 2050 general

[4:41:36] plan. So the adopted goals um one of

[4:41:39] them is connected towards economic

[4:41:42] vitality and tourism. [music] Any grant

[4:41:44] applicant under the arts and culture

[4:41:46] categories has to identify where their

[4:41:48] project where their organization aligns

[4:41:51] with one of those six goals. We didn't

[4:41:53] weight any of the six uh as a higher

[4:41:56] priority than the other. But that

[4:41:58] absolutely would be one of the areas

[4:41:59] that when applicants submit their

[4:42:01] project request or their operating

[4:42:03] support request, they could share in the

[4:42:06] application process that not only did

[4:42:08] they meet say the goal of creating more

[4:42:10] access to arts and culture, but also

[4:42:13] that their event or activity is an

[4:42:15] economic diver that contributes to

[4:42:17] economic vitality.

[4:42:18] >> Thank you. I'll come back with my other

[4:42:20] questions after everyone has a chance.

[4:42:22] >> Thank you. Um, Council Member Compos.

[4:42:27] » Thank you, Mayor. So, did you visit the

[4:42:31] museum and look at the the cultural

[4:42:33] history of Ventura while you were doing

[4:42:35] this?

[4:42:36] >> Yes, I have seen that those exhibits.

[4:42:38] Yes.

[4:42:40] >> Not just the specific exhibit, but in

[4:42:42] the library. There's a lot of historical

[4:42:45] documentation of what really was our

[4:42:48] cultural arts district. going back a

[4:42:51] hundred years, we had an opera house, we

[4:42:53] had a symphony, and

[4:42:56] later in the I think 1980s and early

[4:42:59] 90s, we established a cultural arts

[4:43:03] district, which probably now should

[4:43:05] expand all the way up to where Rubicon

[4:43:08] is on Laurel Street and around the

[4:43:11] avenue and to Dubber Street where Art

[4:43:13] City sits. There's three or four other

[4:43:16] art studios right there at Art City.

[4:43:19] There's art studios up the avenue as far

[4:43:21] as Ramona. There's teaching programs for

[4:43:24] children in that area. They should all

[4:43:27] be part of this cultural district

[4:43:30] and which can be the economic basis of

[4:43:35] tourism of art and culture tourism. So,

[4:43:38] I think we need to really make sure

[4:43:40] that's well written into what our

[4:43:42] program is. I think that's what council

[4:43:45] member or deputy mayor was reaching for.

[4:43:49] And I can share that those locations you

[4:43:51] mentioned are part of the cultural

[4:43:53] district. It actually was included in

[4:43:55] the grant application uh that was worked

[4:43:58] on by the city and some of our arts and

[4:44:00] culture organizations to the state. Um

[4:44:03] it went all the way up the avenue to the

[4:44:05] Rubicon and down towards uh the wave.

[4:44:08] >> It it needs to go way past the wave

[4:44:10] really.

[4:44:13] >> Thank you.

[4:44:16] Um, I don't see any other

[4:44:18] colleagues with questions, so I'm going

[4:44:20] to go ahead and um go to public comment

[4:44:22] on this item.

[4:44:23] >> Thank you, mayor. We have 14 speakers on

[4:44:26] item number 14. Our first speaker is

[4:44:28] Laura Mullen, followed by Karen Kitell.

[4:44:30] Speakers will have three minutes.

[4:44:37] » Hi, thank you so much for hearing me and

[4:44:41] for considering this incredibly

[4:44:43] important framework. I honor the work

[4:44:46] that's been done on this and applaud the

[4:44:49] fact of the focus. It is so clear. I

[4:44:52] want to second uh Councilwoman Campos's

[4:44:55] comments. Ventura is a city of the arts

[4:44:59] and culture. It's going to be an arts

[4:45:01] and culture destination. That's really

[4:45:04] clear. I'm just standing up quickly for

[4:45:08] those people who maybe haven't applied

[4:45:10] for grants just to talk about the joy

[4:45:13] and the beauty and the importance of

[4:45:16] applying for grants. You are opening a

[4:45:19] space for competition that will improve

[4:45:23] the arts in this city because people

[4:45:26] will have a framework through which to

[4:45:29] see their own work and their own

[4:45:31] ambitions in relationship to the

[4:45:33] community.

[4:45:35] And that is a form of lucid dreaming

[4:45:39] that will pay off in the future.

[4:45:43] I have a a question about a particular

[4:45:47] aspect of this which is the fact that

[4:45:50] people are only allowed to apply in one

[4:45:53] category. I'm standing up to say I'm

[4:45:55] sorry that's the case. I think that

[4:45:58] there should be more flexibility

[4:46:01] so that you allow people to find out who

[4:46:04] they are and what they do best through

[4:46:07] the opportunity to make the application.

[4:46:11] And I thank you as well for the

[4:46:13] conversation you've already been having

[4:46:16] about this matter with the excellent

[4:46:18] questions that have been posed. Thank

[4:46:20] you for listening.

[4:46:23] >> Karen Kitell followed by Casey

[4:46:24] Rodriguez.

[4:46:31] Good evening, Madame Mayor, city council

[4:46:34] members. My name is Karen Kitell. I am

[4:46:37] the chair of the Arts and Culture

[4:46:39] Commission.

[4:46:42] I'm volunteering with six other experts.

[4:46:46] They're all here but one tonight to

[4:46:48] advise you on matters affecting

[4:46:50] Ventura's creative community. Our work

[4:46:54] has been dense and intense

[4:46:58] since 2025

[4:47:00] when you named arts and culture as one

[4:47:03] of the focus areas under your strategic

[4:47:06] priority, economic vitality and

[4:47:09] development.

[4:47:11] I'm so happy to update you. So much has

[4:47:14] been achieved and we can finally see

[4:47:18] the other side. It's near.

[4:47:22] At our commission meeting last Thursday,

[4:47:26] we voted in support of the guidelines

[4:47:28] proposed by the cultural planning group

[4:47:31] to restructure the cultural grant

[4:47:33] program

[4:47:35] more effectively balancing community

[4:47:37] needs with available funding as well as

[4:47:40] articulating this communitydriven

[4:47:43] definition of arts and culture.

[4:47:47] In addition to following the community

[4:47:49] in this process, the proposed plan is

[4:47:53] also informed by the National Endowment

[4:47:55] for the Arts and the California Arts

[4:47:57] Council. As Ventura's cultural

[4:48:00] infrastructure continues to grow, it is

[4:48:04] smart and strategic to be in alignment

[4:48:07] with state and national standards.

[4:48:11] We can always do more. We will keep

[4:48:13] doing more,

[4:48:15] but this is a great start. There was

[4:48:18] massive community outreach response and

[4:48:21] the resulting dialogue has resulted in a

[4:48:24] tool we can be proud of. We support the

[4:48:28] staff report tonight and ask you to vote

[4:48:30] in favor of the work done by the

[4:48:32] cultural planning group. Thank you for

[4:48:35] listening, for your leadership, and for

[4:48:38] this great investment in the arts and

[4:48:41] culture of Ventura. Thank you so much,

[4:48:45] Casey Rodriguez, followed by Maryanne

[4:48:47] Parra.

[4:48:53] Haku Haku. Once again, I am speaking

[4:48:56] only for myself.

[4:48:59] Throughout Ventura County, I have been

[4:49:01] entrusted to advocate for culture and

[4:49:04] equitable representation in many spaces.

[4:49:07] And it is a responsibility I take

[4:49:10] fullheartedly

[4:49:12] at this moment. I do not support what we

[4:49:16] are presented with.

[4:49:18] We must courageously support fun

[4:49:22] culture. I am tired of elitist folks

[4:49:26] just wanting to highlight art. And yes,

[4:49:29] I am the one that will always stand for

[4:49:32] culture.

[4:49:34] The majority of our citizens express

[4:49:37] that culture is important. In fact,

[4:49:40] cultural events scurred as the highest

[4:49:43] priority on the citywide survey.

[4:49:46] That's why I request setting aside

[4:49:49] 20,000 from category 1 for a specific

[4:49:53] culture grant with an emphasis on

[4:49:57] projects and events that elevate

[4:49:59] Ventura's

[4:50:01] ethnic historical silence voices that

[4:50:04] have been silenced for too long. It is

[4:50:07] time that we move upward and share our

[4:50:11] culture proudly

[4:50:15] and place an additional emphasis on

[4:50:18] culture representation on all grant

[4:50:21] categories through a culture equity

[4:50:24] points boost of 15%

[4:50:27] for projects focused on culture

[4:50:30] education including indigenous

[4:50:33] engagement

[4:50:35] and are providing programming that

[4:50:37] serves and or is led by historically

[4:50:40] undeserved communities.

[4:50:42] We are no longer being silenced.

[4:50:46] We have a community that supports us.

[4:50:48] Now we need the resources to share

[4:50:51] educate

[4:50:53] ensuring that this education is led by

[4:50:56] members of their highlighted culture and

[4:50:59] not culturally appropriated by elitists.

[4:51:03] It is our stories to share proudly.

[4:51:09] We can assure by doing this Ventura will

[4:51:11] reach the general plan vision of making

[4:51:14] Ventura even more inclusive where all

[4:51:17] voices are heard and celebrated. I am

[4:51:21] also asking for an objective scoring

[4:51:23] rubric. Lastly, I remind the council

[4:51:26] that our official land acknowledgement

[4:51:28] ends with, "May we continue learning

[4:51:31] together." I encourage the council to

[4:51:33] honor that statement pro by providing

[4:51:36] funds from the overall budget to the

[4:51:38] working shoe mash group for sharing

[4:51:41] educating requires resources without

[4:51:45] having to apply for a grant. Many of us

[4:51:48] have volunteered countless hours for

[4:51:50] years decades. Even though we are

[4:51:53] grateful for the opportunities, our work

[4:51:55] holds immense values and needs to be

[4:51:57] honored. Thank you. Maryanne Par

[4:52:00] followed by Brian Schumacher.

[4:52:17] Hello, my name is Maryanne. I kind of

[4:52:19] feel the same way. I feel like merging

[4:52:21] arts and culture together is not really

[4:52:24] representative of culture because arts

[4:52:26] can most definitely represent culture

[4:52:28] but it doesn't always represent culture.

[4:52:31] It's very different when you talk about

[4:52:34] you know 100 years ago having an opera

[4:52:36] house and other things. This is a

[4:52:38] culture that came and got integrated

[4:52:41] into the space. It was once all true

[4:52:43] mash territory for thousands of years.

[4:52:46] Like we know that we have [sighs] we

[4:52:49] have x-rays of the ground. We have

[4:52:50] mitochondrial evidence. We have a lot of

[4:52:52] science that backs this history. You

[4:52:56] know the shoe masher here. The Spanish

[4:52:57] came in. They eventually got tired gave

[4:53:00] it to gave it to Mexico and we know that

[4:53:02] the Mexican-American war then happened.

[4:53:04] So a lot of this we understand is shared

[4:53:06] space. Even China alley, right? It's a

[4:53:08] very small depiction of what was here

[4:53:11] for a very long time and it's kind of

[4:53:15] painful to talk about [laughter]

[4:53:17] surf culture because that's something

[4:53:19] that was relatively taken from our

[4:53:23] brothers and sisters in Hawaii and also

[4:53:25] the kumier right the kuruk the yra all

[4:53:28] these people that were canoe cultures

[4:53:31] and have been riding the waves for

[4:53:33] thousands of years as the chumash were

[4:53:36] the first to mo which is the canoe craft

[4:53:39] and our relative uh Fernando uh Labrado

[4:53:43] Kitap which you can find in the museum

[4:53:45] here. If it wasn't for his knowledge and

[4:53:47] him teaching Harrington here, near

[4:53:50] Shushalop, which is near the ocean here,

[4:53:52] the the village site, how to rebuild the

[4:53:55] tamole the traditional way, we wouldn't

[4:53:57] have that information today. And

[4:53:59] culture, I think, is often widely merged

[4:54:03] into a lot of subcategories that don't

[4:54:06] actually represent culture, which is you

[4:54:09] can have a degree, you can read these

[4:54:11] books, but it's never going to give you

[4:54:12] that experience as a shoe woman living

[4:54:14] in their culture. It's just very

[4:54:15] different. Um, so I think there needs to

[4:54:18] be some changes to this. I would really

[4:54:20] like a separate culture grant. And I

[4:54:23] also think if artists are able to apply

[4:54:25] and have no LLC or don't need anything

[4:54:29] do all do all these groups, can they not

[4:54:31] have a 501c3 and maybe have a fiscal

[4:54:33] sponsor making it more inclusive to

[4:54:37] other groups? Now the re main reason I

[4:54:40] asked that for somebody like us who we

[4:54:43] chose today to officially create our

[4:54:45] nonprofit to be registered with the

[4:54:47] state because my parents have been doing

[4:54:49] it for 50 years. I picked up the last

[4:54:51] four years as doing it as just a

[4:54:53] grassroots because our end goal was to

[4:54:56] never to make money off of this but to

[4:54:58] protect sacred sites to share the

[4:55:01] history and the information in its true

[4:55:03] form. I'm not a performer. I don't want

[4:55:05] to be performing dances and different

[4:55:07] things for the public all the time.

[4:55:09] That's it reminds me of the times when

[4:55:11] they had Indians in circuses just like

[4:55:13] they had people in zoos. Like so I I

[4:55:17] really think this needs a restructure

[4:55:18] and to talk about it more because it it

[4:55:21] feels like it's watering down culture.

[4:55:24] Thank you.

[4:55:26] >> Brian Schumacher followed by Sienna

[4:55:28] Marie Sesma.

[4:55:34] Hello. Good evening. Uh, Mayor Dr.

[4:55:36] Sanchez Palasios, council members, uh,

[4:55:38] staff. My name is Brian Schumacher and I

[4:55:41] am advocacy and community impact manager

[4:55:43] for Autism Society of Ventura County.

[4:55:45] Thank you so much for the opportunity to

[4:55:47] comment on the arts, culture, and

[4:55:49] community grants program review. After

[4:55:52] years of work on this process, we are

[4:55:53] very pleased with the semi-final result.

[4:55:56] We are grateful for all the work and

[4:55:57] resources that the city has invested in

[4:55:59] this process. ASVC shared with you all a

[4:56:02] few suggestions over the weekend and I'd

[4:56:04] like to briefly emphasize a couple of

[4:56:06] important points. First of all, please

[4:56:09] preserve the one application per

[4:56:11] organization rule. This is one of the

[4:56:13] most important equity safeguards in the

[4:56:15] proposed process. Without it, larger and

[4:56:18] more established organizations will

[4:56:20] receive a disproportionate share of

[4:56:22] limited grant funding. Keeping one

[4:56:24] application per organization helps

[4:56:26] ensure helps ensure smaller

[4:56:28] organizations and historically

[4:56:30] underrepresented communities have a fair

[4:56:32] chance to access these limited public

[4:56:34] funds.

[4:56:36] Second, we respectfully ask the city to

[4:56:38] provide ADA and disability access

[4:56:40] training for all grant review panelists.

[4:56:43] ADA compliance is required for grant

[4:56:45] projects, but without training, grant

[4:56:47] readers will not be able to verify

[4:56:49] compliance as part of their scoring.

[4:56:52] Additionally, we hope the city council

[4:56:53] will discuss how we can ensure cultural

[4:56:56] equity throughout all grant programs.

[4:56:58] ASVC sent a couple of slight amendments

[4:57:00] that would help to ensure the cultural

[4:57:02] goals within the general plan are met throughout this grant program.

[4:57:07] We support honoring the input of the

[4:57:08] indigenous communities who are here to

[4:57:10] give comment. Thank you for your time

[4:57:12] and for working toward a grant process

[4:57:13] that is fair, transparent, accessible,

[4:57:16] and inclusive of the full Ventura

[4:57:18] community. Thank you,

[4:57:20] >> Sienna Marie Sesma, followed by Donna

[4:57:22] Granada.

[4:57:28] » Greetings, Madame Mayor and esteemed

[4:57:31] council members. My name is Sienna Marie

[4:57:34] Sesma, the vice chair of the Arts and

[4:57:36] Culture Commission. It contin It

[4:57:39] continues to be a pleasure to work with

[4:57:41] staff and council in shaping and

[4:57:44] nurturing creative growth and well-being

[4:57:46] in Ventura.

[4:57:48] staff and the commission chair have

[4:57:50] presented their recommendations. Now, as

[4:57:53] a private citizen working in Ventura's

[4:57:56] creative sector for over 25 years, I'd

[4:57:59] also like to present mine.

[4:58:02] And I want to start to say tonight by

[4:58:04] simply saying thank you. Thank you very

[4:58:07] much for over the last several years,

[4:58:10] I've had the opportunity to be part of

[4:58:12] many conversations about the future of

[4:58:14] arts and culture in Ventura. We've

[4:58:18] advocated, asked questions, listened,

[4:58:21] and sometimes challenged deeply each

[4:58:24] other, and continued to push for a

[4:58:27] greater investment in the creative and

[4:58:30] culturally diverse community that makes

[4:58:33] Ventura such a great place.

[4:58:36] When the decision was made to bring in

[4:58:38] the cultural planning group, I'll admit

[4:58:41] I had a bit of skepticism. I wondered

[4:58:44] what consultants coming into our

[4:58:46] community could really tell us about

[4:58:48] Ventura and the people who are creative

[4:58:50] here, who create here, and who represent

[4:58:54] the cultural diversity that we stand

[4:58:57] for. But they did the work. They showed

[4:59:00] up. They listened. They reached out to

[4:59:02] artists, organizations, commissions,

[4:59:05] community members, and stakeholders

[4:59:08] throughout Ventura. the depth of their

[4:59:10] community engagement along with staff

[4:59:13] report. It actually really impressed me

[4:59:16] and I believe the recommendations before

[4:59:18] you tonight reflect that work. Are we

[4:59:21] finished? Absolutely not. We are just

[4:59:25] warming up. Arts and culture is an

[4:59:28] evolving ecosystem and there will always

[4:59:32] be a lot of work to be done, more voices

[4:59:36] to be heard and more opportunities to So

[4:59:39] explore and to make changes. But I

[4:59:42] believe we have something here that

[4:59:44] gives us a strong foundation to build

[4:59:47] upon. This opens the doors for all

[4:59:50] cultural groups to be considered. The

[4:59:54] applications can be filed by any

[4:59:56] eligible persons and groups. I'm excited

[4:59:59] about where we're headed and I

[5:00:00] appreciate the council's investment in

[5:00:02] arts and culture, the work our city

[5:00:04] staff, my fellow commissioners, and

[5:00:06] everyone in our community who

[5:00:07] participated in this process tonight. I

[5:00:10] encourage you to support the staff

[5:00:12] recommendation and allow us to make this

[5:00:14] important next step forward. Thank you

[5:00:16] for your leadership, for listening to

[5:00:18] our creative and cultural community, and

[5:00:21] for continuing to invest in the alts,

[5:00:23] arts and culture of Ventura. Thank you.

[5:00:27] Oo Granada, followed by Scott Miles.

[5:00:35] » Good evening, honorable mayor and fellow

[5:00:37] council members. My name is Donna

[5:00:39] Granada and I'm the founder and

[5:00:41] executive director of Focus on the

[5:00:43] Master's Arts Archive and Library

[5:00:46] located in Ventura. FOTM has been

[5:00:49] serving our community with quality arts

[5:00:52] education for over 32 years.

[5:00:56] Thank you to the council and city city

[5:00:58] staff for recognizing the importance of

[5:01:00] the arts in Ventura. Their proposed

[5:01:03] redesign and expansion of the art and

[5:01:05] cultural grant program is a meaningful

[5:01:08] investment in our city's cultural

[5:01:10] strength, economic vitality, and quality

[5:01:13] of life.

[5:01:15] Because this vote will shape the grant

[5:01:17] program for the next five years, I urge

[5:01:20] you to adopt the staff recommendation

[5:01:22] with one practical amendment. Allow

[5:01:26] organizations to apply in more than one

[5:01:29] category. This amendment would preserve

[5:01:32] accountability while ensuring that

[5:01:34] different types of eligible work are

[5:01:37] evaluated and appropriately in in the

[5:01:40] appropriate category. State and national

[5:01:43] best practices should be considered and

[5:01:46] incorporated into the proposed

[5:01:48] framework. Grant programs administered

[5:01:52] by the California Arts Council, National

[5:01:54] Endowment of the Arts, National

[5:01:56] Endowments for the Humanities provide

[5:01:58] proven professional models, including

[5:02:01] the ability for organizations to apply

[5:02:03] in more than one category. Under the

[5:02:07] current framework, an organization with

[5:02:09] strong community outreach or educational

[5:02:12] programming must choose between general

[5:02:15] operating support and program grants,

[5:02:18] even when both directly serve the

[5:02:20] Ventura residents. Allowing applicants

[5:02:23] in more than one category would help

[5:02:25] direct program funds to public-f facing

[5:02:28] activities while still recognizing the

[5:02:32] operation support needed to deliver

[5:02:34] those services. responsibly.

[5:02:37] I respectfully ask you to support the

[5:02:40] staff recommendation and include this

[5:02:42] amendment so that the grant pro program

[5:02:44] can deliver the greatest possible

[5:02:46] benefit to Ventura over the next five

[5:02:49] years. Thank you.

[5:02:52] >> Next speaker is Scott Miles followed by

[5:02:54] Ashley Pope.

[5:02:59] » Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to

[5:03:01] speak. I'm Scott Miles, member of the

[5:03:04] Focus on the Masters board of directors.

[5:03:07] Firstly, I want to thank the city for

[5:03:09] its support of arts and culture and

[5:03:11] particularly its support of focus on the

[5:03:13] masters over the years. City's support

[5:03:16] for focus has been critical to the

[5:03:18] growth of the organization over the past

[5:03:21] 30 plus years. Council's the council's

[5:03:25] recent focus on strengthening the arts

[5:03:27] and culture landscape is admirable. The

[5:03:30] increased total funding for grants is a

[5:03:32] great thing. A very good grant program

[5:03:36] redesign proposal, which we've heard

[5:03:38] tonight, has been developed. However, I

[5:03:41] urge the council to amend the program

[5:03:44] structure to allow organizations the

[5:03:46] ability to apply in more than one grant

[5:03:49] category.

[5:03:51] operations and programming work hand in

[5:03:54] hand to deliver arts and culture

[5:03:56] activities for the benefit of the entire

[5:03:58] Ventura community. Program activities

[5:04:01] cannot happen without the support of an

[5:04:04] organization's operations. I hope the

[5:04:07] council will adopt a grant funding

[5:04:08] structure that allows for applications

[5:04:11] in more than one grant category. Arts

[5:04:14] and culture organizations need funding

[5:04:16] support that maintains arts education

[5:04:18] and outreach and expands community

[5:04:21] engagement. Thank you again for your

[5:04:24] support of the arts and culture in our

[5:04:26] Ventura community.

[5:04:29] Ashley Pope followed by Philip Fields.

[5:04:38] Good evening, Mayor and Council.

[5:04:41] I know most of you. My name is Ashley

[5:04:42] Pope and I'm here today as the president

[5:04:44] of Autism Society of Ventura County.

[5:04:46] ASPC has been working on this process

[5:04:48] for I think about three years which is a

[5:04:50] really long time. And while the journey

[5:04:52] to get here has at times been deeply

[5:04:54] painful and very stressful, the

[5:04:57] semifinal product is one that we are

[5:04:59] very proud of. According to IRS records,

[5:05:02] there are over 1,200 nonprofit

[5:05:04] organizations operating in Ventura,

[5:05:06] including 130 arts and culture

[5:05:08] organizations and over 290 social

[5:05:11] service organizations. These

[5:05:13] organizations all serve different people

[5:05:15] within the city of Ventura. Allowing one

[5:05:18] organization to qualify for more than

[5:05:19] one grant when the total allocation is

[5:05:22] $340,000

[5:05:23] would be selling the city short. We can

[5:05:26] and must do better. We ask that you

[5:05:28] please leave the application process,

[5:05:30] one per organization, until we have a

[5:05:32] few cycles of accessible, inclusive, and

[5:05:34] equitable cycles behind us. Let's see

[5:05:37] how many people these funds can reach

[5:05:38] and ensure they aren't allocated in a

[5:05:40] way that unintentionally benefits a

[5:05:42] small segment of the community rather

[5:05:44] than the community at large. As this

[5:05:46] portion of the project wraps up, we want

[5:05:48] to thank recreation manager Rebecca

[5:05:50] Ellis and assistant director Emily Fox.

[5:05:52] They have served as extraordinary

[5:05:54] listeners and peacemakers and have

[5:05:57] represented the city with

[5:05:58] professionalism. We hope you will ensure

[5:06:00] that the parks and recck team has the

[5:06:01] resources they require to execute the

[5:06:03] grant process with the same care and

[5:06:05] attention they have executed this

[5:06:07] restructuring.

[5:06:08] We look forward to continuing to stay

[5:06:10] engaged in the process and we truly do

[5:06:12] thank you for this investment.

[5:06:15] >> Next speaker is Philip Fields

[5:06:19] followed by Spencer Norin.

[5:06:28] We all go to the university, but how

[5:06:31] much good does it do the university that

[5:06:33] has a corporate name here and there

[5:06:38] and you go to any school and there we

[5:06:41] go. We're indoctrinated.

[5:06:45] And we repeat, we talk of dead art,

[5:06:50] past art,

[5:06:53] but the whole mother comes to race

[5:06:58] and class

[5:07:01] and wealth,

[5:07:05] love and hate,

[5:07:08] and duality.

[5:07:11] Silicon Valley, a culture of hate

[5:07:15] where Zionism, Nazism

[5:07:20] is flourishing throughout the world,

[5:07:24] where Trump rules,

[5:07:27] the next JD Bans, the next Jarvis.

[5:07:32] What do they have in common? They have a

[5:07:35] Yamaka.

[5:07:37] And a yamaka,

[5:07:39] you take it from the Jewish faith to the

[5:07:42] Christian faith to Zionist faith. A

[5:07:45] yarmaka, a pope with a yamaka.

[5:07:49] You can look with any glass. There it

[5:07:52] is. The culture,

[5:07:54] a culture of race, class, wealth,

[5:08:00] hedgemony.

[5:08:02] Which one rules? The dominant.

[5:08:06] What's the dominant? The plantation

[5:08:08] economy.

[5:08:10] We're going back to the plantation

[5:08:12] economy.

[5:08:14] And so a culture is there is destroyed

[5:08:19] by the next culture and the next culture

[5:08:23] and they built over a [snorts] temple,

[5:08:28] another temple, and they call it holy.

[5:08:32] And they call of a they talk of a god a

[5:08:35] god that doesn't come doesn't talk

[5:08:38] doesn't do anything for him by himself.

[5:08:41] It's just the extra credit of what you

[5:08:44] imagine he must be doing or his

[5:08:47] followers say you got to believe it. You

[5:08:49] got to see it with the faith.

[5:08:52] But God doesn't speak. And Jesus doesn't

[5:08:55] exist and he doesn't speak. The only one

[5:08:58] that exists while we wait the kingdom of

[5:09:00] God, it's us

[5:09:03] as we are.

[5:09:05] Some are blue eyes, green eyes, brown

[5:09:09] eyes, you name it.

[5:09:12] All there is for culture, it's us.

[5:09:17] We are the living culture for good or

[5:09:19] for bad.

[5:09:21] Unfortunately, in our midst is collusion

[5:09:25] or retaliation,

[5:09:28] exclusivism,

[5:09:29] but we got to look for equality, love

[5:09:32] and sharing and reciprocity.

[5:09:35] >> Next speaker is Spencer Norn, followed

[5:09:37] by Nirvonica.

[5:09:43] » Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Staff, uh,

[5:09:46] council, mayor, VPD, translation.

[5:09:49] I'll kind of admit this one kind of got

[5:09:51] over my head a little bit about from

[5:09:53] going to the committee a few years ago

[5:09:55] to bringing it to staff to hiring

[5:09:57] consultants.

[5:09:59] So I thought about kind of culture a lot

[5:10:01] and I want to thank Maryanne and Casey

[5:10:02] for talking about recognition of the

[5:10:05] ultimate greatest stewards of land

[5:10:06] history is the Chumash culture on our

[5:10:08] California coast. That's definitely

[5:10:11] proven and identified by how they

[5:10:12] steward the land over everybody else in

[5:10:14] better capacity.

[5:10:16] But if you look at what we know and in

[5:10:19] reference culture from definition, let's

[5:10:22] say off the phone or

[5:10:25] just from the internet for fun

[5:10:26] reference, everybody calls chat GPT,

[5:10:28] right, Michael? Culture is the shared

[5:10:30] way of life of a group of people, the

[5:10:32] beliefs, the traditions, the customs,

[5:10:34] the behaviors, the values, the language,

[5:10:37] food, music, art, religion, and social

[5:10:40] practices that are learned and passed

[5:10:43] from one generation to another.

[5:10:46] And this is where I think we all have

[5:10:48] equality and people can stay to listen

[5:10:50] about culture when they want to speak

[5:10:52] when it's important and not listen when

[5:10:53] they don't think it's important. But I

[5:10:56] think it's important that you have to be

[5:10:57] from somewhere for a while to

[5:10:59] understand. And so you don't have to

[5:11:02] raise your hand. But how many people are

[5:11:03] speaking about culture wrote this

[5:11:06] document are actually from Ventura, born

[5:11:08] and raised in Ventura, had family

[5:11:11] members born and raised in Ventura,

[5:11:13] buried in Ventura. I think that has

[5:11:16] merit to what's been said here and who

[5:11:18] inputs this into this document.

[5:11:21] So that's just my kind of spin on what I

[5:11:23] thought culture and how arts played into

[5:11:26] that. I think it's definitely a sub I

[5:11:29] agree with how art is part of culture.

[5:11:30] They're definitely not equal. They

[5:11:32] shouldn't be even in the same category.

[5:11:36] And since I am a man of recreation and

[5:11:39] sport, I believe that this community has

[5:11:41] always been part of that. especially

[5:11:43] when it comes to wave riding, being in

[5:11:45] the ocean, living a lifestyle of nature,

[5:11:48] of hunting, of fishing, of preserving,

[5:11:50] and using the land. And a lot of that

[5:11:53] came for me and my family in the game of

[5:11:54] baseball, actually. And I think that

[5:11:57] this document for culture should have

[5:11:58] the game of baseball. The first team was

[5:12:01] actually formed here in 1873,

[5:12:03] over 150 years ago. We've had famous

[5:12:06] players throughout time that I'll leave

[5:12:09] their names out for recreation and time,

[5:12:11] but there was a part of the document I

[5:12:13] really enjoyed. It was new AC 310

[5:12:17] interdep departmental coordination. And

[5:12:20] I would love to see formalization for

[5:12:22] culture happen through recreation when

[5:12:23] it comes to like our boxing program at

[5:12:26] West Park, which has lost steam the last

[5:12:28] few years. Maybe it's the motivation for

[5:12:30] soccer in uh the the um the camp on in

[5:12:34] Satakoy. I think there's areas that we

[5:12:37] could support opportunity for grants and

[5:12:39] culture through recreation to identify

[5:12:41] what venture is about. Thank you.

[5:12:44] >> And our final speaker is Nirvonica.

[5:12:47] >> Mayor, could we take a vote to move

[5:12:49] beyond 10 p.m., please?

[5:12:50] >> Oh, yes. Thanks for that reminder.

[5:12:53] Anybody want to make a motion to move

[5:12:55] past 10?

[5:12:55] >> I'll make a motion to move past 10.

[5:12:57] >> Thank you. making a motion.

[5:12:58] >> Thank you.

[5:13:00] >> So, we have a motion and a second.

[5:13:02] >> You just have to extend the meeting real

[5:13:03] quick.

[5:13:05] >> Give them one second.

[5:13:07] >> Okay, you can enter your vote now.

[5:13:12] » Thank you.

[5:13:15] >> All votes have been entered.

[5:13:19] » Six eyes's, one no from Deputy Mayor

[5:13:22] Halter. And the motion carries.

[5:13:26] Uh you can go ahead now. They just

[5:13:28] needed to extend the meeting.

[5:13:31] Whenever you're ready,

[5:13:39] I'd like to start off by saying peace

[5:13:44] and love to everyone and everything

[5:13:49] everywhere.

[5:13:51] And I'd like to start off by talking

[5:13:53] about culture because there have been

[5:13:56] people that have told me that I have no

[5:13:59] culture because of the color of my skin.

[5:14:01] Well, I'd like to tell you guys a little

[5:14:03] bit about my culture

[5:14:05] because I'm a direct descendant of Luke.

[5:14:08] [sighs]

[5:14:10] You know the Luke in the Bible, the the

[5:14:12] book of Luke, I'm a direct descendant

[5:14:15] and it's been passed down through the

[5:14:17] generations through my family.

[5:14:22] So, I've got culture, too.

[5:14:25] And uh

[5:14:34] I didn't bring my harmonica with me

[5:14:36] tonight, so I'm stuck playing the

[5:14:40] world's smallest harmonica tonight.

[5:14:44] And uh

[5:14:46] I'm going to put it in a song. I'm gonna

[5:14:48] write it right now.

[5:14:55] [music]

[5:15:10] I approve

[5:15:12] of the [music] arts and policy

[5:15:14] framework. [singing]

[5:15:17] » [music]

[5:15:18] >> and the arts and concert culture

[5:15:21] definitions [music] and grant program

[5:15:26] redesign.

[5:15:30] We need arts [music and singing] and

[5:15:31] culture

[5:15:33] in Ventura.

[5:15:35] [music]

[5:15:44] We want [singing and music] art and

[5:15:46] culture and ventura right now.

[5:15:49] [music]

[5:15:51] We want art [singing] and culture and

[5:15:54] ventura right now.

[5:15:56] [music]

[5:15:59] We want [singing]

[5:16:01] art and culture and venture [music]

[5:16:05] right now. [singing]

[5:16:14] Thank you,

[5:16:16] mayor. That concludes public comment.

[5:16:19] >> Thank you to all the um speakers

[5:16:22] tonight. I'll go ahead and bring it back

[5:16:25] to council

[5:16:27] um for additional questions and

[5:16:29] deliberation. A motion is required on

[5:16:32] this item.

[5:16:36] I have uh Council Member Compost.

[5:16:41] Thank you, Mayor. Nirvana is a hard act

[5:16:44] to follow.

[5:16:46] I want to mention when we started this

[5:16:49] process, we spoke about economic

[5:16:52] development

[5:16:54] and cultural tourism. [clears throat]

[5:16:57] And reading through this, I didn't see a

[5:17:00] lot of focus there.

[5:17:02] I wonder if you could develop some kind

[5:17:05] of

[5:17:06] break down a mini grant or something for

[5:17:08] people who are

[5:17:11] serving the downtown businesses

[5:17:14] and in a way that brings tourism to town

[5:17:17] there. There should be some way to

[5:17:19] incorporate them into what we're doing.

[5:17:22] I also want to support the comments from

[5:17:26] Casey Rodriguez and Maryanne Parra.

[5:17:29] There there needs to be

[5:17:33] I remember when we did the land

[5:17:35] acknowledgement, the Schumash land

[5:17:37] acknowledgement and we were here to vote

[5:17:39] on it and many Schumash people came and

[5:17:42] spoke and one thing that most of them

[5:17:45] had in common was don't do this if it's

[5:17:48] performative.

[5:17:50] Don't do it if you're just going to read

[5:17:51] it before a meeting or slap it on the

[5:17:53] wall. Be proactive. And this is an

[5:17:57] opportunity for us to be proactive and

[5:18:00] do what they asked, which is do

[5:18:02] something separate for the shoe match.

[5:18:06] So I would recommend, however, we craft

[5:18:08] this at the end that that be included.

[5:18:11] Thank you.

[5:18:14] >> Thank you, Council Member Schumacher.

[5:18:16] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, and I want to echo

[5:18:18] that, too. Uh just for category 2, I

[5:18:22] think just reading through the staff

[5:18:24] report, um my question really is and and

[5:18:28] I just need some clarification. The

[5:18:30] focus of the arts and culture category

[5:18:33] is to I'm reading it here. Support the

[5:18:36] established cultural info in

[5:18:38] infrastructure and arts organizations.

[5:18:40] Yes.

[5:18:42] >> Yes. And for clarity in that category,

[5:18:45] uh organizations can submit for an arts

[5:18:48] project, a cultural project or a

[5:18:52] cultural arts project where uh culture

[5:18:55] is expressed through the arts. So it

[5:18:58] doesn't have there does not have to be

[5:18:59] arts connected in that grant category.

[5:19:03] >> Great. Then I want I mean I can I can

[5:19:07] support that only if it gets renamed

[5:19:11] because I do not want arts and culture.

[5:19:14] I want I want it to be the arts. I mean

[5:19:16] I'm sorry. I want it to be the cultural

[5:19:18] arts projects. So that way culture is in

[5:19:21] front and people understand that this is

[5:19:24] not just you know just another category

[5:19:27] that they can apply for where they can

[5:19:30] tack on on a you know at the last minute

[5:19:33] or even just a sec at the last um not

[5:19:37] even at the forefront of their minds.

[5:19:39] The focus really is is to uplift um and

[5:19:42] I love what what it says here is that to

[5:19:44] align the arts and culture with economic

[5:19:46] development and cultural tourism to

[5:19:49] ensure that we are expanding um

[5:19:54] here recognize and elevate Chumash

[5:19:56] cultural heritage and indigenousled

[5:19:58] programming. So that is what I think

[5:20:00] needs to be lifted up. when you add on

[5:20:03] the arts first and then culture becomes

[5:20:07] an afterthought.

[5:20:09] I would like to have that to be um uh

[5:20:12] just renamed to cultural arts projects.

[5:20:15] [clears throat]

[5:20:18] » And for clarity, uh council member

[5:20:20] Schumacher, if we say cultural arts

[5:20:22] projects, it tends to mean that it must

[5:20:25] be culture represented through the arts.

[5:20:27] >> Correct. Let me just correct myself.

[5:20:29] Let's just say cultural projects.

[5:20:36] Thank you. Were those your comments,

[5:20:39] Miss Council member Shimoker? Are you

[5:20:41] done?

[5:20:41] >> Yes.

[5:20:41] >> Okay. Just making sure.

[5:20:43] >> Um, council member Mangon.

[5:20:46] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for

[5:20:48] your presentation and all the the work

[5:20:49] you guys have done with this. I have

[5:20:51] some questions based on uh the public

[5:20:54] comment. So, only category one is

[5:20:56] allowed to apply for operational

[5:20:58] support. Can you tell me why that is and

[5:21:01] how do we track those expenses? Is there

[5:21:04] any reporting requirements for that? Can

[5:21:06] you can you speak to a little bit?

[5:21:08] >> Do you want to talk about the reporting

[5:21:09] requirements?

[5:21:10] >> I'll speak to the reporting. So, for

[5:21:12] every grant applicant, they're required

[5:21:15] to to submit an itemized budget where

[5:21:18] the proposed funding would go. So, when

[5:21:20] it comes to operating support, uh those

[5:21:22] organizations would provide that budget.

[5:21:24] So if they're requesting 20,000, they

[5:21:27] share specifically where it goes. We

[5:21:29] check that as a staff team to ensure

[5:21:31] that their eligible expenses. Once the

[5:21:34] application process is completed and

[5:21:36] funding awards um have been uh given,

[5:21:40] then if the funding requested is not the

[5:21:42] same as the funding uh awarded, then we

[5:21:46] have the organization go back and revise

[5:21:48] that budget. But again, uh the specific

[5:21:52] amount and then there is a final report

[5:21:54] due at the end of the grant cycle where

[5:21:56] they um provide an update on the funding

[5:21:59] that was spent as well as the outcomes

[5:22:01] of their project or the activities that

[5:22:03] they completed.

[5:22:05] >> Okay, awesome. Thank you for that. And

[5:22:08] um based on another public comment,

[5:22:10] applicant compliance requirements

[5:22:13] um the requirement number two is comply

[5:22:15] with ADA and applicable

[5:22:17] non-discrimination laws. How do we

[5:22:19] ensure compliance with that? Is there

[5:22:21] like there was training was mentioned.

[5:22:23] Is there a handout checklist? H how is

[5:22:26] that even done?

[5:22:30] » So each organization has different ADA

[5:22:33] compliance. Um they have to attest to

[5:22:35] the fact that yes, they are compliant

[5:22:37] with with ADA rules and regulations. Uh

[5:22:41] we provide so so in that sense we don't

[5:22:43] go to every single organization to to

[5:22:46] ensure compliance. However, um we do uh

[5:22:50] have an area available when it comes to

[5:22:52] our grant programming. If a community

[5:22:54] member or someone shares that an event

[5:22:57] they attended that was funded through

[5:22:59] grant funding didn't have ADA

[5:23:01] compliance, they can share that with

[5:23:02] staff and we will go out and uh

[5:23:05] investigate. Connected to training, we

[5:23:08] do we will be providing training to all

[5:23:10] of our grant panelists. So there'll be

[5:23:12] four separate grant panels. Each panel

[5:23:14] has different eligibility requirements

[5:23:16] based on the grant, but we'll be going

[5:23:18] through um ADA requirements so that

[5:23:21] everyone looking at the grant

[5:23:23] applications is looking through a lens

[5:23:25] of equity, inclusion, and access.

[5:23:27] >> Okay, that's good news. Thank you for

[5:23:28] that. And um why aren't how was it

[5:23:33] determined that cultural events would

[5:23:35] not be eligible for funding just

[5:23:36] organizations?

[5:23:39] >> So cultural events are typically hosted

[5:23:41] by organizations. So those organizations

[5:23:43] would be eligible.

[5:23:45] >> Okay,

[5:23:50] that's it for now. Thank you.

[5:23:52] >> Thank you. to kind of follow up on uh

[5:23:55] Council Member Mangon's question in

[5:23:57] regards to the um I guess vetting of the

[5:24:00] applications. Um

[5:24:03] how many or in the past or how do you

[5:24:06] consider uh applications that are

[5:24:09] applying for funding for operational

[5:24:12] costs versus a project? Um, I just I I

[5:24:16] want to make sure that we're not

[5:24:19] supplementing an organization's

[5:24:22] operational cost or budget versus uh

[5:24:25] budget for separate um events or

[5:24:28] projects.

[5:24:30] >> Sure. Well, one of the things we heard

[5:24:32] in the stakeholder engagement process

[5:24:34] was that basic operating

[5:24:37] uh expenses were the hardest to fundra

[5:24:40] for. And this is true around the

[5:24:43] country. Organizations need a reliable

[5:24:46] source of operating funds just to pay

[5:24:50] the insurance, pay basic staff costs,

[5:24:52] administration. So the intent was to use

[5:24:55] that category, category one, to provide

[5:24:58] that kind of support for organizations

[5:25:00] that have already established themselves

[5:25:03] and shown that they have the ability to

[5:25:05] raise other funds. Um and again I think

[5:25:10] this was responding to the needs that we

[5:25:13] heard from the stakeholders themselves.

[5:25:16] >> Okay. So you you'll have a process as to

[5:25:18] how to not have an organization heavily

[5:25:22] rely on some of this funding for their

[5:25:25] operation. No cost.

[5:25:26] >> Yes. Um as Emily said, there are certain

[5:25:29] allowable expenses and certain uh

[5:25:32] ineligible expenses. So that will be

[5:25:34] part of the application screening

[5:25:36] process and I'm sure the applicants

[5:25:38] these organizations will be paying very

[5:25:40] careful attention to how to color within

[5:25:42] the lines.

[5:25:43] >> Okay. And then um also touching on the

[5:25:47] one application per organization

[5:25:51] um can you tell me what's the downfall

[5:25:54] of having two

[5:25:56] um two applications per organization if

[5:26:00] there is any or what? Yes, this is a

[5:26:03] judgment call and we've talked about

[5:26:05] this as a staff and consultant team. Um,

[5:26:10] a a lot of this is that we have limited

[5:26:12] dollars. I mean it it's wonderful that

[5:26:14] council increased the the allocation

[5:26:17] from 90,000 to 200,000 and as you know

[5:26:20] uh from the staff report staff shifted

[5:26:23] 10,000 from the community partnerships

[5:26:25] grants over to uh the arts and culture

[5:26:29] side um as a part of this redesign but

[5:26:33] we're still dealing with a a total pool

[5:26:36] of funding available for arts and

[5:26:38] cultural uses of $210,000

[5:26:42] And

[5:26:44] if you allow organizations uh as Donna

[5:26:47] Granada said in her comments, if you

[5:26:51] accept the argument that they're they're

[5:26:53] eligible to apply in two categories and

[5:26:56] they're allowed to do so in other

[5:26:58] grant-making agencies, why can't they do

[5:27:00] it here? It's a reasonable argument.

[5:27:04] The problem is that with a limited pool

[5:27:06] of dollars, this means there's less

[5:27:09] money available for newer applications,

[5:27:13] smaller, less capable uh nonprofit

[5:27:16] organizations

[5:27:17] and the culture side of things.

[5:27:20] >> Okay, thank you. Those are my questions

[5:27:22] for now. Um, Deputy Mayor Halter.

[5:27:24] >> Great. Thank you. Just a couple

[5:27:26] questions to follow up on that though is

[5:27:27] that um applying for more than one uh

[5:27:31] grant is different than being able to be

[5:27:34] awarded more than one grant. If you if

[5:27:37] you're not able to be awarded more than

[5:27:39] one grant, uh then your comment would be

[5:27:42] true. But if you're simply an

[5:27:44] organization that you qualify on many

[5:27:46] fronts and you want to make sure that

[5:27:49] you have a chance of winning something,

[5:27:52] okay, on a grant basis, I don't see why

[5:27:55] we would preclude people from applying

[5:27:57] for more than one grant as long as they

[5:27:59] may only be awarded one.

[5:28:02] >> Yes. And and certainly in some uh some

[5:28:05] grant making agencies that we're aware

[5:28:07] of, that has been the rule. If you get

[5:28:10] two awards, you have to choose. It does

[5:28:13] in introduce an element of

[5:28:15] administrative difficulty because the

[5:28:18] panels are needing to make recommended

[5:28:21] awards and if they don't know if that

[5:28:23] award's going to be accepted or not, it

[5:28:26] just

[5:28:28] introduces another element of

[5:28:29] complexity.

[5:28:30] >> Um the thank you for that. Um I could

[5:28:33] see that. Uh I also the the part that's

[5:28:36] [music] missing for me is looking at uh

[5:28:38] how we're actually scoring uh applicants

[5:28:42] because the reason why that becomes very

[5:28:43] important is because to me it's a

[5:28:46] there's a glaring hole between

[5:28:48] connecting all the good work that we're

[5:28:50] doing and the our great assets with the

[5:28:53] cultural uh arts part of our community.

[5:28:56] um we're not connecting the dots to

[5:28:59] those those tremendous assets and trying

[5:29:02] to reap the greatest amount of economic

[5:29:04] benefit for the city. And I think the

[5:29:06] only way you could do that now would be

[5:29:09] uh how you score different applicants.

[5:29:11] And uh like for instance, as I mentioned

[5:29:14] with the downtown cultural district, we

[5:29:16] have a fantastic asset that's 30 years

[5:29:19] in the making that has come a long way.

[5:29:22] How do we ignore ignore the fact that

[5:29:25] this is an asset that is leading to

[5:29:27] tremendous benefits for the city and yet

[5:29:30] it it it's not being perceived that way

[5:29:33] and it's not being taken in

[5:29:34] consideration uh for getting awards.

[5:29:39] Yeah, I I think that's [clears throat] a

[5:29:40] great point and one of the I think

[5:29:42] outcomes of applying for the California

[5:29:45] Arts Council designation as a cultural

[5:29:48] district will require that there be uh

[5:29:51] an organization that manages the

[5:29:53] cultural district. And in that case,

[5:29:55] there would then be a body that could

[5:29:58] receive support potentially

[5:30:00] uh from the funding program or could

[5:30:03] receive an allocation, you know, from

[5:30:06] the city in another form. Um right now

[5:30:10] it feels like the the avenue to support

[5:30:14] the vitality of uh the cultural district

[5:30:18] >> Yeah. is for those that are providing

[5:30:20] activation and programming in the

[5:30:22] district to apply for funding.

[5:30:25] >> It's an incomplete answer to your

[5:30:27] question, but it it's it's what we have

[5:30:29] >> because unless you weigh it that these

[5:30:31] are organizations that are established

[5:30:33] and have been successful at bringing in

[5:30:36] more economic benefit and and they're

[5:30:39] weighted that way when they're reviewed

[5:30:41] as an applicant that they're in the

[5:30:43] cultural district. I don't see how that

[5:30:45] benefits the cultural district. I just

[5:30:47] don't,

[5:30:49] >> you know.

[5:30:49] >> So, you're you're arguing in favor of um

[5:30:54] ad advantaging applicants who are

[5:30:58] programming downtown or demonstrating

[5:31:00] economic vitality.

[5:31:02] >> There's no reason why no reason for us

[5:31:04] declaring downtown or cultural district

[5:31:07] um if we're going to ignore it. There

[5:31:09] really isn't, you know. And then um the

[5:31:11] other thing is there's a lot of cultures

[5:31:15] in this community and I know our hearts

[5:31:19] go out to cultures where there where

[5:31:22] we're misperceived whether it's LG LGBTQ

[5:31:25] or uh our Jewish uh history. Um um but

[5:31:30] there's also you can't ignore the

[5:31:34] culture created by our agriculture and

[5:31:37] um you know by the ranching that's gone

[5:31:39] on and it really doesn't matter. It's

[5:31:43] exciting and a beautiful rich part of

[5:31:45] our history that we have thousands of

[5:31:47] years of history. Uh but to say that um

[5:31:51] the history that's happened in the last

[5:31:52] hundred years or 150 years is not

[5:31:54] important. So, we're not going to even

[5:31:56] list it on this. I I think it's turning

[5:32:00] off a certain part of our population

[5:32:02] here. And we I I would personally like

[5:32:06] to see I I know the power of cultural

[5:32:08] arts as a lot of you do in getting

[5:32:11] people to recognize the benefits of

[5:32:13] having so much diversity and richness in

[5:32:15] our community, but it doesn't help when

[5:32:18] we ignore uh the obvious cultures that

[5:32:22] have been so present in the last 150

[5:32:24] years. And I think we should be listing

[5:32:26] those. I really do. And so anyways,

[5:32:30] otherwise, uh, I think you guys have

[5:32:32] done a great job and overall, I think

[5:32:34] you've done a great job. I just think

[5:32:35] there's some holes there that's going to

[5:32:37] make it challenging as we move forward.

[5:32:40] >> Thank you. I have, uh, staff number two.

[5:32:42] Did you want to

[5:32:44] >> say anything? Um,

[5:32:46] >> I actually was able to clarify early.

[5:32:48] Thank you.

[5:32:49] >> Okay. Just making sure I don't skip that

[5:32:50] over. Um, council member McReynolds.

[5:32:53] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, can we bring

[5:32:54] up slide three

[5:32:57] and then if I could ask the chair of the

[5:33:00] arts and culture and vice chair to come

[5:33:02] forward.

[5:33:08] So, in terms of the slide that's up on

[5:33:10] us, obviously there's the two meetings

[5:33:12] that the arts and culture commission

[5:33:14] had. I'm sure both of you were part of

[5:33:16] that. In [clears throat] terms of the

[5:33:19] other the outreach, the popups, uh what

[5:33:22] was the involvement of the arts and

[5:33:24] culture commission in terms of the other

[5:33:26] items listed here? Uh and were you

[5:33:28] personally part of any?

[5:33:30] >> Um we were not formally

[5:33:32] >> part of that. We were invited we were we

[5:33:36] were allowed to um attend as individuals

[5:33:40] as observers but we had no formal input

[5:33:43] or leadership in those meetings. What

[5:33:46] was your opinion of those meetings? I

[5:33:48] guess I mean as as

[5:33:50] >> I did go to about a half a dozen.

[5:33:52] >> I thought they were extremely open,

[5:33:55] mostly well attended. Um

[5:33:59] lots and lots of repeated information,

[5:34:02] extended invitations for additional

[5:34:05] meetings. They were very communicative.

[5:34:07] I thought

[5:34:09] >> Vice Chair, do you have any

[5:34:10] >> Yes, I do. I spent more most of my time

[5:34:14] encouraging people to go people who come

[5:34:16] up later and have an opinion about the

[5:34:19] process after the process has been done.

[5:34:21] So I spent a lot of time on social and

[5:34:24] reaching outreach to the organizations

[5:34:26] that I have connections with or contacts

[5:34:28] with and just encouraging people to

[5:34:30] participate since we couldn't speak and

[5:34:32] we couldn't participate in any formal.

[5:34:34] >> So but you did you did have the two

[5:34:36] meetings uh and then the arts and

[5:34:38] culture commission is making a

[5:34:40] recommendation that the council adopt

[5:34:42] this as

[5:34:45] uh presented.

[5:34:47] >> Yes, if I may elaborate on that. Um

[5:34:50] we've been involved and contacted by the

[5:34:53] consultant team all along and

[5:34:57] while all of us, you've only heard from

[5:35:00] one desenter, all of us had different

[5:35:03] parts that were we favored and some

[5:35:06] things that we felt were left out. But

[5:35:08] we did have a 6 to1 um vote to

[5:35:12] enthusiastically support this because we

[5:35:15] do respect the depth and breadth of the

[5:35:18] work done and in spite of some of the

[5:35:21] comments that have taken place here. Um

[5:35:25] it's my opinion that there are more

[5:35:28] doors, more portals introduced into the

[5:35:32] city funding through this proposed new

[5:35:35] structure. Um, it's it's addressed and I

[5:35:39] and potentially solved some of the

[5:35:41] problems we've had in the last couple

[5:35:42] funding cycles where organizations that

[5:35:46] were not primarily

[5:35:49] arts and culture providers now have

[5:35:51] access to much greater funding and um so

[5:35:54] yes, we had a very um

[5:35:57] good session of conversations about it

[5:36:00] and it was a a 61 vote. Yes.

[5:36:03] >> Thank you.

[5:36:04] >> So those are my questions. Thank you.

[5:36:06] >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. I do have one more thing

[5:36:07] to add to what um Karen said is that it

[5:36:11] is a competitive application process.

[5:36:13] It's a process, an application that's

[5:36:15] open to all to apply. If they're

[5:36:17] eligible, they get get they get to be a

[5:36:20] part of the process and that it is a

[5:36:24] competitive process. It's not an

[5:36:25] allowance. And I think that that's

[5:36:27] something that really needs to be clear

[5:36:28] that everybody can apply if they're

[5:36:31] eligible. And I think that there's a lot

[5:36:33] more opportunity. And I think it's

[5:36:35] amazing how much more we've opened the

[5:36:37] door today. So, thank you.

[5:36:39] >> And Miss Rodriguez, were you the one to

[5:36:41] center?

[5:36:42] >> I was.

[5:36:43] >> Would you mind coming?

[5:36:50] » So,

[5:36:51] >> she did abstain.

[5:36:54] >> Well, she's um what she's referring.

[5:36:56] Yes.

[5:36:57] >> Okay. So in terms of your abstension,

[5:37:02] >> uh is that based solely on your comments

[5:37:04] in terms of the the cultural component?

[5:37:07] >> Yes.

[5:37:07] >> So setting that one aspect aside, are

[5:37:11] you in generally in favor? I mean you

[5:37:13] >> Yes. And like I would agree with these

[5:37:16] guys, they did a lot of large community

[5:37:18] outport. We did that survey online. I

[5:37:21] also reached out to the nonprofits and

[5:37:23] individuals that I knew to take the

[5:37:24] survey and to come. So yeah,

[5:37:26] >> but being who I am as you guys know that

[5:37:30] strongly advocates for culture that was

[5:37:32] the only

[5:37:34] >> Okay, last question. So if the you had

[5:37:37] mentioned $20,000 for uh culture was as

[5:37:41] a separate C I believe from category one

[5:37:45] to would would that sway your vote to

[5:37:48] support the the what we see before us

[5:37:52] today? I believe the arts and culture

[5:37:55] like Mr. Shamarker was saying it should

[5:37:57] just be culture culture projects.

[5:37:59] >> That was my

[5:38:01] >> with that

[5:38:01] >> and yeah I would be in agreement. I just

[5:38:04] want to make sure that we're giving

[5:38:06] respectful

[5:38:07] highlighting to art and culture. Not

[5:38:09] trying to combine either one but you

[5:38:11] know they're both similar and in a lot

[5:38:13] of ways and a lot of ways are not

[5:38:15] because culture is not always producing

[5:38:17] something. culture is also sharing,

[5:38:19] educating,

[5:38:21] involvement in other ways other than

[5:38:23] just trying to produce like an artist

[5:38:25] does.

[5:38:26] >> Thank you. Okay, I'm well out of my

[5:38:28] wheelhouse in terms of arts and culture.

[5:38:31] Uh, so we have I I see two other arts

[5:38:34] and culture commissioners. Maybe there's

[5:38:36] more. Do I want to give you an

[5:38:38] opportunity? I'm really relying on your

[5:38:42] expertise to inform my decision. Is

[5:38:44] there anything else that you would like

[5:38:45] to add? I just want to give you the

[5:38:47] opportunity. I'm not making you

[5:38:50] uh Yeah. But I am relying on your

[5:38:53] expertise. So if you want to you want to

[5:38:55] share it, [laughter] I'm more than

[5:38:57] willing to hear it.

[5:39:02] [clears throat] Again, I'm not trying to

[5:39:03] force you.

[5:39:05] >> Why not?

[5:39:06] >> Yeah.

[5:39:09] >> Hi, I'm Diane Karnitzki and I'm a member

[5:39:11] of the commission. I just wanted to

[5:39:13] thank everyone, staff and David and his

[5:39:17] team for the work that was involved. It

[5:39:19] was an extensive process. I came in last

[5:39:22] summer on the commission. So, I missed

[5:39:25] the initial part of everything that was

[5:39:27] going on, but I was definitely part of

[5:39:29] the process going forward and watching

[5:39:32] some of the community outreach and

[5:39:33] seeing the responses from people. And

[5:39:36] certainly I don't think any of the

[5:39:37] people that were coming to these open

[5:39:40] meetings were pressured in any way or

[5:39:42] felt anything about it because they

[5:39:45] basically got stickers to put on the

[5:39:48] chart of the things that they felt were

[5:39:50] most important to the community. So it

[5:39:53] was more anonymous in certain ways

[5:39:57] because no one would really know whose

[5:39:59] sticker was who. And I think it's a very

[5:40:03] complex procedure that we went through

[5:40:06] and the actual grant program because it

[5:40:10] may not be a perfect program the way it

[5:40:12] is, but it does provide a structure for

[5:40:14] us moving forward and I really feel that is why I went ahead and approved

[5:40:22] moving this forward as well. Thank you.

[5:40:28] » Yeah, I'm losing my voice.

[5:40:31] you can use the microphone.

[5:40:32] >> Rafael,

[5:40:33] as you know, I've been teaching for a

[5:40:35] long time in Santa Barbara City College,

[5:40:37] like 30 something years. I don't know.

[5:40:39] So, uh, and I live in Santa Barbara for

[5:40:42] many years, and I saw something pretty

[5:40:44] close to this happening that didn't

[5:40:46] happen. And I think what I I apologize

[5:40:49] [clears throat] for the the voice,

[5:40:51] >> but what I find exciting about the

[5:40:53] process is to see the level of

[5:40:55] commitment that the city council as well

[5:40:58] as the people is in front of me have put

[5:41:01] into this. I went to a lot of the

[5:41:03] meetings. I've been recently added to

[5:41:06] the city council, no city council, the

[5:41:08] art commission. And um I'm just excited

[5:41:11] to see that this is actually happening.

[5:41:14] And I know it has a lot of flaws. There

[5:41:16] are things that you can change and tweak

[5:41:17] and here and there but for me it's

[5:41:20] actually a very good step ahead and

[5:41:23] sometimes we don't do it because we find

[5:41:25] a lot of problems in between but I think

[5:41:28] this is a very good opportunity to move

[5:41:31] Ventura uh in the right direction. So

[5:41:34] that's why I support it. I think it's uh

[5:41:36] I appreciate all the work that they have

[5:41:38] been putting in this.

[5:41:40] >> Thank you. [clears throat] So, uh, on

[5:41:42] behalf of the city council, I want to

[5:41:43] thank all of you for your service on the

[5:41:45] arts and culture commission. So, it

[5:41:47] really is a gap in who I am, and I I

[5:41:51] thank you very much for your expertise.

[5:41:52] >> Thank you.

[5:41:54] >> Yes. Thank you. Uh, Council Member

[5:41:57] Compost, did you still

[5:41:59] >> I just have one other question. Um, I

[5:42:03] think Deputy Mayor Halter mentioned

[5:42:05] scoring.

[5:42:06] um how are you going to ensure that the

[5:42:09] scoring of each of these programs is has

[5:42:12] no bias? How are you going to protect

[5:42:15] the process?

[5:42:18] So for each of the uh grant categories,

[5:42:22] we'll have a published uh rubric and the

[5:42:25] rubric aligns with the application and

[5:42:28] the different narrative questions and

[5:42:29] supplementals reply or um uh required.

[5:42:33] So with the scoring rubric, it breaks it

[5:42:35] down into one to five uh point system

[5:42:38] for all of the different categories that

[5:42:40] are scored. And then with each within

[5:42:42] each of those scores, it shares the how

[5:42:46] you get to that score. So if it meets uh

[5:42:50] these items, it receives score one,

[5:42:53] score two. The way we do the um review

[5:42:56] process is the initial review is done by

[5:42:59] the review panel after we've gone

[5:43:01] through the training. So talking about

[5:43:03] access um equity, making sure that uh

[5:43:07] anyone who is reviewing it has to sign

[5:43:09] the that they are going to to not

[5:43:11] discriminate and that they're going to

[5:43:13] look at them um all equally. But there

[5:43:16] is a initial individual review process

[5:43:18] that the panelists do. So they do that

[5:43:21] in their own home. They review and they

[5:43:23] score. They send those scores back to

[5:43:24] staff and we review the scoring sheets

[5:43:27] to see if there are any anomalies. um

[5:43:29] we'll reach out to the panelists to see,

[5:43:32] you know, if there's a discrepancy

[5:43:33] between one category is a five and then

[5:43:36] the other panelist scored at a 10. Um so

[5:43:38] we'll talk through those before we come

[5:43:41] to the in-person review meeting where

[5:43:43] the scores are all merged and averaged

[5:43:46] and then as a group the panelists talk

[5:43:48] through each of the applications and

[5:43:50] come up with the final um scoring and

[5:43:53] then the award allocations. There is a

[5:43:55] staff liaison uh monitoring each of

[5:43:58] those review panels and if there's ever

[5:44:00] a point where it's felt that there's a

[5:44:02] panelist who is skewing the vote or is

[5:44:06] sharing information that um makes it

[5:44:09] either sharing information outside of

[5:44:10] the application or that makes it an

[5:44:13] process that seems like it's not um fair

[5:44:16] and equitable. then staff would

[5:44:18] intervene uh and we would likely uh

[5:44:21] revise the redo the the panel review

[5:44:24] process or remove that panelist and

[5:44:26] continue forward with the remaining

[5:44:27] panelists.

[5:44:29] >> Thank you for that explanation. It's

[5:44:30] very thorough. I appreciate you.

[5:44:34] >> Thank you, Council Member Schumacher.

[5:44:36] >> Thank you. Um, first I just want to

[5:44:39] thank you for all of the hard work this

[5:44:41] uh, you know, looking at slide three, it

[5:44:42] just really shows how much how dedicated

[5:44:44] you all were to including the public's

[5:44:47] uh, voices and their input and thank you

[5:44:49] to the arts um, commission. Thank you

[5:44:52] for all the work that you have done and

[5:44:53] I know most of you and the um, and

[5:44:56] absolute expertise and I want to echo

[5:44:58] what um, council member Mcrenolds had

[5:45:00] said. I do not want to belabor this

[5:45:02] because we have two other appointments.

[5:45:03] So, I would like to move uh ahead with

[5:45:06] staff's recommendation um with the

[5:45:08] amendment that the category 2 is going

[5:45:10] to be um renamed to cultural projects.

[5:45:14] Second,

[5:45:14] >> I just had a question um in regards

[5:45:17] because I know several council members

[5:45:19] touched upon the um historical aspect of

[5:45:23] the A.

[5:45:24] >> Uh how are you going to address that?

[5:45:29] » So, it's encompassed in the definition

[5:45:31] of culture. It's just not a specific

[5:45:33] call out, but in the arts and culture

[5:45:35] policy framework and then in all of the

[5:45:37] additional work we do when we're sharing

[5:45:39] the definitions, when we're providing

[5:45:41] examples, we can absolutely make sure

[5:45:43] it's included in the arts and culture

[5:45:45] element of the 2050 general plan. It

[5:45:47] does specifically reference agriculture.

[5:45:50] It me it also references, you know,

[5:45:52] rancho culture, etc. So we'll make sure

[5:45:55] that kind of the broad cultural groups

[5:45:57] that we have in the city are referenced

[5:45:59] and and see themselves not only in the

[5:46:01] documents but also in our web material.

[5:46:04] >> Okay. Thank you for that. And I also

[5:46:06] echo um what you've heard from from

[5:46:08] council members here. Thank you for all

[5:46:10] the hard work. Commissioners, thank you

[5:46:12] as well for your volunteerism and your

[5:46:15] time that you've put into this as well.

[5:46:17] Um I think we're here because of you

[5:46:19] guys. So really appreciate it. Um,

[5:46:22] Council Member Duran, followed by

[5:46:23] Council Member Mangon.

[5:46:25] >> Yeah, thank you very much, Madame Mayor.

[5:46:27] I I appreciate the tremendous amount of

[5:46:29] work that staff, the commission,

[5:46:32] consultant, and the art organization and

[5:46:34] community have put into this. And not to

[5:46:36] throw a wrench in anything, but I don't

[5:46:38] and I don't really want to start over,

[5:46:39] but I do want to make sure that we have

[5:46:41] it right before we adopt a policy that

[5:46:43] could guide Ventura for years. Um,

[5:46:45] first, I want to make sure that we're

[5:46:47] telling the complete story of Ventura. I

[5:46:49] appreciate the recognition of Schumash

[5:46:50] heritage, multicultural communities,

[5:46:53] coastal and working-class identity and independent creatives. I I I

[5:46:59] appreciate that. But Ventur also has a

[5:47:00] rich cultural and ranching. I I agree

[5:47:02] with uh our deputy mayor and um the

[5:47:05] ranching history and the long-standing

[5:47:07] tradition of music, theater, music

[5:47:10] festivals, visual arts, and established

[5:47:12] cultural cultural organizations. And I

[5:47:15] just had a phone call just a couple days

[5:47:16] ago. Um, and these are quote his his

[5:47:20] words, not mine. Uh, what's going on

[5:47:22] with our black culture? Where is our

[5:47:24] black? We don't see it in the museums.

[5:47:26] We don't what where are we? Okay. So, I

[5:47:28] just want to share that these these

[5:47:30] histories don't compete with each other.

[5:47:31] Obviously, they're they're adding one

[5:47:34] part of interest story um to another.

[5:47:37] It's not removing one or it's just

[5:47:38] adding it together. Secondly, I have a

[5:47:40] question about the existing cultural

[5:47:42] district. If we already have this asset,

[5:47:46] then why wouldn't we first look to at

[5:47:47] strengthening it, expanding it were

[5:47:50] appropriate and actively promoting its

[5:47:52] cultural tourism, economic development

[5:47:54] tool tool before studying additional

[5:47:56] districts.

[5:47:58] I I And then finally, I have a concern

[5:48:00] with the grant structure itself. Um,

[5:48:03] we're we're talking about $340,000 of

[5:48:06] public funding. Equity and accessibility

[5:48:09] obviously matters, but creating

[5:48:11] opportunities for smaller and

[5:48:13] historically un unrepresented

[5:48:15] organizations matters as well, but so do

[5:48:18] outcomes. Those absolutely matter. So,

[5:48:20] how many people are being served? What

[5:48:22] are what is the programming that's

[5:48:24] created? Does it bring people to

[5:48:25] Ventura? Does it support our businesses?

[5:48:27] Does it generate tourism and economic

[5:48:29] activity? And can the organization

[5:48:31] demonstrate that? And can it deliver

[5:48:33] that? Would you would you agree um

[5:48:35] Deputy Mayor Halter that that's kind of

[5:48:37] an important part?

[5:48:39] >> I'm sorry. I was thinking of

[5:48:40] >> uh the the part of what you're saying.

[5:48:42] >> Yeah. Economic develop uh vitality.

[5:48:44] >> Exactly. Yeah. I I'm I'm particularly

[5:48:46] concerned about

[5:48:47] >> requiring organizations to choose

[5:48:49] between operating support and project

[5:48:52] funding. Those serve two different

[5:48:54] purposes. Operating support helps

[5:48:56] sustain an organization. project funding

[5:48:59] produces the concerts and the festivals

[5:49:01] and the e uh exhibitions and um

[5:49:04] performances and events and directly

[5:49:06] benefit the public. I understand the

[5:49:08] concern that allowing two grants could

[5:49:10] result in few organizations receiving

[5:49:12] too much of the available funding. I get

[5:49:14] that that's legitimate and we should

[5:49:17] protect against that. But rather than

[5:49:19] prohibiting a second application, could

[5:49:22] we allow one operating application and

[5:49:25] one project application, score them

[5:49:27] independently, establish a reasonable

[5:49:30] combined cap and make clear that

[5:49:32] receiving one does not guarantee

[5:49:33] receiving the other. I things to think

[5:49:36] about. We could also consider two two

[5:49:38] awards uh broader pool. I I just think

[5:49:41] there's more to think about in all of

[5:49:43] this. I would also like to see the

[5:49:44] scoring rubric. um if economic

[5:49:47] development and cultural tourism are

[5:49:49] priorities, I want to know how much they

[5:49:51] actually count to determining who

[5:49:53] receives the dollars. And so I I'm not

[5:49:56] looking for to delay this process

[5:49:58] unnecessarily. I just want to make sure

[5:50:00] that we get it right. And so if we can

[5:50:03] address those issues tonight, then

[5:50:04] awesome. If not, I' I'd rather give a

[5:50:07] little bit more time um so we can answer

[5:50:09] these questions and maybe

[5:50:12] noodle it a little more to so we get

[5:50:14] some of these answers. my my

[5:50:16] recommendation.

[5:50:19] >> Thank you, Council Member Mangon.

[5:50:21] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, yeah, I just

[5:50:22] wanted one last comment on, you know, to

[5:50:25] date applicants have been limited to one

[5:50:27] category per cycle. I understand that

[5:50:29] the comments made by uh, Deputy Mayor

[5:50:32] and also Council Member Duran, but the

[5:50:34] majority of this funding is received by

[5:50:37] a small group of organizations, the vast

[5:50:39] majority of funding. So, I I have real

[5:50:42] concern with potentially granting them

[5:50:44] an up to an additional $20,000 the same

[5:50:47] organizations.

[5:50:49] Um, uh, that that concerns me. So, uh,

[5:50:53] it's it would be really important to me

[5:50:55] to keep to that one category limitation.

[5:50:57] I think that's really important and I

[5:50:59] agree with staff's reasoning behind

[5:51:00] that.

[5:51:03] >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor Halter. Followed

[5:51:05] by um, Council Member Mcrenolds.

[5:51:06] Overall, I agree with a lot of what my

[5:51:08] colleagues are saying and all the good

[5:51:10] work that you've done. Okay. Uh it's largely there. Uh the exceptions I

[5:51:16] have that I would uh love to see it um

[5:51:20] if this was approved yet pending

[5:51:23] reviewing um uh how we're going to be

[5:51:27] scoring to influence economic vitality

[5:51:31] in the cultural district and seeing how that's going to be scored. Um

[5:51:35] because I think right now I'm just it's

[5:51:38] a hope and a prayer that we're going to

[5:51:39] do something that's going to benefit the

[5:51:41] cultural district. Um and uh then the

[5:51:45] definition the cultural arts uh I think

[5:51:47] I I would personally feel better when we

[5:51:50] leave here tonight that at least that

[5:51:51] definition comes back to council for us

[5:51:53] to at least see how you've included all

[5:51:56] the things that we just discussed. And

[5:51:59] um let's see. Uh, one other thing is I

[5:52:02] think part of it that I don't see yet,

[5:52:05] but it could be part of the scoring too,

[5:52:07] is um partnering uh with uh groups that

[5:52:11] maybe aren't in whether they're art

[5:52:13] groups or cultural groups, groups that

[5:52:15] are anywhere in our city and partnering

[5:52:17] with those groups uh whether it's in the

[5:52:20] cultural district or elsewhere, but uh

[5:52:21] to create a bigger um showcase of who we

[5:52:25] are as a city and what our culture is in

[5:52:27] the creative community, you know. Um, I

[5:52:30] don't I did I didn't hear the word

[5:52:32] partnership come up at all and that's

[5:52:34] really important to me. Um, but

[5:52:36] definitely uh if we approve something

[5:52:38] tonight then I would want to still see

[5:52:40] the definition come back and how we're

[5:52:42] going to score it and make sure we

[5:52:44] benefit the cultural district with these

[5:52:46] efforts.

[5:52:48] >> Thank you. Council member Mc Reynolds

[5:52:50] followed by Council Member Schumacher.

[5:52:52] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, was there a

[5:52:54] second to Council Member Schumacher's

[5:52:56] motion?

[5:52:56] >> I believe there was. Council member

[5:52:58] Compos. Okay. So,

[5:53:01] I I'm I'm ready to take the vote on it.

[5:53:03] And and in terms of the concerns raised

[5:53:05] by Council Member Duran and Deputy Mayor

[5:53:07] Halter, we have an economic development

[5:53:09] subcommittee. If they want to refer the

[5:53:11] scoring matrix or something like that to

[5:53:13] that committee to have that discussion

[5:53:15] so we can move on. I I would be okay

[5:53:18] with that. I I'm more we we heard from

[5:53:23] every member of our cultural uh arts and

[5:53:25] culture commission. They're ready to

[5:53:26] move forward as presented. I'm ready to

[5:53:28] move forward as presented, but if you

[5:53:30] want to move, you know, and I'm I'm

[5:53:32] ready to vote on it as presented, but if

[5:53:35] you want to bring it to the Arts and

[5:53:36] Culture Commission, I'm sorry, if you

[5:53:38] want to bring it to the Economic

[5:53:39] Development Subcommittee maybe for some

[5:53:41] consideration, I'd be open to that, but

[5:53:43] otherwise, I'm ready to vote.

[5:53:44] >> Thank you, Council Member Schumacher.

[5:53:46] >> Very quickly, and I I am too, uh,

[5:53:48] Council Member Mcynolds. Thank you for

[5:53:49] that. Um, and I agree with you. I think

[5:53:51] it it needs to move forward and then,

[5:53:53] you know, do its due diligence of

[5:53:55] wherever it goes. And we have to be

[5:53:58] careful of not overstepping our roles.

[5:54:01] We are the ones that provide our vision,

[5:54:04] our direction, but we cannot be in the

[5:54:06] weeds of looking at um you know certain

[5:54:10] um you know uh scorecards so that way we

[5:54:13] dictate exactly where it needs. No,

[5:54:15] that's not our role. Our role is to let

[5:54:18] staff do their work. our role is to tell

[5:54:20] them this is what we're looking for and we allow staff to be able to do the logistics. We cannot be um you know

[5:54:28] doing their jobs as well and because

[5:54:30] that is that is not what council is here

[5:54:32] for.

[5:54:35] >> Uh Deputy Mayor Halter,

[5:54:36] >> I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding

[5:54:38] because the reality is if it was

[5:54:40] included in this plan on how uh the

[5:54:44] cultural arts plan because this is

[5:54:46] something that's going to last for five

[5:54:47] years. Okay. So if it doesn't include

[5:54:50] something that benefits the assets that

[5:54:52] we have created over the last 30 to 50

[5:54:54] plus years, then we're really missing

[5:54:57] the boat. Okay? And I do not see any

[5:55:00] type of weighing. I don't care about the

[5:55:02] scorecard. I don't care. I totally leave

[5:55:05] that up to what uh staff and the co uh

[5:55:09] cultural commission wants to do. Um, but

[5:55:11] then I want it written in there somehow

[5:55:14] that it will be it will include uh how

[5:55:17] we benefit the cultural district and the

[5:55:19] in the great assets that have been

[5:55:21] created that have defined the culture uh

[5:55:23] the culture of this community for many

[5:55:25] decades. Otherwise, we're completely

[5:55:28] ignoring the assets that we have and um

[5:55:31] under the guise of trying to help the

[5:55:34] fledgling and new arts groups that will

[5:55:36] continue to rise up. I hope that uh and

[5:55:39] gain support and education

[5:55:42] uh being involved with all the all the

[5:55:44] groups that are so successful today.

[5:55:46] Okay. So, that's what I'm getting at.

[5:55:48] So, as is the motion, I can't support it

[5:55:51] without something being included that uh

[5:55:54] to to address those two things. I don't

[5:55:56] care how you how it's written. It could

[5:55:58] go back to the economic development

[5:55:59] committee, but I think to walk out of

[5:56:02] this room without that, it's going to be

[5:56:04] a big mistake. So maybe we can include

[5:56:06] that as part of the motion. I don't

[5:56:08] know. Something to think about before I

[5:56:09] move on to the next um council member.

[5:56:12] >> That would be my recommendation.

[5:56:14] I don't think it's needed.

[5:56:16] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um and I just

[5:56:18] want to clarify too uh council member

[5:56:20] Schumacher. I I don't think it we're

[5:56:22] trying to um I don't think we're trying

[5:56:24] to micromanage this thing, but usually

[5:56:26] when we get grants that we approve or

[5:56:28] how they rate them and stuff, we we see how they do it. That's all we're

[5:56:32] asking. We didn't we didn't get to see

[5:56:34] it in that that was the the concern I

[5:56:36] had.

[5:56:37] >> Thank you. Um Miss Fox, do you want to

[5:56:40] chime in?

[5:56:41] >> Yes, if I may. Um connected to tonight's

[5:56:44] motion, the intent was to be able to set

[5:56:46] kind of the policy and the overarching

[5:56:48] direction. We've taken notes on

[5:56:50] everything that's been shared. So, when

[5:56:52] it comes to the guidelines, when it

[5:56:54] comes to uh the meetings we have with

[5:56:56] eligible applicants, those are the

[5:56:58] things that we can make sure that we

[5:56:59] reinforce and encourage. One of the

[5:57:02] goals um in the arts and culture grant

[5:57:05] program or the cultural arts arts and

[5:57:08] culture grant categories making sure we

[5:57:10] specify it's all is specifically align

[5:57:14] arts and culture with economic

[5:57:15] development and cultural tourism. So I

[5:57:18] think there's also the opportunity to

[5:57:19] share when we talk about cultural

[5:57:21] tourism um about where cultural tourism

[5:57:24] occurs in Ventura reinforcing the

[5:57:26] cultural district as well. So we really

[5:57:29] have appreciated all the input and

[5:57:30] everything shared this evening and we'll

[5:57:32] ensure that within the policy document

[5:57:34] in our implementation when we work with

[5:57:36] the economic development division and

[5:57:38] when we finalize the scoring rubrics as

[5:57:41] well as the guidelines that we'll ensure

[5:57:43] they get incorporated.

[5:57:45] Thank you. Council member Compost, did

[5:57:47] you still have a comment?

[5:57:48] >> I'd like to call the question.

[5:57:50] >> Thank you. So we have a motion and a

[5:57:53] second.

[5:57:57] Thank you, mayor. Could I just have a

[5:57:58] point of clarification on the second

[5:58:00] piece of it for the category 2? So, the

[5:58:03] motion was to approve the staff

[5:58:04] recommendation and to rename category 2

[5:58:07] >> to culture projects Thank you. Thank

[5:58:10] you.

[5:58:15] Okay, you can go ahead and enter your

[5:58:17] vote now.

[5:58:23] All votes have been entered.

[5:58:27] » Seven eyes and the motion carries.

[5:58:30] >> Thank you. Thank you, staff. Again,

[5:58:31] really appreciate it. Please hold your

[5:58:33] applause. Please hold your applause.

[5:58:35] Thank you.

[5:58:37] We'll move on quickly to our formal item

[5:58:40] number 15. Um the construction contract

[5:58:43] with AMG and Associates, Inc.

[5:58:46] Professional Services Agreement

[5:58:47] PW26-1221

[5:58:51] with Kitro Corporation for Construction

[5:58:53] Management and Inspection Services and

[5:58:55] Professional Services Agreement

[5:58:57] PW26-1227

[5:59:00] with RRM Design Group for engineering

[5:59:03] services during construction for interim

[5:59:05] fire station number 7. And we have um

[5:59:10] a staff presentation

[5:59:15] » whenever you are ready

[5:59:17] like midnight.

[6:00:01] You okay?

[6:00:03] >> You can go ahead.

[6:00:06] Uh good evening again, mayor, members of

[6:00:08] city council. Uh I am Charlie Ebling,

[6:00:11] the public works public works director.

[6:00:13] Uh tonight we will give a short

[6:00:15] presentation recommending the award of a

[6:00:18] construction contract for fire station

[6:00:20] 7. I have with me uh Chris McDonald, our

[6:00:23] fire chief, and Greg Nudson, our

[6:00:26] principal civil engineer. I will now

[6:00:28] turn it over to Mr. Nudson uh to give

[6:00:31] the presentation and we will be happy to

[6:00:33] answer any questions you have at the

[6:00:34] end.

[6:00:38] » Good evening, honorable mayor and

[6:00:40] council. We're before you tonight to

[6:00:41] discuss the interim fire station number

[6:00:43] seven project, including project bids

[6:00:46] and authorization of a construction

[6:00:49] contract.

[6:00:51] The proposed project is located on a

[6:00:54] 2.92 acre city-owned parcel on

[6:00:56] Alessandro Drive at Seawward Avenue.

[6:01:00] The site is located adjacent to the

[6:01:02] Peront neighborhood and close to the

[6:01:03] Ventura Harbor, Midtown and downtown

[6:01:06] areas. Approximately 1.5 acres of the

[6:01:10] site would be programmed for the new

[6:01:12] intram fire station number seven and

[6:01:14] approximately 1 acre would remain for

[6:01:16] the fire training center.

[6:01:22] The Alesandro property operated as a

[6:01:24] water conditioning facility from the

[6:01:26] 1950s to the 1970s and has been used as

[6:01:30] the city's fire training center since

[6:01:32] the 1980s.

[6:01:34] In December of 2023,

[6:01:36] city council approved the addition of

[6:01:38] the interim fire station number seven

[6:01:40] project to the capital improvement

[6:01:42] program.

[6:01:44] Abandoned water infrastructure removal

[6:01:46] was completed in December of 2024 and

[6:01:49] city council approved the purchase of

[6:01:51] three modular buildings that would be

[6:01:54] deployed for the interim fire station in

[6:01:56] January and May of 2025.

[6:02:02] The scope of work in the contract

[6:02:05] proposed for council award and

[6:02:07] authorization this evening includes site

[6:02:10] clearing and demolition of 1.5 acres of

[6:02:13] existing paved and landscaped areas.

[6:02:16] The mitigation of liquefaction and

[6:02:19] localized flooding by excavating the

[6:02:22] site 8 to 10 feet below existing grade

[6:02:26] using aggregate and soil as engineered

[6:02:28] fill and elevating the site by up to six

[6:02:31] feet.

[6:02:33] Construct site utility infrastructure.

[6:02:36] construct concrete building foundations

[6:02:38] for each building and coord coordinating

[6:02:41] with the building vendors for the

[6:02:44] delivery and installation of the

[6:02:45] buildings that have been purchased.

[6:02:48] Following building installation,

[6:02:51] concrete aprons, pavement, curbs, and

[6:02:54] retaining walls would be constructed.

[6:02:56] Bio retention basin and perimeter

[6:02:58] fencing would also be constructed.

[6:03:00] And then the upfit of the interior of

[6:03:03] the apparatus bay with electrical, fire

[6:03:05] sprinklers, plumbing and mechanical

[6:03:07] systems would occur on site. And upfit

[6:03:10] of the apparatus bay and the modular

[6:03:12] living quarters with data

[6:03:14] communications, fire alarm and digital

[6:03:16] dispatch would be occurring to complete

[6:03:19] the project.

[6:03:24] will require the removal of

[6:03:26] 15 trees to complete the grading and

[6:03:29] site improvements and the proposed tree

[6:03:31] replanting ratio is 3:1. Canopy [snorts]

[6:03:35] concerns limit the feasibility of

[6:03:37] on-site tree replacement. Trees tree

[6:03:41] replanting would be within council

[6:03:42] district 7 at sites determined by the

[6:03:45] parks and recreation department.

[6:03:50] On June 25th, 2025, staff received and

[6:03:54] opened two bids. The lowest responsible

[6:03:56] and responsive bid was submitted by AMG

[6:03:59] and Associates Incorporated of Santa

[6:04:01] Clarita and is $6.5 million.

[6:04:05] This is 10% above the engineers's

[6:04:07] estimate of $5.9 million. The low bid is

[6:04:11] consistent with current construction

[6:04:13] market conditions.

[6:04:17] Proposed cost and funding for the

[6:04:20] recommendation are summarized in the

[6:04:23] tables included on this slide. We have a

[6:04:25] construction bid of $6.5 million, a

[6:04:28] construction contingency of $987,000.

[6:04:33] Construction management $684,000.

[6:04:37] Engineering services during construction

[6:04:40] $95,000

[6:04:42] and public art $25,000 totaling for $8.3

[6:04:46] million.

[6:04:48] These costs are proposed to be provided

[6:04:51] through the following fund sources.

[6:04:53] General capital improvement 1.5 million

[6:04:55] and measure O $6.8 million.

[6:05:03] Following the award and authorization

[6:05:05] tonight, notice to proceed would be

[6:05:08] issued in the fall and the project would

[6:05:11] require 13 to 15 months to complete.

[6:05:14] Occupancy is anticipated in the winter

[6:05:16] of 2027.

[6:05:22] The recommendation supports the city

[6:05:24] council's strategic priority of public

[6:05:26] safety to ensure that life, property,

[6:05:28] and the environment are protected and

[6:05:30] safeguarded

[6:05:32] with an emphasis on emergency

[6:05:34] preparedness to respond to both natural

[6:05:36] and man-made disasters or any other type

[6:05:39] of emergency situations.

[6:05:44] And on the screen are the

[6:05:45] recommendations.

[6:05:46] We recommend to wave minor bidder

[6:05:48] regularities, authorize a city manager

[6:05:51] to execute the subject construction

[6:05:52] agreement with the lowest responsive and

[6:05:54] responsible bidder AMG and Associates in

[6:05:57] their low bid amount of $6,586,128.

[6:06:03] Authorize the city manager or designate

[6:06:05] to execute future amendments to subject

[6:06:07] construction contract up to a total

[6:06:09] maximum contingency of $987,919.

[6:06:15] authorized the city manager designignate

[6:06:18] to execute professional services

[6:06:19] agreement with Kitell Corporation for

[6:06:22] construction management inspection

[6:06:23] services in the amount of $622,47.

[6:06:28] Authorize the city manager to execute

[6:06:31] future amendments to professional

[6:06:32] services agreement with Kitell

[6:06:34] Corporation to a maximum contingency of

[6:06:36] $62,25.

[6:06:41] Authorize the city manager or designate

[6:06:43] to execute professional services

[6:06:45] agreement with RM Design Group for

[6:06:47] engineering services during construction

[6:06:49] in the amount of $86,710.

[6:06:52] Authorize the city manager or designate

[6:06:54] to execute future amendments to

[6:06:56] professional services agreement with RM

[6:06:58] Design Group to a maximum contingency of

[6:07:00] $8,671

[6:07:03] and authorize the finance department to

[6:07:05] increase appropriations as necessary in

[6:07:07] the measure O fund.

[6:07:09] This concludes our presentation tonight.

[6:07:11] We're available for any questions you

[6:07:12] have.

[6:07:13] >> Thank you, uh, Council Member

[6:07:15] Schemacher.

[6:07:18] » Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, staff, for

[6:07:20] your presentation. Mr. Nudson, um, I

[6:07:24] understand that the the cost is $8.3

[6:07:27] million. So, help me understand the on

[6:07:30] your staff report it says 12.9. Is that

[6:07:33] just estimated?

[6:07:36] The presentation before you tonight

[6:07:39] shows the costs of the recommendations

[6:07:41] being made tonight and what what council

[6:07:44] is obligating in tonight's actions. Um

[6:07:47] the estimate in the staff report

[6:07:49] includes uh previous costs for things

[6:07:51] such as the building, the site

[6:07:53] demolition and engineering services,

[6:07:56] architectural services and such.

[6:07:58] >> Okay. Thank you. And then Mr.

[6:08:02] Um,

[6:08:05] Chief McDonald, this goes to you. Um,

[6:08:08] remind us one more time the need as to

[6:08:10] why we want um or we are looking to

[6:08:12] build this out in that area.

[6:08:14] >> Yeah, so the opening of fire station 7

[6:08:17] will allow us to better serve the pure

[6:08:19] pont harbor areas. Um the harbor area

[6:08:22] specifically in the river haven area

[6:08:24] that's identified as some of our longest

[6:08:26] response times on average. Um, fire

[6:08:29] station 7 has been, you know, 30 years

[6:08:31] in the making basically at that location

[6:08:33] to to serve those people better.

[6:08:35] >> When you say the longest, can you tell

[6:08:37] me like an estimated time frame?

[6:08:39] >> Our our target response times are, you

[6:08:42] know, in the five minute range, but uh

[6:08:44] down there we're looking at sometimes

[6:08:45] seven and eight minutes

[6:08:47] >> from station two, station five, and

[6:08:50] that's just travel distance and the

[6:08:53] layout of the city makes that pretty

[6:08:54] difficult.

[6:08:55] >> Thank you.

[6:08:57] Deputy Mayor Halter, followed

[6:08:59] by Council Member Mc Reynolds.

[6:09:00] >> Great. Thank you. Um, just to see where

[6:09:02] we're at today is do we do we have

[6:09:04] working drawings already then and do we

[6:09:06] have a permit already?

[6:09:10] >> As of right now, we have working

[6:09:12] drawings that have been uh advertised

[6:09:15] for bids and the bids bids were based

[6:09:17] upon those drawings. Okay.

[6:09:18] >> They've been approved by the city

[6:09:20] engineer. We are in the process of

[6:09:22] finaling our building and safety permits

[6:09:25] and our grading permit. There's some

[6:09:27] minor details and correction items that

[6:09:29] still remain to achieve those. We have

[6:09:32] also need to um complete uh house state

[6:09:36] housing community development permitting

[6:09:38] for the modular units and that's one of

[6:09:40] the conditions on our building and

[6:09:41] safety permit locally.

[6:09:43] >> Okay. And uh two things because I was

[6:09:45] here when we approved that site and

[6:09:48] initially the 7 million that we thought

[6:09:49] it was going to cost. So, it went it's

[6:09:51] almost doubled since that point in time.

[6:09:54] Uh, and initially it was looked at as a

[6:09:57] temporary location. I don't think that's

[6:09:58] how we're looking at it anymore.

[6:10:00] Correct.

[6:10:02] >> It's it's an interimm fire station, but

[6:10:05] the location so far is the best one that

[6:10:07] we've identified that's available to us

[6:10:10] to put a station. in the future that

[6:10:12] could change,

[6:10:13] >> but right now that seem that's still the

[6:10:15] best location that

[6:10:16] >> I would say over the last few years that

[6:10:18] it's becoming clearer and clearer.

[6:10:20] >> Yes.

[6:10:21] >> So, but I just want to point that out.

[6:10:22] There's some morphing that goes on, but

[6:10:24] it's kind of part of the process and

[6:10:25] it's kind of how the world is. It's very

[6:10:27] dynamic, but I just want to make sure

[6:10:29] you're in the process already because I

[6:10:30] love the idea that's going to be done by

[6:10:32] winter 2027. That's fantastic.

[6:10:36] >> Thank you, Council Member Mc Reynolds.

[6:10:39] >> Uh, thank you. I want to stay on some of

[6:10:42] uh Deputy Mayor Halter's comments in

[6:10:43] terms of

[6:10:46] this this idea of an intram station. I

[6:10:48] believe in December uh of 24 this was a

[6:10:51] $5 million project and a a full fire

[6:10:54] station would have been $20 million. So

[6:10:58] now we're at a $13 million project on

[6:11:01] it. Like why didn't we go with just a

[6:11:04] fire station?

[6:11:09] I don't know if I can answer that

[6:11:11] entirely, but uh I mean the the cost the

[6:11:14] overall cost for a permanent fire

[6:11:16] station at that location as you put was

[6:11:18] 20 million then it's probably more than

[6:11:19] that now. Um so the interim fire station

[6:11:22] was was what we came up with to uh

[6:11:25] [clears throat]

[6:11:26] basically get that part of our city

[6:11:28] served until such time that funding is

[6:11:31] available that we can build a permanent

[6:11:33] station. And like I said, that that

[6:11:35] seems to be the location that that we're

[6:11:36] going to go with unless something else

[6:11:39] comes our way.

[6:11:40] >> So, we're going to take a $13 million in

[6:11:44] fire station and get rid of it.

[6:11:47] >> The portion of it that is the apparatus

[6:11:49] bay, the metal the metal building that

[6:11:51] houses the apparatus, the intent is for

[6:11:53] that to stay indefinitely. The modular

[6:11:56] buildings would come out and then the

[6:11:58] long-term plan would be to build a

[6:11:59] permanent fire station at that location.

[6:12:01] And what is the current life cycle of

[6:12:03] the modular buildings?

[6:12:08] » Council member Mcrenolds, the life cycle

[6:12:10] of the modular buildings is probably in

[6:12:12] the order of 20 to 25 years and then

[6:12:15] they they could be rehabilitated at that

[6:12:18] time, but that's kind of our expectation

[6:12:20] of life cycle out of those that type of

[6:12:23] construction. So,

[6:12:25] why are we calling it intram fire

[6:12:27] station 7 if we're talking about a

[6:12:30] 20-year structure?

[6:12:32] >> Because it is not a permanent facility.

[6:12:35] It is intended to be replaced by a

[6:12:37] permanent facility in the future that

[6:12:39] would fully meet the fire department's

[6:12:41] needs,

[6:12:42] >> which we believe is this location.

[6:12:44] >> At this point in time, the fire

[6:12:46] department does believe that this is the

[6:12:48] appropriate location for that station in

[6:12:50] that neighborhood, and it's a site

[6:12:52] that's available

[6:12:54] Okay. Thank you.

[6:12:57] >> Thank you. Seeing no other um comments

[6:12:59] from my colleagues, I'll go ahead and

[6:13:01] recognize any public comments on this

[6:13:02] item.

[6:13:03] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. We have two

[6:13:04] speakers on this item. Our first

[6:13:05] speaker, Spencer Norin, followed by

[6:13:06] Philip Fields.

[6:13:11] » Thank you, Mr. McDonald, Mayor Council,

[6:13:13] VPD translation.

[6:13:16] Um I think Mr. Mcrenolds is spot on here

[6:13:18] about investing this much money. I

[6:13:20] support fire department have very loudly

[6:13:23] for 10 plus years.

[6:13:27] But to put an intern, I keep thinking

[6:13:29] about the golf course at Alus Park and

[6:13:32] how we've been paying for those rental

[6:13:34] facilities there forever with no

[6:13:36] movement forward. My main one thought is

[6:13:39] about quality of life for firefighters

[6:13:41] working that fire station and fire

[6:13:43] station. Is the modular

[6:13:47] amenities going to be subpar to what

[6:13:49] other stations are accommodations?

[6:13:51] [snorts]

[6:13:52] They could be better because our fire

[6:13:53] stations are old, but we get into like

[6:13:55] quality of life. I know we've had some

[6:13:57] PTSD

[6:13:59] um situations about work times, work

[6:14:01] overloads. I just don't want to set up a

[6:14:03] situation where a fire station becomes

[6:14:05] intern and it becomes more of a

[6:14:07] detriment to a place. People don't want

[6:14:09] to work for the next however long it's

[6:14:12] going to be, 20 years. So, thank you for

[6:14:15] considering that. Um, I think I had one

[6:14:18] more comment real fast. There was last

[6:14:21] time we were talking about the highlight

[6:14:23] was like EV charging stations if I

[6:14:25] remember in this parking lot and we were

[6:14:27] talking about permanent facilities

[6:14:29] there. So, I guess my one note is I say

[6:14:33] we scratch this idea and we go all in

[6:14:36] permanent station right away and just

[6:14:38] fight the buck for that. Oh, I know my

[6:14:41] idea. Sorry.

[6:14:42] Um 15 trees removed, 3 to one placement

[6:14:46] puts in about 45 trees somewhere in

[6:14:49] district 7. I didn't see the funding for

[6:14:52] the tree replacements. I think we just

[6:14:55] funded $250,000

[6:14:57] for trees this last year and the

[6:14:59] estimated cost was somewhere around

[6:15:01] $1,200 per tree. If I'm wrong, 12-500,

[6:15:05] that would put it around 45 to $50,000

[6:15:10] in replacement trees. Where would that

[6:15:13] money come from? Would it come from

[6:15:15] budget in this project or would that be

[6:15:18] put on parks and wreck? Also, I didn't

[6:15:20] see the removal of the trees in this

[6:15:24] breakdown as well. And I hope that

[6:15:25] wouldn't go on the burden of parks and

[6:15:27] wreck through our contract with WCA and

[6:15:30] that the funding for the 45 trees

[6:15:32] wouldn't come out of future tree funding

[6:15:34] projects as the 250 is allotted for next

[6:15:36] year. I hope it can be earmarked within

[6:15:38] this project possibly under measure O.

[6:15:41] Thank you.

[6:15:43] >> And our final speaker is Philip Fields.

[6:15:51] » The facts. The facts. Nothing more than

[6:15:53] the facts

[6:15:55] must lead us in our reasoning.

[6:15:59] I supported many ways the fire

[6:16:03] department, but in all these years they

[6:16:06] don't even have an a vehicle to evacuate

[6:16:10] the whole class of disabled people that

[6:16:13] are on wheelchairs.

[6:16:16] By case law, you cannot separate a

[6:16:18] disabled person from the wheelchair.

[6:16:21] It's part of his or her body.

[6:16:25] My experience was the previous

[6:16:27] evacuation

[6:16:29] at the fair grounds that didn't work.

[6:16:33] So if the fire advanced, we would have

[6:16:36] been burned alive

[6:16:38] and this an ongoing problem. Now we're

[6:16:41] talking about entering station.

[6:16:46] How is money infinite? Does the council

[6:16:49] have infinite money to keep forking out,

[6:16:52] throwing out money here and there and

[6:16:56] everything's just fine?

[6:17:01] I think there's a wrong assumption

[6:17:05] and a wrong presumption that money will

[6:17:08] never be in short in shortage.

[6:17:14] To me, that seems to be irresponsible.

[6:17:18] You guys are failing your fiduciary duty

[6:17:23] in the council as well as

[6:17:26] in the different departments

[6:17:29] that are involved with this financing.

[6:17:33] Uh whenever I ask how are you going to

[6:17:36] do about replacing so and so tree of

[6:17:40] this diameter and this age and rings?

[6:17:45] Oh, it'll be something equivalent. But

[6:17:48] tell me, yes or no? Will it be the same

[6:17:52] maturity of tree? Oh, we trust our

[6:17:55] arburies.

[6:17:56] I'm sorry. Science doesn't work that

[6:17:59] way. You got to prove it. You got to replicate, etc., And you're not doing that. So

[6:18:07] you're having incompetent

[6:18:10] chiefs of heads of departments,

[6:18:13] incompetent uh fiduciary

[6:18:17] act,

[6:18:18] you're not responding to it and uh you

[6:18:22] hear a sound comes the right ear, it

[6:18:26] goes out the left ear and you just go

[6:18:30] on. You don't even bother to answer the

[6:18:32] questions, neither to the council or to

[6:18:36] the people, the sovereign.

[6:18:40] I suffered arson. And this goddamn,

[6:18:45] forgive my expression,

[6:18:47] the fire department

[6:18:50] had like over a dozen and they did

[6:18:53] nothing about it.

[6:18:54] >> That's how incompetent they are.

[6:18:56] >> That concludes public comment.

[6:18:58] >> Thank you. I'll bring it back to council

[6:19:00] for any um final deliberations. A motion

[6:19:03] is required. Council member McReynolds.

[6:19:06] >> Thank you. [clears throat] Uh I just

[6:19:07] wanted to answer one of the speakers uh

[6:19:08] questions. There is $34,000. There's a

[6:19:10] line item for $34,000 for trees in the

[6:19:13] budget and there's another $26,000

[6:19:16] for public art. So I just that is in the

[6:19:20] budget. So thank you.

[6:19:22] >> Thank you, Council Member Durant.

[6:19:24] >> Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. I know that

[6:19:26] we have talked about this for a long

[6:19:27] time since we've been on council and um

[6:19:30] we were concerned that it was temporary.

[6:19:32] I the whole thing, but I will tell you

[6:19:34] one of the reasons that I wasn't real in

[6:19:36] favor of this fire station was because

[6:19:38] of the way some things were being

[6:19:40] operated in the fire department and we

[6:19:42] made some amazing changes and uh guys

[6:19:45] are being cared for now. the people that

[6:19:47] are in the fight. I I have to tell you,

[6:19:49] I know that if we're talking three

[6:19:51] minutes to save a life, it's not like we

[6:19:54] don't have the money put aside. We got

[6:19:56] measure money. It's pl we've been we've

[6:19:58] been talking about this for a long time.

[6:19:59] You know, unfortunately, it's not

[6:20:01] considered a permanent, but it is um I

[6:20:03] think a necessity for us in our city.

[6:20:06] And so, I I support this uh 100%. And

[6:20:09] so, I would like to make a motion to

[6:20:10] approve staff's recommendation.

[6:20:12] >> Second.

[6:20:13] >> Thank you. So, with a motion and a

[6:20:15] second, I have um Council Member Mc

[6:20:17] Reynolds. Do you have comments?

[6:20:18] >> Yeah, just just really quick. I mean, I

[6:20:21] I've

[6:20:22] I'm going to support the motion. I I

[6:20:24] just this this concept of intram on a

[6:20:27] 20-year facility just it's not realistic. you know, uh I think

[6:20:33] the speaker's point, you know, we've

[6:20:34] been living out of uh at the the golf

[6:20:37] courses, you know, in facilities for 20

[6:20:39] years that we had to replace the interim

[6:20:41] facilities with new interim facilities.

[6:20:43] You know, I really challenge this

[6:20:45] council to figure out how we're actually

[6:20:48] going to build a permanent fire station,

[6:20:51] you know, to support the community, to

[6:20:52] support the fire department um on it.

[6:20:55] Um, I I just we are spending $13 million

[6:20:59] on an intram facility and it is a

[6:21:02] difficult pill to swallow. Thank you.

[6:21:04] >> Thank you for those comments. Um,

[6:21:06] council member Schumacher.

[6:21:07] >> Thank you. We absolutely can do that um

[6:21:09] had we passed the sales tax um so that

[6:21:12] way we can be able to support the fire department and also other uh parts

[6:21:16] of the city. Um but at this point I

[6:21:19] think um good is enough for us and then

[6:21:22] we'll get better along the way.

[6:21:26] Thank you. And with a motion on the

[6:21:27] floor and a second, I'll call for the

[6:21:29] vote, please.

[6:21:33] » You can enter your vote now on item

[6:21:35] number 15.

[6:21:38] All votes have been entered,

[6:21:43] seven eyes, and the motion carries.

[6:21:46] >> Thank you, staff, for your presentation.

[6:21:49] And I'm moving on to our final formal

[6:21:52] item, item number 16, which is a Ventura

[6:21:55] waterpure program and membrane

[6:21:56] bioreactor ultraviolet light

[6:21:59] disinfection project updates and third

[6:22:01] amendment to the construction manager at

[6:22:04] risk contract 2025-070

[6:22:08] with PCL construction inc for

[6:22:10] preconstruction services for the

[6:22:12] advanced water purification facility.

[6:22:17] It is. And thank you staff. Um,

[6:22:20] >> all right.

[6:22:21] >> For your presentation.

[6:22:22] >> Okay. Good evening, Dr. Mayor San or

[6:22:24] Mayor Dr. Sanchez Palasios and Deputy

[6:22:25] Mayor Halter and council members. Um,

[6:22:28] I'm Gina Dorington. I'm the general

[6:22:30] manager for Ventura Water and with me is

[6:22:31] Linda Samsky, the Ventura Water Pure

[6:22:33] Program Director. And um as you stated,

[6:22:36] we are here to give you a quarterly

[6:22:37] update on the Ventur Water Pure program

[6:22:40] and the membrane bioreactor project with

[6:22:42] a uh uh consideration for a third

[6:22:45] amendment with our construction manager

[6:22:47] at risk on the advanced purification

[6:22:49] facility. Um and I will hand it over to

[6:22:52] Linda to uh give us an update.

[6:22:56] >> Thank you. Good evening, Madame Mayor

[6:22:57] and council members.

[6:23:00] Um it hasn't been quite a quarter since

[6:23:02] we were here. We were here um at the end

[6:23:04] of May to give you an update, but we do

[6:23:07] have some exciting um information to

[6:23:09] show you. Some really great pictures.

[6:23:11] So, we wanted to do an update along with

[6:23:14] um the other recommendation we have on

[6:23:16] the third um third amendment for the

[6:23:18] advanced water purification facility.

[6:23:21] So, I'll go ahead and get started. Um

[6:23:23] membrane bioreactor. Um really we've

[6:23:27] made a lot of progress on this um

[6:23:28] project since the last time we were

[6:23:30] here. Um we have completed a number of

[6:23:33] portions of the construction. Um last

[6:23:36] time we were here we were talking about

[6:23:38] um deep soil mixing. Um basically mixing

[6:23:41] cement into the soil. Since then we've

[6:23:44] completed the mass excavation and you

[6:23:45] can see that in the top picture. So we

[6:23:48] now have a big hole at the site and

[6:23:50] we're starting to fill it up. So um we

[6:23:53] have um started adding some rebar, some

[6:23:55] piping into the bottom of the hole here.

[6:23:58] So, um that is in progress at the

[6:24:02] moment. Um on the bottom picture, um

[6:24:05] last time we were here, we were showing

[6:24:07] you digging some foundations. So, we

[6:24:09] have actually poured the concrete for

[6:24:11] our new wash down and storage areas.

[6:24:13] These are portions that were relocated

[6:24:15] from um the the main site for the MBR.

[6:24:20] Um, our next steps really are working on

[6:24:22] our feed pump station and we actually

[6:24:24] will be installing a tower crane um, in

[6:24:28] kind of the center of that that large

[6:24:30] excavation. Um, that'll help us with the

[6:24:33] construction for the rest of the project

[6:24:35] and we'll be able to reach all sections

[6:24:38] of construction with just that one

[6:24:40] crane.

[6:24:42] So um just briefly we have spent 14% of

[6:24:45] the total project costs and 5% of the

[6:24:48] construction costs. I think last time we

[6:24:50] had also talked about um an oil line

[6:24:54] that we were asking to uh actually use

[6:24:57] contingency on. Um I do not have the

[6:25:00] total cost for that yet. Um we just

[6:25:02] finished the last piece which is the

[6:25:05] removal of the the hazardous material

[6:25:07] the oil oil line itself. So, we should

[6:25:10] have those final costs, but we have been

[6:25:12] tracking and u we still expect that that

[6:25:14] should be under the $500,000 that we had

[6:25:17] asked for.

[6:25:21] So, I'll move on to the Ventura water

[6:25:23] pure project. I'm not going to

[6:25:24] concentrate on this slide at all other

[6:25:26] than to say that there are three

[6:25:27] projects that make up the Ventura water

[6:25:29] pure project. The outfall, the advanced

[6:25:31] water purification facility, AWPF, and

[6:25:35] then the wells projects.

[6:25:38] So, the outfall project, um, last time

[6:25:41] we were here, we were still waiting for

[6:25:44] our surge tank to be installed. Um, in

[6:25:47] the top picture, you can see that it's

[6:25:48] kind of that white cylinder on um, right

[6:25:51] in front of the building. Um, all of the

[6:25:55] other infrastructure is actually inside

[6:25:57] of that building. Um the bottom picture

[6:26:00] that we have, I just wanted to put this

[6:26:02] up here. This is actually the um the

[6:26:04] place where we take all of our samples

[6:26:06] and do all of our testing so that we can

[6:26:08] confirm that we are meeting our national

[6:26:11] pollution and elimination discharge

[6:26:13] system permit for discharging water to

[6:26:16] the ocean. So we take samples here um

[6:26:19] and we actually get other readings here

[6:26:21] that we report to the regional board.

[6:26:25] So it helps with our compliance. So,

[6:26:27] right now we still are um doing some

[6:26:30] operational testing and fine-tuning um

[6:26:33] of of the outfall pump station. Um we

[6:26:36] should be granting substantial

[6:26:39] completion probably in September. There

[6:26:41] are a couple of warranty issues that are

[6:26:43] holding up that substantial completion,

[6:26:45] but for the most part, we are running

[6:26:47] and discharging to the ocean. Um to

[6:26:51] date, we've spent 88% of the total

[6:26:53] project costs. That includes also the

[6:26:56] onshore and offshore pipelines that have

[6:26:58] been complete for a while and 80% 87% of

[6:27:03] the construction costs. Um to date we've

[6:27:06] spent about $3 million of the $10

[6:27:08] million of contingency that was granted

[6:27:11] to these projects.

[6:27:15] Um for the injection and monitoring well

[6:27:16] projects, we have hit a milestone for

[6:27:18] this also. We received the basis of

[6:27:20] design report and we are now moving on

[6:27:23] to the 30% design for both the injection

[6:27:27] well site itself and the pipeline that

[6:27:30] will transfer the water from the

[6:27:32] advanced water purification facility to

[6:27:34] that injection well site. So on the top

[6:27:38] it's a a similar picture that we had

[6:27:40] seen the last time. This is just a

[6:27:42] little bit more detail of the pipeline.

[6:27:44] Um on the bottom we actually have a

[6:27:46] schematic of what the injection well

[6:27:48] site is going to look like now and we'll

[6:27:51] be building on that as we move forward

[6:27:53] in design. Um we are also preparing the

[6:27:56] well drilling construction um bid

[6:27:59] because we can drill these wells um and

[6:28:02] we need to do that first.

[6:28:05] So our next steps um basically are like

[6:28:07] I said the 30% design. Um we also

[6:28:10] anticipate that we will be able to

[6:28:12] occupy the injection well site at the

[6:28:15] beginning of September and start doing

[6:28:17] some work on the site itself.

[6:28:21] Um so to date um we have spent about 2%

[6:28:24] of the um the total project costs that

[6:28:27] we have for this project and and not

[6:28:29] under construction with anything yet.

[6:28:33] So, quickly we'll move on to the

[6:28:35] advanced water purification plant. Um, I

[6:28:38] want to run through this very quickly

[6:28:40] because we want to spend a little bit

[6:28:41] more time on the third amendment. Um, I

[6:28:44] think we saw the last time we were here

[6:28:46] that same rendering that is on the top

[6:28:49] right. Um, the bottom is actually the a

[6:28:53] picture of the advanced water

[6:28:55] purification site that was taken maybe

[6:28:57] about a week ago or so. You'll notice

[6:28:59] that there's a lot of dirt that's

[6:29:00] showing up on the site. that is actually

[6:29:02] coming from the membrane bioreactor

[6:29:05] project. So that big hole that we dug,

[6:29:07] all that dirt is now over here on that

[6:29:09] site. So in case I'm sure the public is

[6:29:12] interested in what's going on because

[6:29:13] there's a big pile of dirt there now. So

[6:29:15] that that's how that's how it's ended up

[6:29:18] there. So, um we have been, as we stated

[6:29:22] in the staff report, um working on the

[6:29:25] 60% guaranteed maximum price, which we

[6:29:28] did receive in May. Um right before

[6:29:31] council break, um we came back and

[6:29:33] informed council that we did want to use

[6:29:35] the contingency that was set aside in

[6:29:37] that pre-construction contract to be

[6:29:40] able to u move forward with some value

[6:29:42] engineering um ideas that we had. So, we

[6:29:46] have continued to kind of move forward

[6:29:48] on some of those. Um, right now we're

[6:29:51] also working on the coastal development

[6:29:53] permit. Um, and hopefully that will

[6:29:56] actually be going to um for its um

[6:30:00] completion in October.

[6:30:03] So, want to talk just a little bit more

[6:30:06] about um the recommendation for a third

[6:30:10] amendment for the pre-construction

[6:30:13] contract. So while we have been going

[6:30:16] through and working with our our owner's

[6:30:18] advisor, the the contractor and the

[6:30:20] designer on that 60% guaranteed maximum

[6:30:24] price that was proposed. Um we have

[6:30:27] actually ma moved forward and completed

[6:30:30] the 90% design. So um one of the things

[6:30:35] that we are looking at is moving

[6:30:40] actually asking the contractor to repric

[6:30:43] based on the 90% design

[6:30:46] and that would be moving forward from

[6:30:50] the proposal that we got on 60% the

[6:30:53] amount of money that was set aside to

[6:30:56] actually do that if we had awarded a

[6:31:00] construction contract. So $421,000

[6:31:04] is the estimate to move forward with a

[6:31:07] repric of the guaranteed maximum price

[6:31:10] for the 90% design. And I think we've shown you the the item on the left

[6:31:19] before where we actually decrease the

[6:31:23] amount of uncertainty as we move through

[6:31:25] the projects and we are now kind of at

[6:31:28] the end of that detailed design. So we

[6:31:31] are in decreasing that range of

[6:31:34] uncertainty and we feel like that would

[6:31:37] actually be a benefit to this project.

[6:31:39] We would be able to bring you a more

[6:31:43] certain price if we were to do this. So

[6:31:46] we did did write down some of the

[6:31:47] advantages that we see for this. Um

[6:31:50] again better certainty of design. There

[6:31:53] are things now that are defined that

[6:31:55] were not defined at the 60%. Um, two of

[6:31:58] the big big pieces are the electrical

[6:32:02] and also the rebar that the rebar design

[6:32:06] for the concrete. So those are are two

[6:32:08] big things that are less that are more

[6:32:11] defined, less uncertain. Um, that

[6:32:14] certainty leads to less contingency or

[6:32:17] allowances that the contractor needs to

[6:32:20] actually have in there to cover what

[6:32:23] he's not sure about.

[6:32:25] um with the 90% we actually have the

[6:32:28] ability to go out and bid some of these

[6:32:31] items. So we will have certainty on some

[6:32:34] of these costs and so things like the

[6:32:37] electrical we are now able to bid

[6:32:39] because it is better defined.

[6:32:42] Um it also will provide us some more

[6:32:44] time to explore some of these other

[6:32:47] value uh engineering ideas that we have.

[6:32:51] So th those would be the advantages that

[6:32:54] we see to doing this.

[6:32:57] So um recom um for strategic priorities

[6:33:01] um the recommendations that we have this

[6:33:04] evening support the council strategic

[6:33:06] priorities of infrastructure, climate

[6:33:09] change and public safety.

[6:33:13] Um our recommendations this evening, one

[6:33:15] is to receive the update and no action

[6:33:17] is actually required on that. And then

[6:33:20] the second would be to authorize the

[6:33:22] city manager or designate to execute the

[6:33:24] third amendment for the construction

[6:33:26] manager at risk contract. And that would

[6:33:29] be for the $421,000

[6:33:33] um or yeah, $421,000

[6:33:36] to actually uh prepare the guaranteed

[6:33:38] maximum price based on the 90% design.

[6:33:42] And I did want to point out that we did

[6:33:44] take this item to water commission um

[6:33:46] last Monday and they did recommend um

[6:33:49] moving forward with this.

[6:33:52] And with that, well, happy to take any

[6:33:55] questions that you have.

[6:33:56] >> Thank you. Any questions from

[6:33:58] colleagues?

[6:34:01] >> Council member Mcrenolds.

[6:34:03] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, so did we

[6:34:05] get a bid back on the 60%.

[6:34:09] >> We actually did get a proposal and we

[6:34:12] have reviewed it and it has kind of led

[6:34:14] us to this point where we we believe

[6:34:16] that pricing 90% and pursuing some value

[6:34:21] engineering ideas is is the proper thing

[6:34:24] to do.

[6:34:24] >> And and I I don't disagree. I mean, I

[6:34:26] think you're looking at trying to derisk

[6:34:29] the the construction drawings, you know,

[6:34:31] so you're going to get better bids,

[6:34:32] everything like that. I completely

[6:34:34] understand, but like how much like why

[6:34:36] are we doing this? What how much

[6:34:39] overbudget were we?

[6:34:41] >> So, we were we're looking at about a 17%

[6:34:45] increase

[6:34:47] >> from and then what is if we go to 90%.

[6:34:50] What are we expecting

[6:34:52] is that

[6:34:54] >> so we we expect that there is probably

[6:34:57] some amount um from bidding that we will

[6:35:02] get back and we're looking at cutting

[6:35:04] down on contingencies.

[6:35:07] I think we're hoping that we can reduce

[6:35:09] that maybe to 10 to 15%.

[6:35:14] So we're

[6:35:14] >> of the of the increase or the

[6:35:16] contingency

[6:35:19] >> of the increase. So we are anticipating

[6:35:22] there will be an increase in the price.

[6:35:24] Our goal is to reduce that as much as

[6:35:26] possible.

[6:35:27] >> So we're expecting a 17% increase.

[6:35:29] You're thinking we can get that down to

[6:35:31] a 2% increase.

[6:35:32] >> No, to a 10 to 15%.

[6:35:34] >> 10 to 15. So we would save 2%.

[6:35:37] >> Yeah.

[6:35:37] >> Potentially by going from the 60 to the

[6:35:39] 90.

[6:35:40] >> Yeah. I I should point out that there

[6:35:42] are some things that we didn't have in

[6:35:45] the 60% that um are requirements for the

[6:35:51] project. So there are increases baked

[6:35:54] into the cake for additional parking

[6:35:57] that we need to put in that was never in

[6:36:00] our original estimate. That is a coastal

[6:36:02] commission condition. Um there are some

[6:36:06] conditions that were part of our

[6:36:10] um coastal development plan amendment.

[6:36:14] Um that being solar and EV parking that

[6:36:18] are extra costs. Um there are some

[6:36:21] changes to storm water that we need to

[6:36:23] make that are extra costs that we're not

[6:36:26] going to be able to eliminate. So those

[6:36:29] are now part of, you know, what we're

[6:36:31] going to try and mitigate with some of

[6:36:33] these other ideas.

[6:36:34] >> So staying on the 2%

[6:36:36] >> potential, but we're looking at

[6:36:39] inflation at plus 3%.

[6:36:44] Does it make sense to just go with the

[6:36:47] you know

[6:36:50] >> I I think that we feel that we are

[6:36:53] better servicing the community and

[6:36:55] council and making sure that there is no

[6:36:59] way for us to reduce costs further. We

[6:37:01] feel like it's it's an exercise that we

[6:37:03] need to do.

[6:37:04] >> So I mean essentially so you're saying

[6:37:06] you believe we're going to have cost

[6:37:08] savings that outpace inflation.

[6:37:11] >> That's correct.

[6:37:12] Okay. Okay. And then have we shared that

[6:37:15] bid? Is that a publicly available or

[6:37:19] >> It is actually public avail. Well, we

[6:37:21] have not actually shared it yet.

[6:37:22] >> Okay. Thank you.

[6:37:26] >> Thank you. Seeing no other questions

[6:37:28] from colleagues, um do we have any

[6:37:30] public comments on this item?

[6:37:32] >> Thank you, mayor. We have three speakers

[6:37:33] on item 16. Our first speaker is Bert

[6:37:36] Handy, followed by Philip Fields and

[6:37:38] Spencer Norin.

[6:37:49] Good evening, council staff, Mr.

[6:37:51] Arlington, Misski.

[6:37:53] Couple questions I had. You say that

[6:37:56] information is publicly available. Where

[6:37:58] would it be publicly available? I

[6:37:59] haven't been able to find that at all

[6:38:00] anywhere. Um, and you say 17%.

[6:38:05] What is that based on?

[6:38:07] What cost is that based on? You could do

[6:38:10] some math on and figure it out. Say 17%.

[6:38:13] It could be 250 million. It could be 500

[6:38:15] million. We don't know. So, as a

[6:38:18] citizen, I believe we should be entitled

[6:38:21] to know what that number is instead of

[6:38:23] having to possibly file a public records

[6:38:26] request to find out what the cost is.

[6:38:29] Um, do these costs include phase 1B?

[6:38:34] I don't believe they do. That's part of

[6:38:36] the project we're talking about.

[6:38:39] You're talking about 1,800

[6:38:42] acre feet a year for phase 1A. According

[6:38:45] to the comprehensive water resources

[6:38:47] report, we're going to 5,400 acre feet

[6:38:51] when we complete phase 1B.

[6:38:54] Why is that included? And if it's not,

[6:38:57] why isn't that cost included in this

[6:38:59] total project cost? That is something

[6:39:01] that should be there.

[6:39:04] How much more cost is it going to be to

[6:39:07] increase the cost of infrastructure?

[6:39:10] What I mean by that is we currently have

[6:39:13] a pipeline that's capable of handling 3

[6:39:15] million gallons a day. I believe it is

[6:39:17] going up to Bailey, but it's going to

[6:39:19] have to be increased.

[6:39:21] Is that cost part of the pure water

[6:39:24] project or is that another cost that

[6:39:26] we're going to have to add on top of it

[6:39:28] to comply with what we're going to be

[6:39:29] able to send and use within our system?

[6:39:32] I don't believe that number is there

[6:39:34] either. So there's a lot of costs here

[6:39:37] that are actually part of the pure water

[6:39:39] project that are not really being talked

[6:39:42] about in this cost that we have right

[6:39:45] now of the unknown amount with a 17%

[6:39:49] increase over the costs. That is

[6:39:51] concerning to me because as a citizen I

[6:39:55] believe that information should be made

[6:39:57] available to us. And another thing

[6:39:59] that's very upsetting to me

[6:40:02] is the procedure that this council uses

[6:40:05] in scheduling when all the events come

[6:40:08] out. Venture water is at the end of

[6:40:11] every council meeting. Why? Because it

[6:40:13] begins with W. Why isn't this rotated to

[6:40:16] the beginning of the meeting once in a

[6:40:17] while so the public can hear what's

[6:40:20] going on instead of having what you got

[6:40:22] for a crowd out here almost every time

[6:40:25] Ventura Water comes in to talk about it.

[6:40:27] Is that really being fair to the public?

[6:40:30] No, it's not. We're spending,

[6:40:33] according to you guys, the most money

[6:40:35] that we'll ever spend on a project, but

[6:40:38] it's being buried at the end of the

[6:40:39] night every time we talk about it. Thank

[6:40:41] you.

[6:40:43] >> Next speaker is Philip Fields, followed

[6:40:45] by Spencer Norn and our final speaker,

[6:40:47] Nirvonica.

[6:40:54] You, the council,

[6:40:57] are acting irresponsibly.

[6:41:00] You're throwing out over a billion

[6:41:02] dollars on a useless, expensive,

[6:41:07] ineffective

[6:41:09] technological approach that you label

[6:41:12] under different parts.

[6:41:15] Sometimes you label as bioreactor

[6:41:17] filter, etc., etc.

[6:41:20] There are other alternatives

[6:41:22] and you're not asking those questions.

[6:41:25] What alternatives are those that are

[6:41:28] cheaper and efficient to break forever

[6:41:32] chemicals,

[6:41:34] the PFAS

[6:41:37] and this stuff

[6:41:40] sucks.

[6:41:42] They're incompetent.

[6:41:45] They're stupid. Forgive my frankness.

[6:41:50] They are failing their fiduciary duty.

[6:41:54] They're playing with money from the

[6:41:57] people, money that's not theirs.

[6:42:02] And you see, attorney, you should be

[6:42:04] looking for these alternatives.

[6:42:06] Deliberate negligence, it's grants for

[6:42:09] criminal prosecution.

[6:42:11] You went to law school. You certainly

[6:42:14] know that those severies

[6:42:17] here it's multiple failure. The

[6:42:20] alternatives to fix this are for example

[6:42:24] combining specific fungi such as

[6:42:28] arbascular

[6:42:30] microisal

[6:42:32] fungi like riso fagos irregularities

[6:42:37] with wetlands plants like yellow flack

[6:42:40] irises

[6:42:43] can reduce

[6:42:45] between 17 to 28%.

[6:42:50] These are cheaper, efficient

[6:42:51] alternatives.

[6:42:54] A Doug,

[6:42:56] he's the doctor in chemistry. Why is he

[6:43:00] using his expertise?

[6:43:04] And Schumacher, you're expert in public

[6:43:08] health. Why aren't you using your

[6:43:09] expertise? Ah, forgive me. You're just a

[6:43:15] PIO.

[6:43:17] You're not in your field.

[6:43:21] So here we have the experts. They're not

[6:43:24] doing their job.

[6:43:27] You went to school. So what for did you

[6:43:30] get a degree?

[6:43:32] [clears throat] Why aren't you fixing

[6:43:33] it?

[6:43:35] And that

[6:43:37] these fungi stimulate beneficial

[6:43:40] microbial activity that helps break down

[6:43:43] this persisting compounds to the PFAS.

[6:43:47] And you look at me like a stupid

[6:43:51] when it's you who should be fixing these

[6:43:53] problems. You as headsets of department

[6:43:55] and you as

[6:43:57] >> Thank you

[6:43:58] >> committees.

[6:43:58] >> Spencer Norn.

[6:44:05] » Thank you Michael. Mayor Council BPD

[6:44:07] translation. I wanted to make just kind

[6:44:10] of one ironic note I believe from this

[6:44:12] project and the location of a Levis Park

[6:44:14] and Harbor

[6:44:16] going back to our intern

[6:44:19] golf course

[6:44:22] facilities at a Levis Park. Remember,

[6:44:25] Levis Park was changed and the

[6:44:27] construction was changed. Probably not

[6:44:29] in accordance with the situation with

[6:44:32] the golf course being changed in the

[6:44:34] early 2000s and this project coming

[6:44:36] around maybe in the mid 2000s, but where

[6:44:38] the clubhouse used to be is where the

[6:44:41] water purification facility is now

[6:44:43] going. So, just seen a little bit of

[6:44:46] irony that the golf course was changed

[6:44:48] over 20 years ago and we haven't updated

[6:44:52] the clubhouse and opposed to the

[6:44:54] trailers, but now we're looking to

[6:44:56] invest this much money in the project on

[6:44:57] the same location. So, my hope would be

[6:45:00] can we possibly fund the new clubhouse

[6:45:03] where Leas Park is

[6:45:05] before we fund this. Just a thought.

[6:45:08] Thank you.

[6:45:10] >> And our final speaker is Nirvana.

[6:45:24] I I don't know. I haven't studied

[6:45:29] what

[6:45:31] a U

[6:45:33] membrane bioreactor is.

[6:45:37] I need to do some research on that. or

[6:45:39] an ultraviolet light disinfection

[6:45:42] machine is.

[6:45:45] But I do I can tell you one thing I've

[6:45:48] done some studying on as far as our

[6:45:51] water is concerned.

[6:45:54] I've studied

[6:45:56] wireless systems

[6:46:00] like our phones

[6:46:02] and like the wireless meters you put on

[6:46:05] our pipes going into our houses.

[6:46:10] They create they cause cancer.

[6:46:14] Men that carry cell phones in their

[6:46:16] pockets very often have testicular

[6:46:19] cancer.

[6:46:21] Women

[6:46:23] that carry cell phones in their bras and

[6:46:25] in their purses because their purses are

[6:46:28] up here like this. Women

[6:46:31] get breast cancer from these things. and

[6:46:34] women and people that holds these things

[6:46:36] up to their head get brain cancer. I've

[6:46:40] known people that have died from it.

[6:46:43] So, when you when you put these wireless

[6:46:47] [snorts]

[6:46:49] uh water meters on our pipes, you're

[6:46:52] radiating

[6:46:54] the w because it completely surrounds

[6:46:56] the pipe. Okay? It completely surrounds

[6:47:00] the pipe going into our homes, our gyms,

[6:47:04] our restaurants,

[6:47:07] and it's radiating the water that's

[6:47:10] going into our homes and everything.

[6:47:14] Okay, I think that needs it needs to

[6:47:16] stop. And I don't know what

[6:47:21] a membrane bioreactor is,

[6:47:25] but it doesn't sound good to me.

[6:47:29] So, I have to

[6:47:32] say

[6:47:33] uh until I do some more research on

[6:47:36] these things, I'm opposed to it 100%.

[6:47:41] And uh I don't have a song for that

[6:47:45] right now, but uh anyway,

[6:47:48] um I just wanted to make make that

[6:47:50] point. Thank you. And thank you for uh

[6:47:55] all for giving me the freedom of

[6:47:56] expression that I got get here. I I want

[6:47:59] to thank all of you for giving me that.

[6:48:02] Thank you, mayor, and council members.

[6:48:04] >> Thank you.

[6:48:05] >> That concludes public comment on item

[6:48:07] 16.

[6:48:07] >> Thank you. I'll bring it back to council

[6:48:10] for deliberation and uh action is

[6:48:12] required on this item. Um council member

[6:48:14] Mc Reynolds, followed by council member

[6:48:16] Mangon.

[6:48:17] >> Uh thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh Mr.

[6:48:20] Storington, I want to thank you. Uh I do

[6:48:21] enjoy your updates. Uh I think they're

[6:48:23] well presented uh on it. Uh per one of

[6:48:26] the public speakers. Um I just want to

[6:48:29] make sure that we're including the whole

[6:48:30] project uh as part of that. Uh is that the entire project in the update

[6:48:37] that you're providing?

[6:48:40] >> Yeah, I'll have Linda answer what we're

[6:48:41] covering right now.

[6:48:43] So to answer um one of one of the public

[6:48:46] comments um these the costs that we are

[6:48:49] talking about do not include phase 1B.

[6:48:52] >> Um those costs are actually in the

[6:48:55] capital improvement program. So they are

[6:48:58] budgeted and part of what we um what we

[6:49:02] had put forward for rates back in

[6:49:03] December. So we're not capturing it

[6:49:07] right here, but it is planned. in future

[6:49:09] updates, if you can just make sure it's

[6:49:11] the whole project, that would be

[6:49:13] appreciated.

[6:49:16] >> Sure. Yeah.

[6:49:17] >> Okay. And uh unless there's another

[6:49:19] comment, um I I'll make a motion to move

[6:49:21] staff's recommendation.

[6:49:23] >> Second.

[6:49:24] >> Thank you. I do have a couple of council

[6:49:26] members with um questions or comments.

[6:49:28] Council member Mangon and then follow up

[6:49:31] Schumacher.

[6:49:31] >> So to follow up with some of the

[6:49:32] comments, so we're you you stated, Miss

[6:49:34] Samansky, that we're looking at a 17%

[6:49:36] increase. So, to what dollar amount,

[6:49:43] » council member manganese, I um I'm

[6:49:46] hesitant to give you a dollar amount

[6:49:48] because that's something that you're

[6:49:49] going to we're going to glob on to and

[6:49:51] it's we know that we can get that dollar

[6:49:54] amount

[6:49:56] reduced by moving further along in the

[6:49:59] process on that cone of uncertainty. um

[6:50:02] it's not a price that that we want to

[6:50:05] focus on because it's not a real cost

[6:50:07] right now. We're going to redefine the

[6:50:11] uh 90% design and the cost of the 90%

[6:50:14] design. So the 60% design is not um it's

[6:50:19] not a valid cost. It's a it's a proposed

[6:50:21] it was a proposed cost, but it's not

[6:50:23] going to be what the cost is to

[6:50:25] construct the project.

[6:50:26] >> Understood. But we're still potentially

[6:50:29] looking at 10 to 15% increase on that

[6:50:32] number that we don't know.

[6:50:34] >> It is it is true. The the costs that we

[6:50:37] looked at um back in December when we

[6:50:39] talked about rates um that cost has gone

[6:50:42] up for the advanced purification

[6:50:44] facility. Uh the cost of building has

[6:50:46] continued to rise as we move forward in

[6:50:49] this process.

[6:50:50] >> Understood. But I think that's the

[6:50:53] question and I think that should be

[6:50:54] answered publicly is we're talking about

[6:50:57] percentages and numbers. The staff, you

[6:50:59] know, the presentations are actually

[6:51:01] make it more confusing for the public.

[6:51:04] The to me it seems like a something that

[6:51:07] should be answered. We're looking at

[6:51:09] we're trying to be transparent here with

[6:51:11] the public. You're asking the council to

[6:51:13] approve increases incrementally. You're

[6:51:16] stating that we're trying to to reduce

[6:51:19] 17 potentially 17% increase in costs,

[6:51:23] but no one knows what that number is.

[6:51:30] » So, the cost that we had included in the

[6:51:33] rates study and approved rates for was

[6:51:37] 192 million for a total project cost.

[6:51:40] >> Okay. Thank you.

[6:51:45] And one last comment. So I think

[6:51:49] one um statement that Mr. Handy made and I'll agree with it whole

[6:51:54] wholeheartedly. In 2024 I was I made

[6:51:56] public comments several times about h

[6:51:58] not having waterpure items on consent.

[6:52:03] There was one um meeting in particular.

[6:52:06] It was like $19 million in in water pure

[6:52:09] and MBR um expenditures approved and

[6:52:13] consent. And I was like, what is

[6:52:14] happening here? I think he's right that

[6:52:19] we're we're talking about a project here

[6:52:21] that's going to impact every single

[6:52:22] rateayer in the city of Mura and we're

[6:52:24] talking about it at 11:30 at night when

[6:52:27] no one's paying attention. So, I think

[6:52:29] we can do better. I don't think Miss

[6:52:32] Dorington and Miss Samansky need two

[6:52:34] hours like we did to talk about $340,000

[6:52:38] in arts and culture spending. That's

[6:52:40] what we spent over two hours talking

[6:52:41] about that. They are very prepared. They

[6:52:44] can do their presentation in 30 minutes.

[6:52:46] I think they should be at the beginning

[6:52:47] of the meeting or towards the beginning.

[6:52:49] I think uh just in uh just to speak

[6:52:52] towards like the transparency we were

[6:52:54] constantly talking about we want to

[6:52:56] improve on. I think that's uh something

[6:52:58] that we we could do in the future.

[6:53:02] >> Thank you for that. And if I may just

[6:53:04] kind of chime in on that. Um our agendas

[6:53:07] are alphabetical order and that's why

[6:53:11] this and we always have the discretion

[6:53:13] to move things around. So keep that in

[6:53:16] mind too. Like if we want to move

[6:53:18] something up, just let me know. But

[6:53:21] yeah, not putting it very at the very

[6:53:24] end on purpose. No,

[6:53:26] >> I'm not saying it's intentional. I'm not I'm not trying to imply that,

[6:53:30] but you know, I think we can do better.

[6:53:31] And you're you're right. I can email you

[6:53:34] and the city clerk and say, "Why are we

[6:53:36] doing this prior to the meeting?" You

[6:53:37] know, I'm not placing blame on anybody,

[6:53:38] but

[6:53:39] >> No, no problem. Just wanted to make sure

[6:53:40] that

[6:53:41] >> that was understood. Um, Council Member

[6:53:42] Schumacher, followed by Council Member

[6:53:44] Compost.

[6:53:44] >> Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council

[6:53:45] Member Mangonic. I had the same question

[6:53:47] and concern. I thank you for the

[6:53:49] commenter to be able to put that um in

[6:53:52] our consciousness and uh yeah moving

[6:53:55] forward I think we we should move it up.

[6:53:57] I think it it definitely yields more

[6:54:00] attention specifically to get uh more

[6:54:03] people to pay attention and help us with

[6:54:05] uh their comments specifically because

[6:54:08] the comments that we've heard today

[6:54:09] wasn't very helpful. Um, and I want to

[6:54:11] thank the two of you for all the work

[6:54:13] that you've done. Um, because uh, and

[6:54:15] you know, this is a difficult and

[6:54:17] thankless job and the name calling is

[6:54:19] completely inappropriate. Uh, so in no

[6:54:21] way do you are ever described as stupid.

[6:54:25] I think the stupidity comes from those

[6:54:26] that can't derive or justify any salient

[6:54:29] points. So with that, I want to thank

[6:54:31] you both for all the work that you've

[6:54:32] done for this project. and I second um

[6:54:35] or if it hasn't already been seconded by

[6:54:37] um council member Duran and I I want to

[6:54:39] move this along. Thank you.

[6:54:41] >> Thank you. I do have council member

[6:54:42] Compos with comments.

[6:54:49] » I don't think your mic is on.

[6:54:51] >> Sorry.

[6:54:51] >> Thank you.

[6:54:52] >> The item that you said was publicly

[6:54:54] available.

[6:54:56] >> Can you email the link to that to Mr.

[6:54:58] handy

[6:55:00] so we don't have to go through the

[6:55:02] public record action.

[6:55:03] >> Sure, we can we can do that.

[6:55:05] >> Thank you.

[6:55:06] And um thank you staff as

[6:55:10] well for your work and dedication on

[6:55:12] this item. With that, we have a motion

[6:55:14] and a second. If we can call the vote.

[6:55:17] >> You can enter your vote now on item 16.

[6:55:24] All votes have been entered.

[6:55:27] Seven eyes and the motion carries.

[6:55:31] >> Thank you. Moving on to our items for

[6:55:34] future agendas. Um this is the time on

[6:55:36] our agenda for items for future agendas.

[6:55:39] Um this section allows council members

[6:55:41] to request future agenda items. Policy

[6:55:44] considerations must be submitted jointly

[6:55:46] by two council members. And um just a

[6:55:49] reminder, discussion should be limited

[6:55:51] to whether staff should return with a

[6:55:53] future item, not the substance of the

[6:55:55] policy. And I'll go ahead and um start

[6:55:59] off real quick and then I everybody had

[6:56:02] ideas over the long break. So that's

[6:56:04] great. Um, for a future agenda item, I'd

[6:56:07] like staff to bring back information on

[6:56:10] what a potential moratorum on gas

[6:56:13] stations or fueling infrastructure could

[6:56:16] look like um, in the city and also

[6:56:19] provide an overview of what setback or

[6:56:22] separation requirements we currently

[6:56:24] have in the city, if any, um,

[6:56:27] particularly in relation to residential

[6:56:29] areas and other sensitive areas.

[6:56:31] >> I'll second that.

[6:56:33] >> Thank you.

[6:56:34] And if we can vote on that real quick.

[6:56:40] » Okay, you can enter your vote now to

[6:56:42] direct staff to return with an

[6:56:44] information item on a potential

[6:56:45] moratorium on gas stations.

[6:56:53] » Seven eyes and the motion carries.

[6:56:55] >> Thank you. Um I have council member

[6:56:57] Mcrenolds followed by council member

[6:56:59] Schumacher followed by council member

[6:57:01] compos.

[6:57:04] Uh thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh I wanted

[6:57:06] to bring the flock item forward. Um I

[6:57:10] think there's been a lot of community

[6:57:11] outreach regarding that. Uh I want to

[6:57:14] give the uh police department a fair

[6:57:16] opportunity to address that. Uh I think

[6:57:20] there's probably number of concerns from

[6:57:22] the my my colleagues also uh on it. So I

[6:57:26] don't know if there's any additional

[6:57:28] items. Uh I just wanted to bring it

[6:57:30] forward for consideration. I know the

[6:57:32] last time when the uh chief made the

[6:57:34] presentation in March, there was going

[6:57:35] to be an audit that the IT folks were doing. I think there'd be an

[6:57:40] opportunity to bring that if that audit

[6:57:42] is complete to bring that forward. And

[6:57:44] then, you know, in terms of the the

[6:57:47] safety and of the flock cameras and

[6:57:50] such. So, uh I don't know if any of my

[6:57:52] colleagues have additional items

[6:57:54] potentially.

[6:57:55] >> Yeah, I would support that. I have a

[6:57:57] question maybe. Um, so I I've heard in

[6:58:01] terms of um the federal government can

[6:58:04] come and put cameras without us knowing

[6:58:07] and if that's the case, can that be

[6:58:10] addressed when it comes back to council

[6:58:13] with information on that?

[6:58:17] » That that's correct. There there are

[6:58:19] other law enforcement organizations,

[6:58:21] state and federal, uh, that potentially

[6:58:24] could install cameras within the city

[6:58:25] limits, even the county. Okay.

[6:58:27] >> So, we can certainly have that.

[6:58:29] >> So, that could just be included in that

[6:58:30] asformational.

[6:58:34] » Okay. So, we have a second. Thank you.

[6:58:40] >> Okay. You can enter your vote on

[6:58:42] directing staff to return with an

[6:58:44] information item regarding the soft

[6:58:45] safety of cameras.

[6:58:50] Seven eyes. The motion carries.

[6:58:58] Go ahead, council.

[6:59:00] >> Um, thank you, mayor. Uh, so we had

[6:59:02] asked, uh, the staff to come back about

[6:59:05] street vending and, um, I have been

[6:59:09] working in Santa Barbara County in my

[6:59:11] capacity as one of the executives for

[6:59:13] the health department. Um, and I would

[6:59:15] like to make sure that um, I bring some

[6:59:18] of those best practices for a regional

[6:59:20] approach rather than for us to um, just

[6:59:23] try to do things in a silo. So, we would

[6:59:26] I would like to see if uh, the mayor

[6:59:29] would entertain us having an ad hoc

[6:59:32] committee to work with the staff so that

[6:59:34] way we're a bit more involved in um, in

[6:59:37] what ordinance comes to this body. So, I

[6:59:39] would like to be involved as much as

[6:59:41] possible so I can share those best

[6:59:43] practices and I welcome the mayor to to

[6:59:45] determine who else would be part of

[6:59:47] that.

[6:59:48] >> Thank you.

[6:59:49] And Mr. City attorney, do we have to

[6:59:51] determine that now?

[6:59:54] >> No.

[6:59:54] >> Um, mayor, the uh council, uh, that

[6:59:57] could be part of the motion or it could

[6:59:59] just be part of the motion. Could be the

[7:00:01] mayor could select the ad hoc committee

[7:00:03] members. Either way,

[7:00:04] >> so we'll have that the that I'll select

[7:00:07] the council members at the ad hoc and

[7:00:09] move from there. Okay.

[7:00:11] >> Is there a second on that?

[7:00:12] >> Second.

[7:00:16] » No mic needed. [laughter]

[7:00:18] >> Okay. You can go ahead and enter your

[7:00:20] vote now.

[7:00:21] >> And mayor, [clears throat] for

[7:00:22] clarification, you said you would make

[7:00:23] those appointments after.

[7:00:25] >> Okay.

[7:00:28] All eyes. Motion carries.

[7:00:30] >> Thank you,

[7:00:31] >> Council Member Compulse.

[7:00:33] So, I would like to move or uh bring a

[7:00:39] citywide

[7:00:41] ban on data centers in the city of

[7:00:44] Ventura

[7:00:46] citywide. And I would like to ask uh

[7:00:49] that that be dealt with by the city

[7:00:51] attorney staff.

[7:00:55] Mayor, I think we can um and maybe just

[7:00:57] for Council Member Comos, it may be uh a

[7:01:01] little easier to come back sort of in a

[7:01:02] two-step approach where we come back

[7:01:04] with information on sort of what uh ban

[7:01:06] might look like and we'd have to work

[7:01:08] with community development staff to kind

[7:01:10] of understand um the existing rules and

[7:01:12] what that might look like and then when

[7:01:14] we come back with an information item,

[7:01:16] the council could direct um what we

[7:01:18] might prepare um and come back with if

[7:01:20] it's so inclined.

[7:01:21] >> Thank could I have a question. Could we

[7:01:24] um as council

[7:01:28] would we be able to write a letter

[7:01:30] opposing data centers because it's not

[7:01:33] technically our jurisdiction, right?

[7:01:35] It's the uh fairgrounds.

[7:01:38] >> I guess if we're talking about the one

[7:01:39] of the fairgrounds, my understanding is

[7:01:40] that that's within the city's

[7:01:42] jurisdiction. It's a question of sort of

[7:01:43] what zoning uh rights we would have, but

[7:01:46] it's at least within city limits. Um I I

[7:01:49] uh um if it were something different

[7:01:53] than a moratorum citywide if it were to

[7:01:56] explore what we could do pertaining to

[7:01:58] the uh proposal at the uh county

[7:02:02] fairgrounds. Um if that's the request I

[7:02:05] mean that's something different but if

[7:02:06] that's something more

[7:02:07] >> if we could do both

[7:02:10] >> I think I mean we can come back I think

[7:02:12] with an exposition on both um options

[7:02:16] with the county pertaining to the the

[7:02:18] fairgrounds and then separately uh what

[7:02:21] uh citywide ban uh what that might look

[7:02:24] like and then the council can so direct

[7:02:26] us from there.

[7:02:27] >> Okay. Thank you.

[7:02:29] >> And I I can support that.

[7:02:30] >> Thank you.

[7:02:33] Okay. So, we have a

[7:02:36] motion in a second.

[7:02:39] >> Okay. You can enter your vote now.

[7:02:50] » Waiting on one more vote to be entered.

[7:02:51] All votes have now been entered.

[7:02:55] Seven eyes and the motion carries.

[7:02:58] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, moving on to our

[7:03:02] second part of public communications.

[7:03:05] Do we have any additional public

[7:03:07] comments?

[7:03:08] >> Uh, we do. We have uh Bert Handy.

[7:03:12] Bert, you have three minutes.

[7:03:16] » Good evening, council. I couldn't make

[7:03:18] it earlier tonight, so it's sort of

[7:03:19] nice. Um, in regards to your flock

[7:03:23] issued situation, I agree with the city

[7:03:26] manager in regards to finding out if

[7:03:28] there are other agencies that are

[7:03:30] putting them in the city, and it would

[7:03:32] be nice to know that. Um, I also agree

[7:03:35] with the agreement tonight to have the

[7:03:38] chief come back and explain

[7:03:41] where they are in the city, what they

[7:03:44] are using the information for, how long

[7:03:47] they're keeping the information, and

[7:03:49] what are they doing with the information

[7:03:51] that they are getting. Are they giving

[7:03:53] it to other agencies?

[7:03:56] How are they using the information that

[7:03:58] they're gathering from the flock

[7:04:00] cameras? I believe that's really

[7:04:02] important with all the current

[7:04:04] conversation that's going on about block

[7:04:08] cameras. In regards to the fairgrounds,

[7:04:11] they have a meeting next Tuesday and

[7:04:14] there was a meeting tonight at Topa to

[7:04:16] talk about the shall we say the centers

[7:04:21] and they are very very adverse to it and

[7:04:24] they don't want it around. So, that is

[7:04:27] something that's going to be coming up

[7:04:28] next Tuesday at the uh Ventura County

[7:04:32] Board of Directors meeting if anybody's

[7:04:34] interested. Um,

[7:04:37] and the other what was the other thing

[7:04:39] that we came up today that we voted on?

[7:04:40] What was the other thing, Mike?

[7:04:44] That the last thing here.

[7:04:48] Okay. Anyway, my mind's sort of going

[7:04:51] off because I I think about all these

[7:04:53] things, but thank you for your time and

[7:04:54] enjoy your evening.

[7:04:56] >> Thank you.

[7:04:56] >> Our next speaker, Spencer Norin. Spencer

[7:04:59] Norin. Going once, going twice.

[7:05:03] Our final speaker is Nirvonica. Nirvana.

[7:05:07] >> Going once.

[7:05:09] >> Going twice. Nirvana, you're up. And

[7:05:13] that concludes public comment. Mayor,

[7:05:14] after Nirvana,

[7:05:16] >> thank you.

[7:05:18] Can you uh put the slide up

[7:05:23] >> and give me my three seconds back?

[7:05:27] >> Okay. Whenever you're ready. Okay. I

[7:05:29] want everybody to look at this video.

[7:05:32] Can you put it back up?

[7:05:35] Keep it up.

[7:05:38] Okay. I want everybody to look at this

[7:05:39] video.

[7:05:41] This is Zack Kimble and Spencer Noran

[7:05:43] there. Okay. Okay. And Zach Kimble ran a website on uh Instagram called Cleanup

[7:05:51] Ventura.

[7:05:53] And on and if you look at him right now,

[7:05:57] he's given the sign of Moolok.

[7:06:00] This is I love you. This is devil horns.

[7:06:03] And this is the sign of Moolok. And I'm

[7:06:05] like like my father Luke. I write books

[7:06:08] and I wrote a book called The Sign of

[7:06:10] Moolok.

[7:06:11] Okay. [clears throat]

[7:06:13] It's not a good thing. And what who Molo

[7:06:16] is is the god of human sacrifice.

[7:06:21] And um

[7:06:24] I've already pointed out that Zach

[7:06:25] Kimbell's a liar. I've already proved it

[7:06:28] by going back and looking at previous

[7:06:31] public comments, him coming in here and

[7:06:34] lying. Well,

[7:06:38] Spencer Noran told me he didn't know

[7:06:40] Zack Kimble. didn't know anything about

[7:06:42] Cleanup Ventura, which is untrue also.

[7:06:47] Okay. Now, these guys come in here and

[7:06:48] they talk about integrity.

[7:06:51] But I want to tell you something right

[7:06:52] now. I've got more integrity in my pinky

[7:06:56] fingers,

[7:06:58] in my pinky finger, than these guys got

[7:07:00] in their whole entire bodies.

[7:07:04] Okay?

[7:07:05] And how can you allow people to come in

[7:07:07] here and lie

[7:07:10] to get their way?

[7:07:13] That's not integrity

[7:07:15] at all.

[7:07:17] And I've been threatened by these guys,

[7:07:21] too, with violence. These guys are

[7:07:23] tough. These guys are tough guys when

[7:07:26] they're picking on

[7:07:28] elderly

[7:07:30] senior citizens and disabled people.

[7:07:34] There are city council members that he's

[7:07:36] threatened to. And I was I was having a

[7:07:38] conversation with Alex Mangane and got

[7:07:41] rudely interrupted

[7:07:44] by Spencer Norin. He just comes right up

[7:07:46] and interrupts the conversation I was

[7:07:48] having with him. Is that appropriate? I

[7:07:50] don't think so. Well,

[7:07:54] what goeth around? [panting and sighs]

[7:07:58] What goes around [singing] comes right

[7:08:00] back around to bite you in the booty.

[7:08:07] It's rock dog la.

[7:08:12] Rock dog philosophy.

[7:08:18] » Thank you. I think that's all I got time

[7:08:20] for, but

[7:08:22] >> thank you.

[7:08:22] everyone for giving me freedom

[7:08:24] of expression.

[7:08:25] >> That concludes public comment. Thank you

[7:08:27] so much. Um, we have reached our uh

[7:08:30] ending of our meeting. Uh, tonight we

[7:08:32] will be adjourning in memory of Jackie

[7:08:36] the bald eagle.

[7:08:38] >> Thank you. Um, our next regular meeting

[7:08:40] will be Tuesday, August 25th. Um, thank

[7:08:43] you everyone for hanging in there with

[7:08:44] us and good to have you here. Good

[7:08:47] night. Meeting adjourned.

8.18.26: City Council

Transcript