Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

coming upon us to put the pressure on one another to just get it done. It's just that simple. It's us. It's us. We've got to put the pressure on each other to just get it done. This is one of the smallest things that we will be encountering over this total journey. This is a small thing relative speaking to what's to come.

I just wanna make sure that we're not succumbing to the group project syndrome where we're all just waiting on each other to do something. So I'm glad you're on it.

city attorney did you want to answer that thank you madam mayor so um just to put a little bit more detail on that as council is aware you had requested that we engage in conversation with the help of mediator around some of the issues on particularly wastewater infrastructure on the island that process has begun We have extended an invitation to the Maryland company to participate with us in that process. In our first couple of meetings, we've been able to close some gaps about where our differences may be in terms of as between the city and the wastewater district and narrowed those issues substantially. And then that little piece in between where we haven't been able to narrow those issues will in fact require some additional participation, some additional meetings, and then obviously the participation of the Maryland company. So I don't know if the board of the wastewater district has heard that report back on the wastewater side, but certainly we are making progress.

As we're making these conversations or having these conversations, I just want to be abundantly clear that we are separating the conversation about the infrastructure for the entire island versus the crocodile closest to the boat, which is the Conley Corridor, right? and I feel that sometimes that Connelly Corridor project gets swept up into the entire conversation about infrastructure, and that's the thing we could do most easily now, and I feel like there's only a few barriers to doing that, and I don't want that to get swept into the entire infrastructure project, and it's like we gotta wait for a lot more, a lot longer time. So I just wanna be abundantly clear about that, and just make sure that has its own conversation set.

Thank you for that input. I can certainly raise that during our next meeting about sort of elevating that to the front if that's the council's desire, no problem.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Council Member Bergenzer.

And you know how I loathe a second round of questions, but mine will be short because I got a reminder text. But somebody from the community had mentioned to me in another public forum about the potential of doing maybe a joint project or if there's something you've already looked at, but doing something to connect the downtown to Mare Island, like a gondola project or something where it takes you over the water, connects the downtown with being able to walk from downtown to get to Mare Island and do events there. without having to drive your car and worry about parking and alleviate some of the parking issues. Have you looked at doing a gondola?

Not specifically. I'm not going to commit to anything tonight, but I will mention that it's always been a belief of our company, and now more than ever, that water taxis are the future of Mare Island. That's the history books. That's how it worked back in the day, and they did it that way for a reason. we you know cal maritime is growing it's mentioned it's it's it's fantastic um toro is growing and i think that an electric type ferry service that goes back and forth much like it did with the navy potentially to downtown potentially to mayor island potentially to cal maritime would be a boom to the area. It would create a chemistry and a dynamic that nothing around here has. And so I'm optimistic and excited about what the future holds on that particular thing. And we're looking forward to that day coming.

All right, thank you all. I will use my comment to try to kind of wrap everything back up because we do have a agreement that is extending now. It is the agreement that we have inherited from 25 years ago that is going to be supplanted by an island-wide development agreement as soon as that is negotiated. And so, again, just framing what we're doing tonight as something that we are doing in order to be able to focus solely and you know, with intent on that island-wide development agreement with a, what I'm hoping is a shared vision for actual development on the island that everyone's been clamoring for for 25 years and getting that into this new agreement and kind of writing some of the, correcting maybe some of the things that that went awry in these initial agreements. And I'm looking forward obviously to our new city manager engaging on that and getting all the stakeholders engaged on that as well. And I think with that, I will go ahead and thank you all again and ask for a motion on this item.

Yes, I move we adopt a resolution approving the acknowledgement of a development agreement, third extension agreement with the Nimitz Group LLC, extending the term of development agreement to September 11th, 2031, and authorizing the city manager to execute the same.

All right, we're ready to vote.

Motion carries with, oh, I can't read this. Manny, I can't read this. Sorry.

Double click it. Which one?

The window. Okay, we lost it. We lost it. Hold, please.

We're gonna have to re-vote. Okay, we're just gonna re-vote. All right, we're trying again.

Okay. Motion carries with council member led to abstaining and the council's rules with abstention goes with the majority vote.

All right, thank you all. My original plan was to have us take action item C since it is also related to Muir Island, but we have gone, that last item took quite a bit of time, so I'm gonna suggest that we take a 10 minute recess to get everybody a stretch break and we will come back for our remaining action items.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, I am seeing most of us here. I'm actually just gonna go ahead and call us back to order so that we can call action item 9C. And if our city clerk's ready, I'll ask her to announce the item.

Adopt a resolution approving the second amendment to the operations agreement regarding distribution of gas on Mare Island and the second amendment to the operations agreement regarding distribution of electricity on Mare Island with Pittsburgh Power Company DBA Island Energy extending the term of each agreement one year with a six month option to extend and authorize city manager to execute same.

All right, thank you very much. We'll go ahead and open up public comment on this item, and I will turn it back over to Ms. Hain and Ms. Hanford for this item.

Thank you. Good evening again, Mayor and City Council members, Gillian Hain, Assistant City Manager. I'm with Erin Hanford, the Economic Development Program Manager for Mare Island. And with us, we do have representatives from the city of Pittsburgh, from Island Energy. And so to kick us off this evening, we'll have a short presentation from Jordan Davis, economic development director from the city of Pittsburgh, reviewing kind of who Island Energy is. And then we'll move into our staff presentation about the amendment for this current contract. Jordan?

Thanks, Gillian. Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. As Gillian mentioned, my name is Jordan Davis. I'm the Director of Community Economic Development for the City of Pittsburgh. And as part of that role, I'm fortunate enough to oversee our municipal utility, the Pittsburgh Power Company, which does business as Island Energy on Mare Island in Vallejo. I'm joined tonight by Vanessa Shea, our General Manager of PPC and Island Energy, as well as Bradley Bond, our Utility Superintendent on Mare Island. so just real quick we are a municipally owned utility we're a not-for-profit municipal utility and we're focused on customers and economic development that's our bread and butter that's how we keep rates 25 to 30 below pg e for our customers on mayor island We started in 1996, that's when the Pittsburgh Power Company formed, and in 1997, we took ownership of the easements on Mare Island, which allowed us, and as well as all the equipment, which allowed us to distribute gas and electric service on the island, and we've been operating, it says 25 years here, but next year will be our 30th anniversary serving power on Mare Island, and it's been a great ride so far. As I mentioned, we provide electric and natural gas service. We work on reliability projects to make sure that we can continue to serve the customers on Mare Island. And I think the customers on Mare Island would say that we have great customer support, very quick response times.

We get problems fixed very quickly.

Beyond the meter, Island Energy is investing in the community. As I mentioned, we keep rates 25 to 30% below PG&E, specifically for the residents, but also for the industrial customers to try to drive economic development on the island. In the past 20 years, we've invested over $10 million in energy systems to make sure that we have that reliability in place. Now, probably the most interesting thing, especially going off of the conversation that was just had, is that there's room to grow. on Mare Island and room to grow with island energy. Our base load right now sits between four to six megawatts, pretty small, but the island is set to serve up to 80 megawatts. That's the current system capacity. Now breaking that up a little bit more, we could serve 40 with minimal, I wouldn't even call them upgrades, I would call them maintenance. But with some minor, relatively small upgrades, we could serve up to 80 megawatts very quickly. I like to tell people 40 megawatts in a matter of months, 80 megawatts in a couple years. But there is the ability to continue to grow.

One of the great things about our business model is that we don't own gen assets, generation assets.

We buy for Mare Island from the Western Area Power Authority. okay authority which allows us to buy as much as we need or as little as and so because of that we can scale up pretty quickly now there will be some infrastructure that needs to be developed serve a load of that size and we continue to work with the developer we're in constant contact with the Mare Island company and also it's been great working with the City of Vallejo team to plan for the development that could take place We do offer some programs for our customers. Those are efficiency rebates, customer assistance. We do have 35, 30 to 35% of our energy is from renewable sources, and we continue to try to grow that each year. And then, of course, we're constantly working on those safety and resilience projects.

So that concludes what I have.

I'll sit back down, but happy to answer any questions once staff is done with their presentation. Thank you very much. Thanks.

So I think next we'll have our staff presentation. Maybe. Ah. Okay, who has the clicker?

You're gonna be my clicker?

Okay, great. All right, this is a short presentation, not that many slides. I did want to, this is focused on the amendment that is for the agenda tonight. extension amendment. I do want to do a short repeat of the history and timeline and the original agreement terms, what we've accomplished since the first amendment and the terms of the second amendment. I'm sorry this is a little smaller than I was intending, but it does have a little bit of overlap with what Jordan was talking about. From 96 to 97, the Navy awarded the sale of the utility systems to the city of Pittsburgh, which formed the Pittsburgh Power Company as a joint power authority, operating under the name of Island Energy. So we refer to all these agreements as Island Energy agreements. They started operating the municipal gas and electricity on the island under a license originally with the Navy, and in 2001, the Navy executed a grant of non-exclusive easements for the distribution systems of gas and electricity. That easement and a bill of sale allowed Island Energy to acquire all the existing hard assets, including the utility distribution systems and related buildings. So that's a pretty big point to make. IN 2004 AND 2005, THE CITY AMENDED OUR MUNICIPAL CODE AND AWARDED THE GAS AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISES TO ISLAND ENERGY. THE COUNCIL ALSO APPROVED AN OPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH THEM FOR OPERATION MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE UTILITY SYSTEMS ON THE ISLAND. AND THEN AT THE END OF THAT OR THE BEGINNING OF THAT YEAR, 2005, THE CITY EXECUTED A 20-YEAR OPERATION AGREEMENT, ONE FOR GAS, ONE FOR ELECTRICITY ON THE ISLAND. 20 YEARS LATER IN FEBRUARY OF 25, WE EXECUTED A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT FOR WHICH IS NOW EXPIRING AT THE END OF NEXT MONTH. The purpose of this agreement, these two agreements with gas and electricity, is to ensure orderly delivery of gas and electricity to the island to the current users and the future planned development and improvements of the island. THE CITY GRANTS ISLAND ENERGY A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND USE IN THE PUBLIC STREETS AND PLACES ALL POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS WHEN NEEDED TO EXTEND SERVICE. ISLAND ENERGY DOES PAY THE CITY 2% OF ITS GROSS ANNUAL RECEIPTS SIMILAR TO WHAT PG&E DOES. THAT AVERAGES ABOUT $182,000 IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. THAT PLUS THE UTILITY TAXES ARE CREDITED AS A REVENUE TO THE MAYOR ISLAND CFD FUND. IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, AS THE ISLAND DEVELOPS, ISLAND ENERGY WILL EXCHANGE EXISTING EASEMENTS AND ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS. CONVEYED UNDER THAT GRANT FOR RELOCATED EASEMENTS, FACILITIES, AND BUILDINGS. AS PART OF THAT RELOCATION, THERE'S A RELOCATION FUND TO HELP WITH THAT RELOCATION. THE BALANCE IS ABOUT $350,000. AGAIN, THESE ARE THE TERMS OF THE EXISTING AGREEMENT. WORK SINCE WE WERE HERE LAST DOING THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE CITY PROVIDED THE BUILDOUT OF PHASING BASED ON THE DRAFT MARILAND SPECIFIC PLAN TO ISLAND ENERGY. MARILAND COMPANY PROVIDED ISLAND ENERGY WITH MUCH MORE DETAILED BUILDOUT OF THAT PHASING INFORMATION INCLUDING PRELIMINARY LOAD CALCULATIONS SO ISLAND ENERGY COULD START THEIR SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY THAT'S WHAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE ALL MOVING IN TOWARDS THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND ENSURING THAT THEY CAN DELIVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF THE NEW SPECIFIC PLAN. IN FEBRUARY OF 26, JUST NOT TOO FAR BACK, ISLAND ENERGY GAVE THE CITY A DRAFT A SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY AND THE MONTH LATER PROVIDED COST ESTIMATES FOR A NEW SUBSTATION ON THE NORTH END OF THE ISLAND AND JUST RECENTLY THE CITY HIRED AN OUTSIDE LEGAL FIRM TO START DRAFTING A LONG-TERM AGREEMENT WITH ISLAND ENERGY AND JUST THE OTHER DAY CITY OF PITTSBURGH APPROVED THE DRAFT SECOND AMENDMENTS THAT ARE UP FOR YOUR REVIEW TONIGHT. The terms of the Second Amendment, it's again a one-year extension with six months option. I mentioned the outside legal firm that will be drafting a long-term gas and electric operation agreement. Obviously, we'll need to negotiate that. The city will also need to hire a consultant to peer review the study I mentioned on the previous slide. Both parties obviously will need to negotiate the terms and conditions of that long-term agreement, but this extension, most importantly, will allow and obligate Island Energy to continue to pay the city that 2% of gross receipts that will go into revenues for that CFD. uh next steps uh city attorney will like the outside legal firm will start drafting that not long-term agreement either city attorney or ed economic development will hire that consultant and both parties will start meeting regularly to negotiate that long-term agreement and come back to city council for review and approval thank you All right, thank you very much.

Why don't we go ahead and take public comment on this item, then we'll see if council has any questions or comments before we vote.

Yes, we have two speakers signed up for this. First speaker is Sherry Ann Grimm, and then followed by Daniel Boone.

This one now?

You need to, so the handheld mic, there's a switch to turn it on. We turned it off at the recess, I think.

Okay, sorry about that. I just want to make the point, the 2% that's credited back to the CFD does not benefit the residents because of the max tax, it only benefits the businesses. But really why I'm here is a bright spot for us is Island Energy because our rates are lower than they would be with PG&E. But recently there has been discussion that if the data center that is being discussed in Pittsburgh passes, that the rates for Island Energy will go up and that will impact Mare Island as well. So I'm here tonight to ask that question and to ask council if they could ask someone on staff to find out about that and communicate with Mare Island residents.

Thank you. Thank you. We will absolutely do that. We'll finish up public comment and then we'll raise the question.

Okay.

Thanks.

Next speaker is Daniel Boone.

All right, any online speakers on this item?

Through the mayor, no speakers online at this current time.

All right, that's gonna bring us to any quick questions or comments from council. I do wanna invite up our representatives. If there's any comment you have at this time on the data center issue and any follow up we can do on that.

thank you mayor the short answer is no it will not increase rates for customers on mayor island the way pittsburgh power company is structured we will have separate dbas we are regulated by prop 26 and so we will not pass on any of the costs for power sales to the data center to the residents on their island or businesses for that matter

Thank you so much for being willing to to answer that, and we can definitely keep the conversation going if there are follow up questions I see Council members Palmares and Gordon.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation so i'd like to make a comment, this is more to the city manager, but you know as we're. head hunting, trying to find firms, trying to find jobs. I think one of the really great selling points about Muir Island is island energy. And so compared to PG&E, this will come at a very great discount for firms and I think it makes us, puts us at a very competitive advantage. ALSO, LIKE JORDAN MENTIONED BEFORE, WE'RE CAPABLE OF GETTING TO 80 MEGAWATTS, CORRECT, WITH SOME IMPROVEMENTS. AND RIGHT NOW, THE LOAD RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT 44 TO 6 MEGAWATTS. AND MY UNDERSTANDING JUST FROM THOSE GEZ MEETINGS IS THAT FOR ADVANCED MANUFACTURING, THOSE FACILITIES HAVE TO BE AROUND 8 MEGAWATTS. SO THERE'S LOTS OF CAPACITY on that island. So I think that's one of our really great selling points and I shouldn't be, we should be leading with that when we're talking to firms out there. I do want to touch on that 2% fee. And I feel that the rate we're going with the specific plan, we're on the cusp of that specific plan. We're going to gain more residents. We're hopefully going to get more businesses. But is now the right time to consider negotiating for something higher? Let me just leave it at that and maybe have something to comment on that.

Over the next year, if this amendment is approved, that negotiation, that topic can be part of the terms that are negotiated moving forward.

Perfect. And just to piggyback off of a previous comment, YOU KNOW MY INTENT ISN'T JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW THE CITY GETS MORE REVENUE AT THIS BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DOWNSTREAM THAT THE RESIDENCE FIELD IS YOU KNOW FIRST OFF I DON'T I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THE MARILYN RESIDENCE THE RATE PAYERS ARE GOING TO END UP HAVING TO FILL IN THE BILL YOU KNOW IF YOU KNOW WE'RE ASKING FOR A HIGHER FEE IN THAT NEGOTIATION BUT ALSO You know, I want to bring back to when we're talking about the specific plan and hopefully we're going to talk about reformulating the CFDs. can this be part of that reformulation where we're bringing in some money, we're bringing in some cash that goes to the CFDs, and maybe we have an opportunity to cross-load that so the residential rate payers won't have to pay such a, won't have to, bear the onus of that cost. I hope that makes sense, but I feel like there is an opportunity there to maybe help get some relief through on energy in that fee.

We can look into it.

Okay, appreciate it, thank you.

Great, Council Member Gordon.

Yes, I just like to, I would like to just meet the representatives, if I could, Ms. Vanessa and the gentlemen.

Looks like she'll join us here.

Oh, there she is. Just want to meet you all and what does this mean to you and this relationship and this partnership and actually how long you've been on the island?

So my name is Brad Vaughn. I'm the utility superintendent for Island Energy. About 20 years of experience in both investor and publicly owned utilities. And I can definitely say that we continue to work on maintaining a strong relationship with the residents as well as developer on the island, both in attracting businesses. We're literally just on a meeting last week or this week with JLL or whatever it is that they're doing. So we are actively pursuing businesses on the island and just making sure that we provide prompt services to the island residents and doing everything we can just to keep our rates low and provide a very good customer service.

One thing I would like to add to it is we have a dedicated team of 10 people and we are completely dedicated to provide reliable and service to Mare Island. So every time when a customer calls, whether it's like post a payment or make an inquiry of their bills, there's always someone, a real person on the other end picking up the call. Every time when people come to our office, their inquiries or their questions always be answered in full. As Jordan showed in the slides, our responsive time to outage is probably three times faster than PG&E. Bradley Bond worked for PG&E, so he knows the responsive time for PG&E. So we are trying everything that we could. And as I say, May Island is a small community, and we see we are a critical, vital part to this community. Without the community, there would be no island energy. So it's our ultimate commitment to serve the community to our best ability. Thank you so much.

I appreciate you coming up and introduce yourself. Thank you.

All right, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Jordan, for sharing your presentation along with staff. The question that I have is you brought up the point of your infrastructure, the fact you're currently working at 4% to 6%, and the way I understood and what I think I heard is if you're going to go beyond that, your infrastructure, you need to expand that. So the question, and... the word infrastructure specifically on Mare Island has been a point of contention. And so I want you to help the general public and the Mare Island residents help them understand what is the status of your current infrastructure and keeping in mind that a lot of the infrastructure that the other utilities are doing, that's like 70 to 100 years old. So can you give a general status of your infrastructure from both the gas along with the electrical side of it?

Yes, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes, happy to, but I'm actually going to ask Brad to come up here and join me because he's really the technical expert. So from a high level, as you mentioned, this infrastructure is decades old, and the island has not had that large of a load in years. So we do as much maintenance as we can, but part of keeping rates low is working on what you need to work on, and sometimes that means the older infrastructure doesn't get as much TLC. The island is designed to serve up to 80 megawatts. 40 we feel is within the realm of infrastructure that has been pretty well maintained, but probably needs some upgrades to be modernized to be totally reliable. So that's why we feel that could happen pretty quickly. 80, probably the really old infrastructure. You're probably going to need some new transformers. Am I speaking the right language, Brad? And then anything above that is really going to be part of that expansion where you're going to need to upsize equipment to make sure that it could handle that larger load. So I hope that answers your question, Vice Mayor, but happy to build off that.

It does. And I think the fact that, and I want to emphasize, this is a council that has been emphasizing the forward thinking, not just tomorrow, the next year, the next five years. We're trying to think down the line. And the fact that, once again, we're only at four to six megawatts right now, and the fully advancing a lot of our economic development. I don't want to be caught with our pants down that we aren't going to be able to bring in economic development because we only have four to six, to where if we have the ability and the capacity to get up to at least 10 to potentially 20, and as you just said, 40 doesn't seem out of the realm, but then that would be, whether that's a significant upgrade with the current infrastructure, or is that something that And it comes down to, like we're running to our current infrastructure with some of our other utilities, how are we gonna cost that and how are we gonna make that affordable for us to be able to upgrade that to meet the capacity that I know this council and future councils are gonna be looking for to where we aren't gonna have to go backwards to identify that, well, if we did this 10 years ago or 20 years ago, we would be able to deal with the capacity that we're trying to get to.

So I'll try not to keep it super technical, which is definitely my realm. But as far as the current infrastructure right now, we have two large transformers that service the island, and they're both rated at 20 megawatts. They can be pushed harder, but just like anything, if you're driving a car at 1,000 miles an hour down the road, it's not gonna last as long, right? So at the 20 megawatts, that is their sweet spot. So for all intents and purposes of the discussion, 40 megawatts is what we can serve now. now with that being said we are looking at other alternatives as um to try to help expedite any kind of load growth that may come on the island quickly so sorry i'm just gathering my thoughts here for a second

And I'm not looking for a solution right now. It's more of a planning issue that I want to get to to where, once again, we're not going to be, I don't want to have to say no to a potential business or something that needs a big load to where we're actually projecting that and to where I think we've, We're running into that issue now is that we haven't been able to project that and plan for that to where I don't want that, especially from an energy because energy is the bigger one. That's the more difficult thing to upgrade to right now. And I don't want us to be caught in that situation that we have to tell people, no, we can't do that. That's going to be another five, 10 years down the line.

Vice Mayor. completely understand and you have our commitment your staff has been incredible to work with through this they keep us very informed I would say the bottom line is this if there was a 10 megawatt or smaller user that came in tomorrow we could serve that tomorrow we have to constantly look ahead though if it's a 20 megawatt user it's a little bit difficult if it comes in in one fell swoop if it continues to build we can continue to look ahead but you have our commitment to continue to work with the city manager and your staff to project out what that looks like, to work with Mare Island Co. to project what that looks like, and make sure that we're prepared.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Through the mayor, can I just add some additional information? Go ahead. The reason that we didn't move forward with an additional 20-year contract is for that very reason. So recently, February, March, they gave us a capacity and infrastructure study. So now we need to hire the expert to review that study. And what that study does is it looks at what can they adequately serve in what timeline and how do we phase it? part of this next year of negotiating is going to be ensuring that they can provide what the future development requires. Mare Island Company's plan right now as it sits is about 150 megawatts fully built out. So we need to ensure that we have that capacity and that power provision through the entirety of the next term of the next agreement before we sign that agreement.

All right, thank you all again. I think we are ready for a motion on the item.

Yes, I move we, oh, we had, I move we adopt a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Operations Agreement regarding the distribution of gas on Mare Island and the Second Amendment to the Operations Agreement regarding the distribution of electricity on Mare Island with Pittsburgh Power Company, DBA Island Energy, extending the term of each agreement one year with a six-month option to extend and authorize the city manager to execute the same.

All right, we're ready to vote.

motion carries unanimously all right that is going to move us on um we have three more action items this evening one is a public hearing which was noticed one is time sensitive and item f is not going to take long at all i would imagine the item that is more substantial at the end is the police reform update and i'm wondering if we may want to continue that TO OUR NEXT MEETING BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT STARTING THAT LATE AT NIGHT IS GOING TO BE PRODUCTIVE FOR US AND ALSO I WANT TO RESPECT THE TIME OF OUR STAFF THAT ARE HERE AND NOT HAVE THEM WAITING UNTIL LATE IN THE NIGHT I LIKE TO AGREE UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THAT ITEM TO THE AUGUST 4TH MEETING AND WE WILL ASK THE CITY CLERK TO CALL ITEM 90.

Hold a public hearing and introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 16.616 to Title 16 zoning of the Vallejo Municipal Code establishing an expedited permitting process for electric vehicle charging station.

All right, thank you. We're gonna go ahead and open up public comment on this item. This is going to be a public hearing. So we will hear our presentation from our planning staff. We'll open the public hearing and take any clarifying questions from council, then our public commenters, and then we'll do our discussion and vote. And we have our planning director here. I'll go ahead and turn it over to you.

Thank you, good evening, Mayor, members of the council. I'm actually gonna turn this over to our senior planner, Robert Busick, who's gonna give you a brief presentation.

Good evening, Mayor Source, members of the Council. Robert Busick, Senior Planner here at the City of Vallejo, here tonight to introduce a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment adding chapter 16.616 to the Vallejo Municipal Code regarding electric vehicle charging stations. Electric vehicles are expected to play an important role in achieving California's climate and air quality goals. To that end, AB 1236 was enacted in 2015 and requires local jurisdictions to establish an expedited, streamlined permitting process for EV charging stations as outlined in California government code. The proposed new chapter to the Vallejo Municipal Code 16.616 pertaining to electric vehicle charging stations is proposed to be inserted in the procedures and permits part of the zoning ordinance. This proposed ordinance was developed in conjunction with and received confirmation from the governor's office of business and economic development that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the intent and requirements of the applicable government code sections. So what this looks like statewide, these are maps of the progress that, the progress on implementing streamlined EV charging station permitting that is published by the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development. And as you can see, lots of green statewide showing that streamlined permitting has been implemented in many jurisdictions. Yellow shows jurisdictions where the implementation is in progress. And then red shows the jurisdictions where STREAMLINED PERMITTING HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. OF COURSE THE INFORMATION LAGS A BIT, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN LOOKING AT THE NORTH BAY OF VALLEJO IS A MUNICIPALITY THAT HAS NOT YET IMPLEMENTED STREAMLINED EV CHARGING STATION PERMITTING. First, I'll cover the streamlined portion of the ordinance, the proposed ordinance. So to permit electric vehicle charging stations, the proposed ordinance outlines a four-step process. STEP ONE IS THAT THE PERSPECTIVE APPLICANT VERIFIES THAT THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION WOULD NOT CREATE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY AS DEFINED BY STATE LAW AND IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. STEP TWO, THE APPLICANT WOULD THEN SUBMIT A PERMIT APPLICATION WITH REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION AND THE APPLICABLE FEES USING A CITY DEVELOPED CHECKLIST THAT WOULD BE PUBLISHED ONLINE. Step three, on the city side, if the application meets checklist requirements as well as health and safety standards, the city's chief building official would process the application through an expedited ministerial review process and issue the necessary permits. City Council Chambers, Step four would come into place if the chief building official determines that a proposed. City Council Chambers, charging station installation would create a specific adverse impact on public health or safety, then the planning and development services director may require the applicant to obtain a minor use permit. City Council Chambers, As opposed to the ministerial process. Next I will go over the expedited component of the proposed ordinance. So the ministerial permits would be processed within timeframes established in government code, which are outlined below based on the number of charging stations proposed within the application. SO FOR 1 TO 25 STATIONS THAT APPROVAL DECISION WOULD NEED TO BE MADE WITHIN 20 BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE. AND THEN FOR LARGER STATIONS WITH MORE THAN OR LARGER PROJECTS MORE THAN 25 STATIONS, THE APPROVAL DECISION IS WITHIN 40 BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE. Looking at the zoning code text amendment findings outlined in the Vallejo Municipal Code, one is that the ordinance amendment is consistent in principle with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. And the ordinance amendment is consistent with the purpose of the zoning code to promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. The staff report and the proposed ordinance document in the packet that does include additional analysis of how the proposed amendment is consistent with each specific finding. And staff has found that the proposed ordinance is consistent with these findings. WE PRESENTED THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE VALLEJO PLANNING COMMISSION IN A DULY NOTICED HEARING ON JUNE 15, 2026. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC26-13 AS PRESENTED WITH NO CHANGES BY A VOTE OF 5-0 WITH ONE ABSENCE, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE. As such, the recommended action tonight, staff recommends that the city council find the proposed ordinance exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378B5. authorizing administrative activities and approve the ordinance adding chapter 16.616 of electric vehicle charging stations to the Vallejo municipal code the proposed ordinance would ensure that the Vallejo municipal code remains consistent with California government code while supporting broader installation of EV charging infrastructure throughout the city and with that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have

All right, thank you very much. I'm gonna go ahead and open up the public hearing. I see lights from Council Member Gordon and Vice Mayor Matulak, and I'll ask you if they are clarifying questions that are quick, and if so, I will take them before the public comment. A clarifying question, Council Member Gordon, go ahead.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE HOLDING ACCOUNTABILITY. FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE NORMAN KEENE CENTER, WE HAD 10 TO 15 OF THESE STATIONS. PERSON GOT THE DEAL, GOT THE CONTRACT, AND NEVER, EVER UPLOADED. AND I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THAT. SO CLARIFYING THAT HOW ARE WE GOING TO BETTER HOLD THESE INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNTABLE AND THEY DON'T JUST BECOME TARGETED FOR COPPER AND DESTRUCTION.

Mayor source councilmember Gordon That is definitely that's an item that the Planning Commission raised as well regarding this The Scope of the state law is focused on Ensuring that the city does not stand in the way of the permitting process for the electric vehicle charging stations and then leaving it up to the the owners and the operators of those EV charging stations to ensure the maintenance and continued operation of those stations, which is also how they you know, the EV charging stations are an investment on their part, and so to ensure that those are operating are typically in their best interest, especially as this law is designed to allow for more, you know, higher adoption rates of EV charging stations, which would mean that there would be more demand and more use of those charging stations that are constructed. So this is an item that we do bring up with prospective operators who contact us about installing the infrastructure in the city, but is outside the scope of this particular ordinance.

All right, I'm going to go over to the Vice Mayor.

Similar to piggyback on that, so the fact that these are actually in there, and I know those of us that do drive electric vehicles, and especially here at City Council, there are many times that we show up and there aren't any... Any charging stations available to do that, so those that are are here existing that aren't powered up are and i'm going to relate this to our. vacancy landlord issue is that these are basically sitting there and they're not being used and so they're not providing any benefit, are there any is there anything from us from an ordinance or penalization standpoint that. if they put them in that we require them or they're going to pay some fee to work, because that's just preventing us from doing what we may potentially do. So is that something that we have at our disposal?

I'll just jump in on this. The purpose of this ordinance is to implement a ministerial review process, which means we don't add conditions of approval, and we cannot add that type of requirement on individual applications for them to ensure they're running it, because it's private property. We don't really have that level of oversight. Does that make sense?

Thank you for that clarification. But similar to like our liquor ordinance, if there's a whole bunch of them that are built that aren't used, are we gonna approve one that's down the block?

I think the key difference is that this ordinance is for, it's a ministerial process. So it's just over the counter. We do not get to add conditions of approval on it.

Thank you for that clarification.

All right, I see council members Palmares and Matias. Next time we do this, I'm going to define clarifying question as a question that can be asked in 10 seconds or less and answered in 10 seconds or less. Would you guys like to go? We're going to have a round of council comments after this. So the way the public hearing works is we take clarifying questions from council, quick questions, we take public comment, and then there's an entire opportunity for the council to have discussion and further questions after the public hearing. So do we have quick questions now?

I can do it after.

you'll do after, Council Member Matias.

So, my clarifying question. How did we get away with being out of compliance for nine years? I'm not trying to be funny.

No, it's a good question. I actually didn't realize that this was an issue here. We were approached by staff at the GO-Biz, the state level. They brought it to our attention as new staff here in the last two years. Come to find out we actually had something that was drafted. It just hadn't gone through the process to get approval. So we picked it up and tried to move it forward.

Thank you. Why don't we go ahead and take public comment now. Our public hearing is open. Do we have any in-person commenters on this item?

No in-person speakers, Mayor.

All right. Do we have any online speakers?

Through the Mayor, we currently do not have any speakers online. All right.

With that, I will close the public hearing, and I will return back to Councilmembers Gordon and Palmares.

Just so you know, I was trying to be first. I didn't realize I get to ask the question earlier, so I got it now. Thank you for that.

Councilmember Palmares. No, no, no. I want to ask more questions. You have more stuff. Okay.

Yeah, yeah. So if we're making this a zoning thing, why can't we add provisions? Just asking, clarity for that one. Maybe I should ask the legal.

So I think the issue here that we're sort of glossing over a little bit is the reason for this ordinance change is a change in state law. And so it is a mandatory change, for lack of a better word, although it apparently didn't go all the way through the first time we undertook it. I think the issue here is that If a state law comes in and says, you must approve these permits ministerially, the definition of ministerially is we can't deny them and we can't condition them. And so it's basically a process by which we can make sure they're safe and connected properly, et cetera. But it is not a process by which we can apply very specific conditions to them. and that is the same as some of the times where we talk about the state housing laws that require us to approve certain housing applications on a ministerial basis this is kind of the same thing we're required to approve these on a ministerial basis this ordinance just makes that clear in our own code so let me just add it just to clarify so you mean to tell me

Excuse me, my colleagues. You mean to tell me that somebody can come here, put a whole bunch of EVs, because this is what I've seen in some cities, that they get these grants to so-called put in low-income communities. They get that money, put this up, and just completely abandon it, never went online. And when you try to call them, there's no one there. And you should see how it looks over there. You mean to tell them we can't hold anybody financially accountable or nothing?

That isn't exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying we can't add a condition to the permit to require them to do that. Now, whether we can chase them for having an inoperable charging station on private property as some kind of a nuisance, that's a different question. I would have to look into that. That might be possible. But conditioning the action in the first instance is not possible.

Well, I appreciate you explaining that to me because I'm saying if we are here to just okay it, sort of like what my colleague said earlier about something else, then what's the point of it coming to us if we can't even add something to this zone? Like, okay, sure, you can pop up anything you want, but you better make sure you're accountable to it.

SO AS AN ORDINANCE APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL IS ALSO MANDATORY SO WE HAVE TO BRING IT TO YOU SO THAT'S WHY IT'S BEFORE YOU THANK YOU SO MUCH I APPRECIATE IT YOU'RE WELCOME ALL RIGHT COUNCIL MEMBER PAUL MARZ SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THIS ORDINANCE BUT CAN'T WE ALSO UH PURSUE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE TO DISCUSS THE MAINTENANCE of the EV charters. So we're not stopping them from applying and that gets approved. But the maintenance is a separate issue, correct? Like we could still do that.

Well, I don't actually know the answer to that question, but we can look into it and get back to you.

Okay, appreciate it, thank you.

And then some, I just also wanted to point out that some of the ones that you are talking about that currently don't operate are actually on city property.

I'm well aware of those. So, yeah.

Just putting that out there.

All right, thank you.

All right, Council Member Bergenzer.

Well I was literally just gonna point that out how embarrassing it is that the city can't even maintain their own infrastructure and yet here we are trying to hold other people accountable and the city can't even hold itself accountable which is completely embarrassing. I don't understand why we have chargers that have no connectivity. I don't understand why we put chargers in parking lots that are not open to the public. It's just, it's asinine to me and yet we're coming forward with an ordinance for the public and we can't even get our act together in the city. It's really disappointing.

I would concur with that. Council Member Letijoux.

Absent the ordinance that we have to adopt by state law, But on the other side of it, as it relates to chargers being on our city-owned property, it would also be good to have an inventory of the chargers that are on our property and how we're maintaining those chargers and what we need to do to maintain them. If you're in a certain part of the city, closer to Columbus Parkway and so forth and on, I know there's a bunch of chargers there. and they seem to be moving and going. And then in Glen Cove, there's a whole set of chargers, and they're always moving and going. I don't use any of the public chargers. Okay, yeah. And they seem to be, you always see cars there. But in our downtown area, I KNOW SOME OF THOSE ARE OUR CHARGERS, SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO DIFFERENT? IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW. AND I KNOW OUR CITY MANAGERS KNEW, SO IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE AN ASSET MANAGEMENT process around our chargers around our assets and how are we going to maintain them and it would be nice to hear back what we could do since this is coming up as it relates to the ordinance and then i would agree and i thank you city attorney neb determining if chargers are on private property what other mechanism do we have to ensure that those chargers are operable um again because when they're not and copper does get stolen and all these other things but it contributes to the blight and so it would be nice to see what else can what else can we do as well so thank you and thank you for your work

Thank you. I'll echo the comments. I would love for us to be able to get to a point where we are championing this since a super, super majority of this council drives EVs. I think we should be forward. Our use of EVs doesn't match our infrastructure, to Council Member Bergenzer's point. So I think something we can definitely be following up on. And I think we're ready for... I have closed public hearings, so we are ready for a motion on the item.

Yes, Mayor. I hope... I move that we hold a public hearing and introduce an ordinance adding chapter 16.616 to title 16 zoning of the Vallejo municipal code, establishing expedited permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations.

All right, we are ready to vote. And while we vote, I will use this time to relay my understanding of the public hearing process for everyone's understanding and to make sure I understand it correctly, which I believe is that when we open the public hearing, we hear the staff presentation, there is purposely time for council to ask clarifying questions for information prior to the public comment, but we are not allowed to deliberate or really start sharing commentary until after we close the comments and then we deliberate and comment and vote. And I believe that is a set process, which is why we do it differently than other agenda items. So I just wanted to clarify that for the group that I'm not trying to bug people about what's a clarifying question or not. It's actually something that's required of a public hearing. Unless I've gotten that wrong and I'm not seeing any objections. I think I got that right. Have we all voted?

And the motion carries unanimously.

Thank you very much. We will move to our last two items. I am going to shepherd these through as quickly as possible and I'll ask our clerk to announce item nine E.

Consideration of possible action to amend the city council's board commission and committee interview process for Measure P oversight committee appointments and possibly provide direction to staff relating to other board commission and committee interview processes.

All right, thank you. We're gonna go ahead and open up public comment on this item, and I will share with the council what I believe to be a brief synopsis of the issue, and I'll ask Dawn to jump in if I've missed anything. Effectively, we set up last year our system of interviewing commission members in pairs, but stated that any of the Measure P, SAB, POAC, district appointments, the council would all interview the applicants. That has proven to be a barrier to getting applicants through. We have a vacancy on the Measure P commission right now that in order to fill it is going to require a special meeting of the entire council. And what our city clerk, in collaboration with myself and the Measure P liaison, Council Member Matias, is requesting is that we just simply change our process to have those other boards and commissions also be interviewed by a subset of the council rather than the full council. So with that, I think we can just take, we'll see if there's public comment, but we can just take a motion to make that adjustment to, unless someone has a, vociferous objection to the process. I think the process is working okay. We can just take a motion to fold P, MPOC, and SAB into the existing process. No? We're adopting resolution to do something, no? Okay. Hybrid, sorry.

We're close, you're close. Okay, so what is before you tonight to just up and change is P. And the other two need more process.

Yep, yep, we're just doing P, that's right. The other two are written into their ordinances. So we are looking for just changing the measure P process. Council Member Gordon.

This is not for clarifying questions, right? I can ask my question. We are not doing a public hearing on this item. We are back to our normal process. Can I ask, are you the one that, can you clarify your focus to this change?

So the mayor just described essentially what the problem is, which is when we came on board a year ago, we said that for three of the commissions, we all had to be together to interview the applicants. And that has become a problem in trying to get these interviews done, especially for this commission. So this change would allow us to just have a subset of the council interview the applicants. The videos will still be made available to the entire group for you guys to review them before we make appointments. But it's just meant to remove what has been an issue to get these folks seated into the commission. And this was something that the city clerk, city attorney Neb looked into and they proposed as a solution.

So what you're saying is you're not gonna take away our votes, you're just making it possible that we can not all have to be present. Yes. May I ask why was, maybe I should ask the city attorney, so why was this necessary in the beginning to why they did this in the first place instead of doing it like we've done other council meetings? City attorney.

My understanding is that we just decided that. That was our decision, and what we're doing now is amending our – with new information, we are amending our decision to improve the process.

So were you saying this before I see Dawn got her light on?

I'm just going to reconfirm what the mayor said. Your decision last year was to interview as a body and notice it MPOC, POAC, and SAB because of the nature of what they deal with.

And I agree with that. And that's one reason why I have kind of a reserved thought is that I did appreciate the fact that we were interviewed. I just didn't realize we were the first to do it. But it was because this is have to do with dollars and monies.

We weren't the previous.

Yeah. If I can give clarity. Previously, the city council interviewed every single board and commission. Right. for every and it was just it was very burdensome to get out the entire council to be we'd have like 15 special meetings just to have all the interviews i see and so it streamlined it by having it just be the council liaison and one other partner for most of them but these three were more critical and so we thought we should have it be the full council for those but i i agree that i I think that we should reconsider. I don't want to waive my question later.

The issue we ran into too is that just the applications come in and then there's a huge lag between when the application comes in and when they can get an interview and we're going to lose people. It's also to serve them and get them on the board. The only suggestion to amend the process would be that we include the liaison to the commission and the person making the appointment. Since these are district appointments, I think we just need to have an understanding that whoever's making the appointment needs to be in the interview.

THAT WAS GOING TO BE WHAT I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND, THAT THE ONLY WAY I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE ON THAT IS IF THAT PROCESS, JUST LIKE WE DO THE OTHERS.

YEAH.

YEAH. ESPECIALLY THE POAC. I REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T LOSE THAT CONNECTION.

AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE POAC. OKAY. THE WHOLE COUNCIL IS STILL GOING TO DO IT. THIS IS JUST FOR MEASURE P. WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. I APPRECIATE IT.

COUNCIL MEMBER VIRGENSER. ONE, I WAS GOING TO MAKE THAT SAME RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE THE the district and the council liaison who is for sure needed at the interview. Secondly, I don't know if this needs to go back to the whole ordinance, but can we make it so that if there's not a qualified person in your district, you can select from other districts? because there's not enough candidates in every district and that we have vacancies for long term. So it would be nice obviously to take preference to candidates who live within your district, but if you don't have a candidate in your district, can you select from somebody who's being interviewed from a different district and does that have to go through the whole ordinance process or can we make that change here?

So it depends on, well, you can't make that change here. And whether you can make that change at all depends on which of these three bodies we're talking about. I'm suggesting it for all three. So you can't do it for MPOC because MPOC's process was approved by the voters. You'd have to go back to the voters to approve it for MPOC. But we could do Saab and we could do... POAC already has that.

I want to take the POAC language and just insert it into the SAB ordinance. But we can do that separately.

You can direct it and we can bring that back.

I know it went to the voters, but maybe it needs to go back to the voters because there's times that those commissions can't meet because they don't have quorums and things. We don't have enough people seated. So I think it would be worth, maybe not tonight, but I think it would be worth bringing that back forward and having it go back to the voters to approve that.

yeah Councilmember Gordon the only concern that I have with that see if it was a city at large that's okay maybe but what happened the last time was District 6 went without anyone for a while and it was because I wasn't going to agree to that we end up searching and we finally got people and I think that is it because I worry about once again we're going to go back to neglecting COMMUNITIES THAT NEEDS TO HAVE THAT REPRESENTATION FROM THEIR COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S ONE REASON WHY I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

AND WE CAN BRING THAT BACK WHEN THAT COMES BACK. WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION THEN ABOUT THAT.

I WOULD JUST CLARIFY THAT IT STILL WOULD BE YOUR DECISION IF YOU WANT TO WAIT TO FILL SOMEBODY FROM YOUR DISTRICT, THAT'S FINE. BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND FILL IT BECAUSE YOU'VE LISTENED TO OTHER INTERVIEWS AND THERE'S A HIGHLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATE WHO COULD COVER YOUR DISTRICT,

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING FOR THAT.

LET'S CHECK AND SEE IF WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYONE IN PERSON. I'M GOING TO TAKE A STAB AT A MOTION WHICH IS GOING TO BE THAT WE AMEND OUR BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEW PROCESS FOR SPECIFICALLY THE MEASURE P OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. interviews to be conducted by a subset of council members that includes the liaison and the person making the appointment and that we give direction that we want the amendment to the SAB ordinance to reflect the POAC ordinance about the districts of appointments.

May I ask a point of clarification so I don't bring you back the wrong thing? You also, I assume, want the SAB ordinance to be the same interview process as your...

I don't think the interview process needs to be in the... Oh, does the SAB ordinance need to... Yes.

If it needs to be in the... If the SAB ordinance dictates the interview process, you want us to change that as well as adding the POAC provision?

Yes. So the direction would be to amend the SAB ordinance. to change the interview process to enable a subset of council members to interview and not lock us into any one interview process and to amend it to allow appointment outside of one's district if there are no qualified applicants.

And I don't know if the first thing is, I don't have the SAB ordinance in front of me. So if it's not necessary, we won't do it, but yes. Sounds good.

Okay. All right, let's vote. I did look at the SAB ordinance before coming down here, and the SAB ordinance does not talk about the interview process. The slide.

Point of clarification, Mayor. So, and this may be a semantical thing, so when you said we can decide if there's no qualified, so I think though it needs to be the district representative needs to decide.

The POAC, yeah, the POAC ordinance states it perfectly. It has really great language. It just says if a district has no qualified applicant, that district THE COUNCIL MEMBER MAY APPOINT SOMEONE FROM OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT, BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THEM TO.

ALL RIGHT. HAS EVERYBODY VOTED? ONE MORE VOTE. THERE WE GO. MOTION CARRIES IN HANDLESSLY.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOOD, I BELIEVE.

QUICK QUESTION. WE'RE NOT BRINGING ANYTHING BACK ON POAC.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING TO BRING BACK THIS TIME ON POAC. All right, that's gonna bring us to item 9F, and I'll have our clerk announce this item.

Designate a voting delegate and alternate for the business portion of the annual League of California Cities Conference.

All right, we're gonna open up public comment on this item to anyone in person or online. Do we have any in-person speakers?

None in person, Mayor.

All right, let's give online a couple seconds, but do we have anyone at this time?

Through the mayor, no speakers online at this time.

I'm going to give you about 10 more seconds, and then I'm going to close it. We have already made these appointments, but we are required to officially vote to designate our voting delegate. We have, for this year, elected Vice Mayor Matulik as our first rep for... THE LEAGUE OF CITIES AND COUNCILMEMBER BRUGENZER AS THE FIRST ALTERNATE AND COUNCILMEMBER LETTIJOU AS THE SECOND ALTERNATE. MY PROPOSAL IS THAT WE APPOINT VICE MAYOR MITULIK WHO IS ATTENDING THAT CONFERENCE AS OUR VOTING DELEGATE AND I HAVE ASKED COUNCILMEMBERS BRUGENZER AND LETTIJOU TO EITHER ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS OR DECIDE. IT WILL BE COUNCILMEMBER LETTIJOU will be the alternate delegate. But since the vice mayor is attending the conference, he will be the one that is voting. If everybody's okay with that, I will go ahead and just make that motion. One more check for public comment.

No speakers, mayor.

All right, let's go ahead and vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

All right, thank you. That is going to bring us to our information calendar. We have continued the police reform update, given the late hour and the importance of that item. That is going to bring us to our city manager's report.

Nothing much at this time, Mayor, other than to say thank you again for your belief in me, and I look forward to us moving forward.

Thank you, we are as well. That'll bring us to the city attorney's report.

No report at this time.

All right, that's gonna bring us to our second community forum. This is for anyone that did not have an opportunity to address the council in the first forum, but who wishes to speak to the council on an item not on tonight's agenda. I don't believe we have any more in-person speakers.

No one signed up in person, Mayor.

So we'll go ahead and give members of the public some time to raise their hands online. Do we have anyone at this time?

Through the mayor, yes, we do have at least one speaker. The other speaker from earlier today is still also online. Let's go ahead and call him. Please unmute yourself. You have the floor.

Thank you. So can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

Okay, great. So I am calling about someone who was in Vallejo initially and has moved to Fairfield after her failures, basically trying to take office on the county level. That would be Kay Patrice Williams. She is a current Fairfield City Councilwoman. She was endorsed in 2020 by the Vallejo Police Officers Association after the badge-bending scandal, right? And now, as a Fairfield City Councilwoman, people are looking to find justice for Maurice Williams. Well, you know what? They're not going to get it from someone who's licking the boots of the police, for one. She's also... on a campaign against people who dare to question her, to call her out, to look into her. And she has started to create a list of private citizens listing their names, vehicles they drive, people they associate with, things they put online, things they say in person. She's taken pictures of people at city council meetings. She tries to intimidate people into silence. There are politicians who are afraid of her that are willing to talk in private but afraid to say anything out loud because they're afraid of the retaliation. There are so many issues with this person, and I would suggest anyone in Vallejo, if you are voting coming up, and you see anyone associated with Kay Patrice Williams, do not vote for them. If you want justice, if you want power to the people, and you want to fight justice, The oppression, do not vote for them if they are associated with Kay Patrice Williams. She's out for herself. She does not care about people of color, despite what she says, and she will oppress people and attack people and use her position of power like an authoritarian pig. That's all. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Did we have another speaker? I know we had Antoinette from earlier.

Yes, Madam Mayor, we do have one more speaker here. Antoinette, please unmute yourself. You have the floor.

Okay. Before I say what I was going to say, can I ask just like some clarifying questions? Go ahead. So you were saying, Mayor Andrea, sorry. I'm used to, you were talking about a meeting, a police reform being pushed to a meeting for August 4th. Is that, I know that the meeting on the 11th is being canceled. So is the August 4th a public meeting?

yes yes i appreciate you asking that because i was going to mention that later in the meeting so our regular meeting was scheduled for august 11th but the council decided to hold it a week earlier on august 4th so it's going to be shown as a special meeting but it'll be basically in place of our 11th meeting and we'll agendize the police reform update on that meeting

Okay, got that. And then, sorry, second question before I say that. There was an item 8G about allocating the over $100,000 to counseling for Vallejo Police Department. Will that be addressed at the next city council meeting as well?

You know what? That was tough to, it was a little bit difficult to hear that.

So it was okay. The one that, yes, the one we continued. So will that roll over as well to August 4th? Um, because that's, that's, I stayed on here to speak one to that, but it didn't get addressed for this meeting. But I do think that that's something that is important that needs to be addressed, especially when we're talking about police reform, because we're talking about allocating additional, you know, over $100,000 to a department that has already shown they don't even know what to do with the funding that they have now. And then it's just what everything with the police reform, $100,000 into mental health services when that has yet to even be offered to the impacted families in Vallejo. Not a dime has been spent on even trying to give any type of mental health resources. And I speak for myself as someone who almost tried to commit suicide after my brother was killed by Valero police. So, um, I think that's a big thought that y'all should think when that is coming to the next meeting. All that to say in my 50 seconds, um, I'm sure that you all are aware if you are not by now, um, the video footage that came out for public, um, about the supposedly, um, Vallejo police chase that they claimed that they stopped. Video footage has proved that they did not stop. When Marcus did crash on his motorcycle, they continuously just drove right past him, left him for dead. Lights and sirens were still on. So for them to lie and say that they ended the chase. um video footage shows total opposite they also told dispatch that um they last in the quote-unquote suspect on balavista uh which was also a lie and proven to be a lie because marcus never made it to balavista he was already stuck under the car uh being left for dead so um these are definitely things that need to be addressed and i think should be prioritized for the next meeting and not, you know, pushed white till 11 o'clock at night, especially if we're going to be addressing police reform.

Thank you. Thanks for waiting up with us as well. Do we have anyone else online?

No other speakers at this time, Madam Mayor.

All right. We'll close community forum. That is going to bring us to our request and actions for future agenda items or special projects. Given our discussion at goal setting, I'm hoping the city manager, we can work together to come up with a better way to handle all of this, as I know he's working through the referral list. I do see Council Member Bergenzer. Go ahead.

I just want an update on when the flock detection conversation is gonna come back to the council. I know we were gonna potentially have the POAC and the SOB meet, but this is getting to a point where it's almost becoming critical, and I think that since we stopped the funding, we need to have that come post-haste to the council, so I'm wondering if we can get that agendized in the September meeting.

Yeah, I'll turn it over to the city manager. What is the status of that? Have we been able to get it to those commissions? Because that will be a delay.

I'm not sure. So I think that what you're telling us is to try to wrap up whatever the stuff that needs to be wrapped up might be and come back to the council as early as possible in September.

But this specific item, I'm not talking about the 60 items on the laundry list, I'm talking about the flock item.

No, no, no, the flock item. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

And I would concur with that. If it means we don't get a joint meeting, we might have to bring it back here first.

So can we push forward to have the joint meeting be in September so that it can come to the council in October? Yeah. Well, they don't have a say on their agenda.

Through the mayor, as the secretary for the POAC, I've actually been talking to liaison for the SAB, and we're looking to have a joint meeting in September. Perfect. I think in advance of your September 23rd, is that, whatever your second meeting in September. So we were trying to get it coming back then. Yeah, the week before then.

Thank you so much for that update. Yep. All right. Council Member Letijoux.

So one of the things I'd like to request in advance, I know we did goal setting on Saturday, and I know we're waiting for the notes to come back, but I'd like for our city manager to figure out a time that we can complete this exercise. As a council, we did not get... to a satisfactory place in that process. And I think it's very important. And it was costly in dollars and time. And I heard a lot of community feedback regarding it. So we, through your leadership, I'm quite sure that we can figure out how to get together legally and complete this exercise so that we can have something to show for the work that we're doing and move forward.

If I may? Yes. The plan is we'll receive materials from the consultant. And then what we'll also do is we'll convene staff, leadership team for sort of a two to three hour exercise to go through developing a set of objectives for each goal. in essence like maybe seven or eight and then we would set up some sort of a brief short study session with you all to go over these objectives and and to sort of we'll give you seven or eight with the goal of let's see if we can get to four to five objectives per goal and we'll facilitate that process and then we can wrap up the whole thing uh and uh What I'd like to do is I have a tool, it's a one-page strategic plan. We'll have the vision, the mission, we'll have the goals, we'll have the objectives, and we'll have some, we may even be able to build it out even further with some strategies to go along with each objective as well.

So one of the things that I'd like to make sure while you and your team are working on it is that you crosswalk back to the federal, state, and county objectives. They don't need to be exact, but the ones that match, like infrastructure.

Yeah.

and being able to outline, oh, the federal government, state and county have that as their goal. And the reason I'm saying that is where we have light goals, then it really says, what dollars are available? at the federal and state level that we should be vying for, because I think that's very important. And when I see the goals are in particularly the objectives, those objectives from at our level really should reflect policy at a policy level. I'm At this level, I'm not monitoring police response time. You and the chief are monitoring police response time. I am not monitoring you overhauling a process. You're monitoring that and you may come to the council and say, hey, this is important and I need to spend this much time on it and therefore it means that potentially we can't do X, Y, and Z. So I just really want to see goals at a policy level with the objectives at the right level, well, the goals, but the objectives at the right policy level, right? And I did not see that. My perspective, I did not see that on Saturday. And that's what I'm looking for. You do what you do and we bring forward what we bring forward and you break them down further for your team to implement. And I don't want to be in the weeds with the team. I want to be up here And I want to know where they match at state and federal level. And I want to know how we're going to go after those dollars at state and federal level. So I just want to share that with you. And I'm quite certain you operate in that format.

Okay.

all right that is going to bring us to item 15 report of the presiding officer and members of the city council do any of my colleagues have anything to report uh vice mayor go ahead yes just very quickly here on um thursday um uh what is that july 16th i want to thank um rayvon williamson and especially natalie peterson um the navigation center held a resource fair and It was very well run and to see the engagement from the clients there with our staff, it was an excellent opportunity for all the clients there to engage with our resource providers there. So I just want to say that that was a great success thanks to Ravon and to Natalie Peterson. And once again, obviously the goal setting. And then I want to thank Council Member Matias for spending a few nights to complete our interviews for economic development. Human Relations and the Planning Commission. So end of my report.

All right. I'm not seeing anybody else. So I'll just say one thing again, which is that between now and our next meeting, Sunday, August 2nd, Soul Trans bus routes are changing. Please help spread the word if you know anyone who rides the bus. That is going to go into effect on Sunday.

monday they'll have wayfinders and folks out there to help people um and then uh i'll leave it at that for now i have a question to you um for you mayor so um i haven't seen an actual sign over the bus sign in glen cove because it's the bus is not going to come down into glen cove any longer And so I think I've seen a white sign adjacent to it, but not really on the bus stop. So I'm just curious where you definitely are not gonna have a bus run. We're not gonna have a bus run deep into Glen Cove. What are we going to put up over that sign? Because I haven't seen it and I might be jumping the gun.

Yeah, I mean, that's a good question I'll ask. My understanding is that they'll change the signs when the change takes place and that the outreach has been on the physical bus. So I know they've been doing a lot of work to make sure the riders know, but they've been doing it on the bus and not on the signs. So we can check on that. I'm not seeing anything else, so I'm going to go ahead and adjourn us at 11.24 p.m., and again, our next meeting will be the special meeting on August 4th, which is next Tuesday.

you you