Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBatch 2 (complete)1 From:Jan Marx < Sent:Thursday, January 16, 2025 7:53 PM To:Carolyn Smith; carolyn smith; Brett Cross; Brett Cross; Sandra Rowley Cc:Francis, Emily; Barry Price; Tyler Coari Subject:Major City Budget Goal This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello RQN stalwarts, Thank you for your well thought out and well written email of January 12 regarding Neighborhoods as a Major City Goal. I have forwarded it to the SLO Tenants' Union (SLOTU) and Tobacco prohibition groups, since I noticed how much their goals and those of RQN have in common, despite your difference in perspective. Today, fellow Council Member Emily Francis and I met with the Tenants Union representatives regarding the problems facing the neighborhoods, permanent residents and short term renters alike, and the possibility that they could work with RQN to achieve common goals. They expressed a willingness to do so. I am excited about the possibility that, if RQN and the SLOTU could collaborate to advocate for a major city goal like perhaps " Housing, Neighborhood livability (or wellness) and Renter protection," you could make a huge impact on the whole Council. As you know, over 65% of the people living in the neighborhoods are renters, and they are not all students. Many are permanent residents, working hard to make a living, who just cannot afford to buy a home in our way too expensive housing market. I hope RQN and the Tenants Union people could meet together sometime after 10 am this Monday 1-20. I am free the entire day (except 11-11:30 am) but this is the only day I could meet before the Community Forum on 1- 23. If you all or any of you would be willing and able to meet, please let me know the best time. Looking forward, Jan PS Please do not mention this to our other council members, so as to avoid a Brown Act violation. 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2024 10:45 AM To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Subject:Re: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) No problem. As long they get a chance to read it. Thanks Brett On Wednesday, December 11, 2024 at 10:06:29 AM PST, Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <acolunga@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Brett, Thank you for taking the time to write to the City Council. We apologize for the delay in processing your correspondence, as it seems your email was flagged by the system as potential spam and placed into a queue for manual release, which only came to our attention this morning (see the attached email). I will make our IT team aware of this issue in hopes that they can force the system to identify your email address as a ‘safe sender’ so we can avoid this issue in the future. Your comments have been forwarded to the City Council and placed in the public archive for the December 10th Rescheduled Regular Meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 2 From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 3:41 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. I don’t think this was delivered Brett Cross ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Brett Cross < > To: emailcouncil@slocity.org <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 at 12:08:03 PM PST Subject: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020- 2024)  Dear Council Members,  I see that the developer/property owner is already asking for a General Plan Amendment to the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Oh, and I get it. There is way more money right now in housing. If it was the other way around the developer would be asking to change residential to commercial.  Is that how you should "do planning". I hope not. Is retail now all going to be done from the comfort of your home and now there is no longer a need for retail space in the future or is this application just mainly about profits for the developer.  You might want to ask staff what the "rate of return" is typical of a large residential project. You might want to get Steve Peck in to give you an insight on what the return was on Serra Meadows which he did the spreadsheet on. He gave that information at the "Citizens Planning Class". 3  This project should be a taught in every City and Regional Planning course on- What not to do. I'm serious.  This project failed right from the beginning. One of the main considerations when developing a Specific Plan for an area is Public Participation in process.  "The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the public, including residents of the planning area, to participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific plan." Specific Plans - Home for All Specific Plans - Home for All Specific Plans TOOLKIT MENU At a Glance Type: Planning or regulatory toolWhere tool is used: Downtowns/transit c... That never happened. The developer presented their plan and said, "here you go". This is what we want and this is what you get. And the staff planner told the council that CEQA doesn't allow you make changes to the project. That's was absolutely incorrect. And now the community has a "cookie cutter" project that was built all over California in the mid 2000's during the housing boom. If the developer wants to change the land use on this "lot" here's a chance for the community to participate in the design and just not react to what the developer wants. 4 Some of the key issues that still bother me to this day are; completely ignoring General Plan polices that require large housing projects to mix housing types throughout the neighborhoods. The City ignored this requirement and the developer wasn't required to do it. The City allowed the developer to provide less than half the required developed park areas. The project should have provided over 6 acres of developed park areas but was allowed to provide less than 3 acres and then paid an in-lieu fee. The development certainly didn't "respect" all the trees that were removed and continue to be removed. The council approved "moving" all the affordable units that were required for low and very low income residents out of the high density area to a future development by HASLO. Who knows when that will get built. The high density housing was apparently too good even for those with lower incomes. The previous council supported Statement of Overriding Consideration after Statement of Overriding Consideration. It was housing at any cost- for current and future residents. It's time to do better. The community deserves it. Like I said, if the developer wants to change the use from commercial to residential then let's start right at the beginning with public input into the what is going to happen on that "lot", not just reacting to another If the council wants to change the Specific Plan that's fine but lets start with Public participation. Real participation. Where the public actually participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific plan. Brett Cross Resident City of San Luis Obispo 5 Virus-free.www.avg.com This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. The following messages, addressed to you, are currently on hold within the Mimecast service awaiting further action. For further instructions on how to use the links associated with each email, please review the following points: Release: This will release the current email On Hold to your Inbox, but future emails from this sender will still be placed On Hold Block: Rejects the email, and adds the sender's address to your personal Block list to block future emails from this sender Permit: Delivers the email to your Inbox, and adds the sender's address to your personal Permit list, so future emails are not put On Hold (for SPAM management policies only) For more information on the Mimecast digest, please refer to this article From Subject Date Reason Release Block Permit 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) 2024- 12-10 15:08 Spam Policy Release Block Permit Fw: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) 2024- 12-10 18:40 Spam Policy Release Block Permit 1 From:SLOCity Postmaster <postmaster@slocity.org> Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2024 9:19 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:[Postmaster] Messages on hold for emailcouncil@slocity.org This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. The following messages, addressed to you, are currently on hold within the Mimecast service awaiting further action. For further instructions on how to use the links associated with each email, please review the following points: Release: This will release the current email On Hold to your Inbox, but future emails from this sender will still be placed On Hold Block: Rejects the email, and adds the sender's address to your personal Block list to block future emails from this sender Permit: Delivers the email to your Inbox, and adds the sender's address to your personal Permit list, so future emails are not put On Hold (for SPAM management policies only) For more information on the Mimecast digest, please refer to this article From Subject Date Reason Release Block Permit 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) 2024- 12-10 15:08 Spam Policy Release Block Permit Fw: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) 2024- 12-10 18:40 Spam Policy Release Block Permit 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2024 10:06 AM To:Brett Cross Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) Attachments:[Postmaster] Messages on hold for emailcouncil@slocity.org Hi Brett, Thank you for taking the time to write to the City Council. We apologize for the delay in processing your correspondence, as it seems your email was flagged by the system as potential spam and placed into a queue for manual release, which only came to our attention this morning (see the attached email). I will make our IT team aware of this issue in hopes that they can force the system to identify your email address as a ‘safe sender’ so we can avoid this issue in the future. Your comments have been forwarded to the City Council and placed in the public archive for the December 10th Rescheduled Regular Meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 3:41 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. I don’t think this was delivered Brett Cross ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Brett Cross < > 2 To: emailcouncil@slocity.org <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 at 12:08:03 PM PST Subject: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC- 0020-2024)  Dear Council Members,  I see that the developer/property owner is already asking for a General Plan Amendment to the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Oh, and I get it. There is way more money right now in housing. If it was the other way around the developer would be asking to change residential to commercial.  Is that how you should "do planning". I hope not. Is retail now all going to be done from the comfort of your home and now there is no longer a need for retail space in the future or is this application just mainly about profits for the developer.  You might want to ask staff what the "rate of return" is typical of a large residential project. You might want to get Steve Peck in to give you an insight on what the return was on Serra Meadows which he did the spreadsheet on. He gave that information at the "Citizens Planning Class".  This project should be a taught in every City and Regional Planning course on- What not to do. I'm serious.  This project failed right from the beginning. One of the main considerations when developing a Specific Plan for an area is Public Participation in process.  "The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the public, including residents of the planning area, to participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific plan." Specific Plans - Home for All 3 Specific Plans - Home for All Specific Plans TOOLKIT MENU At a Glance Type: Planning or regulatory toolWhere tool is used: Downtowns/transit c... That never happened. The developer presented their plan and said, "here you go". This is what we want and this is what you get. And the staff planner told the council that CEQA doesn't allow you make changes to the project. That's was absolutely incorrect. And now the community has a "cookie cutter" project that was built all over California in the mid 2000's during the housing boom. If the developer wants to change the land use on this "lot" here's a chance for the community to participate in the design and just not react to what the developer wants. Some of the key issues that still bother me to this day are; completely ignoring General Plan polices that require large housing projects to mix housing types throughout the neighborhoods. The City ignored this requirement and the developer wasn't required to do it. The City allowed the developer to provide less than half the required developed park areas. The project should have provided over 6 acres of developed park areas but was allowed to provide less than 3 acres and then paid an in-lieu fee. The development certainly didn't "respect" all the trees that were removed and continue to be removed. The council approved "moving" all the affordable units that were required for low and very low income residents out of the high density area to a future development by HASLO. Who knows when that will get built. The high density housing was apparently too good even for those with lower incomes. The previous council supported Statement of Overriding Consideration after Statement of Overriding Consideration. It was housing at any cost- for current and future residents. It's time to do better. The community deserves it. Like I said, if the developer wants to change the use from commercial to residential then let's start right at the beginning with public input into the what is going to happen on that "lot", not just reacting to another 4 If the council wants to change the Specific Plan that's fine but lets start with Public participation. Real participation. Where the public actually participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific plan. Brett Cross Resident City of San Luis Obispo Virus-free.www.avg.com 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:08 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.  Dear Council Members,  I see that the developer/property owner is already asking for a General Plan Amendment to the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Oh, and I get it. There is way more money right now in housing. If it was the other way around the developer would be asking to change residential to commercial.  Is that how you should "do planning". I hope not. Is retail now all going to be done from the comfort of your home and now there is no longer a need for retail space in the future or is this application just mainly about profits for the developer.  You might want to ask staff what the "rate of return" is typical of a large residential project. You might want to get Steve Peck in to give you an insight on what the return was on Serra Meadows which he did the spreadsheet on. He gave that information at the "Citizens Planning Class".  This project should be a taught in every City and Regional Planning course on- What not to do. I'm serious.  This project failed right from the beginning. One of the main considerations when developing a Specific Plan for an area is Public Participation in process.  "The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the public, including residents of the planning area, to participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific plan." Specific Plans - Home for All 2 Specific Plans - Home for All Specific Plans TOOLKIT MENU At a Glance Type: Planning or regulatory toolWhere tool is used: Downtowns/transit c... That never happened. The developer presented their plan and said, "here you go". This is what we want and this is what you get. And the staff planner told the council that CEQA doesn't allow you make changes to the project. That's was absolutely incorrect. And now the community has a "cookie cutter" project that was built all over California in the mid 2000's during the housing boom. If the developer wants to change the land use on this "lot" here's a chance for the community to participate in the design and just not react to what the developer wants. Some of the key issues that still bother me to this day are; completely ignoring General Plan polices that require large housing projects to mix housing types throughout the neighborhoods. The City ignored this requirement and the developer wasn't required to do it. The City allowed the developer to provide less than half the required developed park areas. The project should have provided over 6 acres of developed park areas but was allowed to provide less than 3 acres and then paid an in-lieu fee. The development certainly didn't "respect" all the trees that were removed and continue to be removed. The council approved "moving" all the affordable units that were required for low and very low income residents out of the high density area to a future development by HASLO. Who knows when that will get built. The high density housing was apparently too good even for those with lower incomes. 3 The previous council supported Statement of Overriding Consideration after Statement of Overriding Consideration. It was housing at any cost- for current and future residents. It's time to do better. The community deserves it. Like I said, if the developer wants to change the use from commercial to residential then let's start right at the beginning with public input into the what is going to happen on that "lot", not just reacting to another If the council wants to change the Specific Plan that's fine but lets start with Public participation. Real participation. Where the public actually participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific plan. Brett Cross Resident City of San Luis Obispo To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free.www.avg.com 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2024 3:41 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Fw: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC-0020-2024) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. I don’t think this was delivered Brett Cross ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Brett Cross < > To: emailcouncil@slocity.org <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 at 12:08:03 PM PST Subject: 6.c CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SAN LUIS RANCH LOT 7, 1675 DALIDIO DRIVE, SPEC- 0020-2024)  Dear Council Members,  I see that the developer/property owner is already asking for a General Plan Amendment to the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Oh, and I get it. There is way more money right now in housing. If it was the other way around the developer would be asking to change residential to commercial.  Is that how you should "do planning". I hope not. Is retail now all going to be done from the comfort of your home and now there is no longer a need for retail space in the future or is this application just mainly about profits for the developer.  You might want to ask staff what the "rate of return" is typical of a large residential project. You might want to get Steve Peck in to give you an insight on what the return was on Serra Meadows which he did the spreadsheet on. He gave that information at the "Citizens Planning Class".  This project should be a taught in every City and Regional Planning course on- What not to do. I'm serious.  This project failed right from the beginning. One of the main considerations when developing a Specific Plan for an area is Public Participation in process. 2  "The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the public, including residents of the planning area, to participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific plan." Specific Plans - Home for All Specific Plans - Home for All Specific Plans TOOLKIT MENU At a Glance Type: Planning or regulatory toolWhere tool is used: Downtowns/transit c... That never happened. The developer presented their plan and said, "here you go". This is what we want and this is what you get. And the staff planner told the council that CEQA doesn't allow you make changes to the project. That's was absolutely incorrect. And now the community has a "cookie cutter" project that was built all over California in the mid 2000's during the housing boom. If the developer wants to change the land use on this "lot" here's a chance for the community to participate in the design and just not react to what the developer wants. Some of the key issues that still bother me to this day are; completely ignoring General Plan polices that require large housing projects to mix housing types throughout the neighborhoods. The City ignored this requirement and the developer wasn't required to do it. The City allowed the developer to provide less than half the required developed park areas. The project should have provided over 6 acres of developed park areas but was allowed to provide less than 3 acres and then paid an in-lieu fee. The development certainly didn't "respect" all the trees that were removed and continue to be removed. 3 The council approved "moving" all the affordable units that were required for low and very low income residents out of the high density area to a future development by HASLO. Who knows when that will get built. The high density housing was apparently too good even for those with lower incomes. The previous council supported Statement of Overriding Consideration after Statement of Overriding Consideration. It was housing at any cost- for current and future residents. It's time to do better. The community deserves it. Like I said, if the developer wants to change the use from commercial to residential then let's start right at the beginning with public input into the what is going to happen on that "lot", not just reacting to another If the council wants to change the Specific Plan that's fine but lets start with Public participation. Real participation. Where the public actually participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific plan. Brett Cross Resident City of San Luis Obispo To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free.www.avg.com 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2024 12:25 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:7.a CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PRE-LITIGATION SETTLEMENT OF CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT DISTRICT ELECTION DEMAND This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Council members, This is quite a surprise. And not a good one. The issue of coming up with a voting system to try and provide some sort of system that would give "voice" to underserved or minority residents in the City is an interesting topic. Probably could be debated for a long time with no definitive solution. Ranked choice is interesting. I personally think District Elections are better, more on that later Which brings me to this "solution" which has never been discussed outside of your closed session discussions. That in itself is a bit problematic when we as a community should have been at least been informed as negotiations took place. The issue as regards to voting and representation began as a push to district elections (of which I support)., but now have evolved/devolved into a one vote only concept for two city council seats. I don't know how that helps. Is there some evidence that would help with whatever one wants to describe the problem perceived or actual with representation with the underserved (whatever that might mean) or minority residents- who given the recent Presidential elections are certainly not monolithic groups. The question is really representation. And how best to create a system that provides the best representation possible. It's not going to be perfect. Is the current system best or are other methods better? I certainly think district elections would be a better then is used now. The community has grown. The good ole days of being able to walk all the precincts like Andrew Carter are gone. The town is too big. It now takes more than just a handful of folks to help out a candidate to go out and hand out literature, which means you need to have a bunch of cash to go out and buy media advertising. You want to get more people involved, including the underserved and minorities in the community- Make it easier to run for election. District elections make that possible. I could easily walk a district out where I live that would include the Laguna Lake area and portions of South Higuera. I could easily have a flyers/brochures made up for not a lot of money and yard signs. You could run an effective campaign for a few thousand dollars It makes it possible to actually set up a "card table" at a grocery store, on the corner of a neighborhood, or at park. Then there's a question about representation. No matter how familiar you believe you are about the city as whole, you cannot deny you're most familiar with area you live in and the nearby area. You just have a better understanding. And I get it that all of you are more than willing to listen to residents from other parts of the city but honestly if you're not living everyday it's hard to really grasp what is actually going on daily basis and not only that but you have real equity in the area. Districts help make the representative more responsible to their constituents that live in their district. My recommendation is to go to district elections which was the original lawsuit brought by the plaintiff Sincerely, Brett Cross San Luis Obispo To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free.www.avg.com 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2024 12:29 PM To:Brett Cross Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: 7.a CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PRE-LITIGATION SETTLEMENT OF CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT DISTRICT ELECTION DEMAND Hi Brett, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for tonight’s meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 12:25 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 7.a CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PRE-LITIGATION SETTLEMENT OF CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT DISTRICT ELECTION DEMAND This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Council members, This is quite a surprise. And not a good one. The issue of coming up with a voting system to try and provide some sort of system that would give "voice" to underserved or minority residents in the City is an interesting topic. Probably could be debated for a long time with no definitive solution. Ranked choice is interesting. I personally think District Elections are better, more on that later Which brings me to this "solution" which has never been discussed outside of your closed session discussions. That in itself is a bit problematic when we as a community should have been at least been informed as negotiations took place. The issue as regards to voting and representation began as a push to district elections (of which I support)., but now have evolved/devolved into a one vote only concept for two city council seats. I don't know how that helps. Is there some evidence that would help with whatever one wants to describe the problem perceived or actual with representation with the underserved (whatever that might mean) or minority residents- who given the recent Presidential elections are certainly not monolithic groups. 2 The question is really representation. And how best to create a system that provides the best representation possible. It's not going to be perfect. Is the current system best or are other methods better? I certainly think district elections would be a better then is used now. The community has grown. The good ole days of being able to walk all the precincts like Andrew Carter are gone. The town is too big. It now takes more than just a handful of folks to help out a candidate to go out and hand out literature, which means you need to have a bunch of cash to go out and buy media advertising. You want to get more people involved, including the underserved and minorities in the community- Make it easier to run for election. District elections make that possible. I could easily walk a district out where I live that would include the Laguna Lake area and portions of South Higuera. I could easily have a flyers/brochures made up for not a lot of money and yard signs. You could run an effective campaign for a few thousand dollars It makes it possible to actually set up a "card table" at a grocery store, on the corner of a neighborhood, or at park. Then there's a question about representation. No matter how familiar you believe you are about the city as whole, you cannot deny you're most familiar with area you live in and the nearby area. You just have a better understanding. And I get it that all of you are more than willing to listen to residents from other parts of the city but honestly if you're not living everyday it's hard to really grasp what is actually going on daily basis and not only that but you have real equity in the area. Districts help make the representative more responsible to their constituents that live in their district. My recommendation is to go to district elections which was the original lawsuit brought by the plaintiff Sincerely, Brett Cross San Luis Obispo Virus-free.www.avg.com 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 5:11 PM To:Brett Cross Subject:RE: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY (USE-0331-2023, APPL-0365-2024) Thanks Brett. I had already noted my own question about the number of people permitted overnight, and overall. I think it will be an interesting discussion tonight. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:30 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY (USE-0331-2023, APPL-0365-2024) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Council members, I'd like you to think about a couple of things before tonight's meeting about the appeal. "As conditioned, the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the project will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use..." Substitute the word "Wellness" or "Wellbeing" for welfare because that's really what is meant. So, even with the conditions will the use be detrimental to the wellness or wellbeing of persons who live or work in the neighborhood. There are issues with events that allow up to 100 people on site. Where do they park? How do they get there?. What impacts do they have after leaving the event to nearby residents? As conditioned, is it probable that "special events" would be allowed by the Community Development Director that would violate the City's existing noise regulations? That needs to be answered. And if nearby residents object, what is there a cost to appeal the special event permit? The staff report makes mention of the other fraternity and sororities in the area. The staff report doesn't mention the impacts that these are already having on the nearby residents. There should be a real question as to whether or not even approving new fraternity uses should be considered in this area due to an over concentration. Or even in the City due to problems associated with the use that seemingly cannot be mitigated even with conditions. I think you've been made aware that the Planning Commission denied a Use Permit a long time ago due to impacts that were being caused by Fraternity uses that they believed couldn't be mitigated even with conditions. Lastly, there is one very interesting inconsistency in the staff evaluation and that is, on one hand staff is saying that the number of guests cannot be regulated and on the other hand the conditions of approval regulate the number of persons for meetings or "special events". I don't get it. I hope really consider the wellbeing and wellness of the surrounding residents and the impacts a fraternity can have on that wellbeing. 2 Sincerey Brett Cross Laguna Lake Neighborhood San Luis Obispo 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:34 AM To:Brett Cross Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY (USE-0331-2023, APPL-0365-2024) Hi Brett, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for tonight’s meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:30 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY (USE-0331-2023, APPL-0365-2024) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Council members, I'd like you to think about a couple of things before tonight's meeting about the appeal. "As conditioned, the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the project will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use..." Substitute the word "Wellness" or "Wellbeing" for welfare because that's really what is meant. So, even with the conditions will the use be detrimental to the wellness or wellbeing of persons who live or work in the neighborhood. There are issues with events that allow up to 100 people on site. Where do they park? How do they get there?. What impacts do they have after leaving the event to nearby residents? 2 As conditioned, is it probable that "special events" would be allowed by the Community Development Director that would violate the City's existing noise regulations? That needs to be answered. And if nearby residents object, what is there a cost to appeal the special event permit? The staff report makes mention of the other fraternity and sororities in the area. The staff report doesn't mention the impacts that these are already having on the nearby residents. There should be a real question as to whether or not even approving new fraternity uses should be considered in this area due to an over concentration. Or even in the City due to problems associated with the use that seemingly cannot be mitigated even with conditions. I think you've been made aware that the Planning Commission denied a Use Permit a long time ago due to impacts that were being caused by Fraternity uses that they believed couldn't be mitigated even with conditions. Lastly, there is one very interesting inconsistency in the staff evaluation and that is, on one hand staff is saying that the number of guests cannot be regulated and on the other hand the conditions of approval regulate the number of persons for meetings or "special events". I don't get it. I hope really consider the wellbeing and wellness of the surrounding residents and the impacts a fraternity can have on that wellbeing. Sincerey Brett Cross Laguna Lake Neighborhood San Luis Obispo 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 2:42 PM To:Brett Cross Subject:RE: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY (USE-0331-2023, APPL-0365-2024) Brett, Thank you for taking the time to write in about the appeal we’ll hear this evening and for your advocacy for your neighbors. I anticipate that we’ll have a lengthy discussion this evening about the language of the CUP and the concerns presented in the appeal. Take care, Emily From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:30 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY (USE-0331-2023, APPL-0365-2024) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Council members, I'd like you to think about a couple of things before tonight's meeting about the appeal. "As conditioned, the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the project will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use..." Substitute the word "Wellness" or "Wellbeing" for welfare because that's really what is meant. So, even with the conditions will the use be detrimental to the wellness or wellbeing of persons who live or work in the neighborhood. There are issues with events that allow up to 100 people on site. Where do they park? How do they get there?. What impacts do they have after leaving the event to nearby residents? As conditioned, is it probable that "special events" would be allowed by the Community Development Director that would violate the City's existing noise regulations? That needs to be answered. And if nearby residents object, what is there a cost to appeal the special event permit? The staff report makes mention of the other fraternity and sororities in the area. The staff report doesn't mention the impacts that these are already having on the nearby residents. There should be a real question as to whether or not even approving new fraternity uses should be considered in this area due to an over concentration. Or even in the City due to problems associated with the use that seemingly cannot be mitigated even with conditions. I think you've been made aware that the Planning Commission denied a Use Permit a long time ago due to impacts that were being caused by Fraternity uses that they believed couldn't be mitigated even with conditions. Lastly, there is one very interesting inconsistency in the staff evaluation and that is, on one hand staff is saying that the number of guests cannot be regulated and on the other hand the conditions of approval regulate the number of persons for meetings or "special events". I don't get it. I hope really consider the wellbeing and wellness of the surrounding residents and the impacts a fraternity can have on that wellbeing. 2 Sincerey Brett Cross Laguna Lake Neighborhood San Luis Obispo 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Friday, September 20, 2024 8:16 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning folks, I think the City is losing control over the illegal camping that is an ongoing problem at the park. There are at least 6 people and maybe 8 camping in the memorial tree grove area. And at least 3 in the new established mtn bike course Plus at least 2 campsites in the trees next to the lake adjacent to the pedestrian and biking trail that leads into the park across from the San Luis Ranch houses. There are probably more at the front of the lake. The problem with encampments along the Bob Jones bike path didn’t occur overnight. The encampments started slowly just as it appears to be happening at Laguna Lake Park Last week I was listening to the Tom and Becky morning radio show on KJUG and they were going over some of the texts for the morning. Someone sent in at text announcing the upcoming Pickle Fest at the park which seems kind of cool. But, Becky immediately mentions that maybe 10 years ago she’d go but not now. It was implicit that in her eyes the park wasn’t safe anymore That’s a problem. Whether it’s really unsafe or not doesn’t matter because the perception is that it isn’t. And thei recent incidents with the guy with pellet gun and some guy running around with knife certainly doesn’t help One of the problems is lack of signage about camping. I know there is one at the main entrance but I don’t think there’s any others There new additional signage at the pedestrian entrance and at the pathways that lead to the memorial grove and mtn bike course Because honestly I don’t think some of these folks realize they aren’t allowed to camp in the park especially given how many people are doing it Sincerely, Brett Cross 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Friday, September 20, 2024 7:17 PM To:Brett Cross Subject:RE: Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park Hi Brett. Thanks for your concern for the area. I know staff follow-up on all your inquiries when you send them in. I will also venture through the park this weekend and see if I see what you are seeing. I was there a few weeks ago and there were no evidence of what you are reporting now. Thanks again. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 8:16 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning folks, I think the City is losing control over the illegal camping that is an ongoing problem at the park. There are at least 6 people and maybe 8 camping in the memorial tree grove area. And at least 3 in the new established mtn bike course Plus at least 2 campsites in the trees next to the lake adjacent to the pedestrian and biking trail that leads into the park across from the San Luis Ranch houses. There are probably more at the front of the lake. The problem with encampments along the Bob Jones bike path didn’t occur overnight. The encampments started slowly just as it appears to be happening at Laguna Lake Park Last week I was listening to the Tom and Becky morning radio show on KJUG and they were going over some of the texts for the morning. Someone sent in at text announcing the upcoming Pickle Fest at the park which seems kind of cool. But, Becky immediately mentions that maybe 10 years ago she’d go but not now. It was implicit that in her eyes the park wasn’t safe anymore That’s a problem. Whether it’s really unsafe or not doesn’t matter because the perception is that it isn’t. And thei recent incidents with the guy with pellet gun and some guy running around with knife certainly doesn’t help One of the problems is lack of signage about camping. I know there is one at the main entrance but I don’t think there’s any others 2 There new additional signage at the pedestrian entrance and at the pathways that lead to the memorial grove and mtn bike course Because honestly I don’t think some of these folks realize they aren’t allowed to camp in the park especially given how many people are doing it Sincerely, Brett Cross 1 From:CityClerk Sent:Friday, September 20, 2024 8:34 AM To:Brett Cross Cc:Avakian, Greg Subject:cc Cross - Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park BCC: City Council Brett Cross, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your concerns and Greg Avakian, Director of Parks & Recreation who is responsible for responding is copied on this email. Greg or a member of his staff will be following up with you within two business days. Best, City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 8:16 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning folks, I think the City is losing control over the illegal camping that is an ongoing problem at the park. There are at least 6 people and maybe 8 camping in the memorial tree grove area. And at least 3 in the new established mtn bike course Plus at least 2 campsites in the trees next to the lake adjacent to the pedestrian and biking trail that leads into the park across from the San Luis Ranch houses. There are probably more at the front of the lake. The problem with encampments along the Bob Jones bike path didn’t occur overnight. The encampments started slowly just as it appears to be happening at Laguna Lake Park Last week I was listening to the Tom and Becky morning radio show on KJUG and they were going over some of the texts for the morning. Someone sent in at text announcing the upcoming Pickle Fest at the park which seems kind of cool. 2 But, Becky immediately mentions that maybe 10 years ago she’d go but not now. It was implicit that in her eyes the park wasn’t safe anymore That’s a problem. Whether it’s really unsafe or not doesn’t matter because the perception is that it isn’t. And thei recent incidents with the guy with pellet gun and some guy running around with knife certainly doesn’t help One of the problems is lack of signage about camping. I know there is one at the main entrance but I don’t think there’s any others There new additional signage at the pedestrian entrance and at the pathways that lead to the memorial grove and mtn bike course Because honestly I don’t think some of these folks realize they aren’t allowed to camp in the park especially given how many people are doing it Sincerely, Brett Cross 1 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2024 12:33 PM To:Brett Cross Cc:CityClerk; Wiberg, Daisy; Cruce, Greg Subject:RE: cc Cross - Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park BCC: Council Brett Cross: Thank you informing City Council and staff regarding your concern about increased potential camping at Laguna Lake Park, as well as your recommendations on additional signage. Your concern and recommendations have been shared with the Public Works Department’s Parks Maintenance Division, as well as SLO Police Department. Illegal (and overnight) camping is a significant concern and we appreciate your support in providing information to the staff. For more immediate actions, it is recommended to contact the SLO Police Department’s non-emergency dispatch number at 805.781.7312 to report illegal activities when noticed, as well as you may utilize the online ASK SLO app or website. As always, if at anytime it is warranted, please don’t hesitate to call 9-1-1. Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 8:34 AM To: Brett Cross < > Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Subject: cc Cross - Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park BCC: City Council Brett Cross, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your concerns and Greg Avakian, Director of Parks & Recreation who is responsible for responding is copied on this email. Greg or a member of his staff will be following up with you within two business days. Best, 2 City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 8:16 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning folks, I think the City is losing control over the illegal camping that is an ongoing problem at the park. There are at least 6 people and maybe 8 camping in the memorial tree grove area. And at least 3 in the new established mtn bike course Plus at least 2 campsites in the trees next to the lake adjacent to the pedestrian and biking trail that leads into the park across from the San Luis Ranch houses. There are probably more at the front of the lake. The problem with encampments along the Bob Jones bike path didn’t occur overnight. The encampments started slowly just as it appears to be happening at Laguna Lake Park Last week I was listening to the Tom and Becky morning radio show on KJUG and they were going over some of the texts for the morning. Someone sent in at text announcing the upcoming Pickle Fest at the park which seems kind of cool. But, Becky immediately mentions that maybe 10 years ago she’d go but not now. It was implicit that in her eyes the park wasn’t safe anymore That’s a problem. Whether it’s really unsafe or not doesn’t matter because the perception is that it isn’t. And thei recent incidents with the guy with pellet gun and some guy running around with knife certainly doesn’t help One of the problems is lack of signage about camping. I know there is one at the main entrance but I don’t think there’s any others There new additional signage at the pedestrian entrance and at the pathways that lead to the memorial grove and mtn bike course Because honestly I don’t think some of these folks realize they aren’t allowed to camp in the park especially given how many people are doing it Sincerely, Brett Cross 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Saturday, September 21, 2024 3:35 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park Attachments:IMG_2864.jpeg; IMG_2863.jpeg; IMG_2862.jpeg; IMG_2861.jpeg; IMG_2860.jpeg; IMG_2859.jpeg; IMG_2858.jpeg; IMG_2857.jpeg; IMG_2856.jpeg; IMG_2855.jpeg; IMG_2854.jpeg; IMG_2853.jpeg; IMG_2852.jpeg; IMG_2851.jpeg; IMG_2850.jpeg; IMG_2849.jpeg; IMG_2848.jpeg; IMG_2847.jpeg Thank you for the reply. Yes, staff is always responsive to all the requests I make through the Ask SLO app I just want to check in with the city council to make you folks aware of the issue I took a few pictures this morning showing a bit of what I’m seeing frequently. This is not a complete view of the area. And some encampments were not included due in part to safety reasons with individual occupants being photographed Sincerely Brett Cross On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 07:17:11 PM PDT, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Brett. Thanks for your concern for the area. I know staff follow-up on all your inquiries when you send them in. I will also venture through the park this weekend and see if I see what you are seeing. I was there a few weeks ago and there were no evidence of what you are reporting now. Thanks again. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 8:16 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Transient camping at Laguna Lake Park 2 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning folks, I think the City is losing control over the illegal camping that is an ongoing problem at the park. There are at least 6 people and maybe 8 camping in the memorial tree grove area. And at least 3 in the new established mtn bike course Plus at least 2 campsites in the trees next to the lake adjacent to the pedestrian and biking trail that leads into the park across from the San Luis Ranch houses. There are probably more at the front of the lake. The problem with encampments along the Bob Jones bike path didn’t occur overnight. The encampments started slowly just as it appears to be happening at Laguna Lake Park Last week I was listening to the Tom and Becky morning radio show on KJUG and they were going over some of the texts for the morning. Someone sent in at text announcing the upcoming Pickle Fest at the park which seems kind of cool. But, Becky immediately mentions that maybe 10 years ago she’d go but not now. It was implicit that in her eyes the park wasn’t safe anymore That’s a problem. Whether it’s really unsafe or not doesn’t matter because the perception is that it isn’t. And thei recent incidents with the guy with pellet gun and some guy running around with knife certainly doesn’t help One of the problems is lack of signage about camping. I know there is one at the main entrance but I don’t think there’s any others There new additional signage at the pedestrian entrance and at the pathways that lead to the memorial grove and mtn bike course Because honestly I don’t think some of these folks realize they aren’t allowed to camp in the park especially given how many people are doing it Sincerely, Brett Cross 1 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 4:05 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Mickel, Fred; Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; McDonald, Whitney; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Carolyn Smith Subject:RE: Question about "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer Hi Kathie, No apologies need, happy to provide information. Yes, the large postcard was produced by me. I use the property line language to provide better guidance to youthful residents. I am open to changing the postcard for next year after evaluating the effectiveness of it this year. Best, Christine From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:00 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < >; Brett Cross < >; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ; Carolyn Smith < > Subject: Question about "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Christine, Sorry for the multiple emails. I'm catching up on a lot of work. Do you know who put together the "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer for the City? I thought you were in charge of that. If not, who is? We received a flyer and it states that the Noise Ordinance between 7 AM and 10 PM "can't be heard 50 feet from your property line" but the City's ordinance actually says it's a noise violation if noise is "plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the noisemaker", not the property line. So if someone is having a loud party in their backyard, which frequently happens at fraternity houses in our neighborhood, the measurement is supposed to be from the source of the noise in the backyard. The property line is not mentioned in the City's noise ordinance except for the noise standards from 10 PM to 7 AM. This is covered on SLOPD's website. It is frequent misunderstanding by SNAP officers and even some newer SLOPD officers who think they should measure from the property line during the day when the ordinance says it is measured from the noisemaker, which most of the time is in the backyard of a property. It would be great if the information could be clarified. Thank you. -Kathie 2 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:53 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:2-2-1 Meetings. ? This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi folks, Last night I heard a couple of you mention 2-2-1 meetings. What are those? I guess I have a bunch of questions. Who are they with? What are they about? How often are they held? Are minutes or notes taken? How long have these meeting been taking place? Are they open to the public? I'm guessing I might have some follow up questions as well. Brett Cross 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Friday, July 5, 2024 2:08 PM To:Brett Cross Subject:Re: 2-2-1 Meetings. ? Hi Brett, I see that Greg Hermann just answered the question about the mysterious use of the term “2-2-1” the other night. Apologies if some of us used that “jargon” without explaining. I kept meaning to reach out and explain, but thankfully, Greg beat me to it. Have a great weekend. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:52:32 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 2-2-1 Meetings. ? This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi folks, Last night I heard a couple of you mention 2-2-1 meetings. What are those? I guess I have a bunch of questions. Who are they with? What are they about? How often are they held? Are minutes or notes taken? How long have these meeting been taking place? Are they open to the public? I'm guessing I might have some follow up questions as well. Brett Cross 1217 Mariners Cove San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 From:Hermann, Greg Sent:Friday, July 5, 2024 9:00 AM To:Brett Cross Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: 2-2-1 Meetings. ? Hi Brett, Thank you for reaching out. Council Members regularly attend a variety of meetings with staff on a wide range of topics. All of these meetings carefully follow the provisions of the Brown Act which allows for subject specific meetings with less than a majority of Council where neither direction nor feedback from other Council Members is provided. Staff does make itself available for briefings, sometimes referred to as 2-2-1’s, on significant and/or complex items in advance of Council meetings (e.g. budgets, fee studies, etc.) to review the information provided in the publicly available staff report. Responses to questions or discussion of additional information beyond what is included in the report is provided to the full Council and public in advance of the Council meeting via Agenda Correspondence posted on the City’s website. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Greg BCC: City Council From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:53 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 2-2-1 Meetings. ? This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi folks, Last night I heard a couple of you mention 2-2-1 meetings. What are those? I guess I have a bunch of questions. Who are they with? What are they about? How often are they held? Are minutes or notes taken? How long have these meeting been taking place? Are they open to the public? I'm guessing I might have some follow up questions as well. Brett Cross 1217 Mariners Cove San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Wednesday, July 3, 2024 11:55 AM To:Brett Cross Subject:Re: 2-2-1 Meetings. ? Hi Brett, Apologies for the use of jargon. We should do a better job defining things as we discuss them. Because of the Brown Act, we (the council) cannot discuss items before they come to a public meeting. The exception is that we can have a “buddy” who we can discuss a topic with or in this case to ask questions of staff with. Meaning as long as a voting majority does not discuss the issue, we can have a group of two who does discuss ahead of a meeting. When there is a complex issue such as fees, we will request th ese 2:2:1 meetings to ask questions, get into methodology, and generally try to understand as much as possible about a topic that may have years of context behind it. Sometimes these meetings may happen with members of the public. For example, Vice Mayor Pease is my Brown Act Buddy on Safe Parking so we can attend meetings with community organizers about that issue. I hope that helps answer your questions. Take care, Emily Get Outlook for iOS From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:52:32 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 2-2-1 Meetings. ? This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi folks, Last night I heard a couple of you mention 2-2-1 meetings. What are those? I guess I have a bunch of questions. Who are they with? What are they about? How often are they held? Are minutes or notes taken? How long have these meeting been taking place? Are they open to the public? I'm guessing I might have some follow up questions as well. Brett Cross 1217 Mariners Cove San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Friday, July 5, 2024 3:12 PM To:Hermann, Greg Subject:Re: 2-2-1 Meetings. ? Greg, Thank you for the response. This is a too late for Friday thing so I will get back to you next week with some more questions. One for sure is how long have these types of meetings been taking place between council members and various staff. I’ll probably have some more so wait until I get a few more together. Have a great weekend. Brett On Friday, July 5, 2024 at 09:00:03 AM PDT, Hermann, Greg <ghermann@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Brett, Thank you for reaching out. Council Members regularly attend a variety of meetings with staff on a wide range of topics. All of these meetings carefully follow the provisions of the Brown Act which allows for subject specific meetings with less than a majority of Council where neither direction nor feedback from other Council Members is provided. Staff does make itself available for briefings, sometimes referred to as 2-2-1’s, on significant and/or complex items in advance of Council meetings (e.g. budgets, fee studies, etc.) to review the information provided in the publicly available staff report. Responses to questions or discussion of additional information beyond what is included in the report is provided to the full Council and public in advance of the Council meeting via Agenda Correspondence posted on the City’s website. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Greg BCC: City Council From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:53 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 2-2-1 Meetings. ? 2 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi folks, Last night I heard a couple of you mention 2-2-1 meetings. What are those? I guess I have a bunch of questions. Who are they with? What are they about? How often are they held? Are minutes or notes taken? How long have these meeting been taking place? Are they open to the public? I'm guessing I might have some follow up questions as well. Brett Cross 1217 Mariners Cove San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 11:59 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:7.a REVIEW AND ADOPT REVISED CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY FEES This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Council members, Ok, I don't what say about the appeal fee recommendations, other than this is "crazy"- especially the planning appeal fee. I won't even get into some of the "minor" permit fees . The staff report points out there have only been 14 planning appeals in the past 5 years. And I don't think, or can't find, whether those appeals were applicants or "non applicants". Staff provided a comparison of other community's fees associated with appeals. I actually did the same, not knowing that staf f had provided that information in a separate memorandum. I ended up actually speaking with Morro Bay's City Clerk because I couldn't find their fee schedule. The discussion was brief but important. She told me that the City had set the cost at that low level (actually it is currently $326 and is going up to $336) to make sure people were able to appeal and were not inhibited because of the cost. Keep that in mind. Plus Paso Robles is only $248. You folks need to think about, not only, what the "message" is to residents but the practical implication are if you decide to increase planning appeals ($3,4080 for planning appeal) along with any of the other appeal fees that staff is recommending. You will effectively eliminate appeals from the public except if they are rich. And I'm not kidding about using the word rich. And here's the example. Let's just say you make $60,000 gross annually. So that's $5000 gross a month. That's gross. So what is really the net. You've got Federal, and State taxes, plus Social Security and Medicare. Then you have health insurance and retirement. Lop 30% for taxes so you end up with around $3500. So now take out health insurance-insane now days even with employer contributions, so lets say $400 and what for retirement- $300?. So net is now $2,800. So it takes almost 5 weeks of income to pay for the planning appeal fee. Think about that. If you want to stop appeals then adopt fees that the average person can't afford. That is in essence what the staff recommendation is. I would suggest following Morro Bay's lead, because they get it. Sincerely, Brett Cross 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:11 PM To:Brett Cross Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: 7.a REVIEW AND ADOPT REVISED CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY FEES Hi Brett, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for tonight’s meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 11:59 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 7.a REVIEW AND ADOPT REVISED CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY FEES This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Council members, Ok, I don't what say about the appeal fee recommendations, other than this is "crazy"- especially the planning appeal fee. I won't even get into some of the "minor" permit fees . The staff report points out there have only been 14 planning appeals in the past 5 years. And I don't think, or can't find, whether those appeals were applicants or "non applicants". Staff provided a comparison of other community's fees associated with appeals. I actually did the same, not knowing that staf f had provided that information in a separate memorandum. I ended up actually speaking with Morro Bay's City Clerk because I couldn't find their fee schedule. The discussion was brief but important. She told me that the City had set the cost at that low level (actually it is currently $326 and is going up to $336) to make sure people were able to appeal and were not inhibited because of the cost. Keep that in mind. Plus Paso Robles is only $248. You folks need to think about, not only, what the "message" is to residents but the practical implication are if you decide to increase planning appeals ($3,4080 for planning appeal) along with any of the other appeal fees that staff is recommending. You will effectively eliminate appeals from the public except if they are rich. And I'm not kidding about using the word rich. And here's the example. Let's just say you make $60,000 gross annually. So that's $5000 gross a month. That's gross. So what is really the net. You've got Federal, and State taxes, plus Social Security and Medicare. Then you have health insurance and retirement. Lop 30% for taxes so you end up with around $3500. So now take out health insurance-insane now days even with 2 employer contributions, so lets say $400 and what for retirement- $300?. So net is now $2,800. So it takes almost 5 weeks of income to pay for the planning appeal fee. Think about that. If you want to stop appeals then adopt fees that the average person can't afford. That is in essence what the staff recommendation is. I would suggest following Morro Bay's lead, because they get it. Sincerely, Brett Cross 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 1:47 PM To:Brett Cross Subject:RE: 7.a REVIEW AND ADOPT REVISED CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY FEES Brett, Thank you for your thoughtful letter and analysis of comparable communities. There have been extensive discussion around both the intent and outcome of aiming for full cost recovery between staff and council members over the last two weeks. Know that the list here was a reflection of the consultant’s work analyzing actual costs of business, but by no means the final word in this process. I will be taking a hard look at each of the fees ahead of the meeting today with an eye towards both fiscal responsibility as well as equity in access to the democratic process. Take care and thanks as always for your engagement. Emily From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 11:59 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 7.a REVIEW AND ADOPT REVISED CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY FEES This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Council members, Ok, I don't what say about the appeal fee recommendations, other than this is "crazy"- especially the planning appeal fee. I won't even get into some of the "minor" permit fees . The staff report points out there have only been 14 planning appeals in the past 5 years. And I don't think, or can't find, whether those appeals were applicants or "non applicants". Staff provided a comparison of other community's fees associated with appeals. I actually did the same, not knowing that staf f had provided that information in a separate memorandum. I ended up actually speaking with Morro Bay's City Clerk because I couldn't find their fee schedule. The discussion was brief but important. She told me that the City had set the cost at that low level (actually it is currently $326 and is going up to $336) to make sure people were able to appeal and were not inhibited because of the cost. Keep that in mind. Plus Paso Robles is only $248. You folks need to think about, not only, what the "message" is to residents but the practical implication are if you decide to increase planning appeals ($3,4080 for planning appeal) along with any of the other appeal fees that staff is recommending. You will effectively eliminate appeals from the public except if they are rich. And I'm not kidding about using the word rich. And here's the example. Let's just say you make $60,000 gross annually. So that's $5000 gross a month. That's gross. So what is really the net. You've got Federal, and State taxes, plus Social Security and Medicare. Then you have health insurance and retirement. Lop 30% for taxes so you end up with around $3500. So now take out health insurance-insane now days even with employer contributions, so lets say $400 and what for retirement- $300?. So net is now $2,800. So it takes almost 5 weeks of income to pay for the planning appeal fee. Think about that. If you want to stop appeals then adopt fees that the average person can't afford. That is in essence what the staff recommendation is. I would suggest following Morro Bay's lead, because they get it. Sincerely, 2 Brett Cross 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 12:03 PM To:Brett Cross Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY FOR UP TO 24 RESIDENTS, INCLUDING A REQUEST TO PROVIDE TWO (2) PARKING SPACES IN TANDEM ON AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ALONG EAST FOOTHILL. Hi Brett, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the committee members. It is now placed in the Planning Commission public archive for the upcoming meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 11:50 AM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY FOR UP TO 24 RESIDENTS, INCLUDING A REQUEST TO PROVIDE TWO (2) PARKING SPACES IN TANDEM ON AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ALONG EAST FOOTHILL. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Planning Commission members, Fraternities and Sororities can create challenges for neighbors and neighborhoods. The nature of Fraternities and Sororities combines residential with meeting uses along with other activities that can be detrimental to surrounding residences. Caution should be taken when conditioning this use to help minimize potential negative impacts. As a member of the Planning Commission from 1992-1996 I had the opportunity to review the Use Permits for Fraternity and Sorority locations and I would recommend the following additional conditions be approved as part of the Use Permit. Additional conditions should be include.  No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other than residents are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved by the Community Development Director (condition 6)  Neighborhood relations plan (condition 7) 2  Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director in the fall of each year. (condition 8)  Use permit shall be reviewed if the City receives any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire Department complaints, or if two convictions are received for violations of the City's noise or property maintenance regulations within a six-month period.  Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation of this permit. I've also included the Conditions of the previous approval of a portion of the current site. Sincerely, Brett Cross San Luis Obispo, CA 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 11:50 AM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY FOR UP TO 24 RESIDENTS, INCLUDING A REQUEST TO PROVIDE TWO (2) PARKING SPACES IN TANDEM ON AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ALONG EAST FOOTHILL. Attachments:Use Permit 1264 Foothill PC Res 5323-01.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Planning Commission members, Fraternities and Sororities can create challenges for neighbors and neighborhoods. The nature of Fraternities and Sororities combines residential with meeting uses along with other activities that can be detrimental to surrounding residences. Caution should be taken when conditioning this use to help minimize potential negative impacts. As a member of the Planning Commission from 1992-1996 I had the opportunity to review the Use Permits for Fraternity and Sorority locations and I would recommend the following additional conditions be approved as part of the Use Permit. Additional conditions should be include.  No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other than residents are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved by the Community Development Director (condition 6)  Neighborhood relations plan (condition 7)  Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director in the fall of each year. (condition 8)  Use permit shall be reviewed if the City receives any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire Department complaints, or if two convictions are received for violations of the City's noise or property maintenance regulations within a six-month period.  Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation of this permit. I've also included the Conditions of the previous approval of a portion of the current site. Sincerely, Brett Cross San Luis Obispo, CA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5323-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY AT PROPERTY LOCATED ON FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND CRANDALL WAY; 1264 AND 1264 % FOOTHILL (U 86-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall. 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 10, 2001, for the purpose of considering Application U 86-01, Use Permit to allow a fraternity at 1264 and 1264 % Foothill Boulevard; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area, because limits on hours for events and numbers of persons allowed on site will restrict activities and limit disturbances to neighbors. 2. The subject use is appropriate at the proposed location, and will be compatible with surrounding land uses provided that the fraternity complies with all conditions at all times. 3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan because it is a group housing use, which the general plan says is appropriate for High-Density Residential areas. 4. The proposed use meets zoning ordinance requirements because it is a fraternity in a High-Density Residential (R-4) zone, where fraternities are allowed with approval of a Planning Commission use permit. 5. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review requirements because it is a residential use similar to the existing uses on the property (Class 1, Existing Facilities, Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines). Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission approved Use Permit, U 86-01, subject to the following conditions: , Resolution No. 5323-01 Page 2 Conditions 1. No more than five persons shall reside at the site at any time. The applicant shall allow the City to verify occupancy by allowing an inspection of the records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable time and shall be preceded by a 24-hour notice to the residents. 2. A minimum of six on-site parking spaces to city standards shall be provided and maintained at all times for the intended use. 3. The applicants shall improve the existing parking lot to meet the City standards for parking space and driveway dimensions, aisle widths, striping and wheel stops prior to establishing the fraternity use, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. The property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. 5. The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for routine meetings an gatherings is 18, except as specifically approved by the Community Development Director for special events. For such special events, the applicant shall also submit a parking and transportation plan. 6. No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other than residents are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved by the Community Development Director. 7. The applicant shall institute and maintain a neighborhood relations program. This plan shall include at least the following elements: •Annual training of all members in community relations. •A program to inform neighbors of upcoming events at the house. • Submission of names and telephone numbers of responsible persons, including the alumni president and chief financial officer, to the Community Development Department and to the neighbors within two blocks of the house. Responsible persons shall be available during all events and at reasonable hours otherwise, to receive and handle complaints. Evidence of implementation of said plan shall be submitted to the director for review each year. Failure to exercise reasonable efforts to implement said plan may be grounds for revocation of this permit. 8. Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director in the fall of each year. The Community Development Director must approve exceptions to this schedule. If the Director determines the change is ·, 'Resolution No. 5323-01 Page 3 significant and may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, then it will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. 9. There shall be no freestanding signs on the premises. Signs shall be limited to signs located on building faces or fences. 10. Use permit shall be reviewed if the City receives any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire Department complaints, or if two convictions are received for violations of the City's noise or property maintenance regulations within a six-month period. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition requiring fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the neighborhood. 11. If California Polytechnic State University revokes the fraternity's charter, the City shall review the use permit. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit. 12. The Community Development-Building Division and Fire Department shall inspect the property and house for compliance with City Building and Safety Standards. The use permit shall not become effective until the premise has been determined to be in compliance with all applicable City standards. 13. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation of this permit. On motion by Commr. Cooper, seconded by Commr. Aiken, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper, Aiken and Boswell Commrs. Peterson and Osborne None Commr. Loh The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of October, 2001. Planning Com. 1ssion Secretary 1 From:Amoroso, Brian Sent:Friday, May 10, 2024 7:25 AM To:Brett Cross; Dave Congalton Subject:RE: Laguna Lake Call for Service Update Hi Brett, It was nice talking to you yesterday. As you know, PD is one small part of the city’s overall response to the homelessness challenges in our community and lie outside the control of the city. We won’t be able to participate Tuesday, but appreciate your passion and concern for those struggling with homelessness in our community. Have a great day. Brian Brian Amoroso Deputy Chief Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E bamoroso@slocity.org T 805.594.8016 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 6:14 PM To: Dave Congalton <dcongalton@americangeneralmedia.com>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Laguna Lake Call for Service Update This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Perfect. I'm trying to see if I can get a SLO police department representative to also come to discuss the challenges they face when contacting the homeless-- if that's ok with you. Thanks, 2 Brett On Thursday, May 9, 2024 at 04:32:43 PM PDT, Dave Congalton <dcongalton@americangeneralmedia.com> wrote: 4 pm Dave Congalton KVEC News/Talk 920 AM and 96.5 FM 3620 Sacramento Drive Suite #204 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 920kvec.com Co-Author of "The Talk Radio Guest Book: How to be the Perfect Talk Radio Guest." Available as a free download through Amazon.com Author of "Man About Town: Stories of San Luis Obispo." Available through Amazon and Audible On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 4:13 PM Brett Cross < > wrote: What time? Brett On Thursday, May 9, 2024 at 04:04:24 PM PDT, Dave Congalton <dcongalton@americangeneralmedia.com> wrote: Lets'do Tuesday. Thx. Dave Congalton KVEC News/Talk 920 AM and 96.5 FM 3620 Sacramento Drive Suite #204 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 920kvec.com Co-Author of "The Talk Radio Guest Book: How to be the Perfect Talk Radio Guest." Available as a free download through Amazon.com Author of "Man About Town: Stories of San Luis Obispo." Available through Amazon and Audible On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 3:31 PM Brett Cross < > wrote: Tuesday or Thursday Brett On Thursday, May 9, 2024 at 02:48:58 PM PDT, Dave Congalton <dcongalton@americangeneralmedia.com> wrote: What day next week works best for you? 3 Dave Congalton KVEC News/Talk 920 AM and 96.5 FM 3620 Sacramento Drive Suite #204 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 920kvec.com Co-Author of "The Talk Radio Guest Book: How to be the Perfect Talk Radio Guest." Available as a free download through Amazon.com Author of "Man About Town: Stories of San Luis Obispo." Available through Amazon and Audible On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 12:41 PM Brett Cross < > wrote: I’d like to come on to your show to discuss Senate Bill 43 which is a change to the 5150 mental health hold law. Especially in light of this tragic case I contacted AskSlo regarding this individual needing social services help on 3/27 I believe and what happened was tragic but inevitable given “our” mental health care system Brett Cross ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Brett Cross < > To: Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 at 12:27:51 PM PDT Subject: Re: Laguna Lake Call for Service Update Thank you sincerely for your response. And the details. There was a lot that went wrong way before I contacted dispatch I’m guessing that in the end the 30 minute delay didn’t matter. Do I wish I would have been more forceful when I called dispatch. Yeah I do , the 3 times I spoke with them. I would love to speak with you prior to the SCLC meeting. We can also discuss from my perspective the officers arrival and my short interaction Again, thank you so much for adding closure to this very unfortunate ending Brett Cross On Wednesday, May 8, 2024 at 09:21:42 Good evening Mr. Cross, I wanted to follow up with you regarding your questions that came through AskSLO of a call for service you made to the Police Department last week. Sadly, this woman did not survive her medical episode and succumbed to her declining health in the hospital. These types of incidents are devastating to first responders and especially when relationships are made in trying for the very best outcomes. was a known SLO community member and did not deserve to live her final days this way. Her story is all too familiar when we talk about the state of homelessness and shortcomings in the system. Given the importance of this call, my staff and I reviewed the phone calls, body worn camera footage of our response and prio r contacts with and what we discovered is truly heartbreaking. Since 2020, SLOPD has had over 20 contacts with her and documented offers of assistance. Many of the contacts were trespassing related to behavior as she had a long history of not being willing to utilize sheltering services, resulting in her being trespassed from many locations including issues at 40 Prado. More troubling, both our CAT team and MCU team had contact with her as recently as 4/26, but were unable to place her into shelter, or get her to agree to accept services. According to our records, SLOPD contacted over 25 times where she was offered shelter, supportive housing, APS, food (accepted once bagged lunch), and other services. We closely reviewed the body camera video of our team’s interaction with you at the scene and our officers were professional and focused on checking condition. Officers located her, found her to be in distress, and called for medics. In the review of your phone call to dispatch, although you initially asked for an ambulance to respond, you also told the dispatchers that you had spoken with and she said she was ok, but you did not believe she was ok. Our dispatchers make decisions on the most appropriate first responders to send to calls for service based on the information provided, industry best practices, and the totality of the circumstances of the call. In this case, Police Officers were first sent to the call to assess her condition prior to sending medical personnel, largely based upon the fact that told you verbally that she was ok. There are significant challenges first responders encounter when individuals are not receptive to receiving services. In order to improve homeless outreach and response in our community we must have more robust services and community partners willing to provide the services that are lacking. Our first responder teams are really doing their best to lead with compassion, but robust mental health and stabilization services must pick up where first responders end to break these sad cycles of homelessness and despair. I will be attending SCLC tomorrow on behalf of Chief Scott, who was called unexpectedly out of town. Would you have 10-15 minutes to connect in person either prior to or after the meeting? Please let me know. Thank you. Brian Brian Amoroso Deputy Chief Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E bamoroso@slocity.org 5 T 805.594.8016 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:09 AM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Okay. I’ll keep in contact Brett On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 05:50:24 PM PDT, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: I’m out of town for several days. Sorry…that’s why I started with the week of the 27th.  I am also impacted the week of the 22nd because I am gone much of the week of the 15th. From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 10:51 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Michelle, What does your schedule look like between April 15-Monday and April 19-Friday. Thank you. Brett On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 08:46:15 PM PDT, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Brett, 2 Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I was out of town with my family last week, and have been trying to get caught up again with work and council (meeting last night, as you know) this week, thus far. I would be happy to meet you two for coffee or at another location of your choosing and hear your concerns. Why don’t you give me several days/timeframes and I will see if I can find one that works. Let’s start with the week of the 27 th as I am pretty booked next week already and out of town several days the following week. Thank you. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:26 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ,Dear Council member Shoresman, I along with Sandra Rowley (Chair) and Carolyn Smith (Secretary) would like to schedule some time to talk generally about neighborhood "Wellness" and probably some specifics regarding the Alta Vista neighborhood and lower Monterey Heights neighborhood. 45 minutes to an hour at most. We can meet at City Hall or over coffee and a bite to eat. We are pretty flexible on location and time. Whatever works best for your schedule. I think it will be helpful if all of us can get a better understanding about the issues we're seeing and the issues that you think are important when it come to the "nurturing" of our City's neighborhoods. We look forward to meeting with you. If you can send me a schedule when will be a good time to get together I will coordinate with Sandy and Carolyn. Thank you. 3 Brett Cross RQN Vice Chair. 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Thursday, April 11, 2024 10:03 AM To:Brett Cross Subject:Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Sounds good! Thanks! From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:08:34 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Okay. I’ll keep in contact Brett On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 05:50:24 PM PDT, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: I’m out of town for several days. Sorry…that’s why I started with the week of the 27th.  I am also impacted the week of the 22nd because I am gone much of the week of the 15th. From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 10:51 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Michelle, What does your schedule look like between April 15-Monday and April 19-Friday. Thank you. Brett On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 08:46:15 PM PDT, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: 2 Hi Brett, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I was out of town with my family last week, and have been trying to get caught up again with work and council (meeting last night, as you know) this week, thus far. I would be happy to meet you two for coffee or at another location of your choosing and hear your concerns. Why don’t you give me several days/timeframes and I will see if I can find one that works. Let’s start with the week of the 27 th as I am pretty booked next week already and out of town several days the following week. Thank you. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:26 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ,Dear Council member Shoresman, I along with Sandra Rowley (Chair) and Carolyn Smith (Secretary) would like to schedule some time to talk generally about neighborhood "Wellness" and probably some specifics regarding the Alta Vista neighborhood and lower Monterey Heights neighborhood. 45 minutes to an hour at most. We can meet at City Hall or over coffee and a bite to eat. We are pretty flexible on location and time. Whatever works best for your schedule. I think it will be helpful if all of us can get a better understanding about the issues we're seeing and the issues that you think are important when it come to the "nurturing" of our City's neighborhoods. 3 We look forward to meeting with you. If you can send me a schedule when will be a good time to get together I will coordinate with Sandy and Carolyn. Thank you. Brett Cross RQN Vice Chair. 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, April 10, 2024 5:50 PM To:Brett Cross Subject:RE: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" I’m out of town for several days. Sorry…that’s why I started with the week of the 27 th.  I am also impacted the week of the 22nd because I am gone much of the week of the 15th. From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 10:51 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Michelle, What does your schedule look like between April 15-Monday and April 19-Friday. Thank you. Brett On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 08:46:15 PM PDT, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Brett, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I was out of town with my family last week, and have been trying to get caught up again with work and council (meeting last night, as you know) this week, thus far. I would be happy to meet you two for coffee or at another location of your choosing and hear your concerns. Why don’t you give me several days/timeframes and I will see if I can find one that works. Let’s start with the week of the 27 th as I am pretty booked next week already and out of town several days the following week. Thank you. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:26 AM 2 To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ,Dear Council member Shoresman, I along with Sandra Rowley (Chair) and Carolyn Smith (Secretary) would like to schedule some time to talk generally about neighborhood "Wellness" and probably some specifics regarding the Alta Vista neighborhood and lower Monterey Heights neighborhood. 45 minutes to an hour at most. We can meet at City Hall or over coffee and a bite to eat. We are pretty flexible on location and time. Whatever works best for your schedule. I think it will be helpful if all of us can get a better understanding about the issues we're seeing and the issues that you think are important when it come to the "nurturing" of our City's neighborhoods. We look forward to meeting with you. If you can send me a schedule when will be a good time to get together I will coordinate with Sandy and Carolyn. Thank you. Brett Cross RQN Vice Chair. 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Tuesday, April 9, 2024 10:51 AM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Michelle, What does your schedule look like between April 15-Monday and April 19-Friday. Thank you. Brett On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 08:46:15 PM PDT, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Brett, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I was out of town with my family last week, and have been trying to get caught up again with work and council (meeting last night, as you know) this week, thus far. I would be happy to meet you two for coffee or at another location of your choosing and hear your concerns. Why don’t you give me several days/timeframes and I will see if I can find one that works. Let’s start with the week of the 27 th as I am pretty booked next week already and out of town several days the following week. Thank you. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:26 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ,Dear Council member Shoresman, 2 I along with Sandra Rowley (Chair) and Carolyn Smith (Secretary) would like to schedule some time to talk generally about neighborhood "Wellness" and probably some specifics regarding the Alta Vista neighborhood and lower Monterey Heights neighborhood. 45 minutes to an hour at most. We can meet at City Hall or over coffee and a bite to eat. We are pretty flexible on location and time. Whatever works best for your schedule. I think it will be helpful if all of us can get a better understanding about the issues we're seeing and the issues that you think are important when it come to the "nurturing" of our City's neighborhoods. We look forward to meeting with you. If you can send me a schedule when will be a good time to get together I will coordinate with Sandy and Carolyn. Thank you. Brett Cross RQN Vice Chair. 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2024 8:46 PM To:Brett Cross Subject:RE: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Hi Brett, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I was out of town with my family last week, and have been trying to get caught up again with work and council (meeting last night, as you know) this week, thus far. I would be happy to meet you two for coffee or at another location of your choosing and hear your concerns. Why don’t you give me several days/timeframes and I will see if I can find one that works. Let’s start with the week of the 27th as I am pretty booked next week already and out of town several days the following week. Thank you. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:26 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ,Dear Council member Shoresman, I along with Sandra Rowley (Chair) and Carolyn Smith (Secretary) would like to schedule some time to talk generally about neighborhood "Wellness" and probably some specifics regarding the Alta Vista neighborhood and lower Monterey Heights neighborhood. 45 minutes to an hour at most. We can meet at City Hall or over coffee and a bite to eat. We are pretty flexible on location and time. Whatever works best for your schedule. I think it will be helpful if all of us can get a better understanding about the issues we're seeing and the issues that you think are important when it come to the "nurturing" of our City's neighborhoods. We look forward to meeting with you. If you can send me a schedule when will be a good time to get together I will coordinate with Sandy and Carolyn. Thank you. Brett Cross RQN Vice Chair. 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2024 9:09 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith Subject:Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Perfect I will talk with Sandy and Carolyn and come up with some dates and times. Thank you again. Brett On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 08:46:15 PM PDT, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Brett, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I was out of town with my family last week, and have been trying to get caught up again with work and council (meeting last night, as you know) this week, thus far. I would be happy to meet you two for coffee or at another location of your choosing and hear your concerns. Why don’t you give me several days/timeframes and I will see if I can find one that works. Let’s start with the week of the 27 th as I am pretty booked next week already and out of town several days the following week. Thank you. Michelle From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:26 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. 2 ,Dear Council member Shoresman, I along with Sandra Rowley (Chair) and Carolyn Smith (Secretary) would like to schedule some time to talk generally about neighborhood "Wellness" and probably some specifics regarding the Alta Vista neighborhood and lower Monterey Heights neighborhood. 45 minutes to an hour at most. We can meet at City Hall or over coffee and a bite to eat. We are pretty flexible on location and time. Whatever works best for your schedule. I think it will be helpful if all of us can get a better understanding about the issues we're seeing and the issues that you think are important when it come to the "nurturing" of our City's neighborhoods. We look forward to meeting with you. If you can send me a schedule when will be a good time to get together I will coordinate with Sandy and Carolyn. Thank you. Brett Cross RQN Vice Chair. 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2024 12:50 PM To:Francis, Emily; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith Subject:Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Just a reminder about Monday's meeting at The Bunker on Orcutt Rd at 11:45. See everyone there. Brett On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 07:53:20 PM PDT, Brett Cross < > wrote: Yeah, that would be great. I’ve been thinking about going there. Perfect opportunity. Thank you. Will see you there. Brett On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 03:49:45 PM PDT, Francis, Emily <efrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Brett, Is The Bunker on Orcutt convenient for you? I’m happy to head to any neighborhood if there’s an easier rendezvous spot. Take care, Emily From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 2:06 PM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Carolyn Smith <ke6hng@att.net>; Sandra Rowley < > Subject: Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Okay. 11:45 Monday April 1st works. Where would you like to meet up Thank you again 2 Brett On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 11:35:09 AM PDT, Francis, Emily <efrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Brett, I would love to meet. I’m incredibly frustrated by the direction things have headed particularly regarding the events of last weekend, and would love to hear more from RQN. I have time around 11 for a coffee tomorrow or 11:45 on Monday April 1 st. Let me know if either of those times works for your group. Take care, Emily From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:25 AM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Emily, I along with Sandra Rowley (Chair) and Carolyn Smith (Secretary) would like to schedule some time to talk generally about neighborhood "Wellness" and probably some specifics regarding the Alta Vista neighborhood and lower Monterey Heights neighborhood. 45 minutes to an hour at most. We can meet at City Hall or over coffee and a bite to eat. We are pretty flexible on location and time. Whatever works best for your schedule. 3 I think it will be helpful if all of us can get a better understanding about the issues we're seeing and the issues that you think are important when it come to the "nurturing" of our City's neighborhoods. We look forward to meeting with you. If you can send me a schedule when will be a good time to get together I will coordinate with Sandy and Carolyn. Thank you. Brett Cross RQN Vice Chair. 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2024 6:33 PM To:Brett Cross; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith Subject:Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Thanks for the check in Brett. I’ll see you tomorrow. Take care, Emily Get Outlook for iOS From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 12:50:08 PM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < >; Carolyn Smith < Subject: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" Just a reminder about Monday's meeting at The Bunker on Orcutt Rd at 11:45. See everyone there. Brett On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 07:53:20 PM PDT, Brett Cross < > wrote: Yeah, that would be great. I’ve been thinking about going there. Perfect opportunity. Thank you. Will see you there. Brett On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 03:49:45 PM PDT, Francis, Emily <efrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Brett, Is The Bunker on Orcutt convenient for you? I’m happy to head to any neighborhood if there’s an easier rendezvous spot. Take care, Emily From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 2:06 PM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Carolyn Smith < ; Sandra Rowley < > Subject: Re: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" 2 Okay. 11:45 Monday April 1st works. Where would you like to meet up Thank you again Brett On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 11:35:09 AM PDT, Francis, Emily <efrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Brett, I would love to meet. I’m incredibly frustrated by the direction things have headed particularly regarding the events of last weekend, and would love to hear more from RQN. I have time around 11 for a coffee tomorrow or 11:45 on Monday April 1 st. Let me know if either of those times works for your group. Take care, Emily From: Brett Cross < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:25 AM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting with RQN Executive Board about Neighborhood "Wellness" This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Emily, 3 I along with Sandra Rowley (Chair) and Carolyn Smith (Secretary) would like to schedule some time to talk generally about neighborhood "Wellness" and probably some specifics regarding the Alta Vista neighborhood and lower Monterey Heights neighborhood. 45 minutes to an hour at most. We can meet at City Hall or over coffee and a bite to eat. We are pretty flexible on location and time. Whatever works best for your schedule. I think it will be helpful if all of us can get a better understanding about the issues we're seeing and the issues that you think are important when it come to the "nurturing" of our City's neighborhoods. We look forward to meeting with you. If you can send me a schedule when will be a good time to get together I will coordinate with Sandy and Carolyn. Thank you. Brett Cross RQN Vice Chair. 1 From:Brett Cross < > Sent:Monday, April 1, 2024 2:51 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:RQN Legislative Advocacy Plan 2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Council members, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, RQN would recommend adding an additional position point to the Legislative Action Platform.in the Community Development section to include language that the City will work with our elected state representatives ( Assembly Member Dawn Addis and State Senator John Laird) to provide the necessary state planning and funding to expeditiously build planned student housing on the Cal Poly campus as set forth in the Cal Poly Master Plan. As I'm sure you are all aware the amount of student housing on the Cal Poly campus has a significant impact on the community, most noticeably the cost of both rental and investors driving up the price of homes available for sale. Simply put students can pay significantly higher rents than working couples or families given their living arrangements. Cal Poly has committed to housing 65% of their students on campus but those obligations will not be met at the current rate of construction coupled with increases in enrollment. As evidenced by their presentation to Council, even with the building of an additional 3000 beds over the next ten years Cal Poly will either just even with beds vs. enrollment (300 additionally enrolled students per year)or place even greater demands on the community for housing if enrollment reaches or exceeds 500 additional students per year as outlined in their presentation to council. It is imperative that the City began reaching out to our elected State representatives along with other State representatives such as State Sen. Scott Wiener who has been at the forefront of legislation to increase the state's housing supply. Thank you for your consideration. Brett Cross RQN Vice Chair