is Roslan. So what are we going to put, as the saying goes, another ray of the tiger, right? Entonces, yo quiero unirme a toda esa comunidad que estamos viendo por el bien y el progreso de Roslan, pero con con buenas cosas como un centro comunitario, una biblioteca, algo que les ayude a los jóvenes a construir mejores este mejor su futuro y no ponerlos en un camino donde siempre van a tener problemas y van a tener una etiqueta. Muchas gracias. Buenas noches. Good evening. Good evening to all the council members. I've been living here in the Roslan area for about 16 years now. I'm a homeowner. And I'm here to support the appeal of this dispensary. I think as a community member, I've lived here and I've seen so many people that have been affected by the use of marijuana and others. You know, the youth, they start consuming the product which creates a problem later on with the law. And I don't think it's necessarily about educating us. I think it's creating an issue. This is creating an issue with consumption. This is something that has been stigmatized within our community for many years. Kids get curious about the use. If it's around, they'll want to try it. And I think as many of you know, there have been calls from the schools in regards to kids using in school and smoking. And I think it's something that's very difficult to understand as a child, because you don't really have a record, but once you're older, this is something that's going to stick with you. People maybe without the status. So let's return the dignity and good health to the area of Rosalind. And why, you know, as the saying says, it's hard to translate. Why add a stripe to the tiger. As a direct translation. You know, we want progress in our community. So why don't you bring good things to community center or a club, something that's going to better the future of our youth and cannot be given labels. Thank you, Pablo. The next public comment will be from Anna, followed by Rosa. Anna, can you unmute your microphone? Acabo de hablar? Sí. Lo siento. Rosa. Followed by resident Indian in 5695. Rosa, go ahead. Buenas noches. Rosa López. Y tengo en la comunidad de Rosland por más de 10 años. Y yo estoy de acuerdo y también mi familia. Y queremos que aprueben con este proyecto de Rosland. Este lugar donde quieren el Proyector ya tiene meses solo. La señorita Rivera va a darnos oportunidades para trabajo y aprender sobre la marihuana medicinal. Si la comunidad quisiera y les importábamos tanto porque hace tiempo no pusieron algo ahí para darnos a nosotros oportunidades y la comunidad y más empleo. Que no tenemos una tienda de cannabis hace una mía. La diferencia, cuál es la diferencia si aprueban con este lugar si ya tenemos uno en en la comunidad. La comunidad no sabe nada sobre cannabis y nosotros necesitamos que nos eduquen más sobre esto porque solamente muchos pensamos que es algo malo. Y al contrario no lo es es algo medicinal. Los beneficios del cannabis van mucho más allá de relajarse ya que se pueden utilizar para varios tratamientos y varias enfermedades. Soy yo y mi familia estamos de acuerdo y queremos que aprueben con este proyecto es todo. Good evening. My name is Rosa Lopez and I've lived in the Rosan community for over 10 years now with my family. I would like you to approve this project. I think we agree. This area has been vacant for many years now. And I think miss Rivera is going to provide us with the education that we need to understand and also employ us. And you know what is the difference we have a dispensary about a mile away from here already. So what's the difference to having another one here. And I think a lot of it has to do with us not being educated too much on this product. It's not really something dangerous it is something medicinal. It can be used to treat many illnesses. So me and my family we approve this. Thank you. Thank you the next public commenter will be resident ending in the telephone number ending in 5695 followed by Victoria. Thank you. Good afternoon. Can you hear me. Yes, go ahead. Hi, my name is Juan Manuel Rivera. I'm a resident of Rosalind. I've owned my home here for 15 years. I am first generation Mexican American. I come from immigrant family from each one. And I'd like to voice my support to the project in Rosalind. First of all, my name is Juan Manuel Rivera. I'm a resident of Rosalind. I've been living in this community for 15 years. My parents are immigrants from Michoacán. And I want to give my support for the project that they want to put here in Rosalind. First of all, I'd like to say that I think that people in the community are a little confused. Thinking that putting a business of cannabis is something that is trying to put it here in our community. Because it is a Hispanic and poor community. But the truth is that these types of businesses are in all communities. There are almost 36 of these clubs approved in Santa Rosa. They will be in all places in Santa Rosa. There are many statistics that have proven that these types of businesses are very good for the community. And it is very important that we understand that these types of businesses are very necessary. Because if there are not these types of businesses, people will get these products illegally. And when they are illegally obtained, these types of products are not regulated by the State. They do not have any kind of ability in the State to enforce that the product is clean, that the product is a healthy product. And it is very important for the people who want to get these medicinal products, that they can do it in a place that they are confident about the product. If not, the products will be obtained on the street. This medicine has been used for many years. I know that my grandmother and my great-grandmother have always used medicinal cannabis. Maybe they did not consume it in one way or another. But this medicine has always been used. This medicine has spent a lot of time using this medicine in Latin American countries. And it is very important to know that this program, or this project in particular, in the city has already had... You've had your three minutes. Can you please complete your comment? Yes, thank you. So, to conclude, I would like people to open their minds a little bit and know that this is going to be done very carefully. The children cannot get these products there. It is very difficult, you cannot enter. There is security. Thank you, sir. Complete your comment. You've exceeded your three minutes. Pablo, can you please restate in Spanish or in English? Thank you. Of course. So, he did state his first comments in English and then restated in Spanish and continued. So, firstly, I'd like to say that people here in the community might be a little bit confused in thinking that placing a cannabis in our community is because it's maybe poor or low income. But there are dispensaries all over the place. There are over 33 dispensaries in Santa Rosa alone. And there are plenty of statistics that demonstrate that the type of business like this is good for our community. They can be beneficial. Because if not, people will obtain it illegally. It's an item that wouldn't be able to be monitored by the state or not be enforced and make sure that it's a clean product. But if it's safe for people that consume the product, they need to have the confidence that what they're getting is safe and it will serve their medicinal purpose. This medicine has been used for many, many years around the world. In fact, my grandmother and my great grandmother, I know use marijuana medicinally, maybe not in the way that may some people use it now, but it's definitely used in our cultures in Central America. So to conclude, I do want to say that we receive this with open minds.  Thank you. Thank you. The next public comment will be from Marcella followed by Marlene Marcella you are using an older version of zoom. Can you please do a zoom update and then reconnect to the meeting and we'll be sure to call on you. Pablo, can you restate the instructions on reconnecting once you've done a zoom update. Of course, and then Marcella parece que está usando una versión de zoom. Massa antigua, entonces se le recomienda que actualice la aplicación y luego ingresen nuevamente a la reunión y levanten la mano nuevamente para poder dar su comentario. Thank you Pablo. The next public comment will be from Marlene. Hello. Hi Marlene go ahead. Hi, my name is Marlene. I've resided in Sonoma County my entire life for 42 years. And I've worked in the foster care system and in the schools and community organizations nonprofits in our in our county for the last 22 years. And I'm also Latina, Mexican American Mexican born. And I just want to say to the parents that are calling in. I want to address this because I think that there's like a lack of accountability that happens in our community a lot. And just a general kind of resistance to educating ourselves rather than passing judgment. I think judgment is a really heavy. Have you present in our culture, and it definitely has an impact on on the youth. And I think that a lot of the community problems that our kids face have to do with the lack of communication communication machismo and a lot of other direct hits to our youth come from just our family environment. And so when substances are brought into our homes and our kids are not educated because our parents are not educated. It's like a trickle down impact that it has. Overall, and I think that this is a really good opportunity for for parents and kids alike to gain some education that could help our community and really education is the key for most things. And I think that's what is missing here is that we just need more education to our families. I think that this project can really bring that to our community where we're lacking. We need more education on cannabis on drugs on how to communicate with our kids. I think that that's like really, really the whole problem in our community. And something that could definitely benefit our community is just educating ourselves more and I think that this project really can help with that. So I hope that we can find that support from the community that's still this engaged by educating them and bringing more more programs like this that can help with that. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Please proceed with your comment. Thank you for doing your zoom update. Um, was that, I think that was nice. The name fell off and I clicked on the wrong speaker. My apologies. The next public comment will be from April. April, please unmute your microphone. Okay, hello everyone. Thank you for your patience. I'm sorry. It's kind of hard to do this from my phone. I just want to kind of. Just thank you guys. It's 1018 and we've heard from a lot of people. So just thank you. For being here and being willing to hear everyone's input. I want to say, you know, Rosalind equity, a good saying is nothing for us without us. And in this case, a lot of people have been talking about the property and the city has backed off from purchasing property. But now, thankfully with ARPA funds, the city has the opportunity to purchase this property and to use it with the intention that the Rosalind community has for it. And since 2016, the city of Santa Rosa has conducted public studies that identify these hardworking people of Rosalind's top needs to be a child care center. It's a multicultural center or a center that can support parents by providing a safe and empowering environment for them. And after school programs for their, their kids and the community as a whole. I just want to address legality when we speak about legality. We need to ask legal for who so we know that possession of marijuana is currently a federal offense for undocumented and mixed documented folks. And the community in Rosalind, we need to take into consideration what that would mean for the people and the families that live in that area. Many of them. Many people who currently work in the cannabis industry are currently undocumented are currently being exploited as they are in the wine industry. This is known for the youth of Rosalind. There is currently, as we know, an oversaturation of retail of this product in Sonoma County as it is. This would only contribute to that oversaturation, which will contribute to the existing health issues that contribute to teenage consumption on campus. So in 2018 and 19 vape pens were being confiscated confiscated at a rate of 800 per month per month from middle schools and high schools in Sonoma County. And this has been reported by the Sonoma County prevention partnership, which I highly ask the city council to address and to refer to before making their decision. I want to also echo the callers who say that is it is very important to note this. She said the people of Rosalind. Barely have funds to to live right now. The cost of living is hefty on them, let alone to afford to even purchase what is what this dispensary offers. So when you understand that this project is not intended to benefit the people of Rosalind, but rather the license holders, the investors, the people who are calling in from Mendocino at the moment, people who will be direct directly benefiting from these contracts. So this means that it will turn away are undocumented. It will turn away our youth. It will turn away our children who make up a large proportion of the Rosalind community and it is these exact people that we work so hard to uplift with so many programs. And it is these people that we need to be listening to if we are talking about making equitable decisions and my respects to the women trying to make their move in the cannabis industry at the moment. But what I want the callers and everyone to hear the city council members to hear is what about the hundreds of women of color of Rosalind who have been urging city council for years to listen to their voice. What about those women. And that is why we're here. So the essential workers who have been working to survive this comment you've exceeded your three minutes. Thank you. But the, the, the essential workers who have been trying to survive these stressors are of the pandemic are the ones who we need to be listening to at the moment. And just as I know, every Robin is the next public comment. Hi, good evening. My name is Robin.  And I was born and raised here in Santa Rosa. I'm here this evening in support of the old school cannabis project. I've listened tonight to all of the voices, both of concern and of support. And I understand the voices of concern. This is a very innovative project. There's really nothing like it of its kind in our area. But yes it's unknown. And it's natural for people to fear the unknown, right, especially when it's in your own backyard. However, the upside of this project far outweighs the perceived risks. And some of these risks tonight that I've been listening to, I do believe are perceived prior speakers have spoken to the lack of education. And I do believe that's driving a lot of the perceived risks. If you've ever visited a cannabis dispensary, you'll notice right away the increased levels of security. It's quite shocking the first time you go, at least it was for me. It's far above any standard business or bar or retail establishment. The consumers, I really want to mention visiting old school cannabis will uplift all of the surrounding businesses, whether it's gas stations, restaurants, retail stores, just simply by driving revenue. It's organic uplift, and I'll have a huge, huge upside for Rosalind. And as mentioned, old school cannabis will bring jobs, these will bring local jobs. And it's a true community investment. You know, there's a lot of energy opposing this project, you know, imagine if that energy was focused on partnering with the city to request what everyone in this meeting already knows, regardless of your view on the appeal. Rosalind needs a financial investment from the city above and beyond historical run rates. So why not use this business as a catalyst to drive what the community is asking for. Whether it be a new community center, a new library, a safe haven. Use it, ask the city to designate a set amount of tax revenue driven directly by old school cannabis to fund the projects that have been mentioned this evening. The council is all ears and they're listening. Take advantage of the opportunity. Thank you. The next public comment will be from Marcella, followed by Moreno. Marcella, please unmute your microphone. Go ahead. Hola, buenas noches. Si me pueden escuchar. Si. Okay. Mire, estoy yo aquí este para mostrar mi nombre es Marcella y vivo por esta calle donde se quiere abrir el dispensario y estoy aquí para mostrar mi desacuerdo un desacuerdo este que cuenta de más más vecinos de aquí que que en realidad yo estuve hablando con ellos y así como ha habido ahorita opiniones que que han dicho que están ahí en grupo. Si nosotros nos pudiéramos reunirlos de esta calle y poder expresar este igual de igual manera. Estamos en total desacuerdo. Este dispensario no nos favorecería en nada así como están diciendo no favorecería. Este dispensario aquí en Roslin solamente para para mí en mi opinión es un riesgo puede existir un riesgo de explosión porque porque las maquinarias que se pueden usar ahí es un peligro. Es un peligro de mi mente. Aparte, la sobreconcentración de dispensarios en este vecindario de bajos recursos es evidencia de racismo ambiental. Porque esto nos trae. Quieran que no nos trae contaminación. Nos contamina y nos trae enfermedades. Yo estoy aquí para pedirles que no no se no voten a favor de que se habla que escuchen esta. Es pues esto que estamos nosotros en contra este vecindario totalmente en contra. Y eso sería todo. Y pues ojalá y este así como muchos han dicho ojalá y se abra y yo digo ojalá y no sea porque no nos favorece en nada. Hablan de educación. Hablan de economía. Pero no hablan no resaltan los riesgos de salud. No están tomando más en cuenta los riesgos de salud para los que vivimos aquí alrededor. Otra cosa más también es este el. También me han callado diciendo que no diga que el aroma y que el aroma el aroma es muy desagradable. Es muy desagradable y. Hasta la cabeza que lo van a estar usando ahí es muy desagradable. Ya no vamos a poder caminar ni por la calle donde nosotros vivimos ni por el lado de las vías donde salimos a caminar todas las tardes. Ya no nos vamos a sentir confortables con ese aroma tan desagradable y eso es todo. Muchas gracias. Hello, good evening. My name is Marcella, and I live near the street, or I live on the street near where this dispensary is going to be built, and I am a disagreement. And that counts for a lot of my neighbors as well that are here. And the same way others have gathered in group to give their comments today. I wish that we could have done that as well. I am a disagreement. This is not something favorable for us. A dispensary in my opinion is a risk in my mind it's there's a risk of explosion with chemicals. And you're bringing these the dispensary to an area with low resources and I think a lot of the time has been marginalized, and this is an example of environmental racism. So I hope that today you hear us, and you don't vote for this to go through, especially not in this neighborhood, we do not agree for it. So, so many people here, as it appears, don't agree, you know, and you speak about the economy you speak about. But you don't, excuse me, you speak about the economy and how it's going to help but you don't speak about the health concerns that this could cause us. People have tried to shut me up about though don't speak about the aroma or the scent. But why not. It's something that's irritating to me. It honestly gives me a headache. I don't think I will feel safe walking around at night, taking my walks and and smelling that in this environment. I just won't feel safe. And that's all. Thank you. Next public comment will be from Moreno. Moreno, please unmute your mic. Buenas noches mi nombre es Patricia Moreno y yo vivo en la ciudad de Santa Rosa y hoy estoy aquí para pedir a los miembros del concilio de la ciudad que revoke en el permiso que se otorgo para la por el comité de planeación para instalar este proyecto en el número 100 de la Sebasta por road por dos razones. La primera es que este el proceso de informar a la comunidad sobre este proyecto no fue justo ya que no garantizó realmente que la comunidad se diera cuenta de manera clara y oportuna de este proyecto. La justicia lingüística estuvo ausente en todo momento ya que se utilizaron palabras inclusive para el negocio como por asociación al momento de que ponen es cool. Yo por ejemplo yo yo pensé que era una escuela luego dicen es un dispensario no no es un dispensario es una factoría es una fábrica que va a manejar productos volátiles. Que representan un riesgo al momento de que no se de que no se cumplan las reglas de seguridad y y este y que dicen que no hay casi viviendas alrededor. Pues no están ahí es una zona altamente poblada y que en el futuro en los planes esto pueden cambiar. Además por favor es importante que seamos sinceros en una conversación sincera y no seamos hipócritas. Se ha hablado solo se ha dicho que la marihuana es de uso medicinal medicinal si es verdad. Pero también es de uso recreational y combinado con otras sustancias y con el alcohol es combinaciones explosivas. Así es que por favor no manipulemos la conversación y decir que es de solo de uso medicinal también es de uso recreational. Además este es importante que escuchemos a la comunidad. No podemos estar llenando nuestros vecindarios y estar con con el pretexto de que va a generar este desarrollo en nuestras comunidades. Escuchemos al área de Roslan por favor. Esto no es un simple dispensario el proceso de informar a la comunidad. No fue justo. No fue correcto. No fue claro. Así es de que por favor estoy en contra de este proyecto. Gracias y que tenga buena noche. Good evening my name is Patricia Moreno and I lived in Santa Rosa. I live in Santa Rosa and I'm here that you. I'm here to ask that you hopefully revoke this approval. That was done by the planning commission at 100 Sebastopol Road. In the manner in which it was presented to the community it wasn't just or equitable. And linguistically we were not aware of what was being proposed here. You speaking about justice and the words that are being used. For example, for someone who can understand or see a word, they'll see school. And at initially I felt a school. But upon further inspection it says a dispensary, but let's be let's be real. This is a factory. It's not just a dispensary. And let's be sincere and not hypocrites about the subject here. And sure, it can be used for medicinal purposes, but it's also recreational. And to be real about it. This is an explosive combination if consumed with alcohol and who knows what else. So, yes, it's medicinal, but also recreational. And let's listen to the community here in Rosalind. It's not just a simple dispensary as the way in which this was presented was not clear or equitable for the community. And we don't want this year. Council member Sawyer, I don't see any additional hands being raised in zoom. And no additional public comments from the council chamber. I believe that concludes public comment as we have no written, or I'm sorry, no voice message public comments on the item either. Thank you, Madam host. I will close the public hearing bring it back to the council. Any, any questions for either the applicant or the appellant or staff at this point now that you've heard public testimony. Ms Fleming. Yes, thank you, council member Sawyer. I've got two questions. The first is a follow up on what this for the city manager might have been before you came on but or the city attorney. What discussions if any happened about the city purchasing this parcel and can you walk us through how the decision was made to to not follow through on that. Nope, no takers. Well, why don't you see if you can get somebody who was here at that time maybe and I'll go on to the next question. This question is for the city attorney which is a number of collars brought up an issue around a violation of the principles around the open government task force. I'm not a subject matter expert in that area. Can you address those concerns for us. Sure, council member. Thank you. I heard the comments on a potential inconsistency with the open government ordinance. A couple of responses. The open government ordinance, the terms of that ordinance in terms of translation services noticing hearing procedures and so forth at this point apply only to the council and not to the planning commission or other subordinate boards or commissions. I'd also note that the ordinance isn't quite yet in effect it will be in effect on January 1. But we are abiding by it nevertheless and have been for the last approximately nine months. But again at the council level and not it is not applicable at this point to the planning commission. And to that point about it not being fully implemented I know that you and your staff have been working really hard to follow the spirit of it prior to its legal implementation date of January 1. If it had been implemented during this process would anything have been done differently? No. Again all of those procedures at this point the way that the ordinance is written it applies to the council hearings. That being said I also want to emphasize that throughout departments throughout the city are making an effort to provide translation services when possible. To provide noticing in Spanish when possible. And again I do understand that the initial noticing that went out to the community was in English only that's what I'm hearing from the community members. And perhaps the I don't know if Claire or Jessica Jones want to address the issue but I do understand that there was then an effort to re-notice at least in the large notifications to re-notice in Spanish to be able to reach those communities. Again I know planning and economic development and other city departments have begun to really make an effort to do that even though they are not required to under the open government ordinance. Thank you that's very clarifying and one small follow-up to that is the appellants claim that they got short notice was the notice that they got consistent with how we normally do things in our open government policies or were there any inconsistencies in that regard? No and I would once I make a couple of comments I would ask Christian Nade to comment or one of the other planners to comment on what was done to clarify the noticing that was provided to both of the applicants. The there is no formal at the council level there is no formal requirement for early notification of the applicants in fact the departments always make an effort to coordinate with the applicants and the appellants I'm sorry in this case to ensure that hearing dates are suitable and that they have adequate time to prepare and I might ask if you're willing to hear from from the planners exactly what they did in an effort to notify both of the two applicants. Yes anything that we can do to clarify what happened is welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Christina to me and senior planner. So, one of the appellants. Did not provide an email address so the only form of communication was either via phone or a box. When the council date was set up back in believe mid October or maybe. Towards the tail end of October. The appellants were notified one by email. And one by voicemail. As we got closer to the hearing dates. I inquired if one appellant by email if they had a presentation they would like to. Upload a PowerPoint presentation. And a voicemail was left for the other appellant wondering if they had a PowerPoint or. Anything that additional information they'd like to. Upload for the council. And I'm imagining that you have documentation at least email documentation for emails. And some sort of phone recorded documentation so that. You know, if given a reason to need to check that we could demonstrate that reasonable efforts were made to contact people. Yes, and I just want to add that I also added both. Appellants and the applicant to. I just wanted to make sure that we had all the information that we needed to be noticing that went out. So the dual language postcard that was mailed. To everyone within 600 feet. And they were also manually added because. I don't believe they were in the noticing radius either one. Okay. I'd also like to give you the opportunity if you heard anything here today about the specific process of noticing. Is there anything that you would like to clarify? Yes. So, so the first, the first main issue occurred. For during planning commission notice was sent out only in English. And on site signage was only in English. And the day before the 1st planning commission meeting. There was a request for translation service. And. Following that staff recommended a continuance. We posted the slides for the continuance in both English and Spanish. And we had a staff member who was fluent in Spanish. Let everyone know that the item will be continued to allow for professional translation service. And for the. Subsequent continue planning commission hearing. We had professional translators. At the meeting and I to the best of my ability translated the slides in both English and Spanish. For tonight's meeting, the notice went out both in English and Spanish on one postcard. I was able to fit the information on in both languages. And the applicant posted on site sign in. That included English and Spanish as well. Thank you for your clarifications. I don't have any further questions at this time. If I may a council member added just a couple of things and it looks like the city manager would also like to add. The agendas are also published on both the preliminary agenda and the final agenda are published in both English and Spanish and posted. I also had just had a message from a golly. The board of directors. From community engagement. Indicating that they are working. They have received funds for translation. And they are looking at developing a policy to equitably distribute that money. And that it may potentially include the boards and commissions for. For translation and she indicates that she is available if you have questions. Council member Fleming and members of the city council. Jason nut our assistant city manager. Is available to be promoted. I believe he was here during the initial discussions of the. Former Roseland University prep. Campus as a surplus property. And may be able to provide some background. About what occurred at that time. Thank you. Good evening council members. Council member Fleming. I was involved in that process as the property came on to. The market as a lease. Opportunity. I worked directly with Jill Scott our real property. Our real property manager. As well as Dave Gwine. Our housing and community service director. At the time. To evaluate whether or not that particular property might provide some level of benefit. Toward part of our homeless. Approach. Recognizing that at that particular point in time. Council was expressing interest. In supporting the. Location of a permanent Roseland library. We did begin to reach out to the Roseland library. Or to the library district. We were able to. Discuss with them the possible opportunity at that particular site. Council had not designated any funds at that point in time. And we were contemplating. Creating an opportunity where it would be used. While the library was currently in temporary locations. As a temporary. Housing or a homeless services site. Something akin to a safe parking location. We were not able to identify a particular funding source for that opportunity as well. And the property needed to move on. And continue their interest in looking for a tenant. For that site. We made a decision. Working with the former city manager to decline. Further opportunity at that property. While we. While we continue to understand what we needed to do further with. Our homeless services program as well as. Whether council was going to show a financial investment opportunity. With the library. By the time council had indicated their interest in. Pursuing financial opportunity. The property was under contract. And was no longer available for us to. Discuss a potential lease with the property owner. We did look at. Or did have a number of conversations with that property owner. They were very interested in working with the city at that time. But once they had another lease. In the works. There was. We were we were no longer able to. Work into that process. And we began working with the library on alternative sites. And again, I'm happy to go into more detail if there's additional information that you would like me to. The only question I want to know is what was the timeline of when the property came. To into your awareness and when that decision was made. To not pursue this property. We looked into this for between six and nine months. We conducted two site tours. One with the housing community services. And one with the library district. The property itself. Would have suffice for a temporary library operation and for short term. But the long-term library approach. We were ultimately going to find a way of. Denoing and rebuilding on that property. So the timeline was about six to nine months before we made the decision to no longer pursue that, that opportunity. That opportunity. My question is actually when specifically not how long. You're asking dates. I don't need an exact date, but like spring of 2018 or fall of 2019, that's kind of what I was getting. I want to say, I want to say we were. 2019. When we, when we decided to no longer pursue that opportunity. Okay. Thank you for the information. Yeah. You're welcome. Thank you. Council member flowing. Council member Tibbets. Would you like a motion? No more questions. Council member Rogers. This question is for the city manager. At this time, does the city have any intention of using the proposed site and if. Well, yeah. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the question. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. At this time, does the city have any intentions of using the proposed. Site. Our understanding is that the site is under a contract for lease and not being offered. For alternative uses. Okay. And then I was going to ask the planner when she was on it. I'm not sure if she's still, if she's still on. Okay. We have a question. I'm sorry. If an item needs to be a permit if an item needs to be noticed in languages other than English. I know we don't have to. But if. If we know that. The surrounding. Language is 60. I think I saw a percentage of 66. 66.7%. Whether we have to do something or not. To me, that's the ultimate fail. fail and that's not communicating with the community that you're wanting to notice. If you don't notice in the language in which the people speak that you're attempting to communicate with. Under our current policy as the city attorney explained our noticing requirements for languages other than English only apply to city council. In cases where we receive requests as was demonstrated in this case for Spanish translation we try to accommodate that. This is also a long-term resource issue for the city to consider as we move forward and begin to more fully implement our open government policy. It increases the cost of publishing our notices publishing our agendas and staffing our public meeting process as you can see tonight and those are all new expenses that we have to address in the budget process. Understood. I don't know how we would meet that criteria or make the criteria of understanding what is different. What item would be different from another item or who would be interested in an item and who wouldn't be interested in an item or what items would be more controversial than another. But I do think that if we're asking for input and we're saying that we want diversity, equity and inclusion you can't want those things and not speak or provide notice in a language that people speak or read. That's not providing DEI. But that's something that we need to figure out internally. I think we've allocated some one-time funds for additional translation services about $500,000 worth that will allow us to begin to test the implementation of broader translation in multiple language capabilities and the timing of producing agendas in multiple languages at various levels of boards and commissions within the city. And that will provide us with some valuable experience and data to evaluate how broadly we want to apply the translation services in multiple languages. And if I may, I do have additional clarification from Penn, and that is that translation has been done, excuse me, for the long-range projects, for example, in the general plan update, meetings have been held in Spanish, materials have been translated into Spanish. But in specific project review matters that are before the various boards or commissions, it has been on a request basis so that if someone requests translation then it will be provided. But again, as City Manager indicated, now that there have been some funds allocated we'll be looking at those policies, and as planning staff also indicated, we'll be looking at that policy again. And I'll note that as you heard earlier, it was, you know, once the request was made in this project, the meeting was continued and translation was provided. And once that was understood, the subsequent notices and the notice for this meeting tonight were translated into Spanish as well. Yeah, that leads to my next question. Is how much time do we like to provide the community so that we can educate? So I've heard the word education and to educate being thrown out a lot, right? And that maybe people have a, they feel a certain way because they're not being educated on the type of business it is and how it can benefit the business and or maybe not benefit the business, I mean the community, right?  What is a time frame or is there an exact time frame that they have to send out the notices? And what is that time frame given with the two week extension? There are statutory notice requirements and I believe that for this type of a hearing it's a 10 day notice that needs to be sent out. But they are defined by statute and by our code as well. So it was provided with the two weeks? Yes, okay. And in addition, I wanted to ask the chief because I also heard during public comment about calls, not necessarily calls for service, but that with the building being vacant and I haven't heard that the city is planning on using the building and that is a concern is that if this project does not go through, that the building is going to stay vacant. And so have there been additional calls for service to the site or nearby that we can assume is because the building is vacant or no? We haven't received any extraordinary calls for service in the area. You know, we vacant buildings are always a concern, but we're not, we have not received any calls for service there. And I did check with my lieutenant for the area and they haven't heard anything. OK, thank you, chief. And then to the appellant either one or two, do they have an alternate alternate use for the site and funding for the site so that the building does not say stay vacant if this project does not go through? Right, I can ask questions to. Pellant, you can ask a question of the appellant, the whichever appellant answers must we must restrict their answer to the question. OK, so that is my question. Do you have alternative uses for the site and funding already secured so that the building does not stay vacant or is it just please don't approve this project, but we don't have a use for this tomorrow if you don't approve this project. Yes, this is this is a bad and at the moment we have the 11 million dollars secured, we would have to have a further discussion into that. But we have an 11 million dollars secured in that capacity. And as far as the property, it was looked at in July of 2020. And so some of the information that has been stated is incorrect. We we don't have the people here tonight to speak on behalf of that. And so but that property was looked at in July of 2020. Thank you, Miss Minor. Thank you. And then just one more note. As far as the notification for me to present tonight, I do have my emails in in regards to when I was notified. Thank you, Mr. Tibbets, could we get a motion on the floor? Yes, thank you. And then I have a point of clarification relating to the most recent question. OK, for discussion purposes, I move a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa denying two separate appeals and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission, approving a conditional use permit for old school cannabis to allow 2,350 square feet of retail dispensary with delivery and onsite consumption, 17,120 square feet for commercial cultivation, 5,001 square feet or greater, 870 square feet for distribution, 500 square feet of manufacturing, level two, volatile within an extension building located at 100 Sabastopol Road, Assessor's Parcel Number 125-1A1-023, File Number CUP21-027 and wait for the reading of the text. Second. And if I may ask the question, Sue, this is a point of order question. So we have an applicant and an appellant, an applicant who is in lease contract on this property. Tonight, when we make a decision, are we allowed to take into consideration and factor a potential future use that the city could be engaged in, or are we to limit our deliberations to the question before us and the uses and the ordinances pertaining to this property? Thank you for the question, Council Member.  Is the application from the old school cannabis and the two appeals. So what is before you is to address the issues raised in that application and in those appeals. You can, you are not limited to the grounds of the appeal. You can discuss the application as a whole, but the matter is not noticed for discussion of alternative uses of the property, whether by the city or by another private party. So if, for example, we were to discuss a rationale to vote no on this project being that we would like to see a future use be a library, community center or some other thing, would we be opening up the city to potential litigation? Right, you in evaluating this application, you would be evaluating it on its own merits and under the findings that are set forth in the required findings, they're set forth in the staff report. It is not a valid basis for denying a project that the council might prefer a different project. Different projects are not before you this evening. So thanks. Thanks, Council Member Schlauer. Thank you, Council Member Tibbets and for the council's information and for the community for further clarification, whichever direction this vote goes will require four votes. Just to be clear. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Council, I'll raise my concern with the project just to comment on it.  And the reason is I stated it is not having to do with a library or community or future use. I was always taught that you have to, as our city attorney said, evaluate the merits of the proposal in front of us. I'm voting no on the grounds that I think a year or two ago, I either denied a cannabis project or sought its pretty radical amendment because I did not believe we should be allowing on-site consumption without a mechanism to enforce what is safe use and to be able to operate a vehicle safely. So I'm going to be voting no on those grounds this evening. It just doesn't make sense to me to allow that sort of thing if we don't have a way to determine what is safe and what is not. Council Member Rogers. I just like to say for point of clarification, I asked the question because I didn't want it to be assumed that if the project did not go forward, that the city had the intention of using the site and or the property because that is what I heard. And so that is why I asked the question, not for us to make the decision that we were going to use it, but just to say that that was not on the table. That is not what we were talking about. We were actually talking about the the proposal at hand, not that we were going to use the site. That is why I asked the question. Council Member Tibbets. And if I may, Acting Mayor, I do appreciate that clarification. And yes, I understood when you were asking those questions and when Assistant City Manager was responding that, yes, that's part of your conversation in terms of the background. But again, so that was a very legitimate question, but I also appreciated Council Member Tibbets question in terms of the scope of actually your decision. And then I just wanted to clarify, this is a vote on the appeal. And so we'll be careful when we actually cast the actual votes. An aye vote would be to uphold the appeal, which would deny that, which would reverse the Planning Commission's decision. Council Member Schrethel, could you just clarify? I want to make sure I heard that correctly, because I heard the motion was to deny the appeal. So an aye vote would be yes. Yes, you are correct. And thank you for correcting me. It's been a long day. So yes, the motion is to deny the appeal. So the yes vote would deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision. OK, thank you for that, Claire, for guessing. Yes, it's been four hours. So, you know, I just want to make some general comments because it has been four hours of comment. We've been getting a lot of information. And one thing because I heard a lot of the speakers say that saying their voices are not being taken into consideration. You're not hearing me. And just from my perspective, I'm listening to all the information that's been shared here. I've heard this on other times. And unfortunately, someone's going to think you're not hearing me because I didn't agree with you or I didn't vote the way you wanted me to vote. But I'm just 100 percent committed to listening to everyone. And that's what I've done since day one on this dais. So I just want to get that out. And so for me, this kind of voyage a journey with the legalization of marijuana has helped me make the decisions that I'll be making today. And so I'll just go back to Prop 64 in 2016. I wasn't supportive of it. But, you know, the state of California, 57 percent of the voters said yes. And in Sonoma County, 59 percent of the voters said yes. And so when we talk about the numbers, so if you took and I have no idea what 41 percent of the voters in 2016, given the numbers, it's thousands of people. So I could have a petition with thousands of signatures saying you're not listening to me. But the other side could have had 59 percent. Those are the folks that voted for it. So again, for me, I've been listening. OK, why are the people majority of people in Sonoma County and in Santa Rosa supportive of it? Same thing with some of the safety concerns that I've heard. We've heard this. So I've been on council when cannabis was not legal for the recreational pre 64 and post. I wasn't on the cannabis ad hoc, but I listened to what they had to say and the decisions that some of the members still on this body were part about how we crafted this, what I consider to be a model program here in Santa Rosa. And it's been modified because we've been listening, but we've been having dialogue. And I think a lot of members in the community have pointed to Santa Rosa. They're actually getting it right because it's tough. It's not a black and white issue. Specifically with the safety coming from the law enforcement background, a lot of people had used examples. And we heard that on some of the appeals of other dispensaries that it brings crime. That hasn't been our experience. And I was thankful for staff where they brought the actual districts. You know, my district, District Six, Northwest Santa Rosa, we've got 14 either approved or already operating. I've got three or four walking distance and I'm in a residential area. We have not seen an increase in crime. It hasn't had the impact I've heard other people predict. And on the closed loop system, I remember when we had, I think the first one was the one on Yolanda. There's that same concern. This does not belong in the neighborhood, but there's been no evidence that that's a danger to the neighborhood for folks either they're working there or in the neighborhood. And I remember one person said when I engaged in the conversation, I'm listening to what they had to say. Well, just because one of those mechanisms hasn't exploded, doesn't mean it never will. Well, you got me there. You're absolutely right. It's just the information that I've been listening to doesn't support that. That's a danger to the community of the neighborhood, especially given our fire safety officials are signing off on it.  I mean, I don't know what speaks louder than the $10 million investment from PG&E funds to the library. I guess we could have invested that rather than give them to the library, but this property, but we chose not to. We chose to partner with someone. And I know some of us on the council and staff, we are working on a community. Cindy, if you heard last week's meeting, we're working on that. We're not thrown to deaf ear, and we don't own this property. That's the bottom line. As Ms. Cullen mentioned, they're in conversations now with this contract with what's before us. So process wise, I started looking through, OK, here's this whole process. It went through the planning commission and unanimously supported. Right. And again, I know not everyone's going to like it, but during the process, I think this project, they've done everything that the city has asked for and followed the process that we asked for. And specifically, one thing in reading all the documents that were provided, they talked about the ban the box, which is something that helps disadvantage communities from the violence prevention perspective in other words, some people may not know what that is, but if you check the box, have you ever been convicted of a crime? A lot of times you don't get an interview. So a lot of us in the violence prevention efforts are saying, yeah, ban the box. They talked about it. That's the first time I've heard anyone say, yes, we support the letter in the spirit of the law. So for all those reasons, I'm supportive of this motion and I will be supporting the motion as is on the floor. Thanks. Thank you, Council Member, Council Member Fleming. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. This is a really difficult topic because it's very clear that some people don't want it and some people do want it. And there's no way to make everybody happy. This is one where we know we're going to walk away having made one group of people really, really unhappy. And I think Council Member Schwedhelm got it right when he said that, you know, we listen to everybody and we hear you and we hear your concerns. Most of the concerns I heard around were around safety. And what I've seen and experienced in my time on Council is that there's a correlation of safety and legal cannabis dispensaries because what it does is it removes illegal activity, promotes legal consumption and also the the presence of cameras and security guards also creates safety. There's also an increased risk of illegal activity associated with an unoccupied buildings and blight associated with it. So an economic disinvestment in areas leads to economic or leads to crime. So there's a lot of reason to believe that this project will will be a benefit. Now, do I think that this is the highest and best use of this property? I do not. I think that it was a mistake that we did not acquire this property and we should have and I would have supported that. However, we owe it to our residents and our prospective business owners to lay out a clear and understandable plan of how we do business and to tell people that if you do this and this and this and this and then some because people don't like it, we're not going to follow through on it. I don't think that that's fair. And to the people out there who will think that this is unjust or racial discrimination, I'd like to refer you to all of the votes that I've taken to put cannabis dispensaries and other associated facilities all over the city in predominantly white neighborhoods and told people that that I don't really much appreciate their uninformed views on on legal cannabis use. And so today I will be staying consistent, if unpopular in supporting the applicant and denying the appeals. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Rogers. I just want to say this has been definitely a very hard hard decision, especially since that the council member that represents the district is not here. So I can't really look to see how he would represent the district or what he would say for his district. But I think that there are a lot of ways in times where we can say that votes are being cast or things are being said. And it is because there is a disparity or because it is of color. I think that in this case, there are certain things that businesses have to do in order to get a permit and or a license. And if they do those, then they get that permit and or the license, whether they are in Fountain Grove, Bennett Valley or or in Roseland. And I think as far as this council is concerned and I can and I can say this wholeheartedly, I think that we fight for Roseland. And I think we fight hard. And I think that whatever we bring forth, I think this council has not has not doubted or said anything about giving to Roseland. And I'm sorry, Sue, if I'm going like on my but I think that we do give and I think that we know that Roseland deserves. And I think as far as the community center, as far as the library, as far as we know, we hear we're coming, it's going to take a minute. We're working on it. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but we are working on it. And we hear you. We hear you loud and clear. Your voices are heard. They are not unheard. But with this, for me, I will be agreeing with the project. And that is because I also know in order to support the things that I want to do in the community, the things that this council wants to do in the community, we have to have business. It's a full circle. We need businesses because we need the money to support the programs that we want in the community. So it's all connected. So I will be supporting I will be supporting giving the permit to the business. And it is not for a lack of supporting supporting the community of Roseland. It is because I think that we do need to educate more. There's a lot of people of color that have gone to prison for distribution of cannabis. There are now schools where you can learn how to cultivate. You can learn how to sell. It is a very profitable industry. And I'm hoping that more people embrace and learn how to get involved and learn about it and take advantage of it in a different way and not be scared of it. So these are just hopes that I have. Even the JC I believe is looking at having where they bring it into the school where people can learn how to get involved in the industry. So I'm just hoping that people start to educate themselves a little bit more. And also I think that the chief is on the line and we know that there are concerns. And so we will be very mindful of those concerns moving forward. So your voices are heard. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Well, I'll be voting to deny the appeal this evening. The Planning Commission, respect of the ordinance that was developed by the city, a model ordinance that is not perfect, but is duplicated and used in many areas throughout the state because it is so comprehensive. And the way in which we developed that ordinance was through major amounts of public engagement. So the applicants have complied with our ordinance and having done that deserve the right to receive my vote to move forward with their project. And that's why I'll be denying the appeal. And Madam Clerk, would you take the role, please? Point of order one more time, if I may, Acting Mayor, can you remind us what yes means and what no means in this situation? Did you want to, Madam Secretary? Yes, and thank you again, Council Member Shredhelm for catching me on that. The motion is to deny the appeal, which will affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and grant the use permits. So a yes vote will approve the project, a no vote will deny the project. Thank you. Okay, are we ready? We are. Council Member Tibbets. Nay. Council Member Shredhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Council Member Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with four ayes, with Council Member Tibbets voting no, Council Member Alvarez and Mayor Rogers abstaining from the vote. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. We'll take a 10-minute recess. Let's call the roll. Yes, Council Member Tibbets. Here. Council Member Shredhelm. Here. Council Member Sawyer. Council Member Fleming. Here. Council Member Alvarez. Present. Thank you. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Alvarez. Still present. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Rogers. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. Council Member Sawyer, have you joined us? Yes. Thank you. Let the record show that all Council Members are present. Thank you, Council. I'll let you know that the Vice Mayor and I are fully refreshed and ready to proceed with Item 14.2, Mr. City Manager. Mayor Rogers and Members of the City Council, Item 14.2 is a report item. The matter before the Council is approval of a shared scooter system pilot program. And Nancy Adams has been waiting eagerly to present this item to the Council this evening. And Nancy is our transportation planner and our transportation and public works department. Thank you, Jeff. And I am just happy to be here, Mayor and Council Members. And I tell you, my scooter's outside my office, so I'm gonna scoot through this presentation because I know it's been a long evening tonight. So next slide, please. So just really quickly, I'm gonna run through these slides because I know the Council's had a really long evening. So on this one, I just wanna kind of pull out the fact that the Council back in November a year ago gave direction to develop a one-year pilot program. Next slide. And so I wanna say appreciate the Council last year just deciding to create a new position with the active transportation planner. He's joined my team and he's really made us get through this last year. As you can see, we've been very busy throughout the year working with our city departments, working and talking with some of the California cities who have scooters and operations. So the year of 2021 has been very busy for us just trying to call out information to put together the draft permit conditions that are before you tonight. Next slide, please. So just really highlight, we're anticipating one operator and a fleet size within the permit conditions would be around a hundred. And our service areas would be the downtown, Redwood Square, the Roseland area and the junior college area. Next slide. Now I'm not gonna go through all the information that you think what I'd like to do is just highlight that the permit conditions will address parking requirements and where the devices can be parked. Essentially, they're going to be responsible to be parked on either a bike rack or a fixed object such as a street sign. And all in the thoughts of keeping our clear path of travels on the sidewalks and the curb ranks. Next slide, please. And then in terms of operation, so we really wanna make sure that the devices, they provide safe riding experience. And that means following the California vehicle code where they are not allowed in the sidewalks and they're not allowed on streets with 25 mile per hour speed limit unless they're using a bike lane. So these are all consistent with our California vehicle code. Next slide, please. And then of course we wanna make sure that the operator will be responsible for educating the users and making sure that all the community members are aware of this program. So we wanna make sure that as part of their permit conditions that they have a pretty solid engagement process for deployment of the devices. And then lastly, next slide, please. I wanna just talk about just the accessibility of these devices and making sure that all members of our community have access to use these devices. And I would note that we actually had a demonstration last Monday and one of the questions that I think was asked of the vendor who did the demonstration was, for example, how much of a ride would it be in Santa Rosa and what's the length of the trip? And so it was about a mile and a half as a typical ride. And then the price of that would be about $6. And if it would be subsidized at a 50% reduction, so it would be about $3. So next slide, please. And lastly, we wanna make sure that we're able to access all the data that will be gathered as part of this pilot program. I think one of the main questions that we have is what's our market and will these be successful in Santa Rosa? So we will be requiring the operator to provide us with the data that they've gathered and of course, following all the privacy rules. And lastly, next slide. So, oops, next slide, please. Yeah, there we go. So this is, I had a road show you'll see on the slide. I've gone to the Downtown Action Organization, Railroad Square and our Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Board. The Downtown subcommittee this month was actually canceled. So I wasn't able to share the information with the subcommittee before the council meeting. So generally all the groups are supportive of deploying these devices. They did talk about the use of the devices on the sidewalk. And so, we heard that and parking the devices and keeping the clutter. So I think we structured the permit conditions to address many of the thoughts and feedbacks that we heard from the different community groups. So next slide, please, which I think is the recommendation. So, it says a lot, but essentially we're asking the council to approve the scooter share pilot program and authorized assistant city manager or our director of transportation and public works to either modify conditions, issue or revoke the permits and or suspend the operations of the scooter share system. So I went through this very quickly but I am happy to answer questions if there are any from the council members. Thank you so much, Nancy. Let's go ahead and ask council members. Any questions? Council member Rogers. Can we get to ride all of us together? Sure, well, I think you can. And once the council decides tonight to launch this program, they'll be out there in the street. So let's do it. But like how many bikes will be in one area, Nancy? So the way this works is we're asking the operator to, they have to lock a device. So if you say you wanted to go take a scooter out somewhere, you'd find a scooter either hooked up to a bike rack and you have to, it's all based on an application on your smartphone, right? So you'd go get your, take your phone and check out the scooter and you get charged on your account and then you'd be able to unlock that scooter and go wherever you want to and then lock it somewhere, right? Wherever you're, I don't know, say you wanted to go to the mall, I don't know. So then you just leave it there. And the way it works is you're charged on the amount of time you have the scooter. So you may not have the scooter when you come out of the mall that they're likely you would. So hopefully that answers your question. And how does someone, is there like a pass or something where they qualify for the discounted rate? Yes, they have anything that it's like the snap. So if you, that's one program that the vendors have mentioned to us and a lot of the assistance programs where the low income folks have access to those programs they also would have, that would be their eligibility for getting the discounted rate. So they would do that on their smart, I'm asking like how would they do it? They would do that on their smartphone? They would and actually this was something that our bike and headboard brought up about some folks don't have a smartphone or they don't have credit cards. So we're asking the vendor to provide as much as possible opportunities for folks that don't have a smartphone or a credit card to actually use the devices. So that will be something that will ask the vendor to share with us what mechanisms they can use to help reach the broader community for Santa Rosa. Thank you. Council Member Sawyer. Thank you Mayor and thank you Nancy. I'm supportive of the project of the pilot but I do have a couple of concerns. Is a week really long enough for the pilot operator to be here and then cut us loose? So that's a great question. I think what we're gonna have, I think we're gonna see how that looks Council Member and if we need them to be here more, I think we can certainly ask them to be here more. Yes. They're just in looking at the presentation and looking at the other documents or there are a lot of responsibilities that they're taking on as far as reporting and that's just one piece of it. And I'm concerned about hidden costs. Who's gonna take care of these scooters when they get thrown in the creek? Is the time that our staff is going to take in dealing with this pilot program? Have they budgeted that into their time constraints? It just, I mean, I don't wanna be a wet blanket but it just sounds like there are a lot of details and I can't imagine that they're going to be able to be comfortable dropping us off in a week. I don't see that as being realistic. So I'm sure a conversation will be had with the pilot operator but there are a lot of unknowns in looking at this and that's why it's a pilot and I understand that. I'm skeptical but I'm willing to give it a shot because it sounds like a good direction to move but that's what pilots are all about, right? Is to find out where the gaps are and then fill them. So I'm ready to go with it but I do have my concerns. So I'll really quickly respond. So during the pilot, we're not actually doing a full cost recovery and we would think that if the council wants to make this as a permanent program that we would definitely integrate that into the permit process and really get a full cost recovery. But what we are doing for the pilot is and I work with Gabe Osborn to, as part of the encroachment permit, we're going to have them make a cash deposit which we can draw down on as necessary during the pilot. So we will have a little bit of a resource to cover some of the city staff time but not a full cost recovery. So hopefully that helps answer your question. Thank you. And council member Sawyer if I could just add and just as Nancy mentioned in one of the earlier slides staff has spent a substantial amount of time reviewing other cities and their programs. And so we're, we are in a good position to have learned from their mistakes. And I believe the program, the way Ms. Adams has put forward, we've tried to incorporate some of the challenges other cities have seen early on in their process. So we hope that we won't have some of those same difficulties that they did. Thanks, Mr. Knapp. I appreciate that. That's where Shweta. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Nancy, first of all, I want to thank you for offering that to council for that presentation. I think that was last week. And during that presentation and demonstration they talked about there'll be the actual operators will contract with some local folks who will actually be monitoring all of the scooters. So there will be someone in the city to recharge batteries and whatnot. Am I correct in that assumption? Can I hear that right? Yes, that's correct. And they want to, and you know, again to Jason's point, you know the cities that we've worked with and talked with about their experiences they have been with working with the scooters for a few years. So lessons learned and you know I think the vendor that came here it wasn't that they originally were working with local folks and now they are. And I think that really helps to solidify their commitment to the community as they deploy these devices. So yes, you're correct. Okay, and also just for my colleagues he also, I think I asked or someone asked the question if you did it city wide how many would a city our size how many scooters would be needed? And he said the word 800 which really surprised us in the Nancy corrected but this pilot program is only 50 to 100. But again, if it's successful and the technology is fascinating what they can do now with it. It's I was really impressed but the two questions I asked them and I want to ask again it sounds like we're doing a permit process for this versus a franchise agreement can you explain why we're going that route versus a franchise for this type of opportunity? Right, and so I think just as a pilot we want to see what the market is and you know working with our planning and economic development department GABE was really helpful in trying to sort out what's the best mechanism and you know the permit process and the encroachment process seem to work the best for the pilot and we can certainly reevaluate that as if a pilot program translates into a permit program in the future but I think the start through the pilot as an encroachment and a permit condition is probably a better approach. Okay and then even for this pilot program what are we doing to mitigate the call for service to police or code enforcement? So that that question came up and then some of the officers were there at that demonstration and and you know we I think we'll have a commitment from the the vendor to be responsive we've got conditions in the permit that they have a certain number I think a couple of hours to respond to any issues each device will have an identifier and a contact information number so that if you see a scooter that's you know mis-parked or you know not blocking the sidewalk or whatever you can contact the vendor directly and if we don't hear you know if we don't get a response from the vendor you know we can make sure that we follow up with them to ensure that that doesn't happen again so we've got some things in place I think will be will be good and I think the other part of our approach is that these devices will be locked to you know either bike racks or street signs and that really helps mitigate the clutter Oakland had a didn't have a lock-to system and they experienced a lot of clutter but they converted to a lock-to system and really reduced the number of devices that were not were freestanding so I think how we're asking them to deploy their parking structure with the devices and then just being responsive back to issues with within you know mis-park devices great so I would just ask that not only city departments and I'm thinking mainly code enforcement police but also the business community that they're involved in the the implementation of this so if I could just see some businesses I've got three of these scooters parked in front of me they've been here and if they're being unresponsive that there are some consequences for this and that everyone understands roles and responsibilities but I am supportive of this and I really like to make this a win-win for everyone thanks Vice Mayor thank you Mayor in regards to to revenue generation what opportunities are there for our local business owners in regards to either housing parking stations for the scooters is that a possibility so that's an interesting question we haven't I haven't really thought about that but I I've heard about just parking bike racks in the downtown and Red Bull Square and the the planner who you know is is helping me on this he actually went out last couple days and was looking at the supply and inventory of parking for bikes and and so I think to your question you know if if there's an opportunity for a business in the downtown that wants to you know we want to see what that would look like if if you know I know having having scooters maybe you know access their business is a good thing for them so I think I think those are questions that we need to you know once we get the vendor online and and really see the the feedback that we get from business communities I think that would be a great question to maybe check in with them on as as needed yeah well I think it might really help with with the cluttering possibility or fear of watching scooters strewn about opposed to having different businesses within the city that another user could either grab the scooter from or the same user that dropped it off who knows where they left the scooter at and pick it up from the same destination the following question they had for you was job opportunities I heard I believe it's operator is how that he or she is being referred to how many scooters can each operator handle or are responsible for right so so the pilot program we're we're going to have one operator and we're going to max the number of scooters that they deploy in the city by a hundred so they can bring in up to a hundred scooters within the city as part of the pilot okay are they are they contracted out or are as as a subcontractor are they employee of the company so the vendor is is so for example we had the I'll just give you the the the vendor that came to do the demo it was bird so they would be the the operator or vendor and then the to councilmember sweat home had brought up the local folks that they would hire and those would be the subcontractors those would be the folks that would come out change the batteries out because they all have batteries just you know look at the maintenance of the devices if there's any issues so those would be local folks and they typically come hire people from our bike shops to support them so are they usually on an hourly basis or contracted out I'm not sure how the vendor would do that that would be up to them to very well yeah yeah and another question they had for you was the cost of the city from what I read it's no cost to our general fund is there a difference between one and one thousand in terms of the devices of the cost that that would that would that the city would incur whether we order one scooter or one thousand scooters no I think I think what we're just trying to do councilmember is just find out what the market is and I think you know the 100 is seems a a reasonable cap you know it's I mean obviously if there's more scooters it would may possibly mean more more of a cost for the city you know as a staffing resource question but I think at this point you know having 100 vehicles or devices as a cap and then we can figure out you know if a if a if it goes to a permanent we may expand that and then back to my point if we do a permanent program where there are more devices I think you're right councilmember Svettel mentioned that a thousand vehicles could be the market then we we'd want to have a full cost recovery to handle you know all the staff time to put in to support the project very well because I'm definitely comparing that the size of for example Windsor that I believe has 80 to 120 scooters if not mistaken in their population is much smaller than the city of san rosa and I'm also looking at other cities that scooters have been implemented whether it's Eugene Oregon with 600 read on Nevada with a thousand and a couple other numbers that are larger including Santa Clara with 2000 scooters and we're looking at if this possibility if this pilot program can be successful and what I'm looking at is if we want the program to be successful it's because it's dependable it's easily available and if we have 100 scooters divided in four areas or 25 scooters per area that seems that we're setting up the pilot program to be a frustrating form of transportation for those that would depend on it especially with us moving towards increasing the uses of smart and transportation and we speak about the last mile I could definitely see how that could be a very frustrating situation for for the constituent and thank you for for answering the questions you're welcome House Member Fleming yes thank you Nancy and I'm looking forward to finding out more information and so my questions are going to be directed at compliance one is around the non-cell phone non-credit card payment you said we'll try to ask them to do something and I'm going to quote Yoda and say it's a do or do not there is no try we want to make sure we are I will say I it is a priority for me and it is a demand that this is accessible to to all residents and so before we get into contract it's my it's my request my demand I don't know if I'll get three other people on council to say so but that that we actually have an answer not a oh we'll think about it or we'll do our best because we know what happens when when people say that they do their best and their best is often not enough to meet what what you're asking so that to me is is really essential and the other is a question about what type of data you're going to be getting is it data all access to all data that they have in regard to their program and any additional data that you request or that the council request or is it going to be just the data that the company wants us to see so that's a great question I think I would say it's what we want right so they're going to have to provide us with you know the metrics that you know for me I mean I think one thing was very would be very important is who's using that where are they going just you know just some some motivation behind why you're choosing to to to write a scooter right and where you're going so I think to your question and on both of your questions I think it's absolutely correct to say that we we need to have that information and we require that information from from whoever we select to operate within the city because where I'm going with this is that the council's going to have a lot of questions there's going to be you know people who are for this there's going to be people who are against this I think if this wasn't at 11 at night we'd have a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch of opinions here telling us things about this and I can only imagine when this comes back after the trial period and I want us to be able to answer their questions sincerely and in a way that can say well in this in this municipality they this this company has done this deployed x amount of scooters with x amount of population and here's the delta between our city and theirs and some companies will give that to you and some won't and so I just would make sure that you're very explicit at the outset about all the types of data sets that you could imagine us wanting I know we we can get down in the weeds and ask unpredictable questions so the broader the net is probably better for this one thanks any other questions from council Nancy I had a question about the locks so who provides the locks for the scooter so I I'm going to I'm going to go out there maybe Jason so when the when they did the demonstration they actually have the locks on the devices so when when bird came there was a like a coiled block that they had on their devices and I you know I so they it would be on the device right and your little app unlocks the they unlocks the lock right and then you lock it back up the same way so it's my understanding the like I said the one that we had the demonstration it's actually on this on the scooter okay I can appreciate that where I've used them before there were no locks that were on it so that was the biggest question that I had and just going back to the vice mayor's comments about dependability I'm looking at our policy construct to make sure that we don't have arbitrary barriers for use from folks so I understand the importance of the locks in terms of preventing the clutter but I'd like to just make sure that we have that clarified in the contract that they are locks that are provided on the scooter so that that way and excuse me there's you know an individual who doesn't have a lock but needs to use one of these still has the ability to do so I just want to make sure we clarify that okay and and mayor I will say in my experience in different cities scooter companies operate similar to bike share where you have both free roaming and freestanding tools as well as docked equipment and so there there for example in San Francisco I've seen both where you've got your scooter in a docking station that would be how you would lock the piece of equipment others the scooter did come with a lock and that lock was how you secured it to as Nancy said some post or bike rack at the destination where you finished it so certainly things that we can incorporate into the discussion with the selected vendor yeah and to that point and I appreciate that Jason like I said I don't want any arbitrary barriers to making this program work or for the pilot program for us to see if it's useful so when we talk about what it needs to be locked to I'm hoping that we will be mindful of areas in our community that may not have what we're asking for whether it's a bike rack and that's obviously an infrastructure issue we've talked a lot about is having bike racks or when we talk about the 25 mile an hour speed limit unless you're in a bike lane there are segments of our community that are probably less likely to use the scooters that are more likely to have a bike lane than some of our other target areas right and so I'm just concerned as we do the policy construct that we're not putting up arbitrary roadblocks for people to be able to utilize them or to make them useful for folks and Mayor just to add on to that companies like bird do sell their specific product on the open market and I see them on the city's streets of Santa Rosa already those particular vehicles don't have speed restrictors on them so they look like the products that we may get into contract with that do have speed regulators but we just need to make sure recognize that there are private devices out there that look exactly like the ones that we'll be working with through contract that don't have the same type of regulations okay and I did hear Nancy and I just want to clarify that the no riding on roads that are above 25 miles per hour that don't have a bike lane that that's state law that that's not yes an arbitrary thing that we're putting in right right right so yeah go yes correct okay and then I did also want to echo the vice mayor's concerns about not having enough in the pilot for it to become dependable and for us to figure out if it's going to be useful for the community particularly when if you had as few as 50 you're down to 10 to 12 in an area which if you're trying to catch the smart train and you can't find one I can understand how how frustrated that would be so I'd probably be in favor of raising that cap from 50 to 100 to say 200 or some other number that I think gives us a an appropriate level of saturation particularly if we are going to have the locking component to try to prevent clutter or the scooters being in different areas I think that might be something that I'd I'd ask the council to consider ultimately House Member Sawyer thank you Mayor Nancy what is I don't mean we're reading it the helmet requirement oh that you have to wear a helmet yes so so I'm downtown and I want to get a scooter and I don't have a helmet so I can't get a scooter so if I have a helmet I'm walking around all day along with a helmet or I'm go to my business or whatever wherever I might be going so is that is that really realistic to think that people are going to walk around with helmets just in case they want to ride a scooter that's a great question I guess the question is how much of a deterrent is the necessity to have a helmet going to be to the program you know I don't know if that if it will be a deterrent so that's a great question John and I think we'll that will kind of play out I have pretty limited experience with the scooter itself but you know maybe Jason could weigh in but I think those are the things that we're going to see you know as this highlight moves forward you know what what is that an issue right and I honestly don't I don't know so I don't know Jason if you have any thoughts on that or not you know I think Council Member Sawyer I again being in other cities that have these programs some scooters have helmets that are attached to them and folks are encouraged to leave them with the scooter I seem to recall watching our mayor scoot down the streets of Santa Sacramento he had a helmet on and so there was obviously that product I did not Jason I was trying to help you out mayor but but there are there are definitely some there are definitely some organizations that require helmets there they attempt to keep them with the scooters they tend to lock with the locks that are provided but I would say majority of the scooters that I've seen do not have helmets specifically available and it's a matter of whether they're enforced or not okay I appreciate that and I would assume that every helmet would come with lye spray so just just just in case I mean just just thinking while I appreciate the assist Mr. Assistant City Manager I can tell you I just like the feeling of the hair flowing in the wind too much to wear the helmet in Sacramento any other questions Council Vice Mayor COVID helmets sharing helmets COVID I definitely see an issue with that and and not even speaking on the deterrent of that but just for safety issues I mean I definitely do see that as being a deterrent yeah and that actually council member that actually came up and talking with one of the operators just just that very point so yeah all right I'm not seeing any other questions let's go to public comment on this item if you are interested in providing a comment go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on zoom or if you are here to give comment go ahead and approach the podium all right seeing none do we have any voicemails we do this is eris weaver Executive Director of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition of the public comment on agenda item 14.2 I'm very excited to see how this scooter pilot program works out anything that gets people out of cars and into alternate transportation is a great idea and it does look as well a lot of care went into putting policies in place to avoid conflict between scooters and pedestrians such as forbidding riding on the sidewalk I do notice that the policy does not explicitly mention the multi-use path like the print screenway are scooters allowed on those or not it would be a good idea to specify that because people are going to ask and want to know I do have two comments about potential conflicts between scooters and cyclists along with the clear signage in education informing the scooter users that they need to stay off the sidewalk it would also be a good idea to include a reminder that they're in a bike lane or in the road that they should ride on the right side of the road I do occasionally have close head-on encounters with cyclists riding on the left side and I would really hate for cyclists to have to start also playing chicken with scooter riders riding the wrong way the biggest issue in my mind though concerns parking secure correctly placed bike racks are already in really short supply in town and adding 50 to 100 scooters to the mix is not going to be pretty the city really needs to get more racks added near all the popular destinations in order to facilitate all of that thank you that concludes recorded public comments on the side of mayor all right council member Fleming can you put a motion on the table for discussion yes indeed a resolution of the council of the city of Santa Rosa have proven the shared scooter system pilot program and authorizing the assistant city manager director of transportation and public works or designee to modify permit conditions issue and revoke permits and limit or suspend operation of a shared scooter system and way further reading of the text second so motion from council member Fleming and a second from council member tidbits Mr. Assistant City Manager did you have something to add you know mayor I did as Nancy mentioned we've got a fantastic alternative transportation planner on board who happens to be watching even though he's not on video text that is to remind both Nancy and I that helmets are only required for users that are 18 and under and so that's why you don't see them and it it sparked memory of mine a couple years ago I took my younger son under 18 to San Francisco he desperately wanted to write it and actually the algorithm and process that use to rent a unit will not rent to anyone under the age of 18 if a helmet isn't being provided for the piece of equipment so I just wanted to follow up and try to respond to your helmet question a little bit further all right thank you Mr. Assistant sin manager I I did have one other question that I forgot so I hope you'll indulge me but there is the question of the providing proof of a driver's license is that state law that to use a an electric scooter like this that you have to have a driver's license as well that's a great question I'm not sure if it's state law Jason do you know I apologize I don't recall for scooters um so we would have to get back to you on that there okay um and part of that is if we're trying to provide multimodal transportation for folks who may not want to drive a car that perhaps they don't have a driver's license and again just looking for unnecessary barriers for the folks who might use this as a pilot program so I'm actually gonna ask the motioner like council member Fleming for a couple of changes one is to change the limit number from a hundred 50 to 100 scooters to 200 scooters in those between those four zones one is to eliminate the requirement for a driver's license one is to eliminate the requirement for the helmet that council member Sawyer I think adequately explained the issues with and then one is to clarify that the locks will be provided by the operator if it pleases the mayor have a couple of questions before accepting those amendments um one is does um are there any operational challenges or issues with getting 200 scooters and stuff because there was a range 50 to 100 so if we say 200 can that can that happen through the mayor do you want me to answer that question yeah please do yeah I think council member I think we can set that max and there's no magic you know whether it's 100 or 200 I think it's fine to increase that to 200 without any problem and is there any challenge with removing the driver's license requirement will the company I mean is there a representative from the company who can say whether or not they'll they'll enter in a contract with us if we don't require people that to present driver's licenses yeah and I actually I'm looking at the slide where I where I listed the operational regulations and it does say that it's it's the California vehicle code where they're citing that that's why the license is required so I think we need to check into that before I would embrace that elimination of that requirement so yeah it seems like an awfully high barrier to require driver's license but I also understand the rationale for putting it in there so what I could say is like you know on that one give direction to do everything within our power to eliminate the driver's license requirement but I'm not sure that we want to tank this based on a driver's license it may be some ID or something I mean I'd love to have us have nothing but if it's the state law we can't supersede that and I'd say then if it's just silent in the contract state law I mean state law is going to supersede either way right right I think that and that's about that's where I was going to go with the helmet is that you know I think that we're taking on liability by by getting into it when we're another but I think we could stay silent on it have a contract not say anything and then I so I accept the the 200 I accept the locks provided by the operator and I recommend and see if the mayor accepts it the contract stays silent on the driver's license of the helmet okay I accept those challenges what about my seconder you get a council member tidbits with that okay council member Schwedel could I have a question maybe it'd be for the city attorney I'd be comfortable with language on driver's license helmet consistent with state law whatever we do is consistent with state law but spell those two things out that would make me far more comfortable I was going to to ask to to be able to mention that when there are liability issues and risks issued risk issues with both eliminating the requirement for driver's license and eliminating the requirement for helmets again as the assistant city manager pointed out the policy just provides for helmets under 18 so I think for most of those I like the suggestion from council member Schwedhelm if we just say consistent with state law I'm good with that if that works for that also satisfies my concerns around the liability it's a fine line between barriers and and being cautious so I think we're on the same page there okay council member tidbits I'm sorry to beleaguered I'm a little bit confused though so are we requiring driver's license no this is we're just saying we're going to follow state law as it pertains to the scooters for action same with helmets yep all right thank you all right any other questions comments or amendments vice mayor before I ask my question as the recipient of a of a motorcycle license it's required 150 cc's or above to require a driver's license and this would not fall into that category but I'm sure we'll do our research with just a little experience that I had in regards to the question in regards to metrics actually is there a way that we can receive information in regards to return customers or frequency of use so yeah I think that will be one of the metrics for sure that we'd want to garner from you know the use throughout the year and I think what we'll do is we'll check in with some of the other cities and see you know I know our staff has already thought of things that we'd like to see back from the vendor in terms of their operations within within the year pilot so that could definitely be something that I'm quite interested in just like I said what are the users and what's the market and are we addressing the needs and the market with these devices so yeah is there any city with our comparable size that we can actually see their metrics or their frequency of use you know we that's a great question we did and I can't remember what city it was but one of the vendors did have some it was out of state it wasn't a California city but we will follow up with that and and that that will be a good you know some good information we can compare with with Santa Rosa so great great thought very thank you very much and I'm very interested to see those numbers just to see what we could expect and really measure our success or need for more scooters thank you Mr. City Manager so the the resolution before the council does cite the vehicle code section that relates to the operation of scooters and that section does require a valid driver's license or instruction permit to operate the scooter it also has some provisions in it related to which roadways can be used to operate the scooters and there is a provision in there that allows a local jurisdiction to authorize them in a class two or class four bikeway on a highway with a speed limit of up to 35 miles an hour so there's there's some variations here but I think as long as you incorporate in compliance or conformance with state law we're we're fine with that Ms. Madam City Clerk can you please call the vote thank you Council Member Tibbetz aye Council Member Schwedhelm aye Council Member Sawyer aye Council Member Fleming yes Council Member Rogers aye Vice Mayor Alvarez aye Mayor Rogers aye that motion passes with seven aye's okay let's do item 14.3 and in Council not try to rush folks but we do I believe lose our translator at 1230 Mayor Rogers and members of the City Council item 14.3 is a report item the matter before the Council is the extension of the COVID-19 related temporary parking user fee reductions through June 30th of 2022 Alan Alton our Interim Chief Financial Officer will present the staff report morning Mayor Rogers and members of the Council I think in the interest of time I can let's just move to the next slide and the next one after that we have parking fee waivers since actually since April 2020 the Council has taken a number of actions in response to the pandemic relative to parking fees this included the waiving all hourly garage fees and parking meter fees early during the pandemic to the current fee waivers that I'll go into a little bit more detail in the next slide we received a request from the downtown action organization or DAO to extend the current parking fee waivers for an additional two years however based on the finances of the fund which I'll also discuss in the next couple of slides staff is recommending only a six-month extension of the fee waivers next slide please so currently and expiring on December 31st are the following fee waivers so we we have free parking at all five garages from Monday through Friday from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. free parking at all five garages on Saturday and Sunday except the Fifth Street and D Street garages which are free on Sunday we first free hour or yeah the first hour free at the Third Street and Fifth Street and D Street garages one free metered parking session using the passport mobile payment application and waive the meter reservation fees for temporary parklets the estimated impact total impact of this action over the next six months would be about $430,000 today the parking enterprise has lost over $700,000 in revenue due to the fee waivers however this is just a small part of the revenue lost by the enterprise over the last two years that it has it also felt the impacts of the pandemic the year over year total revenue decline 25% in fiscal year 20 so from fiscal year 19 to fiscal year 20 total revenue declined by 25% and then it declined by another 35% in fiscal year 21 so we went from a high revenue amount of $7 million including revenues and transfers in at the end of fiscal year 19 to an ending revenue amount of $3.3 million this past year fiscal year 20 and fiscal year 21 ended with total fund deficit of approximately $700,000 and $3.4 million respectively next slide please so these losses and revenue have impacted the funds reserves the parking enterprise reserves for contingency which are the reserves from which you can appropriate budget is declined by rather steadily since fiscal year 2016 starting at $10.9 million to its current level of $7.6 million there is over also over $11 million of deferred maintenance for the parking assets in the enterprise with approximately $7.7 million of structural deferred maintenance in the barrages and then approximately $4 million of deferred maintenance in the locks so with all that that is why we're taking a six-month recommendation of waiving the existing fee so extending the current fee waivers for only six months and not two years and then obviously we will be evaluating this periodically at least quarterly if not monthly but there it is at a point where we need to really sound alarm over to the health of that enterprise so with that the recommendation on the next slide is that it's recommended by the finance department that the council by resolution authorize an extension through June 30th 2022 of one the first hour free at the third street fifth street D street garages the first hour is already free at the first and seventh street garages two free parking in all five garages Monday through Friday for 5 p.m. to 6 a.m. Noting that parking is already free from 1 a.m. to 6 a.m. three free parking in all five garages on Saturday and Sunday noting that the D street and fifth street garages already have free parking on Sunday four one free meter parking session using the passport mobile payment application up to three dollars and fifteen cents value to a maximum of thirty one thousand five hundred dollars since since its inception on July one 2020 and five the waiver of meter reservation fees for temporary parklets outdoor seating and retail to expand business footprints to meet physical distancing requirements related to the COVID-19 order and with that I'm available to answer any questions you have all right thank you so much Alan Councilmember Fleming thank you Alan for your presentation and for its brevity my I'm sorry to do this to Council but I do have a couple of questions you may have mentioned earlier and I'm wondering if you could say it here how effective has this been at getting people in the garages so what we we have not seen this these reduced fees actually bring people into the garages as we had anticipated we are still below our our pre-COVID levels but and I'm trying to remember the percentages but I believe it was roughly 63 percent of parking is on the street and with about 20 to 22 percent in the garages okay I personally love this program for my personal use however given the the state of disrepair of the garages and the lack of use of the program and the fact that it's always easy for me to find a place to park on the street I don't feel like this is financially prudent I know I should hold my my comments but it is late and that's what I think Councilmember Tibbetz sorry guys I'm having a hard time walking away I gotta ask more Mr. Alton can you show on the graph where there's a spike in the reserve fund in 2019 yeah I I believe that was uh there was a there was a brief period when we expanded the hours of on-street meter parking and then and then that was we rescinded that soon after that and I'm sorry I'm a little fuzzy at night but that that's I had the same question and uh that was just a very brief period where that where that happened those are very popular evening metered parking program the progressive parking I think it was yeah something thank you I'll I have a comment about that but I'll hold it for comments thank you any other questions let's go to public comment on this if you're interested in providing comment hit the raise hand feature on zoom seeing none do we have any voicemails we do not all right we will go ahead and bring this back council member Sawyer can you put a motion on the table your mayor introduce the resolution of the council of the city center Rosa authorizing the extension of a temporary reduction and waiver of certain parking fees through June 30th 2022 and wait for the reading of the text second motion by council member Sawyer second from tidbits you had comments I do have a couple of comments um I you know I think that uh we discussed this actually briefly at our downtown action subcommittee when this kind of filtered through us first and I just want to share my comments that I made there with the council recognizing that I won't be here anymore but I think it's it's important and I shared these same thoughts and concerns with Peter Rumble at the metro chamber right now I think this is an important gesture during COVID-19 to continue this but I believe I agree with what Victoria said about the question pertaining to how is this actually affected use if there is a proposal or a desire to keep this going indefinitely you know my suggestion is to look at increasing the prices of on-street parking at the businesses and working with the businesses to figure that out because obviously the funds have to come from somewhere so those are just my comments about it God knows we are going to have free parking in the city for a long time that's member Fleming I'd like to amend my uh or add to my comment and say you know Park I know progressive parking was not particularly popular but you know we do I concur with Mr. Tibbetts we we got to figure out a way to pay for it and I'll just add this to his comment you know it is an important gesture during COVID-19 but then there was COVID-20 and COVID-21 and in a couple of weeks we're going to be in COVID-22 so at what point do we say COVID is going to be with us five, ten, fifteen years you know in different forms and I think it's really difficult to accept that this is not a real temporary problem so we need long-term solutions to long-term problems and we can't keep giving things away with the hope that it's going to solve things I know our local retailers are struggling but you know in many other ways retail is thriving and so but our our parking district is not and I think we've got to figure out a way and so I'm not in favor of extending this I would be in favor of hearing staff return with a much more paired back version something that's revenue neutral and breaks even and and collaborates with our downtown districts in order to get their input but one that that doesn't continue to deplete the city's coffers and erode our infrastructure that's a really serious disrepair I thank you councilmember Madam city clerk could you please call the vote councilmember tibetz aye councilmember schwaetham aye councilmember soyer aye councilmember fleming no councilmember rogers no vice mayor alvarez aye mayor rogers aye that motion passes with five ayes with councilmember rogers and councilmember fleming voting no okay let's go to our public comment for non-agenda items if you're here to provide a comment for something that wasn't on the agenda tonight go ahead approach the podium or hit the raise hand feature I see none do we have any voicemails no okay we have no written communications I did really fast want to again extend my appreciation to our interim city manager Mr. Jeff colon for your service to the community I want to again thank councilmember tibetz for his contributions over the last five years both of you will be incredibly missed around city hall and then as I mentioned before we are adjourning tonight in the memory of Marie Durkin and want to extend our condolences to director Burke and her family and hope they're doing well with that we will adjourn