[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6634414,"mediaKeyId","3527220-44d6571ded0e7e57f0a3b5512fe5f4cf","parentId",3527220,"title","Votes at a glance: Vista City Council actions and tallies, May 27, 2025","audioSeconds",8379,"startMs",3756000,"endMs",12135000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3527220-44d6571ded0e7e57f0a3b5512fe5f4cf&start=3756&end=12135","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3527220-44d6571ded0e7e57f0a3b5512fe5f4cf/thumbnail_3756000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6634414/Vista/San-Diego-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-Vista-City-Council-actions-and-tallies-May-27-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6634414-699f669ab3f6398e2c55c923abd9b233/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202315&Signature=kMbTimht23TAakkNyoqtBaKGTAiIKi88-fBxqj6R03iu61FP-c3Q84pMdYuC2wFeCTBy4YF3yhFaMLg94zUgSQNEStxgbh5vfwe0smLo5VHTqaIhix2XB05ZjgHZxr6d~JYQLMvfK117GiXv7Dkbnk2bfgC~rjAG1KeT9qP5YFs1PNrsBumflUnLnrfnTMAcg-EZ8EhtLCTY~dgg5AZE-Ecpfi5ZpJrKfSswjLwz952DQKOiwI~uJa6RZqJQyxHBe0mM6MI3yPtAOHfCw--WOQxeFklKi1AVjsb1AM7NzNe2l5O1p7xt7pLyJ1yvh9NId3Qw3evjy-WLrDkFTO7Z4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Vista","date","2025-05-27T00:00:00Z","article","This roundup lists final recorded votes and formal outcomes from the Vista City Council meeting on May 27, 2025. It covers consent, commission work plans, public hearings and recorded motions with outcomes as included in the official meeting record.

- Consent calendar (items C1'C15): Adopted unanimously. The council approved the remaining consent items in a single motion; several items were pulled for separate discussion.

- Item C7, Vista Age-Friendly Action Plan: Approved unanimously. Motion to adopt the age-friendly plan passed with no dissent; councilmembers noted implementation and asked staff about next steps.

- Item C9, Environmental Commission 2025''1 work plan: Approved, 4 in favor, 1 opposed. Councilmember O'Donnell recorded a no vote; staff and commission will execute the work plan with priorities identified in the packet.

- Item C10, LGBTQIA+ progressive Pride flag: Approved, 3 in favor, 2 opposed. Deputy Mayor Melendez moved to raise the Pride flag each June in perpetuity and hold a modest reception on the first working day of June; the motion carried 3'to'2.

- Public Hearing PH1, formation/proceedings for two assessment districts (Citywide Street Maintenance Assessment District 2025-1 and Citywide Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District 2025-2): Staff reported a majority protest and recommended abandoning formation proceedings for both districts. Council adopted resolutions to declare results and abandon formation (unanimous vote), per the staff tabulation of ballots reported on the record. Staff reported the tabulated ballot totals in the hearing (weighted assessment balances opposed the propositions).

- Public Hearing PH2, vacancy and recruitment/retention report (Assembly Bill 2561 / Government Code 3502.3 compliance): The council received the report on citywide vacancies and recruitment/retention efforts for calendar year 2024; staff reported average city vacancy rates and bargaining-unit breakdowns. Staff recommended, and the council approved, receipt of the report and continued annual reporting (unanimous vote).

- Item D1, protected bike lanes (CIP 8362): Multiple motions and a substitute motion were recorded. A substitute motion from Councilmember O'Donnell to remove berms and delineators on a specified District 4 stretch failed (2 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 abstention). Council directed staff to gather incident/response data, improve outreach and identify site-specific engineering or maintenance changes; no blanket citywide removal was adopted.

- Procedural: The council approved an extension of the meeting time by unanimous vote to allow completion of public comment and discussion.

Several recorded tallies and staff-provided ballot counts were read into the record during the meeting and will be included in the minutes and the published staff reports. Where the motion language or legal citations were not specified verbatim in the public record, staff will publish the official resolutions and minute text on the city website.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting, May 27th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of recorded votes at the May 27 Vista City Council meeting, including consent calendar, age-friendly plan, environmental commission work plan, Pride flag action and two public hearings.","taxTitle","Vista, San Diego County, California","taxId",2844,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6634418,"Debate over Melrose protected bike lanes turns to safety, emergency access and cost",3003,5067000,8070000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3527220-44d6571ded0e7e57f0a3b5512fe5f4cf&start=5067&end=8070","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3527220-44d6571ded0e7e57f0a3b5512fe5f4cf/thumbnail_5067000.jpg","/articles/6634418/Vista/San-Diego-County/California/Debate-over-Melrose-protected-bike-lanes-turns-to-safety-emergency-access-and-cost","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6634418-72eaa728cbc2ac5854f93751e5ddcd25/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202315&Signature=hF8U0hsiQzQYK1VG6B2AW7ZLtU2NsPw1~2nI1V8Fh-yWEAYIPsfKb8n6umUTnUXqJqr09BkdsDJJt1g5dFtwzxPjMeiJCI7QN3liOW~B~WdYHZ56tdW8LezA89e2Tl18m1NRI0WMu0JuT~2WfVC~PMBDwZaovuy9V0bKCrVKhJbx1pB~ISbe3VA-ZropOHiuXCxKUdhQKhg5qxl51vlxLj1kByMhQJxN3MCuYK2j17Hu09QYT2S9Bz6kPQbDOZFRhSxF5genjjDzzZXvHR5vCi12goWDm8LTIyN~zLKcDT0Tszo5D9xrngkyCyx2DWCWTTMV0FVzGY7EjiCL6CDMoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A heated, hours-long discussion of Vista's new protected bike lane project centered on safety, emergency access and whether the city should remove recently installed asphalt berms that separate bicyclists from traffic on stretches of Melrose Drive.

Councilmember Joe O'Donnell moved to remove all berms and delineators from Shadow Ridge to Dawson on both the north and south sides of South Melrose and to remove berms from Dawson to Faraday; he said the change would reflect resident opposition in his district and save money. \"Remove all berms and delineators from Shadow Ridge to Dawson on both the north and south sides of the Street,\" O'Donnell said in presenting the motion.

That substitute motion failed in a roll-call vote recorded in the minutes: two in favor, two against and one abstention (the record shows Councilmember O'Donnell abstained on that vote). The council then considered alternate language and additional requests for targeted changes.

Deputy Mayor Melendez, who supported continuing the protected-bikeway work citywide, urged a data-driven approach and stepped-up public education. \"I stand by my decision to support the protected bikeways,\" Melendez said, arguing that vertical separation and physical buffers can reduce vehicle-bicycle conflicts when properly designed and maintained.

Public testimony filled more than two hours. Residents and advocacy groups were sharply divided. Dozens of speakers backed the berms as lifesaving protection for cyclists and pedestrians, especially children who ride to nearby schools. \"These asphalt barriers are vital for safety,\" said Shannon Goen, noting previous fatal collisions on South Melrose. Other speakers — including some cyclists and nearby homeowners — said the low-profile berms and short, white flex posts are a hazard: riders can be thrown from their bikes if they strike a berm, they said, and the barriers collect debris and complicate emergency response.

Fire Chief Gerard Washington told the council the department had not yet collected a full set of incident data specific to the new berms and asked that the city track and report any emergency-response impacts. \"Safety is our top priority,\" he said, adding that staff would work with the council to gather operational data.

An invited expert, Dr. Ron Medak — who reviewed Encinitas data after that city's similar cycle-track installations — told the council a before-and-after analysis showed more reported bicycle collisions on the Encinitas segment he studied. In his presentation Medak said the Encinitas segment had 18 collisions before the cycle track and 27 after installation, and he documented additional incidents not captured in official datasets. He concluded the cycle track there had “a significant negative effect” in the sample he examined.

Councilmembers stressed trade-offs. Several noted the city has budgeted federal and local funds for a connected bikeway network and cited research from federal and regional agencies showing protected facilities can reduce vehicle-bicycle collisions overall. Others emphasized local rollout and design problems — in particular the initial placement of black asphalt berms without high-visibility striping and the need to clear debris more frequently.

Council gave staff direction to prioritize public outreach, coordinate with fire and law enforcement on operational concerns, and compile a post-installation safety report. The transcript shows the council debated targeted removals for a short stretch in District 4 but did not adopt a blanket citywide removal.

The council also discussed enforcement and maintenance steps such as increased street sweeping of bike lanes and clarifying where parking and trash pickup will operate adjacent to protected lanes. Staff said a portion of project funds remain and committed to return with implementation details and any site-specific engineering changes.

The council's split underscores how cities confront design, safety and operational trade-offs when converting car-oriented streets to multimodal corridors. Vista officials left the meeting with two clear tasks: collect and publish incident and response data for the newly altered corridors, and expand community education and enforcement to reduce conflicts while staff reviews targeted design adjustments.","After hours of public testimony and expert presentations, councilmembers split over newly installed asphalt berms on Melrose Drive. A motion to remove berms in a section of District 4 failed; council directed staff to continue some installations while pursuing public education and further review of problem sites.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6634424,"Vista council votes 3-2 to fly progressive Pride flag every June after heated public debate",0,4625000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3527220-44d6571ded0e7e57f0a3b5512fe5f4cf&start=4625&end=4625","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3527220-44d6571ded0e7e57f0a3b5512fe5f4cf/thumbnail_4625000.jpg","/articles/6634424/Vista/San-Diego-County/California/Vista-council-votes-3-2-to-fly-progressive-Pride-flag-every-June-after-heated-public-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6634424-273d00dbcc2b2c77d83a687fbbdbfa19/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202315&Signature=Zz9U-hHYh4LqoSQ-3ISfJY1fbDUEMA8fI9~-IhZMZ000~LQ4HSi3nJ-~vmBcqaYuwHWG5ZylvFLXtMEIumlx6dAarx2bw3LPXtJwZiYJi9WrC787I4UPsHLVjVnOxYVj0V31GYdl-bS9PQ2s7RRj6IdwRdkHfOBrLvebG-XzYvMImtrYc5SZ-OJA2b29x-X7pc46VTmU9uRtSSerGzYRgWdhjlds2tHwAxs2BmUc2-cNcDFYAi3fq3YqhZMM~DMOaGWMo6mlhOGpZoe76XWPoK35yPt8sN5lsxflq1ofNP0l55NJdoYiApJ~7V0yamaObfXfMBOPnmnamgFweNASmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Vista City Council voted 3-2 on Tuesday to raise the LGBTQIA+ progressive Pride flag at city hall each June, after lengthy public comment and debate that drew hundreds to the chamber. Deputy Mayor Melendez moved that the council raise the flag annually in perpetuity and hold a modest reception on the first working day of June; the motion was seconded and carried with three votes in favor and two against.

Supporters told council members the annual flag would be a visible sign that Vista is welcoming to LGBTQIA+ residents and families. Dr. John Rott, a local pediatrician, said the symbol matters for young people. “The flag seems like a small gesture but I can tell you that it means a lot to our kids. I think they deserve to be seen,” he said during public comment.

The item drew dozens of speakers and intense public attention after recent debates in neighboring cities. Dozens of residents and representatives of local organizations — including the North County LGBTQ Resource Center — urged the council to act. Max Despositti, executive director of the center, told the council the flag is an act of solidarity and “a clear message that hate has no place in this city.”

A smaller group of speakers opposed flying the flag, saying municipal flagpoles should display a single, neutral governmental symbol. One member of the public criticized the proclamation earlier in the meeting, and a few speakers asked the council to avoid adding symbols to the city flagpole.

Deputy Mayor Melendez framed the motion as consistent with the council’s earlier proclamation recognizing Pride month and said the action affirmed the city’s commitment to inclusion. “I stand by my decision to support the protected bikeways, to increase not only visibility of the bikeways, but build into the infrastructure physical barriers so that motorists and bicyclists can be separated,” she said in the broader discussion of civic symbols and public safety during the meeting. (Note: that comment was made in a broader policy discussion earlier in the meeting.)

Council debate reflected the community split. Supporters argued the symbolic step helps vulnerable residents and employees; opponents said the flagpole should remain limited to the U.S. flag and other traditional governmental banners. After the vote, the council scheduled a modest morning reception on June 2 and confirmed the flag will be raised every June in perpetuity.

The council’s decision follows a series of presentations and public hearings earlier in the same meeting. Staff noted the council has flown the Pride flag at city hall in previous years; the motion formalizes the annual observance.

The city clerk will publish details on the June reception and logistics. The vote was 3 in favor, 2 opposed; the minutes record the action as approved.","After more than an hour of public testimony, the Vista City Council voted 3-2 to raise the LGBTQIA+ progressive Pride flag every June and hold a modest June reception, a move supporters said signals inclusion and opponents criticized as divisive.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Vista City Council actions and tallies, May 27, 2025

Debate over Melrose protected bike lanes turns to safety, emergency access and cost

Vista council votes 3-2 to fly progressive Pride flag every June after heated public debate