City Council - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Hey, hey, hey. I'm done. Stay tuned for the Richmond City  Council starting at 4:30 p.m. on KCRT.

Are you ready? matches your purpose. It is now time to start  the special open session to hear public comment   before close session. Roll call, please. Council  member Bana is absent. Council member Brown is   absent. Council member Jimenez, presente.  Vice Mayor Robinson here. Council member   Wilson here and council member Zapeda will be  joining us on Zoom. Council member Zapeda here   and Mayor Martinez here. During close session,  the council will discuss the following items. Item C1 is liability claims claimment char zad  Abushi agency against city of Richmond. Item C2,   conference with real property negotiator.  Properties located at 1414 Harbor Way South.   Agency negotiator Le Lena Velasco, Emily  Combmes, and Dave Alshshire. Negotiating   parties Orton Entertainment LLC under  negotiation price and terms of payment.   Item C3 is conference with labor negotiators,  agency representative Chiron Taylor, Jack Huge,   and Lisa Charone. Employee organizations include  SEIU Local 1021, full-time and part-time unit,  

if Local 21, Midle Management and Executive  Management Unit, Richmond Police Officers   Association, Richmond Police Management  Association, AFF Local 188, and Richmond Fire   Management Association. There's anyone joining  us online that would like to address the council, please raise your hand at this time. Okay, there  are no speakers. If there are no speakers, uh   public comment Oh, point point of order. I noticed  I think we just may have let people in that are   people here filling out cards right now to speak.  Are they do they want to speak under items under   um I think we might give them a chance since  they all just ran in here at once. The doors   were locked. The doors were I'm sorry. I think  the doors were locked until one minute ago. No. Okay. Maybe not. Thank you. No speakers. All right. In that  case, uh public comment before   close session is closed and we will  now retire to close session. Okay.

Hey.

Heat. Heat. Down.

I'm

down. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Hey. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat.

Hey, hey, Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey.

Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat.

[ __ ] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Every Everything. Do you?

every

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat.

We'll begin with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the  United States of America and to the republic   for which it stands, one nation under God,  indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call. Council member B. Hi there. Council member  Brown here. Council member Jimenez present.   Vice Mayor Robinson here. Council member  Wilson here. Council member Zapeda is   joining us online here. Thank you. And  Mayor Martinez here. Our next item is   statement of conflict of interest. Are there  any hearing? None. under agenda review. Um,   we have a may I have an announcement? Okay. So,  we have a request to remove item N2A by the public   for discussion and that item is to authorize  the city manager to develop recommendations   pertaining to the cannabis sector for city  council discussion in approximately 60 days. Yes. May I ask uh item 03 to be moved before item  01 because we have presenters who have come a long  

distance and it's the third time actually  they're attempting to present here. Well,   it seems like we have a lot of uh people for 01 and what and O2 and O2. So, um I think we'll just  leave things as they are. Okay. Okay. Thank you.   Okay. Our next item is report from the city  attorney of final decisions made during close   session. Good evening, mayor and city council.  Um tonight's close session, um we discussed the   three items listed, um but no final reportable  action was taken on any of the three items.   Okay, our next item is report from the city  manager that includes a new employee report. KCRT, can you please display  the slide deck? Good evening,   Mayor Martinez and city council Shasa Curl, city  manager. As a reminder, all of these items can   be found in the weekly report or by calling  the city manager's office at 510-620-6512. Next slide. Next slide. The City of  Richmond Recreation Department will   be taking Richmond students to the Black  College Expo in Oakland on Saturday,   February 7th. This experience will expose students  to college opportunities, scholarship resources,   and direct connections with representatives from  over 50 colleges and university universities.   Transportation and lunch will be provided  and families will participate in a required   pre-event orientation. Scan the QR code to  RSVP for more information at 510-620-6793. Next slide. The Richmond Neighborhood  Coordinating Council RNCC invites you to   a celebration honoring our Black History  Month honores. Please join us on Monday,  

February 9th at 7 PM in the Richmond  City Council chambers. The event will   be broadcast live on KCRT. The RNCC will be  honoring Doris Mason, the Honorable Nat Bates,   JC Farre, and AJ Galani. Complimentary snacks and  beverages will be provided. Next slide. Our snow   day event has been rescheduled to February 18th  at Nickel Park, 3230 McDonald Avenue. And we're   just as excited to bring the winter magic to  Richmond. Join the City of Richmond Community   Services Recreation Team for a fun-filled  day featuring music, games, rock climbing,   and plenty of snow adventures perfect for  family and friends. Bundle up in your snow gear,   bring your snow slide, and get ready to play in  the snow. Make memories and enjoy delicious food   available for purchase. For more information, call  the recreation team at 510-620-6793. Next slide. As you can see, our recreation department is  extremely busy. Celebrate the year of the horse   with the city of Richmond at the Richmond Memorial  Auditorium on February 21st at 1 p.m. Enjoy   entertainment, light refreshments, and a joyful  celebration. This event is pre free, but you must   register in advance. For more information,  please call 620-6593. Next slide, please.   The 29th annual Art of African Diaspora  satellite exhibit will be at the Westside   Branch Library at 135 Washington Avenue  from February 9th to March 27th. Artists   reception and artist panel will be hosted  on February 21st from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The   full list of events and locations can  be found by scanning the QR code on the   screen. For more information, please visit  the Richmond Arts Center at 510-620-6772. Next slide.

Please join us for an afternoon filled with  music, movement, culture, and community as   we honor the rich history and achievements of  African-Americans. This annual celebration is a   wonderful opportunity for families and friends  to come together, enjoy great entertainment,   and share a meaningful experience. On February  28th at 1 p.m., come enjoy good music,   engaging performances, and a delicious  lunch. Light refreshments are included,   and the event is completely free. Please  note, no outside food is permitted. You   must register in advance to RSVP, or for  more information, please call 510-620-6793. And next slide. Again, I would like  to thank all of our community services   and recreation staff and public works staff  that support all of these events. Thank you. Good evening, mayor, city council member Chiron  Taylor, human resources director. I'm happy to   present to you the hires for the month of December  and January. Next slide, please. Raquo Cole,   community intervention specialist, community  crisis response program. Nicolen Higgins,   community intervention specialist, community  crisis response program. Raymond Hodgej, community   intervention specialist, community crisis response  program. Michael Montreal, community intervention   specialist, community crisis response program.  Laura Ruiz, community intervention specialist,   community crisis response program. Carl  Witty, police officer, police department. Pearla Perses, office specialist, city attorney's  office. Milan Tweet Tasi, police officer, police  

department. Esmeralda Flores, executive  assistant, mayor's office. Juan Rozo,   maintenance aid 2, public works. Aaliyah Brown,  police record specialist, police. Desmond Morales,   police officer trainee, police department.  Desiree Infante, Jaylor, Police Department.   Sarah Reed Guy, administrative student intern,  Community Crisis Response Program. James Olsen,   park supervisor, public works. Elizabeth  Marcado Perez, police record specialist,   police. Cindy Deleon, assistant police  property technician, police department. Brian Lon, vocational building construction  instructor, employment and training. Roderick   Davis, chief electrician, public works.  Alex Sarafin, confidential investigator,   police commission. DaVon Strader,  administrative student intern,   information technology. Victor Tovar Gonzalez,  Maintenance A2, Public Works. Daniel Lopez,   Maintenance Aid 2, Public Works. Darren  Gardner, police officer, police department.   Brendan Farney, police officer, police department.  Terrence Yang, recreation program leader,   community services recreation. Michael Abeg,  lifeguard, community services recreation.  

And we have several promotions. Bradley Harms,  environmental manager, public works. Jared Wagner,   communication shift shift supervisor, police  department. Carlos Castro, public works, streets,   streets maintenance superintendent, public works.  And our new police chief, Timothy Simmons in the   police department. All right. Thank you very much  for your support. Thank you, Miss Taylor. Great   job to you and all the department heads in filling  positions. Our next item is open forum. An open   forum is an opportunity to address the council on  items that remain on the consent calendar or items   that are not on the agenda. As a reminder, item  N2A has been removed from the consent calendar   for discussion. That item is to authorize the city  manager to develop recommendations pertaining to   the cannabis sector for city council discussion  in approximately 60 days. Tonight we have seven   in-person speakers. If there's anyone joining  us online that would like to address the council   under open form, please raise your hand. During  open form, dialogue between the council and the   speaker is prohibited. We'll start with the  inperson speakers and then move to the online   speakers. When your name is called, please come  forward. Line up behind the speaker's podium.   When you are called to address the council, state  your name and your city of residence is optional.   Please terminate your address to the council  when your time expires. Each speaker shall be   allowed up to two minutes to address the council.  The city of Richmond welcomes your comments and   we request that you present your remarks in a  respectful and appropriate manner within the   established twominut time limit. The speakers are  Robert Linhardt, Nana Johnson, Chucka Ma Maka,  

Cordell Hendler, Don Gazny, Tarnell Abbott,  and our last inerson speaker is Mark Wasber, Robert Linhardt. Good evening. My name is  Robert Lhart. Excuse me. Press the button,   please, for the mic to turn on the mic.  It's a red button there. No, on the black. Okay, there we go. Thank you. Good evening. My  name is Robert Linhardt. I've been a landlord in   Richmond for 23 years. I'm a Richmond oiler. I've  been connected to Richmond for 70 years. Born at   Richmond Hospital. I house 25 people from the  Richmond homeless program. I came before you a   while back when the city of Richmond homeless  program owed me monies and you, you know, you   helped me out. We took care of that. Now I come  before you as the city owes me rents of 56,000 for   September, January, and February of 2026. I made  numerous phone calls to talk to Jesus Morales for   an update, and he only called me one time as the  mayor asked him to. Thank you, mayor. Otherwise,   my phone calls were not returned. The same  has happened when I called Jim Beckett,   the CEO of Richmond Community Foundation. He said  two weeks ago they were making out a check for   me but has not produced a check or called back.  I've asked for a meeting with Jim Beckett but he   never got back to me. I'm like everyone just  like yourself. I have a mortgage and bills I   have to pay. Communication is important. It's a  two-way street. I know that city of Richmond's   gone through difficulties and I know City of  Richmond is receiving monies from Chevron,   you know, over the next 10 years, 50 million a  year, the next first five years and 60 million  

thereafter for five years. But I need to get  paid the money that I'm owed for me to continue   as a participant in the homeless program. Please  don't abandon the landlords who stepped up to help   change the lives of the homeless people in this  great city that we call home. I once was homeless   and someone helped me. Do you have any questions  for me? If I may for the chair. Uh moving Carter   is here and will assist you from the finance  department. The deputy director of finance. Okay. Nana Johnson. Thank you  very much. You're welcome. Uh hello, my name is Nana Johnson. Um I was served  a three-day notice today because Richmond didn't   pay. Um, so this is um a great way you're trying  to tell people to get on their feet and and um   you need some kind of consistency, but then if the  landlord feel like, you know, they're not getting   paid, well then all of a sudden I get an eviction  on my record and you know that that doesn't help.   Um, I've talked to Shayla and I've talked to Jesus  and Katherine Cashmeir and like for example the   week before Christmas uh the water bill was  supposed to be put in our name. Okay. Well,   it didn't help that it was a six months a rears  like like you know past due because it wasn't   paid and then they want us to try to you know  get our stuff together but it doesn't help if   you have to pay six months past b past due and  then so I talked to Shayla and oh I will take  

care of it. Well we had a great Christmas without  water because it didn't get taken care of. Um,   and that's the the you know, I I am appreciative  of the program, but it's also very frustrating.   Um, we had Vanessa didn't even serve her  time. She basically left. And I mean,   if I look at SOS and I look at core and how  many of these people have new cars? I don't   have they no one helped me pay for my car and  then I'm not supposed to be working on the car   in the driveway and I offend the landlord and  I'm not trying to but they if they promise help   actually have to help. The same with my teeth.  It's just sometimes it's like if you say it,   do it. You going to step up to help people do  it. I think you guys do get enough money from   other sources. The money is for homeless  should be for the homeless. Chucka Maka. Hello, my name is Chuka Garcia. Yes, I do  not know the program, but I feel that the   program left me stranded kind of because it's  supposed to be permanent housing and it doesn't   seem like it's permanent housing whatsoever.  It seems like I'm being back put back on the   streets even though I can afford to pay my  rent. Robert doesn't want the rent money.   He wants the money from the government  funding, but my SSI can't afford to pay   the rent. But he doesn't want that. That's  all I have to say. Thank you, Cordial Handler. So, good evening, Mayor Martinez, Council.  For the record, I am Cordell Handler and   I'm a Richmond resident. So, first I do want to  thank the mayor's office for your consideration  

to appoint Jamon Purcell to the economic  development commission. I think he made a good   choice because he has experience of dealing with  businesses. So, I think that's a good fit. So,   that's one. And then number two, I was watching  the meeting last th last last Tuesday and one   of the things that I thought of like if I had 550  million dollars, I would consider like, you know,   fixing our streets because I looked at other  cities uh streets and their infrastructure and   I'm like, "Wow, how does their how do they keep  their streets so paid?" And I said, "Cuz they   because they have hired people to do the job."  So, I'm considering that the city should consider   hiring more staffing because especially in public  works, they do a tremendous amount of work. So,   I appreciate appreciate them for when that  when I call them, they respond like that. So,   I'm grateful for about that. But then the other  concern that I had brought up last time was um I   had to go back to the June 2024 transcripts and  one of the things that that presented that Raph   Telis presented to us was workforce analysis  and um there is an item later on in the agenda   about the poor. So I'll save my comments  for that. But I do know one thing though,   economic development in Richmond is very  crucial because we trying to bring in some   more businesses to our communities. They need  revenue just like the city needs revenue. So I   just leave it at that. Our next speaker is Don  Gazny, followed by Tarno Abbott and our last   inerson speaker for open form is Mark Wasber  and then we'll move to the online speakers. Good evening. You know, a couple weeks back  I reported about the more than 100 acts of   vandalism along Interstate 80 in the form of  large swaths of painted graffiti on the I80   sound walls. I pointed out that contrary to  the opinions of some community members and   their friends on the council, these are not  artworks. They're criminal acts. I pointed   out that I80 is a gateway to Richmond and  these defacements of the portals sends a  

clear message to people driving by that Richmond  is filled with thugs, gangbangers, deviants,   and other evildoers. It sends a message that our  community leaders don't give a dang about what   their city looks like. And when community leaders  do nothing to stop it or erat to eradicate it,   it sends a message that these criminals have the  tacid approval of the leaders of the community.   Business owners know that when the city and the  people running the city care so little about   letting the world know that their streets, parks,  and their own businesses are not safe from this   kind of analism that maybe they should just find  some other place where they feel more protected,   where their businesses are valued. Within minutes  of my report to the council a couple weeks back,   council member Bonuk approached me about drafting  a letter she could forward to her former employer,   Calrans. I sent her a letter which I shared with  the rest of the council with 75 photos or of   graffiti on the sound walls between San Pablo Dam  Road and Central Avenue. There would have been a   lot more photos, but taking additional photos  would have placed my own life at risk. While   totally expected, I was I was still disappointed  that not a single member of this council other   than Miss Bonner approached me about this or took  any other action to rid our community of this   defacement. Is it that you just don't care? Maybe  this doesn't fit into your social agenda? Maybe   that you you approve of inner city neighbors  vandalizing our community? Or is it that most   of us have seen for the past 25 years that when  people rise to speak and they're not part of your   core supporters that you hit the volume button so  whatever we say that you completely tune it out   is as if we're invisible. And the if the latter  is the case the rest of Richmond that is not part   of your gang gets to live with the vandalism and  the messages associated with them. Tarno Abbott. Hi, my name is Tarnel Abbott. I'm a longtime  Richmond resident. I have um a couple of things  

I want to bring up. one um regarding the money  uh for the Chevron money. The library as you all   know is under renovation although it hasn't the  renovation hasn't actually started and the books   are being moved. They I guess had to rent storage  because the city couldn't actually find a location   to store most of the books. So that's kind of a  shame. Um, now the Richmond collection is partly   packed and moved and the rest of it is being  packed and moved and they don't have very much   time. The new building, as far as I understand,  it will not expand the space for that collection.   It's a special collection that's invaluable for  anybody who cares about the history of this town.   I would really urge you to set aside some special  funds to have parts of the collection um digitized   so that people can access it without having to  dig through file drawers that are overfilled   of material that is in fragile paper condition.  Uh a lot of photographs, a lot of uh newspapers,   old maps, aerial photos. Um very precious material  there. So, please take care of that and please   also make sure that the parking lots get uh  covered with um solar panels so that we can   quit giving PG&E all that money that we give them.  And finally, please lose all remember that there   is still a genocide going on in Gaza. It's still  raining. It's still people are freezing and dying   of drowning in in stuff. There's no food. People  are starving and they're still being uh bombed   with with missiles and uh drones. So, please  keep that in your heart as we go forward. 20,000  

children at least. Your time is expired. Thank  you. Our last inerson speaker is Mark Wasber. In the 1930s, the Nazi party tried to take over  America. Now we in the old people, the SLA,   the Weather Underground, the Black Panther  Party, the FBI made sure they went out of   business cuz they got in a shootout with the  Oakland PD and Bobby Hutton was murdered and   it was supposed to be for the people. Now we  got the BLM, Antiva, the RPA, and all these   other communist people in our government.  Every day you hear these these congressmen,   they want to overthrow our government, talking  about a revolution. We all seen what's going on in   uh all parts of the country, especially with uh  Tampon Tim in Minnesota. This guy's preaching   hate and violence. And what they're doing  now, they're over there stopping cars with   checkpoints. Civilians stopping cars to make  sure they're not uh connected with ICE. See,   this is how stupid the whole thing is. And  that uh pretty guy that got shot by ICE,   I said ICE had his number because two weeks before  he attacked ICE, then he went after him again.   So they made sure they got him. See, this is  what happens when people going out there and   being stupid, doing stupid stuff, messing around  with people that they should not be messing with.   You don't go around attacking people that has a  gun and it could ruin your life within hours. But   these people, they just don't got no brains.  And they talk about Gaza. Israel is going to  

make sure Palestine is gone. They don't care how  many people going to have to die. You don't blame   Israel. You blame Hamas. They started this war.  And this Hamas is starving these people. But I   uh but Israel doesn't care. They're going to wipe  them out. Like it or not. Time is expired. That   was our last inerson speaker. Now we'll move to  the online speakers. We have 12 online speakers. The speakers are Don Michael  Paggling, Daniel Meny, Emor Clink,   F. Rivera, KA iPhone, Vanessa Th,  Daniel Sanchez, Nicholas Remick,   and Alexander Kaine. Please be prepared to  unmute yourself when your name is called,   and you will each have up to two minutes  to address the council. Don, you may begin. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. Uh, good evening.  My name is Don Nelson. I'm vice president of the   Richmond POA. I'm speaking on behalf of the  Richmond Police Officers Association and   our officers who serve this city every day. I'm  here tonight for two very simple reasons. First,   to again ask this council to support  a fair, competitive, and marketable   contract for Richmond officers. We've been out  of contract since July. Continuing to serve out   of contract is negative for recruitment and  retention of our best officers. And we want   to attract the best. It's not helping. Second  is to demand accountability from city manager   Curl to return officers Remick and Stalking  to work immediately. Richmond is in a staffing   crisis. Officers are leaving. Retirements  are accelerating and recruiting has become  

increasingly difficult. Every officer in this  city is watching how this contract is handled   and they are watching how two officers can be  kept off duty indefinitely with no timeline,   no resolution, and no explanation that meets basic  standards of fairness. This is not how functional   operation organizations operate. The failure to  bring these officers back is not only unjust,   it creates real legal exposure for the city  of Richmond. Prolonged administrative removals   without resolution increase liability, undermine  due process, and send a chilling message to the   remaining workforce. Officers see this  and they leave. Potential recruits see   this and they never apply. A fair contract and  basic accountability are not radical demands.   They are the bare minimum required to maintain  public safety and organiz organizational   stability. City manager Curl was hired to  manage to make decisions to resolve issues   and to lead. Continuing to keep these officers  home unjustly is hurting recruiting and retention. Thank you. The next speaker is Michael  Pagalene. Michael, you may begin. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Good evening, mayor and  council members. My name is Michael Pagelene and   I'm speaking on behalf of the Richmond Police  Officers Association and the officers who serve   this city every day. I'm here tonight for two  very simple reasons. First, to ask the council   to support a fair, competitive, and marketable  contract for Richmond police officers. Second,   to demand accountability from city manager Curl  and return officers Remick and Stocking to work   immediately. Richmond is already, and I say  already, we have been and continue to be in a   staffing crisis. Officers are leaving, retirements  are accelerating, and recruiting has become  

increasingly difficult. Every officer in this  city is watching how this contract is handled,   and they are watching how two officers can be  kept off duty indefinitely with no timeline,   no resolution, and no explanation that meets basic  standards of fairness. This is not how functional   organizational organizations operate. The failure  to bring these officers back is not only unjust,   it creates real legal exposure for the city  of Richmond. Prolonged administrative removals   without resolution increase liability, undermine  due process, and send a chilling message to the   remaining workforce. Officers see this  and they leave. Potential recruits see   this and they never apply. A fair contract and  basic accountability are not radical demands.   They are bare minimum required to maintain  public safety and organizational stability.   City manager Curl was hired to manage,  to make decisions, to resolve issues,   and to lead. Kicking the can down the road while  officers sit at home and staffing collapses is   not leadership, it's avoidance. Council members,  you cannot say you care about public safety while   allowing this to continue. Support a marketable  contract. demand that city manager Curl have some   intestinal fortitude and some integrity and do  her job and bring officers Remick and Stocking   back to work now. Thank you. Thank you. The next  speaker is Daniel Meny. Danielle, you may begin. Hi, this is Danielle Meny,  a city or city of Richmond   resident and I'm calling because last  week meeting was Can you guys hear me?   Yes. Oh, was I was really applauded that Doria  Robinson had the nerve to ask the Richmond Fire   Department to beg for the money from Chevron  when the money is for the city, the citizens   of Richmond. Do you do Urban Kill have to beg for  money? Do you have to beg for the money? Do you   have to beg for money to buy public buildings?  Do you have to beg for the money to give to rich  

city rides? No. So why would you have the Richmond  police, the Richmond fire department come up and   beg for some money for public safety? You don't  have to go begging for money. Urban don't have to   beg for money. You get all the city grants. You  get all the money for your nonprofit and use it   elsewhere. So how dare you fix your lips and ask  them, can you get the money from elsewhere? No.   There's no grants. There's nothing out there  for them. The money should be coming from the   city of Richmond on behalf of the citizens of  Richmond from the settlement from Chevron. You   don't have to beg for anything and how dare you.  In addition with that is three council members who   have backdoor backdoor issues going on with the  Chevron fund trying to spend the money elsewhere.   And it's the three that's on the left. You guys  are having backdoor conversations and the money   planning on spitting the money elsewhere. And  that's not acceptable. The money should be spent   on what the citizens of Richmond because the  money is for us. And I don't understand why we   need a a liaison to come when we have community  centers, people who work with the public and give   out surveys and give it back to you guys. That's  crazy. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.   The next speaker is Em. Can you please state  your name for the record and you may begin. Good evening, mayor and city council. My  name is Enrik Malgoza, and I'm speaking   on behalf of the Richmond Police Officers  Associate Association and officers who serve   the city every day. I'm here tonight for two  very simple reasons. First, to again ask the   city council to support a fair, competitive, and  marketable contract for Richmond police officers.   Second, to demand accountability of city manager  Curl to return officer Ramck and Stalking to work   immediately. Richmond is already in a staffing  crisis. Officers are leaving. Retirements are  

accelerating all because of manager Curl's  lack to do her job and recruiting has become   increasingly difficult. Every officer in the city  is watching how this contract is handled. and they   are watching how two officers can be kept kept off  duty indefinitely with no timeline, no resolution,   and no expectation that meets basic standards of  fairness. This is not how functional organizations   operate. The failure to bring these officers back  is not only unjust, it creates real legal exposure   for the city of Richmond. Prolonged administrative  removals without resolution increase liability,   undermine due process, and send a chilling message  to remaining workforce. Officers see this and they   leave. Potential recruits see this and they  never apply. Many of whom I know and don't   want to come here now. A fair contract and basic  accountability are not radical demands. They are   the bare minimum requirement to rem maintain  public safety and organiz organizational   stability. City manager Curl was hired to  manage to make decisions to resolve issues   and to lead none of which she has done. Kicking  the can down the road while officers sit at home   and staffing collapses is not leadership. It's  avoidance. Council members, you cannot say you   care about public safety while allowing this  to continue. Support a marketable contract,   demand that the city manager do her job for once,  and bring Officer Remick and Stalking back to work   now. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker  is Frederick Clink. Frederick, you may begin. Frederick, please unmute yourself. You may  begin. Sorry about that. I didn't unmute.   Okay. Good evening, Mayor Martinez and the uh  city council members. My name is Fred Clank and   I am the director of marketing for the Red  Oak Victory. And my job that the job of my  

department is getting paying visitors to our  ship. Excuse me. Um the RTO victory ship is   uh uh scheduled to be spoken u uh separately. So  if you can hold your comments for the time that   we address the rail victory, we would appreciate  it. Oh, certainly. My apologies. Thank you. Our   next speaker is F. Rivera. Um can you please state  your full name for the record and you may begin. Hello, I'm RPOA member Lorencia Rivera. I'm  calling in in support of hopefully an efficient   and equitable end to the contract negotiations.  We've been working without a contract for a while   now. I've been here for 16 years. I don't  plan on going anywhere, but it's really   hard to retain people with one, two, three, four  years on that I've personally brought on myself.   uh knowing that part of it was the contract  negotiations that we were uh entering in. A   big deal is also the fact that we've been able  to get lateral officers to finally come over,   but again, it's a part of the contract  negotiations that we were entering into   um and convinc convincing some of these people  to apply. Uh we've also had other officers who   did leave for larger and smaller agencies near  us who do make more money than us and that might   have been a primary reason to leave and they're  actively trying to recruit officers from Richmond.   But a lot of the people that we brought on, people  that still live in the city that are from Richmond   are are hanging on and hoping to see a quick  resolution and and like I said, a competitive   contract uh to retain these people long term.  Secondly, the other part of it was also trying to   get some action or movement on officers that have  been placed on administrative leave. Um there's   not really an explanation as to why officers  that have been cleared to work are still not   working. Um especially when we need them badly to  come back to work during due to staffing issues.   Um, we just we simply don't have any answers.  We don't know why it's happening. Um,   and as far as I know, they've been cleared to  work and yet they're not working. We just don't  

know what's going on. So, thank you to the mayor  and thank you to the city council for your time.   Thank you. Our next speaker is Koa. And Koa, can  you please state your full name and you may begin? Good evening, Mr. Mayor and city council members.  Uh my name is Quanuin and I'm a member of the   Richmond Police Officers Association. I'm calling  today to share how understaffed and overworked we   are here at the police department. This is not  something that we can resolve overnight as this   has been a significant and ongoing problem  that has plagued this police department.   Ever since the then mayor and city council  decided to publicly defund and destroy this police   department back in 2020 over events that happened  in Minneapolis that had nothing to do with the   city of Richmond. However, I believe that we can  still collaborate and work together by agreeing to   come to a fair or agreeing to provide a fair and  competitive contract for our police officers as   police officers and sergeants in this city have  been out of a contract for over 7 months now.   This needs to change if we want to recruit  qualified police officers and retain our   current police officers and police sergeants  here in the police department. And now I want   to close out by imploring the city to bring  officer Remick and officer stalking back to   work. When it comes to detective positions in the  police department, we are decimated. Detectives   are even more understaffed than out in patrol.  Both officer Ramik and officer Stalking tested   to become detectives and were selected to become  detectives in a competitive selection process   which shows to the quality of their training and  character. So there's no reason for why Officer   Remick and Officer Stalking should remain at home  while still getting paid when they could be back  

at work investigating crimes as detectives. Please  city be fiscally responsible with tax dollars and   bring officer Ramik and officer stalking back to  work. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is   Vanessa Thill. Vanessa, you may begin. Hello  everyone. My name is Vanessa Till. Um I am a   resident of Richmond in Sue Wilson's district  and um I'm I would like to ask the council to   um please reopen the topic of flock cameras in  Richmond. Um, I was in the meeting um when you   all voted to approve a million dollars in new  funding and cities uh around the country are   now going back on their decision to install  these fog cameras because they have breached   their privacy and shared um data with ICE. Um  Santa Cruz has already um announced that they   will be removing their flop cameras. Uh so I  want to ask the council to please consider um   doing this. Um and I also want to thank the city  for putting the officers um remnic and stocking   on leave. These are officers who killed a Richmond  resident. Um this is also not the first complaint   um against these officers who it's not the first  life that they've taken and there are several   um incidents of police misconduct for  which they're being investigated. Um,   so there absolutely is a reason why they are not  actively on the police force and I um, you know,   we need justice for Angel Mononttoya and for um,  you know, we want we don't want police violence   in our community. So, thank you. Thank you. The  next speaker is Daniel Sanchez. Daniel, you may  

begin. Uh, yes. Could you hear me? Yes. Okay.  My name is Daniel Sanchez. I'm a member of the   Richmond Police Officer Association. I'm calling  in today primarily for two reasons. Number one,   the contract negotiations that we have with the  city. I urge this city to provide a competitive   contract, not just equal, but competitive. We  need this in order to replace all the officers   who we have lost because this city has decided  to undefund its police department. We and the   police department want to continue providing the  level of service that this community deserves and   we cannot do so with the staffing crisis that  we currently have. I repeat and I ask again,   it needs to be competitive in order to be able to  attract and retain the police officers here in the   city of Richmond. Secondly, I want to urge this  police department uh this city council and mayor   to please stop punishing unjustly the officers  reik and stalking. These officers have done their   job. They have been cleared and they need to  return to duty. And to put this in perspective,   I would really like you to imagine either you,  your family member, or a member of this community   being unjustly accused, imprisoned, and then  go through the court system to clear their name   and then still continue to be in jail. If that  were to happen, you would be outraged as it is a   disgusting situation. And I would hope that you  put yourself in a situation to understand that   this is what's happening to these officers.  They've been cleared. They've been falsely   accused and they need to return to duty. This  is needs to happen in order to let the officers   know that they can continue to risk their lives  for this community on a daily and nightly basis.   And that when they do their job, they're going to  be supported by their police department and their   city council. To continue doing this to these  officers for political reasons is disgraceful.   Please do your job justly, just as you would for  yourself, members of this community, or even your  

family. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker  is Nicholas Remick. Nicholas, you may begin. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name  is Nicholas Remick, and I'm speaking on behalf   of the Richmond Police Officers Association, the  officers who serve the city every day. I'm here   tonight for two very simple reasons. First,  to again ask the council to support a fair,   competitive, and marketable contract for the  Richmond police officers. Second, to demand the   accountability from city manager Curl to return  myself and officer stalking to work immediately.   Richmond is already in a staffing crisis. Officers  are leaving, retirements are accelerating,   and recruiting has become increasingly difficult.  Every officer in this city is watching how this   contract is handled. And they are watching how two  officers can be kept off duty indefinitely with no   timeline, no resolution, and no explanation that  meets basic standards of fairness. This is not how   functional organizations operate. The failure  to bring myself and officer stalking back is   not only unjust, it creates real legal exposure  for the city of Richmond. prolong administrative   removals without resolution, increase liability,  undermine due process, and send a chilling message   to the remaining workforce. Officers see this  and they leave. Potential recruits see this and   they never apply. A fair contract and basic  accountability are not radical demands. They   are bare minimum required to maintain public  safety and organizational stability. Council   members and city manager Curl, I humbly ask for  fairness and legal due process. Thank you very   much for your time. Thank you. The next speaker  is Alexander Kaine. Alexander, you may begin. My name is Alexander Kaine and I'm speaking on  behalf of the Richmond Police Officers Association  

and the proud officers who serve the city of  Richmond every day. I'm speaking tonight for   two very simple reasons. First, City of Richmond  Police Officers Association is still without a   competitive contract. Second, I'm here to demand  that City Manager Curl return officer Remick and   Officer Stalking to work immediately. The Richmond  Police Department is in a staffing crisis. This   isn't anything new. We're going on our fifth year  of mandatory overtime. Officers are burned out.   They're leaving. Officers are retiring and it's  happening at a faster rate every day. Recruiting   new officers has been incredibly difficult.  Every single officer in this city is watching   how this contract is being handled and how  it's stalled and how it's not progressing.   They're also watching how two officers who have  been cleared criminally and found to have done no   wrongdoing, but yet are still kept out of work  indefinitely with no timeline, no resolution,   and no explanation that meets the basic standards  of fairness or due process. This is not how a   functional organization operates. The failure  to bring these officers back is not only unjust,   it creates legal exposure for the city of  Richmond. Prolonged administrative removals   without resolution increase liability. They  undermine the due process these officers demand   and deserve. They send a chilling message to all  the other officers. Officers see this and they   leave. Potential recruits, why would they want  to work here? They're not supported. If we had   a fair contract and some basic accountability,  we might be able to make some progress. These  

aren't radical demands. These are Thank you.  Your time is expired. Our next speaker is   uh iPhone. Can you please state your  name for the record and you may begin. Hi there. Um I hope you can hear me. Okay. Uh  this is Ava Casanti and I write the Substack Marin   County Confidential.substack.com substack.com.  And I just wanted to uh bring forward a a   couple things. Um we did hear a Bay Area county  supervisor um recently announce that ICE officers,   ICE agents who get out of control and violate the  law will be arrested by local law enforcement. Uh   in that case, it would be the sheriff and  the police. And I that's something that's   important that um every city needs to be talking  about. Um and I also wanted to uh just offer a   little perspective because I did see a lot of  Marin County residents calling in over the last   um three meetings uh regarding uh allegedly  anti-semitic statements um made by the mayor.   I wanted to provide a little bit of perspective on  that. Um I don't I don't think the issue is where   necessarily where people are calling in from.  I think the issue is sometimes people don't   um identify themselves as political operatives.  Um but some of those people who called in have   been extremely active in uh fighting everything  from ethnic studies classes to Assembly Bill   uh to supporting Assembly Bill 715, which is going  to be incredibly damaging to school districts.   a lot of liability with that very toxic bill.  So, I I hope people will keep that in mind. Um,   I'd also like to point out as a 9/11 survivor, um,  I never liked it when people raised the issue of   false flags about the 9/11 attacks, but I also  didn't think when people said, "I have questions  

about this incident uh, as a pretext for war."  Um, I didn't think they were anti-semitic and I   didn't think they were anti-WASP just because  like George Bush was the president. There's   nothing anti-semitic about raising questions  about false flag attacks because there's a   long history of that over thousands of years  of warfare. Thanks very much for your time. The   next speaker is iPhone. Please unmute yourself and  you may begin and state your name for the record. throw in. So there's a pattern of oversight  failure and it is systemic. As the speakers   tonight said, you routinely approve major  financial infrastructure policy decisions   without meaningful reviews. Items with long-term  financial um fiscal and legal consequences are   placed on the consent calendar as always  approved without disclosure required or   informed public participation. You continue to  move forward on capital projects like housing,   infrastructure, transportation without completing  or revisiting required environmental and finance   fiscal analysises. Projects are segmented,  amended, rebranded to avoid comprehensive   review and it undermines compliance. You resist  to openly discuss fiscal responsibilities like   pension liabilities and other risk exposures  while simultaneously directing public funds to   politically aligned organizations. As the speaker  earlier said, fire department has to beg. You   are unable to provide basic quantitive impact  data that is neither efficiency nor stewardship   of public money. business license and tax  compliance are selectively applied and not  

enforced, you lose revenue. Uh most enforcement  decisions are driven by political convenience,   not law or policy. That is not efficiency.  Your city attorney and city manager repeatedly   educated you on this cumulative result and  measurable harm. Oversight is not optional.   Um, transparency is not discret discretionary  and accountability cannot be post postponed   indefinitely. Residents demand diligence,  disclosure and compliance with the law. You   are sworn to uphold. Your time is expired.  And that was our last public speaker. Our next item is approval of the consent  calendar. And just as a reminder,   item N2A and that is to authorize the  city manager to develop a recommendations   pertaining to the cannabis sector for city  council discussion in approximately 60 days   that has been removed from the consent  calendar for discussion later in the   agenda and that will not be included  in this vote. Do we have a motion? I move to I move to approve the consent  calendar. I second it. Council member   Brown. Yes. Council member Bana.  Yes. Council member Jimenez. Yes.   Council member Wilson. Yes. Vice Mayor  Robinson. Yes. Council member Zapeda.   Yes. And Mayor Martinez. Yes. The vote is  unanimous. Our next item under new business,

item 01, and that is to approve a contract with  Lift Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $299,797 for planning and preliminary design for the  relocation for the Red Oak for a term ending   June 30th of 2027. If there's anyone joining us  online that would like to address the council   on this item, please raise your hand at this  time. We currently have three inperson speakers. I'm sorry, city clerk, because the public  comment is after our presentation. Yes.   Okay. Okay. Good evening, uh, Mayor Martinez,  city council members. Um, for the record, uh,   Charles Gerard, uh, director of the port.  Um, I'm joined by Mark Eper, who's the, uh,   executive director of the Red Oak Victory Ship  Group, uh, in case there's any questions that he,   uh, may be able to answer for us. Uh, KCRT,  can you bring up the presentation for item 01? Next slide. So, first, thanks for your interest in  the port um and your your questions and interest   in the uh uh in the Red Oak um discussion.  Uh what we'll cover uh in this presentation   um is just a history and ownership of the Red  Oak Victory. Uh we'll talk about uh partnerships   and the lease agreement. Um we'll talk about  why there's a discussion about relocating the   ship. Uh and cover the current status and  the requested item. Uh next slide, please. So, uh, as history, um, the the Red Oak Victory  was built in Richmond. It's the last surviving   vessel of the, uh, war effort to build ships,  uh, in the 1940s. It was built in 1944. It was  

commissioned in the Navy for for 2 years. Uh,  following the war, the ship was spent about   20 years in commercial service. Um it was  then moved to the Susan Bay Reserve Fleet,   um which are former naval vessels owned  by the Department of Transportation and   the Maritime Administration. Uh and they're  essentially there for standby uh service. In   uh it was in the reserve fleet for about 30  years. Uh in 1996, there was a legislative   legislative action uh to transfer the oak the  red oak to the Richmond Museum Association.   So there was some combination of effort to uh save  the last ship that was built in in Richmond. Uh so   in 1998 uh the transfer from Marad to the Richmond  Association Museum Association took place. Uh the   ship was delivered as is and it was you know  what what you see is what you get uh condition.   Uh at that time the ship moved uh to the port of  Richmond at terminal one. Uh next slide please.   So from 2000 to 2011, the ship was was here at the  port um at terminal one and subsequently at basin   5. Uh the ship went into a dry dock uh period  in 2011 for inspection, repair, and painting   um and was refurbished uh in its condition and  appearance. In 2016, the Red Oak moved to Basin 5,   which is the current location of the ship. Um I  joined the city in the port in 2023. Um during   that time we were just kicking off a a Bloomberg  Harvard city leadership initiative. Um as part   of that initiative we were focused on the port  and discussed a number of uh potential ways to   transform the port. Um one of them was uh  the the location of the Red Oak Victory.   So that initiated the initiated the conversation  over the last couple years and my involvement. Um  

discussions regarding the red oak took place with  uh representative John Garendi who had an interest   in moving the ship. Um ongoing discussions with  his congressional staff, ongoing discussions with   uh Mayor Martinez and his staff. Uh next slide  please. There are several um organizations uh   engaged and participating in the in the Red  Oak victory as a museum ship. Um the owner is   the ship as we mentioned is the Richmond Museum  Association. The ship was donated by MARAD to RMA   through congressional action. Uh the the SS Red  Victory ship organization is a component of the   museum association. Uh Mark is part of that crew  and the executive director of that organization.   They maintain and service the ship, provide tours,  uh and hold events. Uh the National Park Service   has oversight um of the Rosie the Riveter World  War II Homefront National Historic Park through   a partnerships park program. um that unit of the  NPS essentially collaborates with federal, tribal,   state, local organizations to manage and protect  uh protect assets uh and landscapes. Generally,   that that concept applies to non National  Park Service owned sites or facilities.   Um there were some questions on the national  um park service oversight around uh shipyard   number three in Point Petero. I just received  late this afternoon a lot of information and   if there's questions on the national park role,  I might suggest we uh reconvene on a specific   um presentation on that topic. Uh another  organization is Rosie the Riveter Trust.   Um that's a nonprofit here in Richmond. Um and  they manage fundraisers and do fundraising events  

um and contributions to the park, the museum,  and the Red Oak Victory. Uh next slide, please. So, the particulars of the current  lease for the Red Oak um at Basin 5,   it was signed in 2013. Uh the fee for the ship  is a a dollar per year lease. Um there was a   5-year term to the lease with three 5-year  extensions. Right now, we're in the 2023 to   28 extension. Um the port's not obligated to  uh keep the ship at each of those extensions.   Um the ship's been at the birth since 2016 from  its previous location which was uh next to the   Rigger's Loft building. Uh the particulars of  the birth, it's a 580 ft birth. Um there's about   30,000 square ft of yard space agend adjacent to  the birth and it's a 17t depth birth. Next slide,   please. With regard to the financial particulars  of the lease, again, it's a dollar a year lease   and as um in 2013 when the lease was signed,  there was also a resolution um and a rewriting   of the loan agreement between uh the port and  the city. Uh and that's a city loan to the port.   So um one of the outcomes of that resolution is  there's a financial offset to the port's loan   um for the duration of the loan. The particular  value uh that the uh port receive against the loan   uh changes each year based on a CPI calculation.  In fiscal year 2025, the offset was $143,000.   um within the resolution and those agreements,  there's no term end date specified regarding the   loan offset. Um and a and a and a move of the  red oak was simply not contemplated within that   documentation. Um we've been asked about what's  the what's the market value for basin 5. Um it's  

a high value basin because it has some yard or  apron space next to the bas next to the birth.   Um based on the other leases of the basins,  we estimate it's about 17 uh,500 per month or   $210,000 annually. Um if you the want to do the  calculations, um based on $143,000 offset last   year, um there's a gap of about $67,000. Uh next  slide, please. So why did the city provide the   lease and loan uh offset? So, um, certainly  I I was not part of that conversation. Um,   it's a little bit hard to find all the detailed  documentation from 2013. Um, but from what we've   read and and what people have shared with us, we  know there was an effort to preserve the Red Oak   as a historical asset. Um, and to formalize  its role here in the city. Um, you know,   it's seen as a Richmondbuilt icon um within the  uh the port's history. Um there is an integration   with the National Park Service for the Rosie the  Riveter uh National Historic Park. Um there's a   um concept that there's an economic and cultural  tourism uh draw for visitors to the city and the   port. And then one item I found simply by by using  AI and chat GPT apparently uh leading up to 2013   uh the ship's presence and its uh management was  often debated by city council. Uh the formal lease   uh from 2013 was intended to resolve that debate.  Um and it also was the city council's decision to   support uh the subsidized model uh of offsetting  the loan for the ship uh to prevent the ship from   ceasing operations. Uh next slide please. I  won't go into all the details on this slide.  

I just want to um mention that the um the park  uh and the uh World War II homeront uh national   park is contemplated within the general plan  uh under chapter 15 specifically. Um it relates   to protection of resources, access to those  resources, uh historic resources, interpretation,   awareness, um facilitate uh visitors, uh and  support services to the city's historic assets,   um and also to recognize contributions um to the  war effort um from the immigrants, women, people   of color, and other underrepresented communities  um within Richmond. Uh next slide, please. So again, um over the last couple years, we've  been discussing the idea of of of moving the   ship and why why would we do that and explore that  option. Um you know, one to improve uh visibility   and public access to the ship. Um ultimately, uh  that would help increase visitors and financial   support for the ship. Um the proposed location  next to the WEDA ferry, um is a is a is a gateway   to the city of Richmond. Um I don't have the  25 numbers, but 2024 there was over 28 280,000   um ferry riders uh coming and going uh across  the Richmond Ferry. Uh it's closer to the visitor   center uh and the museum. Um just the location  and having the ship and the museum in in closer   uh proximity would help serve the education  goals with convenient access and location.   um from uh you know a port economic uh development  perspective which we just discussed a week or   two ago um if the ship was moved we could open  basin 5 uh for commercial uh and uh employment  

development. Uh next slide please. We we looked at  several locations um uh around the the port. Um,   you know, ultimately the spot next to the WEDA  parking lot uh has access to Deeper Water. Um,   it's a transit hub and it's close to the  to the museum. Next slide, please. So,   what's our current status today? Um, I  want to be clear, there's no final decision   uh to to move the ship has been made. Um during  our discussions over the last couple of years,   we've it's been a little bit stagnant um because  we didn't have data and information to uh further   explore what options might exist. Um during  that period, we've engaged a number of parties   uh a couple of public forums where we  invited interested parties to participate   and ask questions. Uh and certainly in the  porch business, we've been in touch with   um each of these groups over the potential  move. Uh sometimes they're coming to ask us   uh status. Um we we we we estimate the cost to be  between 15 and 20 million. That's a rough estimate   um based on other projects and our our uh port  engineer Robert's estimate of the concrete and   um permitting requirements. And and let me mention  I apologize Robert is online. I believe we have   access to him uh online if needed for questions.  Um our our uh engagement with list lift um is a   proposed design plan and cost estimate to move the  ship if that determination um were made. Um the   port the enterprise port fund would be funding the  next step of this process. Uh next slide please.   Uh another question potential funding sources. Um  we we don't have the uh you know specific funding  

sources identified at this time. Um those would  be to be uh to be determined. Um the proposed   study and the cost estimates um will really be  required for us to dig into or the interested   parties to dig into potential funding sources. Um  neither the port nor the city are offering to fund   uh this construction and the new site. Um the port  was asked at the at a at a early meeting in 2024   to help facilitate the process and so that's  been our objective. Um just you know just some   random potential funding sources. Um I know Mark  has worked on some capital campaign planning. Um   the Rosie the Riveter Trust is a potential source.  Um, the National Park Service could be a potential   source. Um, there could be a uh explore bond  funding options. Um, there could be congressional   support. Uh, and grant funding uh might be an  ideal an ideal source of funding for this project.   But again, for grant funding or those types of  applications, we would need um details on cost   estimates and what the plan would be. Uh, next  slide, please. So, our requested council council   action was to approve a contract with Lift  Tech Consultants in the amount of um $299,797 for planning preliminary design of the relocation  of the Red Oak for a term ending uh June 30th,   2027. Next slide, please. I I have some  particulars on the um Lyft uh engagement.   We did run it through a prop uh a public process,  procurement process. uh lift was selected. Um I   don't think any of the questions we've received so  far were related specifically to the contract. So  

um next slide please. Uh thank you. And uh  we welcome welcome your questions. Yeah. Um   I'd like to begin by adding some comments to  to frame to frame how we got to where we are.   Um, as you mentioned, uh, we had a, uh,  opportunity with the Bloomberg uh, foundation to,   uh, develop leadership. And one of the things  that uh we decided to do was to develop leadership   around the port because um one of the well before  before this we had uh uh had sessions in which the   city council established goals and objectives and  one of the uh policy initiatives under economic   development was to diversify the economy through  improving the port and and creating uh the ability   of the port to start uh generating more revenue.  Uh one of the things that was problematic was the   red oak victory ship. So the red oak ship is is  uh taking uh space at a uh at a graving site which   uh needs repair and uh could also generate more  money. So so the idea was what do we do with   a red oak victory ship and and that was one of  the exercises that we uh undertook when we were   uh examining what to do with the port. Um, one  of my objectives as as mayor was to uh examine   the future of the Red Oak Victory Ship. So, the  objective was to make a clear decision on our  

stance regard regarding the Red Oak Victory Ship.  the the future is future viability, the cost,   the ownership structure, and some of the actions  uh was to determine the annual maintenance costs,   research partnerships or shared maintenance  models with the National Park Service or others,   and to weigh the financial considerations and  community benefits carefully. Now, I uh think   that the Red Victory ship is a uh treasure and one  that we should uh uh continue supporting, but uh   the question is where and how. Um, now it's just  it's just my opinion uh my desire u with coupled   with with opinions and desires of six other people  and that's why we need to have this conversation.   Um maybe we've uh have the uh uh cart before the  horse, but uh it's hard to tell what's what until   we understand exactly what it is we're dealing  with. And I think that this proposal uh gives us   information that's necessary in order to figure  out where we want to go. Uh I understand that   uh council member uh Jimenez. Yeah. Are are we  going to have public comments first or discussion?   Um I think I think that's a pleasure of the  council because uh uh in this instance I think   um we can probably generate questions that would  change the comments of the public. I'm not sure   how educated the the public is in in ex exactly  uh all the various uh nuances that Pardon me,   Mayor. We we do have a couple representatives  from the Richmond Museum Association that we're  

that we're going to speak. Well, let's let's hear  public comment first. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We   have three inperson speakers. So, call your name.  Please come forward. Don Gosley, Karen Buchanan,   and Michael Hipma. If there's anyone joining us  online that would like to address the council   on item Q1, please raise your hand at this time.  Don Gazny. Thank you. You know, this item is to   award a $300,000 contract to advise the city on  relocating the Red Oak Victory. Funny thing is   that we haven't really brought the public into the  discussion about exactly where to relocate it and   the benefit to the community when it's relocated.  You might recall the last time it was relocated a   couple of hundred feet because it was going to  spoil the view for the Rigger's Loft Winery,   a business that was recently run out of town.  How much did that cost the people of Richmond?   More than $100,000 just to run an extension core  to the new location. And what is the big reason   for relocation of the ship this time? We hear  this because you have to travel down a lengthy   road just to get to it. Having the winery right  next door helped bring in viewers, but that's   not happening anymore since the winery was run out  of town. There's also the cost of the the there's   also the rental for that birth that may be coming  into the city. One of the bigger problems when   people would stop by for a look see was what that  they saw things they didn't want to see. How many   people have a garage that is unbelievably messy?  Mine certainly is. Did it start out that way or   did we just ignore the mess as we made it messier?  Such as the case around the Red Oak Victory. It   has so much crap stored around it. It looks like a  dump or a scrapyard, not a showcase venue. So why   would we think that things will be different when  it's relocated? If relocated next to the ferry, to   the museum, to the restaurants that are struggling  to stay afloat, and even to that ever that   whatever business may relocate to the old pickle  ball club. any of those options, will a rusty old   cargo ship help or hinder those v venues? And if  any houses are ever built due east of the museum,  

will this enhance or deplete property values?  But let's get back to whether the idea of the   relocation has really been an item where the  public can weigh in or should it continue to   be another one of those backroom deals this  council is so famous for. And before you start   throwing major money at this project, you need  to perform a costbenefit analysis to determine   whether spending 15 to 20 million is a project  this city should undertake. Karen Buchanan. Hello, mayor and city council. My name  is Karen Buchanan and I am the 11-year   Richmond resident and the president of the board  of the Richmond Museum Association. The RMA is in   support of agenda item 0.1 contract with Lyfttech  consultants for planning and design services for   the relocation of the SS Red Oak Victory.  At our last board meeting on January 21st,   2026, the RMA board voted unanimously in favor  of the following motion. The Richmond Museum   Association Board acknowledges our support for  the city of Richmond and the Port of Richmond   in funding and conducting a feasibility study  evaluating the a potential relocation of the   Red Oak Victory from Basin 5 at Point Petrero  Terminal to the Santa Fe Channel adjacent to   the Richmond Ferry Terminal parking lot  with the understanding that approval of   this action authorizes participation in and  support of the study only for the purpose of   determining the process. the scope and cost  of such a project and does not authorize or   commit to the physical relocation of the ship at  this time. Thank you very much. Michael Hipma. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council.  My name is Michael Hibma. I'm a Richmond resident,   a former volunteer on the ship before it moved to  its new home and a member of the pre preservation  

commission. Uh my comments tonight represent my  views. I do not speak on behalf of the commission.   Um, I would like to stress that the  Red Oak victory is a component of   a much larger burden this community  bore during World War II that helped   defeat two enemies of authoritarian  fascism on either sides of the world.   The ship is a symbol of that effort and it is part  of a larger assemblage of units. The basin itself,   the buildings that and the whirly crane that all  when assembled can convey to average viewers and   visitors the totality even it's just a little bit  of what happened at basin 5 and other elements of   the Kaiser shipyard where it is now. It is  sheltered. It is has plenty of space around   it for what many people call junk is could be  placed to store equipment while the ship is being   repaired and is as an element of the park being  where it is helps convey the importance of what   that ship is about and what that happened at that  shipyard. Moving it to its new proposed location,   I believe, puts it in increased danger of tidal  action, wave action, and accidental collisions   with ships. Where it is now is better. It  is safer. It is in poor repair. Believe me,   I've been in that hall. I have seen while great  strides have been made to improve it, much work   needs to be done in order to move or re relocated  anywhere. Please, for as a member of a commission   who is tasked with managing the city's culture  resources, please consider remaining where it is.   Save the 300,000 and put that towards the repairs  where it is now. Thank you. That was our last   in-person speaker. Now we'll move to the online  speakers. We have one speaker and the speaker  

is Frederick Clink. Frederick, you may unmute  yourself and begin. You will have two minutes. Yes, thank you. I'm back again. Um the uh uh I  thank the council and the and the the mayor for   uh their time this evening. My name is Fred  Clank and I'm the director of marketing for   the Red Oak Victory. And so what that means is  my job is getting paying visitors to the ship.   And we do that in a number of ways, creating  interesting visitor experiences and hopefully   compelling events. Many of you are probably  familiar with our pancake breakfast and with   the classic movie nights that we conduct. Um,  school field trips are also a big part of that   uh mission and that often includes the students  visiting the Rosie the Riveter World War II   Homefront National Historic Park. In total,  we host about 3500 to 4,000 visitors a year.   But the biggest problem I face is visibility.  Um, of course, we advertise. We have extensive   social media presence. We do a year- round  marketing email campaign to about 2500 active uh   members of our mailing list. Uh, and we're active  members of the Historic Naval Ships Association,   which is in fact a worldwide organization. Um, but  it's still not enough. Uh, the Bay Area is just a   tough market. We have eight other historic ships  in the area, plus numerous other things to do,   uh, that take time that that compete with us. Um,  so moving the ROV over to the Rosie the Riveter   Park uh is really vital to her future uh and and  to getting additional visitors to come to the ship  

and getting additional uh visibility not just with  the Rosie Park but also with the uh people who   come over on the ferry. And therefore I encourage  the city council to approve this $300,000   expenditure for the study. Thank you. Your time  is expired. And that was our last public speaker. Thank you. Then uh public comment is  closed and we will go to questions and   comments. Uh council member Jimenez.  Yeah, thank you for the presentation,   Charles. And thank you for taking this because  I've been hearing the issue of the basin fight   and the wreck of victory. So I think like  this is time for us to talk about that.   I have couple of question. One is about  um you mentioned that there is a lease   for $1 from the reg of victory but then you  mentioned that we have like we get or we pay   $143,000. Can you explain that more? It's like  we get from the wreck of victory 14543,000 or and then uh who where is that money coming  from? Yeah. So we don't we don't receive that   money. What the the port gets a credit against  our loan from the city of Richmond. So the port   owes the city of Richmond there's a payment plan  for us to make those payments. Uh it was decided   in that 2013 uh resolution that the port would  get a credit every year for housing the red oak   uh within our facilities. Um you know my my  expectation is that's because we were giving up  

um space within the port that would otherwise  gen generate re revenue. So the city's council um   decision was to provide an offset to the loan in  return for housing the housing the ship. So that   means that like and I want to get city attorney  here because that means that is that charitable   um money funds and it's so how that would would  work. is like can I first answer can I can I can I   ask can I ask you before that another question who  owns the ship the Richmond Museum Association owns   the ship okay so it's no city own but we have kind  of like make a contribution to house the ship of   $143,000 Yes ma'am and that how is that like  because we are and I am just trying to understand   the finances here. So is that like how we manage  that because it seems that there is a nonprofit   or an organization who is receiving even if not  receiving the money but we are not paying the the   general fund the loan. So how how that finances  works here and how get tax or how how get like   help me to understand that. Well, I'm not sure I'm  the right person to answer the financial piece,   but I can is is your question is this financial  arrangement a gift of public funds? Yes. And so   the answer and the analysis around the gift of  public funds questions is that a city cannot gift   um a nonprofit or another outside entity um just  a charitable contribution unless there's a public  

purpose to that, unless there's some link.  And I think that in Charles's presentation,   it outlines some some, you know, reasons why  um historical relevance and significance to the   um community as to why it would not be there  would be a public p purpose associated with   that. But the financial uh piece, I may ask  uh the city manager to weigh in on. Can I   can I add can I ask just so if that is that um  allowed through the poor enterprise or to the   general fund? That's why there's a credit.  Yeah, that's why there's a credit. So the   general fund is providing the credit to offset  because it's an enterprise fund. But we would be   happy to have finance prepare an analysis of this  information and provide it to the city council. Can you explain that more? Why is a credit like  why is a credit? If if I may, it's reducing our   debt every year. I think that's clear, Charles.  I think the question is why? So, because it's   an enterprise fund, it's a it's a special purpose  fund. And so just like the general fund provides a   subsidy to the other enterprise funds, right? Like  the housing authority or things of that nature,   there's a a subsidy provided here to the port  since the port is not receiving revenue and it's   a nonprofit organization and we provide um space  or funding for nonprofits including the Richmond   Art Center, including um the Family Justice  Center. So, I think we would be happy to write   up a specific financial analysis um for how this  is treated uh and provide it to the council, but  

this was something you know that was entered into  before our time uh here and but we welcome the   opportunity to provide information and you know  ultimately it's a city council policy decision.   Okay. Thank you. I I just wanted to understand  that because I know that the as a poor enterprise   has limited um ways in which the the the money  that they can spend. So uh something like this   is not allowed. So if the general fund can do  that so uh my confusion is because it's coming   from the poor how we are treating that. So I just  want that answer to because this is some legal   issues. We don't want to continue in liability  if this is something that is putting us in in   a liable situation. Yeah, we can evaluate whether  this um framework complies with the public trust   doctrine if that's what you're asking in terms of  Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Um thank you for clarifying   that. I have another question and it's based on  on the the money. So almost $300,000 to do an   study. But I what I am hearing is that we already  know what the study is going to do to say which is   um we will need to build and and and tell me if I  am wrong. We will need to build uh 16 million or   20 million deck to uh be able to move that ship.  Um my question is is is that um the money that we   are paying to the consultant will also have some  answers about how this uh we are going to pay for   this uh $20 million. the the consultant's not  going to provide that information, but they are  

going to give us um design options um for a warf  where the ship would be tied up. There's not a   marine warf in that location um at present. So,  their their objective would be to um explore di   options that would house the ship. Um we've asked  them for two or three options uh and a focus on   the cost um plus just the physical requirements to  house the ship. They'll also do a study on what's   required with regard to um permitting uh to uh to  construct uh that new warf and give us an outline   of um what would be required and the estimated  cost to pursue those permits. So at that time   they will come with that and the question will  be where is the money going to come from and I   think spending $300,000 for the design and where  are we going to move and not answer this specific   question I don't know like I am not ready to say  that we are going to spend from our general fund   $20 million to move the red victory ship to other  location and we're not asking that at this point.   Yeah. But but this is like if we are serious about  that, this is the question and if we are not going   to have ideas how that could be funded, then you  are going to put us in a in a in a situation where   we are going to say no yes to spend $20 million  into moving that with other computing um needs in   the city. So, I just want to really all of us  think through this like are we going to spend   $300 to come with a beautiful design and nice uh  way to move it but not with a financial proposal a  

serious financial proposal because this is going  to cost 16 to 20 million roughly. So I am just   thinking that if we are serious about that we need  to have that plan before you come with a beautiful   design. I I understand your question. Uh my my  expectation is um we know we recognize there's an   unknown uh around the funding. Um my expectation  is the funding would probably come from multiple   different different sources. again uh fundraising  by RMA um potential congressional contribution   uh potentially grant funding. Um however the the  the cost estimate we have today uh is is very   high level. So we need to we want to understand  what a specific cost estimate would be. Um it's   just a preliminary design to help us advance that  discussion um with regard to what would be built   and what scope of work would be required around um  permitting. My my concern with not proceeding is   that um if we're waiting for the 16 to20 million  to be in front of us um we'll just be having the   same conversation in 5 years. Um we want to kind  of advance uh the initiative. Um we may come to a   conclusion that um the funding is not available  and the ship does not get moved. Um but we are   looking for ways to uh come to that conclusion  having the data and better information in front of   us. We we meaning the collective group that has an  interest in the ship. And thank you. I and I think   like for me is and and you notice my frustration  in my voice because I I really if we are spending   300,000 in this I want to have some ways to really  make sure that we are doing it and it doesn't get  

any nice uh presentation and it's it and I feel  like uh there are so many other um things where we   can spend some of this money. Um, or we will need  to have a presentation with like that actually not   only get us the nice design and the locations, but  actually gave us a plan for how to get the money.   And I I just don't think that coming with a  design and and spending that money in this   study without that part of the finances is going  to move us in any way that we need to actually   make this happen. So thank you. Okay. Um I I I  have not been imposing the five-minute rule. Um,   Claudia, you did use up uh your your five minutes  and well and so so uh um I'm going, you know,   uh I don't want to do the five-minute rule because  I want all of us to be able to say what we have to   say, but at the same time, I want to make sure  that that we're succinct and that we don't keep   repeating the same thing in many different ways.  So, um, let's see if we can proceed without the   five-minute rule. Um, uh, Council Member Brown.  Yes. Thank you so much for the presentation. Um,   I just wanted to ask based on the public comments  that if the RMA says that they approve the study,   um, but does not commit to the relocation at this  time, why would the city attempt to proceed with a  

300 paying a $300,000 uh, consultant for planning  and design for relocation that's not guaranteed   despite securing funding at the latter portion  of this, but just right now saying we do not   commit to relocation. So if this study actually  goes through, if it's voted, you're able to get   the consultant, the design review, everything's  back and they decide to halt or change directions,   what do we do in that event? Yeah. So my my uh  my perspective is there's a collective interest   across the groups to move to move the ship. Um  so we we started this planning process a year   ago when we were setting the budget for this  current financial year. Um the discussions to   move this the ship kept coming back to the same  question. What how much is it going to cost? What   would the design requirements be? How much work  is involved in pursuing permits? So we kept coming   up against the same question. uh and so the port  uh in our interest to advance the discussion uh   and move it forward um budgeted money this year to  undertake this study. So, so you're right. There's   um there's some potential that the ship may not  move um you know across all the projects at the   port. Uh some some things are happening uh uh more  quickly and some are uh longer term planning and   initiatives and I would characterize this as a  uh longer term planning and initiative project   uh but we don't want to just leave it stagnating  on the back uh on the back burner. Okay. Um,   so I know you mentioned that there is  a collective interest in this. However,   can the city or can the port move or relocate  uh the ship without the RMA's consent?

I'm I'm not sure um uh if if we can. There  there is a clause within the agreement   um that the ship can be moved. Um, and I'm not  sure if that wi is within the context of just   shipyard number three or point Petrero marine  terminal or across any other location within   the port. Um, so I'd have to come back to you on  that. I think there is a clause within the lease   agreement that says we can we can move the ship as  the port has had to do so uh in in the past. Um,   I I don't anticipate, you know, coming to  that disagreement if we were to progress   uh to that point, but I understand your question  and I think we could um I think we could move   the ship, but I'd have to confirm that through  the agreement. Okay. Um, yeah, that was all. I   just wanted to make sure that we're spending I  mean we're just just full with consultants and   so I just want to make sure that we're actually  doing something with the data once we receive   it. Um and spending upfront I understand  you budgeted for it but spending $300,000   on a consultant with the legal owners upfront  saying that we are not committing to relocating   is concerning for me. Well, they're they um as  Karen Buchanan mentioned, they're certainly in   um supportive of this initiative to undertake  the study. Yeah. Supportive of the study, but   I'm saying like the outcome the out the outcome is  to eventually relocate. Correct. Based off of the   study and the design planning and all of that. So,  I'm just saying if we if they're not if they're   saying that I don't know. I think my concern is  like why are they on the why are they on the fence   um about committing to the relocation versus if  they're approve if they want you to move forward  

I think is what I'm ask trying to ask go ahead  there we go mayor council people thank you for   allowing me to speak uh this was just a motion to  do the study and uh now from all the people I've   heard denied all the financial things. I really  understand where you're coming from about this is   a lot of money. It's 300,000 bucks to do this. You  to do the study. I mean, I would also recommend a   demographic study to see what the capabilities  what what the financial benefit of moving the   Red Oak victory to. But to your question, we are  committed. I was at the meeting where they they   unanimously said it's not about moving. We're  committed to move if the finances work out,   raise the money. We're trying to do this through  congressional sources. We've got the the support   of Congressman Garam Mandi. And if we could have  uh community project supports have been shut down   by nonprofits for nonprofits. If they weren't,  we we would have put this uh community project   grant this year for refurbishment and renovation  of the red oak victory. those spicets are going   to open soon and but the the from what I'm I'm  not a member of the board but I but we've been   doing we've been talking about this I've been here  for a year and a half and if the finances work out   and we can do it I am certain there is no reason  that we would not move. Okay. Thank you. Can that   be included like maybe like the contingent like a  contingency plan upon like us securing the funding   and you know the moving forward for the next  steps instead of just saying that I mean because  

I clearly heard Miss Karen say that they were  not ready to that the board was not committing   to relocation at this time. Well, that's that's  up to the board. I'm the executive director,   but like I said, I'm I'm I mean, I wouldn't  be here if I didn't think they were going to   move the ship. That's why I came to Richmond to  do this to help move it. I I think one of the   points we've been trying to make is this. We're  not making a decision about moving the ship at   this juncture. We're focused on uh undertaking  the plan uh and emphasizing that it's a it's a   port enterprise plan that will help us with our  long-term planning, not a not a general fund or   city funded project. Right. and and I I did have  a meeting with the city manager and mayor Martinez   uh outlining our plan and I would and I I sent  Charles an email. I'd be glad to sit down to   together separately and explain what we've  got as far as our plan to raise the money,   not only to refurbish the Victory and renovate  it, but to also make raise money for the pier.   Now we're uh so thank you so much council member  Pana. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation   and I would like to thank members of the public  for their comments. So that that was informational   and educational for us. Um I just wanted to  clarify as you said uh Charles that the port   is an enterprise and it's not coming from the  general fund and you're doing it to see if you   can have more benefit in the future uh by moving  the ship out of potential economic opportunities.   Right. Correct. That's part of um sort of the  overall planning with with the port and again   we're trying to help kickstart the discussion on  this on this specific project. Okay. I thought  

it'd be more about looking into the cost of moving  the ship rather than design of the pier like is it   going to be towed? Is it going to be fixed and  moved? And also as it was brought up um like for   the peer can we just get a cost estimate or cost  range in the report that would be helpful. We   don't necessarily need a design if it's not going  to happen. Right. Uh correct. Um we they need to   uh base the cost estimate off off of a design. Um  we've asked them to propose a couple of highlevel   designs. So we'll engage with them during the  process uh to see what looks most appropriate   and most cost effective. Uh the the largest and  significant cost of moving the vessel will be   uh the facility to house the vessel. I see. So the  the tugboats or other equipment and people to move   the ship uh will be a minuscule cost compared  to uh the construction of a new new facility to   uh worth the ship against. Okay. So moving is  not a question. You don't have to clear the   um waterway to No. Okay. Very good. So um there  there was uh there were two comments basically   about cost and benefit. Is that a part of this  study? Cost and benefit analysis of moving the   ship for port and for the ship. We well for the  port if um if we proceed with moving the ship the   collectively move the ship um we've outlined there  is an upside for the port because we would utilize   that space for commercial purposes. We would bring  in you know put it through a competitive process   bring in a commercial uh operator to use basin 5  that would generate direct revenue to the port but  

the port would not be responsible for any further  costs of the pier or moving or anything. Okay. So   it's just a one time study the port would pay and  if the result is if the if RMA could raise the   funds then they would move it. That's correct.  Okay. And how about safety analysis which is I   mean we're doing this to make the ship more  visible. So the safety of this ship is very   important against the tides and everything. Uh  is that going to be a part of this study? Yeah,   it would be accounted for in any any any current,  you know, um modern design initiative around a   warf. Okay. Yep. All right. I I appreciate it.  Thank you. To me, it looks like a good idea. Opens   good economic opportunity for the port as well as  for the ship. And everybody seems to be eager to   see the result of this study. And it doesn't uh uh  mandate a move at this point. and we just want to   look at our options and see if we can do it. So,  if there are no more comments or questions, I'd   like to make a motion. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Yeah,  there's many other people wanting to speak. Uh,   council member Wilson. Right. Um, so, uh, I want  to start by saying thank you to the port director   and the port staff, um, and the council members  who have been looking at the port operations   really closely and thinking of ways to maximize  the utility of this asset that Richmond has. Um,   I'm going to have a lot of questions and critiques  tonight, but I want you to understand that it's   within a framework of really appreciating the fact  that you're bringing us this opportunity to take   a look at this after it has been sort of I think  gone under the radar for for some of the previous   uh council administrations. So, so you know that's  and now that now the tougher questions. Um, so I'm  

just going to read to you something that surprised  me in the RFP. It the the request for proposals   which the um the the the consultant answered.  It says, quote, "The Port of Richmond intends to   relocate the vessel to the east side of the inner  harbor." And so the first thing that jumped out at   me is when was that decided and by whom? Yeah. So  the um um the the intention is really the proposed   uh possibility. So the the wording may not be 100%  accurate and I agree with you. It comes across   as a as a decided action. Right. So you know what  I'm about to say which is the city council is the   are the ones charged with making the decisions  about about port activities. And to the best   of my knowledge this is this or the last time it  came you know this was discussed it sounds like   was 2013. So, so there certainly hasn't been  a decision of the city council. And though I   understand that people have been working hard  on this issue in various, you know, leadership   programs and coalitions, I think that coming to us  to ask us to spend $300,000 on a plan that we have   not signed off on um or considered alternative  options to is premature. So, I'm not saying that I   won't someday sign off on this $300,000 contract,  but I actually want to pick up on something that   Council Member Bon said because it echoes exactly  what I was typing separately in my notes at the   same time, which is that before we hire this quite  expensive firm to do a design plan for moving it,   I think there should be a council action to at  least have us consider all the possibilities   of what the future of the Red Oak Victory might  be. And so the three that I put in my notes is is   um doing a costbenefit analysis of leaving  it in place, moving it, and returning it to  

its owners. Um again, I know the last one is is  going to be the one that's most um provocative,   but I just want to point out that we don't own the  ship after 2027. We don't have an obligation to   um to birth it. And so I do think that just our  fiduciary responsibility for both the port and   the city is to look at what we gain and I and I  totally understand the historical significance of   it. Um that is that is a benefit for the city  but but it comes at a cost as well. And so I   would like us to sort of step back and I don't  know if that would be something that staff could   present us that sort of costbenefit analysis  of all options or I'd be I'd be up for hiring   a consultant for that. maybe not a $300,000,  hopefully like a $10,000 consultant to take a   look at that. Um, and the reason why is that the  sense that I get is that the cost of well, well,   number one, I just want to make I want this  body to make the right choice for the future   of the ship and for the community and and for the  country on this, but I think that means having all   the options on the table. Um, a question that I  have is, uh, in terms of the funding. So, you put,   I think it was on slide 13, you have a list of  potential funders, um, for, but I just to make I   think you sort of acknowledge this, these aren't  people who've expressed an interest in funding a   relocation project. Is just people we might ask.  Uh, we've had specific conversations with uh,   Congressman Gar Mendy. That's the only one. But,  but you're right. there. I think there would be   an initerative funding process and um it would be  up to the parties to explore those options. Okay.   Yeah. And and so and when you meet in the meetings  with GMI have numbers been discussed like has he   made a commitment up to $20 million for no Okay.  But but two to with his staff 2 to three million  

again as uh Mark emphasized he has a community  uh service earmarks um so there's some limitation   to that funding. Okay. So that's the sort of  information I want us to bring forward before   we make a decision about hiring a design process.  Like I would like to have a conversation where we   say here are the potential funders. You know  some of you know Gary Mendy has talked about 2   to3 million which is is not nothing but it doesn't  get us you know leaves a pretty big gap to a 16   to20 million project. And again if we absolutely  cannot find other sources to help us pay for that   then we as a group have to decide if the city's  going to close that gap. And that's that's a huge   commitment and I I'll just say that's some I'm  I'm pretty uncomfortable with that. Although I'm   I'm going to hear all arguments about whether  it's it's worth it in terms of an investment.   So again in the interest of being succinct. Um  the only other sort of issue I wanted to raise   so I do think this is premature. I would like us  to have a conversation first about considering all   options with a costbenefit analysis of each one.  Um, I am concerned that there's just not very many   organizations or individuals um, ready to fund us  at the level that we're going to need. And I don't   well I can't speak for the council, but it would  surprise me if we wanted to dip into general funds   for that. Third thing is um I I had mentioned  like this I discussed a little bit with the   city manager about the charitable contributions  part of it and I think uh both the city man I'm   sorry I had discussed with city attorney both  the city attorney and city manager have helped   me understand that the reason that the city gives  $143,000 and I know they don't hand the money over   but they we we cancel a debt of $143,000 which  is the same as handing the money over. The reason   that we do that is because as an enterprise fund  No, no, go ahead. Okay. As an enterprise fund,   we you can't don you can't pay that money because  you have the city attorney showed me very strict   rules like the city can spend money on historical  things of historical interest. The port can't. I  

mean, do you agree on that? Yes. Okay. So we I  mean maybe we we have admitted now and it's good   because this is our fiduciary responsibility that  we're underfunding this by 60 you're losing about   $67,000 a year on this deal. Like you you  are still based on our estimate. Yes. Yeah.   So I you know so we're not reimbursing you up to  market value. So, we are doing something I think   a little fishy here in that we're we're spending  money. We're allowing the port to spend port money   on something that is outside of what the port's  supposed to be doing with its money. So, again,   all part of the reason why I think we need to  put this back on the table because this would   still be in the port, right, if we moved it. Oh, I  I don't know if that's So, anyways, I I would like   to just have a broader conversation about options  before I'm ready to spend money on a design. So,   thank you. I understand your comments. Thanks.  Thank you, Council Member Robinson. Thank you uh   for your work on this. I know that we had a lot  of discussions over the last couple years about   about this potential move came up in a number  of different conversations and tours and other   things. Um it's not the first time we've heard  it in the last few years. Um I do have questions   and concerns like other like other other folks.  Um the first one is I actually wanted to ask a   question about one of the things uh one of the um  public comment commenters made that they felt that   the new proposed location would be more dangerous  because of title activity. Can you speak to that?   Uh I don't think it would be more more dangerous  because of title activity. We have other ships   that dock within the um within the channel. Um and  there's uh regular um uh and consistent traffic   coming in and out of the inner harbor channel  and the outer harbor channel. Um so I don't   uh I disagree with that comment. I think the  ship would be uh quite safe in that location.  

And another question that that came up in some  of the public comments that I have read was that   there was a belief that there's contamination  issues with either the proposed location or the   current location and that moving the vessel would  stir up contaminated sediment or something like   that and the EPA may may be able to get involved.  Is do you know anything about that? That's one of   the considerations that the consultant would  look into because related to the design is the   depth of the water and what what might be there.  So I apologize I forget I saw a question about   similar to that over the past month. Um and it's  something we could incorporate into the study.   Uh I don't know offhand of any contamination.  And I think the the comment or the request was   um uh you know please please look into this uh  this consideration. Do you know if that concerns   the existing location or I think it was the new  location. The new location and there's no to my   knowledge there's no contamination there but I  think uh archaeological or other considerations   um we could look into. Okay. And then I think I I  read in your presentation that a part of the RFP   would be to complete a 15% complete design. Is  that right? Or did I misunderstand? So So yeah.   So the the the consultant won't do a 100% design  of the warf. We'll go through some iterations,   design what uh uh determine what we believe would  be ideal and then they would progress that design   uh to 15%. That's basically like a schematic  design. Yeah, it's a preliminary design and   generally what we work with is a 15 or 20% design.  So if we want to pursue a grant for a project,   we generally need to have some uh some percentage  of the design complete. So the granting agency   knows and understands that um the estimates are  are accurate, right? And how probable is it to  

be able to pursue a grant successfully without  that 20 or 15% design? I wouldn't spend time on a   grant uh application if I didn't have that uh that  data available. Grants are just very competitive.   Um and you need to have some preliminary work  completed and and and in this case or this type of   project uh some level of design completed in order  to substantiate your grant application. Right. The   $300,000 as we've you've said it's coming from the  enterprise funds. It's not coming from the general   fund. I think we said it a few times. Um, if we  don't spend this money on this particular project,   are there other port projects that you would  spend that money on? Um, there's no shortage   of port projects as we presented in uh October  23rd with the facilities assessment. Um, and as   I alluded to before, there's uh certainly plenty  of of near-term projects and long-term planning   projects. So um you know our role is really  to manage that fund uh and invest um you know   intelligently and where we think uh the right uh  places to invest are uh some of that's driven by   um you know the infrastructure like the  immediate needs that's another project that   we're endeavoring uh on right now or some of  the immediate uh infrastructure needs. I mean,   I seem to remember that there were a few immediate  need items that came up when you did the Yes.   um port um facilities assessment. And do we have  enough money for all those immediate needs? We're   um we have an RFP out now um for the design  and construction of the critical warf repair.   Um we're also pursuing grant money in parallel. uh  if if necessary, if we're in an extreme situation,   we don't get the grant funding, um we do have  the um uh the funds in the enterprise fund to  

pay for that. Obviously, we we're going  to continue looking at how to offset that   uh that cost. And then my my final question  is, you know, we are in the process of doing   this port strategic plan and I do wonder where  does the Red Oak Victory and that Basin Basin 5,   right? Basin 5 um location fit into that strategic  plan. I I'm sure it's considered a part of it and   I wonder if this isn't something that we should  wait to finish the strategic plan and then have   it as an element of the strategic plan. Mhm.  But just a question. No, I understand the   question. I mean, we're operating um without  a detailed strategic plan. We're focused on   um several key objectives. So, you know, safety  and security is one. Um driving economic activity   within the port that that's related to this  specific topic. Um you know, understanding and   investing in the infrastructure that's required  uh and being a good community partner. So,   we don't want to stop all the initiatives and  activities until we have a detailed plan. Again,   the strategic plan is sort of a 20-year horizon  plan. Um, so I would characterize this um,   you know, this investment as something we could  do sooner. Um, and certainly there's a business   case for doing so based on freeing up the the  property on the port for other activity. So,   one last question. Sure. Um, can you remind me of  two things? the when do we expect the strategic   the port strategic plan to be completed and then  not remind me of this but let let me know what   the estimate would be you know if we move forward  with this particular project how long would that   take and then what what would be the estimated  amount of time that it would take to raise the   $20 million I'm just wondering how these  timelines are converging yeah I understand  

the question so you know we would give a year  for this plan once um if it's approved approve,   we would go through contract. Um we would give  the um probably plan 9 to 12 months to get this   uh design and cost estimate um completed. On the  strategic plan, we have the RFP out now to do the   economic impact study. That's generally a 2026  project and then a detailed strategic plan is   generally a 2027 project. Um so there there is  some overlap. Um, and then your last question   about how long would it take to raise the money.  Um, I I that will be a a multi-year endeavor. Um,   I expect to raise the money and to have a final  plan um for funding the move. Um, in parallel with   that, depending on u a a weighted estimate of that  activity and potential funding, some work could   start um as preliminary work. So, for example, the  permitting process itself uh to build a new warf   will probably take two two years or potentially  longer. So, the the move of the ship is going to   be a multi-year uh endeavor. Is there any downside  that you can see that you haven't already said to   wait until 2027 when we get the strategic plan to  move forward on on addressing the Red Oak victory   location? Uh the the the downside is would be my  personal perspective which is um um you know there   is interest from the um uh from our congressional  representative. We've discussed this amongst the   leadership of uh of the city and the port. It was  an outcome of the um the Bloomberg Harvard study.   Um so the downside is just um letting the current  situation stagnate uh for a couple years uh after  

some active work in the past two years. Uh time  seems to corrupt uh many initiatives. So again,   we want to kind of kickstart uh the next steps  of this process with the understanding that it's   going to be a long-term process. And then um we're  also eager to, you know, as the mayor might say,   revitalize the port uh generate more  activity um with marine operation activities   uh at the Port of Richmond, but without being  able to move that ship, it's still going to   take some time off no matter which way we go.  Right. That's correct. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, Council Member Sepeda.  Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Charles, thank you for   the presentation. A couple of questions. I just  want to make sure that I understand some other   stuff here, too. Uh, what is potentially going to  be built? The the warf, the new warf potentially,   who is going to own it? Is that the port? Is  that the ship? Is that who will own the new warf? Uh that's a good uh question. Uh council members  aa I don't have an answer to that immediately.   I think it would depend on um the model and  framework of how it's funded and who is funding   it. Um so that probably could play out in a couple  of different different ways. Thank you. And then   assuming regardless of who owns the new warf, uh,  will there be a lease to the city somehow because   they it would be using space that could be used  for something else. So I'm assuming there'll be   a lease. Yeah, there would need to be uh some um  shared benefit I believe across the organizations   and certainly they would be using um city-owned  land. the the Weeda parking lot to be clear is   not a portowned or port enterprise owned property  uh but it is a city-owned property. Um so those  

um those considerations would have to be uh  factored into the overall uh program. Thank   you. And then if the ship is moved, will there  still be a credit that's given as you currently   have that current uh agreement? I I I don't have  an answer to that. Um so that would be a question   um for city management uh to discuss. What I'm and  council as well obviously because how I'm seeing   it is I guess many years ago a council decided  to take the ship somewhere in our ports and   we've been m housing it somewhere. If we decide  not to house it, then they're going to either   have to move the ship somewhere else, uh, Alama or  another city or sell it. Uh, so we would be losing   that ship here. Uh, if we one of the the issues  that because I visited that ship many times. I I   visited every year for different events to have.  I'm not sure if my other colleagues have, but in   there talking to some of the volunteers and some  of the board members, one of the issues that was   brought up to me is where it currently is housed,  it cannot be turned on. Uh there's an agreement,   and Charles, correct me if I'm misspeaking here,  but there's a current agreement with the out of   warehousing that the ship is not allowed to be  turned on because of the SU it would release.   And the out of warehousing is afraid that that s  would go onto the cars and damage them. So the the   ship can't be a ship. They can't move it. They  can't turn it on. And some of the volunteers,  

from what I understand, uh go and volunteer  their time day in day out with the hope that   one day that ship can be turned back on again and  potentially give tours around the bay like some   of the other ships around or at least being able  to work towards something. Right? you're fixing   this machine, but it you're not allowed to turn  it on and really uh put it to its full potential   uh of what it could be today uh because of  that. Am I understanding that correctly there,   Charles? Yeah. So, so that's correct. Certainly,  there is um an interest by the participants and   the volunteers and Mark's group to operate the  ship. The ship's not ready for that today. Um,   and there's also an agreement that they cannot  operate the ship or start the um, steam engines   um, in the current location next to the auto  warehousing facility. So, in order to operate   the ship, they would have to be in a different  location. Thank you. And sorry that I have to ask   you because I can't see your face while I'm  on Zoom here. Um, but so, so thank you. So,   that kind of helps set a little bit of what is  going on with the with the ship. We could I know   there were were some talks earlier why don't we  just give the money and they can use it to fix the   ship but we might lose the volunteers because the  volunteers have been putting all this time they're   trying to get the ship to hopefully one day being  able to be turned back on again uh and hopefully   being able to use it around the bay and and really  bring it back to full life and not just have this   uh historic uh shift sitting there with no other  use. So, I think that's something that we want   to hear more uh from the volunteers and from  the from the uh museum. And the way that I see   it as well is if we create this new warf, it's  potentially a new asset to the city of Richmond.  

Uh we do want to figure out if there's going to be  a lease or not. And what is that going to do? Uh   are we still going to give that credit or not? I  would like those those to be answered uh just so   that we know if this does get moved. Uh and then  the the money I think that with the congressman   because I've also spoken with the congressman  and I think he he's very much uh enthusiastic in trying to find a a place for this ship. Um the  lease will end as you mentioned next year. So it   is going to be a question we're going to have to  take on. And we does the ship live there forever.   How long? Forever. Um does the the cost, right?  The the the warf only or or the port only has   so much debt that we're going to be a able to  get a credit for. Uh somewhere along the line,   we're going to have to uh start charging  someone or something. And whether it be the   port or or or the ship, right, Charles? Yeah.  So, let me just clarify a couple things. The   the current lease term ends in 2028. Um there's  an option for an additional 5-year term. Um the   uh my expectation is the port would probably not  get credit uh in the new location because it's not   a port property um today. And uh just to clarify,  in addition to the Red Oak offset, the port also   uh makes an annual payment against the debt.  So we are paying down that debt directly,   but we're also u benefiting from this  offset. Perfect. Thank you. No other   questions for now. Thank you. Thank you. Um,  as uh we can see, we have a lot of different   options. We have a lot of questions. Um,  but one thing we do know for sure is that   uh the Red Oak Victory Ship where it's at uh  will be costing the city even more because the  

uh the the rental of that property is is is  forever going up. And uh it's also keeping   us from doing improvements which would uh make  make the use of it even even more more expensive.   um in terms of um uh building or or even imagining  uh a new place for it to move. Um I think is is   uh investing in the port. Uh I I'd asked you  before, you know, if we built that uh that uh   birthing place um in the channel and the red oak  victory ship decided to go elsewhere, would we be   able to use use it for other purposes? And your  answer was uh my my answer was yes. It would be   we would be left with that asset um that we would  want to put to work. Um, so there's limited warf   space in Richmond and limited warf space in uh in  and around the Bay Area. So it's quite it's quite   valuable property. Um, I off the top of my head,  Mayor Martinez, I said it could be potentially a   ferry stop or a or an excursion vessel location  or a small cruise ship, something, you know,   we would certainly seek and I expect find uh you  utility from that from that warf, especially given   um that it has deeper water there and it would be  a new a new and sound facility. And once we moved   the red oak victory ship, we would be able to make  the improvements that are necessary in order to   make the graving docks uh more more economically  viable for the port. So the port will be able to   make more money. Is that not true? Uh that that  is true. Um I I look at that through the lens  

of the men the money that we can generate from the  basin and from the port in whole is what will help   subsidize the the long list of uh infrastructure  improvements that we need to make uh essentially   to concrete and steel and the wararfs themselves.  And this is a question to legal. If we decided to   give the money to the ship for improvements,  would that not be a uh public uh uh gift? Are you asking if we give money to the the owner  of the ship just to make public improvements to   the ship? Right. Yeah. I I mean just  without doing like more analysis here,   I think I would likely say that yes,  it would be a gift of public funds,   right? So then so then we we that  that would not be a a primary option. Okay. So, um, uh, I I I'd asked questions about, uh, about the  designation of, uh, Point Patrol being part of the   national park. Uh, it was under my impression that  it wasn't, uh, because it's a port. Mhm. So, so um   I didn't get an answer back, but I uh understand  that you got information today to to answer those   questions. Yes. The the and I and I apologize the  superintendent, our local superintendent of the   National Park Service is out sick last week and  this week. Um she shared some information. Um she   offered to um to kind of clean up the information.  I got sort of a data dump uh late this afternoon   just to give me an idea of what was there. uh  but through um me many resolutions dating back   to 1990s there is a partnership between the city  and the national park service in how um shipyard  

number three the historic site is treated um  and as we mentioned it's a partnership park   so national park service doesn't own but they have  some management responsibilities around the uh the   national historic site so uh the question would  be uh how much responsibility how much authority   And uh uh how much uh ability does the port have  to use it as a economic engine? Yes. And and and   and some of those detailed questions I would have  to defer to um more more research and homework as   well as Kayn Barry who's our our National Park uh  service superintendent. It seems like information   uh we would need in order to move forward. uh I I  I find it difficult to to uh move in a direction   with uh without uh adequate data to to make  our decisions. Um would it be possible to to   uh uh revisit this um uh after we uh examine  the uh information that that that we haven't   had a chance to look at? Uh certainly it would  be I mean we take direction from city council on   um on the expenditures and and on this  project of course. Yeah. Okay. Um, so,   uh, well, uh, I would I would make a motion  to, uh, uh, re rehear this issue and,   uh, how much time do you think it would take to  to make that evaluation to have that conversation?   uh and and the and the conversation would be a  presentation by National Park Service giving the   details of um their degree and involvement within  management of the park. Is that correct? And and  

and our capability of of revitalizing it and and  making it a going economic concern. Yeah. I mean,   I would I would I'm going to estimate  four to six weeks. I would want to give   uh the National Park Service notice and and  then we would also need to get this on an agenda   uh for future council meetings. So, well then  uh could we could we bring this back in in two   months? I I I make a motion to bring  this back in two months and stop that. Okay. Uh do I have a second? I second it. Okay.   So, we have a first and the  second. Council member Brown. I'm going to abstain. I I didn't hear you. I'm  sorry. I said I'm going to abstain. Okay. Sorry.   Council member Bana. Yes. Council member  Jimenez. No. Council member Wilson. Yes.   Vice Mayor Robinson? Yes. Council member Zapeda?  Yes. and Mayor Martinez. Yes. The motion passes   with council member Brown abstaining  and council member Himemenz voting no. Our next item is item 02. Okay. and that is to direct the city manager and  city attorney to report to the city council on   March 3rd of 2026 regarding the city's ongoing  and planned efforts related to federal civil   immigration enforcement actions including  ICE raids and to return within 45 days with   a proposed ICE free zone ordinance. The proposed  ordinance shall restrict use of the city-owned or   city control property, facilities, personnel,  and resources for federal civil immigration  

enforcement. Establish non-ooperation and  resource denial policies consistent with   applicable law and require the development  of a coordinated implementation strategy   including interdep departmental protocols,  staff's training and a community-f facing   preparedness and communications plan. We have 19  in-person speakers. If there's anyone joining us   online that would like to address the council on  this item, please raise your hand at this time. Sorry. How many people? 19. We have 19 in  person and then we right currently we   have eight online. Okay. Well, added  up that's 25. So, one minute each.   one minute. That that's only for open forum.  Um for agenda items, the majority of the   council would have to vote to um reduce it to two  below two minutes. Oh, okay. Well, then um can I can I present it or or you  want to do Well, no, it looks Well, you can make a motion. You can  make a motion. I would like to make   a motion that we limit um public  comments uh time limit one minute. Lack of a second u means the motion dies. Die for

Can I present the item? Yes. Thank you.  Uh KCRT, can you pull the presentation? Thank you. Um so this agenda proposal is to add  to what we already have um more um more policies   and procedures to make sure that our community  and particularly immigrant community is safe   and protected and feel that um the city is doing  what we can do and more to really make make people   welcome um be here. Um we I am going to present  a little bit and just kind of like give some   background on what we because we have a sanctuary  city policy. What is different and why we are   uh uh we are bringing this iOd. Um and what we  are going to do today is direct city staff and   city attorney to come up with um the ordinance  that works for the city of Richmond based on what   we already have. I wanted to start saying  that uh I wanted to start thanking Chief   uh Simmons, um uh Chessa Croll, our city manager,  um Shannon Moore, our city attorney, and um Chiron   or um director of human resources and other staff  that uh and the mayor uh office and the mayor for   meeting with me and with some of uh members of  the community and especially Maris Sulcan too  

from reimagining Richmond um that has done a lot  of um research about what this ordinance brings to   the community. Uh how many cities and other part  has done and why. Um we feel like the things that   are happening in Minnesota um we are no free or we  are no exempt to happen here. Hopefully they won't   uh but I think like it's upon of us to be  ready and the city to provide leadership   and provide information and to do what we need  to do to be prepared. So the please uh next. So I'm going to explain um the Richmond system  sanctuary ordinance um just highlight some key   difference in and the ordinance uh with  between the eyes free ordinance and the   uh sanctuary ordinance. The purpose of the IE  free son ordinance is to reinforce commitment   to protecting immigrant communities and civil  civil liberties. Clarify limits on the use   of city property and resources to federal civil  immigration enforcement. Prepare city departments,   community facilities and residents for  potential emergency scenarios including   immigration enforcement actions, protects  or national guard presence. Establish clear   communication protocols so resident receive timely  accur. Uh this proposal as I said builds on the  

best practice for other jurisdiction including  Richmond at 16th century city policy and measures   adopted in cities such as Chicago, Washington  DC and Minneapolis and others. Uh go next slide.   So uh as I said before why we are bringing  this right now um we had seen increased federal   immigration enforcement nationally um concerns  over use of local resources and city property and   need for clarity preparedness and communication.  Um so we are prepared and learning from what is   happening in other uh cities like Minneapolis.  Next one. Next please. So the sanctuary city   um what we have here which is a strong  it really limits the city and internal   um protocols that we have. So it limits the  cooperation with ICE. So I am proud to say that   uh there is an strong commitment uh from our  police department to not cooperate with ICE and   we have several instance where Chief Simmons uh  told us when they had denied that cooperation. Um   it really I I think like there there was a staff  really work really hard to create uh some city   um designated areas within the city buildings  um so we can protect our community. Um also uh   we had been uh giving information and the mayor uh  office had play an important role on um responding  

and communicating and this has been part of the  sanctuary ordinance. Um, next. Next, please. Yes, thank you. No, next.   So the ice free zone ordinance is also go beyond  what we have because what we have is also more   internal but it allows to designate city own and  control properties at ice free zones meaning that   um there is a a clear mandate that if ICE  is coming into the community they are not   authorized to use any city property or any city  um facility for staging or doing operations and   it really make it clear and reinforce reinforces  the non-ooperation and resources denial policies   like it's not only that our city staff or uh  doesn't cooperate but also really make sure that   we are not uh using resources um to support  immigration enforcement in our city. Next, so what I said in in that policy is that  also require that there is better signage   on city properties um reporting of attempted ICE  enforcement and staffing training and inter inter   departmental protocols. And this is one one of  the things that uh we were discussing in our   meeting uh with city staff and city attorney was  what we already have and there are some protocols  

that we want we have. So the idea of this is  how we strengthen these protocols in case of   um a a massive involvement of ICE and  the National Guard in our city and also   uh improve our communication with the community  because there is a lot of fear right now and   misinformation expressed so quickly. So we need  to really make sure that um we as a city are   taking a a leader role to communicate uh what  is happening in the community and make sure   that misinformation don't is doesn't spread as  it has been next. So also again as I said before   it's not only mandates to no cooperation with us  or ice free zones but um just a a plan for how   uh we are going to respond in case of uh big  protest because people here are seeing that ICE is   a massive rates. hopefully not but just prepared  and also clear about what is the role of our   uh police force because uh and I and I am proud to  say that or chief Simmons um told us that for them   is the most important thing is the safety of our  residents and the safety of our community. So in   that sense we we want to have some protocols  about how that interaction will come next and yes next please. I think like  I talk. So the key difference with  

um the sanctuary policies is that like and and  I think like I will summarize uh it limits like   We have an or sanctuary city restrict city  cooperation with ICE and the sanctuary city   ordinance is clearly is say yes and the ice  free ordinance also will be um reinforce that   uh limits use of local funds personal enforcement  and or sanctuary city say yes and will be   reinforced by the ice free ordinance limits  information sharing and detainer compliance in   the sanctuary city. Yes. Uh we do that and the ICE  ordinance will also reinforce that. The difference   here is we will designate city properties as  of limit for federal enforcement which in the   sanctuary city is not explicit and in the ice  free ordinance will be explicit and it will be   uh functional ice like we will have functional  ice free zones. Estab establishes signs reporting   protocol preparedness plan and communication  system which is not included in the in the   sanctuary city ordinance that we have and it will  be included in the ice uh free zone ordinance   and the la lastly is community resilience and  emergency planning components. Um this is not   part of the city ordinance and it will be part of  the ice free zone proposal. Um can we go to the  

other next? Um so this is what I I just already um  present. So for for us the idea of bringing this   is we had seen what is happening and we want to  be prepared and we want to be prepared and this is   providing a clear um set of proposal procedures.  So we we are all together knowing how the city   is going to um responds. Um many other cities  had been implementing that uh next split. Um, next so many other cities has like cities including  Pino now counties like Santa Clara and Alamida   nearby had been doing that and I think is is up  is kind of like long time coming for us to do it.   Um, I am proud to be here to tell the community  that the city of Richmond has been standing with   the immunan community supporting them. Like we  immediately in the first administration of Trump,   we look at the sanctuary policy and we were able  to strengthen that. We put at allocated $1 million   to support our immigrant community with legal aid  and not your rights. And now this is another step   uh towards uh making sure that we are doing  what we need to do to protect our community  

and particularly our immigrant community that is  under threat um in these moments. And I I I want   to ask to do more that we can do. Um so the as I  said before this um this iron is to first one part   of that is to have city stat to come back in March  to present what we already had because there is   already a lot of things that we have in in place  that maybe the community doesn't know. So we have   I had the opportunity with uh Chief Simmons to  revise the the policies that the RPD has around   non-cooperation and they are really strong and  clear. So that is is is one good thing and there   is has been a lot of other things that uh CDS  Esta has done in in order to support and provide   um safety in our community. And then the other  part is to direct city attorney with city stat to   work in this ordinance that include like look  at what we already have and then bring back   um an ordinance that fill the gaps in what  we need to do to protect our community. Um   I stop there. Do you want to sorry Doria is  the co-sponsor so I would like to give her   I don't think I need to belabor the point.  I think that we've been seeing in around the   nation what's happening um in different cities  um from Minneapolis to Chicago to LA. Um and   if we don't have some kind of planning um we  can find ourselves in a really in a really  

difficult situation. And I think that we should  also consider um you know in light of the the   murders of um Renee and um I'm I'm totally Alex.  Yeah. That that we should also consider, you know,   what we do and if if federal agencies are lawless,  you know, what can we do? Um, I think that that   Minnesota is really facing that right now, like  how do they how do they maintain rule of law   when the federal government is lawless? Um, and  like for this exploration to also look into that,   you know, what is it? Do do we what what  can we do if such things happen here? Um,   it this has been really concerning for me. I think  it's our our civic duty to um to be prepared and   to think about it ahead of time. Even if it never  happens, at least we have a plan so if it if it if   it does happen, we we know what to do and we can  limit um or reduce chaos and we can keep people   safe. Thanks. Let's go to public speakers. Okay,  our first 10 public speakers in person. As I call   your name, please come forward. Line up behind the  speakers podium. Jessica Karate, Turner Abbott,   Mark Wasber, Lorraine Reza, Carolina Avalar,  Kathleen Marte, Sam Clearary, Chris Taft,   Helen Hagerson, and Andrew Melendez. Please come  forward. Jessica Karate, you'll have two minutes.   Hi, I'm a Richmond resident. My name is  Jessica Karate and please pull the mic down.

Hello. That is correct. Okay. Hi. Uh, I'll be  brief. Um, I support a strong loophole free   icef free zone ordinance and citywide protocol  and I thank you all for your presentation and   I see this as a model for a contraosta at the  county level. Um, and also just to note, given the   seemingly imminent opening of a cop city bay area  in neighboring San Pablo, uh, which is valued at   2/3 their annual budget approximately, um, this is  more important than ever as, uh, general potential   police collaboration with ICE is, uh, on the  table. Uh, that is all. Thank you, Tarno Abbott. Good evening, uh, Tarnel Abbott, uh, Richmond  resident. Thank you so much for taking this   into consideration. Good and pretty woke us up. We  are all targets and it's a way of doing collective   punishment that is shared with many people in our  community and of course in the world. In addition   to those who were murdered just the other day  in in Minneapolis there, some of the many people   who have died in DHS ICE custody include Heraldo  Lunas Compos, Victor Manuel Diaz, Parody Law, Luis   Beltran, Yaz Cruz, Hebear Sanchez Dominguez, Luis  Nunes Casera, Nen Costanv, Jean Wilson, Brutus   Fu seed Abdul Kadir Dewin Frisco Hernandez Shiraz  Fatal Sachani Pete Somalo Montejo Francisco Gaspar  

Andres Kai Yen Wong Gabrielle Garcia Ves Hassan  Ali Moad Salet Miguel Angelo Garcia Hernandez   Huabing Z Norland Guzman Fuentes Ismael Oribe  Oscar Darte Rasone Lorenzo Bres Vargas Chofang Xi   and Ten Jan Fan I don't know if I pronounced those  names correctly but just to acknowledge it isn't   just two people dead it this is just a little tiny  bit of the list so we have got to re these people   in who are terrorizing our communities and thank  you for being part of that effort Mark Wasber, you have no plan. What powers do you have to  stop the federal government, ICE, or the United   States Army? It's all a bunch of lie after lie  after lie. If they came in this room right now,   there's nothing you could do, nothing the Richmond  P can do. They'll just take them away. They came   in here a couple months ago. I didn't hear  you say anything. I didn't see the Richmond PD   uh try to arrest these people. Are you going to uh  have these uh free zones guarded by the Richmond   PD to stop ICE from coming down here and arresting  these criminals? Are you all a bunch of pack of   lies? You know it. These people are they they  come here. They don't know what they're talking   about. They're over there supporting people being  criminals. Illegal immigrants are criminals. They   could they're a felons. Why you think Trump's  cleaning house? And you people had the nerve to   tell these people that you're going to stop the  federal government, the most powerful army in the   world, that you gave these people promises that  they're not going to be arrested. You got your  

own stupid police chief. He's over there saying,  "We support sanctuary cities." And he's a law   man. Now you got police chiefs going after police  chiefs. One police chief's criticizing ICE, the   federal government. The other one's praising him.  She's over there calling the federal government   lawlessness. I'd like to know what constitutional  oath you took, lady. Huh? Are you really that dumb   calling the federal government criminals  because they're enforcing federal law? You   have no business being in our government if you're  out there supporting criminals. You took the note   to the Constitution. So why don't you tell the  people how you going to enforce these free zones?   All you doing just blabbing a bunch of nonsense  out of your mouths? Won't you just tell them the   truth? How you going to stop ICE and the National  Guard from coming in here? What about it, Chief?   Are you going to stop the National Guard? Are  you going to stop ICE? Won't you tell me that you   support Sanctuary Cities? What time? I'd like to  know what law school you went to. Lorraine Reza. Lorraine Reza. Hi, I'm Lorraine Resa, D6 resident and part of  Reimagine Richmond. I urge every one of you to   please move this ICEF free zone ordinance forward  and return it as a um as soon as possible. One of   the main things I do in my off time is to support  our immigrant neighbors by helping them learn   their rights, connecting them to crucial resources  and services, and ensuring they feel welcomed and   as safe as possible in our city. But that does  not compare to the level of safety they'd feel   if our city put in place a concrete, explicit  city-wide plan that keeps ICE and other federal   officials acting as immigration agents off of our  city property. Instead, that city property can be  

used to provide safe havens for our residents who  are terrified and living with undue stress. While   I'm so proud of our strengthened sanctuary city  ordinance that limits cooperation between our   city agencies and ICE, as well as protects  confidentiality about immigration status,   it's not enough. The additional ICE-free zones  are critical to ensure we were prepared and   protected against the unnatural disaster of ICE.  consider all the safe location, safety protocols,   and resources available to our community if we  were to have another disastrous earthquake or   wildfire. We never debate whether or not we should  prep for these types of disasters in advance. So,   it's important that we put similar measures  in place to protect each other before any   potential threat hits our streets like we've  seen done in other cities such as Minneapolis,   places where the federal government is using  fascist white supremacist tacti tactics to   violently terrorize all communities,  both our citizens and non-citizens. We have a little bit of time to prepare in  advance. So, please take advantage to enact a   citywide um plan that will include all facets such  as schools, churches, and hospitals. We have the   chance to come together as a broadman community  if you move this ordinance forward so we can take   care of each other. Please show us again how much  you care for us, your residents. Carolina Avalar. Good evening. My name is Karolina and I'm a  Richmond resident from District 6. As I'm sure   we have all seen in the news, cities across  the country are under increasing threat of   violence by the lawlessness um of the actions  of federal agents. And it is no stretch of the   imagination to think that Richmond could face a  similar threat and we should be prepared. In my   work as a civil engineer in training, I've helped  prepare emergency action plans in cases of natural  

disasters. Recognizing the potential and real  threats to our communities, local governments   do not wait until the emergency has occurred to  develop a plan to protect the communities they   serve. The threat posed by ICE is no different.  ICE and federal agents flooding our cities to   terrorize residents are an unnatural disaster  and leave real destructive impacts in their wake.   Families are separated, communities lose valued  members, and as we have seen in Minneapolis,   it has even led to the loss of life. I know this  is not a future we want for our city. All of us   here want the residents of our city to lead their  lives with dignity. We want to raise families,   start small businesses, and contribute to this  great city. As of today, we have the luxury of   time and the ability to follow by example to  strengthen our city's sanctuary city ordinance   and develop an emergency action plan for our  city. I urge the city council to move item 0.2   0.2 forward and take these necessary steps to keep  our community safe. Thank you, Kathleen Marte. Good evening, Mayor Martinez and city  council members. My name is Kathleen   Marte. I am a Richmond resident and a member  of Richmond Indivisible. Uh we are a grassroots   uh volunteer organization. Many are um  listening from home as well. And we want to   urge the council to don't delay move forward  with this. I know you have a lot on your plate.   We appreciate that you are considering this  proposal, but it is of absolute urgency and   um the free uh zones as I thank you for the  presentation. I'm glad to hear that there's   going to be a lot of policies put in place.  It's going to take a lot of collaboration. So,   it has to be a very high priority because lives  are at stake. families are and we value and we  

love our immigrant community and people of all  uh status are being affected and hurt by ICE.   It's a lawless rogue masked agency that cannot be  tolerated by our city. Uh Richmond residents do   not want this. And I'm very pleased to hear that  Timothy uh our new police chief Timothy Simmons   says that uh resident safety is going to be an  absolute priority. And we're wondering well what   does that mean when there's an ICE incident  activity? Will the police come to protect   um the residents? Thank you so much.  Are you kidding? Sam Clearary. No ice slam clear. Good evening. Uh my name is Sam Clear  and I'm the organizing chair and secretary with   United Teachers of Richmond. I support this  item and urge you to move the ICE free zone   ordinance forward. We need to ensure that  all of our students and their families can   go to school without fear. Students deserve  to feel safe and valued. Their attendance is   also crucial for their futures in learning.  Teachers also need to feel supported when   protecting their students. As a city and  advocates of our families and education,   we must make the right choice and stand with  our immigrant families. Thank you. Chris Taff. Hello, I'm Chris Taff. I'm a career preschool  teacher. I live in Richmond D district 7. I   belong to showing up for racial justice and  I want to thank you mayor and council for  

this chance to be heard. I urge you to move the  ICE free zone ordinance forward. Uh as a career   preschool teacher, I look around the country and  see what's being done to families. I fear for our   preschoolers, for all young people, and for their  families. ICE has been as has been mentioned is a   lawless militia seizing noncriminal parents  and children and separating them. This can   happen here. Um but we must not allow it to  happen to to the extent possible. Um like you,   I want city resources to serve the residents, not  to pave the way for terror, family separation,   ethnic cleansing, even torture. Uh, I urge  you, Trump has sent his thugs to progressive   cities. As a progressive city, a bellweather  city, we must prepare ahead of time. Please   pass and implement this ordinance. And  thank you for your time. Helen Hagerson. Good evening. My name is Helen. I'm  a member of Reimagine Richmond and   I'm here to express my support for an  icefree zone ordinance in Richmond.   I want to express my gratitude to you all  for passing the sanctuary city ordinance,   but we need more to keep our residents safe. You  all, the city council, the residents of this city   have worked so hard to make and maintain a city  to be proud of. We are all here because we love   our home. Keeping ICE out of our city-owned  and city-crolled spaces is an important step   in protecting it. We've all been watching  the news. ICE has been spreading violence   and terror across the country and it continues  to escalate. Now is the time to take action,   not when ICE is at the door on mass. We need to  give ourselves the needed time to research and  

develop a comprehensive and intentional ordinance  that is proactive, not reactive. Thank you. Our our next speaker is Andrew Melendez.  And will the following individuals please   come forward line up behind the speaker podium?  Melvin Willis, Alejandro Belagas, Sonia Decker,   Christian Jocelyn, Iette Blandon, Pedro Ruiz,  Cordell Hendler, Raquel Anton, Antelin, and Rob   Lipton, Andrew. Great. Thank you so much. Uh, good  evening, mayor and city council. Uh, my name is   Andrew Melendez. I'm a lifelong Richmond resident  and proud member of Reimagine Richmond as well.   Um, I'm speaking tonight in strong support of this  item to create ICE-Free zones and strengthen our   current sanctuary ordinance. Um, as a movement,  Reimagine Richmond has been engaging so much in   the community doing know your rights trainings,  um, connecting with Richmond immigrant families   and youth and connecting with business owners as  well across the city. And we've heard the same   thing time and time again, which is that there  continues to be so much panic in the community   right now. Right now is a time for our city to  step up and ensure that Richmond stands with their   immigrants. And we can do this by passing this  item and establishing non-ooperation policies and   ensuring a clear form of communication with our  community. What this agenda item represents is a   strengthening of the existing protections through  our sanctuary ordinance by providing signage,   creating reporting protocols, staff training, and  and ultimately ensuring that the city is preparing   for ICE activity in the future. We're so grateful  that right now we have time, right? We have time   right now to shape a strong policy enrichment.  And we have time to create the proper forms of   implementation before any mass ICE were to arrive.  So, I'm so grateful to this council for voting in   favor of this uh sanctuary city policy last year.  And I hope that we will continue to stand for  

justice and stand up against ICE. Our Richmond  community deserves to feel safe and protected.   And with your vote, we can do just that tonight.  Thank you so much for your time. Melvin Willis. Good evening, mayor, members of the Richmond  City Council. Melvin Willis here with ACE and   the Richmond Progressive Alliance. Thank you  for considering this item. I know last year   when ICE rates started to ramp up a lot, it did  become a good big question even with Contraosta   County. What's going to happen if ICE comes?  are we calling our law enforcement on them if   they're violating people's constitutional and  civil rights? And it was a question people were   grappling with in the middle of the meeting and  having a plan and procedures in place. Also making   sure that the city owned properties are definitely  ICE free and aren't prohibited from allowing any   op operations from happening would be extremely  important because community members start to get   concerned whenever there's even suspicion of  ICE activity coming to the community. We're   all trying to do a emergency preparedness plan.  Some community members are doing rapid response.   other community members are coming up with a  plan to protect themselves and their family.   Even for our ACE members, it's some a lot of them  are doing what they can to show up and represent   the issues that they're most passionate about,  but it is a riskreward uh type of situation that   they have to go through constantly. We are not  in normal times. People are freaked out and they   don't want their day-to-day lives to be disrupted  by monsters who are taking an oath and violating   the community they live in and communities that  they're operating in with a racial prejudice lens   and no regard for the devastation that they're  actually causing. That's the institution we're  

dealing with and institutions like that need  to be condemned and not cooperated with. So,   please pass this direction and let's get  something back as soon as possible so we   can continue to make sure our communities are safe  and join other places like Alama County who just   passed something similar just last week. Thank  you so much for your time, Alejandro Balagas. Hi, my name is You don't have to  translate. It's being translated. Also reserve user. paralle the immigrant.

I feel empowered. I feel empowered. Understood. Our next speaker is Sonia Decker. Um, hello council members. Um, my name is Sonia  and I'm a Richmond resident in district 6 and I'm   with Reimagine Richmond and I want to express my  strong support for the ICFree zone ordinance. Um,   this is vital as has been spoken to. There's so  much fear in in the immigrant community right   now. Um I'm I work as a therapist and also um in  community based rapid response and I've heard from   so many people and sat with so many people who are  parents who are afraid to take their kid to school   or afraid to go out and grocery shop. And this um  ordinance would go a long way in alleviating that   fear and sending a clear signal to the immigrant  community that it is as safe as possible for them   to go out and that the city cares about them.  And this council has already put in place um so   many beautiful things that value its residents  and this is a vital next step. And this is a   huge part even if there are no ICE raids here,  which hopefully there will not be mass raids,   but it's vital to be prepared and we have the  time now to slow down and make a clear plan that   brings together our community. And we're all  impacted in different ways if National Guard   and ICE comes here. And even if ICE never comes  here, what is here now and is very real and is a   very real part of the trauma being inflicted on  immigrant communities right now is the fear. And   so this ordinance will go a long way to reduce  the fear and strengthen well-being here and now   regardless of what happens. So this is vital and I  want to express my support. Thank you. Christian.

Um good evening city council members. My name  is Christian. I am a member um of uh reimagine   Richmond. I live in the district two uh that is  represented by Cesar Seepeda. Um I support this   item and urge you to move uh the ICE free zone  ordinance forward. I am a volunteer soccer coach   here in Richmond and I work with sock without  border which is a nonprofit organization in   Oakland and uses soccer for positive change  for children that are recent immigrants,   asylum seekers and refugees. While coaching,  I have had conversations with our participants   on how scared their families are with what is  happening nationwide, the ice rates. I hope   that Richmond steps up for the immigrant community  um to have ice free zones since it's a city with   residents of all backgrounds. Um we have also  seen similar ordinance such as Santa Clara and   Alamita adopting ice free zones. Um, I also would  like to urge you as a city council members to have   an emergency preparedness plan for the city  of Richmond to be proactive. The preparedness   plan should include multi- um lingual alerts,  emergency shelters, clinics, and coordinate   with trusted local organizations. Thank you for  your time and it's an honor to be a part of such   an amazing city such as Richmond that stands for  pride and purpose. Jocelyn is our next speaker. Uh, good evening. My name is Jocelyn and I  am a Richmond community member and I live in   district 2 represented by Cesar Seeda. Um, and I  am also a member of Reimagine Richmond and part   of community rapid response program. Um, and  I'm here tonight to voice my support for the  

ICE free zone ordinance. Um, I'm so part proud  of our city. Um, and the fact that it upholds   a sanctuary city ordinance, demonstrating to our  immigrant community that they belong and that we   want them to trust our city. And I think that this  ICE-free zone ordinance would further extend this   trust by clearly sending a message that our city's  resources exist to serve our community members and   not to be used to instill fear. Um, additionally,  this ordinance should include emergency   preparedness protocols as we have all echoed  and said many times that national events have   showed us that we need to be prepared. Um, from  a personal experience, I was born and raised in   Los Angeles and my parents still live in LA in a  very predominantly immigrant community. And so, I   was able to experience in firsthand the occupation  of the National Guard this summer when I went and   visited them. And it was so heartbreaking to go to  your local grocery store which is always full and   you're always fighting for parking to be empty.  The streets are empty full of soldiers. It felt   dystopian in nature and I would hate to see this  replicated in such a wonderful city like Richmond.   We have the privilege and the responsibility  to begin to develop protocols to respond to   an emergency. And these protocols should be  intentional in building and sustaining community   power and identifying and amplifying the voices of  people that might be especially vulnerable in set   emergency. So I please urge you to support  this ICE-free zone so that we can continue   to say that we at the very least uphold human  dignity in Richmond. Thank you. I bet Blendon Blendon.

No, no. Pedro Ruiz. Good afternoon, city council. Uh my name is  Pedro Duis. I am here in behalf of RPA and   Reimagine Richmond. And in the midst of this  reign of terror, um cities like our city or   sanctuary city stand most vulnerable, especially  when there's uncertainty whether the ICE agents   are going to continue their atrocities here in  the Bay Area. And I know there are plenty of   rumors that I've heard about on social media that  have surfaced. um detections of alleged ICE agents   raiding homes here in our city and which have been  proven to be false of course but this is how this   is how they operate. They operate by instilling  fear into our community. They operate by the   uncertainty the the unpredictability of whether  they might commit their atrocities here. Um I would also like to say that through this  ordinance, I I strongly support this ordinance  

and I push and I urge the city council to push  this forward. And not only does this safeguard   our community from the atrocities that ICE  is currently committing, but it also builds   resilience and community among business owners  and uh residents alike. And on that note, again,   I'd like to push the city council to push this  ordinance forward. Thank you, Cordial Handler. Yeah. So, good evening, Mayor  Martinez Council. For the record,   Cordell Hendler is in support of this ice  ice free zone ordinance. So, I want to thank   the sponsors for this item and everything has  pretty much been said. So ice should not be,   and I repeat, should not be allowed in Richmond or  any city in this county. Not at all. The community   is at the community at large is in support  of this item. So all I have to say is that   just go ahead approve this item and have it come  back for next month. So Raquel, it's all yours. Raquel in Hello. Good evening, uh, mayor and council  members. My name is Raquel Antelin,   and I'm here tonight as a Richmond resident, but  as someone who is deeply heartbroken, demoralized,   and honestly disgusted by what we are witnessing  across this country. The actions of immigration   customs are not distant headlines. They're  real. They're violent. And they are tearing   families apart. Often without warning, without  dignity, without humanity. Some people say,   "Well, it hasn't happened here yet." But I want  to be very clear. Just because they haven't came  

here yet does not mean that they're not planning  to. And I am here tonight because while Richmond   is officially a sanctuary city, I am deeply  concerned that sanctuary without enforcement is   not enough. Being a sanctuary city must mean more  than a title. It must mean clear policies, active   enforcement, and real consequences. When those  policies are violated, our community needs to know   without doubt that Richmond will not cooperate  with ICE. They will not share data. They will   not use local resources to assist assist federal  immigration enforcement. That is why I urge you,   this city council, to move the ICE-free zone  ordinance forward without any delay. Icefree zone   are not symbolic. They are practical protections.  They create clear boundaries that safeguard our   schools, our buildings, our libraries, and other  essential places where families should feel safe,   not hunted. Delaying this ordinance should not be  a choice because it leaves too much room for fear   and confusion. It must also mean training.  Training for city, staff, law enforcement,   schools, and everyone knows exactly what to  do when ICE appears. Confusion creates fear   and and fear creates harm. Lastly, I want  to be clear about this. This is not only an   immigrant issue. We are living in a time where  US citizenship is no longer guaranteed safety   or protection. We are watching rights erode in  real time. When we allow systems of surveillance   to of enforcement to expand unchecked, everyone  becomes vulnerable. Richmond has always been a   city that leaves with courage and community.  Our diversity is not our weakness. It is our   strength. So our leadership requires action. So  tonight I thank you to move forward with the ice. Thank you. Our last inerson speaker is Rob Lipton. You have to turn the mic on, Rob. Rob, turn the  mic back on, please. On. On. It's on. Sorry, I'm  

tall. Thank you council mayor for the opportunity  to push as hard as possible for the ICE-free zone.   It's a minimal we can do. It's not an assurance  of anything except our own organizational ability   to talk to each other to reach out to other  communities in the region and try and support   each other in that respect and activate all  the different aspects of any particular city.   Uh, one interesting thing that isn't really  out in the news is the deportations under Trump   aren't much higher than they were under Biden. I  want to be clear on that. There's something else   going on here. This is equivalent to the German  SA, the brown shirts, the paramilitary thugs   that terrorized Germany before World War II in the  1930s. That's the purpose of these raids. They're   going to be coming hard at any place they think  will get the most traction and they'll come for   anyone. And that's what So, it's hard to know  how we're going to respond because of all the   national, state, and local issues associated with  um different kinds of policing, different kinds of   emergency ordinance and all that. But at the very  least, we have to start organizing here. Uh I'm   Rob Lipton. I'm District 2, helped start Jewish  voice for peace, former poet, lawyer laurate here,   very proud resident of this wonderful city and I  really appreciate what we're doing here. Again,   this is a minimal level. This is the least  we can do and we're going to have to work on   it because they're coming. It's that time in  history, unfortunately. Thank you. That was   our last in-person speaker. Now we'll move to  the online speakers. We have 12 speakers and  

the speakers are Jane Karant, John Evans, Rocky  Chow, Cat, Annie Anne Norton, Douglas Spalding,   Amber Hatfield, Noen, Marisol, Vanessa Thiel, and  Sabrina. Please be prepared to unmute yourself   when your name is called, and you will have up to  two minutes to speak. Jane Carrant, you may begin. Hello, I'm Jane Kurrant from district five and  I am very proud as others have said to be a   member of the Richmond community. Uh, anything I  could say here would repeat what has been said so   beautifully by so many. And I just want to urge  you to pass this ordinance and to bring it back   as quickly as possible. So as others have said,  we are prepared. This is a very frightening time.   It is reminiscent, as uh Rob Lipton mentioned  just moments ago, of a time in a history that's   not that long ago when people were in  the streets attacking others needlessly,   violently, and spreading fear. I uh swim at  the Richmond Swim Center and there had been   rumors about ice being in the parking lot.  Uh it was unclear if everybody on the staff   um knew what would h what to do should um somebody  come to the door. And I think I'm really looking   forward to seeing postings on all city property  um that will say ice does not belong here. ICE  

is not welcome here. And I again appreciate  the sponsors. Thank you Claudia and thank you   Doria for bringing this forward. Thank you. The  next speaker is John Evans. John, you may begin. Good evening, council members. My name is John  Evans and I'm a school librarian at a middle   school in West Contraosta Unified School District.  As a community school, one of our goals is to be   responsive to the needs of our students and  our community. And in service of that goal,   last year, one of our teachers issued a survey to  his students asking what they felt they needed in   order to be supported. One of the top answers was  not more tutoring or more after school classes.   It was more red cards. These are the know your  rights cards that they can hand to ICE agents   in case they're accosted. I hope the message  to you there is clear. My students are scared.   Their families are scared. And because  they belong to the community you serve,   that means your people are scared. Today, I want  to strongly urge you to support this measure. Tell   the people you serve that you support them and  that they are safe in their community and that   they don't need to be scared anymore. I'll never  forget attending a Fourth of July celebration in   my community a few years ago. The final speaker  of the night was the mayor and just before the   fireworks went off, he looked out at the crowd  and he said, "Look at you. You are America.   Please tell my students, their families, and your  people that you believe the same and vote yes on   this measure today. Thank you. Thank you. And our  next speaker is Rocky Chow. Rocky, you may begin. Hello and thank you. Hi. Uh good evening, uh  council members. My name is Rocky Sha with  

the East Bay Democratic Socialist of America and  I'm a Richmond resident in district 2 represented   by Cesar Sepa. Uh thank you city council for  bringing this item to discussion and council   member Amen for presenting. Um I support this  item. The people in Richmond and everywhere in the   United States are scared because they don't know  if they'll see their families again as ICE under   the Trump authoritarian regime are kidnapping  citizens left and right. And quite frankly,   uh, everyone deserves to live, uh, in safety and  in dignity. And the people here, uh, have made   pretty clear that and nationwide that ICE aren't  welcome, uh, in their cities and towns. and by   passing his ordinance sent a clear message that  our priority is to provide life affirming services   to our residents and not collaborating with a  violent agency like ICE uh which instills fear in   civilians. Uh again, I urge you to move uh the ICE  free zone ordinance uh forward and hope you do the   right thing and uh stand with your constituents  as you always have. Thank you and I yield my time.   Thank you. The next speaker is Cat. And may you uh  can you please state your full name for the record   and you may begin. Good evening, city council. My  name is Katherine Lee and I'm a youth organizer   at AsianPacific Environmental Network. I grew up  in Richmond. I currently live in District 3 and I   come from a family of Myan refugees who immigrated  here from Laos to escape the secret war. Many of   us have been watching with fear and heartbreak  as we turn on the news every day and see the next   headline about ICE raids. Hearing about children  getting targeted and people getting taken from   their front lawns and workplaces. And in the back  of our minds, we're all wondering when will ICE   raids happen to us here in Richmond. Fortunately,  Richmond is a city of fighters. Our communities  

have already been preparing and organizing, and  getting clear direction from the city can make us   even stronger. Right now, we have the opportunity  to get ahead of this and to be prepared rather   than reactive. As a city, we need to continue  developing plans that protect one another.   Richmond has been put on the map as a city of  solidarity, and we can continue to show that   local government exists to protect its community  members. I appreciate that this proposal addresses   real community needs, including emergency shelters  and multilingual alerts, and that it also calls   for establishing clear signs and reporting  protocols. Residents of all backgrounds deserve   to feel safe when accessing emergency services  and protecting their families. I support this item   and urge city council to move the ICE-free zone  ordinance forward. Thank you. Thank you. Our next   speaker is Annie and Annie, can you please state  your full name for the record and you may begin? Hello. Um, my name is Annie Panel and I'm a  proud resident of Richmond and I'm speaking   tonight in strong support of the ICE Free Zone  Ordinance. The situation in the country is getting   increasingly scary and the city really needs  to do everything possible to prepare for any   possible encounters with federal agencies that  in many cases we see are no longer following   the law. And this ordinance is so important  for our im immigrant residents who we must   continue to protect. And it's also important  for um citizen residents and for city staff.   We all have to be prepared. Um, there was a  really powerful episode of the radio show,   This American Life that aired over the weekend  and they played recordings of 911 phone calls   from Minneapolis with many different types of  people and it really highlighted what it's been   like on the ground there and what a difficult  job it is for the first responders as well,   not being able to help like they normally can  when people call and how terrifying it is as a  

civilian who's living in an American city that's  under siege by its own government. So that really   drove home for me how necessary it is for our  city to be as prepared as we possibly can for   an attack like this. So um thank you for bringing  this here today and thank you for supporting the   people of Richmond. Thank you. Our next speaker  is Ann Norton. Ann Norton, you may begin. And Norton, please unmute yourself. Okay, we will come back to an um the next  speaker is Douglas Spalding. You may begin. Thank you, council. Uh good evening,  Richmond. Uh while I have many friends,   good friends that live in Richmond and I've I've  always been a fan of the city. I I'm a resident   of the wider East Bay and and I and I reveal that  for this reason. uh you know we outside Richmond   look to your historically progressive city to  lead the way. I mean after all it was more than   40 years ago that you were among the first uh  cities to establish a civilian police review   board. Um the question is not if and not when I is  coming to town. they're they're already here. And   um and in this time of fascism, it's necessary  to build a mighty wall of resistance. Person by   person, school by school, business by business,  corner by corner, neighborhood by neighborhood,   municipality by municipality, county by  county, state by state. You get the idea.   Um, this measure sets an important tone as well  as establishing legal and material frameworks for   uh for us to be able to push back against the  Department of Homeland Services. And I say that   because I I don't understand whether the measure  is just ICE free or whether it stipulates that  

it includes the Border Patrol, the FBI, and all  the other federalities that are being drawn into   this so-called Immigration um enforcement act.  I don't know how much. Oh, there we go. I got   39 seconds left. Um, so I wanted to double back  and and touch on uh uh one of the public earlier   public comments about about the flock cameras.  I'm thankful that the um the chief uh you know   turned them off. Um I don't understand the in  if the city of Richmond has taken a stance,   but I think that would be an important thing  for the council to do as well. Uh Flock is a bad   actor and has been noted in in other debates over  this. You know, there are other vendors out there.   uh they don't deserve our business and um you  know this whole surveillance state thing I think   is really among the most frightening elements  of what's going down. Thank you for the time.   Thank you. We'll try Ann Norton again. Ann, you  may begin. Oh yeah. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes.   Hi. Good evening. My name is an I live here in  Richmond District 6 and I'm here to express my   full support of Richmond's ICE-free zone ordinance  and citywide protocol. Recent ICE operations have   exposed the life-threatening danger dangers of  giving them unfettered access to our communities.   ICE is the highest funded law enforcement agency  in the country and Richmond should not be putting   its resources towards doing its bidding. We are a  proud community of immigrants and our loved ones   who make this city what it is deserve protection  and support. By establishing ICE-free zones,   we can send a clear message that we will not allow  our people to be targeted and terrorized by the   White House. From Los Angeles to Minneapolis,  we have seen what this agency is capable of   doing. Our residents are fearful. We've watched  armed gangs racially profile people as they go  

about their daily lives, abduct them from their  neighborhoods, and kill those who try to defend   their neighbors. This fear reverberates across  the community and deeply hurts our children,   our small businesses, and and city as a whole.  Our city leaders must do everything they can to   protect our residents. And we all should be in  unity to protect our immigrant family members,   friends, co-workers, and neighbors. It is  not enough to stay that we to say that we   stand with immigrants. That has to be matched  with action. And this is this ordinance is an   opportunity to do so. I urge you to listen to  the community and move forward and move this   ordinance forward. Thank you. Thank you. The next  speaker is Amber Hatfield. Amber, you may begin. Good evening. My name is Amber Hatfield and I'm a  resident of District 3. I'm a member of Reimagine   Richmond and showing up for Racial Justice Bay  Area. Um, like so many others, I'm speaking up   in support this item and urge the council to  implement an ICE free zone ordinance here in   Richmond. Our city is often cited as having one  of the highest populations of immigrants in the   Bay Area and the fear of ICE targeting is very  real despite our sanctuary city policy. We're   all closely watching the increasingly violent and  unlawful actions of ICE agents across the country   and our community members are stepping up to try  to protect the most vulnerable among us. Just last   week, a warrant being served by Homeland Security  and um Coast Guard security investigations in   East Richmond Heights included multiple unmarked  vehicles and masked agents. This drew an entire   city block out to stand watch for hours while  the agents refused to remove their masks and the   sheriff's office refused to respond to calls for  help to provide security to frightened residents.  

The effects of this event rippled out in the  following days, resulting in panic, workers   staying home to avoid perceived danger of arrest  due to racial profiling, and recycled social media   posts that continue to spread mis misinformation  and fear. No one was taken that day, but the   lives of many were disrupted, and the work to  restore a sense of safety is ongoing. Approving   the development of an ICF free zone ordinance  would be an invaluable protective measure,   especially if it were to provide real solutions  like emergency shelters, uh, notifications in   English, Spanish, Lao, Vietnamese, Brazilian,  Portuguese, Arabic, and the many other languages   spoken in our neighborhoods. This type of support,  both sympathetic and smart, proactive disaster   preparedness, would strengthen the confidence of  Richmond residents and encourage freedom of life   and liberty for all. And those are the kinds of  empower. Thank you. Your time is expired. Our next   speaker is Noen. And if you could please state  your full name for the record, you may begin. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. Uh, my name  is Wyn. I'm a teacher in West Contraosta.   I have worked here since 2017 and I'm a resident  in district 5 and I'm a child of Vietnamese   immigrants. Um I want to echo what Sam Clear said  earlier um that kids need to feel mentally and   emotionally safe in schools and at home. I've had  kids who have lived in ICE detention centers and   the trauma that they've experienced is clearly  seen in the classroom and no child should ever   have to experience that. Seeing people call ICE  the Gustapo neglects to mention that the Gustapo   learned from our own country's slave patrols  which eventually became today's cops. Right? We   are watching our history repeat. We are seeing  ethnic cleansing happening. We are seeing the  

terror America regularly inflicts on those in the  global south south now being used on us. And this   is just a reminder at this point for everyone that  fascism has been alive and well, especially for   our most marginalized. But seeing in our history  as well, people have organized before and fought   back against fascist regimes. And I am proud  to be in community with so many other people   who are willing to organize. So, I urge the city  council to move forward with um this ordinance and   I look forward to being in community with all  my neighbors. Thank you. Thank you. Our next   speaker is Maris Soden. If you could please state  your full name for the record. You may begin. Hi, my name is Maris Sothu. I'm a third generation  Richmond resident and D6 resident. I also teach   at Contraosta College where I serve many  immigrant students in the ASL classroom. Um,   first I want to thank the mayor and council  members um for hearing this item and of course   council member Claudia Himenez and Vice Mayor  Robinson for bringing this forward. I am here   to strongly and unal unapologetically support  the ICE-free zone ordinance and the development   of a clear citywide protocol to protect residents  city workers and public services. Um, as a member   of Reimagine Richmond, I have a 24-hour phone line  and have had that for the last 20 uh eight months.   Our residents are living in terror and in fear  every day. One of the colors mentioned of the   incident in East County reverberated for 4 days  of calls because those images were put out into   the community and there was no clear communication  and coordinated attempts from county John Joya's  

office, district office, the city offices, um  unincorporated areas, our sister cities like   Elserto and Panol and Hercules. And so there has  to be a West County coordinated protocol. We have   to do better. Parents are calling and last week  they called over and over again asking if it was   safe to pick up their children. They were going  deciding to either pick them up or leave them   there until they could find another ride. This is  something that is completely unacceptable in the   city of Richmond. There is no reason that we  should be continuing to live in this type of   fear. We have the luxury of time. We need a clear  coordinated plan to help our tenants who are being   uh threatened by landlords telling them that I  Thank you. Your tab is expired. The next speaker   is Vanessa Thiel. You may begin. Hello. My name is  Vanessa Tilliel. I am a resident of district 5 and   um I support this measure and I'm really glad  that our last couple speakers have been talking   about the incident um in East Richmond Heights um  which was um which happened about 5 days ago. And   something that's notable about this incident is  that the um Homeland Security agents were masked.   Um and despite the fact that they were supposedly  carrying out a non-immigration related warrant,   they were violating California's no  mask law. So, I want to ask the council,   um, will you be prepared to, um, try to  enforce the no mask law because otherwise,   um, residents are going to assume that these are  ICE agents if they're, um, not providing badge  

numbers, um, or any identifying information about  who they are. Um, so I think that this measure is   great and I support it, but, I think we need  to also do more. Um, we need to take the flock   cameras down. We need to be prepared to implement  um an eviction moratorum. Um, what other measures   can we do other than relying on law enforcement to  not cooperate with ICE? Um, because that may not   be a reliable um thing when push comes to shove.  So um so yeah, those are my comments. Thank you.   Thank you. Our next speaker is Sabrina. Sabrina,  if you could please give us your full name for   the record and you may begin. Oh, I think Sabrina  has lowered her hand. That was our last speaker. Thank you. Public comment is closed. Um, we have  another item and I believe that we are in unison   on this. So, I would like to call to question  and uh so I would like to make a motion. Um I I uh if if Go ahead. Um I just wanted to start by saying that  I do fully support and understand the need   to protect all communities including protecting  our immigrants. Um yes, I agree with this item.   However, I feel that there is some grouping um  of the ordinance and so um based on the report,   my understanding is that staff is being asked  to return within 45 days with a draft ordinance  

for council consideration. However, the agenda  predefineses more than 13 specific components   across policy areas to be included in that draft.  And I would like to clarify um with staff whether   it's supposed to ex where they're um to bring back  the ordinance. Are you all supposed to explore   options for the council to consider or will all  of the components be drafted into this ordinance? It's a good question. Um, so I think the direction  is is that March 3, uh, the city attorney's office   in coordination with, uh, the city manager's  office and staff will kind of present on the   current, um, protocols in place that the cities  have been the city has been working through for   the last year plus to make sure that the community  understands kind of all that that's currently in   place. And I think at that time we can talk about  um providing more clear direction on the kind of   what we currently have in place in our sanctuary  city ordinance and kind of the expansion efforts.   So maybe at that time if the if um council member  Jimenez and Vice Mayor Robinson are amenable that   we can kind of talk through more of the specific  components around an ice-free zone. Um because   I need to I need to evaluate this more. or I need  to make sure we un our office understands kind of   how this icefree zone will interact with kind of  our current sanctuary city policies as well as you   know I think I need we need to spend more time  evaluating this and that's why we were going to   kind of stagger it so have this March 3rd um  discussion around what we're currently doing   and then with then 45 days after that come back  for first reading so long-winded way of saying   you know I I think it's fair if if to if the  co-sponsors are amendable to kind of talk through  

at the February at the March 3rd meeting kind of  more of the components around what this ice-free   zone um policy would look like. Is that your  question? Yeah, I mean the it's concerning that   it is bundled up like that because I believe that  some of the components um need to be evaluated on   its own merits and I just want to ensure that I'm  not feeling the pressure of the national climate   to vote on something that's going to be included  into one ordinance without us discussing it. I   mean, for instance, um I don't oppose ice free  zones, so let's be clear. But I am concerned that   like labeling city property as ice free zones  could unintentionally create fear, confusion,   and false expectations if residents believe  ICE cannot enter into these spaces where they   legally can. So I want to understand more on what  we can legally do versus selling something to the   community that's not even true. Um also similarly  if we send out mass tax text alerts uh citywide   alerts it could be interpreted if we all in this  room get a text message we'll all have different   interpretations of what those text messages may  may mean or say or anything like that. So, I just   want to make sure that we are not overpromising  protections that we can't legally guarantee and   that my priority is resident safety and I'm  supportive of the intent of this item, but the   scope seems so broad and I just want to make sure  that we're being able to discuss each component   that's putting into this ordinance because like  everyone mentioned, the climate is is very high   right now and people are saying this and saying  that And I feel like the the induced fear around  

this is so crazy, but Richmond is so progressive  in terms of within a year we just increased our   uh sanctuary ordinance to align with state  uh laws. Also allocating a million dollars as   council member Jimenez stated that you know went  towards education, legal services, uh workshops   and so forth. Um, we still haven't even gotten  like a a sort of like analysis of like what the   distribution of that looked like. Is there still  money left for that that we could use for other   services that's being asked this evening? So, I  don't want to just jump to the the, you know, the   worst conclusion because of community pressures  about something that I feel that's really   contained in our city right now. We've already  paused our flock systems as mentioned due to data   sharing concerns. Not that data was shared but  just the concerns required us our chief to pause   um to pause. So if we have everyone on board like  that then I don't feel that there is like this   urgency without actually um vetting the the  scope of this ordinance. Thank you, Council   Member Jimenez. Yes, thank you. Um it looks like  um here uh I think like there is some confusions   uh because what we are asking is that in within  45 days a proposed I free ordinance come to the   city council which is what an ice free policies  and other part had passed right in addition to  

that what we are asking and with with this is to  provide um an implementation and um a plan. So   it's not part of the the ice free zone policy that  plan but in addition to that we want to have a   plan that the city can lay out in case many other  militias because they are militious. They are like   they are people that are not being trained and are  killing our community come to our city. What is   the response that we are going to have also what  is our communication? And I think this is like we   have like when we were talking the city manager  mentioned uh the protocols that we have for   emergency. So I think like we already have some  protocols. I think is this is how we use that and   fill the holes in case of what is happening in LA  or what what happened in LA or what is happening   in Minnesota and Minneapolis is coming here and we  have protocols for that. So the Ison ordinance is   one thing and the protocols for how we are going  to respond be prepared and communicate is other.   So I I feel like it's not about just that uh  people are pushing us and this is why we put this.   No, this is real. This is is happening in other  cities. People are being murdered by militias and   we need to be prepared and not only be prepared  but like have protocols that we can do that. You   can vote no city council if you feel like you are  do you don't agree with that and that you feel  

what we have is is necessary. But what we hear  from the community is that this is adding more   to what we have. So we can send a clear message  to our community to our immigrant community in   Richmond that we are here to do whatever it takes  to make sure that in difficult times like this   we protect our community. Thank you. So uh with  that I will please make a motion. Can I clarify   something because what was said is not I I call  to question. We have people who have been waiting   here to to present. I understand that and I sat  through all of the comments and everything and   so right and I didn't hear your timer go off. So,  I felt like I still had it had time. And and if   someone's making a statement saying that I'm not  agreeing to it because of whatever reason, no,   I'm just saying that I think that this deserves  more than just one vote that there is multiple   over 13 different components that need to be  assessed gravely like we understand and and you   can make a you can make you you can make a you can  make an uh alternate motion if you so please. Um,   because we mayor, council member Zapeda had  his hand up for a while. Well, I I called   the question. So, can I make a motion? Can I make  the motion, please? Direct the city manager city.   Call point of order. So, calling the question  is a motion. So, mayor, did you get a second   to can to to stop uh debate? I second it. Okay.  So, we have a second. We'll take a roll call. Council member Brown, no. Council member,  yes. Council member Jimenez, yes. Council  

member Wilson, point of order. What are we voting  on to to to debate? To stop to stop debate. No. Vice Mayor Robinson. No. Council member Zapeda,  no. and Mayor Martinez. Yes. The motion fails   with Council Member Bana Himenez and Mayor  Martinez voting no. Well, uh, in that case,   um, I want to apologize to the, u people who  have been waiting here because I I don't know   if we're going to have time to uh to hear  your item. Can we can we extend the time?   Well, uh, we better be sure  that we have the votes for that. Okay. So, so I would like to vote to extend now so  that they can be assured that they will be heard. So, we're we're going to vote to extend.  I second it. So when until the next item   is we also have item N2A. We have two items.  So which which items are we hearing? Let's   hear them both. Okay. With with um uh 03  being heard first. Yes. 03 and then N2A.   Yes. Council member Brown. Yes. Council member  Ba. Yes. Council member Jimenez. Yes. Council   member Wilson. Yes. Vice Mayor Robinson.  Yes. Council member Zapeda. Abstain. And  

Mayor Martinez? Yes. The motion passes  with Council Member Zapeda abstaining. Well, Council Member Sepa, does your  abstension mean that you're not going   to speak? No. That was for the two items  there to extend the time. Yes, I know. Well,   okay. Go go go ahead. Uh so on this item, uh  thank you for my two colleagues for bringing   this forward. This is uh an important topic  to start uh to have a conversation around.   um hearing some of the the the speakers, I'm  hoping that in the ordinance that gets brought   forward and looking also at what Alama County  passed, uh if we can write something in there,   uh requiring the law enforcement officers  to identify themselves upon entry,   uh because unfortunately some of them might still  enter the building if they have uh a warrant,   for example. So, we want to make sure that  we're clear what the command was saying.   Just by establishing ice-free zones doesn't mean  that they can't enter. They legally might still   be able to enter depending on circumstances. And  should they enter, we want to make sure that they   identify themselves properly. And also if we can  codify that they are not allowed to wear masks   if they were to enter any of our city properties.  Uh so that way if they again if they do enter for   some legal reason uh that we know who they are and  that we can see who they are. So I'm hoping that   we can add that in there. Uh the other thing that  I saw in the Alamita ordinance uh was that they  

established and I'm hoping that we can do similar  a Bay Area regional response plan uh to connect   with other local governments that also have the  ice free zones. So that way we can connect with   other cities like Pino for example which is the  only other one near us right now. Uh so hopefully   we can incorporate this in the language that may  come forward uh so that we can be similar to Alama   and then continues threatening the verbiage  that's out there. So thank you. That's all for Council Member Robin uh I'm sorry, Vice Mayor  Robinson. Thanks. So, I I just wanted to spend   a minute and just go over the process for  creating ordinances because my understanding   is that ordinances are process. You don't just  come once and present the ordinance and you vote   it up or down, but it actually goes through um a  whole iterations of of of presentation and review   and and whatnot. Is that correct, attorney, city  attorney? Yeah, I mean I think that there in this   instance there should be kind of a multiplestep  process here. There should be um the the first   Isn't that isn't that true in general? Sure. True.  In general, there's always this is this would be   the normal process is that an ordinance  is developed and it it has to actually it   literally has to go through multiple it has  to come to the council multiple times before   it's passed. You don't just do it once and pass  it. Right. Well, I think that in this instance,   the direction would be to to have I mean I mean  I'm just talking about ordinances in general.   Yeah. In general, typically you get direction  from the council as a whole on like the key,   you know, components to the ordinance. Yeah. And  then it's heard for first reading. Um, you know,   and could be modified at the first reading. If  it's modified at the first reading, goes back.  

But there's there's two readings to an ordinance.  Um, two readings at least. Yeah. And usually they   start with some council direction that says these  are the kinds of things we want you to consider,   right? And the job of the city attorney's office  then is to go and evaluate those things to make   sure they're legal, right? And that you know,  executable and you know, you would probably   confer with other departments like the the police  department or other people who may be involved.   So they make sure that whatever ordinance draft  that comes forward is actually something that   can stand like legal legal scrutiny. Yes. Yes.  So that that's the goal. Yeah. Yeah. So that's   the goal. What we're doing now is that very very  first step where we're giving the clear parameters   of the kinds of things that we want to address and  we're asking you to go away and and consider these   things. your team, not just you individually,  consider these things and see what it is that we   can draft, what draft we can come up with. And the  March 5th, March 3rd date is so that we can say,   okay, here's what we have already. And this is  and then from there, this is the extra that we're   going and there's like like we've like we've  been like we've said, there are a few existing   examples that are already in in action in the  public. So, I just wanted to make that clear   because it seems like there's some confusion  on how an ordinance happens and comes to be.   Yeah, I think that the March 3rd meeting there  can be more robust discussion about kind of the   the gaps in kind of what our current policy has  and and kind of recommendations around maybe ways   to shore up and and improve and and create this  ice-free um ordinance as well as um you know a  

plan and you know around um you know coordinated  approach. Yeah. And then just a comment. I believe   within legal parameters within legal parameters  that abiding by federal and state law. Mhm. And so   I I do believe that we are living in a time that  we have not seen before that what is happening   in our country is extreme. I mean, there was there  was a, you know, as they're bringing this this the   budget forward to say whether or not there's going  to be funds for um the Department of Homeland   Security, one of the items that was being bandied  back and forth was whether or not um ICE would be   able to deport US citizens. And you know, folks  took it out and then some folks, Steven Miller,   put it back in. And I think that the the idea  was that, you know, Trump would like to take our   thugs and our criminals, let's guess who those  are, who they who those people are, and deport   them to whatever country he he would like. I think  that we're we are you know this is this is this is   this is this is something that we need to rise to  the occasion and we need to be prepared. I am not   prepared to say that people will be kind, rational  or sane or abide by the law because they have not   thus far and it just gets worse every day. I think  that it is our duty to do whatever we can within  

the law to prepare and protect um our residents.  So that's my comment. Council member Brown, did you want to speak? I can speak again. No, I've  already spoken. Thank you. You're done then. Okay.   I mean, if you want me to speak again, I have more  to say, of course. Sure. For the sake of time. Do   we have a motion? Should I second with that? Can I  Can I make the motion? to direct the city manager   and city attorney to report to the city council on  March 3rd 20 26 regarding the city's ongoing and   planned effort to related to safeguard residents  from federal civil immigration enforcement actions   including ice rays and to return within 45  days with a proposed ice free sun ordinance.   The proposed ordinance should restrict the use  of cityowned or city control property facilities,   personnel and resources for federal civil  immigration enforcement, including staging   areas. a processing or detention location and  operation basis. and establish non-ooperation   and resources resource denial policies consistent  with applicable law and require the development   of a coordinated implementation strategy  including inter departmentamental protocol   staff training and a communityfacing  preparedness and communication plans. I second that.

Council member Brown, I abstain. Council  member Bana, yes. Council member Jimenez,   yes. Council member Wilson, yes. Vice  Mayor Robinson, yes. Council member Zepeda,   yes. And Mayor Martinez, yes. Motion passes  with Council Member Brown abstaining. Okay. Item 03. May I? Yes. Go ahead. And that  item is to Go ahead. Okay,   that item is to receive a presentation  by the Sustainable Economies Law Center   regarding corporate land grabs and direct the  city attorney's office to evaluate the legal   risks associated with enacting legislation to  ban corporate land grab practices in Richmond. Thank you, Madame Clerk. I would like  to thank the wonderful attorneys of the   sustainable economies law center who  have been here before and there were   some questions about the outline of the  ordinance we're proposing here. I would   like to make one point clear. They're not  at this point proposing any new ordinance.   Uh what we are proposing is to help the city  attorney look at the legal circumstances to see   if an ordinance is possible. Uh that's all.  So the city council tonight with their vote   give the permission to the city attorney to work  with sustainable economies law center to look at   the feasibility of an ordinance for the city  of Richmond. With la with that I would like  

to invite you to please start the presentation  and thank you very much for your patience again. Of course. Thank you so much,  Council and Mayor Martinez,   for having us back and we really appreciate  your leadership on this issue to consider   uh this ordinance. I'm Moini Mckim with  the Sustainable Economies Law Center,   an organization that has ba been based in the East  Bay for 15 years. And uh one of my co-workers uh   are the slides available to be shown? Um, one of  my co-workers, Hope, isn't able to make it today,   but the three of us are attorneys with the law  center that are here to present on this topic. Thank you. You can go to the second slide. So our  agenda for today after providing a brief summary   of the issue is to explain how we incorporated the  feedback from the last uh session that we had with   council in August to share more details about the  proposed ordinance and a brief legal assessment   that we've conducted. I'll pass it to Hazik. Good  evening council members, mayor and vice mayor. Um,   first, thank you so much for taking another  another proactive step and recognizing that this   is a crisis and um the crisis of land grabs that's  happening nationwide as well as in California. And   um uh this is um this issue is coming to  Richmond increasingly. Um we are seeing   there was actually a recent report published  by Red Fin. I think it was on December 30th,   2025. And it showed investors and loosely defi  I'm loosely defining investors. They're loosely  

defining investors as any buyer with a name  that includes LLC incorporated or corporated   have purchased 21 of 61 burned vacant  lots that were sold in Al in Altadena,   California. Um, this is in postfire Los Angeles.  uh a community that's predominantly black and   uh immigrant and uh that is more than 40% of those  uh burned vacant units. Um so with that we want to   emphasize that larger institutional investors  are doing the same thing here in the bay. Um   they're driving up prices and displacing  folks. Um people are losing their homes,   community, and stable chance to build. Uh, and  I'll pass uh I'll pass it to my coworker Toby. And yeah, the slides. Uh, could you go  to the um the next slide, the next slide,   and the next slide. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you. Good evening, council  members. Uh, my name is Toby Stamure. Um,   I'm a staff attorney at Sustainable Economies Law  Center, and I wanted to present to you now about   um some of our responses to the wonderful feedback  that we got to you the last time we presented   um on this proposal to you. Um, which  we're really appreciative that you took   the time to give us. Um so in considering your  feedback um we updated the proposed um ordinance   um to um reflect your feedback about what would  be con covered uh uh under the ordinance as a  

residential property. Um, and that would be single  family homes, duplexes, triplexes, forplexes,   um, as well as separately deed units, for example,  condos and town homes. And we included condos,   um, as some of the most affordable options on the  market. Um, and we wanted to note that under this   proposal, apartment complexes specifically would  not be covered. Um so uh buildings properties that   contain buildings larger than forplexes would not  be covered regulated by this ordinance. Next slide   please. Also uh last time um you talked about  scenarios where people own properties together.   So, in response, we increased the limit for  how many covered properties an individual   person can own in Richmond if they own a  minority share. Um, namely, we increased   it up to eight covered properties per individual  if they own a minority share. Next slide, please. And, um, at the last meeting, um, you talked  about people forming entities like an LLC to   buy properties together. Um, and we wanted  to clarify that the proposed ordinance would   allow this as long as the owners of the  entity don't buy more properties than they   would be allowed to buy as individuals.  Namely, four per individual if they own   greater than 50% in the properties or eight  per individual if they own less than 50%.   And also, we wanted to just emphasize that  eligible nonprofits and cooperatives could   still use trusts, LLC's, or other entities  to purchase housing. Next slide, please.

Um, finally, we heard concerns that  the proposal would impact Richmond   residents's ability to accumulate generational  wealth. And we just wanted to clarify that the   ordinance would protect this ability by  keeping familysized residential buildings   available for purchase by multigenerational  families. The ordinance just sets a limit   at four properties per person or eight if  they own a minority share in the property.   Thank you. And I'll pass it now  to Moini. Next slide, please. Thank you. And uh now that we've kind of given  an overview of how we incorporated the feedback,   I thought I'd walk through from the beginning  how the proposed ordinance uh would work. Um,   so as Tobius mentioned, it would only  apply to transfers of residential property,   which we define as single family homes up to  forplexes or condos and town homes. And so,   um, only eligible purchasers may purchase  residential property. And the way that   we've defined that is so um we are exempting  um nonprofits, limited equity cooperatives,   community controlled housing cooperatives and  governmental agencies. So those entities would not   be restricted in the number or type of properties  that they could own in the city. Next slide. As Toby has mentioned, there's the n natural  person limit that establishes the maximum   number of additional properties an individual can  acquire. This natural person limit allows each   person to own four residential properties. So that  means f four single family homes, two duplexes,  

two forplexes um for each person including let's  say their partner, their child. So, it's um we've   written it to be a relatively generous limit  and um the uh eligible purchasers can use LLC's,   trusts or corporations um to acquire the housing  um as is common industry practice as long as   they are the direct owners of the LLC's that  are purchasing the housing. And of course it   does not force the divest divesture of assets by  existing corporate owners. Existing owners can own   um whatever they currently own in the  city. Um they would just be limited in   uh being able to sell to additional uh noneligible  corporate owners. Next slide please. So to recap,   the ordinance would exempt eligible nonprofits  and cooperatives or government so that they can   purchase residential prop purchase residential  properties without limitation. It would allow   individuals to purchase several residential  properties in Richmond, but set a cap after   which they cannot own more and prohibits certain  for-profit entities. Um, we're imagining here   a Blackstone private equity uh investor that's  coming in and that would be structured as an LLC   owned by a for-profit non-ooperative corporation  from acquiring single family homes in Richmond. Next slide, please. The s I won't talk  about enforcement um in much detail,   but uh welcoming questions about it.  The suggested enforcement mechanism is   through an elig eligibility affidavit along with  enforcement tools um provided to the city staff.

Next slide please. So in some this ordinance would stabilize  neighborhoods and create a fairer housing market.   Corporate and institutional investors  speculate on our homes and communities,   driving up housing costs and displacing longtime  residents. Their disproportionate access to   capital at speed that firsttime home buyers cannot  match creates an uneven playing field. And this   ordinance would protect our communities  by supporting access to home ownership,   especially for first-time home buyers and  neighborhood stability. I'll pass it to Hazmik.   Thank you, Moini. Um, so next slide, please. So,  we have a legal analysis report done on some of   the legal areas for this ordinance. Um, but I  just wanted to go over do like a brief overview   of these areas. Um, so the first one is municipal  authority and state preeemption. Um so this is   a classic home rule power under California con  constitution article 11 section five for municipal   affairs and the city charter expressly authorizes  police powers. This means that state preeemption   risk is reduced where local purpose aligns with  statewide housing goals. Charter police powers   support regulations promoting prosperity,  health, and safety. Next slide, please. So this ordinance is narrowly tailored. It  applies to covered transactions after an   effective date. It limits acquisition  to eligible eligible purchasers and   caps natural person ownership. It also  includes exemptions. Next slide please.

Another area is the dormant commerce  clause. Um doing the analysis we find   that this ordinance this proposed ordinance  um that there's no facial discrimination. It   applies the same to instate and outofstate  buyers. There's no residency preference and   generally land use regulation is inherently  local. So there's no national uniformity   u required here uh for housing transactions.  and then uh doing a picket pike test and   balancing test. Um there's anti-speculation  and neighborhood balancing involved in favor   that this does not violate the dormant  commerce clause. Next slide please. As far as due process, um wouldbe corporate  buyers typically lack protected property   interest in future purchases and  even if there is property interest   um ordinance targeting this ordinance  targets legitimate government interest   which is housing stability and it's subject  to rational basis test. Next slide please. Equal protection. Again, there's no suspect  classification. There's it's not based on race,   national origin, and wealth is not a protected  class. So, it's subject to rational basis test.   And uh there's a neutral ownership cap rule  uh which is recently tied to anti-speculation   goals. And I'll pass uh this to back to Moinia to  talk about takings. Thank you. Next slide. So as   far as the fifth amendment takings concerned, uh  this proposed ordinance does not disrupt existing   property interests nor does it deprive owners  of economically beneficial uses of their land.   Um so we uh our assessment is that it would  not uh violate the takings clause or um and  

it would just adjust the benefits and burdens  of economic life to promote the common good.   um which is quoting um a a deciding case here,  Penn Central. Um obviously that was a very quick   and dirty summary of our analysis and uh we look  forward to uh working with the city attorney's   office um to uh further flesh that out. Um and  the final slide um just emphasizes first-time   buyers need your support with this ordinance. Um,  we humbly ask Richmond City Council to request an   evaluation from the city attorney so staff can uh  start to develop this common sense and muchneeded   ordinance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sorry.  Thank you very much. I I would like to add a bit   to it if I may. So please um note that number  four is an arbitrary number that we believe   uh it's a good number but it's up to the council  to say where the cap is and with the recession   um probably coming it's a good idea to pass this.  So again this is to uh give feedback about this   item. The city is concerned about legalities  and liabilities and they're going to work with   the city attorney to see if it's feasible without  bringing any liability issues to the city. I just   wanted to mention something that when investors  want to buy something, they usually have cash,   they close fast and they buy it as is uh with  usually removing contingencies or much less comp   contingencies that it's very agreeable to the  buy to the seller to the point that even they   even reduce the price. So it makes a very uneven  uh playing field for firsttime buyers. It makes   it very hard for them to compete and we would  like to provide some equity and something you  

mentioned wealth is not a protected class which  is a good thing though these days doesn't feel   like that in America but thank you very much. Do  we have public speakers? We have three. Is they   okay? We have three in person public speakers and  we have three online speakers. If there's anyone   else that would like to address the council, if  you're joining us online, please raise your hand   at this time. Okay. The inerson speakers are  Wendy Hosa, Alejandra Velus, and Yet Blendon. Wendy. Yes. Hello. Good evening, council. Um, I'm Wenda  Enosa. I, uh, live in Richmond. I also work   at Sustainable Economies Law Center, but I'm  not a lawyer. So, um, they were able to, uh,   explain this to me and I and I, that's why I'm  here tonight. Um, but I have a first grader at   Michelle Obama Elementary School. I have a  baby that goes to story time at the library   twice a week. Um, we really love Richmond. We  love this community. We love our neighbors.   And I'm here to um make it clear that we  need to be proactive in keeping Richmond   um a place that regular people can have families  and come together and thrive. Um I know people   who in other cities have experienced corporate  land grabs. Um, I have friends in Charleston,   South Carolina who um have told me I have have  organizing friends have told me how companies  

like Blackstone have come in, bought up houses,  not improved them, and then the moment somebody   uh doesn't pay their rent, they get evicted. Um, I  don't want to see that happening here at Richmond.   And I know we already have a thousand units here  that are corporateowned. I think that that's   plenty. And we don't need any more than that.  We need more regular working people, families,   um, getting into homes and  making this city beautiful. So,   um, I know the city council gets things  done. Um, y'all are leaders in the Bay   Area in terms of being proactive in making this  a place, a wonderful place to live. And, um,   I'm really inspired by what y'all have done in the  past. And I'm really hopeful that um you'll hear   me and some of other residents today um in asking  you to please consider this ordinance. Thank you. Okay. Alejandra Vleos Vasquez. Pa politica medidases in Alexandto final contracul.

Protoinder inverion. Aranas represent represent stripes institutional Your time is expired. Time is expired. your name. Our last imperson Blandonet Blandon. Okay, she's not here. Now we'll  move to the online speakers. The speakers   are seven speakers. I'm sorry. The speakers  are Jubilee Martinez, River, Douglas Spalding,   Melvin Willis, and iPhone. Please be prepared  to unmute yourself when your name is called,   and you will be given up to two minutes  to speak. Jubilee Martinez, you may begin.

Hi, my name is Jubilee Martinez Bruma. I'm  a legal fellow at Communities for a Better   Environment in Richmond. I want you to know  that CBE endorses taking this next step in   advancing the implementation of the ban land grabs  ordinance. My colleague has submitted a written   comment regarding our concern that without such an  ordinance, Richmond residents and CBE members who   have fought to make Richmond a healthier, greener  city might not be able to remain here. I want to   share with you how this ordinance would not only  stop the displacement of Richmond residents,   but could lay the foundation for a more values  aligned future Richmond. Corporate ownership of   housing stock perpetuates the consolidation  of land use and housing decisions into the   hands of profiteeers and removes them from the  community. Even individuals who buy residential   properties as part of their rental businesses make  decisions based on profit, not the well-being of   the community. By preventing corporate land  grabs and curbing real estate speculation,   this ordinance gives Richmond residents the  opportunity to reclaim what housing and land   use looks like in Richmond. Richmond residents  deserve to make their own choices about what   affordable housing means in their hometown,  what healthy living might mean in their homes,   and how they want to relate to the land they  live on. decisions regarding housing costs, home   electrification or air filtration systems, what  remediation looks like, and what land stewardship   means in Richmond more broadly should not be  reserved for an elite few. They are decisions   that Richmond residents can and should be making  themselves. This ordinance is the first step   in that direction. For these reasons, CBE is in  full support of this item. Thank you. Thank you.   The next speaker is River. Can you please state  your full name for the record and you may begin?

Hi, my name is River Allen and I'm a District  3 Richmond resident. I live and work here in   Richmond and I'm a member of resource generation.  I'm calling in strong support of this ordinance.   We need bold action to ensure safe, dignified  homes for our communities instead of allowing   large investors to keep buying up housing in our  city. And I'm saying this as someone who actually   comes from generational wealth built through  real estate here in the San Francisco Bay area.   My great-grandfather started a family real estate  business in the 1930s. My grandfather and his   siblings expanded it. And my dad's generation  still runs it today. And I see clearly how my   family's history, my family story is connected to  the housing crisis that we face today. from racial   segregation in the 1930s to the financialization  of housing in the 1980s, like when homes became   um treated like financial assets, like stocks  instead of shelter. So, as this like ordinance   continues to hopefully move through, you will  hear from landlords, you will hear from realtors,   um you will hear from people like my family  members, um claiming that this ordinance will   hurt business and they will speak to you with  urgency and fear, assuming that their right to   maximize profit is equal to Richmond residents  right to stay housed in their own city. It is  

not. Nationally, corporate investors bought 26%  of the most affordable homes in late Thank you.   Your time is expired. The next speaker is  Douglas Balding. Douglas, you may begin. Thank you very much. I guess the uh the shut  off works a little easier on Zoom than it does   in person. Okay. Um uh as I indicated earlier, uh  you know, the eyes of the region are on Richmond.   I I I happen to live in the next county over in  the city of San Leandro in Alamina County. And   um we uh proudly passed our very first uh  rent stabilization ordinance just last night,   which mirrors uh the one that Richmond  has had for for more than 10 years.   And in the research uh that we have done in in our  city leading up to that, we realized that uh you   know ownership uh uh of all kinds of housing, it  really is um concentrated in corporations, LLC's,   and most of those entities are outside of town.  So, they're just vacuuming up money and and taking   it out of town. Uh the problem of course is that  um you know it creates a downward pressure when   you take these uh residences out of the hands  uh you know of of uh potential homeowners just   looking for an affordable home. It forces those  uh individuals and families into the echelons of   um of rental housing which then uh drives up uh  demand and the prices go up and then other people   can't afford any kind of housing. So, so really  the that the the heart of this the tenant that   we have to uh abide by is you know what what I  believe is that housing is a human right as as the   previous uh speaker uh was saying and and and this  is an important thing that we're we're looking at   as an example to to model in in San Leandro. Uh  so I want to thank the presenters. I I learned a  

lot from your presentation. I'm going to contact  you and see if I can maybe get a copy of your   uh of your slideshow to to study a little further.  And last of all, I just want to give a tip of the   cat to the city clerk there. This is a my first  Richmond city council meeting. Very well-run and   uh and I must say the Zoom interface is really  deluxe. Have a good night everybody. Thank you.   The next speaker is Melvin Willis. Melvin,  please unmute yourself and you may begin. Good evening members of the Richmond City  Council. Melvin Willis with ACE and the Richmond   Progressive Alliance. Uh, whatever you could  legally do to pass say corporate uh preventing   corporations from grabbing the land. Uh, whatever  is legal, you should definitely do. Uh, ace uh   several years ago, we tried to help out a member  named uh Jenny. She had arthritis in her hands.   Uh, so she was on disability. She owned her home  for 30 years, was one of the victims of the house   predatory housing crisis that stored pe steered  people into bad loans, qualified for programs,   but the bank would never take the program's money.  They ended up selling her home to an investor.   And while us at ACE RPA members and several other  community members came to support her to figure   out how she could keep her home of 30 years, part  of that was contacting the investment company   that owned her home. I was one of the people  that text messaged them. And few hours later,   one of those investors texted me and sent me a  very heart-wrenching text like, "Oh, sorry for   your friends, but you have to look at it from our  perspective. We just spent 400k on this house. Uh,  

maybe she can rent or something, but this is a  huge investment for us." At the end of the day,   these corporations are going to care about  their bottom line. and they do not give   a damn about the community or community  sustainability. That is up to us to make   our own standards for our community. I  have talked to so many people over the   past decade and a half who have been trying to  buy homes and move into Richmond and keep on   getting priced out by cash only offers or get  keep getting outbid by outside investors. So,   let's build our actual communities with people  who live. Thank you. Your time is expired. Our   next speaker is iPhone. Please state your  name for the record and you may begin. Claudia Citroen. I commend um the uh this  ordinance. However, it uh excludes the   developers the cities right now dealing with in  the marina as well as in the grove. Both projects   um are being pushed through by developers and  they approved without minimal review and the shift   disproportionate infrastructure burdens, roads,  sewer and public services onto existing residents,   many seniors rather than the requiring  the developers to fully fund mitigate   uh impact of their projects. Um this pattern  is not exential. Um loopholes and routine grant   um without meaningful justification or public  input allows these developers to consolidate   land and profit uh while the public especially  the population bears the uh inequate uh bears   the cost of infrastructure. The city's failure  is twofolded. Enforcement and followup under   and underresourced stuff. Oversight mechanisms  are routinely bypassed. This needs to be in the  

ordinance. I hope this is the first reading  of the ordinance. It needs to be sharpened.   Um only this way we can send a clear message  that code compliance is not optional. It is   uh uh for deep developers pockets. It is a  planning issue. It is a governance issues.   You have not talked about the marina um  building thing. And you have not talked   about the growth. Um there are simple  solutions. Enforced planning, sharpen   this ordinance and build codes consistently to  um reduce complicity and corporate land grab.   I'm sorry I mumbled. I'll put it online. Thank  you. you. And that was our last public speaker. Thank you. Public comment is closed. Um,  Council Member Wilson. So, thank you. I I   want to say thank you to the Sustainable Economies  Law Center team both for staying to the wee hours   of the night and um more importantly for  hearing the feedback that we gave you in   the last presentation and really incorporating the  stuff that we we asked you to take a look at. Um,   I'll just and I'm very interested in preventing  this sort of concentration of wealth. I don't   know if this is legal, but I'm also not a lawyer.  So, I but I'm interested in voting yes on this   today so that the actual lawyers who work for  the city can take a look at your work and see   and bring us back a conclusion. So, so thank you  and I support it. Vice Mayor Robinson, ditto on   that. I really appreciate that you really heard  all of our feedback and and really incorporated   into it and have the beginning of something that  I think could be really great. Um I have a couple   of questions and just clarifications. One, I  was under the impression that this does not   um this is not about new developments. Is that  that's correct? Yes. Yeah. We we support a  

carveout so that new especially affordable housing  development is not uh stemmied or restricted from   ordinance. Would it would it affect for-profit  new for-profit developments? It it exempts   developments all for sale or for rent because  the complexes with more number of units uh we   don't want to limit the rental market and also for  sale we don't want to uh impede development. Uh so   because they develop to sell or to provide rental  market we we don't want to tie their hands. Okay.   And then um I I two more questions. One is um I  I do wonder what happens with landlord businesses   when that's their business. Like somebody owns  properties, what if they want to you're this   would make it so if they wanted to buy or hold  more than four in Richmond, they could not. Um yeah, this this would make it so that um if  they want to hold or hold more than four of the   covered properties under this ordinance, um if  they're an individual person, they could not.   And if they're like an LLC or a corporation um or  a trust, they could they couldn't hold more. and   they're all like all the owners are individuals,  then they that LLC, trust or corporation could not   um hold more than four covered properties per  individual. But the the the that's only talking   about properties that would be regulated under  this ordinance. Um not um properties that are   larger than a forplex. And they it doesn't say  anything about what people do outside of Richmond.  

You can own property in San Pablo, Elsto, in  Berkeley, wherever. Yeah, the four properties is   four four within four properties within Richmond  and then as Toby was saying, like you can own five   apartment buildings and then also buy the four  familysized properties and that's allowed within   the ordinance. And then the last question that I  had was this just legal concern. I guess this will   be something that you look into around this idea  of natural person personhood. I know there was   terrible things that happened on the federal level  that defined a person as a corporation and I just   wonder if you know it's different it was dealing  with different it was dealing with um kind of a um   um contributions to elections. But I wonder if  that law will have an impact on this notion. Yeah,   I think I think some of that case law is about  corporate personhood. Um like for example, I think   with Citizens United and and corporate personhood  and free speech rights, but um that's why we use   the kind of weird phrase natural person because  that specifies we're talking about like actual   humans. Yeah. Okay. Um well, yeah, I just really  appreciate it. Those are my three questions. Um,   thank you council member Jimenez. Yeah, thank  you for the presentation and the development   and thank you council member Bana for bringing  it back and be consistent in terms of like this   is what we want in the city. We want um actual  members of our community to be able to buy homes,   no corporation. I wonder if you have any  data about this issue enrichment and how  

big it is that corporation are buying and  bundles properties. Do you have that data? So as as they mentioned the data shows that 1,000  houses in the city of Richmond are owned by LLC's.   Um um as a realtor who works with first-time  buyers um I can tell you that they often lose   to investors when they offer cash and good terms.  Uh the the trend of buying in larger scale is it   started in the east coast grab has reached you  know Texas area is coming towards west coast   but with the recession coming up we would like to  block it as soon as possible so it doesn't reach   the city of Richmond. Okay. Yeah that makes sense.  But I I remember seeing some data about Oakland,   Richmond, and seeing that like corporation were  buying uh several houses, but I don't know the   numbers. So that would be great to have it just  for for this. But I also understand that it's not   that because we don't have it, we are not going  to do this. is is also we are preventing like   be more in the side of um implementing something  that can prevent things from happening. So I just   wanted to say thank you and I looking forward  to uh the development of of the the policy   uh for us to look at it. Thank you. Council  Member Brown, I just want to say thank you   for the presentation and for staying this hour  and for answering all the concerns that we had  

the last time you all presented. And um I'm also  in support of this item interested in seeing what   legal ramifications um what how we can move this  forward. So um yeah, until next time. Thank you. Uh the uh I have a couple of questions. Um so  uh the are corporate owners grandfathered in,   you know? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. And then um uh for  for mortgages that that are bought in bundles,   uh would Richmond properties have  to be taken out of those bundles?   Uh yeah, the uh the proposed ordinance uh  excludes mortgages from being considered   the type like a transfer and it wouldn't  normally be considered a transfer but it   makes it very clear that that that uh if you  get a mortgage from a bank the bank is not a   corporate owner. Um so yeah. Okay. And then the  last question is what is Pike test balancing? It it's just a reference to a legal standard  with respect to the dormant commerce clause   that would like we could get into uh with the  city attorney more but it's uh sorry legally   a case that the Supreme Court decided a  long time ago relevant to that issue and   it's basically even if the state or local  law doesn't discriminate against interstate   commerce it can still be struck down if it imposes  burdens, let's say on the interstate commerce,   let's say if it's um excessive compared to  its benefits to the local community. So,  

it's just a balancing test. Okay. Thank you.  Yeah, of course. Thank you for asking. Uh,   may I make a motion that we receive a presentation  by the Sustainable Economies Law Center regarding   corporate land grabs and direct the city  attorney's office to collaborate with   sustainable economies law center to evaluate the  legal risks associated with enacting legislation   to ban corporate land grab practices in  Richmond. We have a motion. I second that. Okay,   motion and a second. Council member Brown.  Yes. Council member Bana. Yes. Council member   Jimenez. Yes. Council member Wilson. Yes. Vice  Mayor Robinson. Yes. Councilman member Zapeda. He's frozen. Oh. He almost  made it. Mayor Martinez.   Yes. Council member Zapeda, are you voting? He is looks like he's dropped off. Okay. So, council member Zepa is absent.  The motion passes with council member Zepa   absent. Thank you very much. Thank you.  Thank you. Our last item is item N2A. And that item is to authorize the city manager to  develop recommendations pertaining to the cannabis   sector and return to the city council within 60  days for initial discuss discussion. This item was   requested to be pulled from the consent calendar  by Claudia Centrum. Madame clerk, is the person  

online? She's here. So, just point of order. I can  I make a motion that we just approve this or we   have to have a presentation and public comment  first? I second that. Public comment at least   public com maybe maybe a short presentation. I  didn't mean to whisper like are we allowed to   just Anyways, I a short presentation would be  fine with me. Um, if I may through the clerk,   is the person signed up to speak? Yes. Okay. Can  Can we Mayor through the chair? Can we call the   speaker? Yes. Okay. Yes. The speaker is Yes.  The speaker is Claudia Citrian. You may begin. All right. I keep it short. Before expanding  or sponsoring any canabis industry, the city   has the basic legal obligation to establish  a fully functional code enforcement and fund   follow-up compliance. That has never happened and  the consequences are predictable. The if the city   moves forward with the canabies policy as planned  and industry support without first building the   enforcement and infrastructure to regulate it,  um it just doesn't work. code enforcement is   understaffed and fragmented. Um, into that vacuum  stepped smoke shops operating defunct escapabis   outlets selling illicit THC products without  licenses, zoning approvals or tax compliance.   This is not an enforcement mystery. It's a direct  result of choosing promotion over regulation.   Instead of prioritizing code enforcement  staff, you want to spend time and money for   political support for the canabis industry. That  is egregious. This failure now carries measurable  

impact. exclusion for measure U and other tax  revenue the city direly needs to fund things like   um fire stations and uh street lighting which  you always say you don't have any money for   until this council established and fully funded  a code enforcement um you cannot sponsor the   the canabis industry that is just not legal and  it's not fiscal uh resp fiscal uh liable. I shall   follow up on that if you do that and I yield my  time. Thank you. Can um I'm sorry. I think like   in if instead of having the the presentation  because we read the the item, can you response   to the comments that she make to see if this  related to this or not? Sure. Good evening,   mayor and city council members. Emily Combmes,  finance director. So, the direction tonight is   um not about code enforcement, but rather we're  recognizing that cannabis retailers throughout   the city are struggling, and we've been hearing  that that's due to a variety of reasons, including   legislative changes and um other things that are  identified in the staff report. So, we're simply   asking for um direction or authorization to the  city manager to develop a set of recommendations   um and then bring those back to city council  for consideration um to address some of these   challenges. So, it's really not a policy that  we're looking to develop or introduce at this   time. Mr. Mayor, may I add to that? Uh, I was  going to make a motion that we authorize the   city manager to develop recommendations pertaining  to the cannabis sector for city council discussion  

in approximately 60 days. Yeah, go ahead. Um,  I just wanted to ask, does this item have any   anything to do with the cannabis equity grant or  that whole program that was going on? We weren't   initially planning for it to to be involved  with that. We were looking more at um the   uh how the sector is being taxed and um but it but  it could include other components because there   are a lot of moving parts. But the impetus was  it around it was around um how how are we taxing   those entities and if it is leading to an adverse  impact to the sector based on our comparable   cities. Okay. Thank you. But sometimes when we  think, you know, once you start doing research,   the reason we made it broad is because once you  start doing research, you we might find additional   information and so we didn't want to pigeon  hole staff to have a a very very narrow scope.   I I would um it this statement of the issue is  licensed cannabis businesses and I think we need   to consider how the unlicensed cannabis businesses  like all the smoke shops are impacting the ability   of the licensed cannabis uh businesses to to turn  a profit. uh they're losing a lot of money because   of all of the uh unlicensed cannabis that we  have in the city. And I think that should be   a consideration uh when we consider the tax.  You know, unless we can control the unlicensed   cannabis, then I think we're doing the licensed  cannabis a disservice by taxing them uh when   the unlicensed isn't being taxed. Yes, I believe  um I spoke to director Velasco today and she is  

planning to return to the city council in February  with uh on the 24th with uh an another update pertaining to the I think we broadly refer  to them as the tobacco retailers. The I   guess cannabis is tobacco. Um I I said broadly  refer I don't know how to adequately describe   Yes. What is transpiring? I would defer to Chief  Simmons for that. Right. Uh, Council Member Bana,   uh, I just wanted to add actually that  by running licensed cannabis businesses   out of business, then we promote  those are who uh are unlicensed,   illegitimate, and that adds to the  enforcement issue. So, in a way,   it does help with the enforcement issue.  Thank you, and I second that motion. Okay. So, so we have a motion and a second.  Council member Bana, yes. Council member Brown,   yes. Council member Jimenez, yes. Council  member Wilson, yes. Vice Mayor Robinson,   yes. Mayor Martinez, yes. And Council Member  Zapeda is absent. The motion passes with Council   Member Zapeda absent. Thank you. All right.  So, it is it is now time for adjournment and   I would like to adjourn uh uh in recognition  and congratulations of Elena Velasquez for   winning the Contraosta Youth Humanitarian Award.  I interviewed her and I was personally impressed   by her passion not only for the city of Richmond  but her sense of community and leadership skills.   Elena has worked with organizations including  Urban Tilt, the Bay Area Girls Club,   the Latina Center, and the Richmond Youth  Council, and currently serves as the president  

of her school's natural national honor society. I  believe that it is our role as leaders to nurture   and support future leaders like Elena in every  way we can. That is why I point that is why I   appointed her to the Richmond Youth Council. So  once again, I congratulate Elena Velasquez and   her family for raising such a conscientious and  compassionate person. And that is the end. Hurrah.