 our mics. Good afternoon folks. We're going to go ahead and get started today. Today is Tuesday, July 23rd. We're ready to start the regular city council meeting. Dina, if you'd call the roll. Let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of council member Combs, council member Sawyer, and Mayor Schwedhelm. And we are really productive today. We have no closed session, no study sessions, and no reports, proclamations, and presentations. Where is Chief Schreeder? Chief, come on down. Before we go to our resolution, you might have noticed I'm not Tom Schwedhelm, but the mayor before he left town did do a special video for the chief, and I think we're going to play it now. I think there's one version that's like that. Sorry I'm not able to attend your council proclamation meeting. I'm hoping yours is going a heck of a lot smoother than mine did in 2013. I wanted to use this opportunity to thank you for your years of service with the Santa Rosa Police Department. I know you could have made a huge impact with the Fullerton Police Department, and you chosen to stay there. So I'm thankful you made the right choice and headed north. I also know that a couple of decades in law enforcement has an impact on not only the officer, but also on family members. I want to thank both Josh and Zach for supporting your career, because I know very well the challenges it can be when one of their parents is a police officer. They're outstanding young men now, and their parents are doing much of the credit. It doesn't happen by accident. Obviously you didn't attain all your accomplishments without a very supportive wife. I know Lisa has supported you and been by your side every step of the way through motors, sex crimes, SWAT, and all the way through the ranks. You're lucky to have her, and you better be nicer as you retire. She definitely deserves it. I've really enjoyed our ride together through my time at the police department, and now my new role. You've made me a better leader, and you've truly made a big difference at both the police department and in the community. I value our friendship, and look forward to seeing where your next adventure leads you. Thanks again and congratulations on your well deserved retirement. So now chief, I have explicit instructions to read the whole proclamation to you from the mayor. Whereas police chief Robert Hank Schreeder has unwaveringly served the residents of the city of Santa Rosa for 28 years, with a commitment to making Santa Rosa a safe place to live, work, and play. And whereas the chief began his career with Santa Rosa in 1991 as an officer whose assignment included motor officer, field training officer, domestic violence, and sexual assault detective and SWAT officer. And whereas the chief was promoted to sergeant in 2000 and worked as a supervisor in field services, the field training program, and in the investigation bureau supervising the gang investigation section and the personnel services team. And whereas chief Schreeder promoted to lieutenant in 2006, then to captain in 2009, the chief was also involved in the development of the mayor's gang task force, as well as the family justice center, and served on the executive board of chops from 2010 to 2017. And it was awarded the non-profit leadership award by the north bay business journal in 2015. And whereas chief Schreeder was appointed acting chief of police in December of 2013 and served in that capacity until his successful completion of the testing process for chief in 2015. And whereas in 2017, he led the department through the worst fire disaster Sonoma County has experienced, providing leadership during the fire storm and during the recovery. And whereas chief will by this point be rolling his eyes at the length of this proclamation, making gestures indicating wrap it up already. Now therefore be it resolved that Tom Sweatham, mayor of the city of Santa Rosa on behalf of the entire city council, do hereby recognize and thank Robert Hank Schreeder for his dedication, tireless efforts, knowledge, leadership, guidance, and loyalty exhibited in providing for the safety and quality of life for the citizens of the city of Santa Rosa, and his commitment to making Santa Rosa a safe place to live, work, and play. Chief Schreeder will be greatly missed by most of the city council, city management, and city staff, all of whom wish him a happy and fulfilling retirement. Congratulations. Chief, before we let you say a couple of words, we do have a representative here from congressman Thompson's office, as well as helping to fill in for congressman Huffman's office. Joe, if you want to take the mic. Good afternoon. And we'd just like to, on behalf of congressman Thompson and congressman Huffman, thank you for your service, your time here in the city, and we wish you the best in your future endeavors in retirement. This proclamation we have here contains much of the similar language as the cities, although it will be permanently enshrined in the congressional record for history, so that's special. Joe, if you want to hang out for a minute, we'll do photos in a second. We do have one card on this. Dwayne DeWitt. Rosalind, which has always been in Santa Rosa, so my whole life I've been wandering around here, and I think this guy's one of the better police chiefs we've had over the years, and I've been here since all the way back, Dutch floor. It's a very interesting time when you have police chiefs in a country that's, if you'll excuse the expression, beginning to lose a bit of respect for the whole idea of our society and rule of law. I want to say I personally respect this guy. I never knew him until he got here as a police officer, but I think he's done a very credible job, and he's really helped to make things better for us as we try to have Rosalind be integrated in to Santa Rosa and have people be more trusting of the police force. And he also was kind enough to let Rainier, Ray Navarro, begin to come over there and start talking with people so that young folks are more trusting of the police. When I was a youngster, we didn't want to trust anybody over 30. Now I'm over 30, I trust this guy at least. Thank you. Thank you, Dwayne. Looks like we've got one more. Um, you know, I hear a lot of congratulations for the chief of police, and I'm gonna, I feel like I need to balance this conversation a little bit, because today I read an article, both in the press democrat and in the ABC7 news about Father Oscar Diaz. Now he's at a parish in Santa Rosa, and he embezzled over $100,000. He was pulled over with $18,000 cash in his car, and the police are saying that they don't have enough evidence to prosecute him. It's difficult for me to think of a situation where someone can be pulled over with an unexplainable $18,000 in cash in their car, be found to be lying, and we still don't have anything, we can't even begin to prosecute it. It sounds to me like an absurd situation, one that squares up very nicely with the absurd situation that I personally found upon asking for Catholic charities, diocese of Santa Rosa's independently audited financial statements, which among other things openly disclose a conflict of interest regarding the remodel of the Shaw Center. $33,000, which is a nonsense number for a remodel, it's like half a bathroom. $33,000 contract awarded to Shaw, contract wife of a board member. George, I'm going to ask you to get back to the proclamation here. I am, because what I think is that the police do have enough evidence to prosecute, and that we're doing a lot of congratulating and not a lot of holding accountable. Now we've got plenty to prosecute this individual priest, and from here I looked into his history, he's been moved around quite a bit. I'm willing to bet if this is where this stops, I think everyone in this room would be shocked. All right, now this man is a danger to his parishioners, to our society, and I think he's indicative of a much larger danger that we have plenty of evidence. I personally have boxes of it, and we're not doing anything about that danger, right? Now we've got the chief of police here. I can't think of a better person to talk to about that. Now while we're congratulating him, everything that he's done, right, that's made us better and safer as a community, fantastic, all right? But here's something that's not getting done, right? Something that desperately needs to be done, okay? Now I know plenty of people personally. I don't know if you can see my tattoo distribution, but who've been held accountable for much, much less, all right? And the police were zealous in their holding of that accountability, right? I'd like to see a little of the gumption that we are congratulating this man for here, directed at people who are, I don't know if you guys are familiar with what the Catholic Church, priests in the Catholic Church with no evidence of an ethical code are capable of doing to their community, but it's not good, all right? Please take a look at this man. Prosecute him. Yes, you do have the evidence. Thank you. Thank you, George. Chief, I'm going to turn it over to you. Well, I think I warned the city manager about giving the chief of police an open mic with nothing to lose going into this conversation. But the reality is, Vice Mayor Rogers, Council, city manager, city staff, and the community, I wanted to thank everyone for the support. You cannot do this job alone. And so much of it requires the support of the people around you, and especially the men and women of the Santa Rosa Police Department. My job would have been so much more difficult given the conversations that went on when I first took over the job five and a half years ago, if it wasn't for the professionalism of our city staff and our city police department. We went through a national conversation. We did a local conversation, pretty dramatic local conversation, body wearing cameras, independent auditors, fire, a lot of different things. But we made it through it because of the hard work of the people that worked for me. So I wanted to thank them personally from me and for city council for allowing me to have one of the best jobs I think I've ever had. And also allowing Ray to take over and with his professionalism, his community spirit, his sense of leadership, taking Santa Rosa Police Department into the future. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you, folks. We'll move on to item 6.1, Mr. City Manager. Nothing to report this evening. Okay. City Manager and City Attorney reports. Nothing to report. And nothing to report. Okay. Any statements of abstention by the council members? Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I'll be abstaining from the item relating to Sam. Okay, go ahead, council member. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'll be abstaining from the item on the Sam Jones Hall roof today. And given the council member's abstention, because folks, if you could take your conversations outside, that'd be appreciated. Given the council member's abstention item, 11.5, we will not have a quorum for that item. So we're going to hold that until our next council meeting. Council members, any other abstentions? Mayors and council members reports. Does anybody have anything to report? No? Okay. Seeing none, we will go to our consent calendar. Item 11.1, Resolutions, Santa Rosa Tours and Business Improvement Area, fiscal year 2019- excuse me- 2018-2019 annual report and fiscal year 2019-2020 work plan. Item 11.2, Resolution, statewide park development and community revitalization grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Improvement of Coffee Neighborhood Park. Item 11.3, Resolution, statewide park development and community revitalization grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Improvement of Roseland Creek Community Park. Item 11.4, Resolution, extension of initial cannabis industry tax rights. Item 11.6, Resolution, extension of proclamation of local homeless emergency. Item 11.7, Resolution, extension of proclamation of existence of local emergency due to fires. Okay. Before we go to public comment, council members, does anybody want to pull anything off of the consent calendar? Again, we are holding item 11.5 for the next council meeting. Folks, we'll have three minutes to talk on the consent calendar. We'll start with Duane DeWitt. And he'll be followed by Anne Seeley. Before I begin, I'd like to read three people Duane, you can ask for that during your comments. You've got three minutes. Duane, I'm asking you to go to a microphone, please, so that folks can hear you. Certainly, sir. And again, folks, you'll have three minutes for the consent calendar. Item 11.6, Resolution, extension of proclamation of local emergency due to fires. And again, we're turned into the city yesterday that should be made available to the public by way of having them accessible on that big screen. A map, an alternative for Roseland Creek Park, drawn up by the community, was turned into you. And after many, many months, actually years, we still haven't gotten the overhead projector back, so members of the public can bring evidence to be a part of a matter such as this. I would urge you to continue this matter. We don't even have a Roseland representative on the city council, and yet you're making decisions that would affect Roseland's future forever, not just for a few years. And there's become a real sense of almost people feel there's a cavalier disregard and a disrespect on the part of some elected officials, some highly paid bureaucrats, towards Roseland, and also towards veterans. Almost nine full months ago, a letter was turned in asking that you folks be supportive of the veteran's approach for a veteran's trail in Roseland Creek Park, along with the veteran's grove, a memorial garden. Those things are not even included in the packet right now, and yet the city is coming forward with a plan that if you approve today, no longer becomes a draft. It actually will then be utilized by staff to say, well, that's the final plan. That's what was approved. And so we are protesting. We feel this is inadequate, and it's a deliberate end run on the part of staff on what should have been an inclusive ending to a planning process for the park master plan. Essentially, they're saying they're going for this state money, and the state says they're supposed to be having an inclusive process. They've been having exclusive, targeted meetings which are discriminatory and cutting people out of the mix. So if you go forward on this, you need to keep in mind that I have asked today that the record show that members of the community feel we have been discriminated against, that this is an excuse expression right here, but it seems a deliberate and disingenuous attempt. It's almost deceit by omission. And so if this goes forward, it could lead to actions that others come forward with, and I would ask you to seriously look at this and say, let's just continue it, or at least one of you say, hey, I got a question about this process. Thank you, Mr. DeWitt. Ann Sealy, followed by George Uberti. Good afternoon, Council, Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council. Ann Sealy speaking for Concerned Citizens for Santa Rosa. Even though I don't live in the Southwest, I live in Bennett Valley. When I learned of a neighborhood meeting about this park, I decided to attend last year to learn about what the process was like, how it was being carried out, and I've done this in a lot of situations and have been happy at what I've seen. This meeting was a shock. The then Director of Parks and Recreation sat in the back of the meeting and talked to one of her staff members the whole time. It was a very pro forma meeting where the staff presented concepts that they thought should be in this park. Then the public got up and to a person, they explained that they wanted this concept more that's called a Roseland Creek neighborhood preserve. And they explained why the staff didn't seem to get it. So I also would encourage continuance of this item because I think you're not dealing with a legitimate plan for this park. Thank you. Thank you, Ann. George, followed by Paul Carroll. 3 and 116, yeah. Yeah, three minutes for the consent calendar. For the whole calendar night for each item? That's correct. All right, let's start then. Harry and Henderson's Tibbets has a brother, Jeffrey Tibbets, who works in the Department of Parks and Recreation. Now he understands the concept of financial interest as he has stayed due to, I imagine, his membership on St. Vincent de Paul and its relevance to 11.5. But for some reason, not for 11.3. Even though the political reform act 2019 edition defines a financial interest, as a public official has a financial interest in the decision within the meaning of section 87100, if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member or his or her immediate family, or in any of the following, which I don't really need to read right now. But brothers are immediate family members, right? Now we're talking about a grant application, right? And we're talking about increasing appropriations in revenue and expenditures by the approved grant award, right? Now appropriations that include salaries, does it not? So if you've got a family member in the parks department who stands to be appropriated to salary based on this grant agreement, I would say that's the financial interest of an immediate family member, is it not? Yet we have not abstained. I don't think that's accidental. I think it's underhanded, and I think it's illegal, literally, and wrong. Now 11.6 is our extension of the proclamation of local homeless emergency, right? Now I hear a lot about what we have to do to the homeless. We have to enforce our sidewalk laws. We have to write tickets for some poor guy who has to take a dump outside, like that's what he wants to do. We have to do those things, but we don't have to prosecute priests embezzling six figures. We don't have to do that, and we just can't, hands are tied. I don't believe you. I think it's underhanded. I think it's criminal, and I think it's wrong. And I think you know that, all right? Now we are intelligent adults, all right? The fact that you have a particular costume on doesn't mean anything, all right? Anyone can wake up in the morning and put on a blue pair of clothes, all right? But what's right and what's wrong are real, okay? And they affect how we live, and we have a responsibility as intelligent adults to stop playing pretend and do the right thing, all right? Now I can't hold your hand any more on this. I've read you the code section of the law, all right? I've read from the information that you provided to me, all right? All I am doing is repeating what my society has said to me. Back to it, all right? Be what you are supposed to be, what you've told us you are. Thank you, George. And without getting into a back and forth, Council Member Tibbets, do you have a brother? No, I'm an only child. Yeah, that's what I thought. Thank you. We'll go on to Paul Carroll. Hello, Mayor Rogers or Vice Mayor Rogers and members of the Council. I'm talking about 11.6 to clarify that. There's been a lot in the news about Apollo 11 and the amazing accomplishment that it was. That effort was part of a challenging plan. John F. Kennedy said in 1962, we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others too. I bring this up because once again, the city is extending the proclamation of a local homeless emergency. Last week, I sent all of you a document that was created by the Sonoma County Community Development Commission in 2014 as an update to the 2007 10-year action plan to end homelessness. I had been searching for a local document that spoke about solving homelessness instead of just treating it and found this document that spoke and found the action plan at the bottom of the county's webpage. It was the first time I had seen it and had never heard it spoken about at any of the home Sonoma County meetings. This report lays out the need and quantifies the challenge. Even though it is five years old, this action plan has all the elements our community needs to map out this goal. I looked to see if this document had been incorporated into any of the planning department documents at both the county and the city. It had not. The only mention of homelessness that I found was in a city webpage for housing action plan elements. It said, sustain homeless service programs. I need to say that this statement is a surrendering to the challenge that homelessness presents to us. The reason I am addressing the inadequacies of the planning department and not housing and community services is because development policy resides there. And that is where multifamily developers go first. Over the years, Santa Rosa has proven that it is very good at building single family detached housing. We do not even provide enough affordable housing for our workforce, let alone those who cannot work. We need to rise to the challenge and find the money, policies and will to build sufficient, well-planned, permanent supportive housing to solve homelessness and not just treat it. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Carroll. I'm going to bring it back to the council here. Madam City Attorney, there was a question during public comment about documents being turned into the city yesterday. What's our policy around at what point do we have the documents forward facing versus when do we have that cutoff? We do not at this time have a particular time and date cutoff. It is the practicalities of having it uploaded. And I would defer to the acting city clerk in terms of just the mechanics of posting items. And as it pertains to the Brown Act, is there a requirement in there about when things are submitted to the city with a certain amount of time before the meeting where they have to be made public? There is not anything in the Brown Act relative to posting of materials that are provided by the public. There are provisions about materials that are provided by staff, but not from materials presented by the public. Council members, are there any questions on the consent calendar? Council Member Tibbets. Thank you. I do have a question for the park staff on 11.3. Good afternoon, Jen Santos, Deputy Director Parks. Thank you, Ms. Santos. The question I had is in the agenda packet, we have the draft master plan concept. And I assume that this is part of what's being submitted to the state parks? Correct. It's part of the application. They require a concept or some sort of plan. So if the grant gets awarded, is this the plan that will be implemented or will there be future opportunities for the Council and the public to make comment on that concept paper? There will be future, plenty of future opportunities for Council and the public to make comments on it. It's not final. It's where we're at right now. Okay, great. Thanks so much. Council Member Oliveris. Thank you. And, Jen, I just want to confirm that as part of this process, you have already conducted a number of public meetings for input prior to the August 5th deadline for the application. Is that correct? Correct. As part of this particular grant application, we have done five recent meetings. And then, of course, we've also since 2009 been meeting numerous times with the community on the overall master plan. Thank you. Any other questions from Council? All right. Council Member Oliveris, I'm going to come to you for a motion. Thank you. I will move. Consent items 11.1 through 11.4 and 11.6 and 7. I'll wait for the read of the text. Second. Okay. Council, your votes. And the consent calendar passes with four ayes. And, Council Members, Schwedhelm, Combs, and Sawyer absent. It not being five o'clock yet, we cannot go to public comment for items not on the agenda. It's the last thing on our agenda for today. So, we will recess and come back at five o'clock for public comment on items not on the agenda. I'm going to go ahead and bring us back into session here. We have public comment for items not on the agenda. Dwayne DeWitt, followed by Tyler Lublow. Thank you, sir. My name is Dwayne DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. And I appreciate the opportunity to be able to come and speak with you about issues that are of importance to myself and other veterans in the community. Earlier, I had mentioned that some veterans are beginning to think that the City Council may be not just indifferent, but actually disrespectful to the point that it's like, why are we even trying to do things with them? I had a map here today of a park over in Roseland. We've been proposing for a Roseland Veterans Trail, a Memorial Grove, and a Memorial Garden. We haven't heard anything back from city staff, even though they've been working on other stuff. And we would have thought that the letter from Congressman Thompson would have been included with you. We also had been making comments about how about we save those four houses that are over there that were paid for at top prices, taxpayers' money, Ag and Open Space District bottom, and then gave them to you so now you don't really have to think like it's Santa Rosa taxpayers, but it's all taxpayers' money. Those four houses could be utilized in a positive manner. Veterans could have been helping on some things already. You've owned some of the land deeded over by Sonoma County Ag and Open Space for nine full years. So it's a bit of benign neglect. It's not you, obviously. You're new, you folks there, and you're basically kind of looking at this from the side going like, why does that guy even care? Well, we care because veterans look at it like we could be helping in positive ways that would help other veterans. Those houses are an asset. Last week I missed the meeting where you were talking about what you're going to tear down. And recently a man from the city told me, well, hell, you weren't there, so that's that. We've been talking about this and bringing this matter up in the past to you folks. Those four houses that are there, three three bedrooms and one one bedroom, could be utilized. They could be moved off-site. They could be put on city-owned land on Stony Point Road where the city knocked down houses in the past. At least seven houses were torn out similar in size to this and not replaced. So you just declared the housing emergency again. You have these issues at hand. I have a little flyer here that points out you can buy a house here locally, half a million dollars. So each of those assets is at worth money. If they're degraded, it's because of dereliction of duty. They should have been watched over and stewarded. As long as you held on to them and there were taxpayers' funds, watch out for them. So please help us veterans to believe you respect us and that we're working together. We really need to hear that and actions speak louder than words because right now it seems like you're just thumbing your nose at us. Thank you Duane, Tyler Ludlow followed by James Duncan. Hi, I'm Tyler. You might remember me from the skate park. So I actually lived down in South Park too and there's the low barrier navigation center that didn't go through and then the housing that's supposed to go on. We had a meeting recently where I talked to Nicole and everybody gave their input and you're going to get that input when you get the proposal that's been I guess referred to you or something. But there's a lot of people that want to be involved so I'm just speaking sort of as part of the community saying that we do want to stay involved in that because there's still some concerns. A lot of people I mean kind of share similar opinions as the people that have been speaking today. But I know that we can just make it work. We can try to get the right kind of thing going. A lot of people don't want Catholic charities in there and there's you know different aspects to it. But if we could look into bottom-up planning or something somehow actually get the people involved in it I know it would go really far. So I'm just really trying to express the community's desire to stay engaged on that development. Secondly I remember the mayor mentioning taking a seat down there with you guys at some point like some ride-along system. I don't know if that's a thing but I'd love to do that. I'm actually toying with the idea of even running for council at some point. So on that note thanks. Thanks Tyler. Shoot us an email and we'll put you on the mayor's list for that and hopefully skate injury. Yeah go ahead and shoot an email to me if you'd like. James Duncan followed by Merlin. Vice mayor and members of the city council. I'm James Duncan. For 40 years our family has lived within a few minutes walk of the Jennings Avenue rail crossing. In 2012 as smart was beginning to upgrade the historic rail line through our city we and others spoke to you about the importance of also upgrading the Jennings crossing so as to keep it going open for ongoing public use. You heard us and you directed staff to act. We participated in the EIR process and the public hearings. I and others became parties in the CPUC proceeding for the Jennings crossing in support of the city in 2015. In 2016 the city with community support won the necessary CPUC approval without closing any of the railroad square or west end rail crossings and without building an unnecessary and expensive overcrossing. The city then agreed with smart that smart would complete the Jennings crossing upgrade at the city's expense before smart started running its trains. But Farhad Mansourian smart's manager had other ideas. He demanded that the city would have to enter into an unrelated agreement before smart would perform the upgrade work. Then the Tubbs fire swept through and changed so much for so many. Now that you have reaffirmed that the upgrade of the crossing will go forward with or without smart and have asked the CPUC to extend the time to do that, the CPUC has reopened the proceeding. As a continuing party in the proceeding, I received a notice that the CPUC's administrative law judge will be making a site visit at the crossing on August 1st between 3 and 4 p.m. beginning on the east side at Herbert Street and Jennings Avenue at 3 p.m. Unless there would be Brown Act concerns, I encourage you to consider attending the site visit. Based on the previous CPUC site visit in February 2016, it would not be a public hearing but your presence would be a direct and personal statement in support of the Jennings crossing, which is of such importance to our city and to our neighborhood. Thank you so much. And I've provided photocopies of the notice regarding the site visit. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, and I'll see you out there on the 1st. Merlin. With Ironman coming up this weekend, the timing of yesterday's quote cleanup of Olive Park and the trail adjoining it couldn't be more clear, the intention behind that couldn't be more clear. I have here a letter signed by 31 people living right in the immediate vicinity of the park and trail. Over half the households engaged, well over half, signed on to this letter. I'd like to read it to you here on their behalf. Dear Santa Rosa City Council members and city administrators, we residents of Santa Rosa living in the vicinity of Olive Park and the Prince Memorial Greenway recognize that one, our houseless neighbors are residing in the park because there is no place better for them to live. Two, forcing them to leave will result in them most likely moving to worse, more isolated and hazardous locations. Three, forcing them to leave will separate them from each other and from the rest of the community resulting in cruel social isolation, which increases their risk of mental health problems and suicide. Four, seizing their belongings will make their chances of surviving and prospering even worse. Five, punishing them for sleeping and existing in the best place available to them given the current economic and environmental conditions is cruel and unusual. We therefore demand that the city and its associated law enforcement agencies one, allow our houseless neighbors to stay in the park unpersecuted and unmolested and two, stop citing, arresting, prosecuting and seizing their possessions for petty violations which we recognize as an obvious substitute for explicitly criminalizing their poverty and houseless conditions. Ex-Sheriff Freitas had the good sense to resign as a recall election was headed his way. With Santa Rosa having district elections in an average of about 1200 voters per district, it would not take long for a small dedicated team of canvassers to gather the required signatures necessary to force a special election and recall any council person who abides a so-called sweep in their district. This behavior is cruel, unusual and it violates international human rights standards. That's been well established. We have the power to do it and if you continue, we're coming for you. Thank you, Merlin. I've got no other cards for public comment. That's the last thing on the agenda, so we are adjourned.