HomeForum and questionnaire record · reviewed October 20, 2026
Browse 71 issue questions across the nine candidates. Search by candidate, topic, or position; open a question to see the candidate-by-candidate record and its source notes.
Entries are neutral research summaries from the Stage 8 review workbook, not direct quotations. Source links and the review’s qualifications appear with each candidate entry. “Position not established” means the reviewed record does not support a reliable position for that candidate on that particular question.
The sources are available captions/transcripts and written responses. The research package reports that audio and video were not independently reviewed; some captions omit passages or speakers, and some answers are available only in secondary summaries. Those limitations are identified in the source notes.
This page does not score, rank, endorse, or oppose candidates. It is a comparison of the available reviewed record, not a complete transcript of every forum.
Open the Land Use comparison → · Forum recordings and records →
Showing 71 of 71 questions
(GOP rapid-round answer not captured with a label: CF003)
Conditional/mixed
+ [CF001 GOP Part 2 0:52]
+ [CF002 GOP rapid round]
+ [CF002 GOP rapid round]
+ [CF002 GOP rapid round]
(GOP rapid-round answer not captured with a label: CF003)
+ [CF002 GOP rapid round]
+ [CF002 GOP rapid round]
WQ1 did not address majority/runoff.
Conditional — WQ1: open to studying runoffs/RCV; would not assume Seal Beach's system fits; says <50% of ballots ≠ majority opposed.
(as framed) — WQ1: 50% threshold doesn't fit a three-vote at-large race; opposes districts; no commitment to study alternatives.
Conditional — WQ1: wants broader voter support; voters should decide evidence-backed changes; no explicit commitment.
Declined the written questionnaire; no other answer located
Conditional — WQ1: comfortable with at-large; cautious on districts; open to reviewing improvements; no stance on majority/runoff.
WQ1: study >50% with runoff, Seal Beach model, other options.
WQ1 addressed only term limits.
No written answer by 9/30 deadline; no other answer located
Opposes
Opposes
Opposes
Supports
Supports
Supports
Supports
Supports
Supports
Position not established
Supports
Conditional/mixed
Supports
Supports
Supports
Position not established
Supports
Supports
Supports updating the DSP, emphasizes adaptive reuse of existing upper floors and describes constraints on replacing nonconforming buildings.
Supports a public update and removing artist-only occupancy language in the Arts District while preserving valued buildings.
Describes a narrower Arts District focus using existing height standards. Favors voluntary preservation and applicable environmental review; rejects the inventory approach. Does not endorse the broad demolition/height-increase premise.
Opposes increasing downtown heights and wants clear costs, timetable and deliverables before more construction. Supports historic preservation.
Likes downtown as it is, but says it needs examination by subarea with public input and tailored solutions. This is not an unqualified rejection of every update.
Rejects blanket third/fourth-story changes, but would assess which buildings can accommodate housing; calls for clear EIR communication.
Wants to examine opportunities while opposing fourth stories and demolition of historic buildings. Favors greater Mills Act use.
Opposes the DSP proposal discussed, citing floodway, parking, environmental rules and historic character.
Wants a reset with realistic alternatives and updated, internally consistent general-plan/transportation foundations.
GOP 17:08 rapid No.
GOP 17:08 No.
GOP 17:08 No.
GOP 17:08 No; VL 00:15:38.
GOP 17:08 No.
GOP 17:08 No.
GOP 17:08 No.
GOP 17:08 No.
GOP 17:08 No.
(as framed) — GOP 7:02 No.
(as framed) — GOP 7:02 No.
(as framed) — GOP 7:02 No.
(as framed) — GOP 7:02 No.
(as framed) — GOP 7:02 No.
(as framed) — GOP 7:02 No.
(as framed) — GOP 7:02 No; VL 00:12:07 and 00:45:32 favor keeping old houses/buildings.
(as framed) — GOP 7:02 No.
(as framed) — GOP 7:02 No.
Not explicit — WQ3: costs and added sales-tax revenue are public records; no commitment to one consolidated report.
WQ3, with separation of closure/design/maintenance/lost meter revenue and context on benefits.
Not explicit — WQ3: no objection; says costs are public records.
WQ3, incl. lost parking revenue and post-project review.
Declined the written questionnaire; no other answer located
WQ3; cites city's stated $7.2M budget and alleged $500k under budget.
WQ3, incl. consultant costs and tree decisions.
WQ3, incl. lost parking revenue.
No written answer by 9/30 deadline; no other answer located
Previously favored one, now unsure and wants to see mobility outcomes. Neither an unqualified current yes nor no. Do not combine this question with willingness to consider a privately funded garage or a distinct site.
Opposes taxpayer expense and favors exploring parking outside town. Do not combine this question with willingness to consider a privately funded garage or a distinct site.
Opposes general-fund/taxpayer expense but would consider a village-entrance garage funded by parking revenue. Do not combine this question with willingness to consider a privately funded garage or a distinct site.
Opposes residents' taxpayer funding and calls for a plan. Do not combine this question with willingness to consider a privately funded garage or a distinct site.
Explicitly opposes taxpayer-funded downtown structures. Do not combine this question with willingness to consider a privately funded garage or a distinct site.
Opposes public funding, while allowing a thoughtfully designed Act V option away from downtown. Do not combine this question with willingness to consider a privately funded garage or a distinct site.
Says no, but proposes parking revenue to build a structure. Parking revenue remains a public resource; do not relabel it private funding. Do not combine this question with willingness to consider a privately funded garage or a distinct site.
Opposes taxpayer dollars funding visitor parking garages. Do not combine this question with willingness to consider a privately funded garage or a distinct site.
Opposes residents' taxpayer dollars for a garage anywhere in town. Do not combine this question with willingness to consider a privately funded garage or a distinct site.
Skeptical — WQ5: live exercise 'very difficult'; says Fire/Police view rehearsals as problematic; relies on tabletop.
WQ5: professionally recommended process within 12 months, before peak 2027 fire season; method left to Fire/Police.
Open — WQ5: open, would consult chiefs; no deadline.
WQ5: zone pilot within 6 months; phased citywide in year one.
Declined the written questionnaire; no other answer located
WQ5: controlled pilot within a year, public after-action report.
WQ5: by August 2027.
WQ5: neighborhood-by-neighborhood; no date.
No written answer by 9/30 deadline; no other answer located
the $141M+ spend - GOP Part 2 4:35
the $141M+ spend - GOP Part 2 4:35
the $141M+ spend - GOP Part 2 4:35 (qualifier "not of taxpayer money" 4:59)
the $141M+ spend - GOP Part 2 4:35
the $141M+ spend - GOP Part 2 4:35
the $141M+ spend - GOP Part 2 4:35
the $141M+ spend - GOP Part 2 4:35
the $141M+ spend - GOP Part 2 4:35; WQ6: drop the Caltrans takeover (see Q34)
the $141M+ spend - GOP Part 2 4:35
No minimum stated — WQ2: expects ER with few rooms, state-law change, or another institution; defers to Rounaghi/Whalen.
States minimum — WQ2: 24-hour ED plus meaningful inpatient capability; evaluate operators, ownership models, funding.
States minimum — WQ2: 24-hour ED receiving ambulances; leverage incl. land use and AG coordination.
States minimum — WQ2: 24/7 local emergency access; inpatient if independent analysis shows workable model; parallel path.
Declined the written questionnaire; no other answer located
States minimum — WQ2: 24-hour ED receiving ambulances plus enough inpatient capacity; alternatives; senior housing on campus.
States minimum — WQ2: ED plus inpatient; consider other operator and whether eminent domain is lawful/justified.
Model, not minimum — WQ2: points to small acute hospitals elsewhere; wants Providence/another provider to do likewise.
No written answer by 9/30 deadline; no other answer located
No specific cut — WQ6: better investment returns, contract review, capital-plan scrub. GOP closing 1:23:33: targeted review of consulting costs. [CF028 oral answer]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Names category — WQ6: reduce outside legal/consulting by several hundred thousand dollars/yr; GOP 1:21:24. [CF027 oral answer]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Cites past cuts — WQ6: $1.5M incl. 7 positions already; no new item; GOP 1:26:10. [CF029 oral answer]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Names item — WQ6: cut outside professional services ≥$500,000; ~$2M first-cycle target. [CF033 oral answer]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Partial — no written answer; GOP closing 1:37:48: review consultants, management positions, salaries, legal fees. [CF034 oral answer]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Names items — WQ6: pause Ocean/Beach streetscape; $2M consultants in 2027. [CF030 oral answer]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Names item — WQ6: postpone ~$500,000 Ocean/Beach streetscape. [CF026 oral answer]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Names item, no amount — WQ6: drop Caltrans canyon takeover; GOP closing 1:33:04: consultants, new capital projects, legal. [CF032 oral answer]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Partial — no written answer; GOP closing 1:31:03: lifecycle costs, basic infrastructure. [CF031 oral answer]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.2026-08-31: Opposes another restaurant tax, citing polling, hardship and cost of dining. Moderator's 74% visitor-sales premise is not independently verified. A customer surcharge differs from a gross-receipts business-license tax. Earlier evidence retained: Conditional/mixed — Not explicit — WQ4: opposes TOT, sales and gross-receipts increases; restaurant tax not named; GOP 14:56 sales tax No; 15:34 gross-receipts license No.
dated positions differ — 2026-08-31: Would explore a 2–3% charge only with restaurant participation, agreement and favorable public polling. Later written opposition must remain separately dated. Moderator's 74% visitor-sales premise is not independently verified. A customer surcharge differs from a gross-receipts business-license tax. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — WQ4: restaurant-only tax.
2026-08-31: Opposes and favors parking revenue; says he opposed earlier proposals, a historical claim not verified here. Moderator's 74% visitor-sales premise is not independently verified. A customer surcharge differs from a gross-receipts business-license tax. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — WQ4 (says he rejected it in 2024 and 2026). Check against June 9, 2026 study-session record (see Weiss ledger). 9/15 1:44:48 [C, speaker inferred from context]: says he never supported the 3% gross-receipts license tax and was the deciding vote against it in 2024 and 2026. Verify in minutes.
2026-08-31: Opposes taxing residents and restaurant customers and favors reducing expenses. Moderator's 74% visitor-sales premise is not independently verified. A customer surcharge differs from a gross-receipts business-license tax. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — WQ4. 9/15 1:44:02: describes the proposed 3% gross-receipts license tax as costing her restaurant over $100,000/yr; opposes.
2026-08-31: Opposes the add-on because of competition with nearby cities. Moderator's 74% visitor-sales premise is not independently verified. A customer surcharge differs from a gross-receipts business-license tax. Earlier evidence retained: Conditional/mixed — Partial — GOP 14:56 No to sales-tax increase; 15:34 No to gross-sales/profit license tax; no restaurant-specific answer located.
2026-08-31: Opposes and criticizes spending on tax polling. Moderator's 74% visitor-sales premise is not independently verified. A customer surcharge differs from a gross-receipts business-license tax. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — WQ4. 9/15 1:43:13: his stated priority is opposing the proposed business-license tax.
2026-08-31: Opposes and favors parking revenue. Moderator's 74% visitor-sales premise is not independently verified. A customer surcharge differs from a gross-receipts business-license tax. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — WQ4.
2026-08-31: Opposes more taxes on small businesses. Moderator's 74% visitor-sales premise is not independently verified. A customer surcharge differs from a gross-receipts business-license tax. Earlier evidence retained: Conditional/mixed — Implied — WQ4: cannot burden small businesses; favors summer surge parking; does not say 'restaurant tax'.
2026-08-31: Opposes additional restaurant/bar taxes and wants any proposed revenue use examined. Moderator's 74% visitor-sales premise is not independently verified. A customer surcharge differs from a gross-receipts business-license tax. Earlier evidence retained: Conditional/mixed — Partial — GOP 14:56 sales tax No; 15:34 license tax No; restaurant-specific not located.
Supports
Supports
Supports
Opposes
Opposes
Opposes
Position not established
Conditional/mixed
Conditional/mixed
Conditional/mixed
Supports
Conditional/mixed
Conditional/mixed
Conditional/mixed
Conditional/mixed
Supports
Supports
Conditional/mixed
Stage 4 LCC evidence alone does not establish a personal glyphosate position. Village captions 27:57–28:57 need final speaker/audio check.
Opposes
LCC 59:34: shares positions against glyphosate; says City's fuel modification is glyphosate-free. Historical vote YES on pilot 8/4/26.
Stage 4 LCC evidence alone does not establish a personal glyphosate position. Village captions 27:57–28:57 need final speaker/audio check.
Chemical-free — LCC 57:28: says she is definitely chemical free; glyphosate not named.
, cost caveat — LCC 56:27: no glyphosate/no spraying as first step; acknowledges cost, wants volunteers.
Stage 4 LCC evidence alone does not establish a personal glyphosate position. Village captions 27:57–28:57 need final speaker/audio check.
LCC 55:31: against glyphosate; education/volunteer approach.
LCC 54:24: states her own position is no glyphosate; wants honest assessment of alternatives.
Exploratory — LCC 16:53: Council should look at NCCP boundaries; hopes it helps fire/invasive work; stresses vigilance on development.
his regional-conservation response is not in the captions; no inference.
Conditional — LCC 22:03: supportive of joining as long as fire safety/fuel modification is protected.
Not explicit — LCC 21:21: early multi-level coordination and a funded plan; does not say 'join'.
General — LCC 19:56: supports protection and joining like-minded groups; NCCP not named.
LCC 19:06: joining makes sense; wants update on 2023 effort.
LCC 20:27: research, monitoring, stronger voice with state.
her response is not in the captions; no inference.
LCC 17:44: joining with clear responsibilities and monitoring.
Approach — LCC 40:21: bigger tree wells, smarter planting, proactive care; notes liability.
Approach — LCC 39:17: cites 30–40% tree-save rate on his projects; disease, roots, liability claims.
Approach — LCC 34:33: safety first when arborists find hazard; 2:1 to 5:1 replacement.
Approach — LCC 33:50: preserve; science-based, public removal decisions with replacement plan.
Approach — LCC 36:42: preserve when possible; follow rules; transparent process.
Approach — LCC 37:14: preserve; criticizes Forest Ave planning; follow existing planting guidance.
Approach — LCC 35:42: better care; welcomed halt to Ocean/Beach removals; larger planters.
Approach — LCC 38:22: reroute infrastructure around roots; prune/protect.
Approach — LCC 41:32: assess roots before design is fixed; alternatives before removal.
secondary tally says No; Part 2 0:57–1:32 captions do not reliably label this voice. [CF006: unlabeled; sequence suggests No at 1:12 - inference only]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.out of room at GOP 0:57
(qualified: "for some items, but generally no") - GOP Part 2 1:14
GOP Part 2 0:57 [CF005 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.secondary tally says No; Part 2 1:25–1:32 speaker attribution requires audio.
GOP Part 2 0:57 [CF005 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 0:57 [CF006: unlabeled Yes at 1:05; inference only]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Yes (prefers even more notice) — GOP Part 2 0:57 [CF005 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 0:57 [CF005 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 13:00
GOP Part 2 13:00
Chamber: could go either way / not fully considered. Earlier GOP probably no.
GOP Part 2 13:00
GOP Part 2 13:00
GOP Part 2 13:00
GOP Part 2 13:00
GOP Part 2 13:00
Did not know — GOP Part 2 13:00
GOP Part 2 15:10
"open to increasing" heard at 15:20 unlabeled; So Laguna tally says Yes; attribution audio pending
GOP Part 2 15:10
GOP Part 2 15:10
GOP Part 2 15:10
"open to" a TOT increase, not flat support - GOP Part 2 15:26
GOP Part 2 15:10
GOP Part 2 15:10
GOP Part 2 15:10
GOP Part 2 14:30
GOP Part 2 14:30 [CF024: unlabeled in captions]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 14:30
GOP Part 2 14:30
GOP Part 2 14:30
GOP Part 2 14:30
GOP Part 2 14:30 [CF024: unlabeled in captions]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 14:30
GOP Part 2 14:30
GOP Part 2 17:23 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 17:23 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 17:23 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 17:23 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 17:23 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 17:23 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 17:23 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 17:23 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 17:23 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 15:52 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 15:52 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 15:52 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 15:52 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 15:52 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 15:52 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 15:52 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 15:52 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 15:52 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 16:26 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 16:26 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 16:26 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 16:26 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 16:26 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 16:26 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 16:26 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 16:26 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 16:26 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 12:15 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 12:15 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 12:15 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 12:15 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 12:15 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 12:15 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 12:15 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 12:15 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 12:15 [CF025 attribution limits]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.Position derived, polarity caveat - said buying the site was a good idea because the City resold at about a $700,000 gain; question wording changed mid-exchange - GOP Part 2 9:57; audio pending
Part 2 9:19–10:24 changes wording; Orgill attribution and polarity conflict with summary. Audio check required.
GOP Part 2 9:19
GOP Part 2 9:19
GOP Part 2 9:19
GOP Part 2 9:19
GOP Part 2 9:19
GOP Part 2 9:19
GOP Part 2 9:19
GOP Part 2 2:33 [CF007 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 2:33 [CF007 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 2:33 [CF007 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 2:33 [CF007 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 2:33 [CF007 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 2:33 [CF007 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 2:33 [CF007: unlabeled "not a good contract" 2:41; attribution from tally]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 2:33 [CF007 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.GOP Part 2 2:33 [CF007 caption-supported]
No linked source record was identified for this entry in the review package.2026-09-23: Acknowledges that the City must plan and zone rather than build, but defends the NCC negotiated outcome as preferable to a larger project. Housing-law, allocation, carryover and financing statements are not independently verified here. Grants/bonds are not necessarily non-taxpayer money. Earlier evidence retained: Position not established — Part 2 11:21–12:09 does not reliably identify Kempf. Historical funding vote must be sourced separately.
2026-09-23: Defends spending to make the NCC project more compatible, but says accommodating affordable housing does not require the City to build it or write a check in every case. Housing-law, allocation, carryover and financing statements are not independently verified here. Grants/bonds are not necessarily non-taxpayer money. Earlier evidence retained: Supports — GOP Part 2 11:21 [CF017: "Yes, if..." line unlabeled]
2026-09-23: Would consider a City contribution to extend affordability of existing senior housing, weighed against other City priorities. Distinct from claiming the law requires City construction. Housing-law, allocation, carryover and financing statements are not independently verified here. Grants/bonds are not necessarily non-taxpayer money. Earlier evidence retained: Supports — GOP Part 2 11:21 [CF017 caption-supported 11:57: "partially"]
2026-09-23: Opposes using taxpayer funds and new construction at present. Mentions grants and housing bonds as alternatives; those may themselves involve public funding. Housing-law, allocation, carryover and financing statements are not independently verified here. Grants/bonds are not necessarily non-taxpayer money. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — GOP Part 2 11:21
2026-09-23: Opposes taxpayer spending on housing, especially where not mandated, and prioritizes infrastructure and safety. Housing-law, allocation, carryover and financing statements are not independently verified here. Grants/bonds are not necessarily non-taxpayer money. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — GOP Part 2 11:21
2026-09-23: Would do the minimum required and opposes contributions to housing that substantially affects community parking. This is not opposition to all housing. Housing-law, allocation, carryover and financing statements are not independently verified here. Grants/bonds are not necessarily non-taxpayer money. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — GOP Part 2 11:21
2026-09-23: Urges developers and the City to seek State-agency funding. Does not clearly answer the general-fund proposition. Housing-law, allocation, carryover and financing statements are not independently verified here. Grants/bonds are not necessarily non-taxpayer money. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — GOP Part 2 11:21
2026-09-23: Opposes government building housing and calls for transparent housing numbers without fear-based messaging. Housing-law, allocation, carryover and financing statements are not independently verified here. Grants/bonds are not necessarily non-taxpayer money. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — GOP Part 2 11:21
2026-09-23: Opposes taxpayer/general-fund spending on housing and favors mixed-income projects. Housing-law, allocation, carryover and financing statements are not independently verified here. Grants/bonds are not necessarily non-taxpayer money. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes — GOP Part 2 11:21
absent 9/15; WQ1 silent on majority/runoff
Conditional — see Q2; 9/15 27:32 voters should decide
(as framed) — see Q2
Conditional — see Q2
declined questionnaire; no 9/15 answer on this framing
Conditional — see Q2
study — see Q2; 9/15 passage 203: praises Seal Beach and says it's no coincidence it has term limits (speaker inferred from context)
see Q2
no written answer; 9/15 oral: pro term limits only
Conditional/mixed
Conditional/mixed
Supports
Conditional/mixed
Supports
Conditional/mixed
Opposes
Supports
Position not established
Opposes
Conditional/mixed
Position not established
Opposes
Conditional/mixed
Conditional/mixed
Position not established
Position not established
Opposes
GOP Part 2 6:34; also 24:41 viability remark
GOP Part 2 6:33
the Caltrans relinquishment deal as presented - GOP Part 2 6:36; 24:55
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled; audio pending
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled; audio pending
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled; audio pending
GOP Part 2 6:31
WQ6 (drop the Caltrans takeover; inherited) + tally
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled; audio pending
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled
GOP Part 2 6:59
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled
per secondary tally; caption unlabeled
says undergrounding is not viable financially if lines cannot be buried in the roadway (not an answer to this exact question)
not attributable from captions
says financials govern; undergrounding "important" but did not support the relinquishment deal; 5:14 answer not attributable
Position not established
asked for clarification at 5:23; later answer unlabeled
Position not established
Position not established
Position not established
Position not established
2026-08-31: Defends the assistance as achieving a smaller project; distinguishes cash from permitting-related concessions. Dollar/unit assertions need official records. Question figures differ across forums. Preserve date, project and financing proposition; no inference that every speaker used the same cost definition. Earlier evidence retained: Conditional/mixed - "not a fan of putting money into affordable housing" but "we were playing defense"; project reached a level "satisfactory to the community" - GOP Part 2 38:33 Historical yes on permit and conditional funding separately verified.
2026-08-31: Supports assistance both for housing and to mitigate neighborhood impacts. Question figures differ across forums. Preserve date, project and financing proposition; no inference that every speaker used the same cost definition. Earlier evidence retained: Conditional/mixed - does not like taxpayer dollars (including state money); stresses SB4 context and the alternative of a five-story project - GOP Part 2 37:38 Historical yes on permit and conditional funding separately verified.
on specific assistance — declined forum yes/no. Historical record: recused July 7 permit item; absent July 15 conditional funding vote. Both passed 4/0. Secondary 5/0 yes entries are incorrect for these items. [CF019, CF021]
2026-08-31: Opposes the amount invested, supports affordable housing and wants independent analysis. Question figures differ across forums. Preserve date, project and financing proposition; no inference that every speaker used the same cost definition. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes - "should not be using taxpayer dollars at all for affordable housing"; math "does not make sense" - GOP Part 2 36:56
statements differ in certainty — 2026-08-31: Opposes on the basis that a lower-cost option was available as presented. Does not reject housing generally. Question figures differ across forums. Preserve date, project and financing proposition; no inference that every speaker used the same cost definition. Earlier evidence retained: Conditional/mixed - does not like taxpayer dollars for affordable housing but "would need to study the issue more" - GOP Part 2 37:23
2026-08-31: Starts with support for housing, but says the contribution should have stopped at the State match and any excess was too much. Question figures differ across forums. Preserve date, project and financing proposition; no inference that every speaker used the same cost definition. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes as approved - disagrees with how it was funded; objects to under-24-hour notice and concessions - GOP Part 2 11:00, 39:27 [CF018, CF019]
statements differ in certainty — 2026-08-31: After discussing the unit count and claimed mandate, gives an explicit no when pressed on support. Question figures differ across forums. Preserve date, project and financing proposition; no inference that every speaker used the same cost definition. Earlier evidence retained: Conditional/mixed - "should have went to the state for the funding"; later "I don't know the details of the financial deal" - GOP Part 2 10:36, 37:30 [CF018, CF019]
2026-08-31: Opposes $4.2M; would limit the contribution to the stated $2.5M match and wants the full financing stack. Question figures differ across forums. Preserve date, project and financing proposition; no inference that every speaker used the same cost definition. Earlier evidence retained: Opposes as approved - "should not have given more than one cent beyond" the $2.5M state match; no money before the capital stack is underwritten - GOP Part 2 36:16 [CF018, CF019]
2026-08-31: Supports the project but says City money was unnecessary and favors mixed-income financing. Question figures differ across forums. Preserve date, project and financing proposition; no inference that every speaker used the same cost definition. Earlier evidence retained: Position not established for the specific loan; on subsidies generally: does not think taxpayers need to subsidize affordable housing, favors mixed-income - GOP Part 2 40:13, 46:25 [CF019, CF020]
Describes public contracting rules, says an anomalous line item should prompt questions, and defends the bidding process. This does not independently verify her budget claim. Legal descriptions and asserted bid figures are candidate statements, not verified procurement-law findings.
Defends choosing the low bidder under general-law procurement rules, acknowledges room for examining details, and accepts that the City could reject all bids. Legal descriptions and asserted bid figures are candidate statements, not verified procurement-law findings.
Says Council should have examined line items more diligently. Cannot recall the approval date or specify his personal due diligence in this answer. Legal descriptions and asserted bid figures are candidate statements, not verified procurement-law findings.
Calls for Council to question unusual items and scrutinize taxpayer spending item by item. Legal descriptions and asserted bid figures are candidate statements, not verified procurement-law findings.
Would review the request for proposals at the beginning and require unbundled, publicly understandable bid details. Legal descriptions and asserted bid figures are candidate statements, not verified procurement-law findings.
Would examine unusually low bids as warning signs and improve scrutiny from the start. Legal descriptions and asserted bid figures are candidate statements, not verified procurement-law findings.
Says a contract can be rebid and places emphasis on staff and city-manager review rather than attributing all blame to Council. Legal descriptions and asserted bid figures are candidate statements, not verified procurement-law findings.
Calls for detailed line-item pricing shared with Council and the public, drawing on development experience. Legal descriptions and asserted bid figures are candidate statements, not verified procurement-law findings.
Would question staff and legal counsel before approving; says she asked other jurisdictions about line-item review. Legal descriptions and asserted bid figures are candidate statements, not verified procurement-law findings.
Defends spending and cites a current construction budget of $6.7M with spending at $6.2M. Does not give an inception-to-date consolidated accounting. Says business contacts were informal, without a survey spreadsheet. Budget, polling, legal-compliance and arborist assertions remain unverified factual claims. Support does not mean approval of every design detail.
Defends moving the pedestrian mall forward by reference to Vision 2030 and the general plan, while offering to review claimed design discrepancies. Budget, polling, legal-compliance and arborist assertions remain unverified factual claims. Support does not mean approval of every design detail.
Acknowledges differing resident views and defends tree removal as a decision he would also have made, citing arborist reports, safety and liability. Does not separately endorse the total expenditure in this answer. Budget, polling, legal-compliance and arborist assertions remain unverified factual claims. Support does not mean approval of every design detail.
Criticizes planning, execution, transparency, timetable and budget. Does not reject the pedestrian-space concept in this answer. Budget, polling, legal-compliance and arborist assertions remain unverified factual claims. Support does not mean approval of every design detail.
Likes the Promenade concept but says too much was spent in one place and would have distributed spending around town. Budget, polling, legal-compliance and arborist assertions remain unverified factual claims. Support does not mean approval of every design detail.
Likes a Promenade and suggests a hybrid approach, but criticizes planning, diverted funds, private-use furnishings and parking revenue losses. Budget, polling, legal-compliance and arborist assertions remain unverified factual claims. Support does not mean approval of every design detail.
Criticizes construction judgment and root disruption and favors larger tree planters. Does not give a direct yes/no on the whole expenditure. Budget, polling, legal-compliance and arborist assertions remain unverified factual claims. Support does not mean approval of every design detail.
Would not have done this project. Favors temporary street closures for celebrations followed by reopening. Budget, polling, legal-compliance and arborist assertions remain unverified factual claims. Support does not mean approval of every design detail.
Calls the project a mistake and argues the City did not adequately account for transportation, historic and cultural elements of the general plan. Budget, polling, legal-compliance and arborist assertions remain unverified factual claims. Support does not mean approval of every design detail.
Criticizes broad state housing rules and says the City joined other cities in challenging allocations. Historical claim requires records; no distinct future commitment in this answer. The moderator asked incumbents and challengers different questions. These are comparable advocacy positions, not proof of support for the moderator's demographic or legal premises.
Wants to regain local control and collaborate on Sacramento advocacy, while warning that the question overstates local discretion. The moderator asked incumbents and challengers different questions. These are comparable advocacy positions, not proof of support for the moderator's demographic or legal premises.
Cites past allocation appeal and attempted ADU legislation, while favoring realistic action and warning about litigation costs. Historical claims not checked; past advocacy does not establish every future commitment. The moderator asked incumbents and challengers different questions. These are comparable advocacy positions, not proof of support for the moderator's demographic or legal premises.
Calls for current local data and joint advocacy by cities; the rapid yes after Berry is attributed by rotation rather than an explicit name call. The moderator asked incumbents and challengers different questions. These are comparable advocacy positions, not proof of support for the moderator's demographic or legal premises.
Calls for transparency, lobbyists and collaboration with coastal and inland cities; later gives a named yes. The moderator asked incumbents and challengers different questions. These are comparable advocacy positions, not proof of support for the moderator's demographic or legal premises.
Wants proactive lobbying before the next allocation cycle and clearer public information; later gives a named yes. The moderator asked incumbents and challengers different questions. These are comparable advocacy positions, not proof of support for the moderator's demographic or legal premises.
Urges residents to lobby State legislators and later gives a named yes to a locally constrained allocation. The moderator asked incumbents and challengers different questions. These are comparable advocacy positions, not proof of support for the moderator's demographic or legal premises.
Wants joint coastal-city advocacy and questions the supply-based premise. Candidate assertions about ownership/vacancies are not verified. The moderator asked incumbents and challengers different questions. These are comparable advocacy positions, not proof of support for the moderator's demographic or legal premises.
Calls for a capacity study and explicitly supports advocacy based on local constraints. The moderator asked incumbents and challengers different questions. These are comparable advocacy positions, not proof of support for the moderator's demographic or legal premises.
Supports the current protected area but opposes extending the no-take zone. Current boundaries, biological effects and jurisdictional decisions are not checked here.
Does not support extension at present; respects Blue Belt work and would consider more data on benefits and competing goals. Current boundaries, biological effects and jurisdictional decisions are not checked here.
Supports the existing no-take zone and opposes expansion; the asserted State-review result is not independently verified. Current boundaries, biological effects and jurisdictional decisions are not checked here.
Named yes to extension. Current boundaries, biological effects and jurisdictional decisions are not checked here.
Says the existing zone is large enough and accomplishing preservation. Current boundaries, biological effects and jurisdictional decisions are not checked here.
Explicitly opposes extending the zone. Current boundaries, biological effects and jurisdictional decisions are not checked here.
Agrees with Rounaghi; no at present, with more studies possible. Current boundaries, biological effects and jurisdictional decisions are not checked here.
Supports extending protection to City limits and says she testified in favor. Current boundaries, biological effects and jurisdictional decisions are not checked here.
Explicitly agrees with Cintas and supports extension. Current boundaries, biological effects and jurisdictional decisions are not checked here.
Q42 yes. Q43 says a couple more pickleball courts could be useful, not blanket approval of all listed facilities. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes. Q43 favors community input and investment, and confirms yes when asked. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 no because offsetting cuts are needed. Q43 favors improving parks and facilities for families using available capital. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 would like free fees but needs a funding plan and accepts no as the current answer. Q43 opposes nice-to-have capital spending with current liabilities. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 favors nominal charges. Q43 prioritizes infrastructure and safety over additional facilities now. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes, but wants the cost. Q43 yes in principle, very low current priority. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes. Q43 prefers sewer/electrical infrastructure spending now. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes. Q43 no under present financial conditions. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes. Q43 no at this time. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes. Q43 says a couple more pickleball courts could be useful, not blanket approval of all listed facilities. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes. Q43 favors community input and investment, and confirms yes when asked. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 no because offsetting cuts are needed. Q43 favors improving parks and facilities for families using available capital. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 would like free fees but needs a funding plan and accepts no as the current answer. Q43 opposes nice-to-have capital spending with current liabilities. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 favors nominal charges. Q43 prioritizes infrastructure and safety over additional facilities now. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes, but wants the cost. Q43 yes in principle, very low current priority. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes. Q43 prefers sewer/electrical infrastructure spending now. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes. Q43 no under present financial conditions. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Q42 yes. Q43 no at this time. Free fees and new facilities are separate propositions. The question did not identify a priced project or an offsetting budget.
Wants strategic facilities planning and more time; does not identify an answer.
Parking is under consideration within a larger OCTA/Coastal/stewardship strategy; no firm site commitment.
Favors Village Entrance structure funded by parking revenue and possibly ticket surcharges, not the general fund. Parking revenue is still a public resource.
Supports more parking but would use existing/peripheral parking and trolleys before new construction.
Not a good time for City spending on a structure; favors creative use of existing resources.
Favors a structure at Act V or possibly another site and moving staff parking out of downtown. Funding is not fully specified here.
Proposes investor-operated structures, including behind the theater, without resident expense.
Opposes a downtown garage; favors an Irvine/peripheral facility and mass transit.
Would compare demand, total costs, traffic and alternatives before selecting a structure.
Defends the land-trust financing and artist retention. Loan performance, eligibility and property counts are not independently established by these statements.
Defends land trust and continued artist-space preservation. Loan performance, eligibility and property counts are not independently established by these statements.
Defends the City loan as a capital-gap tool and favors further artist-space preservation. Loan performance, eligibility and property counts are not independently established by these statements.
Supports housing for artists; wants reuse, clear eligibility and repayment planning before more development. Loan performance, eligibility and property counts are not independently established by these statements.
Supports spaces across town but opposes more City spending on them. Loan performance, eligibility and property counts are not independently established by these statements.
Supports land trust and artist retention; wants eligibility and financial transparency. Loan performance, eligibility and property counts are not independently established by these statements.
Supports artist/worker housing and seeks outside agency financing. Loan performance, eligibility and property counts are not independently established by these statements.
Supports reuse/retrofits with affordability restrictions; financing and state-law assertions unverified. Loan performance, eligibility and property counts are not independently established by these statements.
Supports preservation and reuse, mixed-income/partnership approaches with no new Laguna contribution. Loan performance, eligibility and property counts are not independently established by these statements.
Favors more concerts with sound mitigation.
Favors musical/creative events and a workable agreement with neighbors.
Favors concerts and cultural events, including off-season visitor activity.
Suggests community uses, a possible farmers market expansion, educational speakers and small conventions.
Would ask residents which uses they want and check neighborhood noise effects.
Favors shoulder-season concerts with parking and traffic management.
Would extend the festival/pageant season.
Favors local popups, art and community gatherings.
Favors educational uses and planning that respects the general-plan noise element.
Would consider housing in the existing building after clarifying smaller-hospital/ER plans. These are policy positions, not verified legal/zoning conclusions.
Open to assisted care/senior housing with community input; opposes rear-hillside development. These are policy positions, not verified legal/zoning conclusions.
Open to senior assisted living in the existing tower alongside a smaller hospital if that sustains emergency care. These are policy positions, not verified legal/zoning conclusions.
Favors medical use as much as possible and independent/community review of parking use. These are policy positions, not verified legal/zoning conclusions.
Wants medical use preserved; changing it could undermine healthcare leverage. These are policy positions, not verified legal/zoning conclusions.
Calls it a community asset and wants parking to relieve neighborhood pressure; no blanket endorsement of housing. These are policy positions, not verified legal/zoning conclusions.
Did not participate in this oral question. His separate closing supports evaluating hospital proposals but does not answer this land-use question. These are policy positions, not verified legal/zoning conclusions.
Wants medical zoning/acute care retained; accepts use of the existing parking garage. These are policy positions, not verified legal/zoning conclusions.
Open to long-term/convalescent care and senior assisted living; wants doctors and beds beyond an ER-only model. These are policy positions, not verified legal/zoning conclusions.
Supports restoration; describes possible LAFCO petitions. Historical boundaries, legal procedure, costs and water-rights feasibility remain claims requiring primary records.
Supports the effort and giving it more priority. Historical boundaries, legal procedure, costs and water-rights feasibility remain claims requiring primary records.
Explicitly not supportive right now; prioritizes extending groundwater rights and remains open within a broader water strategy. Historical boundaries, legal procedure, costs and water-rights feasibility remain claims requiring primary records.
Commits to making restoration a top priority. Historical boundaries, legal procedure, costs and water-rights feasibility remain claims requiring primary records.
Wants the issue resolved before another election. Historical boundaries, legal procedure, costs and water-rights feasibility remain claims requiring primary records.
Calls for action rather than another promise; brief answer inferred from question context. Historical boundaries, legal procedure, costs and water-rights feasibility remain claims requiring primary records.
Supplied closing expressly supports pursuing restoration. This is written, not an oral answer. Historical boundaries, legal procedure, costs and water-rights feasibility remain claims requiring primary records.
Calls for follow-through and challenges prior inaction. Historical boundaries, legal procedure, costs and water-rights feasibility remain claims requiring primary records.
Proposes a 60-day report and moving forward. Historical boundaries, legal procedure, costs and water-rights feasibility remain claims requiring primary records.
Agrees that stringent requirements can contribute to vacancies and wants a workable management approach.
Favors parking management without reducing standards.
Supports modernizing requirements to enable adaptive reuse, citing the sandwich-shop example.
Requires data on demand, traffic, safety, evacuation and spillover before changes.
Opposes reduction if private parking demand shifts into neighborhoods.
Wants a comprehensive plan and staff-parking alternatives before loosening requirements.
Did not participate in this oral question. No answer to this question located in supplied closing.
Criticizes low ratios; favors using existing hospital/Montage/Gelson parking through agreements.
Wants a capacity study tied to the general plan first.
Defends acquisition but leaves future financial/community options open. Candidates' legal, valuation and prior-intent claims remain unverified.
Would remain open to other opportunities while managing prior acquisition decisions. Candidates' legal, valuation and prior-intent claims remain unverified.
Would consider partial sale or a long ground lease to fund community improvements. Candidates' legal, valuation and prior-intent claims remain unverified.
Wants a financially sound community center; could consider other uses on part of the site. Candidates' legal, valuation and prior-intent claims remain unverified.
Opposes sale; wants a community center with use and financial targets. Candidates' legal, valuation and prior-intent claims remain unverified.
Opposes selling it to plug budget gaps; favors active community uses. Candidates' legal, valuation and prior-intent claims remain unverified.
Did not participate in this oral question. General support for better use of public buildings is not a specific sale position. Candidates' legal, valuation and prior-intent claims remain unverified.
Opposes speculative flipping; would explore housing uses to help finance affordability. Candidates' legal, valuation and prior-intent claims remain unverified.
Wants usage/cost reports and tested partnership programs before declaring space surplus. Candidates' legal, valuation and prior-intent claims remain unverified.
Willing to discuss acquisition; preserves negotiating confidentiality and questions price.
Would support purchase at a fair price.
Supports concept but not paying over appraised value; suggests philanthropy.
Supports space subject to community needs, financing and maintenance.
Supports responsible acquisition and considering long-term open-space benefits.
Supports City funds for community park/open space.
Did not participate in this oral question. General park support in closing does not settle this particular acquisition.
Strongly supports purchase and better park maintenance.
Would examine title/opportunity cost and alternate sites.
Not opposed to purchase; wants owner, price and transaction details established. Eminent-domain/zoning feasibility and transaction history are not established by forum claims.
Supports acquisition; open to considering eminent domain or other approaches. Eminent-domain/zoning feasibility and transaction history are not established by forum claims.
Supports garden; wants a willing seller and considers Catalina lots an alternative. Eminent-domain/zoning feasibility and transaction history are not established by forum claims.
Would pursue purchase or long lease using outside/nonprofit funding. Eminent-domain/zoning feasibility and transaction history are not established by forum claims.
Supports City assistance and public/private partnerships. Eminent-domain/zoning feasibility and transaction history are not established by forum claims.
Wants preservation and outside/philanthropic funds. Eminent-domain/zoning feasibility and transaction history are not established by forum claims.
Supports protecting the garden in supplied closing; funding specifics not stated. Eminent-domain/zoning feasibility and transaction history are not established by forum claims.
Favors public/private partnership for a garden and park. Eminent-domain/zoning feasibility and transaction history are not established by forum claims.
Proposes initiating a garden/open-space designation to encourage negotiations; acknowledges property rights. Eminent-domain/zoning feasibility and transaction history are not established by forum claims.
Prefers sworn rangers/private security to the former patrol.
Defends ranger/security model; wants seasonal improvements.
Opposes non-sworn model; favors more/reallocated sworn rangers and security.
Says yes initially, then calls for staffing review and better deployment.
Supports more physical presence and sworn officers when possible; no clear restoration commitment.
Notes old patrol lacked ticketing effectiveness; favors security and coordinated enforcement.
Did not participate in this oral question. Written closing favors patrol coverage but does not choose sworn versus non-sworn model.
Wants clearly separated enforcement and information roles rather than interchangeable duties.
Would compare deployment and dedicated coverage before adding an overlapping unit.
Did not participate in this oral question. No oral answer.
Did not participate in this oral question. Supplied opening does not answer this proposition.
Favors streamlining City processes; does not clearly endorse or reject a vacancy tax.
Favors fast-track improvements and potentially a vacancy tax after time to fill the space.
No answer to this precise proposition.
Would examine other cities and possibly penalize prolonged vacancy; not an unconditional endorsement.
Discusses owner rights/outreach; no clear vacancy-tax position.
Favors an economic-development problem solver; no explicit tax answer.
Suggests lobbying on capital-gains incentives; not a vacancy-tax commitment.
Did not participate in this oral question. Do not infer an oral answer from membership of an ad hoc committee. Moderator salary figures and budget/contract assertions were not independently checked.
Did not participate in this oral question. No oral answer or specific statement supplied. Moderator salary figures and budget/contract assertions were not independently checked.
Defends the operational-accountability role developed with the City manager; declines personnel evaluation. Moderator salary figures and budget/contract assertions were not independently checked.
Would eliminate the position and hold management accountable for systems/results. Moderator salary figures and budget/contract assertions were not independently checked.
Prefers resources for department heads/staff and decentralized management. Moderator salary figures and budget/contract assertions were not independently checked.
Would assess current staffing/cuts before adding management. Moderator salary figures and budget/contract assertions were not independently checked.
Criticizes in-house legal model, not a clear answer on this role. Moderator salary figures and budget/contract assertions were not independently checked.
Opposes extra middle management; favors training/empowerment. Moderator salary figures and budget/contract assertions were not independently checked.
Questions the role; favors empowered department heads and moving HR reporting. Moderator salary figures and budget/contract assertions were not independently checked.
Did not participate in this oral question. No answer.
Did not participate in this oral question. No answer.
Agrees combining them makes sense for businesses and higher-value visitors.
No explicit merger answer.
No explicit merger answer.
Suggests merger as a possible efficiency, with qualifications rather than a final plan.
Says they should join and promote businesses.
Discusses concert noise rather than the merger.
Discusses noise-element compliance rather than the merger.
Did not participate in this oral question. No oral answer in this forum. Reports of missing/late accounting data are attributed claims, not findings of theft or missing assets.
Did not participate in this oral question. No explicit answer in supplied opening. Reports of missing/late accounting data are attributed claims, not findings of theft or missing assets.
Agrees on monthly reports; wants clearer responsibilities. This answer is not a new explicit professional-committee commitment; earlier Advocates 1:14:47–1:15:40 supports a finance commission. Reports of missing/late accounting data are attributed claims, not findings of theft or missing assets.
Demands usable financial information and accounting priority. Reports of missing/late accounting data are attributed claims, not findings of theft or missing assets.
Supports monthly reporting and a professional audit committee; says requested bond-account information arrived recently. Reports of missing/late accounting data are attributed claims, not findings of theft or missing assets.
Calls for measurable results elsewhere; no new explicit professional-committee answer here. Reports of missing/late accounting data are attributed claims, not findings of theft or missing assets.
Wants finance expertise/CPA participation and an audit committee. Reports of missing/late accounting data are attributed claims, not findings of theft or missing assets.
Wants published financial data and Council responsibility. Reports of missing/late accounting data are attributed claims, not findings of theft or missing assets.
Discusses planning/general-plan problems, not a committee answer. Reports of missing/late accounting data are attributed claims, not findings of theft or missing assets.
Fire safety technology, station improvements and undergrounding; not primarily reserves.
Expedite priorities from the adopted budget, with safety first.
Fire safety/undergrounding, ideally without taking over Canyon Road.
Full-system wildfire/evacuation stress test.
Leverage matching funds, reserves and strategic pole undergrounding.
Budget resilience and emergency/storm readiness; avoid new recurring costs.
Infrastructure/sewage/electrical work and improving the hotel exterior.
Set aside emergency reserves.
Capacity study and rainy-day fund; policy alignment if spending required.
Parcel-specific lot coverage, visual examples and design guidance. Definitions offered by candidates are proposals; current zoning/legal requirements need official records.
Define rural more clearly; supports cottage groupings and low distributed density rather than added height. Definitions offered by candidates are proposals; current zoning/legal requirements need official records.
Reconcile annexation promises with M1B height/coverage standards and protect open space. Definitions offered by candidates are proposals; current zoning/legal requirements need official records.
Wants objective standards clear before new Canyon construction. Definitions offered by candidates are proposals; current zoning/legal requirements need official records.
Single-family feel, landscaping, open space and no commercial uses in the area discussed. Definitions offered by candidates are proposals; current zoning/legal requirements need official records.
Low-profile cottages, setbacks, compatible development and preserved open space. Definitions offered by candidates are proposals; current zoning/legal requirements need official records.
Use local small-home examples and clarify zoning/scale. Definitions offered by candidates are proposals; current zoning/legal requirements need official records.
Single-level cottage scale, setbacks and less density; numeric caption omissions prevent reliable size quotation. Definitions offered by candidates are proposals; current zoning/legal requirements need official records.
Efficient cottage design, sometimes two stories, tailored to local neighborhood compatibility. Definitions offered by candidates are proposals; current zoning/legal requirements need official records.
No reliably attributable answer to this specific threshold in the reviewed captions.
No reliably attributable answer to this specific threshold in the reviewed captions.
Named no at 1:20:48.
No reliably attributable answer to this specific threshold in the reviewed captions.
No reliably attributable answer to this specific threshold in the reviewed captions.
No reliably attributable answer to this specific threshold in the reviewed captions.
No reliably attributable answer to this specific threshold in the reviewed captions.
Named yes at 1:20:54; attribution from existing oral record.
No reliably attributable answer to this specific threshold in the reviewed captions.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Qualifies support on consolidated parking with a neighborhood-parking offset; chart says No. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Moderator explicitly describes him as 50-50; organizer chart says No. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Counted as supporting by organizer, but moderator calls gesture uncertain. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer chart reports No, but moderator repeatedly scraps/rewords acquisition question. Do not treat as a clean individual vote. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer chart reports No, but moderator repeatedly scraps/rewords acquisition question. Do not treat as a clean individual vote. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer chart reports No, but moderator repeatedly scraps/rewords acquisition question. Do not treat as a clean individual vote. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer chart reports No, but moderator repeatedly scraps/rewords acquisition question. Do not treat as a clean individual vote. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer chart reports No, but moderator repeatedly scraps/rewords acquisition question. Do not treat as a clean individual vote. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer chart reports No, but moderator repeatedly scraps/rewords acquisition question. Do not treat as a clean individual vote. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer chart reports No, but moderator repeatedly scraps/rewords acquisition question. Do not treat as a clean individual vote. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer chart reports No, but moderator repeatedly scraps/rewords acquisition question. Do not treat as a clean individual vote. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports opposes. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Not included among eight Council candidates in organizer results chart; no answer inferred. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
Organizer results PDF reports supports. Moderator recap is available in automatic transcript; hand gestures/audio not independently checked. Primary PDF: https://kxfmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Candidate_Voting_Record_Jazzed_Up_Editable.pptx-2.pdf . Organizer misspells Edward as Edwin. Transcript is automatic and unlabeled; technical dropouts/edits disclosed.
The Stage 8 package records caption or transcript review for these nine forum sources. Coverage is not a claim that every statement was independently verified against audio or video.
This is a reviewed-record comparison, not a complete transcript or candidate ranking. Some captions have gaps, unlabeled speakers, edits, or technical dropouts. The workbook marks those limitations and they are retained here. Audio/video verification was not completed for this research package.