Thank you. I'm going to make a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm gonna go back to the room. I'm gonna go back to the room. I'm gonna go back to the room. I'm gonna go back to the room. I'm gonna go back to the room. I'm gonna go back to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to play a little bit of the music. I'm going to play a little bit of the music. I'm going to play a little bit of the music. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the May 2012 special meeting of the O'Henver City Council. Roll call please. Mazza Maloney here Wang Here. Wang. Here. Andrade Stadler. Here. Lee. Here. The only item on the agenda is close session. Do we have any speakers from the public for this item? There are not any speakers at this time, and there are no participants on Zoom. We will now move moving to close session, Mr. City Attorney. Yes, this evening we would request a recess and a closed session to discuss the two pending litigation matters that are listed on the agenda. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. We are recessed to close session. you you you We have now completed the item on this evening's special meeting agenda. And I will adjourn the special meeting and move into this evening's regular meeting. Good evening and welcome to the May 12th regular meeting of the Elhamber City Council. Roll call please. Mazza. Maloney. Wang. Here. Andrade Stadler. Here. Lee. Here. Please join me in the flux. Ready begin. The mission statement, the City of Elhambera is dedicated to responsive, creative leadership, and quality services. ensuring desirable neighborhoods and a supported business environment while being sensitive. dedicated to responsive, creative leadership, and quality services. Ensuring desirable neighborhoods and a supported business environment while being sensitive to the diversity of our community. The first item on this evening's agenda are ceremonial proclamations to declare May, 2025 as Asian-American native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Heritage Month in Alhamdulillah and to declare June 2025 as LGBTQPRI month. I will begin with reading the language from the first proclamation. Here I see 1990, the first Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, was designated by Presidential Proclamation in 1992, Congress permanently designated May of each year as a month-long celebration, now known as Asian American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Heritage Month. And we are at the given theAmerican native of Hawaiian Pacific Islander youth of all ages, face bullying online and schools and the AAPA communities have been the target of anti-Asian hate acts. It is important to reflect on the tradition of leadership, resilience and courage shown by these communities, communities, and recommit to this struggle for equity. And whereas Asian-Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, make our country more vibrant through diversity of cultures, languages, and the American story as we know it will be impossible without the strength, contributions, and legacies of Asian-American Native and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders who have helped build and unite this country in each successive generations. And whereas the thing from May 2025 Asian-American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander here at Digimonth is a legacy of leadership and resilience. And Asian-Americans and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders continue to enrich our region's economy, culture, education, politics, arts, literature, science, and technological developments. Now, therefore, be a result of the month of May 2025 is hereby proclaimed Asian American Native Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander here at Tige Month in the city of Elambra and the city in the city council encourages all those in the community to learn liberation movement, A call to action that continues inspires to live up to our nation's promise of equality, liberty, and justice for all. And whereas Pride Month is a time to recall the trials of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community has endured. And to rejoice in the triumphs of trailblazing individuals who have bravely fought and continue to fight for equality and whereas all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And LGBTQ individuals have had a measurable impact to the cultural, civic and and economic successes of our country. And whereas the City of Elhamber is committed to supporting visibility, dignity, and equality for LGBTQ people in our diverse community. And whereas while society at large increasingly supports LGBTQ equality, it is essential to acknowledge that the need for education and awareness remains vital to indiscrimination. And now therefore, be resolved that the month of June 2025 is hereby proclaimed LGBTQ Pride Month in the city of Alhambra and The city council encourages all those in the community to recognize the achievements of LGBTQ community Affirm our obligation to uphold the dignity of all people and to celebrate the great diversity of our city. Our next ceremonial presentations congratulate and command Matthew Wong upon receiving a $50,000 scholarship from Southern California Edison due to his excellence in STEM related fields and his pursuit of career of a career in sustainability and innovation. Mr. Wong, a student at Marquetteville High School, and a former city of Elhambra, Building and Safety Department Summer Intern, will attend Stanford University in the fall. Mr. Wong aims to improve earthquake safety using his computer science and geophysics degree, degrees to create modeling of ground motion during seismic events in order to help in the design of safer buildings. To prevent retrofitting, retrofitting structures from collapsing and to improve building plans. The City of Alhambra is pleased to congratulate Mr. Wong for his academic achievements and offer very best wishes for success in his future endeavors. So I'm going to step down and present a certificate. . . . . Do you have to be present to win? We can we can do the other presentation first and then circle back if you make it in Hopefully Matthew won't find his way to the chamber and And we still have the certificate right here. It's not going anywhere. You'll take it. No, I'll take it first. So I'm just staying down here. Our final ceremony ceremony is the presentation of accommodations to the Fremont and North of elementary schools dual immersion program students and you're all here today. Stereo Ami. Here's our pick up. The dual immersion program educates students in both English and either Spanish or Mandarin to encourage bilateral sea, bilateral sea and the exploration of different cultures. The sea of Alhambra commands the teachers and students participating in the Freemont Elementary and North of Elementary dual immersion programs for their commitment and dedication to academic enrichment, sir bilingualism. And I have certificates writing for you. And the first group is the dual immersion free month, free month school is in Spanish. You're all right. All right there. Okay. So why don't you all kind of lie right there and then just I'm going to call your name and you just come up here. I'm going to have photos later. Do you want photos in the front like before? Okay. So why don't you just lie bring the front? All of you stand up, the dual immersion Spanish. You guys could just scoot all the way down over here. Okay. Do you want to be on my left side? Yes, you'll be on the right side. Why don't you just sit on my two house so somebody will be on this side. Can we make two rows? Two rows. Over here. Yeah, that's good. Wait, you stay where you are. Okay, you're fine. You guys are going to be the front row. Okay, you start to the line receive your certificate and return back to where you were. Okay. And all of you are in middle school? Is that correct? Okay, I was expecting... Eighth grade, oh, interesting! I was expecting little kids. Yeah The first class. All right, the first one goes to Ayanna Blackshaw-Dominguez. Congratulations. Rodrigo Campos. Congratulations. Nayali Lombrea Lombera Sivantes. I practice all your knees before but I still don't get right. So forgive me. Next one, Dayhanshu. Congratulations. Devon De Porto. Congratulations. Congratulations. Micha, they portal. Congratulations. Michaela Kayla Flores. Congratulations. Leonardo Funtis. He's out here. OK. Jeanette Garcia. Melanie Garcia. Congratulations. Kata Hernandez. Congratulations. Kathleen Marquez. Marquez. No, Kathleen Marquez. Now here. Samantha Gignones. Congratulations. Andrea Ramirez. Congratulations. Diego Reyes. Congratulations. Miles Reos. No miles. Leonardo Rivanis. Rivanis. Congratulations. and then everyone moves down. Okay. Nicholas, oh, oh, oh, oh. And then everyone move down. OK. Nicholas Soto. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. No, Ian. Ian Tran. Okay. Bruce Van Norman. Congratulations. Pablo Belosinda. Congratulations. Second group. Yeah, you're on a're going to take a photo together. Mayor, if I can just say a couple of words. This program would not have happened. Had it not, and it wouldn't have lasted without the support of school board member, Hey, Samar, who's in the off in the audience. Assistant superintendent, Janet Lees, can you guys stand up? And also, Carly Chavez, an amazing principal at Fremont, and the hardest working parents I've ever met. Congratulations, parents. Come on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. To be serious, I actually know a little bit of Spanish. We had to take Spanish class when I was teaching at repettle school and we had to get the certificate. And I'm flowing Mandarin, all sort of forthcoming level. So we learned Spanish by watching the soap operas. I love my instructor. He was from a San Gabriel High School. So I have a little bit understanding of what being a bilingual or a trilingual is. It's actually a very wonderful thing. It's amazing how brains are created to be able to navigate between two, three different languages. And how many I just speak one language, the grandparents and another language to your mom and so on and so forth. I have that experience. So what you have achieved is amazing and I want you to make sure that you continue with our second language or third language because as a continuation, it's a progress. If you don't use it, you lose it. And that's for sure because my Mandarin really took a deep, I came here from Taiwan. I had a fifth grade level Mandarin. And I was learning English. I only knew the alphabet. But now my Mandarin is probably a first grade level. My sister allows me all the time. But I still, it's amazing how you learn a second language like this. The next group of students who master or who graduated from the Doing Merchant Program is from Northrop, Northrop in the Mandarin Program. So would you also please sum up your just like the first group? Thank you. All right, you look very cheerful today. By the way, summer is coming. You're thinking about summer break, don't you? And all of your middle school as well? Eighth grade. Wonderful. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and read your names, and you will come up and receive the certificate from me. The first certificate goes to Aaron Chan Arnold. Congratulations. Jasmine Chan Arnold. Congratulations. Brandon Chen Arnold. Congratulations. Brandon Chao. Congratulations. Chloe Vanne Bell Howard. Congratulations. Tiffany May Ho. Congratulations, Zingli Huang. Or Zilin Huang. Congratulations, Audrey Lam. APPLAUSE Joshua Branden Lam. APPLAUSE Congratulations. Congratulations. Jessica Su Lee. Congratulations. Derek Lynn. Congratulations. Bruce Chen Hong Liu. Congratulations. Are you Lee or Leigh? Congratulations. Sienna Aivan-Evian. Congratulations. Nicholas, we jao-ya. Congratulations. Alexander Yu Wei-Young. Congratulations. Alexander Yu Wei Young. Congratulations. Zachary Yu Hong Young. Congratulations. Kay Lee Zeng. Congratulations. Cheng Yi Zhu. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any comments from the city council members? Mary, if I may say a few words. Yes. I am just so incredibly proud of all these students. Our very first class of the Spanish and Mandarin Duy immersion language program. I know this is the very first program that we've had in a district, and it's something that's new and big and bold. I'm so proud of all of your achievements. You know, you didn't just learn a new language, you also learned a new way of thinking. You stepped into someone else's world, understand a different culture. Now you have a whole new set of lens to look at this world. And the cultural sensitivity that you have is what the world needs now. So recognize what you have, recognize what you have achieved. And it takes out of hard work and determination in the of challenges. And you did all that. I'm so proud of you. And I want to thank all the parents and the teachers that are in the audience. I can see all of you, but I know that it takes a lot of parents support and teacher support in going through this program. And I also want to thank the Elhamber Unified District for taking this big, bold step to create those programs and support it since the very beginning. So congratulations. 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. Oh, it's Matthew Wong here. This is Matthew Wong here. Still looking for Matthew Wong. We still have the check right here. It's not going anywhere, right? All the room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to get a little bit more serious. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll play. We'll play. Thank you. Next we have public comment for non-gen dice items. During this portion of the item, individual speakers will have five minutes. Each to make their comments and the total time for the item will be 30 minutes. If there are any remaining speakers at the end of 30 minutes, those speakers will be able to make their comments at the end of the meeting. Also we ask that any speakers stay their name and address for the record before making their comments. Do we have any speaker cars from the public? We do, Madam Mayor. Okay, thank you. The first speaker is Rose Darren. Please come up, please. Good evening, members of the City Council. My name is Rose Darren's board. I'm a resident at 2420 Cape Town Avenue in Elhambera. Have been for almost 50 years. I'm here tonight to address the situation of the stop signs on Hellman Avenue, on West Smot, where it intersects, and on Ross. It's a five way that has never been clarified. I think something like 40 years ago, I sent a letter, requesting that it be clarified, because as you travel east and west on Helman, people don't stop for you if you wanna turn onto West Monk. If you're traveling on West Monk to turn onto Helman, it's the same thing, especially people coming from the college, they do not stop, they glide through. And it's very dangerous. And if you're on Ross, forget it. So I'd like to know if we can either have stop signs that have beacons so people realize it's a stop sign or some sort of sign that indicates just what type of sign it is. it doesn't say two way three way five way it says nothing and if you're going home heading west on Halman and you want to turn into the Alhambra track area left it takes forever you can wait there sometimes as long as five minutes for someone to be courteous enough to let you go home. That's one issue that I know a lot of us in my area because we have talked about it are concerned with and we would like clarification so that it provides a safe environment for all of us. That's one issue. The other issue I have is the street lights, especially on Westman Avenue. I walk with friends late at night, as we're walking the street lights go off. When we get to them, which makes us feel like we have some sort of weird, something or another, and as we continue, it goes back on. And this happens every night. And night and it's different different lights so they either need a different kind of light or the sensors to be checked or something so that they always work not just when they feel like it so it provides a safer environment again for the residents who use this area Those are the two things I'm concerned about and I hope they will be addressed and that they will be rectified so that there is safety for all of us in that area. Thank you. Our next speaker is Elsa Gutierrez, Abilis. Good evening, esteemed councilmembers. My name is Elisago Tierra-Saviles and I live at 3401, Julep Place, in the Alhambra Hills area. I come to you today with a concern regarding the traffic as my neighbor also had mentioned impacting our area of Elhamber Hills and the Midwick track, an issue that I have expressed to many of you via email in the past. In recent years, the traffic often on the 710 Freeway has dramatically increased and greatly impact our community. The new CSULA housing structure and the LA Football Club training center and fields have also caused an increase in traffic and have negatively affected the street traffic coming through how men are being used. It used to be that traffic would be heavy only during certain peak times, but that has now changed. Traffic begins early in the morning and goes for several hours and then again starting late in the afternoon through the evening. This does not only occur during the weekdays. Now it's starting to occur during the weekends because now we have Alifabok Club practices and tournaments during the weekend and it's all afternoon and not only impacts the traffic but it is impacting also parking for our neighbors in the out Hellman Avenue area. The five way stop at Hellman, Ross, Westmont, Avenue is a great concern for our community. This is a danger not only not only is it impossible for us to exit or enter our neighborhood because of the commuters. Because of the commuters that do not stop at the Hellman Avenue, but also for our school children and neighbors that are constantly having to dodge cars that are not making a complete stop. Our neighbors are frustrated by the increase in traffic which has made our streets unsafe. This congestion and traffic have affected the Alhamdulillah and Midrach track for far too long. The posted stop signs are not respected. We have asked for patrolling from APD traffic police, numerous times, and the visibility of the traffic police is very limited. The urgency is such that many of us were prompted to attend the Transportation Commission meeting held last week, but unfortunately since the commission did not meet a quorum, our concerns were not heard. It seems that this topic has now been redirected to you. As a resident of a hammerhills, I hope that the City Council does their due diligence in reviewing these problems and listening to community input. I hope that the action taken is in the best interest of those of us that are negatively impacted daily. I appreciate your time. Next speaker is Lola Armandero's. Hello, Armandars. Before I get into my little items, I would like to make a repeat request that goes back many years based on what we've just seen with the ceremonials. I had suggested that you set aside one night out of the week, out of the month, strictly for ceremonials devoted to these people. Have a reception afterwards, some refreshments, music, and so on. Instead of rearranging your schedule, you have some heavy items on, while I feel heavy items on your agenda this evening that need to be addressed. And this is interfering with the ceremonials and perhaps that's not the correct word with getting down to why we're here as city council meeting. Now all the seating was taken up if other people wanted to show up this evening. When I saw the agenda this evening, I said, you know, I don't think I'm going to go because I already saw the number of names and didn't know how long this was going to take. So honor them by giving them special time for the ceremonials and treating them to a little fun and downstairs. Oh, please take that into consideration. They might enjoy it all so more and they can arrange their schedules also and you can arrange yours. Because it's already what 20 minutes to 7 we could have been halfway through the meeting already. All right. Thank you. I was before the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting in October and I was before you in November made a request and we hear from you so much that you want to hear from the public. Well at the meeting for Parks and Recreation because the Veterans as Damon Moriel was coming up the ceremony. I requested that you recognize the large rock next to your regular ceremonies with our dignitaries and so on in the music, the rock that's there. The plaque, and I'll read you with the plaques as again. This stone stands tall in honor of those men and women who have served in the United States Army, Armed Services during peace and war. What I overlooked was going toward the east in that part of the park. There's the other ceremonial area with Jefferson's quote, in the ground, there are bricks that are embedded into the soil, giving the names of also people who have served. That was covered with dirt when I was there in October. And when I finished giving this presentation to you, I walked over there and I said, you know, Dodo, why didn't you include this one? Well, tonight I'm including it and then asking, as I mentioned to Parks and Recreation also, what's it going to cost you to put another flag or two flags on the rock and acknowledge it. The Jefferson one or put a banner. You've got banners where the refreshments are. Put a banner or put a roof. Or Jefferson's memorial is also. When the Jefferson went in, the first one I was after the people who were there with their Tai Chi classes, putting their telephones, their purses, their exercise equipment on the memorial. I had to go and tell them, this is the memorial. You take that stuff off. I had to bring it to the city too. Okay, now, my time is up already, but I'm asked now, and brought it to you in November. What happened? Zip. Didn't hear from you. Nothing honoring them. So I'm bringing this again to you because you want to hear from the public or Memorial Day. So I hope that isn't too much of a burden for you to consider. In my other comments, I will keep for another time. Thank you. I felt they were the most important ones. Our next speaker is Sawyer Rooks. 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'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, city feels like home because of the people who make it what it is. And I'm here tonight because those people are neighbors or under threat. Alhambra has always been built by immigrants from Chinese and Mexican immigrants going back generations to Vietnamese, Filipino, Central American and Middle Eastern immigrants who have come since. Nearly half of our residents are immigrants. They're the backbone of the city. You see in our markets, in our small businesses, in our schools, go to Costco on a busy Saturday and count how many languages you hear. And you see in this room. But while we go about our lives, the Trump administration is accelerating their hateful anti-immigrant campaign. They've already talked about deporting legal immigrants, and he's even used about deporting US citizens. They're using 18th century war laws to detain people without due process. They've pushed claims about gang threats from Latino immigrants, and they've previously even floated wild conspiracy theories about Chinese migrants forming covert arm. We know how this goes. They pick a group, they target it, and they punish it while others look away. It starts with one community, but never ends there. It's Muslims one day Latinos the next. How long until they're going after our Asian populations too? We must resist. In the past couple of weeks alone nationally, a breastfeeding mother was deported from Florida leaving behind her one year old who had to be hospitalized. A four year old with cancer born here was deported with no access to medication. Ice raided the wrong home in Oklahoma and terrorized the U.S. citizen's family, forcing them outside in the rain and their underwear. Ice agents swarmed sweet streets in Boston, wearing ski masks and hiding their identification, dragging people off the streets. The mayor of Newark and a sitting judge were arrested by federal agents for trying to protect their constituents from unlawful detention. And the president has ordered the debutizing of 20,000 local police to assist in this campaign. If, when, these streets start to unfold on our streets, we need a plan. Alhambra has already taken meaningful steps. We are a sanctuary city, and our police department has a policy to limit cooperation with ICE. That's good, but it's not enough. We should codify that policy into law, like Los Angeles did. Make it binding, not symbolic. We need a legal defense fund, so no one faces the system alone. We need rights education, multilingual outreach, cross agency protections, and we need to lead regionally, connecting with our neighbors up and down the San Gabriel We should also form a Community Advisory Panel on Immigrant Protections. Create Spaces. and we need to lead regionally, connecting with our neighbors up and down the San Gabriel Vale. We should also form a community advisory panel on immigrant protections. It creates pace for public input and make it clear that all Humber sees what's happening and we will act. And I respectfully ask the Allhumber Police to remember that they protect and serve this community. I've heard good things about our police force. If the time comes when they need to choose between protecting our community or helping mask an identified agents drag our residents out of their homes, I hope we can count on them to make the right decision. When we protect immigrants, we protect families, we protect our neighborhoods, we protect Alhambra. Let us be the city that said absolutely not. Close enough, thank you. I'm with the committee health alliance. Our coalition focuses on informing and educating the committee on the dangers of secondhand smoke, which I've been hearing this evening to share with you. Secondhand smoke includes shopping, smoke from the wedding end of tobacco products, such as cigarettes and other plant-based products, such as marijuana and cannabis. This also includes aerosols excelled by users of electronic. Sorry. Smoking devices such as e-cigarettes. Second and smoke causes adverse health effects for both adults and children, including stroke, lung cancer, sudden infant death syndrome, and respiratory illness to name a few. According to the 2025 State of Tobacco Control report published annually by the American Lung Association, Ohamber received a grade of C for smoke-free molting state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state, 91% of residents surveyed would prefer to live in Multinear Housing. That is completely smoke-free. While 88% of respondents agree or strongly agree, that all units in Multinear Housing should be required to be smoke and vape-free. The community health aligns in Theresa Wayne's about the risks of second-hand smoke, especially in Multinear Housing. As goal six of the Alhambra Strategic Plan looks at improving housing opportunities, we believe that our coalition is aligned with the city's goals of creating safe and affordable housing in Elhamber. With the city reporting an estimated 8,000 multifamily dwellings, conservative estimates categorized about 45% of Elhamber residents as living in Multinear Housing who live in multi-neutral housing are more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke in their home as shared heating ventilation and air conditioning can distribute second hand smoke throughout the building. This means that in some cases tennis may be involuntarily exposed to environmental health risks, due to nearby smoking activity. The residents of Alhambra deserve to be smoke-free air, even if a family in Multanet housing adopts a household role prohibiting smoking in their home, thickening and smoke can still enter their unit from other units and areas where smoking is allowed. In 2014, the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Smoke for your laws and workplaces and communities help smokers quit and reduce tobacco use. In addition, establishing smoke for your communities make it less likely that youth and young adults start smoking. With the city building more affordable housing, it is important to consider the health and well-being of vulnerable populations and maybe the most impacted by second--hand exposure, including youth and the elderly. Our team is committed to continue to provide the information and education to all our community members, and hopes that the city considers closing loop holes to protect residents. 20 jurisdictions across the county have implemented smoke free multi-union housing ordinances, including the cities of Pasadena, Torrance, Burbank, and Elmonte. The coalition hopes that the City of Alhambra considers a similar solution to a gesting list issue. Lastly, we would like to invite the Council and community of Alhambra to our town hall event. Smoke free features this Saturday from 11 to 2 in Ries Hall at the Alhambra Civic Center Library. We'll have guest speakers, refreshments, and activities for attendees to learn about the impact of smoking and second-hand smoke on their health and the health of their community. Registration information can be found on the Library Events Calendar. We hope to see you there. Thank you. Do we have any speakers via Zoom that I wish to speak? If so, please raise your hand now and you will be able to unmute yourself when your name is called. Yes, Madam Mayor. First, we have Professor Michaelson. Hi. Thank you. My name is Melissa. I'm a Flutzen and I am an educator. I'm a constituent in this district of Assembly Member Mike Fong. And I live in on hammer. I urge everyone who's concerned about censorship in California classrooms to contact Mike Fong's office as soon as possible. And I urge you legislators up at the City Council to do the same. You know, he comes here to our City Council, when many City Councils are around or since his paid staffers instead. If he can't come to give you all our certificates and do photo ops, but now he's disrespecting not only our resolution, calling first, he's fire in Gaza, but he's trampling on teachers' rights and he's promoting censorship in the classroom. So Assemblyman Mike Fong has co-authored an authoritarian bill called AB 715 for the entire state of California to punish educators for teaching about Israel or Gaza in the name of combating religious discrimination. It's couched in that way. Did he not read the bill? I don't know how he can author this. I'm ashamed. School board members and superintendents should be very concerned at all of this and also demand that he rescind his name from this awful bill. Your amazing teachers and school employees will be punished, fined, and put in jail. Any student, any teacher who makes a student feel unsafe as they are teaching about what a country is doing or has done, if the student is of that quote-unquote nationality from that country or even identifies as being part of the country, they don't have to really be from a country or is aligned with people from that country or ethnic or religious group can claim discrimination AB715 would also ban books articles and films that quote-unquote promote discrimination I'm not sure how that's done and how that can be proven. Discrimination based on nationality or religion, and it redefines nationality to include a person's even perceived shared ancestry or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity. And let's face it, right now, the big country that we're talking about is Israel that has that dominant religion or distinct religious identity. The state superintendent may also directly interfere, intervene without waiting for an investigation by the school district under this bill that he's authored. This would usurp the role and take a well power from local school districts to investigate any kind of local complaints. And then according to this bill, only Israel would have an anti-Semitism coordinator, they call it coordinator, but it's to basically ensure compliance and police the classroom for content that might offend a student from a particular nation or whoever identifies with that nation because of that dominant religion. So my concern is what's next here? Punishing teachers for talking about US history or current events and censoring textbooks and materials used in classrooms that relay a certain position or event on a certain president or policy, whatever. This is like, this is going way too far. And this is right here in our backyard, really. So basically, my assemblyman Fong is going to be trampling on free speech and censorship and pushing censorship in our schools, all in the name of protecting the country of Israel from educators teaching current events. What's more important is what I want to know. The free speech of his constituents here, the honest knowledge, imparting knowledge to students, the critical thinking, the discussions, watching information, learning, or offending certain groups because they are embarrassed about something, or they want to protect their quote-unquote religious under religious, I don't know, they just want to, they're just, I don't want to go in that direction, it doesn't really matter. What it is is, it's unacceptable. Everything that I've said is AB715. I highly recommend you urge him to remove his name from this terrible bill. This is embarrassing and it's going to the assembly on Wednesday. Thank you. We have one more hand. Marie Trees Lopez. Please unmute Marie Tari's low pass? Can you please unmute yourself? Marie, speak, please speak now. Madam Mayor, there are no other raised hands at this time. Thank you. Does this conclude this portion of public comments? Our next item. Madam Mayor, can I just say a few things? Is it possible for us to have Ms. Darenne's berg speak to our public works director maybe outside about the flickering lights that need to probably be repaired right away. Our Public Works Director is back there, maybe he can chat with you about that. And I think, you know, I like the idea of the wreath. I guess I'll leave it at that, but there's some more I'll add at the end. Thank you. A next item on the agenda is a public hearing regarding the renewal of the public works maintenance and improvement district for fiscal year 2025 through 2026. Miss City Manager, is there a report from staff on this item? There is this evening's presentation I'll be giving by Director of public works and utilities Dennis Allen. Give you an extra job. Sorry about that. Come on in because he's he's got to give a report first, but he'll talk to you after. No, thank you. Good evening, Honourable Mayor and members of City Council. Before you this evening, we are a quest to conduct a public hearing. Approved the fiscal year 2025, 2026, assessment for the public works maintenance and improvement district. In 1996, the City Council established the public works maintenance and improvement district. The district consists of three zones. And pays for public right away improvements and maintenance and items as such as street lights, city trees and maintenance of city landscape and areas of each zone of the city. The recommended assessment for the fiscal year 2025, 2026 for a single family remains at the same amount as it has since fiscal year in 1996 1997 at $93 and 17 cents Each year prior to June 30th renewal of the assessment is required to be approved by city council Notice of the public hearing regarding the renewal of the assessment districts was published in the past In the store news and posted in according to law. It is recommended that City Council, after conducting a public hearing, adopt the resolution, renewing the public works' maintenance improvement district for the 2025, 2026 fiscal years with no increased defeats. I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards from the public for this item? No Madam Mayor, I do not have any speaker cards. And do we have any speakers via Zoom that wish to speak on this item? No Madam Mayor, there are no raised hands on Zoom. Thank you. See that there's no one remaining that wishes to speak, I will close the public testimony portion of the hearing. Does the council have any comments or questions for staff on this item? Move for approval. Madam Mayor, I have one question for staff. Can I ask how much balance do we have for this public works maintenance improvement district for this fiscal year? I'm not hearing you. Can you speak a little louder please? Oh, I just wanted to ask staff what's our balance for public works maintenance improvement district for this fiscal year? The fund balances would be in the opening pages of the budget. Unfortunately, I don't have my budget copy with me. I'd be happy to get that for you and supply that. Sure. It's in the agenda item. Oh, but the amount of generates is in the agenda item. No. fund balance would be in the budget. Sure, no problem. I just wanted to say since this is created to, you know, be used for public works purposes and street light, street treatment and improving street sidewalks and all that the basic things that improve our safety, I mean, the infrastructure and if we have enough, I liked for us to explore the possibility of using some of the funds for our street light master plan. And we heard from our community that street lights are extremely important that we have areas where, you know, we have flickering lights and lights that are not reliable. And the brightness is not enough. And those are safety concerns if we have any opportunity. If we could just explore the possibility of using those funds to fund the street light master plan. Thank you. With that, I can second the motion to approve. I have a wind question, Mayor. Is zone B, is that just for the residential area? I understand zone A is the car, the auto row, but I wanted to understand if the zone B are mostly residents. Okay, that's what I thought. So it's included in this report. Okay, great. Okay, thank you. Well, actually, no, I have a question. No, this thing's going right. You give me some time. I start thinking. So, in terms of using the funds for street lights, and I heard the city manager say, we'll consider that, but we don't have the fund balance. When can that take place? Because I do have- The finance director texts me the balance. The balance at the end of this budget cycle is $3.3 million. So $3.3 million, but how much of that can be opened for street lights? Replacing street lights? $3.3 million. Oh, great. Absolutely. Depending on the council's decision. So do you want to put down agenda at the end? Council member Wong? I know that we already have the item on the strategic plan. I think maybe after I know it's coming up in our next item to look at the funding priorities for our strategic plan. So I think depending on how that goes, I will leave it to staff. I think what I already know that from staff confirmation that there is enough money to go ahead and proceed on the street light master plan with this fund. And then there's also funding available from our strategic plan. So if that is what council determined as a priority as well, I think staff has options to look into. Thank you. If nothing else, there's a motion, a second roll call please. Mazza. Yes. Maloney. Yes, yes. Wing. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes, Ali. Yes. Our next public hearing is regarding the Community Development Grant, Block Grant, CDBG, and Home Funds, 2025 through 2029 Consolidated Plan, 2025 through 2026 Annual Action Plan, and analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. The city manager is there a report from staff on this item. There is this evening's presentation will be given by Esteban Alvarez Management Analyst. Good evening Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. Before you this evening is a public hearing regarding the city BGN Home Programs. As part of the fiscal year 2529 Consolidate Plan, the fiscal year 2526 annual action plan, and the analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. Submission of both the five-year Consolidate Plan and the annual action plan is a requirement of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD. These plans outline how the city intends to use federal funds to support decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low and moderate income residents. According to HUD requirements, each grant team has submitted its Consaudé plan at least 45 days before the start of its program year. Although HUD has not yet provided the city with its official fiscal year 2526 funding allocations. HUD does permit the city to proceed with its public hearing using the fiscal year 2425 allocations as estimates. Final funding amounts are expected by a mid-May of 2025, so very soon. The Consaudi plan includes a needs assessment, housing market analysis, strategic plan, and annual goals. This year, the city has also updated the analysis of impediments. It had required document that identifies barriers to fair housing and outline strategies to overcome them. As part of the Consolidate Plan, the first year action plan for fiscal year 2526 is included. This action plan identifies the action plan identifies estimated funding levels as follows. For CDBG, $834,539, and for home, $440,224. The proposed CDBG allocations and programs are as follows. Administration at $141,908. Fair housing services at $25,000 with the goal of assisting approximately 350 individuals with fair housing services. Housing rehabilitation for minor improvements at $342,450 with the goal of assisting seven low to moderate income households. Code enforcement at $200,000 with the goal of assisting approximately 300 residential properties with code enforcement services, and public services senior case management at $125,181, with a goal of assisting 100 new undubligated low income seniors, as well as deliver case management services for senior population, including meals on wheels, telephone reassurance, and other related support services for seniors. The proposed home allocations and programs are as follows. Administration at $44,022. Housing rehabilitation for major improvements at $330 and $168,000 with the goal of assisting two low-term water incomeer income households. And lastly, Cho to reserve for new construction at $66,034, which is a required set aside reserved to be used by community housing development organizations for eligible housing construction for lower-moder income households. Once a project has been identified. As part of the citizen participation process for the Consolidate Plan and Action Plan, the city conducted two interactive pre-planning sessions with the HCDA, Citizens Advisory Committee on December 3, 2024 and March 4, 2025. These sessions focus on identifying funding priorities and developing program recommendations to ensure broad community input, the city extended invitations to 120 organizations serving low and moderate income populations, as well as to neighboring jurisdictions. Although the ACAD committee was unable to secure a quorum for its regularly scheduled meetings on April 1st, May 6th, as well as a proposed special meeting for May 7th, We are encouraged to independently review the draft consortium plan, action plan, and analysis of impediments. One comment was received from Vice Chairperson Lewis McCammon as reference in the staff report before you this evening. Further, no comments were received following the 30-day public review period, which was conducted from April 11th to May 12th 2025, and published in the past year in our news, Lepinion and World Journal. The City Consolidate Plan, Action Plan, and Analysis of Empanements were also made available for public review at City Hall, at the Elhamber Library, and on the City's CDBG Program website. That concludes my presentation for you this evening. Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing at this time. Following public input, the City Council may consider approving the fiscal year 2529 Consulate Plan, the fiscal year 2526 annual action plan, and the analysis of impediments, and authorize staff to submit these documents to HUD. Staff is available to answer any questions, and this evening we're also joined by our consultant, Ms. Rhonda Gattam, who helped draft these documents, and she can answer any question you have as well. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards from the public for this item? We do, Madam Mayor. We have just one speaker, Louis, Mr. Louis McCemmon. Good evening and thank you. I do have one item to pass out here. It should be a copy for everybody up here. Since these numbers are being passed out, these are the numbers from the agendas which were before you for the City Council meetings for this year and the prior two years so that you can kind of see comparatively how the numbers have been trending. The difficulty is, as Mr. Alvarez had mentioned, we don't get firm numbers from the feds. We haven't received the allocation, they just say, well, kind of go by your best estimate stuff. And you'll notice that also in the what you had before you in May of 2023 in May of 2024, you'll notice those numbers were identical. And that's because in 2024 in May, we still had not received the word from the HUD as to what the allocations would be. They just said go by last year. And the numbers are in that general area. They generally come in a little bit higher, but it doesn't make it a little difficult for planning. What we do see this year is a situation there's one very glaring area, which I highlighted in red, which is in the home allocation. We're taking a big hit it looks like on the home allocation and it may be even worse with what's going on inC. right now. You've heard of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Well, we have the Tesla Chainsaw Massacre going on up there right now. And HUD is taking a lot of cuts. It's not only just going to be on staff, you can figure it's going to be in their programs also. And so we're seeing approximately a $100,000 drop in the funding that we will have available that's before you in the document tonight to appropriate for housing rehabilitation. This is in past years, this has been used by low and very low income people who were in need of home rehabilitation, CBDG, funds tend to go towards rehab projects that are below 50,000. The ones on the home program tended to be for the ones above 50,000 dollars. It's, and before you, you have two documents. You have the five-year plan and you have the one-year plan. These numbers here from the one-year plan. The five-year plan identifies priorities. If you look at the one last five-year plan, it's pretty much the same on the priority recommendations with one major exception. Five years ago, big major public development projects, the last item on there, was rated as priority. It didn't mean you couldn't do it and indeed we did do some money on that. But and all the others were rated high. This year everything in the draft document which unfortunately our committee wasn't able to discuss because we're short several seats on the committee and we weren't able to get Quarms identified in advance to hold a meeting. But it's, the question is whether that should be shifted from low as it was, because, and the reason I suggest keeping that low is we have other funding sources for those things. For street lights, you'll see later on in things like item 10 tonight. Before you, we have other funds that we can draw on for those kind of things. We have very few funds that we can draw on to deal with a problem of affordable housing in the city. So I'd rather keep that low. I would recommend maybe moving up one category in there, the ADA projects from low to moderate, moderate to medium, whatever the feds prefer on the terms of wording. But those are my suggestions for tonight. Thank you. Do we have any speakers via Zoom that wish to speak on this item? No madam mayor, there are no raised hands on Zoom. Seeing that there's no one else remaining that wishes to speak, I would close the public testimony portion of the hearing. Does the council have any comments or questions for staff on this item? I would just like to hear if we can have a staff response to Mr. McKammon's suggestion about their kind of reprioritizing one category there. Sure, just to add some clarification, I think in Mr. McKammon's comment, you know, you could see it in the Consolid plan and strategic plan area, P7U2, where has priorities. And just to clarify for HUD, the priority levels are only high or low, high meaning that it's being funded and low meaning that it's, you know, it's on the radar, but there's no funds for it. So we wouldn't necessarily be able to move it up to, let's say, medium category, you know, we can for sure lower the funding levels, but it has to be categories as high in order to be funded. And you know, Veronica wants to add any more to that, but we would have to leave it at high if we're going to fund it in any sort of way. Otherwise, we can put it as low, but they won't get any sort of funding. See. But, Amara, folks, I have a couple quick questions. I know that we're proceeding with the hearing before the HUD has officially notified the city of its allocated funding. Do we, you know, with the federal funding on certainty right now, do we have any doubts about whether we will receive the allocation? How does that look like for us? Yeah so far there's no doubts. We did reach out to you know how to few times and they said there's no worry. In fact the last correspondence we had for them was in April, mid April, it's about a month ago and they're the ones that told us to move forward and that the allocations would come mid-May. this time we don't have any sort of concern about knocking any funding. So I think we're in a good place at the moment. Thank you so much. Of course. And thank you for proactively reaching out and trying to understand. And next question is I know CDBG funds has a lot of very strict regulations. Yes. very strict timeline so we have to spend it. Are there any part of the funds that are at risk for lapsing? No, currently none of the funds are at risk for lapsing. We're pretty good with their timelines, which is why we keep good measurable goals that we can achieve. So at this time there isn't. But if anything were to change in the future, we'd obviously come back and make an amendment to not ever be at risk for timelines. Thank you so much and thank you for all of your work. Of course, thank you. We have a motion. Move to approve. Second. Roll call please. Mazah. Yes. Maloney. Yes. Wang. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes. Lee. Yes. Our final public hearing is regarding city vacancies, recruitment and retention efforts report in compliance with Assembly Bill 2561. Miss City Manager, is there a report from staff on this item? This evening's presentation will be given by Director of Human Resources, Mayor Mkuh. Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. In September of 2024, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2561 into law. This new law became effective January 1, 2025, requiring public agencies to hold a public hearing, at least once per fiscal year prior to the adoption of the final budget, to report on vacancy, recruitment status, and retention efforts. The new law further requires that additional information be provided should the percentage of vacancies by the represented employee groups be higher than 20%. Currently the city has approximately 411 full time budgeted positions with 20 of these positions vacant as of April 29th, 2025. In the report, staff provided a summary chart of the city's bargaining units, number of vacant positions, number of budgeted full-time positions, a total percentage of vacancies by bargaining unit. Data shows that none of the city's bargaining units have vacancy rates exceeding 20%. So therefore additional reporting is not required at this time during this public hearing. Furthermore, Assembly Bill 2561 further recognizes, recognize bargaining units allows recognized bargaining units to speak before the city council during this very same public hearing. All of the City's represented bargaining units were notified of this public hearing tonight and provided with their bargaining units vacancy rates. This evening staff is requesting that the City Council conduct the public hearing, receive and file this report in compliance with Assembly Bill 2561. Thank you. Thank you for that report. I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards from the public for this item? No Madam Mayor, we do not have any speaker cards nor are there any raised hands on Zoom. Thank you. Seeing that there's no one else remaining that wishes to speak, I will close the public testimony of this hearing, of the hearing. Does the council have any comments or questions for a staff on this item? Just a good job keeping those vacancies low. I agree. I also wanted just to, Mayor, if I can just mention that the bargaining units are allowed to speak and make presentations before the council during the same public hearing and we don't see any present so everybody must be happy. Okay. May I have a motion? I'll move. I'll second. Procal, please. Mazza. Yes. Maloney. Yes. Wang. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes. Lee. Yes. Our next presentation is regarding approval of a traffic calming guidelines policy. The City Manager is a report from staff for this item. The same means presentation will be given by Dennis Holland, Director of Public Works and Utilities. Good evening again, our Mayor and members of the City Council. On April 14th, the City Council, 2025, excuse me, the City Council received a presentation and information regarding a traffic common policy, I'm sorry, traffic, common guidelines and speed hump policy and directed staff to make revisions to the policy as follows. Clarify the process with an executive summary. Combine the traffic calming guidelines and speed hunt policy into one document. Change the evaluation time from level one calming measures from one year to six months. Change the evaluation time of level two calming measures from two years to one year. The initial citizen request requiring a preposition, prepotition of five residents, and then changes to the speed hump policy, change from property owner to resident proposal, the speed hump petition required changed from 75% signatures to 67% for approval. The change in the role of public safety from sign-off to an advisory role. And to move the neighborhood position to the last step in the process. Also reconsideration of an item that was recently reviewed and did not meet criteria or warrants when reviewed by the traffic engineer and the transportation commission to be two years instead of five. Streets that are already have level one and level two coming measures may place or may apply for level three measures including speed humps and also to create a flow chart for the ease of understanding of the policy. Also after each consideration of various costs for implementation, the following changes were made to the traffic calming guidelines as follows. Reclassifying crossing guard from level 1 to level 2 due to ongoing cost of contracting crossing guard services. Reclassifying the installation of solar electric speed signs, flashing LED stop signs, and roadway pavement devices from level three to level two, due to costs. Finally, also City Council directed staff to attempt to hold a special meeting of the Transportation Committee for their review and comments of the draft traffic calming guideline. A special meeting was scheduled for April 30th, 2025 for the Transportation Commission, but there was not a quorum to hold the meeting thus the policies redirected to City Council for consideration. If you have any other questions of myself and our traffic engineer, I'm proud of this here. Do we have any speaker cars from the public for this item? Yes, Madam Mayor, we do. Oh, we have a total of seven. Bye. First one is Mr. Harry Avalos. Good evening, City Council. I read the traffic guidelines and I'm going to go ahead and read what I read out of this manual here. Due to some concerns I have regarding our traffic issues, I read the speed hump guidelines and I would like to share the following. Speed Humps, speed cushions and rumble strips are not in the California manual on uniform control devices. Speed Humps should not be a level 3 criteria. speed hubs,, Speed Cushions, and Rumble Strips should be a stand-alone in the power of the City Council through ordinance. Level 1 and Level 2 should be tried or attempted, but if those levels are not attained, does that mean that we cannot attempt level three through petition? On page 33, qualifying criteria for level three, it states, level three traffic calming measures will only be considered for streets that have implemented level two measures within the past 12 months and continue to meet level two criteria thresholds. Page 44. Speed Humps, Speed Cushions, and Speed Tables, and similar pavement undulations, such as rumble strips, are not classified as traffic control devices under the California Manual on Uniform Control Devices, which is the official standard for traffic control installations on public streets. criteria, speed humps, criteria number 8, page 55. The street must be have a critical or 85 percentile speed of 34 miles per hour or more. Does that mean that if a collector road has, what does that mean if a collector road has a speed limit of 30 miles an hour? Number 9, page 55, the street must have a minimum ADT volume of 1000 average daily vehicle trips and a maximum ADT volume of 4,000 vehicle trips. On page 13, number 9, qualifying criteria for level 2, traffic volume, the street should have at least 500 vehicles traveling in both directions daily. So what happens here is that you have a big jump from level two to level three. So it's not clear. I said on the traffic commission for four years and I never knew the process of how you got, it got to the items got to the commission. So typically you had like three three items, three four items and then we discussed it and then we voted on them. But they did you know what I saw when I saw the presentation was not level one and and level two because Janna Robbins would give the presentation and then we would vote up or down on the items, but there was no level one or level two. So, you know, I kind of take issue with this whole situation because the, also we have a power point presentation being submitted as now a doctrine or an ordinance, but to me you're making it difficult to ever attain level 3 and then it's not clear how the level 3, the petition, is formulated if level 1 and level 2 get shot down. So if you don't, if you make it so difficult to attain level 3, then how are you going to get there? To the petition process. Do you have any questions on that? Am I clear? Please clarify. I'm trying to figure out your concerns about how does a section of neighborhood, for example? Let's say you have level two, level two, and my wife went over a level two issue. And so it rolls Darren's book. So if you go through the study, right, and then it doesn't pass, muster with the engineer and the commission, yet, while I went over. I asked you a question. So if it doesn't pass muster with level one and level two and the commission shoots it down, right, the transportation commission, then you're never going to attain level three, because it's a petition formula. Maybe that's something for the engineer. But so it makes it difficult to the whole process makes it difficult to actually get to level three. That's great because you're a commissioner so I you know the details of what's going on. I'm sitting here on the dias. I want to I want So level one and level two, we didn't call it level one and level two as a commissioner. What happened was that the item, I don't know, somebody submitted the item and then the item went to the commission and then we read it over. Some of us went out to the site and and through paper looked at it and then the commission discussed it and then approved or disapproved or added something to the agenda for further review but it wasn't called level one or level two. But so when engineer did the which what I thought was a a PowerPoint presentation became a policy guideline. And then so it's it makes it so hard to get to level 3. And then level 2, if the last sentence that I wrote to you, I mean that I wrote here, was it, you have a big jump from page 13, number 9 to page 55, number 9. You know, you go from 500 vehicles traveling in both directions to now you got 1,000 to 4,000 vehicles but in which direction both directions it's not clear. Okay thank you I understand how to ask my question to the director later. Pardon me? I will pose that question to the director later during council comments. Thank you for clarification. All right. Bye-bye. And the next speaker is Miss Lola Amarderas. Ms. Lola Armandars, I was going to suggest that you continue this matter. I attended the meeting on April 30th and as the director mentioned, commissioners, they didn't have a quorum, all right. They're scheduled to have their regular meeting this week. However, they don't have a quorum for this week either. That concerns me because I'm wondering how interested are they in this particular project? I didn't know that there were any revisions until I got to the meeting and then I asked, well, what are the revisions? Well, they weren't available. So I would suggest again that you put this on hold and let's go back to what we used to do years ago of having study sessions. We held them in the library. Here's a good example. You can have more public there. Get the word out and say, you know, come to this meeting. There were quite a few people at the meeting and to find out that they don't have a quorum, a special meeting, and they should have read already the report with the revisions. And so I said, I'm not, I didn't know what the revisions were. I had read it initially when it was going to be heard on the 30th, but I said, now do I have to go back, get the one with the revisions, read the one I've already read, and figure out where they are. That's my time also, my interest that I want to see what's going on here, because I live close to Elhamber Road, Elhamber, Park. And I have issues with the traffic in that area. And to see that you have commissioners who aren't appearing for the special or the regular, doesn't say much here. But I'm going to go with this also. Well, I've got so many notes on this already that I wanted to talk to about air, and I'll get this in before my time goes. Concerns I have about these speed humps and speed bumps. I'm not sure exactly what that is, but I know that years ago, and perhaps if you check with the traffic division with PD, we had an issue with the bumps and the humps because apparently there was an incident where a vehicle went airborne after hitting one of those humps or bumps. I don't know if he died or whatever. Okay. The reason I'm bringing this up is because what can happen? We don't have proper signage out there on the streets. As a sheet, I think it's Ross, Murengo and Ross as you're approaching the freeway. The The street was repaved. No signage was put, was returned, that they did have there, that there was a dip. And so people are speeding along. They don't know there's a dip there. Boom. Maxent. I think the other side of Fremont also. You see signs that say dips, but they don't tell you where the dips are. So this is something that you need to discuss in a different type of setting because there's so much involved here. And I question if Mr. Maloney is paying attention to my comments. All right, because there's a lot of problems in your district and they're going to be more. And I have made my request and was going to ask because I asked you about the center lane and El Hambarot that you're going to remove because we're going to have bike lanes. Okay. I don't have issues with bike lanes. It's the locations that you have selected to put those bike lanes. And a lot of this is going to come into play. So again, I feel that you should put this on hold or continue it for a couple of months at least until we find out in July which is the next meeting of the commissioners whether they're going to be sitting. I don't know how much experience they have with traffic and so on the coming but what I also saw in this report was raised side walks. I'd like to know whose brainchild that is. Raise sidewalks when you have people who have difficulty walking. They're walking with with with with walkers and and canes and people are have strollers raise sidewalks. Okay. This is a little bit much already and I just, I have concerns about your commissioners not being there, but again, I'd like to see us go back to study sessions and not here in council at the library where this is the only item you're going to be discussing. Thank you. Do you have any speakers after me? Okay, because if you'd give me permission when you finished with the items, if you could just let me have a minute on oral communications, because I wish to discuss the neighborhood watch meetings that are coming up. You could do so at 2 o'clock again. Our next speaker is Jennifer Eing. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members. Getting the disclosure out of the way I'm'm a member of our Design Review Board, but this opinion is my own as an individual. It was frustrating to be at that Transportation Commission meeting and not to have a quorum. Staff reached out, confirmed the seven people who are currently on the commission. I know we have vacancies. We're going to be there. Staff even gave them a whole extra half hour to get there. And then finally had to tell the public that we just can't have the meeting tonight. I want to ballpark there about 17 people there. Staff did their best, but one of the instructions that they gave was that it would be an item on the next transportation commission meeting. So people who don't watch your agendas are thinking they're supposed to show up at that meeting. So there's definitely a lot of people who are there at that transportation commission meeting who aren't here probably because they just don't know. And I don't think staff, you know, they gave the information they had at the time. I don't think they were actually trying to do anything to not have everybody be welcome here tonight. One of the concerns that the people I spoke with had, and I know my neighbors have, is when it's being assessed kind of what's happening on a specific street, is that we're only looking at accidents in the last three years. It's just not enough. It needs to be longer than three years, maybe even back to 10 years. Just for my husband and I, his cars had the mirror ripped off twice. It was ripped off once on my car. My car got totaled, parked in the front of my house. The car that hit it, the pickup truck hit it with so much speed. My tail light was in their trunk bed. It hit with so much speed that tires bent under the car and cracked the curb to the point. City came out and fixed the curb because the cracking was so bad. And we called them and said, you know, this probably needs to be repaired. It's not not all of that happens in three years. Less than six months ago, another neighbor got their car hit. Side swabs, every person on my lap who I know, which is a lot of them, but not everyone, has had damage to their car. I live on South Cordova, south of East Maine, and then all the way down to Mission. It's just a mess. It's too skinny of a street. You cannot have a car parked on each side and have two cars pass each other in the middle. So as residents, don't feel safe leaving our cars parked in the front of our own houses and on our block. And the more high density we get, the more there is no choice for that. What my husband and I decided to do, our garage can only fit a Model T. So that's not an option. So if you come over to house in our backyard, our cars are parked right in the middle of the the backyard extremely unattractive, but That's the only place we can feel they can Relatively safely be right now and not to get it. It's just a really bad ongoing problem So I think more than three years worth of data is needed. I think if you're gonna be doing Traffic counts of how busy the streets are you need to look at what what's happening on the street. Because for our street and between, against South Cordova in between East Maine, and even just a commonwealth, people go up to Grenada, they drop their kids off, and then they take that alleyway in between Grenada and Cordova. So if you're doing a count on South Cordova and you're just counting what's making the turn up and down at South Cordova and Maine, you're missing a huge amount of the count because all those parents are coming down that alleyway. So I think really when the counts and things are being done, you need to make sure you're on the right spot for that block, I think would be very helpful. I understand from a city perspective that you know you have to start with phase one, phase and then we get to phase three. I'm glad you don't have, you made that change, so it's not waiting as long to get to phase three. Some of the things maybe we need one way streets. Maybe some of them just aren't wide enough to accommodate. Maybe the speed humps and bumps won't help by there. So thank you for your consideration. Our next speaker is Mr. Lewis McKemmon. Yeah, just briefly on this one here, it seemed to me that there were a couple of concerns that people had when they spoke at the last city council meeting on this. One was lowering the number or the percentage required on the petition. I very much agree with the changes that came from your suggestions of changing it from the owner of the property to the people who actually live there. I think that was a good change. It's now been changed down from 75% to essentially 2 thirds. And I remember there were a number of people thinking and suggesting 50% plus one, which I think might be a more achievable feature. I don't know that 2-thirds is insurmountable, but it does give one third of the people of veto over having the project considered. And all it does is it doesn't put the speed hump or whatever other things being suggested in place. What it does is it initiates a study and further looking at it of the feasibility and so for it. And I'm thinking that lower than 2 thirds is probably a useful goal to start the process so that we get that gather more data and are able to take a better a better look at it. The other thing is just the the whole problem of people are just seeing delays built in. I realize that your suggestions, you were sensitive to that, you were short in some of those timelines in there. People really are, this is an issue that is very concerning for people in particular areas, particularly where they've been at this for years about the people from North Margarita especially. One thing I did notice, speaking about speed humps, the Chinatown Service Center has that ramp going up to the parking area on the second level, they didn't have to come and apply for, and wait years to get a study or anything, they just did it. There are speed bumps on that ramp, and that ramp has a very big sign, five miles per hour, and they mean it because they don't want you speeding off the other end into their structure. And they don't want you speeding down because it's very hard to see people walking by on the sidewalk there because of that building. So they put the speed humps in to really reinforce it, make sure that people are taking it seriously about the speed on that ramp. And I think it's something for people who are concerned about safety of their children, their pets, elderly people, and so forth. It doesn't mean they have to be everywhere. And just some things, as I mentioned before, about the reflective strip on the pole for this sign. That could be a very, very inexpensive thing to do. You already get the sign in place. You don't have to plant the pole or anything. Those kind of things I think would be very helpful, particularly in the evenings. Thanks again. Bye. Our last speaker on this item is Marie Lopez. Hello. Good evening. Yeah, I don't understand why this is on the agenda item. I was also at that transportation commission meeting. You know, they gave out the revised guidelines. I don't know if it's been revised again, but to me, it's a lot of minutia, quite frankly. And I don't understand. It's so generic. Why would you accept something as policy? I mean, the director just gave a few minor changes. But to me, I think this you could take this policy, or this is what you want to adopt these guidelines as policy, and apply it to any city anywhere. We are very unique in Elhamber. We've got a free way that didn't get completed. You've got tons of traffic, people that do not want to go on Fremont, Huntington, Mission, you know, so they're going through, I'm in the Emory Park District, by the way. And they're going through Poplar Boulevard at top speeds. My sister, who has a very busy practice as a marriage and family therapist, she took time out of her busy life to go up and down popular boulevard, talk to residents, get them together. This was like three to five years ago. They had a nonprofit that worked with the city, funded the study, so did all those level one and two, the education and all that, and they put the lines, the strips, everything, nothing happened. Those blinking, the only thing that happened was the blinking stop signs. They did nothing. People don't even roll. You know that California roll with the stop sign? They go straight through. Just a couple of, two weeks ago maybe, this guy on an-road vehicle. So it is an illegal vehicle. It's one of those dirt bikes. It is so loud. It comes from El Sereno on popular. You can hear it doesn't gear down to stop. Goes about 40, 50 miles. He finally got hit because he's not stopping. He's hitting towards Fremont. He got hit by a car, the poor people, that were probably just you know, didn't see him, but because he's racing when they were making the left turn from La Paloma on to him. So there's like all kinds of stuff that happened. And to me, these lower levels, they are ineffective. I don't understand why in these guidelines, you don't have anything with resident input. We're the ones witnessed this stuff. Many of us have cameras. I have a camera that faces Poplar. My desk, my little office in my house, faces another stop sign. I can see the stuff that's going on. The brinks, trucks, armored vehicles that are illegal because we're supposed to have those. We have those signs on both ends of Poplar. In fact, the sign that you, from LA going on to popular towards Alhambra, you know, it's at the border of Alhambra. So, already on popular from LA because part of popular is part of the city of LA. So, they're going through huge trucks, you know, so it's ineffective. They're going over the speed limit, which is 25 miles per hour. But to me, these guidelines take too much time. Six months is a long time. If you've already done a study on popular, why should we have to go through these levels again when it's already been done? And you know, as well as I do, that we continually having people disregarding stop signs and red signals, not just in Elhamber everywhere. And as far as the Humps, I see them everywhere. Glendale, Pasadena, my friend lives in Hancock Park, on Rheem-Pau Boulevard. That's a residential area just like where I live on popular. They have humps. I went to Hossie and the Heights took photos. They have those humps where they're wide enough where it's not completely across. So it's wide enough for the fire trucks because you know they're wider than most vehicles. So they can go through without having to you know go over the hump. So there are things that are doable. They've been successful in terms of speed humps. These lower levels are not effective. And you should have something in the policy for resident input. I have taken countless photos, video. I've talked to people. Cars have been damaged on popular. One guy I think he fell asleep. He jumped the curb and thank God my lovely tree on the you know the parkway saved us from him destroying property. He hit that and then he hit the car parked in front so hard that it traveled across the street into someone's, so that was about maybe 200 feet into someone's rot iron fence, destroyed it. So we need measures that are going to take less time. And remember that, you know, you need the input from the residents, we're there, we're the witnesses, we're the evidence. Thank you. These are all the speakers, cars I've received for this item. Are there any speakers on Zoom? Yes Madam Mayor, we have two speakers on Zoom. The first speaker is Gina Garcia. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, Madam Mayor, we have two speakers on Zoom. The first speaker is Gina Garcia. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great. So first I just want to say thanks for the updates that you did make. I appreciate it and the flow chart is easy to read. So first I just had a comment regarding not having an appeal process once again. It's concerning to me because all of our neighboring cities also have, they do have an appeal process. So I'm not sure why we can't mirror that along with our neighboring cities. I feel like it makes sense and it's only fair to give the residents who show up and are expressing our concerns a chance to appeal. So since the process is so difficult to obtain you know speed humps on streets where the neighbors feel like it's an excessive speeding problem. Second is I think that the transportation commission should be allowed to present their view to the City Council. Not just their opinion or their view should not be presented by staff. It should be from the Transportation Committee. It seems like only fair that they be there to present their position. And then the other thing is the 40 feet maximum. The wider the street, the faster people go, I think we all know that. So like, if it's a wider residential street where speeding is a significant issue, the drivers feel less restricted. So the policy already states that it is limited to residential or local streets and excludes like collector, arterial or higher classification streets. And the policy states that the streets should not have more than one traffic lane in each direction. So it seems that the 40 feet limit is unnecessary and may inadvertently omit wide residential streets. So if we have that, it just seems unnecessary. And then in terms of the removal requests, I don't know why it's back to two years. I think it was five years before. I feel like if you knock it down to two years, someone wants to, let's say someone wants to remove it. After two years, I feel like we spent a lot of money, a lot of time, and a lot of resources, and then all of a sudden, two years later, they can request it to be removed, which I think is unfair. So that is all I have for now. Thanks. Next on Zoom we have Professor Michaelson. Hello. This is Melissa Michaelson again. I live in Emory Park. I don't know. I'm just going to let neighbors speak for what they need for their streets. I think on my street, it's okay. I wouldn't want anything to happen. But, you know, if we're going to have a democratic process, I wouldn't want any kind of slowing down measures. Those things won't obviously be for all streets. But I think if we have a robust democratic process with input from the public, not just consultants, but we do need to look at the data and make sure we have there that there is enough, well, you need to look at the data. You need to look into it to see what merits, what kind of traffic calming mechanism. Then that would be good and get input from the public as well. So I don't have particular preferences, but I do agree with a lot of what the the last speaker said. There was a lot there were a lot of good points made so I appreciate that. I just want to bring to your attention that a couple meetings ago you all voted the exception of one of you to give the Chamber of Commerce $140,000 a year giving them a $20,000 raise for I don't know what exactly and I don't think you do either honestly because when you look at their invoicing, it's very Lucy Goosey. It's just, you're just basically giving them a subsidy of $12,000 every month. For the next two years, you extended their contract. Four of you did anyway. And so I just wanted to bring that up that I was surprised that a traffic signal costs about as much. And so, you know, the public could have maybe you might consider giving it a couple of tries, a couple years of not paying the El Hambro Chamber of Commerce. See how they do in the city or reducing the amount you contract with them for and use that money if there is ever a money issue to really put some pedestrian street lights or crosswalks and stuff like that, the ones that are more expensive. Whatever works and whatever you think is the best, but there's certainly money there that could be re-evaluated. Thank you. Madam Mayor, there's one more raised hand from a Diane L. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great. Hi, my name is Diane. I'm a resident on North Margarita. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the Council and staff. Thank you so much for putting together the changes. I did my best to review them and I do have a few comments. Firstly, in regards to cost and prioritization, I do think that streets with high complaint volume streets near schools or parks or that have a history of coercion or complaint should be weighed more heavily in consideration to the budget allocation and that should be specified in the policy. Secondly, I think that there are words like reasonable tolerances or profile deformation stated. Those don't really have technical standards or tolerances and a measurable criteria would be helpful in clarifying in providing language for staff to operate off of once this policy is agreed upon. Third, I do agree with Gina that there should be a transparent appeal process because it feels like residents deserve a formal channel to challenge any rejections or seek reconsideration or escalate safety concerns that they have for where they live here in the city. And lastly, it feels like we should require the Transportation Committee to get active and work with staff to present their findings and opinions to the council in order to make these decisions for where the budget is allocated. That seems not only fair but objective as close to objective as possible. This is clearly a very concerning issue. I do feel, again, the need to reiterate the fact that we should prioritize pedestrian safety and wellness over the convenience of cars. And this is an ongoing issue. I'm glad that we've escalated it as such, but those are just the comments I had. Thank you so much for your time. There are no more raised hands on Zoom. Thank you. There are no more public comments for this item. Does the council have any comments or questions for the staff? Thank you, Mayor. And thank you to the residents for coming out and speaking to those online as well. We appreciate your comments. I can tell you that this council really does care about engagement. One of those suggestions, and I understand why our staff and under the direction of our city manager went to work to put this together, to create a process, right? Because It didn't have a process before. Not something that was written or laid out that we could look to to help guide, right? But one of the suggestions I had when TransTech came to give the report was exactly what Miss Lopez said was to utilize previous data and that data specifically for popular where they put that temporary project and you helped, TransTech helped, put that project together and then did data on it and so you have that data with you and we must have that on you. And I think that that's important because even though we didn't have a specific guideline in process, it didn't mean people weren't asking for help on their streets, right? Over the years, I was a Transportation Commissioner for Crying Out Loud. And we were asking for help in our school district because I was a school board member at a time. And you guys did. It took a little time, but you started to really look at how our schools needed a lot of assistance. So I thank you for doing that in TransTech. You have the knowledge that you've been with us for so many years now, you have the great knowledge, the institutional knowledge is what they call it, right? So you have the 10 years that Missing spoke about, you know, for some spots, some places. And I think that's critical because what it does is it, that information is very important that there's already been data because it really does make a case for a separate ordinance. It makes a case for a separate ordinance that rides right alongside these great calming guidelines that are created. because speed bumps are not in the California manual on uniform traffic control devices, it separates it and everybody knows that. I know other cities that have implemented these things. Now, some of the other cities who have implemented have also had residents pay for those homes. They raise money to do that because the dollars are short. We know that, you know, that sometimes it doesn't go far enough. So that's the responsibility of the City Council to make sure that dollars are put in place so that we can take care of the very basic needs of our community. We could talk about immigration. We became a strong city that came out early and we are supportive of our families who are 70% immigrants. So I appreciate your comments. And that's important and that's critical for safety. But we also need to take care of our lighting because they need light, everybody needs light. And we need to take care of our traffic flow because we didn't get that 710. We lost that. We lost that. And that was critical. And so we're trying to get some dollars to be able to go back. That's what I think we should focus on. Measure our dollars to go back to us inside potentially to help with the flow because it It has to help with the flow of traffic. The 710 money has to help with the flow, because it has to help with the flow of traffic. The 710 money has to help move traffic. So we have a challenge there in that we're trying to slow traffic down and include bikes and include things for kids and things that are safe for our community. And with that means that those measure our dollars may be locked into something else. So we're challenged by that. But I really do believe we need to go back. I'm not ready to support this unless we do a separate ordinance for the speed humps. I also think we need more engagement and at least our great transportation commission that showed us the commissioners that really did show up. And there are 17 people there that's incredible, that's good, that's a robust number of people that didn't get their voices heard, right? And they're not all here today. We know that some of them are online. I do want to say that I think what's critical about this coming guideline that was created by staff, which is very good in so many areas, is that it is a clear procedure, but it also acknowledges the request for residents, right? And it's a receipt of that request. There's an acknowledgment of that request. And then we should put some time limits on how quickly we can get our staff can get back to the request of our community. So what is that? Respond in 48 hours and come up with an idea in 90 days. Something like that, right? I also think it's a paper trail. We all need them. We all need the paper trails, right? And, you know, I think I'm gonna stop there. Oh, I know what I wanted to mention. We don't have enough police on motorcycles, traffic cops, do we? We're down one, I believe. And so that doesn't help when people are speeding, you know, a speeding down popular or speeding down, you know, Hellman. And we only have one or two of them out there, you know. We need to make sure that we're fully staffed there with the traffic to help our traffic officers who are out there doing a lot of work. And I think I'm going to stop there because I really would like to hear what my colleagues have to say about outreach. Thank you. First, I'm glad this is in front of us. I think the changes that have been made are by and large. Very welcome and tracked what the council gave his feedback last time. So thank you for that. That's great to see. I like the flow chart, I like the additional clarity here. I like the fact that we don't we didn't have two different sets of things we're providing into one. So I have a couple of maybe technical things, then maybe I'll get into some bigger picture stuff. So as I understand it, you need five signatures to start any review of the any traffic calming measure, including step one. Is that right? Level one. And then if you go through level one and level two and you want your neighborhood want speed bumps, then you have to once again get five signatures to request the speed bumps. Speed bumps. Right. it's um so on page five is part of the pre petition. Right. On page 46 it says before third, this is under application presence speed homes cushions. Before third analysis begins, the city review requested terminate of the acquisition or the street question meets the basic criteria for speed bump cushions applications. The requester will be asked to submit a minimum of five other signatures from residents of the street in question supporting the request for installation speed bumps cushions. I'd like to ask Bowman to clarify. Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers Bowman and Jank, again, from TransTech. Yes, what we said again for the speed homes. So if just one person comes and says we want a speed home, we wanted to get at least, this was a suggestion that I think the city had already mentioned last time. So we wanted to get at least a few people, like five people. Just go talk to your neighbors, are there really at least five other people that are supporting your request for a speed home? If it is, then we will start doing the non-data and by non-data. I mean, we're not going to go do traffic counts. We're not going to do a lot of things. We're going to just check a lot of boxes to see if your street is qualified or not I see. So the non-data Term there refers to things that are not going to be intensive as far as Even qualifies first before you get into exactly Okay, and then after that checklist essentially is done then the petition is available to pull and that's what you wanted to do So if it needs the street meets the criteria, we will go collect counts, the speeding counts, just on that. And if it, then of that process, if the street meets all the criteria, then we will turn it to the, to the residence we can, okay, the street is eligible, now go collect your petition. Right. And then after the petition is collected, everything else will sort of be settled at that point. And then the next step would just be to the commission budget council. Yes, I know. Approval and budget. Okay. So there is a little threshold to make sure that it just can't be one person. Exactly. But then the costs that are incurred in this non-data stage are not significant. The non-data ones are very, very little. It is just checking a few boxes and all that. It is not a word. Can I ask why we're one of the eligibility criteria for speed humps is that the street is no wider than 40 feet? The main reason is that I know it gets a little bit technical. We have said that the roadways need to be a local road or residential road. Local roads that have a speed limit of 25 by law are a street that are 45 or less. So if I notice it's a little bit hard for some time for citizens to accept or understand. But even if you have a street that is residential, that are homes all along it, if the street is more than 40 feet wide, it does not automatically get a 25 mile-hour road. You have to do a speed such study on it and it is possible that once you do that a speed survey, the speed study, even though it is residential, the speed limit could be 30, could be something else. So if the speed limit is already, so I guess the concern is in some areas You know the streets are older and they were planned out, you know 100 years ago And they may not follow any set standard width And if you have a street that is 41 feet wide, but it has been 25 miles an hour or four You know recorded history and as all residential it seems like kind of of an arbitrary maximum to have 40 feet in there. Well, the 40 feet, I think we need to use some engineering judgment too. If it is 40, 41 feet, we can see maybe there were some engineering thing in it, but if it is straight that is 44, 45 feet, like I said, in May or may not, I have a 25 or, I might not have per speed limit on it. So, okay. And I, the reason I'm pressing on that one is because this item says the street must be functioned classified as a residential collector local street or the maximum street with a 40. So if I'm reading that black and white, if it's 41 feet it does not qualify. And I think that's something that we might want to include some flexibility there or just some language that says, like the next item says, this treat should be primarily used as a wrench. I'm okay with should be, but it's the must be that that um, implicates things because if you're reading it, it must be 40 feet or less. Okay I guess that goes through some of these other items here because speed humps are a design feature and they're not a MUTCD type improvement that these are up to our discretion essentially the mandatory criteria is up to the city, right, to determine or not bound by any external set of rules for speed homes, right? The design of it absolutely, it is the city's engineering criteria, engineering dimensions, how you qualify it for eligibility, it is based on a volume, speeding, and this and that. Once we do those calculations, those are engineering, traffic engineering principles, which we need to rely on some sources to do those studies. Those studies need to comply with Cali. They're really not, there's no conflict. Those studies need to be done by California, MUTCD, that design aspect of the speed home is a city city decision city city city city. So there is there are MUTCD requirements or regulations for speed homes. Not not for the design and installation of it. When we do the eligibility, Remember there's a 7 or 8 criteria that you need to have volume of such and such. Your speeding is to be 85% and needs to be this. Those those determinations need to be done according to some sources and that source is California, a mutcd. Okay, so they're done according to the sources but but the actual levels that we set it at are not required. No, those levels is up to the council. You can set the levels at anything you want. So thank you for sending because the next one I want to talk about is the critical speed of 85% speed if 35, 34 miles an hour or more. So that means that 85% of the vehicle is on a given street, must have a speed, or would have a speed up to 34 miles an hour, and then 15 would be above 34 miles an hour. So, I was trying to do this at the last meeting, and I'd confuse myself. But that could mean that 85% of the cars are going 30 miles an hour, but then you have 15% of the cars going 100 miles. Just for arguments. Theoretically. Right. So I think there is a concern that maybe that threshold is too high at 85% because then that allows for 85% of the cars to be going 10 miles above the speed limit and 25 miles an hour residential zone. And if we're addressing the concerns of people who have kids running around in cars, I'm going to say around cars going 35 miles an hour on these residential streets, I think that is probably still a little high. When we do push this or remove it, I would recommend I would like to ask to reduce that threshold to maybe 75, but I'm not clear on the implications of that or what the result is. It just makes it easier to put B-bums in,'re saying if the 75% if the centile is If we made the clinical speed Instead of 85% time we made it we made it 75% town Or am I doing that backwards? Yeah, yeah, I'm not sure I have to think about that. I have to go to say exactly what that means But one of the things you just mentioned really the math that the example I'm just using the example you mentioned if 15% of the people or 10% of the people were driving 100 miles an hour then the 85% I will not Will not be 34 they the fifth percentile would be 42, 56, 59. Yeah, math is not my strong suit. It becomes a lot of, yeah, it's very tricky. It's data. What I'm concerned with in any scenario is setting the thresholds so high that it's difficult to, as some one of the speakers were saying, this difficult to meet those criteria. And I realized as I'm bringing through this now and reading through previously, there's old Supreme Court justice who wrote that, he knows it when he sees it. And I don't think this is an art. I think this is something that needs to be measured, but I don't know what those measurements look like in real life on the ground level. Let me offer you this. If you wanted to, basically your goal is to make it a little bit more relaxed. Right now we're saying that you really need to be speeding the majority of the people or the 85 percentile, need to be driving about eight or nine miles over the 25 before you qualify. If you you really wanted to relax that I wouldn't really mess around with the 85th, just reduce that as the council wishes. Say that the 85th percentile should be 33. I think that's right. That's what I mean. That's what you want to do. That's not what I said. I think it's what I mean. Because the vendors will calculate all these, they don't calculate a 75%, they always a stick with 85 So if you wanted to make a little bit more relax make it 30 Thank you. Thank you for telling me what I meant to say. Thank you So right that makes much more sense in my head now so instead of 34 maybe we look at something like 30 or 31 or something hello I don't know what that translates into numbers, but that would, I'm glad to hear from my colleagues too, but that would be my, my, the only thing Mr. again, I don't want to be argumentative. The only thing that I mentioned last time is that if you lower it too much, then every single residential street in town will qualify for it. So the idea was here, we were trying to be a little bit selective and put the speed humps on really the streets that are really deserving of the speed. That is really speeding is happening on those streets. That's only common. And I agree with that. I thought we were catching that mainly because a street that would be eligible for level three in speed humps would have already had to go through level one and two and not seen a big improvement. So if the streets in not appropriate for speed bumps, hopefully presumably they would have seen improvements implementing level two. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. So I get that. I just don't want streets, you know, neighborhoods to go through level one level two and put all this effort in and find out, you know, that they missed it by just a little bit. Alternatively, we could change these mandatory requirements to guidelines and have some discretion on the part of the Transportation Commission and the Council. I don't know what we want to do that. This is brand new, but that's another way to get it. Instead of making the mandatory cutoffs. We change it to guidelines or suggestions or something like that. Certain things, I agree 100% adequate range, ADA access. These things should not be negotiable. If they have good condition of streets, of course. I did have a question about the the grade or the distances But I think I'm okay with the way it is now. So let me get back to my little scratch out list here So I want to confirm that if if at the point where this goes into effect, the neighborhood has already gone through levels one and two, and they meet the criteria for level three, they don't have to start from the beginning, right? No, absolutely not. And I, I, is it in here somewhere? I think I read it. I think it is in there. We mentioned that I can find it perhaps that any street that has gone through level one and two is automatically eligible to apply for a speed home. Okay. We have mentioned that in that. And in that, again, I'd like, I'd hopefully we can read in there some level of reasonableness because we're asking, we're sort of saying if a neighbor has gone through one in two and they can get to three, but they would have had to go through one in two before one in two really formally existed because this policy was in effect yet. So I want to make sure that we give some flexibility to make sure that they've effectively met the spirit of levels one and two and there's data to back it up, but maybe they missed one little. Like Mark Gerita, I think you mentioned last time if Margarita we have all gone through and put edge lines Yeah, we limit legends or whatever. Yeah, those we have already done. So we're not gonna say well. Let's go do it again Right, right. So obviously yes Okay And then the there was a question is how and I think maybe this gets into a Discussion that Councilmember and Dr. Dadellar was talking about to an ordinance. When we adopt this, does this just become our practice in our policy moving forward? Is this just a guide for how we handle requests or do we need to make this into an ordinance that we adopt separately? No, you just need a policy for right now. And then you have the flexibility to modify the policy in the future. But this is not a don't see the utility of memorializing it in a ordinance because it's not necessary. So that's what I was wondering because it didn't come with an ordinance or recommendation to adopt an ordinance. This is just a policy that we implement and this kind of gives direction to how staff and the commission handles these rules. So I would because in that in my respect, I would like to ask Councilmember Dr. Steller, the concern with moving ahead now without an ordinance. I mean, if we needed one, of course, but if this is a policy that effectively gets us to where we need to go, is there a separate concern over that? My concerns are, first of all, I'd like to see where you said if somebody already has enough data and qualifies for one and two. I'd like to see what page that's on, that they would automatically be able to apply for the speed humps and would be able to qualify because like I mentioned in the beginning, there are a lot of folks that have already been putting things forward right for over years and years. I've been asking, and maybe they don't qualify, but at least they'll know whether they do, right? Whether they do and what they need to do in order to qualify. Or maybe they don't qualify for a speed bump, but they may qualify for something else. And so I think because they don't really, we don't have this. This is good in that sense that it may offer other things for some streets. But I think because it doesn't fit under the same manual that all the others do, that it would be who this to create an ordinance and maybe that's just something I need to bring up separately, which I can. And we can take it from there. How's that? Yeah. 846, Jeff. Okay. Second paragraph. Or paragraph number two. Okay. Okay. I guess my only concern, if someone were to challenge this, they'd say, well, that street that you're planning to put speed bumps on, they couldn't have gone through level one and two because level one and two didn't exist because this policy had been adopted yet. Maybe you just say if they meet, have they recommend installed from level one? Something that if they met equivalent? Yeah. Something like that, right? I guess my understanding was that maybe this could set to Mr. Avalist's comment to Avilist's comment earlier, which was that there is a set of improvements that are addressed by the MUTCD. And then there are these design features that are speed humps roundabouts, a couple of other things, right? They are not addressed MUTCD because they just deal with signs and road paint and things like that. And this policy sort of tries to get its arms around all of that. M. MUTCD stuff, levels one and two, and some and three, and then design features which aren't MUTCD, but I think our policy just addresses all of them and describes a process, a procedure that didn't exist previously. So now when people come and say, how do we get speed bumps or how do we get traffic calming? I can tell them we have a policy now instead of, you know, ask the traffic commission or talk to public works. This is clear it's something concrete, which is I think a large part of the value here is that we have a plan, we have a policy and we know how to proceed. With Councilmember Dyer's tether, I think with your comments, I would be happy to consider anything we need to do later down the road. I am concerned about making sure we get this through as quickly as possible. Hopefully tonight, but if it's not tonight as soon as we can, because we also have the budget coming up and we're trying to carve out funding for that. I'd really like to see some of these improvements maybe get some traction in this, the first half of the new fiscal year coming up after July 1. And it's just the timing works out, but I do think we're in a little pressure to make sure we get something that is in good shape. So I like a lot of what I see here. I still comment, so I'm sorry everyone, I've spent too much time thinking about this topic. I do agree with the caller who said that there needs to be some some ability to appeal to counsel. Now if we develop criteria and a street doesn't meet it there's not much to appeal, right? But there is sort of it's not maybe it's not particularly addressed, if the commission and staff say, yeah, meets the criteria, but we have questions and the commission votes it down. The language here says it cannot be appealed to the City Council, and I would prefer that it says, You can appeal to City Council. At least as far as a denial goes when it may meet all the criteria. If we're going to develop criteria that are absolutely required, that is what it is. In any event, so I would like that appeal if there is some question as to whether or not the project meets the criteria. Okay. I think that's appropriate. I doubt it will happen much, but I think it's appropriate to have that. At least, maybe even from the council, it would be a council request to hear, to reconsider that item from the Transportation Commission. because it seems odd that the Council wouldn't have the authority to pull something up from one of the commissions. Talk about that. Talk about that. Nice flow chart. Thank you for that. I have kind of an ongoing concern about using collisions and accidents as a criteria, as a requirement for putting in speed humps or even any of these other traffic calming measures. I think that they should absolutely be included, but there are some places where perhaps the accident reports are not have not been reported or that the concern isn't necessarily collisions, but cars speeding that affect people's day to day behavior and make people concerned for their safety. This is also a quality of life thing too. And if there are no accidents, but there are cars going 45 miles an hour on your 25-minute one hour street, I think that that collisions shouldn't be a prerequisite for doing something more. Just to clarify again for the speed homes it is not a criteria. We have just said that we will look at it to see what it is for this for other things like a traffic signal or a four-way stop. Those are not just our rules, those are the state guidelines, the state rule. Got it. Okay, that makes total sense. I mean, I think that belongs in any discussion anywhere. Right. But it shouldn't necessarily control for some reason. No, for speed on, it doesn't have. We have committed clear that we're just, we just look at it just to get a better idea of what is a safety record industry. Okay. And then in general, I think this is, like I said, I think this is really good that we even have this and that we're discussing it. It's a big document and it's still pretty dense but it's good and I think it's clear than the previous version we saw. So thank you everyone who put their time into this. As we go forward and we start thinking about what else we can do, the biggest way to control speed is the physical design of the streets. A lot of our streets are wide, narrow streets, people go slower because it's kind of a self-preservation thing. They don't want to crash themselves. When it's a big wide street, long stretches, people feel much more comfortable driving fast. So how we can do that in the future, I don't know about on all these residential streets, but there are obviously things we could do like parking protected bike lanes, which leaves the same number of lanes, but bumps the parking out and there's bike lanes as well as double benefit of creating bike lanes, but also protecting them and having narrowing the street. You know, I like the idea of bullbouts in certain areas or medians and planters, things that create visual narrowing of the street. I think there's something we should consider. I'm happy to push this through tonight or very soon in some form subject to any edits that we have. But I do think we should think about these other issues because the best way to control speed is to narrow the roadways down and that makes a lot of sense in residential areas. So I'll leave it at that. Thanks for indulging me. I want to hear from everyone else. All right. I'm going to keep it brief. Number one, I want to thank you for making the changes that were requested by the council last meeting. I think in terms of the document, I mean it captures a lot of what we were wanting to see. A lot of the concerns by the residents as well. I think that I would be more comfortable with having the graphic mission, taking a look at this, I think we've got some very qualified people on there with some experience in that field that can offer just a very helpful second set of eyes. That's one. And then the same thing, I just agree with the fact that, you know, I don't want to make it overly difficult or burdensome to get to level three measures if we don't have to make it as difficult. So I think that's been addressed by my fellow council members. And then I also want to support the possibility of a process of an appeal also, in certain cases, by Council. So if something gets shot down by the Transportation Commission and Green Council for a possible appeal, and that's really it. So I'd like to see what my other Council members have. I've heard from so many community members and I just felt so touched that our community are really engaged, that they read through all of these, all of these documents, our staff and consultant has put together with a lot of thoughts and they brought their input to us and I just really appreciate that all of you that joined the meeting and online that provided your input and gave us something to think through. So thank you so much for that. And hearing all the concerns I think there's a couple of clarifications I just wanted to provide based on my understanding and also you know we have our expert here so feel free to chime in if anything I I say is not accurate but I know one of the questions raised by the community is that SPHUMS are not included in the MUTCD manual on uniform traffic control devices Well that's because the MUTCD is a traffic control devices. Well, that's because the MUTCD is a traffic control device, such as the control sign, signals, pavement markings, and speed homes are considered railway design features, right? And that's exactly the reason why we're developing these guidelines. And those are these guidelines, these engineering guidelines developed by our engineering consultants, experts are the ones that are going to guide us in how we design. And this is why we are having this discussion here, trying to see what would work for us, what's not, what's easy to understand, and what's going to enable us, the city of Elhamber, to put in these measures. So I just wanted to clarify that for our community that's wondering why we're not going off of MUTCD standards and developing something new. And then I also wanted to provide clarification on transportation committee meetings. I heard concerns or confusions about why this item was back on council after trying to go to transportation commission. I think it was because at the last meeting, I mean, it's council's goal to empower commissions to take on tasks like this to look at committee issues. And we made a decision to go to the Transportation Commission meeting, but it was not a quorum. And we also heard from our community, there's a lot of urgency in getting this to be on policy, the traffic calming policy approved. So we heard you and we want to move this forward as fast as possible. And our staff is on board with us and I cannot give staff enough puttos to try to pull this off with such short notice and go into transportation commission meeting and then coming back to council so quickly. So I just wanted to say that we're trying to balance all of the things that we have been hearing from you and We're really trying to you know work through them and we heard the urgency and you know It's gonna take all of these things the process is gonna take time to go through There's level one two three there's evaluations there's studies There's all that but we are not going to get there if we don't start. So there is that urgency, we don't, we do want to move forward. And at this point, I think Council has been so far along in our discussion, it would not make sense to go to transportation commission anymore. I agree with staff decision to bring back to Council so that we can move forward on this. I just wanted to provide that clarification for those that are having confusions about it. And then I also appreciate my colleagues trying to clarify for the community that if there are hot spots in the city, streets that are we're concerned about, and there are level one or two that have been attempted, maybe not exactly in the language that's laid out, but in spirit, they have been attempted, then they don't have to go start from level one or two. They can go to level three. And that is, I just wanted to make sure that is clear. I think that addresses the concern about having a standalone ordinance, because from what I understand hearing the request to have a standalone ordinance, it's not necessarily having an ordinance versus a policy. I think what I'm hearing is that folks just want to have the speed hump policy be a standalone item so that they can go right to speed humps. And without having to go through this comprehensive traffic homing guidelines starting with step one, level one, level two, and before they can move on to the speed humps. But I think with the clarification that we're all having here, that addresses the issue that we are not starting from scratch for the streets that we have concerns about. And that's part of the evaluation. Part of the evaluation will be that we will look at what was done here. What people were saying and what the concerns were, we're going to listen to the community. And we're going to look at what was already done. And if if step level one and two already attempted, we're going to move right to level three. So I think that addresses the concern with that one. If that's what folks are saying, I don't feel like we have to change this policy into ordinance. I think the policy works well for us as a policy and the fact that we don't have to start over will address the concern with the request for a standalone ordinance. That's my understanding of that one. And then we heard residents say that there is not a lot of input from the residents, so I also wanted to point out that there will be a huge opportunity for residents to provide input because as we, you know, collect signatures and getting consensus on the street, that's where the residents will be playing a very critical part of this. So there is opportunity for that. Now with that said, I do have a couple questions for Baman. One of my questions is, I'm hearing gaps between criteria for level one and level two and level three. Is there any reasons why there are gaps for the criteria? So the situation I'm concerned about is that if a street meets the criteria for level one or two and things are implemented, but it doesn't address the speeding issue, then where does it leave the streets where it does not meet the criteria for level three, but we're kind of already done everything we can. So can you just shadow a light on that one? Yeah, the reason that we made the thresholds like the traffic volume and those kind of things are even a distance less for the level two, for instance. Remember at the very beginning when we started the first meeting and the second meeting, we said that we want to concentrate on things that are easier to do and then also as well as cost. That is less costly. So if we wanted to make it a little bit easier for level two, because level two obviously cost less to put an ediline on the street or put a sign on the street or put maybe even a flashing radar sign. It costs a lot less than a traffic circle or a choker or a speed hump. So we didn't want to make it is really look at it the other way. We wanted to make the threshold for level two to be smaller than the threshold for a speed hump. Just look at it that way. So if a street doesn't meet thresholds for a certain level like a level three,, well, it doesn't meet it. It just means that we were able, all we can do is things that are available in level one and two edge lines, is just flashing its stop signs, the speed limit signs, flashing the speed limit signs, radar signs, those kind of things. Our dishes. So because of the cost being lower, so we want to make it even easier to meet the level to criteria and you can easily implement level two. Understood. Okay. And another question would be, is there would there be a situation where. Let's see we have a street and we go through the evaluation for level one and level two. And you know for different levels there's different criteria, right? So would there be a situation where a street would not meet the criteria for level one or two, but given the unique features of the street it could meet the criteria for level three. Would there be situations like that? Probably won't happen. Level one is really you don't need a lot of a lot of requirements for level one. Those are mostly the flyers and police enforcement and radar speed unit and all that. That's really fairly easy to do. But I don't really anticipate anything that does not meet level one or two or the other way that it won't Or anything that what did you say you the meets level three? But it could qualify for level three, but it somehow did not Obviously the level three is a higher threshold. So any three that meets level three obviously Should have met level one and two already. Okay, so I think you know where I was going with this. I just wanna make sure that there's no gaps that we're leaving. I wanna make sure that when we look at the streets, that there is something we can possibly do for the street in terms of speeding. We don't leave any streets, you know, in the way that we design our criteria, we don't leave any gaps there, where the street is stuck with no solutions to help. So that's where I'm coming from. And I think I concur with my colleagues that let's take another look at the criteria to make sure that it's not overly stringent. And it's easy enough to implement, I understand there's a balance, right? There don't want it to be everywhere, but there is a balance. But do see if we could relax the criteria a little bit. And I think like things like 40 feet maximum width is something that I just don't want a street to miss the opportunity for a speed hump just because it's 41 feet, right? So hard criteria like that. Can we take another look to make sure that they are not, we're not leaving any streets behind that it will be reasonable and we can relax a little bit. And then I will also I call with Vice Mayor Maloney with the appeal process. I think it would, it's just good accountability and governance to have appeal process if the application goes through the commission and it was denied for, especially for procedural technical reasons. I think that should be, that should be part of the process for them to come forward to council. And also in the event where maybe staff and commission does not have an agreement, I would like to see if we could invite the commission. Maybe it's the chair of the commission, maybe it's someone from the commission that represents the commission to join the council and just have ability to present their view on that one in the case where staff and commission don't have agreement on that. And then I also echo my colleague council member, and Dr. Lee Sattler, for traffic enforcement. I feel that traffic enforcement is just so critical and so effective. And we heard from our expert here as well in his many years of experience that traffic enforcement coupled with the speed trailer where your speed is displayed on the street is very effective. So I like to see if my colleagues agree, I love to see if we can look at ways, explore ways to see how we can staff the traffic commission, maybe increasing our capacity more and just have our patrol cars out there, motorcycles out there, and just citing people. And these are, I understand it's not nice to get citations, but these are safety issues. We got to protect our residents, our families, and our children. So that's one area I would like to ask staff to explore. And I also cannot agree more with measure our dollars to be spent within our city boundaries. I know that we have a lot of measure our money that we're looking into projects with the 710 stuff and various interchange improvements. There's different concepts being explored there. I do feel that we should spend the money within our city boundaries looking at our local streets and looking at ways to slow down traffic, given the concerns that we're hearing from our community, and looking at ways to improve pedestrian safety, and just make our streets safer for our families and residents. And then lastly, on the collision record brought up by Vice Mayor Maloneyoney, I understand that collision record is part of the MUTCD requirement. And I understand that's a stay requirement that we, you know, when we have an application for stop sign, we have to go through that requirement. We have to look at, you know, check the box, meet all the requirements and that's's just what we do. And that criteria has been there for many, many years. I think you can tell me how long the criteria has been there. But I want to say that was developed years and years ago, and it was very car centric. Now recognizing our traffic patterns has changed. It's not the same as 20 years ago, 30 years ago. We have a lot more cars now. We have a lot more traffic we're dealing with. We're also trying to shift from car-centric to people-centric, right? We're trying to protect our pedestrians now. We're trying to increase walkability in our city. What are some mechanisms that are available for cities to try to achieve that, to DVA from the very outdated MUTCD manual to say, not arbitrarily, but maybe we go and establish our own policy or ordinance that prioritizes pedestrian safety. Maybe it's something we can looking to and have just objective guidelines for us to say recognizing that the state guidelines has been outdated and we have been using that. And a lot of our stop sign requests have been denied because of the criteria being outdated. And what can we do to establish the guidelines moving forward, recognizing that we're trying to protect the people in our community. So I'll leave it like that. And I would love to see what we can come up together as a city to prioritize safety. And I hear from my colleagues, I think we all agree that's a priority for all of us. So I am ready to move forward with this as well. I recognize the urgency and also think that with anything new in the city, there's something, there's a trial and error period and we will continue to take feedback and we'll learn from this process. We can re-evaluate a year from now to see if there's any tweaks, changes we should make to this policy. But I think if we address some of these issues and I'm ready to move forward as well, I really appreciate what staff and our consultant has done to this point. Thank you, City Council. So I heard quite a few of move this forward tonight, but also at the same time, I also heard concerns, so it's not perfect for us. So here's my question, if we approve this policy tonight, implementation will begin this month or next month, right? But then all the concerns that all four of us, including me, which I'll tell you later, how would that get even into the policy? Would that work? Are we going to amend the policy later based on what we observed first year? Is that something that the council is looking at? Because I'm hearing that some of you say, well, let's move for this for tonight, but at the same time you post several problems. So there is a contradiction there. I think the revisions or the suggestions that you all have had are fairly minor. We can document those in the minor and if the city manager wants they can send that to you too so that you have a record of what we have changed. So the council will then we can do a red line the same way. Yes. To revise the policy. Yeah. Based on the implementation of the process year one or year two. Because that's how I feel that this process should go is this policy is not perfect. But we don't we don't try it out. We don't know where the bugs are. But we can project their problems. And just let me kind of have my one minute there for America to get stuck at the last. That's commissioners who were here tonight and they left, I ask them for clarification. So I'm gonna pose that question to you is that I need clarification. The overall sentiment of those who spoke tonight about this item is very difficult like climbing mountain to get to level three. I understand this cost involved. There's also funding sources. And so let me see if I understand this process that's in this policy. If I understand correctly, to get to level one which is stop sign or something of to that level, who decides to install that? Is it the city staff or has it be a request? If people are asking for stop sign, are you asking? Yes, is there a formal request? Have they made? Yes, there's a citizen request and the citizen request people could ask for a speed home. They could ask for a stop sign. They could ask for a speed limit sign. They could ask for a variety of things. Okay. Then, let's just say that level one was given to that street based on the request. Then I'm looking at what's in front of me. Then it says there's evaluation time of level one coming measures, which is to six months. So after the stop sign is installed on particular street, there's a six month evaluation. Is that how I read? The stop sign was in level two. Level one was mainly the flyers and radar speed trailers. So we're suggesting that if people are seeing that there's a speeding on our street and if we put a speed trailer out there and we inform the police department and they went out there and they do monitoring that we should at least review it for three months to six months. I think that's what we have suggested at least give it a little bit time to see if the police presents and the radar unit worked and did it do anything or not. If not, then obviously yes, we can move to level two. There are a whole stuff other things in level two, like edge lines, the speed limit signs, flashing, radar, speed limit signs. There's a whole stuff other things. Okay, so let's just say that someone requested on the request says level one, two, three, and then level one was approved. Okay. And there's automatically six months evaluation based on the staff or from the police. Collectively together, we work with the police. Very, very close. So is there a documentation? If a resident goes in and say, give me the evaluation result. What did you observe? What we can do is we can measure the speeds, basically before we put any speed trailers out there, then we can do the same measurements afterwards. We can see if there was any significant change or any desirable change in the reduction of the speed limits or not. Yes, we can document those. Okay. Then it says that to get to level two, level one has to be implemented first and then based on request only. So then let's just run this through chronologically. Level one, it was evaluated for six months and did not seem to work for the same group of residents and they have the requests for level two again So six month or a year has passed Presumably just just three to six months just three to six months has passed and it didn't work And we can say okay. Let's look at some other things. Okay, so level then level was approved. There's a proof of the same street. Level one doesn't work, doesn't work. Then there's another evaluation of one year. One year, exactly. Okay, so that's three months now. So three months at another year, plus the installation all that. Now we'll look at two years from level one to level two. Let's say level two doesn't work, then the group of residents that we have enough, we have enough, we wanna request level three. That's where the problem was. They feel like it's climbing mountain to get to level three and to be approved. And then they will have to gather signatures. So basically just really approximately to me, it takes about a year and a half minimum from level one to finally we had enough we need level three. So year and a half is gone, wasted. So my question is why can't we have just another option where the staff or the police or whoever based on the records gather documentation that they just directly to level three is warranted. Can we have that? Because I think the commissions are frustrated with level two is so hard to reach because you have to go to level one, level two and evaluation and year and half has passed and then you get level three, you got to get the pre-petition interview and then you got to get the petition done. And I would say it was four years before level three is even warrant granted. I can approve this tonight if the council really felt this urgent. I felt this is really a big problem. People that are complaining right now have complained over and over really want a level 3 right now because they don't feel that the flyers or the stop sign have worked. So but I do understand it's very costly to install level 3. So I'm sort of in a quandary of whether I should approve this tonight or whether the council wants to really hash this out because So it's, it's going to take three years practically to four years to have level three because you have to go to level one, level two and wait for evaluation and people are probably saying, you know, we should have levels three, but we have to go to level one, level two. I think that's why I heard. Well, you mentioned it. I think yourself. The issue really is cost. If every single is street in town, hypothetically, if 15 streets in town come and ask you for a speed home quickly, you may or may not have funds for 15 speed homes. And we're saying that before you just, you know, sometimes people ask for something and maybe that is not really the ultimate solution for them. People may ask for a speed hump, but we're saying would the H lines help solve that problem? Would a flashing radar speed limit sign that we installed on your street? Would that address your problem? So without trying it, without trying those levels two measures, how would we know what those low cost measures are effective or not? That's the whole question. We are saying that let's do this incrementally, let's do the item that are low cost before we spend a lot of money on the streets because we don't have money to put the speed homes every place in town. But we may have money to do other little things on a lot more streets. Yeah, I do agree with you. There's some funding source identified which is can't install anything. But can you imagine the frustration and the anger that are resident? Well, how after they spend their time going through level one, level two, and then go to level three, getting the signatures, all that, and then found that there's no funding source. I don't think that's the way I like to see to move forward like that because it doesn't look good on the city that you require all the paperwork, all the waiting, and then and say, well, we're going to we're going to follow away because we have no money and I don't think people would like that. So there's got to be where we, I think we have to start right now on making sure that we have funding or at least locate possible funding and work on that first. Alongside with the request coming in. Mayor, if I may, we are about and correct me if I'm wrong to look at our strategic plan funding worksheet. And 2.9 addresses traffic concerns and traffic calling policies. It's a half a million dollars for one per each district. And we can vote on it tonight. Yeah, Mayor, I also feel that I agree with you that that's exactly where I don't want to mislead the public to think that once we create the policy, we have all the funding to go forward. We're going to talk about it later tonight. And I think that's outside of our staff and consultant's scope of work to develop this policy. It's something that we as a council has to think and think about how we're going to fund this. But I do also want to remind everybody there was, I think I heard from a member of the public say that once we put this be trailer on the street and then enforcement, they found it effective. So I just want to say that there is a lot of, I think there's a good reason for having a tiered approach given the cost. And then given also given the not all streets qualify for speed homes. And I think given the staff ability to evaluate the streets and try something that's lower cost is the right way to go. And some of these lower cost solutions actually work based on what we have been hearing from the community. So I don't know if that also addressed the issue with you. I would like to see if we can move this forward and then we can move to the discussion of the strategic plan items. I can't just real quick, I wanted to kind of support your position on this. I do agree, I mean, if funding obviously wasn't an issue, then yeah, it would be ideal to move to level three. But I also think, I think Miss Alvarez made a comment earlier that level one, level two in many cases has been tried here and there. And just, it's simply not effective. We know that definitely level one, in most cases, is not effective. In some cases, it can help. Level two could, of course. With that said, like the like the speed trailer for example I know that I've put a request in numerous times for that in the feedback from residences that yes it helps when the speed trailer is out there maybe for the for the first few days after but then once it goes away we know that you know people are back to their old ways. So with that I have I do have a quick question as far as the speed the trailers. How many do we this city have? two Just That is is it to oh Danny so to okay, and just curious. I mean if anybody knows without Driving is on too long how much is the cost of the speed trailer? I really don't know I I. We can get that for you, but there are different methods and different technology in them, or two-day prices, probably, very. But again, going back, I mean, I think everybody's got to get point. There's protocol that we have to go through at fall level 1, 2, 3, but for the mayor's point, it's almost like, you get get a little frustrated with any money on level one items, level two items, when we know that ultimately where we want to go is level three. So I've just wanted to kind of mention. The newest trailers, they also have a radar unit in them, so they actually can record, so you don't have to put another hose on the street again. At the same time, during the same time that the trailer out there, they can also measure your speeding. They can collect data from how much speeding was on that street. Thank you. Well, maybe we can discuss that with the upcoming item here on funding. Thank you. Sure. I mean, just a little bit. I think this gets at maybe one of your questions too, but we heard, I think you've heard different feedback, maybe some proposed tweaks to this. I agree they're not major, they're just some adjustment. I want to draw attention to just one line in the eligibility for installation of speed homes and cushions on page 49. The intro paragraph does say, I think this is the kind of thing that adds some uncertainty to the criteria. It says, based on the following conditions and proper engineering principles, including but limited to the following and then there's a list of things mixture of must be and should be and recommended for. So somehow make that clear as to are these all must be? Are they should be or are they guidelines? Are they inclusive? Are they partial? I would prefer that but I think think you heard the other ones appeal to council lowering the critical speed, allowing some flexibility for the 40 foot with clarity that if one steps one and two are effectively done upon the adoption of this policy that certain streets can go to step three. And I think who said it's trial and error? This is going to be interesting to see this first year, right? If we adopt this and we're going to need to make changes, ideally, I would love to hear from the Transpiration Commission, but they had two meetings and they couldn't get a quorum for either one of them. And at some point, we do need to move on. I think we should absolutely schedule this for them to hear as soon as possible and get feedback because we're gonna need to make changes next year over the next few months and their input is gonna be critical there. So I think we can do all of this. I think this is, I would love to see this go through tonight and there's nothing saying we can't make tweaks to it It's not an ordinance so we don't need to pass a first reading and wait 30 days into it and second reading until it goes in This is a policy of the of the council So if we see something that's a big red flag in the first few months we can change it right away And I'd like to see I'd like to see it move based on that and knowing that we have a little bit more flexibility here as opposed to if it wasn't ordinance. Vice Mayor, I think all of your comments we can take care of with edits. The only one that I would like to get some feedback from the council is that 80% if you don't mind because that is a little bit subjective what number you want to choose. So the 85% that we have suggested 34. So my suggestion is to reduce it to either, if you wanted to reduce it to reduce it to either 33 or 32. My recommendation is not to reduce it below 32. That's my suggestion. Below 32. Do not lower it below 32. That's my suggestion. But of course, the council is... Why, can I ask you why? Because, like I said, my mention last time, that is then whether we agree with it or not and I'm not suggesting it is, but the speeding on majority of residential streets, people drive 5 to 7 or 8 miles more than 25 mile per hour. That's just a fact. So I'm not saying it is right, but that's how people drive. So if you make it 30, I will guarantee you almost 90 95% of your residential streets will qualify, we'll have that speed on it. That's the logic. Again, we want to really catch the streets that there is really some speed the speed of going on. Not every street that people are driving to an A2930. I hear what you're saying and I get it. We don't want speed bumps and neither do our firefighters all over our police department. But Miss Councilman or Vice Mayor Maloney mentioned flexibility. So if we do see something that's in a 30 mile an hour zone and It's got five different stop signs and people are rolling through them and we've done everything in our power To control some of the speeding on the street like that. I'm hoping that you know know, that that's what flexibility is. It's an unusual spot. It has huge numbers coming out of a Cal State LA. You know, it's a big school. And now we have L.A.F.C. practicing. We love our soccer players, but they're practicing there. And that means a lot more cars. So I'm just saying the flexibility is real critical for us to be able to maneuver and work on round things. So. And if you deviate from what the council has adopted already, obviously it will come back to the council. So you will see what the deviation was and you can agree or disagree with it. Megas based on that maybe 32 for now to see how that applies just at my suggestion. Now there's certain areas obviously I have my street in my area. I mean if that doesn't qualify, if that's over 32 and it doesn't qualify then we should adjust the number again because it is, you know, it's a long strip. There's no cross streets and people just people just, even if it's seven miles an hour, seven miles an hour down that entire strip, it seems pretty fast after that length of a street. So I'd want to see how that falls and sort of like, you know, I'm trying to think about if these numbers make sense in a vacuum without seeing it in application. If taking that advice guess I think 32 is better, a little bit easier than 34. So, okay with that. Thank you, Council. I think that we all have a lot of questions. I do like, I think that we, including the one to make sure the policy is brought back to the council in a year. If you agree to that, or sooner because we want to evaluate how the policy has worked for the next one year, whether requests have been granted or removing everything effectively, efficiently moving to the paperware, there are no roadblocks or bureaucracy, no red tape. And also the funding source, we are going to go through our budget worksheet later. Each district is given $100,000 if the council agrees to the $500,000 allocation. How much is a speed hump, by the way? Speed up, it depends the cost varies between and the vendors are in the contractors. Obviously are different and the prices have gone up, as you probably know in the past two or three years. They can be asphalt or rubber. That there are the asphalt ones, they could range between 12 to 15,000 dollars each because of all the asphalt, materials, installation, signing, striping and all that. The rubber ones, it could be a couple thousand dollars less, probably in the neighborhood of, without everything done, maybe 12,000, so something like that. So we're talking about between, theoretically, or probably between two, 12,000 to 15,000 dollars, unless, you know, it's an economy of scale too, if you just want to only put three items on one street, the contractor they have to bring all the resources to just put four speed-ups, the cost goes high. But if you had two or three streets that you were going to put speed-ups, obviously then the cost will be lower. So a lot of factors goes to the cost. So a hundred thousand dollars per district will go really fast. $100,000 it buys you basically one street as we have documented in here. One street probably four to five speed homes on one street. I see. I will move this policy forward tonight but I know there are a lot of issues with the work with but if we make sure sure that we bring this back to the council in one year or even earlier, I'm okay with this policy as is now. Without giving the try, we don't really know all the problems there are, just like anything else. But we want, I want also to make sure that there are, but we're looking at budget and make sure that we are allocating adequately to each district to fund the traffic calming measures that we approve with this policy. And just a clarification, I think maybe the city manager can clarify the $100,000 may or may not be just for speed homes, but it includes all sort of traffic calming. So if you want to put speed limit signs or this or that, would it come from the same pocket? So it's not just a speed homie traffic calming umbrella. Absolutely, I agree with you. If there are no other comments, I need a motion. Mayor, can I just say something real quick? I want to thank you for bringing up this, having this item to come back in a year because I think that's important part of the process to just evaluate because this is such a new thing. The only thing I would suggest is do we want the item to be back to council or it would be an opportunity for the Transportation Commission to actually take a look at this and collect the public input and hear from our community and see what kind of modification we might need to make for the policy. So I just want to see if that would be something we want to do with the Commission instead of Council. Just thinking about allow I always I would think that as soon the policy implemented and the first request is being received, we're going to track the process, the other complaints or whatever we should go to the traffic transportation committee. And during that time, we will collect all the issues and when the policy comes back to us in a year, we already have issues that want to work through. Does that make sense? Because so I'm seeing it during that one year the transportation committee will be the active group that will address or at least collect the problems, document them for the council and the policy comes back in a year, both the transportation committee and the council will look at all the issues and revise the policy accordingly. I agree. Can I suggest that maybe the Transportation Commission gets a briefing on this as soon as possible. And then again, then they have an open meeting before it comes back to the Council in a year to kind of collect the experiences and information and data before it comes back at least twice that they would hear this, including any individual requests. We can include that I'd like. And just to follow up on that one. So the second meeting, when after years transportation commission will collect feedback. And then the second meeting, they can also, if they were to deliberate and discuss this, they can also make recommendations to come back to Council. So with the amendments we talked about, I'd like to make a motion. There's a motion. I need a second. I second. We'll call, please. Maazza. Yes. Maloney. Yes. Wang. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes. Lee. Yes. Our final presentation is regarding the 2025 Strategic Plan funding recommendations. Ms. City Manager, is there a report from staff with this item? This item was a carryover from your budget workshop last week. Before you in the packet is the strategic plan with funding tied to each of the items. The items that have circles are general fund items that staff are seeking priorities. From the council tonight, we've provided the worksheet to hopefully make it easier for you to identify which of the items are your priorities for this year. As was stated on Tuesday at your budget workshop, you have approximately $1.3 million in general fund surplus this year that is available for prioritization. So it's recommended that the council possibly go through each of the priorities across the line and then maybe go line by line and give staff a determination of what the recommended funding amount would be. If we're able to reach agreement on these items this evening, we'll be able to make the changes and put them into the draft budget that you will hear at your meeting of June 23rd for consideration and adoption. Thank you. Do we have any speaker cards from the public for this item? Yes, Madam Mayor. I have three blue speaker cards. First speaker is Lola Armanderas. I think I'll pass on this. My comments are going to be on the funding. My comments are going to be on the format of this document. And I find that you don't make any comments on them. We had an ordinance with regard to formatting and misspelled words. There's a few misspelled words in here also. Do we not do any proofreading? Please? That's about it. I have my concerns about the comments that were just made on the traffic calming and I'll wait for orals. But again, this is a poorly put together document, formatting-wise. The titles are not up there. The headings are not proper. I don't understand what happened to us. We used to be so precise in our documents and so well put together. And it's not the case anymore. Page 6, any page you go here. What's the heading is not up on top? To tell you. But follow. Do you see that, Mr. Inquis? Okay. Many of your documents do not have any page number. And as again, I mentioned, you have mis-filled words in this document. And I'll let it go with that. But I do have that one coming I wanted to make for a police. And it's very important for all of us as far as what you discuss right now. You need more public input on your policy, traffic policy. I say that because and I apologize for veering but I made a request to public works for the installation of a three-way snapshot. I almost got hit, screamed, because every time I try to get out of this particular street, I'm speaking of Miringo and Grand. I have to inch my way out because it's difficult to see southbound traffic because on the northeast corner, northwest corner, depending on what type of vehicle is parked there, you cannot see the oncoming traffic. suggestion was extend the curb of red paint and so on. That's not going to do it. Because you're driving at night, who's going to be seeing that? The street, the lights, the street sits back. So you don't see this signage. You can go right by Grand Avenue and not even know that it's there. I say this because it's your district. The response I got after all the studies was it doesn't warrant it. You need the infant for people who are there 24-7 to see what goes on. That's not happening. I made a second request. The wording was not proper in the request. I'm going back to make it again for a three-way stop at the T intersection of Raymond Avenue in Elhamber Road. I'm sorry that you didn't feel that you're your year, your, your, yeah. Unfortunately, you didn't feel that you're unfortunately you didn't continue this for a short time to get more public input. That's what they do their traffic studies, but the information they're giving you is out of the period of time that they're conducting their tests. So again. Our second speaker is Ryan, Mr. Ryan Otis. Good evening Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Brian Otis. I live at 316 North Monterey Street in Alhambra, Department letter A. I had the good pleasure of attending the budget workshop last Tuesday. I usually don't get to take days off. I'm usually pretty busy working, but last Tuesday I went to it and I was so genuinely surprised and pleased because a lot of effort went into this and I think that there are a lot of people who deserve a lot of praise for having come up with such a great budget idea and plan. I don't know if you remember this, but last year I came up to the City Council and I was very pleased to find out, surprised and pleased, to find out that this City Council has no debt whatsoever. And this year, once again, this City Council has no debt whatsoever. This is huge. There are many, many cities surrounding us who are struggling mildly with debt. And yet this city is debt free. And not only that, I found that again this year, putting money aside for emergency purposes, is set aside for a rainy day. I can't tell you how pleased I am to hear all of this. You people are doing an outstanding job. You know, the cities that are nearby us that are suffering from death, they sometimes it becomes very difficult for them to fill their potholes. Sometimes it's very difficult for them to sweep their streets or to replace the broken street lights. You know, sometimes even streets that have red, yellow and green lights, they don't get replaced nearly as often as they should. Sometimes graffiti abatement gets abated, all because cities run out of money and they get involved in debt. And it's so very easy to get in debt and so very difficult to get out of debt. So this is why it's so important that this city is debt-free. I'm just thrilled to bits at all of your work, all of what you've done. And I know that over the next few weeks, you're gonna have to take your little red pencil and go through this because maybe not everything that we initially thought was essential is essential. Maybe we can live without some of these things. Far be it from me to tell you how to do anything here. You've done such a great job that I am not interested in trying to decide what is important and what is not quite so important. But all I can say is that you're doing a great job. Last time, by the way, just let me close by saying last time when I was here, many of you came down and said, thank you to me. I was very touched by this. But in particular, I remember Sasha coming down and she said, you know, I had a school project that I had to do. It was a university project. She went to Cal State LA and she said, my professor asked me to write a paper on how to get rid of debt in our city. And of course, many people went to different cities. You know, we're students of different cities. So she went to the various people in Elhammer. She discovered to her surprise that our city is debt-free. And so I think she probably still had to do some sort of paper or other. But even the professor was shocked beyond belief. So I simply want to say, good job. Well done. Thank you so much for keeping us debt free. Thank you, Father. Do you suppose you can save the state. Hi. Anybody? Okay. Next speaker is John Fowry. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the Council. John Pwery on behalf of the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce. Glad to stand before you this evening and talk a little bit about your strategic plan in front of you, especially as it looks at the unfunded components. There's not a lot of money that's there for you to consider, and I know you had a deep conversation about implementing some infrastructure, perhaps as part of the 1.3 million, but I would like to call your attention to some of the economic development items and sort of focus on the fact of the investment you can make to actually bring more resources back. And so a lot of the items on your list this evening are things that are the responsibility of a city and require a capital outlay that does not see a direct financial return, but some of the items within the economic development actually would generate revenue either through one way or another, which I'll get into in just a moment. So I first wanted to call to attention in terms of this year, perhaps pausing. I think it's 3.5 and 3.6, both are very large expenditures related to one as a vacancy tax and a ballot, which is an expenditure that may not provide results that you need in the short term. The other is the 3.6, which I'm blanking on in the moment, but I think maybe put those to the side or just pause them for a year, and maybe not look at funding those this year, but I would focus you on 3.9. There's a lot of question, Mark Sarra, wanted to give you a little more information for you to consider as you think about that investment. So as you think about overall, the investment of the 1.3, while there's a lot of opportunities, I would request that you focus a small portion, just a small portion of that 1.3 on direct economic development work. I wanted to focus you on four items in particular that may or may not have a budget connected to them. First, and for all of these, I really do recommend that we implement them, because they're new as pilot projects that actually have established benchmarks in the beginning to then be able to evaluate when the program is done either at the end of the year or the performance period to be able to understand if the planned outcome was actually achieved. consider them them pilot projects and consider number one, the shop local program, looking at other cities around us from Monoray Park to Pasadena to Arcadia. Those are sort of three cities in the area that are doing shop local campaigns. What makes them both unique and effective is the investment of an incentive by the city to encourage individual patrons to shop and spend money in either a specific district, a specific type of business or within the city limits overall. Typically these are done with a digital platform, some technology platform, usually app based but could be any number of opportunities. I know that our neighbors to the North and Pasadena just did an evaluation of a number of these platforms and we're able to identify pros and cons of each that we referenced. Happy to provide that in the future as you look to it. But that incentive is what drives the results. We can do a marketing campaign today that says shop local, but actually to measure results requires a little bit of an investment. And we're talking a little bit of investment like simply $50,000. What that $50,000 does in one example is it would be, if someone buys a gift card to an Alhambra gift card, that's in quotes, a digital gift card for any business in the city that signs up, whatever parameter we assign, that the city's contribution would be a bonus, or otherwise allow that individual to spend $100 and maybe get $120 worth of value that gets turned around and spent in our local businesses. So it's trackable and you can it's an opt-in to allow any business to participate that wants to and it would make sense here. So that would be it could be anywhere from a $20,000, $30,000, up to $50,000 sort of investment there. And I would say for that program, if it was something that you wanted us to administer because you already have an agreement with us, it would, there would be no overhead. So if you put in 30,000, we would push out 30,000. We would absorb all other costs of staff time to do that. Second is the micro grant program. This would be grants of anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000. And the goal, I think, in a fiscal year would be to 20 to 25 of these. Very direct storefront physical improvements. A $50,000 contribution here as well would allow that to happen. You would have to have a three year lease or own the building in order to qualify for that among other requirements like not being cited or in validation. And it could address things like signage needs and other issues that we're trying to address. Again, the Chamber administer, there be no overhead to that program, you put 50,000 in, 50,000 would go out. And for both of those programs, if you required a match of 20%, if you said we'll give you you this 50,000 but you have to put in an additional 10,000, 15, $20,000, we would go to private sources to raise those funds to match so that we see good faith that we're working in collaboration to provide more resources for our community. Lastly, promotion shouldn't cost too much, we could support staff in doing that. And then for business incentives, I think we might want to hold that for a future year because it would acquire more than a micro grant in terms of attracting a new business probably around $25,000 per business minimum. And I think we want to hold on that. So I'll leave that and happy to answer any questions you have in the program. Do we have any speakers we assume that I wish to speak on this item? Madam Mayor, we do have a raised hand from Professor Michaelson. I really quick just because I know we've got a lot of work to do and it's getting later. I was just hoping that and I'm not sure if it would fall in this agenda item or in this particular budget, but the topic of Funding or giving giving grants maybe like something what the Chamber of Commerce just said a micro grant Maybe they could even handle something like this to I hamburger gardeners and landscape companies that are taking care of our lawns and our front yards and they are still using the diesel, loud and environmentally unfriendly pollution all around leaf blowers. And so if they could get a micro grant to be able to purchase and have a couple of leaf blowers on hand so they can blow leaves quietly and have them charged, that would be amazing. So anyway, just something to think about. But I'm sure you have lots of other projects there, but if possible, that could be something down the line. Thank you. There are no more raised hands on Jim. Does the council have any comments or questions for the staff on the item. Thanks, Mayor. I don't have any questions. I think I'm ready to go with my priorities. I'm not sure how you want to. I did look at the sheet and I've kind of looked at my priorities. It's pretty clear to me which ones I want to fund. And I don't know how you want to go with this process. Do you want to go line by line or do you want to... I can go ahead and share what my priorities are and you can go from there. Well, Ms. City Manager, how do you want us to proceed with this? We each have our own budget worksheet in front of us? Do you want to just share our allow what our priorities are and then? Because it's really difficult to mesh everything together. It's up to the council. You could go down the road and you could talk about your priorities to start with and then go by line by line, but I think ultimately we're going to get to the point where you have to go line by line. So if you want to cut to the chase and do that that's up to the council. We're here to hopefully get some recommendations. Okay so I'm just going to go ahead and say that each council member wants to just kind of share your priorities how you allocate the 1.3 million and then eventually I would call each line and I don't know whether average it or to average it or we'll play by here. Yeah so Mayor maybe we can do this. I'll go ahead and share the parties for me and then each one of us will take turns maybe at the end of that we can see if there's a pretty clear consensus and those items are already done and then we just focus on the ones where we may not have consensus and discuss those. Okay, so I could go ahead. 1.2 street light master plan is definitely a priority for me. As I've mentioned many, many times is one of the very basic, very basic infrastructure that will need that's tied into public safety. We need the street lights to function and be bright enough to provide safety for our community. So that's a priority for me to be able to fund this. Also knowing that we have another funding source could be possibly available, but I just want to put it out there. This is a priority for me. And then traffic concerns and traffic calming policy is a priority. We already discussed all that previously. There's no doubt about that. Think development of city branding is something that would be really nice to have at this point. It's not a must have, so it's second tier for me. Then 2.12, expansion of cleaning services of our parking structures. I think this is a priority. It's not too costly to increase those pressure washing services, but I think those do affect customer experiences to go into downtown. And we have a vibrant downtown. We definitely want to encourage people to come and shop. And that's a priority for me to make sure that our city facilities are clean and we maintain them well. And then moving on, the next one would be the indoor and outdoor digital or traditional bulletin board for city parks. I think it's a priority for the council to enhance governance, transparency, accountability, and do better in our ability to do public outreach. So this is one way to achieve that, especially for the parks that's not so close to City Hall and library, where people, some of our communities are a little bit further away. And I think having those bulletin boards with information that we're trying to get out to the community, and just a way to communicate and folks that walk around can easily assess information there there. So that's a priority for me as well. And then I think the opportunity to collect the TOT transient occupancy tax, given that it does help the city with our revenue of 500,000 a year, this should be a priority for us to spend some money up front and then start collecting revenue that will help us provide even more quality services for our community. So I think these are my priorities with just 2.11, that's kind of nice to have. And some of the other ones I do like to explore like the economic development side of things 3.9 there's a couple items I do like to explore I don't see a dollar amount attached to them so I'm still hoping that we'll have a deeper diving to the economic development portion of this but yeah so that's those are my priority items. So let me repeat your priorities are 1.2 2.9 2.1 2.12 12 to 4.3 and 6.4. Sorry, I didn't follow. Sorry, do it again. Okay. 1.2 2.9 2.1 1 1 2.12 4., and 6.4. Correct. It's not mentioned. It's not mentioned. So take, take. It could be done. Take out 2.11. Okay. No 2.9. Yeah. And you're willing to explore 3.9, which is... I'm willing to explore 3.9. Yes. I willing to exploit $3.9. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So as far as my allocations, definitely 1.2, first one, with the lighting master plan. I think without, though, I think it's very important for me to also not only come up with a master plan, but be able to implement and just take action to make sure that we address all of the missing and effective lighting throughout the city. So perhaps we can, besides the 300,000 dollars, we can look at ways to actually implement the. Unless I'm mistaken, this actually includes the implementation of it. It's just a plan, right? Okay. So anyway, I'd like to support that, but also look into the implementation of it as well. 2.9, $500,000 for traffic calming, absolutely. You know, hopefully we can each get a piece of that and, you know, implement it as best as possible in each of our districts. The next one, 2.11, $50,000 for city branding. Absolutely, I think that's important. The next one, 2.12. Absolutely, I think this is a must. I think this gives back in so many ways. And I think thus far we've only talked about the parking structures elevators, but I mean, if at all possible, I would really like for the council to also consider if possible the possibility of doing the sidewalks as well. I know that we've got those covered by DBA by partially by republic services of city, but you know, unfortunately with the wear sidewalks, so it's never quite enough. And I think more can be done for that. So, you maybe expanding to that and then moving on 3.9 the $250,000 for the study for the downtown and all Hambra Business Association boundaries for assessment districts followed by what Mr. Brary brought up earlier, a shop local program and a microgram program. He talked about numbers anywhere between 20,000 to possibly 50,000. I say we start kind of in the middle, maybe 30,000 He's getting some reporting back as to how it works and the effectiveness of it and then see if it's something that we can continue to fund moving forward into the following years. With all that, I think I'm at $1,260,000, so I'm just under budget and seeing what others have to say. Okay,, so councilor Mazza your priorities are 1.2 2.9 2.11 2.12 including sidewalks And then 3.9 3.9 a But the other ones are free? A, B, C, and D. Okay. Vice mayor? So the first one, I think it is important, but I'm hesitant to just say $300,000 because I think we should exhaust our search for outside funding sources first. Because I wouldn't, I mean, in any scenario, I know staff would do that. But I think that I'd like to support this either way, but I want to make sure we uncover all the stones possible to see if there's outside funding sources for us. I think that there are as I mentioned last meeting. No. Lucidie, do you want to follow up with the conversation from Clean Power Lines? Yes, our staff did take a look at possible funding opportunities for master planning. And at this time, we're looking through both Clean Power L lines and so Cal ran to see if those options exist. I don't think it's a good fit for clean power alliance. We are obviously taking advantage of some of the other planning dollars that are available, including for facilities and fleet transition to electric charging. to just to it's not eligible or there a money or. It doesn't appear to be a good fit for or at least street lighting specific. Okay. We're continuing to look. All right. I'm happy to have a callers. I am on the executive committee. I should probably ask a question. So I'm happy to do that. But I think it is a priority. Leave it at that. I just want to make sure we fully exhaust all our other options there. I think my top priority is probably traffic calming and 2.9. The branding, I think it's a nice thing to do. I think it is important. When I first, I think, propose this strategic planning session. The idea was that it would be part sort of part of the historic preservation effort as it related to neighborhoods, especially, because right now we do have these signs that are up in certain areas. Imagine some of those will, the designations may remain, but if we're looking at historic districts, I think that was the opportunity to spark by thinking about this. So that said, I think I'd be okay if we coordinate and that doesn't need to be this next fiscal year necessarily. It's also not a huge amount of money, so somehow we get $300,000 falling out of the sky for master planning for streetlets. Maybe that can be a bunch of bull and we use it for that. I want to say for 2.12, 3.6, 6.5, and at least a couple of the ones in 3.9. I sort of see these very related and the reason is because I think that it seems to me that we have an opportunity to focus our efforts on thinking about the downtown area as a whole and that might be, I think, maybe the biggest first step would be to look at the Downtown Elamber Business Association, the boundaries, the assessment, which areas are assessed, what zone they fall into. And then I think some of these other things follow that like a focused study on commercial businesses on Main Street, promoting mixed use with a focus on chapel, main, between Chapel and Garfield. And in particular, the street wash, the structure washing and street washing stuff. If we do it right, that is something that could and should be funded by an expanded assessment in a downtown business area. So that I, I mean, if we have to do this for a year at $42,000, I mean, I'm fine with that, to make sure that we're getting something done. But on the longer term, I don't want to use our surplus to be spray washing the downtown business area when those benefits flow directly to the downtown business area and thereby all of us. I think it should be rolled into the assessment. So I hope that that's something that we could do, but we could, you know, we don't have to have this discussion again in future years where we hopefully we have a surplus and then we're using it to power wash our structures. I think that's something we can roll into the cost of doing business into another funding source. So I'd like to, on those items, I think I might like to hold off and roll it on to into the first step would be to figure out what the assessment looks like and getting some idea of how we expand that and redo it and define the boundaries. You know, I still am interested by the idea of a vacancy tax. I don't necessarily think we need to do it immediately at a cost of $250,000 right now. If we're going to look for something on the ballot, I prefer to look at the transit occupancy tax because that looks like a more immediate return. Although when the vacancy tax was proposed, it wasn't necessarily looked at as a revenue source. It was an incentive to get these other businesses to kind of light a fire under them, to get moving with their whatever their plans are there. So if there is some economy of scale by doing both of these ballot studies together, then maybe I would be open to that. But if it's sort of free standing cost each on their own, then I think we should focus our efforts on the TOT. I would like to ask, but level of confidence do we have that each of these digital billboards is going to cost $60,000. At this point, it's just an estimate to do the installation of the electrical and then find something that would be able to be synced and able to update remotely here from City Hall. Right. It just seems like a big number for a word of amounts to like large monitors that you could buy Costco, I think, you know, and then again, even with the tariffs, it's still cheaper than that. So maybe, I mean, I would like to see that, but it does $300,000 strikes me as a little high for that, especially if we're going to combine in traditional billboards as well, as those hopefully wouldn't cost too much. But I would like to see that happen. I agree that I think that's a good idea, especially spread out in the parts of the community that don't maybe make it to City Hall all the time. And I don't know where that leaves us money-wise, but if we can do some of these direct investments at a smaller ticket level, I would definitely be a supporter of that. I think, especially since there's no cost, I really think that an ongoing set of conversations between some subset of the council and our business community in Elhambo would be a really good idea so that we don't have to do this once a year or a couple times a year, we can have ongoing discussions and look for opportunities for really cost effective measures and maybe even free things that we could do to directly assist our business community so I'm not sure how much clarity I provided there on my priorities but I think we got the top ones and then there's some some clarity that I think I need for the rest. So vice mayor I have for your priority 2.9, 2.12, 3.6, 4.4, 3, 6.5, and 3.9, is that correct? I would say 2.9, 3.9A, 1.2, and then 6.4, not necessarily in that order, but close to it. 6.4 as well? Yeah. Because I think that one, if we're getting estimated $500,000 a year, our investment is $250,000 once, I think that's pretty much an over-a-year. Right? Assuming it passes. Is that my turn? Yes. I just have a quick question before I continue. Under 2.12, what is the implementation? What is the cost? The increase is a total 42 per year, if we add. We listed it out as $42,000, or if the Council wanted to break it down, depending on where your highest level of concern is, you could break it down just to increase the power washing of the stairs or if the concern are the parking structures as a whole then you could also we could also include sweeping and pressure washing of the entire structure and then that's where the 42 it so the 24 plus the 18. So I'm going to ask you another question. As this come up for an RFP as I think they stink. So we're currently doing the cleaning of the elevators two times a week. The service comes on Friday and on Sunday. They dump the trash three times a week. And then they pressure wash the stairs once a month, and then every six months they're sweeping and then pressure washing the entire structure. The Downtown Business Association, once upon a time, used to offer additional services, but they do not anymore. So it makes sense why we're getting complaints here in these last couple of years, because we were at one point doing more and we are not. So that is what we contract for at this time. We can look to expand the services. We got costing from our current vendor, but we could look to see at some point, if we'd send that out for an RFP. I like that. So then I'll behave. So the first would be 1.2 and I would drop that to 200 instead of 3. I'm just going to go this route. Hear me out. 2.9, 700, or traffic calming. We all get a piece of that. The next one would be, I'm going to drop to 6.4. Definitely 2.50 for that. For the TOT, we'll get a return on that. And then 1.150 for 3.9 to include. Thank you, Mr. Councilman Mazza for helping with that. I would 3.9 would be A, B, C, and D. I have different numbers. Is that okay? At this point, we estimate that the master plan for street lights for citywide, that the consultant will come back at 300,000. So if the consultant comes back, there's nothing we can do. That's our initial estimate. We have a water master plan. We think it's going to be a half million dollars just for that item. So if it comes in less than of course we can return and we can discuss other funding priorities. If it comes in more than we have a real problem. We wouldn't be able to undertake that. So these are our recommendations with what our best estimate is. So I have for Council Member of the Drysdaleerv 2.9. And you would 1.2 as well. 1.2 2.9 6.4 and 3.9. ABCD. Okay. Thank you. For me, I looked at the satisfaction survey that North Star had done for us recently. So my priorities are basically based on the residence needs or complaints among other things. So I have, I'd like to fund 1.2, the street light pasture plan. And 2.9 definitely, the traffic calling policy would just talk about that. We need money for that. And I do want to fund 2.1 11 with the signage. And absolutely 2.212, the cleaning services, not just the parking structure and elevators, which are definitely needed. I visited their reports horrific, but I think it's gotten a lot better after I talked to the city manager a couple years ago. But I want to expand that as well to street cleaning, a pressure washing on the various streets. It does have to be, it depends on staff to assess the needs. There are certain parts of the city with the streets that are really dirty, perhaps right around where ice cream shop is all around, or food. There are a lot of food people are just dropped up drinks. I noticed that. So 2.12 and one to fund 4.3, the signage, either the Bolton Board or the Digital Board. But I do want to one sign outside of City Hall of Library, which I think is actually appropriate. That's where a lot of people are gathering, especially during a farmer's market. And I would like to fund actually, I will not need to fund 3.9 being that most of these objectives are free. They're in-house, the dining house. So if you allow me based on my notes, we do not need to, there's no funding for 2.14, seismic retrofitting critical city facilities. You don't want that at all. Just let it fall down. Yeah, I, I think for that one, we will just because we started to develop our hazard mitigation plan and that will sink a female funding for that one. We don't have to. I think it's still important, but it's one of those, we don't want to use our general fund money to fund it. Is that including the hazard mitigation plan? So hazard mitigation plan is the first step that we have to take in order to pursue funding opportunities for these retrofits. Okay, so 2.14 is not funded. 2.16 continue to support open streets events not funded. 3.5 no one funds that one. A Dresden vacant commercial properties. Explore vacancy tax for the 2026 ballot being that there's costs related and the revenue is unknown. 3.6, device mirror mayor supports funding for that. And 4.3 is funded by three council members, including me. 6.4, the TOT tax supported by three council members. 6.5, one council member, vice mayor supports that, 3.9, 3 council members, including plus me, I support, I only support the ones that are free, no cost. So at this point, we have to do the math, one point through, I don't think we need to spend all of it. It's not a requirement. It's the necessary works. I've spent all of it. So, I think if you want me to go ahead and structure this discussion, it will be how much we allocate to each one that are funded by the council members. Let's go through 1.2, the estimated study cost $300,000. I allocated entire $300,000. I agree with that. So if anyone objects to it, then let us know. We're okay with it. Okay. So see 1.2 Study cost is $300,000 a council is willing to allocate $300,000 the full amount The next one 2.9 four of us all five was wanted to fund that one. It's the traffic, calming policy. The recommended minimum was $500,000. Anyone wants to discuss that? Are you working with that? I added more from, I took 100 out of 3.9 and added it to 2.9. What did you move from? From 3.9, opposite side, the downturn. And then to 2.9 to make it 600. Okay. And 2.11. Discussion about that? Whether it. No, I think I'm just writing a deal and they'll work out the details later. We'll have to take it from somewhere else. 2.11 funded by two council members. The estimated study cost $50,000. This is the city branding signage. So Mayor, if I could, it might make it a little more streamlined. If we wanted to start with the items where you have the most council members who asked for these items to be the priorities, it looks like $1.2 for $300,000, $2.9 in the amount of $500,000, $2.12 for $42,000, $6.4 for $250,000, and then $3.9 for $250,000 gives you $3.42. So you are slightly over, but I think that's a good start and we probably could make that work. How much did you say for $2.12? 1.342. Okay. 1.342. Oh, sorry. 1.342. Would you mind going down the list one more time? Yes. 1.2 for $300,000. All five of you said that that was a priority. 2.9 for $500,000. All five of you said that that was a priority. Four of you said that 2.12 for $42,000 was a priority. 6.4, three of you said that that was a priority for $250,000. And then 3.9, three of you said that was a priority and that is $250,000. And that total is 1.342. And I think we could make that work. So Mayor, I want you to clarify with Council Member Andraderade Staller that I understand you're trying to make it work with the dollar amounts, but 3.9 as I hear your comment that you're only willing to fund a portion of it, 150 not 250 of it, but that's if the study cost is 250, so if it's either 250 or no gold, would you still fund it? Can I get clarification there? That's a really good question because did we have 212 in there? Or you already have 212? Okay, good. Yeah, I would. And another point on two point, I mean, I'm sorry, on 3.9, A, the study itself is $250,000. We would be looking into the high possibility that if the measure was successful, we would be able to recoup those costs and we would have that money either next year to reappropriate to other uses. Would that also be the case with 6.4? Yes, I believe so as well. Now this one would just be a little bit farther. This one would not be in this budget cycle. with 6.4. Yes, I believe so as well. Now this one would just be a little bit farther. This one would not be in this budget cycle. So if we were successful on 3.9, the process is different. It's an informal process. It doesn't have to go on the ballot. The biggest cost for 6.4 is the election consultant and then the cost that we pay the county to actually put it on the ballot. that that it would go on the ballot in November of 2026, we probably are being all of that and not recouping any of that within this two years cycle. But if the fee were adequate, we would recoup, we could recoup those funds, but just we wouldn't see it until mid-2027 then. That is my understanding. I'm going to say to the manager if I may real quick, on 3.9, does your number only include the 250? Or does it include any part of money for BC and D? So that's for item A and B. Three of you put that as a priority with Councilwoman Andrade Steadler at 150 but I think we've clarified that she would be okay at 250. And so C and D were only a priority to you. Got it, thank you. So I don't know if the council would be willing to, I mean, I know we're like getting a limit already, actually over a limit, but if the council be willing to reconsider, I think we have to start somewhere with this. Even a small amount, I think Mr. Browrie suggested 20, 30, 50. Again, maybe going in the middle, 30,000, you know, I think his point that it brings back resources to Alhambra, his key, and we have to start somewhere, I think, we've all said that we are committed to improving our economic development, and I think this is where we can show it. So, not a huge dollar amount, I think, between the two C&D, we're looking at $60,000 so we can make it happen, but up to the rest of the council. I like it. I like pushing the shop local, I shop local all the time. Can I make a suggestion? I think our city manager has laid out pretty clearly the items that have clear consensus for and those will be the Number one priority and I also understand a lot of these are estimates So it's possible things might come in lower than what we have estimated for and we therefore we might have more funding Maybe you know vice mayor has mentioned that he would love to see if there's external funding sources for Street Live Master Plan and other things. So there's possibility for us to actually have more money to continue fund those. So for the items that were not identified as priorities, but we have also desired to fund like 2.11 and 4.3 and the other items of 3.9. I think these are smaller dollar amounts. As soon as we have funding available, then they become second tier priorities to go forward. Does that make sense for Council? And also, I want to add that when I think Councilmember Mazel for bringing up the sidewalks, pressure washing, I think our mayor supported that. I'd like to support that as well. Some of the streets that just really need cleaning services, I would like I do support including that in 2.12 as well. And with that, if you'll mind, I think the streets primarily would be main from second to Garfield going east to Garfield at the very minimum, both north and south sides of the street. I think that's where you see the majority of the buildup on the sidewalks. Again, if at all possible. I know we're limited, we're stretching we're stretching here but I think that you know definitely part of it at least for me and it sounds like yes and part of and then the long stretch of valuable of our as well right from Fremont to Atlantic and Garfield along that stretch as well so I definitely support that. Planning streets. I'm in agreement with that I I think if, if whenever a student's possible, the cost, that's because it's actually lower, then we should be go to the other items that are not. There may be a fewer council member of support automatically. I would just ask that we also look to maybe doing more money for the traffic calming. It does hit all five of our districts and I think that that's really a fair thing to look at because it would impact all of us and across the board. So it's an equity issue that I think is important. I agree, I think moving forward, if we can find the funds somehow some way, I mean, you know, prioritize that. And I think, you know, prioritize that and I think you know our city manager said it. I mean, if anything, the first start would be grant funding right for any of these things. If at all possible and then moving on to expanding our own funds. Thank you. So can someone summarize? No, I think I said he mentioned it a better job than me. Okay, I got a very good discussion. I mean, we all want something for every item, but, you know, given the reality of 1.3. But I think that there are other items, even though even maybe one or two of us has awarded another majority, but that's okay. I think it still should be recognized that there's, that is important to that. One council member or at least two, that was just, make sure that we put a note on that. Like I said, the actual cost coming lower than the SMA cost. Please, maybe you could report back to us in about six months. Is that too long? I'd like to hear. No, not at all. In fact, I bring the strategic plan back to you every quarter. And so as we continue to put these plans out and bring in the pricing for RFP when we're awarding, we'll automatically know that it came in higher or lower and then we can assess what that dollar amount is and where we might want to apply that. Squeeze those consultants for 1.2 and 3.9A and then the excess goes to the small dollar amounts for 3.9 and then the rest goes to traffic. Well, I think we work really well today. Are there any other questions and comments? I think we need a vote on this. We'll take the version that the steam managers have to prove. Roe call please. Mazza. Yes. Maloney. Yes. Wang. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes. Lee. Yes. The next item on the agenda this evening is the consent agenda item numbers 9-25. Do we have any speaker cards from the public for any of the consent agenda items? Yes, Madame Mayor. I have speaker cards for item 10, item 14, and item 18. That's 10, 14, and 18. Correct. And are there any items that the council would like to pull and discuss? No, thank you. Okay, none. All right. Let me just go ahead and take the speaker. Let the speaker speak first, Mr. Lewis McCammon. Good evening again and this is in reference to item 10, barely non-controversial item. To take a look at this is the fiscal year 2025 206 project identification for the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 and Bill 1 by Bill. And it mentions here that the Road Repair and Accountability Act stipulates a prior to receiving road maintenance and rehabilitation account funds in a fiscal year. A city or county must submit to the California Transportation Commission a project list pursuant to an adopted resolution. The information is due by July 1st or time down that. Staff is proposing a street rehabilitation project for fiscal year 2025-206. includes design services and street rebuild, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re, re not limited to pavement striping, ADA ramps, sidewalk, curb, and gutters, etc. for public streets within the area basically bounded by mission, Garfield, North of Valley and the city boundary there. The main question I had with reference to that is that a number of these streets were just redone within the last year or two. And are an excellent condition. These were the ones that were in the worst condition. There are some there that definitely do need work. So what I'm suggesting is, for example, Los Hegos, I just went before the start of this meeting from Chapel Avenue on the way moving eastward past Martha Baldwin's school by a mess of Lutheran Church there was just recently redone. It's an excellent shape. I just took some pictures of it tonight. No cracks, nothing in it. It was in pretty bad shape before it was just recently redone. Now not all these areas, not all these streets were redone and some of them undoubtedly need work. So what I'm just suggesting as we can go ahead with this, but when we go into the design services take a look at what really needs to be done here and what can maybe maybe have some savings on here that we can use elsewhere or something and so this is part of the process we have to identify something something and maybe it's easiest to just identify a large area. But there are parts of that area that will need it. And there are parts of that area that really probably don't need much. So take a careful look at it. if there's some money there that you might be able to use elsewhere later. But otherwise go ahead with that as you need to. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ms. Jennifer In. And you can actually speak on 14 and 18 at the same time. Please. I'll keep it short. For number 14 for the West Coast Arborist with the Tree Maintenance, just if we can remind them not to over trim the trees, that would be great. And number 18, which is the historic preservation, putting together kind of the net steps even though the ordinance has been passed yet of how the implementation is going to go. So I'd like to thank our city manager and staff as well that they're already looking ahead to get this done kind of at the same time the ordinance is making it through so we can get that into place, hopefully shortly after ordinance is done so I just want to say thank you for that. That's it. Do we have any speakers via Zoom that we should speak on any of the unscited agenda items? Yes Madam Mayor we do have Professor Michael Send. Hi thank you. Yeah I I also want to thank staff for thinking ahead on the historic preservation program. This is in relation to agenda item. I think it's, I don't have it in front of me anymore. I think it's 17 number, I'm sorry, 18, sorry. I'm just wondering if you could get some answers. It sounds interesting since we're going to need the city, is going to need support moving forward since we're brand new. Kind of makes sense to have a consultant firm be there for implementing the rest of this once it's all done. But I'm hoping you can ask some questions. Why would a consultant be necessary versus having a full-time staff person? What are the cost differences? Consultancy is kind of like temporary. So if we had a full-time person to create a department and so on and build it, maybe that's something either now or down the line, but it'd be, I'd be curious to know, I think you would be too, to know the differences, and I don't see any financial breakdown on that, or pros and cons. You're looking at 15 years potentially of more consultant work and it's unclear from the document what that would entail or what alternatives there are. It says for someone to review certificates of appropriateness, how many would that be? Exactly. What does that take? How long does it take for someone to do one, for example? And would they, my question is would the consultant firm assign a point person from their firm who will always work with Elhamber or will it be someone just whoever's available? What if this is just out of the blue, you know, this is just a baby, but what if their firm is having financial difficulties? Will their service to the city of Elhamt to our city falter like if they have turnover, that'll affect a consistency for us? I'm just putting out questions out there because there might be alternatives. and I think the alternative is to have a meeting department or a staffer to be in charge of historic preservation like Alhambra, sorry like Pomona and Pasadena. They have full time. People Pomona only has one main person and then Pasadena has a whole department, I believe four and the head of that department is someone much like the community development director but one dedicated to the historic program only. So that would be nice to know. On the document on the agenda there, it says that the consultant firm would quote assist staff in staffing of the commission. And so I'm really confused what that means. Obviously, we haven't talked about that in the historic commission and I'm on the historic commission. So I'm just curious what that means to assist staff in staffing of the commission because commissioners aren't paid staffers. So I don't know if that's just a typo or does that mean that the firm will staff the five commissioners themselves? Or does that refer to the commission will have a point person from their company to use as a resource and alleviate city of Alhambra staffers? So these are the questions that I just wanted to bring up. Also five years sounds like a long time for one particular contract and it's probably pretty tricky and hard to to cancel someone's contract when so much money is involved and legal ramifications they probably probably have to mess up really bad. So maybe you might consider a three year term with extensions as needed. Again, this hasn't come up at all and there hasn't been any discussion. So I'm hoping you can have some discussion here. What really needs to happen in November right now, and I'm not sure whether this is the route or not, but right now there are only 400 properties that would qualify within a historic district and therefore those 400 approximate properties would be able to apply for the Mills Act and benefit from getting some rebates from their property taxes so they can put their money back into their property and maintain it even gardening or painting the fence or just neighborhood upkeep. It would look good, you know, pride of ownership. So only right now. And so I'm just wondering if that would assist if having the consultants beyond hand would assist us further in expanding. So we have a more robust appreciation and protection and better district, better districts for us. So anyway, none of this has been discussed. This is all brand new, therefore bringing it up and I'm hoping you can get some clarity in all of those, especially what it means to assist staff in staffing of the commission. Again, it doesn't clear what that is. All right, well thank you. The next speaker on Zoom is Joanna Vargas. Good evening, City Council and Madam Mayor. Thank you so much for taking my call on Zoom. Joanna Vargas, Director of Downtown Ohamber Business Association. And thank you for moving ahead with 3.9. We really appreciate that. I know the association will generally appreciate that. And I know it's probably going to take some time in order to get that done. This is regarding number 22 for Ohamber Central Business District Association. And it's regarding the 25-26 approval of our contract for the next fiscal year. I just wanted to bring it to your attention that we are currently and have been on a reimbursement schedule and it is just, it's very hard to maintain. It's Very antiquated and so so how it works is I, as of right now, or anybody that purchases something has to put it on their credit card or pay cash for it. And then I do not get paid back, you know, for maybe up to four to five months and still waiting to get paid back for things for tree lighting and things of that nature that we did back in 2024. So we're asking if we can move to knowing that we're going to get the 855, which is the at least amount. If that can be paid either quarterly or monthly, just know it. If that could be divided as a post so that we can work on a a smarter budget that way instead of having to kind of go week by week and just seeing what we're getting get reimbursed back. But that's what we're asking for in that and opening up if you have any questions. Thank you so much. There are no more speakers on Jim. Are there any council members? I wish to make comments or have questions. Move the remainder of the balance of the agenda. Sorry, good. Okay, roll call please. Mazza. Yes. Maloney. Yes. Wang. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes. Lee. Yes. Next, we have the continuation of public comment for non-agentized items. Do we have any speakers that we're not able to speak at the beginning of the meeting? I do not have any blue cards. And there are no speakers with their hands up on Zoom. Thank you. Next, we have council communications. We'd like to start. Council member Wong. Sure, thank you mayor. I wanted to provide an update for my colleagues that I had the honor of representing City of Alhambra at the SCAC regional conference in earlier this month, Southern California, Southern California Association of Government. It was the General Assembly. It was really a great opportunity to connect with other city leaders and talk about, regional issues like housing, transportation, sustainability, and the general assembly approved SCACs budget for the next year, elected new officers. We also heard some updates on the regional planning efforts and how City can prepare for the 2028 Olympics. So it was just a great, great experience and just wanted to provide an update for my colleagues and that's it. Thank you, to mayor. Nothing for me. Thank you. Nothing to report, but I want to say this. I felt this was a really productive meeting and we got a lot done tonight. So good work to staff and public and colleagues. I agree. Thank you so much. Just a real quick update, academic to Catholic on forhamdra who we honored here a couple of months ago or maybe about a month ago Alhamdra High School came in sixth in the nation because they went to the nationals Mark Kepple came in ninth and there's actually one young man in at Alhamdra High who came in second highest in the nation on his scores. Academic to CAF, I'm pretty amazing. Thank you for your support for the Latino Association. It really was a very good or event. I plan on being at the library to hear more about the smoking or the no smoking. I know we have a strong ordinance in place, but we can never be too careful or more healthy. Thank you very much for my fellow council members for tonight and of course city manager staff. Thank you. I'm going to make some city announcements before I end the meeting. Join us for our upcoming neighborhood watch and hazard mitigation plan meetings throughout May. We're teaming up with the Elhambera Fire Department to discuss the City's local hazard mitigation plan. Review the latest crime updates and learn about crime prevention tips and strategies for the full meeting schedule. Visit the City's website. Next, save the day for our annual Memorial Day ceremony on Monday, May 26th at the Alhambra Park of Veterans Memorial. Enjoy live music and refreshments starting at 10 a.m. followed by the ceremony at 11 a.m. We have now completed all the items on this evening's agenda. Our next regular meeting will be on Monday, June 23rd. The meeting is now adjourned. Thank you. I'm going to make a little bit of a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play the piano. I'm going to play a little bit more. you