Speaker 1: Hearing item three.
Speaker 0: Item three is a report from Public Works recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use. Adobe resolution ordering the vacation of Alta Way between Marietta Court and Olive Avenue, as well as a portion of Olive Avenue, north of First Street, District two.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Can you please now go on to the staff.
Speaker 8: We'll have the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A staff report was given by Shaun Crombie, our deputy director of Public Works and our city engineer. Good evening, Honorable Mayor.
Speaker 12: Council hearing number three involves vacation of all two way between myriad a.
Speaker 8: Court and all of avenue.
Speaker 12: The vacation has been requested by the majority.
Speaker 8: Property owner and after the request, staff.
Speaker 12: Did review the situation and found the vacation to be.
Speaker 8: Feasible and found the property not needed for public use. Petitions have gone out and the majority property owner has.
Speaker 1: Worked with the surrounding property owners.
Speaker 12: The recommended action.
Speaker 8: Tonight will.
Speaker 12: Conclude the OR conduct a public.
Speaker 1: Hearing.
Speaker 8: Find the area vacated not needed for public use and order resolution to vacate the alley. I'm available for any questions.
Speaker 1: Is your public comment on this hearing? Please come forward.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Researching consults and so I'm an associate recommendation to receive supporting document to record conclude the public hearing find that the area to be vacated is not needed for president or prospective public use. We haven't asked the homeless. Could they possibly use that property for anything safe light program if if it's a structure on that facility with some of them, maybe seniors who are homeless, could they possibly use that property that is being vacated? Has anyone on council asked, is there possible that that some of this property could be used for homeless services if it is not been questioned? If we have not petitioned or questioned our homeless population, those citizens who are members of this community, then we have not done the appropriate research to bring this item to closure. The homeless are part of our community and if they have not been included in this, then to close this this particular item. Without their input, without hearing their desires. Plans for this perspective vacated, not needed for public use. Property. I'd like us to consider that before we move forward with this. The homeless are part of our community. And as we keep adopting plans and processes and spending money and deciding whether or not we can use a closed property without including. Optically the homeless is to say that these people do not exist. We're saying it yet again with this adaptation. We're saying to the homeless, you don't exist. If I were to fill these three seats with the homeless population and they would fill all the vacant seats or line them up outside, what would they have said about this recommendation to receive documentation into the record? Conclude the public hearing. Find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use. What would the homeless have said? Those who are sleeping in their cars yet again tonight. Who could have used this land maybe to park their cars so that at least they can feel a little bit more safe for eight more hours. What would they have said? And not to include them in this argument into this. Public comment is again to ignore that they are breathing guys not pleased with that. How long are we going to continue to do this?
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I know it's not clear on the description, but this is the vacation of a partial, Ali. So it's not. A developable area. It is an access point.
Speaker 8: My name is Richard Gomez and I owned 7 to 5 years. First Street, which abuts this thing, is adjacent to the Serious Regis project. And my understanding from the staff of public works is that I'm going to get a ten by 50 foot section that was formerly the alley. The problem I have is the rear portion of my property has an easement from the Dragon house for parking and for drainage. So what I'm going to have as a problem is I own the first portion free and clear. Then I would own a ten foot section in the rear. And there's this easement in the middle. I think one of the conditions of this would be that Sarris Regis release or vacate their easement. They're here right now. They can discuss this and this way. We have no problems in the future if something were to happen in this thing weren't developed. There's going to be a ten foot section there that, you know, I don't have access over, you know, because my there's an easement between my property and that one. They're here. Perhaps they can discuss it or tell, you know, what we can do. But I ask that one of the conditions of the vacation is that Sarris Regis vacate or release that easement so that there's no problems in the future.
Speaker 11: With my property.
Speaker 2: So I know that those conversations have taken place. Hopefully between you and Sara, you have it. Okay, so you should have reached back.
Speaker 3: Excuse me.
Speaker 2: No, I was going to say you should have reached out to them. But I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Crumby to address the salient points as it relates to tonight's vote.
Speaker 8: Our staff will continue to work with the both property owners to address the easement issues going forward.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 8: I wish I had known about this earlier, but I just got the information. I got the mail in Saturday, so I had two days to discuss this with your staff. Your staff. You know, we had no conversations regarding that. But I think it's a brutal can of worms. If in the middle of this whole thing you have an easement, you have property, and then you have ten feet behind it and there's no continuation there.
Speaker 2: Understood. So if you'd like to speak with Mr. Crumby after this item, please feel free to do so. Off to the side. Thank you. So any other public comment on this item? Item three. Can. Councilman Gonzales. Thank you. Members, cast your vote.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor LOWENTHAL.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Motion carries.
Speaker 2: Hey. Item. 35 Vision zero.
Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use, adopt resolution ordering the vacation of Alta Way between Marietta Court and Olive Avenue, as well as a portion of Olive Avenue north of First Street.  (District 2)