Good afternoon and welcome to the special meeting of the City Council and Successor Agency October 5th 2020. As you can see we're still meeting remotely and appreciate your understanding and tolerance of the limitations of this format. We will begin with the clerk calling the role. Thank you Mayor Councillor Mangordo. Here. Councillor McK Gordo. Here. Councilmember Kennedy. Here. Councilmember Madison is so far absent. Councilmember Moussuda. Here. Councilmember McAustin. Here. Councilmember Wilson. Here. Vice Mayor Hampton is so far absent. Mayor Tornick. Here. There's a quorum of the council presence Thank you mr. Clark mr. Wilson would you lead us in the pledge please? Absolutely, please stand Place your right hand over your heart. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of which we stand for nation and God, under God, in the visible liberty of justice and justice. Thank you. We have some ceremonials, important ceremonials today, that'll take a little bit of time. The first one is a declaration with regard to the unhappy circumstance in Artsakh and Armenia. Whereas on September 27th, 2020, Azerbaijan assisted by Turkey, launched a massive attack against Artsakh with the intention of annihilating the entire Armenian population of Artsakh. And whereas civilians have been attacked, and there's been indiscriminate showing of villages in towns, both in Artsakh and Armenia, and this attempt to ethnically cleanse all Armenians of Artsakh brings back very painful memories to the Pasadena Armenian-American community. Many of whom are descendants of the survivors of the 1915 genocide, which is memorialized in Pasadena's Memorial Park. And whereas, as a nation devoted to freedom with democratic values, we should all condemn these actions and pray for the victims, the words never again were immortalized following the atrocities of the 20th century. These words should not be merely spoken, but shown in action. And whereas in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Now therefore, I, Terry Tornick, Mayor of the City of Pasadena on behalf of the City Council, to hereby declare that the city of Pasadena stands with its Armenian-American community in these difficult times and mourns for the innocent victims of this military aggression. And I will ask my colleagues to adjourn the meeting in part in the memory of the victims of this violence. this by any. Are there any immediate comments on this? This is a declaration by the City Council. I would suggest that we send a copy of the declaration to our sister city. Bonnizor and also ask surrounding communities to make the same declaration. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Goura. I would simply say that in the vein that both of you have already spoken that we are united with people around the world, ensuring that this behavior be arrested and that our country hopefully will stand with the Armenian people as we have done in the past and provide whatever resources that are necessary. It is a given that this is international affairs, however, because of the long history that we have had with the Armenian community, both locally and internationally, I believe it's most appropriate. And I applaud both of my colleagues who have just spoken about this matter. Thank you. All right. Now, the happier note this is National Disability Employment Awareness Month which we recognize every year. This is a proclamation that says whereas recognition of the contributions of persons with disabilities is an effective way to overcome negative stereotypes and eliminate physical and additional barriers to full participation in all aspects of community life, including education, recreation, and employment. And whereas people with disabilities are an important vital part of our community, as valued workers, civic leaders, business owners, veterans,reliance and productive lives for all people. And whereas Pasadena is proud to renew its dedication to fostering equal access and demonstrating commitment to full inclusion of people with disabilities. Now therefore, I, Terry Tornick, Mayor of the City of Pasadena on behalf of the City Council, to hereby proclaim the month of October 2020 in Pasadena as National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and encourage all citizens to recognize the accomplishments and contributions of persons with disabilities throughout our community. Ordinarily, we would be presenting this proclamation through several individuals representing nonprofits that work in this area, but we'll be doing that like mail this year, but we wanted to make sure not to let this moment go by. I simply would just like to acknowledge this year, but we wanted to make sure not to let this moment go by. He's Kenney. I simply would just like to acknowledge the elevation of James Far as the new chair of our Access and Disability Commission. He has educated us all on a number of issues that are of importance to those who live productive lives with disabilities and access issues. And we are grateful, I believe, as a council, for his leadership. And parenthetically, that is how I came to know James, we were at an event. If we see a lay professors from the Dohini Institute and he was the particular professor, Dr. was sharing with us about James' situation as it relates to his eyes. So again, we applaud all who live in our community with access issues and disabilities and the ability to overcome. Thank you. Thank you, John. Finally, we have a proclamation with regard to pedestrian safety month and walktober and then we'll have a brief presentation from Laura Corného, our Director of Transportation. Whereas walking is a healthy mode of travel that is environmentally friendly and in its general plan Pasadena has embraced the principle that people should be able to safely circulate throughout the community without cars. And whereas walkability is a positive attribute our neighborhoods is a safe option or a healthy and family friendly activity and a safe pedestrian environment can support economic development and local businesses. And whereas we are all pedestrians from time to time, it is important to pay attention to what's going on around us and drivers must remember that crosswalks exist at every intersection, whether painted or not, and be vigilant to ensure the safety of the pedestrians. And whereas the city recognizes the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition and day one are promoting the benefits of walking as a form of healthy recreation and as an active mode of transportation to commute, to school and to work. Now therefore, I, Terry Tornack, Mayor of the City of Pasadena, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2020 in Pasadena as Walktober and Pedestrian Safety Month, an urge that we all rededicate ourselves to enjoying the benefits of walking and ensuring the safety of pedestrians in our community. I would welcome Laura Cornel, our Director of Transportation, to make a brief presentation. Laura. Mayor and members of the City Council, thank you for bringing awareness and attention to pedestrian safety. Before I begin the brief presentation, I do want to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the Complete Streets Coalition. In particular, the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition for their continued dedication in raising awareness for pedestrian safety and continuing to work with not just the Department of Transportation but the city in general in raising awareness and advancing projects that improve pedestrian access and safety. At the beginning of the Safe Red Home Order, the Department launched a slow streets program really in response to what we saw changing travel patterns primarily increased pedestrian and bicycle activity but also what we saw as increased speeds if not increased regular traffic but just speeds. We learned over the last several months a lot from that program which was rolled out rather quickly and I'm happy to share this evening what our next iteration of the Slow Streets or Safe Streets program will look like. Some of the lessons that we took away from the initial program were that in order for the program to be sustainable and successful, we first needed to be a little bit more deliberate and have a program that really paired down where the signage was, working with residents, have making sure that community members were active participants in the program, and partnering with the department, but also making sure that the program was sustainable for the long term, recognizing that not only do people continue to be at home, whether they're teleworking or distance learning, but that the way people see and interact with their streets has changed over the last several months. And we want to not only encourage that, but we also want to continue to provide a safe environment for that. So moving forward, the safer streets program will continue to improve safety for all pedestrian and bicyclists, primarily focusing on residential streets. We want to continue to abide by CDC guidelines and make sure that we're not promoting congregation, but still providing safe distancing behavior either through virtual activities or other activities where you're able to still walk and bike within your own local neighborhoods. Again, we wanna make sure that this program is sustainable, that it's long-term, that we no longer approach it as a short-term solution, but rather a long-term program that is here to stay. And lastly, focusing in on feasible streets, narrowing down, pairing down the program to be more deliberate, to be more focused, ensuring that the messaging is more effective. And so we have a four-thronged approach here where the first is a multimedia traffic safety campaign where we will leverage previous campaigns and sending out messaging. We will be launching a slow street skateway signs and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. We will have new and improved lawn signs taking in the feedback and input we heard from residents throughout the last several months and lastly, relaunching our slow streets program as an adopt a slow street program. For the multimedia safety campaign, we'll be leveraging in previous traffic safety campaigns that really are geared towards increasing awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as targeting motors to remind them that when they are on the road, they should share the road and be aware of their neighbors who might be walking and biking. The campaigns will be launched to be a social media, but will also use traditional media and print media. And lastly, in the spirit of October, we'll begin this process by partnering with the Completion Coalition and augmenting the programming that they already have in place. We will be taking some of those signs that were previously within the median and revamping them, giving them a little bit of a Pasadena brand. And we will be locating them along light or traffic poles near entrances of specific residential streets in order to remind motorists as they are entering that residential street to slow down. We will be making sure that these signs do not add to clutter and so they will not be part of Roseways or other programs where we already well will have the adoptive street a slow street program. But again this is just one other component added to the see for streets program. Again, this is just one other component added to the safer streets program. We received a lot of input about those lawn signs that we distributed over the spring, and we are in the process of redesigning them, giving them a Pasadena look, making sure that they are more visible, that the messaging is more targeted, that it's easier to read, and making sure that they are more visible that the messaging is more targeted that it's easier to read and making sure that they are more effective. Once these long signs are available, we will be making them readily accessible to all residents who are interested by requests via district liaison or by contacting the department directly. And lastly, the Adoptus Low Street program. This will again be still rolling out that program with the barricades in the median and some lights, but it will be more focused. We will be purchasing the barricades, and so this will ensure that we can keep this program out longer than just the three or four months we previously had them out for. And we're looking for residents who are willing to adopt a slow street and be active and working with the department and making sure that these signs are effective, that they are not relocated and that they are being effective in messaging. Some things to think about if you're interested in having a nominating your street to be a slow street. We are looking at local residential streets with 25 miles per hour speed limit. There are some thresholds in place to ensure that the program is effective. And so if you're interested, please feel free to reach out and we'll work with you and identify and whether this or another program would be more suitable for your street. Well we are asking of a resident who nominates their street to be a slow street as a you coordinate and communicate with the department. Let us know if the barricade is broken, if it has been relocated elsewhere, if the lights on the barricade have stopped working or if they're really serving as a barrier to larger commercial vehicles. We want to make sure that it's effective for everyone and so part of that is making sure that the signs are in place where they need to be and not being relocated or damaged by a vehicle. Again our timeline is we'll be starting with October, leveraging that campaign with our multimedia safety campaign. And over the next several weeks, rolling out the gateway signs, the lawn signs, and then really in November launching into the Adoptus Slow Street program. Welcome any questions that the council members might have. Thank you, Mr. Cornelho. This isn't an agenda, it's item, but we thought that it was a particularly appropriate presentation given the kickoff of October, walktober, sorry. Are there any absolutely required questions or else we'll move on. All right, thank you Ms. Kornayo. Mr. Masuto, we have one more ceremonial item. Do you want me to start now, Mayor? Yes, please. Thank you, Mayor. Council, I have some sad news. Yes, please. Thank you, Mayor. Council, I have some sad news. Tim Price, longtime president of Daisyville and neighborhood association, has passed away peacefully in his sleep on Sunday, September 13th, 2020. He was 77 years old. I spoke to his wife, Diane, a few days ago to let her know how much I appreciated Tim and his leadership for our district and Pasadena. He was one of the resident members for the Home Depot Committee whose input was so important and highly respected. I will always remember Tim because he was respectful and humble. Qualities I admire and appreciate. Whenever I needed a good opinion about something, he was the person I could get a perspective as a neighborhood representative. I always got smart, honest, and direct answers that I trusted. A man of faith, he attended services and volunteered at Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Tim is survived by his loving wife of 50 years Diane, his daughter Veronica Drowne, her husband Carl and their children Tyler Mason and Sydney. Tim's son Charlie Price and his wife Shelley are expecting Tim was thrilled knowing that his future grandson to be born in 2021 will carry the price family name. His sister Tim's sister Noel Dinkin and her husband Jay. My heartfelt condolences go out to Tim's family. He will truly be missed. Mayor, I suggest that we adjourn tonight's meeting in the memory of Tim Price as well. Thank you, Ms. Gorda. I'm sorry to learn this later. We had not heard you and, I know Tim Price has been involved for a very long time in civic affairs and truly the loss for all opacity. I would join in your request to adjourn our meeting in memory of Tim Christ. Thank you. Pardon me. Let me just... Sorry. So we will, as it has been our practice, we will adjourn our meeting in the memory of the victims of the Artsakh attacks and local community leader Tim Price All right, thank you. We will thank Eugene. We will now move to the consent calendar to the consent calendar. No mayor, we're supposed to do item one. Thank you for the beg your pardon item one skipping by the COVID-19 update from the city manager and the public health officer. Mr. Mermell. Thank you mayor. Mr. Murmell. Thank you mayor. Dr. Goh is entered the council chambers. Give her just a moment to get herself ready and she'll provide an oral report for the council and the community this afternoon. And then following Dr. Goh's report we do have one item that Brenda Harvey Williams will present related to COVID. Dr. Gaul? Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor Council members in the public. Here is the COVID-19 data as of today. In the US, we have had over 7,400,000 cases and unfortunately 209,700 deaths. And we heard directly from the CVC this morning on a national call, a confirmation that as a country, and in many jurisdictions across the country, we are on an upward trajectory in number of cases. In California, we've had over 823,000 cases and over 16,100 deaths. In LA County, over 274,000 cases and over 6,600 deaths. In Pasadena we have had 2,618 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 124 deaths. We extend our deepest sympathies to all those grieving the loss of a loved one. The median age of cases remains at 44 years and the median age at death at 81 years. We continue to follow the state health officer order for the blueprint for a safe economy. Currently, all three public health jurisdictions in LA County fall in the purple tier, indicating widespread transmission of COVID-19 based on daily case rates per 100,000 population and testing positivity. LA County's case rate also reflects a downward adjustment indicating testing volume throughout LA County that exceeds the state median. So far the suggestion has worked in favor of bringing the case number metric closer to the next lower tier. Because we remain in the purple tier, the state requires that we continue to keep several higher risk business sectors operating outdoor only, including gyms and physical fitness facilities. We recognize the huge sacrifices made by these businesses and look forward to the time when we move into the red tier at which time the state allows indoor activities and gyms and physical fitness facilities at 10% capacity and with modifications. I am pleased to report that while we had a measurable increase in COVID-19 cases over the past two weeks, the increase did not reflect the magnitude of the surge that we saw after the 4th of July. As a result, we have been able to proceed with some cautious, gradual sector openings that the state has allowed for jurisdictions in the purple tier. The health department has been working with public and private schools for many months to support restarting of in-person instruction, providing guidance on how to prepare for reopening and how to plan and implement public health protocols. Since several weeks ago, we have been providing technical assistance for schools bringing higher needs, cohorts of students back on campus for limited in-person services at 10% capacity, such as children with individualized education programs and those in ESL programs. We have provided technical assistance on conducting specific services such as expanded childcare programs on campus, conducting standard SAT and other testing, and providing essential services on campus such as mental health and social services for students. These activities have been allowed for several weeks. As of this morning, the Health Department is accepting applications for school waivers to allow in-person instruction with modifications for grades transitional kindergarten to second grade. This continues the careful, gradual increase in in-person school instruction in our city. The waiver application process ensures every component of the public health protocols are in place prior to allowing in-person instruction. Once our health department has reviewed the application, provided technical assistance to the school, and assured that the application components are in place, the application will be sent to the California Department of Public Health for State approval. The goal is to ensure schools have a full understanding of what the minimum protocols are that need to be implemented to keep transmission risk on campus as low as possible. These protocols include physical distancing, small stable cohorts of teachers and students that do not mix, staggered schedules, changes in the built environment to promote distancing and ventilation, hand hygiene, facilities disinfection, mandatory face coverings, auditing and enforcement of protocols, and education and systems in place for managing infectious individuals and outbreaks on campus. With current positivity rates, it is a certainty that there will be infectious people on campus and schools that choose to open must be prepared to manage these occurrences in partnership with the health department. When this happens, cohorts will be quarantined and cases will be isolated for the requisite period to prevent further spread of COVID-19. Schools will need to plan for flexible teaching arrangements to accommodate these types of events. Approval of the waiver application does not mean the health department is stating it is safe to return to campus. Protocols lower COVID-19 transmission risk but do not assure safety. The difficult part for schools and any site where people come together is the implementation and adherence to protocols at all times. Our schools have a significant challenge ahead of them and the Health Department is here to support them. Schools are communicating with families to set expectations and norms that in order for schools to be successful, we have to prioritize schools. It is imperative that families modify their behaviors outside of schools so schools can stay open. As a community, we have to continue following public health guidance to keep driving down community case rates because this is the only way schools will be able to remain open. Activities outside of schools that promote mixing among students and families and increased disease transmission risk will confound the intensive and costly efforts school administrators are putting in place to reduce risk on campus. An exposure that occurs among school families outside of campus brings COVID-19 to campus. And the more community transmission we see in general, the greater the number of infectious people arriving on any given day to school. We have also had some additional openings. The state allowed playgrounds to be open if allowed by local jurisdictions. Our city recreation department has opened playgrounds with rules and policies for lower risk use. We encourage our community to allow these spaces to continue to be open through responsible use so that we can all continue to enjoy them. Please follow capacity limits monitor your children so they don't interact with children from other households follow good hand hygiene and wear masks at all times. Nail salons are able to open for indoor services at 25% capacity or less, with modifications and should continue to keep as many services as possible outdoors. We expect to announce later this week that bars and breweries may be allowed to open for outdoor dining, functioning as restaurants outdoors, with the requirement of meals on the same transaction as alcohol sales and subject to all public health protocols applicable to restaurants. Finally, please get your flu vaccine. We are pleased to see high demand for flu vaccine at community flu clinics. Please check our website for dates, times, and locations and thank you to our partners. Huntington Hospital, the library department, and other city staff and community organizations for vaccinating over 1700 people so far. The hospital website has a list of their upcoming clinics and times and locations as well. And now I'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you, Dr. Gomez-Gorda. Thank you Dr. Goh Mr. Gorda. Dr. Goh I just want to make sure I understand the process. And so the school can apply for a waiver through our health department. Do I get that correct? Yes, they can apply for a waiver to have in-person instruction on campus for children in grades transitional kindergarten to second grade. Only transitional to second grade. Correct. And why is that only transitional to second grade? The rationale is that we want to have a slow and gradual reopening so that the schools will be successful in doing so, that we started with groups of students that are most disadvantaged with remote instruction, and so those included children with disabilities and special needs. And then we're moving to the youngest children who we also think fit that category. And what's the horizon look like with a transitional for kids who are beyond second date? We think that this will be phased in gradually and we hope, well, I mean with our sector openings for example, we continue to follow the data to make sure that we're the conditions in our community allow additional opening. So hopefully if we are successful and we don't see case rate spike and we're at a level where we can continue to bring more kids back on campus, we intend to do so. But give me an idea. Do you have any idea what the timeline is? Yeah, sure. I think, you know, with any sector change, we expect four to six weeks to see if there's a significant increase from that particular sector change. And I think that we start to get a sense about halfway through and then we can be pretty confident after that amount of time. So the next stage would be what grades? We expect to work our way up in age. No, I understand that. Do you have an idea of what the next phase might be? It would be a third to fifth grade, the sixth grade. Yes. So I think that the next stage would be elementary school. So some portion of elementary school. I have asked schools where they're able to consider on their own, even if they get their waiver approved for TK to second grade, to consider bringing in one grade at a time, again, to get everybody adjusted to practicing those protocols and making sure everything's going okay. Now, we've been lying with the counties doing, or these actions that were taking in pass to the separate department with the county of Los Angeles department of public health. So this change in allowing waiver applications is the same as for LA County. However, they have placed some limits that we have not placed on our schools. For example, they are limiting at 30 schools per week for approving waivers. We are waiting to see what we get, but we haven't placed that limit because that a proportionate limit for us would be 0.4 schools per week. And I don't think that we need to do that, especially since we have been looking at some very good plans. And also because we think that if they take, if our schools are bringing back smaller numbers, that this will help with the gradual reopening. How long do you anticipate that the waiver process in turn around with our health department will take? And then maybe you can talk about how long the anticipate the state will take to approve that second phase. Sure. We would like to process these as phase? Sure. We would like to process these as quickly as possible. We've already begun working with schools who are bringing back small cohorts. So we've started to review plans already for that purpose. And that gives time for the technical assistance that we've been spending with each school to help them improve their plans and provide them feedback and them to give us a revision. So I expect that depending on if we get 20 applications at once or if we get three applications at once, we could process those, you know, I'm asking the schools to give us about two weeks and the state may be about a week and if we can do it faster than that, then we'd love to do it faster than that. I feel that we have been having ongoing conversations and the application requirements have been posted for at least a month and a half, so schools have had time to see what's on the application and have had time to prepare. And I've asked before in another situation involved in COVID. Do you believe you have a staff meeting necessary to cross this to even a timely manner and still continue to provide the services to other sectors of economy, businesses, restaurants, retail shops, etc.? Thank you for asking. It is a challenge because these are entirely new, I guess, operations that we haven't done before and ramping up to be able to do these is a challenge. We have enough staffing right now with a strong team and a secondary team ready to be pulled in for the school waiver process. We have a new staff with our Environment Health Division to do that kind of outreach that you've encouraged to be proactive and help, for example, our nail salons as they start getting set up again indoors to do the education and assistance that provide that assistance that we want them to be set up for success and not increase risk of COVID transmission our community. So I guess what I'm saying is we need to know if more resources are needed and your team is working very hard as different sectors open up, there has to be a point where we want to get it right. We want to make sure that we're opening sectors safely and that people understand the protocols and then for able to write the technical assistance that people need to operate safely. And so what point do you anticipate saying to the City Council and the community if we're not already there, you know, any more resources? I think this is one of the more important functions in the city right now is helping people adjust as we transition. I agree and we have, as we have brought in more resources all along and we have gotten the support from the city manager to do so. And council member Gordo, there's not a single request that's come through the health department that I have not been able to fulfill. If we get to the point that it's not within staff's capacity to fulfill that, we'll certainly turn to the council and ask for your support to do that. Because as you point out, it's vital that we be able to support our community and as more segments of the economy and education open up we want to make sure we can hold up our end of the bargain so they can get back into operations safely. And I hope Mr. Stimman, that we're anticipating at what point will meet that and not waiting to tell we're there because that will one, it might be jeopardized the reopening in two slow down if needlessly if it's safe to reopen different sectors. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gordo. Life, Mayor. Thank you, Dr. Gouper, your presentation. I had a couple of questions as related to elementary schools, and then we wanted a small boutique, I guess, considered health facilities. Also with the elementary schools, while I was on TK the second grade allowed in not all elementary schools, I just don't understand the rationale. I know that you didn't pick these grades but just want to understand how that was. Sure, I think that by segmenting the elementary school and the number of grades that we bring back, we are reducing the risk of opening too quickly and having an unfortunate outbreak that will cause schools to have to close. So we want them to be successful and we think that by doing it gradually increases their chances of being able to do this. And we started with the youngest kids because we felt that they were at a particular disadvantage with remote learning. Thank you. Then my other question that I had related to, so I'm sorry, so that actually fully answer are there other jurisdictions that about higher grades or did LA County just come up with the TK to second grade? Within the church, within Ola County, between the three jurisdictions, we are all opening TK to second. What about throughout the rest of the state? So other jurisdictions are in different tiers. So for example in San Diego, they were in the lower tier, red tier which actually the state allows you to open all grades, separate actually the state allows you to open all grades, separate from the waiver process. The for tiers in, for jurisdictions in the purple tier, the state restricts us to TK to sixth. TK to sixth, okay. So we're just going through the first three grades. I guess Decade a second grade right now and then eventually opening up the third grade if the numbers come back relatively I guess low or there's not a lot of transmission. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. Then my other question is, so I know you don't pick these either. So I can go on to a nail salon or a mall, right? And I can get my nails done. And I can sit there for an hour in a chair, six feet away from someone else. So why can I go to a yoga studio or a small boutique gym and take a class and do the same thing? I just don't understand how parts of the section, you know, parts of the sector are open and another part of the sector are not open. And then it's interesting to me that you said that it sounds like BARP may be allowed to reopen on the outside, which is fine because, you know, we have quite a few businesses in that space that are not able to open but it's just I just want to understand the rationale behind not allowing small business facilities if they don't have a car repair practice license, then they have to work out in the parking lot and 100 degrees weather or whatnot. But for seniors, it seems like there should, for people that are active, I believe. And you've said this before multiple times, yourself that that helps with building immunity and stronger immunities are gonna help us fighting fight this virus as well as the flu. So I just trying to understand what the rationale is behind opening up nail salons for not small business facilities. Sure, we are bound by the state health officer order So because we're in the purple tier. We can't open gyms for indoor operations The state Used to say that we couldn't open nail salons while we're in the purple tier, but they changed it So that we can about two weeks ago. So we are making that allowance now here slower than the state, because we were waiting to see if our case numbers popped up or not. The rationale that's been explained to me from the state staff, public health staff, is looking at the science behind how the SARS-CoV-2 virus is transmitted and that certain activities, including physical activity, singing and maybe playing wind instruments, things that project respiratory droplets further, especially when done indoors, pose a higher risk of transmission. And that's the rationale that the state has provided to us. Okay. Then also back to the kind of just trying to swing back around. I forgot to ask my last question about the schools. So after school programs are allowed now in person after school programs? The Department of Social Services has child care services both licensed childcares and also those that it's granted a waiver to allow childcare operations to be open. Yes. Child care of all ages. Yes. Correct. Correct. So I could be 16 and I need childcare. That is correct. So I could be 16 and I need child care. I can. That is correct. The learns program for example I believe serves children of different ages and is a child care under the Department of Social Services the way it's defined that was allowed by the state to operate. Are they allowed back in at the same numbers that they were prior to COVID or does they have to cut back on, who they accepted? They have to implement all of the distancing protocols, which by default reduces the capacity that the programs can serve. So it has in practice a lower number and I know that our program has done made every effort to keep as much programming as possible outdoors and to adhere to the face coverings in the six feet distance. Cool. I hope I know that your office will monitor all of that actively very closely. I am hopeful that our numbers will be low and we can start opening up some of these other schools are important in different history. Thank you Dr. Doe. You're welcome. Welcome. I wanted to just clarify my mind kind from the state in the purple category. The school waivers, the TK-6? No. Yes, that state allows local jurisdictions to open or to participate in grant waivers for TK-6 grade for jurisdictions in all tiers, including purple. How long has that waiver capability been available to us? How will we move the county? I'm just trying to figure out, like this, like open for a while and we were waiting for the county and then we're kind of the tail up to the end of the dog I just trying to get some sense of you know Latitude and where we can set our own rules are we just you know that the end of the waterfall sure I'd have to look back to see exactly what the date was it's been a couple weeks and Partway into that the state made it clear that special needs kids could come back in cohorts. So we wanted to address that first and allow that to happen and make sure that was happening well before starting the waiver process. for starting the waiver process. Right. But the state says TK to six and or TK to two. Is that because the county is TK to two and we can't be more liable than the county? In the so we have a tested to the state that we will not move more quickly than the county that will move in coordination. However, that was attestation happened back before the framework, this blueprint framework. And so I think that we have some wiggle room. And as a result, we've been really coordinating very closely between Long Beach, LA County and Pasadena to be thoughtful about what the considerations are between the jurisdictions as for why and when we move. And while I think it's very clear that we can't move to tier red on our own, that's what the state says. I think that there's a little bit of room in between, but usually what happens is we are able between jurisdictions to be able to move own. That's what the state says. I think that there's a little bit of room in between, but usually what happens is we are able between jurisdictions to resolve those differences and recognize the pressures that each jurisdiction is facing in the different conditions. And so far, we've been able to navigate and move together. So long beach is TK2 on the on the waivers. Correct. And as I as I mentioned we because we're our own jurisdiction we are not facing that limitation that LA County has put on 30 schools per week. That's where I was going is like it sounds like we have some leeway and if we wanted, if the numbers stayed low, could you on your own decide that we could go TK to 6, or do you need to go wait for, I know you want to keep your health officers in the other jurisdictions informed, but could you go out and make that determination independently? Possibly. I think some of the data that we're asking the schools to submit to us with this waiver application include the distribution of zip codes of where their students and faculty live, so that we can get a sense, kind of an epi map, so that we can get a sense of where people are coming from to Pasadena as we open the schools and to what volume of people so that we can better assess our risk, whether our Pasadena numbers for example, adequately represent what our risk is for our school openings or if we really need to calculate and look into all those other areas in LA County that people are coming from. So that's the context but I just admit it but you could if you looked at that you could say hey you know what two weeks things are good we could go up to six great. So I wouldn't because I do want to pause so that we can see what the impact is of these school openings and the schools that are you see what the impact is of these school openings and the schools that are you know once the grant waivers are granted in two to three weeks They're gonna need to be ready to open so they'll determine when they open so then Four to six weeks after that. I think we'll be able to assess what the impact is of the TK to second grade openings Okay, so your position district recapit is it you think you have the authority but you want to collect the data from this first charge and so the expectation wouldn't be anything happened until you're going to get some feedback on the TK to second grade, right? Yes and we because we really do see how important it is to get our kids in school if the COVID landscape allows. We won't pause or wait longer than we need to. We really will take all those factors into consideration to keep moving forward if we can and to pause longer if we need to. I just know that sometimes a third or fourth grade boy can be as much work as a second grade girl, at least from raising a couple of myself and children's energy level and the ability to focus. So getting people back into kids back in the school form, I'm super high priority, certainly through elementary. One other area that I know is near and dear to many of my residents, so it's probably not as important as education is Halloween. I get lots of questions about what we should be telling people. I know we talked about this briefly, but I feel like we're missing guidance around what is permissible or encouraged and I know Halloween is not canceled per se. So when should we expect some sort of communication strategy that will be helpful to neighbors and children who want to do something around Halloween but know that this is not business as usual. Yeah, we've been planning this as a city. We have a document that is being vetted by the police department right now, and I think we could expect hopefully tomorrow to have a Halloween guidance in writing. I know won't answer all the questions, so we do, you know, we'd be happy to respond to additional questions after reading that guidance. That's also jointly with a revised car line celebration guidance because we know that some folks might consider doing some Halloween drive through the neighborhood to look at decorations on different households. So we want to provide that guidance along with transportation input as well. And I know my wife's thinking of getting my kids lacrosse to keep throwing candy bars out to one of the industry, but I'm not sure that. I've heard of these two dispensing systems that sound pretty creative, that are at least a minimum of six feet long. We just want people to really be able to celebrate, but please do so safely. I think maybe encouraging people as much as possible stay in their own neighborhoods. I know our direct neighborhood would get thousands of people which obviously would be. There's a lot of fun when it's an appropriate condition, but this is certainly not the year for it. So, anyways, as soon as I can be available, I know my office and probably my colleagues are eager to get that out to their residents. Thank you very much. All right. We have a big number of public comments apparently on this. Before we move to the action item with regard to the Senior Meal Program, Mr. Clark, do we have a bunch of comments on this general COVID-19 update? We do, Mayor. They basically fall into two categories. One is on school reopening and one is on business and most specifically a majority, a vast majority of these are related to hot yoga in Pasadena, it's a business in Pasadena. So I'm prepared to read the comments. There are a lot that follow a similar pattern at least for the education portion and then the hot yoga I think we can get through that as well so if you want me to start I will. Go ahead. So before I start reading aloud I wanted to let you and the council know that the City Clerk's Office really see 49 letters expressing concerns regarding remote learning and requesting that the city open or advocate for reopening schools for in-person learning for students and We received 35 letters requesting the CES approval for the business hot yoga Pasadena to reopen given its health benefits The first set of letters or emails that we received to read aloud follow a similar pattern. I'll read a couple of these and then I'll read out the names of the rest. Mary Forrest from Pasadena. I'm writing regarding Pasadena supporting all schools to open. Our schools are prepared to do all of these children, are prepared to do all of these. Children should be the priority. The mental health of our children is at stake, and we need you to fight for our littlest community members. Our children may be facing long-term mental health problems. Daycare and day camps are open, but those require a lot of additional funding to which many families are not privileged to. What is the difference to opening schools? Allowing them is widening the socio-economic gap and will cause further deep rooted emotional damage. The mental health of parents should also be considered. We rely on a village to help raise a child and we no longer have the gift of community, which is extremely isolating. The stress a parent feels to be everything to a child can cause deep emotional stress and cause damage to the parent child relationship. The CDC school says school should reopen using a risk continuum. At what point do we value physical and mental help of children? I will not stand to watch children fall behind. I hope you will not either call Catherine Barger. Say you want all passidines to open its schools. From Lindsay Wyman, Pasadena, I'm writing regarding passidines supporting all schools to open. All children should be our priority and I believe that children need to attend school in person in order to develop and to well-rounded individuals. My young children have been going to in-person preschool for the last few weeks and have been so happy each and every day that I pick them up. The social interaction with their peers and the material they are learning from, their teachers are vital to the development of our children. I wish that all schools in Pasadena could be open for in-person learning. Thank you for your time and consideration. From Kate Coharst, Pasadena, my name is Kate Coharst. I'm writing regarding Pasadena supporting all schools to open. The essence of their childhood is being threatened and we are just idly Standing by we are the perpetrators but making this about politics by making this about politics rather than about our children Our children suffer in many ways to allow some day cares and day camps to open but others is not is not To not is simply not fair What about the single mother who simply does not have the money to afford this luxury? I know that my daughter's preschool is open, but it is expensive. Not all people can afford to pay the tuition they are asking. And personally, I don't think it's fair that the people with money are the ones who are able to send their kids to school. But the people who don't have the funds don't have a chance. The big buzz word is the widening socio-economic gap. Well, political leaders, you are the ones leading the proverbial bandwagon on this one. The mental health of parents also needs to be discussed. The stress apparent feels to be everything to a child can cause deep emotional stress and cause damage to the parent child relationship. can cause deep emotional stress and cause damage to the parent child relationship. For NIA, just person, Pasadena, the CDC said schools should reopen using a risk continuum. At what point do we value the physical and mental health of children? I will not stand to watch children fall behind. I hope you won't either. Call Catherine Barter, say you are on all Pasadena schools to open. The mental health of our children is at stake and we need you to fight for our littleest community members our children may be facing long-term mental health problems. Daycare and daycamps are open but those require a lot of additional funding to which many families are not privileged to. What is the difference to opening schools? Allowing them is widening the socio-economic gap and will cause further deep-rooted emotional damage. The mental health of parents should also be considered. We rely on a village to help raise a child and we no longer have the gift of community, which is extremely isolating. The stress apparent feels to be everything to a child can cause deep emotional stress and cause damage to the parent child's relationship. And may or the rest of these, I will just read their names because they follow sort of the same pattern of those first few emails. Marcella Rock, Pasadena, Becky Wally, Altadena, Angela Buchanan Pasadena, Michael Buchanan Pasadena, Pasadena, Michael Buchanan Pasadena, Ann Pearson Pasadena, Nicole, Pasadena, Saline Lidin, Pasadena, Ryan Forst, Pasadena, oh sorry, yes Pasadena, Yannis Wong, San Gabriel. And then there are some mayor that didn't fit that pattern, so I wanted to read these. There's probably about a dozen or so of these, and then I'll get to the business ones. So these are still about education. From Lori Smith, we are failing our kids and community, do not allow them, by not allowing them to attend school in person. Why does Pasadena have its own public health department if we simply follow the recommendations and restrictions of Los Angeles County, which has a population of over 10 million people. Our local population is a fraction of this number. According to its mission statement the City of Pasadena public health department is dedicated to the physical social and mental well-being of all who live, work, learn, and play in Pasadena. The public health department is failing to address these needs of its community. Please heed the CDC's advice and allow our kids back in school. The damage being done is irreparable, especially considering the extremely low risk COVID factor for children and the low risk factor of kids transmitting the virus. From Tracy, Aq, and Nielo, IQ,Q Aniello, Pasadena. Please reopen our schools. I am extremely discouraged by the decision the LA County Board of Supervisors made to allow schools to open pending an approved waiver beginning with Title I schools. As a parent of a private school student, I am concerned that since my son has the, what resources to go to a private school,. I am concerned that since my son has the, quote, resources to go to a private school, a priority will not be placed by the county or the city of Pasadena on returning to in-person learning. Virtual learning has been detrimental to his mental health ability to communicate to peers and adults outside our family and his academic learning. My son's mental health and ability to learn in the best environment at school and friends is just as valuable as any other students. Choices regarding my child's health and schooling should be left up to me as a parent. I need your help to protect this. From Erica Foy Pasadena, time and time, again, I have referred to the term, quote, small town feel when describing Pasadena and the ingrained aspect this community wants to remain in place as you consider more housing and turning our city into a more urban form. The reason this small town feeling is so important is because it is real. We have it. This feeling is being showcased right now with parents concern for children and online schooling. We are personally, we all personally know kids who are suffering and need to get off the computer due to, quote, zoom fatigue. Our kids are showing screen time burnout in the lack of socialization is leading to depression in our kids and young adults. We see it and talk about it with each other in our still quote small town. The difficult part is schools and parents don't know what to do. Who do we tell our concerns? Who is going to speak up for us? It is time for our elected representatives to express the doctor go in the LA County Board of Supervisors that we must find a way forward for our kids. They are counting on you to speak up for them before irreversible damage is done. From an Nicole and Nido, Althadena, it's time to get our kids back to school. Allow the waivers for all schools ready and willing to return. Allow those who show they can meet the small class size to return to their in-person schooling. Not just those that can prove a certain status deemed worthy by the supervisors. All children deserve an in-person education. These rules are forcing educators to look for loopholes. Why can certain schools return if they call themselves, quote, camps or daycare? Why can a five-year-old at preschool return but not a five year old at elementary school. These rules are not making anyone safer. They are arbitrary and not unilaterally enforced. Stand up for our children and allow the waiver for all schools who want to return. Do not politicize our children. From Michelle Sutton, Pasadena. Please put our children back in school. At this time, our kids have had zero social connection with any peers for over nine months. This lack of social interaction will cause years of problems for these kids, their families, and the community. So many kids have anxiety and depression. Their mental health and education will be forever changing in an extremely unhealthy manner. I, too, am extremely concerned to know how dangerous COVID is in its transmission. I was against my kids going back to school. Now that I've seen the damage gender my children, I have changed my mind. I have seen my two very happy well-adjusted children suffer immensely and have heard from many other people their kids are suffering too. In addition, my daughter has had three of her best friends, families, move out of this area permanently. Do the fact their kids cannot go back to school. They have moved to places where schools are open so their kids can have some sort of semblance of a normal life. At a minimum, please allow the youngest kids to go back to school. They are suffering the most. From Stacey, Francis, Althadena, I am writing to encourage the leaders of the city of Pasadena to consider the negative mental health elements on elementary age students while we try and navigate the pandemic. We are all taking that very seriously and schools have invested significant time and energy and finances to create a safe environment amid the pandemic, but are not even being given the chance to execute the well-thought-out plans. Thank you for considering the entire picture while we have we all balanced the risks and benefits of virtual learning. As a physician myself I believe the benefits of returning to in-person learning outweigh the risks and willing to accept the consequences if they do not. Thank you. From Allison,yson, pernicky, Casadena, our children are suffering. This has gone on way too long. I urge the council to reopen our schools and be proactive in granting waivers to schools that have demonstrated their readiness to open. We do not need to wait for Los Angeles. Parents are asking this for the health and development of our children. Our children are falling behind and are unable to stare at a screen for hours on end. Worst, they are becoming anxious and depressed. This is not something that can be fixed overnight. I personally know five teens that have committed suicide. I do not say this for shock value. The CDC is reporting a dramatic increase in these kinds of cases and argue children need to be in school. The virus did not know it is in San Diego, the second largest school district in California, New York or Texas, states with large districts where schools are open. We can't only focus on the number of positive cases, we need to look at the percentages of cases as it relates to our population. Pasadena has 1.8% cases where I promise you 100% of the children and parents are suffering greatly with distance learning. From Marianne Young, Pasadena, we need schools to open. My husband's family could not speak English when he started school here. He has frequently voiced concern for the households that are not native English speakers. He remembers his parents not being able to help him. What disservice are we doing to our community? We have spent hundreds of dollars in school supplies, routers, and upgraded, upgraded internet just to give everyone access to class. What about families that are suffering financial hardships? How wide are we willing to let the socio-economic divide grow? From Jill Lynn, I'm writing Pasadena. I'm writing to you and hope she will be able to represent my voice and others in tomorrow's meeting, which is today. My eldest is five in kindergarten at a private school. Her school is able to open once approved by the city. As a mother, I feel comfortable with her going back and being physically in class with her peers and teachers. My daughter is in front of her computer for almost five hours a day, so roughly 25 hours per week. This is not good for our kids. I strongly feel we are hurting our children in the long run if we'd keep them from going back to school. It shouldn't matter what school they go to. All kids should be able to go back. How are we able to go to Costco and target but not allow our children go back to school in small pods with masks on? How is it okay for parks and playgrounds to be open but not controlled environments such as our schools? I've already seen kids without masks on at the park. It's easier to spread COVID on a public playground than have kids wear masks in a small group and be safe in a safe environment at school. and a safe environment as school. From Christina Hillibarann, Mountain View, this comment is in response to the flu vaccination requirement outlined in the reopening protocol for K-12 schools, which requires all schools to develop and implement a flu vaccination program. Vaccine education, promotion, and documentation have completed current vaccination, which was in friends, with the goal of influenza immunization for all students and staff unless contradicted by documented medical exemption. A voice for choice advocacy sincerely objects on a scientific and religious basis to this requirement and ask for it to be withdrawn immediately. If left in place, it must be clarified under the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC's guidance to include a religious exemption for employees to avoid religious discrimination and under Cal OSHA's aerosol transmissible diseases standard to allow employees to sign a statement declining any recommended vaccination. In order to create equity among employees and students and avoid widespread discrimination. These options also need to be offered to students. If not rescinded, we ask it is altered as follows. Follow the precautionary principle. Make the flu vaccine a recommendation, not a mandate. Allow a religious exemption. Allow the medical exemption to be a doctor's discretion. These requests are supported by extensive scientific and other information outlined in our letter since you requesting the same. From Catherine Gordon, I urge the City Council, Al-Tadina. I urge the City Council to open all elementary schools. Children's mental and physical health and emotional development are compromised with each week of fully remote learning. Day camps are open. Every week I get notices advertising where in friends for several hundred dollars, kids can do their remote learning with peers. How is this preferable to schools where teachers and consistent cohorts provide stability, COVID accountability, and learning. Local preschools have safely reopened. These, those children are thriving. Older children can comply as well in schools that meet the criteria. Families have complied with safety measures and our local COVID numbers have fallen sharply. But when the goal posts get moved and it seems there's no payoff for being good, quote, good soldiers, families will stop complying and begin bringing their children together. At schools, there would be masks, sanitation measures, and contact tracing. The chances of people doing this in homes as far less and contact tracing will be much harder. Compliance will collapse in the public health outcome may be worse if schools stay closed and our kids still will be much harder. Compliance will collapse and the public health outcome may be worse if schools stay closed and our kids still will be deprived of academic and emotional development. Please call Catherine Barger and say you want all past new schools open. From Kenton Nelson, I was wondering if the council can receive this letter as public comment for the city council. Yes, okay. Council can receive this letter as public comment for the City Council. Yes, okay. To the quote, powers that be, I have a daughter that is a senior attending Mayfield Senior School. The CDC has stated that even if my daughter caught COVID, her chances of survival is 99.997. What are you doing to these children? You have locked her up for six months, terrifying her. She is depressed, not learning, angry, and missing all of her friends. All the other states have opened up. California used to be the quote, land of the free. Now it is a prison and my daughter, my teenage daughter is getting the worst of it. Please open our schools. If the instructors are worried, let them teach on a screen. Don't punish the children for the sake of your politics. Thank you best regards regards Kenton Nelson. From Noel Burnett, every morning my child wakes up Pasadena Resin. Every morning my child wakes up and cries because she hates homeschool. She is always happy and has turned into a grouchy and depressed little girl. With a 99.9% recovery rate for ages 0 to 19, there's actually no reason these kids can't be in school. Politics have become the driving factor in this, and our kids have become the victims. How sad that the teachers' unions can't see beyond their selfishness. From Haley Boaz, Pasadena, I am writing to you in regards to opening all pasting in schools. Schools can open and comply with the CDC guidelines. My young children are in need of play, emotional, and social engagement with others their age. It is absolutely detrimental to their social and emotional growth by keeping them at home for this long. It is time to move forward and learn to live with COVID. Please make children's intellectual and social education your priority. This is emotionally affecting parents, elementary, middle and high schools, students greatly. It is my hope that emotional well-being will be greatly considered in the decision to open all schools. Thank you for your time and service to our community. From Harper, Burge, Pasadena, please open the schools. Our children are suffering. It is not good for their mental or physical health. You have taken away their rights to learn appropriately, which requires them to have in-person learning. I watch my children struggle every day. I fear the damage that is being done to them will not be recoverable. Please open up the schools and care about the health of our children. And from Ann, Anika, Niki, Greco, Pasadena. I am writing to you in support of all mothers and fathers at home who are struggling with the online learning for their kids and needs schools to open sooner than later. I implore you to consider the severe mental and physical impacts this shutdown is having on our kids and young adults. It is time to change course and take action to get these kids back to school. My husband and I both work full-time and struggle to manage our quote day jobs along with homeschooling our children and making sure they are on track with assignments. We've also noticed a significant change in their mental health and physical health and attitudes. Their screens have become their lives and is causing damage to their social and communication skills, not to mention a lack of physical health and well-being. Six months of lockdowns have now created an irreversible loss for our children's education. It is imperative you do everything in your capabilities to open our schools and parts for the sake of our community and its futures. And now, Mayor, to the business emails that were asked to be read aloud. From Jeff Smith, Pasadena, one of the challenges that all politicians consider is will my short-term decisions lead to a long-term issue? One hopes this isn't the case. As I watch and observe the past months, I am convinced that decisions our community leaders are making today will lead our city into severe long-term prices. Closing our schools and our businesses and not making the decision to push forward safely reopening will cause mass economic and social issues for our citizens. We are shutting down our society even though we now know that many cities in the world have opened safely by followed good protocols. Our city is supported by tax revenue that is generated by business and commerce. Shutting down and not smartly reopening businesses will fail and that revenue will disappear. When students aren't taught in person, they move to other cities that have reopened or find another solution. Those left behind suffer the most. I urge the City Council to make long-term decisions that save our city from strife, reopen safely and smartly, reopen today. Our future is in your hands. Be the leaders that we voted for and make a difference. From Paul Little Chamber of Commerce. Pasadena. Good afternoon. I want to commend city staff for everything they have done to face this pandemic and keep us safe. Staff in your public health, planning and development, transportation, public works, and recreation and human services departments have been diligent, thoughtful, creative, and helpful. I especially appreciate the work your health department staff has done to keep us as safe and healthy as possible. Thank you, all little. From Val, Sklar Robinson, who I believe is the owner of the hot yoga Pasadena. I urge our local city council leaders to fight for opening safely. The COVID-19 cases in our region are extremely low and yoga is essential and should be allowed to open. The best way to fight COVID-19 is to stay healthy and our studio provides both physical and mental health I listened to a Fox interview with Katherine Barger and she mentions we are below 3% positive rate And that LA County did not have an expected Labor Day spike Dr. Drew in quotes in friends a doctor and medical professional also pushed Miss Barger on randomness of the California tear system And the fact we are on the cusp of reopening, on opening. Our hospitalization numbers are low and Dr. Drew pointed out, quote, there is too much variance among 10 million people for us to stay at a certain spot unless they divide us up into regions and quote. It is time for passing into F2 all caps. Fight now to make us our own region and to allow yoga to open safely. The businesses allowed for opening seem arbitrary in random. Adults make informed decisions to go to Target, Walmart, Home Depot, and many other businesses. Every day our studio is just as safe since we enforce all safety guidelines. And I'll read a few more related to yoga Pasadena. As a long time Eagle Rock resident, I live nearby workshop and workout in Pasadena. Please consider the necessity of opening fitness studios throughout the region. Not only does opening these established missions keep the small business economy working, it allows for your citizens to maintain good health physically and cycle. I think it's supposed to be psychologically. Understandably, there is caution in reopening the economy too quickly. However, during the brief window when facilities were open in June, I observed strict adherence to safety protocols, appropriate social distancing, thorough cleaning, windows doors open, mask wearing, and active monitoring by staff at my beloved yoga studio, hot yoga Pasadena, and at the YMCA. health and safety seriously and should be respected as essential to the communities well-being. Throughout these past months as restrictions were lifted for large stores like Target Vons, Walgreens and Rouths, I have seen an experienced lacks, unsafe, unsanitary protocols in these corporate entities. So much so that I avoid shopping there, preferring instead to spend my money in smaller businesses that are careful and conscientious. The current restrictions are hurting small businesses and they are hurting our health. Please allow the fitness community to have its outlet and allow yoga and gyms to reopen. From John Chang Pasadena, Derek City Councilman. As a 45-year Pasadena residents and homeowner, I urge our City Council to consider the reopening of hot yoga Pasadena. This establishment is truly a health and wellness essential compared to the already opened indoor malls Costco Walmart target Home Depot in here salons. We have personally observed that they practice the strictest COVID precautions during the few short weeks they were temporarily opened in June. They went overboard with their safety measures. As a health and wellness practitioner, I can attest that every practitioner who attended these classes felt extremely safe. A wise consideration of this request will be highly respected. From Justin, Justin, Pasadena, I'm asking for your consideration to designate hot yoga pastina as an essential business, allowing it to open with limited capacity and other safety measures. My hot yoga practice has as an essential business, allowing it to open with limited capacity and other safety measures. My hot yoga practice has been a game changer in my health and my career as a pharmacist. Long hours of standing repetitive tasks and extended computer use result in persistent pain that weekly chiropractic sessions and daily pain medication could not relieve. Practicing hot yoga at the studio allowed me to stop relying on the use of pain medications and also improve my physical and mental health. The closure of the studio for the past few months has been challenging for the short period that the studio was allowed to open in June. I felt safe practicing with all the precautions that the studio had in place. I and many other members in the hot yoga path in the community rely on this studio for the maintenance of our health and well-being is sent especially important to keep studios like hot yoga passadena open to help us get through this challenging time as we need to stay strong to carry out our essential work please consider making changes that allow hot yoga passadena to be in operation and so I'll read out the names of the additional individuals submitting that are advocating for the reopening of Hot Yoga. And in their emails, they cited physical and mental health benefits. Yoga as an essential service. Yoga studios are better able to implement safety measures even more. So then stores such as Vaughan's Walmart target, et cetera. And noting that most small businesses like the Pasadena Hot Yoga will not be able to sustain themselves. And the names are Stephen Gordon McBean, Arcadia, Karen Awamiya Altadena, Jean Ward Los Angeles, Carmen Reyes Pasadena, Alice Segomian, who cited her letter that she submitted yesterday. Kevin Fahey Pasadena, Greg Burr Pasadena, Tammy McGovern Pasadena, Gloria Sosa, Altadena, Richard Hing, Pasadena, Cassile Gets Pasadena, and I received a late one for education. Mayor, that completes the public comment for me to read aloud. Thank you, Mr. Clark. We appreciate all the comments and the frustration that they convey, Council Member McGothin. Yeah, I just a couple of quick things. I just wanna recognize the hot yoga, which is an extremely popular popular business in district two. And is that, I know Dr. Goh said that kind of in the next step that yoga studios would be allowed to open, I think, as limited capacity. I think she said 10%. I can't see if she's still with us. To council member McAuston, Dr. Goat to step away, but the answer is yes. Once we move into the next tier, which is the red tier, the there would be an opportunity for indoor operations of yoga studios and gyms, but only a 10% capacity. And then moving up to 25, once we reach the moderate phase, I would also mention that outdoor is allowed. And the city has waived fees for the use of outdoor spaces in parks and in a few minutes you'll hear from Brenda Harvey Williams but I believe we have made contact with a number of operators of yoga studios to offer that and I know that the Chamber of Commerce also pointed that out so where the city is able within the existing state parameters we're trying to be supportive. And I appreciate that. I know it's particularly different, difficult in the, in the case of hot yoga, because you have to have the enclosed, enclosed space, you know, to maximize it, you want to have the enclosed space with a very hot temperature. But when you talk about, when we're talking about moving to that next phase, that was a matter of, we thought weeks away? I was talking to Dr. Go about this last week and his Dr. Farah reported in the weekly call we had with her. The region was very, very close to being able to move into the red zone. But then what happens if you don't move in, then you have to wait three weeks. So we're still probably, possibly about two weeks away from being able to move into that red zone. And of course the question is, and we've seen this with the restaurants, is whether a business can operate at 10% capacity and feel that's viable for them from an operational point of view. Thank you. And then I have one other question going back to the school, because this is so important for families. And I just wanted to connect Steve, have we, do we have in your conversations with the PUSD? Do we have confidence that they have all the resources they need to be able to provide the safe opening? I connected with the superintendent just this morning to see if they have moved forward with the cohorting for the special needs groups. The doctor goes spoke about. They're moving forward on this, but at this time they're not actually doing that. They anticipate that maybe by the end of October or into November, they will be able to do it. Obviously, as it relates to the public schools here in Pasadena and other public schools throughout Los Angeles County, typically those employees are represented by bargaining units. And so it adds a little more of a complication. They have to come to an agreement with their unions on their various protocols. I see. Understood. Thank you. Ms. Gorda. One of the things that comes through clearly, they can tell you as a parent of two students who are tied to their computer for hours. My wife is teaching public schools and I can tell you how difficult and frustrating it is for from the teachers and so I see from both sides but one of the things that comes through very clearly is the mental health impacts to students and kids and so I'm sorry that Dr. Goes is in here to answer the question, but what are we doing differently in order to help students as they do return to school with mental health? I asked if this, have we contacted the Department of Mental Health? Have we started the work of coordinating mental health services or advice to the schools and teachers alike? Councilmember Gordo, the Pasadena Public Health Department doesn't provide direct mental health services. It is provided through the county. We recently put some information out in the city manager's newsletter in that regard, but as it specifically relates to support for families with school aged children, we'll need to follow up on that, whether anything is being handled in that regard. Obviously a very widespread problem is this is very difficult and putting a lot of stress on families. I understand we'll provide the mental health services as precisely when we reached out to the Department of Mental Health with a county whose responsibility it is to provide mental health services in the city of Pasadena. And you know I don't want to see it's waiting knowing that the mental health impacts to students and teachers and schools for way to life, particularly the young students. I don't want to see it's way to make that outreach. So like my question stands that we have reached out to the department of mental health with the county of Los Angeles and again that discussion to be coordinating the services in our school and our public and private schools. Right and as I indicate a moment ago I'll need to follow up on that specific point because I don't have that answer. One second, the Council Member Kennedy and Vice Mayor Hansen I attended a school district event last week and Eric Sahakian, who is the mental health professional in charge of the PUSD, informed us that they are going through some unique, I guess I would say, or some specialized procedures in terms of evaluations. They have an active in the district. They have an active student mental health referral program. And one of the worrisome aspects of this is that referrals are actually down when you would think, you know, logically that they'd be moving in the other direction. And so they have been doing special outreach to the teachers and the supervisors to try to activate that referral and self-referral program within the district. So that the district, in terms of its resources, is very much aware of the growing concern and is actively trying to find ways to intervene with the kids, particularly those. I mean, there's some recognition on the part of teachers in terms of the kids that they're dealing with online. The real concern is for those that aren't showing up. You know, so that they're not even in the in the virtual classroom. So the district is very much tuned into it. And I agree that we should reach out to the to the county in terms of finding out what what we can do to try to accelerate outreach because, and ironically, it was pointed out to me one of the things that we didn't have on our ceremonial calendar is that this is national mental health awareness week in addition to the things that we did recognize today. And this is an emerging crisis among our school children and others. So we will pursue that. I recognize that issue. And not just in, I appreciate that the school district is taking steps, but a lot of kids are in colloquial private schools and we should contact the Department of Public Health, I'm sorry, a mental health for the county. And if you pro-active. This is not unlike at the beginning of the virus crisis when we understood what they just fight in domestic violence issues, but reporting actually went down. So we can't wait for mental health issues and the stress to the stress itself. And so I would ask the city manager to talk with our public health director, who unfortunately, is here, but press for our public health director to contact the department of mental health and ask for a plan to be proactive in public and credit systems. Thank you. All right. So let's move to the balance of this first item. May or I have just one follow-up. Dr. Goes not here. So I'm just going to ask our city manager to look into this. that we have not yet reached the tier where ice rings can reopen. You know, so I just, I have to be the council's representative of the PCLC and I have to be very careful. I have to be careful. I have to be careful. I have to be careful. I have to be careful. The best couple of days I was just trimming around our region where was all ice getting into open. So I just don't understand how all these cities that are part of Los Angeles County are able to open up the ice getting range and they're opening they're open before recreational use. So we should allow our PCO to be able to open up our link in a responsible matter as well. Sure vice mayor. Once all of our you know once all of our you know teams and practice to build out a city they may not be coming back to that. Sure vice mayor let me respond to that briefly and I Think one of the challenges with all these various restrictions is they rely on people complying with them and whether it be houses of worship or ice skating ranks or nail salons some people they disagree with the regulations and they choose to not adhere to them. When I checked with other agencies about ice rinks in particular operating in other cities, what tends to come back is that the city administration isn't aware of it or they've asked them to stop and they end up sending their code compliance staff to deal with it. Also, people look for loopholes with these regulations. We talked a few minutes ago about childcare. And so some businesses and some sectors have elected to call themselves a childcare facility and then try to operate under that guys. I think it really kind of comes down to, you know, we know what the governor is asking us to do. We know what the regulations are. We have our own health department. I think we're doing the right thing by adhering to those, I recognize that it could put us to some degree at an economic disadvantage if others flout the rules and violate them, but that's what they're doing. They're violating the rules. And I don't think this city council wants to be on record. We may not agree with the governor. I'm sure there's a lot of differences of opinion. And we point to these rules and some of them seem kind of silly how one business can operate and another can't but those are the rules that we're trying to operate within and my understanding is that ice ranks are not currently permitted to operate and again when I've pointed it out to the other, they've indicated to me that we're going to take action. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't, but I don't think that means that we should flout it. I just want to bring this to your attention, thanks. All right. Second part of this first agenda item is the Great Plates delivered senior meal program. I think we have a presentation from Brenda Harvey Williams, Director of Parks and Recreation and Community Services. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to turn it over to Brenda Harvey Williams, our Director of Parks and Recreation Community Services. We're bringing this matter forward to the council because previously you approved our participation in the program through October 9th and as we indicated previously, we're coming back to ask you to approve an appropriation of over $900,000 to cover that. But we're also asking the question of the council, should we continue this program? It is pretty expensive. And while we do anticipate receiving reimbursement, we have no indication when that reimbursement may be forthcoming. In fact, we haven't even been able to apply for reimbursement because the federal government is not accepting those applications as of yet. But sorry if I stole Brenda's thunder but let me turn it over to her for a good presentation and then we're happy to answer your questions. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. So what we're asking the council in terms of recommendations, this afternoon is to find this action exempt under SICWA, to appropriate just over $905,000 from the unappropriated general fund balance to the park's recreation and community services operating budget to cover the great place delivered expenses through October 9. Also to provide direction on continued participation in great plates if the program is extended by the state beyond the current end date of October 9 and to recognize that this comes at a cost of $466,000 per month. And should the Council direct continuation in the program grant an exemption from competitive selection process pursuant to the Pasadena Municipal Code? So just to give you a little bit of details, back in April, it was actually April 24th, the governor launched the Great States Great Plates Delivered Program and it had two main objectives. One was to deliver meals to older adults who were at risk to contracting COVID and unable to access meals. And the second was to provide an economic stimulus to restaurants, which is we know they were being greatly adversely impacted by the shutdown that occurred back in March. So the program is administered by the California Operation of Emergency Services, and FEMA authorizes funding for the program month to month, which means that typically right before the program expires, we'll find out that it's been authorized for another 30 days. The program costs are eligible for reimbursement and I'll stress eligible for reimbursement. As the city manager said, we don't know when the reimbursement will come, but it's eligible for reimbursement at the following rate. 75% of the program costs can be reimbursed by FEMA, 18.75% by the state. And if we receive full reimbursements, the cost to the city will only be 6.25% if we receive our full 93.75% reimbursement. So the program was announced by the governor on April 24th, as I mentioned, and on May 18th, the Council approved Pasadena's participation and appropriated $600,000 for the program. We returned to Council on July 27th, and then Council approved Pasadena's continued participation and required staff to return for approval for future appropriations. And we did that also and received another appropriation of 361,000. So the appropriations for the program to date have been $961,000. And that funded the program through August 9. We're returning today to request the appropriation of $ $2,200 for expenses through October 9th. And actually that's to cover expenses for the period of August 10th through October 9th. Staff is also seeking Council's direction on continued participation in the program. If you affirm our continued participation in the program, we'd like you to recognize that it will cost approximately $466,000 per month if the program gets extended beyond October 9th. And the thing that's interesting as I was alluding to a moment ago about this program is we will probably find out on October 9th if it is in fact extended beyond October 9th because the state does wait until they find out from FEMA and FEMA only authorizes for 30 days at a time. But just to give you some statistics through October 9th for Pasadena, our expenses in this program have totaled $1.87 million. We have a total of 235 older adults participating, and to date the cost per participant is nearly $8,000. And of course, if we continue in the program, that cost per participant will grow. So the great plates, expenses are eligible for FEMA and state reimbursement, but not guaranteed. And recently at the finance committee there was a discussion on the city's reserves, general fund reserves, and staff recommended at that time that further draws on the general fund reserves only before our most critical needs. And so it just have a little bit of information here about those reserves. Right now the city's unassigned reserve has been depleted and our 5% general fund operating reserve balance is down to 1.7 million dollars. It was pre-COVID at a level of 13.8 million. And so in terms of fiscal impact, we are seeking the appropriation approval of the appropriation of 905,000 from the unappropriated general fund balance that's needed to fund the program as I mentioned through October 9th, just to reiterate total program expenditures to date are 1.866 million, and if we continue in the program, it will be at a rate of $466 per month. And I'm available for any questions that the council may have. Thank you, Brenda. Questions, Mr. Gordo? Then Mr. Visuda? We, um, we get the frustrating part of this report is, uh, we're not presented with any options. What are the options? I mean, we, you know, we're spending just my basic faculty on the old man, $1983 per person per month, $56 a day. And it's great that we're successfully providing meals for 235 people. But what are the options? When we started this, when the virus first hit Pasadena, we talked about working with nonprofits, with food banks, and this program was recommended but we don't seem to have come back with alternatives for providing these two-everly 35 people with meals. But I think we probably provide a lot more people with meals for this amount of money. So what are the alternatives? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I That would include continuing to assist these 235 people. And likely a lot more, have we given any thought? There's been any analysis to how, because it's not in the report or the presentation, how could we use these dollars to be more effective and efficient in providing meals for more people, including the two. Sure, I'll let Brenda talk about what options we may have. I would point out and remind those watching that the City Council has been very generous in providing all manner of food support to Pasadena's local community through hundreds of thousands of dollars of allocations to our local food banks. And we can distribute that information so people can see it. This is a very particular program, which, while it provides benefits to those seniors that are enrolled in it, was very much geared as more of an economic support program for the restaurants as opposed to a subsistence type program for needy seniors and perhaps Brenda can talk about the eligibility requirements for people to participate in the program. But I wanted to make sure in your points well taken that people should understand that the city council's support of some of the most vulnerable in our community goes well beyond this particular program and from a dollars and cents point of view the amount of people that are being supported through the food pantries greatly exceeds this program and I do apologize this report was written very quickly last week but we can make sure to disseminate the information as to how many people are benefiting from those other programs as well. But let me turn to Brenda to talk about what the options might be for those enrolled in this program if the city were to no longer have its participation. Brenda. Thank you. And I do wanna reiterate that the program had two objectives. One was for feeding older adults, but also the economic stimulus, because yes, there are many other programs that would more efficiently feed older adults. And to be quite honest, we have had a few complaints from some of our seniors participating in that they're receiving too much food, because the program allows them to receive three meals a day, three restaurant delivered meals per day and a number of these people they just you know they don't eat that much and so being the the people that they are they let they let us know that so there are some other options number one if we were to discontinue our program our participants would be able to then be eligible to go into the county's program, because LA County is also administering a great plates program, and not every city in the county chose to administer a program. We did, and when we started it, we had no idea that much like all of the COVID restrictions, we had no idea that we'd still be here six, seven months later involved in this same program. So that is one option. Also, council has previously approved a number of other options for feeding people in Pasadena. And I will just mention a few of those. We have funded food banks and food pantries and we've also provided staff for those food banks and pantries as they lost their volunteers because many of them were seniors and so we are providing funding for eight food banks and pantries right now. We have allocated almost $200,000 to those organizations. We are also supporting Indalon. We've been providing them twice. We've given them two appropriations so that they could feed 300 families for three months. We have provided funding for the senior center to help them buy bags of groceries for their seniors. We have also partnered with the San Gabriel Valley YWCA. They have a frozen meal delivery program. Prior to COVID, they had a program at Villa Park and Jackie Robinson Community Center where seniors could come every day and have lunch. Well, when COVID hit that stopped, so they redirected and became a meal delivery program and they're delivering 300 meals to Pasadena seniors at a cost, for six months, at a cost of $35,000. That is one meal, well they deliver one delivery a week, seven meals. So seven meals a week, 300 seniors, for six months, at a total cost of $35,000. So these are some of the other options that we do have available to our seniors and all of them in terms of feeding older adults are definitely more economical. But again, rate plates was intended to do two things. One was feed the older adults. And as the city manager pointed out, it's a very, the qualifications for the seniors is limited. Not every senior was eligible to enroll in the Great Plates program. The, some of the qualifications are that they had to be over 65. They must live alone or with one other program, eligible, adult. And the key is they couldn't currently be receiving assistance from any other state or federal nutrition assistance programs such as CalFresh or even Meals on Wheels. And the household income for one person could not exceed 74, well almost $75,000 and for a two person household it couldn't exceed $101,000, and for a two-person household, it couldn't exceed $101,000. So this wasn't a program intended for our low-income seniors. It was a program intended for just older adults who were at a high risk of COVID exposure because of their age. And finally, to be eligible, the individuals must affirm that they were unable to prepare or obtain meals in another fashion. So those are some of the other options that are available to our older adults. And council members I point out that if we were assured of the reimbursement and if we had a sense of the timeliness of that, there'd be no question and staff's mind we'd recommend continuing to participate because it does provide an economic benefit to our local restaurant tours of which I believe 22 are participating. But as we point out in the report, there's just a concern that we don't know how long it will be before we can apply for reimbursement and be when we would get that reimbursement and see whether it will be full reimbursement. So the general fund is putting out advancing quite a lot of money for a rather niche program as Brenda indicated, our 5% reserve is now down to $1.7 million, so that's maybe perhaps a 1% reserve. That's a little more than three months of the continuation of this program. So I'm just raising the flag because the council has been very mindful of the fiscal impacts of the pandemic on our budget and following your lead, I wanted to be mindful of that. All right, Mr. Ramasuda. Thank you, Mayor. Brenda, thank you so much for the report. When you said that there are three meals per day, is there a way that we can reduce it to that one meal per day based on the same amount of funds that we allocate to the program and then go longer that way? Well, in terms of the length of the program I'll address that part first. We have no control over how long the program will go. As I mentioned this the FEMA notifies the state only 30 days at a time if the program is going to be funded for 30 days. So for example the current program is scheduled to end on October 9th and we will find out on October 9th. Maybe one time we found out before the actual end date but we will likely find out on October 9th if the program is authorized for another 30 days. So we only know about it 30 days in advance. In terms of only delivering one meal, the program allows for up to $66 per day per participant and that's inclusive of delivery. If we do fewer number of meals, then it becomes less of an incentive for the restaurants to participate. According to the rules, we could do less meals, but it really then wouldn't be that second prong piece of being an economic stimulus for restaurants. It really wouldn't benefit the restaurants as much. You can have the same amount of meals run up, but to disperse it among more people. Then the restaurants won't be. They would still have that incentive to have the meals. No, the rules won't allow for that. No, no, no, no. Okay. I had a lot of energy on the portion about the funds are not guaranteed. And I saw something that it may even take years for reimbursement. Why is that? Was there a time in history that we didn't get funds in this kind of a situation? Sure. Councilmember Masuda. Let me ask Matt Hawksworth, our director of finance, to come into the podium to talk about what his experience has been and what we believe will be the case as it relates to particularly FEMA reimbursements. And just anecdotally, I'm aware of my experience in the city where it legitimately can take years for us to receive reimbursements following localized disasters such as earthquakes. And of course, this pandemic is affecting the entire country so that I think creates even greater uncertainty. But let me turn it to Mr. Hawksworth. Yeah, good afternoon. Matt Hawksworth, Director of Finance. So as the city manager and Brenda mentioned, we have to apply for reimbursement through FEMA. Typically in any type of FEMA reimbursement you need to submit once you have your final costs identified and so we wouldn't be able to submit until after this program was completed. We could possibly we may be eligible for expedited funding which could get us 50% of the amount sooner and that could possibly be within 12 months, although that's unclear. This is something new that FEMA is doing that we haven't yet participated in. And then beyond that, a normal FEMA reimbursement process can take three to five years, and that's typically for an isolated disaster because of a hurricane or a flood or a wildfire. So something like a pandemic that's comprising the entire country, the FEMA claims are going to be unprecedented and FEMA will not have the staff or resources to respond to all these claims. So I believe it's completely reasonable to think that this is going to be on the longer time frame of the three to five and maybe even beyond before we get full reimbursement on this. And then lastly, because this is a brand new program, it's not something that's typical been reimbursed through FEMA such as housing or something like that, that they put a lot of guidelines out there with a lot of disclaimers like May and Might and Could. So when the FEMA auditors come out to check these things, they might be a little more restrictive about the guidelines in which we followed or the people that received the meals. And so we are a bit nervous that they could scrutinize this program to try to save money that FEMA doesn't have to reimburse in the end. Matt, my last question is regarding the $13.8 million for the resource operating reserves. Is that the highest amount that it's been lately? The close of fiscal year 19, I believe the amount was about 19 million and then the council made some allocations to fund some critical things. Like added fund to the general liability fund and completely funded the police, computerated dispatch system. So it was about 19 million. Pre-pandemic. But of course now the projection is at the end of the current fiscal year it will be down to 1.7 million. Correct and the 1.7 is including the 900,000 in this staff report. Thank you. Thank you Mayor. Thank you Council Member Macawston followed by Council Member Madison. Thank you. Thank you Brenda. So a question about you were mentioning that if our residents, if we don't continue the program, the program is still available to eligible residents through the county program. Are our restaurants able to participate through the county? Well, at this time time I don't know because we operated our own program they were not and so if we suspend our program or stop our program I don't know if they will pick up our restaurants, but I know they have a set of restaurants they've been using That are set so I really it, to be honest with you. Thank you. There was, Councillor McLachlan, there was sort of an enrollment period for restaurants to indicate whether they wanted to be part of our program. Similarly, my understanding that's how it worked for the county. So if someone didn't enroll in the county program, I don't know if there's a mechanism to move them into it now. Oh, so they could have applied initially with the county. I think that this program is just you know we just we can't afford to continue this program but we have to be able to provide an alternative to the to the participants of this program. So when, you know, before or at the time, you know, when we're notifying the participants you decide to discontinue that we are discontinuing the program, I think it's incumbent on us to provide them with a list of alternative resources for them. To make it very easy for them to have, you know, this program will not be available, however, and you listed some of them Brenda in your remarks. Because the last thing we want to do is you know leave any of these folks in the Lurch. So I think it's very important if we do decide to halt the program because of its enormous expense, we should make sure that the participants are made available of other resources in the community where they can get meals or food or, you know, or food or whatever their particular needs is if they want to pass food pantry or whatever. So, will we be able to compile a list of information and give those to the participants? Rhonda? Yes, Councilmember Rogoston, we can do that. And I will point out that one of the another very good option would be the senior frozen meal delivery that's being done by the YWCA and we are funding that and they are providing as I mentioned 300 they have 300 enrolled the cost of that for six months is $35,000 so it could be that if a lot of these seniors would like to move to that program, we may need to return to council and ask for a bit of an appropriation for that, but it would be somewhere in the $35,000 range for six months. Well, that sounds like a much more feasible and possibly practical because of the frozen, because of the frozen application for seniors. So we certainly ask you to pursue that in the case that this is not approved. Thank you Mayor. Mayor. Mr. Mover, Council Member Madison, followed by Council Member Wilson and Vice Mayor Anthony. Thank you Mayor. I think the staff and the councils should be commended for this program. And I know as I talk to people about what we're doing in the pandemic, this certainly is high on the list of things that we've been able to do or immediate things. I'm not sure I agree at all with my friend Margaret that we can't afford to continue this. I mean, because I calculated, My friend Margaret that we can't afford to continue this. I mean, because I calculated, this is, if it's $66 per day, of which almost 94% will be reimbursed, we're providing three restaurants served meals per day to seniors for about $4.50 a day. Is that right, Matt, or Steve? I didn't check your math, but it sounds right. I think the issue is not so much the ultimate net fiscal impact to the city but the interim fiscal impact to the city not Or do you feel constrained and being able to release cash to fund this remedial nutrition program, which we have some assurance that we'll be reimbursed for? No, I'm not concerned that we have a cash flow problem. I am concerned about the reimbursement. I'm concerned that it can take more than a year. I'm concerned that the federal government, with all the demands on the federal government related to COVID, may as Mr. Hawksworth indicated, find ways to disallow certain charges. And I just want to be honest with the council. I would not want to represent that there's no risk here and it's just a matter of time and will be made whole. I wish I had that comfort level. I don't know where does the finance director. Well, who's responsibility is this on the staff to ensure that we are complying with all the requirements for reimbursement? Well, it would be my responsibility, Mr. Hawksworth and Ms. Harvey Williams. The staff will do what's required to comply with the program requirements to seek the reimbursement. But again, the part that's out of our control is how long will the reimbursement take and whether a rule change may be made that might somehow impact the reimbursement. So and I you know I agree the restaurant component of our economy here is extremely important and they're on a thread right now. I mean I really like this program because it also is helping these restaurants, which we need, we need across the board, you know, a healthy vibrant restaurant segment of this economy to have businesses be here and to draw people here. And so it's important from that. I had a little bit of trouble following the math though. I heard that there was $66 per day, limit per participant. Is that correct? That's correct. The program allows for maximum of $66 per day inclusive of delivery. And is that been the case since we accepted in May? Correct. So when I make trouble with this, somewhere in the staff report, it says $7,941 per participant. To date. So right now we're servicing 235,000, I'm sorry, 235 seniors, but it took us a while to get up to scale to 235. This program is approved by Council on May 18th. On May 21st, we started delivering to seniors and our first day of delivery, I think we had 27 participants and it grew every day since then until we got up to 235. So we weren't at 235 the whole time. So the truth that our per capita cost is actually higher, but using the current participation level in the program, we're just doing a simple math. If you look at what the city has laid out in terms of the program today and divided by the current number of program participants, it's approaching $8,000 per participant. That's what I'm having trouble following. If there's a maximum of $66 per participant. That's what I'm having trouble following. If there's a maximum of $66 per participant, it should be the number of participants per day times the number of days times $66, right? Well, we aren't paying a full $66 for every restaurant that's participating. Some restaurants are charging us as low as $50. Okay that brings number down the numbers way too high right now. Number is $8,000 for four months. Well I can tell you we have program cost of 1.8 million dollars and 235 participants. Right. So are there costs outside the $66 cap? Administrative costs or something that we're... We're up to five months. We started the program at the end of May. And this cost, end of May, June, July, August, September, it's almost five months. June, July, August, September, it's almost five months, four and a half months worth of cost. So are there administrative costs that we're tacking on? And no, no, they're not. Yeah, so I'm really struggling with just the mathematics here. Because if you look for it's $466,000 a month and there's 235 participants. No I know we're we're not communicating because then you told me there's a $66 cap per day and if you use that the math doesn't work to get to the numbers I don't think. We didn't use the $66 cap is not in the math and the staff report because it's not relevant. Well, it certainly is relevant if there aren't any other costs. We're reporting the city's total cost thus far is the $1.866 million and there's 235 participants. Okay, but yeah, I just I would need more elucidation on that because if there really is no administrative cost that we're charging. Well, we're absorbing it. That's what I meant by not charging. Right. So even the amount, even the amount in the staff report under states, if you will, the city's true cost because Brenda and her staff are devoting time to this but they're not applying those costs against the program total it's reported. I get that but the problem is the numbers too high not too low if you want to make the number higher I'm sure we have a lot of ways to do that but I'm being told that the number is $56 a day maximum for 3 nails. And even if you assume from day one we had 235 participants, I don't think that May 21, which is just a cat over four months ago, you don't get the $8,000 a participant. Or maybe I'm not. I mean, can someone help me on that? Well, perhaps we can answer some other questions and I'll try to work the math that way. Okay. And then I had a couple of comments about parks maybe at the end of the discussion while Brenda's here. I called them because she was coming out on this side of me or they really applied a number one. But I'm grateful that the parks were reopened on or the playgrounds rather were reopened on on Friday. And but I'll pass now, but I would like an opportunity to answer to my question. Thank you, Council Member Wilson. Well, Vice Mayor Hampton. Thank you, Mayor. I just think we need to keep in mind that this program, the primary objective of the program is to keep restaurants open. I think it was Council Member MacAuston said there's, you know, the YMCA program can defeat somebody. I think it was less than $10 a day. So when I think about restaurants, and I'm a little disappointed in the sense that we're making a decision about, and Steve, you've touched on the viability of restaurants, but we don't have any analysis around, I think you know, Steve or someone said it was around 22 restaurants and I do the math, it's about $20,000 per restaurant per month. And I don't know how, I have to imagine these restaurants are kind of on the edge and if you pull 20,000 dollars, to me, a business and job sustainability program because the economics around feeding just don't make any sense. So, Brenda, did you do any work around the business impacts and the job impacts that this is having? We did not. I can't get you that information, but it does average about $81,000 so far per restaurant that they've received on average. We had a high of 22 restaurants participating. We recently had one dropout so we're down to 21 but you know at 22 given that we've expended $1.8 million at 22 restaurants just doing simple math that comes to about $81,000 per restaurant. You know I would you know I guess for me the restaurant businesses are under siege and that's really I think the goal of this this program and to me the real test is how many jobs is that preserved and if we stop funding this what are the implications for those 20-21 restaurants? This keeps them alive and those jobs no longer are there, then we've kind of created a different problem. But as a feeding program itself or seniors, you know, they're definitely much more cost-effective ways to do this. Steve or Matt, it sounds like if we knew the money was coming quickly and it would definitely be paid, this would be a no-brainer. I'm curious as to what diligence we've done with the authorities that administrative this and what conversations we've had to either raise our apprehension or reduce our apprehension that this obligation is going to get paid number one and what the timeframe is because what I was hearing was sounded more like hearsay than specific conversations I'd like to know about with whom we've had direct conversations about this that have led us to our maybe our sense of uncertainty. Sure, excuse me, staff in our finance section who work full time in the finance department have been in regular communication with our contacts with the state's Office of Emergency Services, which is the State of California's group, and then our contacts with FEMA through the application process. So we're in regular contact with both of those organizations, are contacts with FEMA through the application process. So we're in regular contact with both of those organizations, trying to get direction and insight as to what it is. However, we have to remember that from a FEMA perspective, when talking to them, they're dealing on a whole nation-wide thing, and this is one very small program in one state in our country So to somebody at FEMA this isn't a priority for them in terms of knowing all the nuances yet It's kind of like send us all your paperwork We'll go through it and we'll let you know they will help us through the process and they are working to us But for them it's not a highlight because it's again one program in one state across the country and they're trying to manage a whole lot of claims. So Matt, we've had direct conversations with the people who will be reimbursing us. We're not relying on, you know, hearsay or what we're, you know, a web portal. This is, you know, real dollars. So I just want to make sure that we've been diligent in terms of assessing, given the circumstances and limitations you just described, the risk profile of these dollars coming back and the timing of that. Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah, I believe that's accurate. Okay, well, you know, I went to get, I think if we knew the money was there and we felt this was a this is really economic development activity and a stimulus for jobs. You know, I'd be in favor of continuing it, but I think we're I'm having some hesitancy is if you know, staff thing we're not sure where I'm coming out. I'd like to hear maybe some more exposition in question. And council member Wilson, I would say, I have greater confidence that we will get paid than I have confidence around how long it will take to get paid. If that makes any sense. Yeah, I agree. Are you? Okay, thank you. Mayor, I was just going to let you know we do have one correspondence to read in two letters that I would like to report out when you get a chance. Thank you. Mayor Hansen followed by Council Member Canada. So this program has been extremely helpful for the restaurants that are participating in it. But outside of the restaurants that are participating in it, I think for those, well, for the seniors that I've encountered that have been participating in it, this has been their only source of actually having communication with someone on a day to day. So, you know, we talk about the mental health piece of this. Some of these restaurants, they're not mental health experts, but they are providing a service that's actually communicating with our residents as Brenda mentioned. This program is tailored for seniors that are isolated at home, pretty much by themselves and trying to prevent them from going out and contracting the virus. And they are of our should be of I mean, there are there are highest population that have died from COVID. So protecting them is my number one. My number two would be the mental health piece of it, which we ask someone who's communicating our health department is actually not doing that work right now. Communicating with our seniors that are at home alone or are part of this great place program. So unless Brenda comes back with a plan of how we're going to continue that and also keep these senior state and try to prevent them going into a place where they would potentially contract COVID, I'm supportive of this program the way it is. So I just want to state that. Thank you. And we're going to get reimbursed. It may be a year from now, maybe two years from now, that we get reimbursed for the ultimately. We are going to get reimbursed according to our city manager. Thank you. A count for our county. What I'm struggling with is primarily are we getting the benefit of our bargain, and do we need the program to be as large as it is and still be effective? Or will it be effective status quo? My view based upon the conversation around the virtual diocese that the significant concerns about the expense, but at the same time a deep commitment to providing a meal for our most vulnerable population in our community. As some of you know each week my office distributes boxes of food to primarily seniors that we are donated by the Los Angeles Food Bank. So one of the options I suppose we have and as opposed to just scrapping the program because of the cost consideration is to just reduce it. There has been some comment testimony of this afternoon that Miss Harvey Williams received feedback from certain of the participants that they were receiving too much. I suspect that that may have been a small number. However, in order to keep the program going, the question is, putting to Brenda Harvey Williams is, if we were to test the program in half, what would be the impact in your view of the program itself and its efficacy to those in need? Council Member Kennedy, we can, we're able to do up to the three meals at $66 per day. So we would be able to, if we chose to reduce it to two meals a day, I don't have the number in front of me, but the state did allocate a dollar amount for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So if we were to choose breakfast and dinner, for example, it would be less than $66. I just don't have that number in front of me right now as to what the amount we'd be able to charge. But again, if we lower the amount, our concern was with the restaurants be willing what the city managers shared is that administrative cost was quote unquote, absorbed by the city. Is that not true or what does the administrative cost, if that was the term use, actually mean? When the city manager said administrative cost, he was talking about our staff cost in terms of organizing the program. We established the program, we enrolled and qualified all, made to all of the participants were qualified. We are in charge of opening up all the purchase orders that are for the restaurants and paying their invoices every month. So those are the types of administrative things. And I will add that once a month, at least once a month, we call the participants to let them know that the program may end. And then again on the day we find out that it's reauthorized, we call them again and we let them know that the program has been continued for another 30 days. So those are the ongoing administrative costs that we are absorbing. And how do you reach the conclusion that if we were to have the program or reduce it in some way that you would have less restaurant tours, a desire to participate. That's just something I'm pointing out that may not be the case, but if, again, part of the program it was too pronged, restaurant, economic stimulus, and feeding the seniors. So any reduction you make to the restaurants, it's less of an incentive for them to participate, not to say that they won't participate, but they just won't be able to receive the amount that they're currently receiving. Sure, that's logical. The letter, one of the letters that I read that was sent, I believe, to all of the council, was applauding just the program itself helping to keep the restaurant, this particular restaurant tour viable. And so if there is legitimate, and I think there is legitimate concern about cost, you would need to tell us something about your polling. It seems to be reasonable that one council member, if not all the council, is raising issues related to a reduction in the program as opposed to eliminating the program for this vulnerable population that we are really in some respect obligated to assist. So what I'm saying specifically, the Harvey Williams, I think one way to answer my question is to do some quick polling of the restaurant tour. If the council at this point is reticent in terms of reauthorizing the program and maybe may are tabling this matter for just one week and that the manager has the authority because of the cost limitation to continuing the program at least for us to have that additional knowledge come back to us after Brenda's team has done some quick inquiry. Council member Kennedy, from my perspective, presumably the 21 restaurant tours that are participating currently, presumably all of them would want to continue in the program. If we were to scale it down, assuming the program parameters would allow us to do that, it's conceivable one or two might not want to participate, but I can't imagine why, because it's still business, it's still supporting them. So I think it's right in this conversation for us to assume the restaurant tours would want to continue to participate, and we get good feedback from the participants in the program. So I don't think anybody is knocking the program. It's achieving the goals of providing meals to certain group of seniors. It's providing support to a limited number of our local restaurant tours. But there is some concern about the cost. I don't know if the council and there was some discussion earlier, which I appreciate from council member McAustin. If at some point there was going to be an off ramp in the program, would we transition or seek to transition those participants off to the other many programs the council has supported. I wonder if the council might want to consider, because again it currently ends October 9th. There's no public council meeting until October 19th and the program is continued on a monthly basis. So whether the council wants to continue for another month and revisit this if you want staff to do some more work we're happy to do that but I think we could probably assume what some of the outcomes would be. I'm just asking the council to consider is our commitment to this program fully open ended. As I pointed out earlier in three months if nothing else gives, we'll completely deplete what's the balance of our 5% reserve. And we'll front it for this program. Well, I think there is some more work to be done. There needs to be, I think there is some more work to be done. There needs to be, I think, one of the council members mentioned that there needs to be greater options for the council to consider as well. And then, I don't bring up LA Food Bank box food just because my office is doing it. I mean, I think there's an opportunity for all those council members who may be interested to provide their constituent with food from the LA food bank. I don't know if that would be an option to just strictly substitute if this program came to an end. The other thing is you've already alluded, I would like to see whatever the council does because it won't go on forever is that there be a transitioning element to make it smooth as opposed to an abrupt end to the program. Lastly, as I've already alluded to, I think you have the authority to keep it going for a short period of time without the council's approval necessarily and you could provide as you've already articulated in Brenda Harvey Williams is brought to our attention the need for possibly more information that would help us make a better decision. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Gordo and then Madison. small restaurants in our city to participate and it's mostly chain restaurants. Did that shift over at some point or did the competitive be chain restaurants? Council Member, I'm not sure of sort of the demographics on the restaurant tours. Let me turn to Brenda perhaps she has that information. Actually, the qualifications were locally owned restaurants. So it wasn't necessarily chain restaurants. And I was trying to pull up I can get that for you quickly. But our last report that we brought to council, we actually had an attachment that showed what the lists of restaurants were. I think the other frustration that I have is when the county went forward with its program, they actually excluded our restaurants and that was one of the big reasons that we moved quickly to support our restaurants and use this as an economic development tool to support our restaurants. Is there anything that prevents us from going back to the county and saying we'd like passenger restaurants, including these 22, to be included? Would like to partner with you. Well, when the county was starting their program, they were selecting, since they were covering a much larger geographical area, they were selecting restaurants based on the convenience of geographically what worked for them. So it's not like they they didn't explicitly say they would exclude our restaurants but we were at the same times that we were starting our program they were starting their program. So because of the fact that we started a program that's why our restaurants were excluded from participating in the county program. If we pull out of our program, I don't know if the county will accept our restaurants. They may be well established in the way that they're doing it and be able to support it with the existing restaurants that they're using. We would need to ask the county that question. But I do know if we stop our program, the county is still accepting participants. So I'm fairly confident that all of our participants would be able to get absorbed into the county program. So that's a question that we are to run the ground. I'm leaving this direction continually in the program for a month and asking the staff to do more work and some of these questions. We ought to press our own supervisor very hard to say, you know, passivities are part of your super-visorial district, some class of art and you ought to represent the car businesses as well as others and include Pasadena restaurants and Pasadena participants in the county by COVID. Thank you. Mr. Madison, do you have another goal? Again, Mary. Did we figure out the math, Steve or Matt, or Brenda? Yes, Council Member Mattison. So in sort of round or rough numbers, let's say, let's use a four month period, even though the program's been a little longer than four months, but just to make it easy. That's 120 days at $66 per day. That's $7,920. Multiply that by 235 participants and you get 1.8 million. Now granted it took a little time to get to 2.35 and the program has been in place a little longer than four months. But that's maybe plus or minus on either side a few percentage point. I think it confirms the math in the staff report. And I also have the list of the council wants to hear it of the restaurants that are local, that are participating in the program and to confirm they're all independent, no chain restaurants. But I do have the list with me. Okay, I mean, I would like to see a more specific accounting because you know, the staff report and I think you can see that it was, you know, done sort of rapidly, but, you know, it uses phrases like, you know, the total cost will be x or y. It would be good to be quite precise about this, but I don't think we should table this. I think we need to move forward, provided that we're acting coextensively with the current status quo of reimbursement, at least the policy of reimbursement of 93.75%. And I thought I heard earlier in the presentation that we expect there's going to be at least one more month of that. The policy continuing for a month beyond October 9. Not clear. We'll likely find out on October 9th if it will be extended. Okay. Well I would move then mayor that we direct the staff to continue to participate in the great place program beyond a cover 9 provided and co-extensive with any policy directive from FEMA and from the state of California that continues the current levels of reimbursement. Steve, is your motion for one additional month or indefinitely or is it time term specific? It's not specific except that it has to be co-extensive with the period of reimbursement. And I suppose if they came out and said we're going to do six more months, which I think would be highly unlikely, we could always come back to council and decide to transition out of the program or something, but I think it's likely that they'll probably be a shorter time period. All right. Is there a second for that motion? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like the staff to answer some of the questions that have been raised. We're very to support the motion, but I do think that there's plenty of staff work to be done, including contacting the county and checking to see what the possibilities are there. I mean, that's a completely restaurant. I'm sorry. This regard to our restaurants being absorbed and they're restaurants in our participants. And so I would like the staff to think fire with the county about both of those questions. Councilmember Gordell, I appreciate that. I think that the questions that have been raised this afternoon are good ones, and I think it's incumbent upon the staff to return to the council with that information. I just want to be clear as it relates to Councilmember Madison's motion, we've seen nothing from FEMA that indicates they won't reimburse. I just want to make it clear that we're not currently being reimbursed. And certainly if they signaled to us that they wouldn't reimburse, we'd be immediately in front of you. Well, I understand, but I do think there's an opportunity to get more information than we have at this point. Mayor, as the maker of the motion, if I could just respond to the vice mayor or to Mr. Gordo, you know, it's a really good point. But I assume that at all times our staff and I know they are are constantly exploring off-fronts to not just the restaurant sector, but also children and, you know, single parents and sort of across the board. So I think it was a helpful discussion, but I think we can always be assured that our staff is being vigilant and enthusiastic about potential aid. The other thing is that I think we'd go without saying and doesn't need to be part of the motion is, you know, this is one that we should be talking to our elected officials, Adam and Judy, and putting the full court press on. I mean, with the PPP and other programs that were responsive to the pandemic, our federal government moved with alacrity. So we should be asking for the same kind of response here. It may not be realistic because it's a particular agency that does things deliberatively. But Dave, you muted yourself. You muted. I imposed a self-imposed one. I'm supportive of the motion as well, but I think it is expensive in terms of just meeting the basic kind of nutritional food needs of this population. So to me, the economic impact analysis is missing. So I'd ask the staff come back with a census of the restaurants. And I'd like to know how many jobs are helping maintain the city. Cause to me, that is the basis of the program. That's the way it was conceptualized. It was not meant to be kind of a highly economic, feeding program. It was to be an economic development program. So I'd like as part of the motion, Steve, to just ask the staff come back with some sort of census around, you know, here's how many employees they have and here's how many that are related to this program so we can say, hey, we're leveraging federal dollars to keep an extra hundred jobs open in our restaurant business. I would like to know what that number is. I'm fine with that and it would be an excellent idea after the night to come back with a report. Mark, I haven't forgotten the public comment. Anybody, Mr. Kennedy? Just quickly, so there's been a series of questions that council members have had that some are similar to those that council Member Wilson-Rays, Council Member Gordo-Sray and I-Brays, and all of those questions in my view that Council Member across the board have asked that could not be answered this evening need to be a part of that report that comes back to us. And so I'm happy to support council member Madison's motion, but still in terms of meeting our producer and duty, must have those questions answered. Okay. Thank you. Council member Madison, just so I put a bow on it, your motion would also include the staff recommendation to allocate the money that effectively we're already spent. I mean, that has to do with the program through October 9th. The staff recommendation had to do with making sure we were funding, yes, it's already been spent. So you're absorbing the motion that is in the staff report. For there are four separate items and I would adopt those. And my comments and I think the others particularly went to item three, but yes the other three, one two unfortunately included mayor. Thank you. On a sentence, Council Member. Council Member McAuston. Council Member McAuston. Yeah, I appreciate all the questions and you know the further discussion that we can have about this but you know it's there's something wrong with the program is extending on October 9th and today's October 6th. I mean what why are we getting this so late? We should have considered this last month when we would have had time to have this additional material come back. What, this is very last minute. Well, how come? Councilmember McAuston, two things. Number one, the program only gets authorized 30 days at a time. And that's number one. Number two, on July 27th, the Council authorized this program for the staff to continue participating in it month to month. And we were directed to just come back periodically to get the financial appropriation. So on July 27th, council did approve the city's continued participation in the program. And today we're simply asking council if they want to reaffirm that participation. Right, so councilman Meghawson just put a finer point on that and it references in the staff report the presentation that I made to the Finance Committee. Based on prior Council authority we could have just kept rolling the program at a cost of 466 a month and then come back to the Council and have you make the appropriate appropriation. But given the concerns about the broader economic condition of our economy and the city's budget, I felt it was appropriate to bring the item to you this evening. I apologize that it is short. Today's the fifth and the current program they say ends on theth, but we fully expected it to be extended. That's the way they've been doing this. I felt it was appropriate to call the question. I appreciate that there are a lot of good questions that we didn't have time to answer with the council's direction. We'll go back and pull together this additional information and report back to you soon because it seems, I think it fair to say there's recognition that this may not be something that's sustainable for say another 12 months. So we need to be thinking about if there wasn't off ramp what that would look like. Right. And so I don't support the motion. I mean I wasn't't the finance committee meeting, what are we talked about, our budget issues. And I think this is a well-intended program. It's very expensive, but what we're not really dealing with is there are alternatives. There are good alternatives available that we could be doing which would be much more cost effective. And so I think, you know, it's, I just, I can't support the motion. I think it's not a good use of our, of our dwindling reserves to participate in the food and the services to the same people, you know, through another program that already exists. That's all. Thank you. Before we hear the public comment, I just wanted to weigh in and say I share some accounts in other McAustins reservations. I don't think we can sustain this burn rate of 466 a month indefinitely given the remaining balance in our reserve with our fingers crossed about if and when we'll get reimbursed. And so I'm amenable. I don't think we can just shut it off and just say sorry, as a Saturday, whatever, up to overnight, the game of Friday, the programs over. But I think that some of the suggestions that have been made with regard to meeting the needs of the Tupraong needs, one, continue to sustain the seniors that are benefiting from the program in terms of their food security. I think there are alternatives and we have an affirmative obligation to make sure that we don't just cut them off without an alternative. And in regards to the restaurants, I think we need to answer the question that Councilmember Gordo and others have raised about whether or not those restaurants can be incorporated in the counting program if we discontinue ours. But this burn rate, this 466 a month, in spite of the value, both to the seniors on the food side and the restaurants on the income side, is not something we can sustain indefinitely. And so I look forward also to the answers that have been, you know, to the questions that have been raised tonight. I'll support the motion on the basis that we need to continue it. I was going to suggest we continue it just for another month, so we sort that out. But I think we can bring it back at any time, but I think if we do need any answer to questions, We can't count on getting a check from FEMA in short order, and our money will be gone. Mr. Kennedy. I'm wondering if the maker of the motion would be willing to put additional parameters and do exactly what you suggested, given the financial precarious financial position, we may be headed towards and have it extended just for 30 days. And then we would in fact, revisit, but only a 30 day extension. Now, I'm fully aware that the staff and the council could call it back at any time, but it seems to me, based upon your comments, that it would be more prudent and the reservations that council member McAuston has shared with us that it would be prudent that we'd have 30 days, that would be enough days to transition and I think it'd be sending a right message. We will have the opportunity on the 9th to learn if in fact they're going to reauthorize if you will funding for this program. I think that is a more responsible approach, but obviously it would require the maker and the seconder of the motion to accept those parameters. Well, I asked that question of Council Member Madison the maker and the seconder of the motion to accept those parameters. Well, I asked that question of Council Member Madison in terms of the term of his motion and he responded pretty specifically. But Council Member Madison, did you have an opportunity to hear Council Member Kennedy suggested? Yes, and I mean, I think the motion should stand as it is, but I'm not sure that it's a substantive difference from what I'm proposing. Well, in terms of the term, Council Member, the Madison, the, which're suggesting is that we reauthorize the program to be determinants with the federal availability of the resource. And so that would suggest that that would go on indefinitely. The difference is whether or not when we would revisit this. I'm suggesting we can revisit it as any time, depending on what the answers are to the questions that have been raised by you and Council Member Gordo and others as it relates to the administration of this program. Well, I want to be supportive. I'm just saying I believe it's more prudent to put a timeframe on it given the fact that as Council Member of New Cost and Raises, the dwindling reserve, and there are going to be other issues that will come before this body related to critical financial needs. And I think we share with the public that we are being good public servants by putting the parameters. And you'd have, I hope, more support for the motion. And Councilmember Madison suggests, and possibly rightly so, that he doesn't see a clear distinction, but at least from, from forma, you would have a structure where it says to the community that we are being very diligent and responsible with the purse of the voters and the taxpayers. Well, my thing is I believe in the reimbursement and I haven't heard any material risk that we won't receive reimbursement. So my understanding is they've also done this once or twice already. It's not just been one open-ended reimbursement policy. Am I correct about that, Steve or Brenda? Well, we certainly received reimbursement from FEMA as it relates to prior disasters. No, I'm sorry. I met on this program. They announced it and then they extended it once already, if I recall. Well, they're extending the program. But we have not applied for reimbursement yet because we aren't able to do that yet because they're not allowing us to do it yet. So we actually haven't received any reimbursements under this program. Yeah, that's not my question. Okay, I'm sorry. The question is right now, what should we do going forward? And so my question is looking backward. Has there just been one authorization for the policy of reimbursement that occurred back in May and that's it to date? Yes, there's been just one policy for reimbursement. We find out about the length of the program in 30-day increments. So they reauthorize the program every 30 days. Okay. So what we're expecting October 9 is another 30 day extension. Correct. So that's really the scope of my motion. Okay. We'll let that know. Yeah. That's fine. I think that clarifies. We have a motion. The second we have some public comments, Mr Clark you've been waiting beautifully. Thank you Mayor. We received two letters from Elchelo Restaurant and Nure Restaurant both spoken support of the program stating that just grabbing a couple of words it's a life saver and a lifeline so those were the correspondence that we received and that should be distributed to the council and posted online. We received this public comment from Jan, I got AGEV, I cannot pronounce the last name, from Pasadena. I'm in support of the Great Plates program, I participated because of it. $400 was paid to White House for one delivery. How do we participate more consistently? Which restaurants are participating? Is there a running list of where the money has been spent? Then from Erica Foy, Pasadena, I am sat in by the amount of time you have spent talking about the Great Plates program and the letters submitted by the numerous residents on school issues got very little attention or conversation. Many of those letters were from residents who have never participated in a city discussion. Parents and kids are hurting and it was very disrespectful to ignore their concerns the way you did sad times. And then Mayor, on that note, there's one letter that I thought was a duplicate from the education piece. I thought it was duplicate and it's not. And I wanna read it if you give me just two seconds to read this out loud. Send in by Educate Advocate. I'm Christie Sapolvita, Birchette Educate Advocate. We serve families with children with special needs. Recently, your city council's public health declares that all students and staff must receive a flu vaccine to attend school. This will first apply to those in small cohorts, such as students in special education. Under SB277, now law, those on an IEP are to receive their education support and services, regardless of vaccine status. In addition, any additional vaccines required by CDPH, outside of what SB277 deemed for school of which flu is not one are to have a religious and personal belief exemption for these. She cites a web page. The city and its public health must making stricter laws in the state in an area that the state fully occupies health and safety code is not within the boundaries of the law. The city of the city is not fully occupied. Health and safety code is not within the boundaries of the law. There are potential liability issues with the city over lawsuits and areas of arguable laws. The city and public health should make the flu vaccine mandate into a recommendation just as CDBH did in their reopening schools guidelines. Guidance. Thank you, Mayor. That's public comment on this item. All right, so we have a motion. The second we expect the additional information quite soon with regard to this great plates program. Is there any further discussion? Not the clerk will call it all. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Gordo. Good. Councilmember Kennedy. You? Councilmember Madison. Yes. Councilmember Moussouda. Yes. Councillor McKenney. You? Councillor Matison. Yes. Councillor M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M the motion passes seven in favor one against. Thank you. You've completed the first agenda item. Mayor, if I may, at the outset, Mr. Madison said he had some questions for Brenda about parks. Thank you, Steve. I really appreciate it and I've mainly, I already mentioned that I understand the playgrounds reopened on Friday, which is great. And I just wanted to inquire. I know because the community is really, you know, in need of being some of the fields and I wondered what the state of play of that was. But if that should be deferred, Mayor, I'm quite all right with that. Mainly I just wanted to thank and commend Brenda for getting those playgrounds reopened. But if it's any people that are on the baseball diamonds and the like, I'd love to hear that. There's actually a link on our website that shows the dates when various sports fields will be reopened. They are currently, a number of them are currently closed because we are renovating the turf. So the grass is being regrown. We're fixing the irrigation and we're doing it in two phases. A number of the fields were completed in September, and we're now in phase two. And the ones that are closed under phase two are scheduled to be open on December 30th. But I'm more than happy to include in the City Manager's newsletter that information. And we do have it posted on our department website as well. Okay, great, thank you. and we do have it posted on our department website as well. Okay, great, thank you. Thank you, thank you, Council Member. All right, we'll move now to the consent calendar, which I attempted to do, almost two and a half hours ago by mistake. Are there any items, council members, would like held from the consent calendar? Very mixed sweet motion. Sweet motion is there a second? I have one item there. Yeah, one second. Any is there is there a second on the sweet motion? All right. All right. Mr. Wilson. I would like just to a short presentation on agenda item I-8 with the combined project with South Pasquina on the Arroyo. I felt the community should be aware of that program and it has a fairly large budget. All right. Any other items and council members? If not, we will have a roll call on all items except for item 8. Thank you Mayor. Council Member Gordo. Yes. Council Member Kennedy. Yes. Council Member Madison. Yes. Council Member Moussouda. Yes. Council Member MacAustin. Yes. Council Member Wilson. Yes. Vice Mayor Hampton. Yes. Mayor Tornick. Yes. Motion is Hampton. Yes. Mayor Tornick. Yes. Motion is approved without opposition. All right. Thank you. We can move to item 8. And I assume that'll be Mr. Boyan. Good afternoon, Mayor and honorable council members. Brent Maui, the Assistant City Engineer, will provide the PowerPoint for your consideration. could be on the other one. I got it. You understand what? Yes. Thank you, Aaron. Put on your mic. Mike. Is that a piece? You have the right one? It is the right one. Good afternoon mayor and honorable council members. Provide a quick presentation on the Prop 68 urban counties per capita grant funds and MOU with between the city of Pasadena and South Pasadena for a joint project in the Oroosaco. In November 2018, Prop 68 was passed by the voters strictly for the development enhancement of state and local parks and recreation facilities. It's a $3.5 million were set aside by the Senator Portantinos, specifically for the Aeroio Seco, and for a mutually beneficial project between the cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena. Although the grant funds are reserved for the cities, we are required to submit a project specific grant application for approval by the state. The application requires a resolution. Be adopted by both cities governing bodies and South Pasadena has already approved both the MOU and the resolution at their council meeting on August 19th, 2020. The MOU outlines the responsibilities for each city relative to the project. Essentially, the cost will be split 50, 50 for the cities for any project cost beyond the $3.5 million grant amount. City of Pasadena will serve as the project's lead agency, managing environmental and public outreach design and construction phases of the project. As I mentioned earlier, SouthPASS Council approved the document on our at their August 19th, 2020 meeting. The next steps here would include returning to Council to a pro, well, once the project concept would be approved by the state, we'd have to return to Council to have the funds appropriated. We'd select a consultant. There'd be various public outreach opportunities, environmental studies, design, jurisdictional permitting, and construction. Terms of the grant require project completion by March 31st of 2024. So the project that's being proposed is a project at the confluence of the San Rafael Creek and the Arroyo Seco. San Rafael Creek is a small stream on the southern edge of Pasadena, on its border with South Pasadena. The creek was long-go identified as a dry weather source of bacterial pollution for the Arroyo and under state regulations were required to divert the dry weather flow from this creek by September of 23 2023. The project as conceived right now would help achieve the mandated MPDS compliance for bacteria. Total maximum daily load, great passive treatment wetlands which will enhance habitat and biodiversity in the Roeosaco, provide some water storage and water reuse for irrigation purposes in South Pasadena and create some educational opportunities for the cities. For those not familiar with San Rafael Creek, included a map in the presentation, and you can see it starts just north of what's called Johnson Lake in Pasadena and then flows from their east word to the Oroyo Seiko. Here's the proposed location. Essentially, we're just looking at some wetlands treatment, potentially some enhancements along the drainage channel itself, but we would hope to enhance this area with kind of a biological treatment. There would be some sort of separator at the diversion point where we're taking water out of the stream and really what we'd hope is to really make the area look nice and hands it with vegetation and opportunities for to enhance the biodiversity in the area. This is just a picture of what the outfall looks like currently. Water flows from the outfall all year round. This picture I took I think this past weekend so even in the driest of weather there's still some flow coming out of there. And then this would be the South Pasadena location which is only about 1500 feet south of the location in Pasadena and the concept would be the same there. There's already an existing diversion from the Arroyo that happens just north of the overpass bridge there. Takes the water into this storage area which apparently long ago was already used in the capacity. We intend to use it for and our future project which would, to enhance the area and then also use it as a storage facility for water to irrigate their golf course and also the ball fields. Um, that's all I have. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have. Question? Go ahead and check out the other Wilson. I think the goal would be to, it would be kind of multi-benefit. We'd hope to achieve water quality improvements. Also, I think the purpose of the grant itself, which I had listed in the presentation, specific for water reuse and natural stream restoration was the language used in the approved budget from the state of California. But the goal would be to achieve multi-benefit. So basically, we would want an area to improve in terms of just visibility. People would make enhanced the area enough that people would want to come visit. Potentially could use it for educational purposes to talk about water quality. You know, the various improvements that could be made based on, you know, just saving, conserving water and improving water quality. I guess the Royal being more of a passive park that would be something that would fit with the intent of the park as well. I think it's fair to say this project is more under the hood project than it is kind of a public amenity. Anyway, thank you very much. I have no other questions. All right, is there a motion? So moved. So moved. All right. Okay, Councilmember Moussouda, Councilmember Wilson. Any further questions? No, we'll call the roll, please. So that was a motion by Councilmember Moussoududa, seconded by Councillor Marra-Wilson. Councillor Marra-Gordo? Yes. Councillor Marra-Canadi? Yes. Councillor Madison? Yes. Councillor M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M seconded it. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. That was for the staff recommendation. Yes. Okay. And yours is from me. Thank you, sir. Councilmember McAuston. Yes. Councilmember Wilson. Yes. Vice Mayor Hampton. Yes. Mayor Tornick. Yes. The motion passes without opposition. Thank you. Thank you. The staff. We'll move ahead now to public hearing. The first one is on the the middle of the public housing agency five-year plan and the annual plan for 2020 is the middle to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and I think it's going to be introduced by Bill Wong. Yes, Mayor. And I'll read the public noticing. This is the time and place for the public hearing on the middle of public housing agency five-year plan 2020 to 2025 and annual plan 2020 to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. September 3, 2020 the public hearing was published in the past year in the past year in the past. No correspondence was received by the city clerk's office regarding the item. Okay, thank you, Mr. Wong. Thank you, Mayor and members of the City Council. This particular plan includes both the required five-year plan and the annual plan and it focuses specifically on the rental assistance programs, largest one being section eight. So it's got a kind of a narrow focus and because Pasadena is considered, it has been rated as a high-performer. We've been able to believe it or not, submit a streamline, the streamline version of these required reports. So these are the streamline ones, although we do recognize that the administrative plan is quite a thick plan. So I'll turn it over to Anne Lansing, who's our housing assistance officer, to walk us through these vast majority of these plans are the same as the previous years, particularly the administrative plan. There are a few changes and Anne will highlight the substantive ones. Thank you, Bill. So yes, yes. You want a little of that thing? Oh, I appreciate it. Yeah, sorry. So as Bill mentioned today, I'm presenting about the submittal of the Public Housing Authority Plan, which includes the annual plan and every 50 year, the five year plan. The PHA plan is a HUD-required document and it outlines the financial resources, goals, and objectives, progress on mission and goals set in prior plans. The most important attachment to the PHA plan is the administrative plan, which lays out the policies, procedures, rules and regulations of the rental assistance programs. The PHA plan also highlights significant changes to the administrative plan. There's one significant change this year, which is an update to the local preferences for the Section 8 program. The local preferences are there to prioritize assistance to people who are on the waiting list and to rank that waiting list. And we are proposing a change to two of the preferences. We're proposing to remove the working preference and the involuntarily displaced preference. The proposed removal of the working preference is because it places at a disadvantage applicants who are not working and not disabled. Households with a head of households who are working in Pasadena are given the residency preference, and so would not be disadvantaged by the removal of this preference. Furthermore, during a pandemic and a potential economic downturn, the working preference would inadvertently serve to hurt households most in need of rental assistance. The proposed removal of the involuntarily displaced preference is because this preference is very seldom used, and it requires that the household be 120 days from having been involuntarily displaced and this timeline is not is impractical to administer given the length of the Section 8 program waiting list. This is a brief update just going over the note we have 1,409 housing choice vouchers or section 8 vouchers. Currently just over 1,200 of them are in use and of those 256 are project based. The others are sort of the churn. They are issued to people off of the waiting list. They become available again when somebody leaves the program or passes away. There are 46 vouchers in use specifically for people who are non-ilderly and disabled, and we have an allocation of vash vouchers for homeless vets and 14 out of 32 of them are in use. We also administer approximately 100 special needs, non-sectionate vouchers, which include vouchers specifically for persons experience in homelessness, and vouchers for people living with HIV or AIDS. Some rent and income data on the people participating in our program, the average tenant rent is just under $400. The average payment to a landlord is $953 and the average contract rent that we pay, which includes both of those amounts, is $1329. The participants on our program, their average income, is $15,620 and 51% of our participants earn between 10 and $15,000 a year. 22% of our participants are employed. That's mainly because 79% of our participants are elderly and disabled, but nonetheless, 77% of our population receives either a pension disability or social security. There are current challenges with administering this program. Some of these have continued over the years. The primary one is landlord reluctance to participate in the program. There's a few reasons for this. The primary one is that payment standards or the amount that we can approve to pay remains lower than the market rent. Landlords are also not incentivized by paperwork or annual inspections. And between 2010 and today, the number of participating landlords that we have dropped from 532 to 400 and that's even down a few landlords from the last time I presented to you last year. The need continues to outstrip the demand for rental assistance. There's over 22,000 people on our waiting list, though most of those are from outside of Pasadena, and we do give preference to those who live or work or go to school full time in the city of Pasadena. And the third challenge is inadequate funding. The HUD reimbursement rate for housing authorities to operate this program and for the rental assistance that we pay continues to not keep pace with a high cost rental market. We have some current initiatives in place to try and address that. Landlord marketing and incentives. We market to landlords particularly since the onset of the pandemic that we provide a consistent payment to them in uncertain times. And we have seen some success in the last very few months in seeing the numbers of landlords increase in landlords coming back to the program. We've also implemented a monetary landlord and cent of program for new and continued landlords. This is with some CARES Act funding that we received and that funding expires in December 31st of 2021 so it will not be an ongoing program. It's limited and we continue to outreach to landlord associations to let them know about the program and the benefits. We're also looking at ways to ease regulatory and paperwork burdens. One of the things that we are implementing is that we've gone to biennial inspections. Instead of going out to inspect a unit every year, if that unit passed inspection the prior year, we're not going to go out again for till the following year, every two years. We've also implemented simpler paperwork for the landlord to fill out for new leases. And we have project-based some additional vouchers. The last time I was here before you was when we got approval to project-based those vouchers. So we went from 20% to 30% of our vouchers will be project-based once these new PSH programs are built and end up in running. And we included in that some vache vouchers specifically for homeless vets. And that I believe will, yeah, that concludes my presentation. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Ms. Lansing. Questions with regard to the presentation or the plan document? Mr. Gorda? The annual report, but I just want to make sure I understand the two adjustments that you've made reference to. And can you just go over those one more time? Sure. So the two, we are proposing to remove two preferences that we've historically had for our Section 8 program. The first preference that we're proposing to remove is the working preference. So that is a preference for people who apply for rental assistance. It has nothing to do with whether or not you live in the city. It's just whether you work. HUD requirements for having a working preference require that it also be provided to people who are disabled or people who are senior citizens. So the working preference for all intents and purposes became a dispreference for people who were not working. And then the second preference we're proposing to remove is the involuntarily displaced preference. And this is a very specific preference for people who are displaced as a result of government action and have not found standard replacement housing within the last 120 days. It also applies to people who are victims of domestic violence, but the same 120-day time frame applies. And it's that time frame that made it very difficult to implement. We almost never used the preference because by the time we get to people off the waiting list, it's been well more than 120 days. Well, the involuntarily displaced seems to have two problems. One being a couple of mental action. And so that would require the city or the state or the county to what can demo property or Take action and imminent domain for example correct correct and in my time at the city We've never used that preference but but the other one is the domestic of user domestic violence and Why would we? Why would we remove that preference? That's a particularly now in COVID crisis. I would imagine that's an important population to ensure that we give a preference to. Correct. So that, so people who would be eligible for the involuntarily displaced preference with the 120-day requirement would also be eligible for the substandard housing preference, which includes people who are homeless. Which is confusing, I understand. One of the things that this is doing is updating our preferences from the HUD required preferences way back in the early 90s to a more current set of preferences. So people who have been, who are victims of domestic violence, would be able to be assisted under the substandard preference. And additionally, if they were a resident in Pasadena, would get the residency preference, which is our highest point of preference regardless. Well, but we in no way are excluding victims of domestic violence. Absolutely not. Nor are we putting them as a disadvantage in any way or taking away any of you know I think you use the word banish but any preference that they may have right now we will still be able to act swiftly in the case of a domestic violence situation. Correct. Within the parameters of the section 8 waiting list correct. Thank you Mr. Rotto Mr. Kennedy This line thing. Thank you. I just would like to know have we shared have you shared with the council graphically not by name but What number of individuals let's say they grew up in Pasadena They live in Pasadena, they live in Pasadena, somehow they've lost their ability to have their own place and they're living with relatives, but they have the deep connection of Pasadena. Is your list segregated in such a way where it clearly shows that without naming the individual and have you provided it, if it is segregated with such detail to the council before? We have not and based on the information that we gather in order to populate the section of it waiting list, it would be really hard to come up with those numbers with an exception of anecdotally. When you apply for section eight, you give us basic information, basic demographic information, address information, et cetera. We don't say where did you go to high school or where did you live through your 18 years? We ask where are you currently living? It would be a mechanism to gather that information for the purposes of the section 8. Waiting list would be a little challenging. Well, isn't it true that your office does seek to provide those who grew up in Pasadena and from whatever reason, either priced out of the market or a family member died and the house had to be sold a whole host of possibilities, give some preferences. And I think you've already articulated earlier in your presentation some of those preferences. So it seems to me that it would not be necessarily unreasonable for you to share that information. And I'm aware, for example, of a disabled minority, African-American male graduated from local schools who was really priced out of the market in part because of the disability limited income. But the housing department, our illustrious housing department work with that individual. He was on the list. He was disabled and was able to come back not from a neighboring county but from a neighboring state to find housing here in the city of Pasadena. I think we want to know that given the fact that you made the presentation or represented in the presentation that Pasadena. I think we want to know that given the fact that you made the presentation or represented in the presentation that of the 20, 2000 plus, the significant number of those individuals don't have necessarily a direct connection to Pasadena other than the fact they want to live in a great city. So how does the council from a policy objective get to trying to help those who have a very strong distinct and long connection and history to pass it in? How do we get to them? So there, we have four proposed preferences. So it includes people with disabilities. They would get the preference whether or not they were living in Pasadena. There's a veteran preference. You would get the veteran preference whether or not you were currently living in Pasadena. And the substandard housing preference the same. I don't know that that's fully answering what your question is. Well, the objective, the objective is to understand that there's a mechanism under the existing rules where we can give the Pasadena person a legal leg up? Yes, they're, council member. Yes, definitely. We have the number one preference is a residency preference for Pasadena. So if somebody does live in Pasadena, then they get the preference. And then we have other, uh, just to interrupt you, uh, just won't. Uh, please. But the issue is you have someone who grew up in Pasadena, mm-hmm, but not for whatever reason, stay in Pasadena, mm-hmm. Loves Pasadena and they had to move away. Doesn't it have any value of that connection to Pasadena? Because you're giving a preference to the resident of Pasadena, but we've lost that person already. So are we getting at that population under the guidelines that exist today? Right. Currently under the guidelines that exist today? Right. Currently under the guidelines, no. But we are planning to come back to City Council with the, these preferences are specifically for the Section 8 program. So we are going to come back with preferences for our affordable housing overall. And one of the things we are gonna do is we are going to look at that kind of preference. There's been just a few handful of cities in the country that have a preference like that called a kind of welcome home preference. We're looking at that and looking at how that stands up to fair housing. So we are studying that and we will come back to City Council with that idea as part of our recommendation for preferences overall for affordable housing. And when do you expect that, Mr. Wong? I would say before the end of the calendar year. Thank you very much for your response. Thank you, Mr. Dawson. Thank you, and thank you to Council Member Kennedy, because this is an issue that you and I have shared some correspondence on that there. I think what he's trying to get at and what I think would be very progressive and I appreciate the fact we're already looking at is for us to consider what. in new housing sort of applications, a category for people who have had a long family history in Pasadena, or who have their family has been the significant founding family, or that they were an important part of the original long-time families of Pasadena in some way that have been displaced for one reason or another. You know, whether it was financial displacement, freeway displacement, you know, this is whatever, there are a lot of different reasons. But I think we want to, I agree with Council Member Kennedy, we want to value, there are a lot of different reasons. But I think we want to, I agree with Council Member Kennedy. We want to value, these are people with history and capacity. Now we want to value them. And to the extent that this was home for their family for many, many years and for one reason or another, they had to leave. If there isn't, if they want to and there is an ability for them to come back, I think that that just makes our community stronger. So, you know, I'm looking forward to whatever staff can come up with. I think it's, it's important if we can do it properly. So, appreciate you bringing that down to me. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Yeah, I just had a few questions for Ann and Bill. With respect to this program, obviously we have a huge number of people on the waiting list. And even if you just look at the ones that have a passionate connection, I think it was around 5,000. Is that correct? Correct. Correct. Yes. We're housing 1,400 people a year. I was always anxious about the shrinking pool of section eight landlords. And I think you said we lost some warmer down to about 400. Does that capture that properly? Correct. Yes. So is the the despite the landlord contraction, maybe I missed this, are we having problems using the $15 million section eight, Dr. We're kind of the bottleneck. Obviously, it's not finding people who need them because we got 5,000. What would allow us to how is more people? So, so we use the money that were allocated. The challenge is that we are allocated the money to serve 100% of the vouchers that we have. So HUD says for this amount of money, you should serve 1,409 people every month. We don't. Because of the cost of the rents here, the money goes to serve fewer people in higher cost apartments. And even as the payment standards slowly inches up from HUD, the market rent inches up rather more quickly here. I'm sorry, I think there was a second part of your question. Yeah, if I could add in, so we are able to expend the funds, so we're not in danger right now of losing the funds because of lack of utilization. The market is changing. Landlords are recognizing that getting certainty on their revenue stream is important. And right now with many households unable to pay their rent, a lot of landlords, when they do have a vacancy, they are now starting to see some landlords coming to us and say, I prioritize certainty of revenue over maybe a little bit higher rent. So that is starting to move in our direction. And then the other thing about the waiting list, yes, we have 26, we had 26,000 people on our waiting list when we opened. But it's important to realize that the, because the Section 8 program is a federal program, anybody anywhere can apply for any housing authorities waiting list. And so we get people from extremely broad area, different states applying for our program because some people just apply for many, many housing authorities waiting lists hoping that they will get one. But we do prioritize the Pasadena residents and we don't wait to re-issue or reopen our waiting list until we've got down through the 26,000. No, we get 5,000, down to 5,000, 6,000 down to 5,000, then we reopen the waiting list again. So it gives an opportunity basically to keep a fresher waiting list knowing that all housing authorities get a lot of people from all over the place applying for their vouchers to get onto the waiting list. We understand that, and I understood that there are about 20% were passed in the you know affiliated. I was trying to understand where the log jamb is if there is one is obviously we have a lot of people who want housing and would love to have subsidized rental housing in section 8. Is it just getting more dollars from the feds or is it, you know, lots and we're really worried about landlords and in front of like that that has turned a little bit because that the rental rates in the market were better than section 8. So, where's kind of how do we expand the program? That's really good I'm trying to understand. Yeah, I, you know, there's not so many opportunities to expand the program and that we can't request more vouchers from HUD HUD has been you know except for very special cases like In Anne's presentation there were some vouchers for non-elderly disabled right those were a special offering and we apply for those and we got we got 60 of those But it for general section 8 vouchers HUD is not making more available. And so what we have to do is we just have to make sure that the ones that we do get that we are able to use them and the biggest challenge for us is that the market rate grants are higher than the maximum allowable section 8 grants. So our marketing is talking about the other benefits of the program and the certainty of the program. And we're doing some things to try to expand landlords. Like we have a ADU pilot program right now where if we're offering very, very favorable financing for a homeowner who will build an ADU using our financing, but then for the first seven years, rent the unit out exclusively to section eight households. So we're trying to expand the pie that way. You know, I'm right. I think our MIR rate, if we have render protection for people who have lost their job, they're under this pandemic that they can't be threw out in the street. If I'm section 8, then the government's paying my lease. So is that kind of a bit of the angle that the landlords are seeing that create some sort of certainty around payment stream in a world where fewer people have certainty? That's right. Whenever a section 8 participants income goes down, they can come in and get an adjustment so that their portion of the rent goes down and the subsidy amount goes up. To the landlord, they get the same amount of money they keep getting their rent. They get the same amount of money. They keep getting their rent. So they might- If there are any ways you lock in the landlord, so I mean, God willing, we will get through the pandemic. That we could keep them kind of part of the program, rather than when things recover. They've tossed out their section eight, tenant and they start moving back aggressively towards market rate. Is there any strategy there to kind of create some stickiness around that stock? Yes, well on our ADU pilot program right there's going to be a requirement for seven years, so they will be locked in for seven years. But also as Ann mentioned in her presentation, there are some things that we're doing so that the process of being a Section 8 landlord is not as cumbersome. Simplified paperwork, if their unit is a unit that's in good condition and that passes the inspection, they won't have to have another rental, another annual inspection. Those things are cumbersome for the landlord to have to schedule and respond to and deal with. So trying to simplify the process is something that we're working on. Yeah, and any of my former students different, more of once we get them in, because their, you know, when the Lord just smart, they're gonna take advantage of this opportunity to fill units with people who, you know, have a government backed kind of guarantee of payment that once are in the landlord's in the section 8 program to keep those landlords in longer rather than having them put back out in 12 or 24 months when market recovery is done. So the landlords for the most part are required to sign a one-year lease In addition to that with some of the CARES Act COVID funding we've instituted a continuity bonus So if a landlord continues on after that first year They're in they are eligible for a one-time bonus Unfortunately because the the CARES Act funding has an expiration date, it's something that will only be able to do for a year. But really, like Bill said, the bulk of what we can do is be a kinder, friendlier housing authority than what they may have heard about and really be, you know, provide the service that makes it a little bit more pleasant. Okay. Thank you for that response. provide the service that makes it a little bit more pleasant. Okay, thank you for that response. Thank you. Any other questions for Ann or Bill? I'm sorry, Mark, do we have any comments from the public? Not on item 15, Mayor. No. Thank you. Is there a motion? To close the public hearing. close public hearing? Yes. I moved. Second thoughts. Number Gorda. Call the role please on closing the public hearing. Councilmember Gorda. Yes. Councilmember Kennedy. Yes. Councilmember Kennedy yeah councilmember Madison Excuse me. Yes, councilmember missuda Councilmember sudo yes Councilmember sudo yes Yes, thank you sir sir. Councilmember McAuston. Yes. Councilmember Wilson. Yes. Vice Mayor Hampton. Yes. Mayor Tornick. Yes. That motion is approved without opposition. All right. Is there a motion making the bindings as recommended in the staff report with regard to sequel and approving the public housing Five-year plan and annual plan recommendation Second by councilmember Wilson Councilmember Roberto Councilmember Kennedy. Yes, Councilmember Madison. Yes. Councilmember Missuda. Yes. Councilmember McAuston. Yes. Councilmember Wilson. Yes. Vice Mayor Hampton. Yes. Mayor Tornick. Yes. Motion is approved without opposition. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Lansing and Mr. Wong. We'll move now to item 16. Another public hearing with regard to declarations of surplus property, Mr. Clark. Thank you, Mayor. This is the time and place for the public hearing on declarations of surplus properties 78 North, Marango Avenue 255 East Union Street 95 North Garfield Avenue and 280 Ramona Street. On September 17, 2020, the public hearing notice was published in the past year to press. The City Clerk's office received 76 letters of correspondence in favor of the item and three letters. We receive providing comments and or expressing concerns regarding the proposal. As it relates to the failure to comply with the general plan policies with one letter urging the city council to not declare parcel three as surplus land for private development. Those letters and all correspondence has been distributed posted online and made part of the official record for tonight's meeting. Thank you. K-PASS should reset the shop clock. Yes. We'll move to Mr. Reyes to introduce this item. Thank you, Mayor, City Council members of the public. As the PowerPoint is pulled up, I will just be talking very briefly and then turn it over to Mr. Kevin Johnson, who has carried the water on this project as previously. So, first of all, just a little bit of background because it is important to understand that first of all, there's no project before the City Council this evening. There could be a development project in the future, but state law requires the action that we're requesting the council take this evening, currently 60 days prior to the council deciding or thinking about any project on the site. If a project is decided to move forward through the conversations with the City Council and potential developers. A formal application would be submitted through the normal public review process. And there would be whatever the code requires for public hearings depending on what that project is, as well as any required environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. So tonight's project, excuse me, tonight's review does not include any project. So there is no project before the council this evening. I just wanted to get that out before I turn it over to Kevin to give some background and go through the project discussion this evening. Thank you, Mr. Rand. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Rand. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Can we, as you see? So, as you know, the city purchased the YWCA properties in 2012 with the intent to make the property and adjacent city owned properties available for private development to ensure preservation of the historic YWCA building. After a long process that is described in the staff report, the city is now reviewing new development proposals and considering selecting a developer that would develop a project that's consistent with the goals that have been set forth by the city council. In order to address changes in state law and pursue a private development, the affected properties need to be declared surplus under both state law and a portion under city, uh, Pesidine Renisple Code prior to entering into a sale or long-term lease agreement with the developer. Now this map here shows the locations of the properties in question. On the south side of Holley Street, 78 North Morengo Avenue is the property that the YWCA building sits on. And the adjacent parking lot is at 255 East Union Street. And the L-shaped parcel that surrounds those properties on the north and east is 95 North Garfield Avenue. On the north side of Holley Street adjacent to the YMCA building is 280 Remona Street, which is often referred to as the water and power site because there was once a water and power building proposed to be built there. So starting with the state law, the State Surplus Land Act defines Surplus Land as land owned in fee-simple by the city for which the city council takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring the land is Surplus and not necessary for the city's use. Now the law also states that no real property shall be disposed of until the location, purpose, and extent of such disposition has been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with the adopted general plan. consider whether the disposition of these four parcels under state law would be consistent with the general plan and the commission did agree on September 23rd 2020 at a public meeting that the disposition is consistent with the general plan. Next please. Thank you. Currently the four subject properties are not being used or planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the City Council for city work or operations. The sites are not needed for the city's use as defined in the State Surplus Land Act and are proposed to be made available through sale or long term lease to a private developer or multiple developers. The city is financially unable to rehabilitate the YWCA building and is seeking to partner with the private developer on a project that would rehabilitate the structure and provide supporting uses to ensure adequate return to the developer on the large investment needed for the rehabilitation. The properties have been zoned and planned for development since the 1920s. They're not specified in any planning documents as being zoned or planned for public use. On April 18th, 2019, the city council identified setback and height parameters that would be imposed on any potential development that would be undertaken on these properties and to ensure that the council's goals for the project are met, appropriate steps will be taken during any potential negotiations with private developers to ensure that those parameters are followed. So that summarizes the analysis of declaration of surplus land under the state law, now moving on to the Pasadena Municipal Code. In the municipal code, surplus real property is defined as real property of the city that's not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose. Prior to, and declared such, prior to its sale, which include long-term leases. The municipal code also establishes a competitive sale requirement, which requires sale to the highest bidder, sorry, not the lowest bidder, and a procedure for that requirement to be waived. So at this time, we're asking the council to consider the surplus property declaration and waiver for 280 Ramona Street only. The reason for that is that the landscape property at 95 North Garfield Avenue on the south side of Ramona Street of Holly Street, excuse me, was already declared surplus in conjunction with the previously approved Kimpton Hotel Project and the YWCA property and parking lot property adjacent to it are proposed to continue to be used for the purpose for which they were acquired, which is rehabilitation of the historic resource. So to explain the purposes of the original purchase of 280 Ramona Street. First, we have to describe the circumstances that resulted in the law as it is now. So the dirt law, which is the westerly portion of the law, was acquired in conjunction with the rehabilitation of the YMCA building in 1989. And there was no specific purpose stated for that. It was acquired as payment for loans that were issued to the YMCA owners for the rehabilitation. And so there was no stated purpose. At that time, that lot was a separate parcel and was connected to the landscape lot to the east and south through a lot line adjustment process. So the landscape lot, as was described to the council previously for the landscape plot on the south side of Holley Street was purchased in 1923 along with other properties in the vicinity for the construction and completion of a building with suitable occurrences, grounds, and approaches for city hall purposes. So to step back a little bit from that date and give you a timeline on what occurred leading up to that purchase. The first major milestone is that in 1921, state law was changed to allow the issuance of a single bond for several municipal improvements in one group if the city planning commission and the voters determined that the improvements constitute a city plan. Then in April 1922, after that law was changed, the City Planning Commission was created in Pasadena for the primary purpose of reviewing and approving this proposed city plan. Then the city engaged the well-known planning firm of Bennett Parsons and Frost, and in January of 1923, that firm prepared a drawing entitled Location Plan of Public Buildings with Their Approaches, which was a conceptual plan for the Civic Center and was used in advertisements leading up to the vote which I'll describe in a moment. Following the creation of that plan in May 1923, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 2, which was to acquire specific land for construction of City Hall, a public library and municipal auditorium, and that these improvements constitute a city plan. On May 24th, the City Council approved an ordinance providing for a special election to the public regarding the city plan version of the Bennett Plan, which identified the conceptual locations of buildings and other improvements for the Civic Center. The majority of what we're talking about is at the right-hand side of the drawing, which shows City Hall, the library to the North, the Municipal Auditorium to the South, and the YMCA and YWCA properties to the west of City Hall, which were already existing at that time. Next, please. Again, Resolution 2 is attached to the Agenda Report and includes a legal description of the property that were identified to acquire to implement the city plan. But there were no drawings included in the resolution. So the 1923 image that we just saw a moment ago was not included in this resolution and was not adopted as an official plan. So two propositions in June 1923 were placed on the ballot to ask voters whether the city should incur a bonded debt for the purpose of acquiring and constructing these three buildings and the grounds and occurrences surrounding them as well as shall the city plan approved by the planning commission resolution to be adopted. Again, no drawings were included in the ballot and the resolution to included the legal descriptions. On the next slide, we'll see a map that identifies the properties that were identified in that legal description for purchase for the city hall and surrounding occurrences for city hall. You can also see here in this map the map is overlayed on to existing aerial imagery and it also includes property lines of parcels that were in existence at that time. You can also see that Carfield Avenue, which at the time was Worcester Avenue, was much narrower than it is today. And you can also see the boundaries of the properties on what is now the northern south side of Hollistery correspond to the depth of the existing landscape areas on those two properties. This is another map that shows the configuration of the landscape areas along Garfield Avenue correspond to the actual depth of the properties that were acquired along Wusher Avenue, which became Garfield. And then subsequent to the passing of the propositions, a design competition was held for the three buildings, and Bennett returned to Pasadena to meet with the planning commission and the architects that were selected from that competition to revise the Civic Center plan to reflect the designs of those of the buildings and to respond to those designs in the surrounding environment. November 1924 article reports on the results of the competition and changes to the plan that were contemplated by Bennett. And in the 1925 plan that was developed subsequent to that more closely resembles the existing conditions and the landscape lots on the west side of Garfield Avenue are both shown as automobile parking and future building sites with 25 foot deep landscape areas along Garfield Avenue. This image shows the 1925 plan. North is to the left, so the public library is on the left side of the screen, the city hall and the center and the YWCA and YMCA parcels to the south of that. With the dimensions all called out, this is 1926 version that was the latest version that we have in the city records. So to summarize, the purpose of the landscape lot purchased at 280 Ramona Street, the land was purchased, following voter approval of propositions to acquire land and build the city hall building. The properties were purchased as they were configured at that time. And both of the plans plans you're looking at. So based on this information, it's clear that the city council at that time intended to build on a portion of this land or to declare surplus property in the future to allow for private development. The bonds that were issued at that time were used for the purposes that were intended in the ballot language and have been paid and no covenants were established restricting the use of the land in the future. The current municipal code allows for the city to declare city owned land surplus property to allow it to be used for a different purpose than that for which it was originally purchased. Now moving on to the competitive sale requirement. As I mentioned, the code, city's code requires surplus property to be sold only after an opening competitive bidding process to the highest bidder. But the code also provides that the council may make findings that an extraordinary and overriding public benefit will be achieved related to public parking, low cost housing, public service facility, a museum, or other cultural or artistic institution, or the economic and public well-being of other properties in the immediate vicinity in order to allow for an exemption from the competitive sale requirement. So the staff is recommending that the council find that the sale or lease of the 280 Ramona Street property would be exempt from the competitive sale requirement related to the economic and public well-being of other properties in the immediate vicinity. And in doing so, that would allow the council to enter into a sale or lease with the bidder most suited to develop a project that's consistent with the council's goals for the site, rather than just the highest bidder. As I mentioned, these recommendations were reviewed by the planning commission on September 23rd. The planning commission adopted by a vote of 42, the CEQA findings that is recommended in the agenda report tonight, as well as the findings that the disposition of the properties following declaration of surplus property is consistent with the general plan. The commission was also asked to consider a recommendation regarding declaring the property at 280 Ramona Street as surplus property and exempt from the competitive sale requirement under the municipal code. This vote failed by a vote of three to three. The dissenting commissioners were concerned about the lack of control over a potential future development that might occur on this property, if the property would be sold or leased. In other words, they were concerned about the inability, their inability to make the finding without a specific project proposal attached to it, as well as lack of evidence to support a determination that the property is not needed for another city use and the loss of open space that's existing in that area. The staff recommendation is that the City Council find that the proposed action is not subject to CECLA. As the activity, the disposition of the properties will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and it's not a project. That the Council adopt a resolution declaring all four properties at surplus under the state law and adopt resolution declaring the property at too any remonna street, at surplus property, and exempt from the competitive sale requirement under the pass of the in municipal code. And that concludes the staff presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, that was a historical tour of the Civic Center, Thank you very much. Questions from Mr. Kennedy followed by Mr. Masuda. and if someone had left or... In order to do the development that the council has been contemplating in terms of building a portable housing on that particular site. This is the only way in which we can arrive at allowing that to move forward. Is that accurate? That's correct. This is one action that's needed in order to allow for a private development to occur on that site. And the assembly was consensus that housing of some kind would be an excellent use for that site. Is that your recollection? The proposals that we have received for that site are for housing projects. Yes. Okay. And in terms of the history that you've just shared with the council, is there anything that you want to point out, again, that you may not have done so with a laser focus for the council to concentrate because it seeking to meet the goal of building housing on that site. Council Member Kennedy, if I could take the first stab at that, I think one of the things that I didn't hit on and I should have it in the first instance was to explain or I don't think explain is the right word was to restate how important the planning department and the entire city views the Bennett plan and we have a real opportunity to complete the Civic Center. We do feel that it's incomplete right now. We don't believe that the latest plans that were done in 1926 that identified construction on the parcels in question. You know, there hasn't, there's been multiple city efforts to build on those. And as we've talked about before, they're currently zoned for development. They're zoned in the CD3 zoning district. And I think that in order for us to have this opportunity and really try to complete the Civic Center in a meaningful way, this is an important and required step in that process, first step. Okay. And on page 5 of 12, you've already shared with us the requirements under the surplus real property declaration under state law, surplus land act, and also PMC chapter 404.02, as well as on page 6 municipal improvement act, bidding plan and bond proposition. If we were not to move in this direction, is the council or a city at risk in any way of losing control of the site? Council member Kennedy, I would turn to the City Attorney's Office, but I believe the answer to that question is no. The city owns the site, but we couldn't proceed in the manner in which the council has previously directed staff. We'd be, I think, stuck in the water. Mr. Murelle is correct. Nothing would be able to proceed with respect to the proposed projects, but it doesn't impact the city's ownership or control. And in terms of what we have been receiving, we've had an open process in responding to the RFP. And I think there is a small number of respondents and have most, if not all of them, designated that particular site for housing. For affordable housing, sir, yes. Okay. Okay. So what I would like to do at the appropriate time, Mayor, after all my colleagues have had an opportunity to weigh in. This is my district. I think there's been a lot of discussion around the virtual dius or the real dius in times past and it seemed like we were moving in the direction of a consensus. I'm not suggesting that what I'm saying is absolute. But in this instance, to move this effort down the road and as Mr. Reyes says or states kind of complete the Bennett plan I would like to as a council member for the district move all three recommendations and give kudos to the Planning Commission for its recommendation, although not unanimous, was a good vote, not suspected, was tremendous testimony and debate. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Masuda, I think, was next. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for that, Mr. Kennedy. That means a lot. David and Kevin, I'm real concerned about the Volin with the Planning Commission. Two times, first, the four, two, both, then the three, three, both. What was their big concern? Well, what usually I don't see this kind of a split. Yeah. Councilmember Missy, as you might recall, I'm sorry. I gotta tell you that I am leaning toward the Ramona anyway, that the 280 to go forward, but tell me about what was the big concern with the planning commission, those two votes? Well, first of all, I think that Council member Kennedy said it correctly that there was really good discussion by the planning commission. And there was a couple of issues that are not new with respect to proposed development on either of these two lots. And that has to do with the amount of setback or open space and while the planning commission found that the request in front of them was consistent with the city's general plan. There was some other discussion that three three vote in particular and the discussion there was lack of control over potential future development. There was a lot of concern about what the appropriate setback might be and if in fact the entire lot is deemed to be surplus, there was nothing in their action that would potentially stop a project from having a setback of even less than the 45 foot that the council previously discussed. What I explained to them is what I said to this council with the outset, which is there's no project in front of you. And at the appropriate time, if the city council does decide to move forward with a potential project and after negotiations there's a formal application that gets submitted it would go through the appropriate review. You might recall that there was a lot of discussion including about a one year long task force that the city council commissioned the YWCA task force and there was a lot of good work that that commission did. And ultimately that commission identified a 52 foot setback through different work that the city staff did with Olin which is a world-renowned landscape firm, landscape and architecture firm. The council decided that maybe 45 feet was maybe an appropriate setback. So the large part of the discussion centered around the open space in the setback, but again that's not what's in front of you or was in front of them. And I don't think that I heard anybody say that there shouldn't be any development on the site and again to allow development whether it's a affordable housing or something else This is a necessary first step Thank you mayor Thank you mr. Mesuda mr. Wilson All right Kevin David just a few questions just about sequencing All right Kevin David just a few questions just about sequencing At the YWCA site when the Kimpton was on deck at what point did we declare that surplus? Councilmember Wilson this is to reset point this from the city attorney's office you declared the the larger portion of the YWCA site surplus at the time that you approved. You certified the EIR and approved the land use approvals for that project. So back in 2015. Yeah. And that's what I'm trying to understand. That's what I thought. These are a reason that we're, I mean, I'm just trying to be responsible to sounds like some concerns raised by the planning commission that we were declaring the north side, the remote side surplus when there isn't a project. I mean, why are we kind of handling this in a different sequence? Councillor Wilson, it's mainly because it's a precursor to being able to move forward on this project at all, on the projects that are being considered at all. Back in 2015, there was not an RFP and a request for projects on the Ramona site, so no action was taken then. It wasn't contemplated yet. It wasn't contemplated until this step. So I'm just maybe my question wasn't clear. We declared the YWCA site surplus when we had a specific proposal on hand. Am I correct? That one you did because that was the appropriate time to take that action for that side of the project. Again, you didn't have a project on the Ramona site in front of you at that time. No understand. So why are we declaring the Northside surplus preemptively before we have a specific project in hand? It frees it up then for you to consider the projects that are before you. I'm sorry. It could wait. It doesn't it could wait until the projects came before you. And retirement. And I may be out of the term but my understanding and I would want to be corrected by the city attorney's office obviously is that given changes in the state surplus lands act we have a 60 day sort of window meaning if the City Council wanted to give us some direction on a project and move forward There needs to be this declaration that happens at least 60 days before and that's the formal action But I think the concept here is that Before you signal to staff To start looking and negotiating we'd want to know that it's surplus otherwise it we're sort of in vain Working with developers and wasting their time as well so this is sort of I'm just trying to understand what I understand so that 60 day shot clock is is that news since we went through maybe I missed that report that's news since the original Kimpton project came through yes this is Teresa Puntas again and I apologize I've forgotten that the State Surplus Lands Act is what changed in January of this year. So that's what pushed the timeline up for us to have to take all of these actions at this time. So that is the new. That's right, I can. Yes. So that's what I got to please. Because I'm like, we're always familiar with the Kimpton project and a lot of the steps, painful steps at times. I was trying to understand why this sequence is different. The other question I had, I know for instance that we have approved Heritage Square South and we owned that property. Do we declare that surplus as well? I can't remember. I'm just forgot how that worked. I think we can research that. I don't think that we went through that process. I don't think that the state law was the same at the time. But we bought that property. Well, I know we bought it. That's why we're trying to figure out what now we own it. So now we'd have to declare it surplus. I think and then we, so I'm just trying to understand how this works because I don't remember doing that with that property. So I'm wanting to understand why we wouldn't do that if we owned it, right? The fact that we bought the property and the remona property too, we just got that in the staff report that happened to be bought almost a hundred years ago. But we did acquire it. So I'm just trying to understand what the process is in terms of the part of me. I'll tell the number, we'll see what's best. As best we can recall at the dias right now, and as Mr. Reyes said, we could research that for you, but as best we can recall at the Dias right now, we didn't have to find that property surplus because it was going to be used for the purpose for which it was acquired. So it wasn't technically surplus under our local. Right, and Council Member Wilson, that was a former redevelopment area property as my recollection. What we're dealing with here tonight is the new surplus state, surplus landzac. So it's a new process for us, and this is the first project that it's subject to, and it's Theresa indicates we're trying to meet the statutory timeline of it. And so this one is different than prior deals the city's been involved with. and so this one is different than prior deals the city's been involved with. In fact, articulate again the timing of 60 days and what that new requirement is. Anywhere? So the 60 days it has to do with declaring it surplus while before we can then actually dispose of it and I use dispose of it because we may sell it, we may lease it. So it's that 60 days that we have to declare before we can dispose of the property. So that means our expectation is that I know we have obviously a bunch of proposals that we have a 60-day window to consummate a transaction get a contract. I mean what do we have to be in that window? Yeah Councilmember Wilson my understanding is this and I'll look to Theresa to tell me if I have it I'm not sure if you've ever seen a lot of the recent, I'm not sure if you've ever seen a lot of the recent, I'm not sure if you've ever seen a lot of the recent, I'm not sure if you've ever seen a lot of the recent, I'm not sure if you've ever seen a lot of the recent, I'm not sure if you've ever seen a lot of the recent, I'm not sure if you've ever seen a sale for the Ramona lot. Even though the council would want to enter into that agreement, it couldn't for a period of 60 days. So the action we're taking tonight starts the 60-day clock. Everything will be subject to the same approval processes, but we thought it prudent to start the clock now, given how much time has gone by and the desire of the council to move forward on civic center projects, rather than wait, get to the end of a process where we're asking the council to approve a project, and then say, oh, but by the way, you can't really approve it, because you got to wait another two months. Okay, so I'm sorry. So the 60 days not a shot clock, it is a notice period. Okay. That's a good way to think of it. That's correct. Yeah, just thinking that we're gonna try to negotiate and get, you know, not even sure, you know, who we're gonna choose and all that stuff. So this, so okay, fair enough. Okay, so that's it. Okay, I'm good. Thank you very much. Mr. Gorda. So the, yeah, I had questions along the lines. It was too well-summed. It seems that, well, let me ask this. Let's just for a moment that the council approved, were to approve this evening, the staff recommendation that we could clear the property as outlined. I think it was slide four. The property needs surplus. Where we want to, in any way, reverse part or some of that declaration. Let's say, let's say, for a moment, you know, we don't want to go all the way out to the street on a project, which I think is probably gonna be the case. How do we reverse that declaration? So I think Council Member Gordo, it's less about reversing and more about the, right, no projects gonna get approved in less, first of all, the council signals to staff, that's the project to go pursue and then they have to comply with all rules. There also be an expectation that they don't go all the way out to the street that they would comply in fact with the 45 foot setback that this council has sort of directed in the RFP. And all the projects that have been submitted to us thus far have identified That 45-foot setback there is one project that showed a 55-foot setback But the point being is that just because you're declaring the entire parcel surplus It doesn't mean that that a project is not going to maintain the 45-foot setback and that would be the separate Second process and ultimately the city council would have the authority To dictate through direction to staff what the appropriate setback is So if the RFP itself if anybody came forward with a with a setback that's not Account for in the RFP or different what's them with the council and the city put in the RFP. One that be a non-responsive applicant and why are we going beyond what we've already talked about in terms of the setback. proposals so it's not for instance say like a competitive bid where we say it has to be of an exact proportion if you don't meet it you're out. The City Council did adopt the all-in recommendations for the setback and we've received proposals all the proposals were advised as to what the the Council's setback was and I don't think we should get too deep into the actual proposals further tonight. There will be more time to discuss the actual proposals. I think to add on to what David is saying, I think through the normal process of a project approval, the setback can be established. And conceivably, if ultimately the final setback is set, if you will, perhaps there can be a lot-line adjustment or something split, and that non-part of the lot that's not used for the project can return to be city property, open space, et cetera. So I think all that will get resolved as we move forward with the proposals, but this is just an interim step that really puts absolutely nothing in concrete, but it's a necessary step. Well, that's precisely where I was headed is why aren't we contemplating some sort of lot line adjustment that would be more consistent with the community and council discussions today before proceeding. Are we really at 60 of the interning to an agreement? We're a deal. And so before you answer that, actually, why don't you tell us yeah for how far we might be I mean it's so let me start with the first yeah let me start with the first part and a very valid concern council in regard to I sat through probably dozens literally dozens of meetings as did the city council in terms of public meetings regarding this setback issue and I think that Ultimately the city council through its approval of a contract or lease or sale would get to dictate Exactly what is being developed and what is being reserved for open space and I think that it would be prudent that as we move forward with the project at the same time the project moves forward that we would have that line adjustment that they can go hand in hand be approved together and all together. So that's I think an approach that it makes a lot of sense depending on what setback is ultimately decided upon. You've had something different than 45 but that's where we are today. With respect to the timeline, as I think most council members know, we did have two different processes. The state required notice availability of lands, as well as our own RFP process. They sort of have now merged. We've resulted in three projects on the Ramona lot site for affordable housing and two hotel proposals on the YWCA. Those projects have been presented to the public and the next step would be for the city manager and staff to present those to the city council. So in terms of timing that presentation at city council in terms of those sort of final top five finalists and really top two for the YWCA and top three for the remote a lot could be presented in the very near future. Oh, so give me an idea of process. Yeah, timing. What is very near future next month? Next week, next two weeks, we have a closed session scheduled for next Monday. No, you're standing up. But in terms of the public discussion of fitting counsel, which I hope we can have, where are we in the queue? Let's assume we both vote, well, we are going to vote with Monday's closed session. We will have that discussion. But what's the next step after that in turn? In terms of the plan? Sure, thank you, Council Member. I don't want to prejudge what direction the council may give us, but from the staff's perspective, we're hoping to effectively be able to, well, identify finalists and move forward before the end of the calendar year. I would need Mr. Reyes to tell me when sort of the first public presentation. The council would need to take an action on those. So I'm hopeful that we can do it again before the end of the calendar year, maybe in the month of November, it will depend on how the councilor sees the information next week. Well, let's assume for a moment that Monday, you know, we're all of one mind. We select, you know, as my colleague Mr. Madison says, usually, you, usually you ask eight of us for an opinion, you get 12 answers or something. There's 12 different opinions. But let's assume for a moment, best case scenario, and Monday, there's consensus or unanimity on where to proceed. Then in November, we come back at some point or early December with a recommendation that we can present to the public and have some airing in public debate. And we agree at that one meeting that we've got our project. How long do you anticipate in terms of negotiations time to finally come to enter into a contract to dispose of the property through these or sale in this case, please? Sure. Councilmember, let me try to answer it this way. Let's assume next week, as you the council's all of one mind and We enter into an ENA and exclusive negotiating agreement with let's say two different parties one for the North parcels and one for the South Presumably there could be a public announcement to that effect Immediately and so the public could know Sort of who the top picks are for either side of the street. Obviously, say as it relates to the north parcel, there'd have to be a determination of what's the appropriate level of environmental review. And in both cases, there would be some continuing negotiations. And ultimately, staff would return to the council with the results of that negotiations. But if your question is, how soon could we signal to the public who through the presentations we did a couple of weeks ago that Mr. Ray has put on, got a pretty good look at what the projects are. The public could know pretty soon, generally speaking, which projects are identified as sort of the top picks for each parcel, of course pending successful negotiation of whether it's a lease or a sale and appropriate environmental review, etc. Is that helpful? And then Council Member Gordon, maybe this helps us just a little bit to expand. So once the project is identified, they still need to submit an application and taking them one at a time with respect to the remonal lot, assuming those projects meet code, they would go to design review. And they would go to design, that's what's required. And in conjunction with design review, depending on what the project is, we would undertake the appropriate level of environmental review. And those would be just a recommendation, we'd forward those onto the city council just like we did with the Kimpton conditional use permit. And so those could go, depending on when they get an application in, and we get them in front of design review, we'd then bring them to city council. With respect to the YWC law, that's a little more challenging to sort of crystal ball because Depending on what the project is you know, there's an there's an approved EIR for that project There's some litigation going on depending on how that all plays out It's possible and depending on what the project is we would need to evaluate what the appropriate public review process for that would be At the very least it would go to design review and then to the city council as well. Well that's the piece that I'm looking for because Monday's session is a close session with a public, you know, isn't what could be to our deliberation. And it seems to me that you know the speed I get,. It's interesting to manage it. It seems that in your analysis, and I'm not suggesting this is what you intended, but your analysis fails to account for a public discussion in a public process, you know, consistent with our goals of transparency, particularly, well, on any subject, but particularly on a project that is important in this and where it is. And so, again, Monday's discussion, assume unanimity, and then we're just going to public it to weigh in. And when do we get to present as accounts, so at least the top two or top one projects that were contemplating move more forward with, so that the public in way didn't give its input. That's what I'm looking for. And I think Mr. Ray has started to outline across this, but I'm still not clear on the answer. And this is like, I didn't listen to the planning commission discussion, but this is like with the planning commission grappled with. And what's the preventive, for example, with once we have identified our top two choices, or even our top choice at the council for moving concurrently with the declaration that similar or is the one that's on the agenda so that the public can understand why what we're declaring surplus why we're doing it and what the project that we, as a council, has agreed on to move forward actually looks like. I'm just feeling like maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves here and declaring surplus property without the process and transparency that's needed. And I'm not convinced, without the process and transparency that's needed. And I'm not convinced, and I'm sure the planning commission was not that we should do that without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in. And when we present a project, one or two, or whatever the city managers are gonna recommend and whatever the will of the council is in close session. When we actually get to presenting it publicly with the council and the manager's input, we can also take this step concurrent with that, to give, as we enter to negotiations, to give proponents, whoever they may be competent, that were headed in good faith in the direction of entry into an agreement. The Council member Gordo, I would just remind everybody that is relates to this action, it only relates to the Ramona lot. There's three proposals for affordable housing, so everybody knows what's on offer. Those three projects were presented to the public. We had over 130 participants tune in for that presentation. The thought here is again to proceed, allow the council to give direction to the staff as to which of those three projects it feels are most in line with the council's goals. Could the council wait on taking this action? Certainly you could. It wouldn't change what the proposals are. They are what they are. But as I pointed out a few minutes ago, one concern is that we get to the end of our process, we negotiate everything and then we say, okay, but we can't do anything for 60 days because we have to do this. Meanwhile everyone's very eager to move forward with what is clearly going to be an affordable housing project on the Ramona lot and given the way that The economy is and certain uncertainties From from the staff's perspective. We think we should move forward But certainly we'll take whatever direction the council provides I'm not suggesting that that the delay I'm just suggesting that we We have just a little bit more clarity and I'm really I'm asking the questions to better understand the process and you know so so having any of the components requested that we take this action in order that they remain in the running to be selected. They haven't requested it, but it's a necessity. No, I understand it's a necessity. So they know they were advised that we were proceeding in this fashion. The question is at what point was it an necessity? And have we had enough public airing and transparency? I didn't know it's a really question for all of us as a council, but you're absolutely correct and that's my point is at this moment in time, whether or not we take this action, the proposals aren't going to change. It doesn't sound like any of the proponents are saying, you know, we're about to have this action to continue. And maybe that's a better question than the answer in closed session because I understand there may be legal sensitivities to that answer. And I don't know, I don't know, I've looked at security attorney, but maybe that's a question we should discuss, you know, how many of these? I'd like to hear public comment. Any other questions or comments, Mr. Romantic? Thank you, Mayor. It seems like the discussion is predictably kind of far-ranging from the specific item that's in front of us and that may be for good reason. But are there any objectors to this step tonight? May I ask the staff? Council Member Madison, I believe that the people who initiated litigation against the city earlier today sent a communication to the city clerk. I'm not sure if that was distributed to the council. Maybe the city attorneys can speak to that but my understanding is they were objecting to the action. Yes, that was distributed to the council. Those are stakeholders that oppose sort of what we want to do in and around Centennial Square. So other than that, are there any objectors? There were Mr. Madison, there were three letters that we received providing comments and or expressing concerns. I could pull those out and they were related to complying with the general plan policies with one letter urging the C not to declare parcel three as surplus land. And I would add this, Mr. Madison, we know that there are a large number of people who are interested in seeing an affordable housing project go forward on the Ramona site. And so I would take their support for that project to be sort of general support for this action since this is what it takes to bring that into fruition. Yeah, I totally agree. And my thing is just if we take this action, we still have full flexibility in terms of moving forward and there will be robust debate. I mean, partly I'm mindful of, you know, we're approaching the five hour mark on this meeting and life goes on, right? How long is public comment going to take to read? It's going to be a bit about 15 comments. Okay. Well, I'm supportive, but let's move on. I have one question if you don't mind. I just think this is a city attorney. Is there a point of you know this is on the pathway to trying to get to an outcome? Is there a scenario once you've declared it surplus that you know if we change your mind or can't get to a deal and are we locked in or is there way to wave the magical on and go backwards? Just because you declare surplus does not bind you to do anything in particular with the properties and yes you could always withdraw these resolutions. Okay so there's no downside I just want to make sure okay thank you. It may follow up, Mayor, So that was my question earlier. So we can unwind as soon as you know, what I'm looking for is flexibility as the Stramatic and puts it in a. And so we can unwind once we have public debating and agree on a finalist. We can then wind and do a lot of line adjustment and return or undeclare some of the property. If I may back up for just one second. One of the actions requested is that you exempt the property from competitive sale on the Ramona Street. If you were to go forward with some of the proposals before you, you couldn't done wind that piece because that's a necessary precursor to moving forward with those projects. However, when it comes to the surplus lands, declarations, which you would do instead would be frankly to refine them if you will. I wouldn't suggest you withdraw them assuming you're moving forward. You would then just move the lot lines like Mr. Reyes had suggested So that the city retained ownership over the portions that you want Hey, if you don't do a project if you if you drop the whole thing then yes, you can unwind everything There can we at least here we'll hear from the public comment now. Yeah Is there a downside to have a motion on the floor? No, no. You may make your motion by all means. Well, I would like to move staff's recommendations one, two, and three. I think we're moving in the right direction with my colleagues questions about being able to unwind. We wanted to, we have that flexibility in part. I think this is something that we wanted you as a council, particularly with the situation that we're facing as a body across the street with the YWCA. I would just, oh I'm sorry, I would know this is a public hearing. So you know in terms of order you would want to, you may announce your intent to do something later in terms of emotion but have the comments. Thank you for that, Minister. So the order is that we'd have to close the public hearing in the motion. OK, thank you. Right. Uh-oh, sitting returning. Thank you, Mayor. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, City. I've lost track here. Let's move to the public comment. OK. Teresa A. Tiffany from Runrovia. We need to do whatever we can to provide affordable housing. Teresa Tiffany. And by the way, Mayor, some of the public comments were related to item 18 as well. So they'll make reference to that and we'll just announce their names when we get to that item. So they were related to 16 and 18, but I'll move on. Sonia Burnt from Pasadena. I am a longtime resident of Pasadena. I am a long time resident of Pasadena. I am writing to encourage you to approve declaring the Ramona site surplus land because it makes good economic sense to build affordable housing on this site. The city's RFP states that the project should serve as a catalyst for continued economic growth and provide economic benefits. That was a quote from page 5. As you know, affordable housing is an economic stimulus since it is required to have 20% local hires, 20% local contractors, and 20% local materials. This will bring millions of dollars to the Pasadena economy at a time when such an influx of funds is urgently needed. Financial considerations are not the only reason to use this site for affordable housing, however, the need for affordable and supportive housing, especially for families, is critical. Homeless people who currently sleep on and around this vacant property desperately need housing. As a person of faith, I believe we have a moral imperative as well as financial incentive to use this site for affordable and supportive housing. The prophet Zachariah tells us that the Lord Almighty calls us to quote administer true justice show mercy and compassion to one another end quote. Thank you. Fern Hayes Pasadena. I am ready to urge you to approve declaring the Ramona site surplus lands that you can consider the excellent proposals that have been submitted by outstanding affordable housing developers. A boat, bridge and national core slash union station all have proven track records in our city and they have expended considerable time and effort to come up with worthy proposals for affordable family housing that fit with the design and beauty of our Civic Center. I would also recommend including the component of supportive housing on this site. In addition, a public courtyard and a cafe and shops that will attract visitors will help to vitalize and activate the center of our city near City Hall. Please continue this project forward without further delay. Taking ten years to approve a YWCA project has already threatened the outcome. Affordable housing deficits loom over the city. Please take every opportunity to ameliorate this problem and strive to get ahead of the wave of housing and security. Thank you, Fern Hayes, Pasadena Reson for 49 years. A Rita Crowell, Pasadena. I remember the Pasadena Presbyterian Church, which has a long record of working for social justice in the city. We attest the critical need for more affordable housing and strongly support the affordable housing developments proposed for the Ramona site at the Civic Center. Every week we see the need for housing as we serve 50-70 persons who are or have experienced homelessness. One of our cooks for those meals has herself experienced homelessness. While the target arena goals are high, there is no denying the need for affordable housing is huge and growing. To declare this site a surplus and open it for affordable housing, we'll enable the city to ensure the addition of 90 to 100 units. The waiting list for Section 8 housing is over 23,000. The last housing element indicated that 36% of Pasadenains are of low or very low income. 76% of 16,730 lower income renters pay more than 30% of their income on rent. These are shameful numbers. Taking action to proceed with the developments which have already put in time and energy and resources to planning for the designated site is urgently needed now. From Renee Aldridge, who is one who submitted for both item 16 and 18, I am writing to encourage you to approve declaring the Ramona site surplus land because it makes good economic sense to build affordable housing on this site. The city's RFP states that the project should quote, serve as a catalyst for continued economic growth and provide economic benefits. As you know, affordable housing is an economic stimulus. This is similar to Miss Burns comments mayor. So she agrees with Miss, with, with Miss burnt. Marsha Rude, Pasadena. The city's municipal code defines surplus property as quote, real property of the city not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose." The city council cannot make these findings. A. The green spaces or quote civic gardens located at Garfield and Holly are needed for the purpose for which they were acquired. They are part of the publicly approved 1923 Civic Center City beautiful city plan, which includes, quote, grounds and approaches, unquote, to City Hall, and currently serve that purpose. Two-thirds of these green spaces will be lost if surplus for development. B, also these public green spaces are currently used for, quote, for any other public purpose, unquote. The adopted general plan land use element the Central District specific plan the green space and open space elements all call for more open slash green space in the central district. So that was part of number one number two they can the city can add the civic center green space the city's list of dedicated park lands as was done by the city council on March 11, 2019 for the new playhouse village park Number three furthermore the city council has the power to resound the civic center green space from commercial use to open space last park use Gloria Newton Pasadena. I want to thank the City Council for your smart decision in prioritizing affordable housing on the Ramona site. Now it's time to take the next step and approve declaring the Ramona site surplus land so it can actually be used for affordable housing. The need for affordable housing continues to increase due to the pandemic and economic downturn. And we as citizens and city leaders must act quickly to move forward on all projects that will help to address this crisis. As a 32 year resident of Pasadena, a homeowner and a person of faith, I want to be able to proudly say that my city cares about the lives of all of its residents, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Please act today to make additional affordable housing in the Civic Center of reality. From Bert Newton, Pasadena, Dear Mayor and City Council, I'm writing in support of the Planning Department staff recommendation that the Remount of Property be declared surplus land exempt from sequest so it can be used for affordable housing. As you know, the surplus land act requires local agencies such as cities and transit agencies to prioritize affordable housing on such land. As the Planning Department staff noted, using the site for affordable housing is consistent with the general plan. The City Council already issued an RFP prioritizing affordable housing on this site for which there is an urgent need. Developers have presented excellent proposals for affordable and supportive housing. I urge you to take the steps necessary so that these proposals can be considered and approved and construction of much needed affordable housing can begin. From Edwischotka representing Pasadena's organizing for progress, housing justice committee in Pasadena. Honorable Mayor and Council members, Pasadena's organizing for progress pop asked the City Council to support the staff recommendation that the property located at 78 North Morango 255 East Union 95 North Garfield and 280 Ramona be declared surplus land. The parts that led to 80 in Ramona has been in public trust for nearly a century. There is no higher civic use for public property in these times than ensuring that people of all incomes can continue to be part of our community Ensuring a diverse and inclusive community makes this an urgent priority for all of Pasadena Centennial Square in front of City Hall stands empty most days of the year Adding additional residents to the Civic Center along with modest ground floor retail and dining uses Will help activate the open space and pump lifeblood into the city's civic heart. This is an opportunity to provide for much needed affordable housing, add to the vitality of the urban core, and architecturally enhance the civic center with a well designed new building. Respectfully, Ed Weshaka, Chair of Pops Housing Justice Committee, along with members Kimberly Douglas, Lauren Young, and Rick Cole. From Jill, Suzanne Shook, Pasadena. Please designate the Civic Center properties of surplus land so that much needed affordable housing can be allowed. Please consider are we in a housing crisis or a homeless crisis? Do we not believe it is necessarily a homeless crisis but actually a housing crisis? We do not believe it is necessarily a homeless crisis but it actually a housing crisis. Cities are to have housing for all income levels and we also believe this is a deeply spiritual and moral crisis of values. Yes, we want a vibrant, beautiful city. But the good news is that we can have both beauty and do the right thing without standing affordable housing developers to choose from. Several delicious pieces of chocolate cake to chew on, as Anthony said, or may say. And more good news is with the 2020 rule. This will not only build sorely needed housing, but produce local jobs local contract contacts probably local contracts and local business. I love living in a city that believes in the in the value of affordable housing please make sure this happens in the civic center. Anthony Manuso Pasadena as the co-founder of making housing and community happen I was encouraged to see that over 50 people have written in support of affordable housing at the Civic Center and allowing churches to build affordable housing on their excess land. This is not surprising since churches feel it's a core part of their mission to address the affordable housing and homelessness crisis. First, Baptist Church, along with many others, have indicated that they support affordable, supportive housing at the Civic Center. From the poll we conducted 17 churches are interested in having affordable housing on their land with the potential of 1,177 units if a congregational land overlay zone is passed. 95% of churches would support a congregational land overlay zone to help other churches build their build housing on their land. Additionally 19 churches nearly half of all respondents would say would allow safe parking on their churches, churches parking lots. And 11 churches were open to having a FEMA trailer on their property. Please take to heart what the religious community is telling you. Do what's right and make housing our low income and homeless neighbors a top priority. Churches are also willing to do their part to be part of the solution. Mark, was that, or eight? Yeah, as I was reading it, Council Member, it seemed like it was for 18, but it says here 16. I double checked as I was reading. So it likely is for 18 as well. reading. So it likely is for 18 as well. From Phillip Burns, Pasadena, in support of declaring the site surplus land. From Carol Daly who puts down 16 and 18 on hers from Manorovia, dear honorable mayor and city council members, my name is Carol Daly and I am co-founder of Foot Hills Kitchen which operates in Manorovvia. Why are we interested in affordable housing and Pasadena? Because you're hungry and unhoused Pasadena citizens come to us for a meal. Out of the 53 we served this past weekend we had 22 of your citizens show up for a meal. They come for the food and then they return to their home on the street in Pasadena. They need homes they can afford. They formerly had homes there in friends. We desperately need more affordable housing in Pasadena. You have two great opportunities for affordable housing in your city. One, the potential of affordable housing on the water and power site in the Civic Center. Two, temporary shelter and affordable housing on church land. You are so blessed that you already have churches in your city that show interest in putting affordable housing on their own lots to help with the housing shortage. A congregational land overlay plan seems like such a quote no brainer. May we please count on your support of taking advantage of these two opportunities. Thank you sincerely Carol Carol daily Reverend Rich McCullough in Pasadena as the lead minister of mission gathering Pasadena formerly known as Pasadena Christian church in Perent's disciples of Christ We see an amazing an amazing opportunity for churches within the Pasadena city to utilize their properties for affordable housing for so many young families that cannot afford to live in our city anymore. Our city is literally shutting down elementary schools because families cannot afford to live here. Mission Gathering Pasadena has over two acres of property that is basically unused. Which can facilitate a beautiful modern condo apartment complex for the low to middle income families for our beautiful city. It is time for our city council to move forward on this pressing need, especially when the answer is right in front of us, Reverend Richard McCullan. And again, that said item 16 on their comments. Item 16, Kimberly Douglas Pasadena, my sense of logic is the city has a goal, a great need for affordable housing. if it had the funding It would possibly make it happen, but the city doesn't have such funding so it can't fulfill this important city objective That makes 280 Ramona Street surplus So that another entity can And that's the end of the public comment there Thank you mr. Clark Do we have a and that's the end of the public comment. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? We'll close the public hearing. Second. We'll have a roll call on that. Sorry. Council Member Gordo. Council Member Kennedy. Yes. Council Member Madison. Yes. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor McCormick. Councillor Yes motion is approved for that opposition a mayor. I'd like to move staff's recommendation one two and three and It is understood that the comments questions That I've been asked by my colleagues Been answered in part in those that have not been answered. The expectation is that they will be answered very soon if not on Monday. So that's my motion. Second. There's a motion in the second. Further discussion? Yes. Yes, Madam McCostan. Yeah, I just wanted to mention a couple of things. One of them is, I think it's important. I think we're sending an important message to the public when we talk about including the public and letting them out. But it's starting to surplus so early so we can facilitate the timeline. We're sending it, you know, this is lightning speed for the city. Well, we think about how long it took us on, you know, to do anything on the Y, and how recently we decided, you know, affordable housing was right to the site. So I think we're spending a message to the affordable housing community and the whole community that we're very curious about this site and we want to move forward. I think that's important. I also want to mention that I did attend the workshops or the presentations on the Affordable Having Project. I'm quite sure David Reyes has already got that online. The planning department, but I just want to really interesting, great presentations and, you know, if you have that a chance to look at it yet or point your constituents to it, I think it's definitely worth watching. Thank you, Council Member. I think, uh, I want to speak on this for a second. I, I couldn't agree with Council Member MacAuston more. I think that the, uh, the reason that it's important for us to act with regard to the surplus declaration on the Ramona property is to demonstrate that the council is firmly committed to moving ahead with affordable housing and the Civic Center in conjunction with the redevelopment of the YW. So I think that what we've concluded as a body is that we need to do both. We need to see the YWCA renovated and we also need to see the dream of more affordable housing built on the city property on Ramona realized simultaneously. I think it's important not to unhitch those two. And so I think that the public comments you heard tonight were reflecting the sense of urgency that people have about making sure that we remain fully committed to the affordable housing component of what we're gonna be doing on both sides of the street. And so I support it very much. Are there any further comments from council members? If not, let's call the roll. If I can just sort of... Gorda, yeah, you know, I... I'm prepared to take this leap of faith, but I do feel compelled to say that, you know, that we have to be respectful of the discussions that we've had today in terms of setbacks. And so, you know, if this is an action that can be reversed in action that doesn't bind us in any way in terms of setbacks, and I for one would say that we have to be respectful of the setbacks as we discuss them as a council and as a community. I'm prepared to go forward, but I still, a little bit of an easier, but including the lines that see them on the slide four I think it was. But I just want to make clear that in my view, that doesn't mean in North-South anyone I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry a grow call please. Council Member Gordo. Yes. Council Member Kennedy. Yeah. Council Member Madison. Yes. Council Member Moussouda. Yes. Council Member MacAustin. Yes. Council Member Wilson. Yes. Vice Mayor Hampton. Yes, Mayor Tornick. Yes, the motion is approved without opposition. Thank you and thank you for all the thoughtful comments, all the comments. Next we have the recommendations with regard to the ballot measures. I'd like to with regard to the ballot measures. I'd like to provide a little clarification of what happened and suggest a course of action that might be respectful of the importance of these issues, but also it'd be mindful of what Council Member Madison has pointed out in terms of the length of the meeting. The ledge policy, there are a bunch of ballot questions as you all know that are on the ballot and many people in the city have already received their ballots, I'm told. So that this is very timely in terms of looking for guidance or at least recognition on the part of the council of which which ones may have significant impact for the city and what the city council's position is on them to the extent we have a position on them. It is we had a little bit of a peculiar situation in the sense that alleged policy committee only had two of the three members there when we met. And so in some instances there was an in there was kind of a split decision so we couldn't make a recommendation. And in some instances the two of us agreed and so we sent it forward with a specific recommendation. So that my suggestion rather than going through these one at a time and debating them or having each of us describe our personal position on any of these is that with regard to all each of these ballot measures that we move through and rather than having a elaborate discussion on any one of them in particular, that we move through them and if there's a council member that wants to make a motion or has a question, if there are questions, certainly they should be asked and answered. But if there's a desire on the part of any member of the council, for the council to take a position on one of these, they should make a motion to either support or oppose the particular ballot measure. And the reason I suggest that is that we're not under any obligation to take positions on these, for the most part, in the past, on ballot measures. We've only taken, we've only made specific recommendations where there was an issue that there was general consensus among the council members, and where it had a direct obvious impact on the city, and where it had a direct obvious impact on the city and where it had significant bearing on how we would be able to conduct our business or our finances. So we can if the council wants to have a staff presentation on each one of these bond measures, I mean, I beg your pardon, propositions and other measures. But I would suggest that we just sort of move through, in some instances, alleged policy recommended a neutral position, which means that we would not take a position. And some, there was no recommendation because we couldn't agree. So that's my suggestion to the council. Take the slideshow away for a minute so we can see everybody. Thank you. I don't control that. So that is my suggested course of action. But if you like, we can sort of move through these one at a time. Have the, we've got a matrix that is the horizontal summary version of what the staff report or what the report from leg policy is that I offered more or less. And that's my recommendation to you all. If you have a different point of view, please let me know. Mayor, this is Mark. I would just mention to you We have a number of public comments on measure J That you may want to hear before you take a vote on anything also. There's public comments on prop 15 measure Oh as well as any Outmeasure I was going to move through them quickly Mark and just ask if anybody wanted to raise their hand on it. And if there's a public comment, of course, we'll hear that. Sure. On each of these, that we have to hear that. OK. Let's speak. OK. Council Member Madison, please. Thank you, Mayor. My only concern about that approach is there's really one biggie that we care about here, more than we do about the others. And that's our own measure. I think voting and formally endorsing is one purpose of this discussion, but another purpose is for the community to hear. And so if there's some way for you to see your way clear to accommodate the importance of that issue. Yes sir. Even in preparing for this meeting, I got concerns that were sort of flooding our own very important initiative and these other things, you know. I couldn't agree more. And since the council devised Measure J and I beg your pardon, since the council measure P as in Pasadena, then we are absolutely obligated and we've already taken a position on this and we need to remind people of what that is and why that is. So you're absolutely right. In fact, if you like, we don't have to follow the numerical sequence. It may be that the two measures, which are the local measures on the ballot that are purely Pasadena measures, is where we should start. And I would say that it would be a fair point based on your suggestion that we should start with Measure P, which I've reminded everyone stands for Pasadena, and the council's position on equivocally is that we should pass P, which is why we put it on the ballot and why several of us signed the argument in support of it. So I think there was a little bit of a misstep at ledged policy in the sense that in our we're not allowed the city is not allowed to expend funds. Promote the measure. Marguerite you're a speaker. But we are not precluded from taking a position, which in fact we've already done. And the reminder for everyone is that with regard to Measure P, the City Services Protection measure is that it will continue the practice that we've had for 40 some odd years to transfer funds from the power fund to the general fund in a manner that allows us to preserve city services. Now this has been, we believe it's in the charter and that it's been approved by voters I think seven times before, but because of some litigation we were advised it would make sense to bring it back to the voters for reaffirmation again and that if measure P were to fail it would punch an $18 million whole in our budget and result in a very serious and result in a very serious reduction in important city services. And so the council unanimously supported putting this measure on the ballot. And we are all in support of it. And we are there is a fear that this seems so obscure and technical that it may not get the attention it deserves and that it's important that the as Councilmember Madison has suggested that we reaffirm our support of measure P. Councilmember McAuliffe. Thank you Mayor. Sorry, I stepped over to the dining table for a moment. Anyway, I just wanted to bring up, I did descend it off at end today in support of Measure P, which I hope will be in the newspapers shortly, but I just wanted to mention that since I've been chair of the Municipal Services Committee for so many for a long time. That's where we see, you know, that's where we see the nuts and bolts of municipal work. You know, sidewalks and water and power and but measure P brings us $18 million a year that we use on parks and streets and city services, you know, and just paramedics. I mean, it's the essential city services that are so important to the people of Pasadena. And so, you know, it's not a big sexy measure that's going to bring a lot of new stuff to Pasadena. It's no new money. It's no new tax. I think sexy measure that's going to bring a lot of new stuff to pass a deal is it's no new money, it's no new tax, it's nearly reaffirming what we're already doing, but we just have to impress upon the voters how essential it is to retain this money given that we've lost $30 million because of COVID and that was just in the first you know two years, two budgets and people in Pasadena want us to address homelessness. You know they want us to address their problems and that's exactly what we do with the general fund money that comes in from from the utility. So just really, really, you know, important that we all support this. It's so important for our city. Thank you, too. That's all, Mayor. Are there any other Councilor Rosordo? Yeah, a measure fee, I just want to chime in. It is, in my view, you know, it's, it's a reinvestment. You know, One of the important things about having all of utility is one, you know, it serves as well and has service well for a long time. I remember when the question was up, whether or not we should at least part of utility, not the water slide, but the electric slide, whether we should privatize it. And I think it serves us well to keep the utility and have better control rates and services. And I think people have to recall as Council Member McCostan and all of us believe that this is really, this is reaffirming, was already there, and really the residents return on investment into the utility, return on investment so that we can invest in parks and public safety and every other area that we invest in, that's important to the quality of life and to the services that distinguishes the city from every other area that we invest in that's important to the quality of life and to the services that distinguishes the city from every other city. And so, Measure P really is something that we need to reaffirm and recognize as our own return as residents on the investment into that utility. Thank you Mr. Gon. Council Member Kennedy. I would ask Council Member McAustin, did she want or was she seeking to make an emotion just about P. So I'd like to see that one of the time. Well, I think, OK, let me just say this. I want to specifically speak to District 3. This is critically important that we support for the reasons that Councilmember MacAustin as the chair of Municipal Services is outlined. And she has shared with us that she has prepared an op-ed in reference to measure P. It is critically important that we receive the requisite vote from all of you in District 3 to support hopefully the same in all the other districts in the city. We must have this to go forward as a healthy city. We're already under significant pressure, if you will, because of COVID and other serious issues, including in some respect, pain bonds at the Rose Bowl. So, some of this is unavoidable. It has worked very well, and we are just doing what our council has advised us to do. So, I hope that all of my neighbors and friends in District 3 and then throughout the whole city will, you know, will gravitate to this, will support it, will tell your friends about it and make sure that we get this pass so we can continue to provide excellent service to our community. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to second Margaret Councilmember MacAuston's motion. All right, so Councilmember MacAuston's motion is to, is that the Council support the passage of Measure P, take a support position and Councilmember Kennedy. The second is that Councilmember Wilson? Yeah, I'm certainly echo this sentiment of my colleagues and I think it's important to point out, you know, the voters, the significant way approved measures I and J and if for some reason, measure P does not pass the dollars that we brought into the city essentially under those initiatives would essentially evaporate because you know this each and million dollars of this conveyance from the power power flood and I think we're for virtual for the support of the community and measure I and Jay and you know if this doesn't pass it's going to set us back in a major way. So once again, I'll just like John's both to his residence, I'll speak to District 7 and ask them to continue to support the effective operation of our city and our critical services. Thank you. Clerk will call the roll. I'm sorry, do we have any public comment on this one no, I would have said so mayor This is for measure P only councilmember Gordo Yeah, councilmember Kennedy yep councilmember Madison Yes, councilmember missuda. Yes councilmember McAustin Councilmember Moussouda. Councilmember McGostin. Councilmember Wilson. Vice Mayor Hampton. Mayor Tornick. Support for measure P. Thank you. Pass without opposition. Thank you. Next we have the other local, locally sponsored measure is measure O, which is a bond measure to support upgrades at PUSD facilities. And it is a critical measure adopted by the school board to provide improvements in technologies and of the physical plant remaining at the PUSD. It includes provisions for independent citizens oversight committee and it is opposed by the pastina chamber of commerce and they've submitted a letter so we'll hear from them directly. The Ledge Policy Committee, the two members present, voted to support this measure. I think that this measure is a lot of money, although it's a little misunderstood in the sense that it doesn't all roll in at once. It's layered in over time as the expenditures are made. It's a critical opportunity for the district to make repairs and upgrade facilities at a whole host. There's a long, long list of improvements on the website that explains what improvements will be made with these funds. And both Councilmember Moussouda and I are in support of this measure. I don't know, Jean, if you have anything, Dan. Thank you, Mayor. I do have something to add. We had a great discussion about it, and Mayor Tornick and I support this strongly. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Yeah, obviously super supportive of our school district and our public education system. Unfortunately, my position is that I'm going to abstain from voting on this only to the extent that I had a chance to do the research. And frankly, I was hopeful that the school district would be a little further ahead in terms of consolidating their campuses, leasing out their headheds in location. And I feel like, you know, in terms of vouching for fiscal stewardship, a half billion dollars is a tremendous amount of money. That's more money than the city spent, come all combined between the massive upgrades at the Rose Bowl, the full restoration, the city hall, and the expansion, the convention center. So I'm absolutely supportive of continuing to invest in our school system, the school district, but half billion dollars, given that it's unclear that they have really taken some of the hard leadership choices around consolidating their campuses given the very significant reduction in their attendance. I'm not gonna oppose it, but I'm gonna abstain from voting and just support it. Understood. Thank you, Mr. Wolfen. Anybody else? All right Looks have they any further comments or questions. There's a public comment mayor Thank you, please So this is on prop 15 and measure O so I'll just read it from Paul little chamber of passing chamber of commerce Please do not vote to support any measures that will cost your businesses money. Tax increases that would come with passage of prop 15 and measure O will be passed into commercial and residential will be passed on to commercial and residential tenants. Already suffering local small businesses will bear these increases putting their future viability that much more and that much more in jeopardy. Want to save the local bookstore? Don't increase their tax burden. Want to keep rents from going up? Don't increase the tax on landlords who will pass the costs on to tenants. Wouldn't omit be much more prudent to wait two years? And I think what he meant to say was wouldn't it be much more prudent to wait two years until the economy is settled out we can hope in friends before increasing taxes on anyone even two school board members objected to putting measure O on the ballot please join those two and do the prudent thoughtful thing and not support measure O on or prop 15 thank thank you, Paul Little. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. All right, would you call the roll, please, Martin. Sure. Council Member Porto? Yes. Council Member Kennedy. Yes? Council Member Madison? Yes. Council Member Moussouda? Yes. Council Member Moussouda. Yes. Councilmember McAustin. Councilmember McAustin, are you there? Okay absent. Councilmember Wilson. I'm abstain. Vice Mayor Hampton. Vice Mayor Hampton is absent Mayor Tornick. Yes. The motion passes five in favor one abstention to absent. Okay. Thank you. Now maybe we'll go back and you just follow, go back to page one and just go through numerically. The process I suggest it is if there, if nobody has a desire to make a motion one way or another, we'll just pass, which means we won't take a position. So we don't, we don't need to have a full discussion or any discussion on it. Can I maybe suggest that the next, an expert if can we see if anyone maybe a front has specific things rather than going line by line? Well, it'll just it'll just take a minute to go through a manny that way. Because otherwise we'll be jumping back and forth. So let's just let's just Juan J. Anybody want to move the item 14 from 14 the stem cell research initiative. Is there public comment, Mark? Not on prop 14, that's not listed. All right. Prop 15, which is the blockbuster, at least in terms of dollar spent on TBS. And we've already heard from the Chamber of Commerce on this. Prop 15 is the the so-called split role tax initiative. Is there a desire for anyone to move on this one? I'm going to ask the mayor to make a move. Mayor do you have a public comment that relates to prop 15 and also relates to prop 20? Okay. This one is from Bert Newton, Pasadena. Dear mayor and city council, I am disappointed that the legislative policy committee is recommending endorsement of Proposition 20. This proposition is aimed at putting more people in prison, which means more poor people and people of color. They just on the comments that we're on. It's going to break confusion. Okay. Come back to his point of comments when we get to 20. All right. Additionally, I urge the City Council to support Proposition 15. This proposition closes a property tax loophole for large corporations while protecting all residential property and giving small businesses a tax break It will bring upwards of four billion dollars into LA County for schools and other community needs such as affordable housing and healthcare And then he goes on to speak about measure J Okay So anybody want to raise their hand on 15? Okay move ahead Okay. So anybody want to raise their hand on 15? Okay. Move ahead. 16. 16 is enormously controversial as well. This is the affirmative action provision that would roll back Prop 209, I think it was 209, that passed in 1996. I would be happy to just for consideration put it on move it and he supports and hopefully a seconder from this body. So we have a motion for support on pops this theme, which would allow diversity as a factor and rollback the provisions of Prop 209. Is there a second on taking a positive action on recommending Prop 16. I'll second. For discussion. Oh, there. Do we have any comments on Prop 16? No, Mayor. Well, let me just say for the record at least, no matter what ultimately occurs, the objective is simply to say that it can be used as one factor. Diversity is one factor. And if you think about in any business, the greater the diversity in a business is the greater the outcome for a business. You may recall that there were African-American women who worked for our federal government who calculated the trajectory of different shifts that had to go to the moon and elsewhere. They never received credit. My point is diversity makes us stronger, not weaker. And I believe this measure advances that concept. Is it perfect? No. Does it say you must do? No. It just simply says one factor for consideration of the particular body. So I'm strongly in support of this measure. And I hope that there would be enough members of such a diverse city that we would find the necessary votes to move this forward as a council recognizing the diversity in our community. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I second that. I think Prop 209 is one of the low points in California State history. And I think rolling back that would be the right thing to do. I think as John says, it doesn't mandate anything apart from creating an opportunity to sort of rights and systemic and historic wrongs. So I'm strongly supportive of Drops 16. Any other comments from council members, Mr. Gorder? No, I agree. I'm wondering why, I mean, some of these issues, what one of the complaints I received from members of the public is why we didn't take these issues up earlier and waited for such a late day. And what one of the concerns I have with the report is it doesn't highlight any of the discussion at legislative committee or the basis for why or why not. But I agree with you on this one, this is something that corrects on the state of the past. But why isn't the report highlight some of these arguments for? Well, the objective, Mr. Gordo, the objective, the report, this is just intended as a summary. The advocacy and the arguments are laid out in the ballot measures and the, you know, the detail that every voter gets to make their own judgments. The leg policy doesn't undertake to sort of restate or re-study or re-document all the arguments that are made, Po and Con, on each measure. It's really just sort of a summary review to see which ones are most impactful for the city and that the council might or might not want to take a position on. So it was not an attempt to do an exhaustive recasting of the information that's made available by the state and all the ballot arguments and all the analysis that goes into the proposition. We've never done that of alleged policy and we didn't do it this time. And this would be role picking up in the same meeting. Yes. And we added that said we only had two members present so you know we did the best we could. All right any further comments on the prop 16 level roll call. Councilmember Cordo. Yes. Councilmember Gordo. Yes? Okay. Councilmember Kennedy. You? Councilmember Madison? Yes. Councilmember Moussouda? Yes. Councilmember McAustin? Absent. Councilmember Wilson. absent. Vice Mayor Hampton. absent. Mayor Tornick. Yes. Motion is approved five in favor known against. Okay. Prop 17. Prop 18. Prop 19. This is the very, this is the really confusing one about transferring a basis on property tax and we, we, the committee suggested we stay out of this argument. Prop 20 has to do with making modifications to some definitional issues relating to how various sentences are classified. There were some, I think it's seen as sort of a cleanup for revision to earlier changes in terms of scaling down the number of crimes that were treated as misdemeanors. As you can see in the right up here, it talks about death crimes that are less than $950. And this is supported by the police chief and the committee suggested that we support this. This would be, we think of a revision that would serve us well in terms of how some crimes are classified and provide more flexibility in terms of what courts could do in sentencing. A mayor, I have a question for you. Please. Did you say that our police chief supports this? Yes. Okay. I you say that our police chief supports this? Yes. Okay. I'd like to move it. Please prop 20. I'm sorry. 20, yes. Mayor, I should read the public comment before we take the motion. Maybe. Or could we have to reject the motion? Sure. We have a motion in a second. Now we'll have the public comment. This is from Bert Newton. Dear Mayor and City Council, I am disappointed that the Leslie Policy Committee is recommending endorsement of Proposition 20. This proposition is aimed at putting more people in prison, which means more poor people and people of color behind bars. It would authorize felony charges for some crimes currently classified as misdemeanors, limit access to parole programs established for nonviolent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses, cost the state tens of millions of dollars. Please oppose Proposition 20. Thank you. I think that the base upon that particular letter or comment or testimony, I'd like whoever on the legal team to tell us or pining that that is in fact correct. Julie, do you have any information that you'd like to share? No, I don't have additional information that we haven't provided already. This is Michelle Bonnery's. I would just note that with AB 109 in Proposition 47, a lot of offenses that were felonies were rolled back to misdemeanors. And one of the consequences of that was more people who had committed crimes that had previously been felonies being released earlier than they would be under those circumstances. So this is, as I understand it and I haven't researched it thoroughly but that is one aspect of Prop 20 that would roll circumstances back to, in some respects, those circumstances. The way this was presented, John, just so I can in terms of the discussion we had. The way this was presented was the landmark changes that were made by AB 109 in 2011, Prop 47 in 2014 and Prop 57 in 2016, were all designed to stop sort of needless incarceration of people and to reduce the states inmate population. And after several years of experience, and a lot of years of experience with AB 109, I think this was designed as a recommendation that would correct some of the excesses that resulted and inappropriate results that resulted from those reforms. This was viewed as a kind of a reform of some of those dramatic changes. And that some of the replacifications that happened in those reforms had gone too far and created an opportunity where people were able to perform a series of crimes and essentially not be punished for it, and that with regard to the clarification with regard to violent crimes, that the definition needed to be redefined in order to accurately reflect some pretty dramatic crimes that were no longer defined as violent and we're resulting in early parole for people that really probably shouldn't be on the street. So that this is not a wholesale, at least from my perspective, is not a wholesale repeal of those reform measures from 2011, 14 and 16, but really sort of a modification based on experience that we've had in terms of repeat offenders and that this was a warranted change. So the LEGPOLITY Committee voted to support to recommend that the council support Prop 20. So I just have one quick question based upon the summary that was provided on page 6. They would, does this measure in fact, because I haven't received my receive my ballot yet would reclassify certain crimes of theft between $250 and $950 as a felony? It would be some theft crimes and that was the number before, AB 109. And so it would create for certain offenses and I don't have the list in front of me of thefts in that range which would be consistent with how the categorization existed previously. But John, it's chargeable. It's chargeable, not automatic. And what is now city attorney? 950 or over 950. It would be a felony if it's over 950. And this- I would allow myself to draw my motion mayor. Sure. Second the motion. Absolutely. I would like to withdraw it and I appreciate that. Right. Mr. Wilson was the seconder. Mr. Wilson, do you want to make the motion? I'll be happy to make the motion. Is there a second? I'll be a second. Mr. Masuda. Thank you. Any further discussion? We had one public comment. Any more Mark? Not after what I've read. No. Not on 20 that I can see. Any further discussion on this item? Here's with the view give a committee again where the disadvantage, Mayor, you chair of the committee. What was the discussion of the committee? Pretty much what we just had. We had some discussion from the police chief because we had seen that the California Police Chiefs Association and the probation officers had supported it. We asked him what his position was and he described, I've done a bad job, but I tried to sort of recount what he presented in terms of the reaction to the earlier reforms that are outlined in the staff report. AB 109, Prop 47 and Prop 57. So he was supportive of this proposition. Mayor, that carries a lot of weight with me. I think our police chief is very measured and would be nice to have him here to talk about this. But if he thinks this is something that's going to help him or effectively do his job in our community, then I want to say I'm happy to move this. Mr. Hampton, do you have a comment? Yeah, you know, I've been getting a really bad reception. So I'm in chop and backing forth. But outside of measure, oh, and measure P that are actually directly connected to pass it in a I mean I Don't think the city should be taking steps So I'm just gonna say that and I'm not gonna vote on This measure, but I just don't think it's appropriate for the city to take me Stances on something that doesn't really necessarily directly in fact the city of Athens. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, any further comment on Mr. Gordell? We were recalling during the police oversight discussion that once a motion was made, it couldn't be retracted as to how how this different. If the second there of the motion allows the primary mover of the motion to withdraw their primary motion, it is allowed under Robert Rules of Order. And the basis of your question is, exactly what? Well, I'm asking the city attorney, thank you for. Okay. No problem. He did actually, Mr. Kennedy did actually communicate it. I don't remember, I remember some of the specifics, but here the seconder did allow that and actually made the motion, made a new motion which is now seconded. So I recall that being also the case in the previous discussion, I think it's inconsistent, but I would be opinion on that even. Okay. Okay. So with that we have a motion and a second. Let's have a roll call. Council Member Gordo. Sorry. Council Member Gordo. Yeah. Thank you. Council Member Kennedy. I'm seeing. Council Member Madison. Yes. Council Member Moussouda. Yes. Council Member McGMadison. Yes. Councillor Marra-Massuda. Yes. Councillor Marra-McGostin. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Vice Mayor Hampton. Oh, he's indicated he's going to abstain. Okay, abstain or abstain? He's there. Mayor Tornick. Yes. Motion passes six in favor to abstentions. Maybe one. Mayor could I ask in response to the vice mayor's position question of it would be helpful to maybe set up the framework as to on which of these things do we think it's appropriate for the city to take the position. Well, that's what I tried to do that Andy at the outset in terms of saying that we should you know that for the most part the reason I suggested the format I did was because I think in most instances where we're not taking we shouldn't be taking positions but where we thought they were issues that had a measurable and direct and perceptible impact on the city that was not inappropriate for the voters to wonder what the council's position was. So on most of these, you'll see that the county, the Ledge Policy Committee recommended neutral or no position. In fact, on the balance of these, with one exception that we're going to get to, we recommended that we not take a position. Well, I think it may be helpful for some consistency for alleged policy to kind of have a checklist of what would qualify as something that we think has an impact. I'm actually not suggesting right now, but at least we could, because your opinion or my opinion of what would qualify may be different if we could say, hey, that's a reasonable lens to use. Then we wouldn't end up, I think, with some confusion that we're having here today. Okay. Yeah, terrible confusion. And I think this is a disappointing report. And again, I'm just not at all helpful. Okay. Or anyone. All right. With regard to the balance, 21, 22, that's the Uber. Lots of money being spent on that one too. 23 is the dialysis one. Consumer privacy. 25 is cash bail. 26 is the only, is the last one that the committee recommended we take a position on. This is a, this does affect us in a very direct way. This was a decision by the county supervisors to allocate an allocation of at least a minimum amount 10% of the county budget to alternatives. Mayor, you meant measure J? You said 26. No, Jesus. Measure. Okay. Thank you. 26 in my numerology. Measure J was a 4-to-1 vote by the supervisors. Our supervisor, Catherine Barger, voted against it with regard to what's been called ballot box budget allocation. This is a minimum allocation of the general fund, the county general fund to specific enumerated uses that has been widely debated in terms of what its impacts might be going forward, loss of flexibility. But it really was viewed, I think, by the proponents as a measured and direct response to the human cry to make sure that funds were appropriately allocated to non-public safety uses and the county supervisors were trying to reflect the passionate observations by members of the public that there should be a reallocation of how public resources are spent. Why move it? Mayor, this is the one that has substantial amount of public comment on this one. Okay, let's hear it. Let's hold off before the motion, John. Yes, sir. So this first few are basically saying the same thing and using a lot of the same language. So I'll read the first one and then call out the names. The first one is Alison Henry, Pasadena, dear council. I'm disappointed by your opposition to County Measure J. Measure J would amend the LA County Charter to require no less than 10% of the county's locally generated unrestricted revenues and prens about a billion dollars to address disproportionate impact of racial injustice through community investments and alternatives to incarceration. There are eligible and ineligible uses of the funding and the Board of Supervisors would adjust and approve use of these funds within the voter approved constraints on an annual basis. Measure J is clear that use of any of these earmarked funds for carceral systems and any law enforcement agencies is strictly forbidden. It's sad you oppose this initiative that would fund services at the county level, including capital investments in housing. You ignore the support of this budgetary pivot, aligning the budget with our values, housing alternatives to incarceration, health. The polling and support for Measure J is overwhelming and endorsed by the United Way, LA Times, Black Lives Matter, LA Voice, ACLU, YWCA, Union Station, National Union of Health Care Workers, and four of five Board of Supervisors. When everyone is questioning budgets and values, how can you stand on the other side of history of these organizations? You should stand against county funding for services. Juliana Sorano had substantially the same comment with using a lot of the same language as did Anthony Manuso's Pasadena, substantially the same comments using some of the same, most of the same language. David Chavez, substantially the same comments using the same language. And Donna Sinder, substantially the same comments using some of the same language. Then there were a few others. Bert Newton finished his comments because he addressed three different measures. And finally I urge you to support Measure J. It was put on the ballot by the county supervisors as a way to address racial justice by reallocating county funds for job development, affordable housing, and help for small businesses. Jill Shook submitted a public comment for this. At the clergy community coalition, I heard a policeman explain how they had 1800 arrests, those how they had 1800 arrests, those experiencing homelessness in one year. I knew that we only had around 500 homeless people so did not make any sense. I approached him and he said that some people were arrested twice and three times. I was frankly broken-hearted shocked. It costs $475 a call. Please funds would, it just says please funds would be much better used for a group like Cahoots at only $100 per call. Cahoots would be better equipped to deal with those experiencing homelessness in a compassionate way, avoid arrests to get to the root of the issues issues via rehab rather than expensive jail time and prevent any barrier from getting housed by having an arrest on their record. Measure J would divert the kind of funding needed to save people save money and better serve our communities. Then Unalee Joostost Pasadena. I'm Una Lee Joost, a long time resident of Pasadena District 4. I'm also a faith leader of LA Voice and Pasadena Minonet. Minonet, Minonite. Sorry. Minonite Church. Measure J is one of our key election priorities, so I'm extremely disappointed the council is considering opposing it. Measurer J would give voters the opportunity to redirect LA County public funds from incarceration to community investment. In the wake of recent protests inspired by the movement for Black Lives, quite possibly the largest social justice movement in the U.S. history and the world. Supervisors Kewl and Solas co-authored the motion, quote, reimagining LA County shifting budget priorities to revitalize underscores and low income communities, and quote, and succeeded getting it on the November ballot by a four to one vote. For decades, the county's budget has directed money away from Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities and allocated it in ways that negatively impacted those same communities. The impact on these communities have only been exacerbated by COVID-19 pandemic. The people of LA County are being crushed by the pandemic, a status quo budget that continues to deny the resources and opportunities. More on Measure J can be found at, and she cites a website, www.soCalGrantmakers.org with forward slash news, forward slash policy, and it talks about reimagining LA. Please stand on the side of our families and communities and Champion Measure J. Okay and that completes public comment on this item. I'm opposed to this measure because this is kind of legislating about the budget is exactly what got Sacramento in so much trouble. When they legislate your actions, you must spend this on this. You know, end up leaving a very small discretionary amount for spending. And in a bad budget year, it just creates chaos. And that's a big part of the problem that happens to schools. My feeling is if we don't elect people who can move, you know, direct the resources into more community policing or co-host type work, then we're electing the wrong people. We should have confidence in those supervisors that they should be able to do the 10th or However, much money is appropriate for them away from, I guess, public safety is the general category. You know, I think if we don't have confidence in them to do the right thing as they're being directed to by their constituents just like we are, then it's just, it's no way to budget. It's no way to make decisions. And I think it's a mistake. So I'm against it. Okay. How about Councilor Kennedy? I have the utmost respect for my colleague, Margaret McOpsons, Council Member McOstoon. And in many cases, we are allies fighting for the underdog. In this instance, we are not on the same side, but I think her comments are well-intentioned and are highly respected by me. Two other brilliant women that serve on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Sheila Kuhl and the former secretary under Obama, Hilda Salise, are the folks who put forth this measure under the umbrella of social justice because minorities in the county, in various cities, in the state of California, have been disproportionately impacted by a desire of law enforcement to lock up people and as a way to solve crime. I agree that there are certain crimes that must be zero tolerance. However, there are other crimes and other activities that young people get engaged in from time to time where we want to immediately seek rehabilitation. So they will not be invested in a career of crime. And I think although this measure is imperfect, doesn't get us exactly where we'd like to be. It does rest upon a restorative justice and seeking a better way. Respecting law enforcement as I believe we must never something about zero funding of police. But we must do something different than what we've done in the past if we're going to get a different result, particularly as it relates to our young people. And this measure is community-based, restorative justice programs, pre-trial non-custody services and treatment, counseling and mental health and substance abuse disorders. All of that would be considered here under J and we have an opportunity we're a small city but we have an opportunity to make a big statement and support that. So, I'm very happy to support the brilliant work of Harvard lawyer Sheila Kuehl and former secretary of labor, Hilda Solis. Last time I saw Hilda Sol police was in the company of Vice President Biden as he applauded and lauded her stellar career. I have the utmost respect for the three women in my life tonight. And that's council woman, Margaret MacAustin, supervisor Sheila Kuhl, and supervisor, he'll just leave. So I and Supervisor Sheila Kuhl and Supervisor Hildesley. So I gladly speak a seconder to my motion. I'm sorry, John, your motion is to take a support position. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. There are second for Councilmember Kennedy's motion. I've got a question for Mr. Kennedy or any member of the committee. Where would the money be taken from? Mr. Kennedy, what would the impact be to have had? How would it be? I'm not a member of the committee. Why not, but you're speaking strongly for it. So where were the money be taken from and how would that money shift in benefit? Pasadena. Siphon. Or residents of Pasadena. I don't have a clear answer for you, but there are other members of the committee from ledge policy who considered this. I would ask them to answer that question, Mr. Gordo, but as it relates to, this is the problem. I mean, we activities, these activities, I'm responding to your second part of your question, the activities that are referenced on page 8 of 10 are activities that I think advance a social justice agenda. And it is an agenda. It's moving away from strict incarceration that has not worked. And it's less costly to engage in rehabilitative and restorative justice than to seek to incarcerate a community. And so I read for the record, what is there for all who would like to review what programs and activities would occur if Measure J passes. But as it relates to your first question, I'd invite my colleagues who consider this to provide their answer. Yeah, I'd like to. No, it's a reminder. Well, because the issue that I'm having is, you know, for all their brilliance at the board of supervisors that you make reference to, I remember when we were told the same thing on Measure H, the homelessness issue. And then the Board proceeded to take a resident, passing the resident contributions to measure H and spend less than past Adina, then it did in other parts it feels so rushed. I think we can do better in Pasadena than to have such a rushed process with zero analysis from our staff, instead of finances, to the impacts. The board members may very well be brilliant, but they haven't exactly benefited the residents of Pasadena on past measures and that's the problem. So maybe we can hear from from... Yeah, so the issue here quite simply is not any objection to the listing of the programs that Councilmember Kennedy read. The reason that the the Ledge Policy Committee recommended taking on opposing position as opposed to neutral or not wading in on what's a controversial position potentially is that this ballot box budgeting, ballot box budgeting, as Council Member MacAustin correctly points out, is almost always a prescription for challenges and mistakes. It's interesting to note, and you see that on your matrix, the California League of Cities, which is low to take a position on almost anything, because they've got so many members in each camp and cities that disagree and finding a common position among all the different kinds of cities that are in that organization. They actually took a position to oppose, not because they are not in support of the kind of social justice objectives that are being offered by the proponents and the Councilmember Kennedy correctly articulated, but because the reality of budgeting is that dollars are all fung�ed. I mean, typically you can allocate dollars in a variety of ways you take some from one pot and you bring them in from another pot but when you and there's nothing to prevent the county board of supervisors including those who are advocates for measure J from allocating all the money that they decide is appropriate to all of the social justice measures that are identified in the bottom of page 8. So what they're doing here is instead of saying we believe that that should be our priority and we need to you know, we're all gonna stand up and make sure this happened in the budgetary process and answer the question the councilmember Gordo is asking, which is, you know, where's it going to come from and what's it going to be transferred from? They're saying, we're going to go to the voters and have them tell us, we want you to allocate this arbitrary amount to these issues because there's a public outcry and you heard the comments, the public comments, that this is being characterized as if you don't support this, then you're not interested in the objectives that have been articulated in the social justice demands that have been made since May 25th. So I think that the reason that the committee was suggesting an opposed position is because on a conceptual level, on a straight budgetary merit basis, that to have arbitrary allocations mandated and locking up budget amounts going forward and precluding the elected officials for making decisions based on current conditions and program necessities is just a bad governmental practice and an application of responsibility by the elected officials. So that was the discussion we had at LEG policy and that's why we recommended waiting in here and taking an opposed position as opposed to just staying out of it. Customer McAuston? Yeah, I think it's, you know, I mean, you just reiterated what a lot of what I said and, of course, we hope that the money will be spent that way, but why do we, why, why take a position on this you know maybe we should stand back I guess not take any position on this you know it's a county measure it's not our measure you know and a lot of us you know we just got our ballot or our ballots or our sample ballots and, you know, I know in my family we haven't even had a chance to go through all the measures yet. So personally, I don't even know how I stand, you know, on any of these things, let alone putting forth a position for the city except this, I mean, this why I do the how we feel about so maybe we should just you know leave this one alone. That's that's a gene did you have a comment? Councilmember Monsuit is on the Ledge Policy Committee. Thank you. Margaret I agreed with you with your first your first decision to oppose it. You know this was the, we heard about defunding police, and we heard it a lot. And our council, as you know, we were unanimous with our budget, and we didn't do any kind of defunding of a police department. This is just another way to reimagine funds. And so I definitely oppose this because I want to make sure that we're consistent with LA County, which is, I mean, we're actually on the other side of LA County. They want to go and do these things and reimagine funds and where we didn't do that with the city of Pasadena. And I oppose this kind of, this kind of, you know, ballot measure. Thank you, Mayor. Andy, Mr. Wilkins. As I said, I'm not a huge fan of taking positions on things that don't have a direct impact. And I think many of the goals here, as John mentioned are very important ones. I think the idea of forcing the county into budgetary decisions, if they're not making the right decisions, and they shouldn't represent the people. And where it does impact this is, we are in the county of Los Angeles. And if, you know, we are allowing them to box themselves into a position that doesn't allow them to most effectively serve the communities in the county, that absolutely does affect the city of Pasadena. So I would argue that, you know, my position is generally that we shouldn't take positions on these things, but I think the financial health of the county is an important municipality or kind of district that serves the city of Pasina does warrant us taking a position. And I'm kind of support Margaret's initial position. And I think this, even though it's well-intentioned, I think it has, position, but I think this, even though it's well-intentioned, I think it has, I, negative, could have negative consequences, and I'm concerned about it. All right, Mr. Gordon. I just, I mean, again, zero staff analysis. I mean, I know she looked you, I know Janis Han. I know Hildes will be, and I know they're all well-intentioned individuals. But I'll tell you that the Board of Supervisors collectively as a whole has not taken actions in the past that benefit the residents of Pasadena. And, you know, that's the problem I'm having. I mean, for, you know, John, you credit the board members. And I agree with individuals. They're very bright. But sometimes I wonder about whether the board of supervisors is actually taken into account cities like Pasadena, or whether it's just some sort of groupthink that they fall into. And without any specific examples, and I, Mr. Kennedy, used both passionately and reading what stated on the staff report with no analysis. In one example, I'd like one example of how Pasadena residents would benefit from this measure, or one example of a program that's going to be hurt, or potentially defund it as a result of the example. It's not in this report, maybe Mr. Kennedy, you can tell us. And the other thing is I would remind the residents of our city, and I would remind us all as a council. The reasons we act, the one the reason, major reasons we acted on measures I and J, because we did trust LA County to take city of pass of these resident money and then use it for the benefit of our residents. We and that's why we took actions on measures I and J because we did trust the county and you know I think the questioning of the county structure and machine was well placed because measure H is the perfect example and the example that we pointed to. How much Mr. City Manager do personal residents contribute yearly to measure H? And how much comes back to Pasadena? Council member Gordo, I think the last time we analyzed that it was about $7 million based on Pasadena size contribution to measure H. And in terms of funds received back, about 300,000 was the last figure that I had seen. And so again, there's the evidence of the county taking passing a resident money and then not looking out for the best interest of the residents of this city. If it's a fortunate fact, you know, this reports is so thin and with little analysis, but that kind of analysis that our residents deserve, so they can understand the basis of, you know, we all support social justice and rethinking how we provide services to be more efficient and effective. But that doesn't come through in this report that's in front of us or in front of the residents at all. Thank you, Mr. Madison. Thank you, Mayor. I intend to both that we support this initiative. And maybe it's because we're now in the, what, seven-th hour of this meeting. But I think we're approaching this, you know, tone death and perhaps a bit bloodless way. You know, what this initiative says is that in their budgetary decisions, the board should address disproportionate impacts of racial injustice. And that's an important statement. And the things that it talks about youth development, job training, alternatives to incarceration. You know, we see these shooting cases, and it absolutely tears us all apart. But the real question is, where are we? Where's all that energy? Where's all that concern and care? You know, five, 10 years earlier, when some of the individuals that are involved in these shootings are making decisions to join gangs and to begin a life of crime for understandable, in many cases reasons. I mean, those decisions are never defensible, but they're certainly analytically understandable if you look at the situation that some of these kids and these are our kids that they're growing up in. So this is exactly the kind of thing that we need. You think our police department likes taking, I don't know what the current count is, probably 220 guns off the street so far and we're not even you know We just started the third quarter of the fourth quarter of the year and we're already up to you know 220 And you read those note where these just like I do they are terrifying You know loaded you know some automatic right next to the seat and so forth and so on This is the way we address this and if you it's not at this moment in time, then win. And I really, and I'm not being critical here, because my first reaction was like some of my colleagues. Gosh, once you start trying to decide the budget at the ballot box, you're on a slippery slope. And before you know it, there are too many priorities and not enough resources and you've really made a bad way for yourself. But look at all of the ways that our nation institutionalized racism and sexism and ageism and discrimination for gender and sexual orientation and for disability. I mean, for centuries, we decided that that was an appropriate subject for legislation. Now we're going to fall back on procedure when there's an opportunity to make a slight correction. So I would or just to adopt this. It's four out of five of those board members, you know them as well as I do. They never agree on much of anything, but four out of five did and you know I agree with them on this. I think this is an opportunity for us to be progressive and preventive and forward-looking and we should. This is an opportunity for us to be progressive and preventive and forward looking and we should. Thank you, Council Member. Very articulate. All right. So it sounds like we're divided on this. I think I prefer to take action on these only when there's an obvious consensus but there's not an emerging one here but councilor Buchananity did you want to pursue your motion? I know I know that something must be done. I know that this is imperfect. I've not met, not seen, not witnessed any piece of legislation that was perfect. I've also recognized that there are always unintended consequences. That's why the legislative process continues to go forward, even as a body adopts a particular position. But this is somewhat personal to me because I have seen how strictly looking at young people as a criminal or enforcement issue and seeing cycles of bad behavior when we could have as Mr. as council member, Madison as a former prosecutor recognizes if we just had an in-adventure at a younger age we wouldn't have young people necessarily engaging in a continuum of bad decision-making and as it relates to the economics I tell you it's less expensive to have an intervention than to incarcerate significantly less. So I'm willing to go down and defeat, but I must say I think four members of the Board of Supervisors had it right. And if I can garner a second, I'd like a vote on it. Oh, it's clear that you've got a second. So that your motion is that we take a support position on Measure J. Absolutely, it's the right thing. Okay. Particularly, if you've grown up in a society that throws people away, we are a council that builds people up. It's just that on this issue, we have a difference on how to do that. But I'm strongly in support of Jay. Okay. So there's a motion by Council Member Kennedy. Is there a second? Council Member Madison, right? Yeah. I'm not going to see the end of the activities and I don't think this council should or you know alternative activities. I started out working at day one actually I started in the summer youth employment program putting kids to work in old Pasadena, those yellow jackets that you see out there. In the early 90s, they used to call the host program when we started it, putting kids to work. Now it's the guide program. That was in the early 90s, working at day one as you program coordinator bringing more activities, but no one can give you an example of how this would increase those activities or where the money would be taken from or maybe even possibly harm activity, the positive activities. The goals are lot of all, and we can all support that. But without one example, zero staff analysis, it's like asking us and again, you know, it's regrettable that here we are at the 11th hour having these discussions with absolutely no analysis or community input making decisions on such important issues, but here we are. Here we are. I think we can do better in the future and I hope that we will. This is frankly disappointing. Okay. Thank you. Let's have a roll call. So the motion is to take a support position on County Measure J. Council Member Gordo? No. Council Member Kennedy? Yes. Council Member Madison? Yes. Council Member Moussouda? No. Council Member MacAustin? No, Councilmember McAuston. No Councilmember Wilson. No Vice Mayor Hampton abstaining We're not voting I'll put absent Mayor Tornick. No So that's two in favor, five against. The motion does not pass. Is there an alternative motion, or should we just walk away from this? Walk away now. I'm good. Look at that. If you have a three there. Sorry. We do two out of three. Sorry, we do two out of three. Councilmember Manning is recommending we spend another 35 minutes bearing our souls on this. All right, we're done with the legislative policy committee recommendations item 17. We have the push-through. Yes. In the question. Yes, in the future, since Councilman Legordo, I believe raised a legitimate question, I think it deserves the body to look at the legitimacy of his comments. You can have budgetary implications. Greater elucidation needs to be provided to the council in its deliberations. This measure is critically important for me as an African American. I will never be a member of the elite class, quote unquote. I will never be able to operate with a privilege that some operate with. So as it relates to the legitimate comments that Mr. Gordel raised in this discussion, I think we have to answer them going forward. This is not the last opportunity this body will have in a pining about whether we need to support the measure or not support a measure. Very good. I agree. All right, let's move to an information item with regard to potential housing for homeless at religious institutions. This was a request, council member Wiltson that we get informed about a process that's been ongoing for quite some time and I'll ask that's a great significance to the city. I'll ask of David Reyes to bring us up to speed. Thank you, Mayor Tornick. City Council members, tonight we're going to briefly talk about two proposed text amendments that the city manager has initiated regarding housing on religious institution properties and there's two different categories One is related to temporary shelters We talked about those in the context of potentially finding homes for some of the RVs that are currently at the Rose Bowl. And then there's another discussion regarding permanent affordable housing on religious institutional property that actually gained some notoriety. There was a couple of state bills. There's a movement referred to as Yigby, which is yes in God's backyard. And there's local advocates that have been pursuing the issue here in the city. And again, the city manager has initiated a text amendment on both of these. The Planning Commission has conducted a study session on each of these items. I'm going to briefly go through some background, provide just one or two examples, identify some of the critical issues that we're looking at and would welcome any comments from the City Council. We'll also talk about some next steps. So we've talked before just momentarily about some of the background here. There were several bills that were considered regarding affordable housing. This is permanent affordable housing, but only one passed. And the one passed, it was an important one, but it didn't have to do with the use as it relates to affordable housing and had to do with parking. There was a case out in San Diego related to a church that wanted to build affordable housing on their property, but they were building it on a parking lot that was required parking for the church and they needed a variance to deviate from parking standards. That variance was denied. And so that in lots of discussion back and forth, some cases in court and ultimately the city there ended up changing their code. But now the state has done so statewide any affordable housing project and there's a definition we'll go through that's providing housing. There's no requirement for additional parking and there can be parking we'll go through. That's providing housing. There's no requirement for additional parking and there can be parking that's actually lost. This is associated with the church property. So I'm gonna talk about both of these just very quickly and then we'll get into some discussion on each. So the city's zoning code currently allows religious institutions to have a temporary homeless shelter. In most instances instances it does require a CUP in very limited instances. A CUP would not be required if they followed certain standards that are in the zoning code and I would actually argue are somewhat outdated with respect to best practices for these types of uses but within a residential commercial office or PS zone, if a religious institution exists and had a CUP, they can actually establish one as a matter of right for no more than 10 homeless persons. And it needs to be maximum of 60 days in terms of the stay. But in most instances, and what we were looking at is potentially allowing churches to do this where they would provide certain standards and they would be able to potentially use some of the RVs. So it would be a slight change to the code to allow this. So here's an example. This is up north in the East Bay in Hayward. There was this tiny home project. Again, their code different than ours but this is an example of something that they were contemplating and there is obviously 18 months. I think any any analysis that needs to be done with respect to standards needs to look at best practices whether 18 months is the right time frame to allow some transitional housing or there's a different time frame but I think there's other standards that we need to look at. So with, and I'm going to get into some of those. With respect to permanent housing, it's important to note that religious institutions, whether churches or other institutions of a different faith, they're generally allowed with the conditional use permit in the city in most zoning districts in very few instances They're allowed by right housing is also generally allowed in most zoning districts It's allowed in residential. It's allowed in commercial limited It's allowed in our mixed use zoning districts, but it's not permitted in the CG or the IG But the issue is really about allowed density set back, FAR, other development standards. So if there's an existing church on a property, depending on how big that property is, it's going to be limited in terms of where you can establish and actually build affordable housing, even if it's allowed. And again, I talked previously about AB 1851, which eliminated the need to modify or provide parking for affordable housing on these properties. This was the San Diego example, the Claremont Lutheran Church, and theirs was 12 low income housing units. And so we see other examples. This is also in the Northern California. This is sort of a campus field, 45 low income units. Also community center with services for homeless and working poor, again, to establish something like this. You'd need a lot of land to make it work. And then you think about the city of Pasadena and where those places might be. The analysis that staff is doing, these are known religious institutions in the city. And as you can see, they vary in terms of their location. They're spread throughout the city. They're in multifamily zones. They're in the cities downtown. They're in even in single family neighborhoods. And so you start thinking about what the appropriate standards might look like. Do you want to build multi-family and single family for instance? And so what we sort of, while it says we're seeking input, I want to share with you the things that we're considering and what we're doing. And we're open to any, in these directions the city council might provide. But when we're talking about the temporary housing, we're really considering the changes, does it need a CUP everywhere? Should things be allowed by right? Should we establish a CUP process that has certain standards that are sort of best practices, not just increasing the stay period, we know that 60 days probably isn't reasonable, but the other standards that exist, should there be a case worker on site, is there a connection to sewer, what are the bathroom facilities, what are the shower facilities, is there security? All those things are really important and I think that could be flushed out through a CUP process. Again, the code allows these types of uses, this temporary shelter on religious properties today. I think that we probably need to expand and maybe think about the CUP process a little bit differently and ensure that we're at least looking at the provision of allowing it on what we call non-found foundational structures. So an RV without a foundation or some other type of structure that's maybe non permanent. I think those are things that we should look at because there's cost involved. And with respect to RVs, obviously the city has some RVs that potentially could be used. And then we wanna probably look at if it's going to be an RV, what are the provisions for utility connections specific to RVs, and then probably need to amend the code section with respect to other areas that prohibit or restrict RV parking. With respect to permanent housing, what we're really looking at is actually all of the development standards. But I think more appropriately and first we're looking at where these might be considered. And I think that staff is really, and what we heard from the commission was actually some good feedback in the public is that, you know, the map here identifies, I don't think that permanent supportive housing should be allowed at every one of these institutions. And I think that what we're looking at with this issue is really an opportunity to, there's a couple of ways to provide affordable housing and the City Council, especially here in Pasadena, has done a really good job of being a model for other cities in the region. But there's a couple of ways. job of being a model for other cities in the region. But there's a couple of ways. What is the city can build it ourselves? Two is we can, through some density bonus process, allow developers to build it for us. And here's a third example of a way of maybe changing the code to allow different densities that are appropriate from the code perspective and change development standards to allow churches of a certain type and a certain size to move forward and I think that what we really need to focus on is what the minimum lot sizes look like and then developing a appropriate setbacks height height, density requirements. Obviously other development standards listed here with respect to open space, parking, affordability requirements, amenities and design review. Those are things that are really important and I would argue that affordability is something that's really important there. The proposed state bill would require 100% affordable housing to go forward. I think some of the advocates at least locally here have identified maybe a different number, maybe it's only 50% of the project needs to be affordable. And I think that there's differences in terms of location and do we allow 32 units per acre everywhere, including in single family. I don't think that staff need to identify the right size lots and then the right size development given the existing surrounding built environment. I think that's going to be a challenge for us going gave us a lot of things to consider and think about. We hadn't brought this issue to the City Council before because it was initiated by the City Manager and I think that what staff is looking for is sort of affirmation that we're on the right path. Staff certainly would like to proceed with the amendments as you know studying the issues that we identified and if there are specific issues with respect to either the temporary or the permanent that the council feels strongly about we'd want to take that under advisement and move forward with the analysis including those issues. The next steps assuming that we were moving forward would be to have the virtual community meeting our webinars with the community to engage them. And then move forward back to the planning commission we've been to them once we want to hear back from the community and then issue that needs to be dealt with by the City Council. So we're not looking for, do you vote today in terms of yes or no, but just is this already in the right path? Should we not be considering this now? Should we be holding off? Is there a different approach to doing this? So that concludes the report in the update that was requested by Councilor Wilson here to answer any questions or anything else you might have on the topic Thank you, Mr. Reyes Mr. Wilson Yeah, thank you David and I just think you know based Numbers and our inability to meet kind of our numbers in our inability to meet kind of our, one of our housing goals. I think we need to take the blinders off and at least explore what this could look like. I can think of disaster or, you know, neighbors and communities would not be happy with the outcome. But I do think I have confidence in our planning staff and a process whatever that may be to come up with a set of solutions that could work for neighborhoods and also allow us to address the affordable housing needs in our city right now the land cost is obviously huge barrier land to build enough for affordable housing and I think we should take up the offer of our faith-based organizations to see what possibilities may emerge. I don't have a predisposed outcome of what that is, but I do think this is an area that I think with some creativity that there may be some opportunities there. And I think it's a rock that we should turn over. So I would ask my colleagues to figure out how to explore this further. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Gorda? I just want to figure out how to explore this further. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Gordo? Just a question. I'm reminded we recently approved at the Salvation Army. I mean, gave it with that qualify as a religious institution. Yes, and that project, Councilor Regordo, the CEP was required for the services. It generally complied with all applicable zoning standards, and so it had the benefit of having sort of the right-sized lot in the right zone to make it work. So, so then my other, the other example is all saints church. And the master plan, I believe, had housing approved, affordable housing approved on their campus. Am I correct about that? The master plan did, we've been told that they're potentially rethinking or maybe trying to raise funds, but you are correct that the master plan did have that. I'm just curious why, I mean, there we have two examples of religious institutions moving forward with affordable housing. All saints was how many units, and that's in my district, how many units of permanent support are held on? For all saints or for? The salvation army, I'm sorry. I apologize. I don't have that number off the top of my head. I believe it was close to 100. And I swear you prematurely say to all saints that you're district. I mean, the land grab here, Mr. Kennedy. So I bet, but I'm curious what allowed those religious institutions to go forward with affordable housing and what prevents others from doing it and why is this needed? Right. Now, right. So, so I think the city council was, I think, previously made it known that the city is interested in building affordable housing. And I think that now we know that there's definitely a need. The issue here, council member, is that some of the other faith-based organizations that exist don't have the luxury of either the existing lot size or configuration that happened to exist for both the Salvation Army and all Saints. And so I think that both of those went through a discretionary process. And so what we're talking about here is potentially looking to amend existing rules as it relates to heights, setbacks, and density to allow a project that would sort of pencil, if you will, and would make sense for the sort of built environment that we wouldn't expect to see a new seven story affordable housing project next to a whole block of two story buildings, if you will. And I think that the issue with respect to all saints and their master plan that they went through was that they had the luxury of land. So again, the zoning from a use perspective perspective it's allowed in most zones Affordable housing is housing is allowed the issue is how do you build it and comply with all the development regulations and Do the existing standards allow enough? density To actually make it work and those are some of the things that we're looking at Through this process. And council members, for the record, the Salvation Army project is 66 units plus a food bank. So again, that's what what do you mean by allow these projects to pencil? Do you mean add market rate housing? Is that what this does? Yeah, so generally religious institutions are not developers. And so in order for, when we build affordable housing, we provide land and money to make it pencil out, typically. Or there's tax credits or a combination of stacking all of those different financing pieces together. I think that what we're talking about here is not providing funding and we're not providing land. So what is the city gonna add to make it work? Because it's not clearly not working now because there's a desire to do it. And so I think that what we're really talking about is ensuring that there's appropriate densities. I think the Salvation Army Project, even though the city did kick in money, they had the appropriate density under the existing zoning. And some of these properties are situated in areas that just don't have that. And so we would, as you say, allow them to make the project work penciled out by allowing what for density and market rate or... Yeah, I think that's absolutely, that that would be something that we would work out. I think that what I tried to convey earlier is that I don't think that we know what the right answer is. In other words, I think that if we were to require and sort of develop a program that was 100% affordable, I'm not sure that that would really work necessarily. I think some of the advocates have proposed things like 50% affordable and 50% market rate. I'm not sure that's the right number either. I think there's some technical analysis that would need to happen, including hiring some actual money folks to help us look at how things could be financed and at what rate because ultimately, if this was to happen, the church properties, the religious institution properties would absolutely have to hire and work with a developer to do this. and work with a developer to do this. So it is about allowing them to increase, because they can already do a forwardable housing, just a matter of how much density and allowing them to also essentially partner with the developer to make projects pencil out by increasing or by allowing market rate housing as well. Yes, sir. I think it's not just the density. I think that we'd have to look at everything related to development. Again, existing rules. I have a floor area, maximums and of an existing church building is there, how much is left to build affordable, and does that make sense, and how big is a parking lot that exists? And I think those are things that we need to look at. If there's a church that has a parking lot of a certain size, I think that we need to, but I think initially, we need to not be so restrictive in our just analysis. I think we need to be open to looking at everything, including some smaller projects that may have the ability to pencil. And I don't think that we have all those answers, but I think that you're hitting the issues correctly, which is we would need to look at amending development standards that would make sense to have a project go forward and then balance that with what's the right level of development on any property given the neighborhood context. And because a lot of these churches are, you know, I'm thinking of Hudson and Claremont and in my district, for example, in the middle of a neighborhood historic district, other parts of the city, same thing. And so we would be essentially, well, let me not presuppose, but let me ask this, assume for a moment that an initiative like this will go forward. Today's, I've seen a few churches turn over from religious institutions to private properties and that are not religious institutions and they go into a different use. What's that thinking on that? That will we be strictly property to, you know, in perpetuity. Couple of issues. What is, I think we've all seen. Yeah, we think we have how that work. Yeah, I think we've all seen a decline in church membership. And probably worldwide. And I think that locally what we've seen is a lot of church. And I say locally, this is regionally is a lot of church and I say locally this is regionally a lot of churches move into like industrial areas because the land is cheaper and they're not occupying prime land especially in cities like Pasadena where land value tends to be high the proposal at least as we conceptualize it would not require or lock this in, it would provide an option. So I don't think that we would be providing a dis... I don't think that we would be pushing churches out. I think it would provide an option for religious institutions to do this if they chose to do that. But it wouldn't change the zoning in a way that forces this as a use, so it would just provide a separate. And I think there's other things to consider. One of the things that we talked about at the Planning Commission was, we don't want to establish these rules, and then all of a sudden have a lot of churches, I don't think, establish just for this purpose, and I don't see that happening necessarily. You know what I'm asking, I just want to say is, you know, imagine a church property that today is used for church. Developer comes in. Now it sounds like we would increase the density, raise the value of that property, allow them to include market rate housing, which sounds like that's what you mean by make it pencil and then the religious institution or decides to sell off a portion of the property or move its location. My question is how do we address that issue? Could staff give any sort of thinking to that, the planning commission waiting on that issue? Yeah, I think that there was some discussion and there was no answers because it was a study session. But some of the thought is through, and I think that we've dealt with this in other instances, but through an entitlement process to restrict that sort of movement. If the intent is to provide affordable housing in conjunction with a religious institution property, there are ways through the entitlement to ensure whether it's through a covenant or some other deed restriction to ensure that that was the desire of the city to not allow that split to happen or to ensure that the church remain on the property. The challenge would be obviously what if the church membership did die off are we going to kick everybody out of the house right or out of the building we're not going to do that. So those things that nobody expected. Yeah those things that need to it came up and there are no answers but those are things that we would be looking at through the process. up and there are no answers, but those are things that we would be looking at through the process. Thank you Mayor. If I may just chime in. I think my goal today was to bring this up to see if there was enough. There are a lot of great questions, Victor, by the way. I'm sure of them 100%. Your ears are enough appetite to figure out this is an opportunity to work exploring to see if there is a strategy that makes sense. And my belief is given that affordable housing challenge and afforded the cost of land that there is an opportunity to come up with some creative solutions that maybe move the needle on that front but also respect the needs of neighborhoods. So I'm just looking for this group to maybe get, having to show enough enthusiasm to figure out if it's worth doing more speed work here and then having something come back. Before we continue, Mark, do we have comments on this item? Yes, Mayor, about 20. Okay, we better get to them. Yes, Mayor, about 20. Okay, we better get to them. Yes, Mayor. Ready to go? Yep. Before I read the comments, I do also want to point out this is item 18. We received 81 letters in support of the potential housing for homeless at religious institutions. So all of that was distributed to the council posted online and as part of this record. So I'll start reading the comments. The first is from Sonya Burnt. Pasadena, I am a longtime resident of Pasadena. I'm writing regarding Agenda Item 18, which would give planning department staff the ability to explore an amendment to the zoning code that would allow for housing as an ancillary use on the property of religious institutions, allowing affordable and supportive housing on church land is consistent with the mission of churches and is strongly supported by churches and by homeless service providers. Allowing such housing would increase the potential capacity for housing in the city. I urge the Council to adopt option number one in the staff report. Directing staff to continue processing zoning code amendments on an open ended basis. And returning with recommendations based on input from a virtual community meeting and planning commission meeting. Churches want to be part of the solution to this urgent problem and an overlay zone makes good sense since it would allow community-minded congregations that are already willing and mission-driven to become partners with the city to meet a urgent need. Thank you for your consideration and may thanks to the Planning Department for such a thorough staff report on this item. From Hugh Martinez, Pasadena, hi, my name is Hu Martina's of Western Pacific Housing LLC and Affordable Housing Developer. I want to speak in support of an overlay zone enabling churches to build affordable housing. This is a significant opportunity when so few affordable development sites exist. Using church land is a huge opportunity for affordable housing developers to have feasible and successful projects. When they work with churches, developers don't have to buy land in advance or carry the insurance and other holding costs. They can be more confident of community support since they have the support of a church which is part of a neighborhood. Yet if churches wish to supply affordable housing, the cost and time needed to create a zoning change on a case-by-case basis as opposed to an overlay zone could be significantly lowered if there was such a policy in place. Plus it makes the deal attractive to a more experienced developer. Given the combination of growing housing crisis and the economic damage caused by COVID, I strongly urge you to support a church over the lake zone. From John O. Monrovia, my name is John O. And I am member of the Congressional Land Committee that is based in Pasadena. My common is to share that the Yigby movement, yes, in God's backyard, is gaining traction and momentum throughout this county and state. My professional work is directly involved in working with congregations to build affordable housing, that a focus on PSH, housing for those experiencing homelessness as a staff person at LA Voice, a member of Pico, California. There are projects that have been built in projects in the pipeline that take advantage of sites that have been built and projects in the pipeline that take advantage of sites that have been previously overlooked. One is Wesley Village in Garden Grove, a 47-unit 100% affordable housing project, 50-59% AMI, that features family and senior housing built on what was underutilized parking lot. That project includes a new head start leaning learning facility in a large community center that provides services for both residents and neighborhood. Currently I'm working with the congregations to facilitate joint venture partnerships between congregation and developer and Pasadena 52 units, Culver City 95 units, and Englewood 45 to 65 units. A recent poll with faith leaders in Pasadena shows that the city is very receptive to the idea. but the city is very receptive to the idea. This one is from Renee Allridge and we read this as part of the item 16. So she's in support of this item. For Julie Honours, Saurano, however mayor and city council members, sorry, honorable mayor and city council members, we desperately need more affordable housing in Pasadena. There are two major opportunities for affordable housing, affordable housing on the Water and Power Site in the Civic Center and two temporary shelter and affordable housing on church land. The Water and Power Site has been sitting vacant for many, many years and has certainly served plus land which the law prioritizes for affordable housing. Further more the need for this housing is significant. Please do all that you can to speed this process along. Also churches across Pasadena are stepping up to offer their land for temporary shelter and affordable housing but they need the zoning to be changed to let them do that. This zoning change will expedite the process of providing temporary shelter during this time of COVID when those experiencing homelessness cannot be in congregant shelters and to enable affordable housing to be built. This will make the process considerably less expensive which makes affordable housing dollars stretch further so that more can be built. From Gilbert, Walton, Pasadena, I'm a member of the new Hope Baptist Church. We are 100% in favor of passage of the church overlay zones. Over the years we have witnessed a loss of members because of the high cost of housing in Pasadena. Some move to outlying areas like Lancaster and San Bernardino and some have left the state altogether. The overlay zones would help us to provide much needed housing, continue our mission as a church, which otherwise would be severely jeopardized. We sincerely need your help. Thank you. From Bert Newton, Pasadena, Dear Mayor and City Council, I'm a ministry associate of Pasadena, Menonite Church and the liaison and outreach coordinator for making housing and community happen. An overlay zone that enables churches to build affordable housing provides an opportunity for churches to participate in addressing the homelessness and housing crisis. From the poll we conducted, 17 churches are interested in having affordable housing on their land with the potential of 1,177 units of units if a Congressional land overlay zone is passed. 95% of the churches would support a Congressional land overlay zone to help other churches build housing on their land. Additionally, 19 churches nearly half of the respondents would allow safe parking on their churches parking lots. And 11 churches were open to having a FEMA trailer on their property. 12 churches already own approximately 58 rental units, only six of them rent at a market rate. From Gloria Newton, Pasadena, I'm a homeowner in District 3 and a volunteer at Madison Elementary School in District 5. I am concerned with multiple families having to squeeze into one apartment to make rent. It is high time that our city leaders have a flex response of, quote, yes, to such creative solutions as the overlay zone for church land rather than defaulting to concerns about, quote, preserving neighborhood character, voiced by those who are already protected by home ownership. The focus on a single family dwellings as the ultimate in, quote, neighborhood character also perpetuates the lack of access to housing for all forcing multiple families to cram into one helm in order to live in Pasadena. Please listen to the voices of the less affluent equally hardworking families by acting swiftly to approve proposals such as the overlay zone for church land. It's time for new solutions to this serious problem. Thank you for your service. From Cynthia Kurtz, Pasadena. Pasadena Mayor and City Council, number 18, affordable housing at religious institutions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment regarding item 18. Please support continuing the planning process to develop and implement an overlay zone that would allow faith-based organizations citywide to build affordable housing on under-utilized land. Last session, the California State Legislature considered a nearly approved bill that would have created such a zone statewide. It was a cookie cutter approach that could not and did not consider local needs. There is every reason to believe that a similar bill will be introduced in the future. Pasadena has always been a leader in land use planning. Rather than fight the state, Pasadena can retain its local control and become the model of for how local jurisdictions can respond positively to encourage affordable housing by moving forward with its own congregational overlay zone, Cynthia Kurtz Pasadena resident. From Donna Sider and I'll read the comment that's related to 18. 18, Miss stated, items should read affordable housing. Former Water Empower site and Civic Center has been sitting vacant for decades. As quote surplus land, the law prioritizes such for affordable housing. No more in action. We, your law and standing residents of Faith call you out. Act to move this parcel into affordability for the thousands who've been displaced from this city. Now, 17 churches are committed to build. They need zoning change to speed up the process of building the housing we need and reduce costs, which makes affordable housing dollars stretch further. So that more can be built. Please advise the Planning Commission to work with the Planning Department to make the necessary zoning changes. Change. From Ed Weshadka, Chair of Pasadena Nins, organizing for progress housing justice committee Pasadena. Pasadena Nins, organizing for progress pop as the City Council directs staff to fully explore option one as the provision for providing potential housing for the homeless at religious institutions. As described in the staff report, this would quote continue processing zoning code amendments on an open ended basis in return with recommendations based on input from a virtual community meeting and planning commission meeting. With limited resources available for affordable housing development, properties of religious institutions represent an historic opportunity for many forms of affordable housing that will be compatible with the values and purposes of both the religious institutions and the needs of the greater community. Pasadena is a diverse community of many dimensions, recognizing the variability of sites across the city in terms of neighborhood context. It seems options two and three limit solutions by unnecessarily fixing boundaries to creative discussion. Top Things option one makes more sense as it keeps the process as open and expansive as possible, so thoughtful, so thoughtful study and discourse can consider how best to accommodate affordable housing in ways that strengthen community. Respectfully, Edward Shotka, Chair of Props Housing, adjust this committee along with committee members, Kimberly Douglas, Lauren Young, and Rick Cole. Jill Suzanne Shook, Pasadena. Resonting Church Land is one way that the city can make right with pass-ins of racial inequities. Jules Suzanne Shook, Pasadena. Resoning Church Land is one way that the city can make right with pass-ins of racial and inequities. With urban renewal, a thriving African-American neighborhood where parts and now sits was displaced, moving thousands away from the city center. The property, that property today is zone for 87 units per acre. They were not given the opportunity to capture the added value of the land from uppers up zoning but instead encouraged to leave. Thriving black communities and businesses on North Fair Oaks also were also displaced. The people of color. Many families were not sufficiently remunerated from their property to buy in Pasadena. If they wanted to, if they wanted to, banks often would not provide loans. Furthermore, many were barred from obtaining private mortgage insurance. In fact, on Lake in Washington, family thrift was established and friends later won the United Bank. To provide mortgages not offered at other banks, due to significant displacement, one church on North pharaohs has eight members left, several have closed. As one pastor put it, their church building is in Pasadena, but they have become communicator churches. Resoning church land to allow for affordable housing would serve to prevent more displacement and correct pass sins. From Andre White, Pasadena. An overlay zone for churches to build affordable housing minimizes the money, risk and time for affordable housing developers to permit, finance, construct, and manage a project. The majority of affordable housing developers cannot afford to invest a great amount of time, money, and risk into rezoning processes since it is unknown whether a project of a certain scale will be approved, allowing for the upfront cost to be recouped. Most affordable housing developers therefore look for simpler opportunities available in other cities where the zoning code and development site provides a more predictable outcome for getting a desired project approved. From Anthony Manusos Pasadena, I'm writing you as a member of the Orange Grove Peace and Social Concern Committee where we unanimously agreed to support affordable housing at the Civic Center and also an overlay zones so that churches could build, can build affordable housing on their land. Our meeting has been a center for housing justice efforts in Pasadena as you know from the candidates forum that took place there in January. At that time, all the candidates expressed strong support for affordable housing. Now you have a chance to show what you meant, what you said, by supporting affordable housing at the Civic Center and also supporting zoning changes that would allow churches to build affordable housing. Our survey indicates that most churches are eager to be part of the solution and many want to build affordable housing on their land. I urge you to allow them to fulfill their mission. As people of faith, we take to heart what it says in Proverbs 31. Quote, speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly, defend the rights of the poor and the needy." Philip Burns, Pasadena, an overlay zone enabling churches across the city to build affordable housing is among the best tools available to meet the city's stated housing goals for a diverse community with affordable housing. The overlay zone can be crafted in such a way that it balances concerns about project feasibility with neighborhood sensitivity. Development standards that will need to be addressed include density, parking requirements and height limits. While other options for accomplishing the same goal have been mentioned, they are all piecemeal. For instance, amending the PS zoning designation only affects congregations with over two acres of land, working through specific plans as geographically limiting and might raise the need for a general plan amendment to accommodate unexpected changes to the specific plan. An overlay zone would be an elegant solution that spreads affordable housing in a fair yet sensitive way. From Allison Henry, Pasadena, dear counsel, I live in district three, I'm active in housing and tenant protections. Item 18 provides us with a creative and welcome opportunity to make a significant effort towards our regional housing goals, especially for low income earners. Much work has been done with churches in Pasadena, specifically in the Northwest, where the need is great. People are getting priced out of their neighborhoods. Also, the Northwest is a gentrification target. Our housing element 2014 to 2021 in Perenz includes this vision. Quote, all Pasadena residents have an equal right to live in a decent safe and affordable housing in a suitable living environment for the long, high-fenterm well-being and stability of themselves, their families, their neighborhoods and their community. The housing vision for Pasadena is to maintain a socially and economically diverse community of homeowners and renters who are afforded this right and quote. Because of years of losing low-income housing stock to rent spikes and building of only luxury units, we are behind in housing production and our large arena numbers for the next cycle reflect that. Supporting building on church land should be an easy yes for the council. Thank you for your consideration for creative options to address our very real housing crisis. The next one is from Carol Bailey and I read that earlier in item number 16. She's in support of this item. The next is from Gary Linwood Moody, Pasadena. Church attendance is declining. Gallup says that 69% of the. adults were members of a church in 1998 to 2000 compared with 52% in 2016 to 2018. This is particularly the case within land rich older and mainline churches. Some churches are looking to offload oversized parking lots, high maintenance buildings, and extra space. With shrinking congregations, many churches are unable to keep up. Affordable housing on church land has enabled churches to bless their communities. Stay within mission and help to prevent displacement due to the cost of housing. The very thing that is hurting many Pasadena churches. Should a church feel called to consider affordable housing on their property and overlay zone enabling churches, desiring to have affordable housing on their property and overlay zone enabling churches desiring to have affordable housing on their property would provide a huge leap forward in addressing the housing crisis. From Patricia Keene Pasadena, we are asking the city council to support an overlay zone because the time to address the need for affordable housing is now more than ever and we have religious organizations throughout the city eager to be partners in making this happen. Simply put, an overlay will save significant time, significant money, and provide certainty for both the religious organizations willing to provide affordable housing, and the communities where that housing will be located. By supporting an overlay zone that will ensure the majority of housing that will be developed is affordable, the city can ensure that projects are feasible and done in the way that minimizes the need for city or other public money to make affordable housing happen. An overlay zone is needed and superior to other suggestions of incorporating such zoning into specific plan update of public semi-public zoning designation. So because these planning processes would not adequately address the unique needs of congregations. From Cindy Coe, Pasadena, Deer Mayor and Pasadena City Council. My name is Cindy Coe. I am a member of Vision Christian Fellowship located at 1555 East Colorado Boulevard Pasadena. I am writing to express my support for having high quality affordable housing built on congregational land. I would support churches in my neighborhood wishing to do this. These ideas would require workable financial arrangements which we understand the overlay zone could possibly facilitate. I understand the current arrangement makes these units not feasible. Since these thoughts for our church are in the very initial stages, we support efforts enabling us to explore any part we may play for a solution. We can then consider these ideas in our VCF board discussions. The 2020 homeless count was 527 studies show that there is an expectation of 45% increase in homelessness due to the pandemic. We are also concerned for the forces behind loss of housing for the weaker in our society including the elderly. Churches play a vital role in the community in our interested in contributing to quality of life improvements for all. Thank you, sincerely Cindy Co. And this is the last public comment mayor, council. Pastor, mayor, mayor, Maseido Nolan, executive director of clergy community coalition, Pasadena. Mayor, Tornick and city Council members, we are all aware the affordable housing crisis is an issue in cities across the nation including Pasadena. Religious institutions are allies both members in our community who desperately need affordable housing and to city leaders tasked with managing our city's land assets as well as finding and implementing solutions for issues such as this. I ask that you take steps to support and facilitate the process that allows religious institutions to utilize their properties to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing in our city, both temporarily and long-term. Both religious institutions and city leaders share the privilege and responsibilities to support and care for members of our community. We cannot solve the national crisis, but we can solve the Pasadena crisis. Let's do this together. That completes public comment on the site of mayor. Thank you. I appreciate all the comments that that people have sent in and I must say that I'm strongly supportive of the concept of allowing underutilized church properties to be converted to affordable housing. I think some of the questions that started to emerge in tonight's brief discussion are obviously valid in terms of neighborhood impacts. What do you do about churches that may start out as sort of a joint use for the affordable housing and the church goes out of business and what happens under those circumstances? But the fundamental premise here, which is to say that churches have surplus land because of declining attendance and probably many of them are over-parked. And the fact that they would be willing to invest that land in affordable and providing affordable housing sites is too attractive to pass up. So I'm strongly supportive. I'm delighted that Councilmember Wilson raised the issue in terms of making sure that this doesn't get slow walked and that it really gets the kind of attention that it deserves because there are very few opportunities like this. I mean, we have some limited opportunities that we addressed earlier in terms of publicly-owned land, like the Water and Power site, but there are a lot of church sites that might meet these characteristics. The overlay zone is one technique, it is elegant. I don't know how applicable it is. We have to establish at least minimum standards so that we're clear that it's not gonna have a huge adverse impact on its neighbors, but by the same token,, the reference I heard, I'm sorry, I didn't make a note about who said it, but the reference about predictability and certainty on the part of the institutions and their partners is absolutely vital. They can't expect them to go through the process and not know what they're going to come out with at the end. So I think to the extent that the staff can help develop, with the help of the Planning Commission can help develop some predictability of this process, some criteria by which existing densities might be exceeded in terms of a fixed multiplier and return for percentages of affordability. I mean, these are formulaic things that we might be able to achieve agreement on without making them go through the kind of a crapshoot in terms of each approval process that they're trying to avoid. But I think it's important that we send a strong signal from the council that we are not necessarily buying any particular proposal tonight, but that we are strongly supportive of really the offer that some of our churches have made to participate in this tremendous need and help solve the problem and do it in a tangible and hopefully swift way. I'm Councillor McGost and I saw you. Yeah. Thank you. And thank you. I met with some of the group in support of this effort. I'm still a little confused about, you know, is there a requirement for a religious institution to continue to have a religious use on the property? That's a good one. Or could they just sell a portion of their property? Or, you know, I'm a little comfort because I don't know what to think about. What if any requirements there should be? I think about churches, a couple of churches in my district that are, you know, smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood, zero parking. None. The beautiful building, right? Maybe conversion opportunity or something. You might want to see not want to see new building, but you could see, you know, a converted, a converted use and then we could save in historic building as well. So I don't know, you know, all the answers, but I think we should move forward. And I am concerned about sort of too much market rate housing, you know, being allowed and then it just becomes a development opportunity for somebody else. I think we should get into the weeds a little bit on it and see what we can figure out what it means and we should be leaders on this if we can kind of sort it out because we do have a unique situation in pathogenes in terms of churches and some of their land areas, significant. And how long may have to have been a church, what if there a church and a, you know, move to the other, I don't know, a lot of things to consider. We shouldn't. I mean, I think we'll probably... There's absolute recognition that this is complicated and when you get into the weeds, those kinds of questions along with dozens of others, you know, inevitably will come up. I think all we're after tonight, I won't speak for council member Wilson, he's articulated already, but is the idea that the council needs to express at least a strong interest in this and urge the staff and the commission and the planning commission to move aggressively ahead on this and flush out those questions and develop some answers and it may be that there's a you know all those blue dots on the map are not necessarily going to be appropriate. Maybe it's just the it's just the dots that have substantial vacant parking areas or there may be some other sort of threshold that will allow us to move more swiftly on some of these sites than on others. But I think we're behind the apal in terms of being able to produce enough affordable housing. And not everybody has a site as big as all saints, and so we need to, or the unique circumstance that existed at the Salvation Army. But I think we need to send a signal to the commission, to the plan commission, and to the people who are engaged in this active discussion that's been going on really for quite some time and some detail that we're supportive of it and we want to see something come back to us for active consideration. Mr. Masuda. Yes, Mayor. Thank you. I'm interested as well to find out more about what people are thinking about this. I share a lot of the concerns that Margaret has, especially with the neighborhoods, and would they have some say about what would happen at a certain church in their neighborhood, so I would be very concerned about that. And I know we need some more affordable housing. Now I saw something in the report that said that the commission talked about whether it was a question would you only have affordable housing and which I thought was very interesting. So as far as I'm I'd be more open to hearing more about this and I just want to let the other council members know that thank you Thank you miss missuda Miss Gordo Mayor I'm not sure what you're referring to is a long process and In lots of detail my read of the staff report is the planning commission took this up on June 24th and July 8th. Not too long ago in a study session and essentially recommended that we support and concept the theory of properties being used differently at churches. But they caution very clearly that more time was needed and why this has been pushed through is a concern. To me, and probably should be a concern to everyone else. This is the kind of thing that tends to divide our community and let me say something, I believe that we can get to the point where we're all holding in the same direction. But June 24, July 8, two discussions in the middle of the crisis is not in my view, in the planning commission is telling us. There hasn't been enough time or debate to give direction. And they're asking us to give them more of an opportunity to look at this thoroughly. So we can all move in the direction of being thoughtful, working in the direction of providing more affordable housing, do it together. And that's not what I see in a process like the one that's been undertaken. I think one of the speakers put it correctly. You know, some people say predictability, but one of the speakers said, having over to developers. I thought that was really interesting. So some people will say, maybe confusing predictability with hand opening the door to developers. And I think we gotta be careful with how we handle this process. So I think the planning commission and the affordable housing advocates and everyone in the city should have a real opportunity to discuss this matter. Not obviously not come back two years from now or even not in a long-gated process, but it certainly should be a thought process and I don't see that in here. And so I think our planning commission got it right and said, let's engage in the discussion and be awful about it and we should listen to that. But with a sense of urgency, because there may be some low-lying fruit, North Lake or Lake Avenue congregation, for example, would be very different than the churches in Missing Costume District that are right across from each other at Michigan, at the Hollister and Washington. Or in my district where you have three or four churches in the Villa Park neighborhood, they're all within a walking distance with little to no parking. And this just seems to be pressed through with little public input and interaction and I am concerned that predictability has become a code for handing over properties to developers. Noted. The longer term, no one is arguing that this shouldn't be done carefully and with adequate public input, but you put your finger on it. I think all that Andy was, the reason he was flagging it is to make sure that there is some sense of urgency to this. The discussions at the Planning Commission are very recent, but there have been community meetings and organizational meetings and substantial front-end work done on this for several years. And I think we can benefit from some of the analysis that some of the, what you're calling advocacy organizations have been doing. But no one's suggesting that this should be rushed through. This is way too complicated and impactful. But I share your, I think your characterization is exactly right, as long as there's some sense of urgency to this and we understand that it's potentially a valuable opportunity. I don't know if there's any low-hanking proof. I'd love to find some, but I think we need to proceed a pace and make sure the staff understands that this is something that we have an interest in. That's the only agenda item for tonight. Mayor, just to chime in, you know, when I talk to the city manager and the planning director, after the city council, I'm sorry, the planning commission meeting, it was essentially described this project as an holding pattern. So it felt like this was too interesting to allow us to stall out. So my goal here today is to kind of educate all of us and initiate a reasonable process to at least do more exploration around what the opportunities are both in terms of the low length of the fruit and maybe some longer term. So I would ask that we send this back to the planning commission. The whole sense of urgency and ask them to work with staff on an outreach process so they can come back to us, you know, early next year with some of these questions and specifics that we have talked about today. You know, there's no going running, ramming this through. That's not going to work. But the idea of it being stalled out, felt like a missed opportunity. So I wanted to at least ask my colleagues here to send us back to clinic mission with a sense of urgency that's with us long. OK, I think I don't think there's any disagreement with that. So with that, David, are you informed enough from the council's consensus here? Although there was no discussion relative to the temporary trailers, I feel like we've gotten enough information to continue forward, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. All right, let's move to the last item. Incidentally the closed session items are going to be deferred because we're all long of eating. Much as I'd like to keep you around for another hour I think it's probably not not plausible. So we will finish up with item 19, Mr. Clark? Yes, Mayor. We have a handful of comments that we could read and then we could do the reading of the coordinates. Very good. Okay. How many comments do we have? Maybe 10 or so. I had a couple of just follow-up questions. OK. So I mean, we could just go up to the comments first. Very good. OK. We can only move on to that. I neglected to ask. David, one of the other questions that should be looked at is in terms of religious institutions, high schools like LaSalle, like, you know, schools that are also religious institutions. I'm thinking about Marinette, the topic that we just discussed. You can talk over there. Yeah. Council Member Gorda, we got that. Thank you. Okay, Mark. All right. So the first comment is from Sonia Burnt, past Dina. I am a longtime resident of past Dina. I am retired after serving over 31 years as a state prosecutor during which I conducted hundreds of administrative and civil investigations, issued hundreds of subpoenas and conducted innumerable oral examinations under oath. I set the council lengthy letters dated September 21, 2020, and September 28, 2020, both of which are now part of the public record, detailing the many problems with the ordinance as drafted. These include but are not limited to conflict of interest of the City Council, excessive restraints on police auditor's ability to do his or her job and a scope of authority of the police auditor and commission so limited as to render them simply reviewers of the police department's own work with no ability to seek and uncover essential facts related to critical incidents. I Offered a number of suggestions that would alleviate the problems identified, but they have not been adopted. I urge the council to reconsider the language of the ordinance and instead amend the ordinance with terms that are Consistent with the communities demand for effective civilian oversight of the police department. Thank you. From Kanichi Yoshida, Pasadena, my name is Kanichi Yoshida, I passed the in a resident at Japanese immigrant husband, father, faith leader, administrator, and higher ed institution. I along with many Pasadena residents urge that the Council grant what the residents want an oversight commission and IPA that have been repeatedly and clearly communicated to the Council. Please do not give us a commission that is in name only and one that severely lacks substance. The ordinance proposed by the Council is ill-conceived and warrant meaningful and substantive improvement to strengthen the oversight body. We are closely watching the process and will not be deceived. Thank you. From Breed Justice, Pasadena, Council members, who among you is an expert in police oversight? When was the last NACOLE presentation to council members on building effective police oversight bodies? You appropriately listened to health experts regarding COVID-19, but where is the expert consultation on the life or death matter of police oversight? We have painstakingly submitted constructive research base letters to you. You ignore us turning your back on those in need of the strengthened community police relations. You claim to champion. Champion. Stop carrying behind words like charter and quotes and meet and confer and quotes. Research the charter yourself. Stand up to the police union. Is it any surprise that council members most interested in installing police officers on the police oversight commission have taken the most money for the police union or served in police departments themselves, don't like being labeled that way, restrict police officers and representatives from the commission and stop taking PPOA money. Mandate fundamental oversight components such as investigatory authority and non-binding disciplinary recommendation authority, and perenns permitted by the city charter. By the charter Bringing effective police oversight to Pasadena takes work with deferent to actual experts not in expert at council members simply because they are attorneys actual oversight experts argue the That week oversight bodies give the illusion of independent accountability, but provide none leading to worse in the community resentment. If you truly want better community police relations, improve this ordinance, which insults transparency, accountability, and independence. From Donna Sider, Pasadena, and I'll read the part of our statement related to item 19. This is a sham. Does not grant investigative, investigatory authority to the Commission or IPA, gives the Police Department full power over Commissioner training. This will likely include, quote, scared, straight, end quote, right alongs and shooting exercises, but no expert training in equity, civil rights, de-escalation, or the long-term implications of police actions on individuals and communities. You have not given the community what it has demanded. This ordinance is ill-conceived, rife with irrational conflict of interest, and cannot stand absent meaningful improvement to strengthen the oversight body. From David Chavez-Pasadena, I am commenting today my disappointment with the current proposal. It does not grant investigatory authority to the Commission or IPA. It prohibits attorneys whose firms are involved in police department matters but does not prohibit police officers from serving on the commission. By not barring law, by not barring law enforcement officers are close affiliates from serving on the board the city is creating another avenue of PPD influence in politics. It precludes city employees and friends including police officers from being subject to IPA slash commission subpoena nor does it allow the commission to make any personnel recommendations despite the city charter making no clear mention of such prohibition. It gives the police department full power over commission or training. This will likely include quote-scared straight right along the shooting exercises but not expert training and equity civil rights. The de-escalation are long-term implications of police actions on individuals and communities. expert training and equity civil rights. Yes. I know. The desglation are long term implications of police actions on individuals and communities. Overall, this commission structure gives the city council city attorney city clerk and police chief power power over IPA and commission matters making it dependent upon them in nearly every conceivable way. This is far from the oversight our community needs to hold PPD accountable for murders, violence, and profiling in our communities. From Ed Weshotka, Pasadena, I am ready to ask for a clarification regarding the definition of a quorum as listed on page four of the Police Oversight Commission ordinance summary section 2.60.07O Paragraph B. The paragraph states that quorum shall be a majority of the commission seats filled by the city council. I would suggest that for clarification purposes, a quorum should be defined in paragraph B as six members. My purpose for asking for this clarification is to ensure that all commission members are considered equally regardless if they are nominated by and represent council members or are nominated by and represent community-based organizations. Thank you. And that could be a complete comment on this item. Thank you. On that last mayor, on that last comment, I'd like the city attorney to weigh in or the city manager because I think Ed was shot because public comment is right on point and we would not want the the three representatives of the community or nonprofit world or organizations in our community to be felt or treated differently than the eight that are strictly from the council appointees nominated by the mayor and council members and confirmed by the whole council. So is there a way to address that comment? It seems to be a reasonable request. If I might, this is Michelle Bonnery's. The language that we used in determining the the language that we used in determining the quorum is consistent with what we have for a vast majority of our other commissions and bodies. In our other code sections in the municipal code, I would note that each member of this body would be treated the same. There is no basis for someone having, have your weight with their vote, or counting toward a quorum or not. Each representative, each member of the body would have equal vote and equal opportunity to participate. A quorum is just based on the number of people. Okay, and your comments now, are they part of the legislative history? Well, they are certainly part of the minutes and the record and the public records. Thanks. Thank you very much, city attorney. Vice Mayor. Thank you very much. City Attorney. Vice Mayor. Thank you. I have a couple questions for our city attorney. Just some scenarios that just like to go through. I don't want to rehash everything that we've already done, but I just wanted some scenario so that anyone who's watching you could understand exactly what this commission would be able to do and wouldn't be able to do. So one of the questions I have, would the IPA have access to all files now, even though they're currently under investigation? Do you want to read it now? You can hear me? No. Sorry, Vice Mayor. There was one more comment that was stuck behind the paper. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, no. I apologize. It was just stuck behind the paper. From Pastor Meira, Miseido, Nolan. What is it? Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor on that commitment further by ensuring that the police oversight commission is a body that has the wherewithal to actually affect change in its membership free of conflicts of interest. Without investigatory authority, subpoena power, and the ability to make personnel recommendations based on results of investigations, the commission does not have the tools necessary to fulfill its role as described and desired by the local community as documented in the hundreds of letters and comments submitted to you in recent weeks. We have a great start. Let's fine tune the proposed ordinance so that it leads to actual improvement in policing and police community relations. A more just passadine is attainable. We will get there step by step decision by decision. This is one of those moments, one of those decisions that really counts. Sorry about that mayor. And so to address the vice mayor's question regarding whether the IPA would have access to all of the files, even those current land investigation, I think the answer is yes and I'll turn it over to our chief assistant city attorney to Vonrat. Yes, Mr. Vice-Mier, that's correct and just the the auditor would need to understand that there'd be restrictions on keeping the files confidential such as criminal investigation or there's a pending personal matter. So those files are available to the IPA? They would be yes. But they said yes. Go ahead. Yeah, basically the ordinance says that the auditor would have unimpeded access. Yes. If the IPA found discrepancies or misleading information could they interview police officers? If officers refuse to be interviewed, could they subpoena them? So the IPA, Mr. Reichsmeyer, could interview the officers, but if the officers declined to be interviewed, the auditor could not subpoena them. The way the ordinance is drafted is to allow for, it does not provide subpoena power for city employees to testify. And that's due to the charter limitation. But if a city employee decides that they want to comply with the subpoena, they, I know you could not. So the subpoena power will not work on a city employee. For for testimony. For any city employee, even if the city employee is in public works. Well, and I'd have to take a look. I think that the one thing is, this is an ordinance set up for oversight of the police department. I did that. I was just asking the question because what a public works employee was one of the, I'm just mentioning a department. Right. And city employee was a witness. So I have that section in front of me now. So, right, it would not work for any city employees. They could subpoena non-employees for testimony like a third party witness. Okay. And there's no way to do that under our charter. I think the question is, is the charter no way that conflict with without a charter change? We'd have to take a look at it. I think it also presented a difficulty in the sense of it might require meat and confer with the affected bargaining units. Well, I think it gets to the key point of not interfering with the city manager form of government where the employees all report except for those council appointed departments to the city manager. So we haven't looked at interviewing other employees who are not subject to it, but it appears that it would still be part of their employment. We haven't kind of analyzed that, but it doesn't seem to be allowed because that's still engaging city employees in that process. Do you have a city council member risk that they engage city employees? Right, but this isn't someone in the chain of command for the city manager. It would the city attorney's office. So it's someone other than the city manager. I think that needs to be done. It doesn't sound like that is been fully asked. I'm just saying I think that when this commission is set up this would be one of the first things that we look at the CF that's a peanut power is if we're even able to do that. And even if we have to do a meeting conferred and you just do a meeting conferred, we grant that as a city council. Right. The meeting conferred is different from the charter limitations, but this is certainly something that can be considered further as things get implemented when you're talking about subpoenaing someone who's maybe just a witness or something. We'd have to see if there's a basis to distinguish that. Anything Mr. Vice-Mayor, one more just to add one more thing to Michelle's point is that anything developed out of the testimony that say an officer might give whether it was whether they voluntarily testified or otherwise, that couldn't be used against them for personal or disciplinary purposes due to the charter. So it kind of is also a question of even with the ability to talk to the officer, what would that, the commission would need to consider what would it get them because it wouldn't get them to be able to participate in the personality disciplinary process. Well I appreciate you alluding to that because if it doesn't go against their Personnel disemplarion, you know their personnel file or if it doesn't get into that then I don't see why they can be subpoenaed if it has no marking marking on their status as an employee There's no relevance to them not being being able to be subpoenaed on them if they're answering questions. Yeah. As I said, we can see if there is a basis to distinguish that for those non-offers that you're talking about or non-police department employees. If the IPA thought there was relevant witness, not interviewed by the police, could they subpoena them? And what exactly happens if they file a motion to quash? So Mr. Riceman, if it was a third party witness, like a member of the public that witnessed, and they could be subpoenaed to testify by the auditor. And if the person that was subpoenaed didn't want to come testify, then they could file a motion to quash, and that would be with the commission. They could file a motion to quash with the commission. Right within five days of getting the subpoena. That's correct. Okay, and the commission has to agenda isn't right. And we'd have to we'd have to assess whether that would be done in closed or open session. That kind of thing. And if the commission says no, we're going to let you get subpoenaed by our IPA. Is there another layer or could the person who's trying to cross it come to the council for one of the appeal? The way the ordinance is drafted, the commission would be the last stop at the city for that, but presumably if the commission denied a motion to quash that person could then go to court and initiate an action and ask a judge to quash the subpoena to say that the commission or the auditor's subpoena was overbroad or that they shouldn't have to provide testimony. Okay. If IPA and commission find that the PPD acted out of policy or negligent because they report this. So Mr. Vice MayorMayor, I think- Publicly, I'm sorry, so they reported out publicly. Right. So, they could, under a couple circumstances, first off, if they don't rely on personnel or other confidential matters, they could probably publicly report on that. They could also publicly report on it if the incident at issue was already subject to disclosure under SB 1421, which allows for disclosures of past officer and ball shootings, uses of force causing great bodily injury and a few other types of critical incidents. And so those types of matters could be publicly reported on. But one of the things though is that the police department cannot rely on what the commission might or IPA might report on as a basis for personnel action against an officer. And could they recommend, I mean, would they recommend discipline? I mean, as a, as their opinion? They certainly can, Mr. Vice-Mayer, the problem is that the police department then cannot take that opinion and call it their own. Okay, and so for example, let's say in the most recent shooting of Anthony McLean on the side of Gilbert Police Officer on Raymond, if the commission believed that officer was out of policy, what she was out of policy, I'm the police chief said that, could the commission say we think this officer should be terminated? It's their program. So it would be within their program to do so I think one of the things about how they might publicly report on it might be constrained if the matter was still under personnel investigation or if the officers were still under personal investigation or if the officers were still under criminal investigation, the other thing is that like I said, the chief cannot take any conclusions that the auditor issues and then call them his own. So the administrative process under the city manager really needs to remain there under the charter. really needs to remain there under the charter. Okay. And then my last question is, let's say the commission, I know the commission's going to look at policies. And so the commission makes recommendations to the police department as of change of policies or different types of training for officers. I know that they have, I know that they do the training for, I wouldn't have looked at the active shooter training. I forget, it's kind of like the test where you try to pull a gun out really quick and shoot, I know that they do that training quite often, but from from understanding, implicit bias training is not done at the same frequency as a training on how to pull your gun out and when to pull your gun out, or training to de-escalate, de-escalation training is not as prevalent as the training on firearm use. So if the commission believe that they believe that the training should be equally across the board and they made recommendations to the police department. What happens next? So right now, Mr. Reiser, the ordinance is silent on any formal role that the commission has in department policies. So they can make recommendations that we think you should have a policy of X or you should change your policy or you should do more of this training, less of that training. You should initiate this kind of training. But really the commission's role is, it's advisory like the other city boards and commission, most other city boards and commissions. And so they also might present initiatives to various city departments within their jurisdictions. So that would be the first observation. The second thing is the chief and the city manager would have kind of a practical incentive to follow the policy recommendations. And then also, if the commission recommendation might not be followed, that's something the commission could share with the city council. And the city manager is one of the appointees of the city council, so the council could take up that matter and discuss it kind of like the council discuss the police department's body warm camera policy a few years ago. So I'm all story short we are trying to with this ordinance protect our neighbors or citizens in the city of Pasadena so that when they finally can play it doesn't go on deaf ears. A commission would be able to see that look at it. This commission right now doesn't have the strength of the teeth that it needs but I am appreciative of the subpoena power that did come out of it. I am appreciative of the fact that now they can let me just ask this question because I've not taken this one. In the IPA, this is my last question. I'm sorry. If the IPA wanted to do a parallel investigation, would they be able to do that? Or let me not say investigation because I think that trigger is a lot of report. Would they, I'd be able to do a parallel report on a police officers on a investigation of the use of force. For example, like the Christopher Blue matter, would they be able to be in the room or the anti-immaclame matter with a IPA right now say, you know, this is a matter that I need to track very closely and monitor everything that's going on. Would they be able to be in that room? Yes. And they would be able to write a parallel report. Yes, but one of the things with that report, just to be clear, is that would be a report that could not be used against the officers for any personnel or disciplinary matters. But definitely, they could be around for the process and write about what they thought about the process. Right, and they gave recommendations back to the commission on how during the process what they saw, that they believe the police department could be better on. They're allowed to do that, but as of right now, it's just kind of a recommendation and not necessarily any mandate that the City Manager would have to make changes to That's about right and I think depending on the type of incident and depending on the content of the auditors Report that may or may not be able to be made publicly if it was the auditors report that may or may not be able to be made publicly. If it was, especially if the Council and the Commission were seeking to have something put out to the Commission publicly more with more confidence that it could be put out, then that would be into more general concepts of I thought whether the Department's investigation was fair or thorough impartial, but when you get into details about incidents, then that starts to trigger what's called the Pitchest Statutes or the Confidentiality of Police Officer's Files, and so only in certain circumstances can those details be released. So I just wanna say that the subpoena power question that I raised. Before the commission comes back, I mean, in a update from the city attorney, I would like a opinion on that because maybe that need even needs to come back to us sooner than later, but otherwise I am supportive of this. It is not exactly what the community asked for, but it's definitely a lot better than when we started. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Javon, for your answers. We have the public comments. Are there any more council comments before we call the roll? Clerk, please call the roll. This is an ordinance of the City of Pasadena, mending various provisions of the Pasadena Municipal Code, creating a community police oversight commission and be an independent police auditor This ordinance was introduced by councilmember Kennedy councilmember gordo Councilmember Kennedy Yeah, councilmember Madison Yeah, councilmember missuda. Yeah councilmember Mclosten Yes, councilmember Wilson Yes, vice Mayor Hampton. Yes. Mayor Tornick. Yes. This ordinance is adopted without opposition. Thank you. That completes our agenda. Lengthy agenda. We better not. There is one more item I need to bring to everyone's attention publicly. And that is that there is a public hearing on October 8th, this week, at 10 a.m. on that's conducted by the Javier Bacera, the Attorney General, with regard to the proposed change and control and governance of the Huntington Hospital. This is a requirement that the Attorney General have a public hearing on the proposed change and the joining with the affiliation between Huntington Hospital and Cedar Sinai. I'll make sure, Mr. Clerk, the affiliation between Huntington Hospital and Cedar Sinai. I'll make sure, Mr. Clerk, that the access information for this public hearing is posted on the city's website. But this is a required public hearing, and I'm not sure it was widely disseminated, and so I wanted to make sure that at least referenced it because of this week. We can definitely post that for you, Mayor, if you scan an email to our staff, we'll take care of it. Very good. So with that, unless there are any super critical items that anyone else needs to raise, we will adjourn tonight's meeting in memory of the... has been our meeting in memory of the, has been our practice in memory of the COVID-19 victims in memory of the victims of the arts off violence and Mr. Tim Price. Please rise.